Archive for ‘msnbc’

August 2, 2011

JONAH GOLDBERG TO MSM: “Go to Hell. All of you.”

GOLDBERG: “So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

[Read more of Jonah Goldberg’s “To Hell with You People ” at the National Review Online].

Advertisements
July 26, 2011

Hey Lefty-Progressives, ask yourself the following: “So, why should I trust Ed Schultz or Lawrence O’Donnell or Rachel Maddow when they say the unions are good and the corporations are bad if they are taking million dollar paychecks from a corporation for saying it?”

ZURAWICK: “MSNBC is built on a lie, and it’s one that the cable channel is never going to be able escape as long as sticks to its leftist ideological guns.

That’s what I kept thinking as I watched Keith Olbermann’s strange, coded, wink-wink interview with Cenk Uygur last week on the new version of “Countdown.” (That’s the nightly show that is doing so well that Olbermann and Current TV  have not released any ratings since the first week of July — and those showed a 30 percent drop for Olbermann from his premiere week.)

You can see a video of the interview here, but there is not enough time left in my life to try and explain all the innuendo and nutsiness going back and forth between these two former MSNBC employes. In the video, Uygur once again lays out his paranoid charges that the political powers that be in Washington (read: White House) essentially called in his boss at MSNBC and told him to tone Uygur down.

[Read Dave Zurawick’s “Uygur, Olbermann and the sad, lost children of MSNBC ” at The Baltimore Sun]

July 5, 2011

Larry Johnson: “Yes, Obama is a Total Dick”

Over at the No Quarter blog, Larry Johnson explained why Barry Obama is in fact a dick. We’ve always been of the mind that he’s more like a really rude eunuch who feels the world has unfairly maligned him because he was castrated on the south-side of Chicago for wearing mom jeans to a pickup basketball game near Communist-sky park.

Regardless, Mark Halperin, who asked if there was a 7 second time delay before calling Obama a dick, is usually quite well-mannered. So what gives? Halperin is still an Obama crotch-sniffer, no matter what he says.

Of course, it’s true to say that Obama’s behavior was rude, but what’s new? He’s always been a divider-in-chief. He’s always been looking for ways to categorize the world into the have’s and the have-not’s. It’s what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats do.

The question is why did Halperin call him on it? Suspicious.

You have Chris Wallace on Fox News calling Bachmann a flake one week, and then the next week Halperin on MSNBC calls Obama a dick. Hmmm…

Was it all staged? Is this MSNBC sending a message to Fox News and the media critics: See! We’re rough on our ideological brethren too… *cough* once.

Or…did Obama have Halperin call him a dick just to give Teh Barry a sympathy bump in the polls?

Bachmann got some sympathy out of her dust up with Wallace, but Obama won’t get any love just because one of his stenographers called him a dick. Why? Because Obama did in fact act dickishly at his press conference. He was being a dick. Everyone knows it. The economy is headed for a second recessesion (or have we just been in one big, long depression, I don’t know), and Obama’s economic policies are the only reason we haven’t gotten out of it sooner. And at Obama’s presser he blamed, as usual, everyone but himself, and launched some bizarre and absurd attack on people who own corporate jets. Because, you know, they’re the evil one’s who are truly holding up this economic recovery. (AND they were the real culprits behind the death of O.J.’s ex-wife!)

Maybe it is an intentional set-up for a new media meme to his base: See! Obama has spine, and he can be a dick to Republicans when he needs to be! Don’t you dare sit out 2012!

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: Red Eye crew rips on Media Matters, Maddow’s Tea Bagging fetish, and Olbermann

oh, the teabagging jokes of yesteryear…

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: The Sequel — Red Eye Crew Skewers Garofalo (Tea Parties are about: “Hating a black man”, “Racism straight up”, “Tea bagging rednecks”) & Olby

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: Olbermann Gets Reamed by Coulter on Keith’s Claim He Went to Cornell

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: Red Eye Crew Rips Garofalo and Olbermann

June 30, 2011

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “I ADMIT THERE’S A MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SORT OF FAVORITE” — Hardball anchor says media pulled for Cuomo, Powell, and McCain (for awhile)

On Hardball Chris Matthews just admitted that the American Press plays favorites. According to Matthews, the MSM had crushes on Mario Cuomo, Colin Powell, and John McCain. Presumably, the McCain affair ended when Matthews and the Journolisters found a tingle thrill up their leg for a younger congressman from Illinois.

Chris Matthews (“Hardball” on 6/30/2011): (underline and italics added for emphasis)

“It seems to me over the years the media has been falling in love with – and you’ve been correct – people like me have always loved Mario Cuomo. We thought he was a true believer. A really good, progressive liberal guy.  And a good man. A good man. And then we all fell for Colin Powell. A lot of us. We thought Colin Powell would be great. None of these guys go anywhere. And then we all were — for awhile there — for John McCain.

Matthews continues, “I’ll admit there’s a mainstream media, sort of favorite at the time — but they never win.” During the crosstalk Matthews laughs and says, “Well, Obama! Obama won.”

It goes without saying that the media and their penchant for falling in and out love is a problem. The MSM needs to be the physician administering an exam in a calm, professional manner. Not fondling the hell out of one patient, and administering an unnecessary rectal exam on the other. It’s called being a professional.

NOTE: Matthews admits the MSM was rooting for a progressive liberal. Then he switches to Colin Powell who is obviously not a progressive liberal. So why root for him then? He’s a good man and he’s got military credentials, but I suspect liberals like Chris Matthews root for Colin Powell partly for the same reason someone like Barack Obama caught their eye to begin with. They want the big racial story. Wouldn’t it be great if…? Wouldn’t it be historic if…? Matthews and his ilk look at the optics and never wonder about policy and principles (I assure you Colin Powell and Mario Cuomo are quite different in this regard and it would be inconsistent to support both). Why did they like McCain? Because he ripped on his party I suppose, and that held some appeal for the MSM (for awhile there).

I think Matthews catches himself before he says, ‘I admit there’s a mainstream media bias.’ He knows he can’t say bias. And then he tries justifying his mistake by basically saying: well, they never win, so who cares if there’s a MSM bias anyway?

Someone might want to forward this to Mr. Jon Stewart to address his discussion with Chris Wallace. Stewart’s view of so-called Left bias in a nutshell:

uhh, yeah, MSNBC sort of leans angles crouches to the slightly  ever-so slightly left not right of center. hey look! i’m making a funny face!

May 26, 2011

LIBERAL HACKS WHO PRETEND TO BE JOURNALISTS: David “Stretch” Gregory

Meet the Press moderator, Gregory, is a liberal. Which would be of no great concern in the world, except he has some cachet as a trusted name in the news world. As more people tune in for the 2012 election, voters who are otherwise apolitical might see this strapping, young lad and assume from his cadence or the cut of his jib that he’s a trustworthy sort who knows how to balance a budget, employ people, or even something basic, like make a payroll.

Sadly, no. He’s a guy in a suit and tie who pushes gossip and ask questions that cater to his own particular view of the world. Just like the rest of us, except it’s assumed that he’s an impartial observer with no dog in the fight. And that’s the problem: he does have a rooting interest.

Here’s what he said to Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, on MTP (May 15, 2011):

“…you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially tinged language, calling the President, the first black President, a food stamp President. What did you mean and what was the point?”

By ‘a lot of people’ he  means leftist cranks. Look at how Gregory massages the question to move ownership away from him: ‘could be’, ‘coded’, ‘tinged’. He’s unable to say, “you said, ‘food stamp’ president? Is that racist?” Whenever leftists can’t find a direct, observable correlation between language and intent, they now must  take benign language, deconstruct it with their undergrad leftist decoder rings, look deep into the hearts of people, and infer prejudicial intent.

The underlying assumption within Gregory’s question is: food stamps = black people. Well, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, as of FY 2006, 33% of those who utilize the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps, are African-Americans, representing 39% of the entire African-American population in the U.S. Of those who use food stamps, 43% are Caucasian, equating to 8% of the entire white population. More white people use food stamps than blacks, and white folks have been using food stamps since 1939. Who created the narrative that food stamps is a black thing? And who in 2011 is still perpetuating that notion? Who is the one reinforcing the stereotype?

The take away message from this exchange between Gingrich and Gregory is that the casual voter might infer from Gingrich’s defensive posture that he has something to hide and is likely a racist. Gingrich is correct: there are more people on food stamps today than ever before (43 million). It’s a reflection on the state of the economy and Obama, the man shaping the policy that fostered these conditions. But thanks to Gregory’s leftist hackery and disdain for nuanced arguments Hope and Change shapes American discourse and policy.