My Photo

« China and the future | Main | An paper microscope open thread »

March 26, 2014

Comments

Never trust a man, especially a bully, who can't see his own feet.

He never knows when he is about to step in it.

"fond of blonde women"

Not blonde either. Faux outrage generated by faux blondes. I suspect the few brunettes are true blondes, but agreed to change their hair color while on Ailes' overstuffed casting couch, which is the size of an aircraft carrier so it won't tip over when he reaches for his grapes.

Dr. Evil, of Austin Powers fame, was reportedly fond of blonde women, too, but it wasn't the their hair color, it was the machine guns housed in their breasts that was his kink feature.

Same with Ailes.

There's a video or two on YouTube of the devout Catholic Torquemada, O'Reilly, bullying his production crew in the loudest, foulest terms.

I guess he was practicing to take his guests apart. O'Reilly has two modes: bullying rage and smug.

I'd love for either of them to get in my face.

What I don't understand is why this sort of rageaholic behavior seems to be widely tolerated in business.

If you're making money, nobody cares if you're an @sshole.

Or, maybe your employees do, but their opinion doesn't count.

Perhaps more to the point, these rageaholics are memorable. So the ones who are successful are remembered and taken as a model for success. Someone who is merely quiet and productive has to be more successful to get remembered.

Once companies have that picture in their head of successful @ssholes, they get more accepting of some twit in their management structure.

</i>?

Count:

Quit it with the fat-shaming. Ailes' weight has *nothing* to do with it. Steve Jobs was also a massive jerk, despite having much less mass. And Jobs' arrogance, paranoia, and inability to listen to things he didn't want to hear cost him his life.

Ailes created Fox News

and used to to damage the American polity and American society to a degree that Al Queda or the very liberal communists of ComInTern never achieved.

May he DIAF, and soon.

The real rage here seems to be over the failure to enforce the left's own epistemic closure on everybody else. Whatever Ailes' failings as a person, Fox succeeded by providing a take on the news that didn't echo the MSM's ideological mono-culture. If you succeed in bringing them in line, they'll just be replaced.

I hate to break it to you, but Fox *is* a mainstream media outlet.

Actually, I hate to break it to me, too, but I've sort of come to terms with it.

Doctor Science:

Correct about Steve Jobs.

But, I guarantee you Ailes keeps his weight on for the same reason Sydney Greenstreet. the actor, was hired to play heavies in film noir, including one character called the Fat Man, the better to throw his bully weight around.

More room for him, and less for everyone else.

Besides, I'm under no compunction to be politically correct or politely civil with a conservative bully who spits in the face of all other human deformity, weakness, frailty, physical difference, class and income difference, races and genders and in fact, has made a living from it.

Trash-talking bullies deserve having everything in the trashcan thrown at them, including Steve Jobs, the skinny bullying runt, just about my size, actually a little taller.

At least Jobs created something of use to the human race instead of assembling a bevy of blonde idiots and smug male zombie bullies of all sizes to sneer at 73% of the American people.

After all, I didn't say Ailes should be required to show a special fat ID at the polls in order to vote, nor did I point out that he was purchasing too much seafood and pork chops with the money he has made over publicly subsidized airwaves and government monopoly cable systems - his form of food stamps -- at my expense.

Though both sound like something I should say.

Ailes would probably be outraged that you repeated Sherman's calumnies against his father and the way he was raised, but I say have at it.

Bullies are raised to behave that way and then get their perverted upbringings all over the rest of us.

All's fair in war. With Ailes, forget the love.

What Ailes girth has nothing to do with is anyone else's individual weight preferences who happen to be decent human beings.

He's fair game just like he believes you are.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement with you.

Fox succeeded by providing a take on the news

a "take" that is a deliberately misleading and laughably biased bunch of bullshit.

yessirree. a real champion of the people. a real hero. he does so much good. so many ignorant wingnuts can all sing along to the Fox News hymns instead of learning anything about what's actually happening in the real world.

what a fucking success.

Actually, Brett, Newsmax is starting a new network with yet another "take" on the news, to the right of FOX.

Apparently they want to introduce yet another set of facts, so we each have out own facts.

I found an article in Forbes describing how bullies are rewarded in the workplace: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydrexler/2013/07/10/are-workplace-bullies-rewarded-for-their-behavior/.

If someone is a bad boss but gets great results, that person's superiors will probably not interfere unless 1) the bad boss does something to affect the company's bottom line (drives off key talent) or 2) causes a PR or legal nightmare if unwelcome harassment is reported.

A "take" which wasn't your's, and that really pisses you off, doesn't it?

Can't say I've ever really thought much of Fox, they're more of a GOP establishment conception of what a conservative news outlet would be, rather than an actual conservative news outlet. They aim accordingly low.

But they do at least sometimes cover issues the rest of the media, (The part in the tank for the Democratic party.) are determined to bury. To that extent they are both useful, and infuriating to Democrats.

Though not nearly as infuriating as an actual independent media would be.


"Actually, Brett, Newsmax is starting a new network with yet another "take" on the news, to the right of FOX."

That's to be expected, Fox is starting to be coopted into the MSM, and as this happens they leave an ever larger unserved market for a media outlet that will cover things the DNC wants buried.

This actually ties into my long-ago master's thesis, in which I argued that economic concentration in the media leads to a situation in which the news organizations are trying their best to avoid alienating part of their constituency to the point where they feel like they have to challenge the local monopoly (newspapers) or oligopoly (networks.)

This implies that as the news media fractures, and each outlet must seek a slice of the pie instead of trying to dominate all of it, news outlets will adopt a point of view, as in fact, they are tending to do. Instead of trying to sell the same news to all kinds of people, outlets are now trying to dominate a sector. Ailes was on top of this trend, and went for the sector that became dissatisfied with the mainstream media during the Viet Name war and Nixon's fall.

Those folks are getting old, so it seems unlikely Fox will continue to be as important as it has been.

Brett, there's no Fox News in Canada.

Do you know why?

I think what we're seeing is a breakdown of the faux objective media model, where ideological conformity combines with a pretense that ideology isn't involved. We're on our way back to the original media model of the founding era, where media outlets can't earn enough from advertising to finance themselves, so end up being subsidized propaganda outlets for political factions.

It will be a big improvement over virtually entire media serving one party in that manner.

"Brett, there's no Fox News in Canada.

Do you know why?"

Have you asked Snopes about that?

Thanks, Brett.

Obviously I had not.

Claim: There is no Fox News in Canada.
Status: An assertion of doubtful veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Canada


Let me be more clear:

I was wrong.
There is Fox News in Canada.

Snopes says that, because Fox News is not produced in Canada, and is not broadcast in Canada (it is delivered ony by cable), the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission regulations that state "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news" do not apply to Fox News.

I am grateful to Brett and to bobbyp; it is always good to have one's misconceptions refuted.

BTW, Joel, I'm curious: Who told you that there wasn't any Fox news in Canada? And are you going to adjust the confidence you place in what they tell you, now that you know they traffic in, ironically, false and misleading claims?

A "take" which wasn't your's, and that really pisses you off, doesn't it?

no, it doesn't.

it's the deliberate bullshit that pisses me off.

and you're cheering it. you're cheering a company that lies to America, all day long every day. and you think it's OK because the lies are good for your team?

"BTW, Joel, I'm curious: Who told you that there wasn't any Fox news in Canada? And are you going to adjust the confidence you place in what they tell you, now that you know they traffic in, ironically, false and misleading claims?"

Jeebus.

Maybe your tooth fairy paid him a visit.

Maybe he read it at NEWSMAX.

It's that all the bullshit isn't being slung on behalf of your team that pisses you off.

Fox sucks, no question about it. CNN sucks, CBS sucks, MSNBC sucks. They all suck. Media that don't suck seems to not be an option in America, at the present.

I would much rather have an array of media which at least suck in somewhat different directions, instead of suckage that uniformly benefits one team.

Even if the latter is preferable to you, since it's your team.

There are a whole host of subjects, Bengazi, Fast and Furious, IRS (And other agency) targetting of conservatives, which most media outlets in the country simply refuse to cover. Anything that makes the Democratic party look bad, essentially.

And, why wouldn't you expect that, when most US media outlets are run by Democrats?

I think Fox sucks, but if they cover what the NYT doesn't think fit to print, (Because it makes Democrats look bad being why Fox covers it, AND why the NYT doesn't.) I'll hold my nose.

And you'll be pissed. Doesn't bother me a bit that you're pissed off that Democrats don't run the ENTIRE news media.

"I would much rather have an array of media which at least suck in somewhat different directions, instead of suckage that uniformly benefits one team."

I wouldn't let your Hobby Lobby corporate dominatrixes know about your participation on the receiving end in this media blowbang.

On the other hand, birth control, subsidized or not, will be moot.

"Fox sucks, no question about it. CNN sucks, CBS sucks, MSNBC sucks. They all suck. Media that don't suck seems to not be an option in America, at the present."

I agree with every word of that paragraph.

What's NEWSMAX's "take" on the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines passenger jet?

Alien Muslim abduction commandeered by Kenyan cousins of Obama out of the situation room in the sub-basement of the White House?

We need objective news, no doubt. How's about you give it a try. Set up your own one-man news network out of your living room, your weapons collection as a backdrop, and broadcast it over the internet.

Call the show "Brett's Take".

Place your bare ass up against the camera lens and we'll listen to the objective facts as you report them.

Fox sucks, no question about it.

and you're defending it, gleefully. so spare me the handwringing.

There were already claims on FOX that the media only concentrates on the disappeared plane to distract the American public from the real news, i.e. that Obama sucks at everything and is an incompetent but omnipotent tyrant. Plus of course Benghazi.

Who told you that there wasn't any Fox news in Canada?

I no longer remember, Brett.

I probably got it from a comment on some blog, sometime over the last decade. I'm seriously embarassed, and I thank you, again, for catching me out. I have certainly earned whatever jibes you throw for having propagated this falsehood without checking first.

Another time, perhaps, we will discuss the First Amendment case that Fox took all the way to the US Supreme Court, and why.

"and you're defending it, gleefully. so spare me the handwringing."

And you want media that all suck in YOUR direction, so spare me the complaints about Fox.

Let me tell you something: Way back when, I used to subscribe to both the Detroit Free Press, and the Detroit News. The city's competing liberal and conservative newspapers. It was quite easy to see that the editorial positions of the papers were influencing choices of what to cover, and what aspects to cover of the stories they both carried. It even influenced which objective errors they were willing to issue corrections concerning.

Then came the JOA, and they combined their news collecting infrastructure. After that, both papers were running news coverage which was aligned with the Detroit Free Press editorial stance, so I dropped both subscriptions.

Now, both these rags were biased, so why would I read two biased newspapers? Because exposing yourself to news sources with different biases allows you to correct somewhat for the bias.

As I see it, you don't like Fox, not because it's biased, but because it's differently biased, so it gives people the opportunity to correct for the bias of the news sources you like.

I don't respect that.

Canada has news?

That's the news!

We're on our way back to the original media model of the founding era, where media outlets can't earn enough from advertising to finance themselves, so end up being subsidized propaganda outlets for political factions.

Yay! A mighty blow for freedom!

There are a whole host of subjects, Bengazi

As it turns out, my neighbor's brother was killed in the attack on Benghazi. The dead guy's nephew cuts my lawn.

For weeks, the folks on my block were treated to a parade of f***ing news ghouls, skulking around trying to catch members of the family outside, like for instance on the way to the grocery store or walking the dog. So they could get up in their faces and get a Meaningful Quote, maybe even The Real Story.

As far as my neighbors are concerned, the Real Story is that the brother was working security, the embassy was attacked, and he was killed. The fact that the American Embassy in Libya was attacked by pissed-off militant Muslims surprises them not at all, as it should not surprise anyone with a f***ing brain in their head.

They do not view the confusing and sometimes inaccurate comments of administration spokespeople about the attack as evidence of a conspiracy or a cover-up. They view them as evidence of confusion and inaccurate information. Again, hardly something to be surprised by.

They do not view their brother, brother-in-law, and uncle, as a victim. By their lights, he was doing what he wanted to do, what he liked to do and was good at, and they believe he understood that his chosen path in life was a dangerous one.

I invite anybody at all from any of the conservative Benghazi porn news organs to come to my neighborhood and bug my neighbors. They will be invited to leave, perhaps with a friendly boot in the @ss.

And that is all I have to say about Benghazi.

And you want media that all suck in YOUR direction,

As I see it, you don't like Fox, not because it's biased, but because it's differently biased,

i know you think this, because you keep saying it. but you haven't actually demonstrated it or proved it. consider what that means for your thesis.

i don't like fox because there is too much yelling.

it's annoying.

Issnot, is too.

I know this because you complain about Fox, and not about CNN.

"Yay! A mighty blow for freedom!"

Actually, yes, it is, so long as the outcome is multiple viewpoints being aired, instead of one partisan viewpoint monopolizing things under the pretense of "objective" news coverage. When the press are openly partisan, instead of covertly, it becomes harder to enforce one particular party's party line.

I know this because you complain about Fox, and not about CNN.

didja happen to notice the topic of the post?

hint: it's not CNN

I'm not crazy about MSNBC most of the time. Chris Hayes had a really good show on weekend mornings, where he had several people on to have long discussions on one or two topics for two hours. He usually had three or four guests, ranging from center liberal to left, and also usually a token conservative, who was however treated with respect and allowed to make a case. Hayes was promoted to the evening lineup and from what I have seen, the show is much less interesting.

I don't think MSNBC is anywhere near as bad as Fox, but it's not very good. CNN apparently stinks, but I only hear this secondhand. I don't mind open bias, so long as one has a range of biases to sample from, but it should be intelligently done. If Fox had a conservative version of Chris Hayes's weekend show, I'd be tempted to watch it, especially if the hypothetical intelligent conservative host had at least one token lefty on and treated him/her politely and let the lefty make his/her points. Is there such a show?

Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace is probably the right equivalent of David Gregory. Only show on fox I watch besides local news and bones

Oh wait, that's a whole different channel, nevermind

Actually, yes, it is

So, non-stop BS, just as long as we know whose BS it is.

Marty, you might want to also check out the new Cosmos (also on Fox rather than Fox News).

Brett: There are a whole host of subjects, Bengazi, Fast and Furious, IRS (And other agency) targetting of conservatives, which most media outlets in the country simply refuse to cover.

Hmm... IRS, today there are stories on that on CNN, NYTimes, LATimes, NBC News, Politico, USA Today, and the Washington Post.

Yesterday in the NYTimes.

On Saturday in the Legal Times.

On Friday in the Washington Post.

That's just in the last week.

"So, non-stop BS, just as long as we know whose BS it is."

Yup, better than everybody getting fed one side's BS, non-stop, with a "wholesome news" label wrongly attached.

Yes, Ugh, because when you don't have a monopoly on news outlets, you have to admit stories you don't want to cover exist. They did their best to bury them, and without Fox, would likely have succeeded.

Though the internet does make Fox less indispensible, I'll say that. Maybe we'll be lucky, and they'll die at the same time as MSNBC.

wj,

I did but I think on NatGeo?, it's on there on a different night. Honestly I was less than impressed with the first one.

There was coverage of the IRS in the NYTimes and Washington Post and ABCNews on the very first day the news broke. The WaPo had an editorial and additional story the next day. The NYTimes and LATimes also had follow up news stories, as did the Christian Science Monitor and AP.

The following Monday or Tuesday there was the TIGTA report and accompanying stories in the WaPo (two, in fact), NYTimes, and Bloomberg (also 2 stores). Etc. I guess they are terrible at burying things.

Marty, I agree that so far it's not as good as the first one. On the other hand, it is better than anything else that I've seen lately on the broad sweep of science. (And I admit to being startled that Fox was broadcasting something which blythely asserts that evolution is fact. Not "theory" but fact. Kind of a risk, given their core audience.)

The beautiful thing about conspiracies is that they explain everything.

Not exactly on topic:

Yesterday, a friend posted a story from Allen West's on-line "news" thingy on facebook about Obama, all by himself, killing the Hellfire and Tomahawk missile programs. (We're all dead soon because of it, BTW.)

I tried googling it, and all the hits were repeats of two or three variations of the same headline on different right-wing "news" outlets - Patriot-this and Freedom-that and Liberty-such-and-such, many with the same guy on the by-line.

There was one hit for Business Insider where the story went that it was the military asking to end the programs.

It's a pattern I've seen time and time again. Newsmax and Breitbart and pjmedia and a bunch of Patriot-Freedom-Liberty-whatevers all putting out the same one, two or three articles on a subject, but no one else - not even with another slant.

With that, can someone point me to an equivalent left-wing phenomenon? I mean, I'm sure there's something out there, but it seems to have a much lower profile.

Reported today by Brett, the anchor around the neck of Brett's Take, the news show in which truth takes a U-Turn in Albuquerque and backs up all over Brett Bellmore's bathroom floor.

"This just in. My sources spell Benghazi without the "h", and that's the way it will be spelled from now ...... hold on ..... we have further reporting on the missing "h" in Bhenhgahhzi, from Brett Belless, our cracked reporter and legal correspondent. Take it away Brett!

Brett Belless: "Thank you, Brett.

Brett, the host: And thank you, Brett.

Belless: No, thank YOU, Brett. I've just come from an interview with the microwave oven in my kitchen which picks up transmissions from the planet of Truth. I usually rely on my dental fillings for news transmissions, but today, our small appliance reporter is sitting in and she is telling me that it has come to the attention of the toaster oven that the reason Bengazi does not have an "h" in it is because the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Plywood Punchline, Wank Weekly, and uncountable other mainstream media outlets have conspired behind the scenes, not in FRONT of the scenes like we here at Brett's Take would, no, ladies and gentlemen, BEHIND the scenes, to remove the "h" from Bengazi because the "h" is prima facie evidence that Hi ... Hil... HIL.. HILL....

.... at this point in our show, Brett Bellmore slaps reporter Brett Belless on the back, interrupting his stutter and causing his bridge to shoot out of his mouth and into the open non-EPA=complaint wood stove, where it begins to sizzle, followed by ...

... HILLary Clinton .. thank you Brett, As I'm sure you do, I have trouble spitting out that name ... that's right ... Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State ordered the attack on the American Embassy in Behhhhgahcchi at the behest of, well, we know who, don't we, dear viewers.

Brett Bellmore: Yes we do, Brett. In closing tonight's show, let me say that we at Brett's Take follow the Brett's Take style book and misspell the names of all foreign cities, countries, and their inhabitants, because, in America, that is objective truth ... UNLESS (this word is shouted at the top of his lungs, causing the cat, two mangy dogs, and a partially tame, but muzzled wolverine to leap vertically from their naps and land scrabbling with their unclipped nails for all Hell on the linoleum kitchen floor, causing $34 worth of damage to the newsroom) ... unless ... the "h", or any other letter of the 31 letters in the alphabet can be inserted to incriminate, with the Truth, I say ... the other team"

"So HHHHHHHHagHHHHzi, it is."

"Not "theory" but fact. Kind of a risk, given their core audience."

Why a risk?

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, a cage full of trained apes will believe anything as long as the zookeeper snaps the whip.

"With that, can someone point me to an equivalent left-wing phenomenon? I mean, I'm sure there's something out there, but it seems to have a much lower profile."

Sure, Walter Cronkite started to cry on air after reporting that John F. Kennedy had died from the gunshot wounds received in Texas, and soon after, broadcast reporters on the other three networks shed tears, and then liberal print reporters in liberal newsrooms, all newsrooms, in other words, got carbon paper ink all over their faces blowing their noses over their typewriters when they got the news, and then the left-wing propaganda and brainwashing spread to living rooms and classrooms across the country in which even citizens who were Republican and conservative wept in front of their stunned children.

Nikita Khrushchev dabbed the tears from his eyes in Moscow.

So you see how it works, can't you hairshirthedonist?

What the monolithic left-wing American media, in the tank for democrats and Commies, did NOT report was the fact that Richard Nixon, a handful of CIA operatives, the Chicago Mafia, J. Edgar Hoover, and a contingent of banner-carrying Texans and Florida Cuban immigrants, sipped their martinis as dry-eyed and bushy-tailed as accountants because only they knew the truth of the matter, that Kennedy's killing was not a loss and it hadda be done ... and the truth never gets reported by the MSM.

By the way, if Herrnstein and Murray had used a finer filter on their racial IQ statistics in "The Bell Curve", and tossed out the single outlier point of Allen West's (murderous vermin) individual IQ score of 2.3, black and white IQ scores in general would have turned out to be equal and their entire thesis would have collapsed.

Fox succeeded by providing a take on the news

I like the word "take". It finesses the whole question of whether what anyone says is actually true or not.

We all remember that word, right? "True".

Before I asked them to take me off of their email blasts, I used to get these crazy Weekly World News quality chain emails from some family members.

You know the ones. The famous Lincoln quote about "You cannot bring about prosperity without discouraging thrift". Which turns out to have been said by one William John Henry Boetcker in 1916.

Maybe it was a seance, and he was channeling Lincoln.

When I would point stuff out to my family member, he would respond with stuff like "Yeah, but Lincoln *could* have said it!".

Instant alternative reality, right off the top of his head.

It was his take on things.

I don't really have a problem with news outlets having a stance, or a point of view, or an inclination to take one side or the other in presenting information.

I really don't like it when they just make shit up.

Fox doesn't have a "take", they are a pack of liars and frauds. Same with Limbaugh, same with Hannity, same with Beck. Liars and frauds.

They don't have a "take", they are on the take. Lend them your ear, and your brains will turn to mush.

Which, actually, explains a lot.

hsh, we call that slant abc/nbc/cbs. They report, to the largest audience of any set of news organizations, almost the same thing from the same point of view every day. Then reiterate the editorial view on the Sunday talk shows (and Letterman).

Faux convers made-up scandals to feed to the people who want to believe. The other corporate media outlets don't cover much of anything.

I don't watch TV. Why bother?

I sort of remember that at onetime Faux tried to get a license to produce "news" in Canada, but was denied because they don't meet the Canadian standard: "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news"

I will Snopes test this in a minute.

Okay , it's complicated, but failure to produce real news was not the issue:

Fox Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch was rebuffed in his efforts to establish Fox News Canada in 2003 due to Canadian laws regarding foreign ownership of print and broadcast media, but the CRTC approved an application to bring the Fox News Channel to Canadian digital television line-ups back in November 2004, and that channel is now carried by dozens of different digital providers throughout Canada. (The claimed distinction that Fox News is only allowed in Canada due to its being classified as an "entertainment" channel rather than as a "news" channel is a meaningless one, as those classifications only apply to Canadian media outlets, and Fox is an American company.)

The Fox Network, which is a broadcast entity distinctly different from the Fox News Channel, does not have any affiliates or owned-and-operated stations in Canada, but Fox Network programming is carried on cable and satellite providers in Canada through several U.S. stations located near the U.S.-Canada border.

Last updated: 7 January 2014

There are a whole host of subjects, Bengazi, Fast and Furious, IRS (And other agency) targetting of conservatives, which most media outlets in the country simply refuse to cover. Anything that makes the Democratic party look bad, essentially.

I don't watch Fox News and I knew about them. And does Fox actually "cover" them? When I was a lad working in college newspapers, "cover" meant something more or less like its opposite, "uncover." It meant to find out what's actually so about something and report it. If Fox has added a particle of actual information to the public's understanding of any of these stories, other than what the rest of us got from other sources, I have missed it.
By the way, does anyone recall whose reporting in what newspaper gave us Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?

By the way, does anyone recall whose reporting in what newspaper gave us Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky?

Newsweek was sitting on the Monica Lewinsky story until Matt Drudge reported it. Then The Washington Post reported on it.

Which did Drudge keep the extramarital blowjobs of the first 41 Presidents under his dumb-looking hat?

I smell a coverup.

Do we know why Newsweek was sitting on it?

We can make a darned good guess.

The same reason the evening news last night was all over a months old story about Chris Christie, and ignored Leland Yee. Democrats don't like covering stories that hurt Democrats, and practically everyone in the newsroom is a Democrat.

And I'll certainly be shocked if this makes the front page this weekend. Though I can only imagine the coverage if Rand Paul's wife were similarly caught.

The sensationalism of Bill Clinton being caught up in pedophile ring would be irresistible to just about any news outlet - if there were any truth to it. The greatest bias they all share is for a big, juicy story like that.

It's probably being presented in a highly misleading manner, much like most of the stories on these wacky, right-wing sites that repeat each other's bogus crap in an endless circle jerk.

Every once in a while, the blind squirrels find a nut, which gets used as proof that the cranks are good journalists, despite putting out total BS on a regular basis.

I guess we'll see about this one.

I think the MSM would be extremely careful about accusing a former President (and spouse of a possible future President) of being a pedophile without really good evidence. That's going to be true for someone in either party. But if there is a story here, it'll come out. The MSM has a lot of stupid people in it, but a scandal involving sex is one they can wrap their tiny little brains around. Maureen Dowd could get 15 years worth of columns out of this.

I read the Leland Yee story two days ago in the LA Times.

CBS News (going on three days ago):

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-state-senator-leland-yee-arrested-in-federal-raid/

As for Christie, it's a continually breaking story about a Governor and probable Presidential candidate (do you know what "breaking" means?), the latest break in the story being Christie's own whitewash "report"of the bridge caper.

You'll hear more about Yee as the story develops. He's a State Senator and to my knowledge hasn't started doing a national tour, yet, to drum up support for his Presidential campaign.

Yee's going to jail. More than we can say for your boy, Christie. Not your boy? Now I remember, you're a practitioner of passive-aggressive objective reporting.

You are the lodestone of objectivity, with the stress on load.

More from Brett's "Darned Good Guess Gazette", not to be confused with its sister publication, "The Full of Sh*t Flyer":

"practically everyone on the newsroom is a Democrat"

Is that the headline? As your editor, got a number on that? Quick, we'll send Jimmy Olsen to do some crack reporting directly from his own crack.

Regarding your cite to the bias study, I'm gratified to learn that NPR is pretty well balanced in their new reporting. I've always thought so too. Any chance you'll tune in?

The Western Journalism website: I perused the "news", along with the Clinton story (a nothin burger enabled only by very lax libel and slander laws in the United States), and, lo and behold, came across the "answer" to the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines passenger jet, which I specifically asked you about several days ago.

All of you must view it. It's great. They've got all the answers.

It's a video presentation which you can click on at the top of the page.

It's a corker of a story .... if bats sh*t like they are reported to sh*t by science reporters on the Wall Street Journal news pages, which I've also read for the past 30 years, and I find it balanced in its news reporting as well, even after the Murdoch buyout.

Liberal? In what sense of the word, unless you and they mean middle of the road. But I have a feeling you're hanging out the wrong end of the Overton Window, which may skew your views.

Cover one eye and see if things look any different. And now the other. See?

Check Ronald Reagan's other inside coat pocket, it must be there somewhere. The facts must be in there, stuck to a stale, half- sucked lifesaver.

But back to the Malaysian Airlines Story. See, I love it when I make up a joke about what your journalistic sources might come up with on a story like that and find that you missed it and my version, made up by my fingers on the fly on the keyboard the other day, is ALMOST, not quite, but almost as nuts as theirs, but, I would say, equally sourced, which is to say I wiped myself while on the toilet and took a glimpse at the product and called it a wrap, a veritable who, when, what, why, and where of good basic reporting.

Nevertheless, I hope their version is the true story. I favor the ridiculous over boring old reality.

Plus, I thought CNN's speculation regarding black holes was lame, but I guess they had go there to "compete" with the fire hose of "news" sewage sprayed daily from the uh, "alternative" news sources.

"Though I can only imagine the coverage if Rand Paul's wife were similarly caught."

I think that should be looked into, seeing as how Paul's reputation among the MSM seems to be not unlike Peter Seller's character's rising reputation in the movie "Being There", one of a vapid dipsh*t ninny who mouths empty platitudes for the adoring mass media.

She could be said to be "caught", just like Clinton has been said to be "caught", just like you did a few minutes ago.

Therefore, consider Mrs Paul caught. Because, I do. I suspect she's molesting young boys as we speak, probably her own sons, because the word "caught" has been uttered.

Bob's your uncle.

By the way, I'm dying to hear your version of the Washington Post's Watergate coverage.

What, you didn't like that gummint types were taken down by that scandal? Were they your type of gummint types? Probably not, given Nixon's scandalous founding of the EPA.

Maybe the piece of tape on the door at the Watergate complex was placed there by Sander van Oker to juke the story along.

Or maybe the Malaysian Airlines jet landed in D.C., via a time warp in the wayback machine, and the Muslim pilot took a taxi to the Watergate and affixed the tape to the deadbolt to incriminate Nixon's plumbers to shape events and pave the way for the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the Presidency and a measly four percent rise in the top marginal tax rate in 2012, and then went on its way to the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

Satellite imagery may be liberally biased, so I wouldn't believe everything you read.

See, I just made that up. See how easy journalism is.

That is truth because I say so, and because something very like it will be reported (I give it a week) as truth on one of your pet alternative websites by next week.

Also, what Donald Johnson said. I understand the MSM kept sending blue dresses over to the White House for Bill Clinton, or anyone, to cum on, they were so eager to cover the story up and wave the garment in our faces.

It's true. Look it up.

This just in: The wreckage of the Malaysian jet will be found resting at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, directly on top of the body bag containing the remains of Osama bin Laden.

The remains in the body bag, upon examination, will be determined to be those of Vince Foster and a lovely bag of cantaloupes.

Keep spreading the news.

The same reason the evening news last night was all over a months old story about Chris Christie, and ignored Leland Yee.

I heard about Yee from Balloon Juice and Atrios. Maybe also Talking Points.

All lefty blogs.

There is no left-wing equivalent to Fox and the rest of the right-wing mainstream media.

If you want to tell me the standard news outlets of, say, 30 or 40 years ago had a left-leaning slant, due to the basic assumptions and social and cultural backgrounds of the people who worked for them, you will get no argument from me.

There's always the WSJ as a counter-example, but nonetheless, you'd have a point.

If you want to tell me that there's some kind of organized Liberal Mainstream Media which systematically and deliberately seeks to suppress news that is detrimental to Democrats, I will say that you are either full of sh*t or delusional.

Especially if you're talking about any time in the last 20 or 25 years.

Fox is a news organization which was *intentionally and specifically* created to present news from a very specific political stance.

These things are not the same.

If the link from Western Journalism, whoever the hell they are, about Bill Clinton's "connections" and "involvement" in a pedophilia ring is your idea of an important and credible story that the media is simply sitting on out of deference to the Democrats, you are either trolling or you are so naive that you make Pollyanna look like Machiavelli.

Seriously, there's nothing of substance that the Democrats are doing that deserves investigation or criticism? This is the nonsensical crap you bring as an example?

Next time you go shopping, check out the tabloids by the check out register. I think you will find them both informative and intellectually rigorous.

There's a Chinese boy out there who reads with his ears. It's true, they even show you the book he read to prove it.

Check this out, from Brett's first link:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.

My bold.

Of course, I knew Drudge was a fellow traveler all along.

Keep spreading the news.

Yes, please do, it's good for the soil.

The left wing equivalent to Fox news is the rest of the MSM. Might not look like it to a committed liberal, (Just like the evening news on most channels looks like Pravda to a conservative.) but Fox isn't any further from the political mainstream in America than most of the media are, it's just that most of them are clustered to the left of center, while Fox is a little to the right.

Neither extreme is very much represented in the media.

Hot off the Western Journalism news beat:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/know-barack-hussein-obama-reminds/

I'll no longer be commenting here as usual.

Every future post of mine here will be a cite from Brett's Western Journalism sources.

All the news that's print to fit.

Do we know why Newsweek was sitting on it?

It could be they were aware of Isikoff's history of being a water carrier and/or a dupe for those out to get Clinton by any means.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/05/17/media-mum-on-newsweek-s-isikoffs-role-in-clinto/133214

The left wing equivalent to Fox news is the rest of the MSM. Might not look like it to a committed liberal

It strikes me that you see every damned thing through some weird tangled-up network of bizarre conspiracy theories.

That's all well and good, to each his or her own.

The rest of the world doesn't operate that way. Many, if not most, of us are more than capable of seeing a variety of perspectives in any given situation, even perspectives that we ourselves don't hold.

I'm fully aware that media organs like the NYT, PBS, NPR, and any number of other examples have a more or less reflexive liberal bias.

I'm also fully aware that, for instance, the WSJ does not.

When I read stuff by them, I'm actually able to notice that, and factor it in to my thoughts about what they write or say.

When I apply the same reasonable filter to Fox News, I find that I basically have to simply ignore anything they say, because they are utterly unreliable.

They don't have a bias, they have an agenda. They are not a news organ, they are a propaganda machine. By design and intent.

There is no mystery there.

In any case, the quality of stuff you are bringing to this discussion as examples of the "liberal MSM suppressing coverage of important stories" is so dismal that it's not even laughable.

It's pitiful. It reflects poorly on your ability to make even the most basic assessment of what might be credible and worth looking into, and what is simply palpable horseshit.

I think you have actually damaged your mind by reading this crap, your ability to recognize utter, intentional, thoroughgoing bullshit appears to have gone on holiday.

Not all of us look at every damned thing that crosses our path through fanatically partisan blinders. Many of us are capable of recognizing bias, not only in the media but even in ourselves, and adjusting our understanding of what's what accordingly.

In any event, I don't need comments from a guy who brings cites claiming that Drudge is a sekrit liberal, or that Bill Clinton is involved in a pedophilia ring, telling me that I'm unable to grasp the underlying bias of one news organ or another.

"while Fox is a little to the right"

A little?

Could you be more precise? We deal in facts around here.

Is it a millimeter to the right? A centimeter? Mile and a half? Say, the distance from Daffy Duck's right nut to his left? If you turned left at Albuquerque and drove in a straight line for three days, how far to the right would you say Fox news would be?

And to the right of what fixed spot?

Have you moved the spot lately? I suspect you're moving it as we speak.

Is it like Bugs Bunny's rabbit hole, which can be dragged just about anywhere, in case Elmer Fudd is trying to point a shotgun into it?

By God, man, we need some hard facticity around here!

Is it ... a little to the right, like Roger Ailes ass is twelve feet from his belly button, which he calls his center of gravity, which accounts for the fact that his trousers are always in a puddle around his shoes?

Oh, Jeez, here comes Doctor Science, swooping down like Athena to issue cautionary words.

I'll no longer be commenting here as usual.

Well, that didn't last very long. Thankfully.

Never believe anything you read on the internet.

Believe everything.

I don't know why, but it's times like these all of us should consult Puddles, the sad clown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBmCJEehYtU&feature=share

let me live that fantasy

The same reason the evening news last night was all over a months old story about Chris Christie, and ignored Leland Yee.

The California media have been all over the Yee story. Front page news all the way. Which is reasonable, since he was a state Senator and had filed for Secretary of State of California. Where as Christie was a Governor and likely Presidential candidate.

In short, a national figure is national news and covered as such. A state figure is local news, and covered as such. No conspiracy required.

"We deal in facts around here."

Now that is precious.

"Not all of us look at every damned thing that crosses our path through fanatically partisan blinders. Many of us are capable of recognizing bias, not only in the media but even in ourselves, and adjusting our understanding of what's what accordingly"

Whoever us is, I'd like to meet you guys. This is an amazing paragraph. Ya'll recognize your prejudices and adjust accordingly...to what? The accepted norm? And there are many of you? How many? We deal in facts around here.

Now I see why we keep humoring Brett like the Liberal Mainstream Media keeps humoring Dick Cheney: he is the Count's most inspiring Muse.

Do any of you folks know Charlie Pierce's blog? If so, do you suspect as I do that Countme-In and Charles P. Pierce are distant cousins at the very least?

I bring Charlie up because he has a "take" on the "mainstream media" which ... well, here's from his March 10 edition of "What Are The Gobshites saying These Days?"

We shake up the usual order today and begin over at CBS. Onetime Louis Napoleon national security correspondent Bob Schieffer had the week off, and Charlie Rose, deprived of his Big Table of Sycophancy, sat in for him. The producers decided that who the country really needed to hear from concerning the situation in the Ukraine was well-known zombie war criminal Dick Cheney. He was joined on the show by James (To Hell With The Jews) Baker, and Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from Wisconsin and most recent First Runner-Up in our vice-presidential pageant. Hilarity, naturally, ensued.
...Disco Dave's Disco Dance Party was dripping with slightly less vicarious testosterone, although the Dancin' Master seemed bumfuzzled as to why the president couldn't wave his mighty bully pulpit and stop Vladmiir Putin from being a thug. He had Tony Blinken, a national-security guy from the White House, on to talk about it.

GREGORY: Let me talk about the crisis in Ukraine. Since this started, the president and his top officials have issued it seems like line after line, and Putin seems to have crossed them all. Why does this president, and the United States generally, have so little influence over him?

And another time:
Meanwhile, over on This Week With The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs, there was a lot of talk about Jan Brewer and her veto of that state's wedding cake Jim Crowism. The discussion included a congresscritter named Adam Kinzinger, defenestrated Obama official Van Jones, and Rich (Sparkle Pants) Lowry, who was there representing National Review's historic alliance with discriminatory statutes of every kind. This did not end well for him, as Jones parked him deep in the rightfield stands...

Charlie Pierce, an undoubted and self-professed liberal, does not despise the Main Stream Media in toto, but it should be clear that he doesn't think well of its Sunday morning pillars.

--TP

"Now that is precious".

Dobe, you do remember that the "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" had a laugh track, don't you?

They would overdub a sort of medium chuckle when the Maynard said something vaguely and self-deprecatingly ironic.

No wonder you had a quizzical look on your face during those scenes.

O.K. kids, let's try it again ... this time Maynard, give a broad wink toward the Dobe when you say your line so he's on cue .. ready, set ... ACTION!

Maynard: "We deal in facts around here."

?????????? CUT! No, No, No .... NO!

Alright, people -- take 30 minutes for lunch and hit your marks again at, say, 4:00 pm. Christ, and to think I quit the General Electric Theater, where we had to have Nancy Reagan on the set every day showing a little leg to get Ronnie's facial muscles to move in closeups, to direct this fiasco. And that Beatty kid will never amount to a hill of beans.

All's I'm saying is I'll supply the humor if the conservative, reality-based community on the Right here keep up their part of the bargain and bring the some facts, any old facts.

As Russell pointed out, Brett is not keeping up his part of the bargain.

This is an amazing paragraph.

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.

Weren't all of us blinkered ones cooing over an article bobbyp cited the other day from the American Conservative?

I'd love it if Brett, just once, linked to, I don't know, Mother Jones, and Marty showed up and said, "Now we're talking!"

Can we agree on an emoticon for a wink? I didn't miss any of Maynards best.

Emoticon for a wink?
semicolon-dash-close bracket:
;-)

Always glad to help.

If you want to tell me the standard news outlets of, say, 30 or 40 years ago had a left-leaning slant, due to the basic assumptions and social and cultural backgrounds of the people who worked for them, you will get no argument from me.

I was going to add to this to say that I don't really know what the bias of current-day broadcast news folk are, because I don't really watch network TV anymore.

But that isn't true, I did happen to see a network newscast recently.

I would say that, as best as I can tell, nowadays broadcast newspeople not only don't have a bias, they don't have any thoughts at all.

The lack of a wink at the end of this comment is intentional.

Here is a factual news story about anti-American Putin penis envy in the Republican Party, the latter of which has been coopted by anti-American, authoritarian, murderous, subhuman filth like fellow travelers Steven Seagal, Joe Arpaio, the phalanx of Putin-lovers on FOX News, and the scum fellow traveling Putin admirers being elected in Republican State Houses and in the Republican House of Representatives.

What are decent conservatives going to do about this infiltration of Commie-loving authoritarian predators in your Party?

C'mon, tough guys. You didn't like when a few Commie sympathzizers found their way into the Democratic Party all those years ago.

You brandished your f*cking guns as threats against them.

But you s*ck their dicks when they call themselves Republicans.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast