Glenn Beck and right-wing media grossly distort Reid's jobs comments
Glenn Beck played doctored audio of Sen. Harry Reid saying it is "good" news that the economy lost only 36,000 jobs in February -- an assessment many economists agree with. Beck criticized Reid's statement, but Beck's audio cut out Reid's accurate explanation that the "good" news was that unemployment and job losses were lower than economists had expected.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Reid's actual statement: "Good" news that unemployment rate and job losses are lower than expected
From Reid's March 5 floor speech:
REID: Unemployment compensation -- today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good. Unemployment rate around America has not changed. Prognosticators thought it would go up; it has not. So, we need to extend -- there are about 15 million people in America out of work. These extended unemployment benefits will help millions of those people.
Audio Beck played cropped and distorted Reid's comments. The audio Beck played appears to be from a seven-second YouTube video promoted by Andrew Breitbart and right-wing bloggers, which includes only the following portion of Reid's statement: "[T]oday is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." The video cuts out Reid's explanation that the "good" news is that unemployment and job losses were lower than expected.
Reid is correct: Economy "lost fewer jobs than expected" in February
NY Times: "American economy lost fewer jobs than expected last month." Reid's statement that the 36,000 jobs lost in February were fewer than expected is correct. As The New York Times reported on March 5, "The American economy lost fewer jobs than expected last month and the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.7 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday, bolstering hopes that a still-tenuous recovery may be starting to gain momentum."
Economists had expected more than twice as many jobs -- 75,000 -- to be lost in February. Dow Jones Newswires reported on March 5 that the jobs report was "better-than-expected," adding, "U.S. employers cut 36,000 jobs in February following a reduction of 26,000 in January. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires was 75,000 job losses in February."
Unemployment rate held steady despite expectations it would rise. Reid said: "Unemployment rate around America has not changed. Prognosticators thought it would go up; it has not." Reid was correct. Dow Jones reported: "The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.7%, lower than the forecast of 9.8%."
Dow Jones: Jobs numbers "came as a relief for many market participants." According to Dow Jones, "The jobs data came as a relief for many market participants as economists had expected a poor reading due to stormy weather on the East Coast last month, which the government said may have temporarily hit payrolls and work hours."
Economists agree with Reid: Jobs report is "good" news
Dean Baker: Jobs report is "strikingly good." The New York Times reported:
Yet compared to the monthly losses of more than 650,000 jobs a year ago, and against a backdrop of recent news that increased the possibility of a slide back into recession, most economists construed the report as a sign of improvement.
"It's strikingly good," said Dean Baker, a director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who has been notably skeptical of signs of recovery in recent months. "It's much better than it had been looking."
Stuart G. Hoffman: "We're finally going to reach the turning point." The Times reported:
"We're still losing jobs in the economy, but it's down to a trickle," said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. "We're finally going to reach the turning point where we go from job losses to job gains."
Alan Levenson: Economy "moving toward resumption of job growth." The Times reported:
Alan Levenson, chief economist for T. Rowe Price, an investment firm, said that "If you recognize it as one frame in a movie, it is one in which we are moving toward resumption of job growth."
Chris Rupkey: Jobs report is "good news." Dow Jones reported:
The jobs data came as a relief for many market participants as economists had expected a poor reading due to stormy weather on the East Coast last month, which the government said may have temporarily hit payrolls and work hours. Chris Rupkey, senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, said he expected a job gain of 70,000 for March, saying that the economic recovery is "tilted in the V-shaped direction after today's good news."
From the March 5 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Well, it is a good day. It is a good da-- it is a really good day in America. How do I know it's a good day? Well, I mean, I listen to Harry Reid. I listen to Harry -- I li-- for the love of [unintelligible]. I mean, how much do I pay you, Pat, just for the audio vault stuff? That is --
PAT GRAY (co-host): Dollar-fifty an hour.
BECK: Oh, well, you're doing a great job.
GRAY: Thank you.
BECK: Here we go. Good day, Harry Reid.
REID [audio clip]: Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.
GRAY: [laughter]
BECK: Very good. Oh, it's a very good day today.
GRAY: It's a great day.
BECK: Only 36,000 Americans lost their job.
GRAY: If you can get through a day in America where only 36,000 people lose their jobs?
BECK: It's very, very good.
GRAY: 'Cause usually it's, like, 3.6 million a day.
BECK: Right. That is very, very good. Play that again. I just --
REID [audio clip]: Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.
[clapping]
BECK: That is really --
GRAY: Really good.
BECK: Really --
GRAY: Really good. Thank you, Harry. Thank you, Barack.
Did you even bother to read any of the above? Beck [and you] could be considered the embarrassments due to his video clip job, and your accepting his clip job over published data. I guess the data could be doctored, but we KNOW that Fox makes it a habit to misinform daily.
We lefties will never make inroads to bringing conservatives to our side until we stop degrading their intelligence and start giving them a competing and compelling narrative that makes sense on a moral values level.
You rock today. :)
I took some time to understand the way the right frames their message and came to realize that that they constantly speak in ways that reinforce their values. I still disagree with conservatism but I did learn that how the right goes about talking about politics is, and has been since Nixon, light years ahead of anything liberals call political discussion.
This is RWA . . . it's not conservatism.
I'm a conservative . . . I don't share the twisted "values" of the RWA.
I'm just saying that the right knows how to create the cognitive infrastructure that gird their policy choices better than liberals. Our folks on the left today are stuck in policy speak, it's dry and doesn't motivate. Just look at the way Obama is failing to create a ground swell of support with an issue like healthcare. An issue that had overwhelming public support before Frank Luntz instructed the GOP on how to talk about healthcare. The GOP stayed on message, didn't veer from the script and has now driven down support.
Obama stuck solely to the facts of the issue, didn't coordinate a coherent message within the Democratic party and barely spoke of the liberal principle of mutual responsibility to convince the in-betweeners of the morality of his mission.
It wasn't always so. Liberals like FDR, MLK and LBJ could speak very well, in progressive language, to the values of fairness and equality we all share. We've lost our way.
I wish the liberals had marketing machines (Even the most liberal networks such as MSNBC hardly further the liberal "talking points") as efficient as Fox News and well-spoken charismatic leaders and spokespeople like Michael Steele, Boener, Cheney, and others. But then again I am glad we don't have any liberal versions of Sarah Palin out there.
Being able to speak well and persuasively is good, but so is ethics and truthfulness. I agree wit many conservative values but the party is a corrupt lie machine.
We'll be stuck thinking like a market fundie conservative until we can think of progressive ideas as an organic process, a growing process that emerges and is nurtured with the light of empathy and tended to responsibly.
At_odds, the problem here is that the marketing and debate are NOT the same thing. The Republicans have done a really good marketing job and it has collected up a bunch of the kind of people who buy a specific brand of jeans because the TV box told them it would make them sexy.
Debate is a much deeper thing. With debate you have information, you have support for your premise, you have coherent and complex thought. Look at what is coming from the Republicans today - it is all soundbites (marketing) and no substance. For example, they say they want to reduce and control health care costs, but when pressed for methods to accomplish that they have simplistic answers that just restate the premise: spend less money, and no details about how that would work.
And no, I don't think they are stupid. I think they are willfully ignorant. The other day I was talking to someone about the health care bills and he made it very clear that he had no idea what was in them but he objected to them saying "And when you want to force their care onto everyone, that's unacceptable."
I pointed out that I had read the bills, sent him links to the bills and suggested he do the same. But the thing is, he has gotten his beliefs about health care reform from the soundbites the right-leaning media has spoon-fed him and it shows in his arguments -
the VA and Medicare are a mess
the government would make treatment decisions
people shouldn't have to pay for other people who can't afford it
forcing 'crap' down everyone's throat
and the ever famous - if you don't like our capitalism and our country then leave
With the dollar's collapse mathematically imminent, this is not far fetched.
Really dude?!
Put what Reid said aside, you think Glenn informed people by doing this? Did he present the news or did he just chop it up for his own political ideas?
If Jon Stewart was to cut something to the point were it's the opposite of reality, then I would loose my respect for him. The point is to ridicule without distorting the clip.
Reid may not have chosen the best words, but from the clip shown here I understand exactly what he means, and there's nothing bad about it. That shouldn't be a story. The story should be that we're doing better than projected.
Of course it's not. The trendline is what's important, not the actual numbers.
He didn't say it was the best news America has ever gotten at any time under any economic situation. He was talking about how it is good news, GIVEN WHERE we are!
Given where we are, it IS good news. The situation DOES look rosier than it has, and it may well be a big day - we'll have to see in the next few months what happens, but given the fact that the weather should have hurt job growth, it was good news.
All you can do is omit relevant information in an attempt to distort what Reid said and what it means, given the context - but you've always been paid to crop comments out of their proper context.
If he had used your words, ahh, maybe he wouldn't have looked so stupid. But he didn't. So he still looks stupid. My point stands. Thanks for trying though.
Again, you're guilty of cropping a comment out of context to score politically partisan points because you're a paid troll who knows his side can't win if you acknowledge the facts here, not because you actually have a valid point!
Tell me again it's not stupid political spin.
The problem is that Beck & co dishonestly edited Reid's words to make it seem that he had said something different from what he actually said.
Would you like to see how it is done? I could take any one of your many posts and rearrange the words to make it seem that you had written something you had not.
Well of course it is. We both know the answer so the hypothetical situation was rhetorical in nature. Reid is an idiot.
In addition, the 'mess' progressives try to blame on Bush was primarily the fault of idiots like Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Bush's people were warning of the trouble financial institutions were in a long time before it broke. At the same time, Frank was saying that there was nothing amiss with Freddie & Fannie, which was not true, and if he didn't know it, he's truly an idiot.
To call 36,000 jobs lost "good news" is truly ludicrous - it takes the stupidity of a Reid to make such a statement. Glenn merely cut out the political garbage and gave the meat of Reid's stupidity.
Until the recession ends, it will remain his baby.
That would be what an intelligent person would do after being proven so clearly, unambiguously WRONG for the last 8 years. I don't expect an apology from all you guys. There is not necessarily any shame in being wrong. But, I do expect an adult to reconisder their positions once they have been proven wrong. The shame is when you fail to admit the mistake you made and flail around trying to pretend as if G-Dub was the valiant, weak soldier who could not stop the almight Barney Frank from destroying the economy. Pathetic.
Categorically false, so I'll just go ahead and blow off the rest of your screed, except for
"This is not Bush's baby, anymore"
Just like if a patient still has cancer a year after a doctor starts treating them, the cancer is the doctor's fault.
example,pg 142
this is nice
the Dr. caused the cancer?
So what you are illustrating for us is that the Bush administration knew about the risks for many years but did nothing to alleviate them? They simply sent out CYA notices quietly so they could now say "we tried" and allowed it to happen as predicted.
B*llsh!t. If you didn't get all your info from Fox, you might remember that they were not in control of congress at the time, and thus COULDN'T have done anything. And one af the first things they DID do once they had a majority was to pass banking and regulatory reforms. Too little, WAY to late unfortunately, but it's hardly their fault they were in the minority all those years while the majority just kept LOOSENING the rulz!
Bush's people were warning of the trouble financial institutions were in a long time before it broke.
If this is NOT B*llsh!t then it only speaks to the very point we keep pressing: If Bush's "people" saw this coming, why didn't BUSH DO anything about it? And why didn't the Repubilicans in congress?!
And what's more, Frank was RIGHT. The problem was NOT with Fannie and Freddie, it was on Wall Street, in unregulated investment banks, Bond rating agencies that were on the take, and Insurances agencies who didn't know what they doing, or what they were getting into. Fannie/Fredie didn't CAUSE the problem. They were largely VICTIMS of it.
Action was need on WALL STREET, and the Republicans refused to do anythign bu DEREGULATE when they were in power.
------------------------------------------
Join us back in reality anytime you want. The weathers not as bad as they say, plus we have Cake!
"So you say it may well be a big day but we have to wait a few months and see what happens. Well, you disagree with Reid then because he said it is a big day in America, today."
In other words depending on the current trend it may well be a big day and hopefully we will continue this trend reversal in the future (Based on the Context of Delly's original post. I did however enjoy your selective interpretation.
As with all liberal/socialist programs its the intent that counts not the actual outcome or numbers. The fifty year "war on poverty" and trillions of dollars later.....and guess what.... we still have poverty with the government providing the scraps it gives to the peasants who rely on.
Honestly, I don't know how you people get up in the morning and manage to get past tying your shoes....or do you?
"It's strikingly good," said Dean Baker, a director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who has been notably skeptical of signs of recovery in recent months. "It's much better than it had been looking."
Chris Rupkey, senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, said he expected a job gain of 70,000 for March, saying that the economic recovery is "tilted in the V-shaped direction after today's good news."
It's what MMfA does all the time, find an idiot from the right wing that goes off on some tangent and use them as a convenient useful idiot to soften some liberal from being embarrassed by their own words.
If (one has to) cut and paste to make it seem that he said something other than what he actually said, then that is Breitbart-style GOPpaganda at is most deceptive.
Reid never SAID that it was good news that 36,000 people lost their jobs.
Glenn Beck is an idiot. And you're a paid troll.
His "spin" that it's good news that unemployment and job losses were lower than expected is not "spin" at all, it's reality. I understand it's a reality that doesn't help your politically partisan goals. Too bad, so sad.
"today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good" - Harry Reid
You DollySue, are another gift that keeps on giving. LOL
He then says we still need to support the unemployed [unlike conservatives who were ready to leave them blowing in the wind]:
It's pretty simple. But because you're a paid troll, you can't allow the actual meaning to go out there. Because the actual meaning is undeniable and irrefutable!
You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts!
Well then take it up with MMfA because they reprinted what he said. Are you calling MMfA liars too? Wow, maybe you're not sucking up after all and you do have a little backbone, even if you are wrong. But it's a good step into a glimmer of independent thought by you nevertheless, even if you are wrong.
But I will give you that much.
What someone SAID is more than the words that came out of their mouths. The context that goes along with those words often changes the meaning that should be given to those words!
Doesn't matter WHAT GB said, Harry Reid is out of touch not only with this but with his "negro dialect" comment... Out Of Touch..... period....
Man, they were having to dredge the bottom of the barrel to find a poster of your low quality and imbecilic ineptness.
He never SAID that. Only if you crop his comments can you claim that the meaning that YOU and Beck are giving to it applies. Taken IN CONTEXT, it doesn't mean what you've claimed it means!
It's pretty simple. But because you're a paid troll, you can't allow the actual meaning to go out there. Because the actual meaning is undeniable and irrefutable!
You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts!
And here's *all* that the multiple screen name troll who misuses ellipses could come up with...
all dullly can come up with is "your a paid troll"....
He couldn't even spell "you're" right!
SMH
spin all you want harry reid will sing a different tune when HE'S one of the 36,000 out of a job, come November...
This from the same idiot that justifies the way Beck, Limbaugh and others says rediculous things.
The mainstream, right-wing media and their selective editing of clips like this is what the real embarrassment is.
And, you have a problem with that.
If Reid were were to say something, anything, what could he have said that would have made you think he is not an embarrassment?
No wonder you have to post infinite threads to claim victory.
Personally? I think Reid's a spineless jellyfish and next to useless in the leadership roll.
But there is nothing wrong with what he said here. As one of my recent posters put it: Reality is reality. (For you con's, that's the place where the the rest of us live.) And the reality is that this IS good news: Things are getting better, and faster than the experts predicted. (duh)
Only you cons would try to paint that as BAD, rooting against America becasue GOD FORBID anything get better under the Democrats! But don't worry: sadly, I'm sure America will forget once again that we cleaned up your mess, and vote you clowns back in. The American electorate has about the same long term memory capacity as Leonard Shelby.
--------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
It's not like our guys can't get on the tv and tell people the truth. I think they're afraid of being called nasty names by the right.
Anything ELSE you "wonder" about?
--------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah: And we blame Bush because the happen under his leadership, or lack thereof, and was due to the libertarian, lessie-faire policies that he and the right constantly promoted.
It is absolutely fine and necessary to give Reid's full statement, but if you're not laying out the progressive principles and values that underpin his statement, you accomplish very little in the way of persuading people to accept a competing narrative of our liberal political worldview.
But I agree with you, they should come out of hiding and just lay out what they advocate, and why. State the principles they espouse and make a compelling case. It's good for debate and the issues being wrangled over.
Your post is very well thought out and well stated.
Because to me, the great thing with MMfA is just that they simply point out the wrong facts, and whenever they toe on the line of making commentary on more than factual errors and journalist ethics, I think they're doing it wrong.
I want MMfA to just be a great big vault of conservative misinformation, and some personal blogs with opinion are ok, but the main point is to just be able to say "Glenn Beck is wrong, because of *insert factual errors etc*".
Don't get me wrong, I like that MMFA documents conservative misinformation. They are simply stuck in the classic liberal rationalist trap. That is, they believe that reason is disembodied, that facts fit the way people reason and that if you you simply give people facts, they will reason to the proper conclusion. Not so. It's about telling the story in a way that makes sense. We didn't evolve as humans as classic rationalists, we passed our accumulated knowledge from generation to generation through the oral tradition, not laundry lists of facts.
I'm not saying it well but I'll be glad to talk it over with you all day until we understand each other if you'd like.
After all, if libertarians and Evangelicals could function under one tent and--several generations ago--segregationists and socialists coexisted in the Democratic coalition, then a vehicle can be fashioned for liberals and libertarians to accommodate one another.
You said it very well, B/T/W; esp this remark:
Me, too.
I'm not sure I agree that MMFA should change their approach to reporting on all this stuff, but I think you're dead on in suggesting that the Democratic party really needs to wake up and figure out that people, even intelligent ones, don't reason based solely on, well... reason.
Basically what it sounds like you're saying that MMFA should act as FoxNews does.
But, this isn't Foxnews, where they SELL you a story, all the while distorting facts and flat out lying to back up their lies. At MMFA, they just lay out the facts. We are smart enough to figure out the truth given the evidence provided.
Matter of fact, I don't even care what the people at MMFA feel about ANYTHING. What I do care about is that they provide data/links/vids that are vital to finding out the truth ON MY OWN.
I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with communicating the truth and debunking myths by appealing to the way people actually think.
Lakoff said it best:
Finally, there is the lesson of how language works in the brain. Every word is neurally connected to a neural circuit characterizing a frame, which, in turn, is part of a system of frames linked to a moral system. In political discourse, words activate frames, which, in turn, activate moral systems. This mechanism is not conscious. It is automatic, and it is acquired through repetition. As the language of conservative morality is repeated, frames are activated repeatedly that, in turn, activate and strengthen the conservative system of thought – unconsciously and automatically. Thus, conservative talk radio and the national conservative messaging system are powerful unconscious forces. They work via principles of real reason.
But many liberals, assuming a false view of reason, think that such a messaging system for ideas they believe in would be illegitimate – doing the things that the conservatives do that they consider underhanded. Appealing honestly to the way people really think is seen as emotional and, hence, irrational and immoral. Liberals, clinging to false reason, simply resist paying attention to real reason.
Hi ya, RH!
You're right, I have been reading Lakoff... along with Joe Brewer, Drew Westen and other cognitive scientists.
I feel ya in your fed-upness on many of our progressive writers, specifically Lakoff. They apparently feel sold out by a guy in Obama who showed so much promise on the campaign trail.
On a side note, given that the Democratic Party is supposed to be the Party of science and progress, I find it very odd that I'm getting so many thumbs down and so much resistance from lefties on this site for bringing up the findings of cognitive scientists.
Go figure.
But I also know you and you're a good guy, as is Lakoff. And, like you, I do wish we could get our message out better. But our media is such a wholly owned corporate entity, I don't see that happening any time soon. That's why I try to stick with actual programs that discuss actual issues in a respectful forum. If more people sought this type of programming out on the left, we might get some traction.
Instead we focus on the inane utterings of nutbags like Beck and Limbaugh. That's one reason that I don't come here too much. Hehe.....a conundrum because I like so many people here. And there are some really good posters.
But as an abstract person, as I suspect you are, I prefer to look at big picture items instead of what MMFA focuses on, although I understand why they do it. And it's an important job. (God bless the concrete types in our society or I wouldn't have a house to live in....ha!). But a daily diet of this is too much for me.
In a nutshell, I feel your pain, my brother. And good to see you, as always. ;-)
Way strange. :)
Missed ya, Congero.
Also, this was simply not a good way for Reid to state his message. Being correct is not always enough. Reid may very well be a good vote counter, but it seems to me that Durbin or someone else needs to handle the public message. Reid just says too many quotes that are so poorly worded.
OTOH if Republicans were so great at messaging, how come they are so desperate and in decline? Why aren't they communicating to liberals what all their great ideas for the country are? What are we, an insignificant portion of the populace? No.
I read George Lakoff, and frankly am getting a bit fed up with him. He seems to be overly impressed with the right's messaging. I think he's a good guy who is frustrated right now. That's what I'm getting from him mostly these days.
I find it amazing that there are still so many (see Ed above) who are still able to convince themselves that these ideas that failed so miserably are actually the salvation from the mess they, themselves, created. It is an amazing job of crafting a message around no principles and no ideas.
I always find it amazing that these TV shucksters can sell anything they put on TV late at night. Well, the Republicans are sellings Snuggies that burn your house down and millions are still buying them. That's pretty impressive, from an amoral, strictly political standpoint.
And, no, the left is not insignificant. The far-right is insignificant. They have been trounced in the last few election cycles. Their once proud propaganda machines of Limbaugh and Ailes has been proven electorally impotent. They have ZERO ideas on how to fix the problems (most of which they created). But they are still over-represented in every political dialogue in the media. They are never shut out no matter how worthless their ideas. The left is. The left never even got a chance to sell their ideas on healthcare, they were forced to start from a compromised position even though their ideas have worked around the world.
To put it politely, save Grayson and Weiner, they are gutless.
We need fresh thinkers to get a say in where the Democratic Party is headed.
I also think Obama should get shed of Rahm Emanuel. That guy is a real dick....;-)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/04/crazy/index.html?source=newsletter
Remember the "left" was right about Iraq but despite the massive demonstrations against the war never really got a chance as they were shut out by the media as crazy "leftist."
I sure am going to miss Bill Moyers when he's off the air.....sigh. Thank goodness for a few sane voices like Glenn Greenwald, a genuine journalist.
How do we break the grip of these pundit millionaires who try to define reality for us?
I agree 100%. We need more Greenwald and Scahill's out there. We also need the voices that are out there to be more amplified. If Fox News and give hours every say to Doocy, surely there is more space somewhere for a voice like Greenwald in the discussion.
If every Democrat were as smart and as confident in their ideas as Weiner, the healthcare debate would be settled by now. Medicare for all would have already passed and the Democrats would have their platform for re-election in 2010 settled.
The thing is, very few of our elected Democrats have even the slightest idea of how to give meaning to the facts.
Why does the announcement of 36,000 jobs lost in February make this a 'great day'? There were 26,000 jobs lost in January, so it went up by 10,000....wow, thats awesome Harry!
Did he make the announcement in a 'negro dialect'?
Did he indicate that men, who tend become abusive when unemployed will soon find job?
As for the rest of your stupid statement . . . it is to be expected.
Do you think Harry Reid would have used the same language if Bush was president? Of course not. His words were stupid for that alone.
I dont really care about expectations and predictions. I care about actual numbers such as the unemployment rate and number of jobs gained and lost...PERIOD.
You can let the predictions of poilitians and pundits who have a 'spin' agenda rule your world, I'm not going to give them a chance to spin me like they are spinning you.
bintx - You are letting them spin data instead of taking the data at face value. What a coincidence that days before the unemployment numbers are announced politicians start trying to downplay the upcoming data by starting to talk of how snow storms will negatively affect the numbers. Then the negative numbers get released and SHAZAM they arent as bad a predicted and then fools like you say 'nice job, Obama's policies are working....blah...blah...blah' instead of recognizing the actual data of 36,000 jobs lost....and then Harry sings praises about this being a 'great day'....and you fall for it! Talk about spin!
I look at it this way: If McCain were president, we would be in the midst of a depression. These numbers seem good compared to the alternative.
Because it was expected to be far worse than the 36,000. They usually revised the numbers later in the month so it could be lower than the 36,000. Are you disappointed the numbers weren't higher?
How is that good news?
In January 2009 (the last month under Bush's watch) we lost 598,000 jobs.
Do I need to sketch this on a blackboard for you to understand it?
The job loss under Bush (which was the worst in 34 years) has finally gone from a flood to a trickle. This is a clear sign that JOB GAINS can be expected soon.
The point is that we came in under 50% of our projected job loss numbers and economists think that the numbers will go positive as soon as next month. You keep spinning this all you want but it won't make Obama's job creation numbers go back down to GWB levels.
PS - Please show me how Obama has quadrupled the national debt. You're just spouting crap you heard on Fox with ZERO facts to back it up. I've got the real numbers here and they don't back you corporatists up.
If 'projected losses' ended up being around 70,000 jobs for every month for the rest of the year and they came in at 36,000 jobs lost for each month until the end of the year...would you call it a 'great year'???? Clearly, I wouldnt.
Can't blame Beck, just wish the left would tap into all that populist resentment as well as you guys on the right do. I mean, we liberals worked hard to gain points by leveraging Bunning's political theatrics against him. It's politics after all. It ain't pat-a-cake.
I love that MaineMan thinks "Democratic jobless recovery" is going to catch on. Not the best slogan I've ever heard, Maine.
3 million jobs lost under Bush, 4 million jobs lost under Obama. Look at all of the stimulus/bailout money spent (by both Presidents) and unemployment is STILL hovering near 10%. We are bankrupting ourselves. We cannot continue to throw money around. Our government has to get a grip or we end up in a world of financial hurt.
I'm in total agreement with it so I don't know why you say "I keep trying to rescue Reid from his own words". You and other republicans are upset that the numbers are not worsening and that's precisely what's going on here. It aches you that the policies instituted by Democrats may be working.
That's because you're dense.
But parsing and circular arguments are his M.O. He doesn't seem to have any cognitive abilities to go beyond the truncated quote. I don't see how that even qualifies as a point of view. It's just being wilfully ignorant.
From what I understand Beck didn't twist anything, he was simply mocking how Reid phrased it. I read it several times now, and I'm just not seeing any twisting.
P.S. Beck never claimed to be a journalist, never wanted to be one, I believe he used the term "educational entertainer." I think you guys give him more credit than you should.
If, on the other hand, one were to approach his analysis as if he were impartial and disinterested, he would ask himself, “What is the most reasonable interpretation of these words?” Do you really think Al Gore believed that he invented the Internet? That’s not at all likely but one will claim to understand it that way if it harms the other side politically. Does Barack Obama really think that there are more than 50 states, an error few children under age 8 would make? Not at all likely but those are the actual words that came out of his mouth. Even Dan Quayle’s purported inability to spell “potato” was seized upon in a manner that was not altogether fair.
Do you really think Harry Reid celebrated the loss of American jobs? Do you actually hold him to be that evil or that stupid? Or do you think that the more likely, more reasonable interpretation of his intention – that he rejoiced that the loss was not as severe as predicted-- simply does not do adequate harm to the Democrats?
I know what I think. That perception is reinforced by Beck’s truncating of Reid’s quote so as to eliminate a sentence that belies the notion that he celebrated the loss of American jobs makes it even more apparent that his enemies are dishonorable, dishonest, and disingenuous when they pretend that they believe his intent to be so villainous.
(Thank you for the compliment. “Ham-handed” is not my invention; you are free to use it next time you find it useful.)
William F. Buckley excommunicated the nut jobs from the conservative movement in the 60s and the conservative movement grew to political ascendancy that lasted a generation. That's not happening now. As a liberal, I am quite pleased to give Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, et al all prominence I can.
WE'RE TO BECOME LIKE VENEZUELA... PRINTING OUR OWN MONEY TO PAY GOVT WORKERS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Glenn ROCKSSSSS
If you read all of MMFA's later quotes from other experts who called it a "good day", you'll see that they said it far better than Reid. Beck however did not twist the words, or attempt to mischaracterize what Reid said, because whehter the statement was give with or without the explanation it still held the same meaning.
I would like to know how you think Beck was twisting what Reid said to mean something else. When exactly did Beck say that twisted Reid's words to mean something other than It was a "Very Good/Big Day" for America that ONLY 36,000 people lost their jobs?
P.S. The eaning of any word is not derived from the context. I can give you an example. Gun, Lettuce, Baby, Dog, Airplane. You know what all those words mean without being an sort of context at all. You can even do whole sentences, for example: Barak Obama is President...or....The Saints won the Super Bowl.....or.....The majority of Americans don't want universal healthcare. Independent each of those sentences conveys a clear message without any further explanation. You can add to the sentance with explanations for example, The majority of Americans don't want universal healthcare. A CNN pll completed yesterday found that 73% of Americans do not want universal healthcare. An explantion for the statement was given but it doesn't change the meaning of the statement, Americans still don't want universal healthcare.
That's what this thread's purpose is here for. Reid made a stupid senseless purely political comment on the floor of the Senate today and rather than just say it was stupid, MMfA has to call someone on the right a distorter, first and foremost.
No Democrat ever, EVER, says anything stupid. And if they do, they can never, NEVER take responsibility for it.
P.S. Who claims Democrats never say anything stupid?
Then why on earth are you spending all your time on a MEDIA watch site??? That's like complaining that American Idol has too much singing and not enough dancing.
Or are you just trying to deflect?
I never claimed he twisted his words. I claimed he used the FOX trick of cropping quotes in a video byte to make it seem as though Reid said or implied something he never did. That's dishonest and that's exactly what MMFA points out.
Open up a copy of Merriam-Websters or any dictionary. It says it right there- a dictionary defines the usage of a word- not the meaning. The meaning of a word is derived from it's usage in context. We learned that in fourth grade. Here's an example:
"Thank the gods it's payday, I'm really short on dough."
Does that sentence mean I have no bread or have no money? Does the context of the usage of the word "dough" have any bearing on the meaning of my sentence?
Unemployment compensation -- 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is concerning. Unemployment rate around America has not changed. Prognosticators thought it would go up; it has not. So, we need to extend -- there are about 15 million people in America out of work. These extended unemployment benefits will help millions of those people.
Instead he politicized it callously. Stupid.
Another thing about that stupid hypothetical with Mitch McConnell. Democrats wouldn't focus on something on a statement like that; we would focus on that assshole Bunning trying to make life harder for those already suffering.
Well if they wouldn't, they should. It would be just as stupid.
And what's so stupid about being pleased that the lost jobs decline has stalled or reversed? I know. It's sheer madness.
Reinhard
But he couldn't refrain from saying a big day in America and ONLY 36,000 people? You don't view that as stupid, and callous? I do. Especially for those 36,000 people who have no interest in politicians putting some party spin on their job loss from the floor of the Senate.
I am sorry, I cannot characterize his remarks as anything but stupid.
So I focus on Reid, their words and their actions, and others who work for us making laws and policy that affect our lives.
You are mistaken in two things though. Beck is not republican, Libertarian at best. The second point being that the predictions of the recovery act are longer term, 3-10 years out at least, sometime after universal healthcare shows up. :)
However, MMFA claimed that Beck "distorted" Reid's remarks, and they are wrong. Despite his motives, he never made reid out to mean something he didn't mean.
My representative in Congress claims to be a "Blue Dog Democrat". He isnt. He has voted in favor of EVERY large spending proposal put in front of him. I guess that is another example of a politician saying one thing and doing another. At this point, I am going to vote for the candidate that is the most fiscally conservative and I dont care if they have a D, an R or an I after their name.
It's stupid political gamesmanship and it's about time someone, namely Reid today, gets called on such callous stupidity. These are jobs, not generic government numbers than politicians can spin to their liking and to their political advantage, which is what Reid did. He is an embarrassment.
I have read, and listened to Becks remarks, and to my understanding Beck did not claim or allude to Reid being happy about about 36,000 people losing their jobs. Beck did make fun of Reid's usage of words like "big day" and "very good day", when people are still losing their jobs.
Again though, leaving out the subsequent explanation did not "distort" (MMFA's words) in any way shape of form what Harry Reid said. If I'm missing it please tell me. Or I think we should just chalk this one up to MMFA's continued silly attempts to discredit Glen Beck. (I do like the forum though, don't ban me for knocking MMFA. :))
You're also right, the video didn't portray Reid as giddy. Glenn did. In the subsequent discussion following the clip. Which is the point- Beck cropped the video to imply Reid was happy about 36,000 jobs then went on to talk about how out of touch Reid is, etc, you know ,the usual Republican talking points with a few of Beck's own nutty socialist/communist/fascist rantings thrown in.
Also, MMFA doesn't ban people for speaking their mind- they encourage it.
Otherwise, even if Beck did say the things you are say he did, that would make MMFA guilty of the same thing it is accusing beck of doing, posting tidbits of information to distort Beck's full explanation. Hypocrisy. If you or MMFA has a link that supports your claim please post it. If not avoid being hypocritical.
I'll say it again, nothing Beck says, or does implies or suggests Harry Reid was happy about American's losing their jobs. Nothing. Beck said nothing about how out of touch Harry Reid is in the transcript, in the summary, or the audio provided by MMFA. Not even a link. So unless you provide one, IT IS ALL YOUR OPINION.
The fact that you had to allude to something Beck said without linking the sources only proves further that nothing Beck said "distorted" or misrepresented what Reid said, as you and MMFA claim.
Totally off-topic here, but can somebody tell me how long I have to keep posting before my comments no longer need to be "vetted" by a moderator?
I don't understand this policy at all, regardless. I've never come across another site with a similar policy. Besides, isn't that why there is a "report abuse" link at the bottom of each comment?
I like the site, I like the spirited discussion, and I'd like get some comments posted before the thread is closed to replies!
Just venting. Sorry.
First of all, dough is slang. Are you suggesting that Reid used some sort of contextual slang word in his statement? (He didn't.) What you have done here is twisted the discussion again. You have given an example based on no precedent, slang words are the exception to the rule. That is why they are slang, they have a different meaning based on regional usage than the given meaning. If reid had said something like, "today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their gigs today, which is really good.", and Beck had used that small sound byte to make it sound like 36,000 musicians had lots there jobs then you would have something. But Reid didn't do that.
POP:
"OK, so you can twist what you said however you want. In either case, I'd like to know what Beck, by cropping quotes, made Reid seem to say that Reid didn't say? "
I just answered this. scroll up.
"First of all, dough is slang. Are you suggesting that Reid used some sort of contextual slang word in his statement? (He didn't.)"
Nor did I. I was merely explaining the meaning of a word is derived from the context of it's usage,which it is.
Whether a word is "slang" or not has no bearing on the context of it's usage. It's usage is the only thing that has any bearing on it's meaning. This goes for any word, slang or not.The very fact that a word is derived as "slang" means it has more than one usage, which kind of makes my point.
English lesson aside, how anyone can deny and defend,(at the same time, no less), Beck didn't employ the Fox tactic of soundbyte/video cropping to change the meaning of what Reid said is dishonest, if not shameless.
Next?
Are you saying Reid wasn't happy about 'only' losing 36,000 jobs?
Lets compare what MMFA says are the distortins.
"Glenn Beck played doctored audio of Sen. Harry Reid saying it is "good" news that the economy lost only 36,000 jobs in February -- an assessment many economists agree with."
"Reid's actual statement: "Good" news that unemployment rate and job losses are lower than expected"
So MMFA says Beck doctored audio to give the impresion that Harry Reid said its good news that the economy lost "only" 36,000 jobs.
Then MMFA says that Reid's actual statement is it good news that unemployment rates and job losses are lower than expected.
I'm asking what is the difference? Harry Reid said, "Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." Which is exactly what Beck said he said. Reid's subsequent explanation doesn't change how Beck characterized what Reid said, and it doesn't change what Reid said. Glen never said Reid was happy 36,000 americans lost their jobs, if he had, then it would be a distortion. But everytime Beck and MMFA use the word 'ONLY' it implies lower unemployment rates are better, which is how Beck characterized Reid's statement. (emphasis added)
Next MMFA makes this statement, "Reid is correct: Economy "lost fewer jobs than expected" in February." Well whats your point. Is MMFA saying Beck was incorrect, who was incorrect, why are they inferring that someone was incorrect? Beck never argued that the economy lost more jobs than were expected. Beck wasn't arguing that economist were wrong. It is irrelevent, MMFA is distorting what Beck said, show me please where Beck disagreed, claimed, distorted facts about whether the economy gained or lost jobs.
"Economists agree with Reid: Jobs report is "good" news"
Did Beck ever say it wasn't good news? DID BECK SAY ONE TIME THAT IT WAS BAD NEWS THE ECONOMY WAS LOSING LESS JOBS THAN EXPECTED? NOOOOOOO. MMFA never said Glen distorted the facts about whether the economy losing less jobs or not. MMFA is distorting the facts in an effort to demonize Glen Beck, that fact that they have to invent bogus allegations like this proof.
MMFA went from saying Glen distorted Reid's statement about it being good news the economy only lost 36,000 jobs to implying Beck was incorrect about whether or not the economy lost fewer jobs than expected.
I'd like to see a retraction on this one MMFA. you guys really messed up.
It's truly confusing that these same people will tout their authoritarainism as some form of free independent thinking. Bogles my mind!
Since you can't and since you like to Troll, I will be waiting for an unintelligent smug remark below.
The truth is, like MMFA you have a predetermined hatred of Glen Beck because his opinions fly in the face of everything progressives believe. Because what he says makes progressives look bad and you don't have any defense for it. This is a made up distortion by MMFA.
KEEP TROLLING PLEASE. I love seeing your post, i know there will never be substance behind your snipits of hate and foolishness.
Like I said, words stand, independent of their context, unless they are vague and imprecise - qualities that public political figures must avoid in their language if they wish to avoid their comments becoming fodder for their political opponents.
Nope. The context has nothing to do with the meaning.
This is a good example of idiomatic language, though. To somebody without the cultural experience of American English idiom, say, for instance, an immigrant, this statement might very well mean you are a baker.
Words only have meaning based on the perception of the listener, and dough has an accepted meaning as slang for money. In fact, this association is so strong that if I said "I have no dough" most American English speakers would assume I need cash.
Context can clarify ambiguity, but the meaning of words, phrases and sentences necessarily stand on their own. I fully get what Reid was saying, and Beck absolutely did misrepresent what he said, but Mr Reid could have done a much better job of framing his point, don't you think? Especially given that he should know that the right will exploit this kind of statement. Imprecise use of language invites that sort of behaviour, so when your comments will be under scrutiny, you need to be that much more careful to make your meanings precise.
We all know how Glenn Blecch operates, so is it a surprise that he takes advantage of an opportunity? Unethical? Yes. Unexpected? Not so much.
Look, that nut case left out the sentences immediately following the "good day" comment. He should have played Reid's entire comment but that would have undermined his premise.
Also, I don't know why you like that guy Beck. He's a certifiable nut.
Beck did not distort the message. If he did like I asked several times now, without an answer, what was Becks distortion of Reid's comment? What did Beck claim that Reid didn't say?
Still waiting.......
"I've not claimed his comments were distorted- my claim is the same as MMFA's, Beck used a video byte of Reid and cropped the video to make it appear as though Reid was giddy about 36,000 people losing their job when in fact Reid was merely pleased that ONLY 36,000 people lost their jobs."
Fact: MMFA claimed his comments were distorted. Scroll up read the title. "Glenn Beck and right-wing media grossly distort Reid's jobs comments" Hmmmmm....
Fact: I restated the question to fit the parameters set by you. "I never claimed he twisted his words. I claimed he used the FOX trick of cropping quotes in a video byte to make it seem as though Reid said or implied something he never did." (Which according to Merriam W. is basically the same thing. Look at the link I provided.)
Fact: I think this can be chalked up to posting delays because you answered this question. "What did Beck claim that Reid didn't say?" Your answer was, "Beck used a video byte of Reid and cropped the video to make it appear as though Reid was giddy about 36,000 people losing their job ......."
Fact: That is MMFA's stance. So i asked you to please tell me what Beck said that made Reid sound giddy. I think that is where we stand at the moment.
Look, MMFA claimed that Beck distorted Harry Reid's comment. But Beck is making fun of him for being happy about losing so few jobs. MMFA said "Glenn Beck played doctored audio of Sen. Harry Reid saying it is "good" news that the economy lost only 36,000 jobs in February" but the fact is Harry Reid said exactly that. "Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." The explanation after doesn't change the meaning. Despite his explanation, Reid still thinks its good news.
Those idiots are right, Reid thinks its good news. Beck didn't distort that, he made fun of it. I didn't know MMFA reported on hurt feelings I guess.
I don't know what other "far righties" are saying. to be honest it doesn't matter, MMFA never said anything about them. MMFA is claiming BECK distorted what Reid said. The problem is MMFA is wrong, Beck in no way said that Reid was happy about Americans losing their jobs. But that is what MMFA is claiming. MMFA is DISTORTING what Beck said and did. Look at MMFA's following quotes and references, it has nothing to do with Beck distorting Reid's comments. MMFA tried to stretch this story into something its not. They duped anyone that thinks Beck distorted Reids meaning.
If other media outlets on the right are distorting the message, then they should have said which and left Beck out of it. MMFA should print a retraction or apology to its readers in my opinion.
Another poster said he went into how out of touch Reid is and his lunatic ravings about communists and socialists. Since you're intimately involved in the nether regions of Glennbeckistan, what went on afterwards?
That’s why a necessary component in reaching understanding is the highly subjective “What do I reasonably think he was really saying?” An honest broker who has no interest in the outcome will come up with an interpretation based on what she actually considers most likely. Advocates will search for a reading that accrues to the benefit of the speaker while those who are malevolently motivated will pretend not to understand how the remark could have an innocent but poorly-worded statement.
Frankly, it is just not credible to believe that Sen. Reid was rejoicing at the loss of American jobs. You may not like liberals very much but do you really think we’re that evil?
Wouldn't it be nice if progressives just once were caught doing something legal and ethical and intelligent?
Not likely to happen soon, though - so buck up, girls, maybe someday there will be a progressive that qualifies as a human, too!
MMFA does a very good job of documenting conservative propaganda, but it would be easy to laugh at that propaganda if sane people didn't believe anybody was buying it.
When you post here, substituting name-calling for any substance, you reinforce everything this site does. When you call the more sensible politicians we have "idiots", and refer to organizations as "thugs" when it's objectively true that the label applies more accurately to their attackers, you make it clear that this misinformation is working, even if it's only working on a tiny percentage of the most gullible Americans.
When you describe a site that presents the facts, complete with transcripts, audio and video clips, as "defending" those it vindicates, you provide more evidence that the GOP and their machine have declared war on the truth.
In short, every word you post here is useful, maybe not deliberately, but accidentally. For anybody reading the comments here who may be "on the fence", and still not sure about where they are politically, I truly believe the emptiness of your comments must cause them, assuming they're not registered Republicans, and still have some critical thinking abilities remaining, to veer strongly to the left.
Again, thank you. For the damage to the GOP that you do, even if it's the opposite of your intended purpose, you are an accidental patriot.
Very respectful.
Thanks for your contribution,edrossinoelwein9669.
Sorry your little view of the world is so small and limited.
Well I've observed conservatives for a number of years and they seem to be selfish, greedy or callous. It seems that they were raised that way.
If there's such a thing as Satan, he's running vibrant among conservatives.
That's what the Beckians here have seized upon. They are playing the liberal elitist card, they are operating out of the limousine liberal frame. Because to give any liberal credit for a job well done weakens the conservative worldview and spreading the conservative worldview is the primary objective of the right.
I agree with Oscar in as much as Reid needs to learn how to speak to regular folks better, he needs to place the blame for this Republican recession where it belongs: on tax cuts and deregulation. I say that because the right have simple narratives, no matter how divorced from reality, that blame liberals for this mess we're in.
Its like MMFA quoting Economist and saying that is proof distorted Reid's comments....there is no correlation.
Maybe its liberal logic....illogic.
It's all right there in the "Fox New Employee Handbook" right below the "How to shout down a liberal guest for no darned reason at all" section.
But when Reid states, matter-of-factly, that the job losses were LOWER than predicted, the right wing has a fit. He didn't state it as if it was the end all, be all of outcomes, just BETTER than anticipated.
No ceremony, no 21 gun salutes. Pure dry fact. His error is not stating this as a comparative: 36,000 job lost is BETTER than what was expected.
The absurdity of this outrage cannot be overstated. If the best the GOP can muster is to decontextualize Reid, then you fools are in bigger trouble than I thought.
Randy
I agree he should have used the qualifier BETTER, there wouldn't have been anything to make fun of.
Why, there were just making fun of him. At no time was this an expression of outrage, just a skit, a bit, a spoof, a put-on. Because nothing says calm, cool digestion of facts than a tongue-in-cheek rant.
Randy
East excursions any better, but those funds have been borrowed from since the Johnson Administration, when they were mixed in with the general funds (at least on the Federal books) to make the cost of Vietnam look more reasonable and because, according to actuarial tables, there was an unlimited surplus in that non-existant "lock box". Of course, the mid-course correction made in the Reagan years extended the vision of unlimited funds available for current uses. A major problem exists in that no politician or political party is facing up to the unfunded liabilities on Federal, State and local levels, including SS, Medicare, retirement plans, etc. We think things are not comfortable now, wait until the "piper has to be paid" on those in the next 20 years and beyond.
Also, the "unfunded liability" line is a con job. As an ACCOUNTING INSTRUCTOR, I know that "liability" is a theoretical bunch of BS. It's based on TWO false abstractions.
1. That EVERYONE will live long enough to collect.
2. That we MUST fund the WHOLE THING TODAY.
Would it make sense to force a corporation to book and fund its future potential liabilities FOREVER? No? Well, that's what you're asking SS and Medicare to do. Nor would you ask a person to do that.
Social programs are designed to run toward the edge of cliff they'll never reach, a cliff called the future. Since I was child back in the 1970s, the GOP has been warning that SS and Medicare will fail. First it was destined to fail by the 1980s. Then it was the 1990s. Then it was the 2000s. Now they say it'll fail by the end of 2010s. Then it'll be be the 2020s. All of it malarkey ginned up to make people afraid of social programs.
Randy
Does everyone realize that the unfunded liability for the DOD is 80 TRILLION dollars? Yep. That's how much the American people "owe" the DOD over the next 100 years. So if we MUST book the SS and Medicare liabilities, why not this one? Does anyone honestly think the federal gov't will cut the defense department budget before they'll cut SS or Medicare? I don't. So we should therefore book that the future cost of the Pentagon, assuming the nation only lasts another 100 years. Presently, we spend about 800 BILLION per year on the DOD plus wars (which will never end), so projected over 100 years, that's 80 TRILLION.
Are you right wing policy apologists SCARED at that number? No? Well, you shouldn't be, because the methodology used in my example is just as full of it as the methodology used in your spooky unfunded liability examples for SS and Medicare.
Pick a program you don't like, theorize what it will cost for 100 years and then proceed to scaring people with big numbers.
Randy
The right gripes about budget shortfalls yet they still cut the h*ll out of taxes that pay for public needs. What you guys do is shift taxes from corporations and millionaires to the little guy when you cut taxes.
Republicans cut taxes that fund social security, which in turn effectively raises taxes on the least among us because they have to pay more out of their own pocket just to get by every month. Republicans cut taxes that fund public universities and tuition has to be raised to cover the loss. This is especially insidious because it stifles the creative potential of generations and favors the rich.
Every time I hear the phrase, "tax cut," I see classrooms overflowing, bridges collapsing, levees bursting and roads crumbling.
What do Republicans care about? Cutting taxes and killing our government. It's an unhealthy obsession.
We lefties care because we know from history that Republican rule always fails societies with its tendency toward monumental wealth maldistribution. We lefties care more about spreading opportunity for all than how much tax we have to pay.
Empathy, responsibility, community, nurturance. Republicans should try some of these values on for size, America would once again hold the promise of a better future.
One serious question to ask – are they looking to LOSE money, or are they in it just for promoting their agenda (which is left of Fox)? The only conclusion I can draw is they are NOT in it for profits, they are maintaining their position of excluding conservatives merely to promote a left-thinking agenda. What they are saying is “Damn the profits, we want to keep losing money just so we can promote the left-leaning agenda.” That’s the only logical conclusion one can make. They are obviously not businessmen interested in making profits. If they were, they’d be all over the conservatives with programming aimed at that audience. Instead, they have made the decision to lose audience, lose money, and lose embarrassingly in the ratings game.
Bottom line – they are horrible business people only interested in promoting an agenda at the expense of making money. That’s just plain stupid, especially if you are a stockholder in any of these companies. Why another network doesn’t step up and give them some competition is beyond me. They should be going after Fox, not coddling to their diminishing viewing audience.
What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Hmmmm, I guess the mainstream media should tell their shareholders, “since we are losing tons of money and decreasing shareholder value, we are guilty by reason of insanity.”
In conclusion, by maintaining their left-leaning stance, they are, in fact, confirming they they are NOT fair and balanced, NOT interested in making money, and THEY TRULY DO HAVE AN AGENDA. If they were really interested in making money, they’d give Fox some real competition.
Economists agree with Reid: Jobs report is "good" news
Dean Baker: Jobs report is "strikingly good." The New York Times reported
Sure enough, the NYT quoted Dean Baker. And who is Dean Baker?
Dean Baker has a March 1st article: Economic Policy and Unemployment: The Power of Stupidity
This article has a solution to these sliding jobs numbers: work-sharing! "a firm will cut back the hours of its workers by 20 percent. The government then replaces 60 percent of the lost pay (12 percent of total pay). The firm is expected to kick in 20 percent of the lost pay (4 percent of total pay) and the worker ends up taking home 4 percent less pay."
I am guessing that private corporations are not going to be real agreeable to allowing workers to cut their hours back from 40 to 32 while still paying the workers for 36 hours. Government to the rescue! The worker will get partial unemployment for the remaining lost time, courtesy of the taxpayers and only take a 4% pay cut!
So we will just need some legislation mandating 32 hour work weeks and wage controls. Wait a minute, sounds like SOCIALISM!!
Most Americans know what is going on here. The "razor focus" were just words without meaning or substance.