Discussion: MSNBC And Other Left-Leaning Media Outlets

[Addendum]

Politics is essentially immature. True, the people involved are "grown" and they dress up, but it's still similar to stuff we did in grade school

[BlackLantern]

seems that way...I really don't watch cable news all that much, I might catch AC360 or Maddow once a week, but I mostly flip by, watch for a few minutes and go do something else

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I just find Olbermann very immature sometime....the "worst person in the world" segment, constantly mentioning Fox News, it's like he is always wanting to pick a fight


The only one I often find immature, is when he goes after O'Reily. I think he just wants to fight him or something. I think he sometimes has a point in going after him, but usually it seems like he's nitpicking with him.


I disagree with the first half of that....but not the second :)



Rush and Beck are conservatives.

That much everyone can agree with, I think. Beck is not a Republican, but Conservatives are not Republicans per se. Same as how Liberals aren't Democratic card holders per se either.

Politics is essentially immature. True, the people involved are "grown" and they dress up, but it's still similar to stuff we did in grade school


I think everyone just comes off like fanboys, really. It all ends up looking like a thread on the SHH forums.

[Marx]

DIANE SAWYER PRAISES MADDOW
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/diane-sawyer-praises-rach_n_477213.html

[Marx]

KEITH OLBERMANN'S FATHER HAS DIED
http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/03/theodore_c_olbermann_1929-2010.html

[Marx]

RACHEL MADDOW DENIES POTENTIAL RUN FOR SENATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/msnbc-host-denies-senate-run-2/?fbid=peaVvFmB5Z_

[Marx]

'THE DAILY SHOW' RETURNS TO TAKE ON HEALTHCARE DRAMA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/jon-stewart-returns-and-r_n_518216.html

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The campaign against an imaginary Rachel Maddow senate run is beginning to seem crazy.

Next thing you know, Scott Brown will fundraise against in imaginary senate run, against an imaginary character.

Lex Luthor, perhaps?

[Marx]

I don't understand the whole Brown/Maddow thing. She has flat out said that it's bogus.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It's just a scam to get hardcore republicans who dispise a figure like Maddow, or any well known Liberal, and get them to give them money. The fundraising tactics can really seem like ****** scams, sometimes. I've never seen reports on the Democratic fundraising tactics, but I'd like to. Both sides must be running scams, like the "we will fax a letter to every member of congress for you for the low price $119.oo"

I dunno, maybe there's a Democratic Senator who's running an imaginary senate campaign run against Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh and we don't know about it?

[Marx]

DAVID SHUSTER MAY BE PULLED FROM MSNBC 'INDEFINITELY'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/david-shuster-ripped-a-ne_n_524938.html

[Marx]

IT'S OFFICIAL: SHUSTER SUSPENDED FROM MSNBC
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/david-shuster-suspended-f_n_526699.html

[Marx]

Former MoveOn.org Director announces bid for California Governorship


Our democratic standard-bearer must take bold stands on the key issues facing California - like closing our budget gap by making corporations, big commercial property owners, and the richest people pay their fair share.

We have to break the republican minority's stranglehold on our state, by ending the 2/3 rule for raising revenues. Democracy means a majority vote, not rule by a few obstructionists.

Six-plus years of republican mismanagement have left california in a fiscal and civic crisis. We've got to win the governor's office, and the way to win is to fight for our core values, not run away from them. We have to campaign vigorously, on our principles. Nothing less will be enough to beat whitman's corporate, wall street billions.

[Majic Walrus]

IT'S OFFICIAL: SHUSTER SUSPENDED FROM MSNBC
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/david-shuster-suspended-f_n_526699.html

I'm surprised it took them that long.

[Shifty]

You knew it was coming...

Jon Stewart Goes After John McCain For Selling His Newly Non-Maverick Soul
http://tv.gawker.com/5511201/jon-stewart-goes-after-john-mccain-for-selling-his-newly-non+maverick-soul

[Paradoxium]

The scumbags G.E. (owns MSNBC), got bailed out and paid no taxes:

CNN:

GE: 7,000 tax returns, $0 U.S. tax bill (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/index.htm)GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

Zerohedge:

After Getting Bailed Out By American Taxpayers, General Electric Pays Zero U.S. Taxes, Pretending that All of Its Profits are Overseas (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/after-getting-bailed-out-american-taxpayers-general-electric-pays-zero-us-taxes-pretending-a)

It is in their vested interest to advocate big government and corporatist fanfare in many ways.

[Kelly]

Oh damn, wait till O'Reilly gets wind of this.....he hates GE.

[Hobodeluxe]

The scumbags G.E. (owns MSNBC), got bailed out and paid no taxes:

CNN:

GE: 7,000 tax returns, $0 U.S. tax bill (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/index.htm)

Zerohedge:

After Getting Bailed Out By American Taxpayers, General Electric Pays Zero U.S. Taxes, Pretending that All of Its Profits are Overseas (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/after-getting-bailed-out-american-taxpayers-general-electric-pays-zero-us-taxes-pretending-a)

It is in their vested interest to advocate big government and corporatist fanfare in many ways.

big govt and corporatist? I can see them (GE) wanting more spending on defense but that's about it. and the bailout was only them underwriting their debt. becoming an insurer. and that's only because GE is such a huge defense contractor.
as for being corporatist well,yeah. all the media is corporate. Fox news included. They have their advertisers. Corporations that pay the bills. So naturally as long as there are no restrictions on "free speech" for the corporate citizen the mainstream media will be inherently corporate. Even moreso with the recent Citizens United decision. Now direct corporate advocacy and influence is pretty much unrestricted. The politicians should be required to wear their sponsors logos on their suits like NASCAR drivers.

[Paradoxium]

GE in 2008 was more or less exposed as a giant hedge fund.

I mean this Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) Hobo. This neutral term is recognized by people of different political beliefs, such as Michael Moore, to Ron Paul, and to Jon Stewart even.

[chaseter]

HAHA.

MSNBC fires Donny Deutsch for his digs at Keith Olbermann. Way to go Fox News...I mean MSNBC.

[Bathead]

HAHA.

MSNBC fires Donny Deutsch for his digs at Keith Olbermann. Way to go Fox News...I mean MSNBC.

I'm assuming you have a link to an aricle from an unbiased source showing this is the reason?

[chaseter]

If you are critical about your source of news, just google it and save us both time. I could post a link and hear someone whine about it being liberal or conservative while people post stuff from Huffington on here all the time and nobody seems to care.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nobody likes Deutsch...so, it's pretty much "meh".

Seems fair enough too, for management to prevent in-fighting and have some clubhouse fiasco take place on they're channel. I don't think, for example, that Fox News would like it if Bill suddenly started sending missile ***** at Hannity, and then Hannity firing back for 30 minutes of his hour.

Wouldn't be a good look.

It'd be so ****ing enteraining though.

[Marx]

If you are critical about your source of news, just google it and save us both time. I could post a link and hear someone whine about it being liberal or conservative while people post stuff from Huffington on here all the time and nobody seems to care.

...that's probably because I post links from all kinds of different websites. :cwink:

[chaseter]

I wasn't referring to anybody in particular. I have been smashed for posting a link to a site someone thought was too conservative. I read it on another site. I just didn't want to waste my time if the link I was going to post was going to be refuted to save face for MSNBC. But here is a NYT article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/media/22msnbc.html

[Humphrey Bogart]

Read this a while back. Pretty interesting to see a "progressive" argument against the healthcare bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html

[Kelly]

But to be fair Marx, most are from Huffington....which is not a big deal, considering a lot of the general news is from the AP, but many have been from their specific writers as well.

And if that is where you read most of your news, then that's cool...that is understandable. Just like most of mine are from WSJ, that is the website news I read the most....

[Marx]

But to be fair Marx, most are from Huffington....which is not a big deal, considering a lot of the general news is from the AP, but many have been from their specific writers as well.

And if that is where you read most of your news, then that's cool...that is understandable. Just like most of mine are from WSJ, that is the website news I read the most....

I get my news from a variety of sources and post articles from CNN, HuffPo, TPM, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, and FOX News. It just happens that there are alot of articles that CNN and FOX News do not post that HuffPo does.

[Kelly]

If the news is from the AP, they all post those....if the news is from one of their independent writers they do not...

[Hobodeluxe]

If the news is from the AP, they all post those....if the news is from one of their independent writers they do not...

yeah most will cover the major wire services. AP,Reuters etc. Huffpost has guest writers who do articles from time to time on specific issues.

I like Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo site. They do a good job.
I like Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic.
Nate at 538
another good place for political discussions is Fark.com.
it's really not left or right.
but the discourse gets a little raucous and trolleriffic.

For some satire I like Jesus' General.
and of course for the lols I like Cagle's cartoons.

[Hobodeluxe]

an example of msnbc programming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDN58HN05jI)

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/olbermann-slams-lame-duck_n_597093.html


Olbermann Slams Campbell Brown.


I think he made some good points. I could say a number of things about anyone I disagree with, Hannity or something, but one thing that couldn't be said is that they're making the "safe" choice.

Campbell's claim that being down the middle is dangerous or something is wrong, I think.

[Marx]

'Being down the middle' means you're last place in the ratings. People only want to hear slants.

[Marx]

I just heard that Rachel Maddow was nominated again for a TV Critics' Award. :up:

[Marx]

SENATOR VITTER APOLOGIZES TO RACHEL MADDOW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/17/vitter-sorry-for-maddow-comment/?fbid=gbRWBuVeGeF

[Marx]

Here is the new MSNBC lineup...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/msnbcs-new-anchor-lineup_n_715006.html

[DACrowe]

I thought CNN had the best coverage of the night. Once you got over their gimmicky toys, there were several news anchors just reading off results and explaining the races and then several panels of liberals, conservatives and moderates all just giving mostly fair analysis.

Fox News was better than usual, but I still saw the GOP apologists already working up a new narrative with Brit Hume and Dick Morris. And then MSNBC was the worst with just four liberals (and only one trying to at least pretend objective) mocking the Tea Party and Republicans the whole night. And they spent way too much time bragging about keeping the Senate that MSNBC viewers could have missed that they lost the House by a 60-vote swing.

Jon Stewart was the only one who made laugh in a good way. So I appreciated his contributions!

[hippie_hunter]

I thought CNN had the best coverage of the night. Once you got over their gimmicky toys, there were several news anchors just reading off results and explaining the races and then several panels of liberals, conservatives and moderates all just giving mostly fair analysis.

Fox News was better than usual, but I still saw the GOP apologists already working up a new narrative with Brit Hume and Dick Morris. And then MSNBC was the worst with just four liberals (and only one trying to at least pretend objective) mocking the Tea Party and Republicans the whole night. And they spent way too much time bragging about keeping the Senate that MSNBC viewers could have missed that they lost the House by a 60-vote swing.

Jon Stewart was the only one who made laugh in a good way. So I appreciated his contributions!

To be fair, I was very much entertained by Olbermann's "Grab your popcorn" comment when O'Donnell arrived to deliver her "concession" speech.

[AG1973]

I watched MSNBC's coverage and yes it had a liberal slant but saying they are worse than Fox News overall is not true. Fox was not as rightwing inflammatory on Tuesday Night because the repubs won. On Election Nigt in 2008 their coverage had more disdain.

And as for Chris Matthews interview with Michelle Bachman that has the right so inflamed. I was watching chris Mathews show when she said that all the democrats in Washington should be investigated for "Un-American thinking." She heaqrd his question she just pretended that she didn't and said what the republicans told her to say.

Fox blames President Obama either directly or indirectly for anything that goes wrong evem if he had nothing to do with it. MSNBC commentators are critical of President Obama but yet they don't hate him. On Fox most of their commentators hate President Obama.

[chaseter]

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann call people names all the time. It is childish.

and said what the republicans told her to say.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Keith Olbermann is that you?

[Carcharodon]

Speaking of...

MSNBC SUSPENDS OLBERMANN OVER POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

MSNBC suspended "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann Friday after the news that he donated to three Democratic candidates.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Politico reported Friday that Olbermann gave the maximum individual donation of $2,400 to three candidates in Tuesday's election: Arizona Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva and Senate hopeful Jack Conway, who lost in Kentucky to Republican Rand Paul. (Grijalva appeared on Olbermann's "Countdown" on Oct. 28, the same day the host donated to his campaign; Conway was last a guest in May).

Olbermann, in a statement to Politico, said that he "did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones." Also, Olbermann said he had not "previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

But the revelation raised clear ethical issues.

Olbermann, a liberal commentator, gives his opinions each night on the air. But NBC News editorial staffers -- like journalists at most news organizations -- are forbidden from giving to political candidates. Also, Olbermann anchored election coverage Tuesday night without disclosing that he'd given to candidates who were running for office.

By punishing the network's biggest star, Griffin showed how little tolerance there is for hosts to make undisclosed political contributions while covering those political races. MSNBC told The Upshot that The Nation's Chris Hayes, who has filled in before for Olbermann Rachel Maddow, will host Friday night's show.

MSNBC already attracted criticism this week for having its liberal hosts and commentators anchor election night coverage. Typically, nonpartisan journalists anchor major news events—such as election results—while commentators like Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) or James Carville (CNN) offer analysis.

It's ironic that Olbermann gave to political candidates after criticizing Fox News because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, gave $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. "Fox News has put its money where its mouth is," Olbermann said in an August segment that questioned the network's impartiality.

In October, Olbermann again raised the issue of Murdoch's donations, during an interview with Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. Olbermann asked whether there was "a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101105/bs_yblog_upshot/msnbc-suspends-olbermann-over-political-contributions

[chaseter]

It's ironic that Olbermann gave to political candidates after criticizing Fox News because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, gave $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. "Fox News has put its money where its mouth is," Olbermann said in an August segment that questioned the network's impartiality.
rofl

[Matt]

Keith Olbermann has been suspended from MSNBC for an indefinite amount of time, without pay.

[Schlosser85]

I don't see the issue with him making donations to Democratic campaigns. I know it's the whole "impartial, objective" deal, but is there anyone who doesn't know Olbermann leans left??

[Kingfish]

That's pretty funny since he criticizes Fox News for the exact same thing.

[Marx]

Hmm...

[Tron5000]

This article raises a couple good points:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-suspended-from-msnbc-for-campaign-donations/?src=me

There was some head-scratching about MSNBC’s decision, since it is well known that Mr. Olbermann is a liberal newsman. There were defenders, including a writer for the libertarian magazine Reason, Michael C. Moynihan, who wondered why MSNBC had a “one-size-fits-all policy” about contributions.

Mr. Moynihan asked, “Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?”

I agree. What Olbermann's show presents can not be described as news. It is certainly opinion, and as such, I don't see a problem with its host donating money to whatever party he chooses. I mean, yeah, he's stupid for going against NBC policy when he undoubtedly knew the rules, but I'm surprised that it's an issue.

[BlackLantern]

I don't see the issue with him making donations to Democratic campaigns. I know it's the whole "impartial, objective" deal, but is there anyone who doesn't know Olbermann leans left??

this is from one of the msnbc folks in charge

MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." NBC's donation policy requires employees to obtain permission regarding contributions or activities that could be considered conflicts of interest.

[chaseter]

I hope Fox hires Keith.

[StorminNorman]

I don't see the issue with him making donations to Democratic campaigns. I know it's the whole "impartial, objective" deal, but is there anyone who doesn't know Olbermann leans left??

It's probably has more to do with the fact that he donated money to candidates he had on his show, the day they were on his show without disclosing it.

Of course what makes this even more LOL worthy is the fact that I believe Olbermann made some comment about how he didn't vote in order to demonstrate/maintain objectivity.

The dude is an obnoxious hypocrite. And that's a shame because I love his style.

[BlackLantern]

he's a blowhard masquerading as an intellectual....but thats pretty much all of those guys these days

[Marx]

I hope Fox hires Keith.

I'm pretty sure the world would implode if that happened. :funny:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Olbermann and O'Reily would kill eachother in less than a week.

Two, if they're interns have it out first.

[chaseter]

Olbermann and O'Reily would kill eachother in less than a week.

Two, if they're interns have it out first.

Produce it, film it, done. Now that's television.

[hippie_hunter]

It's probably has more to do with the fact that he donated money to candidates he had on his show, the day they were on his show without disclosing it.

Of course what makes this even more LOL worthy is the fact that I believe Olbermann made some comment about how he didn't vote in order to demonstrate/maintain objectivity.

The dude is an obnoxious hypocrite. And that's a shame because I love his style.

I can't stand his style. He's far too rude and over the top and poses as if he's smarter than everyone else.

And it's absurdly hypocritical when he criticizes Fox News employees and owners for donating to Republican candidates when he does the exact same thing for Democratic candidates.

[hippie_hunter]

Olbermann and O'Reily would kill eachother in less than a week.

More like become best friends :awesome:

[FilmNerdJamie]

he's a blowhard masquerading as an intellectual....but thats pretty much all of those guys these days

I can't stand his style. He's far too rude and over the top and poses as if he's smarter than everyone else.

And it's absurdly hypocritical when he criticizes Fox News employees and owners for donating to Republican candidates when he does the exact same thing for Democratic candidates.

Bingo.

However, I guarantee the new owners of NBC/Universal (Comcast) were gunning for a lot of these guys and are planning to massively restructure their purchase/investment.

His ass was going to be shown the door. I think it was matter of when and for what excuse/reasoning. The revelation of his donations (especially when one was made the same day one of those Democrat candidates appeared on his program) combined with their horrendous election-night coverage was said excuse/reasoning.

[BlackLantern]

Bingo.

However, I guarantee the new owners of NBC/Universal (Comcast) were gunning for a lot of these guys and are planning to massively restructure their purchase/investment.

His ass was going to be shown the door. I think it was matter of when and for what excuse/reasoning. The revelation of his donations (especially when one was made the same day said Democrat appeared on his program) combined with their horrendous election-night coverage was said excuse/reasoning.

and this seems to be an employee policy thing with NBC, he violated their policy, therefore he gets suspended

I doubt NewsCorp has any such policy

[FilmNerdJamie]

and this seems to be an employee policy thing with NBC, he violated their policy, therefore he gets suspended

I doubt NewsCorp has any such policy

I'd bet cold hard cash he's violated said policy before. Not a doubt in my mind about it.

[Marx]

I was reading an article that claimed Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan allegedly did the same thing while employed with NBC.

[chaseter]

Hannity and Olbermann

I can see it now.

[dnno1]

Here's another twist: the deal between Comcast and NBC is about to be finalized (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04nbc.html), but before that can happen, the merger has to go through the Commerce Committee (you, know, the one that will be headed by Republicans next session). In order to eliminate any controversy and help the deal run smoothly through the congressional hearings, why not suspend somebody as outspoken as Olberman? Still another twist is the fact that NBC only suspended him without pay and did not fire him. This might lead someone to believe that NBC will not leverage that into a renegotiation of his contract for a lower salary. Who knows?

[BlackLantern]

I was reading an article that claimed Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan allegedly did the same thing while employed with NBC.

yea..claimed...even if they did, they probably informed NBC they were doing so

[hippie_hunter]

Bingo.

However, I guarantee the new owners of NBC/Universal (Comcast) were gunning for a lot of these guys and are planning to massively restructure their purchase/investment.
I highly doubt that Comcast will go after MSNBC. MSNBC and NBC Universal's cable channels are essentally the bright spot of the company. MSNBC's ratings have really gone up to the #2 spot thanks to their repositioning themselves as the liberal answer to Fox News.

If anything, Comcast is going to go after Universal Studios and NBC.

His ass was going to be shown the door. I think it was matter of when and for what excuse/reasoning. The revelation of his donations (especially when one was made the same day one of those Democrat candidates appeared on his program) combined with their horrendous election-night coverage was said excuse/reasoning.
MSNBC's coverage was horrendous. Usually no one beats Fox News in terms of showing their blatant bias, but on election night, MSNBC topped them by far.

[dnno1]

I was reading an article that claimed Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan allegedly did the same thing while employed with NBC.

yea..claimed...even if they did, they probably informed NBC they were doing so

That was before NBC established the policy in 2006.

[hippie_hunter]

Here's another twist: the deal between Comcast and NBC is about to be finalized (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04nbc.html), but before that can happen, the merger has to go through the Commerce Committee (you, know, the one that will be headed by Republicans next session). In order to eliminate any controversy and help the deal run smoothly through the congressional hearings, why not suspend somebody as outspoken as Olberman? Still another twist is the fact that NBC only suspended him without pay and did not fire him. This might lead someone to believe that NBC will not leverage that into a renegotiation of his contract for a lower salary. Who knows?

I think that likely investor opposition, News Corp and Time Warner dumping DirectTV and Time Warner Cable, and the recent disputes between News Corp and Disney have had with Time Warner Cable, Dish Network, and Cablevision will hurt the Comcast take over of NBC Universal more than the policial bias of MSNBC.

[BlackLantern]

hmmm interesting

[Marx]

Hannity and Olbermann

I can see it now.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure my tv would explode. :funny:

That was before NBC established the policy in 2006.

Ah. Thanks dnno. :up:

[Marx]

UPDATE: OLBERMANN SUSPENSION CRITICIZED
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspensio_n_779727.html

[Carcharodon]

Hannity and Olbermann

I can see it now.That would be a million times more entertaining than "Conservative Douchebag and Liberal Puss-Wagon."

[terry78]

Pretty crazy, man. I watch the dude and Rachel Maddow, just because they get as crazy on the left side as Fox does on the right and it's hilarious to watch. Gonna miss his ass.

[Heretic]

Why are people talking as if Keith has been fired? All I've heard is that he was suspended. Isn't he basically the highest rated thing on the network? CNN would be thrilled to have him...heck, even Fox would take him, just to have hours of video of him praising the network for being so fair and balanced.

[Marx]

Indefinitely suspended without pay is basically like being fired.

[Heretic]

Fired means unemployed...not under contract. He could be back on MSNBC within days. He could be fired, but he hasn't been yet.

[dnno1]

I think that likely investor opposition, News Corp and Time Warner dumping DirectTV and Time Warner Cable, and the recent disputes between News Corp and Disney have had with Time Warner Cable, Dish Network, and Cablevision will hurt the Comcast take over of NBC Universal more than the policial bias of MSNBC.

The only parties in opposition to this are broadcasters that offer competing programing through Comcast (i.e. Bloomberg who might be displaced by CNBC, or Fox, who might be displaced by the NBC line up of programming). The deal is going to happen and it will pass through Congress seeing that the head of the House Commerce committee is Joe Barton, who is of the opinion that companies need to take risks.

[StorminNorman]

Why are people talking as if Keith has been fired? All I've heard is that he was suspended. Isn't he basically the highest rated thing on the network? CNN would be thrilled to have him...heck, even Fox would take him, just to have hours of video of him praising the network for being so fair and balanced.

Being the highest rated person on MSNBC is like being the the competent person in the Obama administration.

[Marx]

UPDATE: MADDOW COMMENTS ON OLBERMANN SITUATION; COMPARISONS TO FOX NEWS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/06/maddow-msnbc-is-no-fox/

[DACrowe]

Olbermann was really stupid in doing what he did. MSNBC tries to be the liberal Fox News and fails at it. They're now in the position where they either fire their most watched and popular commentator, or they let him stay on to the ridicule of the right as being nothing but a puppet network for the Democrats. Given his ratings, I suspect he'll stay and they'll take the heat.

I honestly don't think MSNBC is the same as Fox...Fox is far more effective at propaganda and more deceptive. But effectiveness means not getting caught in this kind of a humiliation. Olbermann will get a slap on the wrist and MSNBC will lose even more credibility. But it will keeps its ratings with the far left. This is sadly funny.

[BlackLantern]

good point, Crowe

[dnno1]

Olbermann was really stupid in doing what he did. MSNBC tries to be the liberal Fox News and fails at it. They're now in the position where they either fire their most watched and popular commentator, or they let him stay on to the ridicule of the right as being nothing but a puppet network for the Democrats. Given his ratings, I suspect he'll stay and they'll take the heat.

I honestly don't think MSNBC is the same as Fox...Fox is far more effective at propaganda and more deceptive. But effectiveness means not getting caught in this kind of a humiliation. Olbermann will get a slap on the wrist and MSNBC will lose even more credibility. But it will keeps its ratings with the far left. This is sadly funny.

I think it was calculated. Just look:

6nZnMumCKXU

Olberman will more than likely get his job back. It looks like somebody was trying to make a statement.

[chaseter]

I like how both MSNBC and Fox spend a lot of their show's time talking about the other. Rachel Maddow talking about Fox News for 10 minutes is lame. Is there not any real news for you to comment on? Same thing goes for Glenn Bleck:o

[The Squirrel]

All these "news" anchors are more annoying then Jay Leno. I'll stick with my local news anchors who I somewhat trust.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Now people can go back to not watching Olbermann - aka reinstated and back on Tuesday (http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/olbermann-reinstated.html?utm_content=backtype-tweetcount&utm_medium=bt.io-twitter&utm_source=twitter.com)

[imdaly]

So...he was suspended without pay indefinitely...for 2 days...


LAAAAAME.


"After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."

So what IS an appropriate punishment for someone who outright and extremely hypocritically violates written company policy?

[Marx]

He was already reinstated? :huh:

[dnno1]

So...he was suspended without pay indefinitely...for 2 days...


LAAAAAME.


"After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."

So what IS an appropriate punishment for someone who outright and extremely hypocritically violates written company policy?

Pretty much on his week end, so he probably didn't lose any money. The truth of the matter is that they would be hard pressed to punish a guy like Keith Olberman, when folks like Sean Hanity, Sara Palin, and Mark Huckabee donate to candidates all the time without recourse.

[chaseter]

Two rights make a wrong yeah? They are doing it so we can do it yeah?

That right there should show you that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox. I don't want to hear anybody trying to justify how MSNBC is a better news organization that Fox. They are exactly the same. One is just bigger than the other. A turd is a turd no matter how big it is.

[Marx]

Two rights make a wrong yeah? They are doing it so we can do it yeah?

That right there should show you that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox. I don't want to hear anybody trying to justify how MSNBC is a better news organization that Fox. They are exactly the same. One is just bigger than the other. A turd is a turd no matter how big it is.

To be fair, an anchor donating to democratic candidates does not equal the lies and fear-mongering that are spread by FOX News.

[chaseter]

MSNBC does the exact same thing Marx. Fox just does it on a bigger scale because they have more pundits because of their larger audience and they don't air jail reruns everynight after 10pm. Maddow, Shultz, Olbermann, and Mathews all skew the truth to push their agenda.

[DACrowe]

MSNBC tries to copy Fox News. But they are not just nearly as good at it. Fox is like a well oiled propaganda machine that despite being far more deceptive, hides defiantly and somewhat mockingly, behind the banner "Fair and Balanced." MSNBC tries to be just as biased as Fox...but Fox let's their people endorse candidates and donate to them the days they are on the show. They allow (Republican) candidates to plug their websites and tell audiences where to donate money...

but MSNBC acts like it is above that. Nobody believes they are unbiased, so most people just facepalm when they see MSNBC suspended Olbermann. No one is surprised Keith Olbermann is liberal and even Fox News doesn't want to see him fired (he is a good whipping boy and vice versa).

It is like when MSNBC tries to pump up Democrats they always add a quid pro quo about why the Dems are disappointing. On Fox? Republicans are the on the side of God fighting the godless Democrats for control of your soul! That is why they give so many Republican contenders for president a free outlet to speak to the base without scrutiny. Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and others are on Fox News's payroll. And they are not above showing clips out of context. Half of the Daily Show's shtick for the last 6-7 years has been to correct Fox News's misleading editing. They show a video of Obama, Kerry, Pelosi, or some other Democrat that looks damning. Why is no one else talking about it? Because when you se the whole clip (on Jon Stewart) you realize Fox news is just trying to herd the base into a state of mind on BS.

Does this make Fox worse than MSNBC? Ethically, yes. But in terms of a political operation, it just means they're more effective. MSNBC has decided to play in Fox's gutter of partisan media infotainment. And then even though they're in the mud, they still don't want to get their hands dirty. So they have lost credibility as a news source, while simultaneously failing to be what they obviously want to be...the liberal Fox.

It is sadly funny.

[chaseter]

That is exactly what I said...Fox is just bigger so more occurs. A turd is a turd no matter if it is from an elephant or from a donkey.

Also, MSNBC knocks Dems for not being liberal enough. That is their quid pro quo about being disappointing. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing. They knock Republicans for being wrong in their view and they knock Democrats for not being liberal enough. That is how MSNBC and those shows work. Fox does the same thing on the right. They are the same, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Does that make Fox ethically worse than MSNBC? No. They are just bigger. Killing 5 people is murder just like killing 15 people is murder. I don't know what is worse: Being a largely biased news network or trying to emulate that formula while bashing it at the same time. Fox does hide behind Fair and Balanced just like MSNBC lies behind Your Place for Politics and now, Lean Forward.

[hippie_hunter]

John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do the same thing. They knock Republicans for being wrong in their view and they knock Democrats for not being liberal enough.

Not really, it's more like they knock Republicans and Democrats for being retarded idiots.

Stewart bashes the Democrats for not getting health care passed not because he believes in it, but more along the lines for having a 60 member supermajority and still not getting anything done. Or for running terrible candidates like Martha Coakley in what should have been a guaranteed election for them.

And Stewart bashes Republicans not for what they believe in, but for acting stupid in their actions. Such as Boehner crying when he gave his speech after the Republicans kicked ass last week. Or anything that a conservative pundit does.

[dnno1]

Two rights make a wrong yeah? They are doing it so we can do it yeah?

That right there should show you that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox. I don't want to hear anybody trying to justify how MSNBC is a better news organization that Fox. They are exactly the same. One is just bigger than the other. A turd is a turd no matter how big it is.

:huh:

NBC suspended Olberman for violating company policy. Fox has no policy nor morals (at least when it comes to campaign donations). I don't see how that is the same thing.

[hippie_hunter]

:huh:

NBC suspended Olberman for violating company policy. Fox has no policy nor morals (at least when it comes to campaign donations). I don't see how that is the same thing.

1. It's a stupid policy because Keith Olbermann should have the right to donate to whatever candidate he wants without having to disclose it to his employers..

2. When Keith Olbermann and commentators like Rachel Maddow support Olbermann when they have criticized Rupert Murdock and other Fox News related employees donating to Republicans and use Fox News as a fundraising tool for conservative candidates, it's actually very hypocritical to do the exact same thing for liberal candidates.

[Marx]

What gets FOX News in trouble is their 'fair and balanced' tagline. If they stopped hiding behind that, and portrayed themselves as what they truly are, I doubt many people would have an issue with them.

[Oddzball]

1. It's a stupid policy because Keith Olbermann should have the right to donate to whatever candidate he wants without having to disclose it to his employers..

2. When Keith Olbermann and commentators like Rachel Maddow support Olbermann when they have criticized Rupert Murdock and other Fox News related employees donating to Republicans and use Fox News as a fundraising tool for conservative candidates, it's actually very hypocritical to do the exact same thing for liberal candidates.

It's an old school thing: Journalists are supposed to be like Caesar's wife, above anything dirty.

It's unenforceable, journalism today has wallowed in filth for decades. As policies go, it's not consistently enforced. Scarborough has made donations to Republican candidates for years.

The only real point of concern that I can see is that he gave his donation to one candidate the day that man appeared on the show, which is suggestive of 'checkbook' Journalism. But 'Indefinite' Suspension was an over reaction. This isn't Imus spontaneously slandering a college athletic team or something.

[Oddzball]

So...he was suspended without pay indefinitely...for 2 days...


LAAAAAME.


"After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."

So what IS an appropriate punishment for someone who outright and extremely hypocritically violates written company policy?

That statement presumes the policy was known. Since Scarborough gets to make donations, it's at least credible that this policy is not enforced and thus not well known.

Edit: Or course the sheer sized of protest MSNBC has gotten for this move ah, might have been a factor.

[hippie_hunter]

It's an old school thing: Journalists are supposed to be like Caesar's wife, above anything dirty.

It's unenforceable, journalism today has wallowed in filth for decades. As policies go, it's not consistently enforced. Scarborough has made donations to Republican candidates for years.

The only real point of concern that I can see is that he gave his donation to one candidate the day that man appeared on the show, which is suggestive of 'checkbook' Journalism. But 'Indefinite' Suspension was an over reaction. This isn't Imus spontaneously slandering a college athletic team or something.

The reason why Scarborough doesn't get in trouble and Olbermann did is because Scarborough started this before NBC News started the policy and when they did put it into effect, Scarborough followed the rules and told his employers that he was donating the Republican candidates. Olbermann didn't.

But like I said, in my opinion, Scarborough and Olbermann are private American citizens. The should have the right to donate and endorse to whatever candidate they want to without having to report it to their boss.

My only problem with this is that you have Olbermann donating to Democratic candidates and Maddow standing up for him while attacking Fox News for doing the exact same thing for Republican candidates. It's total hypocracy. Not only that, but Fox News doesn't have such a clause about donating and endorsing candidates with their pundits like NBC News does, clauses that Olbermann and Maddow have agreed to and yet you have Maddow using Olbermann's blatant rule breaking to go after Fox News. She goes off saying how she understands the rules and how everyone should be punished for breaking them, but she clearly doesn't believe what she's saying. She just wanted Olbermann to face no consequences at all.

[chaseter]

Not really, it's more like they knock Republicans and Democrats for being retarded idiots.

Stewart bashes the Democrats for not getting health care passed not because he believes in it, but more along the lines for having a 60 member supermajority and still not getting anything done. Or for running terrible candidates like Martha Coakley in what should have been a guaranteed election for them.

And Stewart bashes Republicans not for what they believe in, but for acting stupid in their actions. Such as Boehner crying when he gave his speech after the Republicans kicked ass last week. Or anything that a conservative pundit does.
Stewart believed in health care. He called it timid. He wanted a more encompassing bill passed. He then referred to the Dems as weaklings for not getting biased legislation passed because they had the majority. He also thinks along the lines of hey, we won, we are going to do what we want to do so get over it. No...that isn't how you run a country. Even with a blundering Democratic congress and executive, he spends more time on the crazies on the right than the crazies on the left. Watch a week's worth of his show, you can clearly see which side he adheres to. While Stephen Colbert is funny as well, he is easily the worst of the two. I do like John, he is more level headed than a lot of people, but his show is clearly geared to the left. However, he has seemed to come more to the center in the recent weeks. His rally was started as a mockery of Beck's but he ended it well. I don't know why but the John a year ago is different from the John today. Maybe he saw the Tea Party/GOP making huge gains last Tuesday as a sign idk.

:huh:

NBC suspended Olberman for violating company policy. Fox has no policy nor morals (at least when it comes to campaign donations). I don't see how that is the same thing.
Suspended for two days...rofl. Fox has no morals...but MSNBC has morals. UMK. The people who watch Ed Shultz or Chris Matthews are moronic just like the people who watch Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. I guess MSNBC's journalistic standards allow Olberman to call people names and Matthews to ask candidates if they are hypnotized. Now that is some policy.

[hippie_hunter]

Stewart believed in health care. He called it timid. He wanted a more encompassing bill passed. He then referred to the Dems as weaklings for not getting biased legislation passed because they had the majority. He also thinks along the lines of hey, we won, we are going to do what we want to do so get over it. No...that isn't how you run a country. Even with a blundering Democratic congress and executive, he spends more time on the crazies on the right than the crazies on the left. Watch a week's worth of his show, you can clearly see which side he adheres to. While Stephen Colbert is funny as well, he is easily the worst of the two. I do like John, he is more level headed than a lot of people, but his show is clearly geared to the left. However, he has seemed to come more to the center in the recent weeks. His rally was started as a mockery of Beck's but he ended it well. I don't know why but the John a year ago is different from the John today. Maybe he saw the Tea Party/GOP making huge gains last Tuesday as a sign idk.

Of course you can easily see what side Stewart is on. The man is clearly liberal. But the difference between him and the other pundits like O'Reilly, Olbermann, Beck, and Maddow is that he doesn't treat you like an idiot or villain if you disagree with him. He treats you like an idiot when you act like an idiot. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative, if you're an idiot, ineffective, or a jackass, he'll come after you. It's why I agree with Norman when he says that Stewart is the most principaled man on the left. He at least acknowledges that people have different viewpoints. And he doesn't let his personal bias get in the way of the issues and people he's confronting, while Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly pretty much attack anyone to the left of them and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow attack anyone who is conservative.

Colbert on the other hand, that's the whole purpose of the show. It's more of a comedy show than a more "genuine" punditry that Stewart offers. And the whole purpose is to make fun of conservative pundits.

[StorminNorman]

You cannot compare the way Beck and O'Reilly treats those left of him to the way Olbermann and Maddow does. Hannity? Absolutely - he is the embodiement of everything bad with politics - but not Beck and Bill.

Beck is the conservative Stewart in many ways.

[hippie_hunter]

You cannot compare the way Beck and O'Reilly treats those left of him to the way Olbermann and Maddow does. Hannity? Absolutely - he is the embodiement of everything bad with politics - but not Beck and Bill.

Beck is the conservative Stewart in many ways.

O'Reilly I can somewhat agree with you. While he may come off as arrogant, says some stupid stuff sometimes (like his time at Sylvia's) and whatnot, the man is very intelligent.

Beck on the other hand comes off as someone who wants to sit at the big boys table and goes way too over the top for me. And just like Olbermann and Maddow, sees anyone who doesn't agree with his political ideology, he treats them as stupid or villainizes them.

[StorminNorman]

One of the points Beck stresses most is the fact that most who sympathize with progressives aren't "stupid or evil", they are well intentioned but misguided - which I would argue (and defend) as a statement of fact.

Now he will villainize many true, blue progressives like Soros, Woodrow Wilson and Van Jones all day long, and will call idiots like Obama out for their stupidity - but it takes an impressive resume of evil/stupidity for Beck to dismiss you.

[TheVileOne]

On election night, Fox News had the most fair and balanced coverage. Chris Matthews on the other hand lost his cool and called an elected representative a moron.

Someone defend that, please.

[redhawk23]

On election night, Fox News had the most fair and balanced coverage. Chris Matthews on the other hand lost his cool and called an elected representative a moron.

Someone defend that, please.


See I don't think there is anyone out to defend Chris Mathews.

[hippie_hunter]

On election night, Fox News had the most fair and balanced coverage. Chris Matthews on the other hand lost his cool and called an elected representative a moron.

Someone defend that, please.

While Fox News is usually the one that shows its bias the most, I think that there is no debate that MSNBC was by far the most biased on Election Night. They made Fox News look tame in comparison that night between Rachel Maddow giggling in glee over the overexaggerated prospects of a GOP Civil War, Chris Matthews calling an elected representative a moron, Keith Olbermann looking flat out pissed off over the results of the election, all while trying to downplay the results.

I would say that CNN was the most fair and balanced, but the people they had for commentators were just a bunch of idiots, while continuing to be obsessed over Twitter, absurd holographic technology, and doing a poor job in showing the results.

So the best coverage that night I say, went to Fox News by a mile. They have a conservative twist to it, but they didn't go overboard with their bias like MSNBC did on Election Night, they presented the results better than both CNN and MSNBC, and they had intelligent commentators on.

[chaseter]

See I don't think there is anyone out to defend Chris Mathews.

Read the last page. Apparently MSNBC has higher journalistic and moral standards than Fox.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/joe-scarborough-suspended_n_786105.html

MSNBC has suspended "Morning Joe" host, Joe Scarborough.

For the exact same reason they suspended Keith Olbermann...which, if you remember, when it was reported, Joe Scarborough was shown as an example of how to properly make political donations to begin with. So...yeah.

<B>
This morning Joe Scarborough informed me that he made eight contributions of $500 each to local candidates in Florida between 2004-08. In my conversation with Joe two weeks ago, he did not recall these contributions. Since he did not seek or receive prior approval for these contributions, Joe understands that I will be suspending him for violating our policy. He will be immediately suspended for two days without pay and will return to the air on Wednesday, November 24th. As Joe recognizes, it is critical that we enforce our standards and policies.
</B>

[Marx]

Hmmm...

[The Squirrel]

Oh wow, a whole TWO days without pay. How will he live? :dry: They might as well have just slapped him on the wrist with a ruler.

[Marx]

RACHEL MADDOW LEADS 'NATION' MEDIA HEROES POLL
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/29/Maddow_Tops_Media_Heroes_Poll/

:up:

[Mystirious]

RACHEL MADDOW LEADS 'NATION' MEDIA HEROES POLL
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/29/Maddow_Tops_Media_Heroes_Poll/

:up:

:awesome: :up:

Maddow is one of the very few news media figure that I have any respect for and she is a great spokeswoman for the gay rights cause. She deserves first place :hrt:

[imdaly]

RACHEL MADDOW LEADS 'NATION' MEDIA HEROES POLL
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/29/Maddow_Tops_Media_Heroes_Poll/

:up:

:barf:


Then again, this IS a poll from "The Nation".

[Kingfish]

You mean...Liberals love Rachel Maddow? Well that is just some kind of a shocker.

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-maureen-dowd-inspires-incredibly-fantastic-comic-book-adventure/attachment/dowd2/


In the mind of comic-book author Benjamin Marra, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is basically a snarky Clark Kent. He’s given the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist the superhero treatment with his bizarre new comic,
The Incredibly Fantastic Adventures of Maureen Dowd. In it, his redheaded heroine breaks national stories, battles bad guys, and parades around in racy underwear, all while maintaining journalistic integrity.

The time is 2003, and Dowd is “trying to blow the lid off the Valerie Plame scandal before her big date with George Clooney.” In order to do this, the comic—labeled “A Work of Satire and Fiction”—has the columnist wrestling with intruding laptop thieves while wearing only lingerie, discussing the merits of anonymous sourcing while wearing only lingerie, and scheduling power lunches while wearing only lingerie.

Her fully-clothed exploits are just as risky. She meets with fellow Pulizter-winning Times columnist Thomas Friedman, whom she foolishly assumes is her ally. Spoiler alert: he’s not.

Meanwhile, the comic’s author doesn’t seem to be in danger of winning any Pulitzers himself. Here’s a sample bit of dialogue that Marra imagined Dowd would have with a burgling villain:

Dowd: Hey!! That’s my laptop!! All my writing is on there!!

Robber: That’s exactly the reason I’ll be taking the laptop with me!

Oh no! If you’re anxious to see whether Dowd ever retrieves her laptop (and thus her entire career), you can buy the comic from Marra’s own article about it here. (h/t Vulture)

Let the snark begin. :awesome:

[hippie_hunter]

Where's a Scott Pilgrim GIF of Kim pretending to shoot herself when something stupid happens when you need one :o

[bell110]

You cannot compare the way Beck and O'Reilly treats those left of him to the way Olbermann and Maddow does. Hannity? Absolutely - he is the embodiement of everything bad with politics - but not Beck and Bill.

Beck is the conservative Stewart in many ways.

:doh:

Just... No... All three treat people on the left much worse than Olbermann, and especially Maddow.

Also, Beck is in no way anything like Stewart. I guess you could say they are both "comedians" in a broad sense of the word; Beck being a drive-time zoo-crew radio host, but that's as far as any comparison can go.

One of the points Beck stresses most is the fact that most who sympathize with progressives aren't "stupid or evil", they are well intentioned but misguided - which I would argue (and defend) as a statement of fact.

Now he will villainize many true, blue progressives like Soros, Woodrow Wilson and Van Jones all day long, and will call idiots like Obama out for their stupidity - but it takes an impressive resume of evil/stupidity for Beck to dismiss you.

Hold on. So why can't Olbermann call Tea Partiers and Neo-cons on their stupidity?

On election night, Fox News had the most fair and balanced coverage. Chris Matthews on the other hand lost his cool and called an elected representative a moron.

Someone defend that, please.

Was the elected representative a moron? I don't see anything wrong with calling a moron, a moron. I guess it's somewhat unprofessional, but it's not his fault people elected a moron.

[VampElvis]

Just... No... All three treat people on the left much worse than Olbermann, and especially Maddow.
Yes, I've never noticed anything approaching spittle filled vitriol from Olbermann as he named someone the worst person in the world or accused them of crimes against humanity.:rolleyes:

Also, Beck is in no way anything like Stewart. I guess you could say they are both "comedians" in a broad sense of the word; Beck being a drive-time zoo-crew radio host, but that's as far as any comparison can go.
Really? Man, Stewart is no rare intellect. Did you read Naked Picture of Famous People? I submit you did not.


Hold on. So why can't Olbermann call Tea Partiers and Neo-cons on their stupidity?
You miss the point. He's aggressively attacking the rank and file of these movement as beings of hate an evil whereas Beck submits the other side are well intended mislead masses. Do you not see this?


Was the elected representative a moron? I don't see anything wrong with calling a moron, a moron. I guess it's somewhat unprofessional, but it's not his fault people elected a moron.
I believe Matthews was acting in the context of a reports not a pundit in this instance. If that is true, the intellectual capacity if the person really isn't germane as he should be presenting the facts of the story. Of course that IF that was his roll in the program, I didn't watch it so I can speak specifically to it.

[Marx]

You all can attack Keith Olbermann all you want, you'll get no fight from me...but I will vigorously defend Rachel Maddow.

[VampElvis]

I don't know much about her, never watched her show. My comments we for ole pulsing vein himself.

[bell110]

Yes, I've never noticed anything approaching spittle filled vitriol from Olbermann as he named someone the worst person in the world or accused them of crimes against humanity.:rolleyes:

If you haven't noticed it, then wow. You've never seen O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots? It's the same thing as Olbermann's Worst Persons segment. You've never seen O'Reilly scream down his guest or turn off their mic? How about when he calls abortion doctors "baby killers". You don't think he's implying that they are committing a crime against humanity, or morality, or Christianity, or whatever anybody can read into that?

And that's just in Olbermann's case. Maddow is way more chilled out than any opinion journalist on Fox.

Really? Man, Stewart is no rare intellect. Did you read Naked Picture of Famous People? I submit you did not.

I have not read it. Looked it up, and it seems to be a political satire book. Why do you bring it up? How does that show that Beck and Stewart are comparable?

You miss the point. He's aggressively attacking the rank and file of these movement as beings of hate an evil whereas Beck submits the other side are well intended mislead masses. Do you not see this?

Did you not read what I was quoting from Norman? He made it seem it's ok for Beck to villianize the "true blue progressive" and called them out of their stupidity, but a post earlier complaining about how Olbermann/Maddow treat the right. Well, then it should be ok for them to call out the Tea Partiers and Neo-cons for their stupidity. Sure, the people who vote for progressives are well intended mislead masses, but so are the people who vote for the Tea Party and Neo-cons.

I believe Matthews was acting in the context of a reports not a pundit in this instance. If that is true, the intellectual capacity if the person really isn't germane as he should be presenting the facts of the story. Of course that IF that was his roll in the program, I didn't watch it so I can speak specifically to it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingl y_anymore.html

That's the video. First off, it's Bachmann. He didn't outright call her a moron, he said she was staring at the camera moronically. Everytime he asked her a question, she'd just run through her talking points. So it is what it is.

[TimBisley]

I know this was said way back, but saying that Beck is the conservative Stewart is idiotic.

[StorminNorman]

:doh:

Just... No... All three treat people on the left much worse than Olbermann, and especially Maddow.

Also, Beck is in no way anything like Stewart. I guess you could say they are both "comedians" in a broad sense of the word; Beck being a drive-time zoo-crew radio host, but that's as far as any comparison can go.

You clearly haven't watched much Beck or O'Reilly.

[chaseter]

I know this was said way back, but saying that Beck is the conservative Stewart is idiotic.

I would say Beck is the conservative Colbert.

[VampElvis]

If you haven't noticed it, then wow. You've never seen O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots? It's the same thing as Olbermann's Worst Persons segment. You've never seen O'Reilly scream down his guest or turn off their mic? How about when he calls abortion doctors "baby killers". You don't think he's implying that they are committing a crime against humanity, or morality, or Christianity, or whatever anybody can read into that?

And that's just in Olbermann's case. Maddow is way more chilled out than any opinion journalist on Fox.
I think my comment was a little misunderstood. It was sardonic statement mean to show Olbermann is a raving, petty, mean-spirited lunatic not to say that the others are any different. It seemed you were almost arguing that he's saintly in comparison to the other side of the aisle. I say hardly.


I have not read it. Looked it up, and it seems to be a political satire book. Why do you bring it up? How does that show that Beck and Stewart are comparable?
It seemed to me you were making a case for Stewart being "smarter, more urbane" than Beck and being in a different air. Read that horribleness that is that book and understand the folly of such an argument. Of course if that's not the point you were attempting to make then the statement really isn't applicable to your point.


Did you not read what I was quoting from Norman? He made it seem it's ok for Beck to villianize the "true blue progressive" and called them out of their stupidity, but a post earlier complaining about how Olbermann/Maddow treat the right. Well, then it should be ok for them to call out the Tea Partiers and Neo-cons for their stupidity. Sure, the people who vote for progressives are well intended mislead masses, but so are the people who vote for the Tea Party and Neo-cons.
I sure did. Did you? Do you not see the difference in attacking and villifying leaders versus followers?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingl y_anymore.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingl y_anymore.html)

That's the video. First off, it's Bachmann. He didn't outright call her a moron, he said she was staring at the camera moronically. Everytime he asked her a question, she'd just run through her talking points. So it is what it is.
I'm at work and the IT gestappo blocks the vids so I'm sorry but I can't view it now. However I can say that it's really irrelevant about whom the comment was made. It's a matter of professional behavior dependent on his role in the broadcast. As an aside, I used to be a fan of Matthews. I thought it was sorta fair. This I figured out he just hated the Clintons and I was disappoint.

[bell110]

You clearly haven't watched much Beck or O'Reilly.

No, never.

That was sarcasm by the way. I've been watching Fox longer than MSNBC. I thought Beck was ok when he was on HLN, but now he's just a shill.

But yeah, I've seen enough of all of them to know Olbermann is not as bad as Beck or O'Reilly.

I would say Beck is the conservative Colbert.

Well, Colbert is a pretend conservative. So, Beck is a pretend liberal?

I think my comment was a little misunderstood. It was sardonic statement mean to show Olbermann is a raving, petty, mean-spirited lunatic not to say that the others are any different. It seemed you were almost arguing that he's saintly in comparison to the other side of the aisle. I say hardly.

He's not "saintly", but I'd agrue that he's smarter than the Fox Three. Seriously, O'Reilly is the best they have. Beck is a clown and Hannity is a tool.

It seemed to me you were making a case for Stewart being "smarter, more urbane" than Beck and being in a different air. Read that horribleness that is that book and understand the folly of such an argument. Of course if that's not the point you were attempting to make then the statement really isn't applicable to your point.


My point was that Stewart is an actual comedian. Like, doing stand up and ****. Beck was a radio host. I've never read either of their books. But just off my head, between the two, how many have been satire?

I sure did. Did you? Do you not see the difference in attacking and villifying leaders versus followers?


[URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingl y_anymore.html"]
I'm at work and the IT gestappo blocks the vids so I'm sorry but I can't view it now. However I can say that it's really irrelevant about whom the comment was made. It's a matter of professional behavior dependent on his role in the broadcast. As an aside, I used to be a fan of Matthews. I thought it was sorta fair. This I figured out he just hated the Clintons and I was disappoint.

I will address everything else later. Godspeed.

[The Englishman]

Fox News is the most Vile news station i have ever seen....:barf:

[Kelly]

Why? Can you give some examples? Maybe compare them to say MSNBC, or maybe NBC, CBS or ABC to give us a better understanding of where you are coming from? Do you watch any of the shows on Fox on a regular basis?

[The Englishman]

Why? Can you give some examples? Maybe compare them to say MSNBC, or maybe NBC, CBS or ABC to give us a better understanding of where you are coming from? Do you watch any of the shows on Fox on a regular basis?
Ive never seen MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC so i cant compare Fox to them. Not on a regular basis but Ive seen enough

[Kelly]

I see...

[StorminNorman]

Ive never seen MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC so i cant compare Fox to them. Not on a regular basis but Ive seen enough

So I am betting that you have mostly seen clips of Fox News presented to you with people with an anti-Fox News agenda?

[Marx]

FOX News wouldn't be as condemned as they are if they would just drop the 'fair and balanced' crap. That being said...

How 'bout those left-leaning media outlets???

[imdaly]

Fox News is the most Vile news station i have ever seen....:barf:

Ive never seen MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC so i cant compare Fox to them. Not on a regular basis but Ive seen enough


So what ARE you comparing Fox News to?

[Kelly]

FOX News wouldn't be as condemned as they are if they would just drop the 'fair and balanced' crap. That being said...

How 'bout those left-leaning media outlets???


Every time you talk about Fox News....lol

[The Englishman]

So I am betting that you have mostly seen clips of Fox News presented to you with people with an anti-Fox News agenda?
If you have Sky satalite TV in England you get Fox News in the news section because Sky is 40% owned by Rupert Murdock, so Fox is tecnically a sister station to Sky News. They both share reporters if required.
So what ARE you comparing Fox News to?
Im comparing it to British news stations (seen as im The Englishman) such as BBC News and Sky News...

[hippie_hunter]

But yeah, I've seen enough of all of them to know Olbermann is not as bad as Beck or O'Reilly.
Olbermann is just as bad as Beck and O'Reily. His attacks on Scott Brown and other conservative figures are just as bad, appauling, and immature as the attacks made by Beck and O'Reily.

He's not "saintly", but I'd agrue that he's smarter than the Fox Three. Seriously, O'Reilly is the best they have. Beck is a clown and Hannity is a tool.
It shocks me how O'Reily and Olbermann have such arrogant attitudes, yet they are both very intelligent men.

Beck and Hannity, I'll agree with you on that.

My point was that Stewart is an actual comedian. Like, doing stand up and ****. Beck was a radio host. I've never read either of their books. But just off my head, between the two, how many have been satire?
And yet, Stewart, a comedian, is the most credible voice of the left.

[hippie_hunter]

Im comparing it to British news stations (seen as im The Englishman) such as BBC News and Sky News...

Yeah, you shouldn't do that since American news and British news are very different.

[chaseter]

Well, Colbert is a pretend conservative. So, Beck is a pretend liberal?

A fear monger. The only thing that separates the two is that one is a comedian.

[StorminNorman]

Beck is not a fear monger.

It's funny, people criticize the media for being too focused on the superficial and yet refuse to acknowledge the one person in the media actually dealing with the real issues of the day.

The honest to God truth is that Beck has the only show on Cable News that has anything of any value on it.

[hippie_hunter]

No, Parker Spitzer is the only show on Cable News that has anything of valure on it :p

[chaseter]

HAHA. Beck's rhetoric is anti-government and conspiracy theories. He is a fear monger. He held a friggin rally to 'Restore Honor'. He has compared climate change education to the Hitler youth. He has compared some schools and US universities to those in Iran and North Korea. He has said that any Obama activities in schools are likened to indoctrination of our children.

[The Englishman]

Yeah, you shouldn't do that since American news and British news are very different.
Yeah i know but its kind off hard when your watching Sky News and then flick through a few channels and you land on Fox News and be shocked at Glen Becks Fear Mongering or O'Reily saying they should exercute the Wikileakes people and im like"WTF sort of news channel is this?"

[chaseter]

Yeah i know but its kind off hard when your watching Sky News and then flick through a few channels and you land on Fox News and be shocked at Glen Becks Fear Mongering or O'Reily saying they should exercute the Wikileakes people and im like"WTF sort of news channel is this?"

I think you are a better off for not ever having to watch or listen to Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, or Chris Matthews.

[The Englishman]

I think you are a better off for not ever having to watch or listen to Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, or Chris Matthews.
Are they on Fox, are they worse then Beck and O'Reily?

[StorminNorman]

HAHA. Beck's rhetoric is anti-government and conspiracy theories. He is a fear monger. He held a friggin rally to 'Restore Honor'. He has compared climate change education to the Hitler youth. He has compared some schools and US universities to those in Iran and North Korea. He has said that any Obama activities in schools are likened to indoctrination of our children.
There is nothing wrong about anti-government rhetoric (in fact, I would argue there is something inherently wrong about pro-government rhetoric) and conspiracy theories are only bad if they aren't true - which I believe most of Beck's are (everything with Soros for example).

There are valid comparisons between the way Climate Change has been presented and Hitler Youth (or any other propaganda campaign aimed at children, to use the H word brings up Jew-death that is irrelevant to the issue). Any school activity that does praise Obama does serve to indoctrinate children - his comments and criticism about our schools and universities are almost entirely about the importance of privatizing them, which is obviously the proper side of the issue.

[chaseter]

Are they on Fox, are they worse then Beck and O'Reily?

They are on MSNBC. Ed Shultz, Chris Mathews, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are probably the worst people with political voices on tv and radio today. The contribute 0% to society.

[The Englishman]

They are on MSNBC. Ed Shultz, Chris Mathews, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are probably the worst people with political voices on tv and radio today. The contribute 0% to society.
:wow: So this MSNBC is even worse then Fox?

[chaseter]

They are the same...Fox is just bigger so it reaches more people. Just don't listen or watch any of those people and you will be better for it.

[Youk]

You cannot compare the way Beck and O'Reilly treats those left of him to the way Olbermann and Maddow does. Hannity? Absolutely - he is the embodiement of everything bad with politics - but not Beck and Bill.

Beck is the conservative Stewart in many ways.

One of the points Beck stresses most is the fact that most who sympathize with progressives aren't "stupid or evil", they are well intentioned but misguided - which I would argue (and defend) as a statement of fact.

Now he will villainize many true, blue progressives like Soros, Woodrow Wilson and Van Jones all day long, and will call idiots like Obama out for their stupidity - but it takes an impressive resume of evil/stupidity for Beck to dismiss you.

you're not playing with a full deck, are you?

You all can attack Keith Olbermann all you want, you'll get no fight from me...but I will vigorously defend Rachel Maddow.

:up:

[hippie_hunter]

:wow: So this MSNBC is even worse then Fox?

MSNBC is a liberal version of Fox News. It's not worse, but it's just as bad.

[Youk]

MSNBC is a liberal version of Fox News. It's not worse, but it's just as bad.

nope, not even close. they're both biased, but one takes it waaaaayyyy farther. i'm pretty sure you can figure out which one i'm referring to.

[hippie_hunter]

nope, not even close. they're both biased, but one takes it waaaaayyyy farther. i'm pretty sure you can figure out which one i'm referring to.

I would have agreed with you a couple of months ago, but after watching MSNBC's election coverage, they went into just as bad as Fox News territory. And they have been getting progressively worse and worse before hand.

[chaseter]

nope, not even close. they're both biased, but one takes it waaaaayyyy farther. i'm pretty sure you can figure out which one i'm referring to.

I am going to guess that you watch MSNBC.

[Youk]

i don't see any democratic presidential candidates being employed by msnbc, but i count at least four republican candidates on fox news. i also haven't seen msnbc sponsor any political rallies like the tea party and glenn beck rallies that fox has sponsored. trust me, there's a huge difference between the two. i don't know why people have to try and paint a false equivalency between the two. it's just not there.

[Youk]

I am going to guess that you watch MSNBC.

not really. i like maddow, but that's about it. i watch both fox and msnbc for comic relief, but don't rely on either for news.

[chaseter]

AIDS is worse than cancer right?

[Youk]

AIDS is worse than cancer right?

:whatever:

[StorminNorman]

you're not playing with a full deck, are you?

I'm playing with two of them actually.

The reality is that the problems we are facing now are larger than one President, one party or one decade. The ONLY PERSON in Cable News that talks about FDR and Woodrow Wilson while discussing the current economics crisis is Glenn Beck. The only one that points out that "liberals" today are only not "liberals" in the classical sense, but are completely opposed to everything classical liberals believe in. Only Glenn Beck comes close to portraying Progressivism in the proper light (Beck's mistake is by referring to it as a "socialist" ideology when it is obviously fascist.)

The fact that Beck is the only one who has a clue is less praise of him and more solid proof of the ignorance of most of those "in the biz".

[Youk]

I'm playing with two of them actually.

The reality is that the problems we are facing now are larger than one President, one party or one decade. The ONLY PERSON in Cable News that talks about FDR and Woodrow Wilson while discussing the current economics crisis is Glenn Beck. The only one that points out that "liberals" today are only not "liberals" in the classical sense, but are completely opposed to everything classical liberals believe in. Only Glenn Beck comes close to portraying Progressivism in the proper light (Beck's mistake is by referring to it as a "socialist" ideology when it is obviously fascist.)

The fact that Beck is the only one who has a clue is less praise of him and more solid proof of the ignorance of most of those "in the biz".

so name-dropping woodrow wilson and fdr is all it takes to be taken seriously as a political pundit?

how is glenn beck saying nothing good has come from the progressive movement even close to the truth?

do you agree with his conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric or re-writing of history to suit his beliefs?

[The Englishman]

Yeah, you shouldn't do that since American news and British news are very different.
You are right, American and British news is very different....

[hippie_hunter]

so name-dropping woodrow wilson and fdr is all it takes to be taken seriously as a political pundit?

how is glenn beck saying nothing good has come from the progressive movement even close to the truth?

do you agree with his conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric or re-writing of history to suit his beliefs?
Norman has a point though. While most pundits are quick to blame just Obama and Bush, the fact of the matter is that a lot of our problems that we are in today are a result of the progressive policies of FDR and Woodrow Wilson. America just cannot afford continuing the policies of the New Deal.

Beck does know his stuff. The problem is that he is far too excessive. He's too grandoise. He's too much of a fear mongerer (yeah, he is). And too childish, to the point where he comes off as a little kid trying to sit at the big boys table of O'Reily, Hannity, Olbermann, and Maddow.

[Youk]

Norman has a point though. While most pundits are quick to blame just Obama and Bush, the fact of the matter is that a lot of our problems that we are in today are a result of the progressive policies of FDR and Woodrow Wilson. America just cannot afford continuing the policies of the New Deal.

Beck does know his stuff. The problem is that he is far too excessive. He's too grandoise. He's too much of a fear mongerer (yeah, he is). And too childish, to the point where he comes off as a little kid trying to sit at the big boys table of O'Reily, Hannity, Olbermann, and Maddow.

those policies worked great when they were implemented, but i'd argue that we just didn't address the flaws in time. a lot of our problems stem from conservative policies, as well. military spending, tax cuts for the rich, a lack of wall street and health care regulation, etc...

beck doesn't know anything but a distorted view of american history perverted by extremist conservatism. he's a college drop-out who follows a faith created by a conman. he's a huckster, not a thinker.

[Kelly]

I think you will find that the MAJOR reason for where our economy is right now, does not lie with anything you just listed......IT IS when you loan money to people that can't pay it back....THAT IS what was the biggest cause of our problems today...

[Youk]

I think you will find that the MAJOR reason for where our economy is right now, does not lie with anything you just listed......IT IS when you loan money to people that can't pay it back....THAT IS what was the biggest cause of our problems today...

and who capitalized on those loans when everything fell apart?

[Kelly]

When everything fell apart? No one....

While it was happening? Dodd

[Hobgoblin]

and who capitalized on those loans when everything fell apart?

The banks hoped to cash in but their greed blinded them to the reality of loaning money to people that cant afford the loans.The greed of the banks and the financial carelessness of the home owners got the better of them, causing a domino effect.

[chaseter]

Politicians pushed for those banks to make those loans as well. They have the false assumption that everyone deserves to own a house, new car, etc.

[Marx]

UPDATE: THOMAS ROBERTS HIRED FULL-TIME FOR MSNBC
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/21/MSNBC_Takes_On_Thomas_Full_Time/

:up:

[Oddzball]

UPDATE: THOMAS ROBERTS HIRED FULL-TIME FOR MSNBC
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/21/MSNBC_Takes_On_Thomas_Full_Time/

:up:

In context with the earlier posts here, shouldn't Roberts have been a Presidential Candidate?

[Marx]

UPDATE: SHUSTER EXPLAINS MSNBC DEPARTURE; CONDEMNS FOX NEWS
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/ex-msnbc-host-david-shuster-explains-departure-slams-fox-news-glenn-beck.php?ref=fpc

[Kelly]

blah.....blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah.

I happen to think that MSNBC is responsible for the Snow storm in the northeast and Fox is responsible for the lack of road maintenance during the snow storm....


OH, and Shuster wants his job back....lmao

[samsnee]

Well this caught everyone off guard:

Olbermann leaves MSNBC

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/olbermann-hosts-last-countdown-on-msnbc/?hp

[BlackLantern]

yea....good....he's an a**hole

[DACrowe]

That was a huge surprise. It seems odd MSNBC would essentially fire their biggest ratings resource, even if he was sensationalistic. Doesn't stop them from keeping Ed Schultz on....Very odd. Perhaps Comcast was responsible? I wonder where he'll go as CNN and Fox News wouldn't take him for different reasons.

Now if only Fox News could make such a stand and sack Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. I guess Fox likes ratings more than MSNBC.

Very odd.

[BlackLantern]

Comcast IS responsible...they are not f'ng around...change is a coming to the NBC tv group....they picked up the Wonder Woman pilot from David E. Kelley as well

and today was Jeff Zuckers last day

[chaseter]

Put him on Fox with Sean Hannity and let them beat each other to death.

[Marx]

Olbermann is no longer a part of MSNBC!?! Holy ****!

[BlackLantern]

Put him on Fox with Sean Hannity and let them beat each other to death.

I'd pay to see that

[Marx]

Put him on Fox with Sean Hannity and let them beat each other to death.

I don't think my tv could handle that much arrogance and jackassery.

[DACrowe]

Deadline Hollywood is reporting that Olbermann may have just gotten pay or played. Not only did they terminate his contract, but due to it having a year left they may have iced him from appearing on cable news for the remainder. Now that would really suck and seems like a Jeff Zucker type thing to do. Like Olbermann or not that is trying to derail his career.

Anyway, apparently the new owners of NBC are Republicans (according to Deadline Burke raised over $200,000 for W. in 2000), so it is being speculated they want to make MSNBC more conservative with more conservative hosts. Whatever their politics are, you'd think they could see that the MSNBC brand is pretty toxic to that audience (Fox News viewers) and that MSNBC only started occasionally beating CNN for second when it became a liberal wannabe Fox. Reverting back to the old MSNBC (the poor man's CNN) doesn't seem like the wisest idea.

Oh well, long as they leave Maddow alone, I don't care too much.

[Kelly]

These guys give money to all sides, doesn't really mean they are Republican or Democrat....and remembering how Comcast handled Republicans vs. Democrats on their On Demand list back in 2008, they were FAR from Republican. They showed EVERY single speech from the DNC on On Demand for people to watch, and it stayed on their for quite a few months. They had, if I remember correctly, ooooh, yeah....NONE of the RNC....ever, for any amount of time. Doesn't sound like a Republican leaning company to me....

[Violet Lantern]

WTF????????????

Keith is GONE??? Bull ****ing ****!

Republicans owning MSNBC? :( :(

This is surely a sign of the Apocalypse.

I suppose Ed's days are numbered now. *sigh*

Glad my dad isn't alive to see this.

[Kelly]

He needs to talk to Juan Williams, they now have something in common....

[Violet Lantern]

I'm playing with two of them actually.

The reality is that the problems we are facing now are larger than one President, one party or one decade. The ONLY PERSON in Cable News that talks about FDR and Woodrow Wilson while discussing the current economics crisis is Glenn Beck. The only one that points out that "liberals" today are only not "liberals" in the classical sense, but are completely opposed to everything classical liberals believe in. Only Glenn Beck comes close to portraying Progressivism in the proper light (Beck's mistake is by referring to it as a "socialist" ideology when it is obviously fascist.)

The fact that Beck is the only one who has a clue is less praise of him and more solid proof of the ignorance of most of those "in the biz".

:funny::funny::funny::funny::funny::funny:

[The Squirrel]

Keith is gone? Nice. :applaud

[Violet Lantern]

Ah, so a cable company bought out NBC, and now they are turning it into Fox News Light when we already have a right wing news channel in this country(two of them,actually,the other is CNN). Keith won't be coming back, you guys realize that right? CNN won't put him on and FOX certainly won't.

The march toward corporate Fascism continues. First, it was Citizens United. The floodgates are open now. They might as well start putting corporate logos on the suits of Congress people like they do NASCAR drivers. Thanks a ****ing bunch, John Roberts.

It's like a Lex Luthor/LexCorp storyline but it's 21st century America. God help us.

[Violet Lantern]

Keith is gone? Nice. :applaud

:whatever:

[BlackLantern]

Keith Olbermann became a blow hard and a bully...he became the very thing he used to rail against

I wouldn't mind seeing MSNBC come a little more to the center, I think that is what the plan is

[Violet Lantern]

Ah, "the center".

(translation: no backbone or integrity)

[BlackLantern]

I do not agree....you can report (or give viewpoints) from both sides in an accurate manner...just don't be surprised when no one watches because viewers have become soooo polarized they want/demand some sort of spin with their political news these days

praise one, demonize the other...both sides do it, Fox News is just better at playing that game

I really don't watch cable news all that much anymore, Ill catch Maddow once or twice a week. youd think 'cable news' was the ONLY source of news the way some go on about it

[Paradoxium]

Who cares, you guys really think Ubermann will stay unemployed. Money is the bottom line, someone will pick him up inevitably. Unless he pissed off a ton of higher up people for whatever reason.

[Violet Lantern]

He won't be back. CNN is too chicken**** to hire him and FOX won't because he clashes with their brand.

[BlackLantern]

I think he'll take some time off.....pop up somewhere, hell he may crawl back to ESPN

[Paradoxium]

I think he will probably do some online podcast/radio in the meantime. Dude has way too much hotair not to vent. Pretty low cost too.

[Violet Lantern]

I know one thing, I'm not watching MSNBC anymore! Not even for Ed. It's a bit too painful to watch that now anymore, anyhow. Me and my dad always watched it together.

[BlackLantern]

now msnbc has 52 steady viewers

[Violet Lantern]

^That doesn't matter to me. If somebody is speaking truth I don't care if only 20 other people are watching. Unfortunately MSNBC is abandoning that.

edit: the funny thing is, more centrist-oriented programming has always netted MSNBC lower ratings, not higher. so it's hard to see how they are doing this for ratings. the new owners must have a political axe to grind.

[BlackLantern]

truth? truth? Olbermann, O'Relly, Hannity, wouldn't know the truth if it stood up and punched them in the face....you get THEIR version of the truth

well it might be the truth to people who share the same views....because someone is telling you what you want to hear

[Kelly]

He won't be back. CNN is too chicken**** to hire him and FOX won't because he clashes with their brand.

I could totally see Fox hiring him........

[BlackLantern]

they should put him on 'Red Eye' for a week or so

[Kelly]

Let him do some of the round tables, get his feet wet over there for a year and then hire him on.....replace the "waste of liberal time" Colmes with him....at least it would be more entertaining...

[Violet Lantern]

truth? truth? Olbermann, O'Relly, Hannity, wouldn't know the truth if it stood up and punched them in the face....you get THEIR version of the truth

well it might be the truth to people who share the same views....because someone is telling you what you want to hear

*yawn*

Another self-righteous centrist eh? Think you're somehow more holy or more intelligent or more factually correct because you're in the "center"? :whatever:

[BlackLantern]

actually no....my views range from liberal to downright draconian (depending on what we're talking about), Ive never been one to hitch my wagon to any one side of things, seems a bit silly IMO but that's what is easiest for the unwashed masses (both right and left) to digest

let me summarize

- Guns....yes

- Drugs...legalize weed, anything chemically produced gets you sent to the County

- Marriage for all

- Campaign finance reform...mos def....none of this RNC using public money for lesbian dominatrix strip clubs crap

[Kelly]

BL, *sighs* a man after my own heart....

[Violet Lantern]

Agree with you on 3 of those 4 counts, Black Lantern. I'm a bit Draconian when it comes to firearms. Made for no other purpose but killing or maiming. Knives can be used to cut things(not people),baseball bats are sports equipment...Guns are for one thing. The idea that your .22 is going to stop an oppressive government armed with stealth bombers and nukes is just silly.

[BlackLantern]

I'm going for 'Sweetheart of the Year' in next years Hype awards

[Kelly]

I'm going for 'Sweetheart of the Year' in next years Hype awards

Well crap......I just spit my Coke Zero all over my screen.....



*goes to get paper towel*

[StorminNorman]

Agree with you on 3 of those 4 counts, Black Lantern. I'm a bit Draconian when it comes to firearms. Made for no other purpose but killing or maiming. Knives can be used to cut things(not people),baseball bats are sports equipment...Guns are for one thing. The idea that your .22 is going to stop an oppressive government armed with stealth bombers and nukes is just silly.

Many people enjoy both target shooting and hunting and no human being has any authority to prevent someone from doing either.

[Violet Lantern]

Many people enjoy both target shooting and hunting and no human being has any authority to prevent someone from doing either.

You're kidding me, right? Never heard of hunting accidents? As a Texan let me tell you, I've known quite a few people who have love ones who have either been seriously injured or even killed in hunting accidents.

And they do have the authority, it's called the LAW. Firearms are NOT a God-given right, despite what the warped American perspective on this is.

[Violet Lantern]

Murder isn't a right. That's the only reason guns exist. They don't exist because somebody went, "hey guys we need something to target practice with that is deadly but we aren't going to use it on anyone".

[BlackLantern]

Humans have manufactured weapons since, since....well forever

plus we have a second amendment thread if you want to further debate the issue....you will find yourself well sated in terms of gun talk

[Violet Lantern]

Humans have manufactured weapons since, since....well forever

None of them as deadly as modern firearms. It's a lot easier to kill someone pulling a trigger than to bludgeon them with a rock. So...yeah...that argument isn't valid. At all.

[BlackLantern]

my point was we like to bang each other up, plus...if the guv'mint wants to take my guns, with a bit of machinework, I can fashion a zip gun....not as efficient but it'd work

again, we're off topic


at least Im not watching The Onion News Network.....never found The Onion funny, that kind of satire does not work for me

[StorminNorman]

You're kidding me, right? Never heard of hunting accidents? As a Texan let me tell you, I've known quite a few people who have love ones who have either been seriously injured or even killed in hunting accidents.

Never heard of car accidents?

Fishing accidents?

Scuba diving accidents?

People die doing all sorts of things.

And they do have the authority, it's called the LAW. Firearms are NOT a God-given right, despite what the warped American perspective on this is.

I have a God-given right to decide what I should spend my money on and no just government can change that.

[StorminNorman]

Murder isn't a right. That's the only reason guns exist. They don't exist because somebody went, "hey guys we need something to target practice with that is deadly but we aren't going to use it on anyone".

I have a buddy who loves shooting big powerful machine guns. He has access to Uzi's, AK 47's, M-16's, all sorts of fun things. I'm not a fan myself because I am not partial to loud noises and gun kick, but no one has any legitimate authority to restrict his peaceful action. And that includes the law.

Right and wrong is not the same as legal and illegal.

[Violet Lantern]

Never heard of car accidents?

Fishing accidents?

Scuba diving accidents?

People die doing all sorts of things.
.

The difference between fishing, scuba diving and owning firearms?

I'll give you one hint: ONE of them involves a weapon designed for the sole purpose to injure or maim. The others are water-based recreational activities.

[Violet Lantern]

I have a God-given right to decide what I should spend my money on and no just government can change that.

Can you spend your money on a hitman? No? I don't think your statement is at all accurate.


I have a buddy who loves shooting big powerful machine guns. He has access to Uzi's, AK 47's, M-16's, all sorts of fun things. I'm not a fan myself because I am not partial to loud noises and gun kick, but no one has any legitimate authority to restrict his peaceful action. And that includes the law.

Right and wrong is not the same as legal and illegal.

There's nothing peaceful about it. He's operating weapons designed for one purpose: to maim or kill a fellow human being.

Right and wrong are NOT necessarily the same thing as legal and illegal. However the authorities have EVERY right to restrict your access to firearms if your elected representatives pass a law allowing them to do so.

[StorminNorman]

The difference between fishing, scuba diving and owning firearms?

I'll give you one hint: ONE of them involves a weapon designed for the sole purpose to injure or maim. The others are water-based recreational activities.

Sometimes you have to maim, injure or kill.

[StorminNorman]

There's nothing peaceful about it. He's operating weapons designed for one purpose: to maim or kill a fellow human being.

Right and wrong are NOT necessarily the same thing as legal and illegal. However the authorities have EVERY right to restrict your access to firearms if your elected representatives pass a law allowing them to do so.

Peace: devoid of violence or force.

There is no violence in shooting a target. There is no force involved in recreational shooting.

They do not have that right. Especially when the Constitution of this country explicitly says so.

[Violet Lantern]

They do not have that right. Especially when the Constitution of this country explicitly says so.

That's only a matter of interpretation. At one point, this country's constitution was interpreted so that women could not vote and that African-Americans were only three fifths of one person.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hrm, catch that well regulated Militia part? The only reason they insisted on the 2nd Amendment IMO was because this country at that time was extremely wary of maintaining a standing army. A standing army had been a tool of oppression under the King. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was much more to ensure the right of the American people to form militias than to ensure any kind of individual right to own & bear firearms.

[BlackLantern]

and who's to say this countrys Army couldn't be used as a tool of oppression??

I have a gun permit, and I own two firearms....Ive done all the background checks, taken all the classes, and until the law changes I will continue to own said firearms

[Violet Lantern]

and who's to say this countrys Army couldn't be used as a tool of oppression??

I have a gun permit, and I own two firearms....Ive done all the background checks, taken all the classes, and until the law changes I will continue to own said firearms

If you think your two measly glocks(or whatever you have) will be in any way meaningful in keeping a government/army armed with tanks, armored vehicles, bomber jets, stealth fighters, nuclear weapons etc. from oppressing you(if they had set their minds to doing that) then you're either seriously naive or delusional.

[BlackLantern]

No...I enjoy the occasional outing to the range for target shooting and I hunt quail on occasion

what is this thing you have with Glocks??

[Violet Lantern]

'Thing'? I believe this is the first time I've mentioned them...is it not?

[BlackLantern]

maybe it was someone else....there was a conversation about this and they kept referring to firearms as 'glocks' over and over...as if it was the only type of gun out there

[StorminNorman]

That's only a matter of interpretation. At one point, this country's constitution was interpreted so that women could not vote and that African-Americans were only three fifths of one person.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hrm, catch that well regulated Militia part? The only reason they insisted on the 2nd Amendment IMO was because this country at that time was extremely wary of maintaining a standing army. A standing army had been a tool of oppression under the King. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was much more to ensure the right of the American people to form militias than to ensure any kind of individual right to own & bear firearms.

You demonstrate your ignorance once again, keep it up.

The Constitution was "interpreted" to disallow women to vote, it did disallow women to vote. The Constitution did not imply women were inferior.

The Constitution did not say blacks were 3/5ths of a person - it said slaves were. That wasn't an act of oppression for slaves, it was to limit the power of the Southern states.

The Founders make it quite clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3

"The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution." "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

[BlackLantern]

not being armed gets you situations Rwanda, Somalia....places where the people have very little to do with how anything in those countries run

it's human nature, at least the savage part of it, if you know the people can't fight back, you beat them up over and over

why?

because you can

[Violet Lantern]

Well this isn't the 18th century anymore,buddy. The entire idea behind an armed populace was to fend off tyranny. Like I said, you're seriously delusional if you think owning handguns, shotguns, rifles or even semi-automatic weapons is going to honestly protect you against the modern military/police force. The 2nd Amendment was penned at a time when the biggest advantage the military had over civilians was the canon, and even that was much more obtainable to the general public today than say, a tank or a fighter jet.

The fact that you actually attempted to defend the 3/5's clause is simply amazing.

BlackLantern, people owning pistols and other firearms of the sort would NOT stop a real 21st century army from committing genocide like in Rwanda. Get real, guy.

[StorminNorman]

Fine, you believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated? There is a Constitutional solution to that. It's called the Amendment Process.

Until then, I have the right to bear arms.

[Arc-Light]

not being armed gets you situations Rwanda, Somalia....places where the people have very little to do with how anything in those countries run

it's human nature, at least the savage part of it, if you know the people can't fight back, you beat them up over and over

why?

because you can
Right...BUT we are not Rwanada, Somalia.....times have changed.

[Violet Lantern]

Fine, you believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated? There is a Constitutional solution to that. It's called the Amendment Process.

Until then, I have the right to bear arms.

Of course. I think we need an Amendment rolling back most, if not all, of the 2nd Amendment. I certainly don't believe in concealed carrying licenses. At the very least people should only be able to possess firearms in their home.

[StorminNorman]

Which will make sure that the only people on the streets with guns are criminals.

That sounds safe.

Good luck getting 2/3rds of the States to agree.

[Franklin Richards]

Last I checked the cops had guns. Feds. Military. Private security firms.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Violet Lantern]

Last I checked the cops had guns. Feds. Military. Private security firms.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

Only ones that that should have them IMO.

[BlackLantern]

Right...BUT we are not Rwanada, Somalia.....times have changed.

not as much as we'd like to think....we are not as forward thinking and civlized as we'd like to think

the way things are in this country now, I wouldn't be surprised if someone was lynched in the next year or so over something random

people are mad, scared and looking for someone to blame

[BlackLantern]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=346138&page=49

here's the second amendment thread

it got way off topic in here

there is also a Healthcare thread in the politics forum

[Marx]

THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS 'LEFT-LEANING MEDIA OUTLETS'. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE SECOND AMENDMENT OR HEALTHCARE, PLEASE DO IT IN THE CORRECT THREAD.

Thank you.

[StorminNorman]

Oh what would we do without you Marx.

[Marx]

Oh what would we do without you Marx.

I'm sorry Norm, but you missed the last chance to jump on the 'Mod Abuse' train for today. Stick to the topic of the thread.

[StorminNorman]

I think this was my favorite Olbermann quote:

Abuse is such a strong word. I doubt I am not the only one who found it a bit silly to repeat the same exact message BL did with your big bad bold font and authoritative caps lock.

In fact BL out modded you by providing a link.

[Marx]

Keeping pushing the line Norm, see where it gets you.

[StorminNorman]

:lmao:

No wonder MSNBC fired him, what a dick.

[BlackLantern]

I watched his little farewell last night.....he took a nice shot at ESPN too, guess he's still bitter about being told to f*** off

[Marx]

I watched his little farewell last night.....he took a nice shot at ESPN too, guess he's still bitter about being told to f*** off

I'm still surprised he was cut.

[Franklin Richards]

Considering he helped set the standard for that station and MSNBC, I presume he's justifiable in his bitterness.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[BlackLantern]

I am and then I'm not...especially with all the mess he's been getting into over the past year with donations and various other things he's said on the show

I always thought 'The Worst Person in the World' segment was extremely immature

[StorminNorman]

It's bad policy to get rid of talent without replacing him with talent. They better have a good lock on a potential replacement.

Maybe go after Shepard Smith?

[BlackLantern]

didn't Shep just sign an extension??? I'd watch him if he landed over there

maybe they want to make a play for Cooper since his show on CNN is on the block?

[Franklin Richards]

Only name that would impact their lineup would be Bill Maher or Michael Moore. Those are the only names big enuff to replace him and get better ratings.



:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Marx]

didn't Shep just sign an extension??? I'd watch him if he landed over there

maybe they want to make a play for Cooper since his show on CNN is on the block?

I'd be very surprised if Anderson signed on with MSNBC. Although, if he did, I'd have no reason to watch CNN again. :funny: