He's back? Rosenberg alluded to previous racially insensitive remarks that first got him fired from Imus
On the March 27 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, former Imus sports announcer Sid Rosenberg appeared on the program and referenced a story in the New York Daily News headlined "Serena Shocked by Racist Heckler." Rosenberg commented, "I was on an airplane," suggesting that he could not have been the one heckling professional tennis player Serena Williams.
Rosenberg's joke appeared to be a reference to racially insensitive remarks he made in June 2001 about Williams and her sister, Venus, both of whom are African-American. According to a November 20, 2001, Newsday article, Rosenberg said on the air: "One time, a friend, he says to me, 'Listen, one of these days you're gonna see Venus and Serena Williams in Playboy.' I said, 'You've got a better shot at National Geographic.'" Rosenberg also referred to Venus Williams as an "animal." A June 18, 2001, New York Times article (subscription required) on Rosenberg's remarks noted that host Don Imus subsequently "fired him, but he reversed himself and rehired Mr. Rosenberg after the sports commentator apologized on the air."
Nonetheless, on the November 12, 2004, edition of Imus in the Morning, Rosenberg referred to Palestinians as "stinking animals" and said, "They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now," as Media Matters for America documented. On November 29, 2004, MSNBC offered an apology for those remarks: "The views expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks."
In May 2005, Rosenberg was once again fired from Imus in the Morning, this time for comments about singer Kylie Minogue, who had recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. According to a May 25, 2005, New York Post article, Rosenberg said: "She won't look so pretty when she's bald with one [breast]." The Post quoted a spokesperson for Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting, which operates WFAN, the New York radio station that is the flagship for the radio version of Imus in the Morning, stating that Rosenberg "will not be returning to the Imus in the Morning show."
But in recent months, Rosenberg has repeatedly appeared on the show. A January 29 article in the New York Daily News asserted: "Sid Rosenberg, who was last seen crashing and burning on the Imus morning show on WFAN (660 AM), returns this week to fill in for Chris Carlin, who replaced him." In fact, on the January 29 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asserted, "I gave Sid today off thinking, 'Why take the chance?'" Rosenberg did, however, appear on the following four broadcasts of the program, from January 30 through February 2, and on at least two occasions between then and the March 27 broadcast, including the February 7 and March 23 broadcasts. However, March 27 was the first time since Rosenberg filled in for Carlin in January that he appeared in MSNBC's studio in Secaucus, New Jersey. Rosenberg appeared in the MSNBC studio again on the March 28 edition of Imus in the Morning. Imus introduced him by saying, "Sid Rosenberg, in the house." Executive producer Bernard McGuirk added, "The comeback is complete."
On February 5, when Carlin returned, Imus said: "By having Sid on -- he really -- a spotlight was thrown on your many shortcomings." Carlin defended himself: "I don't get you sued on many occasions. I don't get you in trouble all over the place." Imus replied, "And you don't get us any ratings." During the February 2 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asked WFAN radio host Chris "Mad Dog" Russo, "Guess who's been on all week with us who's been great?" Russo answered, "I know Mr. Rosenberg. You gonna blow off Carlin now that you've got Sid back?" Imus said that he intended to keep Carlin but that "we're going to try and work something out with Sid, too."
From the March 26 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
ROSENBERG: Did you see this story in the Daily News, I-Man? Page 70. "Serena Shocked by Racist Heckler."
CARLIN: See, I personally stayed away from that for your benefit.
ROSENBERG: I was on an airplane.
[laughter]
IMUS: Fourteen after the hour --
McGUIRK: It was in Florida.
IMUS: Chris continues.
ROSENBERG: I was in Miami.
IMUS: And Sid kills himself.
From the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Sid went to the Sopranos party last night. And has anybody seen Sid this morning?
CARLIN: He's right next to me.
IMUS: Really?
McGUIRK: He's in the house.
CARLIN: He got here a half-hour early.
CHARLES McCORD (co-host): He's front and center.
IMUS: That is unbelievable. Sid Rosenberg, in the house.
McGUIRK: The comeback is complete.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Who listens to Imus? Seriously, I can never find anyone who admits to it in real life.
R.C. does, the poor soul.
Actually, my father does. He (my father) is also a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and NYCLU, an attorney for Legal Aid Society, raised a son (me) who worked for the Innocence Project for a bit, and is just very liberal in general.
Imus has done a bunch of funny things over his career (he once reported as fact that the Long Island Sound had to be drained so it could be cleaned, so everyone had to have their boats removed by a certain date).
Just saying that there are actual people who listen to him. I personally prefer Mike&Mike in the morning, but that's just me.
Sadly alot of people do and Senators like Biden, McCain, Schumer, Dodd talk to him on the air regularly and participate in his hate fest.
I listen and watch IMUS any morning I can get up that early. He's great with a first cup of coffee. There's only one thing that I disagreed with him about recently and that was Rick Santorum being re-elected. IMUS wanted him back in and I didn't. Thankfully, I was on the "right" side. And he backed Kinky Friedman for governor in Texas in November.
IMUS calls Dick Cheney and George Bush "war criminals" who should be hanged. He recently raised a helluva lot of dough for the Intrepid Center in Texas for rehabbing amputees and paralyzed soldiers from Iraq. He has guests on from all three major network news operations and refuses to have anyone from Fox NEws on his show becasue they are, in his words, morons. He founded and runs the IMUS Ranch for Kids with Cancer. He has burned the torch everyday about conditions at Walter Reed and other VA hospitals. They have great musical acts in studio.
So, what did you say again about watching his show??
Just so you know: Imus is an idiot and he had Chris Wallace on a week ago to spin the latest scandal of 8 gate saying that it was funny that Clinton fired all the State Attorneys of course not sayin that all pres's do this at the begining of there terms (with the I man going along with every word this "moron" said) and of course spinning plame gate saying there was no underlining crime hear so what's the big deal spin (again of course the I man hook line and sinker again)
Rosenberg said: "She won't look so pretty when she's bald with one [breast]."
Unbelievable. I'll bet he's a real winner w/ all of the ladies.
In general, I agree with (almost) everything that MM posts, but I don't see any misinformation being posted by MM here. I am in no way defending what Sid Rosenberg said (I personally think it was disgusting what he said re: the Williams sisters and Ms. Minogue), but it was just Sid being an idiot. It was not being stated as a reported fact. I like MM (which I found through sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, a great site) and its purpose, but this post doesn't seem aimed at that purpose. There's enough misinformation out there to report on without having to dilute MM's goals with another cause (albeit a worthy one).
'misinformation' is not MMFA's sole, only or over-riding mission and they have never claimed it was
Sorry, but I gotta disagree. Click on the "About Us" link above:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Not that this is a bad thing, but it does seem to be MM's overriding goal.
MMfA is a 501(c)3 corporation that pays for this blog. The idea that the only posts that may appear on this blog must narrowly fit the mission statement of the corporation is one I have only seen in comments, never from the siteowners.
where in there does it say it will ONLY talk about what you are willing to see as misinformation?
Sorry, krenith the mission of this site is actually quite broad. It exists to expose conservative biases.... well, I'll just quote their statement for you, "Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
So, you see, misinformation is only part of their scope. "— news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda--" That pretty much says, if your talkin' conservative smack, MMfA will report on it.
Yeah, but you are reading that narrowly. See I have been here a long time. They used to have a different format where the left side was outright disinformation and the right side was outrageous statements and the like. I think the logic is that the outrageous statements are a part of a disinformation agenda by coarsening the dialogue, by normalizing the abnormal so that which the mainstream media would have escewed without thought last year they let in through the margins THIS year. This creates an atmosphere where baseless assertions are SEEN as factual, where outlandish, cruel commentary by any reasonable standards belong nowhere but a website message board become part of the national dialogue. This IS a form of disinformation even thought its not outright lying.
One of the regulars here mused recently that it appeared mmfa staff works on a quota system...banging out threads...relevant or not.
This lends credence to that theory...this is incredibly weak. These types of stories show that mmfa has deviated from media watchdog to outright political operatives.
Don't like Rosenberg? I don't care much for him either...but conservative misinformation...LOL.
your post lends credence to the theory that you just come on here and automatically say the same thing. how this proves mmfa have become "political operatives" is beyond me.
typical of a numbskull-con to have used the 'some say' passive-aggresive fallacy, leave it to wesley and tommy to circle around it.
Bit of a straw man - who said MMfA was a media watchdog? Were you really under the impression this was not a partisan site. And while the mission statement of the corporation that pays the bills talks about conservative misinformation, I have never seen it written anywhere or said by anyone that the only thing that will ever be posted on this site will be conservative misinformation, and nothing else.
Every comments thread seems to be filled with meta-debate these days. It's becoming tiresome. If you guys don't like what gets posted, at a given point maybe you should vote with your feet. Or we could set up a meta-thread, or something, but come on, we only get 20 comments per page!
Thanks for making the point...mmfa is not just a media watchdog...they are liberal political operatives.
mmfa invited me here to comment...regardless of the opinions of the hall monitors. This site is not strictly the domain of liberal posters.
Thank you. Many just can't stand an opposing opinion, that's what it is. And their admonition to "shut up or take a hike" is just more evidence of their intolerance. Commenting on the validity of topic threads posted here is perfectly legitimate and warranted.
"Many just can't stand an opposing opinion, that's what it is."
Yeah. That's the ticket. You tell 'em!
You just did.
That is bunk, Tommy... a lot of people here, myself included, have expressed support for your thoughtful contrarianism, we just call you on it when you have nothing more creative to add than "why is this here?"
We know that you are less bothered by certain things than the people who write the posts. We get it. It's just not that interesting a piece of information after the hundredth iteration.
Val, Why am I going to start an argument about what is within a certain topic thread, when the thread itself is ridiculous to begin with, in my opinion.
For lack of a better example, that would be like me posting a topic "Hillary Clinton loves pantsuits".......would you argue whether she does or not, or would you say the topic is idiotic on it's face?
I'd ignore it, as I do many posts on this blog. There are many I don't find interesting... most, I would say.
I absolutely agree - ingoring posts of no substance is fine. But I am talking about topic threads, not posts. If someone wants to ignore one of my "why is this here" posts, feel free.
This is just my lexicon: I call "posts" the things MMfA writes, "comments" the things that we write, and "threads" the sequential replies that get thinner and thinner with every new comment.
maybe if we were to get a different "opinion" than "why is this here"?
Tommy,
I don't know if you were including me in your description, I really don't think I am intolerant of others opinions, but back to the discussion- MMFA is going to do what they want, it's their site. I believe the repetitiveness of your what is this doing here complaint is just getting on the nerves of some here. I really don't think they're attempting to oppress you freedom to express your political-views. I'm sure I say or write things here from time to time that get on fellow posters nerves as well. I'm honestly glad reasonable conservatives post here it makes for lively debate and I enjoy reading them, BUT when you guys get into your little testosterone fueled spats - that gets on my nerves (smile)Lynn, I agree but Tommy does have a point. There are a few posters on here who will attack and put words in others mouths at any attempt to cross the "Party Line". I have been attacked for having a different view on a different subject, I have been called "troll" and "Conservative" and "Bush Supporter" which of course is ridicuolus. I believe all views should be tolerated, as long as there is no vulgarity, personal attacks , racist, homophoic remarks. That is something MSNBC and the Imus show tolerate which I applaud MMFA for discussing.
But you haven't had your fallacies attacked, as Lynn just did to all us guys (testosterone, etc., heh-heh).
Lemoc,
I was kidding, but yeah I do believe that testostrone is some powerful stuff!
Lynn, Then I suggest you speak to the moderators. If you and others are tired of the "why is this here" mantra, then perhaps you should look at the thread topics where I and others make that claim. Do you see me doing that on substantive threads, even if I disagree with the content of it - No. I do it on threads that in my opinion are unworthy of mention.
You are correct, it is MMFA's prerogative to put up any topic they want to, and they invite comments from posters on that topic. If I say it's silly or question why it's here, that is perfectly legitimate criticism.
Tommy I do believe this thread is important, I would like MMFA to expand and ask Democratic Senators Biden, Dodd, Schumer why they appear on a racist show. How is this not as bad as Beck?
Doris, why would an organization trying to point out "conservative misinformation" attack liberals? I am not saying some if not most of them are not worthy of attack - I certainly wouldn't defend Biden for any one of a range of things, the least of which being talking to Imus - but why do you think it should take place on this site?
Val, I agree with you - but just don't expect that it is not relevant or exempt from criticism, when it's pointed out as the "other side of the coin" by other posters.
And dont expect YOUR criticism to be exempt from our CRITICISM about its boring repetitiveness. THIS ISNT YOUR SITE. YOU DONT GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS RELEVANT. Feel free to start your OWN site which you can then make all decisions about but dont forget to let us know its url so we can drop in and tell YOU how to run it.
I am not asking MMFA to attack Senators Dodd, Biden and Schumer. I wish they would ask the question. I think if the question came from a progressive organization it would be more valid. I do not believe asking valid questions is an "attack". Dodd, Biden and Schumer give some credibility to Imus and he will never change his racist show. Maybe I am missing something and the Imus show is not racist and homophoic and he represents all Progressives? Maybe that shwy Dodd, Biden and Schumer kiss up to him? Just a thought.
I agree that progressives should question, or even attack them for this point. I am just having an allergic reaction to the suggestion that every progressive outlet should of necessity be even-handed, or they lose credibility. That may or may not be your point, but I think partisanship is actually a good thing, so long as it's not hidden under a BS banner of "fair and balanced."
Val, I don't believe partisanship, by definition, can ever be fair and balanced......I do believe that people can be principled and a committed liberal or conservative by sticking by their values and core beliefs - but to be partisan is just blindly accepting some ideology while ignoring, at times, facts.
to be partisan is just blindly accepting some ideology while ignoring, at times, facts
I don't accept your definition of "partisan," but I agree that blind acceptance of anything is bad.
This Imus show with its racist hate and homophobic remarks is nothign new. My point is why is it bad for McCain to appear on Beck when he Beck called Senator Clinton a "B*tch'? Yet Imus has called her Satan, and Bernie the producer has called her a "B*itch" as documented on MMFA but we never ask Biden, Schumer and Dodd and Harold Ford Jr. Why they appear on this show? I do not care about Progressive or Conservative when it comes to this issue. That type of homophobic hate should not be tolerated on a main stream network or any where on the airwaves.
Doris, I agree with your opinion of Imus, but I don't necessarily think it's what Brock set MMfA up to do. I think that progressives should in general do a much better job of holding supposedly "liberal" politicians accountable.
I think it's more than fine for you to hold a contrarian viewpoint, meanwhile, but you should be aware that it's a common conservative tactic to use "false flag" supposedly liberal attacks on Democratic politicians as a way to defuse attacks on conservatives. I don't believe that's what you are doing based on other things you have said on this and other posts. But I think that is why you draw some of the heat you complain about.
I will just say it again for the record, I find racist, homphobic , religious remarks unacceptable on the nations airwaves. To me its not a political issue. But I applaud MMFA for continuing to cover the hate the is on the Imus show.
Nice job Doris...you cut right to the meat of the cocoanut with that thought.
No Tommy I'm not going to speak to MMFA about this unless they hire me as a moderator. What will happen is you will continue to complain about the threads you don't approve of and others that will sometimes include me will continue to say For the Love of God Shut Up Tommy!
ah, tommy playing the 'pity me i am the VICTIM DARN IT!' card again. sorry but your time has expired and you need to grow up and realize that just because you HAVE an opinion it does not make it the only right one.
tommy, i hate to post cross thread on this and i apologize if this has already been asked/answered, but on a previous thread you mentioned:
the reason Dean was viewed as a "nutcase" is because he even mentioned the possible and "interesting" theory that the Saudis warned Bush prior to 9/11 about it's occurence.
I had never heard this and was curious when it happened, etc.
thanks
I remember this one and did a little googling around.
It was Dec 1, 2003 on NPR with Diane Rehm:
In context, I think the Governor may have been using "interesting" as a euphemism or "silly," rather than endorsing the theory. Certainly, though, the right-wing immediately ran with it as evidence that Dr. Dean was bugshit insane...
Sorry, you can read the quote more clearly on Spinsanity...
Thanks. I had not heard of this before, and after reading the transcript, I think Tommy's characterization of the interview was a bit off, but I suppose this not the place for it.
"Many just can't stand an opposing opinion, that's what it is."
-----
Go to FreeRepublic and post an opposing opinion. You'll never post with that ID or IP Address ever again.
On the other hand, you and Wesley and the rest have posted opinions that range from "opposing" to "where the hell did that come from?" and you're still here.
There's far more tolerance here than you will find on any of the neocon boards, that's for sure.
Your point is a point without a distinction. You are accusing a partisan website of being a partisan website.
I don't know who "invited" you or even what that means, and you are of course welcome to post whatever you damn well please on here - I don't know who these "hall monitors" are of which you speak. I'm just expressing my opinion, same as you.
Hall monitors usually tell students to get back to class. In this case, it's posters who tall other posters they disagree with to "vote with their feet".......apt analogy.
I didn't tall or tell him anything of the sort, I said "maybe at a certain point."
Again, I could go over to Red-State.org and ask them why they post what they post. But I can't imagine why I would want to.
and you would be banned instantly, just like you would be at the freeper scum site. That is the difference, we put up with silliness, deviciveness and just plain idiocy from the tommy's and westley's, sometimes laughing at their absurdity.
"Hall monitors usually tell students to get back to class."
Exactly. That's why you think you are the MMFA hall monitor, telling them what is and isn't relevant. Kettle meet pot.
You, like Media Matters, have a point... and you often don't. Wesley is as partisan as they come - by way of reading his posts for the past few years. No one invited anyone here to post. It's all done per free will and I think MMFA is fairly consistent and fair. You defending Wesley's claim doesn't help your cause in my opinion.
Perhaps MMFA should consider purchasing some "non-partisan credits" from some other site in an effort to become more "partisan-neutral".
HA! That's funny. Good one Bruce.
;^}
- I don't know who "invited" you or even what that means, - valentinian
This is my invitation:
- We are committed to providing a forum where anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, can address and respond to the work we do...We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. - mmfa
Clear enough?
Congratulations. So what? Has anyone ever told you not to post? Not to comment? I don't get this whining...
You do serve a purpose, something akin to fish in a barrel.
Post, don't post, whatever floats your boat. But if you really want to discourage MMFA from runnning "iffy" items like this one, the best thing to do would probably be not to post so that the comment thread is short or non-existent. These "where's the misinformation?" threads tend to get long, which might make MMFA think these questionable items are more popular with their readers than they really are. Just a suggestion.
mmfa is not just a media watchdog...they are liberal political operatives....by wesley
Mmmmm...I think you may be on to something ;-)
Another filler thread. No substance. No Conservative misinformation.
And I'm allowed to ask why it's here....so why is this here?
No reply necessary, it'll just be more mumbo-jumbo.
I'm "allowed" to fart in elevators, too. Yay freedom.
Bravo Val.
Now that made more sense than the crap you were shoveling on the Beck-McCain thread.
Yes, well, my ass often makes more sense than my mouth, or so I'm told...
No Jeter, you are not allowed to ask that - then you would just be contrary, without a contrarian position.
He's allowed to be anything he wants, and I'm allowed to call either of you anything I want. Except "asshole." You get probation for that.
Seriously, let's take "allowed" and "not allowed" off the table. You object to Media Matters posting certain things, we object to the objection, and then it's just dialogue. A rather boring and circular dialogue, but nobody is censoring anyone.
Amen to that Val.
well now you see wes and tommy's agenda. they want to be the only ones allowed to pick and choose what is posted here. Either by MMFA or us posters. Ain't it sweet of them to try and take all that decision stuff away from us? Of course that is anti-conservative since it violates their own definitions. but who ever said authoritarian dipso's were consistant? All they want is ORDER, to hades with the law.
Do you realize how ridic......................(never mind, too easy)
"Do you realize how ridic......................(never mind, too easy)"
-----
Awwww, too bad. You were that close to your first actual introspective post on this board, and you wimped out.
Amen to that Mutt. Dead on, apply directly to the forehead.
Exactly Val. I dont get them snivelling that WE are criticising their criticisms. Somehow THEIR criticisms are valid and US criticising THEM is out of bounds, trying to silence them or some such nonsense
fill us in jeter, either you or wesley. how does this thread prove mmfa are "political operatives"?
Jeter - I like your posts and you (and the other guys) have a point. The hassle that Wesley or Tommy gets, in my opinion, is just par for the course. Wesley is self-appointed 'liberal media watchdog' ... he proves it whenever he posts. So, what's his beef? Like this IMUS piece... much ado about nothing.
and of course you cannot supply the name of the person you claim is
a) a 'regular' here
b) or their complete comment
This may not technically reach the zenith of MMfAs mission statement, and it may be just a slow news day. However, I do appreciate the service of postings like this because I don't have to go through the hassle of actually listening to racist bigots to know that racist bigots on the airwaves. If Imus had a spine he would not invite this idiot back on nor would he allow his sidekick to pander to the lowest common denominator. Is this conservative misinformation? No. Is it an accurate reflection of what passes for conservative entertainment? Yes. So keep posting MMfA.
Let me restate what I meant:
If MM desires to post more than just misinformation, that is fine with me, and I can see the need for it. I just thought that MM tried to only post misinformation. Therefore, whenever I saw a post from MM, I always just naturally assumed that there was some misinformation going on. I now realize this is not the case, and MM does sometimes purposefully make posts that it knows are not misinformation, but just giving us information about what is out there in the conservative world.
By the way, as I write this, I am in my office. The Fox building is the building next to me, and I get to hear whenever they invite the NASCAR fools out to rev their engines. Lucky me, eh?
Do you get hazard pay for being so close to Fox?
I should, but I don't. A bunch of my bosses are conservatives, but a bunch of my coworkers are liberal. The really scary thing is all the young, attractive women going in and out of the Fox building. Makes you wonder about Fox's hiring process (then again, seems to fit right in with all the skin they show on their programs).
Question I would ask
The Imus show has been at the pinnacle of racist and sexist , homophobic remarks and is seen daily on MSNBC. But why do Republicans like McCain and Democrats like Schumer, Biden, Dodd, Harold Ford Jr. appear on this hateful show even sometimes engage in discussion with bigots like Roseberg and Bernie? Why?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Where in this statement does it say the sole purpose of postings here are specifically to correct conservative misinformation? It doesn't. You can certainly interpret it that way but to me this thread falls under the monitoring and analyzing criteria. If it read " monitoring, analyzing for the purpose of correcting conservative misinformation" it would be a different story. Regardless what's the big deal if they don't live up to a perceived statement? It's still worth talking about. Isn't it?
- Were you really under the impression this was not a partisan site. - valentinian
Nope...mmfa has partisan opinions and so do I. In this case, they posed no conservative misinformation...just flammable rhetoric to pander to the liberal base.
That is my point...and none other.
That's not a point, it's an observation. Your point seems to be that there is something wrong with a progressive site pointing out crappy things the other side has done - your use of the loaded verb "to pander" clearly gives that impression.
If I have misinterpreted you, please set me straight. Thanks.
The answer is simple...no...I don't think it is wrong for a liberal site to espouse liberal positions.
My "observation" is that aside from their mission statement...they are exactly what you describe...partisan activists. So we can drop the charade of media watchdogs identifying conservative misinformation.
But who has put on this "charade," as you call it, of this being some sort of impartial media watchdog site?
(crickets)
Here's my problem and I apologize for jumping in late:
When MMFA writes threads correcting conservative misinformation in the media, they do this with the wink that what THEY are saying is the whole truth and what the MEDIA was saying is a conservative fantasy. How about we just agree that MMFA isn't telling the WHOLE truth in a lot of these threads? As you said and I agree, this is a partisan site so why would they bring things into play that don't support their argument? They don't and they won't. But I think it makes their arguments less credible. Partisan players are not high on credibility on either side.
Absent real examples, I can't really agree or disagree, Bruce. In every circumstance I can recall, when they claim to be rebutting misinformation it is done factually, with reference to other reporting that discredits what is being presented. When they are not making a claim to rebut, as in this circumstance, I see it as being presented to provoke discussion.
Ye Gods Bruce...dead bang, bullseye, kayo, right on the money.
Um, I can't agree with that bit about MMfA purposely not giving information as part of some partisan plot. Let's remember that they don't target political figures but media outlets. Those media oulets are the ones only giving a partial story or out right incorrect information. MMfA supplies the rest of the story usually or simply allows an ass to make an ass of themselves by just offering a transcript or audio/video. I may have not been interested in some threads on MMfA but I've never had the impression that they are leaving something out for political purposes. If you could provide an example I'd like to see it.
I've got a good example in mind, I will see if I can find it and link to the archive. No promises though.
It's all good. I could be totally off base. It's good to re-evaluate comfortable positions from time to time.
Unfortunately I couldn't find it and I'm about to sign off, but the thread had to do with a comparison of economic numbers pre-9/11 and post 9/11 and MMFA did this analysis without even mentioning that 9/11 had occurred in the meantime. As if that could possibly slip anybodys mind or it wasn't relevent to the economy. It was a bogus argument IMO but unfortunately I couldn't find the thread.
Bruce, if you come up with something I will read it with an open mind.
I just object to the seeming assertion that MMfA is trying, Fox-like, to present itself as somehow objectively fair while representing apartisan viewpoint. I think MMfA is both more up-front about its political orientation and more honest in the information it presents. If I thought they lied or distorted, I would join you in condemning them.
Here's the thread I was thinking of yesterday. If you read my comment from that thread, you will see that I was less than impressed with MMFA's analysis. It seemed they left out a major fact in order to "prove" their own point. But, maybe that's just my "partisan" take on it! :-)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240008
Bruce, I didn't dig too deeply into it yet, but if you are just looking at the major indices, the [link to finance.yahoo.com] target="_blank">Dow recovered its pre-9/11 levels in a couple of months and the Nasdaq">[link to finance.yahoo.com] even more quickly. In any case, I don't see any support for Snow/Cavuto's numbers, and since neither Snow nor MMfA mentioned 9/11 as a factor, I don't see a foul here.
What am I missing?
Snow didn't mention it because his point of reference was post-9/11 by almost 2 years. MMFA went back to pre-9/11 and didn't mention it, that is an omission of a relevent fact in my opinion. But I tried to make my point on the other thread so this was the example I was thinking of yesterday, agree or disagree.
I'm no good at numbers - this is the best chart I could find without spending a lot of time on it. The 9/11 drop is just a hiccup... the macro trends are clear.
And under no circumstances do Snow's numbers work out.
You understand that when you say "hiccup", according to the charts you linked to it took until the end of 2003 to get back to where we were pre-9/11?
Yes, if you erase that period and just attach the post-2003 line to September, the trend line looks pretty much unbroken.
Interestingly, May 2003 looks pretty much exactly like June 2001, so you could arguably pick either date. Remember, we're talking % change, so anything that happens in between the start and end dates is absolutely irrelevant.
Well, I don't think you can pick either date because people got a net 0% return on their money for over two years. And MMFA makes that point because they say in their summary: And when adjusted for inflation, the value of both stock indices has decreased since President Bush's first major tax cut package in June 2001.
So if you use the 2001 starting date you have two years worth of inflation to add in there as well. I've explained it the best I can. You can have the last word.
Okay, I accept that, two years of inflation does change the picture, you are right. The main point, however, does not depend on this argument, but I think it is murky as best. As I've said, I don't think it was an intentional distortion as much as a sort of clumsy comparison, but I have no real way of knowing.
I disagree with your take for two reasons, first the thread was not about the economic numbers but about Cavutos outright misinformation which even YOU agreed was there second, the economy was ALREADY heading south BEFORE 9/11 we went into a recession in APRIL of 01 thats a full five months BEFORE 9/11. NONE of that was the point you are CLAIMING that MMFAs point was about the economy, it WASNT it was about Cavuto and they were RIGHT.
Right, so When MMFA writes the following:
Moreover, Snow cherry-picked his point of comparison. He compared current stock index levels to May 2003, when they were nearer to their most recent low point, rather than June 2001, when Bush [link to www.whitehouse.gov] color="#0052a3">signed his [link to www.cbo.gov] color="#0052a3">first large tax cut package, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Since Bush signed that first set of cuts, the [link to finance.yahoo.com] color="#0052a3">Dow is up 8.4 percent, and the [link to finance.yahoo.com] color="#0052a3">Nasdaq is up 6.1 percent. Adjusted for inflation, however, the Dow has decreased by 4.9 percent since June 2001, while the Nasdaq has decreased by 7 percent.*
No mention of 9/11 there and they also cherry-picked a date, it was just a different date. Seriously, we will never know what the markets would have done had 9/11 not occurred so to go back to a point prior to that event and say that "see how bad the market performed" and not mention what happened between there is weak.
Snow said the performance of the market had grown a certain amount. It turned out to have grown a different amount. MMfA pointed this out. Your complaint seems to be that 9/11 was the reason for the lackluster performance, but the two indices discussed recovered their pre-9/11 levels within a couple of months.
I don't get it, what is your beef?
Val, I acknowledged back then that Snow was wrong. If you read my response on the other thread I said that MMFA got it right about correcting Snow but got it wrong with their own analysis. And when I say wrong I mean that they intentionally omitted 9-11 as a factor to consider when they gave their example.
I don't know, to me this is at worst a clumsy argument. I am trying not to be reactionary, but this is readdy just a "and what's more" kind of argument that the main point doesn't depend on.
I don't see an intent to mislead here, but I could be wrong.
I agree, they had Snows numbers refuted with the first part of the thread. And I don't know if they intentionally misled or not with the second part, but it was definitely a misleading argument IMO. But, like I said, I've explained why I think so the best I can.
You MIGHT have a point IF they had been critiquing the ECONOMY, they WERENT, they were critiquing CAVUTO. As you correctly pointed out HE WAS WRONG. Your criticism of MMFA therefore is without merit
Solon: While I acknowlegde that they did correct Snow's remarks, that doesn't give MMFA a free pass to shovel their own sh*t on the side. Not in my book.
They didnt shovel anything just because they didnt use YOUR spin. They showed that Cavuto was flat out wrong. They used the stats available. YOU can claim whatever you want about the effects 9/11 had and no one is forgetting that it happened it was however IRRELEVANT to refuting Cavutos claim. Unless you are telling me that MMFA's numbers are incorrect, which you arent, like say Cavutos numbers WERE, then just because they dont spin it the way YOU want them too doesnt mean they are shovelling anything except scorn for Cavuto
"but the thread had to do with a comparison of economic numbers pre-9/11 and post 9/11 and MMFA did this analysis without even mentioning that 9/11 had occurred in the meantime."
-----
How is it possible to analyze data pre- and post-9/11 without taking that very 9/11 into account? You can't use 9/11 as a criterion and then not mention it. It is mentioned by its very existence as a boundary to the two groups of data.
That sounds to me like a gross misunderstanding of what was presented, not misinformation on MMfA's part..
I linked to the thread you can see for yourself.
Your logical fallacy is that they two are not mutually exclusive.
"flammable rhetoric"
What the hell does that mean? Perhaps you meant inflammatory?
i heard there's a recall on "flammable rhetoric".
"In this case, they posed no conservative misinformation..."
-----
Racism is the height of conservative misinformation.
"The Post quoted a spokesperson for Viacom-owned Infinity">[link to www.infinitybroadcasting.com] Broadcasting, which operates WFAN,">[link to www.wfan.com] the New York radio station that is the flagship for the radio version of Imus in the Morning, stating that Rosenberg 'will not be returning to the Imus in the Morning show.'"
And now he's back. I'd say that constitutes some misinformation right there. MSNBC has the right to change their minds, of course, but a lot of media outlets have a tradition of distancing themselves from comments made by people they hire, when they should know full-well what kind of person they are hiring. This reminds me greatly of the gyrations MSNBC went through when they hired Michael Savage. Knowing full well Savage's history of making statements well beyond the pale of civilized speech, MSNBC president Erik Sorenson described him as "brash, passionate and smart," and stated that he would provide "compelling opinion and analysis with an edge." MSNBC then subsequently acted surprised when he inevitably went through his melt down on the air.
I for one will not be remotely surprised when Rosenberg makes another truly foul statement like the ones documented above and Viacom again professes shock that one of their employees would behave in such a manner.
MMFA to its credit, has expanded its scope to include hate speech and I applaud it for that. If I want hate speech in my media I can always vist RedDog whatever.
You want jokes, how about this for jokes: 2,000 buses in New Orleans; Sandy Berger stole national security documents as part of a cover-up for the Clinton admin; the RAMPANT fraud of the U.N.-Iraq food for oil program which necessitated WAR; and finally the banal and harmless theft of funds for Iraq reconstruction. All of these the falacious water cooler talk in furtherance of movement conservative values propagated and promulgated by the corporate media but not once challenged for its validity or basis in fact by that media.
My brother leaves for Iraq shortly, part of the "new" Iraq strategy. I'll be sure to maintain my sense of humor for his wife and children.
A blatantly racist commentator makes it back on the air and the usual suspects manage to divert the entire discussion away from the actual topic. Seriously, at this point, the mindless "why is this here" nonsense is tantamount to an endorsement of the comments and actions that are being highlighted in the article. Unless they're just attention seeking trolls, then Wesley, Tommy, et. al. must have some reason for attempting to distract from and invalidate articles such as these.
Maybe so, but I think it's less sinister than that. Tommy and Jeter in particular are proud of their self-perception as "independents." I do think they honestly believe themselves as above what they see as narrow-minded partisanship, and when these posts come up that, to them, represent a partisan viewpoint, they rush in to say "see? you guys are just as bad as what you're criticising!"
My personal opinion is that everyone is partisan, they just choose different things to be partisan about. Sometimes I think Tommy is the most partisan anti-partisan in America... :-)
And how is objecting to the rehiring of a racist commentator a partisan position? It's not, and therefore they have no point.
What an absolutely ridiculous and inflammatory assertion........but coming from a blatant and classless race baiter such as yourself, it is no surprise.
Wow... "the comeback is complete."
Whatever, Clams tries to haul out the racist charge whenever he feels like it. It's his MO, predictable and pathetic. He has levied that charge at me many times, lying all the way.....but now he encases it in another of his clever attempts to haul it out again. You can believe him or not, that is your choice. If he keeps at it though, not only will his posts continue to get deleted as has been done previously, he may get rightfully banned.
I didn't see where he called anyone but Rosenberg a racist, ans that charge seems pretty well borne out by the facts...
Read it again, he says we are basically endosing his racist comments, which is his way of once again, baselessly, calling us racists.
Not necessarily. As I read it, he's calling you and Wesley either racists or trolls.
your choice tom, make it.
It's an either /or. Either you have a point or you don't. Either you're distracting from the topic for a reason or you're just an attention-seeking troll. Pick one. If it's the former, then please tell us the reason.
And your fantasy about me being banned is just that...a fantasy. Not once have I ever been contacted or warned by a moderator. Also, here's the obligatory call for you to provide us all with a single instance of me lying or misrepresenting anything you've written. You won't of course, and for the umpteenth time it will be clear to everyone that your namecalling is completely baseless. The last time I called you a racist I provided a whole catalog of links to back that up. Your only rebuttal was to say, "I stand by everything I wrote." Based on that, everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether you're a racist or not. Where's the lie?
The last time you called me a racist, that I saw, your post was deleted......you wondered why then, and apparently now you still don't get it.
So, your either/or is curious. Either you wallow in your own pathetic victimhood, which is usually the case for those who haul out the racist charge, based on their own circumstances - Or, you're just distracting this topic for a reason because you're just an attention seeking troll.
Whatever the reason, it really doesn't matter. And frankly, I could care less.
Uh, no my post still stands. I did have another post deleted for unknown reasons, but I simply posted it again and it stood as well. As for claiming that I'm somehow playing the victim, I have no idea what you're getting at.
Actually I remember it Tommy (the deleted post) it was part of an entire series of thread/posts that was deleted, based on the language of the first post.
When you reply to a post and that post is removed, your post is removed as well. (just in case you did not know that).
Clams, calling people like Tommy a troll is weak. We can disagree but he is not endorsing Rosenberg. It sad when people on here resort to the "troll" word.
Well, I think we do get trolls, which is a term with an actual definition that has meaning, but I don't think Tommy fits the description.
that is one type of troll, they are several types found in the wild including the 'concern' troll. this is type that you will hear using the mantra 'will nobody think of the CHILDREN' as an example. They have one single over-riding concern that colors every thought or opinion, and they are so 'concerned' about whomever they fell they need to protect they can fly into rages in defense. And always only with the best of intentions. tommy and wes kind of fit into that group since they pretend they are so concenred about MMFA adhearing to thier definition of what MMFA is, no matter if that is MMFA's definition or not.
Read it once?
Read it twice?
Read it.........oh never mind.
Then what is his point? You can say that he's not endorsing Rosenberg, but he hasn't said that. And his repeated mantra of "this doesn't belong here" should have greeted with a collective "So what?" Because there is no point.
Please show me specifically where I questioned the validity of this specific topic, i.e. "this doesn't belong here".
You cannot. A man would apologize for leveling such baseless accusations.
Are you serious? First of all, my original comment was directed at both you and Wesley, who began by questioning the validity of the topic. You then responded, "Commenting on the validity of topic threads posted here is perfectly legitimate and warranted," and then you proceeded to do just that. And only that, because you had nothing at all to say about the actual topic. And you still haven't addressed the actual topic. Either it disinterests you--and in that case, why bother posting at all--or you wish to actively distract from the topic, or you simply want to see how long you can dominate the discussion with nonsense that you don't even care about.
I am not surprised you didn't apologize.
Have a good evening.
You shouldn't be surprised, because your call for an apology is just empty grandstanding. I quoted your VERY FIRST post in this thread. That's how far I had to look to find you flogging the old "why does this belong here" argument. That's all you discussed for the entirety of this 100-odd post thread. And I'm supposed to apologize? You're nuts.
Good grief, don't quote Tommy's own words to him, or he'll accuse you of "stalking" him.
Doris, If you are interested, go back to the beginning of this thread and see my first post - I responded to Wesley about how some posters cannot stand opposing opinions. Subsequent posts of mine were also responses to various opinions........regarding this specific topic, I never mentioned the "why is this thread here."
So there you have it, Clams hysteria and calling me a racist troll for something I never even said or initmated. And he says he never lies?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Claims
"Seriously, at this point, the mindless "why is this here" nonsense is tantamount to an endorsement of the comments and actions that are being highlighted in the article. Unless they're just attention seeking trolls, then Wesley, Tommy, et. al. must have some reason for attempting to distract from and invalidate articles such as these."
Tommy
"So there you have it, Clams hysteria and calling me a racist troll for something I never even said or initmated. And he says he never lies?"
Do you think its ok to criticise CC for something and then proceed to do it yourself? He never called you a racist troll. For someone that loves to argue about symantics I'm suprised you would make such a bold statement when the post is 2 pages back.
No surprise here. He does it all the time, as if the posts just disappear down the memory hole. And notice how he still can't bring himself to comment on the actual topic. He was given every opportunity to explain exactly why he feels the need to divert the conversation away from Rosenburg, but instead he accuses me (sigh...again) of race-baiting, and of course, lying. Doris even made a valiant attempt at giving him the benefit of the doubt by saying that he doesn't endorse anything Rosenburg said, but Tommy couldn't even bring himself to agree with that.
I avoided commenting in the thread until the very end, but I'm just sick of these topics being derailed by people who only want to whine about articles that don't adhere to the MMFA mission statement as closely as they'd like them to. I mean seriously, there is no point to that, and it truly isn't a valid criticism. Are they such good little authoritarian robots that they feel it's their "duty" (Tommy's word) to police MMFA by using MMFA's own mission statement as their Rule of Law?
So, yeah, I'll say it again: I think it's fair to assume that someone who actively avoids discussing a topic by instigating distractionary nonsense is essentially endorsing the actions and comments that are being highlighted. Particularly when, as we saw here with Tommy, they are given the opportunity--by both sympathetic and unsympathetic posters--to explain themselves.
Imus is hate filled and creepy, the fact that Pumpkinhead Russert goes on there is enough to fill a barf bag. Where are all the reich wingers who complain about MSNBC getting a free pass from MMFA all the time?
And what exactly does this have to do with conservative misinformation?
Is Sid Rosenberg a conservative? Oh, he's a racist so that must mean he's a conservative, unlike tolerant liberals like Robert KKK Byrd and Joey "I can't walk into a 7/11 without hearing an Indian accent/Barack Obama is the only clean black guy" Biden.
Byrd left the KKK almost 70 years ago. Your lie has been debunked so many times I'm amazed you don't know that.
Do two examples outweigh the decades of racism the conservatives have spouted right up to the present day?
Yeah, I don't think so, either.
I used to like the Imus show a lot, years ago. I talked myself into thinking that all the politically incorrect humor was just that, humor, all in good fun, and eff you if you can't take a joke. But finally, I realized that, funny or not, this is the wrong time and the wrong society in which to legitimize that sort of crap. Imus thinks that because he helps kids with cancer (in the most self-aggrandizing way possible), he can get a pass on anything. He's wrong.
On the other hand, Rosenberg shouldn't be singled out for firing when he says nothing worse than anybody else on the show does. That's just scapegoating.
And did you know that Minnesota US Senator Norm Coleman is his cousin? Make of that what you will.
If people would stop watching shows like Imus and O'Reilly and start thinking for themselves these shows would not have a voice. We the people are the reason why these shows have a voice these types of show are made for people who are looking to be mislead. Stop watching this garbage and start looking for the real truth in other places because if you think shows like Imus and O'Reilly are telling you the truth then you are a FOOL just like those guys who host those shows.
I'm still looking for the "Why is this topic here? This is not misinformation" button on my post window.
Does anyone know which one it is? I see cut, paste, bold, and link (which no conservative seems to be able to use). Instead of link Wesley/Tommy do you have the "WITTH" button? Just curious, and btw I'm not really attacking you guys, just making a joke.
It is simple and repeatable process. Tommy and Wes get to say MMFAs posts are useless. Others get to say their comments are useless. And what exactly has been accomplished?
Nothing.
Well except for watching Tommy try to backtrack or deny his own comments pointed out by CC. Wes gets to play ditto head, "right on", "bulleye!", "kayo", "etc", Jeter comes in as the sanctimonious "independent" adding his solemn "balance" to the proceedings, and we get to wade thru the same pages and pages of stuff totally unrelated to the thread.
Caution. Thread relevant material following.
Imus is a shock jock, and sometimes he is even funny and when he or his staff fails at funny, is offensive. I do not know why Sid is being singled out; other performers on his show are to me equally offensive. Have you ever heard of the Irish Catholic priest rants? If you are an Irish priest, you do not want to hear it. The only redeeming feature of Imus is he is an equal opportunity hater; he will hate any politician or group randomly at any given time. I have heard him interview conservative guests and tell them they must be drinking the Kool-Aid to say what they do, and other times allows conservative guests to say the most outrageous and misleading statements without challenge, which maybe at times because he zones out and does not hear the answers to his questions.
Note I base my observations on my limited listening, probably average about 10 minutes a day. At any rate, I get more ticked off by Imus guests, the politicians, pundits, and journalists, who can spew mega-tons of misinformation and liberal smears. Imus and his staff? I can see where some interpret what they do as hate speech, I see knucklehead shock comedians who often miss the mark.
Wow, Rosenberg is even a nastier character than Media Matters documents. Check out his wiki entry. The guy's a loon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Rosenberg