In retracing the early steps of the O'Reilly vs. Scarborough battle, it's funny to see that when O'Reilly attacked NBC and MSNBC on January 4, he probably hadn't left the parking lot at Fox when attack dog Joe Scarborough was already protesting his complaints on MSNBC, and running audio from O'Reilly's radio show earlier in the day. This exchange shows that Scarborough is either (a) making fun of himself, or (b) completely misleading his audience about his attention-grasping "Is Bush An Idiot?" segment last August:
O’Reilly, from his radio show: “Bush can't win. No matter what he does. NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, they're going to say he's an idiot. There's no sense of balance or fairness in their reporting. That's activist journalism.”
Scarborough: “Bush an idiot? I've never said Bush is an idiot. Chris? If I ever said -- do you think Bush is an idiot?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Chris (Licht, the executive producer, I'm assuming): “Absolutely not.”
Scarborough: “Absolutely not.”
Chris: “We would never say that, nor have we ever said that.”
Scarborough: “You're a Connecticut Republican.”
Chris: “We’d never say that.”
Scarborough: “We are conservative people.”
Oh, we didn't say Bush was an idiot. We merely raised the question in a provocative way on screen? Scarborough did go on to an interviews with The Washington Post (stupid "in a league by himself") and the leftist Bush-hating site Salon to suggest Bush wasn't an intellectually curious man, unlike Scarborough, whose show is apparently an intellectual's dream and never sinks into celebrity babble......?
Anyone ever hear the teaser: "Tonight on Scarborough Country: are we in danger of immanentizing the eschaton?"
(It should be noted that I know a few people who are conservatives who believe Bush is an idiot. That doesn't define whether you are conservative or not.)
As for "Connecticut Republican," we only know Licht joined the show in 2005: "Chris makes the move to MSNBC from the NBC O&O [owned and operated station] in San Francisco/San Jose."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What if they would have had
January 15, 2007 - 14:27 ET by MightyMouthWhat if they would have had the caption: "Does Bush beat his wife?". What would they say now: "We never said Bush beats his wife,we were just asking the question." "Morons and idiots" is too kind a way to describe these bozos.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
or: "Is Bill Clinton a
January 15, 2007 - 14:59 ET by winston smithor: "Is Bill Clinton a sleazy sexual preditor?"
or: "Is Bill Clinton a pathological Liar?"
or: "Is Hillary Rodham just another greedy, power-hungry politician?"
or: "Is Ted Kennedy drunken hypocrite who deliberately left a woman to drown in his own vehicle to save his political career?"
or: "Is Keith Olbermann a Democrat Party butt-kisser?"
See, I'm not making any accusations, I'm just asking the question!
These kinda look like Fox New
January 15, 2007 - 18:48 ET by crsheddThese kinda look like Fox News cyrons. Did you get these from 'Your World with Neil Cavuto'?
Neil Would Kick Your Ass (In A Conversation)
January 15, 2007 - 21:17 ET by emjem24Hey crshedd, bored with Huff n' Puff so you need to come here for kicks? You must have fun getting your butt kicked on this site on a daily basis. It's nice to kick your scrawny petard. Considered joining the military? I'm sure your days of "self-sacrifice" will now trully be realized. Anyhoo, you could learn a thing or two from Neil like "the sky is not falling" and that a decreased deficit means good news. Don't believe me? I'm sure you won't but then liberals never tend to believe any good news unless it's been given in glowing terms by Bubba with his pants between his knees.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
or: "Is Bill Clinton a
January 15, 2007 - 14:59 ET by winston smithIt's the same old MSM tact
January 15, 2007 - 15:02 ET by motherbeltIt's the same old MSM tactic to get something out there while being able to deny you (technically) said it. They do the same thing when they pronounce "but critics say....." or "there are some who say...." while they never actually say who those "some" or "critics" are. It's a cheap trick to say something without having to take responsibility for it. Conservatives are not allowed to get away with that.
Actually it's not just an old
January 15, 2007 - 16:54 ET by jeffjohnmoActually it's not just an old MSM tactic. The tactic of using the question mark after a chyron is also used extensively by FOX News in order to suggest something to its audience that may or may not be true.
FOX News uses it so often, that it's become a joke - online and on TV shows. Cavuto's show is a perfect example of using this technique and it has even been nicknamed the "The Cavuto" by Stewart. Apparently MSNBC has finally figured out that, like FOX News, they too can say anything they want by simply putting a ? after it.
Also, the use of "some say" is not just a MSM trick. FOX News and its talking heads use it ad nauseum.
yo mo, did anyone say fox n
January 15, 2007 - 17:47 ET by MightyMouthyo mo, did anyone say fox news wasn't part of the MSM?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Are you kidding? FOX News is
January 15, 2007 - 18:15 ET by jeffjohnmoAre you kidding? FOX News is typically not considered a MSM outlet. It's touted as an alternative to the MSM.
Reality check, hnmo, John Ste
January 15, 2007 - 18:03 ET by PeskyDaneReality check, hnmo, John Stewart doesn't have the juice to "nickname" anything. Nice try, though. BTW, and example would be nice.
Examples:'Stewart's real targ
January 15, 2007 - 18:52 ET by crsheddExamples:
'Stewart's real target, however, was Fox News. He strung together a number of examples from Fox News' Neil Cavuto's "Your World" show to demonstrate how Fox News uses questions to ask attack questions about Democrats and other news media and supportive questions about Republicans. Examples: "Have the Democrats Forgotten the Lessons of 9/11?" "Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?" or "The Best President?"'
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/14/jon_stewart_explains_the_cavuto_mark.php
You're Bringing Honesty?
January 15, 2007 - 21:21 ET by emjem24You're bringing honesty to the MSM now I suppose? Yeah, you just hate that Fox is using the MSM's own tactics against it. But then you would never say that would you?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
LOL, one has to have juice to
January 15, 2007 - 20:34 ET by jeffjohnmoLOL, one has to have juice to nickname something? Well, if that's your requirement to be able to nickname, I suppose it could be argued that Stewart must have some juice otherwise his "Cavuto mark" nick wouldn't have made it any further than that one episode of his show. As it is, it's all over the 'net. And, if you google Cavuto, Stewart's interpretation comes up as the 3rd find. Not too shabby. Since most here don't like Stewart, I don't expect you to agree though.
Need examples? "Are Democratic politicians aiding terrorists in Iraq?", "The Liberal Media: Out to Sabotage the Economy?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
Most of FOX News' and Cavuto's on-screen questions are written in such a way as to make Democrats, MSM, etc. look bad. The GOP and conservative issues generally get more positive sounding chyrons to represent them and obvious negatives often get spun as positives for Bush. Too bad FOX News and Cavuto can't actually be more fair and balanced with the wording of their chyrons and show more that are critical of Bush and the GOP. You know, like "Are Republicans politicizing 9/11?", "Bush's troop escalation: dangerous blunder?" or "GOP: Grand Old Pedophiles?"
Grand Old Pedophiles? That's cute.
January 15, 2007 - 20:45 ET by acaiguanaGrand Old Pedophiles? That's cute.
Other than that, you make a point. If Fox is indeed somewhat showing another side to the debate, why the great MSM attack machine fear of a simple cable channel?
Maybe to Liberals any criticism isn't acceptable? I really did like Bill Clinton sticking his famous (didn't have sex with that woman) finger in Wallace's face. Now, he took criticism quite nicely, huh? And the question, when you really look at it, wasn't even criticism. It was an opportunity for Clinton to decently address what I think is a legitimate anger with his Presidency. Why the hell didn't he really do anything about Terrorism?
But that's another argument.
I'm having trouble following your logic here. Are you saying that your example questons have no 'gravitas' on their own and should not be asked?
Are you saying the questions you cite as examples are biased in and of themselves? Up there on a par with 'Bush is stealing money from the pockets of dead soldiers?'
I think there is a long way to go for Fox to get trashed over a few silly on-screen questions that sort of point to another side of the story.
But, that's probably just me.
By the way, that throw away remark about pedophiles - that was clever. Did you think of that all by yourself or was another brain involved?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
I can't speak as to the MSM's
January 15, 2007 - 22:51 ET by jeffjohnmoI can't speak as to the MSM's reasons for the times they call out FOX News. You'd have to ask them that.
I don't know if it's that criticism isn't acceptable. Maybe it's more that no one really likes being on the receiving end of it. Criticism goes both ways in the world of politics. I don't think conservative leaning media types like getting criticism anymore than liberals do. This would go a long way towards explaining, for example (to counter your Clinton example), why O'Reilly gets so angry whenever someone criticizes the fact that he name calls (despite his denials) or that he gives us only half-truths on certain issues.
No, I'm not saying they shouldn't be asked. FOX News can ask anything it wants. I do find the wording of these on-screen chyrons biased most of the time to make Democrats look bad in the eyes of the viewers. When the Republicans were in charge of Congress, I don't remember Cavuto questioning if their motives might be suspect or whether they had America's best interest at heart with his on-screen questions. Perhaps because of his personal political leanings, his mind doesn't automatically go there but, no matter, I think he could be more balanced with the use of these questioning chyrons. As far as the dead soldier phrase you mentioned, I'm not familiar with it or how it has been used.
I don't think FOX News' use of these on-screen questions are silly at all and I'd venture to guess that FOX News doesn't either. I think the wording is carefully calculated. FOX News knows full well the importance of on-screen visuals and how they play into shaping the opinions of its viewers.
You haven't seen Grand Old Pedophile used before now? It too is all over the internet (at least since the Foley mess broke? maybe before? i don't know). I was in DC the other day and even saw a couple of people with it emblazoned across the front of their t-shirts.
And to emjem24, feel free to see me as troll and make up childish names of my user ID if it suits your needs. The original post I responded to was making it sound like it was some MSM tactic only and it isn't. Apparently people here don't like me pointing out that a conservative network like FOX News uses the same techniques that people criticize the MSM for using. Sorry but it's the truth. Either you can handle it or you can't.
How's this truth: jeffjohnmo
January 15, 2007 - 23:27 ET by UnsaneHow's this truth: jeffjohnmo has an overwhelming, intense FEAR of Fox News that is so palpable I can feel it through my screen. Why the fear, I don't know. They MIGHT reach 1% of the American population on a busy news day.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Not sure what you were feeli
January 16, 2007 - 11:29 ET by jeffjohnmoNot sure what you were feeling through your screen there, Unsane, but I can say it wasn't fear of FOX News. I think it's a good thing they are on the tube. They don't even reach 1% of the population? I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
So, I'm gonna address your criticism.
January 16, 2007 - 06:27 ET by acaiguanaSo, I'm gonna address your criticism.
You say:
"As far as the dead soldier phrase you mentioned, I'm not familiar with it or how it has been used."
Keith Olbermann said it:
"Your second accomplishment, sir, is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers."
Now, from where I stand as a Veteran and as a US citizen whose country is at war, that would be a criticism a bit over the top, huh?
Applying Boxer's logic, Olbermann has no standing to talk about war at all, right? After all, his son isn't in it and he certainly has never gone to a war. And does he think this stand about our President, the Commander in Chief, is good for soldier's morale? Does he think it is good for the country's morale? Does he hate George Bush as a President and human being so much that he is willing to sacrifice the United States itself both externally and internally to his alter of hate?
I ask these questions not because of the dispecible comment by this guy Olbermann, but because this behavior is iconic for the MSM and for Liberals.
They sit here at home and smugly smirk about how much more superior their point of view is than the Conservative point of view when it comes to this war. They discount the 9/11 attack as not being relevant to Iraq. They say they support the war in Afghanistan, but they wouldn't if there were no war in Iraq to oppose.
How in the world can Liberals be proud of their track record in undermining American resolve? In the aftermath of Vietnam, while the numbers vary, it would be reasonable to say that at least 1 million people were slaughtered by the victorious communists and if one adds into the mix Cambodia and Laos, the number is probably more like 3.5 to 5 millions.
Now, like Stalin's murderous reign's consequences, the Liberals don't want to really accept responsibility for supporting these outcomes. They would rather bask in their victory here politically.
You see, to the Liberal, victory isn't possible without them being in power because power alone is their goal. They will do anything to seize power and anything to keep it once they have it. It is an inconvenient fact that Middle Eastern Islamic Terrorists have chosen to involve the United States in their brutality. When the innocents went to work on Monday, 9/11/01, I'm sure they were all thinking about how they could steal oil from the Arabs; denegrate the Palistinians; and prevent Islam from being the greatest religion of the world.
Well, Saddam wasn't just a WMD kinda guy. He had talant you know. Hell, he wasn't afraid to simply invade another country like Iran and Kuwait. And they still don't know what happened to all the Kuwaitis he shipped off to the desert and probably shot in the back of their heads.
So, I'm a little bit disgusted with your Liberal protest about Fox News. Fox News isn't even a part of my personal life, but from what little I am exposed to I think they are reacting to genius 'truth' purveyers like Keith Olbermann.
And my friend, if that is 'truth' to you, then you really don't represent my country or its security issues.
Here's a little 'truth' for ya. Liberals are no so invested intellectually, politically and emotionally in the US losing the war in Iraq; in Iraq failing as a Democracy; and in the country cutting and running regardless of the International consequence to this country's credibility and power that they will do anything to prevent a victory.
Hence, most of them say, "Hey, we've already lost."
But to them I say, no we haven't even started on this War yet. And further, it looks like 2007 is starting out after the removal of Saddam from the scene and his henchmen, as a...
win.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
I don't regularly watch Olber
January 16, 2007 - 11:34 ET by jeffjohnmoI don't regularly watch Olbermann but I would agree that the soldier comment is a bit over the top nor do I think those who have no family fighting in the war should keep their mouths shut about it. Some of the soldiers are bothered by people back home speaking out against the President and others aren't because they understand dissent has a place in a democracy. I've heard soldiers speak out from both sides. Even Bush has said mistakes have been made with regards to the handling of the war and, because of that, he realizes that criticism of him will happen. Sorry but I don't see Olbermann's comments as sacrificing the US. He's one guy with an opinion on a 3rd place cable channel.
Each side sees their point of view as superior when it comes to this war. It's not just liberals and the MSM who have a lock on smug and smirky. Hannity and Gibson, for conservative examples, are just as smug and smirky as some of those on the left. Conservatives want to be in power as much as liberals (like the power hungry neo-con branch of the conservatives who have been involved in setting our country's agenda).
You can label my protest liberal if you want but you'd be wrong. I take each issue on it's own and sometimes I go more conservative and others more liberal. My opinion is that the vast majority of Cavuto's on-screen questions (which are more like subjectively worded statements introduced as questions and, in some cases, fall into the definition of "fallacy of many questins") are overly negative towards the Democrats. To me it's not a matter of being a liberal or a conservative on this issue. It's a matter of me thinking that FOX News should fulfill their fair and balanced motto with regards to these questioning chyrons.
You say "if that is 'truth' to you"? What truth? What Olbermann says? Nowhere did I say I think Olbermann speaks the truth. If you reread my post, I used the word truth when I pointed out to emjen24 that FOX News uses the same "some say" and on-screen question techniques that the MSM uses. That is the truth I was speaking of.
Hate to break it to you but it's my country too and I think I my viewpoint represents those who see themselves as more moderate. I would like a victory in the war...for the sake of the Iraqis and us. Time will tell.
Another Hypocritical Liberal Troll
January 15, 2007 - 21:29 ET by emjem24While we at the whole rhetorical question game, jeffy pop you little liberal troll, here's a couple questions for you:
Why does jeffy attempt to argue with people who will never agree with him?
Why does jeffy care what any of us NBer's think when he already has made up his mind?
Jeffy really must watch Fox if he can cite all these wonderful rhetorical questions to us?
Jeffy were you ever for or against the war - no, no I don't expect you to get back to me on that?
Jeffy - mindless liberal troll or useful liberal parasite?
Jeffy - trully independent thinker or just one of the crowd?
Jeffy - part of problem or part of the solution?
Jeffy - why is he so afraid of the competition?
Jeffy - liberal butt kisser or independent fence sitter?
Hey, Jeffy Poo, get back to me when you can but I'm sure you won't bother to give us an idea why we should even care what you think. Tah tah.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Dude, Cavuto's name is not a
January 16, 2007 - 07:40 ET by PeskyDaneDude, Cavuto's name is not a by-word for anything. I'm sure if you google your last name with "dumbass" you'd probably find something there too. Doesn't mean its made its way into the lexicon. You're pathetic to even try.
Check out the Urban Dictionar
January 16, 2007 - 11:43 ET by jeffjohnmoCheck out the Urban Dictionary. "Cavuto" is also being used on websites and blogs. I'd say that qualifies as a word that is making it's way into the lexicon. It's too bad you have to resort to calling me names. It doesn't exactly do much for the discourse on this site.
It's the same old MSM tact
January 15, 2007 - 15:03 ET by motherbeltIt's the same old MSM tactic to get something out there while being able to deny you (technically) said it. They do the same thing when they pronounce "but critics say....." or "there are some who say...." while they never actually say who those "some" or "critics" are. It's a cheap trick to say something without having to take responsibility for it. Conservatives are not allowed to get away with that.
You know, this is good. When
January 15, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Chris NormanYou know, this is good. When I used to watch Scarborough, I would wince at his stilted delivery and hokey style. I guess I endured him because I thought he was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Now that his island's been completely eroded by the waves, I can feel free not to endure him at all...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
"eroded by waves"?
January 15, 2007 - 18:19 ET by FastEd"eroded by waves"? Na, global warming. See, there is a good side!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Hey, I haven't said that eith
January 15, 2007 - 15:55 ET by ucHey, I haven't said that either. Do though think anyone believing the world is flat these days should if they have a civil rights bone in their body or just a pursuit of happiness clause would see Bush's policies as an unavoidable necessity towards law and order for all and all the rights Hillary wanted those women to also have. May be no more difficult time to speak as President about policies than during terms of 43. Honors to Martin Luther King today for words that today should/would naturally be more global about same basic rights. Go "W"! go!
Scarborough can split hairs a
January 15, 2007 - 16:21 ET by rimskyScarborough can split hairs all he wants about whether or not he call Bush an idiot. Bottom line, he insulted the President and that's rude, irresponsible and shows zero class. Contribute something constructive or shut up!
I agree. Scarborough sound
January 15, 2007 - 18:56 ET by motherbeltI agree. Scarborough sounded like a common-sense guy when he started on MSNBC. Now he just sounds wacky. Must be something in the water over there.
Scarborough
January 15, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Larryt39Can we all just recognize again, that Matthews and Scarborough are from the same school. Not that Scarborough use to be, but anything he will say or do now, just to survive MSNBC...so why do we watch these jokers? I don't as I stopped a long while ago.. By all means put Olbermann in there too...it won't be long before the gears will shift at this cable network, and these jokers will be moving on...good ridance to them...oh by the way, put Tucker in there too... there is not one of them that can match up with Bill O'Reilly's Factor...a great educational show he has...
Oy, whenever O'Reilly tosses
January 15, 2007 - 16:48 ET by SMGalbraithOy, whenever O'Reilly tosses a barb at them, the folks at MSNBC act like the plain looking schoolgirl when the star quarterback looks at them. "He's looking at me! He's looking at me!" Scarborough is making himself look increasingly silly; which is quite an accomplishment on a news channel that includes Chris "The neocons are the spawn of Satan!" Matthews and Keith "We live under a form of fascism because John Dean told me so" Olbermann.
Olbermann et al. have spent the past five years smearing everyone at Fox News; at the top of the lengthy list one Bill O'Reilly. And when someone at Fox swings back, they go apopletic.
Lousy ratings makes you do desperate things.
Fox
January 15, 2007 - 18:43 ET by iveseenitallThanks Fox. I have saved so much money on t.v. sets and the shoes, lamps, vases, etc. I threw at them for 30+ years.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The Hate Bush Mantra Always Works
January 15, 2007 - 21:09 ET by emjem24I miss what used to be: dignity, fairness, principles, and the responsibility of an honest and UNBIASED press. This no longer exists. Scarborrow (my new nickname for this guy because he's never seen a liberal idea he hasn't wanted to use over the years), now backtracks when confronted with the fact that he in fact called Bush an idiot. All the MSNBC ever does is backtrack when it suits them. Why can't they be upfront about their previous statements? Perhaps, they're now experiencing selective amnesia. They can't even be transparrent and supportive of our troops or our president. We are trully not living in a democracy any more when the sounds of others are drowned out by the Get Out Now crowd. Yeah, America, you really support the military and my active duty husband. Yeah...unfortunately that support is now conditional and hollow.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
I'm not too sure all the &q
January 15, 2007 - 21:24 ET by lnthompI'm not too sure all the "dignity, fairness, principles, and the responsibility of an honest and UNBIASED press." ever really existed, so much as the UNfairness, LACK of principles, and IRresponsibility had a pass because there weren't any watchdogs with a big mouthpiece like the internet.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Lee, I agree.
January 15, 2007 - 21:28 ET by acaiguanaLee, I agree.
The 'crusading press' has always ground their axe in the name of some cause or another political party.
It's that 'yellow' journalism has invaded the MSM and no one noticed particularly until the Internet and Blogs.
Incrementalism is a dangerous disease.
But, when these guys are reduced to interviewing themselves that in my feeble mind is progress.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.