Rachel Maddow & Jon Stewart Seek Journalistic Soul By Gazing Into Each Other’s Navels
» 79 comments
Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed Jon Stewart, and spoke at great length about the current state of journalism, particularly in the context of cable news’ ability (or lack thereof) to distinguish news from opinion. The conversation was at times confrontational, but always respectful; well-reasoned and yet still confusing; an intellectually challenging, if not academic, discourse about media that certainly deserves further parsing and analysis in the coming days.
What does it say about the current state of media that two of its most currently respected personalities can sit down for about an hour to discuss the state of Journalism and opinion media (vis-à-vis cable news), and somehow not come away with any clear conclusions? One gets the sense future Journalism professors (or whatever they’ll then be called) will point to this interview as a seminal moment in the definition of news coverage and opinion media, or perhaps real news vs. meta-news. Maddow and Stewart each seemed to see themselves in different roles than they considered one another, but not for the same reasons. But we’ll get to that in a bit.
First of all, both Maddow and Stewart deserve the highest praise for digging really deep on a difficult subject, and never once erring on the side of simplifying their cases for the audience. Any expectation that this conversation would be a mutual love-fest was quickly deflated. In her own inimitable style, Maddow took very seriously Stewart’s recent critique of MSNBC’s part in the cable news “conflictinator,” and did not shy from challenging The Daily Show host on his rhetoric. For his part, Mr. Stewart reminded us all, again, that he really is the smartest guy in the room, even if, at times, his non-comedic persona brings with it the knowledge that he is..the smartest guy in the room.
As for the actual discussion points, there is a lot to get through. But Ms. Maddow’s claim that Mr. Stewart put up a “defense of George W. Bush and the Iraq War and water-boarding” is a post for another time. This piece is an effort to reexamine some of the media analysis highlights from last night’s interview. Things got very interesting when the two explained the Fox News phenomenon, particularly Stewart’s summation:
>>I think the brilliance of Fox News, they delegitimized the idea of editorial authority, while exercising incredible editorial authority. It’s amazing. And they also have the game that they’re all out to get us. Any criticism of them can be filtered through the idea that it’s persecution. This isn’t criticism, it’s persecution. That’s a tough distinction to make. Nobody likes to be criticized. I don’t like to see people I like and respect go, “That rally was useless. It did nothing and, in fact, you’re crazy and wrong.”
But I understand that I put something out there. I made something. And people should have a chance to go, this is what I thought it was. I just want to make sure that I’m clear about what I thought it was, not what I thought it was, what it was. Because I made it.
Most interesting in the back and forth that followed on how Fox News works its so-called “magic” was the starkly different tone the two took: Maddow clearly views it as “black magic,” or an occult and evil enterprise, whereas Stewart seems to see it with the wonder of a “magic show.” Either way, it led to a discussion on the evolution of programming at MSNBC:
>>(Stewart): Do you think MSNBC changed over the last five years? There is a genetic linkage between Keith– Keith was the first. It was a voice in the wilderness. People were like, what? You can say that? You came on. Now, I’m talking about climate as opposed to weather. But it does create a linkage that I think it would be hard for you to say, “Geez, I don’t know if we’re really doing that.” Then what are you doing?
>>(Maddow): I think the media, having been derided for so long as being liberal and biased and very afraid of that charge, when Keith spoke out the way he did, he essentially came out of the closet as a liberal. And nothing bad happened. It was still okay. He grew his audience, if anything. I think it gave network executives some courage to say, “Okay. people are liberals can be on tv as long as they call themselves liberals.”
>> (Stewart): The idea that executives work on courage — I think what they did is said, “Why is fox news kicking our asses? We need to fight this with a similar — this is an arms race.”
>> (Maddow): Being here and having those conversations, that never happens. What happens is, look, Keith’s making money. How can we do more of that? That’s more the conversation.
>>(Stewart): That’s what i just said.
So while there was slight disagreement as to the symptoms of the issue, they appeared to agree that MSNBC evolved as a reaction to Fox News, though with significant differences. Stewart echoed a point that he made earlier to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, namely that MSNBC will never “win” as long as it continues to try to play FNC’s game (while also criticizing its methodology.)
One of the more illustrative parts of the interview came after a discussion on the merits of the offensively comedic term “teabaggers,” which highlighted the differing standards between Stewart and Maddow. Here’s the transcript (from Maddow’s blog):
>>(Stewart): I have the leeway. but the one thing i don’t have the ability that you have is the ability to really do something about it. You’re in the game.
>> (Maddow): You’re in the game, too. We’re in the same game.
>>(Stewart): I don’t think so. You’re in a better game than i am.
>> (Maddow): How?
>> (Stewart): You’re on the playing field and I’m in the stands yelling things.
>> (Maddow): Everyone sees you on the field play, too. I think.
Stewart goes on to explain, quite adroitly, his role as satirist relative to that of an opinion media personality, but it’s not exactly correct to claim that he adds his commentary from the sidelines. Mr. Stewart is very much in the game of forming opinions based on the news, though to be fair, his take is significantly different from that of Maddow and others. But 200,000 participants at the Rally to Restore Sanity didn’t “meta-participate” in a support for a reasoned and sane discourse. Stewart is in the game, though he’s clearly much more comfortable (and perhaps even effective) voicing his critique from the sidelines. Whether he asked for it or not, Stewart has been handed the Cronkite “most trusted” mantle. That puts him, not in the game, and not in the stands, but in the zebra shirt, refereeing the whole affair.
And while the lengthy discussion on the state of journalism seemed to raise as many questions as it answered, one can actually feel optimistic about the future of news and opinion after watch two super smart personalities talk in a respectful and enthusiastic manner. Watch the entire, uncut video from MSNBC below:
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Who Is The Woman In The Racist Postal Video? The Internet Thinks It Knows
SNL Mocks George W. Bush - Kanye West Feud (VIDEO)
Michael Moore To Democrats: "You Can't Keep Blaming [Bush]" For National Woes
Man Films Airport TSA Encounter, Says It Borders on Sexual Assault
Sarah Palin Appreciates Kathleen Parker's 'Admittance' Via Twitter
Ann Coulter Warns Of 'The Fascist President," Incandescent Lightbulbs »133
Report: MSNBC Pres. Phil Griffin Told Keith Olbermann's Manager "We Are At War" »102
Judge Napolitano To Arianna Huffington: 'How Can Anybody Take You Seriously?' »96
McCain On DADT: "I Will Listen to Our Military Leaders, Not A Study That Is Leaked" »94
Sarah Palin On Her Author Neighbor: "It's Just None Of His Flippin' Business" »88
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
More TV:
Bill O’Reilly Challenges Ted Koppel: Give Me Examples Of My Lies And Shut Me Up For Good
Shep Smith: ‘If You Touch My Junk, I’m Going To File A Lawsuit Against You’
Not thrilled with the idea of having a random TSA agent "touch your junk?" Well Fox's Shepard Smith has your back. In a typically lively debate over the case of traveler-turned-viral-video-creator John Tyner on Shep Smith's Studio B Monday, Smith grilled attorney Seth Berenzweig on the TSA rules requiring full inseam "pat-downs" in cases where travelers decline to submit to electronic body scans.
Fox News: Democratic Political Analysts Suggest Obama Should Not Run In 2012
Fox News' Democratic analysts have thrown President Obama under the bus: Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell suggested this weekend that the Democratic Party must cut off its head to stand a chance in 2012. Schoen was back on America Live earlier today to defend his point of view from former Gov. Ed Rendell, who found the proposition premature and borderline problematic.
- The Best “Fan Running Onto The Field” Video From An Eventful Sports Weekend
- Muggsy Bogues Says He’d Be Most Dominant Player Ever If He Were Pau Gasol’s Height
- Lights Go Out At New Meadowlands Stadium, “Lights Out” Metaphors Abound
- College Football Power Rankings: Boise Should Be Above TCU, Says Internet
RSS
79 comments
Stewart is very smart – and it showed here. And he is right to continuously say that he is a comedian, a parody – not news.
“Whether he asked for it or not, Stewart has been handed the Cronkite “most trusted” mantle. That puts him, not in the game, and not in the stands, but in the zebra shirt, refereeing the whole affair.”
The problem is that people think what he is doing is news, but it’s not. And he knows it, and he is befuddled that people confuse him with *real news*. I disagree that he is even referring. He does an excellent job of clipping and editing to create a 22 minute comedy show – but it doesn’t represent the truth.
And just like Stewart was saying he doesn’t like to be criticized, neither do Conservatives. But that happens ad nauseam. They are attacked for their way of thinking, or believing. Stewart did a good job of breaking down some of the more hysterical MSNBC reporting.
I haven’t come to the teabagging portion yet.
“two of its most currently respected personalities” Are YOU kidding me?
Name the people that respect Maddow? Opps, other than left wing nuts and lesbians?
OK, just passed the teabagging bit. She is in denial… She is way too defensive and does not admit or realize how partisan and vitriolic MSNBC is. Shultz, O’Donnell, Olby, Matthews, and Maddow all plug the liberal agenda. She said she doesn’t tell people to call or write or how to vote – she may not say the words – but it comes through LOUD and CLEAR, regardless. And as we saw in the J$ video – they do push Democratic candidates on air.
She is also delusional if she thinks she and Stewart are on the same playing field. I think he did an excellent job of explaining their differences. The fact that she even considers themselves on the same field says a lot about what she thinks she is putting out…
Hopefully she will go back, watch this, and do some self-evaluation. I always knew that Maddow was an intelligent person – she just sold out to become Olby Light, a snarky partisan hack.
Oh, he also did a good job of explaining why he didn’t *step into the game* during his rally.
I think Rachel and Jon were even going for the same fashion statement. yeeck!
What an absolutely brilliant interview. It was really gratifying to hear two highly intelligent people having a real discussion about the state of media on mainstream television. What’s interesting is the usual vituperative reactions of the rightwingers over the Stewart/Maddow discussion have been considerably thoughtful and restrained. Maybe there’s hope for the future. I find it hard watching FOX television because there is so little coherent intelligence on display. Watching Glenn Beck and his blackboard or puppets sharing his nonsensical insights with his gullible audience is enough to drive anyone crazy, which it does. Hannity is an out and out illiterate bully and the master of them all, O’Reilly wears thin very quickly. Eventually more people will see that Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, etc are demagogues who manipulate and play loose with the truth while people like Maddow, Stewart, Colbert and most of the line-up at MSNBC are at least trying to understand and work out a way to live and communicate sanely. Nobody has the answer, but, for sure, the right has much less to offer.
Rachel is like a lot of journalists. They think that since they are inclined to push politicians (liberal or conservative) to go further to the left, that this is an indication that they aren’t “in the tank”.
And like most journalists, if her life depended upon it, she couldn’t thoughtfully articulate a conservative position, or play “devil’s advocate” form a conservative perspective, when interviewing a liberal pol.
The overwhelming majority of journalists’ challenges to politicians come from a leftward direction.
and here we have the usual vituperative reaction of a FOX hating left winger.
“Maybe there’s hope for the future. ” – I doubt it, with comments like yours…
Well, considering that Rachel’s chief concern here is that Jon is equating leaning-forward proper-thinking MSNBC with the icky conservative Fox, and Jon has tried to make himself the arbiter of what CAN be said, by chiding the media for years about “tone”, while being a bare-fisted brawler himself, I think your summation is typical leftist self-congratulatory goobly-gook.
Yeah. ‘We wish to be civil. You suck’.
Always an indication of an insightful mind…
exactly! haha
People always fail to realize that this was why FOX even came to be. They were sick and tired of the constant left/liberal slant in the news. Almost everything you listen to, hear and read had a left leaning/liberal pushing slant – TV, songs, news, etc. FOX decided to provide a right leaning alternative – offering fair and balanced coverage – Right and Left – with Conservative commentary. And instead of just letting them *be* they are under constant attack, 24/7.
It is the same argument and hate BS over and over again – because FOX is successful. If FOX was in the toilet, and didn’t win the ratings wars, people probably wouldn’t care as much. But fer cryin’ out loud – they have a right to exist, and Conservatives have a right to have one channel that represents their views.
It isn’t hate mongering – it is a differing opinion – one that Liberals apparently do not feel Conservatives have a right to have.
WTH is wrong with the black board? And wasn’t Olby’s point about the puppets that HE had them first?! It is stunning, really, the level of energy and hate (and lies) that Liberals spend on FOX.
Again and excellent post. But then…..
You counter act it with crap.
I don’t think that anyone gives a shit if they have their own channel/station. But they clearly display hate mongering as well as MSNBC. Sometimes even more so. IMO
“But I understand that I put something out there. I made something. And people should have a chance to go, this is what I thought it was. I just want to make sure that I’m clear about what I thought it was, not what I thought it was, what it was. Because I made it. ”
I disagree with Stewart politically but I often enjoy his humor. At any rate, Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast suggested Jon Stewart stick to humor and the above sentences from Stewart are a probably as good a validation of Beinart’s comments as any. Sheesh, what nonsense.
I found it to be an excellent interview. I highly recommend everyone watch it, no matter what your political leanings.
That is absolutely the best title of any article I’ve read on Mediaite yet.
Sara (who loves America so much she lives in a foreign country where she benefits from government healthcare) is the last person to accuse anyone of being a snarky partisan hack.
I wonder if the people who cited Stewart as their main source of news in the polls on this subject did so as a way of stating, “Hey, both Fox and MSNBC are too partisan and ideological for me and Stewart’s show exposes the truth more than the other two”. I absolutely love the Daily Show, but I hardly consider it a source for my news, but rather, a source for my sanity.
I say that because in order to get the humor of Stewart’s show, you have to know what he’s talking about. So I would argue that those who cite Stewart as their primary source for news aren’t exactly accurate because they have to get their news from somewhere in order to process the Daily Show’s satire. I know others on here have said as much, but I felt it was worth repeating.
what about it is crap?
That FOX started as an alternative to the liberal voice in the media?
That they are under attack 24/7 from msnbc/liberals?
That they wouldn’t be under the scrutiny they are if they were not successful?
It isn’t hate mongering – it is a differing opinion – one that Liberals apparently do not feel Conservatives have a right to have?
WTH is wrong with the black board? And wasn’t Olby’s point about the puppets that HE had them first?!
It is stunning, really, the level of energy and hate (and lies) that Liberals spend on FOX.
What hatemongering are they guilty of, on FOX? They have differing opinions on illegal aliens – is that hate? Or people wanting to follow the law? Gay marriage? Didn’t Beck say he supported gay marriage and an end to DADT? I can’t remember… Is it hatemongering to not believe in gay marriage? If so, then are 70% of the black and hispanics in CA hatemongers? Abortion…to many, and I respect their views, it is murder. To them, it is sitting by and allowing babies to be murdered. It isn’t hatemongering or anti-women, it is a held belief that it is fundamentally wrong. Obama is a socialist? Is that hatemongering? Why, if so many Americans wave the socialist flag loudly and proudly. Thinking that Obama is a muslim? Who does more fearmongering wrt Muslims? Muslim extremists and Hollywood, or FOX? My money is on Hollywood and Muslim extremists. The majority of US Muslims oppose the Ground Zero mosque… are they hatemongering for opposing it? Supporting waterboarding – is that hatemongering? holding Christian beliefs, is that hatemongering, or is it hatemongering to attack people for their religious beliefs (like attacking them as not believing in evolution).
Yea – there will be extremists in any group, but holding different views on these issues is not hatemongering. Yes, FOX has gone overboard in the past. But discussing these views or opinions is not hatemongering. Calling millions of Americans racist and teabaggers for holding different beliefs seems like hatemongering. Spreading lies about spitting and n*words seems like hatemongering. Attacking Hillary supporters as racist for opposing Obama was hatemongering. That was the worst hatemongering I have experienced.
I don’t watch FOX 24/7 so I suppose I could have missed some hatemongering… do you have an example? I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen, I just can’t think of any examples.
gordonblowhardshow says:
“’two of its most currently respected personalities’ Are YOU kidding me?
Name the people that respect Maddow?”
Lots of folks blowhard, just not extremists reactionaries like those you associate with.
Tell us, oh “respectable” (LOL, j/k) blow hard, who do you respect? Beck and Limbaugh? They align with your extremist, reactionary POV and viciousness, do you respect them Blowhard? Oh, while you’re here:
Blow hard, you’re lying. That’s why I challenge you to prove where I have ANYTHING I’ve written about Beck wrong and every time your response is….chirp chirp chirp.
Bloyhard, put up or shut up. When you assert that I’m a “liar,” you’re lying. You’re very good at this.
BTW, I was hoping that you’d been banned from Mediaite. What happened to you for that period of time. You figure out how to lose your virginity finally? (If so, was it as good for him as it was for you? You see, Gordon, that’s the kind of DISHONEST question that Beck asks. How’s it feel to be on the target end of such a sleazy tactic, the kind of things that reactionaries like you and Beck pull quite often.)
C’mon Blowhard; give an example of a “Lie.” chirp chirp chirp
good point, but i have had FB friends, and commenters on my blog say he is their #1 *news source*. That terrorizes me. haha I love his show, I have always liked him, and had a brief encounter with him about 15 years ago. He is a very smart comedian.
It does , which is why so many people are drawn to it. It is from a different perspective. As Jon explained, Climate, vs weather. Jon comments on the general atmosphere of politics and media , rather than argue the right or wrong of details. He gets to call bullshit what it is, and point out the reoccurring hypocrisy and double standard used.
I think that is only partially true and just as true for liberals. Nothing at all wrong with holding a conservative view on issues , but both sides need to learn to present those views honestly and clearly. When Fox does something blatantly dishonest then conservatives ought to be able to acknowledge it. Same goes for liberals.
An ongoing argument over who is more bias is useless, just as dismissing an opposing viewpoint completely because of bias is.
I think what people would like to see is a real intelligent exchange of ideas, conservative and liberal , with a moderate thrown in, that is a prime time show, on a week night rather than a Sunday morning. Some intelligent even tempered people to present their views and back them with some real facts.
I don’t think we’re going back to Cronkite any time soon , but it would be nice to have a rational intelligent exchange rather than partisan mockery and bullshit.
i disagree. when he does go after the left, the writers here, as an example, always end up fact checking it, or disagreeing because they say Stewart took it out of context, or whatever. He does the same thing when he goes after FOX or the right. He takes snippits, makes them look totally hypocritical, but leaves out the context or that they asked both guests questions that are seemingly partisan or leading or whatever., etc.
He goes for the laugh, not the facts.
Megyn, as an example, will ask both guests questions, but frame them like she is supporting the opposing view, when all she is doing is playing devils advocate – but taken out of context, it is very easy to make her seem like she is flip flopping all over the place. He can touch on truth, which is what makes it so funny – but it is not *factual*.
Now that’s a very interesting point.
To Cecilia’s point:
Stewart exposed Maddow and her fellow “progressives” for being the indoctrinated, ideologically paralyzed demagogues they truly are!
He continuously referenced THEIR fixated adherence to liberal orthodoxy as a principal factor in undermining political discourse in the country. (Did you catch all that Olbermann? lol!)
Meanwhile, Rach did everything she could to ingratiate herself to Stewart, perhaps indicating a potential move to the Daily Show – or, that she’ll be playing for the “straight” team from here on in!
LOL!
Although I think the game of who has sinned the most doesn’t really serve a useful purpose, there are differences. Bias is one thing. Outright blatant dishonesty is another. I also think Maher’s and Maddow’s point about actual candidates and elected officials is a pretty valid one. It’s one thing to have extremists in your party saying outrageous things. It’s another to have the leaders saying them.
I don’t think he’s trying to do that. His show is commenting on what is said and how it’s said in a comedic way. If the joke is “wow that’s really a ridiculous exaggeration , or false , or hypocritical, and is funny because it’s true, so be it.
“two of its most currently respected personalities can sit down ”
I couldn’t take this article seriously after reading this. The interview came across as a highschool girl trying to kiss up to the “cool” popular guy. It was hard to watch.
The math doesn’t work for them individually or them together: smart + wrong = wrong.
It makes me laugh so much to see liberals fawn over supposed intelligence, but they never include the right or wrong part when talking about other liberals.
CosmosDan says:
“When Fox does something blatantly dishonest then conservatives ought to be able to acknowledge it. Same goes for liberals. An ongoing argument over who is more bias is useless, just as dismissing an opposing viewpoint completely because of bias is.”
Dan you’re right about all of this, but you stop one step short. An examination of the media watchdogs shows that while both sides misstate the facts (call it lie if you wish), the right does so FAR MORE than MSM or MSNBC combined. Day after day, MRC criticizes bias in the media, but only rarely can they find where MSM or MSNBC gets the facts wrong. Day after day, Media Matters doesn’t even mention conservative/reactionary bias on the right: it’s a given. They go after lies, false claims, distortion, etc. Just now a press release came out about how Kelly and Malkin distort what the Dream Act would seek to accomplish.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011120025
and my essay on this:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html
Point is, scientifically objective analysis shows that conservative and reactionary media deceive far more than the liberal media. If I win the lottery tonight, I would set up a watchdog organization of media watchdogs to determine what network is most trustWORTHY.
I agree that the success of Fox has a lot to do with conservatives wanting a voice in the media, and I agree it should be there. It isn’t just a differing opinion or view though, on a lot of occasions and I’m always surprised that so many conservatives can’t see it. Sometimes they just lie, and they do fear monger. They have good news shows, and some shows that are obviously opinion but they also have areas where the lines are blurred and guests are obviously an opinion for hire to push an agenda, often with nothing remotely fair and balanced. I’m not sure that’s a plus for the consumers. Calling something blatantly unbalanced and too often dishonest , with a disregard for what used to be journalistic standards, just a conservative view is really insulting to conservatives IMO, and a disservice to the dialogue that’s needed.
I see your point and will pay more attention. Megyn confuses me because she is one of the areas where I think news and opinion are often blurred. Playing devil’s advocate and questioning anyone from that position is a fine technique, but a lot of biased opinion seems to come from her show as well.
there is a reason Jon is the hero to the left. it is because his show is skewed to the left. he goes after the right FAR more than the left. why? because his beliefs are closer to those on the left. if he went after both sides equally he would not have such a devoted liberal following – heralded as the most trusted man in news. he would probably have a larger audience, though, made up of those on the right too. but you can not tell me that he doesn’t have enough material available to go after both sides equally.
his show is funny, and like i said, there is truth in there, which is why it is so funny. but you have to watch it as comedy, not as fact, or else you will hate it. he turns off conservatives because it is ~95% FOX/conservative bashing – if it were more fair, he would have a bigger audience. And you can’t tell me there isn’t plenty of material on the Left to work with.
it’s like SNL. they do politcal humor rooted in fact, but it is so over the top it is funny. the problem with Fey and Palin is it became mean after a while. it was funny in the beginning, but it was SO one sided, SO partisan, and after a while it just felt mean. And her *acceptance speech* was even more mean.
But, back in the Bush/Gore election, I used to laugh my a** off – *strategery* and *lockbox* – it was hilarious. And (maybe i am remembering it wrong) but it felt WAY more fair and even handed back then. I never laughed harder when they did the Bush rolling around like a cat with a ball of string. It was funny. But, the Palin stuff was SO unfair – only focusing on her, and not on Obama that it just lost any funniness, and became mean spirited. They drove people away, instead of playing fair. They had an agenda, which they have admitted to, and Conservatives knew it. They did some Biden stuff, but I think that came later. During the primary they made fun of the media and the love affair for Obama, but Tina was a Hillary supporter. Once she was out, it was all Palin. And Obama provided PLENTY of material. It’s just like Letterman – partisan. Where is the Great Moments in Presidential speeches bit now? It’s not like Obama doesn’t provide PLENTY of material there, too.
Stewart jumped the shark with his choir singing F*ck you to FOX. But he gets a large platform five nights a week to do humor, interjecting his own political leanings into it. He loves to say it is comedy and not *real* but he does show a bias. He could be fair, he could be non-partisan, but he chooses not to be. That’s why he is a hero to the left. That, and they think he is reporting the actual news…
I get your point. I just don’t watch enough to offer an informed opinion. I have seen enough to comment that consumers need to see and understand the difference between an opinion and a willful distortion of facts.
As someone put it, as a pundit you can give the facts an interpretation through the lens of your own preference , be it conservative or liberal, but you should still have the integrity to present the facts, and a decent balanced set of them.
I could tell you that but you wouldn’t agree. In fact, since I can’t watch all the shows and don’t , I couldn’t even say it honestly. I have more of an old school view of what journalism should be. Report the facts , and all of them.
My honest impression now is that Fox often resorts to blatant dishonesty and obviously irresponsible acts that are nothing like journalism when they simply report here say and guess work as if it has merit, and it’s almost always willfully anti liberal , creating an emotional effect that disregards facts and their own signature slogan.
I think other media , especially MSNBC now, is biased , but I see a distinct and relevant difference between bias and outright dishonesty.
Well, now it is a whole new level everyone. These two Liberals are ” SUPER SMART”. Yup, that right, Liberals were no longer satisfied with just being , you know, really smart and , way smarter than everyone else, the bar has been raised, Now we have—– wait for it ——-”SUPERSMART”!!!!- This going to come as a shocker to actual super smart people , you know like, Newton, Leonardo and William Shatner.
You know how long this will resonate within the history of Journalism,,,,wait, sorry, it’s already forgotten. “Fart” has more staying power. Nothing was answered, so who cares, it was interesting watching “super smart” Cable celebrities talk? HUH?
Now Mediaite is Puffing up People to the point of God-like( re: Cronkite) levels.
Up the damn dosage and get over yourselves.
CosmosDan says:
November 12, 2010 at 3:09 pm (Quote)
I think the problem there is not that Conservatives don’t see it when/if it happens, it’s that EVERYTHING they do is attacked. Who is that idiot who is in an uproar because O”reilly said something about beheading? I can’t remember his name off the top of my head. Dana Milbank! It’s like oh, please.
Every single thing FOX does or says is ridiculed, attacked, smeared, whatever. After a while FOX viewers just say STFU and don’t care what others say. You cry wolf 5,000,000 times, pretty soon, no one is going to listen. That is why I refused to get my panties in a bunch over the *get in the back of the bus* controversy. It’s like who friggin cares. The same old faux hysteria coming from the Left about yet another FOX *hatemongering* episode. *yawn* MSNBC is obsessed with FOX, and DAILY tries to bring them down. Look what all the attacks did to the tea party. They made it stronger and bigger. They were attacked and smeared because a handful of a**holes had racist signs.
Faux hysteria 24/7…. I rarely watch Hannity because he is a hard core Republican and I am not. I do watch his All American Panel. But I can say honestly that I feel like they are a far more fair and balanced channel than most. I can’t recall any lies that I am aware of. If they did, they should be called on it. But MM daily attacking them, and taking stuff out of context and calling them liars does not make it so.
o’reilly is FAR more moderate than I ever thought he was. For years I didn’t watch him, I just listened to what MSNBC told me he was all about, and they were so wrong. I used to hate Limbaugh – and never ever listened to him, because I just listened to what the Left said he said. Now I fact check, now I go and hear for myself. They lie about them, and create these out of context or faux hysteria BS stories ALL the time.
Rush has most definitely said things I disagree with, but he is NOT the hatemonger that he is portrayed to be. And O’Reilly, same thing, don’t agree with all he says, but he is no where near the persona he is made out to be on the Left. Beck – he is over the top at times, but he more often than not, comes from a place with good intentions. He is way more religious and I disagree with him on things, but he presents ideas/things and tells his views to check for themselves. He may have missed the mark once or twice, but he is presenting things he researched and believes to be true. (ex. beck was smeared with spreading the concentration camp story when he actually DEBUNKED it) Because of the time difference though, I usually catch the news hours at FOX, and watch OReilly in the morning, and watch clips of the other shows here or on the site when it sounds interesting.
exactly. and MSNBC spends so much time attacking fox for things, when they turn around and prove to be huge hypocrites. and they rarely offer opposing opinions. and they don’t admit to a liberal bias.
http://johnnydollar.us/files/101107fhwir.php
analysis of the presidential race, and the last cycle we had both showed FOX to be more fair and balanced than the competition.
CosmosDan says:
“… a lot of biased opinion seems to come from her show as well.”
Is there any other kind of opinion? I don’t mean to pick on you today Dan; it just seems that way.
Dan, did you apply to the job opening here? I think you’d be good at reporting on the media.
is that from watching it, or reading about it?
two very different things.
“Report the facts , and all of them.” – I wish.
Hey Dan I am loggin off. Thanks for the discussion. :O)
So about once an hour there’s a report about how Fox smears, deceives, distorts, lies, misleads, etc. This time they are smearing Muslim scholars.
“Fox continues its guilt-by-association smears on Muslim scholars”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011120032
Oh yeah, and MSNBC has a liberal perspective. Compared to the onslaught of lies from FoxPAC, BFD.
I see. I think we need more precise language. When Dana Milbank is being an ass let’s not refer to him or his actions as “the left” let’s keep it to Dana. Same with others. Be specific, and a lot less blanket accusations and criticism.
Although I’m not a fan of Fox in general I’ve learned what you expressed. That conservatives want someone to give voice to their views. I understand that and respect it. So, I think the blanket insults of “Fox News” Faux News” or whatever, don’t really help.
It’s doesn’t have to be hysteria to just acknowledge their intentional and obvious dishonesty on that one. It doesn’t force you to disown the other things you like.
I think the Tea Party was new and people were trying to figure out what it was. That’s where empty speculation isn’t helpful and networks were doing that. They also sensationalized the racist element, and while I can fault them for that, it may also have motivated sincere people to pay attention and get rid of those hateful fringes, so maybe it did serve a purpose.
Personally I find a lot of dishonesty and hypocrisy in Beck. I have a hard time believing he’s sincere. I expect to disagree with pundits, and I expect to find valid points as well, but I choose who gets my time by who I think has a stronger commitment to presenting the truth , and giving the other side a fair chance to respond. By fair chance I mean not just any rep from the opposition but an intelligent articulate one that you give more than three or four minutes. I agree that certain shows on Fox do this. I like Rachel M because she seems to have a commitment to the truth but her bias is pretty obvious and I wish she sought out more articulate intelligent opposing guests.
In general, I’d like to see both sides agree that we want honesty, and real information and that while bias is okay, distorting the facts is not. Then we can deal with specifics rather than sweeping generalities that shut down conversation.
I didn’t know there was one. I’ll check it out. Thanks.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-is-hiring-tv-editorreporter/
“seek a journolistic soul” What a joke. Rachelle thinks she is Jon, Jon knows better.
Rachelle equates MSNBC to a comedy show — now there is some truth in that, for sure.
Rachelle thinks she is a “journolist”, she thinks Jon is a “journolist”….it just doesn’t get any funnier than that.
My pleasure. enjoyed the exchange.
Conservative thought process:
“Maddow = liberal = evil.
Stewart = liberal = evil.
Maddow + Stewart = two evil liberals spewing double the evil and double the hatred on the airwaves from the comfort of their all-powerful liberal media dictatorship.”
Gee, WHAT a shock!
Let me remind you what you said before the election. I am surprised you have the nerve to come back here.
ganymede says:
September 29, 2010 at 3:59 pm (Quote)
7 13
A message to all my rightwing Mediaite ‘comrades’. It’s time to get real. The polls are turning to the Democrats and it’s clear that there’s not going to be a bloodbath on November 2. The Dems may lose some House seats but that’s it. You’re not going to take over anything. The whole subect of extremism is besides the point. I certainly don’t regard myself as an extremist nor would I call the Teapublican people extremists. However, I do notice that much of your catechism is based on myths and misinformation. The country’s in a hole and while the Dems don’t have much in the way of answers, the right has absolutely no program at all except to obstruct and vent anger. This is why the polls are shifting as more uninformed people get more information about what’s really happening. The right hasn’t learned anything from history and it’s not enough to rant on about the deficits and to ignore the plight of the majority of Americans. What do you propose to do? Also, who on earth can support the Teabag candidates outside of their immediate constituancies. And all the bigotry directed at Obama is crazy. Going on about his being a Muslim, socialist, anti-American isn’t getting any more traction because it’s all BS. The reality facing us is that many of the Democrat politicians in DC have been trying to help the country get out of this mess and they’ve made a bit of progress while being constantly blocked by all Republicans and a minority of timid Democrats. We’ve had enough of your negativity, cynicism and ignorance. It’s time for a change and it’s going to happen after Nov 2nd. I hope you rightwing people can handle it.
What happend? Did you take your meds today?
If morality means making sure the well-being of humans is maintained, then I think Fox is not on the side of morality, and therefor, WRONG. I don’t think MSNBC is the same at all and it’s not because MSNBC has a side.. but because Republican thinking on most issues is morally wrong. There is no split between right or left if you approach all issues in the same way. Should civilians die in Iraq because we think there might be terrorists there? Yes or no? If you say Yes, you believe that the life of a few can be spared to save the supposed lives of many, you are taking a chance though. If you say no, you risk many deaths in the future but there will be no immediate deaths and there might not be any deaths. Morally, Republicans are taking a risk in going to Iraq but they wanted to even though we had no clear goal of what we were getting if we went in. If liberals pointed this out, they were Anti-American. Liberals protested about people dying in Iraq for no reason, Republicans protest Obama giving people healthcare. Do you see these moral differences?
In the end, we want to protect humans… but I think if you look at Republican ideas, they are not to protect and help people, in fact they are to make life harder for many people. Republicans spread humans into different genre’s, alien, terrorist, liberal, faggots, minority, poor, then they look at how they can take down each one of those groups. Liberals, on the other hands, do not do this and see humans as a species that should work together and not compete to the death. Republicans want to exclude PEOPLE, while Liberals want everyone in their group.
Republicans see themselves as the only people that exist, or ‘the best’ people that exist. They don’t want what’s best for humanity, they want whats best for Republicans and humanity should have to bend to their will.
That’s why Republicans are wrong though and will ultimately bring their downfall. they will never be right until they realize that Conservatism and Religion do not mean Morality and Values. There is no such thing as Christian morality because there is only one morality, human morality. Even if your bible says that being gay is wrong, it doesn’t matter, that does not fit with human morality, as there are gay people who will be nice to you, will harm no one and they deserve respect too. So technically, religion does not fit with humanity because it is not moral, at least not to humans.
thanks john for defining others, now define what you liberals want
Still waiting for an example of one of my so called lies, there Blowhard:
chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp
Oh, it’s just so much more entertaining and enlightening to watch and listen to $arah Paylin regurgitate slogans and buzz words for Sean Hannity.
A little of both. I turn them on occasionally. Fox and friends in the morning is one of those places where they consistently offer very slanted and often unfair and obviously purposely negative commentary. Even Chris Wallace gave them crap one day for being unfair for hours on end.
I’ve seen good segments there and I’ll repeat. I want to hear good conservative views, but blatant dishonesty to serve a political agenda is a real turn off.
cosmos , i believe that, its true, ed schultz on the left does the same shit, i get tired of both sides too
WOW!
it didn’t take long for the BAGGERS to talk *SMACK* & remind us why the REAL impasse in dialogue takes place.
because you people on the ‘fright’ side are racist, bigoted, hateful, MORANS.
congrats on driving that reality home every time you open up your wha-wha-wha-whining mouths.
“Evil” is not quite the right word. “Wrong” is better.
Now, where does evil fit? Evil does come into play because we are all taught by liberals to tolerate bad behaviors. We’re not supposed to judge, right? And morals can’t be certain because the liberals can’t pick a moral system (because it means saying one thing is right and one thing is wrong.)
So evil comes into play because evil is allowed to thrive. Since we can’t use the tools that humans developed to deal with problems (morals, ethics, etc.), evil actually thrives.
It’s not that liberals are evil, but I would argue that the deep-down Modern Liberals/Progressives (the really wacko leftists) are probably evil. The regular Joe Liberal who votes for liberals thinks the liberals actually help. Like I said, the word is ‘wrong.”
You’re not exactly on the wrong track, but you are missing a lot. Moral systems are developed by humans. Our system happens to be based on the Judeo-Christian traditions. You can argue that we don’t use this system, but then you’d have to explain that it’s all a fantastic coincidence.
One thing that sticks out is the “Republican”, “Conservative”, “Democrat” and “Liberal”. “Republican” and “Democrat” define parties. There are conservatives and liberals in both parties but the Liberals in the Democratic Party took it over starting in the 60’s and pushed out the conservatives. (So much for diverse opinions!)
As for what is morals, from what i can tell, the Modern Liberals/Progressives hate the teaching of morals. We are all taught to tolerate bad behaviors and to keep our mouths shut. Political Correctness is imposed on people (by liberals) so as to control speech and thought.
If you go back in time (and avoid liberal history books), you’ll find out more about how all of this works.
It’s deeper than you think.
I agree.
To me, Conservatism is about seeking the truth. It’s about reason. It’s about using as many facts as possible, wherever they may lead. And it’s about using our moral code to be able to decide what is right and wrong along the way. The moral code is the foundation to make it all work.
But as we all know, things are very divided.
We don’t often get to the point where we can spend the time to seek the truth because we’re too busy dealing with the left which doesn’t really use a moral code. This is why we can’t even agree on the problems!
This is why John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
…and why Teddy Roosevelt said:
“To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”
The Left has been working for scores of years to undermine our foundations and it has only been fairly recent that Conservatives are waking up.
You won’t be waiting long. You lie so much. Don’t you remember I already posted a number of your lies a number of weeks ago. Your problem is that you have that lib gene and you don’t know when you are lying it just comes out like crap from a Goose.
You really are delusional. You even thought Mediaite would ban because of YOU. LOL. Who do you think you are?
Sorry Dan, you would have to come out of hiding and use your REAL name. Try something you would be good at like the weight guesser at the carnival.
I don’t think they have an opening for dog walker either.
Hey Alz(heimer), so liberals in the Democratic party pushed conservatives out in the 60s? What are “blue dog Democrats” then? Incidentally, I just saw an old tape of the 1964 Republican National Convention where Nelson Rockefeller was booed off the stage when he attempted to promote the liberal wing of the Republican party. To this day, that instant is seen as the death of “liberal principals” in the Republican party.
To this day Democrats have a much larger tent, idealogically and morally than does the ever shrinking Republican party.
That’s good Gordon because I’m not interested taking you for a walk.
I know it’s a silly game for you, but are you sure that’s not my real name? Maybe you’re talking about things you don’t know about. I’d think you’d get tired of that eventually. Guess not or you wouldn’t do it so often.
And where are those liberal protesters now that we are in Afghanistan, killing innocent civilians? Where were those liberals when they signed the Iraq Resolution authorizing force in Iraq?
Republicans aren’t protesting healthcare for people – they are protesting the system Obama has set up, that is already proving to be a cluster f*ck. Prices going up, people getting dropped, Medicare plans going away, and making the top 1% of the country to pay for it. Doctors can’t afford to open their own clinics because they can’t afford Malpractice insurance. Why won’t Democrats put caps on malpractice suits, which could reduce insurance costs, which would do a lot for small doctor offices – they could afford to open clinics that could care for people. Why won’t they open the state borders on insurance purchases? Obamacare sticks a huge expensive nightmare of government in the middle of the mix. That’s not the solution.
I suggest you check out Arthur Brooks’s book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism”
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2686978&affil=wabc
Liberals are generous with other people’s money. Theirs, not so much.
Republicans find it morally wrong and deplorable to kill unborn babies. Why do liberals find it morally ok to kill unborn babies?
Liberals put everyone into categories. Affirmative action, hate crime laws, loans for minorities, Acorn, Black Caucus, NAACP, NOW… Liberals want to put everyone in different groups, and give priority treatment and laws to different groups. Conservatives want everyone in one group, and equal and fair treatment for all. (save gay marriage – although that is changing, and civil unions are accepted) Liberals pander to groups for votes – Obama was one of the worst!
Conservatives care about the poor, but have different opinions on how to get them out off poverty. Liberals think they represent the poor, yet the poorer keep getting poorer. They are the *party of the poor* – they need to keep their people poor.
What’s that saying, give a person a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, he eats for life. Democrats offer the fish, paid for by someone else. Repubs want people to learn to fish.
GlennBeckReview said:
“Still waiting for an example of one of my so called lies, there Blowhard:”
gordonbloyershow says:
“You won’t be waiting long. You lie so much. Don’t you remember I already posted a number of your lies a number of weeks ago. Your problem is that you have that lib gene and you don’t know when you are lying it just comes out like crap from a Goose.
You really are delusional. You even thought Mediaite would ban because of YOU.”
Still waiting there redneck blow hard, I mean Gordon Lightmind.
Your “lib gene” argument is enlightening, really. By your rationale, nothing a liberal claims can be understood as a lie because of — the correct language, Mr. Uninformed Blowhard — is biased assimilation.
No, Blowhard, I didn’t think that Mediafight banned you because of me; I thought that they had banned you because of YOU. When you defame my character with your baseless claims, I thought that when disappeared, it was because someone (besides myself and a few other rational folks) noticed what an utter sleaze bag you are to assert repeatedly that I’m a liar without any examples.
What examples does Gordon Blowhard offer of my supposed “lies?” Still waiting:
chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp
I just got back from my weekly meeting of Liberal Elitists For Totalitarianism and wanted to mention that vying for complete domination does require a strict moral code. Just so ya know.
Better check history again, I think you missed some truth. Try this
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
Hello. My friend
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
thank you !!!
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
sarainitaly says:
“Republicans aren’t protesting healthcare for people – they are protesting the system Obama has set up,”
Two lies here Sara: Republicans don’t accept health care as a right. They don’t want to cover people who cannot afford health care insurance.
The other lie is subtle, but it shows that you’re more programmed by conservative thinking than you are carefully objective. This health care reform was introduced within and hammered out withing Congress. Obama didn’t “set up” this health care reform. Congress did.
Amazing how easily people can get programmed into thinking a certain way and then their articulation of their understanding comes off as not just partisan — I have no issue with conservatives making conservative arguments — but erroneous, flawed, false, mistaken, deceitful, smearing, etc. This is another way of saying, Sara, that you’re entitled to your own opinion; you’re not entitled to your own facts.
I understand Jon was pretty one sided, but you know that innocent civilians have been killed since day one right?
The Dems in congress were political pussies for the most part.
Don’t believe everything you read or hear. Republicans had their chance to participate in fixing the health care system but decided it was a political opportunity rather than a problem solving one. The fact is every major piece of legislation takes years to fine tune. That’s a historic fact. I’m not happy with the way it was handled , but we need to encourage our elected officials to work together to solve problems rather than create phony scare tactics like death panels.
Or, why do conservatives who value personal liberty insist of taking away individual choice? Why are they willing to ignore scientific facts to impose their own morality on others?
although using race issues for votes seem okay.
Conservatives don’t like the what they call the redistribution of wealth when it takes from people who have more than enough and gives to those who don’t have enough. They seem to ignore or justify the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to those already rich. Seems odd doesn’t it.
I think there are liberals who don’t understand how too much and too easy welfare creates dependent adults , but let’s at least look at the numbers realistically and look at the other end of the spectrum. In the same way dependency is a real problem, so is corporate greed and the push for more and more profit, no matter the affect on others.
And when the person say, I don’t have a pole, a hook, bait, or a place to fish, Republicans say too bad, you’re SOL.
Although basic principles apply the issue can’t be simplified that easily. IMO, a lot of issues come down to finding the right balance. Modest programs to provide help to those in need are a good thing as long as it still encourages personal responsibility, rather than dependency. Funds for education , making it accessible to more people, is an investment in America’s future and a way to address poverty and crime.
Personally I favor workfare over welfare, where people who are able , get help by giving something back, working for their community in some capacity, even a limited one.
Absolutely not true. Conservatives are much more generous with their time and money, through charitable donations, than liberals are. They don’t like being told they have to give their hard earned money to someone by the government. they do it on their own.
I am totally for workfare. Good heavens, we can have cleaner streets and no more tagging on the walls.
“Conservatives don’t like the what they call the redistribution of wealth when it takes from people who have more than enough and gives to those who don’t have enough. ” – who gets to decide who has too much? who gets to decide who gets my money? who gets to decide how to spend my money? do i get to decide how they spend the money taken from me, and given to them? why don’t they have enough? why did i work my ass off my entire life, and create an empire, but am forced by the govt. to hand over a huge chunk of my money, for them to do with as they see fit? it is my money and hard work, and intelligence and success, and failures that allowed me to earn that money – shouldn’t i be able to decide how it is spent and who it goes to….? Why should they like that?
I must say, the Maddow/Stewart interview has generated some interesting comments and insights from both the left and right side. I wrote something at the beginning of this thread and was a bit too harsh about Fox and the rightwing mentality. My comment now, after reading some of the thoughtful responses, is that I don’t hate Fox programming, as someone accused me of doing, it’s just that the right side comments are much more radical than the left side. A good example is the right side claim that the left people have no serious moral code. That’s pure bs. I’m not going to go through a laundry list of issues, but the best part of this country’s recent history is much more from the liberal direction than the conservative. And the right is becoming much more extreme and, I have to say, irrational. I’m beginning to see that the reason why there’s only one mainstream TV outlet for the right is that they have boxed themselves in. Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly would be out of place on most other media outlets simply because they are so radical and have few ideas and practical proposals asides from ‘the government is the problem’ and don’t tread on me’ mantra. But I’m happy that Rupert Murdoch has given the right a huge, successful outlet to share their views. But, really, to paint Obama as an extremist is nonsense and to say that liberals control media is equally absurd. Most of the left comments on Mediaite are very middle of the road. I just wish, especially with the recent election, that the right will start smelling the roses and start cooperating with Obama and the rest of us, otherwise we’re in for a continuing difficult time.
Cosmos Dan is your real name? Do you lie much? I’m sorry, yes you do.
Remember that prediction you made about the election? What happened? The repubs were not going to take over anything? Should I post it again?
You seem to have lost that arrogant attitude.
You have that backwards. YOU and Obama should start listening to the American people. We don’t want Obamacare. We don’t want Obama apologizing for America. Grow up. 40% of us are conservatives and only 20% have the defective liberal gene.
You have no character. YOU are a LIAR. Example of a lie by YOU………You said you were going to sue me? What happened? You lie all the time. Every post you make is a lie. You give all the examples anyone needs. Do you see anyone defending you here? I notice many others call you a liar. Where is that attorney of yours?
Start with a lie, finish with an arrogant insult. Wouldn’t expect any less from you, Gordo.
GBR has more credibility in his punctuation than you do in your entire resume. Seriously.
Here, let me handle your reply for you…
Gordon: “I would expect a libtard like you to defend a libtard like GBR, Pukelake. Go away and leave this to the big boys!”
Sound about right, Gordo? I’m sure the language is slightly off, but you have to give me credit for “Pukelake,” no? And you almost always end by telling me to leave, so I think I got that right. I’d say we could probably just take care of your input without your help at this point. Wouldn’t you? ;-)
sarainitaly says:
“Absolutely not true. Conservatives are much more generous with their time and money, through charitable donations, than liberals are.”
Explain Soros extensive philanthropy.
Seriously Sara, cite a scientific source for your view on this. (TheBlaze and WND doesn’t count.)
GlennBeckReview said:
“When you defame my character with your baseless claims, I thought that when [you] disappeared, it was because someone (besides myself and a few other rational folks) noticed what an utter sleaze bag you are to assert repeatedly that I’m a liar without any examples.”
gordontheblowhardwithashow says:
“You have no character. YOU are a LIAR. Example of a lie by YOU………You said you were going to sue me? What happened? You lie all the time. Every post you make is a lie. You give all the examples anyone needs. Do you see anyone defending you here? I notice many others call you a liar.”
Again, I wait for you to make a specific claim where I “lie.” Still waiting. Gordon, one specific example where you can prove that I “lie.”
Still waiting. The crickets are waiting too:
chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEVDoL6J_U4&feature=player_embedded#!
» Login » Register