PDA

View Full Version : Media MSNBC is officially the mirror opposite of Fox News


jAZ
04-08-2009, 06:31 PM
They have been been moving that way for a long time, but they have just this week added Ed Schultz to the lineup along with Rachel Maddow and of course Keith Olbermann.

I argued for years that MSNBC didn't have a similar bias as Fox News. Well, in the last few years, they have decided that KO's success is worthy expanding on, and in doing so, they have replicated the mirror of Fox News.

I've also noticed that a few of their news anchors have started agressively opining ala the Fox News anchors.

MSNBC has pretty clearly blurred the line between news and op-ed in the chase for profits.

I still maintain that Chris Matthews is more political insider and a guy who moves with general consensus than a naked partisan like KO, RM and ES.

But the rest of the network has gone whole hog into supporting the liberal, progressive, Democratic agenda.

That's a long eveolution from firing their highest rated host (Phil Donanhue) because he was too liberal and criticized Bush for invading Iraq.

Direckshun
04-08-2009, 06:32 PM
I still maintain that Chris Matthews is more political insider and a guy who moves with general consensus than a naked partisan like KO, RM and ES.

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

"thrill going up my leg"

[/Hannity]

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 06:33 PM
Well, that's not unexpected, but still unfortunate.

mlyonsd
04-08-2009, 06:33 PM
Matthews is a pure F'ing hack.

HonestChieffan
04-08-2009, 06:36 PM
Main difference between Fox and MSNBC is no one watches MSNBC.

memyselfI
04-08-2009, 07:18 PM
Same shit, different side.

Chris Tingle and KO began the love fest. I think Dan Abrams was canned because he was the one prime time host who was not salivating over Obummer. Replaced by Keith lite.

KC native
04-08-2009, 07:31 PM
They have been been moving that way for a long time, but they have just this week added Ed Schultz to the lineup along with Rachel Maddow and of course Keith Olbermann.

I argued for years that MSNBC didn't have a similar bias as Fox News. Well, in the last few years, they have decided that KO's success is worthy expanding on, and in doing so, they have replicated the mirror of Fox News.

I've also noticed that a few of their news anchors have started agressively opining ala the Fox News anchors.

MSNBC has pretty clearly blurred the line between news and op-ed in the chase for profits.

I still maintain that Chris Matthews is more political insider and a guy who moves with general consensus than a naked partisan like KO, RM and ES.

But the rest of the network has gone whole hog into supporting the liberal, progressive, Democratic agenda.

That's a long eveolution from firing their highest rated host (Phil Donanhue) because he was too liberal and criticized Bush for invading Iraq.

I think too many people get caught up in the commentators on Faux and MSNBC. KO explained it in an interview and said that by the time his show comes on that his target demographic already knows the day's news. So, he feels a resuscitation of the day's news would be boring so he adds his commentary and opinion to it. Bill'O the Clown and the rest of the Faux guys are so over the top that people can't help but point and ridicule them.

These shows aren't designed to be news but TV editorials more or less. Occasionally these shows will bring focus to an issue that's been ignored (from their perspective).

SBK
04-08-2009, 07:47 PM
People get too caught up that news networks can't have commentary. It's like getting pissed that MTV has more than just music videos.

And if Hannity said that some righty gave him a tingle up his leg nobody would let that go--ever. To push that comment aside because it was said about His Holiness is hilarious.

I don't watch them, but I like they have commentary, debate and discussion shows. Not only are they more entertaining, but they make for great conversation. If you treat them as reporters you get pissed, but if you look at them for what they are there shouldn't be a problem with them. Especially cause there's nuts from both sides in pissing matches between the networks.

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 07:59 PM
People get too caught up that news networks can't have commentary. It's like getting pissed that MTV has more than just music videos.

And if Hannity said that some righty gave him a tingle up his leg nobody would let that go--ever. To push that comment aside because it was said about His Holiness is hilarious.

I don't watch them, but I like they have commentary, debate and discussion shows. Not only are they more entertaining, but they make for great conversation. If you treat them as reporters you get pissed, but if you look at them for what they are there shouldn't be a problem with them. Especially cause there's nuts from both sides in pissing matches between the networks.

It's not helpful, it's not productive, it's not enlightening; it's demagoguery, it's entertainment at a time when the world especially needs insight and journalistic integrity, and it should be opposed at every second. These networks spend millions on salaries for their commentators, leaving almost nothing for solid research and solid journalists. It's an entire self-serving industry that does well, and it's sickening.

You can't call it debate or discussion. There is no debate. There is no search for truth. They are only damn whores spreading their diseases.

SBK
04-08-2009, 08:00 PM
It's not helpful, it's not productive, it's not enlightening; it's demagoguery, it's entertainment at a time when the world especially needs insight and journalistic integrity, and it should be opposed at every second. These networks spend millions on salaries for their commentators, leaving almost nothing for solid research and solid journalists. It's an entire self-serving industry that does well, and it's sickening.

You can't call it debate or discussion. There is no debate. There is no search for truth. They are only damn whores spreading their diseases.

LMAO

Opposing free speech is a truly genious idea.

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 08:03 PM
I'm not saying the government should shut them down.

I'm saying people should beat and tar and feather them if they see them on the streets.

SBK
04-08-2009, 08:04 PM
I'm not saying the government should shut them down.

I'm saying people should beat and tar and feather them if they see them on the streets.

So the people should eliminate their free speech instead of the government?

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 08:08 PM
What? Seriously now, people should turn off the channel and avoid listening to them. Other people should talk about how bad they suck, how they are a group of leeching scum serving corporate, partisan agendas and the world would be better if they were dead. No one's free speech is being impaired.

WoodDraw
04-08-2009, 08:11 PM
As long as they don't try to pass the entertainment off as news, I'm fine with it. But there should be a clear separation between news and entertainment divisions of each news channel.

SBK
04-08-2009, 08:17 PM
What? Seriously now, people should turn off the channel and avoid listening to them. Other people should talk about how bad they suck, how they are a group of leeching scum serving corporate, partisan agendas and the world would be better if they were dead. No one's free speech is being impaired.

I'm not f'n with you here, honest question. Why does it matter to you what other people like? If you don't like it turn it off, but if someone else like's watching Christ Matthews or Greta Van Whatever her name is who cares?

I hate American Idol, I think it makes people dumber, or that it's proof of how stupid we are in America today. But I don't tell people they are the scourge of the earth and that they shouldn't watch. If they don't like it who cares?

In the commentary market we have balance, you can get views from both sides, you can listen to morons or really smart people. It's your choice, which is how it should be.

SBK
04-08-2009, 08:18 PM
As long as they don't try to pass the entertainment off as news, I'm fine with it. But there should be a clear separation between news and entertainment divisions of each news channel.

To people that use their brain the difference is obvious.

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 08:22 PM
I'm not f'n with you here, honest question. Why does it matter to you what other people like? If you don't like it turn it off, but if someone else like's watching Christ Matthews or Greta Van Whatever her name is who cares?

Because it's important. You should care about important things. We live in a democracy that depends on the understanding of issues. If our media fails, our understanding fails, and our entire democratic system will fail as it's hijacked by an aristocracy that controls what you think and what you do. The media is sometimes known as the fourth branch of our government. It's importance is not something to disregard as personal preference. We must demand excellence from the media, and if they give us what we see from FoxNews and CNN, we must fight back.

SBK
04-08-2009, 08:31 PM
Because it's important. You should care about important things. We live in a democracy that depends on the understanding of issues. If our media fails, our understanding fails, and our entire democratic system will fail as it's hijacked by an aristocracy that controls what you think and what you do. The media is sometimes known as the fourth branch of our government. It's importance is not something to disregard as personal preference. We must demand excellence from the media, and if they give us what we see from FoxNews and CNN, we must fight back.

Then you're surely upset with the huge left wing bias?

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Then you're surely upset with the huge left wing bias?

I suspect you view "left wing" in entirely different terms than I do. If you mean to ask me if I feel that CNN and MSNBC do a horrible job at providing serious analysis of important news and current events, yes, I do.

cdcox
04-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Everyone has a bias. Some intentionally hide it (Jim Leher, Tim Russert), while others intentionally amplify it (Bill O'Rielly, KO). To me the most insidious are those who have a clear bias and agenda, but are dressed up in the guise of neutrality (David Gregory). News needs commentary. I repeat, news needs commentary. As long as you know what you are watching, and place the appropriate filters, I don't have any problem watching a biased commentary or news shows that entertain while they inform and add their voice to the public square. To me the problem rests far more on the willingness of the viewership to lineup behind a particular demagoguery. The world and our problems are far too complex to be effectively addressed by the pure partisan mantras from either side. We need thoughtful leaders, thoughtful commentators, and most importantly, thoughtful citizens and voters. Woe is us.

KC Dan
04-08-2009, 08:50 PM
It's not helpful, it's not productive, it's not enlightening; it's demagoguery, it's entertainment at a time when the world especially needs insight and journalistic integrity, and it should be opposed at every second. These networks spend millions on salaries for their commentators, leaving almost nothing for solid research and solid journalists. It's an entire self-serving industry that does well, and it's sickening.

You can't call it debate or discussion. There is no debate. There is no search for truth. They are only damn whores spreading their diseases.for the first time, I completely agree with your post. Well Said!

Jenson71
04-08-2009, 08:55 PM
for the first time, I completely agree with your post. Well Said!

You must be sober still. One step at a time, KC Dan, and you will be a disciple of mine.

KC Dan
04-08-2009, 08:57 PM
You must be sober still. One step at a time, KC Dan, and you will be a disciple of mine.
hahahaha, getting ready to go out and tip some too. Actually, I sometimes turn one of those crap shows on for laughs. If you watch them for pure comedic talent, they are a treasure trove. Olbershit is hilarious when he acts serious.

I believe in free speech and will always defend their right to be heard but they are all Non-news worthy azzes

jAZ
04-08-2009, 09:08 PM
Corretion: MSNBC's news desk has nothing on Fox News.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/contessa.php


04.08.09 -- 2:51PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (28)

Contessa?!?
A few minutes ago, Contessa Brewer had on former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, one of that vanishing breed of moderate New England Republicans, and asked him "about this cut in defense spending." To his credit, Cohen corrected her: "By the way, it's not a cut. It's a four percent increase."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BcRISP-PuLo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BcRISP-PuLo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Note the chyron, too:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/msnbc-cohen-sg-340.jpg

--David Kurtz

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:22 PM
Gosh, thanks for waking up to smell the coffee jAZ. Better late, than never. :thumb:

:clap:

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:34 PM
Everyone has a bias. Some intentionally hide it (Jim Leher, Tim Russert), while others intentionally amplify it (Bill O'Rielly, KO). To me the most insidious are those who have a clear bias and agenda, but are dressed up in the guise of neutrality (David Gregory). News needs commentary. I repeat, news needs commentary. As long as you know what you are watching, and place the appropriate filters, I don't have any problem watching a biased commentary or news shows that entertain while they inform and add their voice to the public square. To me the problem rests far more on the willingness of the viewership to lineup behind a particular demagoguery. The world and our problems are far too complex to be effectively addressed by the pure partisan mantras from either side. We need thoughtful leaders, thoughtful commentators, and most importantly, thoughtful citizens and voters. Woe is us.

If everyone in the world was you and me and a handful of others--10-20% tops of the entire U.S. population....I'd say we should have hope. Like you, though, I'm not too hopeful. What we have today, are 80-90% of Americans who are too naive', too ignorant, or too apathetic that we should have any real optimism for a reasonable consensus. The lunatic fringe has "won" in the 21st Century, it seems. Folks PREFER to view the world through a black-and-white lense---it makes their life easier, their choices less comfounding. Partisanship and ideological demagoguery serves at least 2/3rds of Americans (the lazy, and ignorant ones) very well...because it provides them with psychologically comforting "I've made a difference" self-delusions with a minimum of effort.

It's not pretty but it's true, on both sides of the isle--for Rush's "dittoheads" or Hannity's "great Americans" and for those who find any value in the Michael Moore/Keith Olberman rants. The lunatic fringe is real, and in a Jerry Springer-21st Century world....they seem to rule.

Aliens discovering our civilization should have great pity for us--unless we break this pathetic cycle soon enough to save the nation for our children and grandchildren.

jAZ
04-08-2009, 09:50 PM
Gosh, thanks for waking up to smell the coffee jAZ. Better late, than never. :thumb:

:clap:

The network didn't do this last time we had this discussion. They've replaced conservatives pundits with liberals over the last couple of years.

Mr. Kotter
04-08-2009, 09:55 PM
The network didn't do this last time we had this discussion. They've replaced conservatives pundits with liberals over the last couple of years.

We've had this conversation more recently than the "last couple of years"....at least "indirectly."

Like I said though, good for you. Bravo. Thanks for seeing the light. :thumb:

SBK
04-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Everyone has a bias. Some intentionally hide it (Jim Leher, Tim Russert), while others intentionally amplify it (Bill O'Rielly, KO). To me the most insidious are those who have a clear bias and agenda, but are dressed up in the guise of neutrality (David Gregory). News needs commentary. I repeat, news needs commentary. As long as you know what you are watching, and place the appropriate filters, I don't have any problem watching a biased commentary or news shows that entertain while they inform and add their voice to the public square. To me the problem rests far more on the willingness of the viewership to lineup behind a particular demagoguery. The world and our problems are far too complex to be effectively addressed by the pure partisan mantras from either side. We need thoughtful leaders, thoughtful commentators, and most importantly, thoughtful citizens and voters. Woe is us.

This is a great post. I agree with most of it, especially the part about the folks who present themselves as neutral but are in fact very biased.

A good example of this can be found in the campaign interviews leading up to elections. Some interviews can be entire softballs to one candidate, while a person from the other party will get blasted and the interviewer will do everything in their power to make them look bad.

Typically this happens to Republicans, but not always--that Joe Biden attack interview comes to mind....

If you're a commentator your bias is clear, and can be discussed. If you're a reporter who's supposed to be unbiased--shame on you for lying to the world and trying to score political points for your party.

SBK
04-08-2009, 11:14 PM
If everyone in the world was you and me and a handful of others--10-20% tops of the entire U.S. population....I'd say we should have hope. Like you, though, I'm not too hopeful. What we have today, are 80-90% of Americans who are too naive', too ignorant, or too apathetic that we should have any real optimism for a reasonable consensus. The lunatic fringe has "won" in the 21st Century, it seems. Folks PREFER to view the world through a black-and-white lense---it makes their life easier, their choices less comfounding. Partisanship and ideological demagoguery serves at least 2/3rds of Americans (the lazy, and ignorant ones) very well...because it provides them with psychologically comforting "I've made a difference" self-delusions with a minimum of effort.

It's not pretty but it's true, on both sides of the isle--for Rush's "dittoheads" or Hannity's "great Americans" and for those who find any value in the Michael Moore/Keith Olberman rants. The lunatic fringe is real, and in a Jerry Springer-21st Century world....they seem to rule.

Aliens discovering our civilization should have great pity for us--unless we break this pathetic cycle soon enough to save the nation for our children and grandchildren.

Truthfully I don't think ditto heads or Olberman/Moore fans are the fringe. The fringe will be spending their time on way less mainstream places.

I think fringe will more likely be found in places like the DU, Daily Kos, WorldNetDaily etc...Not entirely of course, but I think many folks think the mainstream stuff is the fringe just because they don't like it.

DeezNutz
04-08-2009, 11:18 PM
Did I time travel? Was the OP really from only yesterday?

Guess years of Bush bashing constituted "objective journalism," yeah? All the while Fox was singing his praises, the "only" misguided ones...

jAZ
04-08-2009, 11:24 PM
We've had this conversation more recently than the "last couple of years"....at least "indirectly."

Like I said though, good for you. Bravo. Thanks for seeing the light. :thumb:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/msnbc-cohen-sg-340.jpg

BigRedChief
04-09-2009, 06:34 AM
Fox news = Right wing idealogues?

MSNBC - Left wing idealogues?

UHHHH, since when is this a relevation? Been that way since 2007 or so.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 06:37 AM
Fox news = Right wing idealogues?

MSNBC - Left wing idealogues?

UHHHH, since when is this a relevation? Been that way since 2007 or so.

It's been moving that way since 2007. It's progression has culminated in hiring of two of the biggest names in liberal talk radio (Rachael Maddow of Air America and Ed Schultz) in the last 6 months.

It's not like there hasn't been some dramatic changes recently worth mentioning.

blaise
04-09-2009, 07:40 AM
I think too many people get caught up in the commentators on Faux and MSNBC. KO explained it in an interview and said that by the time his show comes on that his target demographic already knows the day's news. So, he feels a resuscitation of the day's news would be boring so he adds his commentary and opinion to it. Bill'O the Clown and the rest of the Faux guys are so over the top that people can't help but point and ridicule them.

These shows aren't designed to be news but TV editorials more or less. Occasionally these shows will bring focus to an issue that's been ignored (from their perspective).

Yes, KO has integrity and is justified when he does it, the others are clowns....because they're on the other side of the political spectrum.

Duck Dog
04-09-2009, 07:43 AM
They have been been moving that way for a long time, but they have just this week added Ed Schultz to the lineup along with Rachel Maddow and of course Keith Olbermann.



You naive little man.

Duck Dog
04-09-2009, 07:45 AM
I think too many people get caught up in the commentators on Faux and MSNBC. KO explained it in an interview and said that by the time his show comes on that his target demographic already knows the day's news. So, he feels a resuscitation of the day's news would be boring so he adds his commentary and opinion to it. Bill'O the Clown and the rest of the Faux guys are so over the top that people can't help but point and ridicule them.

These shows aren't designed to be news but TV editorials more or less. Occasionally these shows will bring focus to an issue that's been ignored (from their perspective).

Faux...Bill O the clown? You're not a little biased are you? LMAO

You're a joke.

RINGLEADER
04-09-2009, 08:05 AM
They are mirror opposites. Especially when it comes to viewership.

KC native
04-09-2009, 09:30 AM
Faux...Bill O the clown? You're not a little biased are you? LMAO

You're a joke.

No, Faux is a joke. Bill'O and Hannity outright lie all the time. If you can't see that then you're the joke too.

Calcountry
04-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Main difference between Fox and MSNBC is no one watches MSNBC.LMFAO

Calcountry
04-09-2009, 11:13 AM
It's not helpful, it's not productive, it's not enlightening; it's demagoguery, it's entertainment at a time when the world especially needs insight and journalistic integrity, and it should be opposed at every second. These networks spend millions on salaries for their commentators, leaving almost nothing for solid research and solid journalists. It's an entire self-serving industry that does well, and it's sickening.

You can't call it debate or discussion. There is no debate. There is no search for truth. They are only damn whores spreading their diseases.Well, there's your problem.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Main difference between Fox and MSNBC is no one watches MSNBC.

Maybe, but once folks realize it's not Last Comic Standing on Fox they'll stop watching that too.

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 11:34 AM
No, MSNBC and Faux are jokes. Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow & Bill'O and Hannity outright lie all the time. If you can't see that then you're the joke too.

Fixed your post. :thumb:

jAZ
04-09-2009, 11:40 AM
They are mirror opposites. Especially when it comes to viewership.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/msnbc-cohen-sg-340.jpg

Mr. Kotter
04-09-2009, 11:47 AM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/msnbc-cohen-sg-340.jpg

What the heck are you trying to say (that I'm missing,) apparently, by posting that screenshot?

Brock
04-09-2009, 01:08 PM
MSNBC has always been that.

KC native
04-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Fixed your post. :thumb:

HAHA good edit.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 02:24 PM
What the heck are you trying to say (that I'm missing,) apparently, by posting that screenshot?

MSNBC has a habit of not carrying the party (or Obama) water. That photo is from the post above showing them falsely criticizing (through their words and graphics) that the Obama administration is cutting defense spending.

They are increasing it 4% but in the process proposing cutting some programs while expanding others.

Fox News would never present the Dems spin as fact on their news segments.

So while MSNBC is going whole hog on liberal pundits, and there are moments that the anchors clearly play to a liberal audience... there is still another side to their operation that falls short of the Roger Ailes caliber of propaganda.

They did it again just today in framing the defense program cuts via the GOP talking points rather than Obama talking points. It's "bi partisan objection" (ahem, all of a (handful) of Dems upset that projects in their districtsare on the choping block) rather wasteful defense spending cuts he campaigned on cutting.

Duck Dog
04-09-2009, 02:31 PM
No, Faux is a joke. Bill'O and Hannity outright lie all the time. If you can't see that then you're the joke too.

No asshole, the joke is on people who think Fox news is the only biased news source out there. But thanks for missing the point, again.

Dallas Chief
04-09-2009, 02:54 PM
Main difference between Fox and MSNBC is no one watches MSNBC.

Yeah I was just thinking that. Don't you need to have good ratings in order to be profitable- or a profit driven entity?

Jenson71
04-09-2009, 03:17 PM
Yeah I was just thinking that. Don't you need to have good ratings in order to be profitable- or a profit driven entity?

You need good advertisers.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Yeah I was just thinking that. Don't you need to have good ratings in order to be profitable- or a profit driven entity?

They have a profitable demographic and better ratings that you must be assuming.

redsurfer11
04-09-2009, 03:52 PM
No, Faux is a joke. Bill'O and Hannity outright lie all the time. If you can't see that then you're the joke too.

Can you point out one lie from either of them.

BigRedChief
04-09-2009, 03:54 PM
They have a profitable demographic and better ratings that you must be assuming.
Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, April 7 (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/08/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-april-7/16311)

Posted on 08 April 2009 by Robert Seidman
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for April 07, 2009
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,297,000 viewers
CNN – 650,000 viewers
MSNBC –441,000 viewers
CNBC – 239,000 viewers
HLN – 329,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,618,000 viewers
CNN—821,000 viewers
MSNBC –960,000 viewers
CNBC – 153,000 viewers
HLN – 638,000 viewers

KC native
04-09-2009, 03:59 PM
Can you point out one lie from either of them.

Hannity still issuing false warnings of Obama defense cuts

Summary: Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to cut "our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009.

During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity again falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to "cut not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current Pentagon budget totals slightly over $513 billion, or almost $655 billion including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts." Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of Hannity repeating this false claim. According to the White House, the administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 requests $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense, "an increase of four percent from the 2009 enacted level of $513.3 billion," plus $130 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.

From the April 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: This has been, in my view, a very dangerous week for this country -- and I'm being serious. When we have Democrats kissing up to a brutal, murdering dictator by the name of Fidel Castro -- we just played that tape for you just moments ago -- we're going to meet with now Iran without preconditions; we have missiles fired off over North Korea, and the president says they broke the rules, we're going to go back to the U.N., and he's going to cut, not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically.

I'm thinking they don't understand the nature of the last 100 years in human history and how many 100-plus million people died under dictatorial regimes. Am I wrong?

And for Bill'O, he asserted that the Bush Admin defeated Al Qaeda.


<object width="320" height="260"><param name="src" value="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/embed/factor-20090306-aq.flv"></param><embed src="http://mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg%3Fflv%3Dhttp://mediamatters.org/static/video/embed/factor-20090306-aq.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object>

SBK
04-09-2009, 04:02 PM
MSNBC has a habit of not carrying the party (or Obama) water.

You lost me here.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 04:21 PM
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,618,000 viewers
CNN—821,000 viewers
MSNBC –960,000 viewers
CNBC – 153,000 viewers
HLN – 638,000 viewers
This is the stat I had in mind.

They beat CNN and no one knows it.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 04:22 PM
You lost me here.

Sorry.

penchief
04-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Matthews is a pure F'ing hack.

Who spends as much time bashing democrats as he does Dick Cheney.

penchief
04-09-2009, 04:32 PM
And Maddow is probably about as astute as anyone when it comes to pointing out the democratic party's shortcomings.

Is she a liberal? Of course, she's a flaming progressive. But she also has a very analytical mind and is not afraid to us it to shoot holes through democratic talking points when their words and deeds don't match.

And Matthews has pissed me off way too many times because he decided before hand to rip into the lefty and let the righty have a free ride without regard for the evidence at hand.

SBK
04-09-2009, 05:01 PM
Penchief swoops in and leaves Chris Matthews swimming in a vat of his own tears.

patteeu
04-09-2009, 05:43 PM
Are there really people out there who think that the Fox News lineup is filled with lock step Republican supporters/apologists? It's a ridiculous strawman that you guys have built. I don't see these guys on TV too much, but I've heard Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck on the radio quite a bit and all three of them are willing to be quite critical of Republicans. O'Reilly is at least as critical of Republicans as Matthews is of democrats and probably less ideological. Hannity is no more ideological than some of the other MSNBC personalities.

penchief
04-09-2009, 06:32 PM
Penchief swoops in and leaves Chris Matthews swimming in a vat of his own tears.

Chris Matthews is an egomaniac. He may have been smitten with Obama and I'm sure that is what most of you remember most. But that doesn't mean that hasn't been unreasonably hard on liberals on his show. There are plenty of examples where he has had a bug up his ass and not treated the liberal guests fairly in his mediation of a discussion.

He may be a liberal but he he'll let liberals have it just as bad as he will conservatives. It just depends on what mood he's in or if the guest did something to piss him off.

jAZ
04-09-2009, 06:44 PM
Chris Matthews is an egomaniac. He may have been smitten with Obama and I'm sure that is what most of you remember most. But that doesn't mean that hasn't been unreasonably hard on liberals on his show. There are plenty of examples where he has had a bug up his ass and not treated the liberal guests fairly in his mediation of a discussion.

He may be a liberal but he he'll let liberals have it just as bad as he will conservatives. It just depends on what mood he's in or if the guest did something to piss him off.

He was smitten with Bush in 2000 and to a lesser extent (but still enough to vote for him) in 2004.

trndobrd
04-10-2009, 12:49 PM
They have been been moving that way for a long time, but they have just this week added Ed Schultz to the lineup along with Rachel Maddow and of course Keith Olbermann.

I argued for years that MSNBC didn't have a similar bias as Fox News. Well, in the last few years, they have decided that KO's success is worthy expanding on, and in doing so, they have replicated the mirror of Fox News.

I've also noticed that a few of their news anchors have started agressively opining ala the Fox News anchors.

MSNBC has pretty clearly blurred the line between news and op-ed in the chase for profits.

I still maintain that Chris Matthews is more political insider and a guy who moves with general consensus than a naked partisan like KO, RM and ES.

But the rest of the network has gone whole hog into supporting the liberal, progressive, Democratic agenda.

That's a long eveolution from firing their highest rated host (Phil Donanhue) because he was too liberal and criticized Bush for invading Iraq.



People on Fox smile from time to time. The commentators on MSNBC never smile.

ROYC75
04-10-2009, 06:44 PM
I watch MSNBC when I need a good laugh, they are so left that someday they will become right. It's that bad ........

Dallas Chief
04-10-2009, 10:59 PM
This is the stat I had in mind.

They beat CNN and no one knows it.

Yeah. They are really closing the gap there...

SBK
04-10-2009, 11:24 PM
I watch MSNBC when I need a good laugh, they are so left that someday they will become right. It's that bad ........

I laughed when I read this. LMAO

So left that someday they'll become right--that's a good line.

Rigodan
04-11-2009, 12:13 PM
[QUOTE=KC native;5652488]Bill'O the Clown and the rest of the Faux guys are so over the top that people can't help but point and ridicule them. [QUOTE]

That's funny because I thought those Faux guys and Bill'O completely dominate the ratings?