• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lauer Loses Cool During Malkin Interview--great vid

Look at the expression on her face. To me, it exuded pure hatred towards Obama and Michelle. I think there are ways to express disagreement and still look calm and collected. Look at her eyes and mouth---ewwwwwwwwww.

There is no doubt Malkin is a hater. Her existence at this point in time is to attack all things Obama. She's very good at it. Yes, I think she probably hates the Obama's.

To the point, I don't think what she said is "hate speech" in the context of what we commonly refer to it as.
 
There is no doubt Malkin is a hater. Her existence at this point in time is to attack all things Obama. She's very good at it. Yes, I think she probably hates the Obama's.

To the point, I don't think what she said is "hate speech" in the context of what we commonly refer to it as.

I never meant to imply that her speech constituted "hate speech"--just that it exuded hatred. ;)
 
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.

Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.

He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.

Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.

She used NBC to sell books, I'll give you that. Otherwise, her responses are so freighted with lies that, if I were Lauer, I wouldn't know what to spend my 3 minutes on. Which is what she counts on.
 
She used NBC to sell books, I'll give you that. Otherwise, her responses are so freighted with lies that, if I were Lauer, I wouldn't know what to spend my 3 minutes on. Which is what she counts on.

It's funny how any criticism of Obama, for you, is a "lie."

If you can point out with specificity what she said that is a lie, please do. Otherwise, you're simply an Obamaton water-carrier.
 
It's funny how any criticism of Obama, for you, is a "lie."

If you can point out with specificity what she said that is a lie, please do. Otherwise, you're simply an Obamaton water-carrier.

If you want to point out with specificity what she said was true, please do! I'd love to read it, Harshaw! I'm all eyes........
 
If you want to point out with specificity what she said was true, please do! I'd love to read it, Harshaw! I'm all eyes........

He made the accusation; it's up to him to provide support for it. I made no claims about it needing support.
 
He made the accusation; it's up to him to provide support for it. I made no claims about it needing support.

She said:
Every inch of this administration is rife with corruption and cronyism and it's about time they look in the mirror and admit it.

This is a matter of opinion. It is Will's opinion that she lies. What's the big deal?
 
What an airhead...LOL

Did ya see her this past Sunday on 'This Week'?

She tried to claim that by extending unemployment benefits you extend joblessness even more because people would delay accepting a job until 3 weeks before benefits run out.

Every time she said something, it seemed as though all the other guests just kinda rolled their eyes and continued their conversations with the adults.

I kept looking for Dan Aykroyd to pop in and say, "Jane, you ignorant slut"...LOL...:2rofll:
 
She tried to claim that by extending unemployment benefits you extend joblessness even more because people would delay accepting a job until 3 weeks before benefits run out.

So extending unemployment benefits has no effect on unemployment? That's a very tough sell.
 

Malkin is such an annoying twit. She wants so bad to be Coulter--but doesn't have the wit or the intelligence (and that's not saying much).

Lauer exposed this far-right wanna-be pundit for what she is -- a second tier right-winger with inane talking points.

It's like when Johnny used to have Tiny Tim on -- a geek act / train wreck that holds the viewers attention for a moment.

And why to do all the far-right gals have that bizarre wide-eyed stare, like they just caught their boyfriend in bed with their roommate.

ann_coulter.jpg


michelle_malkin.jpg


Megyn%20Kelly.jpg


Tres Bizarre, no?
 
Lauer exposed this far-right wanna-be pundit for what she is -- a second tier right-winger with inane talking points.

He exposed nothing. He didn't even say anything.
 
Is your internet broken -- can you not watch the clip?:doh

Dude, dial-up is so 1995. Get broadband!

So what did he say that was so damning of her?
 
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.

Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.

He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.

Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.

What are you smoking?

The only reason he even tried to speak over her was to correct the wild accusations she made.
 
So what did he say that was so damning of her?

You really don't get how an interview works. You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.

He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?

She answered the questions and looked like a inarticulate moron trying to string together as many partisan talking-points catch phrases in one sentence. At least when Sarah Palin does this she looks good being stupid.

An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.

It's like Palin -- a smart interviewer just plays along (almost playing dumb) and encourages her to explain her views in more detail.

The fact that Lauer holds a straight face for as long as he does, is amazing. By the end, anyone would be dumbfounded and almost punch drunk by the nonsensical craziness that comes out of her mouth. But it really does feel like a forced, almost faux-craziness, as if Malkin's scripted herself to try to out- Coulter, Annie.

She wants so bad to be as outrageous and provocative as Coulter. But Ann Coulter's hyper-partisanship is way more polished and out there on a lunatic fringe. She's also got the hyperbolic digs on the left down pat.

Malkin just doesn't have that interesting of a personality. Too bookish--her attempts at humor just fall flat. She often looks like she's expecting a laugh, but only gets crickets chirping.
 
So what did he say that was so damning of her?

Nothing. That's how you respond when someone says something so ridiculous, it leaves you speechless.
 
You really don't get how an interview works. You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.

He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?

She answered the questions and looked like a inarticulate moron trying to string together as many partisan talking-points catch phrases in one sentence. At least when Sarah Palin does this she looks good being stupid.

An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.

It's like Palin -- a smart interviewer just plays along (almost playing dumb) and encourages her to explain her views in more detail.

The fact that Lauer holds a straight face for as long as he does, is amazing. By the end, anyone would be dumbfounded and almost punch drunk by the nonsensical craziness that comes out of her mouth. But it really does feel like a forced, almost faux-craziness, as if Malkin's scripted herself to try to out- Coulter, Annie.

She wants so bad to be as outrageous and provocative as Coulter. But Ann Coulter's hyper-partisanship is way more polished and out there on a lunatic fringe. She's also got the hyperbolic digs on the left down pat.

Malkin just doesn't have that interesting of a personality. Too bookish--her attempts at humor just fall flat. She often looks like she's expecting a laugh, but only gets crickets chirping.

Usually, when you want to show that someone "exposed" the other person, you'll use quotes and explain why those quotes expose the person. What you posted is nothing more than a long rant. You obviously don't like her, but you haven't shown me that he "exposed" her.
 
Nothing. That's how you respond when someone says something so ridiculous, it leaves you speechless.

No, it's how you show elitism. If it was so ridiculous, then he probably should have asked how she could prove everything.
 
No, it's how you show elitism. If it was so ridiculous, then he probably should have asked how she could prove everything.

My guess is that the time he was allowed to spend with her was about to run out. So you shut up and let the conversation die.
 
Usually, when you want to show that someone "exposed" the other person, you'll use quotes and explain why those quotes expose the person. What you posted is nothing more than a long rant. You obviously don't like her, but you haven't shown me that he "exposed" her.

Internet still not working? -- shame, you really should watch the video before commenting on it.:2razz:

All ribbing aside... The show staffers had obviously read the book and knew her slant--and the extreme position she was dying to put out there. The first question he asked about the President's comment on Gates was designed (like the Kouric, 'what do you read' question) to allow Malkin to ride the crazy train right through the interview.

Yes, that's how it's done, sport. Open the door, hand them enough rope, and let them hang away. A lesser reporter would have gone for some 'gotcha' quotes, but how does one corner the fringe crazy angle? You can't. Logic and facts won't work.

What opportunities do you think Lauer missed? Should he have pulled out medical records and reviewed her psych meds?? Or sandbagged her with a couple frat boys (and girls) from her former college? No class in that. Just let crazy run wild.

It's classic how hard he's trying to hold back a laugh at the end.

Seriously, you really should watch the interview. It would be easier to have this discussion.;)
 
She said: "Every inch of this administration is rife with corruption and cronyism and it's about time they look in the mirror and admit it."
Let's see, Rahm Emmanuel is chief of staff, Hillary(who actually fits the position to be honest) Got a position for playing ball and getting on board, Joe Biden was rewarded for playing ball, Geitner(tax cheat in charge of tax policy?), Gibbs as press secretary?!. Let's face it aps, there is as much cronyism in this administration as the last one, if not more.

This is a matter of opinion. It is Will's opinion that she lies. What's the big deal?
Lying is very specific, it's not a matter of opinion, either someone willfully distorted or hid the truth or they didn't. I can't stand WillRockwell's opinions because they are based on wanting a specific outcome and biased in that regard.
 
You really don't get how an interview works.
Care to explain to the group how an interview works instead of telling others they "just don't get it"? I went to college for broadcasting and know how to interview, I also watched the clip, there were quite a few times Lauer used phrasing tactics to try to get a "gotcha" moment. He editorialized much of the time in question form, so please do tell how a proper news interview is done so that we can understand.:roll:
You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.
More elitism, you don't know what others consume as news so that is a very condescending statement.
He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?
He asked some good questions, but when he didn't like a point, would load a question to try to soften the blow of a good point.


An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.
No good interviewer tries to embarass or disprove a guest, to believe that you have shown me that you are the only one that doesn't understand journalism.
 
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.

Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.

He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.

Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.

Agreed. This sounded less like a Today show and interview and more like a political talk show. In a political radio show they always start fighting and talking over each other. I am tired of news anchors showing a bias in favor of Obama, Lauer was clearly defending Barry the whole time, going so far as to talk over his guest.
 
You really don't get how an interview works. You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.

He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?

She answered the questions and looked like a inarticulate moron trying to string together as many partisan talking-points catch phrases in one sentence. At least when Sarah Palin does this she looks good being stupid.

An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.

It's like Palin -- a smart interviewer just plays along (almost playing dumb) and encourages her to explain her views in more detail.

The fact that Lauer holds a straight face for as long as he does, is amazing. By the end, anyone would be dumbfounded and almost punch drunk by the nonsensical craziness that comes out of her mouth. But it really does feel like a forced, almost faux-craziness, as if Malkin's scripted herself to try to out- Coulter, Annie.

She wants so bad to be as outrageous and provocative as Coulter. But Ann Coulter's hyper-partisanship is way more polished and out there on a lunatic fringe. She's also got the hyperbolic digs on the left down pat.

Malkin just doesn't have that interesting of a personality. Too bookish--her attempts at humor just fall flat. She often looks like she's expecting a laugh, but only gets crickets chirping.


She is not saying anything outrageous in the least. If you think these actions of the admin. are outrageous, that is another thing. I agree.

Her book is filled with matter-of-fact, relatively simple investigative reporting as well as 60 pages of footnotes and references. There has not been a single refutation of any of her points, nor will there be. Just whining.

There isn't any way to 'interpret' these facts.

If you don't like 'em, and many don't, don't read or listen.

We are not quite yet at the point where the book can be outlawed. Soon, soon...be patient.


Until then, don't think there will not be a frenzy when competition finally outweighs partisanship in the MSM. This unbelievably filthy admin. will be exposed.


.



.
 
Back
Top Bottom