vanity fair vs. fox

i am a little surprised that they let her go on for so long. i guess o'reilly wasn't around to cut her microphone.

What I thought was weird about this exchange was how little ammo the host had. You'd think with the big lavish inaugural coverage the hosts would, uh actually READ the research their interns most certainly had done about past inaugurals, how this one compared, how much was spent, what kinds of parties there were. Everyone keeps bringing up FDR's chicken salad, and it's a very good point, and maybe even true as a barometer of FDR's priorities at the time, but I have little doubt that there are more apropos counter-examples to that - i.e. what kind of inaugaral parties did Nixon have while we were losing Vietnam? These are the basics, and our host DEFINITELY had it on her computer screen, all she had to do was read it. The parties are a relatively trivial issue - and saying that the most dominant military force in world history needs to be even more dominant isn't exactly a leftist position - but in coverage of more substantive issues like er the future of Social Security it's striking how poorly-informed and poorly-read our hosts are. People do the research. All the hosts have to do is read it before they go on the air.

But it is not appealing not to dumb down. If the Fox hostess started, God forbid, debating, she would have dignified the shameless Vanity Fair editor's unpatriotism with reasonable responses, and come off like a feminist to boot. Best to let the feminazi spew her vitriol unchecked and make a fool of herself all by her lonesome.

settling for lonely wanks these days, then