Cheerleaders are people, too, God. Why do you hate them?

10/20/2009 11:43:44 AM

So are Liberals.

10/20/2009 11:46:43 AM

I don't think morning shows like The Today Show or Good Morning America count as "journalism." They are allowed to do fluffy things like feature cheerleaders.

10/20/2009 11:47:27 AM

Thus the problem of today's mainstream media.

CNN is the only cable network that actually has.. you know.. news coverage in the morning.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : FUCK]

10/20/2009 11:49:30 AM

^^^ I don't hate liberals.

^^ FYI: Some news is "fluffy"--it's not all earthquakes, international affairs, and so on. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward "infotainment" here and elsewhere for some years now--in surveys viewers tell news organizations that they want more health and entertainment news.

For better or worse, not many here are clamoring to hear news of the day's events in Equatorial Guinea. I suppose you could write the news desk to voice your concerns.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 11:55:14 AM

Fox News doesn't have a news desk.

10/20/2009 12:50:33 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, there has been a trend toward "infotainment" here and elsewhere for some years now--in surveys viewers tell news organizations that they want more health and entertainment news."

I've said it before many times that the reason Fox News is more popular is because they run their show much more like ESPN than a traditional news show.

This isn't really a "problem" except they also blend commentary and reporting together, which they've been doing much more of recently, and which they've always done more than the other networks.

10/20/2009 1:00:45 PM

^exactly.

which is why i treat fox news akin to a 24hr daily show, except less balanced.

10/20/2009 1:20:36 PM

IT ISN'T CREDIBLE BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT

10/20/2009 1:41:06 PM

^shut up with that line

10/20/2009 1:44:05 PM

Simply repeating yourself only makes you look like a fool.

10/20/2009 1:44:18 PM

^ You mean like the Obama preamble to everything, "We inherited this. . ."?

10/20/2009 2:10:32 PM

^More like the way you post links to articles 3 times in a row.

10/20/2009 2:14:52 PM

well, constantly repeating things that you disagree with in an effort to prove that they aren't credible is just as tiresome

10/20/2009 2:16:35 PM

Any form of media loses credibility when it demonstrates a clear bias or partisan slant. Even if you agree with the views espoused on Fox news, you should at least admit that its programming doesn't always provide anything close to objective news coverage.

In other words, no one is saying that Fox news is incredible because they disagree with it. Fox news has a clear neo-conservative slant, and its viewership reflects that.

10/20/2009 2:22:53 PM

^ Um. . .do you ever check facts? You do realize that a significant number of FOX News viewers are liberals and independents, right?

10/20/2009 2:28:03 PM

of course Fox is biased. why can't you admit that NYT is biased also

10/20/2009 2:30:59 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that a significant number of FOX News viewers are liberals and independents, right?"

Only for the entertainment value.

10/20/2009 2:38:15 PM

^^^I never said the viewership was 100% neo-conservative. I said that the viewership reflects the views expressed by the network; the majority of fox viewers are conservative/Republican. They aren't going to Fox to get a point of view that they disagree with. They like Fox because it meshes well with their particular worldview.

^^NYT might be biased. I don't read the New York Times, except for the occasional online news article. Of those articles, nothing ever jumps out to me as being blatantly biased either way. Now, like I said, they might be biased. I don't think it's as blatantly biased as Fox News, though. There can be varying degrees of bias.

10/20/2009 2:39:46 PM

Quote :

"Fox news has a clear neo-conservative slant, and its viewership reflects that."

^ You sure as hell implied that FOX News' broadcasts and viewership is "neo-conservative" with that sentence.

10/20/2009 2:49:41 PM

CNN fact checked a SNL skit that was mildly critical of Obama

CNN did not fact check the arguably libelous statements made about Rush Limbaugh



It is all in the eyes of the beholder.

IT IS NOT CREDIBLE BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT

10/20/2009 2:56:38 PM

Seems like CNN would fact check what is actually said by those in govt, not a comedy tv show.

Did they ever fact check the bs line of doctors get 150k to cut off a leg? Or ever mention that if you take out homicides and auto accidents americans have the longest life span?

But if family guy makes fun of him... watch out.

10/20/2009 3:14:26 PM

Quote :

"You sure as hell implied that FOX News' broadcasts and viewership is "neo-conservative" with that sentence"

Fox News does have a neo-conservative slant. It has a much higher percentage of viewers that are conservatives/Republicans, when compared to other cable news network. That's all I'm saying.

Quote :

"CNN fact checked a SNL skit that was mildly critical of Obama CNN did not fact check the arguably libelous statements made about Rush Limbaugh "

Is it up to CNN to fact check all libelous statements made against any political commentator? I don't think so. Fact checking a popular show that criticizes the President, with (possibly) inaccurate information, seems like a fairly reasonable thing for a news network to do.

Quote :

"IT IS NOT CREDIBLE BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT"

Weak.

10/20/2009 3:24:51 PM

^ When the Rush thing had become as big a news topic as it was, it becomes necessary to fact check that kind of shit.

10/20/2009 3:28:27 PM

Not even that. When CNN attributes quotes to a person as they did when reporting on Limbaugh, they have to verify the authenticity of those quotes. Anything less is sloppy journalism.

For CNN to fact check SNL, but not even bother checking their own libelous reporting of Rush, smacks of bias.

10/20/2009 3:46:48 PM

Maybe they just didn't want to avoid the shitstorm that they'd get for factchecking Limbaugh.

"THE LIEBERAL MEDIA PUNDITS AT CNN ARE CALLING PATRIOT RUSH LIMBAUGH A LIAR. WHAT IS THEIR AGENDA? HMMM!?"

10/20/2009 3:50:11 PM

I think you're confused, God. We aren't talking about fact-checking what Rush says, but rather whether racist quotes attributed to him were made up or not. Apparently some idiot claimed that Rush once said on the air that slavery had it's merits, but he didn't cite the quote. Major news outlets such as CNN attributed this quote to Rush without ever verifying it's authenticity. That's a pretty big no-no in journalism. Now Rush may sue for libel.

10/20/2009 4:02:39 PM

^ the sad thing, for Rush, is that people actually were able to believe that he said that.

10/20/2009 4:07:14 PM

^^ Any evidence of this?

10/20/2009 4:15:54 PM

Just google Rush + Libel and you can read about it, or go to Snopes. CNN was just 1 of many publications that attributed what appears to be a number of false or unverifiable quotes to Rush.

Maybe it's more of a case of shoddy journalism than any left-wing media conspiracy. But CNN is awfully cozy with this administration, as is MSNBC. And the administration seems awfully thin-skinned about Fox News' ore-election criticism of Obama.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 2]

10/20/2009 4:35:28 PM

Quote :

"But CNN is awfully cozy with this administration, as is MSNBC."

Citation needed.

Quote :

"And the administration seems awfully thin-skinned about Fox News' ore-election criticism of Obama."

Because that's all they had was criticism. The talking points every day are "how can we undermine the president today?"

10/20/2009 4:45:46 PM

^^ they do seem thin-skinned, but it's hard to blame them when they push commentators that manufacture blatant lies about the administration's agenda?

10/20/2009 4:47:15 PM

Quote :

"Charles David 'Chuck' Todd (born April 8, 1972), an American journalist, Chief White House Correspondent and political director for NBC News, and contributing editor to Meet the Press."

Quote :

"Before coming to the world of political reporting and analysis, Todd earned practical political experience on initiative campaigns in Florida and various national campaigns based in Washington, D.C. While in college, Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and later started part time at The Hotline."

Quote :

"Kristian Denny Todd [wife] is a Democratic operative and communications professional."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Todd

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM. Reason : SO WHAT?!!1 ]

10/20/2009 5:00:37 PM

Don't forget about Stephanopolous

10/20/2009 5:04:58 PM

^ Oh, I've mentioned him--a Clinton-era operative--a number of times in TSB. And I've challenged any here to name one network news anchor in recent years who was not a liberal, but I never got an answer.

10/20/2009 5:08:48 PM

journalism died with tim russert. he wouldn't have stood for this kind of bullcrap.

10/20/2009 5:27:35 PM

Well, hooksaw goes with Chuck Todd, so let's refresh everyone's memory on Roger Ailes...

Quote :

"Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is the American president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as Rudy Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989."

Quote :

"Ailes served as a political consultant for many Republican candidates during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. His first such job was as media advisor for the Nixon campaign in 1968. He returned to presidential campaigning as a consultant to Ronald Reagan in 1984. He is widely credited with having coached Reagan to victory in the second presidential debate with Walter Mondale."

Quote :

"In 1988 Ailes was credited (along with Lee Atwater) with guiding George H. W. Bush to a come-from-behind [9] victory over Michael Dukakis. Ailes and Lee Atwater scripted and produced the "Revolving Door" ad."

Quote :

"Ailes also came up with the "orchestra pit theory" regarding sensationalist political coverage in the news media, with the question: If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

Quote :

"After the announcement of Microsoft and NBC's partnership to create an online and cable news outlet, MSNBC, taking the place of America's Talking, Ailes left the network in February 1996 and was hired by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News Channel for News Corporation. In addition, 89 additional employees of the NBC networks left with Ailes to help with the new channel's creation for launch, on October 7, 1996."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes


[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM. Reason : keepin' it fair and balanced]

10/20/2009 7:07:38 PM

Don't forget that Fox News literally gave a war criminal their own show.

A show that is still on the air.

10/20/2009 10:04:02 PM

a convicted war criminal or just a liberal's punching bag "GEORGE BUSH IS A WAR CRIMES!!" type of war criminal?

10/20/2009 10:06:50 PM

Oh, he was convicted alright.

10/20/2009 10:12:14 PM

Could we please get some damn red-eye correction

10/20/2009 10:31:10 PM

could we please get some "non-Impact" font

10/20/2009 10:39:22 PM

who is it then

10/20/2009 10:45:22 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that a significant number of FOX News viewers are liberals and independents, right?"

I see where you're goin, but don't.

I watch FOX News pretty much whenever I see it on, and it's because it's just damned entertaining. No kidding. The entire format, etc. Every "expert" is some relatively attractive woman, every "liberal" guest they have is 2 synapses short of a fledgling fool. . .i mean, come on. I'm not gonna hate on anyone at all for being conservative, but to act as if FOX News is fair, or balanced, renders you just as brainwashed as anyone who buys the same shit out of MSNBC.

10/21/2009 12:12:23 AM

remember how hilarious it was when that one Dixie Chick made that one statement about being ashamed to be from Texas and the right completely flipped their shit?

man, those were the days....

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 12:27 AM. Reason : flipper?]

10/21/2009 12:26:32 AM

Quote :

"journalism died with tim russert. he wouldn't have stood for this kind of bullcrap."

hmm, you sure about this? I think his reputation has been inflated somewhat, before and after his death....

Quote :

"Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you. ... "I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html

Quote :

"The new tradition is that the press speaks on behalf of the government.” An example? “Tim Russert was a spokesman for power, wealth, and privilege,” Lapham said. “That’s why 1,000 people came to his memorial service. Because essentially he was a shill for the government. It didn’t matter whether it was Democratic or Republican. It was for the status quo.” What about Russert’s rep for catching pols in lies? “That was bullshit,” he said. “Thompson and Russert were two opposite poles.”"

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/48333/

Quote :

"BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the Times reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminum tubes. And there on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney: DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): … Tubes. There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES. I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but-- JONATHAN LANDAY, MC CLATCHYS: Now, ordinarily information like the aluminum tubes wouldn't appear. It was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it. DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb. BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance? BOB SIMON, CBS: I did. BILL MOYERS: What did you think? BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable. BILL MOYERS: Why? BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do. . . . TIM RUSSERT (MEET THE PRESS), TO CHENEY: What specifically has [Saddam] obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program? BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared? TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am. BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen? TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean- BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story? TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES. BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September Eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak. TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."

Quote :

"BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to? BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start. BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 MINUTES? BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called. BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone? BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone. BILL MOYERS: Talked to them? BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras. . . . WALTER PINCUS: More and more, in the media, become, I think, common carriers of Administration statements, and critics of the Administration. And we've sort of given up being independent on our own."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

10/21/2009 12:36:48 AM

LOL! Jake Tapper of ABC News rips Robert Gibbs a new one--again--concerning the White House attacks on FOX News (at ~1:45):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-8rfE08tcc

10/21/2009 5:05:44 AM

Solinari: Oliver North.

10/21/2009 8:29:09 AM

When was he convicted of War Crimes?

He was convicted of several felonies, convictions which were later dismissed.

From wikipedia

Quote :

"North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[7] North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.[8] Because North had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, the law prohibited the independent counsel (or any prosecutor) from using that testimony as part of a criminal case against him. To prepare for the expected defense challenge that North's testimony had been used, the prosecution team had, before North's congressional testimony had been given, listed and isolated all its evidence;[citation needed] further, the individual members of the prosecution team had isolated themselves from news reports and discussion of North's testimony. While the defense could show no specific instance where any part of North's congressional testimony was used in his trial, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge had made an insufficient examination of the issue, and ordered North's convictions reversed. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991, on the motion of the independent counsel."

I'm not saying he wasn't guilty, or that the overturning of his convictions wasn't fishy, but the fact is that he doesn't have convictions on the books.

10/21/2009 8:45:26 AM

Quote :

"he was initially convicted"

10/21/2009 8:47:17 AM