Jon Stewart Tells Chris Wallace Fox News Is Biased -- But Rest of Media Aren't
After months of being asked, Jon Stewart finally appeared on "Fox News Sunday" this weekend.
The primary discussion point was bias in the media which the "Daily Show" host continually told Chris Wallace is far more prevalent on FNC than at all the other news organizations (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: You love to take shots at FOX News.
JON STEWART, HOST: Yes, I do.
WALLACE: Over the years, you have called us -- and we're going to put this on the screen because this is heavy stuff.
STEWART: Please.
WALLACE: "A biased organization, relentlessly promoting an ideological agenda under the rubric of being a news organization."
STEWART: Rubric.
WALLACE: And -- I actually think that's slightly the wrong use for the word rubric.
"A relentless agenda-driven, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system."
STEWART: Yes.
WALLACE: Where do you come up with this stuff?
STEWART: It's actually quite easy when you feel it. You got to feel it in your soul, you know?
WALLACE: Well, here's the deal. Are you willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media, about ABC, CBS, NBC, "Washington Post," "New York Times"?
STEWART: No.
WALLACE: Would you say the same thing about them that they are -- in your words -- a propaganda delivery system relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda?
STEWART: No, I wouldn't say that.
Yes, he really said "No." Not surprisingly, Wallace pressed the point:
WALLACE: Why not?
STEWART: MSNBC is attempting that. I think they're attempting. They've looked at your business model and they have seen the success of it. And I think they're attempting to be a more activist organization.
WALLACE: You don't think "The New York Times" is a liberal organization?
STEWART: Now.
WALLACE: Pushing a liberal agenda?
STEWART: "The New York Times," no. I think they are to a certain extent. Do I think they're relentlessly activist? No. In a purely liberal partisan way? No, I don't.
Only a liberal New Yorker would say on national television the New York Times isn't biased. Makes you wonder if he's ever read any of their editorials, doesn't it?
STEWART: I think is this -- FOX is a very special --
WALLACE: I want the shutters to go from your eyes because I'm going to prove it to you in the next few minutes.
STEWART: Oh, OK. I don't -- I'm excited about that.
WALLACE: Here we go.
STEWART: Can I tell you this? I love to learn!
WALLACE: Even you make fun of the fact that "The New York Times" and the "Washington Post" when this document dump of 24,000 e-mails of Sarah Palin was released, and they got so excited about it, they asked their readers, help us. Go through these 24,000 documents.
STEWART: Right.
WALLACE: How do you explain the fact that they would do that? They would ask the readers to help them go through the Palin e-mails -- inconsequential as they turned out to be --
STEWART: Right.
WALLACE: -- but they never said help us go through the 2,000 pages of the Obama health care bill?
Great question, right? Here was Stewart's absurd answer.
STEWART: Because I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's towards a liberal agenda. It's light fluff. So, it's absolutely within the wheelhouse. I mean, if your suggestion is that they are relentlessly partisan and why haven't they gone and backed away from Weiner? Now, they jumped into the Weiner pool -- so, with such delight and such relish, because the bias --
WALLACE: Some things are indefensible.
STEWART: -- the bias of the mainstream media -- oh, I'm not saying it's defensible, but the bias of the mainstream media is toward sensationalism, conflict and laziness.
Got that? So the Post and the Times weren't exhibiting bias when they asked their readers to assist them in going through Palin's email. They were just sensationalistic and lazy.
As I've said for many years, it takes a staggering amount of rationalizations to be a liberal these days.
A bit later, Stewart elaborated:
STEWART: Here is the difference between you and I -- I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background. There's no question about that.
But the thing that you will never understand and the thing that in some respect conservative activists will never understand is that Hollywood, yes, they're liberal. But that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I'm a comedian.
WALLACE: All right. I want to thank you for saying that because --
STEWART: Yes?
WALLACE: Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik -- put it up on the screen -- says that is your dodge. "Stewart has never held accountable in his media criticism, is he? When he is wrong, he goes in a tap dance of saying he's only a comedian and shouldn't be taken seriously."
Another great question. Here was Stewart's absurd answer:
STEWART: OK. Let's talk about that -- when did I say to you I'm only a comedian? I said I'm a comedian first. That's not only. Being a comedian is harder than what you do. What I do is much harder. I put material through a process, a comedic process.
That's preposterous and largely made Zurawik's point.
Whenever Stewart is accused of partisanship, he brings up the fact that he's a comedian and that's supposed to make it okay. It doesn't matter that he said "comedian first" versus "only a comedian." It's still a veil that he hides behind to shield himself from criticism of being biased:
WALLACE: But you are a political commentator. The comedy has a political --
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Some of it.
Some of it? Actually, most of Stewart's commentary is political and largely filtered through a liberal prism.
When he asked Wallace moments later if the host felt that way, the answer was affirmative:
STEWART: Am I an activist in your mind, an ideological partisan activist?
WALLACE: Yes.
STEWART: OK. Then I disagree with you.
You can't understand because of the world you live in that there is not a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change because that's the soup you swim in. And I appreciate that. And I understand that. It reminds me of, you know -- you know, ideological regimes. They can't understand that there is free media other places because they receive marching orders.
So, in Stewart's view, what he does on Comedy Central is "free media" that's not receiving marching orders. Yet how often do his segments largely reflect Democrat talking points echoing what comes from the shills at the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and MoveOn.org?
Despite this, like so many of his liberal counterparts, Stewart's finger is always pointing at Fox for its conservative leaning encouraging Wallace to press the point:
WALLACE: How do you explain me? Do you think I get my marching orders?
STEWART: I think that you are here in some respects to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it, without your presence. So, you are here as a counterweight to Hannity, let's say, or you are here as a counterweight to Glenn Beck, because otherwise, it's just pure talk radio and it doesn't establish the type of political player it wants to be.
Wallace is a counterweight to Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? How do Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, and all the liberal contributors to Fox fit into that mix?
If you add up all the conservative contributors to ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS they don't total the number of liberal contributors to Fox.
Also, couldn't one make the case that conservative contributors to the New York Times and the Washington Post are there as a counterweight to both paper's distinct leftward leaning?
I wish Wallace had mentioned that.
Yet moments later, Stewart did say something rather telling:
STEWART: The embarrassment is that I'm given credibility in this world because of the disappointment that the public has in what the news media does.
Well, that is indeed embarrassing, but not for the reason Stewart ascribed:
WALLACE: I don't think --
STEWART: -- not because I have an ideological agenda.
WALLACE: I don't think our viewers are the least bit disappointed with us. I think our viewers think, finally, they're getting somebody who tells the other side of the story.
Exactly.
The only credibility Stewart has comes from folks on the left that are disappointed in the news media. Dissatisfied people on the right - given Fox's ratings this is a huge figure - are finding real alternative news sources to receive information without the biases prevalent elsewhere.
These sources don't include comedians. It's only the left that hold up comics as reputable disseminators of information.
Wallace demonstrated why this is such a bad thing a few moments later:
WALLACE: I'm suggesting that there is bias, and that you only tell part of the story.
STEWART: Oh, there's no question that I don't tell the full story. I mean, I don't disagree with that. But I don't not tell the full story based on a purely ideological partisan agenda. That's my point. My point isn't --
WALLACE: I think your agenda is more out there, and you're pushing more of an agenda than you pretend to.
Without question, which makes you wonder if Stewart was being completely honest Sunday or spinning a yarn to preserve whatever appearance of impartiality he miraculously retains with his fans. But as the segment drew to a close, the "Daily Show" host seemed to lift his veil a bit:
STEWART: I've existed in this country forever. There have been people like me who satirize the political process and who have satirized -- what was it that Will Rogers said? You know, how crazy is it when politicians are a joke and comedians are taken seriously?
WALLACE: That assumes a kind of -- and this is where I think you're wrong and you don't get it --
STEWART: That may be right.
WALLACE: -- is that there is not a single marching order. There is not some kind of command. There is not a talking point memo. I'm saying --
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Well, that I disagree with.
WALLACE: I am sitting here talking to Jon Stewart and I'm trying to get it, trying to understand you, and trying to see whether or not you recognize that what I believe is true, that there is as much bias on the other side as you subscribe to Fox, and why you seem to go easy on that.
STEWART: I think that there is a -- probably a liberal bias that exists within the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints, but I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years.
And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some extent they're right.
People on the right are called racists and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with -- and homophobic and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and to feel that they have been vilified for those things. And I've been guilty of doing some of those things myself.
WALLACE: I accept your apology.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: I want to thank you for coming on.
Interesting way to conclude, wouldn't you agree?
In the end, you have to appreciate Stewart being willing to do such a lengthy interview with Wallace, and allowing his hair to come down a bit.
Say what you will about the "Daily Show" host, unlike so many of the cowards on the left, he'll go on Fox and face the music.
It will be interesting to see how he reports this on his own show next week.
Stay tuned.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Can't stand him
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 1:42pm.
Never watched his show and I'm not a fan of his loud and screaming = funny humor. I think he's highly overrated - not only as a comedian, but as a politically important person. Sneer sneer sneer snicker - his audience is going to vote liberal no matter what. I doubt this time in 2012, they're going to be so motivated to get out for Obama as most have moved back with mom and dad after graduating college.
→ It's Comedy!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 1:58pm.
Didn't take Stewart very long to hide behind that line, did it.
The Amos & Andy question really rattled Stewart.
Stewart reveals himself to be a moron-- thanks to Wallace!
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 1:58pm.
Ok Ok...I already knew he was one, and that's why he gets maybe 1 million, or 1.2 million viewers, in the land of 310 million. He would be basically irrelevant, EXCEPT that his allies at CBS and NBC etc play "show highlights" of him "hilariously" attacking those goofy Republicans. The networks vigorously try to sway that 5-10 million in this country that watch their propaganda to try impact elections. And with some of the recent, close elections--->it probably can work, except when facing an 11.2.10 tsunami........
Why would FOX or Chris
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:08pm.
Why would FOX or Chris Wallace even bother talking to a lightweight like Stewart ??? He's just another 'comedian' with his own niche - he doesn't carry any weight or importance outside of his world. Might as well get Donkeyface on the show................I can't figure it out - these guys are nothings!!! We've got a helluva a lot of other things to try and find out and figure out and deal with than wondering what Jon Stewart thinks..................
Killa
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:11pm.
A lot of the younger set think he's the real deal....and he is an opinion maker amongst that set.
Not that they'd be watching Fox News Sunday, alas.
But, perhaps their parents saw it, and can point a few in the right direction. We have to re-shape young liberal minds, one at a time.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Oh................but I don't
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:49pm.
Oh................but I don't think that my boys (young men) watch this dope...............although they had ME as their father!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!
Happy Father's Day to all of the dads and 'papas' here at NB!!!!
That's the general consensus,
Submitted by Bruzilla on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:01pm.
That's the general consensus, but have you ever looked at the numbers? In the 18-49 demographic, Stewart averages a skosh over .7. To put than in perspective, Dancing With The Stars gets about 4.8. How I Met Your Mother gets a 1.9! Mike & Molly, a show I've never even heard of, draws a 1.9.
Stewart draws about 1/3rd the young viewers of the worst sitcoms on TV. His numbers don't match the level of concern we have for what he says.
Sounds embittered
Submitted by spepper on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:06pm.
He sounds embittered to me-- what, was he turned down after applying for a job at Fox?
Wallace should have simply
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:12pm.
Wallace should have simply started naming names to make Stewart look even more foolish:
Katie Couric isn't left of center.
Chris Matthews isn't left of center.
Joe Klein isn't left of center.
EJ Dionne isn't left of center.
The entire on-air staff and MS-NBC isn't left of center.
The entire on-air staff at CNN isn't left of center.
90% of any given panel on Meet the Press isn't left of center.
BTW, love this statement:
STEWART: "I think that there is a -- probably a liberal bias that exists within the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. "
Can't bring himself to simply say, succinctly "The media has a liberal bias." Period. Instead we get "...because of the medium in which it exists". WTF does that mean, exactly? LOL
And then we have:
"I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints, but I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years."
No, Jon. Not as "activist", but at least the big bad "conservative movement of the last 40 years" isn't PRETENDING to be something it's not.
@krendler
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 6:11pm.
That is it. Conservatives are proud to be Conservatives whereas Liberals run around denying they are Liberal.Or they spend so much time in thier Vortex they are ignorant to what the rest of believe and think they are common.
It's funny how Fox News liberals can be very
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:13pm.
objective but all other liberals in the media cannot. I know guys like Alan Colmes are annoyingly biased but he's a commentator.
When a liberal like Stewart says that FNC is biased that's like him saying his you know what doesn't smell.
Johari Window
Submitted by MCPO Airdale on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:11pm.
Stewart's Johari Window is an unexamined portal to a twisted soul.
What an obscure little man
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:18pm.
Who is John Stewart?
At least that ended well
Submitted by mustango on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:24pm.
It's good that Wallace got Stewart to admit discomfort with how far a lot of those on his side of the aisle go with their rhetoric.
Whether we want to admit it -- for that matter whether HE wants to admit it -- Stewart is important. He's the closest thing the Left has to a counterpart to Limbaugh, and just as Rush half-seriously titles himself "America's Anchorman", for a frightening number of young adults, The Daily Show is "the nightly news".
One more example Wallace might have brought up: Stewart's attempted takedown of John Yoo and his open apology for his failure to do so. If that's not admission to an agenda I don't know what is.
Stewart
Submitted by charlietexas on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:23pm.
Revealing known stuff. Stewart doesn't like Fox News. Stewart is Liberal. Stewart doesn't like conservatives. Says we "will never understand his thinking."
Too bad. I got bored after a couple of minutes. Wallace only raised Stewart's media profile.
Stewart is either
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:24pm.
Truly ignorant, or just being a "comedian".
Anyone who thinks Fox is bias, let alone more bias the mslsd is a moron, or get's their news from media madeup. I would love to have Levin ask him a few questions.
WHY? WHY? WHY?
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:41pm.
Why give this moron a microphone? This unfunny "Comedian." He of the "Hip" audience. I understand that anyone with an IQ above room temperature is not allowed into his show. Without writers this creature couldn't say, "Good morning." Johnny carson was funny - with or without writers. Dick Cavett was clever - with or without writers. Jack Paar was the same. Stewart? proves once again that TV is a. "Vast wasteland."
Media Matters For America Debate
Submitted by usaciaintel on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:41pm.
Why does the MRC refuse to debate Media Matters?
Pathetic
Debate?
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:59pm.
Since when do libtards debate?
Which reminds me
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:05pm.
When are the cowardly libtards going to announce their running against Obama? Where are the libtard debates? Are they afraid if they disagree with Obama, they will be called racist?
BTW, libtard get their heads handed to them, every time they get in a debate, see the latest Stewart thread. He gets embarrasses by a very very moderate centrist.
Conservatives Won't Debate
Submitted by usaciaintel on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:22pm.
They do but conservatives keep running away.
Examples:
(Pending so let's see if Beck will finish his show strong)
Sarah Palin hasn't debated anyone since Biden.
"We don't debate Media Matters"- MRC
WTF are you talking
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:29pm.
WTF are you talking about?
Relevant [rel·e·vant]
[rel-uh-vuhnt] –adjective
1. bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
Neither of these folks
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:35pm.
Hold an Office. Also Palin cleaned Biden's clock. You libtards get your clock cleaned anytime you talk to Rush, Levin (who has a line just for libtards), Coulter, Brietbart, Ingram, Malkin and any other Conservative that debates libtards.
And oh,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:41pm.
I have every confidence your dimwittedness will have you by the short hairs in no time flat
Since U Read a evolved site like Media Matters
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:46pm.
.........your debates must be untouchable. What topic do you want to destroy us on first? I promise I will try my best not to run away
you would probably kick
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:20pm.
his ass if he had one to kick.
Wow, very impressive blog you have there, moonbat.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:49pm.
Looks 100% halal, too.
BTW, do the two people who are following you realize that all those impressive banners are not actually advertisers, but merely screencaps you ripped off?
Still begging folks to take them seriously I see.
Submitted by Mark81150 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:52am.
No one citing MMFA is ever going to be taken as more than a partisan hack.. the worst kind, who just make stuff up and call it journalism.
Media Matters
Submitted by usaciaintel on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:15pm.
MMFA doesn't make stuff up
They call out right wing media that does makes stuff up and corrects it.
Don't bother with this one gang
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:55pm.
He's just flogging his moonbat blog. Do not click on his progressive drivel of a site.
I'm with you.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:10pm.
Now when I say I'm with you, I don't mean I understand where you're coming from; I mean, I'm with you.
Can't find the youtube clip, otherwise I would post it.
You are here.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:17pm.
You appear to represent the criminal front group, Media Muttonheads. So Debate. Nobody is running away.
You have to give Stewart credit...
Submitted by PJRyan on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:43pm.
...for going on FNS, and to Chris Wallace for being so gracious in the face of what was some pretty mean-spirited commentary. "you don't get it...because of the soup you swim in...". Didn't Stewart room with Weiner? That's some nasty-ass soup there. (Chris Wallace is SUCH a class act. Stewart may have insisted that they not talk about Weiner, but Wallace wouldn't have anyway).
Wallace also asked Stewart if he was disappointed in BO, and Stewart admitted he was. He, of course, wouldn't give any "R" candidates any credit, but he was clear in his answer of being disappointed by Obama.
I have seen Stewart be very funny. He's a funny guy, with great writers. But, I lost all respect for him today. In my words, its OK that he goes after FOX only, because he's passionate in his belief that they're wrong.about...everything. But, FOX does what they do as a business model. THAT'S intellectually lazy! And dismissive of the feelings of millions. Stewart threw something out about FOX viewers being the most mis-informed audience. I wish Wallace would have called him on that. I would like to see that supporting documentation.
Wallace showed the blonde clown from ABC (honestly can't think of her name right now) completely (and maliciously) misrepresenting Arizona's immigration bill. He easily could have done the same with Stefanopoulos, Williams, and that freak-show Couric, as well as extreme representations from the entire staff of potato-heads at MSNBC.
I really wonder if Stewart is riding this train still because he has to. He's the left's most informed, intelligent and articulate debater, but he has to be wearying of the constant flood of embarassment from Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman, Biden, BO, ad nauseum. Next time Chris Wallace hounds him with facts, maybe he'll have an implosion of integrity and come out and say "I can't do this any more, they're all a bunch of clowns. Please Paul Ryan, save us from ourselves!".
Make sure you watch the unedited version
Submitted by mjp on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:14am.
I recommend watching the unedited interview (link below). They cut out the part where Stewart argued that the mainstream media's problem isn't a perceived liberal bias but a relentless focus on sensationalism to fill the 24 hour news cycle. He offered the example of the media's coverage of Nancy Pelosi's press conference about Anthony Weiner. Wallace actually conceded that Stewart was right (at about the 12 minute mark).
It was a good interview and Wallace kept the pressure on but they edited out parts that showed Fox News in a negative light or where Stewart had the upper hand. The primary reason Fox News has Stewart on is not because he's a serious political commentator, it's because he brings the ratings and attracts a desirable demographic.
http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-...
I'm listening now...
Submitted by PJRyan on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:43pm.
The discourse is absolutely fascinating to me. Those are two very smart guys. If you can find the YouTube of Wallace on Stewart's show, it's even better. (Hard to find right now, Google is inundated with commentary on y'day's interview). If you do find it, you will see that Stewart is an unabashed fan of Chris Wallace.
But, Stewart's refusal to see or admit the mainstream media's perverse leftward leaning is so disappointing. Yesterday, on Meet the Press, David Gregory actually resurrected the expression "draconian measures" in reference to Greece's financial woes. Absolutely catastrophic situation and he's still Mediscaring! The blonde from ABC reporting on the national news that Hispanics can be arrested for walking down the street in Arizona! Couric, Stephanopoulos, Schieffer, Lauer, Gregory...Chuck Todd!!! All of them! The question isn't whether or not they're devout leftists, its how can Stewart claim that they're not?!?
Wallace conceded that Stewart was right that the media lost interest when Pelosi wasn't going to talk about Weiner. Nothing more than that. I don't think CW was ever arguing that the MSM isn't sensationalistic and lazy. The amazing thing to me is, in everything I've read today on the subject, nobody's been outraged that JS called the ENTIRE MSM sensationalistic and lazy!!
Interesting that JS said that MSNBC was trying to follow the business model, but wouldn't call MSNBC leftist. Today, when referring to this good interview, to use your words, the utterly repulsive Chris Matthews described "Jon Stewart smashing his way through Chris Wallace's face to make a point". I wonder if JS would consider Matthews a liberal?
Now I get it.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:44pm.
So, if Stewart tells half the story, it's comedy, and there's no political agenda behind it.
If Fox tells half the story (which is ridiculous; Bob Beckel is as much a fixture on Hannity as Sean is), it's pure politics on orders of Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdock.
If MSNBC tells half the story it's non-political and they're just trying to emulate Fox's business model. (Funny how they're consistently last in the ratings and constantly firing anchors.)
If CNN tells half the story... well, that simply can't be the case; Ted Turner is no ideologue and just wouldn't do that. Even his wife agrees.
If ABC, CBS or NBC news tells half the story... Nah, that just doesn't happen. "This is not the bias you're looking for."
The New York Times and Washington Post reporters consistently report both sides of every political issue, it's just that the editors are lazy and only manage to approve -by pure coincidence- the liberal position for print.
NewsBusters, your mision has been a ruse; you may now terminate this site.
→ Keyser
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:51pm.
If the alphabets tell half the story it's because they fall writhing into a garter snake mating ball at the slightest whiff of Obama phermones.
BK..............this is off
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:54pm.
BK..............this is off topic, but I'm STILL trying to recover from that heinous photo you posted the other day!!!! You're a sick man, and you need help!!!
bkeyser
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 6:18pm.
They are using Fox news to misdirect. The 80% LIberal media bias is balanced because of Fox news get it?
Chris Wallace appears to be first a newsman
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:50pm.
Based on many of his comments, I think Wallace is a liberal, but I think first and foremost he shows himself to be a newsman, frequently asking the hard questions.
As far as Jon Stewart, go back to telling jokes. They are a LOT more believable than are your comments on media bias.
BTW, didn't see it. What did the panel have to say?
Dennis Prager
Wallace is a Liberal?
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 6:20pm.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. I see dead people and thier all LIberals.
What a waste
Submitted by Gat New York on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 2:51pm.
This was a complete waste of a time for a Sunday show like Wallace has.
At the time I was wondering why Wallace was letting him off the hook for his outrageous statements. But after refelecting on it I realized that Wallace drew him in to making a complete ignorant fool of himself. It was evident - didn't need any interpretation of embellishment by Wallace - just the rantings of a far left entertainer who had no idea what he is talking about.
News Is Comedy?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:13pm.
Not very funny considering what's happening.
__________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Stewie
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:22pm.
Stewie is a liar either that or just plain stupid.I would go with both.Just a note;Comedians are suppose to be funny.Epic fail on his part since he isn't.
Stewart is a waste!
Submitted by blazermaniac on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:24pm.
I don't make an effort to watch Jon Stewart's show. He's an IDIOT!
Don't forget, we don't get it, Stewart is smarter then you.
Submitted by Indie Dude on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:37pm.
There sure was alot of double talk from Stewart, which sounded like an attempt to sound "smart" But he kind of went in circles frankly. Did anyone else get what he was saying?
Please Mr. Wallace, with all due respects and right to your face, what a dummy you are Mr. Wallace for not getting it.
Attack
retreat
insult
caught
defense
agreed
compliment
Now laugh at my jokes.
Perfectly
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:52pm.
Said,
Liberals don't see Liberal bias
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:58pm.
It's like trying to explain what water is to a fish.
→ How bad is it?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 4:05pm.
Even balboa won't come out to play on this one.
I think some are missing
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:09pm.
I think some are missing Stewart's point because they despise him. They're not really paying attention.
This was an interesting give and take, and was nice to watch.
Yes. We missed the point.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:32pm.
When you said you believe two cop killers were innocent, we paid attention and waited for you to bring some evidence. Still waiting Mr. Hearty Lovey Huggies the Cop Killers.
Oh I got his point - when the
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:40pm.
Oh I got his point - when the msm does it, it's just teasing the story but when FOX does it, it's agenda driven. Problem is, while I agree both sides try to "tart it up" the msm is NOT based on reality, when FOX is.
I skip the preachy stuff {the agenda I guess?} like BOR's cultural warriors segments because I trust the good folks to keep things on an even keel. Plus, I'm outraged enough - the Weiner story was simple for me, he lied, persited in lying, smeared others, then "came clean" take him to the curb, he's toast IMHO. That he's really not? THAT is an outrage!
It reminds me of when I started posting online. Lacking the gift of pithiness, I over explain. Still, people would put their dark thoughts onto what I said, so I started using those dreadful smileys, and they stopped.
Now I'm just a thread killer, except when jer will engage with me.
Ronald Reagan
balboa
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:40pm.
Sorry I believe him as much as I do Weiner.They both are on the same level of credibility.Which is to say none.
"WALLACE: Well, here's the deal. Are you willing to say the same thing about the mainstream media, about ABC, CBS, NBC, "Washington Post," "New York Times"?
STEWART: No.
WALLACE: Would you say the same thing about them that they are -- in your words -- a propaganda delivery system relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda?
STEWART: No, I wouldn't say that."
He is a hypocrite and a liar.No ifs ans or butts.What a frelling liar.
Just because you disagree
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:43pm.
Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's a liar.
balboa
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:29pm.
It isn't because of disagreement.It is because he is.If he isn't a liar then he is the most stupid person I have seen.So you don't believe that the msm is bias?Stewie is a lying hypocrite.
I think there's a liberal
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:15am.
I think there's a liberal slant, and so does Stewart.
bal
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:17am.
According to Jon it is just sensationalism and laziness.
"WALLACE: -- but they never said help us go through the 2,000 pages of the Obama health care bill?
Great question, right? Here was Stewart's absurd answer.
STEWART: Because I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's towards a liberal agenda. It's light fluff. So, it's absolutely within the wheelhouse. I mean, if your suggestion is that they are relentlessly partisan and why haven't they gone and backed away from Weiner? Now, they jumped into the Weiner pool -- so, with such delight and such relish, because the bias --"
Right.Stewie is just a shill for the left.Funny Fox is bias yet the msm is just a slant.Give me a break.
Well why didn't they back
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:02pm.
Well why didn't they back away from the Weiner story then?
well99
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:05pm.
Wow one story.Took them awhile didn't it.
"MRC Director of Media Analysis and NewsBusters senior editor Tim Graham appeared on the June 10 edition of FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor to document the broadcast networks’ double-standard on congressional sleaze stories. When the story first broke, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to cover the Weiner “sexting” scandal, and their overall weekday evening news coverage had amounted to less than a dozen stories as of last Friday".
"But back in 2006, Graham noted, the networks pounced right away on the similarly sleazy actions of a congressional Republican, Mark Foley, which were a focus of five times as many evening news stories (55) in the first 12 days, even though Foley had quit Congress almost immediately."H/T Tim Graham
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/06/13/mrcnb-s-tim-graham-high...
No bias right.Oooohh they jumped on that story./sarc off
Bal
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:26pm.
"Why didn't they back away from the Weiner story?"
They couldn't back away and maintain any credibility. The story grew too big even for them to ignore, and they knew if they tried they would be called on it by everyone.
QUESTION: How would you describe a person who,
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 4:28pm.
"unlike so many of the cowards on the left", will appear on Fox, and then proceed to appear to many viewers to be unaware, naive, deceptive and disingenuous regarding the leftist bias and "propaganda delivery system" of the mainstream media?
Does stupid fool fit the bill?
The paradox of political satire/comedy.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 4:22pm.
When babbling, useful tools like Stewart or Maher go too far, they are easily dismissed as "comedians" by the main stream media. When it is time to get ratings jumps or to support a liberal cause or candidate the main stream media worships, then they are invited on to give commentary and given instant credibility because of their audience. Seems like Stewart is incapable of providing a rational explanation for this double standard besides whatever the White House scripted for him the evening before. If he is ever pushed into making an ad hoc logical argument, he goes into brain freeze because he has no writers or stage crew to feed him the latest comeback lines spinning off the fax from Jay Carney's office.
I think Chris Wallace soft-balled this interview to a large extent. A more capable conservative interviewer, say Laura Ingraham, would have had Stewart still sputtering generalities and inconsistencies that would have him tossed off a grade school debate team.
stewart was being coy
Submitted by right of way on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 4:23pm.
stewart wasn't going to admit that the lame stream media is liberally biased, but he did lie that fox is biased so he can hang with his loser liberal friends after all is said and done. he pathetically hid behind his so called "i'm a comedian first" mantra which is total bs. if he was such a comedian, then why are 99% of his jokes about republicans? there is plenty of comedy in the dem party that he doesn't touch, why? because he's a liberal hack. nice try jon, but i don't believe your bs story. btw, you stunk in the movie "big daddy".
Ugh--why must they court him so?
Submitted by carolina09 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 4:40pm.
The Jack of Snides--
(The one thing I do take issue is with the "let his hair down" remark. If you go review the first O'Reilly interview, you'll see the guy is balding fast and furious and is starting hairplug therapy. Just look, it's plainly there on his head, like after a prison detail replants a field with baby pine trees. Nowadays, I think Jon Stewart must have his make-up girl glue a lot of hair extensions on his scalp before each appearance. And notice no closeups. He hasn't gone the Letterman-wig route yet.)
It is dismaying to see Fox try to get on the good side of such a lowlife as Jon Stewart, who needs his mouth washed out with Draino it's so filthy and nasty. And this is a family man? Please?
And a funny question could be about how Leibowitz changed his name due to Daddy Issues, and both he and Mike Wallace (Chris's father) chose names from the Royal Houses of Britain.
Hoot, mon, and oy ve.
What a surprise. Jon
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 5:46pm.
What a surprise. Jon Liebowtitz is a liberal hack.
Why Fox deals with him is beyond me. He is a failed comedian who found his niche in front of a handpicked audience and laugh track. Wow!
yep
Submitted by Jnoble on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:10pm.
His show is tired and predictable. Show edited clip, usually totally out of context, of a Republican or someone on FOX. Stop clip. Cut to Jon making a silly face which is the cue for the audience to whoop laugh and clap at how obviously stupid said person is. Repeat over and over again.
Wow, what groundbreaking comedy. Hysterical. How many writers does it take to have JS appear to be a comedic genious? 12? 20?
don't worry guys and gals...
Submitted by Jnoble on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:06pm.
You can be sure on Monday's edition of The Daily Show, hipsters and unemployed 20-somethings nationwide will be pleased to see that their fearless "America's REAL newsman" really took it to "FAUX NEWS" (isn't that clever?) and Chris Wallace who tried relentlessly to pin him down with his corporate-fed lies and manipulations, but Jon stoically and heroically showed him and the evil propaganda machine he works for what's what.
No seriously, Jon is as delusional as he is arrogant. FOX News is straight up conservative evil. But ABC, CBS, NBC,Comedy Central, CNN, etc etc etc......no, THOSE networks are totally politcially neutral. As was Stewart and Colberts "Rally For Our Vanity" aka "Rally To Restore Sanity" aka "LOOK AT US LOOK AT US WE'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY TOO!!"
But don't point out these obvious facts because ol' Jon is "Just a comedian!"
Clown nose on, clown nose off. Clown nose on, clown nose off.
He really can't see it
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 7:46pm.
He really can't see it because it fits his world view. Fox is alien to him because he can't believe there are people who hold a conservative world view. Thus they MUST be stupid/lead around by Ailes' agenda.
Ronald Reagan
Eyes to the Right
Submitted by peteydee on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 8:51pm.
What's with his eyes constantly looking to the right? I noticed he has a difficult time looking and talking directly to Chris Wallace,but he was eventually able to focus,somewhat.Vision problems Jon?
Simple, he's a coward
Submitted by carolina09 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:30am.
And he hates facing his opponents directly without his howling "energy creature" mob of stoned losers...
Did anyone else notice......
Submitted by Prester John on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:02pm.
....how many times Stewart said "You wouldn't understand" when he was trying to explain what he did on his show?
I'm suprised Wallace didn't reach over and slap the crap out of Stewart and say, "Understand this, punk".
I did like the way Wallace nailed Stewart with the Amos and Andy reference after playing Stewart's black accented commentary on Herman Cain wanting to limit bills to 3 pages.
"Stupid people are ruining America"
Herman Cain 2012
Stewart recently did a
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:39pm.
Stewart recently did a fantastic sit-down with Rachel Maddow that was much better than this one, but dealt with some of the same things.
Stewart's point about Fox News, himself, and the rest of the press is unassailable, and it seems to be going over everyone's head. Stewart is a liberal, but his primary focus is on comedy, not on being a liberal activist. That isn't some sort of dodge--it's just a fact. The larger corporate press doesn't have liberal activism as a primary focus, either (or as a focus at all, in the real world), nor does Hollywood (which, unlike most of the press, actually is mostly liberal).
Fox News is different because it does have, as its primary focus and concern, conservative activism; specifically, conservative Republican activism. There are no journalistic standards at Fox. It's simply a propaganda operation, in the negative sense; anything that gives a temporary advantage to conservative Republicans will be said, without regard to fairness, reason, or factual accuracy. One has to look to the Communist party in the old days to find examples of some of the extreme doublethink that comes from Fox (those on Fox spent months relentlessly hyping birtherism, for example, then, when it loudly disintegrated, they denied they'd ever played any part in hyping it).
Wallace, though he knows it to be true, seems to take offense at the idea that those on Fox get "marching orders," and Sheppard tries to deflect this, but it's a matter of public record that Fox's on-air personalities get, on a daily basis, marching orders to slant their framing and coverage of issues to reflect Fox's larger propagandistic mission--memos that usually come from the VP of News, but sometimes from the Washington managing editor, and sometimes even from Ailes himself. Right from top management to the employees, who do what they're told, or else. There simply isn't anything like that on the other side. No such thing exists anywhere else in the press, either. Not on MSNBC, the only real television home of the liberals. Not at the New York Times. Not at any major press outlet. Sheppard characterizes Stewart offering his own independent viewpoint as parroting Democratic party talking points, then acts as though this nullifies Stewart's point about marching orders at Fox, which is as absolutely ludicrous on its face as it is in its details.
Marching orders?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:48pm.
You are very confused. MSNBC, the home of "Morning Joe" was the show that demonstrated talking points directly from the top. Misha, Mishka, whatever the blonde's name is, was on camera saying the White House was communicating to her via her Blackberry telling her what to say.
Yes, Fox has it's opinion shows, but the news shows always give both points of view, with hosts playing Devil's Advocate for either side, left or right.
Heck Rad
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:51pm.
Fox give both sides on the "opinion" shows as well
True Boudin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:00pm.
I'd also like to see the "public record" of the marching order Ailes is giving people on Fox. When I think of the personalities on Fox, Megyn Kelly, BOR, Geraldo, etc, I can't imagine any of those people getting scripted. Now classical liberal, I can clearly see him getting his scripts from Soros.
Scripts from Soros*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:09pm.
True Ms Rad. Having read numerous classiclibs posts, this one seems way out of his creative typing skills. I'm guessing sto'bought.
Charlie Reina, a six-year
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:34pm.
Charlie Reina, a six-year veteran of Fox News (among other things, he produced News Watch), described the daily memo thusly:
"The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered... [V]irtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them."
Tim Dickinson, in Rolling Stone, described the origin of The Memo:
"...after Bush [Jr.] was elected, Ailes tasked John Moody, his top political lieutenant, to keep the newsroom in lockstep. Early each morning, Ailes summoned Moody into his office--often joined by Hume from the Washington bureau on speakerphone--and provided his spin on the day’s news. Moody then posted a daily memo to the staff with explicit instructions on how to slant the day’s news coverage according to the agenda of those on 'the Second Floor,' as Ailes and his loyal cadre of vice presidents are known."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-...
Many of the memos have been leaked over the years. MMFA reproduced several of them here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200407140002
A CJR blog piece on another:
http://www.cjr.org/politics/fox_memo_leaked_tells_us_nothi.php
The Daily Beast acquired another:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101209/bs_yblog_thecutline/le...
And so on.
charlie reina*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:02am.
From Fox to Huffpo. Charlie sounds like a class act
The problem, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:29pm.
is the "other side" too often took the form of somebody like Alan Colmes and his whiny pandering to Fox's predominantly conservative audience, so that, for example, when Hannity would introduce his nightly "Terrible Liberal/Democrat Outrage" [there evidently was/is no such thing as a conservative/GOP outrage] Colmes would begin mewling a groveling apologia and swear he was not like the 'bad' libs and blah, blah, freakin' blah.
It was so sickening I finally gave up on any expectation of real balance and quit watching. I don't know what Hannity's format is now, but the fact that Colmes is gone in my book means 'addition by subtraction' for the lib point of view.
That said, in the final analysis, I have no problem with Fox's bias--only its slogan. And, Lord knows, there's more than enough lib messaging in the media.
Jer
Here is a first*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:47pm.
I partially agree with Jer. Hannity is not a news analyst. He is and openly admits to being a conservative voice. I don't watch Hannity but I do try to watch the "news" portions of Fox daily lineup. There is no question that the liberal media, tv, web and print, rarely give an honest assessment of Obama's administrative policies. They will attack and ridicule any of Obama's critics and their comments without any discussion or debate on the reason or facts behind the criticism. Slant is one thing, outright lies and omissions is entirely intentional.
Journalists were once considered "watchdogs". That profession once was one of the highest rated professions for credibility. Today, journalists rate just below "used car salesmen".
OMG
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:54pm.
I had to run outside and look for pigs in the sky, didn't see any. Is it getting really really cold? Or have I entered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y this?
OK Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:01pm.
That was funny. btw: Twilight Zone was one of my all time favorite tv shows. How did you know that? hmmmmm
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:03pm.
Because it was one of mine too, and great minds think alike!
Ladies: Re "Twilight Zone" et al..
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:57am.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was lamenting the fact that with all of the channels and scores of classic shows available on cable these days, it was a crying shame that the original Perry Mason series [late 50's-early 60's] was nowhere to be found.
Well, apparently the TV gods were listening because a few days later I noticed that it in fact is now being telecast--along with such old favorites as Twilight Zone, Gomer Pyle, Mary Tyler Moore, Dick Van Dyke. Beverly Hillbillies, Gunsmoke, Rawhide, Bonanza, M*A*S*H, Hawaii Five-0, I Love Lucy, and many, many more--on Comcast Channel 248 [in Atlanta] WSBR-TV but with the program logo "MeTV. If you have access to it, check it out.
Raymond Burr, btw...a gay man, and one of the all-time good guys, a philanthropist. a gentleman, we share the same birthday and I strive to be more like him [well, except for that first part].
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:14am.
Well I used to watch Perry Mason and Ironside all the time.Good shows.Now there ain't squat on worth watching except occasionally some movies.So you don't strive to be a btw?He also made some good movies.
About the only program on TV
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:08am.
About the only program on TV that I watch regularly is "Tremé" on HBO. I initially watched it because it had to do with the city I grew up near, New Orleans but it got me hooked on its accurate portrayal of life post-Katrina. The only other show I was regularly is "Doctor Who" on BBC America.
I'll add football (college and hopefully pro) when fall comes around.
I do have several classic TV shows on DVD that I watch from time to time.
Beukeboom
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:27pm.
There isn't really much that appeals to me.I don't watch the government channels.Even to see the Bruins win their championship.Once in a while I will watch some cooking shows but when they bring politics into it then see ya.Not worth my time.Doctor Who is pretty good..I have seen that and Ramsey's Kitchens on BBC.I will watch a good movie now and then.
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:26am.
Bummer for me, no comcast where I am. But I've bought some old Mary Tyler Moore and The Bob Newhart show dvd's. They're dirt cheap and good on those many nights there just isn't anything on and the news shows raise my blood pressure to much for sleep.
By the way, I caught you referring to your wife's conversation as "inane"? Or basically you just weren't listening. You'd better not be my husband under a pseudonym.
Dont be upset Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:18pm.
They have to have post names to give them ego otherwise, guys are all alike.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:48pm.
I was just singling out that particular story as "inane". Most are intensely interesting, topical, and keep me on he edge of my seat.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:52pm.
Very good. I have a fascinating story for my husband about who I met at the store today...He'll be on the edge of his seat too, I'm sure.
O.k. the only stories that keep him on the edge of his seat are those involving what I'm making for dinner. Ugh.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:38am.
You do know their is a difference between Hannity's show and Sawyer,Williams and whoever is on CBS?
Yes, well99...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:17am.
But it's been awhile since I watched Hannity regularly--not since the H & C days--and like I said, I'm not sure of his current format, altthough I'm aware it's an opinion show and not a newscast.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:45am.
I don't watch any of it to often but he will have Bob Bekiel on occasionally and other Dems when he has the group talk.Shoot he had Michael Moore on once.Life is stranger than fiction.
Jer
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:35pm.
"I have no problem with Fox's bias--only its slogan."
Fair enough. Any objections to CNN's slogan?
Maybe a little, but less so, Model...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:42pm.
Is CNN's slogan still "the most trusted name in news"?
I would put that in the category of not atypical "seller's puff". FOX's is patently absurd.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:31pm.
Of course you wouldn't.If CNN is the most trusted name in news their ratings say different.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-friday-june-17_b72207...
well99...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:42pm.
You mean FNC tops its cable competitors in audience share?
Wow! Now there's something you won't hear but a couple of times a day at NewsBusters.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:54pm.
You might of missed it in your attempt to be snarky but MSNBC even had better ratings then CNN.That is pretty bad.Just a note:Leave the Snarkiness to the professionals like balboa.I don't want to see you hurt yourself..)
Yeah, I'm still a novice, well99...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:02pm.
A rookie mistake. [Plus, I'm out of sorts today because Pujols broke his hand.]
Jer.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:06pm.
That hurt.How long is he going to be out?The whole season?
Estimating six weeks according to reports I saw
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:39pm.
earlier today. Plus, after an uncharacteristically slow start, he had been on a tear recently.
Jer
What? You aint a
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:08pm.
Braves fan? Whoa
update Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:11pm.
It's the 8th inning and Hudson has pitched a one hitter against Toronto. Braves lead 2-0 on Tim Hudson's 2 run homer...LOL
Now thats a nice night
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:22pm.
Might be the second? player to hit the winning run for his own W.
Can't help it, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:41pm.
Born and raised in Cardinal country.
Jer
Well now,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:48pm.
As a new Braves fan, I find that news very interesting. Hey, is Bobby Cox still "our" Manager?
You guys still have La Russa?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:56pm.
Nope.
Yep. Recently managed his 5000th game.
Jer
Yeah, I'll handle the snark,
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:15pm.
Yeah, I'll handle the snark, thankyouverymuch. Harrumph!
balboa
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:48pm.
Omid Djalili wants royalties for that.
As far as I know, yes
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:13pm.
At least it's still being used here.
As far as the FOX slogan being "patently absurd" I trust you just inadvertently omitted the "IMO" qualifier, no? Otherwise that seems a rather difficult assertion to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even the less demanding "preponderance of evidence."
After all is said and done I suspect that both slogans actually are little more than marketing copy, and are not really meant to be understood as absolute truths. Truly, did anyone ever really think that "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should" or that Maxwell House coffee really is "Good to the last drop?"
Well, Model...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 3:32pm.
let's just say it was my "fair and balanced" opinion.
:-)
Jer
"You are very confused." Not
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:17pm.
"You are very confused."
Not at all. It seems, rather, that you aren't aware of the things about which I was writing.
"MSNBC, the home of 'Morning Joe' was the show that demonstrated talking points directly from the top. Misha, Mishka, whatever the blonde's name is, was on camera saying the White House was communicating to her via her Blackberry telling her what to say."
Administrations talk to the press. During the Bush administration, the White House sent out what Bush press secretary Scott McClellan characterized as "talking points" to the Fox News personalities. The White House can communicate with whomever they want; those whom they email are under no obligation to do what the White House wants, and, as far as anyone knows, haven't (a contrast to the Bush administration, when the Fox gang was, as McClellan said, very helpful). In that Morning Joe incident, those at the White House were sending out messages complaining that there were too many liberals on the air, because they were criticizing the Obama administration. The White House didn't get their way.
In any event, this is in no way analogous to what happens at Fox News (where management dictates a pro-conservative-Republican propaganda line, and tightly manages the "messaging" to keep it in line with this).
Ignore the lying troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:27pm.
He thinks we are paid to read his long winded idiocy.
More unfounded nonsense.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:31pm.
Link or slink buddy. You said it was common knowledge about FNC people being told what to say. Prove it.
Fact is, MSNBC is direct on air communication with the White House, who seem to feel they can control is said on MSNBC. Must be a reason.
Mishka? LOL.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:36pm.
But please, continue dispensing your expert opinions on the MSM.
In addition
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:52pm.
Want to excuse this away? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/03/26/mika-kicks-joe-...
This comment, unlike the short comment this Liberal...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:17am.
made before, was one I did not bother to read. If you've heard one Liberal rant, you've heard all Liberal rants.
Clabbered Liberal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:46pm.
Hillary Clinton's camp was first out of the gates with the Birther movement.
And I'm just curious, because of your admission the other day, is that thing you opened up about still going on in your family?
Do you and Satchmo exchange family pics?
Try again Cl*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:03pm.
This tripe reads like an opening chapter for your first attempt at a sci-fi screenplay. We have several talented writers and English teachers here at NB. Pause. They will be arriving soon to offer you some editing tips.
edit: Arriving as we type....LOL
Who reads this idiot's spinsterbear style tripe?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:09pm.
What is it with idiot trolls and their sixteen paragraph whines? They think we will take precious time out of our day to read the long winded pointless screed of an anonymous known liar?
Didn't read a word of your rant troll. So sad for the sucktroll.
Now Vet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:32pm.
It must be lonely in the basement, so these two trolls come here and drone and on pretending they are actually having human contact. Kind of sad aren't they? O.k, they are just pains in the butt.
"Who reads this idiot's spinsterbear style tripe?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:38pm.
.
"Who reads this idiot's spinsterbear style tripe?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:35pm.
..
"Who reads this idiot's spinsterbear style tripe?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:39pm.
How am I doing?
SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:51pm.
Doing fine.
Don't feed the trolls.
I know I have seen this block quoting before.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:58pm.
All I can remember is troglodyt. And he stopped doing it once it was pointed out. Another reason to pass on this idiot with his long winded tripe. He is too stupid and disrespectful to knock off annoying others when he has been shown how not to annoy others.
Nailed It
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:03pm.
Aaah Vet, as soon as you said that it clicked. Troggy, the creepy perv is back. Gotta go disinfect now. Eeeuuw.
Agree Vet*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:08pm.
I have read this same screed before but cant remember where but it was not at NB. I am not in the mood to go chasing trolls. Lies dont bother these people so why should plagiarism be a concern?
Something else
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:11am.
Both the title of Sheppard's article and his set-up totally misrepresent Stewart's comments.
Thank you for your short comment this time. I didn't...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:16am.
agree with it and I think you are a Liberal fool (there I go, repeating myself) but at least I read it.
I didn't bother to read anymore past the first sentence.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:10am.
Only a Liberal would support Stewart by saying he did a better interview with Maddow. Hey Liberals, if you want us to read your stuff, don't stack your baloney in the very first sentence!
"...past the first
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:26am.
"...past the first sentence."
In one thread, you've managed to "reply" to something, at least three times, by saying you can't be bothered to read the thing to which you're allegedly replying before commenting upon it. Reading comprehension is demonstrably a very serious problem among the conservative posters, here, but this is a new one on me. The question it begs: Why even make any pretense of a reply? Know that when you see one of my comments, it probably will have some big words, some long sentences, and some at least moderately complex thoughts. If these things are going to so totally overwhelm you, wouldn't it be better just to skip them without announcing it? Particularly without announcing it over and over again?
"relentlessly hyping
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:21am.
"relentlessly hyping birtherism," Hmmm, I watch Megyn, Bret Baier, Beck, Hannity, Greta & BOR, and all I heard was them denounce them - which channel were you watching???
Ronald Reagan
For a while, Hannity was
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:44am.
For a while, Hannity was constantly either defending the birthers or insisting that the White House release the birth certificate. MMFA compiled the numbers from Feb. 21 to April 21, to give a more comprehensive look at the problem:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201104270009
In that relatively short period, there were at least 52 segments on the various programs pimping birtherism, and 84% of false claims about Obama's birth were either made by the host, or were unchallenged by the host or anyone else.
~You should know better than to pimp media matters here
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:37pm.
Leon.
This will come as a shock to you ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:28pm.
but the entire birther issue is a red herring and I think both Obama and his handlers know this. They themselves perpetuated it and at great expense. Why would they do this if Obama could simply release his long form birth certificate and end the debate?
Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President because he is not a natural born citizen as either the Founders defined it or as the authors of the 14th Amendment defined it. His father was not at the time of Obama's birth nor at any time after, a citizen of the United States. Ergo, he is not natural born.
The "birther" nonsense was a
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:09pm.
The "birther" nonsense was a red herring, but contrary to your assertion, the Obama didn't spend a dime perpetuating it, and, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with perpetuating it. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen; that makes him a U.S. citizen. Obama released his birth certificate. The government of Hawaii certified it was genuine. The local paper reported his birth. All of this happened YEARS ago (only the long form release, which backed up all of the rest, was recent), but a morass of reactionary slime wanted to deligitimize him, decided to manufacture an "issue" that would, in their twisted minds, do so, and attracted a lot of absolutely brainless followers (a majority of the Republican base). Conservatives routinely make false allegations that Obama critics are accused, by his supporters, of being racists. On this "issue," however, Obama's supporters could make a very strong case for such a charge.
Ignorant as always.
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 7:17am.
Obama was born in 1961. His mother was not yet 19 years of age at that time. Under the citizenship laws of 1961, Obama is NOT a US Citizen unless his mother, at age 18, had given birth to him within the United States. So his place of birth is most relevant to his citizenry.
His citizenship is also subject to his own misbehavior. He has done at least one thing that under Title 8, section 1481 USC, negates his US citizenship. Read it. And while you do, recall that Obama traveled to Pakistan under a foreign passport when it was illegal for a US Citizen to do so. Look carefully at subsection (a) .2. How did Obama possess a valid foreign [Indonesian] passport after age 18?
Last, it is not sufficient to be merely a citizen to become POTUS. One must also be a Natural Born Citizen [or be at least 213 years old]. A natural born citizen is more than a native born citizen. Under the current flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, anybody born in the US is considered a citizen unless their parent enjoyed explicit diplomatic immunity. The original interpretation was the parents had to be legal residents of the US, that is, under the jurisdiction thereof. These are native born citizens. A natural born citizen has parents, plural, who are also citizens. This is the only known definition of 'natural born citizenship' that has ever been endorsed by the Supreme Court, occurring in Minor v Happersett, 1874. Obama has parent singular and is therefore disqualified.
And you don't think Obama has a problem with qualifications to be President? And this might not have led him to obfuscate the Birther issue to deflect from the real problem?
→ Yeah, CL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:34pm.
Because ensuring the Constitutional requirements of eligibility is just so stupid, right?
Wallace did a remarkable job
Submitted by OxyCon on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:08pm.
I'd like to see Obama do a lengthy interview with him.
Libs on Fox
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:15pm.
Check out this link for a list of Fox Libs
Libs On Fox
I checked the list. Pat Caddell may be a Democrat,...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:02am.
but I don't think he is a Lib. Greta may also be a Democrat, but I think she leans slightly "Conservative" based on her interviews. She seems to give more credence to Conservatives than she does to Liberals. Juan Williams has no redeeming qualities. He is a Lib through and through as are most of the others on your list including "Shemp" Smith. Surprisingly, everytime I've seen Joe Trippi on Fox, his Liberalism seems somewhat subdued. I think Beckel puts on an act. I can't believe he really believes half of the stuff that comes out of his mouth. Mark Levin seems to like him. As my long gone mother used to say...Bobby Darin can't be too bad if Sandra Dee would marry him.
Cadell, Williams, Bob Beckel,
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 11:50am.
Cadell, Williams, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, and the rest of Fox's "liberals" are faux liberals, chosen only because they either agree with the conservatives or are easy targets for them. Jeff Cohen, who, years ago, used to appear on the media criticism show before it became a complete joke, may be the only real liberal who has ever been on the payroll, there.
"Faux liberals"
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:12pm.
That's a new one. Galactically idiotic, but funny in a sick sort of way.
And Cadell isn't a liberal, he's an old school democrat.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
According to Stewart
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:48pm.
"EVERY POLL CONSISTENLY SHOWS THAT FOX VIEWERS ARE THE MOST ILL-INFORMED?!"
I can recall only one discredited "study" done by some liberal outfit but don't recall hearing about "every poll." And why didn't Wallace but him on this?
PA
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:41am.
"A poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a “project” run out of the University of Maryland, was the toast of the left-wingers last week for its finding that Fox News viewers were the most “misinformed” during the 2010 election cycle. Sadly, few of the news pieces on this poll mentioned that WorldPublicOpinion.org is funded in part by such far left-wing organizations as the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the United States Institute of Peace, and the George Soros-backed Tides Foundation."
Stewies friends.Leftist with a agenda.
I am not surprised. When a "poll" goes against one's...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:23am.
common sense, you can be sure a Liberal's behind it.
jawebster
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:03am.
Also Soro's money.
That's actually a perfect
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:51pm.
That's actually a perfect example of the very phenomenon those surveys have documented for years. Those who use Fox as their primary news source are consistently misinformed about public policy; in this case, they're misinformed about being misinformed.
It's unfortunate that, in 2011 America, so much of the right need only hear that a Jewish financier has put money into a project in order to totally dismiss it's work. WorldPublicOpinion has gotten money from some liberal sources, including the Tides Foundation, and yes, that Jewish fellow does give Tides money; it has also gotten money from the German Marshall Fund, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and other sources that no one would confuse with being "liberal."
The 2010 PIPA/WorldPublicOpinion finding was that, while those who had greater exposure to news sources were, in general, better informed, those who heavily watched Fox News reversed this trend, and were significantly more likely to be totally misinformed about a wide range of issues--the most misinformed news consumers identified. Even Democrats who regularly watched Fox were more misinformed that Democrats who didn't (though they were better informed than Republicans who watched Fox).
This only the latest in a string of studies and surveys that have, for years, documented this same phenomenon. In 2009, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey examined misinformation about health care reform, and found it to be widespread in the general population, regardless of news source, but, once again, Fox News viewers were the ones who were, by far, the most misinformed--while 30-41% of viewers of the networks, CNN, and MSNBC believed at least some of the myths about health care, 69-79% of Fox viewers believed a wide range of myths. In 2007, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press studied knowledge of national and international affairs by news consumers, and found that only those who named the network morning shows as their primary source of news were less knowledgeable than Fox viewers, and it was a 1%--statistically insignificant--difference (Fox tied for dead last). Relevant to this thread, viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report were the most knowledgeable. In 2003, PIPA had examined knowledge of the Iraq war and War On Terror, and found, again, that Fox News viewers were more likely to be totally misinformed about these subjects.
And so on.
Very impressive, ClassicCut-n-Paster
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:12pm.
Now as the resident media expert, please tell us more about Mishka.
"Very impressive, ClassicCut-n-Paster"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:14pm.
Oops, I just block-quoted myself.
~I've never watched FOX News in my life
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:12pm.
and yet somehow I managed to be a conservative. Fancy that.
Jewish financier?
Submitted by NCConservative on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:13pm.
Why bring religious background into this? What relevance does that have here? Are you trying to insinuate that somehow those who disagree with Soros' motives are anti-Semitic?
I suppose just like those who disagree with Obama are racist. /sarc
→ NCC
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:37pm.
Soros fit himself into Hitler Youth quite handily during the war. He's spent his whole life trying to convince the rest of the world that Judaism is nonsense.
classicliar
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:19pm.
Why is it only you that brought up his religion?You want to find a bigot look in a mirror.Try as you want you are selling anyone that bs.PIPA is a left wing and is to be trusted as much you.Which you aren't.At least by me.I don't trust bigots.
"Why is it only you that
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:30pm.
"Why is it only you that brought up his religion?"
To shine some light on the subject by making explicit what conservatives are always implying by constantly waving his name around like a voodoo fetish. It's rather ugly, isn't it? And that's the point.
"Why is it only you that brought up his religion?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:36pm.
For the 65th time, knock it off with the idiotic block quoting, Dummy - we can all follow what's going on.
Oh, and say 'hey' to Mishka for me if you see her.
cl
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:36pm.
I will call bull sh$$ on that.You can lie all you want it won't change anything.You brought it up because that is how you look at him.Your bigotry seeped into your post.You were nailed for it and now you come up with some lame excuse Mr.Wiener.Save it.Save it for some of your liberals friends if you have any friends.Not all liberals like bigots either.At least the ones on this board.
Politifact disagrees
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:12pm.
Although, I find Politifact tilts slightly to the left, I think their reasoning here is sound: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewa...
Judging from the tendency to paint OReilly as a tool of the right, it's curious as to how to separate O'Reilly viewers from Fox News viewers. It's pretty stupid, really. And so is parroting the dubious summary conclusions on such dubious divisions.
Who cares
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:58pm.
Who actually cares what Stewart thinks. i put him in the same category as rev. Al.
Chris is so much sharper than
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:19pm.
this clown. It's hilarious to watch stew try to behave intellectually superior. The Elite Jester jon stewnad.
People are always saying nice things about this guy...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 2:53am.
but I don't get it. I disagree with his politics, I don't think he's funny and to me, the wierd looks that he likes to give to the camera (I guess its called mugging) is very annoying. I have never watched his show but unfortunately, he shows up on Fox from time to time, so I've seen his act. I think if you asked the same question to him and Alan Colmes, they'd always come up with the same answer with the difference being, he'd "mug" to the camera more and Colmes would roll his eyes more.
He nailed Wallace on one point...
Submitted by jdripper on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:08am.
Stewart said emphatically that every survey and poll taken on the subject of whose audience had the least knowledge of national and world affairs it always shows FOX listeners at the bottom. He said it three times and Wallace never responded back to it. Wallace got his head handed to him on that one.
Jack
The looking down/away is a
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 3:13am.
The looking down/away is a tell - usually indicating a lie.
Years ago, I watched him, and found humor in what he did. He was an equal opportunity guy back then. I stopped watching partly because I figured out all his punch lines, and because I'd know the back story on a "joke" and see it for what it really was.
John's problem is that he likes to think he's so open minded, when he's actually the opposite.
Morning Joe has a habit of running his clips, but they never address them. Joe HAS to know the back story, but he just sits there while Mika smirks. That's the slide I've been trying to explain to jer.
Ronald Reagan
class liberal mindset
Submitted by NCConservative on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 4:19pm.
"John's problem is that he likes to think he's so open minded, when he's actually the opposite. "
This is true with the majority of liberals. They are extremely open-minded as long as you agree with them.
Fox Viewers Most Misinformed
Submitted by Gat New York on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 6:00am.
Can anyone provide even one of those studies that Stewart referred to that all say that FoxNews viewers are the most misinformed? Maybe someone could ask this little man to produce just one study that we can respond to, but why should a left wing moron like Stewart let a little thing like facts get in the way of an ideology.
Gat
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:01am.
Look at my post to Proud American.
Media not bias, you make me laugh!
Submitted by Less1leg on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:53am.
Jon your schick on TV is for TV, don't cross over media and tell us as viewers what can can't hear for ourselves. It wasn't too long ago that Hollywood media executives were laughing at us viewers for their interjecting liberal bias into the tv shows we were watching. From the late 1960's to present liberal writers and producers in Hollywood and elsewhere have been injecting progressive liberal views into the TV shows which we love. From Happy Days to Glee, liberal bias is being subliminally pushed onto tv shows, documentaries, and funny media satire commentaries like none other than, guess who, Jon Stewart.
Even our old grandad voice of CBS, Walter Cronkite, pushed liberal views onto the nightly news. That trend got so bad that Foxsnews was created because we the viewers got fed up with the indocrination of our nightly news and we wanted something else. Other than the Democratic Party platform.
Why do you think Foxs news is so successful, and the liberal news is in the dump, ratings wise. If you were to combine all of the MSM outlets together, they still fall short of the Fox news network for fair news reporting. There are more good quality liberal commentators on Fox news than all of the liberal MSM networks. And the ratings prove it out.
Cowpies...
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:47pm.
......have less BS in them than Jon Stwert. The sad part is he probably really believes that he isnt biased and only Conservtives are the most biased.
Stewart vs. Wallace - Who Cares
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 1:41pm.
Both are liberals. In addition, I noticed that Bill Burton was one of the panelist in this week's show. Bill Burton is not just a lefty who worked as the White House deputy press secretary for Obama. He also helped propel Barack Obama to the presidency as his 2008.
"...In February 2011, after he competed for Gibbs' job (given to Jay Carney), Burton announced his departure from the White House to form a consulting shop with White House aide Sean Sweeney. In April 2011, Burton became a senior strategist at Priorities USA, a third-party group intended to help elect Democrats in the 2012 elections by evening the spending score with similar Republican groups. The group's first ad ran in May 2011 was aimed at 2012 presidential contender Mitt Romney in South Carolina..."
Source: http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Bill_Burton
Thus, why did Wallace have a guy who's presently working to reelect Obama and Democrats as a guest analyzing the GOP presidential field? Maybe it's time for NewsBusters to spend more time examining FOX NEWS regardless of the strong relations it has with the news outlet.
Stewart's comments
Submitted by livfreeordi on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:58pm.
...are soooooooooooooo ridiculous that they are funny!
Good thing for him he works at the Comedy Channel..instead of some serious credible news channel...
...like Fox News.
Stewart's chief equivocation
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:24pm.
Stewart knows the way he and his liberal comedian friends think. And when he reflects on his thought process, he doesn't see an intent to support the party line, just to make jokes that--of course--come out of his worldview. However, he gives no evidence that he is privy to the thought processes of Fox executives and says that their effect is what is important.
So with his liberal friends, it's intent not effect, and for Fox News it's intent imputed from the effect he perceives. Thus he is doing no more than the SOP of the liberal media, to tell the "conservative side" of the story, without conservatives. If the effect is to discredit a black president, it must be a racist--or unwittingly racist--intent.
I see this so often that I'm coming up with my own formulation of it: The Intentionality Fallacy: I do not intend X, therefore I am not capable of X. Or even I intend not to do X, thus I can't be guilty of some other form of X.
"...when he reflects on his
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:43pm.
"...when he reflects on his thought process, he doesn't see an intent to support the party line, just to make jokes that--of course--come out of his worldview. However, he gives no evidence that he is privy to the thought processes of Fox executives and says that their effect is what is important."
To the contrary, he correctly noted that Fox executives hand down talking-points to their underlings. If you follow such things (as Stewart does), you know these come in (among other ways) the form of daily memos from management instructing the Fox employees in what issues are to be covered that day, how they are to be covered and not covered, what tone is to be set, and so on. Fox is a propaganda operation, in the negative sense, for conservative Republicans. The executives make their views well known; their employees are made to hew to the party line.
That's still an effect
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 7:31pm.
not an intent. Plenty of news organizations give guidelines to their employees on how to cover stories. And plenty of mainstream news organizations have indicated that it was their editorial policy not to cover certain stories that were broken by conservative's media.
Again, it's the interpretation that only with Fox news editorial direction that benefits conservatives is "propaganda" while on other networks its simply "journalistic policy".
What are you going to do now that you've shown that you can't distinguish effect from intent? Unless you find a directive that says "Do not cover X, it makes republicans look bad", you're still interpreting intent.
Conservative comic Steven Crowder recently got a response from the Daily Show saying they do not book conservative pundits. Did somebody make a policy against conservative pundits? Is that so that liberals are not subjected to the same level of ridicule--as long as we're all laughing. Is that such to spread the unconscious idea that conservatives are specially deserving of ridicule--and as the establishment comedians pretended, Obama is just not funny.
Stewart wants us to know that regardless of outcome, what's important is that's not how they think.
Scary
Submitted by Bronco46 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:42pm.
Wallace was great! But Stewart is either deluded or dangerously ideological. I say dangerously because if you don't pay close attention to what he's saying he comes off as reasonable to some degree. And that's where the danger is. Many of the people who claim to be moderates don't do much research on the issues and tend to look to hipsters like Stewart and Colbert because they're entertaining. Sadly many people want their information to be funny. They can't concentrate long enough when it's a debate, panel discussion, or God forbid just one man talking.
Could a conservative be like Stewart and Colbert? Yes! But that won't happen; because the entertainment outlets in this country are run by people with strong liberal ideology. And they won't let a conservative get the level of John Stewart. Their are humorous conservative ideologues like Stewart and Colbert but they are only able to get a platform on outlets like PJTV.com, rightnetwork.com, etc..
It's amazing to listen to Stewart complaining about the only major conservative outlet on Television; Fox is really getting to them.
Quoting the author "How do
Submitted by tombaker on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 9:03pm.
Quoting the author "How do Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, and all the liberal contributors to Fox fit into that mix?"
If you think that Great and Shep are liberals you have pretty much no clue at all. That is how you define a liberal...people that are mainstream?
There is not a single host on Fox News that is a liberal, it is just how it is. Colmes used to be there but with him there is none. Calling Greta a liberal is truly insulting to what she does....have you ever even seen the show or are you just pulling stuff out your......"
"mainstream" Is a misnomer.
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 11:03pm.
"mainstream" Is a misnomer. For decades, the media & arts have been influencing our gov't. to think that the incredible shift to the left is real and "mainstream" when it really isn't. 2010 showed people are waking up to this truth and are trying to correct it.
Ronald Reagan