Wednesday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Tuesday's numbers: Bill-Beck-Bret 1-2-3.
Twitter silence: day 28. Gibson recalls Zahn.
Willard teams w/Marketwatch. Gracie kudos.
Matthews flunks? Summit up. Weekend numbers.
Q&A: Hemmer. Thirteen for Major. Hotline after dark.
Corzine to CNBC. Wanted: an investigative reporter.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Mike C.
Re: "Corzine to CNBC": And MSNBC, too, I'm sure, which means appearances on you-know-who's 8PM show.
February 24, 2010, 10:56:20 AM EST – Like – Reply
Puck30
Corzine to CNBC. Same guy who ran New Jersey to the brink of diaster? Same guy who was soo bad. New Jersey, who would never vote for a Republican, did?
Go ahead, show up on CNBC or.... Please! show up on Olby's show. Become a friend of 'Countdown'!
Now, a quick right turn to the tea party flap.
When push came to shove with the Dallas Tea Party, Keith appeared to throw his sick father under the bus So he didn't have go. Fine Keith, why not have the Tea Party folks on via a video link?
Billo does it all the time Keith. In fact Bill did that a lot last week while he was out in LA. Now if a clown can handle a video link and you can't Keith. What does that make you?
BTW: When was the last time Keith went over a million (total) for that 8PM show?
February 24, 2010, 12:50:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Day 434 of Haggis' Bret Baier smear duck and dodge:
Bret Baier is the host of FNC's "Special Report". He's an excellent broadcaster, a very charitable man, and a good family man. Our friend Haggis comes along in 2008 and smears Bret Baier. Haggis writes:
Bret Baier has numerous bias charges against him...I'll not "cut/paste" them....as the list is so long.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 10:49:07 AM
For quite some time now, I have repeatedly asked Haggis to back up this claim. He has not. He has said he has done so, but the facts are that he has not. In response to his, what I believe are false claims of answering, I have also told Haggis, that giving him the benefit of any doubt, to please repeat that response. A simple request. Haggis fails to do so.
Haggis smears.
Haggis cannot back up.
Haggis ducks and dodges.
Haggis tries to change the subject.
Once again I ask Haggis to either back up his smears with facts or to retract this terrible thing he has said about a good man...Bret Baier.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 10:49:07 AM
February 24, 2010, 11:53:50 AM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Bret Baier cropping quotes from ACLU...Why not just tell viewers what they actually said.
Video thanks to LiberalViewer....Who does an excellent job reporting the wrong doings at FNC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acd4BnOhaFA
February 24, 2010, 1:06:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
Johnny-Five
Bret Baier clearly stated in his narrative the ACLU opposition to the move of prisoners to Colorado Supermax prison. He continues to paraphrase the quote by ACLU rep Cathryn Hazouri when he said despite conditions at Guantanamo that included psychological and physical torture before reading and showing the remainder of the quote. The ACLU quote in itself distorts the treatment of prisoners by making it sound as though all prisoners were subjected to waterboarding and sexual degradation. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that to be true, so by editing the quote as they did, Fox News did the ACLU a favor. The next cropped quote your hero "liberalviewer" has a problem with is using "simply another form of torture" indicating to "liberalviewer" that this is biased against the ACLU's actual opposition to the movement of the prisoners based on it being another form of torture , not the real opposition that they have been charged, convicted and sentenced without benefit of a fair trial. Again, this goes to the notion that you believe, as does the ACLU that terrorists in Guantanamo are entitled to the same rights and protections we are afforded as citizens. I for one, and many others believe that they are not to be afforded these rights, that in many cases, they broke the laws of war and are not even entitled to provisions of the third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. By not specifying the reason for the ACLU opposition to moving Guantanamo prisoners to Supermax, Bret Baier did the ACLU a fovor again by not having them subjected to ridicule for confusing right of a US citizen to treatment of an unlawful enemy combatant. SO, if anything, it sounds as if Fox and Bret were biased in favor of the ACLU, not against.
February 24, 2010, 3:33:32 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Johnny-Five...you certainly know how to obfuscate ....LiberalViewer was much more succinct.....I'll go with him....but thanks for the reply.
February 24, 2010, 5:29:24 PM EST – Like – Reply
Johnny-Five
Haggis - Succinct must also be a way to say confusing, because "liberalviewer" did his best to confuse the issue, or he was confused. I am not sure which. If Mr. Baier says the germane words from the quote, but does not show them in the snippet of text shown on screen, how is that showing bias? Were the types of torture mentioned by Ms. Hazouri important to the conversation? That is all that was left out of the verbal and visual report on Fox. In the quotes from the ACLU, do they discuss whether prisoners collected on the battlefield or arrested by law enforcement on US soil should be treated differently? Do you understand that under the rules of the Geneva Convention, it is forbidden for POWs to be interned in a penitentiary? Is this germane to why this would be a bad idea? Again, without belaboring the point, this does not show bias by Mr. Baier or Fox News against the ACLU. On the contrary, Fox was very kind to the ACLU in this report. The cloudiness here comes from the ACLU, and from liberalviewer, not from Fox News, and not from me.
February 24, 2010, 9:26:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Haggy smoker makes false claim over a yr ago and comes back with a youtube video from a yr ago? LOL!
February 24, 2010, 1:25:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
The king of "cropping quotes" makes allegations againt others cropping quotes? What a load. That video proves absolutely nothing Haggis, pathetic. Numerous bias charges???? Har. Backing your 2008 claim about Baier with something that happened in 2009????? Pathetic!
Face it, you made false smears against Baiers.
But at least you attempted to back up your smear after a year, though it was feeble and a failure, so this falls off the duck and dodge list.
February 24, 2010, 2:16:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley...Ashley...just watch the grapevine...Baier uses that segment nightly to bash Democrats as did Hume....also just look at the make up of the panel...usually 2 Cons and 1 supposed Democrat....fair and balanced...I think not.
February 24, 2010, 2:30:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I never miss the Grapevine. Why just yesterday Baier was using it to bash Democrats again:
Private jets, limos, fancy catering, and fresh flowers; those are just some of the lavish expenses attributed to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele that are frustrating some major GOP donors.
Politico compared last year's expenses with those from 2005, the last year preceding a mid-term election. It found the committee's payments for charter flights doubled, the number of sedan contractors tripled, and meal costs went from just over $300,000 to almost $600,000.
Haggis, your analytical skills are to their usual standard.
February 24, 2010, 2:38:16 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
I didn't say he never questioned republicans...But you do agree with my comment on the panel make up.
February 24, 2010, 2:59:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Johnny...I seem to remember TwinkleToes asked you a question yesterday that you didn't answer.
it was regarding the Kelly/Crowley interview over attorneys being sympathetic to AQ.
The question was this:- "So was there balance from someone else? please don't keep us all in suspense. I certainly hope there was some balance to the Crowley spew fest."
Was there any balance?
February 24, 2010, 2:38:26 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I didn't see the whole program so I can't say. I don't make charges of bias without the facts, like some have a habit of doing. And I certainly don't base charges of bias on cherry-picked, edited clips.
February 24, 2010, 2:40:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
But you do tivo it?....maybe a quick look would answer this question...I personally think there was no balance....I await your response.
February 24, 2010, 2:42:31 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Keep waiting. This site doesn't exist to jump on your command. You already made one claim that I proved to be false. Don't be greedy.
February 24, 2010, 2:46:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
Tina
Haggis
Well your response answers my question....if there had been balance you'd have said tout suite...case closed.
February 24, 2010, 2:49:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Whatever. But the burden of proof is always on the accuser. I understand your forgetting that since you so often fail to meet it.
February 24, 2010, 2:52:39 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Not only does the liar move the goal posts he changes the subject.........Ijit.
February 24, 2010, 2:40:48 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
OS...it's a bit rich you calling me a liar....you seem to forget your undercover falsehoods over at TP and no I'm not going to look for them....you know what I'm talking about
February 24, 2010, 2:52:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
as the list is so long.
What happened to the "list?"
February 24, 2010, 4:23:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
ramjet
Mr. Haggis,
I do not hate you. Please respond:
1. Did you listen to both Fox anchors describing the incident as an act of terrorism?
1a. If so, how can you say they weren't willing to consider it, when they came right out and said it?!?
1b. If not, how can you say they weren't willing to consider it, when you did not see rather or not they came right out and said it?!?
Thank you in advance.
February 24, 2010, 3:16:58 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
I did answer your question over on the weekend thread:-
I did read J$ post at the time...but didn't watch the video...I was watching the curling...GB v USA...Sausages were on the go at the time...but I really can't use them as an excuse.
I have now read the post by David Neiwert and I wholeheartedly agree with what he had to say....I don't have anything to add.
http://js-kit.com/api/sta...&path=%2Filc288482110
February 24, 2010, 5:10:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
IM Right
Earlier today, you were whining about supposed cropped quotes on "Special Report". Now, you are agreeing with Neiwert for doing the same. Your analytical skills have deteriorated far worse than I had realized.
February 24, 2010, 5:43:52 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
Bummer, no list..........
February 24, 2010, 6:03:28 PM EST – Like – Reply
david smawley
Just took a look @ Tuesday's #'s, I was posting back in 2008 after the election & remember several posts here re the impending demise of FoxNews ratings now that Obama had the WH & the Democrats owned Congress. Funny, some of them still hang around here, but not a peep anymore re the only 500 LB gorilla on Cable news. After all, what can they possibly offer that is worth a listen?
February 24, 2010, 7:50:44 PM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Re: CNBC
CNBC lacks a lot more than an investigative reporter.
It lacks Megyn.
February 24, 2010, 9:06:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
ramjet
[Heavily edited for the sake of Brevity, a dead horse.]
Haggis wrote, "I did answer your question over on the weekend thread:- "
Nope. You answered Johnny's and I.M.'s questions, not mine. Your answers were PRIOR TO ME ASKING MY QUESTION, WHICH CONTAINED AN ADDITIONAL QUERY. Your answer failed to answer my question in full. I will repost the unanswered portion. Please respond.
1. Did you listen to both Fox anchors describing the incident as an act of terrorism? (Your answer was "No.")
1b. If not, how can you say they weren't willing to consider it, when you did not see rather or not they came right out and said it?!? (Unanswered)
February 25, 2010, 1:08:03 AM EST – Like – Reply
Tina
I have a quick question: I was channel surfing last night and I seemed to notice that Olbermann went over his time slot with his "special comment" last night damning republicans to hell for their health care position (thats for another post). Was it my imagination, or did his show extend beyond it's regular time slot and impinge on Rachel Maddow's hour?
February 25, 2010, 6:55:42 AM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
His show started late because curling ran overtime. That pushed the entire schedule off a bit.
February 25, 2010, 8:08:58 AM EST – Like – Reply
Tina
Thanks Johnny.
February 25, 2010, 8:12:10 AM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Curling his more exciting than Olbermann's show
February 25, 2010, 12:21:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
