Why Not Fox?
Sorry, but I find campaigns like this to be simply asinine (with every due connotation).
We’re now supposed to get all hot and bothered and outraged and indignant because the Nevada Democratic Party has granted Fox News the broadcast rights to its scheduled presidential debate next August?
Give me a break. This is classic wanking, furiously pummeling a hologram. WTF difference does it make on which commercial network or another a presidential debate winds up on? Half the time the nets don’t even air the debates. Or worse, they impose one of their hacks to “moderate” it.
The gist of the anti-Fox argument is that by partnering with Fox, the Nevada Dems are granting FNC a “legitimacy” as a news organization that it doesn’t deserve. Well, I don’t know about you, but when I watch Fox News the thought that I might be watching a legit news gathering organization never even enters my mind. I get the same surreal feeling watching Shep or Greta that I do when watching Katie Couric, Brian Williams, AC-360 and his frozen-smile partner Paula Zahn on CNN.
Would the liberal bloggers who are running this campaign take a few moments out from their emailing to let us know which among the above the consider to be more “legit?” Someone explain to me, please, what is to be gained by intimidating the Nevada party into reversing its decision and then getting, say, Tim Russert (!) to host the debate instead of giving it to Fox?
I don’t know what the real backstory is to the deal between the Nevada party and Fox. The official explanation is that the other nets have already taken dibs on other debates and Fox was the only partner available for the August mouthfest. Maybe there’s some more sinister reason.
All I know is that I’m not so displeased by the outcome. You’d think the lib-bloggers would see this as some sort of political opportunity i.e. that Fox’s crusty conservative audience would be force-fed a few hours of Democratic rhetoric and — oh my Jesus– some of the viewers might actually be persuaded to vote for one of the Dems. Could you imagine that?
Apparently, MoveOn and Kos and company can’t. They dwell in a world often as insular and as immune to talking across party lines as does Sean Hannity. I though the big bitch of liberals against places like Fox is that they shut out liberal views. So now when’s there’s a chance to stuff two hours of Democratic presidential candidates onto the same network, we are asked to join a boycott.
Wank wank.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Right on, Marc.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I’m never surprised when left-wingers get apoplectic over minor issues. Leave ‘em alone, Marc. Let them waste their lives worrying about trivial maters.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
..that is matters with two t’s.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Here’s why Marc, which you’d know if you bothered to read their posts. The last time FOX News did a Democratic debate – in 2004 – the graphics read “Democrat Party” and the speakers were interrupted by “Comments” from the likes of Bill Bennett explaining to the audience how lame the debater was. This was during the debate understand – sort of a play by play from old “Let it Ride” himself.
Maybe you think FOX should get to trash these people and they should just grin and eat it. Well hell with that! Obama already refuses to talk to them and all other Dems should follow. They are not a news organization but a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Think the GOP would agree to a debate on Air America? Of course not.
Dems should show that they are not pincushions. FOX hosts call Murtha every name in the book. They spread the lies about Pelosi and the airplane. Sorry, screw them and the elephant they rode in on!
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
rlc, comparing Air America to FOX couldn’t be funnier. Why FOX doesn’t come close in comparison even to CBS and its “fake but accurate” memos or CNN with pictures of Cheney and a big “X” over him. Oh, heck. Check these out for yourself, you whiners.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
hey, let y’all in on a big secret (shhhh); no copying please.
nancy is all up in titters and mortified anguish because the dept of defense has assigned “Jet Blue” as her airline carrier.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
what rlc said.
The recent smear on Obama – exposed by CNN – is reason enough for the Dems to keep FOX at arm’s length. I’m not a big fan of Tim Russert, but the notion that he couldn’t do a better job of fairly moderating a debate – in contrast to, say, FOX’s RNC Buttboy Brit Hume – is absurd.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
RLC
Oh pleeze. I’m hardly as much a fan of Harry Reid as you are. But, come on richard… If the dems make a deal with fox even they have thought of these things and the protocols are agreed upon in the negotiations
In any case, why be afraid of whatever commentary?
Your objections are puny Your fear is great. The benefits of putting the Dem debate on Fox outweighs all the liabilities.
Btw. What makes KOS of MyDD any sort of “legit” news organizations? They are every bit as partisan as FNC.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Who called KOS a “news organization” ?
You effectively undercut your argument by noting that FOX is as partisan as KOS – which is an openly partisan network. Everyone knows this is the case with FOX, yet they are allowed to masquerade as “journalism”. They’re not. FOX hacks operate under the shadow of daily rightwing talking points that come out of Rober Ailes’ office.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“network” referred to “blogger’s network”, not a broadcast network, obviously.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
If you don’t get it, check this out…
http://foxattacks.com/
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I largely agree with our host here. Of course, the Dems should insist that the words of the debaters are presented without distortion (like some degenerate gambler talking over them) before the great minds explain it all to Woody. The Dem candidates should all treat it with humor and even mention Fox Newses many shameless dirty tricks as a Republican mouthpiece during the debates.
I guess we are never going to hear the end of Dan Rathers (maybe) false documents as a way of stearing the eyes of the simple minded away from the fact that our flag wavers sent a rich, shallow, draft dodger to Washington who embroiled us in humiliating defeat. But those are the facts, my sad little Woody, deal.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Correction: The daily memos that mimic RNC talking points come from FOX News VP John Moody, not head honcho Roger Ailes.
I would agree with K Nardy if I had any confidence that the Dem candidates would, across the board, have the wit, balls and spontaneity to overtly lampoon their hosts. I doubt that they will and I’m dead certain FOX will wrap the most scurrilous group of scum-merchants around the event.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Reg, if you can’t outplay Fox News, maybe they should hang it up. But as our host jeers at the Dems as wankers (for carping about the same thumb on the scale tactics they he has his own version of), the great Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hampsher bring the truth about the Libby trial to those who want real journalism. If one doesn’t understand the way the corperate press works, and you don’t notice any diference between the coverage given The Libby Trail and, say Whitewater, it’s no wonder you become half crazed everytime the name Hillary comes up.
As far as Fox throwing the event, our host has us there. Consider Chris Matthews infamous (and hilarious) overkill in trying to throw the 2004 VP debate to Cheney. Could Fox do worse than that?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,145 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
BOONE, Christopher K., 34, Specialist, Army National Guard; Augusta, Ga.; 121st Infantry, Long Range Surveillance.
BOWE, Matthew C., 19, Pfc., Army; Coraopolis, Pa.; 10th Mountain Division.
CLEVELAND, Adare W., 19, Pfc., Army; Anchorage; 10th Mountain Division.
DUNKIN, Shawn M., 25, Sgt., Army; Columbia, S.C.; 10th Mountain Division.
YOUNGBLOOD, Kelly D., 19, Pvt., Army; Mesa, Ariz.; Third Infantry Division.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Reg et al.. I still see NO credible reason to not have Fox broadcast the debate. I am confident that the Nevada Dems are not going to ask Brit Hume to be the host, and I am also sure they will require Fox to withold simultaneous color commentary.
I just find this an empty and meaningless battle. If liberals hate Fox so much they ought to invest their energy in trying to invent its counterpart instead of moaning about partisanship. BFD if Fox is right wing.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I guess I shouldn’t complain when Marc argues that the Democrats are sharper and more tactically astute than I happen to believe they are. I’ll just savor the irony.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Incidentally, I would hate to see a left-leaning counterpart to FOX attempting broadcast news. While I think that an overtly left-liberal effort like Air America makes sense in the context of talk radio – which is infotainment at best – having a pro-Democratic propaganda mill that mirrored FOX’s masquerade as a news channel would be repugnant. I’d like having a more diverse mix of personality-driven shows like Olberman’s on MSNBC, but the notion of a news organization that was driven from the top by Democratic talking points with an overtly partisan agenda and a stable of half-baked shills posing as journalists is something I’ll take a pass on.
The only television news I can stomach is the Newshour, which I like mainly because they do long segments, roundtables with people who have some expertise and don’t run on soundbites.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 am
I just say Michael Franti and Spearhead at the Wiltern.
They rocked.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 am
A left wing Fox News is a silly idea, for a number of reasons. No, the key is to keep “wanking” (or, more accuratly bitching) when somebody tells you to take Chris Matthews seriously, or “just ignore” Limbaugh, Coulter, Hitchens, etc. But there’s no point in becoming purile about it; Obama should go on Fox News and rip them a new one, like somebody else I can think of….. Frankly, shaming the wilfully dishonest is fun!
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 am
“Here’s why Marc, which you’d know if you bothered to read their posts. The last time FOX News did a Democratic debate – in 2004 …”
Yeah, but that was then. FOX has taken some serious ratings hits since. If you ask me (nobody ever does), this is a win for FOX *and* a win for the Dems. More democrats will watch, just to see how the party they love gets “framed” (or not) by FOX, the channel they love to hate, and FOX gets those viewers at least for those moments.
As Marc writes, “In any case, why be afraid of whatever commentary?” Indeed. The more democrats throwing their shoes at the screen, the better. Stoke the base, using the base-stokers from the other team. For that matter, the more GOP voters say, “hey, what a minute, that’s not what Hillary said, exactly, is it?”, the better.
And let’s face it: Rupert’s out to make a profit, not to erect political edifices. The snarling, sneering tone of FOX is directed at a *market*, not a constituency, from his point of view. If tastes in that market change, or if the market changes, he’ll follow the money. FOX is more symptom than disease.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 am
reg: Incidentally, I would hate to see a left-leaning counterpart to FOX attempting broadcast news.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:07 am
as of between 2001 and 18 feb 2006, there were 3,180 homicides in n.y.c.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
This is where wingnut right wingers and Stalin style democrats (Stalin style as in enforcing party discipline) meet on the same level….both agree that CNN, MSNBC are substantively different and more fair than FOX.
This is a non issue. You want a real debate? How bout it being moderated by a left wing broadcaster like Amy Goodman, a centrist like Lehrer and a right winger like Brit Hume. I would bet that the real tough questions would come from the Left,while the right would stick to asking Obama the significance of his middle name.
So Fox would be easier on Dems than an actual Left Wing news network.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 am
It’s pretty pathetic when the liberals’ criteria for accepting the credibility of a news organization is “Does it agree with me?”
I suspect that most of you consider these quotes as being mainstream:
Awards for the Worst Reporting in 2006
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
When fairness is in the eyes of the faithful, objectivity is lost by the blind.
Those who would say Fox News is not really a News Broadcast, also believe the MSM is not left leaning, NBC is not biased like FOX, and their views are middle-of-the-road and righteous.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
I sure as hell don’t consider R. Brent Bozell, your wingnut cherrypicker at that website, mainstream…
He’s been caught numerous times patching and stitching “quotes” to smear folks he disagrees with.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112003.shtml
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. “I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage–all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media,’ but every Republican on earth does that,” the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. “I admit it,” he told a reporter. “The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
Honesty from right-wingers is rare. Usually we’re just treated to The Whining of the Woodys.
(main text & quotes borrowed from Eric Alterman)
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
One more: James Baker, a major player during the Reagan administration said of the media’s treatment of The Gipper:
“There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don’t think we had anything to complain about.”
Really, I think that this “liberal media” bullshit goes back to the lingering bitterness among the hardcore right over issues like documenting the civil rights struggle, reporting failures in Vietnam and exposing Watergate – instances in which much of the press eventually was perceived as “liberal” because reality was “liberal”. These were sins for which the Rightwing will never forgive them.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
# grouch Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:07 am
as of between 2001 and 18 feb 2006, there were 3,180 homicides in n.y.c.
Lucky bastards. Everytime I make the mistake of reading one of grouch’s comments I just wish someone would shoot me…
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
I love Marc’s response that I’m only doing this because I’m a big fan of Harry Reid! Notice Marc that Reid is now claiming that he had nothing to do with it, it was all those loose cannons in the State Party Committee! Nonsense. Reid has been less that forthright about the Iraq Resolution. He should have kept the Senate in session until they decided to do some work on the number one issue facing the public. And you don’t play nice with rattlesnakes.
Someone said that FOX would be fair this time since their ratings are tanking. Well all that seems to have done is make them loonier. There is the Pelosi airplane story (that Grouch – faithful to the cause as always and still making fun of. Oh no, he’ll never admit it was lie), and Brit Hume’s statement that Murtha is crazy and the latest comparing him to Lee Harvey Oswald (both bad Marines you see) and of course the Obama smears.
And these are the people we want to host a Debate for the Democrats? Sorry, I’ve got more self-respect.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
And one more thing. The very fact that their ratings are tanking is another reason to stay clear of FOX (as Obama does). They are getting down to pretty much the core audience of Right wing GOP true believers who would NEVER vote Democratic and won’t be voting in the Democratic Primaries, unless to cause mischef. Why bother with that audience?
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mr. wRong: Of course the press could have liked Pat Buchannan. They wanted him to take votes from Bush. Idiot.
I see that, rather than addressing the documented liberal bias, you chose to simply attack the organization’s founder. That may be enough for lefties but not for people with brains. What a pathetic non-argument. Did the site misrepresent anything with the actual quotes of “your” mainstream reporters?
How can you define right wing when you can’t correctly define the center?
Your comment: Everytime I make the mistake of reading one of grouch’s comments I just wish someone would shoot me…
Keep writing, grouch, since the left hasn’t succeeded in seizing our guns, yet, and reg wants his wish. Maybe if he’s patient, an illegal alien will get him.
More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says
Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation….
The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
—–
Back to the subject and away from reg’s death wish….
Media Bias
How the Media Vote. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.
Journalists’ Political Views. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal†as said they were “conservative.â€
How the Public Views the Media. A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,†and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly.
Admissions of Liberal Bias. During the 2004 presidential campaign…Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,†which he later revised to five points.
Denials of Liberal Bias. During the height of CBS’s forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn’t his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him.
Evidence of Bias in News Coverage. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts…NewsBusters blog…Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media’s bias on specific issues.
—–
And, I don’t whine. I laugh at you people who whose lives are consumed by complaining about everything good about western civilization. Get a life.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
In my “liberal” San Francisco Chronicle yesterday I was treated to four op-eds. One was by Victor Davis Hanson excoriating the Democrats for turning against the war. One was by Debra Saunders excoriating the Democrats for turning against the war. One was by a local conservative Episcopalian, attacking the church for admitting women and gays to the clergy. One was by the head of Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, who suggested that instituting a basic single-payer universal health insurance statewide, like Medicare, would be cheaper for taxpayers and consumers than California officially subsidizing private health insurance companies under a mandate that would force everyone to buy their expensive product and have the state cover the costs for low-income folk.
Three overtly conservative opinions. One “common sense” piece arguing for fiscal restraint via greater efficiency, with an arguably “liberal” conclusion based on empirical data. And that’s not an atypical opinion page for the Sodom & Gomorrah “Comical”.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
“California officially subsidizing private health insurance companies under a mandate that would force everyone to buy their expensive product”
That, incidentally, is our Republican governor’s proposal…
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Check out the “middle-of-the-road” op-eds in the NY Times and Washington Post. Talk about cherry picking….
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
So Woody, I’m supposed to accept that Brent Bozell isn’t the fraudulent hack exposed by Daily Howler because you have links to…uh…Brent Bozell recycling the wisdom of Brent Bozell ?
Is this guy in your pants ? You keep pulling him out of your butt. I’d suggest that if it’s good for you, keep him there.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
“Middle of the road op-eds” in the Washington Post that uniformly plead for Scooter Libby to walk? There have been four in recent days. And none representing any other view.
This many cherries at one sitting upset my stomach.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Off Topic aside to Richard LC. Stick Randy’s Beautiful Horizon’s URL in the “Website” box when you comment over here. I think the stuff’s pretty good. Might as well try to push a little traffic.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
“Buchanan…1996 campaign”
“Of course the press could have liked Pat Buchannan. They wanted him to take votes from Bush. Idiot.”
Actually, “Idiot”, 1996 was the only Presidential campaign in the last three decades when a Bush wasn’t on the ticket. The GOP fielded Dole/Kemp that year.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
All news networks lean towards the corporate plutocracy. Their demographics slightly differ, but essentially they all have the same pro-corporate politics, with a spectrum from moderate liberal to extremist right.
Does it matter at all then, that one sector of the establishment has essentially different surface-level aesthetics than another, when it is really all the same? What bullshit. Its also bullshit that any of the non-Fox networks are “liberal”. I’ll grant that perhaps there is some “liberal” advocacy journalism on some of the news magazine shows, and that perhaps thel ikes of Cronkite and Murrow were “liberals” in ancient history. But its usually basically a spectrum that consists of State Department nuance vs. Defense Department bluster.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
(flame bait)
Why shouldn’t Libby walk? He was just a cog in a machine. He did something dirty, no doubt, but jailing him is an implicit acceptance of the notion that it is wrong to expose CIA agents. It may be wrong the way he (and his bosses who are far more responsible) did so, but what if it was someone who was preparing to “render” a suspect? What about a journalist who has pretenses of objectivity, when like “hundreds” of US journalists (says CArl Bernstien) are actually paid CIA agents… Why jail him while letting Cheney sit in office? Flip him!
Its just dirty Washignton pool that won’t fundamentally change anything one way or the other. While liberals get their “Fitzmas” people are being dosed with LSD and waterboarded. Hmm, wonder what issue is more important?
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
P.S. to rlc – Incidentally Richard, were you as pissed as I was that Randy wouldn’t go for that “Hillary ’08″ banner at the top of his website while he’s off slurping vino and gawking at statues of nude men ?
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Randy I hate to admit it but mI’m a Luddite and I have no idea what this “URL” you talk about it. let alone how to use it. Now as to the banners – I’d hold out for one promoting the Ladies of the WWF!
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 am
jcummings the reason to hope for a Libby conviction is what it means for “Darth” Chaney!And the more the truth gets out the better. Sorry but the Revolution has been postoned this week. . .
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
rlc – even us old geezers can do this. Really. Just copy
http://beautifulhorizons.typepad.com/
into the “Website box” under Marc’s “Leave a reply” thingy with your name and stuff the next time you comment. It should stay there and you won’t have to do it again.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I hope for a Libby conviction if he’s turned – we’re on the same page there. But the broader implication of punishing someone for exposing a CIA agent is somewha disturbing.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
No, reg, I’m not giving you recycled Brent Bozell wisdom. Once again, I’m giving you actual quotes from reporters from the MSM. If you got those very same actual quotes from any other source, they would be the same. As usual, you attack the source rather than what he exposes because you can’t argue the results.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
It would be great if FOX inserted a canned laugh track into the debate, kinda what like Olbermann is doing lately with segments of Fox News. *That* would be entertaining.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“If liberals hate Fox so much they ought to invest their energy in trying to invent its counterpart instead of moaning about partisanship.”
And then, Marc, you could go after it for craven partisanship like you do AirAmerica.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
All – Interesting debate?
The initial topic of this debate was basically: “why the hell would the NV Dems let Fox do anything for them?” or, alternatively, “NV Dems/Fox lovefest?” (thank you Rocky&Bullwinkle)
The real answer to either question has already been given – this is a money thing (votes do equal money these days). Fox, as a corporation, hopes to get more viewers and the Dems hope to get someone more votes.
Now, the question I would like to see debated is this: Why does anyone think any ‘debate by the candidates’ (of either party) is an actual debate?
Face it – Presidential debates, whether for party primaries or for the General Election are demonstrably NOT DEBATES. They are merely face time for the candidates.
–In a debate, an issue is presented and then the participants present their arguments for or against. Then they get to attack their couterparts’ position. Finally they get to respond to the attacks on their position and summaries why that position is better (or the best).–
When was the last time any political debate actually changed anyone’s mind? I humbly submit it may have been during some of the most famous of presidential debates – Lincoln/Douglas.
Enjoy the fodder…
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Mark, the discussion covered whether or not FOX is actually so far from the center of Americans, especially in comparison to other networks in the opposite direction. Based upon viewing reports, FOX must be doing something that most of America accepts–if not the left. That’s pertinent to the post.
Of course, if you want the Democrats preaching to the choir rather than reaching other voters, then let any of the other major networks carry the debate. But, whoever watches CBS is likely to voter Democratic, so the air time is mostly wasted.
I don’t dispute that the “debates” are jokes.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Actally Woody, about 20% more people watch CNN on a given day than watch FOX. (Obsessive-compulsive couch potatoes tend to tune into FOX for longer periods of time, boosting their eyeballs-per-hour – which says all you need to know about the poor slobs who stare at FOX.) About 10 times the number of people watch CBS Evening News every night as watch Brit ExHume’s Special Retort. And CNN even has an edge of about 5% of it’s viewers identifying themselves “conservative”.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Incidentally, CBS – which beats Brit Hume’s prime news show on FOX by a factor of ten – has lower ratings than either NBC or CBS evening news shows. Which puts Hume in the lower depths of ratings hell.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
More…
A televison ratings disaster like Studio 60 On Sunset Strip drew anywhere from 5-10 million more viewers than FOX star, Bill O’Reilly. The notion that the “American mainstream” – as opposed to a tiny minority of hardcore wingnuts – watches the crap on FOX News is totally delusional.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
And just to show how “Fair and Balanced” FOX is turn to HUFFINGTON POST today. Their latest “Big Story” on Barack Obama? “Will the US elect a Smoker as President?” After saying he went to a Madrassah. After delighting in his middle name: Hussain. After saying he belonged to a Black Nationalist Church that really wasn’t Christain (oh, and BTW did you he’s a negro?). No wonder Obama won’t talk these bloodsuckers and the rest of the field should do likewise.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The question whether FoxNews should host a debate among Democrats depends much on what you think of FoxNews: journalists, primarily, or ideologues, primarily? I think that when it comes to the selection of a presidential candidate, they are without question ideologues first. So should Dems allow Fox to conduct a debate among them, choosing the questions, the questioners and, probably, the format?
Hell, no.
Already Murdoch has shown his commitment in the race to derailing Obama, his gal Hil’s most threatening opponent. He can use the debate format to ask heavily-loaded questions to the candidates he and Ailes wish, while tossing cantaloupes to others. What will Fox get out of it? Well, possibly they will get one or two candidates, at least, to do damage to themselves or other candidates.
Imagine, for example, one possible line of questioning: “Tell us the worst flaw you see in the candidacies of A, B and C…”
Is that fair questioning? Maybe, maybe not, but it would be calculated just to disrupt and sully the process of nominating an opposition candidate to the guy they will endorse. As for Hillary, my guess is that Murdoch’s support would disappear once she became the Dem nominee.
No, Marc, while I understand that a FoxNews debate is attractive in the sense that real conflict might arise, it is a mistake for the Democrats to agree to it.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Woody,
I stand corrected on my interpretation of the pertinent question
…and thank you for validating the ‘debate’ question.
I find your characterization of the question interesting – FSN questionable location on the political spectrum and what effect that has on anything they do. You also acknowledge bias exists in the MSM in this reference: “especially in comparison to other networks in the opposite direction”
I have made an assumption: when
If one stipulates FSN is biased Conservative (GOP) then one must also stipulate CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC…etc… are biased Liberal (DEM).
IF one stipulates to these assertions then any broadcast of a debate by ANY network falls suspect under the same pretext because all networks are “off-center”.
Therefore, the only logical reason this partnership has occurred is the viewer-ship/vote (aka: money) aspect. Which, I believe is also you conclusion.
If I’ve misread your post, I’m certain you will correct me.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
reg:
You are comparing oranges to nectarines wrt CNN and FSN…and apples to nectarines wrt CBS and FSN. CNN has been available for 25+ years while FSN has been around for less than 11. CBS is a broadcast network (been around since the inception of TV?) – have antenna have network broadcast – if one doesn’t have cable/satellite then one CANNOT even watch FSN.
There is a reason ABC, CBS, and NBC have been called the “Big Three” for years. Before the advent of cable channels, they were the only ballgame in town.
I have found that most people who hate FSN have not actually watched the channel. This is my personal observation, therefore, I do not have any solid statistics to generalize to any particular audience.
Your name-calling of FSN viewers puts you in the camp of an “informed” hater of FSN (I assume you have watched since you can at least name some of their personalities and are “informed”). I wonder what you would call the dedicated viewers of any other network. Would those names include any of the vitriol you throw at FSN viewers or would they be rather complimentary.
For my part, I sample all news sources and find serious flaws in their ‘journalistic techniques’.
I do find the original question of this post (my thanks to Woody for the clarification) stimulating yet the overarching conclusion still remains – it matters not which network broadcasts unless their is some way both sides of the deal can gain from it.
Hence, as Mr. Crosby stated: “it is a mistake for the Democrats to agree to it.” is precisely why Dems SHOULD court FSN and their assumed conservative (GOP) viewers.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
reg, do you not have anything productive to do? Clearly, you ae affiliated with a union or the government. I didn’t want to take the time to look up statistics that I knew that you would dispute anyway, so I worded my comment ambiguously to indicate that FOX is popular.
Now, I believe that CNN has broader coverage, so many people stick with it for that reason. In fact, there are times that I will choose CNN. However, when it comes to issues such as left-wing bias and fairness on political issues, I will typically switch to FOX. Similarly, many people only watch CNN for their coverage but do not like it for its views and are switching.
Keep in mind that the FOX News Channel was launched in 1996 and was only gradually added to cable networks to make it more available, myself only getting it four years ago.
However, choose your own ratings, but here’s a current one:
Fox On Top
Fox News continued to dominate in sheer numbers with 1.58 million prime time viewers last month—a 9% increase over January last year (1.45 million). But the network suffered a 2% drop in daytime viewers, sliding to 877,000 in January 2007 from 901,000 the year before.
Second-place CNN is well behind Fox News in viewers, but enjoyed a bigger increase in audience in January. Prime time viewership was up about 13%—to about 800,000 from 709,000. The network’s daytime viewership climbed 14%, growing to 528,000 from 463,000.
January Numbers Prime time 2007
MSNBC . . . . 525
CNN . . . . . . 799
Fox News . 1578
Source: Nielsen Media Research; Variety, Media Bistro – Date Posted: February 5, 2007
Get some help.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Woody,
Thanks for the research…you beat me to it!
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Mark, I’m not correcting you. Your take on this post and the question is as good or better as anything that I have to say…and a lot better than what reg writes, who, by the way, is behind rlc in posting on Putrid Horizons today.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Woody that is grat for cable but please look at the overall figures for BROADCAST network News shows that Reg presented. Hell PBS’s “Newshour gets five times the prime time FOX ratings. And FOX continues to decline as the only cable news outlet making gains is MSNBC.
In short: FOX has a niche audience which is shrinking.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
rlc, did you know that Waffle House is more popular in the South than White Castle? Do you think that it might be because people here have access to Waffle House but not to White Castle? Likewise in media, if you can’t get it, you can’t watch it. You guys are really getting desperate.
Marc Cooper, help! Make a new post. The left-wingers have become too irrational on this subject…proving that they are as nuts as those fighting the Nevada Dems’ decision to use FOX.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Woody,
I have no problem being corrected … especially when I am wrong (or off topic). I do agree with your last post about CNN/FSN.
My biggest problem with the MSM in general is the fact there is very little true journalism left. (As Sgt. Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts”) It is now analyzed for us by all outlets and assumed we should simply swallow one of the various choices.
I’m reminded by a movie I watched once…I think it was called “Newsies”. The plot is important to the discussion but I won’t go into it. There is one quote from the movie I (hopefully) remember. The “big-bad news mogul” protagonist says: (paraphrase) “I tell people how to vote”… even though we have such varied outlets now for news, I see that attitude reiterated today.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Well, as someone who was in the advertising industry for a while, I can tell you that Faux News continues to earn astronomically lower ad revenues than CNN. Most of Fox’s audience is in the grumpy old man demographic (ala GM and Woody)…while CNN far outpaces Faux News in capturing the more coveted 18-35 (that’s me) age group.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Who’s grumpy? Why you people keep me in stitches all day!
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Sorry, Woody, but a network whose VP actively encourages it’s reporters(!?!) to search out stories of whether a democratic takeover of congress would be seen as a win for the boogeymen (whoops, I mean terrorists) can hardly been seen as more fair on political issues.
And…using Brent Bozell to buttress your arguments? Have some pride, man!
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Jeeez….Woody flatout made the assertion that “most of America accepts” FOX News. That assertion is demonstrably false, even in the context of news viewing. Most of America – by HUGE margins and even relative to other news shows – doesn’t watch it. I doubt if it’s because in eleven years they’ve never heard of the thing. Also 85% of homes have cable these days, so the “cable vs. broadcast” issue is pretty marginal.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
The reason FOX has fairly high cumulative ratings numbers (that is, hours someone sits in front of their TV) is because so many of those grumpy old men have fallen asleep in their BarcaLoungers.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
reg, you can only compare in areas where they compete, and your 85% of homes having cable is questionable. Did you miss my Waffle House example? See if the Democrats are willing to forego any campaigning in 15% of the states since that is only a “marginal” difference in votes.
In other news from the Borowitz Report:
Networks Criticized for Lack of Anna Nicole Smith Coverage
CNN: We Dropped the Ball
A media watchdog group today blasted the major news networks for failing to provide enough coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death in the 72 hours following the blonde bombshell’s passing.
“Instead of staying on the Anna Nicole Smith story nonstop, the networks would sometimes cut away to coverage of the war in Iraq for seconds at a time,†Ms. Foyler said. “For a nation struggling with its loss, this was like twisting the knife.â€
At CNN headquarters in Atlanta, network president Jon Klein apologized for failing to provide seamless, wall-to-wall coverage of the Smith story, telling reporters, “We dropped the ball.â€
“I was watching our coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death and without warning we cut away for an 8-second story on Darfur,†he said. “I can assure you that that sort of thing will never happen again – not on my watch.â€
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
It’s kind of interesting that to the nutball right (thanks for your representation here today, Woodman) N.B.C. is the new C.B.S. Yep, the unforgivable Tiffiny Network, who lost Vietnam for us by telling us what was happening there, has now been challenged in wrechedness by cutting the Russart with too much Oberman. Waah!!!
Oh course, Woody knows full well as anyone reading this that W recevied a post 9-11 Meida Honeymoon that, Alah willing, was unlike anything we will ever see again. Look! He threw the Ball out at the Baseball game! It means God is on our side!
It took a real genius to piss all that away. Bush, and the hapless right, somehow managed. Yet it’s fun to consider the work of Judy Miller as shock troops of right wing nutcases scream outside the N.Y. Times. Indeed, Coulter, who has dreamed of blowing up the building, owes them her entire Career, creating the anti-Clinton fantasyland with there Whitewater “reporting.”
The Corperate right lost sunk a lot of dough into Fox News, they had to lose a lot of money to make money. If those numbers keep going down, it just might become something resembling a news broadcast. Coulter, it should always be noted, spent years praising the Media, ON THE AIR, while Clinton was in office. When Bush recived his first minor spanks, She was right there to sell the rubes the old Media Devils fantasies.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
So Woody is complaining about too much junk news coverage? This is a new area for right wingers, I guess anything to bag on CNN. But come’on in Buddy, I’ll see if I have any Colt 45s….
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“Oh course, Woody knows full well as anyone…”
Extremely questionable.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
The 85% includes satellite dishes…only 15% use an antennae.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Woody…
These are liberals fighting the idea of Democrats debating on Fox News.
I don’t think the Left – at least I don’t – have a dog in this hunt.
Its amazing the energy thats expended on this sort of thing, considering the far more important issues at play.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Woody wrote: “I suspect that most of you consider these quotes as being mainstream:
Awards for the Worst Reporting in 2006″
So, I go to that site, I click on their top pick for bad reporting, and what do I get? A speech by Sulzberger that ISN’T A NEWS REPORT.
My pick for worst reporting this year so far: Fox News, for parroting that Barack Obama studied at an Indonesian “madrassa”. Hey, need a fact-checker, Fox? I’m available.
David writes: “Most of Fox’s audience is in the grumpy old man demographic (ala GM and Woody)…”
Be careful. There’s somebody here who actually posts as “Grumpy Old Man”, and he’s by far the most reasonable conservative on this forum. If the frequency with which I agree with him is any indication, I’m at risk for turning into quite the GOM myself
February 24th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Don’t mean to bother you with accuracy, Cummings, but these are liberals against putting there debates on an network that is a semi-offical mouthpiece for the right, where conservative blowhards may speak right over the debaters. Given Fox’s record ( “Democratic Congressmen Mark Foley in braking scandel”) they have plenty to be conserned about. I know, both sides are the same so it doesn’t matter. Tell it to Bagdad.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
No, they definitely are not the same thank god. Tell it to terrorism……never mind, they already know full well. Tell it to would be supporters of defeat- and-run party instead.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Tell it to terrorism…”
The jihadists are terrified of George Bush.
“The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on ‘Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States,’ circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that ‘the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists…and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.’
But it gets worse, lots worse:
Indeed, though what we will call ‘The Iraq Effect’ is a crucial matter for U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism. . . Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.”
Information from NIE via Mother Jones.
(There’s a truly indecent pro-war argument that this information will trigger reflexively in true believers. But I’ll let Woody or some such character spit it out before I comment.)
February 24th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“Defeat and run party”
The failure and defeat is George Bush’s. He planted his flag in it and he owns it. But the only way out of a disastrous Iraq strategy left for such a shallow, one-dimensional man is to keep marching down his path of failure so that others must eventually force an end the war. (I doubt if it will happen until a Democrat is in the White House.) Then, coward that he is, his crew will try to pin the blame for one of the greatest misadventures and blunders in American history on their betters. This is the way the GOP works. Always have. Always will.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:32 am
K Nardy wrote: So Woody is complaining about too much junk news coverage? …I guess anything to bag on CNN.
K, I think that you need to go back to my comment referencing the Borowitz Report about CNN and read it a little closer.
reg, my subscription to “Mother Jones” expired, so I depend on fair and balanced news now.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I didn’t say both sides are the same. I said that liberals – if they truly oppose the Iraq war would be boycotting all politicains who don’t support immediate withdrawl, and agitating agains the war, the torture, etc.
Instead they expend effort on whether a debate will be on Fox News or CNN – which in terms of supporting the war, as networks – are the same.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“Mother Jones” is a hack fake liberal rag which I have not supported since it published a slanderous hit piece on Rachel Corrie.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Woody – you moron. The quotes are from the National Intelligence Estimate. Which makes both your stupid comment and J Cummings’ irrelevant. Actually in your case completely laughable since you constantly treat us to amateurish, biased shit from Newsmax, etc.
Obviously you’ve got nothing in the face of factual information.
Who knew ?
February 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Marc Cooper, “Mother Jones” missed this event, but you may like these pictures from the BASS tournament going on at this time. These guys don’t care if FOX or CNN covers their tournament. (Do you ever go fishing in lakes or streams?)
February 24th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Here ya go, Mr. Credibility…
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
February 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
reg, you stupid, dumb ass. You of all people don’t trust U.S. intelligence information, but you expect us to be suckered in by “Mother Jones’” biased take on selective and incomplete information from the intelligence community. The information and interpretation is totally lacking of being comprehensive and explaining any beneficial outcomes.
Those terrorists are out there. We don’t create them. They’re trained in Arab schools to hate the U.S. and Israel from kindergarten on up. We may be a focal point for them in Baghdad, but we have to face them somewhere sooner or later.
Use some reasoning power, if you have any, rather than depending on left-wing news sources to do your thinking for you.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Checked your link, reg. April, 2006? That’s almost a year old. Thanks for your current analysis.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Sorry..that’s not complete. The summary doesn’t contain the numerical data. The data is widely available, via the usual communist sources such as The New York Times and Washington Post, among many others. I can’t find a version where Dick Cheney speaks the words himself, so clearly this stuff isn’t credible.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I know it’s from April of 2006. It was only released partially last September after key data was reported in the communist press. Of course, in the last nine months things have only gotten better. Clearly al Qaeda is on the run.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Do you have anything substantive to refute the fact that Iraq has provided a giant window of opportunity, an incredibly effective recruiting cause celebre, a breeding ground and a training field for al Qaeda…where, of course, it didn’t exist before ? Not to mention the polarizing effect on potentially more moderate opinion in the region and the destabilizing impact on the Persian Gulf, with Iran gaining an invaluable long-term ally in the huge Shiite portion of a crumbling Iraq ?
February 24th, 2007 at 10:34 am
“We don’t create them.”
That static belief of yours is key to why most of what you have to say on this issue is totally worthless. This is a dynamic situation with possibilities for making it worse or better through via our strategy. Only someone who lives in George Bush’s ass and can’t comprehend the fundamental strategic failure of this Iraq war – ON EVERY TERM BUSH LAID OUT AS A RATIONALE – could repeat such childish tripe.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:36 am
What the fuck has Bush achieved with his crackpot Iraq strategy that benefits OUR interests ? What ?
February 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Also, the notion that this war is an opportunity to “fight them somewhere” is so immoral and barbaric, the mind reels.
We invade another country and, wether wittingly or unwittingly – or some twisted combination of both – let it slide into chaos as a pawn in our confrontation with al Qaeda at the cost of many tens of thousands of civilian lives ? And you defend that crap ? May God have mercy on your soul.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Capture or (preferably) kill the guy behind the deadliest attack ever on American soil ? Why bother ?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4578111.html
February 24th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Woody as someone who used to be in what was euphemistically called the “Intelligence Community” I trust the stuff that comes out, even if Reg doesn’t. But I don’t trust the fools in this administration who refuse to believe it but would rather get their “News” from the likes of Achmed Chalibi and, when challenged, out people like Valerie Plame, in a fit of juvenile – and illegal – pique.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:45 am
The intelligence pros were consistently sandbagged by the bureaucrats and the politicians. There was plenty of skeptical evidence regarding even the WMD issue within the “community” of people who actually studied it. Which is why Cheney and Rumsfeld hired Donald Feith and Friends to shovel the bullshit…
February 24th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Uh…that’s Douglas, not “Donald”. (Donald’s the ex-SecDef and the Duck.)
February 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Yeah, I guess I’m irrelevent to Reg, who prefers arguing over sweet and low versus splenda to, say, pushing for anti-scab legislation, something the US is sorely missing.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
RLC
You say you were in the intelligence community, and I’ve also seen you mention stuff about 1969/70, etc. So how was Operation Phoenix?
Of course, I’m kidding but this explains – to me at least – why you’re so loyal to American power.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,144 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
BERRY, David R., 37, Staff Sgt., Army National Guard; Wichita, Kan.; First Battalion, 161st Field Artillery.
FORD, Richard L., 40, East Hartford, Conn.; 82nd Airborne Division.
KIM, Louis G., 19, Specialist, Army; West Covina, Calif.; First Infantry Division.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I said that your opinion of Mother Jones was irrelevant to the citation I quoted, the substance of which was taken directly from a National Intelligence Estimate.
Now if you want to get incensed about crappy dismissive remarks, there’s a comment below your response to me that attempts to analyze RLC…oh, wait a minute!
February 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Incidentally, Splenda is far superior to Sweet-and-Lo. And neither rot your teeth or add empty calories.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I actually agree about splenda, but I was referring to the philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s contention of the “false choice” we face in Western politics, which he explains by way of his first trip to America, being astounded by the vast “choice” between essentially the same products.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Zizek’s full of shit. Wrangler jeans are cheaper and better made than those from the GAP. Coca Cola has a subtler, more complex flavor than Pepsi. Charmin actually IS softer. And if, as he contends, every “product” distinction in the good ol’ USA was a “false choice”, American Idol reject William Hung would have been cast in DreamGirls instead of Jennifer Hudson.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Marc really needs to put up another post…
February 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Sure, and maybe they’ll get some questions on science with answers that debunk the FOX Junk Man? That will confuse the regulars, but who knows maybe the occaisional lightbulb will shine brighter?
February 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Sorry jcummings but that was another agency (CIA). I was in the military component of NSA. All we did was easedrop (please speak into the monitor more clearly, thanks!)
Barack Obama drew 15,000 plus people in Austin yesterday. I’ve got to say about that over at BEAUTIFUL HORIZONS.
(There Reg. Is that shameless enough of plug for you?)
February 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Testing 123.
I was merely being flip about Operation Phoenix. I hold to the point about American power though….no offense intended.
Reg – I’m not making Zizek’s point very well but I suggest reading some of his essays at lacan.com
The point is that capitalist democracy presents people with a wild array of “choices” just as the capitalist market presents people with a wild array of “choices” but it is all within a set (corporate friendly, pentagon friendly, etc.) context – that is often politically deracinated, hence Zizek’s focus on choices between two kinds of fake sugar, fake leather, etc. Commodity fetishism 2.0
February 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
On Obama, from The Nation’s campaign blog:
Now That’s Audacity
Max Blumenthal:
Barack Obama states his view of Israel’s war on Lebanon last summer:
“I don’t think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel’s response to take some action in protecting themselves.”
February 24th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Mike Balter, please don’t let Woody hear about this but the LAT reports that new Carbon-dating of “Clovis” Man shows that he wasn’t part of the oldest settlers in the New World.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I think Jim R’s “never mind” sums things up nicely. Yep, if you’re going to argue about the W Right’s ability to keep us safe from terrorists, you better get to that “never mind” pretty quick.
I would note the dishonest way our Jim R has presented himself, sometimes posing as a no nonsense guy who really dislikes the Dems for their hedging on the war, which he supposedly didn’t support. Scratch that once lightly and you get the bully boy blackmail: “you cut and run wimps. blah blah blah.”
If only he could get by with fooling Balter…. Anyway, Cummings dubious take also insists, we should remember, the contention that Al Gore would have started more wars than Bush (a presumption steming from the questionable premise that 9-11 would have occured under Gore), so I guess that Dems are improving, now that their only just as bad.
Been up this street with Woody before, but why not again?
The right wing media critique always begins with the premise that the reporters at the papers vote Dem. (I guess they’ve never taken one of these head counts of the Publishers, Owners, or major stock holders), which is a nice way of changing the subject. That being, what they print and broadcast.
I have no idea, for instance, why the N.Y. Times (where no doubt, most vote for Dems) manufactured a phony quote from John Kerry ( “Who among us does not love NASCAR?” ) and then beat it to death in an attempt to make him appear absurd. I only know they did it. If you have example of simaliar things being to Republicans, I’m all ears.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
It’s funny…I just clicked back in before I’ve got to run some errands to suggest that folks here check out Richard’s Obama astute Obama comments over at Beautiful Horizons.
JC – I was trying to be funny. Guess I’m no Bill Hicks…
February 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“Obama astute Obama” ??? WTF?
ObamaMania’s got me…
February 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Jesus. Get off the computer and enjoy the sunlight.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Anybody need a fresher NIE? It’s here, and not from Mother Jones unless the National Intelligence Directorate has since become one of their op-ed departments:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf
Key conclusions of it, anyway.
It makes no specific mention of Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground. But that would be redundant, in view of both the previous estimate (produced under the same now-departed NIE director) and events since that time, which only confirm those previous findings. Besides, there’s more than enough bad news reported in there anyway. It appears that Negroponte now prefers to report to Condi rather than Dubya directly. Probably a safer position for him, as State tends to make more sparing use of the guillotine. Ah, the career sacrifices we make just to stay in the game ….
February 25th, 2007 at 4:14 am
“ObamaMania’s got me …”
And my wife, who isn’t even a US resident, much less a citizen. She caught his announcement that he’d run, on the tube at a friend’s cafe. When she got home, she wanted to see it again on the news. And … every night since then, before we settle down to watch videos, she channel surfs the hourly news reports, looking for him again. (Lotsa luck, on Japanese television).
“I want to see handsome boy ….” she says. I haven’t bothered cluing her in to the racial sensitivities potentially provocable with “boy”. He’ll never hear her say it anyway. I’m not sure where she gets “boy” from, except that he’s generally good looking, kinda skinny, not bald, and his ears stick out. Oh, and he’s younger than her husband (who would be me, last I checked). Come to think of it, if I vote for him, it will be the first time I vote for anyone younger than I am.
Just a sec ….
[Googles]
Ooh, 25,100 hits on “Obama” and “heartthrob”. He’s got game, Kennedy game.
Last night, she told me with a sneer that Obama can’t be president because Americans are still too racist. (The sneer was for me, her *American* husband, therefore guilty before the fact AND by association.) I almost pointed out that some people once said this about the Irish Catholic son of a former bootlegger. Then I thought the better of it. Anyway, make that “tragically heroic handsome boy” — which is sexier still, don’t you think? With enough people voting for him in protest against the rank unfairness of his supposed unelectability, he might actually get elected.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:41 am
well, the dems in office are showing they care about our troops so much that they are willing to cut funding, cut supplies, cut support, stop reinforcements; funny, ‘nam all over again.
as for the “presumption that 9/11 would not have occurred if al gore had been president”, precludes the knowledge that those muslims had been here for what, 3 years, undergoing various training on how to fly big jets but not land them….osama binny boy okayed that idea and funded it.
“jihad” to a muslim is “war against the infidels”. and these (muslims) are more fanatical than the japanese were during WW2.
it is not christians/buddists/mormons/jews that are strapping bombs on their bodies to kill as many infidels as possible.
as recently as last week a female muslim was killed for “not covering her head”, this was not done by a peace loving religionist–he said he did it for god.
and the muslim who stole a taxi cab, used it as a cabbie, who later got into an argument with 2 college students, then using his car ran over 1 of them while actually trying to run both of them down(over).
what about the beheading of daniel pearl?
what about the beheading of paul johnson?
what about the beheading of nicholas berg?
what about the beheading of kim sun-il?
these were all beheaded with the blessing on muslim’s soul, accompanied by their pious invocation during/at the time of beheading.
remember the muslims who invaded that russian school where so many students died?
(of course, i now expect that the islamists apoligists will blame the “russians” for being responsible for those many student deaths)
blowing up of trains in spain.
same thing in england except buses.
and while on this loving exercise, remember that if a muslim woman/girl if raped, she is subject to a “honour killing”, either by her father, brother, or extended male members; even if her rapist is her brother !
even today at this point in time the school textbooks in saudi arabia call jews “apes and pigs” and “and the blood of arabian children is used for the jewish passover rite”, and these are mirrored in other muslim countries.
CNN reported 83% positive concerning democrats
CNN reported 11% positive concerning
republicans
only nit-wit reg and FUBAR richard would consider that non-partisian reporting; sorta like the NYT going patriotic and supporting our troops.
i wonder if nit-wit reg and FUBAR richard saw the episode on tv where it was being shown where to aim your bullets at in order to shoot down a blackhawk helicopter !
our enemies do not need spies over here working for them, all they gotta do is subscribe to NYT and the washpost and watch CNN.
why is there no investigation into the vast sums of monies that saudi arabia has (and is) pouring into our universities for the sole purpose of promoting islam, and the destruction of america (and of course, the “little satan”, israel)?
being as FUBAR richard is a self-stated entellligenst anal-leest, he should be aware of these happenings; but as usual, he has such a long neck he is only interested in what is up his anal region.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
MT – I believe Obama is the ONLY candidate who has any chance of mobilizing some millions of potential voters who generally don’t bother…
Grouch – please keep your comments super long. It’s the incentive I need not to read them.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:51 am
thanks nit-wit reggie boy.
last friday 2 muslim young women, aged 18 and 20, were forcefully removed from their home, taken out into the fields, where their 2 UNCLES hacked them until they were dead.
this was a islamic “honor killing” because the 2 women had sex before marriage.
this is what islam wishes to force upon the world.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
And you slimeballs are helping them…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1553862,00.html
February 25th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”
From the recently adopted Iraqi Constitution.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
hi nit-wit reggie boy…guess that makes it okay to kill women…BTW, that is the same law they want world-wide….sharia..
how much are you being paid to take the side of the islamic viewpoints?
you refused to tell me how much william jefferson of la is passing your way outta that bribe moolah….
or do you have a freezer ?
February 25th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Please direct any further questions on the issue of Sharia law taking hold under “regime change” in Iraq to the White House.
February 25th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
hi nit-wit reggie boy.
FYI, that “honor killing” of those 2 girls was not in iraq.
but that does not upset you at all, guess you agree with their type of civilized behaviour after all. by now we all know how much you actually disdain and wish to subjucate all women.
you must be one of “those muslim’s in the closet”
wow
February 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Here’s the Mental Health Hotline number – 1-800-969-6642.
I suggest that you use it.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
FYI nit-wit reggie boy….’sharia’ law does not apply only to iraq…..it applies to all muslims worldwide.
but of course, such a pseudo-intelligent nit-wit as you would not comprehend “worldwide”.
so as i understand your statements, it is okay for females to be murdered, as stated above.
and you prefer women not to have any rights at all.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
hi-yah nit-wit reggie boy !!!
i called that mental health hotline number and i was informed that it was reserved solely for you you you nit-wit reggie boy !!
February 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
reg had that hotline number right at his finger tips for a good reason. Check out his serial posts.
Really, rlc. Clovis man wasn’t here before the Indians? It’s hilarious that you would even bring that up. Tell that to FOX News so that they can investigate. While your information is not consistent with what I have read in science journals, we can be fairly certain that the Indians killed Clovis man by the projectiles in him. Savages. But, maybe the LA Times uses Michael Balter’s flawed concept of carbon dating.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Ah that Gouch! And they said that rapier-like wit died with the Algonquin Round Table!
February 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
ah…that be gauche….”truth hurts”
March 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
[...] perfectly ridiculous ending to a perfectly ridiculous crusade. When I first wrote about this a few weeks ago I expressed my broader view of this web-based wanking. I will re-iterate this much: [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Porno Tie…
Free Newest XXX Video…
July 17th, 2007 at 8:49 am
717af9eb8b707c7a9d386420f3062fe6…
717af9eb8b707c7a9d386420f3062fe6…
May 11th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
df3da3414500…
df3da3414500bd5e6904…