Just a random thing that I saw that kind of frustrated me. From The Raw Story (although it’s regarding a Fox news statement I don’t have the direct quote for)

Regarding the fumbled oath today:

Chris Wallace of FOX News wondered if, due to the fumbled oath, Obama really was president.

Typically, before I speak up in class, if I don’t know something that I am sure I ought to know (for example, I forgot that the “Lord’s Prayer” is called … the “Lord’s Prayer”) I typically do a quick google to answer the question. In forums, people are chastised for not googling something that should obviously be googled.

And so, whether this statement was in jest or not, and from my understanding it was not totally, it feels like a lot of TV news has become as un-journalistic as possible. Often we catch pundits and the like spewing off random personal opinions without any factual backing or understanding of the topic, as if they were sitting around with friends having a conversation. Everything from the infamous “appeasement” argument to the madrassa scandal, predictions on how americans will feel about candidates not wearing flag pins to what reactions will be to what was meant by Hilary’s dress. Today right after the inauguration on Fox a former speech writer from the Regan campaign came on and started saying how people aren’t going to remember the speech in 30 years because it lacked a certain muster.

The problem is that when people in media come out and share their opinions on how people WILL react in the future and play this game of speculation, people who haven’t formed their own opinions believe it. How about you do a survey and report to me the facts on how people regard Obama’s speech. Or find out the facts about the madrassa situation before going on air about it.

And Chris, next time you want to know the answer to whether or not the oath is required in full in order to effectively become president, just google it. Unless you actually expect the camera to talk back to you.

Edit:

Here is the clip of Chris Wallace. It’s exactly as I stated: Three clicks to this article on the 20th amendment which clearly states when a president becomes president, or a whole bunch of B.S. on Fox news.

Of course, they’re actually talking about real economic theory, but how can it compete with this brilliant piece of CW from some dude in governor of South Carolina:

Gov. Sanford, unlike most of his colleagues, speaks out against any federal bailouts, including a fiscal stimulus bill that is likely to include state aid. “When times go south you cut spending,” Gov. Sanford said. “That’s what families do, that’s what businesses do, and I don’t think the government should be exempt from that process.”

Because, you know, if everyone cuts back on spending, that will help the economy.  Hey, it makes sense when you equate the giant federal government with virtually unlimited borrowing power to a family of four.  Who needs economic theory, right?

Oh, and btw, Matthews barely lets Krugman talk here…it almost like he’s auditioning for something…