3/3/09 1:21 PM

Wednesday Links & Open Thread

Wednesday cable news links [updated through the day]:

February program ranker: FNC rules, CNN troubled.

Tuesday's numbers; the speech.

Another self-promoter seeks slot.

Profile: Sandra Smith.

Campbell's sub: Roland Martin.

NewsCorp donnybrook. Crisis winners & losers. CNBC's Town Hall.

MSNBC groans "Oh God" at Jindal. TVN: it's Chris. ICN: Enough is enough! What if...? Cannon fodder. Video: Matthews explains gaffe.

Who replaces Sanjay?

Hotline after dark.

Q&A: Velshi, Goldberg, Carol Lin.

Vote: Megyn v Richelle.

HuffPoGate: Zurawik, Kurtz. J$P makes The B-Cast.


Use our valuable bandwidth to post your comments on any and all cable news topics in today's open thread. Standard rules apply.




Nards Barley
I think it is Chris Mathews. I thought it was KO at first but changed my mind.
February 25, 2009, 12:11:53 AM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Johnny, you said that you were going to tivo KO's rerun tonight.
 
If you do let us know if they edit it or not.
 
Thanks.
February 25, 2009, 2:15:01 AM EST – Like – Reply


tony
How is this in the name of newshounds? Even if it wasnt Keith "Tokyo Rose" Olbermann, I bet that he THOUGHT it!
February 25, 2009, 9:00:13 AM EST – Like – Reply


cee
Where are the FOX NEWS haters this morning?
 
I wish for them to compare the respectful and unbiased FNC coverage of Obama's and Jindal's addresses to that of MSNBC's.
 
On MSNBC, I noted a muffled but easily attribuatable violation of the third commandment and derisive laughter as the elected republican governor of Louisiana came into view.  
 
Come on now Haggis. Who is really the fair and balanced network?
February 25, 2009, 9:18:10 AM EST – Like – Reply


cee
TVNEWSER is reporting that sources are saying Matthews utterred the, "Oh God."
February 25, 2009, 10:01:34 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I didn't tivo the rerun because the video appeared quickly online. But maybe I should have. There are reports that MSNBC simply eliminated Jindal's response altogether for the replay, thereby neatly burying their embarrassment in the process. Didn't watch the reply so I don't know if that's true or not.
February 25, 2009, 10:08:38 AM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 10:13 am | #  
 
Where is Stan when you need him???
 
This entire situation is just one more piece of evidence indicating why MSNBC is the laughing stock of the news business.
February 25, 2009, 11:10:46 AM EST – Like – Reply


Mad Bomber
Keith Olbamamann is a jocksniffer.
February 25, 2009, 11:14:54 AM EST – Like – Reply


Richard C
More racism/bigotry from the News Hounds.
 
Wendell Goler is a lawn jockey for Roger Ailes. This sell-out also reads teleprompters when doing live broadcasts for Fraud News Channel.
 
Next time Goler is in the studio, take away the teleprompter and let him wing it. See how long the lawn jockey will last.
 
NOTE TO GOLER
 
We bet Obama speaks better than your relatives, and you know what we mean by that. You are nothing but a front yard lawn jockey to Ailes and Shine.
Antoinette | 02.25.09 - 5:01 am | #  
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2009, 11:39:25 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
There's an even worse comment a little further down. Oh, and the headline of the hound article is a lie. It's obvious how people believe a hound HeadLie and don't bother to read Goler's actual article to see if the mutts are telling the truth.
February 25, 2009, 11:48:26 AM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Johnny, many of their headlines are lies. And, as you say, they never tell the WHOLE story. Then they accuse Fox of not telling the whole story.
 
This is things like the John Gibson issue get legs.
February 25, 2009, 11:59:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
What was up with Bill Sammon today...Why did he feel it appropriate to appear with a large cross on his forehead during his appearance on America's newsroom.
February 25, 2009, 2:06:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oh this oughta be good. I'm gonna sit back and enjoy.
February 25, 2009, 2:09:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
It's multiple choice, a,b, c, or d
 
A. Ignorance
B. Religious Bigotry
C. Ignorance and Religious Bigotry
D. Just playing stupid
February 25, 2009, 2:13:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Oh this oughta be good. I'm gonna sit back and enjoy.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 2:14 pm |
 
Johnny...you'd better check the tape....before you sit back and enjoy.  
He had a very obvious cross on his forehead....It looked as if he'd tried scrubbing it...but it was still very noticeable.
February 25, 2009, 2:17:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I'm well aware that he did. I'm baffled at your reaction to it, though.
February 25, 2009, 2:18:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Yes I also know it's the start of some religious ceremony....not being religious I don't know the exact name or what it's for....But do you think it appropriate for a FNC employee to appear sporting a waking great cross on the forehead
 
I'm slipping into FNC talk now....would they allow a Muslim to appear with a crescent moon and star on their forehead.
February 25, 2009, 2:25:55 PM EST – Like – Reply


Observer Dan
Glad I didn't bet the farm. Matthews copped to the utterance. I was sure it was Olbermann. I'll be wearing a dunce cap the rest of the day.
February 25, 2009, 2:26:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Guest
Please tell him Johnny, in honor of the day.
February 25, 2009, 2:28:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
C.
February 25, 2009, 2:32:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
".But do you think it appropriate for a FNC employee to appear sporting a waking great cross on the forehead"
 
Well he's not the only one who's involved with "some religious ceremony". I recall seeing Stuart Varney on CNN every Ash Wednesday with a "waking great cross on his forehead", but I missed your outrage.
 
One thing I don't want this site to become is a haven for attacking people's religions. So let's not do it.
February 25, 2009, 2:37:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Gretchen was upset with all the applause president Obama got during last nights excellent speech. She thought something should be done to control the applause....She just didn't think it fair on Jindal as he didn't have a crowed. I just don't remember her complaining about the applause last year.
February 25, 2009, 2:40:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oops, swerve into Plan B.
February 25, 2009, 2:41:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 2:42 pm |
 
I think its inappropriate for any news person to sport a Cross while onair...After all it's supposed to be a private matter.
I'll say no more....I'll clarify that before Ashley pipes up...I'll say no more on this subject.
 
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 2:46 pm |
 
No plan B this end....I was just curious to why she didn't show this concern over this matter last year.
February 25, 2009, 2:50:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
In my entire life, and I was born and raised in a very predominantly Catholic city, I have never ssen anyone whose "Ash Wednesday's ashes" even remotely resembled someone "sporting a waking great cross on the forehead"
 
Haggrd we all know that you are just blowing smoke for whatever unhealthy pleasure you get from it so why don't you give us all a break and slither away.
February 25, 2009, 2:54:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
So Keith didn't say the "Oh God" comment after all....Lets hope the Friends issue an apology tomorrow for their heavy heavy insinuation that it was Keith.
February 25, 2009, 2:56:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 3:01 pm | #  
 
Perhaps K"C"O will be entitled to an apology when he apologizes for all of the false smears he's tossed out there and never apologized.
 
But the analysis "their heavy heavy insinuation", that's very doubtful.
February 25, 2009, 3:47:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
The Official And Only Johnny Dollar'Mark Koldys Thread :lol:
February 25, 2009, 3:48:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
I'm slipping into FNC talk now....would they allow a Muslim to appear with a crescent moon and star on their forehead.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 2:30 pm | #  
 
One can imagine the outrage that would come from the Newshounds (and Haggy) if FNC asked any guest (or employee) to remove the Ash Wednesday ash, or even a cross before going on air?
February 25, 2009, 3:51:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Good news for FNC in that program ranker for February. I'm sure Mr. Czechoslovakia was pleased to see that he came in right behind BOR, the BOR rerun that is! :lol:
February 25, 2009, 4:11:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
hagster, I remember back right after the 9/11 attacks I only had cnn.  
 
Fox News wasn't available with my sat provider at the time. I got sick and tired of watching aaron brown every night attempting to make out US as the criminal. I came seconds from shooting my tv one night at the sight of him, alone.  
 
You know what I did? First, I changed the channel. The next morning I canceled my sat provider and found a provider that had Fox News. Why do you watch something you don't like? Do you force yourself to eat foods you don't like, too? Do you drink cheap, rotgut beer? Just curious.
February 25, 2009, 4:13:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Gretchen was upset with all the applause president Obama got during last nights excellent speech. She thought something should be done to control the applause....She just didn't think it fair on Jindal as he didn't have a crowed. I just don't remember her complaining about the applause last year.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 2:45 pm | #  
 
Haggis, this such a NEGATIVE spin on what Carlson said!
 
I heard what she said this morning and it was in the context of Carlson and guests CRITICISING Jendal's speech.  
 
Carlson flatly stated that Jindal had been on the show several times and sounded nothing like himself. That he had been about as over-coached as he could get.
 
The ONLY leeway she gave Jindal was a very small one, merely saying that it is harder to give a speech to a camera, than to an audience that is responding via clapping, etc.
February 25, 2009, 4:16:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I'm slipping into FNC talk now....would they allow a Muslim to appear with a crescent moon and star on their forehead.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 2:30 pm | #  
 
Has there been the slightest indication that they would not?
 
Muslim women have appeared in headcoverings and Israelis and American Jews have appeared wearing their yamaka.
 
Quit being such a relentless wanker.
February 25, 2009, 4:23:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 3:56 pm |
 
Maybe if you ask johnny nicely....He'll post the video of Doocy practically blaming Keith for the comment.  
Now Chris has said it was him..It would be nice if Johnny shock off his fair and balanced trench coat and posted a video showing how wrong the Friends were in their accusations...Just like he did over the hoax Gibson story....Am I asking too much?
 
so why don't you give us all a break and slither away.
Grammie | 02.25.09 - 2:59 pm | #  
 
I didn't realise I had to support one point of view only to post here..I thought this was a cable news blog...With all sides welcome.
You'll not deter me with a comment like "slither away"
February 25, 2009, 4:26:29 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Doocy practically blaming Keith for the comment."
 
Are you saying that Doocy SAID it was Keith? Or that is Sounded like Keith? Or What? Be specific or back off.
February 25, 2009, 4:28:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
Mmm, Haggis is more concerned that the FOX people theorized it was Keith Olbermann.
 
MSNBC introduces the duly elected and well informed Governor of Louisiana, who is about to give the alternative (and valid) OPINION to that of the federal chief executive contentions, with an insulting phrase and derisive laughter.  
 
Haggis wants an apology from FNC.
 
Democracy and the process of the free debate of ideas....coverage from a cable news network hits the quality and professionalism of a high school pep rally.....and Haggis is worried about the FNC morning shows theories.
 
Wow.
February 25, 2009, 4:28:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Haggy - first you say the friends "insinuated", then you said Doocy "practically blaming", then you said they made "accusations".
 
Color me surprised, but you are not making sense today.
February 25, 2009, 4:34:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
" The Official And Only Johnny Dollar'Mark Koldys Thread  
Olby Sucks | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 3:53 pm | # "
 
OS, in case you missed this you might enjoy a comment I made at the Fox Haters Week In Review.
 
I parsed Ellen's comment using Sean's "Lib er al" translation technique. I thought it came out rather well, even if I do say so myself.
February 25, 2009, 4:35:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
http://tinyurl.com/ado5v9
 
(this crisis is deserving of an ALL CAPS post)
 
OH MY, HAGGIS....FOX NEWS IS POSTING A PICTURE OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WITH HIS ASHES STILL ON HIS FOREHEAD!
 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
 
OH, MY!
 
Those bad FNC clowns. Such religious wackos.
February 25, 2009, 4:42:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 4:33 pm |  
 
They seem to be straight out blaming Keith....They should apologies to Keith on tomorrows show.  


Edited By Siteowner
February 25, 2009, 4:42:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
cee | 02.25.09 - 4:33 pm | #  
 
I notice Haggis' deafening silence over what CM did, would he be as silent if it was Hannity who did the same if a Dem Governor walked on screen?
February 25, 2009, 4:43:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
The Separation of Church and State fanatics find themselves in such a dilemma!
February 25, 2009, 4:45:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"We don't know who said it" (Kilmeade)
"It sounded like Mr Countdown" (Doocy)
February 25, 2009, 4:47:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Edited By Siteowner
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 4:47 pm |  
 
Why has my video proof of what the friends said been censored????
February 25, 2009, 4:47:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
They seem to be straight out blaming Keith....They should apologies to Keith on tomorrows show.  
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 4:47 pm | #  
 
Sounds like someone owes "The Friends" an apology.
 
(Thanks for the facts J$).
February 25, 2009, 4:51:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Because 1. you're abusing this thread again and trying to hog the subject matter. B. I've had F&F video of this posted right in this article all day long and you didn't even look at it. So you're not even commenting on any relevant to my post. If you don't care enough to read my posts, I really don't care to have you as a commenter. III. You haven't yet expressed your opinion on what Matthews said during the hard news coverage. Believe it or not, that's the big cable news issue today, which I'm sure is why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread with something else (see 1. above). 4. The video you wanted to link to cut off before the part I posted, so it's a close cousin of the your wanting to post the video of John Gibson's nonexistent 'scrotum' crack.
 
Is that enough for you? I await your comments on Chris Matthews "oh God" laughter gaffe.
February 25, 2009, 4:55:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I believe Chris Matthews and just chalk it up to yet another display of the lack of professionalism and lack of gravitas that MSNBC seems to encourage it's staff to reveal now. In their minds such an incident exhibits their bona fides. That they're rooting for the right team, etc.
 
The explanation Matthews gave for his remark is to say that he was reacting to the irony of Jindal walking down the entryway of what appeared to be a pre-civil war era ("antebellum", Matthews said) mansion.
 
Well, you've got to have your nose constantly to the ground in order to sniff out racial messages, in order to have "seen" THAT. Goodness knows we know that they indeed do...even in finding some sort of racial context in what is, after all, a governor's mansion in Dixie...!  
 
However, it's odd that in the context of noticing the antebellum mansion, that Matthews would appear to be less aware and even uncaring of the progress indicated by the ethnicity of the governor living at that mansion. Especially considering what a premium Matthews puts on such matters.
 
A further irony that seems to escape Matthews is the reaction he and members of his own network (let alone of the audience they woo) would have if an "Oh, my god" response, followed by snickering, was made by an FNC staffer at the appearance of a governor of color.  
 
Doubtlessly... these hounds for racial messages would grab THAT bone and NEVER let it go...
February 25, 2009, 4:56:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 5:00 pm |
 
CM was picked up by an open mike and was never supposed to be heard....CM has explained he used the phrase because of the setting for the reply....It was unfortunate it got aired.
February 25, 2009, 5:02:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
I love Chris Matthew's explaination.....He was "taken aback by that peculiar stagecraft, the walking from somewhere in the back of this narrow hall, this winding staircase looming there, the odd anti-bellum look of the scene."
 
The odd anti-bellum look of the scene?
 
I suppose I should expect such peculiarity from the same guy who gets leg thrills from Obama.
 
In the current climate of ever increasing racial sensitvity, Matthews is really quite clever in discovering Jindal's hidden agenda in having a backdrop reminding us all of forgotten times pre-Civil War!....Now I understand his reaction!
February 25, 2009, 5:10:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:07 pm | #  
 
Note to self: Save this for the next time anyone on FNC has an open mic incident. Bring out after a certain poster expresses their outrage.
February 25, 2009, 5:12:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
cee | 02.25.09 - 4:47 pm |
 
Nice find...I concede.....if the VP dose it....Then I suppose it's OK for a humble talking head to do likewise. 
 
Quit being such a relentless wanker.
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 4:28 pm |
 
Why do you have to resort to name calling? But then again you seem obsessed with that region
February 25, 2009, 5:16:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
CM was picked up by an open mike and was never supposed to be heard....CM has explained he used the phrase because of the setting for the reply....It was unfortunate it got aired.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:07 pm | # 
 
Had to revisit this Haggy, if this was such a non-issue, why would you be outraged that anyone would have (insinuated, accused, practically blamed) Olbermann for it?
February 25, 2009, 5:17:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"You know what I did? First, I changed the channel. The next morning I canceled my sat provider and found a provider that had Fox News. Why do you watch something you don't like? Do you force yourself to eat foods you don't like, too? Do you drink cheap, rotgut beer? Just curious."
 
He Probably watches Fox, for the same reason you watch Keith Olbermann, or msnbc in general.
February 25, 2009, 5:22:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"I suppose I should expect such peculiarity from the same guy who gets leg thrills from Obama."
 
He is also the same guy who got a nice man crush on Fred Thompson.
February 25, 2009, 5:25:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:21 pm |
 
He's just being a good Catholic, like Bill Sammon.
 
I think it is a good sign of tolerance that FNC would allow an on air personality keep his ashen forehead.
 
I believe I saw Biden with it at the presser introducing the new Commerce Secretary nominee.
February 25, 2009, 5:26:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"A further irony that seems to escape Matthews is the reaction he and members of his own network (let alone of the audience they woo) would have if an "Oh, my god" response, followed by snickering, was made by an FNC staffer at the appearance of a governor of color. "
 
I highly doubt that. I think it more likely it would be put forth as one more piece of evidence that fox news is biased. I doubt anyone would take "Oh God" to mean anything racial.
February 25, 2009, 5:30:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Why do you have to resort to name calling? But then again you seem obsessed with that region 
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:21 pm | # 
 
Just a suggestion Haggy - Before you make any accusations on this subject, you might want to verify what her definition of the term is? Afterall, it wasn't that long ago we had a discussion over exactly what you meant when you said you spanked the monkey.
February 25, 2009, 5:31:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 5:22 pm |
 
He didn't make the comment....the gun was jumped rather aggressively. The Gibson hoax springs to mind...Hence why I didn't comment until I knew all the facts.

Edited By Siteowner
February 25, 2009, 5:32:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
"Wednesday cable news links [3:20 pm]:"
 
I'm curious what comes after the colon. I hope it is the ratings for last night b/c I really would like to know how it went.
 
Just a little tidbit of info. The Sheriff in his story was Harry Lee (cousin of the forensic guy Lee). How did the racist intolerant xenophobic south LA have a Cajun-Chinese-American and an Indian-American get elected by rednecks from the same area.
February 25, 2009, 5:37:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 5:22 pm |
 
He didn't make the comment....the gun was jumped rather aggressivel. The Gibson hoax springs to mind...Hence why I didn't comment until I knew all the facts.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:37 pm | # 
 
Sorry Haggy - perhaps I need some help in my old age, but I don't have a clue as to what your response has to do with my 5:22 post where I asked you if this was such a non-issue, why would you be outraged that anyone would have (insinuated, accused, practically blamed) Olbermann for it?
February 25, 2009, 5:39:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Grammie: you ask, we deliver!
February 25, 2009, 5:43:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
"I highly doubt that. I think it more likely it would be put forth as one more piece of evidence that fox news is biased."
 
This might be persuasive in a world that didn't allow for a man being fired for using the word "niggardly". 
 
The whole thrust of the Porkulus cartoon being racist has been that the "offended" have the final say on what the "offender" really meant and intended.
 
Sorry, but that is ass backwards in many ways..
February 25, 2009, 5:49:39 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
I highly doubt that. I think it more likely it would be put forth as one more piece of evidence that fox news is biased. I doubt anyone would take "Oh God" to mean anything racial.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 5:35 pm | # 
 
Then by this line of thinking, they should therefore assume that it is incident is one more piece of evidence that MSNBC is biased.
February 25, 2009, 5:52:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
As I've always said....When something important has to be aired....Like President Obama's speech last night....The American public turn to CNN....As shown in their excellent rating for the speech + nice to see cooper win in the demo.
Folk tend to tune into Fox for a bit of a laugh...Will Bill blow up tonight...what ridiculousness will Hannity/Beck spout tonight. CNN is the place you go for serious issues and Fox if your in need of a laugh.
February 25, 2009, 6:00:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
He Probably watches Fox, for the same reason you watch Keith Olbermann, or msnbc in general.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 5:27 pm | # 
 
Except for a clip here or there on the internet, I don't watch olbermann.
February 25, 2009, 6:02:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Thanks, Johnny.
 
Poor Olby. He beats CNN in the 25 - 54 but NG ekes him out to place second. And that was as good as it got all night for Olby and MSNBC. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
February 25, 2009, 6:06:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
'This might be persuasive in a world that didn't allow for a man being fired for using the word "niggardly". '
 
I'm sorry I don't see the connection. Granted the word nigardly does not mean the racial insult, but one can at least see why someone might have the over reaction if used in relation to a black man. 
 
"The whole thrust of the Porkulus cartoon being racist has been that the "offended" have the final say on what the "offender" really meant and intended."
 
Yes but the argument Cecelia seemed to be making is that that the left would call this incident racist. in the case of the monkee cartoon, a monkee was used in connection with a black man. Whether it was meant to be racist or not, there is a history of racial insults being put forth in that way. I'm not aware of any histoy of racial insults involving "Oh God."
February 25, 2009, 6:08:47 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Except for a clip here or there on the internet, I don't watch olbermann."
 
Sorry I should say hwe probably watches fox for the same reaosn Johnny watches olbermann.
February 25, 2009, 6:09:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No monkey cartoon talk.
February 25, 2009, 6:10:08 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Why do you have to resort to name calling? But then again you seem obsessed with that region
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 5:21 pm | # 
 
And you seem to be someone frequently occupied with that region.
February 25, 2009, 6:10:54 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
All right, let's play nice. Don't let him get in your head.
February 25, 2009, 6:13:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
The American public turn to CNN....As shown in their excellent rating for the speech + nice to see cooper win in the demo.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 6:05 pm | # 
 
What's'a'matta Haggy - no kind words for FNC for winning "the demo" during Obama's speech?
February 25, 2009, 6:14:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Then by this line of thinking, they should therefore assume that it is incident is one more piece of evidence that MSNBC is biased."
 
Taken in isolation sure. If the situation were reversed, and say the "oh God" came from Chris wallace when Obama walked out. The left would say Fox is biased. You would probably counter it is not and name incidents where you thought wallace favored the left, or at least was moderate in his approach. 
 
I imagine the left (which is usually not happy with mathews) would argue Mathews is not biased for a host of other reasons.
February 25, 2009, 6:15:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Yes but the argument Cecelia seemed to be making is that that the left would call this incident racist. in the case of the monkee cartoon, a monkee was used in connection with a black man. Whether it was meant to be racist or not, there is a history of racial insults being put forth in that way. I'm not aware of any histoy of racial insults involving "Oh God."
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 6:13 pm | # 
 
Was the monkee Peter, Mike, Davey, or Mickey?   
 
It's arguable speculation, but I've no doubt that an "oh, god" by an FNC would be construed as a put-down based upon Jindal's level of melanin.
 
Megyn Kelly saying "these women" [Democratic women speaking at the Democratic convention] was construed as being a racist remark about black women wearing the color blue!
February 25, 2009, 6:24:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I imagine the left (which is usually not happy with mathews) would argue Mathews is not biased for a host of other reasons.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 6:20 pm | # 
 
Well, I think had Chris Wallace ever said that Pres. Bush or Gov Jindal sent a thrill up his leg, or that it was his job as a journalist to assist in making their terms in office successful, you might have an adequate comparison here.
 
Wallace has not said either, so you don't.
February 25, 2009, 6:27:08 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Then by this line of thinking, they should therefore assume that it is incident is one more piece of evidence that MSNBC is biased."
 
Taken in isolation sure. If the situation were reversed, and Chris Wallace had said "Oh god" When Barack Obama came out. Most likely the left would cite it as evidence of Fox's bias. However, I'd be then willing to bet those who defend Fox would show Wallace defending Obama, as he did on Fox and friends, as evidence he is not biased. 
 
Similarly, I assume if you went to crooks and liars for example, and argued the "Oh god" Gafe is evidence of mathew's bias, you would get clips showing him gushing all over Fred Thompson or other such incidents in response.
February 25, 2009, 6:28:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
The American public turn to CNN....As shown in their excellent rating for the speech + nice to see cooper win in the demo.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 6:05 pm | # 
 
By the way Haggy, I can't help but notice the deafening silence that came from you when the President held his prime time presser on 2/5 and FNC had 30% more of the American Public watching them than CNN, and 50% more of the American Public than MSNBC.
February 25, 2009, 6:30:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I don't know what's going on at MSNBC, but they've had another "open mic" thing.
 
I just watched Matthews interviewing Chris Hitchens and Joe Conason about Pres. Obama's plan to draw down troops in Iraq.
 
When asked if this was necessary, Hitchens responded that it was important that the U.S. stay "within striking distance" of Al Qaeda". 
 
Directly after that comment there was a very audible moan in the background. I played it back via DVR a number of times. Neither Matthews or Hitchens seemed to notice, but there was a distinct and undeniable moan. It must have come from the control room.
February 25, 2009, 6:31:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
That's because the American public turns to Fox, as shown by their excellent rating for the press conference.
February 25, 2009, 6:32:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
"I'm sorry I don't see the connection. Granted the word nigardly does not mean the racial insult, but one can at least see why someone might have the over reaction if used in relation to a black man. "
 
You say you don't see the connection and the rest of your paragraph simply amplifies my point.
 
The niggardly case involved an assistant to a state Senator. He used the word precisely as Miriam Webster dictates, ie "a niggarly expense". It took several days for the crescendo to reach a pitch high enough for him to be fired. 
 
This week we have the example of KO and others of his ilk reacting in the same way. 
 
Howard Cosell's career was ruined b/c he affectionately said "look at that little monkey run". Considering that parents/grandparents/aunts and uncles frequently use the phrase in exactly the same or like ways as Cossel's remark about their children didn't save him was the witch hunt was on.
 
As long as there is an industry based on finding racism in every nook and craney with willing cheer leaders in the MSM perfectly6 innocent folk can and will get ground up in its maw.
February 25, 2009, 6:36:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Grammie,
 
Could you cut and paste your post made at News Hounds? (If JD allows)
 
I don't like going over there and I'd LOVE to read it!
February 25, 2009, 6:36:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 6:35 pm |
 
The 2/5 ratings were just a normal night....Where as last night ratings were specified as coverage of the speech. Just admit it lads....The best political team on television is the place to go for excellent political coverage along with a very congenial host in Wolf Blitzer.
February 25, 2009, 6:45:55 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
That's because the American public turns to Fox, as shown by their excellent rating for the press conference.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 6:37 pm | # 
 
Yes, and the American public turns to fox, as shown in the ratings day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day (and so forth).
February 25, 2009, 6:51:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
When asked if this was necessary, Hitchens responded that it was important that the U.S. stay "within striking distance" of Al Qaeda". Directly after that comment there was a very audible moan in the background.
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 6:36 pm | # 
 
There may be a faction at MSNBC that simply wants us to leave Al Qaeda alone.
February 25, 2009, 6:53:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
It must have come from the control room.
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 6:36 pm | # 
 
Maybe olby was under the desk?
February 25, 2009, 6:53:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Johnny....Am I shelling coconuts at the present time?
February 25, 2009, 6:56:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No, you're on double-secret off-the-record probation.
February 25, 2009, 6:58:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 7:03 pm |
 
That's good to hear....but you'll be making the rest jealous...so openly revelling my Top Secret work.
February 25, 2009, 7:01:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Was the monkee Peter, Mike, Davey, or Mickey? "
 
The cartoon didn't specify 
 
"It's arguable speculation, but I've no doubt that an "oh, god" by an FNC would be construed as a put-down based upon Jindal's level of melanin."
 
Well, if that your opinion, that's your opinion. I disagree though, I just can't see anyone making the connection. 
 
"Megyn Kelly saying "these women" [Democratic women speaking at the Democratic convention] was construed as being a racist remark about black women wearing the color blue!"
 
I did't see that so I am unaware of the comment or any conrtversy as a result. I would say ther is no doubt that over reactions can occur (as it did in the case of Bill Clinton during the primary). However, I can see how "These Women' Could be spun into an argument of race. How one would do that with "Oh God' in the case of bobby Jindal seems like a reach to me.
February 25, 2009, 7:01:39 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Maybe olby was under the desk?
Olby Sucks | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 6:58 pm | # 
 
Please don't hand me straight lines like that, OS. You're going to get me punted...
February 25, 2009, 7:01:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Well, I think had Chris Wallace ever said that Pres. Bush or Gov Jindal sent a thrill up his leg, or that it was his job as a journalist to assist in making their terms in office successful, you might have an adequate comparison here."
 
He has said similar things about right wing ring politicians, which was my point.
February 25, 2009, 7:03:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
There may be a faction at MSNBC that simply wants us to leave Al Qaeda alone.
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 6:58 pm | # 
 
Ashley, I'm going to watch that segment in the 7pm repeat of Hardball to see if they edit it out.
February 25, 2009, 7:03:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Cecelia, I'm sure Johnny won't mind if I direct you to it. I made the comment here @ this post :
 
Fox Haters Week in Review
Updated with reaction from Dr Marc Lamont Hill. This is the Fox Haters Week in Review, where we catch up on some of the distortions, lies,... Read more
 
It is the second to last one.
 
I think the Goose is starting to kick in.  Thanks for the push.
February 25, 2009, 7:11:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
He has said similar things about right wing ring politicians, which was my point.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 7:08 pm | # 
 
Really? What other Presidential Administration did Matthews declare was his job to help that administration succeed?
February 25, 2009, 7:13:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
However, I can see how "These Women' Could be spun into an argument of race. How one would do that with "Oh God' in the case of bobby Jindal seems like a reach to me.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 7:06 pm | # 
 
In order to construe that the comment was racially oriented, you had to assume that Megyn was speaking of pigment rather than dress color (blue dress against the Convention stage's blue backdrop)
 
There was no difficulty among the Left in making THAT wild leap. There's no question in my mind that an "oh god" as racially insensitive remark at the appearance of black politician would be a mere half-step.
February 25, 2009, 7:14:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Oh, sorry, I missed you comment. I read Ellen mentioned and thought it was a reference to a News Hounds forum.
February 25, 2009, 7:15:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
"There may be a faction at MSNBC that simply wants us to leave Al Qaeda alone.
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 6:58 pm | # "
 
No doubt about that. And the Leader of the Pack is none other than KO. Surprise surprise.
 
KO habitually uses "alledged" whenever speaking of terrorists and terrorist plots. 911 was fleeting nightmare that the GWB admin has milked in their fascist power grab according to KO.
February 25, 2009, 7:17:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"The niggardly case involved an assistant to a state Senator. He used the word precisely as Miriam Webster dictates, ie "a niggarly expense". It took several days for the crescendo to reach a pitch high enough for him to be fired. "
 
was a black man involved? 
 
"This week we have the example of KO and others of his ilk reacting in the same way. "
 
I'm not sure what you are refering to here. 
 
"Howard Cosell's career was ruined b/c he affectionately said "look at that little monkey run". Considering that parents/grandparents/aunts and uncles frequently use the phrase in exactly the same or like ways as Cossel's remark about their children didn't save him was the witch hunt was on."
 
Cossel used a phrase, regardless of whether it was with affection or not, that has been used as a racial epitaph in the past. Hence the controversy. "Oh god" on the other hand has no such history. Therefore it seems highly unlikely one would make the case that something racial had occurred. 
 
 
"As long as there is an industry based on finding racism in every nook and craney with willing cheer leaders in the MSM perfectly6 innocent folk can and will get ground up in its maw."
 
Even if your premises is correct that there is an industry looking in every nook and cranny for racisim,
it seems unlikely they could find it in 'Oh god" any more than they could in "have a nice day." The phrase is just not loaded in anyway.
 
Linking a black man and a monkee together will cause always cause controversy. Regardless of intention. Even if your intention is the most benign and friendly, thing you have ever done. The history of such linkages will most likely cause outrage (whether you think that outrage is justifed is a sperate debate) Linking "Oh god" and indian just isn't loaded, even doing some stetching and reaching I just can't see the leap.
February 25, 2009, 7:18:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
The 2/5 ratings were just a normal night....Where as last night ratings were specified as coverage of the speech. Just admit it lads....The best political team on television is the place to go for excellent political coverage along with a very congenial host in Wolf Blitzer.
Haggis | 02.25.09 - 6:50 pm | # 
 
Haggis - my typo in my post. It was 2/9 - and the clear winner in total viewers was FNC. 30% more than CNN. 50% more than FNC.
 
So in other words, your declaration of the American Public turning to CNN was quite simply "spot off".
February 25, 2009, 7:19:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
He has said similar things about right wing ring politicians, which was my point.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 7:08 pm | # 
 
I need examples, please, so I can judge that Wallace has made "similar" remarks to Matthews' ones about thrills and his mission to help the Obama Administration succeed.
February 25, 2009, 7:20:39 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Please don't hand me straight lines like that, OS. You're going to get me punted...
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 7:06 pm | # 
 
:lol: 
 
That's why I love ya, Cecelia!
February 25, 2009, 7:22:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
No, you're on double-secret off-the-record probation.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 7:03 pm | # 
 
That wouldn't happen to be due to his having a zero point zero GPA would it? 
February 25, 2009, 7:25:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Really? What other Presidential Administration did Matthews declare was his job to help that administration succeed?
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 7:18 pm | # 
 
I think schnitzle has claimed carter was a 'centrist.' Centrists are often referred to as "right wingers" by fringe leftists.
February 25, 2009, 7:26:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 6:36 pm |
 
You are right Cecelia....there was a audible noise....But it's not clear it was anything to do with the comment Hitchens was making....Anything could have been going on in the back ground unbeknown to the viewer....i fear your jumping at the slightest noise to score cheap points. 
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#29394884
February 25, 2009, 7:28:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
black politician would be a mere half-step.
Cecelia | 02.25.09 - 7:19 pm | # 
 
Jindal is not black as in African-American, he's of Indian descent. I should have said politician of color.
February 25, 2009, 7:31:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Really? What other Presidential Administration did Matthews declare was his job to help that administration succeed?"
 
That is a differnt comparison. Cecelia asked that in regards to the leg tingle, I mentioned a similar gushing mathews did in regards to Fred Thompson. 
 
All that aside though you seem to be completly missing the point. You have now jumped into a, is mathews biased or isn't he argumennt. Which actually wasn't where i was going in my response to you. 
 
Look, Going back to the begining, I have argued in reponse to Cecelia, the left would not make a racial argument out of "Oh God" I don't think that is plausible. I think it is plausilbe that they would cite it as an instance of Fox news's bias if the situation was reversed. (In the same way you are using mathews quotes to paint his bias .) and in the same way I beleve you interpret Mathews use of "Oh god" and msnbs's bias. 
 
My point was then, that if you go to say, crooks and liars your are probably going to get as far with mathews is biased as i am going to get here when I say Bill Oreilly is biased.
February 25, 2009, 7:32:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"There was no difficulty among the Left in making THAT wild leap. There's no question in my mind that an "oh god" as racially insensitive remark at the appearance of black politician would be a mere half-step."
 
It still a much further leap, I suppose it is possible someone might make a leap that far. For insantce some on the right jumped to the the conclusion the Oscars snubbed the troops because no one mentioned them last sunday.. Wild leaps do happen. This leap seems way to far for me to buy though.
February 25, 2009, 7:35:28 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"I think schnitzle has claimed carter was a 'centrist.' Centrists are often referred to as "right wingers" by fringe leftists"
 
I think you are lying. When did I say anything related to carter?
February 25, 2009, 7:40:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"I need examples, please, so I can judge that Wallace has made "similar" remarks to Matthews' ones about thrills and his mission to help the Obama Administration succeed."
 
maybe this didn't come across in what I wrote, but I was saying mathews, has made similar statements in regards to Fred Thompson, not Wallace.
 
The reason I brought this up was in reply to a comment Ashly made regarding the hypothetical situation of the comment "oh God" coming from a Fox commentator. Ashly responded to my point that the left would use the "Oh God" as evidence of Fox bias not racisim. He then stated shouldn't the converse be true.
February 25, 2009, 7:46:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Shiz -your post:
Quoting C - 
"Well, I think had Chris Wallace ever said that Pres. Bush or Gov Jindal sent a thrill up his leg, or that it was his job as a journalist to assist in making their terms in office successful, you might have an adequate comparison here."
 
your response:
 
He has said similar things about right wing ring politicians, which was my point.
 
 
 
OK, so the "his job to make Obama successful" if off the table, then can you at least provide a quote of CM saying anything even resembling the leg tingle comment, made about a right wing politician?
February 25, 2009, 7:47:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Jindal is not black as in African-American, he's of Indian descent. I should have said politician of color."
 
I knew what you meant.
February 25, 2009, 7:48:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Thanks for the link to the video, Haggis!
 
Sure sounds like a groan to me.
 
The sound is at 2:39. Check it out!
February 25, 2009, 7:50:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"OK, so the "his job to make Obama successful" if off the table, then can you at least provide a quote of CM saying anything even resembling the leg tingle comment, made about a right wing politician?"
 
Okay. here are a few links of things similar to the "leg-tingle" 
 
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/06/14/tweety-thompson-is-the-aqua-velva-man/
 
"MATTHEWS: Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man‘s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of—a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever."
 
"There he is! Senator McCain! You know you’re in my heart"
 
http://crooksandliars.com/2008/01/29/chris-matthews-to-mccain-youre-in-my-heart/
 
I couldn't find it but I also remeber the man talking about "Glimmering nobility" in regards to president Bush. 
 
I have to say say though, this seems about as pointless as arguing whether Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. I'd say yes you'd say no. and around we'd go.
February 25, 2009, 8:07:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
It still a much further leap, I suppose it is possible someone might make a leap that far. For insantce some on the right jumped to the the conclusion the Oscars snubbed the troops because no one mentioned them last sunday.. Wild leaps do happen. This leap seems way to far for me to buy though.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 7:40 pm | # 
 
Well, not mentioning something CAN arguably amount to a "snub" in the context of other willy nilly political commentating.
 
Again, that is not comparable to making a leap from dress color to pigment.
 
What you're doing in your similar arguments to both Ashley and to me is to essentially say that it's all tit-for-tat, that every complaint of partisanship is equally valid. Think Progress says this... Johnny Dollar's Place replies this...etc... etc. 
 
This is illogical and it's an attempt to trivialize any gripe here.
February 25, 2009, 8:07:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
Ashley here are a few more. 
 
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070409/alterman
 
On Bush: 
He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West," he cooed. "We're proud of our President. Americans love having a guy as President, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton.... Women like a guy who's President. Check it out." 
 
everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs,"
 
here is one like the obama quote:
 
McCain "deserves the presidency." 
 
Same link.
February 25, 2009, 8:14:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
"was a black man involved? "
 
As best as I can remember there was a mixed group of people. However I don't believe he said it to or about an African American. I felt sorry for the guy b/c his career was in based equal rights. The argument that carried the day was it was insulting and he should have known better b/c the word was offensive.
 
""This week we have the example of KO and others of his ilk reacting in the same way. "
 
Sorry. I thought the uproar over the Post cartoon and KO highlighting it every day was obvious. I don't know why you can't tell exactly what I'm thinking at all times.  
 
"Even if your premises is correct that there is an industry looking in every nook and cranny for racisim,
it seems unlikely they could find it in 'Oh god" any more than they could in "have a nice day." The phrase is just not loaded in anyway."
 
I have difficulty believing the "even if" here. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpto have b/c very wealthy men on thei slices of the race industry.
 
"The history of such linkages will most likely cause outrage (whether you think that outrage is justifed is a sperate debate) "
 
We're back full circle. That is exactly my original point. Giving one group the complete power to pontificate from an unassailable fortress who and what is rascist no matter how tenuous leads me to believe if a Fox anchor had muttered anything in a deragortory tone when Maxine Waters or Shirley Jackson Lee entered a forum the first charge would be racism.
 
I don't think I could say anything new by now so you can rebut me if you want to but I think I've exhausted what I have to say.
 
On this subject only. It's not going to be that easy to shut me up completely.
February 25, 2009, 8:23:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


Haggis
Bill appears mystified that Nancy Pelosi could be so happy....Boy! that's a right stumper if ever I heard one...I just can't imagine why she's so happy. 
I can imagine the GOP talking point of the day being...Make sure you emphasise Pelosi's happiness and willingness to applaud...trust us it's a winner
February 25, 2009, 8:28:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Well, not mentioning something CAN arguably amount to a "snub" in the context of other willy nilly political commentating."
 
Not if you agree with grammie's logic that intention is what matters. Not mentioning something deliberatly for the purpose of making a statement would be a snub. Not mentioing something because you are focusing on the purpose of the cermony celbrating filmaking is most certainly not a snub and claiming it is would be illogical. 
 
"Again, that is not comparable to making a leap from dress color to pigment."
 
I think it is. The question is motivation behind the behavior. It is conceviable that one would use a phrase like "These people" or "these women" in a racial context just as it is 'concevible" that not mentioning something like the troops could have occured for a malicious reason. More likely though there was no snub, hollywood was focusing on hollywood and most likely there was no racial motivation behind the comment "these women."
 
"What you're doing in your similar arguments to both Ashley and to me is to essentially say that it's all tit-for-tat, that every complaint of partisanship is equally valid. Think Progress says this... Johnny Dollar's Place replies this...etc... etc. "
 
I am pointing out that I'm not seeing logic being applied in situations used across the board. That their seems to be some inconsitency depending on who is in question. For example, Olby sucks made the argument haggis is odd for watching a network he dislikes, yet he seems just fine with Johnny dollar watching a network he dislikes. A sort of conrtadiction is inherent in that. Wouldn't you say? 
 
Also I would like to point out many on the right were up in arms over the 'lipstick on a pig" comment Obama made during the campaign which was clearly not realted to palin, yet was taken as a grave insult. if the right can make such a leap, is it a leap to say they will accuse mathews of being a racist over "Oh god?" This is the very same logic you are using in a different situation.
February 25, 2009, 8:35:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Sorry. I thought the uproar over the Post cartoon and KO highlighting it every day was obvious. I don't know why you can't tell exactly what I'm thinking at all times. "
 
no worries 
 
"We're back full circle. That is exactly my original point. Giving one group the complete power to pontificate from an unassailable fortress who and what is rascist no matter how tenuous leads me to believe if a Fox anchor had muttered anything in a deragortory tone when Maxine Waters or Shirley Jackson Lee entered a forum the first charge would be racism."
 
I don't disagree with this argument. I am saying, not that one should be able to throw around claims of racisim whenver one wants. I am saying instead, that I don't beleive one would claim racisim in regards to "Oh god" There is no history there that would cause one to make that connection. it is just not a loaded phrase. I'm not arguing whether monkee should be a loaded phrase. 
 
"IOn this subject only. It's not going to be that easy to shut me up completely. "
 
I'm not trying to shut you up, nor do i think I could.
February 25, 2009, 8:42:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
On Bush:
He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West," he cooed. "We're proud of our President. Americans love having a guy as President, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton.... Women like a guy who's President. Check it out."
 
everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs,"
 
Well, if you're talking to a redblog site that has argued that the many (and deserved) compliments about Obama's elegant style and manner are indications of extreme partisanship, then you have a case.
 
I'm sure there's one that silly out there, take it to them.
 
However, saying that Americans generally (as Matthews puts it--- "sort of") love and revere the presidency and that the ones who don't are "whack jobs" (that he meant both sides of the aisle is a reasonable assumption) doesn't exactly equate to saying that you're going to do everything you can in your profession to help Obama be successful. 
 
I think it's telling that to you (as was the case with Think Progress and the rest) a compliment to a president is some sort indication of partisanship. That's all it take for you to be yelling "bias". That you will put this up against the out-and-out cheerleading that Matthews has done for Obama, in order to make some sort of "it's all relative" argument, just about says it all.
February 25, 2009, 8:49:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
McCain "deserves the presidency."
 
Same link.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 8:19 pm | # 
 
The context was Matthews asking what would Hillary say if asked why she deserved the presidency.
 
Matthews then gave the utterly logical response indicating that McCain had the years of experience, had authored legislation, and had paid his dues by past runs for the office.
 
Those are not subjective things. They're facts. 
 
Again, if THIS sort of question indicates political bias, then there should be NO problem with any blueblog admitting that Matthews is over-the-top ga-ga over Obama.
February 25, 2009, 9:02:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Also I would like to point out many on the right were up in arms over the 'lipstick on a pig" comment Obama made during the campaign which was clearly not realted to palin, yet was taken as a grave insult. if the right can make such a leap, is it a leap to say they will accuse mathews of being a racist over "Oh god?" This is the very same logic you are using in a different situation.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 8:40 pm | # 
 
Some on the Right might. 
 
The essentially difference is that I gave an example of where Leftwingers HAD.
February 25, 2009, 9:21:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Shniz,
 
I think from your quotes by Matthews that you should be convinced now that Chris Wallace has not said anything comparable.
 
I don't know if that helps you in your quest to find liberals on FNC, but it should give an indication on who should be hosting political coverage on cable...
February 25, 2009, 9:23:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Shiz, thanks for the link. I appreciate your effort to dig them up and share it with us.
 
I see your point, but I think we differ in opinion here. Certainly he said some nice things about Bush/McCain/Romney, etc. but to balance that against the ton of negative things he's said about those same people, it's not the same as his treatment of President Obama, whom Matthews does not criticize to any degree close to how he treated the repubs.
February 25, 2009, 9:32:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Thanks Haggis for the link and thanks Cece for the time of the groan. It was definetely a groan of disgust.
February 25, 2009, 10:17:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
Ashley | 02.25.09 - 9:37 pm 
 
Your comment on Chris Matthews could be used on the opposite about Sean Hannity. When did Sean Hannity ever criticize Bush or the Republicans? When did Hannity ever praise Obama or the Democrats?
February 25, 2009, 10:26:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
john t | Homepage | 02.25.09 - 10:31 pm | #
 
Over your head, t-bone.
February 25, 2009, 11:12:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"I see your point, but I think we differ in opinion here. Certainly he said some nice things about Bush/McCain/Romney, etc. but to balance that against the ton of negative things he's said about those same people, it's not the same as his treatment of President Obama, whom Matthews does not criticize to any degree close to how he treated the repubs"
 
I appreciate the nice post Ashley. I think it is fine we disagree. I probably disagree with you on some Fox news personalities. no biggie. I was just making the point that 'Oh god" is one piece of the picture. I'm sure you have many more reasons for feeling mathews is a liberal. I feel the same way about O'Reilly, although I'm sure many could dig up Quite a large number of instances where O'Reilly was praising or even arguing a liberal perspective.
February 26, 2009, 12:12:41 AM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"The essentially difference is that I gave an example of where Leftwingers HAD."
 
and I gave you an example of those on the right using the same logic. Different lead to racisim, but the logic was exactly the same. So we can agree: Both sides are sometimes less than logical.
February 26, 2009, 12:15:08 AM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"I think it's telling that to you (as was the case with Think Progress and the rest) a compliment to a president is some sort indicthation of partisanship. That's all it take for you to be yelling "bias". That you will put this up against the out-and-out cheerleading that Matthews has done for Obama, in order to make some sort of "it's all relative" argument, just about says it all."
 
I think "McCain deserves the presidency", is on equal footing.
February 26, 2009, 12:17:16 AM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"I think from your quotes by Matthews that you should be convinced now that Chris Wallace has not said anything comparable."
 
If your asking whether I've heard Wallace say he thinks Fred Thompson should be the 'Aqua Velva man" or other such weirdness, the answer is no. However, your response here seems a little odd to me. Wallace was brought up as part of hypothetical situation, I have not compared him to Mathews not have I taken time to research what he has or has not said. 
 
"I don't know if that helps you in your quest to find liberals on FNC, but it should give an indication on who should be hosting political coverage on cable..."
 
I have to say imagining a hypothetical scenario in order to test reactions to a situation, has yielded very little information on Fox news, nor was it really intended to do so.
February 26, 2009, 12:22:24 AM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"McCain "deserves the presidency."
 
Same link.
Shizznle | 02.25.09 - 8:19 pm | # 
 
The context was Matthews asking what would Hillary say if asked why she deserved the presidency."
 
I missed this post. mathews has said that multiple times in regard to mccain The quote I found had nothing to do with Clinton.
 
MITCHELL: I think that the maverick image is yesterday, but there is still -- as Dan and the others have been saying -- there's still a place for him in this campaign. It's not as the maverick. I don't think he can campaign as the maverick when he's embraced the Bush agenda and this unpopular war. But he still can try to reclaim that conservative base.
 
MATTHEWS: OK, let's be unusually brutal on this show, although I think the guy deserves to be president in terms of all his service to the country, and here we are saying he's yesterday's news. Cynthia, can he make it through to February 5th, when we have this tsunami Tuesday and all these big primaries? "
February 26, 2009, 12:30:50 AM EST – Like – Reply


Guest
and I gave you an example of those on the right using the same logic. Different lead to racisim, but the logic was exactly the same. So we can agree: Both sides are sometimes less than logical.
Schizznle | 02.26.09 - 12:20 am | # 
 
Who here has ever argued that ANYONE is uncapable of being illogical?
 
How you've turned this fact into an argument essentially saying that all leaps of logic are of the same sort, is beyond me.
 
Actually, with your last sentence, you've even gone beyond this silliness to the extent that you've argued that the potential to be irrational is on the same standing of having actually been irrational!
February 26, 2009, 1:13:40 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
nor was it really intended to do so.
Schizznle | 02.26.09 - 12:27 am | # 
 
We know.
February 26, 2009, 1:15:23 AM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
Even taken totally out of context, the point made by Matthews to Hillary that "McCain deserves the presidency," cannot seriously be considered as partisan or bias in favor of the Republican nominee.
 
To accept the proposal that Chris Matthews is not a liberal, is not partisan, does not possess an energetic and un-yielding pro-Obama bias would require the willing suspension of disbelief.
 
I totally oppose the premise of a racial component in Matthews' open mike comment, "Oh God." The mining for offensive racial connotations in every nook and cranny of society needs to stop. Sadly, as long as it's profitable, it will continue. 
 
I do wonder, though, if the tables had been turned and O'Reilly or Hannity had made a similiarly non-racial open mike derogatory comment about an elected Democrat and that Democrat happened to be a person of color, which segments of the left would be unable to restrain themselves of throwing out the "racist" smear.
 
Regarding Matthews' excuse: What ever happened to grownups saying, I was wrong. I apologize. It won't happen again?"
February 26, 2009, 1:16:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


Schizznle
"Again, if THIS sort of question indicates political bias, then there should be NO problem with any blueblog admitting that Matthews is over-the-top ga-ga over Obama."
 
I brought this up as a counter point to the idea that "Oh god" by itself indicates political bias for mathews. If you think that kind of comment does indicate politcal bias then you are right mathews is ga-ga over Obama as he was ga-ga over mccain and Bush (for a while anyway in the case of Bush) 
 
it seems to me, you are fine arguing that saying something nice about a liberal politician indicates media bias (Such as a leg tingle) but strongly reject the idea that saying something nice about a conservative politican indicates a conservative bias (such as Bush glimmers when he speaks).
February 26, 2009, 1:22:43 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
And your point with the Matthews quote is what?
 
That because Matthews complimented McCain (in the context of Matthews worrying that McCain was essentially being written off by his other guests) in what was then-- still a field of Republican and Democratic candidates (who did not have his war experience), he was partisan towards McCain?
 
Again, if that's the criteria for bias, then you should have no trouble discerning what would be Matthew's uber-bias for Obama.
February 26, 2009, 1:22:58 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"I do wonder, though, if the tables had been turned and O'Reilly or Hannity had made a similiarly non-racial open mike derogatory comment..."
 
That's exactly the scenario posed in the "What if" link in Wednesday's post.
 
It's past my bedtime; I'm outta here.
February 26, 2009, 1:25:19 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
it seems to me, you are fine arguing that saying something nice about a liberal politician indicates media bias (Such as a leg tingle) but strongly reject the idea that saying something nice about a conservative politican indicates a conservative bias (such as Bush glimmers when he speaks).
Schizznle | 02.26.09 - 1:27 am | # 
 
Because no one here has argued that Matthews has not done more and said more than the tingle comment.
February 26, 2009, 1:31:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
There is one serious problem with that "What if" scenario that makes it illogical to compare with what occurred on MSNBC.
 
O'Reilly and Hannity would not be anchoring a presidential speech or any other straight news political story.
February 26, 2009, 1:42:56 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I do wonder, though, if the tables had been turned and O'Reilly or Hannity had made a similiarly non-racial open mike derogatory comment about an elected Democrat and that Democrat happened to be a person of color, which segments of the left would be unable to restrain themselves of throwing out the "racist" smear.
 
vstol | 02.26.09 - 1:21 am | # 
 
Well, Schniz has argued that they would not make such a leap.
 
When given an example of them doing just that in a different circumstance, Schniz counters by saying Republicans make leaps of logic too. Repubs thought Obama insulted Palin when he did not, therefore they too might call something a racial smear when it wasn't.
 
Now, that's an illogical conclusion, to say the least, and not at all germane your point in the first place.
 
It's been the same sort of stuff with Matthews. Matthews has complimented conservatives, therefore it's all a matter of opinion and a matter of whose ox is being gored, to designate Matthews as partisan towards one side or another. 
 
Johnny left for bed before Schniz designated the entire universe to simply be a social construct...
February 26, 2009, 1:57:16 AM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"That because Matthews complimented McCain (in the context of Matthews worrying that McCain was essentially being written off by his other guests) in what was then-- still a field of Republican and Democratic candidates (who did not have his war experience), he was partisan towards McCain?"
 
I wonder where you got thati nformation? It is not in the transcript. Mathews doesn't say, you know mcCain should be president because of his war experience. he says McCain should be president and motivation for saying it is unknown. 
 
"Again, if that's the criteria for bias, then you should have no trouble discerning what would be Matthew's uber-bias for Obama."
 
Interesting, first you deny that it is a criteria for bias, then you use that criteria (which you had just denied one paragraph previously) to argue 
that mathews is a liberal. So which is it? Do think the cirteria is valid, or do you retract the claim mathews is a liberal?
February 26, 2009, 11:24:01 AM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"Now, that's an illogical conclusion, to say the least, and not at all germane your point in the first place."
 
So you are saying, making a wild leap that an insult was generated from and innocent use of word choice ("lipstick on a pig") logically is different than thinking an insult that was genereated from an innocent word choice (these women)?
 
They contain all the same elements, yet somehow one is illogical. 
 
"It's been the same sort of stuff with Matthews. Matthews has complimented conservatives, therefore it's all a matter of opinion and a matter of whose ox is being gored, to designate Matthews as partisan towards one side or another. "
 
Yet when mathews compliments liberals it is proof of a liberal bias. That seems convenient. Do you believe in your logic or not?
February 26, 2009, 11:34:59 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Interesting, first you deny that it is a criteria for bias, then you use that criteria (which you had just denied one paragraph previously) to argue
that mathews is a liberal. So which is it? Do think the cirteria is valid, or do you retract the claim mathews is a liberal?
Shizznle | 02.26.09 - 11:29 am | # 
 
YOU posted two separate statements where Matthews declared that McCain deserved the presidency. 
 
It's not "illogical" at all to discern what Matthews meant by the expression via analysizing the CONTEXT of both statements.
 
The first statement was contrasting McCain's experience with Hillary's. The second was Matthews expressed concern that McCain was being written off.
 
So yes, Matthews meant McCain had the background (war hero, legislator) and had paid the dues.
 
These comments by Matthews about McCain and Bush are YOUR examples. They are YOUR criteria. On the basis of YOUR critieria, when it comes to Obama, Matthews has done compliments and MORE.
 
Though you are giving examples for comparison, you really wish them all to be taken without consideration of context. You want this because you are engaged in a specious argument that says--- It's all just a matter of perspective, folks..... we think he's biased too..... You want THIS because you think it 'balances' (negates...) complaints about Matthews here.
 
Well, no, it's not merely a matter of opinion. It's NOT all relative. It's NOT ---Think Progress says that Matthews is biased against liberals, therefore it's just a matter of perspective, folks.... it's a draw... 
 
No, one REALLY can come to some conclusions about Matthews, his comments, and just how far he's gone and where his sentiments lie. 
 
I'll that by looking at the context of Matthews' remarks and I'll go as far as to judge him by the criteria that YOU seem to be setting up as a standard for bias.
February 26, 2009, 3:14:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Oh Cee, that deserves a gold star and a commendation from Johnny.
February 26, 2009, 3:20:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
So you are saying, making a wild leap that an insult was generated from and innocent use of word choice ("lipstick on a pig") logically is different than thinking an insult that was genereated from an innocent word choice (these women)?
 
They contain all the same elements, yet somehow one is illogical.
---------------------------------------
 
In the context of a WIDELY circulated and remarked upon comment from Palin about soccer moms, pit bulls, and lipstick, how is it "illogical" to conclude that Obama might have been making a slam at her with his comment about lipstick on a pig that he made during a campaign speech?
 
It may very well be a MISTAKEN assumption, a harsh conclusion (harsh in that he would take such a negative tact,etc.), but it is not an ILLOGICAL inference. It's NOT a "wild leap" of imagination, in other words.
 
In Megyn Kelly's case, critics had to go outside of the context of a discussion she was having about blue clad female convention speakers blending into a blue background, to gleaning that even though both white and black women were mentioned as wearing blue, the remark "these women" was a RACIAL slur. That Kelly meant "black women" not "Democratic speakers clad in blue dresses".
 
That IS a leap.
 
But let's get to the really germane thing with this nonsense you're trying to counter with here. Or really NEGATE with here.
 
I've given you an example where Dems DID leap to wild claims of racism based on the flimiest of pretextes and you've merely replied that Republicans COULD do it too!
 
So? What has THAT got to do with anything?
 
If Bill O'Reilly had moaned "oh, god" when seeing Pres. Obama appear on screen, as Matthews did with Jindal, that TONE of "what the hell???!!!" would have been all the inflammatory racial buzzwords...all the code language...etc... needed. It would have been "monkey" and "boy" and "these people" all rolled into one exclamation of surprise and disgust.
 
All your specious counters of .... well you do it too.... or we think he's biased against us.... etc... aside, since it's all utter pointlessness anyway....
 
They have. They would.
February 26, 2009, 3:52:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"YOU posted two separate statements where Matthews declared that McCain deserved the presidency. "
 
Uh, I posted two seperate statements about McCain after YOU posted two seperate statment about Obama and Mathews. 
 
"The first statement was contrasting McCain's experience with Hillary's. The second was Matthews expressed concern that McCain was being written off."
 
This seems like a rationalization to me. But if you think it is fair to read into what mathews said then I think it is appropriate to do so with the arguments you put forth. It is very clear that Mathews got a leg tingle over the power of Obama's speaking skills not because he has a liberal bias, and when he spoke of helping the president it seems that is only because if the president succeeds, it is good for all americans. 
 
"So yes, Matthews meant McCain had the background (war hero, legislator) and had paid the dues."
 
And he thinks Obama is a good speaker. Where is the liberal bias? 
 
"These comments by Matthews about McCain and Bush are YOUR examples. They are YOUR criteria. On the basis of YOUR critieria, when it comes to Obama, Matthews has done compliments and MORE."
 
Posted in response to YOUR examples about mathews and Obama on the basis of YOUR criteria. 
 
"Though you are giving examples for comparison, you really wish them all to be taken without consideration of context. You want this because you are engaged in a specious argument that says--- It's all just a matter of perspective, folks..... we think he's biased too..... You want THIS because you think it 'balances' (negates...) complaints about Matthews here."
 
there is nothing specious about asking one's logic to be applied equally across the board. You are making arguments that indicate a mathews bias towards Democrats based on compliments, and then you are in turn denying that same argument when it comes to Republicans. You are doing that because you want to appear as though you have objectively concluded mathews is biased while beleiving you have objectively concluded that outlets like say, Fox news are not. 
 
"Well, no, it's not merely a matter of opinion. It's NOT all relative. It's NT ---Think Progress says that Matthews is biased against liberals, therefore it's just a matter of perspective, folks.... it's a draw... 
 
"I'll that by looking at the context of Matthews' remarks and I'll go as far as to judge him by the criteria that YOU seem to be setting up as a standard for bias."
 
Again YOU set up these standards and then YOU deny them whenever you find it conveient to do so.
 
As you have said in the past, I assert it is a fallacy for you to judge Mathews as a liberal based on the cirteria you have set up. 
 
" Geraldo is all for open borders and is very much pro choice. This is getting politicky, but, it needs to be addressed to make the point.
Olby Sucks | Homepage | 02.19.09 - 6:30 pm | # 
 
And just to show you how tenuous these "proofs" can get-- so does Lindsey Graham."
Cecelia
February 26, 2009, 4:16:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"In the context of a WIDELY circulated and remarked upon comment from Palin about soccer moms, pit bulls, and lipstick, how is it "illogical" to conclude that Obama might have been making a slam at her with his comment about lipstick on a pig that he made during a campaign speech?"
 
Because the context was in regards to policy mcCain was advocating. Policy not palin, was the pig. Just like when the reporter you mentioned said "These Women" not meaning "These inferior black women" but instead Meaning the women over there in the dresses." 
 
"It may very well be a MISTAKEN assumption, a harsh conclusion (harsh in that he would take such a negative tact,etc.), but it is not an ILLOGICAL inference. It's NOT a "wild leap" of imagination, in other words."
 
Yet some how using monkeyy in the context of an african american is not a "Wild leap?" 
 
"In Megyn Kelly's case, critics had to go outside of the context of a discussion she was having"
 
In the case of Lipstick on a pig, critics had to go outside of the discussion Obama was having regarding taking an old policy and phrasing it as though it were new... It's the same argument. You using the exact same argument. 
 
"But let's get to the really germane thing with this nonsense you're trying to counter with here. Or really NEGATE with here."
 
Well using your logic might be taken as nonsense. 
 
"I've given you an example where Dems DID leap to wild claims of racism based on the flimiest of pretextes and you've merely replied that Republicans COULD do it too!"
 
No I gave the same "wild leap" the only difference was what the percieved insult was. 
 
"If Bill O'Reilly had moaned "oh, god" when seeing Pres. Obama appear on screen, as Matthews did with Jindal, that TONE of "what the hell???!!!" would have been all the inflammatory racial buzzwords.."
 
I Seriously doubt that. 
 
"All your specious counters of .... well you do it too.... or we think he's biased against us.... etc... aside, since it's all utter pointlessness anyway...."
 
Using the EXACT SAME LOGIC you use to reach your conclusion is not specious. 
.
February 26, 2009, 4:26:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
And just to show you how tenuous these "proofs" can get-- so does Lindsey Graham."
Cecelia
Shizznle | 02.26.09 - 4:21 pm | # 
 
I made that statement in the context of YOUR wishing us to point out who are the liberal staffers at FNC and the CRITERIA we use as defining liberalism.
 
As THAT would regard Chris Matthews, he has expressly stated that he is a liberal Democrat and at one time was weighing a run against Republican Arlen Specter in PA.
 
To OS' point (who you quote) Matthews is pro-amnesty and he's pro-abortion...
 
It's particularly interesting that YOU bring that comment up, because I've purposely refrained from basing an accusation about Matthews' bias upon his party status. You must certainly be a Republican or a Democrat AND an unbiased journalist. (You can even be a pro-lifer and be an unbiased journalist...)
 
I have my doubts that you would have extended that same courtesy to any FNC staffer under similar circumstance, since the political affiliations of a friend of Greta's father were worth commenting upon to you. (Though you refused to site the obvious source of that information...)
 
I have no problem with your providing the context for your argument that it's just as logical to say Matthews is biased towards the right...or that we apply a different set of standards when judging such things.... whatever profound point you're trying to make here....
 
THAT is certainly better than a tit-for-tat-- I'll raise you one example to your example nonsense.
 
As far your explanation about Matthews' comment that he felt it to be his job to facilitate the success of the Obama Administration, it indeed should be the quest of every American to support the president as far as their conscience allows, it is not the job description of a professional journalist. And when asked if this is what he meant, Matthews flatly stated that it was, and that this country needed " a successful presidency".
 
Matthews has made a whole slew of comments commiserate with the notion that the championing of Obama's presidency is part and parcel of the fulfillment of the civil rights era started in the 60s. That this presidency is historic and worth guarding in a sense. This is mindset that makes it hard to separate the realities of an earthly administration from the emblematic perceptions of one. That's quite a danger to a journalist or even a pundit.
 
I've long been a fan of Matthews and I've stated that here many times. He's smart, with a truck load of political experience (he was Tip O'Neil's Chief-of-Staff) and I've watched Hardball for years.
 
As you've shown from my quote, I'm not given to rash "leaps" of political and ideological litmus tests. I wouldn't even consider asking for a roster of conservatives vs. liberals of ANY cable channel. I know that essentially such things need not matter.
 
I DO apply standards evenly. I didn't need that nonstarter lecture from you here. In the context of discussing the gaff Matthews made on live tv and the past action of MSNBC honchos having to remove he and Olbermann as anchors of this sort of political coverage during the presidential campaign, your stuff is really just a strawman anyway.
February 26, 2009, 5:16:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"Because the context was in regards to policy mcCain was advocating. Policy not palin, was the pig. Just like when the reporter you mentioned said "These Women" not meaning "These inferior black women" but instead Meaning the women over there in the dresses."
-----------------------------------------
 
Obama was making a point about the MCCAIN-PALIN TICKET'S ability to effect "change". 
 
A remark about their abilities and their policies is a remark about them as a TEAM-- their TEAM. THAT assumption is most certainly NOT outside the context of Obama's remarks.
 
Obama then used the analogies of "lipstick on a pig" and "old fish wrapped in newspaper".
 
Given that Palin had made her widely remarked comment about pitbulls and lipstick THE WEEK BEFORE and that McCain was constantly having to answer counters that he was too old, it was most certainly not an out of the realm of logic -- a WILD leap....whatever you wish to call it... conclusion that Obama's was making a sarcastic slam against his opposition as a TEAM.
 
It might well be a mistaken one, but it is NOT illogical leap. Transference from hue of dresses to hue of skin IS.
 
As for you comment about calling an African-American a monkey being a "wild leap". Are you confusing issuing an insult with being illogical? There is a difference, you know. You're going to have to more specific because I don't know who called an African-American a monkey.
 
"Using the EXACT SAME LOGIC you use to reach your conclusion is not specious."
 
No, you haven't used "the exact same logic", you've only tried to do a "I'll raise you one Matthew's compliment to a Republican" thing.
February 26, 2009, 5:44:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
"I made that statement in the context of YOUR wishing us to point out who are the liberal staffers at FNC and the CRITERIA we use as defining liberalism."
 
Sure, and it demonstrates the difficulty of saying that one journalist has a bias. Whether it be Bill O'Reilly or chris mathews. it is a tough case to make. 
And yet you get people you come here, myself included that think Fox has a bias and at times will attemt to prove it. and then you have people on this board yourself included, who seem to argue that Mathews has a pro-Obama bias. 
 
"As THAT would regard Chris Matthews, he has expressly stated that he is a liberal Democrat and at one time was weighing a run against Republican Arlen Specter in PA." 
 
"It's particularly interesting that YOU bring that comment up, because I've purposely refrained from basing an accusation about Matthews' bias upon his party status. You must certainly be a Republican or a Democrat AND an unbiased journalist. (You can even be a pro-lifer and be an unbiased journalist...)"
 
I don't disagree with that. That is why I think trying to objectively prove anyone at MSNBC has bias is about as impossible as proving someone at Fox has a conservative bias. And yet we all have our opinions. You think Keith Olbermann is biased as hell, I think Bill O'Reilly is biased and yet if I brought up anything looking like evidence that Bill O'Reilly has a bias it would be countered by many on this board, just as I counterd the mathews examples. This btw, is also why I told Ashely this was a pointless discussion, because we are going to keep going round and round and neither will be convinced at the end. Most on this board will leave thinking mathews is biased, and I will leaving thinkingsay, O'Reilly has a bias. 
 
"I have my doubts that you would have extended that same courtesy to any FNC staffer under similar circumstance, since the political affiliations of a friend of Greta's father were worth commenting upon to you. (Though you refused to site the obvious source of that information...)"
 
You have continously misunderstood that post. There was one, and only one thing I saw in the wikipedia article on Greta that indicated poltical persuasion however small it may have been, 
 
That one thing said her father was a friend of mcarthy. it turns out that the wikipedia entry also mentions her sister was a democrat. I found that out later though, and didn't see it the first time. So When I brought that up I was in essence saying, "Look people are saying she is a liberal but the only thing political I have found is a link to a conservative." That doesn't make her a conservative, I was saying What are you basing the liberal thing on? I see only one thing and points conservative. Grammy pointed out some of gretas, views and some of the things she has said in the past to which I replied "Fair enough." 
 
As for whether I would give a fox personality the same benefit that is a fair question. I like to think I would, but I form my impressions the same as everyone else. The world comes through my filter. I have only really watched a few people with any regularity on fox, one was Hannity, whom i'm not fond of but find myself watching, and the other Bill Oreily. I think they are both conservative and have a conservative bias. You say Greata is liberal and I believe you. She sounds like she probably is although one day I will read through her blog and judge for myself. . 
 
"providing the context for your argument that it's just as logical to say Matthews is biased towards the right...or that we apply a different set of standards when judging such things.... whatever profound point you're trying to make here...."
 
I'm sorry you lost me here. I not seeing the what argument you are making. 
 
"THAT is certainly better than a tit-for-tat-- I'll raise you one example to your example nonsense."
 
I think that is absurd as well, as I said in a much earlier post. Look, I'm not trying to offend you but I feel that engaged in this first. if you don't agree fine. But I do agree that objectively determining bias is near impossible to do.
 
"As far your explanation about Matthews' comment that he felt it to be his job to facilitate the success of the Obama Administration, it indeed should be the quest of every American to support the president as far as their conscience allows, it is not the job description of a professional journalist. And when asked if this is what he meant, Matthews flatly stated that it was, and that this country needed " a successful presidency"."
 
yes, first off he said succesful presidency, Which could be taken to mean that he would be rooting for McCain in the same maner if he had won. Secondly even if you think that is bullshit i don't see how it is any less valid that arguing what he meant based on context regarding McCain. We were doing the exact same thing. You took mathews statement regarding McCain and looked for an explanation as to what he meant by using the context surrounding the statement. I did the same thing with the Obama quote. 
 
"Matthews has made a whole slew of comments commiserate with the notion that the championing of Obama's presidency is part and parcel of the fulfillment of the civil rights era started in the 60s. "
 
And he made a whole parcel of statments that mCcain deserves to be president as a result of his was experience in the 60s. We are back to tit for tat. 
 
"That this presidency is historic and worth guarding in a sense. This is mindset that makes it hard to separate the realities of an earthly administration from the emblematic perceptions of one. That's quite a danger to a journalist or even a pundit."
 
I agree it is a danger for a pundit and he shouldn't have said it. My point however is that just because he said it inregards to Obama doesn't mean he wouldn't be doing the same with McCain whom he also had a strong admiration. It's poor journalism, but not neccasarily evidence of bias. 
 
"I've long been a fan of Matthews and I've stated that here many times. He's smart, with a truck load of political experience (he was Tip O'Neil's Chief-of-Staff) and I've watched Hardball for years."
 
That's cool. I think it demonstrates you are not just out to get mathews. 
 
"As you've shown from my quote, I'm not given to rash "leaps" of political and ideological litmus tests. I wouldn't even consider asking for a roster of conservatives vs. liberals of ANY cable channel. I know that essentially such things need not matter."
 
I agree as well. I actually am curious though about who some on this site would say is a liberal. This is genuine. I went round and round with many here about it. The arguments got nasty. But i do find it facscinating that Johnny says there are multitudes of liberals on Fox and hagis says there not a single person who is liberal on the network. obviously there is a major difference in perception. 
 
"I DO apply standards evenly. I didn't need that nonstarter lecture from you here. In the context of discussing the gaff Matthews made on live tv and the past action of MSNBC honchos having to remove he and Olbermann as anchors of this sort of political coverage during the presidential campaign, your stuff is really just a strawman anyway."
 
I disagree. I don't think I made a strawman. I responded to posts on this board such as "what do you expect about a guy who gets a tingle" Not sure who made that btw. I answered using the same logic in reverse. I wanted to see if that would acknoeledged. Ashley did. he said he saw the point I was making buthe still felt that after years of watching mathews the man, has a liberal bias. As I said to him, I think that is fair.
February 26, 2009, 6:33:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


Shizznle
Did my second post not go through?
February 26, 2009, 7:55:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It wasn't modded if that's what you're asking.
February 26, 2009, 7:57:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
"I don't disagree with that. That is why I think trying to objectively prove anyone at MSNBC has bias is about as impossible as proving someone at Fox has a conservative bias."
 
"I think they are both conservative and have a conservative bias. You say Greata is liberal and I believe you. She sounds like she probably is although one day I will read through her blog and judge for myself. "
 
----------------------------------------
 
So again, you've declared the entire discussion of bias to be moot. To be simply a matter of opinion and impossible to objectively prove.
 
How about allowing someone else to judge for themselves whether or not someone else is biased, as you say you'll do with Greta. You certainly haven't managed to allow that here.
 
What you've done is to say that it's a "pointless discussion" and goodness knows you've worked very hard to make it that way. You've turned it from a discussion of what actually happened with the open-mic incident, into one where you insist any positive remark Matthews has ever made about a Republican is proof of....of.... that "bias" is only a matter of interpretation and any discussion of it is therefore pointless...
 
That's quite a circular argument there and quite a cushy position to put yourself in. Not only do you get to declare someone's argument to be moot, simply by virtue of your interpreting things differently, you then argue that the mere human ability to interpret things differently PROVES such a topic is wholly subjective and trivial-- like whether or not one likes brussel sprouts.
 
So Cee comments on Matthews' remark about antebellum imagery and tingles and you counter with something about Matthews' "man crush" on Fred Thompson.
 
Ashley says Matthews' slip on national television is one more example that he has gone around the bend for Obama, and you argue that IF Chris Wallace had done something similar, Ashley would be defending him AGAINST such an accusation, and then accuse him of not applying the same standards fairly!
 
This is what YOU call applying the SAME "standard" or "logic" across ideological lines: Chris Matthews compliments a Republican one day, and I think he's pro-Republican. He compliments a liberal the next day so I therefore re-examine my thinking and decide he is not. Of course you are aware that any such analysis is really the silliest and most superficial sort of examination. And though both Ashley and Cee based their remarks on more than this, you insist that we MUST think this way to be logical. Conversely, you then argue that the subjective superficiality of such a mental exercise is PROOF that the entire discussion of bias is "pointless" in the first place!
 
You've tried to have it all ways to Sunday in this discussion, my friend. I'm moving on. I suggest that if you think discussions of bias are pointless and futile, that you refrain from engaging in them in the first place.
February 26, 2009, 8:44:47 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
I went round and round with many here about it. The arguments got nasty.
 
by schnitzle
 
Under what name?
February 26, 2009, 10:25:10 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
"I actually am curious though about who some on this site would say is a liberal."-Shizznle
 
Please see: vstol | 02.26.09 - 1:21 am | # 
 
Ol-l G0|)
February 26, 2009, 11:09:36 PM EST – Like – Reply