On O'Reilly Factor, Bruce alleged left-wing hit list of conservative media figures
On the April 16 edition of his television show, Bill O'Reilly invited Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce to comment on the firing of Don Imus, which, according to O'Reilly, "has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces." Bruce asserted that "small groups of people" are engaged in an "effort" to "silence[]" and "destroy[]" "people who are not intimidated" and that these groups "have a list of individuals that are to be targeted." She said to O'Reilly, "[W]ell, you're on it of course." She continued: "We start with [right-wing pundit Ann] Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course, they will move down their list, because we're moving into this election."
Later, when O'Reilly asked how she would respond to those who questioned why liberals would "target Don Imus" since he "was essentially a liberal guy on the radio," Bruce claimed: "There is a civil war going on right now between the far-left individual extremists, as you have noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats." She added: "In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are. That's why Imus had to be eliminated and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list."
O'Reilly replied: "OK, now there's also a list -- and I don't know whether you're aware of this, but this is what [Fox News host] Sean [Hannity] and I are working on -- of mainstream media people like [New York Times columnist] Frank Rich and others who are used by these far-left websites, fed stuff directly to them." Bruce responded: "Oh yes, I used them." (In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, Rich described the ensuing controversy sparked by Imus' comments as a "lynching" and wrote: "I don't think the punishment fits the crime.")
As Media Matters has documented, Bruce is a self-described "openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist." Bruce has equated the election of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee to "putting O.J. Simpson in charge of a battered women's shelter." Additionally, following the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), Bruce asserted: "All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive," as Media Matters noted.
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Continuing now with the Imus controversy -- which has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces. Or am I overstating?
Joining us now from Los Angeles: radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce.
Now, as the former L.A. president for NOW, National Organization for Women, you certainly know this world.
BRUCE: Sure do.
O'REILLY: And I am -- Sean Hannity and I are doing an investigation on this, and we should have it for everybody on Monday on the Factor.
BRUCE: Great.
O'REILLY: But I am seeing danger for this nation because of all of this dishonesty being fed out of this far-left swamp into the mainstream media. Am I overstating it?
BRUCE: No, you're not. And coming from the left, one of the agendas that we had of course was the realization that we had to at least make our agenda appear to be broader and more accepted than it was. We would create subgroups, separate special interest groups, making it appear as though there was a large mainstream movement occurring when in fact there wasn't.
Of course the argument was, was that the end justified -- was justified by the means. Now, in this instance, in what you've just talked about with Mr. DeLay, is what happened to you is what happened -- what I consider the test case -- back six, seven years ago to [nationally syndicated radio host] Dr. Laura Schlessinger -- with a word that is plucked out of a sentence used in an attempt to destroy one person.
That effort, Bill, was launched by about a half a dozen people only and facilitated through the Internet of well-financed, small groups of people who have literally -- and they did then and they still do, have a list of individuals that are to be targeted, because they know that -- well, you're on it of course.
It's people who are not intimidated, who will not be silenced of their own accord, and so they must be destroyed. We start with Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course, they will move down their list, because we're moving into this election.
O'REILLY: OK. Now the Laura Schlessinger thing you're talking about is she had a television show. She said something about gays and the Bible. They took it out. They ran with it. All the sponsors of her TV show bolted, and she didn't get a television show -- and that was the first one.
But, you know, people will say to you, "Listen, Don Imus was essentially a liberal guy on the radio. He gave platform to the far left."
BRUCE: Yes.
O'REILLY: "Why would they target Don Imus?"
BRUCE: Well, he's -- just the reason why I get targeted as, quote, "not being a," quote, "real Democrat." He is targeted because I see him as being the Lieberman, if you will, of the Democratic framework. There is a civil war going on right now between the far-left individual extremists, as you've noted them to be, and the classical liberal basic Democrats.
And that is where you saw the Lamont-Lieberman attack happened, the attempt to purge Lieberman. In order to be able to even go after Republicans eventually, or conservatives, these far-left forces need to purge our own House of Democrats like myself who speak the truth and will confront them on what they are.
That's why Imus had to be eliminated, and that's why they went after him first. And now they'll proceed down their list.
O'REILLY: OK, now there's also a list -- and I don't know whether you're aware of this, but this is what Sean and I are working on -- of mainstream media people like Frank Rich and others who are used by these far-left websites, fed stuff directly to them --
BRUCE: Oh yes, I used them.
O'REILLY: -- and then they put it in the papers.
not really too outlandish
oreilly, savage, limbaugh, are all on mmfa's most wanted.
You forgot Coulter
actually, one of coulter's first firings was from the right wing "national review".
Uh huh.
And MMFA controls the universe. We all get our secret coded memos from Brock so we know who to hate.
One might say it's a "vast left-wing conspiracy", no?
[meeting tonight, pass it on, don't tell the conservative posters]
Except by any definition, MMFA is not "vast": few hits; no significant contributors, nor any huge number of contributors; and, since we attracted the attention of Rush and the bandits at Townhall, as many or more conservo-trolls as live liberals posting. Apparently our influence is somehow far out of proportion to our numbers - but, still - vast?
MMFA must be doing something right to have so many right-wing morons attacking it.
O'Reilly's pedestal stumping, moral highground nonsense fueled by his mega-ego on this subject is only eclipsed by Bruce's incessantly whiny voice. Thank the good Lord I did not watch this last night........I can't even force myself to click on the video link.
Click the link! Slim down! It's the most effective weight loss technique ever developed!
Tammy Bruce is a phony. Voting for someone who will not stand up for rights into the presidency, calling Mark Foley, a pedophile, "gay," and claiming to be from the left. I don't expect her to be a democratic party loyalist, but she's being fake.
What I meant to point out was that if she's claiming to be "openly gay" why is she not voting for someone who will allow her to marry, and why would she call a pedophile "gay."
Technically, pedophile has a specific definition, and as far as anyone knows, there's no such evidence that Mark Foley qualifies. He his gay. His being gay is not an indictment on other homosexuals. It's a simple statement of fact. There are bad gay people. There are gay pedophiles. There are straight pedophiles. Everyone Mark Foley is connected with were at the time of his connection to them long into their own adolescence. They were not prepubescent. Therefore, what he did or tried to do does not fall within the realm of pedophilia. That's no defense. It's a clarification.
Totally agree. What is so incredibly irritating is the way some of these media people parade and pimp themselves out to whomever is the ideological flavor of the moment. Tammy Bruce is the alter ego to Dick Morris......political opportunists.
Bruce may be worse - she loves to tout herself as a liberal, yet she relentlessly and unfairly slams them at every turn....acting like she is doing it as "looking out for her side", or some such sanctimonious nonsense. "Fox News contributor" - what a sweet occupation that is for someone's resume'.
I think she is what one would call a "concern troll"
I can only think of two reasons for people subscribing to nutty conspiracy theories: they're either an unprincipled opportunist or gullible. As to which applies to Bruce, she hasn't been on my radar screen enough to form an opinion. However, either way, her assertion is nonsense.
Consider Bruce's statement that Imus was first on the liberal hit-list. That would suggest that either: a) the liberals forced Imus to make his inappropriate comment or b) they had a crystal ball that told them Imus would be the first on their list to provide such a clear opportunity. Ummm...rrrriiight.
Actually, if we're to carry through with the theory, I think the argument would be that Imus and his on-air staff were regularly making inappropriate and stupid comments, and, to carry that argument through to its logical conclusion, those conspiring elements were lying in wait for a comment that would be truly galvanizing. So your A and B aren't the only options.
I suppose there is another option, but only if ignoring a galvanizing comment from someone further down the list was a possibility. Given Coulter's propensity for galvanizing statements, who could know with certainty that Imus would be the first? No one could.
Bruce would seem to agree. Notice that earlier in her comments, Bruce implied Imus was #2 on the list behind Coulter. Then she implicity stated that Imus was #1. Oops. Bruce can't even keep her conspiracy story straight.
There is an implied point in your post with which I agree. Some people will rationlize, no matter how improbable their assertions, in an attempt to fir reality to the conspiracy. As Alterman quotes from Flaubert, "when you deal with stupidity, you begin to understand the concept of infinity."
Well, I'm not backing the theory. I'm simply suggesting there is a logic behind it. I mean, there are clearly a lot of people on either side of the argument (assuming there's only two sides) with lists (either physical or not). There's certainly a bit of an absurdity to the presumption that these list holders are lying wait, but clear nonetheless is the idea that a number of names of broadcasters and commentators are on a list of people different groups (again, on either side) would like to see not only lose their job, but eventually find themselves completely impoverished. If we are to use MMfA as an example of a 'list-holder' I believe any one of us could name close to a dozen--if not more--individuals on that list. Don Imus would have been on that list, but certainly not in the top tier. That being said, one could make the argument that he was one of the more vulnerable. Daily radio show. History of making all sorts of inappropriate comments. History of apologizing for said arguments. People at the top of the list, will deny any and all culpability, and they have a strong enough legion of supporters that any single galvanizing statement, or even many galvanizing statements (Ann Coulter's obviously made and survived making a ton of them with little or no sign of remorse) will do little more than give them free publicity. A history of showing remorse implies a weakness. Guilt. If you're willing to show remorse, you're accepting that you're guilty. If you accept guilt, it's far easier to enforce punishment. Therefore, if we are going to continue with the logic of the basic premise of Bruce's allegation, Imus was at the top of the list because, quite simple, he was an easier target. One that didn't have an overwhelmingly rabid right-wing base to come to his defense; a man who by his own admission of guilt and requests for forgiveness would help to condemn him.
You have to admit there's logic here. The problem with conspiracy theories is they imply a much greater level of organization than is actually required. The problem with Bruce's statement is that it can be read to imply a far greater level of coordination than would be necessary. One that obviously plays into Bill O'Reilly's martyrdom complex. In the end, the fact that Imus went first requires nothing more than a group of people willing to put pragmatism before principle.
isnt bruce kind of like brock, except the reverse? She was a feminist activist, leader of N.O.W., and NOW (get it) she is a conservative prosthelieritiizer hehe. brock flipped the other way.
Nope, when you listen to Bruce talk about the left, she still refers to the Left as "we." I think we know what side Brock is on.
The new (rovian-type) strategy? Create an "us against them" straw man and whine how harassed their punditry is and how the "fair and balanced" should not back down from stereotype perpetuation.
A list indeed, didn't Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy constantly wave lists?
Come on now, the very nature of partisanship is 'us vs. them.' It's fueled by dishonesty demagogy, of which just about every partisan entity is guilty. I'm sorry if I missed the implied irony in the statement of McCarthyism on such a partisan, list-making website. I mean, I caught the irony. I just missed the implication.
I think Media Matters' photos of conservative talk-show hosts above the words "Imus is not the only one" served as a list, did it not?
Dear Bill,
Can I get a copy of that unbaised and completely objective investigative report that you and Sean are working on? Or is just headed straight to the National Archives?
Hey, don't be so impatient. This will be the first information they've come up with independently. It takes time to make stuff up on your own when you've got no imagination. Wait for Monday, I'm sure we'll all be appropriately aghast at the conspiracy they "uncover".
I'm halfway through 'The ReTardy Boys: Mystery at Liberal Lake'.Sean thinks the water balloon launchers have been moved from Camp Iraqihootchee to the Camp Syrianee boathouse.Brother Bill suspects the Elites at the S.P. Ranch may be involved.
I just know they'll get to the bottom of it.
droll
Well, I won't spoil it for you. But I am a little embarrassed to admit that I couldn't help myself, and skipped to the last chapter. Suffice it to say that they end up back in New York, where Sean - now an elevator operator - takes Bill up to talk to his new boss, the orangutan. And I'll leave it at that.
(Anybody who catches that reference is either really old or a serious A&C fan).
This is more classic 'poor-me' victim nonsense. The use of the term 'hitlist', 'lynching', etc... all deflection away from the impetus for anyone taking notice... that is, their poor behavior. Poor, poor Bill. The pattern is so predictable, it's painful.
Bill's putting us all on notice. Again.
O'REILLY: And I am -- Sean Hannity and I are doing an investigation on this, and we should have it for everybody on Monday on the Factor.
...
...
...
.... I'm still waiting for the punch line on that one...
I couldn't believe that Bruce was a leader of NOW, so I surfed to here website and found that, indeed, according to it, she had positions of leadership in NOW (but she was not CEO or National Board Chair). Interesting, and I don't know what to make of it, but I did find this delicious quote on her site:
"When you think about it the truth of the matter is the two largest massacres on American soil in the last 80 years were not committed by Americans, but by foreign men here on student visas.
"The weapons of choice were different: airplanes versus firearms. Interesting, after September 11th, even as airplanes and box cutters were used to murder 3,000 people, no one called for the banning of those items, both of which had now been proven to be weapons of mass destruction.
"Yet, when it comes to the VTech massacre, the rhetoric revolves not around the common factor of these events of mass murder--foreign men on student visas--but how 'lax gun laws' allowed this to happen."
Xenophobia, anyone?
And, actually, I think she may have her facts wrong. Doesn't the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing count for a massacre by these standards?
I think this woman has no politics but what will bring her financial advantage.
"We start with [right-wing pundit Ann] Coulter a few months ago, and it's moved to Imus. And of course, they will move down their list, because we're moving into this election."
Coulter was silenced? When did that happen?
MMFA has a thread entitled: It's not just Imus
Presents a list & pics of their favorite offenders.
And you didn't think O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest wouldn't define this as a *Hit List*?? They live for this stuff. It's war!!
O'REILLY: And I am -- Sean Hannity and I are doing an investigation on this, and we should have it for everybody on Monday on the Factor.
Oh man this is gonna get nasty! Or fun ;-)
While Rome burns....
all I can say to these people, is paybacks are he-l-l. They shouldn't have led the charge against the dixie chicks, linda ronstadt, the several reporters fired after 9-11 for saying bush hid in a bunker, dan rather... the list goes on. What goes around comes around, so yeah. They should be very afraid.
I'm popping some corn and getting my brews chilled down, my comfy chair is warm and the screen warmed up. Wanna join me for the fox hunt?
Fox Hunt
Clever Snoop! I like that.
I'll chill a few Coors Lights & make some popcorn too.
Monday Night-- 8PM O'Reilly Factor-- be there ;-)
Yep, he'll be on tonight, tomorrow, thursday, friday, next monday, next tuesday, next month, and next year. Good luck stopping the conservative wing of the media. As long as people see that abc, cnn, nbc, etc. and basically every channel but fox has a left bias the market for an alternative view will always thrive. Cons are going nowhere and neither is rap. Nice job picking off a has - been shock jock who wasn't purely con or lib. Imus was a nothing on the political spectrum.
just keep repeating that liberal bias lie, but do it on your troll sites. We're much smarter here, we deal with things like FACTS and stuff. You know, that messy stuff that proves the truth?
You mean the fact that the majority of media employees voting dems and supporting those candidates? Take that into consideration with the fact that no matter how non-partisan one tries to be a slight bias for their personal views will be evident in their reportage (journalism 101). This site assumes a right-wing media bias which it cannot back up. You show me your proof since I've already given you an example of mine.
what sample? Post a link. As for me posting something, you're reading this site, aren't you? It's full of more proof than you've shown so far.
You mean the fact that the majority of media employees voting dems and supporting those candidates? (S.Shaw)
That example.Pulled from the hole, and making sense to the senseless.
Ok, snoppy, now watch very carefully. I'm going to post these links
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
and you're response will probably be something like "well, that doesn't count 'cause it's a con site." So here's the difference between the wanted list created by mmfa and the mainstream media: the people in question (except Imus) don't pretend to be non-biased new reporters such as Keith Olbermann, George Stephanopolous, Tim Russert (did he work for Coumo or was it Shalala?), Dan Rather (falseified reporting?), etc. the difference is that the people on the mmfa hit list let it be known that this is their opinion while these and countless others pose as non-biased reporters. You see, I do agree that the people in question on this site have a right-wing bias but most don't even have their own tv show or pose as non-partisan. The fact of the matter is that while there exists a con bias in radio it only evolved due to the vaccum that was the result of the mainstream left-wing media bias.
No, actually I'll post this instead:
A 1998 study from FAIR found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation";[34] 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared to 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared to 19% on the right. The report explained that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers." FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work."
Now you'll probably just respond that this site doesn't count because it's a liberal site.
What you fail to understand is the bias itself isn't the real issue, it's the lying that is proven over and over again. I couldn't care less what way someone leans as long as they provide honest, factual reporting. But all we get from the conservative side is trumped up hype dressed to look like news.
That's my point. The people mmfa is out to get are not reporters. They are commentators. It is their job to give opinionated, conservative viewpoint, entertain, etc. They do not claim to be straight reporters the way Olbermann, Stephanopolous, Rather, etc. do. Secondly, being media figures (re: not reporters) they are subject to liable suits, fines, etc. To my knowledge the only one whose had trouble on that end is O'reily and that was sexual harrasment not "lying". Just the fact that these guys are still in business gives them credibility. If they would have said anything blatantly unture don't you think mmfa would've got a hold of the person who was wronged and started a lawsuit? Problem is they back up what they say with facts or use satire which is immune from liable laws (thank you Larry Flint).
PS -
From now on George Stephanopolous will now be referred to as simply GS. I can't write it out anymore (or spell it)
Where can I get a "liable suit". Does it come in a plaid three piece, with wide lapels?
lying, smearing and namecalling isn't commentary. Denigrating someone for their beliefs and not allowing them a chance to defend themselves is not commentary. It's crap that has no business being on the airwaves. And then there is this:
"Possible conservative media bias can be seen in the results of a study examining Americans' belief in a connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. The year-long study by the University of Maryland, College Park's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that more than two out of three Americans held the view[30] that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attack and that the head of state of Iraq had a "collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda." The study also demonstrated that Americans who relied on Fox News for their coverage of the war in Iraq were more likely to hold such views.[31] According to former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered."
These false beliefs are forwarded ad nauseum by those "commentators" you just mentioned. If they are reinforcing a false truth, they are doing more damage than good and should be removed from the air.
Soooo repeating what high ranking government officials say can be contributed to the person's who say it as "lying"? Not exactly. If a goverment official reports something then it's basically considered a reputable source. Was Iraq a bad idea? Clearly. But if you could look back on everything you'd never make mistakes. The lying is off the table. Again, if these people couldn't site sources or facts for what they say they would've been gone a long time ago. And is censorship really the answer?
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up - German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller
After the hit list who's next? Maybe Olbermann? Rosie? Maher? I think the way you libs like to say it is "slippery slope".
wow, repeating that german proverb when up till now it was the people you are supporting here who have been advocating silencing liberals from the airwaves.
And just note, repeating something an official says becomes a lie when after it is proven to be untrue it is still repeated. Perpetuating a proven falsehood is what these "commentators" are doing. They've been asked time and again to correct the error and present the truth now that it is known, they refuse, so they deserve to be removed. That isn't censorship, it's taking out the trash. It just happens we see it overwhelmingly from the right, but I would hold anyone who does this to the same standard.
Name someone who has tried to silence the left. Oreily spoke out against O'donnel (as did hannity) but did not say she should be fired. The threat of censorship comes from the left. As long as the official statement of our government is that there was a link between iraq and al-qaeda it is not considered lying (I guess it depends what your definition of "is" is). Speaking of which, many of the people in question, Boortz, Savage, etc., have conceded that Iraq was a bad idea. The only ones holding onto the perception that there was a link are the hardcore "bush bots" such as Hannity and Limbaugh (not a big fan of either).
phil donahue got fired from msnbc because he opposed the invasion of iraq.
Who called for it?
was there any protest from anyone on the right when he did get fired?
No, but they didn't call for it the way the left is going after Imus (again, not a con) or the "wanted" list on mmfa. The difference between cons and libs is that cons understand the "there's more than on channel" concept. For years the christian right has been speaking out about the content of pop culture. The response has always been simply "turn the channel". I think it's time to practice what you preach.
but that contradicts your "the media is liberal" spin. if it's so damn liberal, how did he get fired for being one of the only people on the air to be outspoken against the war initially? meanwhile all the shills who supported it and glossed over all the potential problems are still on the air. you can "change the channel". but it does no good when you get the same old thing.
Because at the time most of the media thought Iraq was a good idea....as did most of the country. On the other hand some people knew it was about oil. The interesting thing is that going to war for national intrests isn't completely unheard of. Perhaps Bush should have just been honest about the reasons for the war. The simple fact of the matter was that the pendulum had swung to the right at the time and therefore, donahue was fired due to the national sentiment that the war was the right thing to do. It was an economic choice unlike Imus since the official statement of CBS was that they fired him for what he said
of course, maybe if the country had been a little better informed. there was enough contrary info out there, it just didn't get reported. but thanks for conceding the point. you have admitted there is no liberal media, it's all about money.
Ari Fliesher the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY said people better watch what they say when Bill Mahar made the comment that got HIM canned from ABC.
Hell, for that matter look at what the Dixie Chicks went through for saying something bad about Bush.
Didn't BO call for a boycott of Ludicis and all of France?
several liberal reporters were fired after 9-11 for writing that bush hid in a bunker while rudy was acting like a leader.
And do I really need to say Ann Coulter? Blech. That hurt...
Just a few of many...
Ann Coulter's a commentator, not a reporter. She writes/states her opinions when she is in the spotlight.
Coulter's basically a shock jock and it's amazing that you libs even take her seriously...I don't. She does everything to get a rise out of the left and you take the bait so well. BTW, please provide a link of that last statement, and remember....hyperbole doesn't mean you're serious.
maybe it's because the media takes her seriously enough to put her on.
the first step into retreat. hair splitting.
Yes it IS lying when repeated uncritically AFTER the NIE was released by the CIA saying they found NO SUCH LINK. When they have every reason to be skeptical but they just repeat it anyway it becomes lying. They had evidence at hand disputing what they were printing and they dont include that in their stories. Yeah thats lying, its at the very least being dishonest and not doing their jobs.
"No Spin Zone" "America's Truth Detector" "Fair and Balanced"
Yup, those conservative hacks sure don't ever portray themselves as unbiased dispensers of facts and always state right up front that they are giving their opinions. Except when they don't, which is pretty much all the time.
This site assumes a right-wing media bias which it cannot back up. You show me your proof since I've already given you an example of mine.- Sebastion "Mr Observant" Shaw
Hey! That's a great idea! This site should document some right wing media bias.
It gives no example of any bias except for those who let it be known that they are editorializeing. There is a difference between those who give their opinions and those who pose as non-partisan, olbermann, George Steph., etc., and those who are in the business of their own opinion.
WRONG. They have shown SEVERAL examples of Fox editorializing in their straight news reporting including showing Foley as a democrat. The internal e-mails of Fox telling their NEWS reporters not their editorial staff how to spin stories on certain days. You are flat out wrong about this.
Kinda like Rather's reporting right before the election huh?
Moving target argument.
Is that an admission your previous post was inaccurate?
Sebastion, do you have any problem with the Fox channel putting "news" right there in their name, and on the screen most of the day?
I know it's different, but how about Rush Limbaugh calling himself "America's Anchorman"? You know he's BSing, and I do, but do you think the millions of his fans are all smart enough to know that?
Most of the conservative media, radio and tv, promote themselves as providing "The Truth", and spend a lot of time drilling into their audiences head that the "media"(meaning evrything but them) is not to be trusted, and has a liberal bias.
I'm just saying that, although they all cop to being entertainers or commentators when called on their BS, are you honestly saying you don't think that most of these "opinion" people spend a lot of energy creating the illusion that they are the news?
You've given nothing. Perhaps the media having more information and experience understanding politics vote democratic for that reason. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I have been a media consumer for decades and havent seen my liberal viewpoint pushed one bit. There is also the fact reporters are the low guys on the totem pole. Cough up the leanings of the owners, publishers and editors then get back to us. Even Tucker Carlson, himself a conservative reporter said, liberal journalists consider themselves journalists first and liberals second. Conservative journalists consider themselves conservatives. I dont want or expect the conservative press to do anywhere. I would however like to see a modicrum of journalistic ethics from the Cons. All this lying, distorting, bigotry and hateful nonsense out of them is tiresome.
Who Owns NBC? G.E a huge polluting corporation who makes tons of money off this war by building bombs. Funny How The Right Wingers Never Seem To Make Those Connections. Find Out Who Owns The Media Genius Then You'll Have An Idea About Which Direction It's Biased Toward. These Right Wingers Act Like Huge Media Corps. Are Owned By Greenpeace. Sooo Dense.
Yeah, lowball, those stats on "liberal reporters" are pretty amusing as proof of a liberal media.Most real journalists are educated, informed about current events, and went into a business not chosen for the best financial return on ones education money.Not a real Republican-magnet.
Now, owning a media corporation- that's another thing entirely.Perfect for a trust fund baby or self-made wealthy person looking to make some more money. They just get liberals to do a lot of the hard work.
Like a union factory, I don't think the real agenda is set by the ones doing the work.
Sebastion relax!
Personally I think Limbaugh could chew MMFA up and spit them out.
But O'Reilly & Hannity? Mmmmm it'll be interesting to watch.
BTW, I'm not a Liberal. I'm a Conservative who just doesn't follow the agenda blindly.
I'm gonna crack open a beer, and make a bowl of popcorn & watch/listen to just how Billy & Sean are gonna take on the MMFA machine.
Quite frankly, I think this *war* is a tad silly. But it could be entertaining ;-)
the only thing limbaugh can chew is an oxycontin tablet. he's a coward afraid of an opposing view. hence, he never has guests on who disagree.
mefirst,
MMFA will never be able to take Limbaugh down. Or Coulter for that matter. They can continue to pound away [and I've no problem with them doing so], but it ain't gonna happen.
O'Reilly? Well Keith was drubbing the guy pretty good there for awhile, but I doubt he's going anywhere. Their *feud* was getting silly.
Hannity? Not worth their time. And probably unbreakable.
MMFA was instrumental in getting the ball rolling with Imus, but they may regret that. Imus was a good friend to many Liberals and one of the few mainstream venues on talk radio that they were regularly showcased. Could end up being a *bite your nose to spite your face* result when the smoke finally clears.
Imus should have been reprimanded, but fired? I'm not sure that was a win for Liberals.
i'm not asking for limbaugh to be fired, but that does not change my opinion that he is a liar, hypocrite, and coward. all things supported by the evidence. sebastian's point is that there is some big liberal consensus in the media and that is clearly untrue.
mefirst,
I don't get the chance to listen to Limbaugh that often, but I know a great many folks that do--and they are not whacko Right-Wing extremists. I do read his website most days. To simply refer to him as a Liar is a blanket statement. The guy may voice certain truths you may not like or agree with--but that doesn't make [all] his words false. Hypocrite? Certainly at times, not unlike some on the Left. Coward? Well, now that might have a tad more merit. Though I've never heard of anyone challenging him to some sort of debate and him turning it down.
I don't believe there is some massive Conservative bias in the media. Nor do I believe there is an all consuming Liberal bias.
Journalists & the media are not a monolithic entity. Some lean Left, others Right.
I think viewpoints on bias are often personal, and strictly in the mind of the beholder.
could you please point out where i said everything he says is a lie. i'm not talking about certain "truths", but the times when he flat out does not tell the truth. as for everyone being a hypocrite, that's a cop out. he carried on for years about addicts being jailed or deported. he excluded himself from that when he got caught. as for him being unafraid to debate, there are lots of people who would be glad to come on his show and refute his talking points. he just doesn't want to get shown up in front of his dittoheads. make all the excuses you want, he's everything i said.
could you please point out where i said everything he says is a lie
Sure:
"i'm not asking for limbaugh to be fired, but that does not change my opinion that he is a liar"
You didn't say sometimes or most of the time
You said he is a liar.
Next time qualify it if you don't want to be accused of making a blanket statement.
If you write back, I'll read it & reply in the morning. I'm beat.
Goodnight mefirst.
No Sale. If you tell the truth even most of the time but lie when it suits you, YOU ARE A LIAR.
No Sale. If you tell the truth even most of the time but lie when it suits you, YOU ARE A LIAR.
Solon you might want to re-think that definition.
But if you insist on holding to it....
Bill Clinton is a liar
Now I would never refer to Clinton that way, and it's highly doubtful I'd get away with a blanket statement of that sort. Certainly not here.
Maybe you meant if you lie most of the time then being called a liar might be an acceptable definition?
No, if every word out of someones mouth had to be a lie for them to be liars then we would have no reason for the term pathological liars to differentiate them from your garden variety liar like Limbaugh. If you lie regularly, you are a liar. If you lie when it suits you then you are a liar. I wouldnt take you to task for calling Clinton a liar even though I am not sure he meets THAT standard. The term liar is used for people who tell lies not people who for reasons unfathomable cannot possibly tell the truth. We call him Darth Cheney.
"You didn't say sometimes or most of the time..."
Oh for God's sakes. You must be tired. This is Tommy-esque in it's unbelievable silliness.
Is this referencing some other thread, trying to make a point about something mefirst said previously? If it's not I hope you were drunk when you wrote it, because many of us have said you're better than this and I hope you're not trying to prove us wrong.
brabantio,
Maybe for you it's "unbelievable silliness"...but for me, well I get called on it here quite frequently if I fail to clarify & qualify my remarks with "some" "sometimes" "many" "most" "often" "occasionally"...etc
I found out early on that some here will slice, dice, and parse you to death IF you make a blanket statement.
Is this referencing some other thread, trying to make a point about something mefirst said previously?...by Brabantio
Keen observation brabantio. Mefirst, whom I enjoy debating, and whom I respect, does occasionally pull this very tactic on me. I will make a statement. He will interpret it another way. I will explain what I meant [which I believe was quite evident in the first place] he will not accept this and instead writes *oh there you go again jeter using that i didn't say what i said argument again* I'm paraphrasing here, but that's pretty much exactly what he says.
Now having said that, I wasn't playing games here. He holds posters to a certain standard--I was holding him to those same standards.
He called Limbaugh a Liar. Period. While MMFA has highlighted Limbaugh's Lies, Misinformation, Slurs, & Smears, these do not cover every word that has ever come out of Limbaugh's mouth. IF Limbaugh "lies" 10% of the time, then I would have written *Limbaugh has been proven a liar on a number of occasions.*
Think I'm parsing?
Well David Brock admitted lying in the past. Bill Clinton has lied in the past.
Do you honestly believe that I, as one of a handful of Conservatives here, would get away with a blanket statement like:
David Brock is a Liar
Bill Clinton is a Liar
The answer is no.
I would have been pounced on
I'd have been expected to qualify it.
So yeah ok, I'm being a bit of a prig here, but why should I be called out for something and let others get away with it?
If I wrote Rosie O'Donnel is a whacko, while some or even many would agree with that blanket statement, you can be sure that others would point out that while she on occasion says whacko things, it's unfair to simply dismiss her that way. Or define her as such.
The truth is over the past few weeks [probably with the Imus controversy as it's catalyst] I've noticed an angry tone here at MMFA that I haven't seen before. Everyone seems to be taking sides and circling the wagons. Perhaps I've been doing the same...
jeter, i do say that you use the i didn't say what i said argument. because that's what i feel you [and others] do many times. and we're all liars under your definition. there is no one who tells the truth all the time, every day of their life. but limbaugh does lie, and he does so repeatedly and frequently. that pattern qualifies as lying. as for granting you the courtesy of accepting you giving a blanket definition of someone, that will depend on the situation and person. i don't care if it is 10% of the time, or 5. he deliberately misleads and never makes any effort to correct himself. he is a liar.
"I'd have been expected to qualify it...So yeah ok, I'm being a bit of a prig here, but why should I be called out for something and let others get away with it?"
So, it's sort of a pre-emptive strike against an argument you assume would be made. I see.
First off, the obvious thing that would occur to me even if I was very tired is that everyone lies. E-ver-y-one, at some point. If you apply that label to everyone, then it loses its meaning. When you're dealing with adulterers, lying is something that automatically comes with it. It doesn't justify the behavior, but you can see a reason for it. It's not like you're having an affair and your wife asks you where you were, you're not going to say you were with your girfriend. It doesn't make lying fine and dandy, but it obviously isn't the relevant charge to make.
Many people have things in their personal life they are going to lie about. If one of your friends was gay and lying about it because they live in a very hostile area, would you accept someone calling them a "liar" for it, even if they were generally truthful otherwise? No, because you're not going to blame them for it, assumedly. I obviously grant that infidelity is chosen behavior, but it's hardly rare.
As for Brock, as the story goes he's changed his ways. If there's evidence that he's still lying for political ends, then by all means it's legitimate to make the charge.
The inherent meaning of "liar" is that it's habitual, meaning you can't trust what the person says. That's the only real use of it, because nobody tells the truth all the time and nobody lies all the time. I'm not a fan of absolutes but I think that's pretty fair to say. If the argument can be made that Clinton habitually lied to serve his purposes, then you shouldn't have any concerns about someone asking you to qualify it, now should you? Do you realize that you're basically arguing that if Clinton lied 10% of the time that you'd be cautious to call him a liar because people would question you on it? As if you wouldn't be able to justify the comment? Very, very odd.
As for "wackos", again that's a subjective label based on frequency. If she makes that many bizarre comments, then you should feel confident in saying so. I can't imagine being cowed by the idea of someone criticizing me for calling Savage a "wacko", because it was some "blanket statement" I'd be afraid I'd have to qualify.
If you admit that Rush lies habitually (and I mean on his show to further his own points, not regarding if he takes Viagra or not or anything of the sort), then your point is not well taken. You cite two examples of people whose admitted lying is not at all similar in nature, and yes it does make a difference.
The bottom line is your pre-emptive behavior is hugely unnecessary. If the case in question isn't very similar to (or obvious as) Rush, then maybe you should have to qualify it. It's a subjective label. Are people really supposed to be ashamed for pointing out the obvious nature of Rush's dishonest behavior because there are other people out there that you can't classify as liars as easily?
just for you jeter: every single word that limbaugh says is not a lie. but he lies frequently enough to qualify as a "liar" by my definition.
Thanks mefirst
I knew what you likely meant, but as I wrote to brabantio, I'd never get away with making that blunt of a statement here. Not even by you ;-)
One of the first times I posted here I wrote something like 'Liberals do [blah blah blah]' and I got crucified for not saying "SOME Liberals"
If you believe Limbaugh has lied frequently enough to, in your mind, be defined as "a liar", then I'll accept your definition. I don't agree, but I hope you'll show me the same courtesy down the road should I make a similar remark about someone by accepting my definition.
You guys are missing the point. I didnt care if Imus was fired or not. I dont care if Limbaugh keeps spewing his sewage for another 20years. I just want them ACCOUNTABLE for what they say. WHEN they lie I want people to know it. You would be suprised how often I hear a Limbaugh lie repeated by LIBERALS. They dont even know the source. I want them held accountable when they spew a racist slur. I dont care if they are fired. I am not looking for them to be gone. Only to KNOW that the jig is up. That lying and racism will not be blithley tolerated. If Imus had just been suspended that would have been fine with me. If Limbaugh tells another listener to take that bone out of his nose I want an uproar. If he is forced to appologize thats good enough. I am only looking for accountability when OUR airwaves are misused. If enough people are made aware of these things I am ok with whatever happens then. What seems to have the conservatives in an uproar is the very IDEA of accountability, of actions having consequences. Its as if it offends them to even THINK that people like Limbaugh ought to have any standards at all. I am fine with the public and the sponsers making the decision about how anything plays out. I just want there to BE consequences for racist slurs and such behavior on OUR airwaves.
What makes you believe that the "liberals" and/or MMFA conspired to get Imus fired? Have you any evidence for this? Imus was fired because a whole bunch of advertisers pulled their support from his program following his spectacularly inappropriate, unfunny comments about the Rutgers womens basketball team. The network people noted that Imus had a history of malaprops, and that the recent one was the straw that broke the camel's back. So please inform me where you can cite specific evidence of a "conspiracy" by liberals to have Imus fired. As mentioned here, Imus did do things that liberals and conservatives alike could support. Compared to comments made by true right wing people, what Imus said was innocuous. For example, Coulter said that muslims should either be converted to Christianity or killed, probably the most extreme form of black hat/white hat comment that has yet appeared in the history of even the hate mongers we find all over our airwaves. I mean, if there really were a conspiracy by liberals to silence objectionable rightwing talkers, Savage and Coulter would be very high on the list above Imus, and yet, I know of no campaign to get them off the air. There have, indeed, been campaigns from various circles, including religious ones, to punish these shock jocks simply by not listening to them, my own practice even without prompting. The 1st amendment DOES NOT confer to a person speaking on the media the right to say anything they please because of the influence of their position, e.g., no crying fire in a crowded theater. Yet, the 1st amendment DOES grant the right of a person standing on a street corner, as in Hyde Park, to say anything they want to say, which I support totally.
>>Personally I think Limbaugh could chew MMFA up and spit them out.
I don't know what you mean by this. I don't think any of the conservatives mentioned could win a fair debate. They can win shout fests, but not debates.
In point of fact, Rush is actually fades under direct confrontation (as opposed to O'Reilley). There is that famous clip in which he had a talk show and he had to end the talk show early because the crowd was hostile towards him. Rush has to completely control the mic.
Funnyman,
What I meant by that statement was simply that MMFA could continue to pound away at Limbaugh but wouldn't make much headway as he has a huge audience and would use his microphone as his weapon.
They'd attack. He'd attack back even harder. That's what I meant by *chew them up-spit them out*
I didn't mean a one on one debate. I've never seen Limbaugh in that situation so I've no idea if he'd crumble.
Could you find a link to that clip? I don't remember ever hearing about it.
I read about it. I also remember when he was on Letterman and started his usual personal attacks, this time about someones looks and Letterman told him something like and you can say that since YOU are the best looking specimen on the Planet. All Rush did was say hoo boy and toned it down from there on. My guess is he would crumble.
Could you find a link to that clip? I don't remember ever hearing about it.
Here it is (if you must watch it). It is a YouTube link. The incident is from March of 1990. Limbaugh was guest hosting the Pat Sajak show. You can read a little about the incident in this Wikipedia article about the show. Personally I'd sooner watch professional wrestling.
My goodness, she certainly has a Serious and Active eyebrow.
Standby for another hoard eh? I've been unable to cover a lot of the site today. Conservative talking points here, accusations of left wing facism there. Perhaps they'll send a few "A" gamers. I don'tknow how you guys take having to refute the same point time and again. I have seen at lest one good conversation going on, regardless of the vocal avalance disguised (badly) as rhetoric going on arround them. Good on ya!
To HBL just about though The Good Fight by Peter Beinart, who I've never heard of. I hope to be able to insert some thing semi-intelligent about the Islamo Fasicts sometime soon.
Chow,unless you've already eaten.
Eweston, was that HBL something for me? Sorry, I didn't understand what you wrote. If HBL stands for something else... never mind.
Yuper. It was a refferrence to I joke you had a couple days ago. I won't beat you giggling about it. I'd like to have more time on site, but thats the way it goes. I can only take short trips here during work and won't post there unless I'm at lunch time. Meantime I'm looking forward to a civics lesson tomorrow.
Later EWEST
I keep thinking they're talking about Bruce1Ace...
O'REILLY: "And I am -- Sean Hannity and I are doing an investigation on this, and we should have it for everybody on Monday on the Factor."
They'd better not forget the miners lights because these two couldn't find their asses. This list.....whatever...... notch up the hype a bit on this one Billo. The usual suspects will be on this, it's the same people they whine and talk down about. Who REALLY gives a flying feck. They are slowly sinking into they're own verbal swill, can't wait for the last gasp!
Maybe this report O'Reilly and Hannity are working on will be prominently featured in the Bush presidential library. Along with the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
If the O and Ha show fails to convince people of a vast left-wing conspiracy, Geraldo is going to open the "OTHER" Al Capone vault. I would venture to wager that the WMD's are there. That would make for Real TV.
O'Reilly shouldn't be on anyones' list of anything. He should just sit back in his hotel room and makes phones calls to this Bruce lady.
Prince, did you see Geraldo interviewing the V Tech students?. Creepy. One kid started to choke up, and Geraldo started rubbing his back and arm in a reallystrange way.
The kid was actually not saying anything about the shooter, despite Rivera's prodding with "This character.." 19 or 20 year old kid just seemed confused and sad, and showed more maturity and grace than Geraldo trying to tough talk on the messed up kid with the gun.
Amazingly, I did see that and commented on it. This kid did not need to be handled (for theatrical value) by Geraldo. But let us hope that Geraldo really meant it as a kind gesture. That is the problem, you cannot trust these TV guys..and IT WASN'T ME that put them in this light. The distrust that they have attained is self-made.
Ms/Mrs Bruce's comments are comical if nothing else, and show the limits people will go to to show that they have some sort of relevance or knowledge of an issue(this is why what you see on 24 hour news stations should be carefully scrutinized!!). For her to say that she was purged from the Democratic Party because she wasn't a 'real' Democrat is neither here nor there(notice how she uses Senator Liebermann's situation as cover), but if infighting is truly going on within the Democratic Party, a 'true' Democrat wouldn't go on the other sides media shows and talk about it!
What she was doing is simply collecting a check as another talking head/analyst/insider who by doing this further highlights/builds her resume for the next episode she'll be asked to speak on. She has as much credibility as someone who'll try to tell you water isn't wet!!
O'Reilly and Hannity are doing an investigation, Jeez I can't wait, we'll get the truth at last. Don't these people ever get fed up talking to eachother the same whiney spin, when they know in their hearts they lie and decieve their listeners. It's funny in a sad way seeing them get their knickers in a twist because they're begining to feel the weight of public opinion coming down on their heads, this is good I like to see O'Reilly sweat, as for Hannity, the mind boggles.
I have seen this before. Its actually classic O'Really (intentional misspelling for comedic effect). The right wing is controlled by social conservative and neo cons who's views are wildly out of line with main stream America. In a great bit of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" Billy goes after the "radical" left as a smoke screen. He has done it before. He will do it again. Its just a way to get out in front of the problem that is really a conservative issue.
The smoke screen is not for the left to not recognize what is happening (we are onto them by now I hope) but instead to keep those voters who are convinced on the moral superiority and rugged independence (I actually laughed while I typed that) of the right pulling the lever for the next corporate puppet they put up as an outsider who doesn't play those Washington games. Sad
Tammy Bruce epitomizes the Fox News fakery on fair & balanced coverage. She's a right-winger who pretends to be left-of-center in order to attack the left. Her entire public facade is a lie.
O'REILLY: Continuing now with the Imus controversy -- which has metastasized into an ideological witch-hunt by evil forces. Or am I overstating?
Bill, if it wasn't for overstating you would have nothing to say.
Sometimes the geometry of the postings here baffles me. In many ways I am a newby.
I'm more encouraged by some of these folks own blogs where they're seemly getting roasted, than by anything having to do with Imus. I know some folks will miss him. I've never actually heard him. So my opinion of his work counts for very little.I expect he may find himself working a mic somewhere else, if he wants to.
How do we know this "hit list" isn't really a forgery, Protocols of Zion-stylee, serving solely to whip up contempt for liberals among the poor, undereducated and easily-influenced which conservative propagandists see as "right-thinking Americans"?
(Yeah, right--"right-thinking," under the influence of Al Cohol.)