Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had some harsh words for the apparent peace proposal offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin involving Syria turning over its chemical weapons.
Appearing on Fox News's Special Report Monday, Krauthammer said, “The chances of these weapons being eliminated from Syria are less than of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year, and they are now mathematically eliminated.”
Wednesday marks the one year anniversary of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead and sent the Obama administration scrambling for a cover story that the Big Three broadcast networks initially bought and were slow to unravel.
A similar pattern has emerged in 2013. As new information about the administration’s actions before and after the attacks have been revealed through congressional testimony, whistleblowers, and eyewitnesses, the Big Three have responded by censoring, breezing past or spinning politically damaging bombshells. (full special report after the jump)
NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday actually interviewed disgraced New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner.
This led Daily Beast columnist Michelle Cottle to smartly observe on Fox News’s Media Buzz, “While as a Congressman he wasn't that great, and as a mayoral candidate he’s down in the polls, his penis is still a national celebrity” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
It seems even Barack Obama doesn't want to be seen on MSNBC.
The Washington Post reported moments ago that the President of the United States, ahead of his address to the nation about Syria Tuesday, will give interviews to the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, NBC and PBS Monday.
Daily Kos bloggers like to trash Fox News, even if some seem not to have ever watched the channel. (It's always amusing when one of them writes about Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as if they were interchangeable. Uhhhh, no.)
Others, however, do at least a bit of content analysis. DKos featured writer "Hunter," for example, has long been especially contemptuous of FNC's morning program Fox & Friends. This past Tuesday, "Hunter" lauded John McCain for supposedly schooling Brian Kilmeade on the equivalence of "Allahu Akbar" and "Thank God." "Hunter" mused, "I wonder how far Sen. John McCain will get explaining Muslim culture to the fenceposts of the Fox News team."
On Thursday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, liberal talk radio host Joe Madison referred to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as "Jim Crow's grandson" and "Jim Crow Esquire" during a discussion of the absence of Republican figures at the Martin Luther King, Jr., 50-year commemoration.
After a couple of clips of O'Reilly critiquing the social problems of some poor Americans, MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor accused the FNC host of "wholesale maligning of an entire race and class of people" that is "simply unconscionable," even though O'Reilly specified no racial group as he responded to a clip of President Obama in which the President complained that some Americans, "regardless of color," are still having economic difficulties.
After host Al Sharpton asked if O'Reilly is "somebody we ought to be taking seriously," Taylor began her response:
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had some harsh words for the White House Thursday.
Commenting on Fox News’s Special Report about the British government’s decision to not take part in a military action against Syria, Krauthammer said, “It is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration.”
Even the lefties at The New Yorker magazine know that Fox offers more space to liberals than MSNBC does to conservatives. Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple's headline was "MSNBC: Must-agree TV."
The New Yorker's Kelefa Sanneh (for eight years a music critic at The New York Times) profiled MSNBC and declared point blank that "Conservatives are far less visible on MSNBC than liberals are on Fox News." He absolutely nailed how Phil Griffin's shows prefer Republicans who trash the right-wingers as fanatics:
With all eyes on Syria and what appears to be a looming United States strike, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday that it’s a “pointless exercise” unless we’re going all in to remove Bashar Assad.
Appearing on Fox News’s Special Report Krauthammer said, “If we are going to have an attack, it should be aimed at that, and if it’s not, we shouldn't be doing anything."
Now that he's mostly settled in at the Fox News Channel, we're wondering if former CNNer and Washington Postie Howard Kurtz is ready to take the gloves off. His Monday column dealt in part with Friday's clash between President Barack Obama and conservative icon Rush Limbaugh.
By attacking the radio talk show host as a reason Republicans supposedly tell the president privately they support his desire to fund ObamaCare but can't do so publicly, Obama "elevated Limbaugh to his level," Kurtz said. It also was an extremely unpersuasive argument, Kurtz noted.
"With all the talk that took place" during the Bush administration "on Iraq about the need for congressional approval, before there was a military strike, have you heard anyone in the media question how unilaterally Barack Obama can decide to send us to war [in Syria] without congressional approval?" NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell asked Neil Cavuto on the August 26 edition of his Fox News Channel program Your World. Cavuto opened the segment by noting that many in the media were prodding Obama to use unilateral military action against Syria for having crossed a "red line" by deploying chemical weapons.
There's also the fact that "this administration, [and their] foreign policy is an incoherent mess, " Bozell added, noting that in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed Syrian dictator Bashar Assad as a "reformer," something the liberal media are not reminding the American public about now. "No one's asking the question, 'Do you folks in this administration have any idea what you're doing?!'" [watch the full segment below the page break]
On Monday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, host Al Sharpton again raised a distortion against FNC host Bill O'Reilly as he accused O'Reilly of applying the word "parasites" to "people in need," even though the FNC host was referring to people abusing the welfare system.
After Sharpton asserted that O'Reilly "slammed food stamp recipients as parasites," he played a clip of the FNC host. O'Reilly:
On Friday's PoliticsNation show, MSNBC host Al Sharpton reacted to FNC's Bill O'Reilly criticizing him the night before, as the FNC host had called out Sharpton for taking out of context his contention that some who receive food stamps are "parasites" who take advantage of the system, and divulged that he had made a donation to one of Sharpton's charities in the past.
After having tagged O'Reilly with "hypocrisy" in a plug before the segment, Sharpton brought up the donation from O'Reilly and declared:
Chuck Todd doesn’t have a lot of respect for members of the GOP.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday, NBC’s Chief White House correspondent accused “about half the Republican field from 2012” of “simply [running] for exposure to get a talk show, or for exposure to get a radio deal, or a columnist, or a deal with Fox” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
On Tuesday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, host Al Sharpton griped about FNC host Bill O'Reilly labeling some welfare recipients as "parasites" and complaining about President Obama making it easier for people to take unfair advantage of the system.
Without informing viewers that the FNC host was referring to a California beach bum who seemed disinterested in getting off welfare when he used the word "parasites," Sharpton whined about O'Reilly waging an "ugly war on food stamps," and "attacking the poor" in a "rant about people on food stamps." Sharpton began the segment:
It’s hardly surprising that MSNBC host and former DNC communications director Karen Finney took issue with Reince Priebus’ campaign against the liberal media on Saturday’s Disrupt. Finney mocked “Reince’s rage” and suggested that the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman is “full of you know what.”
What is surprising is that Finney’s searing critique came despite the fact that she and former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean did almost the same thing to Fox News back in 2007.
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had some harsh words Tuesday for the White House calling the evacuation of our embassies in the Middle East “ordered departures.”
Appearing on Fox News’s Special Report, Krauthammer said, “This is the first administration in history ever to launch a lexicological war on the enemy. You know, they’ve thrown the book at them - the dictionary.”
On Monday's The Last Word on MSNBC, host Lawrence O'Donnell claimed to present "proof" that FNC's Bill O'Reilly was wrong in his July 22 commentary on race to warn about the negative effects of out-of-wedlock births on the black population.
The MSNBC host also managed to take O'Reilly out of context as O'Donnell suggested that the O'Reilly's were not relevant to Trayvon Martin because he was the product of a two-parent family, the FNC host, in reality, was arguing that out-of-wedlock birth leads to high crime rates among the black population, which leads to people having elevated fear of young black men.
And, while O'Donnell claimed that O'Reilly "defended" the shooting of Trayvon Martin, O'Reilly actually asserted that "it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance," which hardly amounts to a total defense of Zimmerman's actions.
O'Donnell teased the segment by predicting that O'Reilly would be "embarrassed." O'Donnell:
Daily Beast founder and editor Tina Brown sure has a thin skin.
Responding to a seemingly innocent comment by former employee Howard Kurtz regarding Monday's New York Times article about her, Brown tweeted, "Hey @HowardKurtz am I forgetting something or didn't I fire you for serial inaccuracy?"
If ever a story had the earmarks of being agenda-driven from the get-go, Mackenzie Weinger's writeup at the Politico on Glenn Beck published Saturday morning fits the bill.
Weinger's premise is that Beck will never be as influential as he once was as long as he doesn't have a cable news program and continues to branch into entertainment-related ventures consistent with his beliefs. Excerpts, evidence which easily refutes Weinger's wishful thinking, and further commentary from yours truly follow the jump.