Citing AP, Baier mentioned only Democrats "embroiled in ethical issues"
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bret Baier reported that an AP article "list[ed] a number of Democrats embroiled in ethical issues." But Baier did not point out any Republican public officials currently "embroiled in ethical issues."
During the February 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier asserted, "The Associated Press says Democrats are having a hard time doing business by the book," and cited an AP report from that day by staff writer Larry Margasak that Baier said, "list[ed] a number of Democrats embroiled in ethical issues." But Baier did not point out any Republican public officials currently "embroiled in ethical issues." As Media Matters for America documented, a number of elected Republican officials are under criminal investigation or are awaiting trial on criminal charges. And one Republican, former Sen. Ted Stevens (AK), was found guilty on felony charges in October 2008.
Moreover, as Baier noted, in the AP article, Margasak asserted that "[t]he Obama administration and the new Congress are rapidly giving Republicans the same 'culture of corruption' issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power." While Margasak noted that in 2006, "[i]t was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., wrote suggestive notes to former teenage male pages, and several Republican lawmakers and officials failed to act when they learned of the situation," Margasak, like Baier, made no mention of Stevens or other Republican elected officials currently under indictment or investigation.
Examples of Republicans recently convicted, under indictment or under criminal investigation include:
- Stevens: On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found "guilty on seven felony counts, each with a maximum penalty of five years in prison," as The Washington Post reported. Stevens has asked that the jury's guilty verdict be overturned. The Washington Post reported that the next court hearing on Stevens case will occur in April.
- Alaska Rep. Don Young: According to a July 25, 2007, Wall Street Journal report, Young is "under criminal investigation" for whether he "accepted bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifts from VECO Corp., Alaska's largest oil-field engineering firm." As recently as January 11, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Young was "under federal investigation on corruption allegations," and that he "lost his senior committee leadership positions over the break." Additionally, the Anchorage Daily News reported on December 9, 2008: "Since the beginning of 2007, Young has spent more than $1 million in campaign contributions on legal fees related to a Justice Department probe -- which includes an investigation into fundraising."
- Former Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi: As Roll Call reported (subscription required) on December 8, 2008, Renzi "faces trial in March on corruption charges." Renzi was indicted February 22, 2008, "on charges of federal conspiracy, fraud, extortion and money laundering related to a land-swap deal in his home state," according to a December 7 Congressional Quarterly Weekly article (accessed in the Nexis news database). A January 14 AP article reported that Renzi pleaded not guilty.
- Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki: Krolicki was indicted December 3, 2008, by a grand jury "on four counts of misappropriation and falsification of public records," The Hill reported.
From the February 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: And now, some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine: The Associated Press says Democrats are having a hard time doing business by the book. An analysis piece is titled, "Democrats self-destructing over ethics."
Reporter Larry Margasak writes, quote, "The Obama administration and new Congress are quickly handing over to the Republicans the same 'culture of corruption' issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP. ... Freshman Senator Roland Burris is only the latest embarrassment."
Margasak lists a number of Democrats embroiled in ethical issues including House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel, Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He also highlights the tax problems of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Daschle.
I think it was CNN that ran a "Democrats Behaving Badly" segment during the Blagojevich "scandal" (because suddenly business-as-usual became a "scandal" when a guy with a funny name and funny hair who got caught on tape talking about it was a "scandal.") I don't recall seeing "Republicans Behaving Badly" segments when Tom Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens etc. etc. etc. were bumbling through their own, REAL ethics problems.
I don't really believe that auctioning off a Senate seat is "business as usual". Blagojevich and Burris seem to have genuine problems with their sense of ethics.
So Blago's and Burris' ethics problems are "genuine" while those of Stevens, Young, Renzi and Krolicki are what? Superficial??? Trivial???
"I don't recall seeing "Republicans Behaving Badly" segments when Tom Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens etc. etc. etc. were bumbling through their own, REAL ethics problems."
"REAL etchics problems" is in direct contrast to Blagojevich. My point is that Blogojevich and Burris have real ethics problems as well, that what happened is not "business-as-usual".
"etchics" should be "ethics", of course. In-your-face type cat to blame.
The point to all of this article is that Bret Bair didn't mention republicans when talking about the ethics violations that are int he forefront. I dont' recall any of you screaming "UNFAIR" when the coverage of Stevens et al didn't mention crooked Dems. MMFA talks out of two sides of its face. Hypocrits all
Of course you can't recall, you never shut yer yap long enough to listen.
Excellant reply. No hatefullness in that one!
Then you should love this one. I didn't pen it, but I couldn't have said it better!
snoop is good at that
MissDee,
Where do we begin? You really don't get the point of the article or the poster's comments, so I guess I'll just leave you alone.
MMFA is a partisan organization. It's in their mission statement and they don't mince words. They make no claims of fairness.
If fox didn't say it was "fair and balanced" would mmfa still go after their one-sided reporting? I asked commensenseliberal that, but he still hasn't answered.
I can only speculate as to what they would do...
If Fox didn't say it, I think MMFA would continue to analyze them, just like they analyze the other outlets that don't market themselves with such claims. In case you haven't noticed, MMFA targets many of the alleged "liberal media" sources as well.
But if Fox were to suddenly become brutally honest in their marketing by proclaiming something like, "your source for right-wing propaganda," I don't think MMFA would be as prone to go after the one-sided reporting, but I think they would still go after the neverending falsehoods.
I would argue that the way Blaojevich attempted to benefit through the filling of the Senate Seat is the way it's been done for most of our country's history. I'm certain that Gov Paterson didn't spend over a month poring over resumes to determine who the best fit for Mrs. Clinton's seat was- he was balancing political considerations and determining which pick would do him the least political damage. Same with Gov Ritter in Colorado. Same with the Gov who appointed Murkowski's daughter in Alaska.
My point was, whenever a Governor has to fill a Senate seat, there's political gamemanship going on. The only difference is that Paterson and Ritter etc. etc. was that they weren't under investigation at the time and their phones weren't tapped. Pretending that what Blagojevich did was somehow unique in the annals of Senate vacancy filling is just naive. If people are really bent out of shape over it, let's have a Constitutional Amendment requiring a Special Election within 90 days after the creation of a vacancy, with the seat remaining vacant until the election. That would cost some money, but I happen to think Democracy is worth it.
"I'm certain that Gov Paterson didn't spend over a month poring over resumes to determine who the best fit for Mrs. Clinton's seat was- he was balancing political considerations and determining which pick would do him the least political damage."
No, that's not the same thing. There's a big difference between analyzing the political ramifications of your decision and saying that a Senate seat is a thing of value and you don't give it away for nothing. I don't think the question is whether it's unique or not, but whether it's acceptable. If there is auctioning going on we don't know about, those people should be impeached as well.
I agree we should have a special election. An appointment to Congress is too much power and invites this sort of corruption.
I hardly think a special election would ever happen. The party in power would never allow an opportunity to 'lose' a seat in any political position. So, they will never allow something like that. Democracy isn't that important to politicians.
Oops, sorry to burst your bubble, but at this very moment the governer of Illinois wants Burris to resign. And <gasp!> he's calling for a special primary and special election to fill burris' seat! And <wowzers!> another democratic senator submitted legislation to replace current process with a special election, which would do exactly what you claimed no political party would ever promote!
Gosh, sux to be you today!
Yeah, and they're dumb to be advocating that, because,
1) The Republicans will spend 150 million dollars to win that seat,
2) They'll say it's all about "checks and balances"
3) The media will chime in and start asking why the Dems are afraid of 'balance,"
4) Obama will be coerced into endorsing a Republican for the seat, because he's "bi-partisan," and
5) A repub will win, and the MSM will from that time forward refer to the GOP as the "principled opposition."
How dumb can Dems be?
I don't know, republicans today are so knee jerk reactionary they'll vote against it en mass, and their money currently isn't any good. Look how much they tried to buy the last election? Now's a good time to propose it, because the republican name rhymes with a female anatomy part and comes out of another part strategically located near the first part.
To say that the repubs tried to buy the last election is pure fiction. Who raised more money, Obama or McCain? In fact obama broke his pledge to accept public financing when he realized that he would raise much more by himself. You should try being honest and less insulting. You give us democrats a bag name.
Saying and doing are 2 different things. That same governer also said Blago would not select Obama's replacement....ooops, who selected Burris?
Works a little slow today, might be able to get 9 holes of golf in. My world isn't too bad. But, thanks for caring.
I agree, saying and doing are two different things. Republicans say, and Democrats do. That's why y'all lost in a landslide last election.
I hardly think that the 2008 was a landslide election, look at the 1980 election, that is the defininition of a landslide.
I think perhaps what jjamele2880 meant was that what Blagojevich was caught doing was what most politicians do, at least up to a certain extent, the only difference is that Blagojevich was caught. Obviously, there is probably something deeper that Fitzgerald has on Blagojevich. Blagojevich was under investigation for a number of years before he was arrested on December 9, 2008. The Senate seat was only a small part of what Blagojevich was being investigated for.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I don't really believe that auctioning off a Senate seat is "business as usual".
Sorry, that didn't happen. It's all basically a phony story. Let Burris face re-election in two years and don't allow this Republican side-show to go on.
I guess those tapes were all a hoax. And Burris is toast, he won't be around much longer. And may I also point out that it is the dems that did the right thing with Blagojevich and will probably get Burris as well, the repubs have very little to do with this one.
you have a point, there are those on both ends that have ethical lapses. both sides have done wrong. but there is a special hypocracy when neo cons rail loudly about tax problems from appointees, but have either been caught either committing sexual harasssment, taking bribes, and even being caught in a prostitution ring.
now im not defending the tax cheats but it seems that its a bit unfair that guys like vitter, craig, foley, who have committed far more henoius crimes are knocking others down who have got caught and then paid up their back taxes.
but as i said both sides have committed crimes.
I find your opinion quite inconsistent in this area, to even think that the selling of a senate seat is business as usual is troublesome at best. The scandals talked about in the report are all current while most of the repub scandals are old news to some degree, however real they are or were. And I think it is a bit unfair that you would point to the repubs you mentioned without referring to Clinton for his sexual harrassment lapses, Jefferson for his bribery scandal and spitzer for his involvement in prostitution scandal. Do you think it is just coincidence that the dems have dropped their"culture of corruption " talk in recent years.
Hey Fair,
I don't really think you are a liberal, but that aside, you don't think Clinton was scrutinized?
Also, his point was that the Repub's were not scrutinized during their scandals and now the Dem's are.
Do you see the hypocrisy perhaps, to be fair O fair one?
Actually , I do think Clinton was scrutinized, I think that the repubs ganging up on Clinton is at least partially responsible for the ganging up on Bush annd in that sense they got what they deserve. But for the last 8 years a republican could not take a bottle of scotch from someone without calls for his resignation from dem circles. Now they are supporting tax cheats for our new and improved government. I think Obama has been pretty prudent in the way he has governed so far, except for his dubious selections for cabinet positions. And his point that the repubs were not scrutinized is just false, it was big news as it should be. To read that someone dismisses the selling of a senate seat as just business as usual, do YOU agree with that.
which ones are we supporting? Not blagovich, everyone called for his resignation and he was eventually impeached. Not Burris, the senate democrats were refusing to sit him, and his support in the black community is shrinking daily. Not Daschle, even though Obama said he supported him up front Daschle did the right thing and withdrew because he knew he was wrong and would be a liability. Not the former senator from La., we called for his removal too and when he wouldn't bow out, we voted him out. Obama may have made a few mistakes, but unlike most republicans, the democratic party has made it clear that they will be removed one way or the other.
Fairlib, could you provide one example of a Repub taking a bottle of scotch and some Dem circles calling for a resignation?
He might be referring to the guy here in austin that had a gun and a bottle of scotch in his car. Of course, the police only found those things after they had arrested him for soliciting sex...
That's comical, I take a little poetic license, in my comment and now you want me to prove it. Are you telling me that an astute political observer like yourself does not know of any instances of democrats calling for repub resignations. And it seems to me that Geithner is still in his position and Burris is the Senator from Illinois, Reid should have stuck to his guns on that one. What do you think would have happened if Bush had nominated people with tax problems to his cabinet. And it took a few years and the voters to get rid of Jefferson, the party did not do it. And Hillary is another matter altogether. Obama has inherited quite a mess and has a huge job in front of him and he sure can do without these kinds of distractions. And I must say I am a bit puzzled why you and snoopy are so concerned with my comments but you still have not said a word about the "business as usual " comments that started the debate. I have to assume that you support that comment.
Speaking of ganging up, you ever hear the liberal media, or a democratic elected official for that matter, refer to republican elected officials this way?
KHOW's Peter Boyles repeatedly makes sexist remark about Rep. DeGette's name: 'Vagina DeJet'
By John Amato Friday Feb 20, 2009 9:00am
Old news? Like Steele's fraud investigation? Or Palin's troopergate investigation? Ted Stevens? They are only "old news" in that republicans used delaying tactics to drag them out longer than necessary. So "old news"? I don't think so.
But feel free to keep bringing up Clinton, because the republican list of scandals dwarfs anything you can try to pin on democrats.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/
It's pretty clear that in this case, "fairliberal" = "concern troll."
Also too, use da Google on "grand old docket." That's my favorite list of perps.
I don't recall seeing "Republicans Behaving Badly" segments when Tom Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens etc. etc. etc. were bumbling through their own, REAL ethics problems.
True, but there were the 2006 mid-terms... :)
Randy Cunningham came to mind immediately
Clearly, Republican "scandals" don't count. Just ask Rush, then do whatever he says.
MARK Foley of Florida is the pedophile Republican Congressman. TOM Foley was the Democratic House Speaker from Washington who did not attempt to have sex with underaged boys. Know your Foleys.
I guess the party in power is likely to get the most scrutiny. Too bad the Republicans didn't get more scrutiny when they were in power. But, considering the Republicans have bought up the mass media, that's not surprising.
The bottom line, for me, is that politicians, as a class of people, are vulnerable to corruption. The Republicans swept into power in 1994 partly by hammering the corruption and excesses of the Democratic majority, which had dominated for 40 years. They had some valid points, but eventually demonstrated that Republicans were just as bad, maybe worse.
Since they are all corrupt to some degree, we are left to decide based on who will steer the country in the direction we think it should go. As flawed as Democrats may be, I can never vote for another Republican until they get out from under the thumbs of the Troglodytes who have taken over their party.
"Too bad the Republicans didn't get more scrutiny when they were in power. "
Actually, mmfa became an entity specializing in scrutiny, promoting anyone and everyone who joined along. However, they only scrutinized one section of the political theatre. I don't hear anyone complaining about the lack of scrutiny of the left from mmfa, do you? So, really, to complain that a right winger didn't scrutinize the right is just as much a story as mmfa not scrutinizing the left. In other words, it isn't a story.
I think he was referring to the media in general.
I think that's pretty obvious to most people. Most.
Yes, most, particularly the one sided ones.
You mean like those cardboard cut-outs of Nascar drivers by the beer display? I'm not sure which one-sided people you're talking about.
Well, this article is about ONE outlet. And, he didn't say anything about "the media in general".
He's making a generalized point, quite clearly.
"But, considering the Republicans have bought up the mass media, that's not surprising." (my emphasis)
How do you read that and think he's talking about some lone conservative?
Yeah? My point is that this isn't a story other than to those who scrutinize only one party.
Exactly. Baier's story is only legit to those who only scrutinize one party. You finally got MMFA's point. Good job.
Right, so it's a non-story to half the nation. It's only a story to those who don't approve of an individual company's operating procedure. Is fox privately, publically or government owned?
they are poorly owned by an australian and just as badly managed.
So, mmfa is telling a privately owned company how to do it's business? That would be like fox telling mmfa how to do their business. This is a non-story. I hope mmfa can do better than this in the future. It seems kind of arrogant for one private company to tell another private company how to run their business.
I don't see them telling fox how to do business, I just see them calling BS on all of fox's lies. Don't like it? Who cares, it's not meant to be important to someone who wants to be lied to. It's meant to be important for those who care about journalistic integrity in this country.
What lie is involved in this story? ....so this is a non-story, only important to those who aren't interested in journalistic integrity.
It's full of lies, only unimportant to you because you like being lied to. If you like, I could try to put this to a picture popup like my pet goat, maybe that will help you understand it.
The story is about 'not' reporting republican "ethical issues". Are any of the ethical issues (by democrats) that were mentioned false? Which one(s)? If you can't show that, then you can have your fun with your pet goat.
BAIER: And now, some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine: The Associated Press says Democrats are having a hard time doing business by the book. An analysis piece is titled, "Democrats self-destructing over ethics."
That's just the first one. I'll make it a coloring book for you, you'll have hours of fun trying to stay inside the lines.
And that's a lie? How is it a lie? I can understand you don't like it, but I don't see where it's a lie.
Of course you don't, because you want to believe it's true. But unfortunately for you, unlike your party, democrats have been actively seeking to oust those people. Daschle saved Obama the embarrassment and stepped down, we impeached blago, we're demanding burriss resign, while on your side of the fence guilty felons and those under investigation for fraud still serve and hold posts. Nice try saying they are the same, but democrats have way more dignity.
That's a very touching story, but where is the lie? Can't produce it? That must be why you generically complain about all republicans, then.
I did produce it, you just can't see it with that log in your eye.
and here's a hint: I like conservatives. I hate the reich wing. If it looks like I'm painting with broad strokes, it's only because the right wing now controls the republican party. But for some reason I keep hearing about this pot meet kettle thing...
I can't see what isn't there. Point it out for me.
Can't point out a fact to someone who refuses to believe it...
fa·nat·ic (fə-nāt'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
de·lu·sion (dĭ-lōō'zhən) Pronunciation Key
n. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
"Can't point out a fact to someone who refuses to believe it..."
Also, can't point out what isn't there.
Which companies operating procedure do you feel Baier doesn't approve of, Philib?
Yeah, he did.
Too bad the Republicans didn't get more scrutiny when they were in power. But, considering the Republicans have bought up the mass media, that's not surprising.
Am I to believe republicans own all media outlets?
Yes, pretty much...
Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?»
"Yes, pretty much..."
Ah ha hah ha hah ha. Oooo baby, I needed that laugh.
I would have thought the truth would make you cry, but then again, delusional comes to mind...
Poor...poor liberals who can't afford things. Let's get the government to provide it for you, like so much else that's provided for you. Here's a weird concept...buy you own product and produce what you want. Or, you can do it the way you envision...get others to buy the product then you demand use of it. That would sure save you a lot of money.
Plibber, as others just pointed out, there is a big difference between partisan sites like MMFA and the News Media in general.
I don't expect Rush Limbaugh or Newsmax to criticize Republicans. I do expect MSNBC and CNN and the "big three" to scrutinize both sides equally... that's their job, or should be. I would say that FOX "News" should as well, but FOX was specifically established to promote Republican propaganda, and does so quite well.
MSNBC rarely is critical of Democrats. Watching its 7-10 pm programing every night would let the viewer believe that Republicans are the root of all evil, Bush was as bad as Hilter, and Democrats never break the public trust and when they do as Gov Blagojevich did, it is a non party affair.
Has Blagojevich gotten a pass from MNBC?
If I remember correctly, the 7-10 pm programming slot on MSNBC hammered Blagojevich constantly. They weren't soft on Blago.
I never suggested they were soft on Blago, I said they went after him , but so did 99% of Democrats. Blago did something non partisan and something no party could defend. Hence his ouster.
Republicans don't do that. They almost never censure their own.
I agree with you on that one.
Nope, they give them thunderous applause when they confess to shagging prostitutes.
I don't believe (1) that I was commenting on your post or (2) that I even asserted that you suggested that they were soft on Blago.
Reading comprehension skills would behoove you. Learn some.
Thanks A hole.
I enjoy watching MSNBC blast BUSH because I believe that he deserves every bit of critisism throwen at him.
Sure lets keep living in past, like the Cons did with Clinton
The problems that Bush caused are going to take years to undo.
Sure so as I said lets keep living in the past. To live in the past and ignore the present and the future is not the way I want to watch my news.
To ignore the effect of the past on the present and the future is not the way I want to watch mine.
There are plenty of Republicians still in Congress with ties to lobbiest that have not been explained that may be illeagal. Also if you search anyone's back ground enough you will find something they do not want to be public.
It depends on which shows you watch. I'm going to do the same thing Conservatives do, and point out that there is a difference between hard news and punditry. The time slot you speak of is all punditry and opinion, and they do lean left. If you want to see Democrats get ragged on MSNBC, watch Morning Joe.
MSNBC, like CNN and FOX, has straight news, as well, though the pundits dominate the lineup (except when they run those stupid prison shows. What's up with that?)
MSNBC may eventually become the Democratic version of FOX "News". If it does, I say it's about time.
I agree with the prison shows, I like MSNBCs news coverage. I have issues with the pundit shows and the opinion makers, including Morning Joe who I find to be a big phony. This is a man who turned on Bush because his network turned on Bush. he is the worst of the MSNBCers
"I'm going to do the same thing Conservatives do, and point out that there is a difference between hard news and punditry."
Going to?? You already do that. You just can't tell the difference between the two.
"You already do that. You just can't tell the difference between the two."
If I don't know the difference, how can I "already do that" (point out the difference)? More nonsense from the mind of Phlibber.
Watching its 7-10 pm programing every night would let the viewer believe that Republicans are the root of all evil
Well let's see - for starters they started an unnecessary war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and have ruined the economy. So yes, in my mind, yes, they are the root fo all evil and their apologists (like you) are just as guilty for allowing it to happen.
"I would say that FOX "News" should as well, but FOX was specifically established to promote Republican propaganda, and does so quite well."
And mmfa was created to promote democratic propoganda, and does so quite well. (If you're talking about the news media in general, then you should stick to that criteria, if you're going to single out fox then the comparison to mmfa sticks.) If fox was created for that reason, it should be expected they do just that. Like many tell me, if I don't like what I read on mmfa don't go there, the same can be said about fox; if you don't like them, don't go there. Mmfa does what it is created for and I don't see anyone calling for equal scrutinization of the left by mmfa. Do you? (well, other than by me)
"If fox was created for that reason, it should be expected they do just that."
Then they should stop pretending to be a News Network, and get rid of that "Fair and Balanced" hooha. What a joke.
But, as you point out, it's a free country. FOX can lie as much as they want to.... and MMFA can call them on it.... and the world goes round and round.
If you know they are pretending, then you should have enough brains to ignore them. Lot's of companies brag abou their product 'doing this' or 'doing that' when they don't. This company isn't any different. Those who complain they don't do what they advertise are pretty gullible if they fall for that advertisement line.
Actually, you're comparing apples to oranges. Companies that brag about their product 'doing this' or 'doing that' don't have a political effect on the general populace. Fox's product: lies. People believe them. In turn, it has an effect on the general population when it comes elections.
See the difference?
The problem is that there are people who don't know that Fox is pretending (my Grandmother being one of them). The American people are OWED the truth, not a bunch of lies and propaganda. I'll celebrate the day FNC ends it's broadcast. It will be a partial victory against right-wing lies, faux hysteria and propaganda!
"See the difference?"
Yes, thanks. So, if fox news didn't advertise as being 'fair and balanced' or if their advertisement was that they 'expose liberal failures' then you wouldn't complain about them? Since they would then be no different than mmfa who tells you what their mission is and does it.
Let me know when David Brock gets airtime to do the same thing 24/7 like fox news.
When David Brock grows a pair and buys a real media outlet he will be able to do that.
Oh, he has the pair, and would most likely do so. Unfortunately for him, conservatives bought up most of the stations and refuse to sell them to anyone except other conservatives. Seems like you people are so afraid of others getting equal airtime that you have to promote a system that prohibits that.
MOST? Must be a small pair. Money talks...bull*&%$ walks, he doesn't buy one because he doesn't want to lose money. Not many liberal media outlets make money, that's the real reason not many are liberal. So, that complaint is way off base.
Nah, he can't buy one because conservatives refuse to sell to liberals. A lot of liberal outlets make money, that's why clearchannel buys them up and then changes the programming to eliminate liberal markets. The only thing off base here is you.
Just a taste from a posting I supplied topside...
The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.
Clear channel owns station 960 in the bay area (ca). It broadcasts liberal shows all day long. What's your complaint again?
Liberal radio programming in what is generally accepted as the most liberal city in America? What about the other 98% of the country?
Liberal radio programming done by a right wing owner. I guess some just know how to make money, while others don't.
"Mmfa does what it is created for and I don't see anyone calling for equal scrutinization of the left by mmfa."
Where are you looking?
Philib should really read the mission statement. MMFA's mission statement is with regards to RIGHT-WING misinformation, not scrutiny of the left.
*scrutinization? really? is that even a word?
Now the right-wing dummies are making up words!
Ok, that's what I get for trying to have a decent conversation. Trying to leave out the hatefullness that I was accused of last time, and this is what I get? Thanks for clearing up where the hatefullness comes from.
You won't be called any names by me, Phil.
Thanks, pete. You're one of the few.
somebody get phil a tissue so he can continue with his pity party.
philib, Actually, MMFA was created to expose RIGHT WING LIES AND MISSINFORMATION, a job I think it does exceptionaly well.
"there is a big difference between partisan sites like MMFA and the News Media in general."
CBS is a very left wing media outlet. People can figure that out, if not then they will fall for all the bunk they point out. Just like those who can't figure out fox is very right wing will fall for all the bunk they point out. It all evens out. You'll watch/listen/read whatever media you want that promotes the ideals you understand better. News media companies are almost all privately owned. That means they can promote whatever ideals they choose. There is no directive telling them they have to be fair or balanced. If one chooses 'fair and balanced' as a logo, then intelligent people will figure that out. Kind of like Darwins theory for the mindless minions...dumb ones will follow lockstep with whatever fox or cbs tells them and the dumber ones will comlain. The smart ones will trust none to be 100% acurate.
CBS is a very left wing media outlet
Prove it.
If gops had been scrutinized by the sclm to the extent that Clinton and the Dems were, we'd have been spared the brain-dead, bush-league reign of error and we wouldn't be in this fix in the first place.
The people behind this mess are the same incompetent gop trash that told us that we were "a nation of whiners and that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" during the campaign.
They were as wrong then as they were when they gave us the Great Depression and the first Reagan/Bush recessions and deficits.
If history has taught us anything, it's that gops are no good with the economy, national security, civil rights, human rights and the environment, but they sure can goosestep.
"If history has taught us anything, it's that gops are no good with the economy, national security, civil rights, human rights and the environment, but they sure can goosestep."
Let's see, democrats got us into Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson) (what national security issue was there?), democrats hire the leader of the KKK (Byrd) and prevent integration (Wallace) during the '60s (what civil rights issue is there with that?), democrats promote eliminating unborn humans (what human rights issue is there with that?), democrats own just as many polluting companies as anyone else (what environmental issues are with that?). And the goosesteppers political theories are almost exactly the same as democratic theories.
Ok, I couldn't think of anything for the economy, other than Clinton creating the rules that led to the uncontrolled trading of housing loans (1995). So, I guess republicans are just simply terrible people and democrats are saviors of this nation.
So, I guess republicans are just simply terrible people and democrats are saviors of this nation.
Now you're seeing the light. The rest of your post was revisionist history crapola.
And republicans not only tried to prevent america from entering WW2, they did business with the Nazi's. Hmm, what name comes to mind? Bush?
I guess all those german subs off the coast of NY was enough to attack germany. Of course, japan attacking sure made it easy to attack germany.
Well said. Absolutely.
It is completely false and unscrupulous to put Obama's pic on a story talking about "ethics cloud". FNC and the GOP have tried for 2 years to pin things on Obama but there is nothing there. This infuriates the right wingers more than anything.
You can count on a return of the Clinton Rules to the MSM whereby any time Obama sneezes it is an "ethical cloud".
I haven't heard FOX News denounce Sarah Palin for being a "tax cheat", either. That's what right wingers have called anyone who owes back taxes. Why not Princess Sarah? Regardless whether the State of Alaska considered her per diem reportable income, the IRS apparently does.
Because Gov Palin and House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel, Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Tom Daschle ar eall the same. Phony politiicans regardless of political party who have taken advantage of the system.
But only Democrats are called "tax cheats". Sarah Palin is considered pure as the driven snow by FOX and others. That was my point...
I am sure if Sarah Palin were the VP and not a Governor of a small state it would get more press. I think Sarah Palin is not serious in the eyes of most, only a few partisan GOP outlets.
Then think how close we came to having a tax cheat sitting as Vice President.
We did have a tax cheat as vice president in the late 60' early 70's Agnew was convicted of it not just accused.
Sarah Palin was a canditate for VP, and a serious (meaning likely, not qualified) frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. And while she's the governor of a "small state" (but one that produces a lot of our energy - "small" is only the population, AK is BIG in many other ways. At least that's what she kept telling us!) she has been given a disproportionate voice in the republican party. (And how is being treasury sec more significant a position than ANY governor of a state?) She's significant, and deserves the same scrutiny as everyone else. What's more, while it's questionable whether the "tax cheat" label was truly deserved by ANY of them, if it's going to be applied simply because someone owed back taxes then she's a TAX CHEAT. End of story. You treat one side that way, you've got to treat the other the same way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwgs Does Harry Reid have a dispropotionate voice in the democratic party?
You might be right but you left out some words...
I am sure if Sarah Palin were the Democratic VP and not a Republican Governor of a small state it would get more press. I think Sarah Palin is not serious in the eyes of most, only the many right wing media outlets.
See how much better that works? :)
The only press she would get would be a discussion about how the democrats are unfairly targeting her.
I say, if she cannot take the targeting, she should get out of politics. In order to be a successful politician, you have to put yourself out in the world, draw attention to yourself. When you do that you allow yourself to become vulnerable to attacks, personal and political. If she cannot handle scrutiny, she should get out of politics.
You haven't heard fox denounce her because it isn't there job to. Just like you don't hear mmfa denounce the democratic tax cheats. Each privately owned company can choose who they want to expose, depending on who their target audience is. That's called free enterprise. They have something like that in America....freedom.
Right, and Fair and Balanced is a marketing slogan with no basis in reality.
That's right. Just like mmfa stands for 'media matters for america' when they only matter for half of America.
MMFA is upfront about their political bias. Fox lies about theirs.
No different than CBS.
Fox is in a league of their own when it comes to right wing propaganda, though CBS has its moments.
Geez. Fox taking a one-sided view of an issue. I'm truly disappointed in them. Aren't they fair and balanced?
Comrades,
When you silence dissent you prove your unwillingness to look at your own ethical lapses! You also prove your desire to do a 'castro' on the dissenter and avoid the unpleasantness of having to debate when your beliefs are exposed.
See you in the new gitmo, brothers and sisters of the revolution!
Carlile
"Sorry, that didn't happen. It's all basically a phony story. Let Burris face re-election in two years and don't allow this Republican side-show to go on."
What did happen, exactly? What do you call it when someone says they're not giving away a Senate seat for free?
I'm sure Blagojevich really had a defense for himself, he just chose not to present it at his impeachment hearing. I bet.
NJGuy
"I think perhaps what jjamele2880 meant was that what Blagojevich was caught doing was what most politicians do, at least up to a certain extent, the only difference is that Blagojevich was caught."
"Up to a certain extent" is an important distinction. Political games are one thing, having personal gain as your primary or sole motivation is quite another. I also have a very difficult time accepting the notion that other people might be behaving in the same manner, therefore this isn't a big deal. It's clearly unethical behavior, whether anyone else is guilty of the same thing and going unnoticed or not.
"somebody get phil a tissue so he can continue with his pity party."
I tell philib how to spell my name, and I should "get over it". But now he's whining about trying to have a decent converstation and getting hatefulness.
Give me a break.
philib
"I guess all those german subs off the coast of NY was enough to attack germany. Of course, japan attacking sure made it easy to attack germany."
Probably because Germany and Japan were allies in the same war. It's not like we invaded some unrelated entity. And why wouldn't Germany's actions be enough for us to enter the war anyway?