"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
MSNBC still doesn't "get it": hosts Obama-bashing hatemonger Ann Coulter ... again
A month ago, after Chris Matthews made a forced (and ridiculously inadequate) apology for one of his many sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, MSNBC colleagues Joe Scarborough, David Shuster, and Mika Brzezinski leaped to Matthews' defense.
Brzezinski and Scarborough suggested that Matthews had been taken out of context; in doing so, they falsely portrayed the controversy as being about a single Matthews comment, rather than a years-long pattern of behavior that has been exhaustively detailed by Media Matters, Bob Somerby, and others. Shuster complained: "[T]o see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating." Scarborough added, "This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign."
This morning, Matthews lashed out at the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton should "get rid of the kneecappers that work for her," referring to her communications staff who go "after the press." Matthews added, "The kneecapping hasn't worked. Her press relations are lousy. ... If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you."
For the record, Matthews' overt hostility toward Hillary Clinton cannot honestly be described as a reaction to how her presidential campaign has treated the press: More than six years ago, Matthews said of Clinton, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." More to the point, Matthews' apparent blaming of the Clinton campaign for his own sexism is the clearest indication yet that he doesn't "get it" and that MSNBC doesn't care that he doesn't get it.
MSNBC apparently still doesn't understand that this controversy "ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign." And it isn't about just one comment, or just one MSNBC reporter. It's about a steady stream of inappropriate comments by Chris Matthews ... and by Joe Scarborough and by Tucker Carlson and by David Shuster. Not just about Hillary Clinton, but about (and to) many women, including some conservative women. And the problem at MSNBC isn't limited to the cable channel's treatment of women: Remember, this is the network that hired Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Don Imus. All three were fired after making (predictably) disgraceful comments. Only Imus' firing had anything to do with sexism, and his controversial comments were both sexist and racist.
The controversy, in short, ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign and never has been. It is about NBC News allowing MSNBC (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, NBC itself) to be a safe haven for hate speech and a sanctuary for sexism.
How else to explain MSNBC's decision to make Ann Coulter a frequent guest? As MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan (a well-known bigot in his own right) explained after a Coulter appearance on the cable channel last year: "I don't think she's peddling hate. ... MSNBC certainly doesn't ... because if they did, they would never put her on the air for an hour."
Ann Coulter peddles nothing but hate. Well, that isn't quite fair -- she typically throws in a few lies as well. But the hate is her bread and butter. MSNBC knows this; they fired her for it long ago. Yet they continue to host her.
Media Matters noted in October:
As Media Matters for America documented, in the weeks following the release of her last book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), Coulter made numerous appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, and their parent network, NBC, where she unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As Media Matters also documented, while NBC continued to provide Coulter an open platform with which to spew her inflammatory and offensive rhetoric, several NBC hosts and anchors -- including Tonight Show host Jay Leno, Today co-host Matt Lauer, and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams -- expressed disapproval of Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements. On June 26, 2007 -- the date Godless was released in paperback -- Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, claimed that Coulter forces him to "go to confession." Matthews, however, has a history of inviting her on his show. Following an appearance on Today in June 2006 -- during which Coulter criticized the 9-11 widows for "speak[ing] out using the fact that they're widows" and "using their grief" and "the fact that [they] lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding" -- Williams devoted a segment of the Nightly News to the subject of "civility in American life," highlighting Coulter's comments. And yet NBC and its cable affiliates have continued to invite her on the air. The upcoming release of Coulter's new book gives rise once again to the question of whether NBC programs will keep hosting her.
According to a Media Matters review*, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997.
Just yesterday, Coulter was a guest on MSNBC Live. A day earlier, she had referred to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" five times in a span of two minutes and once described him as "President Hussein." During her appearance on MSNBC, the cable channel touted her recent statement that Obama "wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black," which she has described as his "big accomplishment."
On NBC programs alone, Coulter has called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" and has attacked former President Bill Clinton as a "latent homosexual." She has defended her claim that 9-11 widows were "enjoying their husbands' deaths." She has wished aloud that "the American military were targeting journalists." She has claimed that "John Kerry does not believe in God." And she has spoken of "perfecting Jews."
After Elizabeth Edwards responded to Coulter's description of her husband, John, as a "faggot," MSNBC Live host Chris Jansing asked Edwards, "There are people who support your opinion, I'm sure you know, who say, 'Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?'"
Why give Ann Coulter more publicity? That's a question that should be directed to Steve Capus, not Elizabeth Edwards. As the president of NBC News, Capus may be more responsible than anyone else on earth for giving Ann Coulter publicity.
In August 2006, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said of Coulter: "[W]hy she has not been banned from this network, I do not know." That's a good question, and one Capus should answer -- but it is also too narrow a question.
MSNBC is the channel that hired Coulter in the 1990s, only to fire her after her controversial comments to a disabled Vietnam veteran; that hired Michael Savage in 2003, then had to fire him for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die"; that hired Don Imus, then had to fire him for making sexist and racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. This is a cable channel that has, for years, been a welcome home to highly questionable comments about race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.
Chris Matthews has said Republicans "have a right to fear" seeing a "majority Latino population"; when his guest defended America's "tradition" of welcoming immigrants, Matthews retorted, "Do you live in a Mexican neighborhood?" Tucker Carlson used his MSNBC show to call the NAACP a "sad joke that should be shut down" and has attacked Barack Obama's religion, saying of Obama's church, "[I]t's hard to call that Christianity." Joe Scarborough says that pollster John Zogby, an Arab-American, "may be biased" on the issue of the Iraq war and "the Middle East situation."
Before Don Imus was fired, his executive producer told MSNBC viewers that Obama has a "Jew-hating name"; Imus himself referred to the "Jewish management" of CBS Radio as "money-grubbing bastards." MSNBC apparently didn't have any problem with those comments; it would be months before Imus was fired. The cable channel, however, did issue public apologies for ethnic slurs on Imus' show in 2004 and for comments made on the program about the movie Brokeback Mountain in 2006 -- though the later apology whitewashed Chris Matthews' role in the matter.
MSNBC frequently hosts Bill Donohue, an unrepentant bigot who has said that "[p]eople don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty," referred to the "gay death style," demanded that the gay community "apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done," asserted that Hollywood "is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular," and claimed that Hollywood "likes anal sex" and "abortions." Not to mention his repeated use of the slur "gook." And he has said all of that on MSNBC.
This is a cable channel that, in the middle of a monthlong controversy over its pattern of broadcasting sexist comments, chose to host Ann Coulter, a pundit whose defining characteristic is her tendency to make utterly inappropriate comments about women and minorities. (A more tone-deaf response to such a controversy is hard to imagine, though Arkansas Democrat-Gazette political editor Bill Simmons' decision to respond to accusations that the paper's newsroom is a "good ole' boys club" filled with racist and sexist commentary by referring to "boys being boys" was indescribably bad.)
This is what MSNBC is. It is the cable channel of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Don Imus. It is the home to Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson and their deeply disturbed attitudes toward women.
The longer MSNBC responds to legitimate concerns about the conduct of its hosts and guests by lashing out at critics and booking Ann Coulter again, the more clear it becomes that the problems at MSNBC go much higher than Chris Matthews.
A seventies song dealing with an entirely different subject was called, "We've only Just Begun." This is merely the opening salvo of what is certain to be the reprehensible attempt to discredit Obama. As 8 years of experience has proven, the mud-slinging, slanderous right has nothing to fear from the corporate media, who, if they were doing their job, would call attention to Coultergeist's comments. If you think you've seen the absolute nadir of slimy, low-life mud-slinging by the right, You ain't seen nothin yet. Somehow a campaign must be mounted to countervail the horrid comments that are sure to pour out of the right as November approaches or the democratic candidate will collapse underneath a mountain of lying republican innuendo.
CS'n'BM/FUXNews/See: NeenerNeener, et al., NEVER is going to "get it" -- that they are bigots and liars -- and Why should they care what people say? When EVERY MONTH everyone PAYS the Cable Bill.
BOYCOTT Cable TV. Dish or landline. CANCEL all SUBSCRIPTIONS.
That's the "free market" way -- Don't Buy It.
Suppose you go out of town, on vacation, for a month, and you watch zero cable TV. They don't care. Suppose you watch all cable TV all day. They don't care.
As long as you cut the check, pay cable TV salaries for hatetalk, whether or not you watch -- hey, give 'em your money and your mouth can say whatever you want; they don't care, and they are NEVER going to "get it." All they "get" is payday, and you can go suck eggs or sour grapes, they don't care. Only: Pay Up.
500,000 subscribers cancel and cable TV would shut down bankrupt. A relatively small minority, (less than 10% cancelling), could save everyone from the fascism and misery that cable TV intentionally inflicts. People who are paralyzed to act to CANCEL Cable TV SUBSCRIPTION, and then howl in pained mad rage only give CS'n'BM / FUXNews / See: NeenerNeener their sadistic psychosicko 'pleasure' of hearing their torture cause anguish.
You canNOT single out one channel to bankrupt. Because Cable TV is the product you buy as a BUNDLE, (which is what 'fasci' means, a punishing axe hidden in a bundle).
Jamison, the day that you or an MMFA contingent, begin BOYCOTT Cable TV / CANCEL SUBSCRIPTIONS campaign, is the only day bigots and liars "get it" -- just do it.
Sponser boycotts have effects too.
Never hooked up to the cable/sat dish t*t myself. Dispite various calls of the destruction of our culture by liberal trends, I've read alot of excellent books in the last few decades. So yah, nuke the cable and pick up a book.
Meremark,
Your comments reflect typical left-wing censorship. Basically, you don't agree with what's being said on these networks, so your solution is, "they should be boycotted and taken off the air".
It's interesting that the left is now the new 'thought police'. "Agree with us or we 'take action' and get your message off the air." Hey...here's an idea: why not just change the channel? Start your own left-wing talk radio network. Oh, yeah...It's been done and nobody listened.
Also, free speech is a pain ain't it? We're as free as the liars in the corporate media to make our voices heard. Deal with it.
If we see that the public good is not being served by these infotainment newsies, then you're damned right we're going to speak out.
- I'd rather have people like Ann on the air, than to risk losing progressive voices who are also controversial.
- I want Ann on the air in particular because no one discredits Ann like Ann.
I do realize that she is just using the free air to promote her invective-filled hardcover tirades, but I can't help feeling that every time she opens her mouth, progressive causes ultimately win.Agree that the Dem. candidate will get pummeled.
Mr. Foser, thank you again for a great summary of MMFA's work. You are absolutely right on every point.
Funniest part is that FoxFans consider MSNBS a liberal network. I heard a caller to wingnut radio today refer to "Matthews and his fellow Democrats". I don't think a lot of the 30%ers even realize the connection between their masters sliding the scale so far to the right, and the confusion of the far right as to how their party can be backing a lib like McCain.
Fun to watch, though.
Funniest part is that FoxFans consider MSNBS a liberal network. I heard a caller to wingnut radio today refer to "Matthews and his fellow Democrats". I don't think a lot of the 30%ers even realize the connection between their masters sliding the scale so far to the right, and the confusion of the far right as to how their party can be backing a lib like McCain. Fun to watch, though.
- Col. Harlan Sanders
Col., many of the 30%ers are just as big or BIGGER liars than the lying right wing nut talk radio hosts they take their marching orders from. The rest of US know that GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC is a right wing conservative Republican Party controlled "network", and we also know that Chris Matthews and Tim Russert and Mika Brezinksi and Noron O'Donnell are all just as big or BIGGER lying right wing conservative Republicans than Pat Buchanan and/or Ol' Liar Ann Coulter. The previously 4 mentioned Republicans hate Obama just as much or more than they hate Hillary.
This corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media is showing more favoritism to Liar McCain, and/or is also in some cases is also in near blatant COLLUSION with Liar McCain, than they showed favoritism to Bush.
You guys have such thin skin.
This stuff usually comes from those that cannot defend themselves on the merits.
Get out of the PC mode.
Disappointment. Disappointment is what I feel about MSNBC's quickening tack toward the black heart of social and political discourse. Once my almost exclusive 'destination' for cable news, I've increasingly found myself perplexed by their choice of language, topics, guests and positions. And angry. Didn't used to yell at the television; not the type. But now I find that with some frequency I am loudly arguing with the inanity I see on MSNBC every day.
Of late, since Matthews & Shuster have been taken to task for inappropriate comments, we see that the MSNBC-pundit-huddle spends an increasing amount of time revisiting & reinterpreting its transgressions, lashing out at the accusers and deconstructing the whole disappointing mess until it matches their delusions. An insular, incestuous babble of talking heads on the path to eating its own tail. A disappointing, downward spiral.
Keith Olbermann, whose image I don't yet yell at as much as others on MSNBC, often refers disparagingly to Comedian Rush Limbaugh. I've enjoyed that appelation; comedian; a swift and oh-so-sharp reduction of that man's self-inflation.
Not being sufficiently witty or sharp to coin my own comparable label, I've decided to appropriate 'comedian' in my loud rants at what I hear on MSNBC:
Comedian Tweety; Comedian Tucker Carlson; Comedian Joe Scarborough; et al. I'm hoping that seeing them in a clownish, diminished fashion will ease my anger and ultimately, my disappointment.
Media Matters redefinition of Bigot:
Bigot: anyone insisting that color differences are irrelevant, particularly in reference to today's politically imposed racial preferences and discrimination.
Bigot: anyone insisting that there's a difference between ILLEGAL immigration and immigration
Bigot: anyone saying that uneducated school children shouldn't be encouraged into same sex relationships.
Yawn. The trouble with overusing and misusing labels such as "bigot," or "racist" is that the words soon lose their power to engender politically correct social compliance.
Hmm. Did you even bother to read the article?
And do you know that slander involveds giving deliberately false information? Please point out any falsehood about mr. Shrub that you have alertly detected from K.O.'s show. (I seldom watch it, but when I have, find him expressing strong opinions about shrub's activities, but no inacurate about pointing them out.)
It's really not a good idea to claim that you understand something, and then provide evidence that you do not. Calling the President a "mass murderer" does NOT qualify as slander- it's WAY too general, as it is a term that could be used to describe ANY president who brings the country into war. Calling him a "crook" would not be slander either, for exactly the same reason. Slander must be Specific (not "Bush is a murderer," but "Bush murdered Mrs. Jane Smith of 1101 Apple Way...") and to collect damages, one must prove in court that the person doing the "slandering" KNEW the charge was a lie AND that the charge would do damage to the target.
NOW you know what slander is.
You are entitled to your own opinion, you are NOT entitled to your own facts. The legal definition of Slander is not to be found in your gut, but in the law.
You, sir, are just a moron.
1. It has to be EXTREMELY specific. For example, I would have to explain what KIND of a moron you are.
2. It has to cause real damage- does my calling you a moron cause damage? I doubt it.
3. It has to be a lie- which it isn't in this case. You ARE a moron. I have two posts to provide in court to prove it.
4. It has to be proven I KNEW it was a lie. You can't prove that, mainly because it's not a lie. You are a moron.
Ok, I'm done trying to teach you Law 101. Stop exposing your ignorance and go do some reading.
You claim to know what slander is, but your post indicates that you don't. Let me enlighten you:
1 – The comment has to be false.
2 – The speaker has to know the comment is false when he says it.
3 – The speaker has to have had malice when he said it.
4 – The comment has to result in CLEAR damage to someone's reputation.
5 – There’s a higher threshold for public figures. That bar is set so high that there's almost nothing you can say about a public figure that will meet criteria 1 through 4.
6 – There’s an obvious difference between political rhetoric and actual slander. “He’s responsible for the deaths of millions” is obviously a rhetorical device intended to make a case to the electorate for voting for a particular candidate."How MISLEADING!!!!! The lead up to this story, that MSNBC is the cable home to Savage and Imus....Neither work there now. Funny how MMFA has to mislead and spread mis-info to point out what they see as miss-info."
The very first mentions of Savage and Imus in this Media Matters item (your so-called "lead up") explicitly say that both of them were both "fired". (For the benefit of readers who recently returned from planet Mars.)
The article repeatedly states that Imus was "fired".
The very clear and obvious point --the one you want to ingore-- is that the same MSNBC powers-that-be actions that brought us the fired Imus and Savage are also causing the current problems with Matthews & Co.
Of course, the lead-up doesn't say that.
Now you say 'well, it's on the front page'. But the front page doesn't say it's "home" to Savage and Imus" either.
I'm not the one with the reading problem.
Furthermore, you ---once again--- tellingly distract from and ignore the whole point. Which is: it really doesn't matter after all whether Savage and Imus are gone anyway. The MSNBC environment that enabled those two still exists.
Nothing misleading about this story. It said MSNBC hired Coulter, Imus and Savage it also said they FIRED THEM. You would have to have a reading comprehension level of a goldfish to read that and come away thinking they still worked for MSNBC. Exactly what part of THEY FIRED ALL THREE OF THEM, are you having a hard time understanding? YOU need to get a life and at least TRY for some honest criticism. That was so weak it was pathetic
Hey about the idea of even hiring the lying , bigot Savage IN THE FIRST place fella, is that something you can comprehend and keep inviting Coulter back on , the racist , war monger . Find any of that odd, fella .
So they should get credit for firing people that in NO WAY, would have been hired in the first place at a serious news network and Coulter STILL is showing up, as well as Buchanan , is STILL a regular, the well known bigot .What part of that don't you understand , fella . Not to mention , Mathew's long, long history of bashing dems and specifically Clinton . Shuster too.
Solon....you must have the reading level of a gold fish. I said the lead into the story....from the front page of MMFA....and you have shown that you can not read what I wrote......since you have shown you can not read, here it is
"This is what MSNBC is. It is the cable channel of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Don Imus. It is the home to Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. The longer MSNBC responds to legitimate concerns about the conduct of its hosts and guests by lashing out at critics and booking Ann Coulter again, the more clear it becomes that the problems at MSNBC go much higher than Chris Matthews."
Please. show me where it says they were fired. I will help you since you really need it......IT DOES NOT. It is just like I said it was. Misleading, and designed to show MSNBC in a negative light. Once again SOLON, I have enjoyed showing what limited brain power you really have. I just hope some day it will actually take some effort to show you up.
Note the "chose to host" part. I don't know, but to me that says that this person doesn't work at MSNBC. In fact the only one misleading 'round here is you because if you bother to read the article in it's entirety it is abundantly clear that MSNBC chose to fire Coulter as well as the other two loud mouths.
Furthermore, you misleadingly attempt to obscure the overarching theme of the article that basically says MSNBC put of touch with reality.
I think y'all are giving MSNBC too much credit. Had their advertisers not insisted, I doubt very much that Imus would have been fired, and I suspect the same factor influenced the other firings. These weren't decisions that in any way reflected a wish to maintain or restore high standards, or a delayed understanding that some of its "talent" was pandering to lowlifes at the expense of others who already bear more than their share of unfair treatment in society. They didn't even do it upon having a "d'oh" moment that they were likely alienating more of their potential audience than they were attracting. It was their advertisers' telling them to make a change and NOW.
With their ethical and business standards that seem to suggest "we'll do whatever it takes to get the audience we want", I really don't understand why we haven't seen topless young female news readers on MSNBC yet.
Not so much. MSNBC is out of touch with reality. The corporate media is a millionare's club, they have no frame of referrence for the things that affect most Americans.
You basically call Solon a Goldfish! He should sue you for Slander!! People might actually think that he's a Goldfish because of your words!
Because according to the PointOfView Big Book of Law and Stuff, if you say something about someone that's untrue, that's called Slander!!
Your world class stupidity is showing again. Only on YOUR planet of incredible stupidity is a goldfish smart, by that I mean of course except in comparison to YOU.
Solon, try to play within the wingnut handicap.
The entire media can lie all day, and it's OK, because it's just their opinion.
But MMFA has to put every detail in the headline, or lead-up (whatever the trolls are calling it), or that's misinformation.
It's a good thing the GOP isn't relying on a write-in ballot. There can't be that many people who can write still buying this crap.
ok.i understand. MMFA can mis lead and be as dishonest as they want in the blurb.....and that is ok. So let me write the blurb for you.
SOLON is an idiot. He has no class, no love life, and has not had a date in years. Now the story mentions that you did in fact have a date one time when it was singles night at the nursing home. As long as the story mentions that, well then all is good.
Notice the story did not correct the part about you being an idiot, that part has been well documented
Why don't right-wingers ever argue the point of an article instead of how a headline or "lead-in" is worded? Is that all they've got to work with?
The article contends that a certain foul, enabling environment has existed and still exists at MSNBC. The article lays out its case with evidence. It's important to use Savage and Imus as evidence because, despite their firings, apparently nothing's really changed at MSNBC even after those incidents.
Even if some recent arrival from Mars isn't aware Imus was fired, it really doesn't matter as to the point of the story.
Media Matters is one of the 'kneecappers' that Matthews was talking about. It doesn't work.
Free speech allows people one disagrees with to have their say. Too bad the fascists of the American left don't understand that. Coulter is funny. You might find what she says objectionable. If she and Buchanan are bigots, their idiocy will soon wear out. Whining about their success/popularity looks pretty small. But to try to silence her ilk through intimidation of the media is short-sighted and stupid.
But, hey, what is the left for?
How far from reality that is. Do you pretend that the right has never complained about the media? Never put any pressure on the media? They own the media outside of the net.
No person with the slightest objectivity could find Anne Coulter funny. She exists because she feeds hateful statements to hateful people.
"Whining about their success/popularity looks pretty small. But to try to silence her ilk through intimidation of the media is short-sighted and stupid."
So the answer to bigotry is the ignore it? Didn't seem to work with the Nazi's. Freedom of speech goes both ways
Authoritarian followers are so easily duped. Give some automoton with halfway decent communication skills a huge salary to tell us how much we have in common with corporate executives and they buy in. They believe because, in their world, the prosperous are disciplined and therefore moral.
"Coulter is funny. You might find what she says objectionable. "
Could you please explain to all of us just what you find "funny" and "unobjectionable" about Coulter calling John Edwards a "fa**ot"?
"Coulter is funny. You might find what she says objectionable. "
Could you please explain to all of us just what you find "funny" and "unobjectionable" about Coulter calling John Edwards a "fa**ot"?
- dave_chicago
Also, did this lying right wing scumbag consider it "funny" and "objectionable" when Coulter once said that MLK deserved to be assassinated?
The source where I heard that Coulter said that MLK deserved to be assassinated was the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER.
Brilliant theory.
Interesting how the naive Ms. Coulter has been duped by MSNBC and unwittingly fallen into this "liberal" trap.
Brilliant theory.
Interesting how the "naive" Ms. Coulter has been duped by MSNBC and unwittingly fallen into this "liberal" "trap".
Even MORE interesting is how the "naive" Ms. Ol' Liar Ann Coulter KEEPS stepping into this "liberal" "trap" over and over again.
Clearly, GOP-GE-MSNBC is a RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN NETWORK, and clearly Steve Capus is A CORPORATIST CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN, and GOP-GE-MSNBC keeps inviting Coulter on to advance the Republicans, and NBC/MSNBC places furthering Republican Party control of the U.S. above all else except money, hence their continued hosting and sustaining of Ol' Liar Ann. The lying right's "liberal media" big lie is just that, a BIG LIE.
The right wing conservatives' liberal media lie is one of their most repeated big lies, because the right KNOWS that the corporatist conservative media is right wing conservative.
I used to get real worked up about this kind of stuff but then I had an epiphany. No really, I did and here it is. "The trouble with commentators and academics is that they are often more concerned with whether their ideas are interesting than whether they are true."
I have seen this up close and personal. A reporter for the American Prospect, who had just come back from spending three weeks embedded with a US IED disposal unit gave a talk to a group of us about the Nixon-Bush policy paradigms and how we had to win, on and on. Asked him where the IED's where coming from....He Did Not Know. I don't think he really cared. He had this idea for a story he wanted to write and that was that.
So Chris Matthews and his ilk are not evil, they're just trying to be interesting. Chris Matthews in particular, I think, is trying to walk back from his obsessive compulsive fascination with John McCain and project the illusion of objectivity with his newfound fascination for Barack Obama. (as an unabashed Obama supporter, I'll take media attention, feigned or otherwise wherever I can get it).
Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, IS evil.
I hope MSNBC is listening to MMFA because they risk alienating viewers like myself who understand and begrudginly accept the cable news landscape. Having said that cable news should know that it's viewers will not tolerate falsehoods (aka LIES) or hate speech, whomsoever they fear or favor. With the gaining momentum of online TV, they may find themselves in the same perdicament as the music industry. Irrelevant.
Good point GOTKIDS – If not for the music industry’s example of how NOT to deal with the online phenomenon, what arguments would the alternative have?
Thank you MSM for making the case for the need for your own demise - and thank you MM for providing the examples that show why this is inevitable.
"In a larger sense the disgraceful Fox-like fall of MSNBC is emblematic of the cesspool that the electronic media has become. The reason Ann Coulter appears on MSNBC is because they have made a decision that she's good for business..ratings..bottom line."
SoCal, that's only ONE of the bottm lines. Not only does MSNBC think Ol' Liar Ann is good for business, the dis-likes of Steve Capus and/or other corporatists in the NBC/MSNBC corporate hierarchy are also right wing corporatist conservative Republicans themselves. Money and politics, and advancing the GOP agenda, are also driving the reason why GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC continues to host and sustain Ol' Liar Ann and/or attacks any person or group that blasts Coulter and/or other lying hate-mongering con-artist-servatives.
Politics are also the reason why Liar Tucker Carlson is still on the air at GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC, since Capus is being a good Republican and keeping Carlson on the air because he is pushing and helping the Republican Party. GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC has both monetary and political reasons for wnating to make sure the GOP stays in the White House in 2008.
"What are you going to do when he [Bush] is out of office?"
Rejoice. Along with millions of others all over the world.
Good point Goodfella;
But I haven't been mentioning to them that GW isn't running this year. What a surprise that will be to them!
These folks have no sense of humor, no ability to laugh at themselves. That's the real cause behind their hatred toward Coulter & Limbaugh. They hear the laughter, realize they don't get it, and assume they are the butt of the joke (admittedly, most of the time they are).
In a similar fashion, the left has only hatred for the presidency. They say Clinton was a 'good' president; b/c he used the office for sex, instead of protecting the freedoms of the public. If Clinton had been half the man Kennedy was, the left would have hated him. They would have hated Kennedy had they been alive when he was. But history only begins in 1972, you know.
Look at the post from 'Roundhouse' above: A disasterous (sic) presidency: 1. lowest unemployment rate certainly in recent history. 2. Growthy economy, with low inflation. 3. No repeats of 9/11. 4. Al-Qaida on the run in Iraq & Afghanistan (starting with a decimated military from the famous Clinton years).
A little historical perspective might serve the left well.
If you want to, remember the 'glory years' of Jimmy Carter, or the disaster of the Johnson 'war on poverty;' that might cool the idiotic rhetoric a mite.
Probably not, though. Historical perspective is somehow like humor. If you don't have any, you won't get it.
Speaking of "humor", here's you:
"Coulter is funny. You might find what she says objectionable. "
So, once again I'll ask the question you haven't answered:
Could you please explain to all of us just what you find "funny" and "unobjectionable" about Coulter calling John Edwards a "fa**ot"?
But, that's the point - dave_in_chicago, she didn't call him a f*gg*t! She said calling him such wouldn't be fair to homosexuals.
Maybe you should talk to a doctor about getting a humor-implant.
"[Coulter] didn't call [Edwards] a f*gg*t! She said calling him such wouldn't be fair to homosexuals."
No, that isn't what Coulter said. Here's the exact quote from her speech at CPAC:
Explaining so even an imbecile can understand it: Coulter can't talk about Edwards because she'd have to call him a fag*ot.
So---again---I'll ask you to please explain, for those of us without your refined sense of humor, what makes this statement "funny" and "unobjectionable" to you?
I read the whole transcript (when it happened - a year ago(?)), and she is making fun of the whole 'political corrrectness' thing. She made a pun off the term f*gg*t, and it was funny - to anyone with a sense of humor. Those who are looking to be offended at anything and everything that the right says, won't find it funny.
You're proving my point, D_I_C (That's a pun, too - hope it doesn't offend you).
"She made a pun off the term f*gg*t"
If everyone was as gullible and stupid as you think they are (projection on your part, I suspect), you'd maybe get away with the "pun" defense. But they aren't, and it really just makes you look like the pathetically weak troll you are. Go back to Troll HQ please, and tell them to send somebody with a bit more on the ball.
So, D_C; what was so objectionable about Coulter not 'calling' Edwards a 'f*gg*t? Was it that it suggested Edwards was a homosexual? Why would that be offensive? Doesn't the left consider being homosexual an honorable thing? Was it that the term is/was derogatory towards homosexuals? But she states she was trying not to be derogatory towards homosexuals, and did not use the term about homosexuals. Indeed, she didn't use it about anyone.
With wit and humor, Coulter showed that she held Edwards to be beneath contempt. Shame on her!
So, with that I'll just go chuckling back to 'troll headquarters,' having proved again that the left considers name-calling clever.
"she shouldn't be allowed a public voice, either."
Where specifically does Media Matters say that Coulter, Savage, Imus, Shuster, etc., quote, "should not have a public voice"?
What's the matter? Unable to answer the question? Can't back up your claim?
Where specifically does Media Matters say, as you claimed above, that Coulter, Savage, Imus, Shuster, etc., quote, "should not have a public voice"?
It's called reading, D_C; MMFA is on this rant to try and get MSNBC to stop inviting Coulter on their channel. She skewers the left all the time, and they can't stand it - the left has a 'tin ear' to humor. All they can do is whine it's not fair that people get to hear her.
Political satire has a long history among peoples who enjoy free speech. It is often crude, unfair and lop-sided. But it can be an effective tool when used with wit - which Coulter and Limbaugh both have. That's why they are so hated - they score real points - with humor.
Coulter shows the left for what it is - mockably inane. It's no wonder the left and MMFA want her silenced - there is no recovery from mockery.
D_C
Where specifically does Media Matters say, as you claimed above, that Coulter, Savage, Imus, Shuster, etc., quote, "should not have a public voice"?
Gee, I didn't know I was so verbose. I never claimed any of that. I implied that MMFA was being hypocritical in their whining.
I first heard Rush when he was using the 'feminazi' term. That was back prior to 1990. He says he hasn't used the term for a long time. It skewered the feminist left more effectively than any line prior or since.
It's really too bad that the left can't laugh at themselves. The silliness of the politically correct crowd is truly damaging our nation - especially in the muzzling of free speech in our colleges.
Free speech means that people have the right to say things that offend others. Only free speech can foster the kind of robust, intellectually stimulating debate that our government requires for its very existence. Infringing free speech can only lead to the demise of our form of government. Outlawing certain terms in an effort to 'protect' the sensibilities of others is stupid and shortsighted.
Stupidity and arrogance are afraid of the sunshine of free speech, and well they should be. But the ilk of MMFA only want free speech for 'approved' speech (what they agree with). This whole stink about Coulter is a good example. At the same time she was not calling Edwards a derogatory term, the host of another show, 'Politically Incorrect' (few remember him or his quote - ineffective as it was), was saying that he wished that an assassination attempt on the Vice President of the United States had been successful.
Nary a peep out of MMFA about that. But dare to mockingly suggest that a second tier Democrat had some homosexual connection - why - treason!