Barney Frank walks off the set of CNBC
By John Amato Friday Jun 12, 2009 9:15amBarney Frank was constantly being interrupted so he walked off the CNBC set.
(Please donate to C&L's 2009 fundraiser if you can. We need your support.)
John Amato’s virtual online magazine…OK, It’s a blog!
©2010 Crooks And Liars
Login or Register to post comments.
Frank took that toady down a peg. Now he can move on to an interviewer who clearly isn't trying to do a political hit job on him. Frank ain't falling for that shit. He's no patsy. He may be a Mary, but he's no patsy:)
Not Dorothy?
*
I think John wasn't quite truthful and Barney was a little sensitive. In a 6 minute clip Barney was interupted once. I've seen Barney put up with a lot more.
have to put up with being interupted at all. They should have the courtey to listen to his response after they ask the question.
Didn't really seem constant to be. Just calls em like I sees em.
well at all. However, I think he did not end the interview because he was being interrupted, but rather because it was clear the interviewers were doing their typical trap questioning.
The meme of CNBC is clear: corporations are victims of "repressive" government interference. Of course, they fail to mention why the government has to interfere in the first place.
The level of entitlement of the business class is of such magnitude, that the interviewers seemed to think that the rights of the plutocracy trump any other social or legal consideration.
You're description of the interview is more accurate.
I agree with you as well. The way these assholes at CNBC frame the debate is disingenuous. Shareholders don't matter because why???? Even though Barney could maybe have handled it better (he did get to talk for a long time without being interrupted) but to hell with these people on CNBC. Let them talk amongst themselves. If they want to try to tell themselves that they are important and want to try to prop up the stock price of certain stock they can do it without me. Maybe they should be careful because maybe Barney Frank might be breathing down their necks in the near future. Let's hope.
He seemed very distracted. Something off to his left had all his attention I think.
*
Considering that he was going into a hearing and his aide was most likely going "wrap it up".
that is not a practical point of view to take in our media acculturated political class who are very skilled at dodging direct questions with meandering non-sequitors, etc. I'm certainly not saying that's what happened in this interview with Frank, but to say that an interviewer should never interrupt an interviewee is plainly antithetical to the direct interview setting. If that's the way you want interviews of powerful leaders to be held, they could all be done via email rather than directly.
...I think I see your point here. I often wish that an honest interviewer would stop this or that bloviating pol who has come on with talking points and little else. If someone starts off on a false premise and starts filibustering with a stream of lies, there is no reason to let them go on. In fact, it pretty much behooves the "journalist" to call them to task, not just give them free air time to shout talking points, conservative, progressive or otherwise.
All the same, there is still a difference between putting a halt to deliberately fallacious line of reasoning and just being rude.
of civility and not be offensive to people who are trying to respond to questions because they are constantly being interrupted which happens all the time on american news programs, maybe they should all be done that way. This country has gotten so far off the track in terms of being civilized, with civil discourse that yes, maybe we should go to all email interviews, at least until news anchors can demonstrate that they can ask a question and then let the interviewee respond fully without interruptions. As a television viewer, I would much prefer a question and answer format as opposed to the question and arguing and twisting and manipulating that usually ensues.
is how many times do we see these kinds of interuptions of a rightwing guests?
I agree. Besides - Barney knows that it's going to be a game of gotcha from the get-go. I'm grateful that he does the interviews, and it's wonderful to see him take stupid people apart -- but I'm sure he gets impatient with it. It's not like he's got nothing else to do than play the corporate owned-and-run media's games.
*
I was kinda surprised also. I suspect that Frank is probably just fed up with doing TV interviews where the host is more interested in grandstanding than actually soliciting the guest's opinions. I've definitely seen him put up with a whole lot worse than this.
Anyway, Frank is one of my heroes. A guy who clearly knows his stuff and probably the best Democrat out there at defending complex issues and positions.
And I agree with you all on different counts:
1) I have seen Frank put up with more. In fact, I learned one of my favorite catch phrases from him during a similar incident when he said, "Oh, I'm sorry for talking while you were trying to interrupt me". So good. Anyway, it looks like Frank is was on a bit of a shorter fuse this particular day. Who knows: tired, overworked, or just got done with some other interview with another talking head idiot.
2) He shouldn't have to put up with being interrupted in the first place, so to hell with that other loser and good for Frank for bailing (though I'd prefer he not make a habit of it and he won't. He is just too good at slapping around slobs like this guy around).
"Oh, I'm sorry for talking while you were trying to interrupt me"
Yes, a real classic. I've heard Paul Begala use that one, too. A pair of fighting Democrats... shame there aren't many more like them.
with ever being interrupted at all? What these news anchors do is insulting to those they interview and it's insulting to viewers, like me, who are trying to listen to the responses of the interviewee but are not allowed to do so because of continual interruptions. Why do american news anchors cut people off, interrupt, interject, heckle, bully, all the time? It's not to make news. There are other motives at work and it only makes issues more muddled and confused and opaque, exactly the opposite of what they should be doing in presenting the news.
I liked the way they kept flashing the logo so he looked clownish. Had to be accidental.
Frank didn't walk off the CNBC set... he walked away from the CNBC camera to end a hallway interview... two totally different scenarios, making your post title less-than-accurate.
For prez!
Barney Frank has been around too long to tolerate bullshit.
There are no journalists...and this is not an example of "hard questions".
This is grandstanding bullshit. That's why I don't watch any longer. There is no "news reporting" in this country anymore.
that the corporate suits don't like being given "new rules".
And CNBC is their shill.
End of story.
Hard to believe the same parent company owns this "news" network and MSNBC.
Well MSNBC have their clownish moments, but CNBC is 24/7 clown city.
The only time I enjoyed watching CNBC is when they carried high def coverage of the Westminster dog show.
oh...is that what they're calling the Republican National Convention these days?
British Royal Family.
And it's still funny. I've always wondered why any rational person would go on one of these programs where it is perfectly alright to be talked over if someone else doesn't like the answer you're giving. Neocons have raised this, (or lowered it), to an art form in the last several years and I hope what Frank did starts a trend among progressive lawmakers.
for the love of christ is NPR really my only option for not being force-fed the opinions of 'journalists' in interviews through loaded horseshit questions followed by rude interruptions and barking contests? all these networks are garbage. if you have a guest and you're a journalist your job is simply to ask questions and get answers.
with network news the formula is:
1-ask loaded horseshit question.
2-interrupt guest before they can form a comprehensive response
3-yell over them till they eaither submit to your chest-beating or walk off
4-win!
and for one reason only (beyond being a propaganda machine for the rich and powerful):
Entertainment! News is just entertainment. Sad.
I encourage anyone who hasn't watch Network to see it. I just watched it again. The damned movie was meant as satire and is more relevant today than it was even then. And it's entertaining. Haha...
"...And I won't have it, is that clear?! You think you have merely stopped a business deal - that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians! There are no Arabs! There are no Third Worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars! Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels! It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic, and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT and T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon - those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state - Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories and mini-max solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime, and our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you to preach this evangel, Mr. Beale."
"Because you are on TV, dummy".
Maybe not word for word, but pretty close.
Why are you voting for the war sir? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Your positions are strained on so many issues that credibility is waning.
the questions seemed to dispute that shareholders should have a say in what compensation the executives should get. Why shouldn't they?
too bad we were never allowed to hear barney explain that to them.
spew the talking-point that shareholder input rules are useless because the shareholders are insulated from the corp by funds and derivitives, but fail to note that no system for expressing the will of the shareholders can evolve until they are reasonably allowed to do so.
The door to the boardroom is practically closed and locked, regardless of how or by whom the shareholders are represented. If we open that door, the shareholders will find a way to make their voice heard.
It's sick that the right-wing corporate meme is the same for both employees and shareholders; if you don't like your job, quit; if you don't like the operation of the company which you own, sell.
Plutocracy 101.
He has a gift , he can either tea-bag you or castrate you , the choice is yours
Maybe it's just me, but the image is embedded in too small a frame, so I can only see the upper-left corner of the video and I can't control it.
thing here.
I mean, three.
Plus, no pause or volume controls showing, and the video kept stuttering. Barney was placed too far to the right, not centered on the screen. I have a good connection and C&L videos usually don't misbehave for me.
don't underestimate this guy. he's intellectual. cNBC did NOT hear what they wanted to hear. that is making money is fine but there are rules/boundries and obligations. the financial elites want to be above rules. they don't even want any risk they will shift that on to someone else. Darwinian Capitalist don't understand you can't have a democracy under these terms. very few winners and a lot of losers if you will destroy the country. we are now very vulnerable because of capitalism gone wild. this has ben a complaint for some time shareholders have been taken out of the system. the ceo want big salaries/bonuses no matter what the results of the company/stock. rep. frank knows what's going on and he will not back down from the talking heads wearing knee pads.
to put an end to the interview. It was obvious these people were only there to object to the proposal of limiting executive pay for executives of bailed out companies.
Aren't we sick and tired of media pundits who celebrate the theivery on Wall Street and put up roadblocks to any proposals that attempt to control it?
Frank was right. Shareholders, regardless of whether they are individuals or large investment firms, own the companies. Not the boards of directors, not the executives. Of course these people don't want shareholders to have a say, in anything. All they want is the money. The rest of us can butt out.
The assholes who defend this behavior are no better than them.
it's why what is being practiced in this country is NOT capitalism.
Management works for the owners. At least that is what the so-called capitalists like to SAY.
CNBC pundits clearly object to anyone messing in their little sandbox. The taxpayer/government is stepping in and taking their little shovels away and what we see are nothing but their little tantrums trying to blame anyone but themselves.
.. you don't have to take that abuse from those crapheads at CNBC.
CNBC... never met a war they didn't like, a Republican they wouldn't back or a stock they wouldnt buy.
They might have never met a stock they wouldn't buy which they'd tell their audience to sell.
CNBC=complete lack of ethics
their embed player sucks hard. Real pos.
I don't like the CNBC people too much either, but the guy who had the argument with Barney was making a good point. Most people, if they own stock, own stock through a fund. I'm in that boat. I don't remember getting the right to vote as a shareholder based on that stock. Barney is pushing for stockholders to get more involved. The CNBC guy was trying to point out that a lot of people who own stock would not have that capability in the current system. (At least that is my understanding of how part of this works.) There are so many different kinds of shares -- voting, non-voting. It's not so simple.
however...the fund DOES vote the shares. In your fund agreement, you are essentially granting your proxy to the fund manager. If you don't like the policy of a particular company, you can always invest in a fund that does not trade in that companies securities.
Obviously, if you own the physical shares in a brokerage account, you will receive the proxy statement.
I'm glad he explained himself and then walked off. It's incredibly offensive when these news anchors ask questions that have multiple angles and then continually interrupt when the interviewee is trying to respond to their questions and they do it ALL THE TIME. And almost all news anchors seem to do it. Don't they have to learn any etiquette before they are allowed to give interviews on national television? It sure doesn't seem like it. That's one of the reasons I enjoy watching BBC or English news programs; there seems to be at least enough civility, usually, on british programing, that allows the news anchors to allow their guests to answer questions without interrupting them constantly. Whereas, it's as if american news anchors are not trying to hear what the interviewer is saying but rather are trying to argue their own talking points which are usually what the network owners want the message to be. Which leads me to believe that this is not "news" but propaganda. And, the really sad thing about it is that we have some really great people who are working on some very serious problems, like Barney Frank, who knows an encyclopedic amount about the financial system that he is working very hard on trying to stabilize for the good of the country's economy, and we have news anchors who must, in advance, know how they want to use this person to try and get their own message across and in so doing what they are doing is not just perverting and trying to twist and manipulate the speakers' sincere attempt to answer questions for the public, but they are infuriating the public that is trying to listen to what the speaker is trying and not being allowed to say so that they can better understand what's happening nationally and governmentally. Why do news anchors seemingly want to make everything so muddled and confused? Why do they want to twist and manipulate what the public knows and tries to learn? What's in it for the news anchors and the owners of the networks they work for?
It's perverted and sick and makes it usually not worth trying to watch these programs.
News media, Business Media even more so need to be treated like this if they refuse to act with decency.
People like Barney here don't have the time in these times to deal with Pundits trying to score corporate Points instead of reporting and doing responsible interviews. Maybe if enough people start walking off when these Pundits start there tricks The media will be force back.
Thanks...that helped a lot. I watched a shorter versions with just the f*cktard talking to Rep. Frank...and I wasn't sure why Rep. Frank got so upset. Seeing the whole video clip made it much more clear.
The f*cktard from the CNBC network had his fist up his ass and figured he could insult and badger Rep. Frank. He jumped in to clarify HIS position at a wim, and left Re. Frank being talked over and insulted. I'm GLAD he cut the interview. The ass hat from CNBC needs to STFU if he's going to ask a question. I HATE hosts that do that. It's "BOR-ish". bor and vannity are great at it, as are most right wing talk hosts.
Good for you Rep. Frank!! You don't have to take that behavior from these jerk offs.
Hah! That's good.
I think it's important that he did this. I also liked Contessa Brewer cutting the mike of the (borrowing a term from above) f***-Tard on her show a few days ago.
These imbeciles are Sociopaths.
*
It was clear that all three reporters in this segment had an opinion on the matter. Which is fine, but too many "reporters" are there to report their opinions, not the facts surrounding the issue at hand. They began arguing with Senator Frank soon after he answered their questions.
I think Frank was a little short with them, but at the same time, he was on his way to an appointment, and gave them the courtesy of an on-the-spot interview. What I like about Barney is he does not suffer fools.
Barney was a little sensitive too. I mean-yes the guy was trying to needle him a little but it wasn't that much. I am glad he did it though because these "no regs" enthusiasts need to know that people aren't going to just say yeah yeah ok-whatever you say.
they're under the entertainment division, top-loaded with money-pundit a-holes. Frank was wasting his breath/time going there.
I don't know why he would bother with these morons to start with?
People like this guy doing a hatchet job is why we have a lot of the problems we have today. People that follow the corporate line in order to make way more money then they could ever make other wise. Willing to lie for the money and don't care how foolish the look or sound.
These people are the very reason I quit watching any TV news shows period.
Just double talk, bullshit and lies.
republicanism is a mental illness!
financial guru to a fluff piece fill in on The Today Show.
And where is Maria? At the air pump taking care of her lips?
Words to live by: "Do not inflate over 32 PSI, Maria!"
Well, first off, title is not accurate. Mr. Frank was not on the set. He was in Congress preparing to chair a hearing. He walked away from the "interview".
More importantly, Mr. Frank correct responded to the unfortunate media approach to endow hosts who know very little about the topics with more authority than the experts who are making policy or real decisions. These hosts typically resort to interrupting and grandstanding to make their opinions seem legitimate.
This is not in any way a "news" program. It is not providing real analysis or a forum for the exchange of informed ideas about topics.
Remember Barney is trying to educated the same stupid, criminal Reslugs that would love to keep everything the same as it was, screwing people out of their hard earned money.
As others have noted, Barney's often fought harder and longer (and prevailed) against much worse behavior. So this was kind of an odd moment. I also agree that the headline and the description of the interview are plainly inaccurate, which is annoying, but sometimes happens on this otherwise excellent site.
But, I am glad that he is now setting some kind of ground rules. You've got to start some where.
I am sick and tired of these pundits interrupting responses to their questions before the respondee has made their point.
In the future, perhaps CNBC will be more respectful.
Login or Register to post comments.