Weekend Cable News Links and Open Thread
YouTube numbers.
MSNBC: Missing in action!
Is Bill O'Reilly a paper tiger?
Profile: Glenn Beck.
No Julie. Sunday talkers: HuffPo recap.
Tucker's switch: analysis; video: his debut on Fox & Friends.
CNBC celebrates. Ken Allard resurfaces. Maddow's app.
Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in this weekend's open thread. Standard rules apply. Updated through the weekend. fox news cable news
cee
:+: Thank you Major Garrett for questioning Gibbs on the accusations from The Speaker....The ONLY White House reporter to do so yesterday, BTW:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/white_house_dodges_question_about_pelosi.html
###
I think it is safe to say this issue of "torture" is now 100% political and to a "point of no return" place with regards to ever becoming a bipartisan search for the truth. FNC is right to try to put Obama on the record in regards to the accusations of lying by the CIA and it is a shame that Gibbs laughed it off.
I predict the letters "C," "I," and "A" will not be spoken together by any democrat this week in a context of "lying," despite what was said this past week and the talking points will return to "Bush lied." Garrett's question will also remain unanswered.
Catch what Garrett says at the end of the clip (1:26)...."I forgot that my job as a journalist is to answer questions, and I apologize."
There was a notable groan by some.
May 16, 2009, 8:51:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Here is a perfect example of News Hounds racism.
And hey, all Hispanics are probably related anyway, all the names are alike, and all Hispanics are more or less interchangeable.
Reported by Ellen - May 16, 2009 - 9 comments
Guest blogged by Julie
OOPS!!! I inadvertently left out a whole paragraph. Shame on me for using News Hounds tactics to prove a point.
I wonder if they know how bad they look when they throw around "racist", "Fascist" and other such words when they obviously know little about them.
May 16, 2009, 10:51:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Well see Anisha that all depends, if they're talking about cable "news" ratings, then he's a news host. If someone says anything about him not reporting any news and just smearing people, then he's an opinion host.
You know how it works.
Posted by: john t on Fri 5.15 11:47pm
Little johnt, still dumb as a rock.
May 16, 2009, 10:52:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Lynn
At last! Tucker Carlson on FNC.
Now if they will just add Kevin Madden to the list, all my dreams will have come true.
May 16, 2009, 12:01:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Blackflon | Homepage | 05.16.09 - 10:57 am | #
B - thanks for posting this. Yes, Little John T is quite stupid.
I'm not sure there is any regular commenter here who talks about ratings more than me. I have NEVER referred to BOR or Hannity as "news hosts". Their job is not to present news, their job is to discuss news and provide their own analysis and commentary based on their viewpoint.
Actually John T is a liar. There is no one here who does as he claims.
May 16, 2009, 1:18:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Good to see my boy Tucker Carlson back in the news analysis game!
According to the Associated Content piece, anyone who isn't liberal, shouldn't be on any network other than FNC, in the first place.
That's quite a perspective, is it not?...
Has going left really worked for MSNBC?
It seems that the only show they have that does get out of third and fourth place, is Countdown.
I wonder if the success there is largely due to some cult of personality around Keith Olbermann and the sort of "We're human and they are not" elitist appeal that is his daily bread.
May 16, 2009, 4:50:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Is it possible that the White House Press Secretary, the public voice of the President of the United States, equates a question from the White House reporter from the #1 cable news network in America about the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the 2nd person in the line of succession to the Presidency, accusing members of the CIA of "misleading Congress" during a briefing with an invitation to a wedding, a bar mitzvah or a dinner party?
Hey, Gibby, you supercilious sycophant. RSVP this!
May 17, 2009, 2:35:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
The Ken Allard story was an eye-opener. I must have missed it when it happened a couple of years ago. Wow! MSNBC and Olby actually support that kind of talk from that other analyist?
This is what Olby and his supporters think of our military:
"They should be "grateful" that they get any respect at all despite "every rape and murder" they commit. "
Sickening, yet the haters just love Olby for supporting that comment and claiming it is valid.
May 17, 2009, 3:15:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Re: "O'Reilly: paper tiger?": Mike Shields, senior editor at Mediaweek, pleasure having you on, sir.
May 17, 2009, 3:58:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
You know what I'm talking about in my previous comment.
May 17, 2009, 3:59:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Johnny, are we going to get a "Fox Haters Week In Review" today, or are you in mourning due to no Julie?
May 17, 2009, 4:14:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Yes I am in mourning. I hope you get well soon, Julie!
I'm working on a slightly abbreviated FHWiR. I just haven't had as much spare time this weekend but I'll whip something up before the day is done.
May 17, 2009, 4:32:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
You and me both with the spare time, Johnny.
May 17, 2009, 4:47:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Should be interesting to see how long b80vin lasts before the puppies start calling him names. He dared to bring logic into the Hen House.
Mac wrote:"Using your logic OLLIE NORTH should not be employed by FAUX NOISE. He admitted on FAUX that he committed a FELONY involving Iran Contra."
I don't understand your point. What logical argument am I making? I am simply stating a fact that Ayres did indeed commit a crime. He admits it, he also says he doesn't regret it. I understand that the point of the post is hypocrisy, but that doesn't change my opinion of the "conviction" issue. As for Ollie North and FOX news I don't understand the relevance. Are you arguing that if FOX news employs North News Hounds is allowed to act like FOX? Are you arguing that if Ayres is guilty North is guilty (talk about logical inconsistency)? I simply see no connection between North and Ayres other than they were both guilty and were not convicted. If you are saying that North's guilt despite his lack of a conviction makes his connection to FOX tenable, we agree! My point is that FOX would argue that the lack of conviction (in North's case) is important, and that Priscilla is making that same assumption (in Ayres' case), while I argue that that is misleading and below the standards of her usual posts. I admit that this says nothing about the hypocrisy of Hannity nor the repugnance of Terry, and certainly doesn't affect the ridiculous claims of a friendship between Ayres and Obama. Fair IS fair, and logic is logic and clarity is clarity.
b80vin | 05.17.09 - 4:31 pm | #
May 17, 2009, 5:55:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Speaking of b80vin's comments (hmmm, bovine...) about Ayers, there's an interesting side story about Wikipedia re: Obama's entry. Throughout the presidential race and continuing even today people put facts with citations about Ayers and Wright on Obama's page. As soon as they show up, Obama "truth mods" take it down. There is currently no mention of Ayers on Obama's wikipedia page but Wright gets one mention (likely short lived). Funny, isn't it?
May 17, 2009, 9:15:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
"Notre Dame was Ground Zero for a day in America's culture wars, and you have to wonder how a organization that calls itself a news channel would miss it. "
No wonder to me, it's because they "(MSNBC) are incompetent.
May 17, 2009, 10:33:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Pat Pomeroy
I have to wonder about the perceived need to denigrate other cable news networks, indeed, even slandering them, in the process of promoting FOX, Ashley. A fair reading is that there is some difficulty in defending FOX on its merits. I find that strange, since even I can find positive things to say about FOX. So, is this just some juvenile tit for tat.? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very useful endeavor. Apparently, however, seem people must enjoy this. I guess therein lies the purpose.
May 18, 2009, 1:46:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Sorry Pat, but what I wrote about MSNBC had nothing to do with Fox so your comment, "A fair reading is that there is some difficulty in defending FOX on its merits." is ridiculous.
But you tell me...I was responding to the article about MSNBC. What was it in that article that concerned Fox that I appeared to have some difficulty in defending them?
So, you can find positive things to say about Fox? So what?
May 18, 2009, 12:11:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Pat Pomeroy
So, you can find positive things to say about Fox? So what?
Ashley | 05.18.09 - 12:16 pm | #
I suppose it shows a better developed ability to be analytical on my part. One of the tasks a critical reader has is to separate the cheerleaders from the analysts.
May 18, 2009, 11:48:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
I suppose it shows a better developed ability to be analytical on my part. One of the tasks a critical reader has is to separate the cheerleaders from the analysts.
Pat Pomeroy | 05.18.09 - 11:53 pm | #
Excellent comeback, but the question still stands, so what? Your original insertion of the comment in your 05.18.09 - 1:51 am post was absurd as my post, which you responded to, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Fox, therefore any similarity you may have with "analysts" appears to be quite vague.
May 19, 2009, 11:40:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Pat Pomeroy
Not interesting in continuing this argument, Pat. I am simply saying that I fail to see the value in promoting FOX (or MSNBC) by tearing down MSNBC or FOX. Whether you agree or disagree with that principle doesn't interest me.
May 19, 2009, 12:38:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Pat Pomeroy | 05.19.09 - 12:43 pm | #
If you are not interested in continuing this argument, then don't.
To paraphrase you, I am simply saying that I fail to see how I was promoting Fox by simply commenting on MSNBC.
Is it your standard that any post praising MSNBC is a slam against Fox?
Is it your standard that any post praising Fox is a slam against MSNBC?
All I did was to simply comment negatively about MSNBC. That's it.
May 19, 2009, 1:10:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
cheerleaders from the analysts.
Pat Pomeroy | 05.18.09 - 11:53 pm | #
What category does olbermann fall in your opinion?
May 19, 2009, 3:32:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Actually,Ashley, all you did was to agree with an article (linked by Johnny with the purpose of inspiring comment), which is critical of some MSNBC programming decisions.
That doesn't constitute cheerleading for FNC, but frankly, there would be nothing wrong with having a particular cable favorite and in feeling justified in one's preference when bad decisions are made by another cabler.
If Pomeroy feels otherwise, it's likely that it's the conclusions you've drawn that he doesn't appreciate, rather than any perceived irrationality in that process.
That's very much HIS issue, not yours.
Cheers
May 19, 2009, 4:30:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley the cheerleader, not th
Cheers to you Cecelia!
May 19, 2009, 6:11:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
