Update at bottom of post: Other bloggers react to Rosie announcement.
Controversial daytime television host Rosie O'Donnell just confirmed rumors on "The View" today that she will be leaving the show.
"I can't come to terms," O'Donnell said, referring to an ongoing contract dispute that she had been having with ABC, the owner of the show.
Despite her departure, O'Donnell will be a "frequent guest host," she said. "View" founder Barbara Walters said she was not involved in O'Donnell's negotiations with ABC and said that she was "sad" that the former solo daytime host was going to be leaving after such an "interesting" year.
O'Donnell's role as co-host of the syndicated talker has come under scrutiny in recent months for injecting her strident brand of left-wing politics into the show.
Ironically, after Rosie made her announcement, Walters made some left-wing remarks of her own, stating that George W. Bush "is the president, not a king" in response to her walk home from the office.
Video: Real (3.3 MB) WMV (3.8 MB), plus MP3 (604 KB)
Full transcript from NB's Justin McCarthy below the fold.
The left is famous for its general intolerance and suspicion of religion, especially in the public sector. Yet, increasingly, an exception seems to be made for Islam.
Scott at Power Line caught another instance of this in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune where the normally anti-religious editorial page is oddly favorable to a local college's installation of a foot-washing basin for Islamic students:
It's worth remembering that
this question first arose at MCTC as a matter of safety, not religion.
A student slipped and fell after another student used a campus sink to
wash his or her feet. [...]
Banning Christmas carols on the official campus coffee cart -- which
incensed the school's critics -- seems plainly in keeping with a long
string of court rulings that forbid the use of public resources to
endorse a particular religion. But accommodating the prayer practices
of some devout Muslims seems akin to putting kosher items on the
cafeteria menu and letting employees display religious objects in their
private workspaces -- accommodations that MCTC has in fact made in the
Is it just me or does it seem that liberal political figures seem to have a propensity to say "it was just a joke" whenever a particularly idiotic idea of theirs meets with appropriate ridicule?
That at least, is what Sheryl Crow is now saying after her remarks about how everyone should only use one square of toilet paper were derided worldwide. I'm inclined to agree with Ace. He quotes from Crow's original blog post and then asks:
If someone can point out the tropes typically used to indicate ironical intent here, I'd appreciate it. Seems to me like a list of earnestly-proposed "solutions."
All daffy. But daffiness is the left's stock in trade. Whereas irony, self-awareness, and humor generally are not.
Oldie but goodie: Yet another example of Al Gore "killing" the planet in order to "save" it, this time in Saskatchewan, Canada:
Inside the Brandt Centre, he may have been preaching his "Inconvenient Truth".
the truth of the matter is, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore travels
in style, when he goes from place-to-place to explain how people need
to take care of the environment.
Take for instead, his mode of
both, air and ground transportation. Since Gore only travels in hybrid
vehicles, the Lexus that got him from the airport to the Brandt Centre
was just that -- an $80,000 hybrid.
The left-wing press is notorious for its hypocrisy and double-standards, especially when it comes to itself. No news organization is a bigger case in point than the New York Times, the so-called paper of record which touts itself as holding the Bush administration accountable, all the while engaging in unprofessional and unethical behavior and never being held accountable for it.
Well today, some accountability came.
Investors in the New York Times have been outraged as the paper continues to lose market share and bleed money faster than Rosie O'Donnell at a hamburger stand. This has been going on for years and nothing's been done to stop it, in part because the people who own most of the Times stock actually have no control as to who runs the company since their shares can't vote on a majority of the board of directors. That position is reserved for the uber-leftist Sulzberger family (headed by Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.) who has been running the paper into the ground financially and off a cliff when it comes to bias, all the while stuffing its own pockets.
Fed-up investors finally had enough. Earlier today, they gave the Times a loud vote of no confidence by refusing to vote at all for the small number of director seats that they can vote on:
Roger Friedman, gossip blogger for FNC has an interesting item about the anti-Katie Couric piece that I blogged about yesterday. According to Friedman, the piece was done partly at the behest of Couric's predecessor, the seemingly avuncular Bob Schieffer.
That wouldn't surprise me, but before I get into why, here's Friedman:
[O]ne of Couric's frequently
mentioned enemies is Bob Schieffer, the lovable, durable veteran
journalist who filled in as anchor of the "CBS Evening News"
between Dan Rather's departure and Couric's arrival.
But sources say that Schieffer has been
unhappy lately, mainly because his airtime, which was prominent when
Couric first started, has dwindled in recent weeks.
It's been suggested that a hit piece on
Couric written by Gail Shister in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer
was inspired by Schieffer as its main source.
"He has a direct line to her,"
one insider said.
This type of thing is hardly unprecedented within the television news business. CBS isn't quite the San Diego of "Anchorman," but it's had no shortage of anchor feuds.
If you run a policy group in Washington, your chances of getting on network television are slim if you happen to advocate for a cause not favored by liberals. Your chances are even worse that anything you say won't be slapped with a "conservative" label to warn viewers of your perspective.
That's a good thing. Most groups can be placed somewhere on the political spectrum and that placement should be disclosed to the news consumer. The unfortunate thing, however, is that if you're a liberal group, your affinities often are not disclosed.
Such was the case with this MSNBC.com article on the subject of guns which features a quote from one Joseph Vince who happens to be a gun control advocate. This information is not disclosed to the audience. Instead, we get this:
CBS's $15 million experiment of hiring Katie Couric has not
paid any dividends. Six months into her tenure as anchor of the
"Evening News," Couric has actually fallen in the ratings from her
predecessor, Bob Schieffer, sparking talk within the network that the
former NBC star will soon be shown the door.
Besides ratings, CBS insiders and TV observers quoted by
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Gail Shister take
issue with Couric over
her inability to relate to the 50+ news viewer and fluff news
Couric's personal pride seems to be the stickler, though:
The American press is so encumbered by political correctness and ignorant of Islamic doctrine that it is allowing extremist Muslims in this country to mask a hard-core ideology in minority politics. So says M. Zuhdi Jasser, a moderate American Muslim leader (h/t: LGF).
This pandering on the part of the American press (I would add international as well), is preventing the emergence of a pan-Islamic consensus to marginalize extremists like Osama bin Laden, Jasser argues. Instead, the reverse happens--criticism of Islamists gets suppressed by naive liberals who misguidedly think it's racist:
Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic broke the story on April 10, 2007 about PBS's censorship of the documentary, Islam vs. Islamists from its America at a Crossroads series which debuted this week. The film's producers, Frank Gaffney, Alex Alexiev and the veteran filmmaker, Martyn Burke of ABG Films, Inc. have since presented in shocking detail their painful protracted experiences trying to navigate the censors at PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which funded the film with $675,000 of the taxpayers' monies but now has chosen to shelve it. In just the last week of public debate, there has been a firestorm of outcry from the public who are demanding that oppressive methods of editorial content control by power brokers at PBS be investigated and the real story behind the shelving of Islam vs. Islamists be exposed. PBS's exploitation of the public dime and the public airwaves for the narrow point of view of the Islamist sympathizers with the exclusion of the anti-Islamist Muslims is just now beginning to be understood.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not
the only black people in America, and more than that they do not have
the ability to force themselves onto your news shows. There's a pattern
1) Bigot eruption somewhere 2) Lots of people condemn it 3) Al Sharpton goes on every teevee program 4) The media people turn around and use Sharpton's past as a distraction/excuse for the current bigot eruption
Al Sharpton is an imperfect spokesperson for an issue, and you keep
putting him on the teevee to be the spokesperson for that issue, then
the obvious conclusion is that this is a deliberate strategy.
Yes, Atrios, that is exactly the plan. Your post struck fear into the hearts of journalists everywhere for revealing their dark secret. It simply couldn't be that journalists are lazy and that Imus himself stupidly solicited Sharpton.
In all the media furor over fired radio host Don Imus, one fact was very rarely reported: that Imus is not a conservative. In truth, he is a moderate liberal. Aside from his stand against the Iraq war, support of John Kerry, abortion-rights, and the Democratic takeover of Congress, perhaps the biggest indicator of his liberal credentials was that liberal media elites like Tim Russert, Jonathan Alter, and Nina Totenberg appeared on his show on a daily basis.
Being in like Flynn with the left-wing media snobs didn't do anything for Imus when it came down to it, however. Many GOPers and conservative intellectuals would do well to learn this lesson. Trying to get in with the liberal media crowd (bashing fellow conservatives works best) will never earn you any protection.
Even if you're naturally a moderate conservative, it still won't earn you any respect from the far left's rage, as centrist conservative radio host Michael Smerconish is finding out. Writing at Classical Values, Eric Scheie reports:
I'm not sure if this is new or not, but while reading Ace today, I learned about an anti-Rosie O'Donnell site which is designed to rally those who object to the increasingly ridiculous statements of the "View" co-host.
is to influence current and prospective viewers of The View to
not watch the program until the situation concerning Rosie O'Donnell
and her anti-American falsities is addressed and amended by Disney-ABC.
for calling this boycott is to raise awareness of the "blame America
first" mentality being displayed in the mainstream media today. We aim
to show Disney-ABC (and their sponsors) that we, as American citizens,
will no longer enable an unchecked anti-American individual to occupy
our network television airtime.
Those with delicate constitutions should avoid reading the Los Angeles Times's latest puff-profile of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, taken apart by Patterico. Here's an excerpt:
As the highest-ranking woman in elective office, Pelosi is as much a power player as the men who preceded her.
“She’s well-bred, a lady through and through,” said Rep. Anna G.
Eshoo (D-Atherton), Pelosi’s friend of 30 years. “But anyone who knows
her knows not to mess with her.”
With a father who was a Baltimore mayor and congressman who ran a
political machine out of the family’s brick row house, Pelosi
cultivates loyalty in ways large and small, much as her father did —
keeping careful political tallies, but still remembering birthdays.
This first-person article by Kathleen Hughes needs nothing to make its idiocy apparent. Read the whole thing and you'll really see an almost religious fervor to the words. Except, of course, instead of the thing being promoted being an actual religion, it's a political philosophy being promoted by someone who is supposedly an objective observer of politics:
As a child, I helped my mother hang
laundry in our backyard in Tamaqua, Pa., a small coal mining town. My
job was handing up the clothespins. When everything was dry, I helped
her fold the sheets in a series of moves that resembled ballroom
The clothes and linens always smelled
so fresh. Everything about the laundry was fun. My brother and I played
hide-and-seek in the rows of billowing white sheets.
I remember this as I’m studying energy-saving tips from Al Gore, who says that when you have time, you should use a clothesline to dry your clothes instead of the dryer. [...]
It's a universally acknowledged phenomenon that conservatives and libertarians dominate talk radio while liberals love television and print. The reasons why each side does so well at each particular medium are many.
I do find myself agreeing with Neal Boortz's recent thought experiment (h/t Small Dead Animals) of why liberals aren't good at talk radio: they just can't argue very well. He does the experiment by trying to extrapolate two left-wing editorials from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution into a talk radio context. It doesn't work out so well because the subjects, "income inequality" and firearm-phobia just aren't very rational ideas, Boortz argues.
Those of you who are liberal and reading this surely will disagree. If so, how do you account for the fact that not a single liberal talk radio show has ever been popular?
No matter how deplorable and terrible you think Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team are, the fact is, that his statements pale in comparison to the stuff pumped out daily by the American music industry.
Michelle Malkin has a big list of the various vulgarities that are routinely tolerated by the same media that is currently up in arms about Imus. Here's just one song:
Rich Boy sellin' crack
F*k niggas wanna jack
Sh*t tight no slack
Just bought a Cadillac (Throw some D's on that b*tch!)
Just bought a Cadillac (Throw some D's on that b*tch!)
Just bought a Cadillac
This, along with Roseanne Barr's recent anti-gay remarks are yet another example of our "neutral" media's double standards.
The site's been so slow that I've decided to take some measures to get things fast again until our upgrade is fully complete within the next two weeks.
You also might have noticed that comments have been missing today. That's because of a test I'm doing which once concluded should make the site much faster. Late tonight, all the old comments (except ones made today) will be restored. Then I will delete all of the really old comments from 2005 and early 2006. They were bogging down the server. This should speed things up significantly.
In the interim, if you have something of genius to say (or want to save someone else's stupid comment) that you must have for the future, save a copy of it locally. Also, please post on this thread if you think the changes have made a difference.
If a leading expert writes an op-ed in a national news magazine contradicting the conventional wisdom of the "lapdog media", will a liberal read it?
I'd say there's a 70 percent chance that won't happen, at least as long as the subject is global warming. Richard S. Lindzen, a well-respected and widely published professor of meteorology at MIT just published a very clear-headed and sober editorial in this week's Newsweek. (Update: Lindzen's article appears only in Newsweek's international editions and on their web site. U.S. subscribers won't see it in the issue that arrives in their mailboxes.) It got picked up by Drudge and a number of right-leaningblogs but as of this posting, has not been written about by any popular left-wing blogs.
So for those lefties who are stopping by, allow me to reprint some key grafs from Lindzen's piece:
John at Power Line has an excellent post documenting just how a left-wing reporter can use neutral-sounding language to make a casual observer doubt the credibility of a leading global warming skeptic:
Sometimes media bias is blatant and grotesque; it can extend to flat
misrepresentations, use of fake documents, etc. Much more often, it is
relatively subtle, as reporters push their version of a story in small
ways, day after day. Here is a textbook example, via Power Line News.
Yesterday, in an interview with the Associated Press, one of the
world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for
perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally
recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting
hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview. The AP begins in a straightforward manner:
Just when you thought the New York Times couldn't sink any lower than its chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger ranting how he was sorry America wasn't a socialist and pacifist nation, the money-losing paper manages to surprise you.
That's really the only thing you can say after reading Times Arts tv critic Alessandra Stanley's attempt to cast the popular-but-fading Fox show "American Idol" into the 2000 election controversy.
Yes, you read that correctly. According to the Times, the reason that teenage girls looove tuning in is because Al Gore didn't beat George W. Bush.
The DC Examiner has a great editorial this morning reminding everyone of the dramatic failure that McCain-Feingold has been. Not only has it failed to remove the "corrupting" influence of money in elections, it's needlessly promoted censorship:
Well, so much for “getting rid of the corrupting influence of
money on politics” — the basic aim of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform Act of 2002, aka as McCain-Feingold. That’s Sen. Russ Feingold,
D-Wis., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive front-runner for
the 2008 GOP presidential nomination who raised “only” $12.5 million
during the first three months of 2007. The Arizona senator trailed far
behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who raised $21 million
and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who raised $15 million, $10
million of which came in March alone. Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary
Clinton, D-N.Y., raised $26 million, former North Carolina Sen. John
Edwards raised $14 million and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson raised
$6 million. Sen.Barack Obama, D-Ill., has not released his figures but
is estimated to have raised about $22 million. Collectively, more than
$125 million has been raised by the 2008 presidential candidates in
just three months, with more than nine months to go before the first
Think back to the days before McCain-Feingold
became law. The biggest target of the law’s backers was the estimated
$500 million in soft money contributed to political parties by
corporations, individuals, labor unions and others. Just last year,
Fred Wertheimer and Trevor Potter, two of the most ardent
McCain-Feingold supporters, charged that soft money “ultimately turned
into a $500 million national scandal and disgrace.” Now it looks like
the presidential primary contenders will equal or even surpass that
once-scandalous threshold long before the start of the general election
campaign. We know little or nothing about what was promised by the
candidates in return for this unprecedented flood of cash.
Bill Buckley has a great syndicated column out today on how the global warming crusade is really getting out of hand:
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of The New York Times) opened his essay last
week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with Exxon Mobil.
After our big party, I found this joke pretty appropriate for this week's joke:
One night a man got really drunk one night in his local pub. The barman refused to serve him any more alcohol and told him he should be heading home. The man thought this was a good idea so he stood up to leave but fell over straight away. He tried to stand up again but only fell over again. He thought if only he could get outside and get some fresh air he'd be grand.
So he crawled outside then tried to stand up and fell over again. In the end after falling over lots more he decided to crawl home. When he got back to his house he pulled himself up using the door handle but as soon as he let go he fell over again. He had to crawl up the stairs and managed to fall over onto the bed and fell asleep. When he finally woke up the next morning his wife asked him what he was doing at the pub last night. He denied it but she thought differently...
Today's starter is a special announcement: Tonight is the big MRC 20th anniversary party set around our usual "DisHonors" awards. To make sure everyone gets a chance to celebrate, for the first time ever, we're going to have a live webcast of the event along with an IRC discussion like we had during the '05 election.
Today's starter: The media (as manifested in this Patterico take-down of the LA Times) continue to misreport the fired U.S. attorney "scandal." The facts show the administration compiled reasons that certain attorneys should be fired before the fact, not after.