3/21/09 11:50 PM

Weekend Links & Open Thread

Sunday cable news links [5:45 pm]:

Profile: Daryn Kagan.

Rev Wright attacks Fox.
FNC 5:00 pm: O'Reilly responds!

Newsers confab. Biznewsers confab.

Susan Estrich: it ain't over.

Today's firing demand. Bonus firing demand.

Fox & Friends glitch.

Sunday specials: compassion forum, Benedict XVI.

Video: Red Eye "pregnant man" flap. Outrage ensues! Video: Greg Gutfeld's "apology".

Hannity & Colmes's poorly-phrased chyron.

Dave Briggs report.

Heather Nauert's new blog.

MSNBC's David Wilson: "remarkable", "extraordinary".

Hope for FBN.

Dee Dee's dissertation.

Sunday talkers.

Karma bites GE? More.

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




sknabt
Is there hope for FBN? I wouldn't bet against the golden touch of Roger Ailes but Fox's foray into a business cable news channel never made any sense to me.
 
First of all, you're dealing with a small, specialized market. Secondly, it doesn't fit a 24x7 format very well. For example, Bloomberg radio (I get it on XM) is only on the air pretty much when the market is open. Finally, with CNBC and Bloomberg in the mix the tiny market segment is already over-saturated.
 
IMHO, Roger bet he could jazz up the standard staid business content the way Murdoch made a fortune selling tabloid trash in print or Fox News rose to the top running a combo of tabloid trash and right-wing political spin.  
 
The first time I tuned into FNC I witnessed some ridiculously stupid show broadcast from a bar trying desperately to be cool and funny. It was neither. More to the point, serious investors aren't interested in this crap.
 
Hey, it works on their highly rated Saturday business block where their stock picks are tied to silly themes and they spend much of their time ranting about the economy collapsing if a Democrat gets elected. What, IMHO, Roger missed is the conservatives watching the less-than-serious "Cost of Freedom" business block have no interest in a 24x7 business channel. They tune into Fox News because they trust its spin. With dull as dishwater Bloomberg or CNBC there's little fear of conservatives finding points of view that'll upset their comfortable little bubble.
 
The handful of folks I know who watch cable business news are hardcore. They don't want fluff. They don't care about talking heads weaving news with politics they agree with. They want hard news fast so they can quickly execute trades. They want unbiased analysis they can trust.
 
IMHO, if Roger Ailes is to beat the competition he's going to have to milk a lot of talent from the WSJ to provide a level of in-depth news and analysis unique to the industry.
.
April 12, 2008, 10:49:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
sknabt:
 
Your points are well-taken. Most business news can be handled by a couple of 15 minute segments on the Asian and European markets, and then a bit more extensive coverage of the US market. "Jazzed up" business news doesn't make much sense to me. Cavuto jazzes up business news enough, i.e. he doesn't talk about business. I see very little quality business news coming from FNC. CNBC and Bloomberg pretty much have that market cornered at the moment.
April 12, 2008, 12:06:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
"Fox Biz Ekes Out Another Web Win Over CNBC", but Cablevision continues to keep the channel from its customers. I never liked people that constantly rattle home the same points--one guy on the BillOReilly.com message boards, for example--but in this case, what else can I do? I want this channel so badly and I'm sick of only being able to view FBN segments through FOXBusiness.com. Comcast has it, Time Warner (which is available one county to my west in Queens, but not here) has it, Bright House Networks has it. But Cablevision? NO! They just want to count their MSG/Radio City/Knicks/Rangers/News 12/AMC/Rainbow Networks/Voom HD money and put on arrogant, hubristic ads for their wares (iO, Optimum Online, Optimum Voice).
And my parents won't let me get Verizon FiOS or DirecTV. So, there goes *that* idea.
Okay, I feel better.
April 12, 2008, 1:46:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"CNBC and Bloomberg pretty much have that market cornered at the moment."
 
Agreed.  
 
I've given this more thought - not entirely sure why. Probably because I'm the rare cable viewer who likes decent business news and analysis.  
 
I just read an old (12/07) Fortune article where Murdoch and Ailes are boasting it'll be a "red-state alternative to CNBC." At the same time, Rupert is gushing about how he sees FBN as being a global phenomena tapping a growing audience in emerging markets.
 
See the total disconnect? How do you leverage American right-wing political spin in Bejing?  
 
Again, I think the geniuses behind Fox News have completely missed the market. Worse, I don't think the right team's assembled to fix the mess.
 
Owner Murdoch is a libertarian at heart. Sure, $$ overrules all with the man but he's hoping to mix both as he has with Fox News. Roger Ailes by trade (previous to his Fox News gig) is first and foremost a marketer of conservative ideas which is why Fox News looks so much like a port of conservative talk radio over to video. Finally, I believe Cavuto is providing some leadership at FBN. It's obvious watching Neil his passion for right-wing politics outweighs his interest in business news.  
 
If I'm right FBN is missing their target audience by a mile, this isn't the best set of folks to get it back on track.
 
One last point. The link we're talking about was promoting the idea FBN has hope because, while its cable ratings are in the tank, they're getting a lot of web hits. However, this gets back to the central point. IMHO, investors are skipping the fluff and spin at the heart of FBN in favor of on-line research. IOW, investors are rejecting Murdoch and Ailes' vision of twisting business news to their will as they have with general news at Fox News.
.
April 12, 2008, 2:30:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Can you give us some examples of the "right wing political spin" on FBN?
April 12, 2008, 2:58:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
johnny:
 
FBN had Ann Coulter on one of the shows. Therefore the FBN, as an organization, is obviously a mouthpiece for George Bush, Condi Rice and all the neocons.
April 12, 2008, 3:40:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Oh yes, of course. That settles it!
April 12, 2008, 3:48:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


The Factor
You scared me J$. Your tag line made me thing that Gutfeld actually apologized. I would have stopped Tvioing his show. Good to see he gave the correct apology.
April 12, 2008, 4:41:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
Ijust watched the video of the Red Eye clip that started this.... wow.. have they ever spent so much time dedicated to one single topic before?
 
That said.. I was laughing my butt off
April 12, 2008, 4:53:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"Can you give us some examples of the 'right wing political spin' on FBN?"
 
Sure, no problem. I click on my Comcrap HD cable box, flip to the program guide, link up to FXBIZ, scroll through the first couple paid advertising slots, and presto-bingo the first programs are "Bull and Bears" at 6pm, "Business" at 6:30, "Forbes on Fox" at 7 pm, and "Cashin' In" at 7:30 pm. 3 out of 4 are the left over right-wing business block crap from sister Fox News (and I suspect "Business" is shorthand for "Cavuto on Business," the final leg on that right leaning stool).
 
Not to mention FoxBiz's crew is stuffed full of the same group of clowns who love to mix politics with business news: Neil Cavuto, Stuart Varney, Dagen McDowell, David Asman, Charles Payne, Cody Willard, etc. They range from extreme right wingers to heavily tilted to the right.
 
But if you read my comments my main reason to believe that's where the network is headed is because that's what Murdoch and Ailes claim is the direction of the network. Unless you want to claim they're lying.  
 
Of course, J$, in dealing with you I probably have to define "right-wing" since I suspect if FoxBiz sponsored an "RNC on Business" spot you'd claim it was "fair and balanced" if not a shade on the liberal side.  
.
April 12, 2008, 5:05:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I think my explanation was better.
April 12, 2008, 5:09:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
OK, if I understand sknabt's explanation correctly, you looked at the program guide and--presto!--that constituted your examples of right wing spin. Sort of like reading the title of a movie and then writing a review of it without watching. Kind of what I expected.
 
Judging from your homepage, your idea of news without spin is hailing another attack on O'Reilly by a notorious quote-cropper and fabulist who moonlights as a writer for that spin-free, nonpartisan, triumph of impartial journalism: DailyKos. I guess that explains why you don't need to know what you're talking about before you attack.
 
Yes, Vince, your explanation WAS better.
April 12, 2008, 5:19:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
These Leftists are simply out of their mind and out of control with their hate.
 
I'm disgusted how Olberman called the Navy SEAL guy a racist.
 
Where are all the compassionate tolerant Leftists to condemm Olberman for slandering the guy?
 
Oh nowhere. Like usual.
 
Then to see them so up in arms over the most petty and trivial non-issues.. if these peolpe didnt' have real political influence it would be funny to watch them in action. But it's not funny. It's very dangerous.
April 12, 2008, 5:41:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
"Where are all the compassionate tolerant Leftists to condemm Olbermann for slandering the guy?"
I'm sure people like Juan Williams and Bob Beckel could do it. I've heard Bob critical of Keith in the past. You have to remember that the far-left doesn't speak for the entire left.
Meanwhile, *I* have to remember that trolls hijacking the comments, the subsequent bait-taking rebuttals to those comments, and the off-topic comments with off-topic links in them are now common here. And I'm sure I just wore out my welcome by saying that.
April 12, 2008, 7:21:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
Mike you are right. They're not all beasts like Olberman.
April 12, 2008, 8:06:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Olbermann has two Ns.
April 12, 2008, 8:26:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
That's not what his one night stands say.
April 12, 2008, 8:44:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
All right. Can we not go below the belt?
Anyway, getting back to cable news, I recorded "Fox News Watch" on my DVR tonight and I'll get to watching it later.
If Jeff Immelt knew what was going on at MSNBC, he would do something immediately. But I'm sure he's oblivious.
April 12, 2008, 8:56:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


GrandpaD
Anyway, getting back to cable news, I recorded "Fox News Watch" on my DVR tonight and I'll get to watching it later.
 
I tried to watch FNW at 06:30 pm. Fox ran Brenda Buttner and some money program. What happened?
April 12, 2008, 9:15:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
They were covering a Barack Obama speech live this morning. (Attn sknabt: more of that non-stop Republican propaganda on Fox.) It bled into the 10:00 am money program, so they ran the entire program in the News Watch slot. Unfortunately, I don't know if we'll get to see News Watch at all this weekend.
April 12, 2008, 9:57:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Thanks for telling me. Now, I can erase it and I have one less thing to watch. But it's too bad because in the post-Gabler era, I look forward to watching.
April 12, 2008, 10:26:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I couldn't stand Gabler.
 
The one guy I saw who replaced him (not sure if he's a permanment or one-time) was pretty smug but at least he had a personality.
April 12, 2008, 10:35:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You're probably thinking of David Corn.
April 12, 2008, 10:35:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
Yes that's him.
April 12, 2008, 10:47:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
JD,  
They just don't get it. Both FNC and FBN has all sides. No matter what you say some will never get it, PS what a great site keep up the good work!
April 13, 2008, 7:51:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"OK, if I understand sknabt's explanation correctly, you looked at the program guide and--presto!--that constituted your examples of right wing spin."
 
Can you get any more disingenuous, J$?
 
The Fox "business block" has a long, long history of political spin. If you want to pretend it's "fair and balanced" spin I'll never convince you otherwise given your far-right political bent but it doesn't matter. In any case, they spend as much time talking politics as business which still makes my point.
 
I just tuned into "Forbes on Fox" basically named after former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes owner of a business magazine humbly of the same name.  
 
The 1st topic is who's raised the most campaign cash and what does it mean. The 2nd topic is goverment workers wasting money so we need a tax break.
 
What I see is a conservative moderator, John Asman, asking loaded questions with a large panel that includes only one liberal. You likely will see a bunch of right-minded indviduals in a "fair and balanced" discussion with one hopelessly deluded left-wing whacko. Again, it doesn't matter because my case is still made FXBIZ is mixing politics with business.
 
"Sort of like reading the title of a movie and then writing a review of it without watching. Kind of what I expected."
 
I feel for your complete desperation but, no, it's not a bit like that unless you're talking about a sequel. If you watched the first 5 "Star Wars" flicks and thought they stunk isn't it reasonable to skip #6?
 
"Judging from your homepage, your idea of news without spin is hailing another attack on O'Reilly by a notorious quote-cropper and fabulist who moonlights as a writer for that spin-free, nonpartisan, triumph of impartial journalism: DailyKos. I guess that explains why you don't need to know what you're talking about before you attack."
 
Poor J$. Now we're really off the deep end.
 
We've talked about my views on Olbermann. So you know I don't think he's a no spin sort of guy. It's complete baloney on your part. If you want to beat me up for not sharing your rabid hatred of the man that's on you.
 
I'll play your old game when you post right-wing crap from, say, Gibby. I just posted the Olbermann clip because I found it interesting and topical.  
 
My blog, like you here or at OlbermannWatch, post opinion. If that disqualifies me as judging is a given Fox program biased it equally disqualified a politically conservative Fox fan such as yourself.
.
April 13, 2008, 10:13:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yeah, we have other people here who pretend that they disapprove of Olbermann, and--surprise!--when you look elsewhere we find them promoting and praising him. We're wise to that trick.
 
You know, I still asked for examples of "right wing spin" in FBN programming. And the only thing you cited was a program that isn't even FBN's, but recycled from FNC. You don't get the name of the moderator correct, and then claim it's "mixing politics and business"--which it might be but that's not the same as "right wing spin", by the way. And at that, with the dubious claim that there was only "one liberal" on the panel of this one show. Really? And if so, so what? If I took one book off a library shelf and it was all about hoe-handle distribution in Kansas, could I then adopt your approach and say: this library has nothing but books about hoe-handles?
 
> a politically conservative Fox fan such as yourself.
 
Back to trying to attack the messenger, eh? You love to make this claim, but never seem to be able to quote anything from me to back it up--sort of like how you smear FBN. So just how politically conservative am I? Tell me who I voted for in the primaries, who I voted for in the last Presidential election, and what party I voted for governor. Get them all correct and I'll add a link to your site on my blog. Get them wrong, or duck the challenge, and my brilliant, clear-thinking readers will know what conclusion to draw.
April 13, 2008, 10:29:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"They were covering a Barack Obama speech live this morning. (Attn sknabt: more of that non-stop Republican propaganda on Fox.) "
 
J$, you can't help yourself can you? You're addicted to being disingenous.
 
Exactly why was Fox News covering the event, J$?  
 
You imply the live coverage that interrupted the first few minutes of the business block was Fox News going out of their way giving a Democrat free air time because they're "fair and balanced." In fact, it was part of their obsessive coverage of Barack's embarssing mistatement regarding Americans turning to religion and guns because they're bitter.
 
No doubt it deserves coverage. But I watched some of their Saturday afternoon live coverage it was wall-to-wall coverage of this. They replayed a "fair and balanced" clip of Hannity interviewing Andrew Card on it (Colmes rebuttal, a rare case of him making a good point, was visibly absent). Reagan and Bagala debated it. Susan Estrich debated it. I'm sure there were others but I've repressed the memories.  
.
April 13, 2008, 10:36:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> You're addicted to being disingenous.
 
Some time you should take a few minutes to look up the difference between "disingenuous" and "sarcastic".
April 13, 2008, 10:58:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
It's scary that someone would devote so much energy in making these long drawn-out comments to attack a cable tv station.
April 13, 2008, 11:24:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"> You're addicted to being disingenous.
 
Some time you should take a few minutes to look up the difference between "disingenuous" and "sarcastic"."
 
Why?
 
Sure, when you're pointing out Obama gets some coverage (without conveniently mentioning the context) while in the same sentence mentioning "Republican propaganda" you're being sarcastic. But at the same time your spin isn't the least bit genuine. You know the context was covering Barack's latest embarrassment.  
.
April 13, 2008, 11:37:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
And how exactly was that different from any of the other cable channels? Did they not also cover Barack's "embarrassment" in exactly the same way: by letting viewers hear, in his own words, his explanation of what he was trying to say? And yet, it's only "Republican propaganda" when it's on Fox. Hence, the (richly-deserved) sarcasm.
April 13, 2008, 11:40:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"It's scary that someone would devote so much energy in making these long drawn-out comments to attack a cable tv station."
 
Let's look at the flip-side. It's even more scary Fox fans can't articulate a defense.  
.
April 13, 2008, 11:41:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I have no interest in defending anyone against anything you say. I don't care.
April 13, 2008, 11:42:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
After reading through these comments, I'm interested in hearing more about these "hoe-handles" johnny mentioned.
April 13, 2008, 12:03:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"And how exactly was that different from any of the other cable channels? Did they not also cover Barack's "embarrassment" in exactly the same way: by letting viewers hear, in his own words, his explanation of what he was trying to say? And yet, it's only "Republican propaganda" when it's on Fox. Hence, the (richly-deserved) sarcasm."
 
Actually, I don't know if the other cable channels covered his news conference live since, obviously, I was watching the live coverage on Fox News.  
 
Again, you're spinning like a top. Let's recap. You've distilled everything I said in my earlier comments to me assaulting FXBIZ as being right-wing. In that light, you challenge me to find biased content and lo and behold the first content I find on my cable guide is their notorious business block that mixes politics and business. Next, you desperately pretend there's no history here so I'm being unfair. So I tune into FXBIZ and, luckily, they're rebroadcasting "Forbes On Fox" and, yep, their 1st two topics are political.
 
I score a very conservative moderator, a range of conservative panelists, with one token lib. The tax cut topic is one near and dear to conservatives' hearts. So I smell bias but then one panelist renaming the state of New Jersey to something with "socialist" in it , I'm sure you feel it's on-target and insightful.
 
Now, after all of your desperate data-mining, dodging, and weaving we're up to speed with your latest gimmick (redirection). Point out some live coverage of Barack sans context to pretend Fox News is going out of their way to be fair in spotlighting a Democrat. In fact, they're covering one of his screw-ups.
 
Even if it's fair to cover the event live - and I'm not saying it's not - your context-stripping implication Fox is benefiting Barack is, again, completely disingenuous.
 
And (here we go again) we have you singling out the bit about the live coverage ignoring their obsessive afternoon live coverage I mentioned in the same comment. Biased? You bet.
 
Sure, some libs are trotted out. Maybe that makes their obsession as wash in your mind. Not in mine.
 
You talked earlier about spin. I'm not into burying embarrassments for any of the candidates. I frankly don't know if I'll vote or, if I vote, who I'll vote for. Barack, especially, is an unknown so the more I learn, good and bad, the better. However, at some point an issue is covered so let's move on. Fox News passed that point.
 
Did the liberal "mainstream media" cover this? If your "mainstream media" bashing buddies on Fox are to be believed, no. Conservative mantra is they're all goo-goo eyes over Barack.
 
But, for the sake of argument, let's say CNN and MSNBC obsessed equally over Obama's misstatement. Using your standards that proves O'Reilly, Gibby, Hannity, et al are lying when the continuously bash other networks as being liberal stooges.
 
Note, while I think CNN does a much better job of covering the news than Fo
April 13, 2008, 12:16:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
Hit the comment limit. Silly me, I didn't make a back-up.
 
The last bit was me basically stating that, while I think CNN does a much better job of covering/reporting news than Fox News, it's like saying the Buffalo Bills are a better team than rival Miami. Both had lousy losing seasons. I'd score MSNBC as the Jets in between the pair.
.
April 13, 2008, 12:21:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> Using your standards that proves O'Reilly, Gibby, Hannity, et al are lying when the continuously bash other networks as being liberal stooges.
 
What an empty, illogical argument. I suppose it's beyond comprehension that other channels might play some stories in a basically similar way, and yet be more ideological at other times or on other stories.  
 
You still haven't given ONE Instance of what I asked for: right-wing spin on an FBN program. I may be wrong but I'm starting to get the idea that maybe you haven't SEEN an example of right-wing spin on an FBN program. So you're forced to fall back on Forbes:
 
> I score a very conservative moderator, a range of conservative panelists, with one token lib.
 
Well that doesn't sound like any "Forbes on Fox" I've seen recently. Forbes on Fox has several panelists who easily qualify as liberal. Lea Goldman, Quentin Hardy, Dennis Kneale, Elizabeth McDonald: they are often or dependably regular in taking liberal positions on FoF. All you have to do is read the weekly recaps.
 
Why don't you give us the names of all those conservatives on FoF? Oh wait, you might start with "John Asman" again.  Never mind.
April 13, 2008, 12:27:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
this is funny
April 13, 2008, 12:31:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> "Forbes On Fox" and, yep, their 1st two topics are political. I score a very conservative moderator, a range of conservative panelists, with one token lib.
 
Well I figured I should put this to rest and let our readers decide, so I went and checked out FoF. The first topic was the relationship of campaign spending to political success. Simplifying greatly...
 
Jack Gage: spending = votes
Neil Weinberg: no, Obama's appeal and msg = votes
Evelyn Rushi: no, momentum = votes
Victoria Barrett: no, it's Obama's message
Ozanian: spending = votes and leaves Obama "beholden"
Quentin Hardy: Obama's $ not from fatcats; small contributions so he's not beholden
Rushi: reiterates Hardy.
 
Well, sknabt certainly hit that one on the head: naked one-sided republican spin. How about the second topic, tax cuts, where everybody ganged up on one lone liberal?
 
Cut taxes?
Barrett: yes.
Quentin Hardy: no, supply-side is discredted
Ozanian: yes
Weinberg: no
Gage: yes
 
I'll leave it to the readers to assess our friend sknabt's description of these segments.
April 13, 2008, 12:59:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
Um.. no one called for the death of Bush.. clearly sknabt is correct.
April 13, 2008, 1:09:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
All I can say is don't these radical left trolls have anything better to do?
Re: "Today's firing demand" (they want to fire BOR, claiming he's a racist): Sorry, not gonna happen. Tough. Go watch Keith.
Now, I finally get that Carpe Diem's stance is far-left anti-Fox.
I wonder if Rev. Wright's comments will be mentioned on "The Radio Factor" or TV "Factor" tomorrow?
April 13, 2008, 1:17:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I'm wondering.. have the Democrats passed the foreign surveillance act yet or is doing intelligence still illegal?
 
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080046002
 
Al-Qaida nuclear attack in planning stages
 
Saturday, April 5, 2008 (New York)
Al-Qaida's nuclear attack against the US is in planning stages, top American intelligence officials have said.
 
Deposing before a Congressional Committee on Homeland Security early this week, these US intelligence officials told US lawmakers that the threat of nuclear attack by the Taliban was growing and there is need to enhance its security measures.
 
Charles Allen, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the director of Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence for the Department of Energy testified before this key Congressional committee on nuclear terrorism on April 2.  
 
''There's been a long-term effort by Al-Qaida, to develop an improvised nuclear device,'' Allen said. ''I have no doubt that Al-Qaida would like to obtain nuclear capability. I think the evidence in their statements that they've made over many years publicly indicate this,'' he argued in his testimony.
 
Giving details of the Al-Qaida preparation, based on years on intelligence inputs, Mowatt-Larssen said: ''An Al-Qaida nuclear attack would be in the planning stages at the same time as several other plots, and only Al-Qaida's most senior leadership will know which plot will be approved.''
 
[snip]
April 13, 2008, 1:22:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Whoa, Vince... your cites are interesting but they have nothing to do with cable news! Let's try to keep things on track, OK?
April 13, 2008, 1:28:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
It shows that Fox is a mouthpiece for the Democrats.
 
Why is Fox not reporting this .. because they know it will make the Dems look bad.
April 13, 2008, 1:45:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
It's these damn off topic comments, along with these radical left trolls and the fights that follow (not counting your justified rebuttals, Johnny) that make me not want to comment here anymore. I came here to talk about cable news and things pertaining to cable news. This isn't Hot Air or Townhall or any other political blog.
So, getting back on topic, at least until we're thrown back off topic by a troll or partisan with a link that has nothing to do with cable news!...(deep breath)...I wish I had known about this "Broadcast Business Journalism" workshop last Monday. I would have hopped right on the LIRR to Penn Station and gone to it. Business news and sports news are two of my favorites. Meteorology is the third.
April 13, 2008, 2:56:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
hm ok. I guess I have nothing futher to say then.
 
Enjoy your conversation with whomever.
April 13, 2008, 3:00:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"Yeah, we have other people here who pretend that they disapprove of Olbermann, and--surprise!--when you look elsewhere we find them promoting and praising him. We're wise to that trick."
 
Again, obvious misrepresentation. As you know, I've criticized Olby on my blog (my personal blog, not EyesOnFox, since it wasn't topical to Fox News but Olby bashing CNN). I just posted a clip of his I found interesting/amusing. Since O'Reilly and Fox are often targets of his, I probably have a couple of things of his floating about. But, despite your dishonest data-mining trying to twist me into his ideological twin, any honest person would have to admit my blogs by and large ignore the man.
 
IOW, he's your obsession, not mine.
 
"You know, I still asked for examples of 'right wing spin' in FBN programming. And the only thing you cited was a program that isn't even FBN's, but recycled from FNC."
 
Finally, you bring up a legitimate point. I wondered when you'd quit chasing after lame dodges and finally see the obvious.
 
In the context of your data-mined attacks, it's a valid point. I haven't watched much FXBIZ. But the problem for you is I never really made the claim.
 
My original observation was that FXBIZ seems to be jazzing up their business news based upon some casual observations. Namely, a way too stupid show broadcast from a bar. It was so bad it's absurd. My point is serious investors who crave cable business news aren't interested in this fluffy crap.
 
But that's Fox News' track record. A 2-hour business block that's not targeting serious investors but casual viewers who want to see politics tightly interwoven with business news.
 
My follow-up comment was based upon an old "Fortune" article making the point Ailes and Murdoch envisioned a "red state" version of CNBC. If that's where it's going - where business news on sister Fox News firmly rests - I think that pair of geniuses (note, I'm not using that term sarcastically, I readily acknowledge their talent), have uncharacteristically stumbled.
 
"And at that, with the dubious claim that there was only 'one liberal' on the panel of this one show. Really? And if so, so what? If I took one book off a library shelf and it was all about hoe-handle distribution in Kansas, could I then adopt your approach and say: this library has nothing but books about hoe-handles?"
 
You need to dump the analogies. This one as is a full of holes as your movie review one. Having admittedly visited my web site with over 200 posts do you think I've only check out one book at Fox News?
 
In the context of FXBIZ I haven't watched that much but in the context of the business block - the context you've attached your comment to - I've seen all 4 shows in the block many, many times. I've blogged on their bias quite a bit.
 
Not to mention right-wing Cavuto's weekday 'business' spin-fest.
 
You quickly toss away the pretense of a balanced panel with "And if so, so what?"
April 13, 2008, 3:11:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
[continued]
 
You quickly toss away the pretense of a balanced panel with "And if so, so what?"
 
And, IMHO, it's for good reason. The spin is obvious.
 
In another post you selectively quote some panelists, one of which is the liberal I mentioned. The others are to varying degrees on the right. Is Rick Ozanian a liberal? Even tilted a hair to the left? A straight-down-the-line moderate? I don't think so.
 
That's not so say each and every one is some far-right Limbaugh butt-kissing dittohead. But I believe I clearly stated their panels on the business block tend to range from libertarian (like the so-called "capitalist pig") to moderate button-downed Republican (like the former panelist who used to have a tattoo of Ronald Reagan on his leg). And moderators like Butner and Cavuto definitely love to spin to the right. For example, Cavuto loves to mock/provoke token libs.
 
"> a politically conservative Fox fan such as yourself.
 
Back to trying to attack the messenger, eh?"
 
Fine. If I mischaracterized you, J$, just state plainly you're not a conservative nor are you a fan of Fox News. Give me a list of conservative ideas you reject and all the shows on Fox News, Fox Radio, and (now) Fox Business you think suck and why.
 
Of course, you are a principal on a liberal-bashing OlbermannWatch blog, you run a self-admitted Fox fan web site, you have routinely posted videos and radio clips from right-wingers like Gibby and, more to the point, defend their content to the death when I criticize it's conservative spin.
 
But if you want to play the dishonest game that as long as you refuse to admit to your biases they don't exist, fine. I'm sure everyone's fooled.   
 
"You love to make this claim, but never seem to be able to quote anything from me to back it up--sort of like how you smear FBN."
 
Hardly a "smear."
 
"Tell me who I voted for in the primaries, who I voted for in the last Presidential election, and what party I voted for governor. Get them all correct and I'll add a link to your site on my blog. Get them wrong, or duck the challenge, and my brilliant, clear-thinking readers will know what conclusion to draw."
 
It's a fools game. What happens in the voting booth is between you and God. It's like the old shell game. Where's the ball? The correct answer is up the sleeve but, of course, the choice is to pick an empty cup.
.
April 13, 2008, 3:13:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
A few corrections, for whatever good they may do...
 
> A 2-hour business block that's not targeting serious investors
 
On FNC. Not FBN except as off-hour reruns. When did anyone ever claim this block was hard news for the serious geeky investor? It's a mishmash, some business, some politics, some humor. hard business news is a niche market. It's why the 2-hour business block is the highest rated business programming on cable. It has the widest appeal. It's also NOT representative of FBN, regardless of hard many times you try to suggest it is.
 
> just state plainly you're not a conservative nor are you a fan of Fox News...
 
Um, the burden of proof is on the accuser. It's not up to me to prove your allegations wrong. It's up to you to back them up. You made the charge, you document it. Of course this is a wholesale irrelevancy anyhow. When I catch people lying about what's on Fox News, it doesn't matter if I'm Dennis Kucinich or Pat Buchanan. Truth can speak from any chair.
 
> you are a principal on a liberal-bashing OlbermannWatch blog
 
No, I am a principal an Olbermann-bashing blog. In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of liberals bashing Olbermann these days. It's not hard, giving the way he fabricates, slants, and misrepresents. Because someone is critical of the laughable "journalism" of Olbermann doesn't ipso facto mean they are a liberal. It means they care about truth, justice, and the like.
April 13, 2008, 3:52:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Vince, I'm sorry if I offended you. And Johnny, I'm sorry I usurped your position in trying to keep the thread on topic.
April 13, 2008, 3:59:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No problem, Mike. I'm with you on this, more or less. I don't want this to turn into a political smorgasboard where all sorts of stuff gets tossed into the mix. I hope that won't drive Vince away because he has posted frequently on cable news issues, which is our focus here.
 
As for the trolls, well, I don't want to call everyone who disagrees with someone else a troll. I welcome varying opinions here, but I do prefer when they're based on fact and documentation instead of personal slurs or ill-sourced generalizations.
April 13, 2008, 4:05:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Well, I don't think OTM is a troll. He just has an opposing point of view. Republican Killa (who I had no idea was female because her posts were always deleted by the time I showed up), on the other hand, *is* a troll.
April 13, 2008, 4:54:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Concur.
April 13, 2008, 5:02:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
I didn't put FNC on until a few minutes ago. I probably missed BOR's response. What did he say?
April 13, 2008, 5:18:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It was quite brief. Basically along the lines of trying to deflect from the issues and change the subject. He was insistent that he has been accurate in his reporting on Wright and hasn't seen any specifics that say otherwise. Geraldo added that by doing this Wright just brought the controversy back into the news again and didn't do Obama any favors.
April 13, 2008, 5:45:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
Johnny, I came across a very interesting little tidbit from Tim Russert's Meet the Press. Meet the Press is not a cable news show but is rebroadcast on MSNBC.
 
So which way do you go on that?
 
Thanks.
April 13, 2008, 6:07:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
>Geraldo added that by doing this Wright just brought the controversy back into the news again and didn't do Obama any favors.<
That's a very good point on his part.
Like "Meet the Press" on NBC/MSNBC, "Fox News Sunday" airs first on Fox network and is rebroadcast in the evening on FNC.
April 13, 2008, 6:11:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> So which way do you go on that?
 
If it airs on MSNBC then it is fair game. So have at it!
April 13, 2008, 6:19:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
My point was that in both cases if viewers miss the broadcast network airing, they can see it on cable later in the day.
April 13, 2008, 6:26:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I'm still around... i was just wallowing in some drama.
April 13, 2008, 6:49:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
Great! This one is too good to miss.
 
From LGF:
 
"Hitchens Confused on Categories
Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:45:33 pm PDT
 
AP tipped me to this one; the quote of the month from Christopher Hitchens, reported at The Independent: Furore over Hitchens’s sapphic slip.
 
“Don’t know what came over me: the dear boy did suddenly seem extremely sapphic, yet I think my intuitions must have been scrambled all the same, since what I was actually thinking was: ‘Andrew really wants to have Barack Obama’s f*cking child’. Clearly some confusion of categories on my part.”
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/furore-over-hitchenss-sapphic-slip-808483.html?r=RSS
 
Some of the comments are quite a treat also, such as this one:
 
"#33 Bob in Breckenridge 4/12/08 7:59:03 pm reply quote report 0 
 
re: #11 blame canada
 
i can see andrew sullivan wanting to carry obama's baby
 
/He'd have to fight Chris Matthews and his tingling leg, but then again, I'd rather NOT see that fight."
April 13, 2008, 6:52:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
That WAS quite an exchange. Actually it's not MtP at all, It's "Time Russert", his MSNBC cable show, so it's definitely on topic here.
 
However, a bit late. We posted the link to that video a week ago! 
 
http://johnnydollar.us/2008a/eqj229050639.html
 
Good to bring it up again, though. And the comments do add a certain quality.
April 13, 2008, 7:25:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
Well, Johnny, just more proof that great minds think alike.
April 13, 2008, 7:34:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
sknabt is getting old.
 
The F&F gang this weekend did well, Airheart is getting better and the fill in did very well. I think the best team they could put together is Airheart, the fella that filled in this weekend and Julie Banderose. Sorry for the spelling.
April 13, 2008, 9:13:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
sknabt is getting old.
 
The F&F gang this weekend did well, Airheart is getting better and the fill in did very well. I think the best team they could put together is Airheart, the fella that filled in this weekend and Julie Banderose. Sorry for the spelling.
April 13, 2008, 9:13:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Earhardt, Banderas.
The fill-in was Dave Briggs.
I'm so bored right now that I may actually put on "Hannity's America."
April 13, 2008, 9:22:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
Never mind. Lanny Davis, Sean reading quotes, changing channel. My boredom will be filled eventually.
April 13, 2008, 9:24:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Vince P
I cant stand Hannity.
 
Neither can Debble Schlussel.
April 13, 2008, 9:33:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
I can't stand him either, yet I applaud the longtime success of his radio show and "H&C."
April 13, 2008, 9:53:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
Thank you Mike.
April 13, 2008, 10:16:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
You're welcome. You can count on me to correct people. Never think I'm being condescending by doing it.
April 13, 2008, 10:25:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"Well, sknabt certainly hit that one on the head: naked one-sided republican spin. How about the second topic, tax cuts, where everybody ganged up on one lone liberal?
 
Cut taxes?
Barrett: yes.
Quentin Hardy: no, supply-side is discredted
Ozanian: yes
Weinberg: no
Gage: yes"
 
Really? Unfortunately, I didn't tape this segment earlier which left me vulnerable to your broad distortion of the facts but I stumbled upon by pure accident "Forbes on Fox" one last time which allowed me to record the 2nd segment. Lo and behold, I come to find how J$, who's oh-so-sensitive of, say, Olby lifting comments finds a way to completely hack up this segment into a pile of foul smelling baloney. 
 
Let's see we have moderator Asman leading in with the red meat conservative tax cut topic which he credits to Victoria. So "fair and balanced" David asks should we "stop feeding the monster" (just to give you a hint of his "fair and balanced" view on government).
 
Victoria responds "Here's the message, we should be cutting taxes now. There's a lot of waste in the government... So let's cut the budget and first move by cutting taxes."
 
The token liberal Quentin indeed disagrees with Victoria's supply side message but he doesn't, as you suggest, completely rule out tax cuts: "Now I do think Victoria does have a good point around tax cuts in a time of recession. We are going to go into a deficit but tax cuts cuts have been proven to do as much good as infrastructure spending."
 
Mike's up next where he bashes the Clinton administration over infrastructure spending as a "great big old liberal myth." While Mike doesn't mention tax cuts per se he says we "should start dismantling government."
 
Neil chimes in "Halalula! Mike and I agree on something..." While he opens by disagreeing on taxes preferring spending cuts he later adds "we could do both." when "fair and balanced" Asman turns right around and challenges him on it.
 
Asman keeps hammering home the "starve government" point as he turns to Jack. Jack's response? "Absolutely!" He then goes on to expound Republican John McCain's views on the topic.
 
At the end of the episode, Asman throws the topic back at Quentin who criticizes the Bush rebate plan and mentions raising taxes to balance the budget. At that point, I defy you to find a person in the room, including moderator Asman, who's on his side. Victoria and Jack jump all over him fed by questions coming from Asman as he scoffs at the notion.
 
Asman does at the bitter end pick up one bit of Quentin's argument he likes: a tax credit. Jack likes it too but point out it's limited in scope.
 
Now, J$, your take on this segment is largely a fabrication. Without lying, I defy you to pick anyone in the crowd other than Quentin promoted anything but a right of center to a near libertarian viewpoint.
 
Now, I realize this is the sort of balance you enjoy which, IMHO, is why you keep dodging any and all questions o
April 14, 2008, 6:25:55 AM EDT – Like – Reply


sknabt
"A few corrections, for whatever good they may do..."
 
Like your 'correction' on the tax cut segment? 
 
Lets see, you do more data-mining picking out my quote "A 2-hour business block that's not targeting serious investors" then run off to Mars with "corrections." Note, I've never represented the business block as anything but Fox News content. I don't disagree it's popular. I don't disagree it's light weight slop for the masses who really don't care about business.
 
I guess I have to get out the Crayola's to draw you a picture of my point. I was offering constructive criticism of FXBIZ that Fox News' typical audience is not the target segment they should be going after. Arrogantly write them off as geeky business types is you like but they don't want to watch useless fluff, IMHO.
 
Forgetting the rehashed business block run on the weekend, it was interspersed with short original FXBIZ clips which, again, are useless fluff. One I saw offered such oh-so-helpful tips on navigating an airport like use your cell phone. Do you think veteran businessmen who watch business cable channels are going to be able to stifle their laughter over such tripe?
 
You data-mine this quote: "just state plainly you're not a conservative nor are you a fan of Fox News..."
 
The man who once bashed me over transparency is the most opaque of all. Never in my life have I seen someone so wrapped up in politics (e.g., your liberal-bashing of Olby and you addiction to conservative pundits like Gibby) while at the same time doing the rope-a-dope on what your political viewpoints are.
 
First you come up with a bizarre shell game where I'm supposed to guess who you voted for while you boast your fans here will see what I'm made of if I refuse the challenge. Really? I think they'll see you acting all weird and catty.
 
Now we're in a courtroom metaphor where I'm the "accuser" so you're hiding behind a legal technicality claiming I hold the burden of proof. Basically, you're fogging up the room and hoping nobody'll wonder why you're so desperately trying to hide your political views. Are you that embarrassed of them? Are they so extreme they'll scare little children? 
 
Finally, to try to deflect your liberal-bashing of Olby as not coming from right-wing fanaticism, you dodge the question once more by not denying you're a foaming right-winger but, no, the smokescreen is that there are liberals who don't like Olby too.
 
Hypocritically, when I mentioned I'd disagreed with Olby in the past you rushed to point out how liberals in the past lied about their disagreements with the man. Which, in my case, is rather odd since at one point you linked to my blog entry on this. But, no matter, I don't expect honesty, transparency, or consistency from you.
.
April 14, 2008, 6:50:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Asman of course argued both sides of the question, depending on whom he threw the topic to next. But you only snip out the quotes that suit your purposes. But I said I'd leave that to the readers to decide and I will.
 
Your insistence on painting me with some ideological brush is fascinating. This attack-the-messenger variation of the ad hominem fallacy is one you return to over and over. Oh J$ is a liberal basher, J$ is a "foaming right-winger" (whatever that is, maybe one that uses Ajax), and now out of desperation the latest escalation: I'm a right wing "fanatic"! 
 
I understand why you'd rather spin speculation about me (while you protect yourself in multiple layers of anonynimity to prevent anyone knowing anything verifiable about you, other than your blatant double standard). But if you're going to characterize me, I must insist that you do so with facts, not fantasy. I realize you hold a different view: when you smear someone, you don't have to back up what you say. Why, that's for a courtroom! In real life, the proper behavior is to assassinate someone's character, and then REFUSE to provide any documentation to substantiate the smears.
 
You're free to hold whatever opinions you like. You can declare FBN to be rightwing spin without apparently having EVER WATCHED its weekday live coverage of the markets. You're free to be an internet sniper, taking shots at people while secreting yourself behind a rock of anonynimity. It's your right to call me everything from a "foaming conservative" to a fanatic, while not pointing out a single issues position I hold that falls into either category. However, this last comes awful close to a personal attack, and I'm not inclinced to continue giving anyone a pass on that while everyone else has to abide by the rules.
April 14, 2008, 9:13:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olbysucks
Johnny, the fact that it says "Fox News" in little letters in the upper right hand coner of you blog makes you a "right wing fanatic." Don't you know anything? I'm pretty sure it also automatically qualifies you to be a "neo-con," also! Far left logic.
April 14, 2008, 12:22:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply