Radio host Michael Smerconish to be simulcast on MSNBC in place of Imus
According to an April 20 Philadelphia Daily News* article on Philly.com, "The Big Talker 1210 AM morning show of Daily News columnist Michael Smerconish is to be simulcast Monday through Wednesday on MSNBC." The article noted that Smerconish will fill the slot previously held by Imus in the Morning. MSNBC announced on April 11 that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the wake of comments made by host Don Imus on the April 4 edition of that show, during which he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."
In addition to hosting his own radio talk show, Smerconish has been a guest host for MSNBC's Scarborough Country and Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and has opined on a number of issues, including alleged detainee abuse, immigrants, and Muslims.
- On the June 20, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish trivialized reports of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, referring to the alleged abuse as "naked pyramid pictures." He also referred to alleged mistreatment at the Pentagon detention facility at Guantánamo Bay as "play[ing] Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud."
- On the April 10, 2006, edition of Scarborough Country, Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" He then suggested that law enforcement officials are being hypocritical by refusing to "gather[] ... up" illegal immigrants because they would "step in and do something about" a rally of "pot smokers," who "wanted decriminalization" of marijuana, or "scofflaws" with unpaid parking tickets.
- Substituting for host Bill O'Reilly on the April 4, 2006, broadcast of The Radio Factor, Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror."
- On the November 23, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, while guest-hosting, Smerconish took issue with a decision by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority to provide a designated prayer area at Giants Stadium. The decision was in response to a September 19 incident involving the FBI's detention and questioning of five Muslim men who were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11." Smerconish defended the comments in an April 15 column, stating: "When five Muslim men in attendance at the Meadowlands in September 2005 for a Giants-Saints game that was also a Hurricane Katrina fund-raiser, with George H.W. Bush in attendance, saw fit to pray in an area near food preparation and air duct work, I think it was a case of mind blank. That's a form of terrorism in itself."
- On the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Penguin, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids. In other words, it occurs to me that perhaps you've provided a prescription to bring this great success to an end."
Smerconish has also been a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball, where he has appeared on at least four occasions in March and April of 2007, including March 1, March 8, March 21, and April 5. Hardball host Chris Matthews declared on the March 8, 2006, edition of the program that "You talk to a huge audience on the East Coast, Michael. I've listened to you, all my family listens to you." As Media Matters also noted, Smerconish reportedly moderated a January 17, 2006, political event in Pennsylvania, sponsored by the Philadelphia Young Republicans and attended by Matthews' brother, who was then the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania. GOP gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann and Jim Matthews were defeated by Democrats Ed Rendell and Catherine Baker Knoll.
This is progress?
More of the same. Imus often attacked Dems.
True, but he also attacked Republicans. Will Smerconish do that? I doubt it.
And he called Dick Cheney a war criminal , and was against this war and spoke out against it daily.
I don't like what Imus said, but if it means replacing him with an even more stupid and tasteless [hygiene product]-bag like Smerconish, then for God's sake bring that crazy old piece of shoe-leather back ASAP
I think this is a good move for Liberals. Smirk has the maturity of Tucker Carlson, and the well reasoned arguments of Bozo the Clown. He won't gather much of a following because even the Repugs will have a hard time taking him seriousely. We should rejoice in trades such as this. Perhaps we can get Limbaugh replaced with Larry Kudlow, or Bill Bennett, two people who are often wrong, yet relatively harmless because no one takes them seriousely.
forget it,all i want is to bring back the draft,so we all can share in the war. oh i am a viet nam vet. and i also have to pay to go to a VA hospital.
For those of you who touted the Imus canning as a victory, be careful what you wish for.
You make a point Tommy. Maybe he should have just been slapped on the wrist...
Then again, it's not like there will be a shortage of these guys any time in the near future. Maybe MSNBC will wake up after Smerconish does his thing for awhile.
Do worry, give him a few months MSNBC should be careful of who they higher. Smerconish definitely is a better fit for The Fuax brand of news.
It's all part of the instant media culture we live in today. People heard Imus' statement over and over, he was barbequed from am to pm on cable talk shows for days. Overreaction set in and he was fired.
He said a racist, horribly offensive slur against people who were totally not in the public eye and undeserving of his insult. He took responsibility for it, apoloziged to Rutger's, they accepted, and that should have ended it.....beyond his suspension. Instead some wanted to make some larger point and he was the vehicle to do that. Now he is replaced by yet another controversial talker.........those that wanted him fired get what they deserved.
I think most of the people who wanted Imus out don't even watch these shows.
Probably not. Those people were General Motors, American Express, and Proctor & Gamble, among others. I doubt they watch much daytime tv.
But Imus' show on MSNBC was shown in the wee hours, at least where I live (Chicago). It was on from 6-7 as I recall. I'm not usually up that early, but plenty of people are.
Bruce,
You may be right. I didn't want Imus to be fired for his comments and I rarely watched any of his show. Considering Imus's ratings, it looks like people on both sides of the issue never watched him either.
I really could not care less about Smerkon....whatever. Good for him. I don't watch talking heads when I can avoid it. They have pretty much proven their worthlessness to me. I am glad MMFA is here to document it.
".....those that wanted him fired get what they deserved."
That's not true, even though I wasn't one who wanted Imus fired. It's like saying that if you want to be cured of syphilis, you deserve to have it replaced with cancer. Why don't they just continue what they're running now?
Nerzog,
What I meant is that those who wanted Imus fired failed to think beyond their contempt for him to realize that he would be replaced.
And why would MSNBC replace him with some milquetoast, politically correct talker who inspires yawns and robotic nods of approval in the morning, when that had Imus on to rattle people's cages? Did people really think they would switch gears 180 degrees?
that those who wanted Imus fired failed to think beyond their contempt for him to realize that he would be replaced
Do you know that to be true? Or is that a broad brush generalisation?
Your provocative argumentativeness doesn't interest me. You know the point I was making.
Yes he knows the point you were making and it was a worthless jab at those outraged by the use of a racist slur to a nationally syndicated audience formed as a worthless generalization. It assumes that we are more concerned with TACTICS than right and wrong. Holding someone accountable for using a racist slur is what is important. I never thought they would put Al Franken on because Imus was leaving. This is exactly what I expected. I. DONT. CARE. The principle is what is important not who replaces Imus. This is why I said from the begining that I didnt care how it ended up for Imus. A suspension, being fired, however it shook out it was the outrage that was important the object lesson that some things will not be tolerated on OUR airwaves. It is frankly simpleminded to think that overall those outraged by the remark were more concerned with a sea change in political tone than the principle involved, it would be niave to think MSNBC was going to start simulcasting Air America
Great suggestion. Why don't they simulcast Air America the young turks are on at that hour and they would make great TV. Or get Sam Seder? This O'Reiley fill in is just another obnoxious wing-nut and there is already so much of that on the airwaves.
Media Matters highlights (or lowlights) of this guy doesn't offer much in the way of critical thinking and smart political commentary.
More of the same moronic talking point and smears.
More than disappointing from MSNBC.
No need to. One good thing about Imus is that he insulted people on both sides of the isle. Smerconish won't do that. They've replaced a balanced insulter with a Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh clone. Market forces at work, right?
Why replace him with an overtly political guy at all? Aren't there tons of DJs who don't do politics?
People heard Imus' statement over and over, he was barbequed from am to pm on cable talk shows for days. Overreaction set in and he was fired.
I thought you were a regular MMFA reader, Tommy. Did you miss those articles where people were defending Imus? (or at least, using him as a springboard to bash rap music)
I dont care. It doesnt matter to me if they replace him with someone even more ideologically objectionable. At least the point was made. I think it was made before he was fired but thats irrelvant. There ARE standards. Be stupid as you want, thats fine, but racist slurs will have consequences. Put on Attila the Hun for political commentary for all I care. We will be here to expose the lies and distortions and everyone knows now that there are sometimes consequences for stepping over the line of what is decent to say about people on a nationally syndicated radio program.
Tommy:
I for one was not calling for Imus's head, in part because bigots need to be heard, if for no other reason than to let people know they still thrive, and in part because no Imus means there's a job opening.
Heaven help us!
Bigots are like dandelions, they spring up everywhere, they defy extermination efforts, always will.
I'd rather have the Iraq war-hating bigot than the Republican apologist bigot.
Those wielding diabolically strong opinions out on the political fringe make for compelling radio and TV.
Moderate PC-fearing activists don't.
They could have given the slot to Randi Rhodes. But let's get serious. There is no way the mainstream is ready for woman who is loud and unafraid to be obnoxious to make a point.
Except Ann Coulter. Maybe. See my above emphasis.
Olbermann already gives them the heebie-jeebies.
And there is only so much truth the liars can take.
Randy
Smerconish is no Savage or Rush, but he can be a major prick most of the times. I am in the Philly area and I peek in every once in a while. He's definitely closer to Hannity which is unpleasant at best.
Do we need any more proof that the "Liberal Media" is a Right Wing myth? Once again, I'm beginning to believe the conspiracy theory that Imus threatened to expose some kind of 9/11 secret. What makes them think we need another Bush apologist on the air?
Nerzog,
The only proof is that conservative-right leaning talk radio/TV talkers are far more popular and generate higher ratings, resulting in increased ad revenue for stations, than liberal-left leaning entities. It's strictly a business decision, not an ideological one.
When and if liberal talk becomes the flavor of the moment you will see the stations reverse course quickly and jump on that bandwagon.
The liberal bias at NBC still exists, even though Smerconish is being given a televised platform.
The grass is black. I'm Joe Isuzu.
Tommy,
It's the popularity of these really wing nutty shows that really scare me. As you say they have huge followings and that is terribly concerning. Does Savage really represent a substantial portion of the sentiment of my fellow citizens? I remember a poster here once said that Savage respresented the true voice of middle America. If that's true then Middle America doesn't like people like me and these people vote. I hope it is as you say only the flavor of the month.
Lynn, Right wing talk has been popular for over 20 years......remember how Rush flourished during Clinton's years? They have their audience and they are fiercely loyal, albeit blinded to their heroes even in the face of facts that refute much of what they say.
That being said, what does one really do about it? I guess listen and support those that you feel are in opposition to them the best and most effective way possible.....other than that, they are probably their own worst enemy, their mouth that is - and maybe they will implode or say something so provocative to piss off somebody with enough influence to silence them.
Yeah, but you forget Rush had a huge promotion effort bought and paid for by the company. You won't find a single corporation out there that will do the same for a liberal talk jock even though there are plenty enough out there that have a popular following.
(sniff, sniff)
If a liberal talker generates huge enough audience numbers, then there will be a line around the block for greedy companies trying to promote themselves through whomever that is.
Hardly likely, that. The media isn't owned by greenpeace, it's owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon. They'd sooner die than promote a liberal like they do Rush.
Poor liberals, nobody will listen to them and they can't get anybody to back them, yet they try and try - but are just poor helpless minions hoping for a voice.
Everybody shed a tear.
Sneer all you want, a fact is still a fact.
Baloney Jim Hightower was the most successful regional talk show host in the Texas Louisiana area. He was WILDLY popular and as soon as he was syndicated Nationally even with GREAT ratings Disney bought the company and fired him. They didnt like what he was saying. Funny thing is there was no huge outcry from either liberals OR conservatives that HIS first amendment rights were being violated.
- there are plenty enough out there that have a popular following. -
That is incorrect...unless you care to define "plenty enough". The liberal bell cows at airamerica fell on their collective faces. They were heavily subsidized by liberal sugar daddys...but even that could not overcome their lack of popularity.
Bankruptcy...that's what you get in a free market when you try to cram programming down the audience's throats...and the media moguls know it...except for those impotent donors to airamerica.
You should actually try reading facts before making claims. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio#Difficulties
Looks like it was more like self inflicted wounds vs. the lack of popularity claim rightwingers like to keep hawking...
Sure nuf...you should read your own source material..."
- liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR - wikipedia
Their programming was lousy...their fan base tiny...and they only stayed on the air as long as they did...thanks to liberal sugar daddys. Even the liberal donors finally caught on to the ignorance of pouring more money down a rat hole.
Self inflicted...you're right.
Look, I say we just give them talk radio too - maybe their ear-splitting whining about the unfairness of the world will stop.........second thought, doubt it.
Coming from one of the world class whiners I have ever heard. WWAAHHHHH why is this here. That was rich with irony
just can't get off of the sugar daddy issue, eh? How dare them bad liberals do for liberal broadcasting what the conservative sugar daddies do for conservative broadcasting?
Au contraire...my ducking friend.
You enlisted the straw man that my point was about "bad liberals" supporting their media preferences. I don't care who the liberal "sugar daddys" support.
airamerica was as fleeting as a fart in the bathtub. They never generated ratings...advertising...or most importantly revenue. Despite being promoted and propped up by liberal sugar daddys...most liberals tuned them out...
It is what it is...a failed programming concept...with poor talent, both on the air and in the front office...a sure recipe for bankruptcy.
And of course memo's like this had nothing to do with that "lack of support":
"Furthermore “an internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates…. The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson."
Suit yourself if you want to play the victim of some vast rightwing cons;piracy...
The truth is...listeners would have tuned in had the programming been entertaining. Liberals would have tuned in if the message had been important.
They didn't...it wasn't...and that equals bankruptcy. The courts can protect them financially during the bankruptcy...but the courts can't protect them from being bankrupt of talent and ideas.
Oh, you misunderstand, I'm not playing the victim here. I don't listen to any talk radio, don't care for it either way. I am pointing out a fact - that there is definitely an advertising bias against liberal media. That is a corporation driven decision not necessarily based on public support, corporate advertising is geared to push a product. Smoking is a perfect example of what I am trying to describe.
See that is most likely the real reason liberal talk radio isnt going to catch on. Sure the business community isnt going to support it even IF it gets popular. I dont listen either. I dont think for the most part liberals enjoy the preaching to the choir venue. I dont think liberals tune into other people to get their opinions, talking points and validation for their beliefs. I have heard Hightower when he was on, I listened to Franken a few times but the whole thing wasnt something that would ever appeal to me for a regular listening experience. Give me jazz anyday.
I have to say, I find Mike Malloy entertaining. I kind of like how he swears "Jesus Christ!" with exasperation the way the Irish side of my family does...
Have I mentioned tonight how much I hate these people?
Wesley, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. I listen to Air America every day. I have since 2003. Randi Rhodes was lsited as number 10 in Talkers magazine in 2006, Ed Schultz was 14 and Al Franken was 18. AA has had some growing pains and mismanagement to be sure. But they are still alive and well. And they have tons of talented people like Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann. Other liberal stations like Nova M have Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press and Peter B. Collins. I also enjoy weekend programming on AA that features Bobby Kennedy and Mike Papantonio.
I wish I could get Amy Goodman in my area. Perhaps soon. But your contention that liberals can't be entertaining is ludicrous. Isn't true. Rev. Moon wouldn't even have a paper if he had to count on his profits to keep going. But he is involved in mafia type dealings that give him enough money to keep running his rag. I doubt very much that most of the right wing stuff was profitable at the same stage AA is in now. No matter how you keep telling us that AA is dead, it just isn't true. It's alive, well and very entertaining. And Randi Rhodes is anything but PC. But you don't have to be racist to not be PC.
That's right on, JuliaJayne. AirAmerica is alive and kickin' along with Nova M radio and don't forget Head On Radio Network. H.O.R.N. is an internet only station which brings me to the point, I only liten to AA on the internet. Do they have a ratings system for the internet? All this ratings talk is skewed since internet radio is not tracked. Not to mention Henry Ford went bankrupt seven times.
I think so many lefties miss out by not listening to progressive radio, especially lefties on this site. AA highlights many of the items highlighted here and David Brock along with many contributors to this site are interviewed regularly. I first heard of MMFA on Air America.
The appreshension lefties have with listening might stem from the examples of the liars on righty radio. Lefty radio is much different. To begin with you are encouraged to verify the information you are given. Compare that to the authoritarian righties who tell you that they are never wrong, so don't bother fact checking.
You can call in and get on the air with relative ease, the callers are not screened and if you do get through you're not gauranteed mindless agreement with the host.
Sorry for the long cultish testimonial, I just think there are some misconceptions about progressive radio out there among fellow lefties.
"airamerica was as fleeting as a fart in the bathtub"
Statement of the month, Wesley.
And Snoopy, there are lots of available sponsors beyond those you listed. Why didn't Progressive Insurance just buy entire blocks of time? Geico? Starbucks? Google? Trader Joe's? Ben & Jerry's? Hustler?
On the other hand, that "PSA" company seems to have purchased a lot of airtime on Air America. Maybe they don't want anyone else encroaching on their turf.
Snoopy,
Continuing on Excel's point:
Check out the Create network run by PBS, usually available as an HDTV extra channel. They have shows with very limited appeal, like sewing shows. But these sewing shows have many corporate sponsors, outfits that make thread, needles, hooks, pattern sheets, textbooks. There is a woodworking show with sponsors who make the chisels, the routers, and all sorts of other tools.
The Create sponsors are limited to a mention of the products they sell. If they could truly advertise, they would have even more.
Contrast that with Robert Kennedy Jr's show on Air America, where he whined about how General Motors and large corporations would not support him--and why should they? He rakes muck, and should try to get support from Mother Jones, Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports & George Soros, outfits with similar values.
I think you make a good point. This isn't really about ratings. It is about demographics and marketability of commercials to that demographic.
A liberal radio show is largely going to be anti-materialist, anti-commercialist and anti-corporation. Kind of hard to sell a product on the radio when you are telling people not to buy during the content of the program or going after corporations. It would seem to be pretty difficult to come up with a business plan that could compete with the shameless whore's in rightwing talk.
that's "whores" not "whore's". My bad.
I'm sorry, every time I click past "...my ducking friend..." I crack up. I know what Wesley was trying to say but I keep reading it as a euphemism for that other word.
As in "you must be ducking kidding me."
Happy 420 Friday all!!!
Why don't you post the entire line from Wikipedia, instead of clipping off the relevant portion?
"Political scientist William Mayer, writing in the Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR."
And what is Public Interest? Acording to good old wikipedia: "The Public Interest was a quarterly conservative politics and culture journal founded by Irving Kristol in 1965. "
The proposition that the liberal viewpoint is pushed on the three networks and most daily newspapers is not only ludicrous on the face of it. It constitutes mindless propaganda.
to say nothing of the massive evidence to the contrary, reported here at MMFA.
The trolls have been busy today.
Wesley was pretty shamelessly presenting opinion as fact. What a novel idea. Never seen a wingnut do that before...in the last five minutes.
Its a naughty thrill for the family values crowd. They can't listen to lesbian fantasies ala Stern so they go for the "tell it like it is" right wing overkill.
Wouldn't happen if the "liberal" talker lead the "conservative" liar/hater by a factor of two; because the Corporate Media simply wouldn't have it. One sees NBC right now cutting the L&O francises' budgets, and debating whether cheaper wouldn't be better than high ratings. The issue in any talk/opinion show, is "do you support the Corporate policy line?" If not, then we can find someone who will (See the Clear Channel demolition of "liberal" radio in Boston and elsewhere, despite those being the highest rated shows in the market.)
Imus wasn't fired because he offended anyone - purely an excuse -for finding a more reliable mouthpiece for the Corporations, and maybe cheaper as well.
Thats not necessarily true. It is still the conservative bussiness community that determines AD REVENUE. Having the highest ratings on MSNBC didnt save Donahue.
Again, I say let them talk. There's always going to be another wannabe tough guy to appeal to the audience. Bring them into the light , let them put their stoopidity on display.
I feel like the envelope of acceptable speech has been pushed, if you will, about as far as it can go. Now that the range of what can be said on the air is so broad, these guys have to verge into actual hate to still be seen as "edgy."
My hope - but it's just a hope - is that folks will just stop seeing the humour in it, and it will be seen increasingly as the pathetic ratings-hustle that it is. No real reason to believe that will ever happen, but hell, I'm a socialist, I'm used to hoping against hope...
Val Posted:
"I feel like the envelope of acceptable speech has been pushed, if you will, about as far as it can go. Now that the range of what can be said on the air is so broad, these guys have to verge into actual hate to still be seen as "edgy.""
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point Val! I couldn't agree more. My question now would be, "who do we blame" for this? Should we try to assign blame if any and where do we go from here?
When is the art/free speech line crossed? It seems to be a shifting line at best. I think the genie is out of the bottle and we can't stuff him back in.
I've mentioned it on here before, but on a PBS show (can't remember which one) two screaming talking heads from the cable shows actually sat down and had a civil conversation on politics. I couldn't believe it! It was interesting and entertaining with no shout downs or put downs of one's ideas.
If only the rest would follow suit...
I've seen Smerconish on TV several times or read about him here now & then. No doubt he's a Conservative & a bit edgy, but after the Imus fiasco, he'll probably make the effort to be less abrasive than his predecessor...he'll likely end up being quite tame in comparison.
Maybe they'll put Stephanie Miller on Thursday and Friday.
This is just great
MMFA and all the other Imus haters took off someone who was against this war, someone who understood the war criminals in Bush and Cheney and yelled about them on a daily basis. But the haters and silencers do not want disent. You have to be not only anti Bush but Pro Hillary Clinton, so Imus was silenced and taken off the air. And for what, Michael Smerconish? Someone who is 100x worse than Imus. Where will Keith Olbermanns outrage be now? MSNBC is such a joke.
Imus was fired for not being pro-Hillary? I learn something new every day here.
If Imus never called Hillary "satan" I doubt MMFA would have ever targeted him for extinction. Keith Olbermann was asked to never use the "hiel Hitler"Sign which is very offensive and gets to keep his job. Why?
http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm
Uh, because it's not nearly as offensive as what Imus did ? Olbermann wasn't using the salute to denegrate a group of talented and smart female college athletes, he was using it to denegrate Bill O'Reilly who's a f*cking blowhard.
Tell that to the 6 Million who died under Hitler. I guess if you think Imus is worse than Hitler you are an example of what is wrong with America.
Way to spin, boy. Jeff would be proud.
Are you actually dumb enough to think Olberman was genuinely endorsing Nazism? You can't possibly be that stupid.
I understand the ADL's sensitivity to all things Hitler, but it was misplaced with Olberman IMO. I have no problem with Nazi's being mocked and/or satirized. Why do you? Not that I am at all dumb enough to believe your own supposed "outrage" about Olberman is genuine to begin with.
Wow,
"The Nazi salute is less offensive than the statement, 'nappy-headed hos'" and "MSNBC is a conservative propaganda channel".
How do some of you people make it through the day without accidently walking into traffic or sticking your tongue in a light socket?
This site would be the perfect research tool for psych students studying delusional behavior.
And your post would be a wonderful example of the use of a strawman logical fallacy.
Olberman's Nazi salute was completely and obviously a sarcastic jab at O'Reilly. Something you didn't note when you self-servingly re-represented the argument.
Your doubt doesnt mean a thing. It is WHAT Imus said that caused his problems not MMFA. If you think MMFA expected MSNBC to replace Imus with Franken you are naive. Just because YOU make everything about partisan advantage doesnt mean no one else ever stood up for a principle
I'm certain that the replacement isn't pro-Clinton, so I guess he won't be on long huh? Imus was fired because corporate America has to appeal to a wide spectrum of the American public not just the neanderthals to purchase their crap and they didn't want to be associated with people who call other people names like hos and bitches routinely. I'm not happy with this replacement, I wish they would leave David Gregory in that slot. He's not great but he's much better than the dopes on those silly morning glad fest shows.
Leftwingcenter will be here to cry "I told you so" in 3... 2... 1...
9/11 conspiracy? Right wing control of the media? Elite liberals are so far left that they (you) think anyone with moderate views is a right wing nut. I can count on my right hand how many moderate or conservative broadcasters are on the air, in comparison to the overall majority of left leaning, liberals. And as soon as someone disagrees with you or has an alternative view, they must be racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, gun-toting rednecks. I welcome one more moderate/conservative on the air - the airwaves are far from balanced as they are now.
That's bullsh*t. The so-called "liberals" are giving straight news. Brian Williams doesn't call Bush names, or point out that Dick Cheney is a war criminal . The overwhelming majority of opinion driven shows are right-wing. If you deny that, you're only lying to yourself.
...and of course he played the "intact dilation and evacuation" ruling by the Supreme Court right down the middle, didn't he?
http://newsbusters.org/node/12164
"Partial-birth" is not a medical term. If you are really complaining that Brian Williams didn't use one side's loaded expression, and instead went with the actual medical term, the maybe you should just get all your news from Newsbusters...
That is exactly what they are doing. They are complaining that NOT conforming to rightwing propaganda is a showing of leftwing bias. That article had NOTHING.
Solon and Valentinian,
The quote was: "The so-called "liberals" are giving straight news. Brian Williams..."
To make an analogy from the sports world, there are national announcers who, while they may prefer one team over another, conduct themselves professionally and their personal preferences do not get revealed. On the other hand, there are others who shamelessly root for the home team, generally the local broadcasts.
My claim is that Brian Williams, rather than anchoring a truly straight newscast, instead is rooting for the home team, the abortion rights activists.
I find it curious that you took negatively my use of the proper medical term. I do not know of a term used by the left for intact dilation and evacuation that is apt: "Late term abortion" is much too vague and phrases like "a particular type of late term abortion" are so long you might as well use the proper medical phrase.
It is NOT the proper medical term just because you decided it is. It is a political term that entered the discussion and is now sometimes used. The term most used by doctors is dilation and extraction. I know you guys demand the right to frame every issue and control the language OF that issue but it is hard to claim that the term most often used by doctors is NOT the proper medical term.
Solon,
My original post, since again you are keying off other postes for your comments:
and of course he played the "intact dilation and evacuation" ruling by the Supreme Court right down the middle, didn't he?
You have things backwards. I am calling "it" by its medical name. Brian Williams & his newscast framed this as the "loss of abortion rights" story, the decidedly leftist slant.
Please make the effort to go back to the original post of a person rather than relying on what others say about the original post. You did the same thing with the BHO separatist minister story the other day.
You are absolutly right, I misread the exchange. My mistake. It is still the way this is seen by the vast majority of people. Whatever you think of the abortion debate I see the newsbusters article as nothing more than snivelling that the rightwing frame wasnt used and nothing in the original that was leftwing bias.
I take it you consider youself to be a "moderate".
Hey Media Matters. Don't forget that great quote Smerconish made in his first column in the Philly Inquirer regarding how parents of single mothers are more dangerous tg this country than guns (paraphrasing there but that was basically the statement). As demonstrated by recent events, I, a daughter of a widowed mother, am more dangerous to society than the product of a upper middle class, two-parent, buisness-owning family. Michael Smerconish is absolutely right...children of single mothers incredibly dangerous.
Mind blank = terrorism..... Hoo-kay, then, these people are terrorists- Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Santorum, every one at Fox *News*, Politico, most of CNN, Chris Matthews, etc...
All news programs are opinion driven - some are more subtle than others. When NBC chooses to do a story on a topic, say abortion, they can shape the viewers opinion of the story by choosing pro-choice or pro-abortion, anti-abortion or anti-choice. And, newscasters can interject their feelings into the story just by how they say certain words and their body language. Also, by covering certain topics more or others not at all, media can shape public opinon. It's not just the right wing radio hosts, who are such a small percentage of the overall number of broadcasters.
Sorry, no sale. This is the old "raised eyebrow" argument. Dan Rather was liberal because of his body language, etc.
While choice of language or how to cover a story can have some influence, it is nothing compared to the outright propaganda pumped out daily by the Right Wing. Which do you think has more influence...2.5 hours a week of Brian Williams body language, or 15 hours a week of lies from Rush Limbaugh? Take your time.
I'm not sure, but neither has the influence of watching, as just one example, Al Gore being deified in the media, paraded at both the Grammys AND the Oscars, etc., though his movie has a few "inconvenient" misstatements of its own.
People here continue to conflate news shows with opinion shows. Except, that is, when you're going after Fox News ("Oh no, they say they're 'fair and balanced', and they're not!" As if you'd back off if their slogan was "Yeah, we're conservative, so f___ing what?")
Rush makes no bones about what side he's on, just like this site doesn't. NBC and others, however, dress up their bias as "analysis", when it is only selective analysis. That carries a lot more weight in the mainstream because most believe there is no agenda, and thus only pure truth is being told.
No problem. Unlike SOME, I don't want to start kicking people I disagree with off the air. And yet, the market somehow found a way to put the other side's view out. Presto, Fox News. Cool, huh?
Leaving out the mainstream media for a moment, both ideologies have their own way of presenting their side while making it easy to digest for the masses. Our side likes to use straight talk, even though occasionally it goes off the deep end. Your side likes to use clever editing, special effects, and song and dance. Both can be effective in their own way. The converse doesn't always work. Right-wing movies and music generally suck. Left-wing radio generally sucks. That's reality.
But, for all of those on this site just a few days ago who insisted (incorrectly) that Imus's demise was simply the market at work, why is the market now not allowed to select a replacement?
Either way, it's good for MMFA to start a collection of "controversial" statements against the new guy now, so that they can more quickly prepare and fire off faxes to willing accomplices in the press down the road.
Damn, you do like the straw man argument, don't ya? Is that what you call "straight talk?"
Here's his question:
"Which do you think has more influence...2.5 hours a week of Brian Williams body language, or 15 hours a week of lies from Rush Limbaugh?"
Here's my answer: Brian Williams body language, because his newscast is supposed to be nonpartisan, but neither has the influence of the arts and entertainment world.
And people on this site that celebrated the departure of Imus are now whining because the market didn't consult them before selecting a replacement.
Direct enough, Val?
How can your answer be so direct to a question that was about an opinion? Granted, the opinion requested was your own, but still, according to your response to one of my comments below, you felt it needed to be qualified. So which time were you being truthful? This time, or when you responded to me?
If I respond point by point, it's a diatribe. If I summarize my points for those with short attention spans, it's too direct.
I qualified my statement, because it was an opinion. Because it is an opinion, I cannot be sure that the answer is correct as a matter of fact. The subsequent post was a restatement of my opinion. Thus, I was being truthful both times.
Of course, if you think you can answer your own question re who has more influence as a matter of FACT, feel free. Find a source that states, "Yes, as a matter of fact, Brian Williams has less influence than Rush Limbaugh", or the opposite. (Didn't anyone teach you people fact vs. opinion in elementary school?)
Again, no substantive response. One of you wants to simply deny, while the other wants to engage in wordplay.
I give up. I'm out.
Your posts were nothing but baseless assertions piled one on another. Then you snivel that the answers lacked substance. Start with substance if you want to see substance returned.
"But, for all of those on this site just a few days ago who insisted (incorrectly) that Imus's demise was simply the market at work, why is the market now not allowed to select a replacement?" exec...
That would be an appropriate argument if sponsors pressured MSNBC to hire Smerconish in the same way sponsors pressured MSNBC to drop Imus.
BTW. Your posts sure read eerily similar to Ann Coulter's writing style.
Nice diatribe, and it took a lot of imagination, none of it yours of course, since you're just repeating the rightoric. But let's examine a portion to see if you're salvagable:
"I'm not sure,..." - You're "not sure"? The answer to the question for which you're "not sure" is so apparent so as to make the question pretty nearly rhetorical. I suspect you're "not sure" because you haven't had Rush or Sean give you your opinion yet. But let's continue:
"but neither has the influence of watching, as just one example, Al Gore being deified in the media," - Al Gore wasn't deified in the media. This is something that YOU interpreted from your right-wing perspective. If you're going to use this as an example, provide some evidence of it. I suspect you can't. My suspicions will probably be borne out.
"...paraded at both the Grammys AND the Oscars, etc.,..." - Paraded? Paraded by whom? By the Recording Academy and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? How dare they parade their award winners on the TV like that? What are they - in the business of entertainment or something? Those cads.
"...though his movie has a few "inconvenient" misstatements of its own." - Please, by all means, expose them to us. We're dying to know how many "misstatements" of consequence misled viewers of his movie. What incorrect conclusions did the audience come away with, after viewing his film?
And that's only your first paragraph. Your imbecilic paranoid diatribe is built on nothing more than the rhetoric you've been fed for years by the likes of limpaugh and hannity, rhetoric that is factually devoid. It's axiomatic that whenever we see things like this from people like you, they're inevitably as long as my arm and skip across topics like a ping pong ball on a gravel road, propelled by false assertion after false assertion, none of which are ever backed up by evidence or facts. You didn't disappoint.
So, let me get this straight. You read my first paragraph, broke it down into chunks, responded to each with nothing more than "Nuh uh!", and this is what passes for your argument? Why did you bother, especially when your non-response was almost as long as my "diatribe"?
My "not sure" was in answer to a question about an opinion. You see, liberal, people can have different opinions. Thus, I thought it a fair qualifier. Next time I'll just say my opinions are a consensus, and thus are beyond dispute.
Al Gore has been deified in the media. Look up "Gore" and "hero", "Gore" and "religion", "Gore" and "worship", "Gore" and "rock star", keep going, find a thesaurus, I don't care. I won't do your Google work for you, nor will I read the papers for you. Lots of people win Grammys and Oscars. Not all, especially those that are not established in the respective fields, get to introduce awards at the end of awards ceremonies. Those are reserved spots, for good reason. Gore deserved a prime time slot, complete with long ovation, for a soundtrack Grammy? Oh yeah, keep believing that. Or maybe the Dixie Chicks were too tired.
As for misstatements in the film, again, Google it. Try "Inconvenient Truth" with "debunk", "error", etc. Even some who strongly believe in global warming are embarrassed by that movie.
That's it. Add some insults, and voila! your complete response. Fine job!
It's not up to me to back up your arguments, it's up to you. You come here and make statements like in your diatribe without including proof, and expect ME to back them up? Dream on. You may find it an unfair onus, but your intellectual superiority demands of you that you EDUCATE us dumb libs, else we'll continue to be ignorant of your insightful opinions, and you'll be forced to work around us - even possibly against us - in your quest for the betterment of society. Please, educate us so that we may work WITH you. Show us the error of our ways, don't just keep trying to convince us that we've erred. We're too pragmatic for that.
And if all you read in my previous response was "uh uh", then perhaps I overestimated the intellectual superiority I attributed to you earlier in this comment.
Well, I guess I disappointed you, because all I got was "Nuh uh". Sorry. Try facts next time. But then again, I never claimed to be intellectually superior. I'm not a liberal.
But, I did come back one more time on this thread, just to answer your question.
Deifing Al Gore/parading him for the Grammys/Oscars:
Washington Post: Al Gore, Rock StarOscar Hopeful May Be America's Coolest Ex-Vice President Everhttp://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5372
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070221/national/gore_climate_change_1
Reuters, “All-star global concerts planned on climate”, Feb. 15, 2007http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/02/26/al-gore-doesn-t-need-the-presidency.aspx
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_popmachine/2006/01/al_gore_sundanc.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/al-gore-takes-cannes-by-s_b_21466.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=169436
Misstatements in Inconvenient Truth:
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb061606.shtml
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece
Scientists who believe in global warming, but find errors in Inconvenient Truth:
“From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype”, New York Times.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
And there are many more. Read. Learn.
I never claimed to be intellectually superior. I'm not a liberal.
Everything you have written here, including that line, has fairly dripped with condescension and disdain. Not a really good way to encourage a respectful hearing of your thoughts... but then again, I suspect that's not your goal.
Likewise, posting links to pro-Gore websites to support yourpremise of this supposed "deification," and links to anti-Gore websites (or mass-media coverage of anti-Gore figures) with the stern admonition to "Read. Learn" does little for your credibility as a seeker of truth.
You are an advocate for a particular point of view, which is great, really - the main reason I and some of the others are here is because we can sometimes get a good, fair debate. But we don't have a whole lot of respect for people who play games. You're obviously very intelligent, and very pleased with that fact - which, again, is fine, as many of us are quite arrogant as well - but I for one hope you get that both sides gain from a reasoned argument.
I'm not against folks throwing the occasional elbow when the argument gets hot, but I don't like intellectual dishonesty. We have plenty of that in the world already.
Again, I wouldn't even pretend to claim intellectual superiority, but here's part of the response to my first post:
"Your imbecilic paranoid diatribe is built on nothing more than the rhetoric you've been fed for years by the likes of limpaugh and hannity, rhetoric that is factually devoid. It's axiomatic that whenever we see things like this from people like you, they're inevitably as long as my arm and skip across topics like a ping pong ball on a gravel road, propelled by false assertion after false assertion, none of which are ever backed up by evidence or facts. You didn't disappoint."
Cheap shots like this, especially without foundation, only serve to limit the debate on this forum to those willing to engage in the games you're accusing me of. Intellectual dishonesty? Now that's another level altogether.
You didn't actually read the links, did you? Or did you just, like the person below (Neondesert), identify the website source and decide whether it was worth your time? Even the links that were "pro-Gore" were summaries of other people's opinions regarding his esteemed status, complete with links. And are you now saying that the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are pro-Gore sites? These links support that Gore has become a "rock star" and "hero" in the eyes of the arts and entertainment industry. There are many more such links. Not only that, did you even watch the Grammys? And if you're going to try to split hairs between "rock star" and "deify" (Neon), try Googling "Al Gore", "deify", and "Hollywood". Here's one hit of many:
http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0227/stories/0227_ftrs.php
And regarding the cites directed to Gore's mistatements, is the New York Times now anti-Gore? Heck, I even left off the new "Global Warming Swindle" movie. Can't please everyone, I guess.
But all of this is just distraction from the point I was trying to make. My original point was that I think the arts and entertainment industry holds more sway over the public then either Brian Williams or Rush Limbaugh. That's because most people don't pay attention to politics to nearly the degree that they do pop culture. Survey after survey reveals this. Plus, this industry leans largely left, and not in a quiet way, either. Al Gore is only one example, which I used because of the large amount of airtime he's had recently. As to Brian Williams vs. Rush, it is my opinion that, in spite of the difference in audience, someone who is assumed from the start to be "objective" is much more influential to the margins than one who is known to be on one side or the other. The great majority of the people who listen to Rush know how they believe. Thus, if someone believed to be "objective" really isn't, the influence of this bias is multiplied.
Here's an example. If you were trying to cite a story to support an argument to someone, which would you prefer to cite, a story by Rush or a story by Brian Williams? Probably Brian Williams. I would feel the same way about Brian Williams versus, say, Mike Malloy.
Now, in response to this opinion, I get accused of unsupported allegations. What allegations are unsupported here? That Brian Williams is presumed by those in the middle to be more objective than Rush? You actually need a cite for that? How about that people follow pop culture more closely than political news? You need a cite for that too? Do you need a cite to support that most in the entertainment industry lean left? A cite supporting that Hollywood makes its bias known? How about a cite stating that elections are won or lost at the margins and with undecided voters?
The only even debatable assertion here is whether the "objective" press is actually biased. I'll bet you can find lots of links on that topic, for and against. You want me to link to just the first 50?
As for my second point, that people on this site have been crowing about the removal of Imus, claiming that it was due only to the market, and are now complaining about the decision of that same market to select a conservative replacement, here's a cite for you:
mediamatters.org
Now, I know it's a pro-Gore site, but check it out anyway. It backs up what I just said.
"As for my second point, that people on this site have been crowing about the removal of Imus, claiming that it was due only to the market..." --Execestides
I hesitate to ask you for yet another opinion, but (getting back on topic) for what reason do you believe Imus was fired? Specifically, what part did the market play or not play in it? For the record.
P.S. I apologize in advance if you have already mentioned it.
I guess the only thing that will possibly prevent you giving your bloated opinions is to directly request one.
I've got to admit, watching you two go at it has been great fun. And you've got to admit, O Hellenistic One, that skipping like a ping pong ball on a gravel road is a great simile.
"O Hellenistic One"? No pretension here. The name is just a poor play on someone else's name around here.
And yeah, the skipping ref made for a pretty good visual. But then, I liked Wesley comparing Air America to a fart in a bathtub, so maybe I'm not the one to ask...
My opinion (and ONLY my opinion) is that the market was the final arbiter of the fate of Don Imus. However, it is also only my opinion MMFA prodded the market far beyond what the market would have done on its own. How many people on the Rutgers women's basketball team would have heard or heard about the offensive comments, and would have been offended, if an intern at MMFA wouldn't have been recording the whole thing at 6-7 in the morning? Probably not a whole lot (but, again, I can't find a web site that says, "not a whole lot". The Wall Street Journal did a great job telling the story, though). By the end of this thing, news reporters were repeating the racist statements to kids, just so they could ask if they were offended (CNN, for example, did this). The Rutgers team, who wanted this whole thing to just go away from the start (again, they're the ones who showed class during this whole thing) is now getting hate mail (but also getting on Oprah; I wonder how the Tennessee squad feels about that). Do people here think any of this would have happened if Ryan C. wouldn't have sent out his faxes and emails? While what Imus said was, I believe, worse than even the things he's said before because of the target, both his listeners probably would have forgotten not long after. But I can't be sure.
As a REALLY bad example, let's say you are a semi-popular girl in high school, and you want to get in the cool clique. But, you're in competition with a much more popular girl. One day, you're passing through the hall, and you hear the popular girl joking with some friends about an outfit she wouldn't be caught dead in, because she thinks it looks "too trailer-trash". It happens to be the same outfit that the leader of the cool clique wore yesterday. Fortunately, you keep a cell phone camera ready for just such an occasion. You surreptitiously record the conversation, and put it on your blog. You then send an email to each of the members of the clique, and to the school gossip section, linking to the conversation. Clique gets offended, popular girl is shunned, you're in.
Now, you could say that all you did was show the truth. But what you really did was fan the flames, and hurt a bunch of people for no reason other than to get rid of competition. The "market" worked in the end, no censorship here (you didn't go tell the principal, after all), but it's just a little slimy.
So, the short version of my opinion is that is WAS the market in action, but an intentionally manipulated one. No doubt that right-wingers do it too (ask the Dixie Chicks). But it's a little disingenuous for either side to claim that it is "only" the market. Now, the new guy? That's the market working too.
I'll never win this debate, because I don't have the time to hold out for the last word. But it's been fun.
"So, the short version of my opinion is that is WAS the market in action, but an intentionally manipulated one. No doubt that right-wingers do it too (ask the Dixie Chicks). But it's a little disingenuous for either side to claim that it is "only" the market. Now, the new guy? That's the market working too." --Execestides
Perhaps you and I have different idea of what constitutes the free-market. In my view, the free-market include feedback mechanisms that often help to shape the product offerings - like media reports, government regulations - especially with regards to health and safety, lawsuits, consumer advocates/rating groups like Consumer Reports and in this case watchdog groups like MMFA. In my view MMFA only made Imus's remarks more well-known. MMFA is just another part of the free-market feedback system.
With that in mind, I don't really see where you have described how the free-market wasn't entirely responsible.
Despite how often you repeat it, 'The Market' did not hire Smerconish. There was no campaign of consumers clamoring for him to be hired, no sponsors decided to lobby with their ad dollars for Smerconish.
What happened to Imus happened because he violated the public trust. He used the public airwaves to assail private citizens, that was an abuse of the power granted him by his status as public media personality. He was held accountable by consumer groups pressuring advertisers in the same way the right wing smear gang thugs like Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity should be held accountable.
Thank you for wasting my time. After checking out each and every one of your links, I found not a one was a link to original data, all were opinion and commentary, and one was commentary on the National Association of Manufacturers' website. There's an impartial group who would know a little something about climate science, huh? And while "deifying" Gore could be considered opinion, the nearest I could find to that were a few describing him as a "rock star" because of his celebrity. That means he's well known, and popular. Could it be that you dislike Gore because he's popular?
I urge anybody else reading this thread to visit those links to understand where you're coming from.
Paragraph 2:People here continue to conflate news shows with opinion shows. Except, that is, when you're going after Fox News ("Oh no, they say they're 'fair and balanced', and they're not!" As if you'd back off if their slogan was "Yeah, we're conservative, so f___ing what?")
Categorically untrue. News shows should not comment, and opinion shows should at least be truthful. Two people reaching different conclusions based on the same facts is reasonable. Someone touting thier opinion based on untruths is unreasonable. MMfA points out when the news shows AND the opinion shows provide false information. MMfA also points out when these pundits say something stupid. Fox news mislabels republicans (in trouble) as democrats, asks "hypothetical" (and leading) questions on screen, all the while professing to be an antidote to the "liberally-biased" news outlets. Those who complain about Fox news are doing so justifiably, not just based on the company slogan.
Categorically untrue? You are denying that people on this site have held up opinion shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. as counterparts to news shows? Then read about four or five posts up in this thread. You see how someone compared the influence of an opinion show to that of a news show?
And your statement that news shows should not comment: You need to read the posts above yours. News shows comment all the time, by how they edit a report, by the reporter's opening and closing remarks, by the word choice, and yes, by body language. That's the point. If you believe that an editor and copywriter can't influence how a story is portrayed, then I would love to be an advertiser for a show you're watching. Cha-ching.
"MMFA points out when the news shows AND the opinions shows provide false information": Every so often, kinda like a blue moon, MMFA finds true misinformation. And even more rarely, it finds misinformation that actually contradicts the overall point their target was making. But most of the time, MMFA's "misinformation" amounts to "Person X said A, but they didn't add our talking points B" or "Person Y said something we find offensive". Even more so when someone is presenting an opinion.
You don't like Fox News because 1) they disagree with you; and 2) they are successful. But they are an antidote to "liberally-biased" news outlets. Making a rare error does not make Fox any less of an antidote. Besides, most of the time the "errors" cited by MMFA occur during the opinion shows, and yet you and others paint the whole network (news and opinion) with a broad brush. Sounds like conflating to me.
"You don't like Fox News because 1) they disagree with you; and 2) they are successful."
That's like saying people who don't like Britney Spears because she stays out too late and because a lot of other people do like her. The fact that lots of people buy her records and look with rapt attention at any show on which she's featured does not make her a good musician. Actually, that's giving you too much credit, because opinions can differ as to whether her music is good or not. Truth, however, is not a matter of opinion, and organizations that profess to be telling the truth--as Fox does--but don't do so, will be judged unfavorably and justly here. Ask Stephen Colbert to explain that to you if you're still unclear on that complex point.
"You don't like Fox News because 1) they disagree with you; and 2) they are successful." --Execestides
Looks like Execestides has graduated from merely posting opinions apparently largely based on other opinions to mindreading. So interesting. I think he just cured my insomnia...(yawn...)
Good night all.
Making a rare error...
Jesus.
How about a huge, systematic, and highly consequential error about the war in Iraq?
When a major news outlet spreads misinformation about some thing as important as a war, that's a big deal. A bigger deal, in fact, than pretty much anything I can imagine.
Digg it to get the word out.
I think collectively, the left-leaning media bias does have more of an effect than a handful of conservative talk radio personalities and two or three television show hosts. I don't know how many people listen to and watch NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS etc. versus the number of people who watch ABC and Fox plus the conservative talk-radio. But the fact that right wing talk radio is successful, ABC wins in the evening news category and that liberal talk radio has been an abyssmal failure shows that people want an alternative to the liberal media.
Democrats and Republicans are guilty of propoganda and there should be balance of opinions - some on the left and some on the right. What I find interesting is that its the liberals (who should be all about free speech etc) complain the most about alternative views - calling people ignorant, racist, bigots, and the like for disagreeing with them.
PS - NERZOG, adults can have a discussion without being snippy or condescending. And, we don't have to talk about liars, although you did bring up Dan Rather.
left-leaning media bias does have more of an effect
How would you, then, explain the past six years, most of which with Republicans controlling the White House and Congress?
I guess I have to wonder what you think the effect of right-wing media bias would be...
WasaDemocrat,
liberal talk radio is exploding, with Air America and Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press.
These people are going to continue to kick right-wing ass, and the growth will be phenomenal in the coming years.
I doubt it. Air America is terrible. I listened for the first month or so and honestly, listening to it turned me off of my former liberal beliefs. The whining made my ears bleed.
Here are the stats on the liberal talk radio "explosion":
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
Ed is down there between 3-3.25 million listeners, respectable, but not quite explosive.
Geez, I thought Mark Levin would be a shoe in. This little curmudgeon of a chicken hawk tries as hard as he can to be as obnoxiouse and mean to get attention. He probably didn't get the gig because he blew his one big chance on hannity's TV show where he called farm relief and native american program that were added to recent spending bill as "crap". I also don't think those that listen to this wannabe even have electricity.
Oh gee--finally, finally, there's a right-wing talk show host on the teevee! Closet right-wing bigotry at no extra charge.
A better a.m. choice: C-Span's Washington Journal.
Bald-faced lies.
Don't worry folks, with all that has been going on Totos on the way and he,s sniffing behind the curtain.
And who controls Congress now?
I think that the overall media bias - print, television, radio - is liberal. Journalism schools in the northeast churn out graduates who are more likley to be left-leaning. There should be other points of view - or do you think this should be Communist China where only one point of view can be expressed? Wait...I think I already know the answer.
I also don't think those that listen to this wannabe even have electricity.
More namecalling. Would someone living in Africa with no electricity also be so demonized by you? Or is it just people in your own country that you hate?
or do you think this should be Communist China where only one point of view can be expressed? Wait...I think I already know the answer.
Try making arguments instead of smears if you are going to lecture other commenters on how "ADULTS" discuss issues.
And learn to use the "Reply" link.
or do you think this should be Communist China where only one point of view can be expressed? Wait...I think I already know the answer.
Try making arguments instead of smears if you are going to lecture other commenters on how "ADULTS" discuss issues.
And learn to use the "Reply" link.
How is that a smear? I didn't degrade anyone's financial or educational status.
My argument was that in the United States, different views are allowed. I was simply drawing a contrast to what liberals say they want, to what they actually want. Liberals say they want freedom of the press but really they want the press to be free to agree with their views. When the media disagrees with liberals, the liberals cry foul and say something negative about about the person disagreeing with them.
I have no problem the media presents liberals AND conservative. I want them to stop LYING. I want them to stop distorting and I want some balance. Liberals do have SOME media. Like the Nation Magazine THEY regularly publish conservatives when they write an article. They KEPT Christopher Hitchens as a regular contributer WHILE he was supporting the war effort which the magazine in general was completely against. The NYTimes has Safire and Cal Thomas along with many other outright conservatives as regular contributers. Saying we dont think LIES and racist slurs belong in public discourse is hardly silencing conservative opinion and it says something that YOU think it would.
---"do you think this should be Communist China where only one point of view can be expressed?"---
Apparently MSNBC feels there should be only one point of view on its morning simulcast: one that expresses dog-whistle racism and closet bigotry, and generally brings the level of discourse down to Neanderthal-level.
"and generally brings the level of discourse down to Neanderthal-level"
No that would be Keith Olbermann. His far left hateful rants have hurt MSNBC more than anything Imus ever said.
--"[Olbermann's] far left hateful rants have hurt MSNBC more than anything Imus ever said."--
Olbermann's more popular than ever. In reality it's right-wingers who are "hurt". It hurts them to know that the Hannitys, Becks and O'Reillys can't dump their garbage and their lies on the airwaves and get away with it anymore.
Ah, the spin:
Olbermann's ratings up 80%, moved him from last place into, uh, well, gee, he's still in last place...
You missed the point. Improved ratings hurts MSNBC how exactly?
Which is why his ratings keep climbing? Only in your world of complete delusion.
What about MSNBC's prime-time hosts? Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews? I commend MSNBC for offering a balanced line-up - some liberals and some conservatives.
Matthews is debatable. Olbermann is the only undeniably real liberal on MSNBC.
I think overall the media bias is definitely to the right. This great website has demonstrated this in hundreds of different ways.
I am afraid I have to respectfully disagree with media watchdog Wasademocrat.
Your very premise is ludicrous. The network news is NOT liberal, unless you define liberal as not conforming exclusively to rightwing propaganda like FOX. I am a liberal. They arent pushing my point of view and never did. This is a rightwing talking point without merit. Do you even REMEMBER the run up to the war? Where was this so called liberal media? When the Downing street memos were the biggest story in the WORLD it didnt even HIT American news for another month and was treated disdainfully. The NYTimes TOLD Krugman he couldnt call Bush a liar though the FACT he has lied is incontrovertable. Even though the press was all Monica all the time for two years Bush has gotten a pass for HIS lies. I am not saying the media is conservative either. It looks to me, as I have said before, it is more complicated than that. It is more like the media serves power and reflects elite views. That will break down to socially liberal and economically also foriegn policy consevative but to claim the networks are liberal is just mindless garbage. Its just been repeated enough to and by you rightwingers that you think it has reached that point where it magically became true. It ISNT true not just because YOU, Rush and the rest of the screechmonkey crowd keep SAYING its true.
I agree totally that the press failed this country miserably after 9/11, going up to the invasion of Iraq. When we needed the media the most, they were being spoon-fed the nonsense by the Bush admin right along with most of Congress. Everyone fell asleep at the wheel.
But - this one instance does not mean the press is tilted right. I think it only means that the press is human and American. At the time, most Americans felt powerless and many people felt some action was needed. Bush was riding this huge wave of public support and it was difficult to oppose him.
When I read my morning paper, I can cut out 5 stories (not opinion pieces) that have a left bias - and that's every day. And I'm not even a republican...
I would be very interested to know what counts as "left bias" in your eyes - genuinely. In my mind, the "center" of the political discourse has shifted for far right that it is very, very hard for me to find any reporting that even remotely represents my point of view.
Or rather, I have to read the news in Italian.
Isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same thing but see something different.
But our disagreements and our ability to share them openly make this country the great place to live that it is. Whenever I argue with someone over political beliefs, I try to keep this in mind.
I agree, perspective is everything.
However I certainly hope "ability to share [disagreements] openly" is not what makes our country great, as that's increasingly true of many countries, perhaps most at this point in history.
I am not a Democrat and I could do the same with what I consider rightwing bias. I still remember a story in the NYTimes HEADLINED Bush wins Florida. When you read the article it said IF all valid votes are counted Gore won by ANY COUNTING STANDARD. Now THAT is rightwing bias. I am still not saying the press is rightwing. Rather what I said before, it reflects elite opinion therefore both sides can point to bias from their viewpoint. No way can you substantiate a leftwing bias. I am a leftwinger have been all my adult life. I have NEVER seen my point of view pushed in the mainstream press.
Define leftwing. What are your major political beliefs?
I can overgeneralize my political beliefs with two statements. Property does not have rights, people have rights, in any dispute between people and property, people must come first. Second, I never, NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak. This is simply not the venue to go into a long and involved explanation of my political beliefs. I think anyone reading my posts over a period of time would define me as a serious lefty
Like I recomend to a lot of recent posters. Read David Brocks book on the media. I'm not pushing it, but it addresses your feeling on media bias and presents a though ducumented argument against your position. Disagree all you want, but to most here, and there's some pretty sharp people hang here, Your only arguing from the positions given to you by that ineffectual conservative media.
One figure from the book is 3 billion dollars. This a rough figure of the amount of money pored into the medias from conservative sources over 3 decades to take over said media. Its been a hansome investment for them. There are roughly 30 sources. Advertsing is a fairly mundane support. For the more exotic the Four Sisters foundations are often inventive and illegal, for a given diffinition of illegal.
I liked Brocks book a lot. It was a detailed and well thought out book on a specific media phenomena. For a broader media analysis that explains the broader media I suggest Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, or a less academic take, less of a tome, Necessary Illusions.
It was not an easy read. I just finished Beinart"s "The Good Fight" and thought he made some good points and should have some of them included in the debate on our close future. I'll keep an eye out for the two titles you mentioned. Thanx.
This is poetic justice here. Media Matters' anti free speech crusade seems to have backfired. They went all out to try to get a leftward leaning independent fired from MSNBC, and they succeeded in that effort. But Imus' replacement is a moderately conservative Republican who is much more sypmathetic to the Bush administration than Imus was. You should be careful what you wish for MMFA, because you just might get it.
So long as we eliminate the exemplars of "hate speech", how can that be bad? Besides, you allow far too much credit to MMFA, for Imus' demise: we just served up an example of his "speech", but the Corporate Media was already looking for some way to dump this rather expensive and totally unreliable flake: why, he even had the nerve - on a few occasions - to contradict the Corporate storyline! Younger, cheaper, more reliable - how could the Corporations go wrong there?
Geeze. You say the word "corporation" like it's some kind of evil word or something. I guess if you don't like the capitalistic system we have here in America you can always move to Cuba. I'm sure Fidel Castro would love to have you there.
Rino,
The America, Love it or Leave it term is ancient, the next thing you'll be calling us is hippies.
Personally I would prefer YOU move to one of those capitalist paradises we have created like Guatemala where your black fascist heart would be more at home.
I, too, am getting a chuckle about this.
--"Crusade against free speech..."--
We forgot that "free speech" to right-wingers means that highly-paid broadcasters can say bigoted, racist remarks on the public airwaves without repercussions.
It's ironic you're talking about free speech on a liberal message board. Liberals are usually purged from conservative message boards faster than you can say "US Attorney".
There was NO free speech issue involved. Only those incapable of actual thought who have no recourse other than to regurgitate the mindless propaganda they are fed by the screechmonkey set are still trying to pretend there is. In that vain rightwing hope that if they say it ofen enough it will become true. Imus did NOT have a free speech right to a show on OUR airwaves. He STILL has every freespeech right he ever had to say whatever he pleases on whatever streetcorner or public park he feels like. He had NO free speech right to further employement. That is a flat out dumb argument which we have shown at least two dozen times. The fact you keep repeating it anyway though you cannot possibly support the contention shows how intellectually bankrupt your arguments here are.
The awesome market power, and the sheer volume of noise, emanating from right-wing talk radio began to shape the entire media, which was increasingly seeking profits and ratings over quality journalism. Limbaugh said his program “redefined the media.” And he bragged openly about the Limbaugh “echo chamber syndrome,” through which themes enunciated by Limbaugh resonated throughout the media and “onto the floors of the U.S. House of Representatives.”
When Vice President Gore criticized the Bush administration’s Iraq policy in September 2002, Brian Williams—the heir to Tom Brokaw’s anchor chair at NBC—began his newscast on CNBC, “Today our friend Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners he almost stayed home from work not due to any health reasons, but because he was so livid at the speech given yesterday by former Vice President Al Gore criticizing the Bush administration. . . .” Limbaugh’s criticism of Gore had become national news on a mainstream cable channel.
David Brock -- “The Republican Noise Machine”
I don't wanna say I TOLD YOU SO...But I TOLD YOU SO!!!
Imus wasn't perfect...But he's better than this nut job! AND Imus supported Kerry & Ford (ok, he likes McCain & Santorum -- but that was on a personal level -- not all Repubicans are Devils as this site often suggests). Now there's something worse than Imus in his time slot. AND he'll probably draw better numbers than Imus.
Media Matters can take ALL the credit for promoting this Smerconish idiot!
Hope you're all proud!
I. DON'T. CARE. The principle, that racist slurs dont belong on OUR airwaves is more important than the tactical partisan back and forth or any partisanship one way or another. Right is right.
I'm not surprised to see the gleeful posts from all our right wing friends. I guess they would also tell a wife whose husband has stays out drinking every night that she should keep quiet about it, because if she dumps him the family will lose his paycheck. So, when she does kicks him to the curb they smirk about her money problems.
Just what I was worried about. Instead of Imus - who was equal opportunity, we will now have Smerconish. Another right-wing a-hole in a nation that has little choice but to hear from right-wing a-holes.
Does anyone yet realize that Imus - and Bernard -were a stitch who merely "said" things meaning no harm?
They reflected back on you that which you were surrounded by anyway. Then spoke truth.
you gotta be kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i know of this guy, i've seen him on tv too much, heard him too much, etc. he is a nut! huge mistake for msnbc. its bad if "fox and friends" beats you in that slot, but it's gonna happen. big no-no.
Really strange analogys, metaphores, similies(?)there wesley.
For the record Air America has a strong following and a reasonable payrole in the northwest. I don't think your case can be supported regarding putting money into a thing till it can support itself is unknown among the media moguls. Plenty of evidence of these folks putting money into conservatve radio. I can't talk about their financial health today. Can you provide any information here.
You asked for it, MMFA. Way to go!
Never wish to get rid of someone who sucks, because there are people out there who suck more! MSNBC needs to stop and think about their liability is hiring another jerk-o.
I'm laughing my ass off at everyone who thought getting rid of Imus was a sign of some board room epiphany. It's always fun when the Thought Patrol gets sand kicked in their face. Nice work!
OH mmfa! Be careful what you wish for.
""maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" illegal immigrants. "Why is this controversial? This is what we ought to be doing. We have 12 million people in this country breaking laws, we don't know who they are, what they're doing here, where they're going. The fact that MMFA cites this as controversial is laughable....
But why would we want to deport illegals? We might hurt their feelings. You're not being very PC.
Nah, Seb we don't want to deport the illegals. WHAT WOULD CORPORATE AMERICA DUE WITHOUT CHEAP, NEVER COMPLAINING, WILLING TO TAKE ANY AND EVEYTHING EMPLOYEES?
I find the people, usually conservatives, scream about the illegals but fail to realize that their employers are the very corporations that support your President and party (Republicans) so generously. Why didn't they scream long before the illegal population reach the size that it is now? Regan granted amnesty what year? Republicans have had control of congress for how long?
While you scream about illegals, WalMart, General Electric and other companies big and small give illegals employment at a cheap rate that most American would never take.
Remember the "wall".. How many American would stand in the desert heat to lay bricks? In Las Vegas, where the summer months reach 115 degrees you can't find any other type of labor to landscape or construction work. Would you work for the money that they get?
Stop worrying about the "PC" part, take you head out of the sand and realize that corporate America LOVES CHEAP LABOR AT WHATEVER THE COST! Check out the contributions that corporate America makes to each party and then call your friends and tell them that you've been had by the very people you claim understand you and your "values". NO "PC" needed and no I'm not Hispanic, nor illegal.
You sounded much more inteligent on another thread.
The above was for Sebastian, not Pearlene. Sorry and I hope my spelling is right.
First off, let me apologize for using the term "imbecilic". I let my prejudices get the better of me, and can't defend the term as being descriptive of your comment.
The rest, however, I'm quite prepared to back up.
Paranoid: with "NBC and others, however, dress up their bias as "analysis", when it is only selective analysis." you imply an insidious scheme against truth, and conservative ideology. Until there is a definitive study that proves that the news media is purposefully misrepresenting the facts to push an agenda based on attacking conservatives, the "liberal media" viewpoint is unfounded, and can only be viewed as paranoia.
Diatribe: To answer one simple "which is more" question, you went on for 7 paragraphs, accusing mainstream media the whole time of the above-described scheme to sway public opinion. No examples were given, by the way. And because the opinions you stated are not considered general public knowledge, that constitutes "baseless assertions".
Rhetoric: Here's one definition: "the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.". Does that sound like Limbaugh's description of himself? Did you not also say that Gore was deified? Wouldn't that qualify as rhetoric by the same definition? Most would think so.
Factually devoid: Limbaugh and Hannity usually present opinions based on only some of the related facts, those that back up their opinions. Well, in my opinion, reaching a conclusion with only a portion of the information is no different that stating a conclusion based on no facts at all, and likewise leads to incorrect resolutions. My use of the word "devoid" is debatable. I'll defer to another occasion to argue that. But the concept intended when I wrote it is still valid.
Axiomatic: Yes, it's pretty much a given fact to me because I see them all the time. Not just on this site (we see it all the time). For example, when a conservative friend of mine and I debate a topic, he inevitably ends up a mile away from where we started, touching on several different topics along the way, most of which only have a passing relationship with the previous one. That's exactly what you did, after being asked a simple "which is more" question, and rather than Blame my liberal scientific thought process for that. becoming more focused on the topic, you began to generalize more and more, all based on the "liberal media" meme.
Ping Pong Ball on a Gravel Road: A damn fine analogy. Not arguable.
The rest was just summarizing what I had already said. So bottom line, to call it a cheap shot was unfounded. Yeah, I had to parse each little piece of it. Because when I write the words, I take care to make sure that they mean what I'm trying to say, as nearly as my capabilities allow. Some don't take such care. And you see how long a rebuttal to your "cheap shot" allegation needs to be to prove my point. Why would I spend the time, and why would you bother reading, any response to all the other allegations you made in your comment? I'm absolutely willing to discuss a single topic with you, but only without broadening it, or adding further subjects.
...and the above should have been posted as a reply to... well, those who understand it know where it belongs. I feel like such a tool.
Dad may be full of himself but he really isnt imbecilic
What little I've seen of Smerconish convinces me that he's just another rightwing fool (or tool), but in fairness, he doesn't seem to sink to the hateful level of Imus or, worse, Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck, let alone Michael Savage. Wrongheadedness, let alone stupidity, should not be enough to drive one out of the marketplace of ideas, albeit many so-called ideas are more mental kneejerks from jerks.
Let a thousand flowers bloom--we can spot the weeds.
Bring back Donohue.
Good for MSNBC. I'm glad they are doing this. Good for Michael too! Maybe Mike McConnell would like his own show too?
<>[link to www.premiereradio.com] Rush, then Hannity. Maybe Ann Coulter would like a time slot too?
For redio simulcast jobs and likely other broadcasting jobs at the cable networks, there should be a big job posting ad that says:
"DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS NEED NOT APPLY!"
Fantastic idea! I LOVE it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just want to point out that I was being sarcastic.
I would like Don Imus to return to the media in whatever form, as long as he is there. I miss him every day. He is the only person who can make sense of our world. I am floundering.
I hope he is paid the money he is owed. I know he will use it for the Imus Ranch and other causes he believes in.
(Sorry Charles, "for other causes in which he believes.")
Betty Knowlton 9545 Circle Dr. Pickerington, Ohio 43147 614-868-0523raillone@aol.com
"Which do you think has more influence...2.5 hours a week of Brian Williams body language, or 15 hours a week of lies from Rush Limbaugh? ", asks Nerzog. Execestides hems and haws, then answers "Brian Williams", on the grounds that Williams is supposed to be nonpartisan. Elsewhere, though, he maintains that William's left-leaning tendencies are a known quantity, something only a liberal would fail to see, or deny.
So which is it?
Of all the diverse, credible, multimedia talent available and this established right-wing bullet-head is best MSNBC could come up with? Imus got out just in time.
I watched this morning (Monday 23 April '07) for 15 minutes. When I heard Smerconish repeatedly bellow he "couldn't think of a single reason Alberto Gonzales should be fired" I knew Zippy the Pundit was more concerned about hearing his own voice than stimulating dialog. Maybe outsourcing isn't such a bad idea after all.
Tell me again about "liberal media bias." I'm not seeing it.