1/6/09 12:39 PM

Thursday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [updated through the day]:

Urgent breaking news! (via ICN)

Wednesday's numbers.

Hardball blurb booted.

Glenn Beck takes a tumble.

Aaron Barnhart: Countdown will surpass O'Reilly?

Juan Williams: an imbecilic self hating whore?!?

Stacey Tisdale, Tamron Hall, Christine Brown: honored.

Hotline quotes.

Coop's makeover.

Tim Russert's standards. Seen paying their respects. Brian Williams subs Sunday. What's ahead? Timing.

Chris Wallace oration.

Video: Keith kaught in a kontradiction?

Elliot phones Rick Leventhal.

Susan Estrich: is it media bias?

Alan's hate mail [language!].

Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread.

A Fox News "liberal" using her column to forward Republican talking points about the "liberal media"?
Clearly Salon had it all wrong with that silly "Fox News Democrats" article a while back.
June 19, 2008, 1:11:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply

"Republican talking points"?
ummm...Eric...you might want to actually read the piece...
June 19, 2008, 2:53:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply

You are soo right.
Estrich said, in her piece, that there is nothing funny about a naked woman being painted to look like a cow. This is a most surely a Republican talking point.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats all believe that a naked woman painted as a cow is hilarious. Someone told Michele Obama about it, and she can't stop laughing. She can[t wait to share her mirth with her kids.
June 19, 2008, 3:50:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Erich = Eric
June 19, 2008, 3:51:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Great vid of Olbermann's lying, J$....I got to it through HOT AIR...I am sure it will make the usual rounds.
It seems both SNOBamessiah and Olbermann are doing the same old "do as I say, not as a do." SNOBamessiah does not address the fact that there have been attacks on Cindy McCain for months like Olbermann's WPITW (and the nutroots have been even worse....discussing her former drug problems and making innuendo regarding her wealth). The neophyte Senator simply tries to lie and make it seem like he and his family is/are the only victims.
The radical left has declared "open season" and "fair game" on wives of candidates from the Thompsons and Giulianis to the McCains and Clintons.
SNOBamessiah is being very cynical. Michelle Obama has many negatives and they are acceptable to discuss as are Ms. McCain's. Politics continues to be a tough business and SNOBamessiah has been party to the same old demonizing tactics of the past. His attempt to elevate himself from the muck through lying simply shows the audacity and arrogance he harbors, and Keith Olbermann's behavior is a perfect, farcical representation of SNOBamessiah's hypocrisy.
June 19, 2008, 7:42:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Reading Alan's hate mail,I found this gem from Michael.
Now if you found this in your E-Mail box one morning while your kids got dressed for school,would you just dismiss it as some harmless nut,or would you look out the windows and perhaps pull old Bessie a little closer and check the safety?
Perhaps Alan Colmes' "partner", Mr "Hannity,plays some small part in encouraging this kind of vitriolic hatred.He published a book entitled
"Deliver Us From Evil:Defeating Terrorism,Despotism and Liberalism".
The conclusion that Mr Hannity is equating "Liberalism" with "Terrorism" is unmistakable.And "Terrorism" is a threat to our lives.
Violence (military,police or whatever) is a logical response to a threat to our lives.If one equates "Liberalism" with "Terrorism", it is only logical that violence would then be a logical response to "Liberalism".
I am not saying that Mr Hannity really wants violence against Liberals.But I think it is damned irresponsible, at best,to equate "Terrorism" with "Liberalism".The weaker hate-filled minds among us might not realize that he is only using this as a device to sell a book.
June 19, 2008, 7:58:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
I don't know how far we can go with Sean Hannity, nvh, at least at this point. All signs are pointing to McCain and the RNC and the Republican Congressional election committees going much more negative than usual (which says a lot) much earlier than usual, out of necessity. I have no doubt that at FNC this will mean Kristol whining even more often, Barnes perpetually revising and reinventing the last 7 years and Hannity matching McCain and the RNC, angry point, by angry point, smear by smear. In other words, SOP at FNC, albeit I think we will see a far more balanced approach from FNC as a whole. In fact, this seems to be a real opportunity for FNC to gain the widespread legitimacy it has long sought, and I think deserves. FNC is probably going to cease this opportunity eagerly and with relish. There is a growing sense the negative is simply desperation and that it will backfire. Hannity has a nice little niche of intolerant haters, and he will survive very well, indeed. He and Coulter probably ought to have a nightly spew fest for fan fodder.
Kristol may already be marginal. He's always straight party line and straight wrong. Among NYT readers he seems to have already become a standard joke, the retraction king, as it were.
Barnes will survive. His loyalty seems to be more Bush-centric than Republican-centric. We'll see a more issues-based and less personality-based analysis from him, shortly. In fact, it may have already started.
But, you make a very important point: free speech, a free media, carries with it a responsibility of fairness, accuracy and discretion. I have no doubt that much of divisiveness we have in our nation today, a destructive, wearying divisiveness is the result of a very small group of people who legitimize hatred and produce volumes of hate-filled diatribes. Talk radio is the natural and obvious home for this group, and the sorties into cable news are limited, into broadcast news, more limited still. I would hope than editors would be mindful of the responsibility side of free speech and free press. It seems to be to be an exceedingly irresponsible position to give firebrands like Coulter and Malkin a carte blanche just to denigrate anyone who departs from their odd orthodoxy. They do little but inflame their mindless followers. We all see the results.
June 19, 2008, 8:27:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Ah, yes, in the strange world of OTM the left is all wine and roses while the right is mud and slime.....
Sorry...reality shows a different conclusion with MSNBC going totally negative back in 2005 with the chief hater, Keith Olbermann, even touting violence against Hillary Clinton.
Oh and even not discussed in OTM's propaganda is the left's dirty little world on the internet. Spend 10 minutes at kos and find lots of negativity, blasphemy, cursing, hatred, calls for violence, oh yes....and the occasionaly entry by the infamous mouthpiece of the left on cable news....Keith Olbermann.
Anti-semitism, ageism, class warfare, effete leftists condemning all religion and faith, oh yes and arrogance (OTM's style).....these are the aspects of the debate coming from SNOBamessiah's cover. The internet is the natural home of the mindless followers of SNOBamessiah.
June 19, 2008, 8:52:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Colmes repetative publishing of his "hate mail" makes me think I smell a martyr burning. Self-serving claptrap "Look at me their so mean!" That being said, the world is full of idiots.
June 19, 2008, 8:58:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Steve L
I apologize for pushing this (so that it will be seen by the movers and shakers) but undoubtedly some organization is going to come up with an award that has the potential to positively influence this profession. So I just hope they see and adopt the criteria below which so far has been overwhelmingly endorsed by fellow bloggers.  
Please let me be the 1st to call for the creation of the “Tim Russert Award for Journalism”
Crucial criteria;
1    Distinction in the practice of a strictly non-partisan approach to covering the news and interviewing news makers (Russert was a liberal but he never wore it on his sleeve)
2    Distinction in the practice fairness by covering the pros and cons of any issue with a fair sense of balance  
3    Distinction in the practice in uncovering new facts and information that enlightens the public debate. Aggressive pursuit of the facts and the truth.
4    Distinction in the practice of practicing journalism that presents information, positions and options but DOES NOT ADVOCATES a position point of view or policy.
5    Distinction in the practice of providing facts, research and information that is credible and not pseudo science or advocacy group positions (unidentified experts cited) masquerading as legitimate studies
6    Distinction in the practice of using named souses and minimizing unnamed sources.
7    Distinction in the practice of thorough journalism that avoids omission of relevant facts  
Any award that uses Russert's name that does not use this crucial criteria would be a travesty and disservice to him and his brand of fair journalism.
Steve L
June 19, 2008, 9:31:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply

cee | 06.19.08 - 8:57 am |
Why is it almost a knee-jerk response that,when someone suggests irresponsibility on the part of some individuals on the far right (ie Hannity,Kristol), the response is to point out similar offenses on the left?
Are you agreeing that Hannity and Kristol are smear merchants but it's OK because the far left does it too?
June 19, 2008, 9:31:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
"Divisiveness" would imply reciprocity, and I am not excusing what you call the "left" at all, Cee. On the contrary, I hold liberals to an even higher standard, as evidenced by my earlier confession of repulsion at Mr. Davis, a repulsion I also experience with Mr. Olbermann. One ought to do what he can to keep up his own neighborhood. You did rather prove my point, as you also do each time you intentionally use the dismissive and condescending term for one of our presidential nominees. That contributes nothing to a meaningful, positive dialogue. The responsibility of free speech, a lesson for us ALL, the responsibility of free press, a lesson for ALL the cable news and broadcast news outlets ...!
Interesting point, Gibson, very interesting, although I tend to go with the idiots' side, probably because I've long been paté among crackers. Still, that Colmes, of all people, would provoke such a reaction .... I tend to agree with his views, but I generally find him a rather weak sister.
June 19, 2008, 9:32:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fast Eddie
notveryhow | 06.19.08 - 8:03 am | #  
Everybody on TV receives hate mail. Please don't act like you are not aware of this.
June 19, 2008, 9:39:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I think the reaction comes, more from anything else, from Colmes' style of questioning. He tends to blurt out a question (talking point) then not allow the guest to answer. He also cuts people off in mid-sentence if they start to make sense.
June 19, 2008, 9:54:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I think Hannity's style of questioning is annoying. He just spits out the same talking points every time.  
However, I like Hannity & Colmes. I just wish they had less one-person guest segments and more panels with debating. I also wish there was more true balance in the show.  
BTW, people, Hannity has his "hate Hannity hot-line."
June 19, 2008, 10:06:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fast Eddie | 06.19.08 - 9:44 am |  
I did not state or imply that.What is your point?
If the President recieves a threat,is it irrelevent because the Speaker of the House also recieved one?
June 19, 2008, 10:13:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I agree with you RE Hannity's style of questioning; dittos (sorry Rushian slip) for Bill O'Reilly. Many, if not most, TV interviewers make the mistake of thinking the interview is really about what THEY think.
As for "hate lines" my opinion is bipartisan: They all need to quit whining.
June 19, 2008, 10:15:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Many, if not most, TV interviewers make the mistake of thinking the interview is really about what THEY think.
Agreed.This is why I avoid 'confrontation' style programming.One learns nothing from interviewers who interrupt or talk over their guests.One also learns litttle of import from listening to 2 opposing guests snarking at each other.
A classic example of this was when Oscarwienerjob (Pres of Iran) appeared at Columbia Univ.By allowing him to state his case without interruption,he made a much bigger fool of himself than any hostile interviewer could ever have ever done.
June 19, 2008, 10:29:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

"By allowing him to state his case without interruption,he made a much bigger fool of himself than any hostile interviewer could ever have ever done."
Yes, just give them the rope (time).
Of course, to do this, one has to be quick enough to ask good follow-up questions. It seems, at times, some interviewers have a list of questions they feel compelled to get through come hell or high water.
June 19, 2008, 10:36:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Got news for ya, otm. Hating and smearing is your SOP and always has been.
June 19, 2008, 10:40:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Feeling a little... let's say, feisty today. So I responded to Mr. Watkins blog post. Let's see if he responds...
This is the first time I’ve ever stopped by this blog, so I’m a little curious about something: As a professor, do you allow your students to also make wild claims, without having done any actual research, or providing any evidence?
Let’s take a look at few things you’ve said:
“I just heard from a friend…”
So you didn’t actually hear it yourself… you’re just going on what he/she told you.
“…I read that Juan has actually asked Senator Barack Obama to apologize…”
Where did you read this? Why is there no link? Did you read it on a napkin… or was it somewhere slightly more reliable?
“My man Roland Martin had him on his radio show, and I am sure Roland handled Juan.”
Again, you didn’t actually hear it, or talk to Mr. Martin about it… you’re just guessing.
“…my inside indication is that Cosby doesn't have much respect for Juan.”
Evidence? Proof? Anything other than your unknown and unnamed ‘sources’?
I remember when I was in college, only a few short years ago, and my professors required me to actually back up the things I said… not just spout widely, and hope that someone listens. I guess I’m glad I didn’t take the money SU offered me… and instead went somewhere else.
OH… and one more thing… I’m curious about your theory that Black people shouldn’t write, publish, or talk to organizations that are “predominantly white,” like (as you suggest, but provide no statistics for) the Wall Street Journal. It seems to me, that you’re suggesting some sort of voluntary segregation be put in place, so that Blacks only talk to Blacks, and (I suppose) Whites only talk to Whites. At the same time you suggest this, you of course suggest that groups need to be more integrated, more diverse, and less racially identical. How can you claim to fight against racism, when at the same time, you appear to fighting FOR racism.
And what about Sen. Barack Obama’s similar comments about Black fathers:
“You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”  
You probably feel that he was wrong too. After all, he shouldn’t have been talking about “the problems of the black community” in such a public forum.
So which is it? Are you a hypocrite for attacking one, but not the other… OR, are you equally hateful and racist, no matter who the speaker is?
Just curious.
June 19, 2008, 12:19:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'd say 'feisty' pretty much describes it!  Keep an eye on that INB, and let us know here what develops.
June 19, 2008, 12:24:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply

It is clear that this Boyce W. character has a very psychotic obsession with Juan Williams. But I think the best we can do is to ignore him, as Laura Ingraham told O'Reilly a few weeks ago.
And I see that Roland Martin is once again brought up. Martin represents the very left wing of Christianity, and in no way expresses the views of evangelical Christians. I am sick of seeing him depicted as such.
June 19, 2008, 12:51:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
On behalf of BOR, I'm sorry he reported on the chancellor of Syracuse University not taking action on Boyce Watkins. He hasn't since last month.
June 19, 2008, 1:13:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Steve L
Excellent comments. I hope they take them to heart!  
Thanks for taking the time to do it.
June 19, 2008, 1:13:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
I meant BOR has not reported on the "Dr." The chancellor is Nancy Cantor, a woman. So, when I said "he," I was not referring to Chancellor Cantor.
June 19, 2008, 1:14:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Yes, INB, good job re: BW. He's another Ward Churchill.
June 19, 2008, 1:45:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Just happened to note the top two stories at jossip.com right now. I wonder where they picked those up from?
June 19, 2008, 2:20:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
“…my inside indication is that Cosby doesn't have much respect for Juan.”
This sounds identical to a certain poster here.....
I suspect he (Brokaw) holds Beck, Dobbs, Hannity and O'Reilly in low regard as well,
by otm
June 19, 2008, 2:50:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
How can you claim to fight against racism, when at the same time, you appear to fighting FOR racism.
by inb
Outstanding point..
June 19, 2008, 2:52:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
I wouldn't wish falling down a flight of stairs on anyone. In fact, I always try to be careful going up and down stairs. I hope Glenn Beck, whom I'm talking about in case nobody saw the link yet, recovers completely from the fall.
June 19, 2008, 2:56:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Slippery is saying the drooler is mounting an attack on Fox today. This should be good. Haa!
June 19, 2008, 4:20:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

ImNotBlue | 06.19.08 - 12:24 pm |
I'm not going to defend the good Dr Watkins.He seems to be suffering from a severe phobia of "airing dirty laundry in public".Though there are those who will take every shortcoming of the black community, whether real or fictional,and use it to paint said community as perhaps not deserving of respect (or anything else) from the white community.(Look at Rush's comments contrasting Katrina and Iowa.)Being a "one people,one nation" kind of guy,I find Dr Watkins attitude short-sighted and destructive.
I would only (light-heartedly) take exception to your demand for footnotes and/or sourcing.The good doctor is musing on a blog,not writing a term paper.If we applied that same standard to opinionators of all types,the unemployment lines would get much longer.
But let me try to illustrate my view on fatherhood.Some years back I worked in a rehabilitation facility for adolescent addicts and alcoholics.One night a young man got a phone call from a friend that a young woman he had impregnated had given birth.He had no intention of being involved in this childs life.He felt no sense of responsibility.Yet he paraded around gathering kudos from the other residents and crowing "I'm a daddy."
Now in social work we try to remain non-judgemental,as it's hard to reach someone who thinks you don't respect them,but this was too much.I invited this fella to a private corner,and let him know in very salty language that I didn't see him being a "daddy",that a 12 year old or a turkey baster could have done the same thing he had done.He was much deflated.
June 19, 2008, 4:42:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

NVH, very quickly... I understand where you're coming from in regards to sources, although I believe that when you level certain charges against someone, there is an inherent responsibility to be able to back them up. If you're going to suggest that Cosby doesn't like Williams, that's a pretty serious charge, you better have something to back it up. And likewise, if you're going to use someone’s article or radio program as evidence, shouldn't you have at least read or heard the program... not just guessed on what was said?
Watkins has every right to his opinion, but without some sort of substance behind it, how can he be taken seriously?
As to your story about the addict-father... well done. It's why I don't own a turkey baster.
June 19, 2008, 5:36:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
That's gonna leave a mark.......
June 19, 2008, 6:01:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Is it really necessary to copy and past comments from other blogs you have posted on?
Isn't it sufficient and appropriate to simply link to the blog and make a statement regarding a comment you have made there?
J$, should you be encouraging that?
June 19, 2008, 6:02:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Watkins has every right to his opinion, but without some sort of substance behind it, how can he be taken seriously?
June 19, 2008, 6:15:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

david smawley
wher are the 25 to 57 numbers for wed. night?
June 19, 2008, 7:47:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, an economist, a political expert or a judge to figure out why nbc will only get 13% of 1.4 billion dollars for advertising. Fox will get 47%. No surprises, there. Way to go, Immelt and Griffy!
June 19, 2008, 9:04:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
OS, weren't some Fox haters on this blog recently touting how Olby was getting the prime demo and therefore getting the advertisers?
I wonder what they have to say now, when not just the ratings, but to a greater extent the advertising dollar numbers are aired.
June 19, 2008, 9:31:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
I believe you are referring to the poster sometimes known as 'haggis farmer.'
June 19, 2008, 9:59:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Average Americam Patriot aka Patsy has said the same thing countless times. When you get your "news" from sources like "newshounds" it's to be expected.
June 19, 2008, 10:02:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
That's right, it was Haggis Farmer. I'll have to bring that up with him next time he's around.
June 19, 2008, 10:05:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
I am so glad it's been relatively quiet today. We had one troll late last night, Eric, and one around 6:00 with the measurement name.
June 19, 2008, 10:32:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
You mean 10centimeters? He's just a little squirt with a flaccid personality.
June 19, 2008, 10:40:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I suggest you reread this entire thread. You can start with your first statement.  
Some of the responses and distractions are archetypal.
June 19, 2008, 10:48:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
Hard as it is at times, and unlike OS, I merely consider OTM and NVH dissenting regulars.
June 19, 2008, 11:29:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Take your mind off that airport stall. 10 inch is my shoe size.
You can consider me a regular now.
June 19, 2008, 11:40:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
That'll teach me. I'm sorry.
June 19, 2008, 11:56:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Not a problem MkeC. In fact, to demonstrate my goodwill, I may considering leaving a comment on your blog in the future.
June 20, 2008, 12:03:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Is it really necessary to copy and paste comments from other blogs you have posted on?
Well, normally no. But since J$ linked to that story, I felt posting my response to Mr. Watkins was appropriate.
Judging by the response it got from those around here... I was correct.
I could have rephrased it to be unique to this site (change the "you"-s into "he"-s, and so on), but that seems like a waste of time, no?
So... is that all you have to say about that link, and my response? No comments about what he said... no comments about what I said? What do you think?
June 20, 2008, 12:40:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
I merely consider OTM and NVH dissenting regulars.
Mike C. | Homepage | 06.19.08 - 11:34 pm | # 
If you were aware or understood their history, you would understand their motives. They play 'nicey nice' from time to time. It's just a mask.
In regards to "10 inch," he's not new, either. New in name, only.
June 20, 2008, 12:44:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
INB, how do you defend the indefensible? "10 inch" is doing nothing more than attacking the messenger. In this case, you. You did the right thing by copying and pasting the full context of your post.
June 20, 2008, 12:51:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well maybe I might have something to say about this? We don't like people cutting and pasting stuff in comments threads when they're quoting some article or something. A link is much nicer.
But in this case, INB wasn't quoting someone else. It was his own words. And they were a direct reaction to one of today's cable news links, which makes them more relevant and on-topic than a lot of the stuff I see. Besides, there is no rule saying you can't post a comment here if you posted it somewhere else as well.
June 20, 2008, 1:00:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
The floor is yours......
June 20, 2008, 1:11:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Oh my. I didn't mean to upset everyone. I just find it an all too common and narcissistic practice to write a comment on one board and then paste it on other boards. 
However, obviously my opinion on this practice is not shared by the moderato's r and I apologize for having brought it up.
OlbySucks, I assure you I have not posted a comment here to my knowledge in the past year, although I admit reading it regularly. As for your contempt for OTM and NVH, while I agree their conduct may be a mask, what should be the appropriate response or treatment for their blasphemy?
June 20, 2008, 1:23:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
I don't think anyone is upset. 
I think it's a little strange to repost something you've posted elsewhere, too. In INB's case, it was actually interesting and he made valid points. Plus, Johnny gets a little testy when posters repost already posted links. INB must have had that in mind when he made his post.
You claim you haven't posted here 'to your knowledge' in the past year? So, I was right. You have posted here. Different name, too? Out of respect for others, I'll say no more because we're way off topic.
June 20, 2008, 2:41:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply

No, I am pretty certain I haven't posted here since J$ went to this new format with multiple links within one post. If I posted here prior to that it was a passing comment.
I must say I like this format of multiple links within one post. While I have to carefully scrutinize where i am going before clicking on a link, I find a number of interesting reads from this blog.
June 20, 2008, 2:51:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply

what should be the appropriate response or treatment for their blasphemy?
10inch | 06.20.08 - 1:28 am | # 
Wow,that's a new one.
June 20, 2008, 7:38:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
Would it be inappropriate for me to suggest, save and except to our usual gang of wailing and rollicking paranoics, of course, that it is not so much blasphemy as heterodoxy? I consider people who get all their news from either MSNBC or CNN to be every bit as ill-informed as people who get all their news from FNC. In point of fact, if one had to chose between FNC and MSNBC, I might tend to recommend going with the former. FNC may be a mere shotgun approach to news, a bit unevenly distributed on the right side of the shell, to be sure, but you do get broad coverage if not in depth coverage. With MSNBC, breadth is often sacraficed for depth. I suppose if I were limited to just one cable news network, it would be CNN, a nice balance of breadth and depth and otherwise more balanced as well, in the States, and the BBC World Report, abroad (and in preference to CNN International). While BBC World Report is a bit heavy into sport and weather, it is amazingly broad and deep. No place for half-wits, however .... The presumption is you know something going in. I rather like the respect accorded the viewer.
June 20, 2008, 8:01:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
BBC World is good in that you get news from all over the world, it's bad in that the bias is very deep but usually detectible.
June 20, 2008, 8:27:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
There is a strong bias, often from an American perspective, a strong anti-American bias. You do have to sift. But, don't you find that to be the case, generally, on most news, cable, broadcast, radio or print? It has always seemed to me to be one of my jobs as a news consumer. I'm not sure "objective" exists, or that it ever existed.
June 20, 2008, 8:45:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
OTM: I find that America (as a society), on the whole, is much more conservative than the entire rest of the world. Thus I see the bias in the foreign press is stronger than the usual left-bias here in America.
I'm not sure "objective" exists, or that it ever existed.
The question is valid. The problem is many news organizations make the claim taht their news is or tries to be objective.
I think this illusion needs to be dropped. People should declare their affinities, so that when someone does get their news from that person, the consumer can make note of potential bias.
June 20, 2008, 8:53:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
All very good points, Vince.
I think it is all too easy to get tripped up on the conservative term when we cross borders. "Conservative" means something very different in the UK than it does in America, and something different still in France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, etc. I don't believe there is some pan-conservatism or pan-liberalism. I'm not sure our news organizations believe or understand that. Gordon Brown and Labor are probably on their way out, and will be replaced by the Tories. Tories aren't Republicans, and the media in the US strains that analogy.
Europeans, to a great extent, the British, to a lesser extent, have a strong corporate/communal ethos. Americans have an individual ethos. We come together when circmstances dictate, but we generally want to be left the hell alone. I applaud that, and I can be every bit as unhappy with a liberal dictating what I do in my boardroom as with a conservative telling me what to do in my bedroom. That is simply an American attitude.
Within our nation, I am far more interested in ethics and professionalism in journalism than I am with so-called objectivity. MSNBC has a liberal-bias and FNC a conservative-bias. So? That alone doesn't make either inadequate or bad. It means they both have something to offer.
Thanks for your perspective.
June 20, 2008, 9:26:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
I know American Conservatism is sort of a unique beast. I dont think it translates well to describe overseas except perhaps as "those against anti-christian multi-cultural socialism"
"Anti-christian multi-cultural socialism" Seems to be one of the ways the International Left could be described.
I dont think any one idea explains the International Right.. I dont think there is an International Right.
June 20, 2008, 9:35:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
10inch | 06.19.08 - 11:45 pm | #
I see. You measure your shoe size in inches now. What shoe store sells using that again?
What name did you used to use here on the old format site? I'm sure I was around to enjoy your company.
I'm with Mike C on nvh and OTM. As OS says however, we are ignorant to past transgressions on their part. I won't hold it against them.
June 20, 2008, 10:07:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply

"Anti-christian multi-cultural socialism" Seems to be one of the ways the International Left could be described.
That to me seems to be a great oversimplification to describe "the Left" internationally,or even within the borders of the United States.
The Catholic Church embraces many people and many cultures within the body of Christ,and economic justice is an important tenet of many Catholics world view.Locally here we have the Mennonites.Check out some of the doings of the Mennonite Central Commitee in their adherence to the teachings of Christ.
June 20, 2008, 10:10:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
Hopefully, Johnny will indulge me just a bit to say to many of you and to him that it can be very affirming to share different points of view and to do so in a way that doesn't abuse or denigrate. A different perspective is always a gift, and one of the ways it gives is to allow one to re-examine his own views, testing all, affirming some, tempering some, changing or rejecting some.
June 20, 2008, 10:39:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
Some of what's posted above me could be topic drift, but I don't know. Whatever.
June 20, 2008, 12:41:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yeah it drifted a bit but it wasn't too bad and didn't get heated so I let it go. But drift can only drift so far before it gets de-drifted, if you get my drift.
June 20, 2008, 12:43:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, an economist, a political expert or a judge to figure out why nbc will only get 13% of 1.4 billion dollars for advertising. Fox will get 47%. No surprises, there. Way to go, Immelt and Griffy!
olby sucks | Homepage | 06.19.08 - 9:09 pm | # 
Just realized I made a mistake. I meant MSnbc, not nbc. My apologies.
June 20, 2008, 1:08:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
"Out of 18 million people,I don't find it suprising that some small percentage would harbor enough bitterness,resentment or even racism to decide they would vote for John Mccain.I also don't find it suprising that fox would give these few a platform to create and reinforce the impression that this is a wholesale movement."
by nvh
June 20, 2008, 1:19:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike C.
Now, it's drifting. And I only said "whatever" because I didn't want to get reprimanded by the drifters.
June 20, 2008, 1:30:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yes it is a bit, and I expect that to cease before too much longer.
June 20, 2008, 1:34:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Both of my recent posts were regarding cable news. So, you must be referring to someone else.
June 20, 2008, 1:48:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply