Thursday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Another dust-up: Brewer vs Gregg (via ICN).
FNC dominates SotU viewing. Wednesday's numbers: FNC SotU Analysis-FNC SotU-O'Reilly 1-2-3.
Breitbart: Shuster lied! Fireworks: Shuster vs Breitbart: MSNBC's travesty! MSNBC wrist-slaps Shuster. ICN: pull him! His conflict of interest.
Housley hospitalized. CNN radio shrinks.
Detoured tweet. Hotline after dark.
CNBC's tape-a-thon; ratings slump continues.
Q&A: Soledad. Matthews a 'shill'? Chris clarifies.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
badbilly
I really hope MSNBC gives Shuster just enough rope to hang himself. He appears to have gotten way out in front of this James O'Keefe story by his idiotic tweets. I predict this will be another "Rove Indictment Coming Any Day" moment. It seems that even liberals don't care much for him. Look how he treats his dwindling audience....
"http://search.twitter.com/search?max_id=8306627191&page=1&q=DavidShuster+marinagipps"
And she is a liberal!!! Hey David, it's not wise to piss off ANY member of your incredibly shrinking audience.
January 28, 2010, 1:30:10 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
David Shuster is just such a girly-mon.
January 28, 2010, 7:16:01 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Chris Matthews "clarification" is even more cringe-producing political hackery than his orginal statement!
Chris has long told us that he spent a good of time in D.C. formulating talking point to take down the critics of then Speaker Tip O'Neil and Dem policies.
Good thing he's not getting tax payer money for doing the same now for the Obama Administration!
It's not to the president's credit that Chris felt no race consciousness in himself or the country during the president's speech. It's to the NATION'S credit!
Chris Matthews FINALLY notices that we aren't a country chock full of racists, but does he credit the citzenry? Of course not! It's the president's magic (Not that Pres. Obama isn't an elegant and eloquent man. I can say that he certainly is, without conceding to his policies.)
Matthews spents so much time race baiting anymore, and this is just one more Administration-serving ploy on his part.
MSNBC has gotten to be a complete parody.
January 28, 2010, 11:55:41 AM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Matthews has said many boneheaded things over the years, last night's was the worst. He's become a fool in the same way that Cankles has become the fool.
January 28, 2010, 12:56:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
I notice that MacCallum was trying to make hay about Clinton not being at the SOTU last night...Another pathetic attempt by FNC to manufacture a non story...Some simple fact checking on her part would have told her why...She's in London attending important security meetings on Afghanistan/Yemen.....Of course if she hadn't attended them.....FNC would be outraged about that.
January 28, 2010, 12:35:18 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Haggis you're on thin ice with this one. Why do you suggest that she needed " a little fact checking " to tell her about Clinton's trip...when she REPORTED Clinton's trip during the discussion? That's perilously close to a lie, and you really should stop parroting Media Matters headlines without getting the truth.
By the way, there are two possible answers to the question I posed to you:
1. You saw the segment so you knew she reported on the trip and you left it out on purpose to make a deliberately dishonest point.
B. You didn't see the segment so you criticized it without even having seen it.
Which is it?
January 28, 2010, 12:42:06 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Johnny...I had a steak pie in the over and it was on the verge of burning...I intended to hit the cancel button but hit the post button.
If she knew why/where Clinton was....why did she have to try and make out Clinton was snubbing Obama and that she may run against him. I think MacCallum read Drudge and took the bait.
January 28, 2010, 1:29:50 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
What is the word for something that is not honest? Oh, that's right....dishonest.
January 28, 2010, 1:42:43 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I'm going to try one more time:
. You saw the segment so you knew she reported on the trip and you left it out on purpose to make a deliberately dishonest point.
B. You didn't see the segment so you criticized it without even having seen it.
Which is it?
January 28, 2010, 1:45:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
"I intended to hit the cancel button but hit the post button. "
If that were true, what caused you to not hit the "delete" button that you also intended to hit?
January 28, 2010, 2:01:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
B.
January 28, 2010, 1:09:32 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
The post was posted before I finished writhing it....no great conspiracy....I didn't want the steak pie to burn and in the rush I hit post by accident....I can't be the 1st person to have done this. I did see the segment....so lets all calm down and put this error behind us.
January 28, 2010, 1:55:40 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
Demosthenes' light is definitely shing brightly on Haggis on this one:
"<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/stars/admin-comment.png" title="This user is an administrator"/> Haggis<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
The post was posted before I finished WRITHING"
January 28, 2010, 5:28:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Re: Shuster Slap. Andrew Brietbart is going to allow an interview by Shuster? My spidey sense tells me something is afoot!
January 28, 2010, 1:59:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Well my spidey senses tell me that Brietbart is petrified he'll get drawn into this Watergate like story....He'd normally go on FNC but has been told that's a bad idea because of their close relationship with O'keefe....just a thought
January 28, 2010, 2:14:09 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Based on the video I just watched, your analysis is completely off.
January 28, 2010, 3:50:55 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
So your answer is you saw the segment but lied about what was in it? Do I understand you correctly? We'll put this behind us and I will resolve the issue finally when you pick either 1. or B. Which is it?
January 28, 2010, 2:00:06 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
No you don't understand correctly....I saw the segment....Wrote PART of my post and hit the "post button" accidentally...before I had finished....I didn't correct the error as my steak pie was ready and I was away eating it...along with mashed tatters and turnip....That's what happened.
January 28, 2010, 2:08:25 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
"You lied, again, haggy smoker!"
January 28, 2010, 2:21:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
OS, that Patsy-Clucker-Haggis psycho is using your name The Real Royal King at Mediaite.
January 28, 2010, 8:13:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
So your formula for writing posts is to start out with a lie, and then erase it before you hit post? Sort of to like get you all excited, then you calm down and delete it before anyone else sees it? Only this time you forgot to delete it? I seem to recall someone trying to disown his own writing by claiming he was lying to his own diary. That's no more sensible than your story. I'd have a lot more respect for someone who just admitted that he lifted something from Media Matters than try to concoct a story so unlikely that a five-year-old wouldn't believe it. Not that you're that person, of course. You never lift anything from Media Matters. You've never lied about something that aired on Fox.
January 28, 2010, 2:21:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
well that's what happened....i suppose no one here has even had to rush and retrieve something from the oven before it got burnt.
I've only been backs a fee days....but your itching to ban me...so I'll leave it in your lawyerly hand and hope you see sense.
January 28, 2010, 2:37:28 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"but your itching to ban me"
Do you make comments like that precisely because you want to be banned? Was that Ellen's assignment for today?
January 28, 2010, 2:59:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Not at all....But come on Johnny admit it...you like to throw some red meat out every now and then to feed the ducklings.
"Was that Ellen's assignment for today?"
Ellen is a fine woman....but I get my daily brief from much loftier places....Damn I've said to much....note to self: Don't drink malt whiskey while out on assignment and put the damn tin away.
January 28, 2010, 3:55:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
....i suppose no one here has even had to rush and retrieve something from the oven before it got burnt.
Nobody is disputing that. Nice try, though.
January 28, 2010, 3:09:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I would say it was li'l feller level analysis to watch the segment, specifically hear MM talk about the real reason HRC went to Europe, then write a post where you allege that MM did not know about the real reason HRC went to Europe, post the comment by accident, recognize your mistake, fail to hit the delete button to remove the comment and fail to make a second comment to correct your first.
No one is that stupid.
I think we all know why the first post was made.
January 28, 2010, 3:49:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
My goodness, you're shameless!
January 28, 2010, 8:17:12 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
Breitbart is smacking down Shyster and MSEARS lies. Absolutely FANTASTIC!!!
January 28, 2010, 3:05:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
MM just stated that FOXNEWS may have known what O'keefe was up to and the Breitbart works for FOXNEWS.
January 28, 2010, 3:10:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
ObserverDan
Breitbart and Shuster yelled over each other and neither could be understood, for the most part. Watch RedEye tonight for more thoughts from AB.
January 28, 2010, 3:15:27 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
I understood it perfectly. Breitbart smacked Shyster down and refused to let Shyster get away with his lie's. Maybe you missed it but also got Shyster to admit HE messed up big time. Also Breitbart made it clear that Shyster was smack downed by his bosses(?) Mickey Mouse and Keefy I suppose. Also the only time there was any "talking over each other" was when Shyster didn't want you to hear what Breitbart was saying or Shyster was LYING or trying to shut Breitbart up by wanting to move on. A typical Progressive trick right out of the book of 'Rules for Radical's.'
January 28, 2010, 3:24:48 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
Shuster is a joke, just like that whole network.
January 28, 2010, 3:27:47 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
Shyster is so rattled from Brietbart that we now learn car's have "accellerator button's." To freaking funny.
January 28, 2010, 3:31:03 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
"......A typical Progressive trick right out of the book of 'Rules for Radical's"
LMAO....O'reilly must be reading this book as well.....What you described fits Bill to a T....He wont be happy at getting called a radical.
January 28, 2010, 3:44:13 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
Haggis let me edumacate your Socialist mindset. O'reilly talk's over other's because he is RUDE. Shyster was talking over Brietbart because Shyster is a LIAR and commited something called SLANDER and LIBEL with his statement on the TWIT's box that O'Keffe was guilty and going to prison. Now let me know if I need to draw you picture's to explain the difference, too.
January 28, 2010, 8:00:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Tony
Thats why Olbermann will never have an honest debate with anyone. Hes afraid of making a Shuster of himself.
January 28, 2010, 4:04:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Me thinks MR Bradshaw maybe looking for a new job....even though he hit the nail on the head describing FNC. Thankfully FOX-5 are independents so he should be safe from the FNC claws. This is one blistering attack on FNC.
"We're as fair and balanced (FOX-5) as they're not (FNC)," says Fox-5 news director Adam P. Bradshaw, referring to Fox News Channel, which -- as any sentient human within earshot of a Glenn Beck crying jag knows -- is the Republicans' de facto PR machine. "We don't have an agenda."
http://www.lvrj.com/neon/fox-5-escapes-stigma-of-fox-news-channel-dogma-82877227.html
January 28, 2010, 4:22:03 PM EST – Like – Reply
Analysis of Haggis Analysis
Disclaimer - It is important to understand some facts about Haggis/Happy Smoker UK. ,
The following are facts about Haggis. He has admitted to each of these points in the past.
1) He has used multiple identities here (Stan, Chippy Minton, Bungling Bob, Alabama Dem, et. al.)) originally denying doing so while using websites to obscure his true IP address and present false addresses. Note, while J$ can see these addresses as host of this chat forum, he does not reveal them (unlike the hosts of the Newshounds forum). Eventually, Haggis tripped up in one of his posts and his scam was revealed with Haggis admitting all.
2) He has intentionally presented false information here about Fox News and has created ficticious posters with false IP addresses as a tool to back up his original false claim.
That said, anything he posts should be treated with some skepticism.
He also frequently slurs FNC personalities. J$ has had to ban Haggis from this forum on several occasions because of Haggis's lies and distortions, and sometimes for refusing to correct a false statement.
Last point, be wary of his claims for his alleged "spot on" analysis. Today he has told us that he viewed a news segment with Martha Macallum. In that news segment which Haggis claims to have seen, MM discussed the real reason why Hillary Clinton is in Europe. Despite seeing that, Haggis posted a comment today criticising MM for not knowing the Clinton/Europe fact. From this reader's point of view, Haggis either deliberately lied or has exceptionally poor analysis skills.
January 28, 2010, 4:27:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Analysis of Haggis Analysis
But I do have a challenge for Haggis. In case I am wrong about this being a deliberate lie or poor analysis; you claim that your original post had an error that you did not correct before you hit post. Why don't you rewrite your post as you originally intended? We're curious about what you meant to say about Martha Macallum. Once you do that, we can all compare the two posts and make up our own minds.
January 28, 2010, 4:51:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley....If Martha-monotone-MacCallum knew exactly why HC was in London...Why did she try and say it was a little odd that HC wasn't at the SOTU or maybe even HC was going to run against Obama. My conclusion is she read Drudge and ploughed on regardless...just a thought.
January 28, 2010, 4:56:39 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Based on your history of omissions and distortions, it's difficult to accept your presentation of what MM allegedly said. Regardless, when you clearly heard her say why HRC was in Europe you still chose to imply otherwise. Why?
But the challenge still stands, to clear up any issues about your honesty today, why don't you rewrite your original post as you intended and correct "the error" you failed to correct when you accidently hit post. If you are telling the truth, I am curious about exactly what this error was.
January 28, 2010, 5:07:57 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley....Just nip over to MM and you can watch the video...thanks Johnny for point out that it's over there. Then you can answer my 4:56pm post (east coast time)
January 28, 2010, 5:16:24 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I did answer your 4:56pm post (East Coast Time) with my 5:07pm (East Coast Time) post. I'll add by saying that asking a question to a guest is not the same as stating something as fact. As to "why" she said it, I'm not a mindreader. Why don't you send her an email?
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine.
Regardless, when you clearly heard her say why HRC was in Europe you still chose to imply otherwise. Why?
January 28, 2010, 5:34:08 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Fox News Channel was #1 in Cable news for viewership of the SOTU.
FNC - 5.7m
CNN - 3.3m
MSNBC - 2.4m
(and as a bonus, Fox Broadcasting beat ABC, CBS, and NBC)
In the past, I remember a commenter frequently say that during the major events such as SOTU, Presidential Press Conferences, etc..., most of the viewers turned to CNN. That commenter doesn't seem to say that much anymore.
January 28, 2010, 5:16:51 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
The numbers above for cable news were for the SOTU only. For analysis afterwards, CNN lost approx. 650K viewers, MSNBC picked up 60K viewers, and FNC picked up more than 87K viewers.
January 28, 2010, 5:21:51 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Huge SotU numbers for FNC. It's very telling that when there is a big, important event, viewers who wish to be informed flock to FNC.
January 28, 2010, 5:17:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
And 5 million of those viewers are probably right wingers...it's no great surprise they flock to the right wing channel.
i wish someone would explain why FNS comes in consistently last in the Sunday morning shows.
January 28, 2010, 5:24:33 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
And 5 million of those viewers are probably right wingers...
Pure speculation. You have absolutely no facts As Johnny has demonstrated before with facts, more democrats watch FNC than CNN or MSNBC.
i wish someone would explain why FNS comes in consistently last in the Sunday morning shows
And there you go again with your old tired FNS tale. Johnny has explained and debunked this for you on several occasions, it's kind of pathetic that you keep dragging it out.
January 28, 2010, 5:45:33 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
it has been proven over and over again that more Liberals and independants watch Fox News than any other cable news channel. I also would love to see you prove all RWs watch Fox News
January 28, 2010, 5:50:13 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Especially the younger onces. Did you notice "the demo"? FNC ruled in the demo numbers too. CNN and MSNBC lost big in the demo when it came to analysis. They lost demo viewers. FNC gained demo viewers. That same commenter I mention above, used to talk about the demo a lot too. They don't seem to discuss that much anymore.
Congrats to Fox.
January 28, 2010, 5:26:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley...FNC could get 10million viewers....but you'd still have to admit there a right wing organisation....As Fox-5 news director Adam P. Bradshaw says FNC "is the Republicans' de facto PR machine."
January 28, 2010, 5:32:50 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I'm confused. I thought you pointed to SotU ratings as proof of which channel was UN-biased. Am I confusing you with some OTHER Haggis? I'll bet I can find that link...
January 28, 2010, 5:37:18 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
I think I was talking about the election coverage ratings....but I'm sre you'll be able to dig something up.
January 28, 2010, 5:43:40 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I don't have to admit that, not at all. I don't believe it, it's not true. Just because someone who is not employed by FNC criticizes it, that makes it true? Sheesh Haggis, you must do something about your analysis skills. It seems like they've actually worsened in the last few hours.
January 28, 2010, 5:43:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Nothing like keeping that head well and truly planted in the asparagus mulch.
January 28, 2010, 5:49:42 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
why? What vegetation does your head prefer?
January 28, 2010, 5:52:47 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ooh....I think you know the answer to that question. Ashley just comes across as an asparagus man. you can't beat the 1st spears at the end of April.
January 28, 2010, 6:03:17 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Ooh....I think you know the answer to that question. Ashley just comes across as an asparagus man. you can't beat the 1st spears at the end of April.
I smell something, it's not asparagus. More like sour grapes. But, let's recap some of today's activity.
I did not lie by omission today. You?
I provided specific facts to back up my assertions? You?
I was asked questions and answered them. You?
Who was it that was asked a specific question by Johnny and responded with a duck and dodge. Me? No. You?
Who was it that was asked that same specific question by Johnny a second time and once again responded with a duck and dodge. Me? No. You?
Who was it that was asked that same specific question by Johynny a third time and once again responded with a duck and dodge. Me? No. You?
Who dragged out a tired old claim for the umpteenth time that has been repeatedly debunked by J$? Me? No. You?
Who posted an excellent synopsis of the antics of a particular poster here showing them to have had a history of deceipts and omissions? You? No. Me? Yep!
January 28, 2010, 6:21:25 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
"Nothing like keeping that head well and truly planted in the asparagus mulch."
Let's see, virtually every smear you made today which you backed up with vagueness and omissions were met with facts and specifics. If anyone is keeping their head well and truly planted in asparagus mulch....
January 28, 2010, 6:02:41 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
so that becomes instant truth? No debate, no nada-wow-maybe what shuster tweeted is "instant truth also"
January 28, 2010, 6:05:13 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley you need to lighten up a bit...try engaging in a bit of light hearted banter...it'll help you no end. Try a wee dram and just forget about FNC for an hour or two a day.
January 28, 2010, 6:30:38 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Ashley you need to lighten up a bit...try engaging in a bit of light hearted banter...it'll help you no end.
Haggy, your analysis is spot-off. What I posted is light hearted and believe me, I had a smile on my face when I wrote it.
Try a wee dram and just forget about FNC for an hour or two a day.
Not sure what a wee dram is, but since I've been posting for the most part here today in response to you, it seems like you've been thinking about it as much as me. Or more for that matter, because I wasn't watching MM this morning as you were.
And don't forget that I stuck up for you earlier. When you gave your explanation involving the steak pie, etc....I clearly posted "no one can be that stupid."
January 28, 2010, 6:42:37 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
A wee dram is a shot of whiskey....which goes very well with some lightly buttered asparagus.
I'm glad you had a smile on your face when posting....as I have a constant beamer on my face when reading said posts.
Thanks for sticking up for me over the nearly burnt steak pie...believe me it was a close call. I thought your last minute intervention helped soften Johnny's heart...otherwise I wouldn't be here to talk about the joys of asparagus.
You'll all be glad to hear I'm off to a party this weekend...so you wont get any of my words of wisdom until I'm back.
January 28, 2010, 7:22:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
It was sheer excellence to see David Shuster have to issue a retraction after being confronted with his dishonesty by Andrew Breitbart.
January 28, 2010, 6:50:44 PM EST – Like – Reply
Carol
You have to go to Chickaboomer's site and scroll down to Glen Beck: Spot On. He skewers Time's Joe Klein. It's brilliant.
January 28, 2010, 7:35:38 PM EST – Like – Reply
Scott
What an amazing day of the smackdown's of the "journalist's" at MSEARS today. I'm surprised Keffy even showed up tonight. But today showed why Keffy won't debate anyone of a different opinon because he would be destroyed like Shyster and Brewer. At least Shyster and Brewer had the ball's, I know BAD SCOTT, to take their smackdown for their lie's. MSEARS must have sent out a memo because Keffy had to state that NO WIRETAP was implied in the indictment.
January 28, 2010, 8:07:31 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
MSNBC won't pull Shuster-they "talked" to him and think thats enough
January 28, 2010, 8:18:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Shuster is not at all chagrined.
Afterall, it's not like he insulted Chelsea Clinton or some other prominent liberal/Democrat
He merely acted unprofessionally toward one of the "wingnuts" he tweeted about yesterday.
The slap on the wrist is purely for show.
It's quite astounding to me that a...ummm....journalist....such as Shuster would not be at all curious as to why there hasn't been an investigation of ACORN over their hiring practices at least.
A comment that Brietbart made that I think was dead-on is that Shuster would argue for the underwear bomber and company to have their day in criminal court, but he hands down a sentence for O'Keefe before he's even been arraigned.
January 28, 2010, 8:36:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
I'm late to the conversation but I disagree with the object of Haggis' choice of head stuffing matter and it is neither asparagus mulch or steak (what no kidneys?) pie.
I am convinced that he keeps hishead stuck in all that gushy gooey stuff knee deep on the News Hounds kennel floor.
January 28, 2010, 9:40:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Spot on, Grammie!
January 29, 2010, 12:51:05 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, at least David Shuster didn't dress up as a pimp in order to get Andrew Breitbart to incriminate himself.
No, in order to publicly imply that Breitbart had foreknowledge of the Landrieu affair, Shuster just posed as an unbiased journalist and told Andrew that unlike Olbermann and Maddow, he had no ideological agenda here and....and...oh sheesh...
Just get that fey David Shuster a pair of hot pants. He can priss beside his pimp Keith Olbermann.
January 29, 2010, 9:35:45 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Re: Matthews a shill?
"Beyond the "forgot he was black" statement, isn't the shilling by Matthews kind of astounding? This is what passes for commentary after a speech as important as this?"
Oh, yeah.
January 29, 2010, 9:38:01 AM EST – Like – Reply
