Krugman shows why we need more progressive voices on TV

by: AdamGreen

Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 23:48

When I was at MoveOn, media reform was one of my main issues. I had substantial dialogues with the folks at ABC's This Week about the right-wing skew of some of their Sunday roundtables.

To his credit, George Stephanopoulous had Paul Krugman on the roundtable this weekend to discuss the economy. If you want a treat, watch this 5 minute segment from the show. As you watch, ask yourself, "What would this segment be like if Krugman wasn't there?"

Aside from Krugman, what other progressive voices are "ready for prime time" and should be on Sunday roundtables? (I nominate David Sirota, Cenk Uyger, Christy Harvey, and Ari Melber, to name a few...your turn. Include YouTube links if you have them.)

AdamGreen :: Krugman shows why we need more progressive voices on TV

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Ha (4.00 / 3)
Carly Fiorina.  Good one.

Good clip, BUT ... (4.00 / 4)
Even with Paul there the consensus that any person will take away from the round table is that we need a balanced approach which will be spending combined with tax cuts.

Paul didn't make a strong enough argument that suggests that there should be less tax cuts on the table.

yes (4.00 / 7)
he was outnumbered. And what is Sam Donaldson's toupee still doing on TV?

[ Parent ]
His toupee is aging (4.00 / 5)
Now he has a sterling, grey toupee to match his polythene eyebrows.

[ Parent ]
Your list is good .. (4.00 / 3)
but why are the roundtables so restrictive? .. what did the people in the TradMed say? .. do people really want to hear Sam Donaldson anymore? .. do people even remember who he was/is?

Here's a good one. (4.00 / 4)
I nominate Rachel Maddow.

Yes but no... (4.00 / 1)
I love Rachel Maddow, it's so nice to have a host that doesn't just yell...  but, she's better at asking questions than answering them.  ie. a better host than a guest.

[ Parent ]
Rachel Maddow? (0.00 / 0)
You must be joking.

Whenever it suits her convenience, she engages in the worst sort of partisan hackery.

[ Parent ]
Worst? (4.00 / 2)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[ Parent ]
Amy Goodman, Host of Democracy Now! (4.00 / 9)
Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer, hosts a show on WBAI)
Jon Weiner (UCI Historian, Nation contributing editor, hosts a show on KPFK)
Robert Sheer (TruthDig founder, reporter and/or columnist for 4 decades, panelist on KCRW's "Left, Right & Center" for ~ 10 years)
Antonio Gonzales (Ex. Dir. William C. Velasquez Institute, host a show on KPFK)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

How is (4.00 / 6)
Having Cokie Roberts, George Will, Sam Donaldson AND Carly Fiorina vs Paul Krugman fair? That's 4-1. 4-2 if you count Snuffles as a liberal.

Getting more progressives on the Sunday shows is very important and your work on the issue is much appreciated.

As for more progressive TV voices.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel

Bill Press (he's done better but I found this calling Pat B a racist)

Chris Hayes

Eugene Robinson
couldn't find any good clips but he's one of my faves.

Arianna Huffington

Robert Kuttner (called Hannity a fool, so he's great)

Erza Klein (young, but smarter then Sam Donaldson)

Also the NYTimes reported recently that MSNBC is looking to add another liberal show to it's lineup at 10. That's another place we should push hard for a good progressive. When it's hosting and not being a panelist I'd add Allison Stewart to the mix. It will be interesting to see who it ends up being, I'd like to see them at least give some progressives a chance to guest host Keith or Rachel to see how they do as they did with Rachel.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Also try juan cole (4.00 / 7)
for middle eastern foriegn policy.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Kuttner was brilliant… (4.00 / 1)
...the last time he was on This Week. It's interesting: David Brooks usually speaks with "authority," but with someone like Kuttner at the table he has to keep adding little qualifiers to his "analyses." Arianna H was sort of defering  to Kuttner in the following segment, but hey, we need cheerleaders, too.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
How is Bob Herbert on TV? (4.00 / 5)
'Cause he's one hell of a good progressive voice in print -- and it would be nice if these roundtables had a little more ethnic variation, too.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

Herbert has the same problem (4.00 / 2)
as Rachel Madow.

He's more than willing to fall into partisan hackery, and repeat mindlessly smears when it suits the personal axe he has to grind. See Bob Somerby for details.

What progressives need is someone who has a deep understanding of and commitment to progressive principles -- not to favored politicians -- and can argue them effectively in public.

Herbert certainly does not fit that bill.

[ Parent ]
Sam Seder (4.00 / 3)
I mean, who can forget Sam Seder's "War on Christmas" appearance:

CHS... don't have a youtube (4.00 / 2)
When I've heard her on c-span radio, I was impressed with Christy Hardin Smith. I don't know if she's ready for the TV circuit today, if not she's definitely part of the progressive bench we should be building.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

Good choice, imo (4.00 / 1)
Christy was a regular on Al Franken's radio show. She's got good media chops.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Thom Hartmann is another. (4.00 / 2)
A guest was quoting a blogger, and Tweety admonished them to stick to "real journalists" as if he was one of those.  

I'd like to see Bill Moyers, and... (4.00 / 1)
hold your breath, even Ralph Nader, who actually speaks to a lot of what has come down in this country.

Thanks for reminding me how awful This Week is (4.00 / 1)
I haven't watched this show for ages, and now I remember why.  Krugman did all he could, but it's hard when the knuckleheads outnumber you.

I never watch these TV shows but because so many people do (4.00 / 3)
I'd like to see:
Naomi Klein
Barbara Ehrenreich

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

Tom Frank (4.00 / 2)
was on with Sirota on Bill Moyers show. I think Frank would give a very good new New Deal perspective.

Jim Hightower (4.00 / 1)
former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture

Tax cuts (4.00 / 2)
Fiorina, etc favored government welfare: tax cuts are a fancy version of this like a guaranteed annual income skewed to the upper class.  Krugman favored jobs and investment in infrastructure.  It's the arguments of the 60s and 70s flipped on their heads.  

What no one mentioned is that the Republican economic program was tried and found wanting.  Krugman did state that there was monetary policy was not an option because interest rates were already zero.  That is a half truth.  The banks continue to lose money despite tight credit and profit margins on loans raising from beyond historical margins to usury.  The rates to borrowers can be far from zero.

Somebody needs to mercilessly attack the notion that businesses are undertaxed.  Tax rates for businesses are much lower (at Harvard Business School in the 70s the assumed rate was 50%) and are very easily avoided (partly or wholely) in many cases.  Large businesses in particular are now bad citizens.  Stockman (Reagan's budget director), btw, claimed that the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s were supposed to exclude business tax cuts but that Ronnie added them in at the last minute.  He even claimed that the "plan" devised by him alone over a weekend at home with a hand calculator (no computers, thank you)would have worked without the business cuts.

Over 8 years, Clinton's administration created 18.5 million jobs; Bush's around 7 million and unemployment rose from 4.0% to 7.2% despite huge deficits, easy credit, and the demand and jobs created by an unneccesary war in Iraq.  And Clinton's program (raise taxes, raise government spending modestly, spend on infrastructure and education) was somehow a failure while Bushonomics needs to be repeated?  Those other four loons need brain transplants or at least a dose of reality.

omfg (4.00 / 5)
long time lurker here but this clip motivated me to sign up.

wtf are these idiots doing on tv? They know NOTHING about economics!!! Sam Donaldson is and always has been pretty dim, yet they allow him to pontificate; Cokie is likewise not so bright. And George Will, while seemingly smarter than Sam and Cokie, is really just a hack.  These people have not the slightest clue about economics or the economy, they're clearly just repeating canned lines - gop ones.

How Krugman controlled himself is beyond me. It's like teaching a freshman seminar, with students who know nothing but think they know everything and have nothing to learn.  I think I saw Krugman's unbelieving frustration come through on his face.

Watching clips like this make me SO glad that I've been without teevee for the past 18 years. These small doses are more than enough to drive my blood pressure through the roof. Let's hope that Obama et al totally ignore these idiot talking heads. after all, THEY LOST!

Krugman's kinda getting the hang of… (4.00 / 2)
...TV, or at the very least how to remain calm while cutting through the idiocy. Once last year, he was so flabbergasted by the other panelists that he buried his face in his hands on camera. It was hilarious.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Do you have a clip of this? (4.00 / 1)
I'd love to see it.  It's what I'm doing inside everytime I watch people like Cokie Roberts and George Will.

[ Parent ]
I don't… (0.00 / 0)
...unfortunately. I think it was in the late summer, though, back when he was still kinda criticizing Obama.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
The witless and George Will (4.00 / 2)
Krugman suffers from being the only sane man in a roomful of loony pontiffs. I mean, here are five people who believe that all you need to run a modern economy is real estate, retail, and right-wing bloviation.

We still haven't solved the credit crisis. Well, no, we haven't, nor will we until these idiots figure out -- as their banker cousins already have -- that it does no good to loan people money which they can't pay back.

We don't need Paul Krugman on these shows; we need a flame thrower, and I don't mean that metaphorically.

Though there are lots of people and businesses (4.00 / 2)
that would pay back loans if they were given now.  This is why we need voting shares in some of these banks we're buying.

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree (0.00 / 0)
The problem is, the banks don't know who they are. Often the borrowers themselves don't know.

Question: Will your source of income continue throughout the duration of this loan?

Answer: THINK so....

The long-term solution to the credit crisis is the same as the long-term solution period: pay people decent salaries, fund universal health insurance, and restore a genuine middle class, i.e., a reliable, predictable domestic demand. You just can't expect to maintain a healthy economy in a banana republic.

[ Parent ]
Eric Reed Boucher (0.00 / 0)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Clearly Krugman is being burned by The Stupid. (0.00 / 0)
I feel sorry for him being with that crowd.

That said, once again, I'm very grateful he's there to counter the BS.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox