NBC News' bad week: Russert, Williams, and Huffington
Progressive author and Internet powerhouse Arianna Huffington has appeared on MSNBC more than 30 times over the last 12 months, offering up her combative opinions on current events. The tally probably would have been double that if the stretched-too-thin writer and editor had accepted all the channel's requests that flood her office.
So when Huffington set out late last month to promote her new book, MSNBC seemed like an obvious first stop. In fact, producers had already been in touch, asking about Huffington's availability during her book push. And I hear an informal memo circulated within MSNBC detailing the order in which Huffington would appear on the various MSNBC news programs in coming weeks.
But then suddenly, the doors were slammed shut and Huffington's camp was told thanks, but no thanks; it was an across-the-board shutout from both MSNBC and its big brother, NBC.
Huffington told me she was surprised by the snub, considering she's had such good working relationships with the MSNBC programs for years.
The channel's spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, emailed to inform me that Huffington "was never booked on MSNBC," and that "[a]t NBC News, we receive countless books from authors and publishers, in hopes that they get on our air. Some of them do, many of them do not. This one did not."
NBC and MSNBC fill hundreds of hours each month with political programming, and Huffington -- perhaps the most high-profile progressive writer in the country right now -- is releasing a political tome amidst a heated campaign season. But sorry, no room at the inn for her.
Those close to Huffington said the word inside NBC was that the unofficial boycott stemmed from the fact that her new book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, takes long, page-after-page jabs at NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, portraying him as a hapless, "conventional wisdom zombie." And that it was because of Russert's bruised ego that the company's anti-Huffington edict was issued.
Truth is, Russert has been a target of Huffington's for years. She launched Russert Watch on her site to dissect the host's often-lacking Q&A approach on Meet the Press. (That weekly feature was recently picked up by the Columbia Journalism Review.) And Huffington was especially critical of the NBC newsman's less-than-forthcoming role in the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
In that context, it sure looked like payback: Huffington was critical of NBC News heavyweight Russert, and suddenly Huffington was banned from NBC and MSNBC at a time when she's looking for exposure to help promote her new book.
Such is the state of affairs at NBC News, where last week it was not only reportedly boycotting Huffington, but also steadfastly boycotting a blockbuster New York Times report from April 20 that detailed how the Pentagon, during the run-up to the war with Iraq and for years after that, had worked closely with retired military officers now working as talking heads. The Pentagon selected scores of officers, many of whom had defense industry clients, and worked to "transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks," according to the Times. The Pentagon did that by, among other things, treating the analysts to special briefings and taking them on guided tours of Iraq.
But this wasn't simply a fact-finding initiative. According to the Times, when at least one of the analysts eventually began to criticize the war, he was promptly suspended from the Pentagon program.
Among the participants -- witting or unwitting -- in the Pentagon program were NBC and MSNBC, which threw open their studio doors to the Pentagon pundits without ever disclosing their closed-door prep sessions with the pro-war administration.
Yet two weeks after the Times billboarded the news above-the-fold on Page 1, neither NBC nor MSNBC had seriously examined their roles in the Pentagon program. In fact, the news teams at both outlets appeared allergic to the controversy. Despite the fact that the Times story ignited congressional inquiries, raised doubts about the legality of the program, and prompted the Pentagon to suddenly halt the initiative altogether, NBC considered the issue to have zero news value.
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams did belatedly address the propaganda story, not on the air but on his daily blog, where last week he assured readers that neither the network nor the retired generals did anything wrong (i.e., trust us).
So to recap NBC News' revealing performance last week: It continued its on-air boycott of the story about the Pentagon's pro-war propaganda program -- a program NBC willingly participated in. And it reportedly banned one of the nation's top progressive writers from appearing on its news programs.
Behold your so-called liberal media at work.
Of the two sad tales last week, one seemed petty; the other rather profound. In both cases, NBC News appeared more interested in protecting egos and holding off honest critiques than it did being held accountable.
The reason NBC/MSNBC's heavy-handed blackout of Huffington is so important is that it highlights precisely why so few prominent voices from the left openly criticize the media. They fail to do so because it's personally awkward to disparage their colleagues. But more importantly, they resist doing it because it comes with a professional price attached: If you present sustained, damning critiques of the media (and name names in the process), you run the risk of being locked out by those same media outlets, and at inopportune moments. Like when you're out trying to promote a new book.
Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler has written about these phenomena for years -- why mainstream liberal columnists and pundits almost never tell you the truth about the media. And trust me, they don't. As Somerby has noted, there was almost universal, real-time silence from them back in 2000 when the press unleashed perhaps the most sustained, unfair attack on a U.S. presidential nominee in modern times. Virtually none of the A-list liberal commentators came to Al Gore's aid when it mattered most; when the press was at times depicting him as unstable and pathological. (Conservative pundits never would have stood by silently if their nominee were torn apart by the media like that.)
Huffington, thanks to the online empire she has amassed at The Huffington Post, is among the few who don't really need NBC or MSNBC to help her sell books. She already has access to an extraordinarily wide audience.
And it's true she was invited on scores of other TV news outlets in recent days, some of which she criticized in her book. So it's not as if the press automatically locks out every liberal critic. But NBC's Russert has for years been a key Huffington media target, and he came under the roughest treatment in her book, so it was NBC's allegedly petulant reaction that was the most telling.
Keep in mind that NBC News has a history of overreacting to Huffington. In 2006, when she was raising questions about Russert's ethics (specifically, when he used Meet the Press to hype the launch of a new XM Radio sports program co-hosted by his son, Luke Russert), an NBC News flack resurrected old allegations -- which Huffington has repeatedly denied -- that a decade ago she hired a private investigator to snoop on a writer who was profiling her for Vanity Fair. That writer was Russert's wife, Maureen Orth.
By suddenly refusing to book Huffington, NBC and MSNBC came across as petty and insecure. Executives claimed they were not retaliating against the writer for the Russert critiques she's posted. But it sure looked that way.
There is a simple way, however, for the news giant to prove it holds not grudge against Huffington, or against honest media criticism. And that's to have Russert invite her on Meet the Press. Then all will be forgiven.
By contrast, it's probably impossible to repair the damage done to NBC by its refusal -- like the rest of the broadcast network news teams -- to tackle the Pentagon propaganda story. What made NBC's sins even more egregious last week was Williams' attempt to explain the story away as no big deal, when he tried to play his readers, and NBC News viewers, as rubes.
The trouble began when Williams used his Daily Nightly blog to mock The New York Times for being out of touch with everyday Americans. Williams' hook was that announced Sunday circulation was down at the Times. Poring over the newspaper, Williams insinuated readers were fleeing the paper because of the goofy articles being published. He noted that Elizabeth Edwards had recently written an op-ed in the Times decrying the state of serious journalism in the presidential race. But Williams, after dissecting the Sunday paper section-by-section, scratched his head and wrote, "It's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking." Meaning, the Times is out of touch with regular folk, like himself, the coiffed TV anchor.
And where did Williams turn to prove the Times was publishing too many wacky articles that alienate the common man? Williams singled out purposefully light pieces from the Times' Travel section, the Styles section, and the Food section. And, oh yeah, he snickered at a New York Times Magazine cover story about gay people.
After blogger Glenn Greenwald chided Williams for taking the time to poke fun at the Times lifestyle coverage while NBC itself remained silent about the Times' penetrating Pentagon propaganda story, Williams' blog was inundated with commenters demanding that he address the issue. So the next day Williams did.
Keep in mind, NBC had never broadcast a single story about the Pentagon article, but Williams did, y'know, blog about it. Reading his explanation, no wonder NBC hasn't wasted its time with the silly Pentagon controversy -- it's a non-story. At least at NBC. Because the news team did nothing wrong and its military analysts were above reproach. (Why did the Times waste 7,000 words on such nonsense?)
Here was the nub of Williams' defense of NBC and the Pentagon-friendly analysts they paid for years:
All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers.
[...]
At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that. [emphasis added]
What's the fuss, people? Millionaire anchor Brian Williams, who thinks Democratic-bashing columnist Peggy Noonan should win a Pulitzer, who frets that Rush Limbaugh might not get enough credit as a broadcaster, and who has been dubbed by GOP pollster Frank Luntz as the Republicans' "go-to network anchor," says NBC and the generals did nothing wrong. Period.
Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving ...
Note how Williams vouched for the generals' patriotism and insisted they were "better" than spinning Pentagon talking points. (In his blog post, Williams noted he had entered "close friendship[s]" with the generals.) That's all well and good. But the facts are clear: The generals did participate in the Pentagon program and they often did spout Pentagon spin. (The anchorman expressed little interest in the fact that some of the generals stood to profit from their defense industry connections while they promoted the costly Iraq war on NBC.)
That the pro-war Pentagon spin campaign existed and that NBC's military media analysts participated is not in dispute. Yet Williams wants us to believe that NBC News represented some sort of oasis from the pro-war spin between 2002 and now, that it was an honorable exception to the broadcast rule.
For the record, retired Gens. Wayne Downing (who has since passed away) and Barry McCaffrey appeared on, or were quoted by, MSNBC and NBC regarding the Iraq war at least 500 times since late 2002. But Williams suggested the men never engaged in Pentagon spin.
And to prove that the men didn't roll over, Williams reproduced a quote from 2006, three years after the war began, in which one of the NBC military media analysts expressed "harsh criticism" of the war.
For Williams, that's case closed. For any thinking observer, that's just plain dumb.
It was a very bad week for NBC News. By so obviously snubbing Huffington, NBC looked petty. By stubbornly refusing to acknowledge its role in the Pentagon propaganda program, NBC looked weak.
News organizations are supposed to shed light, not cower in the shadows. Last week, NBC News got it backward.
















Agreed. When Morning Joe makes more sense and is fairer than the others, you know something is fundamentally wrong there.
But Huffington is hardly a sympathetic character. She has locked out most pro-Hillary opinion at her own site, and the vicious unfairness that goes on there against the Clinton camp is as pathological as all the wierdness at NBC.
Don't cry any tears over Huffington. She's getting a dose of her own medicine.
Her harassment/boycott campaign against Hillary is amazing in its idiocy and dishonesty-- such as locking out Clinton supporters. And with rubes like Marc Cooper running her site ('California recall-- yeah!') don't expect much from her.
She ain't that bright either-- how long was she a rightie? (I know the answer to that one-- until her ex-hubby Mike came out of the closet and his money ran out...)
CARL,
I just can't help it but......na na na na na na na na hey hey hey goodbye. She fought gallantly my friend. She just wasn't good enough. If she could give a speech like Obama did last night, she would have sewed this up before Iowa. It's on to November. I hope you give the party of Jeferson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy your support and avoid giving GWB a third term.
Obama is going to lose MISERABLY against McCain. The proof of that is the way the FOX people are bubbling over in excitement today. They know.
Obama couldn't even get the support of the big blue states. He's ahead because of college students and Republican and independent crossovers in Red states. Oh boy.
You guys are gonna fry with your arrogance and your irrational hate against the Clintons. Just wait and see.
I'm going to be laughing all night on election night in November. The whole dem part is amazingly fubar these days. What a bunch of morons.
If Clinton supporters such as yourself vote on the issues that you value, No he wont. If you defect or stay home because your ego, then most certaintly yes.
Do YOU want OUR occupation of Iraq to continue without end?
Do YOU want the Americas working class to continue to rapidly deteriorate.
Do YOU want US to go to war with Iran
Do YOU want the US to continue torturing people.
Do YOU want the US to continue unconsitutional wiretapping
Do YOU want the US to be further marginalized internationally
etc..etc..etc...
Im not voting for Obama because I like his speeches... F*ck his speeches
Im not voting for Obama because he's black, like me... F*ck his color.
Am I voting for Obama becuase I agree with all of his policies... I dont
Im voting for Obama because this country cant afford to move in the direction that John McCain plans to take it. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. And If he becomes Unviable I will vote for Hillary for all the same reasons. Though I have far more resevations, I buy her general the theme. Can you say the same thing for yourself regarding Obama?
I didn't say I wasn't going to vote for him. But he has tremendous liabilities. The Right is just getting started on him.
What's been happening here is that the media is deciding who our candidate is. That's atrocious. They've manipulated this campaign something awful. Obama has gotten ahead because of:
1) College town Dems in Red states, where Dems are only found
2) Crossover votes from Republican mischief makers and independents,
3) Unreliable caucus states, where Obama supporters have bullied attendees, and
4) wacky, touchy-feely, feel-good Party rules that split votes every which way but sunday.
Hardly a solid basis for a candidate. Obama's support is wide-- and thin.
It's going to be a disaster-- McCain by 15 to 20 points, and O will even lose California. If he dips in the polls come October, Clinton voters will not be motivated to help him out.
That's a fair point given he does the election coverage and that, I guess, is considered hard news. But, let's be realistic he isn't bound to be fair on his own show. He is a pundit. He doesn't have to adhere to impartiality. I watch the MSNBC coverage more than the others and the reality is that he isn't some raging partisan while doing that kind of coverage. The FOX team certaintly isn't made up of non partisans either. If a person isn't smart enough to see these things and avoid letting a coverage host sway their opinion, they probably shouldn't be voting in the first place, IMHO of course.
Then you would fire Brit Hume?
Hacks should not be anchors.
On Faux News, you get a whole team of hacks.
BobtheP
You are 100 percent right. He is a hack and a joke, but he has every right to be a hack and a joke. To put him on election coverage is a crime.
Takem out and shootem. I 've got my pie canon all warmed up, got separate magazines for cream, fruit, and meat pies. Its hungry!
Chrissy says his bosses are prowar. GE certainly is.
"Behold your liberal media at work"
Pfft.....this has nothing to do with media bias one way or another, if Russert had NBC boycott Arianna and her book, it's because of his ego and its fragile nature.
Exactly Tommy. This has zip to do with media bias.
And let me just add that this move by NBC/MSNBC shouldn't surprise anyone.
After all as we are told ad nauseam here that Olbermann won't bash or award his fellow colleagues with the WPITW, so why would anyone expect that this network would welcome someone with a book knocking one of them?
Tommy & Jeter, are you two using protection? Jeez, you guys are needy!
;0)
This has zip to do with media bias.
Not true. NBC News' boycott of the New York Times April 20 report is media bias in its truest form.
Gov,
Tommy & I were specifically discussing Tim Russert & Arianna Huffington.
Read Tommy's post. Then read mine. Got it yet?
If I insult & belittle you like you claim Tommy did on another thread, will you be done with me too?
Please. Pretty please.
Gov,
Tommy & I were specifically discussing Tim Russert & Arianna Huffington.
Read Tommy's post. Then read mine. Got it yet?
No. In truth, the specific discussion began below this quote from Boehlert:
Behold your liberal media at work.
Which he states to close this point:
So to recap NBC News' revealing performance last week: It continued its on-air boycott of the story about the Pentagon's pro-war propaganda program -- a program NBC willingly participated in. And it reportedly banned one of the nation's top progressive writers from appearing on its news programs.
Behold your liberal media at work.
Are you the other Gov's brother? Cousin?
Look we were only discussing ONE specific part of this article. That happens here all the time.
If you can't wrap your brain around that, then I can't help you.
And Jeter, actually neither of Boehlert's points show media bias. We've already discussed the Huffington boycott, that is because of Russert's ego....and the reason the Pentagon story was not run on NBC is because, as Boehlert even admits, they were complicit in that, so that is not media bias at all, it's covering their own a$$. There is no proof of media bias, only conjecture by those who like to use that as an excuse.
So, as usual, our dear Governor barks up the completely wrong tree, again.
Not examples of media bias???
Russert does not like Huffington because she outed him as a right-wing shill in her book. She outed him for his BIAS, which is why she is banned apparently. How can you argue that is not a case of media bias? The whole premise of her ban is that she outed media bias.
Yes, NBC, like other corporate media, were complicit in spreading Pentagon propanga using "military experts" on the Pentagon payroll, but that is also a clear case of conservative media bias. Networks/cable news were spreading Bush's propaganda about Iraq. They refuse to admit they were spreading Bush's Defense Department propaganda, so they burried the story about military experts being on the Defense payroll. Even the cover-up alone is a case of media bias.
What "personal stuff" was written about him in her book though???
The "personal stuff" was about how Tim Russert is a right-wing shill who helped the White House out Valerie Plame.
The "personal stuff" she pointed out was Russerts right-wing bias, so her ban had everything to do with political bias.
"Personal" in the sense of she names him by name and it's not exactly flattering. Russert doesn't like it, according to some he made his views known and his clout at NBC prompted them to not have her on.
It isn't ideologically driven, it's big time moneymaking honcho/newsman stuff exercising his muscle to his beholden employer.
It isn't ideologically driven, it's big time moneymaking honcho/newsman stuff exercising his muscle to his beholden employer.
Well said Tommy, even a Governor should be able to understand ;-)
Chris,
You are a fair and honest poster, who evaluates and judges items not from a partisan viewpoint, but a fair one; I am this many *jazz hands*You are a fair and honest poster, who evaluates and judges items not from a partisan viewpoint, but a fair one; I am this many. *jazz hands*
"You are a fair and honest poster, who evaluates and judges items not from a partisan viewpoint, but a fair one; I am this many. *jazz hands*"
I calls them likes I sees them my fine friend. Are you trying to tell me that your temper tantrum in which you refuse to talk to Tommy but will passively try to do so through other posters is an adult concept? What the hell is jazz hands?
No temper tantrum, just done reading his tripe.
Jazz Hands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_hands
Apparently not, you not only continue to read it, but you cut and paste it within your own posts.
Grow up Governor.
Whatever. If your done reading his tripe then quit tring to communicate with him through other posters. As if we don't have better things to do, like waiting on your next profoundly hilarious comment. Which I'm sure you laugh out loud at while you sit alone at your computer.
"laugh out loud while you sit alone at your computer"
Among other things......
You are avoiding what her criticism of Russert said and only pointing out it was "personal". Yes, it was personal, but it was also a clear attack on Russert having a right-wing bias and being a shill of the Bush White House.
It was personal, but also was about Russert's conservative reporting bias.
He apparently banned her because she pointed out his personal political bias in his reporting.
You know what gets on my nerves? A guy who spends 24/7 living on the Media Matters message boards who excuses or ignores example after example of right-wing media bias year after year after year.
If you want to wear those blinders and pretend our media has no right-wing bias, why not go all the way and stop living on the Media Matters website Tommy? Why not spend your time on a site like Newsbusters or Free Republic? It would save all of the posters here from your pointless, inane, illogical arguments, and your and Jeter's endless circle-jerk agreement sessions.
Somebodys argument just went up in flames........poof!
Chris,
You are a fair and honest poster, who evaluates and judges items not from a partisan viewpoint, but a fair one; Jeter and I are far right cons who don't deserve to breathe, much less post here........it's all fine when the parroted ones here have only one of us to kick around, but when there is more than one at a time, it drives some of them off their talking point nuttiness, and they get flustered. I have seen it all before, no biggie......
Thanks for your clear head, my friiend....
This is another tactic Tommy uses. He launches personal attacks on another poster, then when one of the left-leaning posters agrees with him in any way, he lathers them up with compliments so they will be his ally.
Tommy's like a bad record that won't stop skipping on the same beat.
Bri, I think you take this forum a tad too seriously.
The truth is most of the Cons that post here [and I'd bet there are less than a dozen] do try to have fair & reasonable debate/discussions with the hundreds of Libs here.
Now & then we run into one like you that hates us just for being here. Then there are others that come along & enjoy our presence or at least accept us being here. We treat them the way they treat us. And vice versa.
I don't hate you for being here. I went after Tommy personally because he first personally attacked the "Governor" poster in this thread, then condescends me in his replies to his fellow right-wingers.
I was wrong to bring you into it. Tommy is really the one I am annoyed with.
Read Tommy's post from May 7, 2008 3:43:34 PM for example where he calls anyone who sees bias in things like Huffington's NBC ban as "crybabies", and he throws in "Waaaahhhh". What kind of response should I give to that kind of insult post? The guy avoids the entire argument, then insulted anyone who disagreed with his opinion as "crybabies".
I see Tommy using these tactics anytime I visit this website, and it gets old. At some point, people respond in kind, which is why Tommy constantly has these battles on Media Matters. The guy relishes in conflict.
Apparently you aren't familiar with the expletives the "Governor" has tossed at me with his foul fingertips, "Fcuk You", for example........so yes, I have no respect for him and he gets what he has so often given out.
As for my opinions on media bias crybabies, that is exactly my opinion. It is not ideologically driven by any means, in fact the right wing hauls it out there all the time, their whining also gets on my nerves. Sorry if you disagree, you certainly can.....but don't expect me to temper my opinions because they are not the conventional wisdom around here and some may get offended.
I have no bone to pick with anyone and I treat people with pretty much the same treatment they afford me. As do most posters here.
Brian,
You, me & Tommy have been posting here for several years. I don't recall whether you & I have locked horns before, it's possible I've forgotten. The ratio of Libs to Cons on this site is so lopsided it may be easier for you to remember any tiffs you've had with certain Cons than I recall having with specific Lib posters.
I don't agree with your opinion about Tommy. Now before you say : well of course not he's a fellow Conservative, let me explain why. Tommy comes here to discuss/debate issues. Unlike some Cons whose sole purpose is to disrupt the threads & post attacks then vanish, Tommy is willing to give & back up his viewpoints. He often becomes the center of attention due to the fact that his opinion differs strongly with the majority. Some are willing to honestly & reasonably take him on. Others, like Gov, throw out insults & senseless gobbledygook. Tommy will give as good as he gets.
Brian, the Cons here [including myself] are often treated with respect & we return it. However, some on your side think nothing of making insulting blanket remarks about Conservatives & instead of simply just disagreeing with a point one of us is making, toss in some vindictive sarcasm or a personal attack or two.
To be fair we sometimes start the brawl. It usually is aimed at a long-time poster that has insulted or attacked us in the past.
We take a lot of ribbing around here, which is fine. But we also take some uncalled for garbage. We are told repeatedly that we Cons are the bane of this county's existence. That Cons are just naturally racists. That we are a bunch of uneducated yahoos. Warmongers. Selfish heartless rich guys.
So yeah we will on occasion get tired of what we perceive as nit picking & whining. And that's when we pull out the "crybabies" & "Waaaahhhh". Bri, considering what we get hit with here this is minor.
And what's often forgotten here is how many times Tommy [and myself] side with the Libs here. And how often when either of us has been unfairly attacked by a Lib, that another Liberal poster comes to our defense. On a personal note, I think I'm the only Con here that Solon has never referred to as a "moron"...I wear that like a badge of honor :-)
Tommy may have his detractors here, but he has far many more cyber-buds on the Left & Right that will defend him.
Personally if Tommy weren't here I think this site would be boring. There are only a handful of posters I would include in that group. He brings a different perspective to this forum as well as wit & intelligence.
Brian, if you treat Tommy with respect, it will be returned.
Thank you Jeter, your insightful words are appreciated. I am resigned, and have been long ago especially around here, that some people just despise an opposing opinion to such a degree that they will look to anything they can to discredit it, or attack it - it is very personal to some, even in an anonymous posting situation such as MMFA.
I have no problems having my opinions questioned, ridiculed, bashed, disrespected or even called "moronic", or "stupid"......people, including myself, are passionate about issues and I understand that, so am I. I have not always conducted myself appropriately around here either, so I don't cut myself any slack where that is concerned......but I do try and give back what I receive, I try anyway, I am not perfect.
Thanks again for your perspective, back to the trenches. :)
I just have a whole lot of trepidation when a persons character is attacked simply because of a political ideology differences.
I'm guessing your trepidation diminishes somewhat when you're paid a compliment.
Your post made no sense whatsoever. I really makes no difference to me who the culprit is. That idiot Rumplestilskin would attack someone just because they had liberal ideas. That caused me trepidation as I'm sure it did you as well. Receiving a compliment has no bearing on seeing what is right in front of me.
Oh yeah, since your not talking to Tommy is there anything you would like for me to tell him?
Your post made no sense whatsoever. I really makes no difference to me who the culprit is.
Don't sell yourself short, you make a big difference!
He's not important to me at all.
It just gets old seeing the same "no bias to see here" argument from the same poster story after story, year after year.
When you try to logically debate him, he will just repeat his same points over and over again, then launch personal attacks like he did against the "Governor" poster earlier in this thread. At some point, it's enough with Tommy. The guy is a tool.
He's not important to me at all.
It just gets old seeing the same "no bias to see here" argument from the same poster story after story, year after year.
When you try to logically debate him, he will just repeat his same points over and over again, then launch personal attacks like he did against the "Governor" poster earlier in this thread. At some point, it's enough with Tommy. The guy is a tool
Brian,
Perhaps I spoke out of turn and inserted myself when I shouldn't have. I do take issue when I see the same old argument lobbed at Tommy as if his questioning the validity of conservative misinformation somehow negates his views. There is nothing wrong with staying on point and he gives just as good as he gets when it comes to insults. How can you or anyone for that matter berate him for being a little caustic when that is the general practice at times here. I don't think anyone who posts here should pretend that they don't engage in a little name calling here and there. Some do more than others and at some point, you're right, it gets ridiculous. I just don't think Tommy is anywhere near being nothing more than an angry insulting poster. For the most part he comes here and gives an alternate point of view in a concise and intelligent manner. He's pretty funny sometimes too. Just agree to disagree with him and move on. there will be more topics to hash around tomorrow. There always is.
Look, I know where you are coming from. I have my arse handed to me in debates here before. It's a hard pill to swallow. In the end, that's part of the fun involved in exchanging ideas with others you disagree with. Would it be any fun to post here if it were just a liberal love fest where we all agreed...all the time?
If you look back at all the posts, it was a legitimate discussion about whether or not banning NBC was about a media bias, or a personal issue between Russert and Huffington.
Then Tommy throws in this post....
I know really.......people that whine about media bias in any form just get on my nerves.......as if there aren't thousands of media outlets to get your message out on, this ain't 1970 where there were about 3. If this one won't have you, go somewhere else and stop your bellyaching about it. Waaaahhhh! Crybabies.
I've been posting on this website for years now. I have seen for years how Tommy throws around insults like this, then acts all shocked when people respond in kind. Tommy is ALWAYS in some kind of conflict with other posters. It's not just about his political ideology, the guy just loves to create conflict, which I'm sure is the reason he always posts on a liberal website in the first place.
Face it Brian, a legitimate discussion is just code word for 100% agreement in your mind. I did not attack anyone in the post you referenced, it was a generalized opinion and statement, nonpartisan and not personal. It would be like saying I can't stand pandering politicians, or lazy teenagers - it was not directed at anyone or any one political ideology at all.
If you took offense, I am sorry........but to act as though it's illegitimate because you disagreed is not only the height of intolerance, but severly off base.
"...patting each other on the backs."
Jeter, either you've mixed your metaphors here or you badly misunderstand how a circle jerk works.
Then let Olbermann name Tim as a WPITW.
He won't of course. Which is the same reason NBC/MSNBC won't have Huff on. They don't dump on their own.
That's not media bias.
Olbermann cannot criticize Russert because Russert is his boss. If Olbermann criticized him, he could lose his job.
You are holding Huffington to the same standards as an NBC EMPLOYEE, which is wrong. She doesn't work for NBC, so she should be free to criticize individual members of their news team in a book she writes.
After all, if the media went around banning pundits who criticize the media or individuals in the media, they would probably have to ban most conservative pundits, who constantly criticize the media.
No Brian I'm saying Olbermann won't diss his colleagues at NBC/MSNBC & in turn NBC/MSNBC won't let someone come on their programs and diss their colleagues.
That's not media bias. That's protecting your own.
I'm sure Huffington will be invited on CBS, ABC, CNN, & maybe even FOX...unless of course she dissed them all too.
As Tommy has explained, this is not ideology driven. It's about not getting dumped on by Huff.
Of course she can write about anyone & anything she likes. But the invites might dry up if those folks don't want to get bashed on the air
Olbermann the hack would never say anything bad about a fellow NBC employee. He only spews his hate toward FOX or CNN. Olbermann is the ultimate dirtbag at NBC.
OlbermannWatch.com mocks KO about this each Friday. This is from May 2:
“You really do find itself incumbent on you to take your own network to the same degree of task …(or) it doesn’t say much for (your) manhood.” --Keith Olbermann, Nov 16, 2006
If it's Friday, it's our weekly assessment of Krazy Keith's masculinity. This week, Monkeymann attacked Fox and other broadcasters 32 times. Olby's source (Hillary Clinton's Media Matters) criticized (MS)NBC 10 times, but Keithy protected his corporate masters with zero criticisms. That makes this week's Olbermann Manhood Quotient: -84 [pansy limp].
Where's PAVLOV? I'm sure he can explain this. He thinks Reverend Wright is THE big story... definitely the biggest story since Britney's panties.
Exactly.
When have you ever seen the words of a candidates' religious leader being used against them? I mean, I was raised Catholic, so if I run for President, will I have to explain why I remained a member of a church that protected pedophiles? Does that somehow mean all Catholics like myself agree with those actions? Does it mean we have to distance ourselves from pedophilia???
The William Ayers thing really went into crazyland. So now if I have even worked with some guy who was a radical in the 1960's, that reflects on me? Do I have to do decades old backround checks on everyone I work with now, or become linked to everything in their past?
POV,
That is an insult to Ann Coulter!
Are you even old enough to remember the "Republican Revolution"?
POV, weren't you just criticizing others here for calling McCain "Gramps" just yesterday? Then you call Huffington a nast(y) hag? What the hell is wrong with you? Stick to your principles or don't show them as principles, it's the least you could do.
I never will understand why people who ought to know better, who ought to know the meanings of their words, and choose them themselves, for the effect they will have on their listener/reader... I never will understand why they apply the word RIGHT to one side of the political spectrum, or one related set of Public Policy opinions.
I understand completely why that side would have staked out the word RIGHT for themselves, and keep referring to themselves as RIGHT... it's the other side that baffles me, and just picks up on that word RIGHT, and uses it to describe those they oppose in the Public Discourse on Public Policy (and who oppose them back in turn), despite the fact that there is no application here whatsoever, between horizontal direction with respect to the body, and Public Policy... none.
Then why use the word RIGHT when discussing Public Policy?
Well, I can tell you why to use it to refer to youself, and the Public Policy you endorse: because the word variously means 1. RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT 2. being in accordance with what is just, good, and proper 3. conforming to facts or truth: CORRECT 4. SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE 5. STRAIGHT 6. GENUINE, REAL... and not until the 7th sense, do we get a meaning that involves a horizontal direction... senses 8 and 9 also refer to spatial concepts... then we resume the virtuous senses of the word RIGHT, 10. acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact 11. a: being in good physical or mental health or order b: being in a correct or proper state 12. most favorable or desired: PREFERABLE; also: socially acceptable... and it is not until the very last sense of the meaning of the word, that we get 13. often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right, especially in politics
Now, if senses 7-8-9 (regarding spatial concepts) have nothing to do with politics, and all the other senses of the word RIGHT are virtues and things virtuous (which may be all summed up in the word CORRECT, which is listed as the single synonym for RIGHT), then how and from what is the 13th sense derived, about politics?
I already told you: it was done by those whom that sense of the word is meant to describe, in matters of politics... there is no other logic or reasoning to it... I would have done the same, were I able to beat them to to it.
But I asked not why the word RIGHT is used by those who apply it to themselves (the reason being obvious), but why it is used by others, especially those who hold differing or opposing opinions on Public Policy?
Because they are people who do not know the meanings of the words they speak/write, and do not choose those words themselves, for the effect they will have on thier listener/reader... which I said upfront when I began, by saying I didn't understand such people...
...people driven by this mistake, into the foolish and senseless contradiction of saying "RIGHT is WRONG".
That's a signal there to me, that the person doesn't know the meaning etc., and doesn't choose for themselves etc., and fails to understand how important it is in discussing Public Policy, to know the meanings of your words, and to choose them yourself, and choose them well.
Like for example: to say "the Pentagon propaganda program", is to use a term already staked out and carefully chosen and floated repeatedly, to get others to repeat it... because it avoids the true and important concept in what happened, and twists the thing another way... because who cares about propaganda (the word means nothing but persuasion, and has no true sense at all, implying deceit or untruth), when in fact the sin is DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as "military analysts" being promoted on the Public Airwaves by NBC et al, to sell the American People an invasion and occupation of Iraq... again, DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as "military analysts"... where is propaganda in that concept? Nowhere, except as a far lesser charge to plead to... and so hence we get the term "the Pentagon propaganda program" floated and repeated, to distract you from the real sin in the matter.
Devised and floated by an end of the political spectrum that smartly calls themselves RIGHT, and both the name they give themselves, and the distractionary lesser charge of propaganda, are then parroted for them, by others that should know better, about the meanings of words, and how they use them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
I have no idea what happened to MSNBC/NBC.
Excuse me though if I have no sympathy at all for Arianna Huffington, The viciousness that goes on at HuffPo by the pro Obama supporters is very ugly. The Hillary Hate borders on hysteria at times. There is a vibe over there that sometimes fells like a mass/cultural psychosis or delusion of hatred and malice.
When Mayhill Fowler wrote about the "bitter" thing the outpouring of vitriol against her (and Clinton of course) was beyond belief. It went on and on, thousands of comments, more and more bloggers jumping on the train and blaming Clinton somehow, nore thousands of comments. At the same time all this is going on along with the media coverage the idiot-king announces that he in fact did know about torture and supporterd his top advisors being in on it!
One small blog, very few comments.
Meanwhile there is a frenzy about "bitter and the media coverage, how unfair it is and they are driving it with the over the top reactions to someone making a passing comment that wasn't purely adulatory of Obama.
BTW, Did anyone read the Jane Smiley piece blaming the sins of the world on Hillary Clinton?
Whoa, it was so over the top that after reading it you felt violated by the sickness of it all.
So if MSNBC isn't bringing Arianna in, I'm OK with that. They have lost all credibility anyway that it isn't surprised that they show their pettiness one more time. It isn't like they hide it away.
Frankly I'd like to see MSNBC investigated for ethical reasons.
Aren't there any governing laws? accck. no more of the government in the media.
Media should be taken out of Corporate hands. News Media that involves government, elections, fraud, abuse, corporate investigations etc should be not for profit. Maybe we would get a fourth estate back. The corporates can cover the fire in OshKosh and Britany's latest woes from now till doomsday for all I care but to make an election into a "reality show" has to be unethical and shows that corporate news has to end.
From the beginning of the election there was a noticable change and bias in their coverage...(I'm exempting the other elections and the war build up for the moment. They had at least begun criticizing the administration and the war and of course to be fair Olbermann was great at that.)
Throughout this primary the coverage was centered around Obama and Clinton with Edwards getting an occasional nod. The rest barely had any air time. There was never coverage of issues and the "debates" were a farce. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. The one debate I thought was the most substantive when there were still several candidates was the one that the MSM didn't do and they were merciless in their judgment of it. "boring" etc.
When the field narrowed to just BHO and HRC they at MSNBC, particularly Matthews seemed to be in the tank for her and giving Obama very little coverage. Matthews kept saying why doesn't he hit her, when is he going to come out attacking. Actually both campaigns were very civil at that point.
I was an Obama supporter at that time and I of course was livid. And then, in the blink of an eye they all went after Clinton, analyzes, misrepresenting, distorting... on and on. As I said I was an Obama supporter but it was sickening to see the utter bias against clinton, not to mention the overt man-crushes about Obama. I kept emailing and saying they weren't doing Obama any favors by being so kind, that he needed to toughen up and it wouldn't be fair if he won without being really challenged. For months they went after Clinton in the most despicable show of gang warfare by the media I have ever seen. If they had put the same amount of attention and energy into investigating the criminals in the WH we wouldn't be in the mess we are in and the outcome of this election wouldn't be quite as hair raisingly crucial as it is. They were shamed into becoming a little more fair in their coverage by SNL. Then of course they still don't deal with real issues, the Wright thing comes up, the bitter thing comes up, Bosnia silliness-- everything but what is important.
Meanwhile Clinton is out there giving detailed speeches on real issues and potential policy, Obama is out there talking policy and change. WTF? is wrong with these people. Polls and color and every other thing that is meaningless.
Don't get me going on the blatent sexism either.
Russert actually said after SBL did their thing that it was easier to criticise a woman than a black man!!!
OI,
I think I was ranting.
Sorry for the long comment.
I've been pent up.
LOL
They can both go to the garbage dump for all I care.
As for the Huffington Post, I didn't think we fought the Right-Wing Noise Machine to erect a Left-Wing Noise Machine. Frankly, I don't have any problem with Obama as the candidate. But there's a lot of his supporters who are creepy, dishonest, and far more responsible for disunity in the party than anything that Hillary ever did. Funny, Huffington doesn't object when Russert did the single most blatant ganging-up on Hillary in the October 30 debate, nor does she object to the year-long psycho war that Chris Matthews waged against Hillary for his own bizarre reasons. Now she cries because she's locked out of the GE Propaganda HQ. Hmm. Like Hillary in New Hampshire? How much sympathy did she have?
There are lots of good reasons to vote for or against Hillary, but the yearlong demonization of Hillary in the Huffington Post, worthy of Rush Limbaugh for its lack of honesty and decency, will go down for a long time in my book as why it isn't only the corporate media who are dishonest weasels.
And while they have drooled over Senator Obama just to get back at Senator Clinton, you watch and see. Those b*st*ards will now commence the Senator Obama bashing. Jack Welch's boy team would never let a woman get nominated, will never support a democratic male. THEY ARE TRUE JERKS AND PIGS. I cannot tell you how angry I remain at the liberal media who sat silently by and let these egotistic men put W into office. They are petty and selfish. Too bad it has taken Arianna so long to figure this out.
Eric, just a post to say good article. Thanks. At present, the only Cronkite or Sevareid that I can find is Bill Moyers.