There is such a plethora of goodies today that it's hard to decide what to highlight.
First, lefty radio and MSNBC host Ed Schultz visited the 'Morning Joe' show on MSNBC last week. During the broadcast, he noted that hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough were getting feedback directly from the White House during the program.
Apparently the White House wasn't happy with the fact that they had Schultz, Arianna Huffington and Howard Dean on the show - all three have come out against ObamaCare.
So what did the hacks at MSNBC do to appease Dear Leader?
Put David Axlerod on for a lengthy segment at the last minute, of course.
Which is more frightening - that the White House is in direct contact with tv shows, or that the shows are so eager to hop to the administrations bidding? State run media indeed. Check out The Radio Equalizer for the audio of Schultz talking about the incident on his radio show.
Also in the news is the Copenhagen Debacle. Listening to the desperate spin on the abject failure that is the Climate Change Summit from the world-wide left is quite amusing. A week's worth of pomp, circumstance, riots and blizzards all in the name of a science that is dubious, at best, right now.
Their arrogant posturing that the ClimateGate emails mean nothing is merely making matters worse. If they had all come out in front of the revelations and admitted that there were serious questions about the procedures, tactics and science coming out of CRU and further admitted the science needed to be transparently reviewed, they might have come out of this with a lot less damage. Their arrogance, blind denial, and offensive name calling of skeptics is just deepening the hole they are in.
It almost seems like the blizzard was God putting in his two cents on the subject (much like the blizzard in Washington this weekend had to have been divine commentary on the health care bum rush). The Gore Effect is a beautiful thing.
There is even more unsavory information coming out about AGW. The head of the UN's IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is apparently investing in green technology at a rather disquieting level. But don't worry - there's no conflict of interest. Really. And if you don't believe me, you must be a flat earther.
The Goracle made an ass of himself (again) and had to make an official retraction of some of his alarmist rhetoric when the scientist he 'quoted' came out and denied he made the claims Gore is attributing to him. It was extremely bad timing for him to be caught in so blatant a lie. Ooopsie!
And, finally, Russian scientists are crying foul on the one institution that has managed to stay above the corrupt stench that is ClimateGate. It seems the UK's Hadley Centre has been manipulating and cherry picking data from Siberian weather stations - using data from urban areas (which always register a bit warmer than rural areas) and tossing out the rural numbers in order to make a better case for global warming.
This is a big one, because the Hadley Centre, a division of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter has been the gold standard of AGW. The IPCC relies heavily on their data - they, along with the CRU, created the reports on which the IPCC decisions are based.
Of course there has been little media coverage of this latest outrage.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the Senate democrats passed a cloture vote on ObamaCare in the middle of the night - standard operating procedure, these days. It makes sense, since these horrible bills would probably not survive the light of day.
Sure would be nice if the taxpaying public who is funding this monstrosity would be allowed to actually read it. They are voting on a concept, at this point - several senators have said they haven't seen the actual bill yet. If it is in writing, why isn't it being released for the public to read? What really gets me is all the heat the Republicans are taking for not backing the bill. Considering Congress is chock full of lawyers (especially on the left), they should know one never enters into a contract without reading it first. How can the Republicans read it and make an informed decision on it if the Democrats refuse to allow them to see it?
'Cash for Cloture' has become the buzzword of the week, and for good reason. Harry Reid feels that buying votes and depriving some Americans of certain perks lavished on others is just the way things are done in Washington. So much for Change. At least back in the good old days they used to hide their backroom deals - now they crow about them and pat themselves on the back.
The lucky senators who cut multi-million dollar deals for their states think this will buy the votes of their constituents, but I think some might have surprises coming to them next November.
The jaw dropper in this whole drama is that the democrat leadership, headed up by Rahm Emanuel and David Axlerod of course, are insisting that pushing ObamaCare down our throats is going to get them reelected!
Honestly, I'm laughing too much to comment further on that one.
Since we're on the subject of blatant corruption, there is a new survey out that shows that banks who spent more money on lobbying ended up with more of the bailout cash, as did those banks in districts with Representatives on committees or subcommittees related to TARP. At this point, that is just par for the course.
Nothing to see here, though - move along, move along.
Just sit down, shut up, drink your Kool Aid and stop questioning your betters already!
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
LIBERAL MEDIA SHENANIGANS
I have a few things from NewsBusters I wanted to share with you. The first is from an MSNBC interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). He is a self proclaimed Socialist, and spends a lot of time attacking FoxNews and calling for more liberal voices:
""I'll tell you what else we need to do," Sanders said. "We need to understand that it is very, very hard for the president or anybody else to take on not just the Republican Party, that's the easy part - to take on all of right-wing talk radio, which covers 90 percent of talk show hosts, a whole Fox network which is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party and the Democrats got to think long term. Why is there not a progressive television network? Why aren't we supporting good and effective personalities on radio as well and building up a network there so that we can that kind of political consciousness-raising that the Republicans, in fact, are doing so well right now.""
Where to begin?
Okay, first of all, FoxNews and conservative radio are doing well because their content appeals to viewers/listeners. That's the formula for success that the liberals apparently just can't seem to grasp. Pretty simple, and yet, they just don't get it.
They desperately want this to be a far-left country, but it isn't. FoxNews, aside from some conservatively biased prime-time hosts (as CNN and MSNBC have liberally biased primetime hosts) really is fair and balanced. The liberals will fight you to the death on that notion, but there have been independent studies that prove that fact. They try very hard to give both sides of the debate, and the viewer can take from it what they want. They trust that the viewer knows their own mind, something the liberal channels don't - they are of the mindset that information must be spun and then spoon-fed in order for the idiots out there in T.V. land to understand it. Talk down to your audience and you tend to lose them.
Secondly, there IS a liberal talk radio network - AirAmerica.
It has had major issues both financially and with lack of listeners. It went bankrupt back in 2006, but, like (Al) Frankenstein's Monster, it just won't seem to die, even though most people think it has. Why does it have such issues when, according to people like Sen. Sanders, the American public is craving lefty radio? Well, mostly because it sucks. I can't imagine why, what with shining stars such as Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes and Al Franken...oh, okay, I just proved my point.
Anyhoo....As for a 'Progressive television network', isn't that MSNBC? Or maybe NBC, the National Barack Channel - all Barack, all the time, all positive spin? What about CNN? I suppose he means channels people actually watch, which would rule out all three. Thus his dislike of FoxNews, because people really do actually watch it, and in record numbers, no less.
In the same vein, there is this little gem:
"Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's News Division, CNSNews.com, has a piece out today entitled "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."
This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. "
Since they can't seem to make successful stations on their own, they are going to try to rape and pillage successful (read: conservative) radio stations.
By hook or by crook, huh?
""I'll tell you what else we need to do," Sanders said. "We need to understand that it is very, very hard for the president or anybody else to take on not just the Republican Party, that's the easy part - to take on all of right-wing talk radio, which covers 90 percent of talk show hosts, a whole Fox network which is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party and the Democrats got to think long term. Why is there not a progressive television network? Why aren't we supporting good and effective personalities on radio as well and building up a network there so that we can that kind of political consciousness-raising that the Republicans, in fact, are doing so well right now.""
Where to begin?
Okay, first of all, FoxNews and conservative radio are doing well because their content appeals to viewers/listeners. That's the formula for success that the liberals apparently just can't seem to grasp. Pretty simple, and yet, they just don't get it.
They desperately want this to be a far-left country, but it isn't. FoxNews, aside from some conservatively biased prime-time hosts (as CNN and MSNBC have liberally biased primetime hosts) really is fair and balanced. The liberals will fight you to the death on that notion, but there have been independent studies that prove that fact. They try very hard to give both sides of the debate, and the viewer can take from it what they want. They trust that the viewer knows their own mind, something the liberal channels don't - they are of the mindset that information must be spun and then spoon-fed in order for the idiots out there in T.V. land to understand it. Talk down to your audience and you tend to lose them.
Secondly, there IS a liberal talk radio network - AirAmerica.
It has had major issues both financially and with lack of listeners. It went bankrupt back in 2006, but, like (Al) Frankenstein's Monster, it just won't seem to die, even though most people think it has. Why does it have such issues when, according to people like Sen. Sanders, the American public is craving lefty radio? Well, mostly because it sucks. I can't imagine why, what with shining stars such as Janeane Garofalo, Randi Rhodes and Al Franken...oh, okay, I just proved my point.
Anyhoo....As for a 'Progressive television network', isn't that MSNBC? Or maybe NBC, the National Barack Channel - all Barack, all the time, all positive spin? What about CNN? I suppose he means channels people actually watch, which would rule out all three. Thus his dislike of FoxNews, because people really do actually watch it, and in record numbers, no less.
In the same vein, there is this little gem:
"Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's News Division, CNSNews.com, has a piece out today entitled "FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."
This is insane. The "Chief Diversity Officer" in question, Mark Lloyd, is calling for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee (tax) they pay for their broadcast license for the year, with the monies going to the always liberal public stations. With whom they then must compete for listeners. "
Since they can't seem to make successful stations on their own, they are going to try to rape and pillage successful (read: conservative) radio stations.
By hook or by crook, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
