Fox News is at it again: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25129598/

I'm actually gonna go for clueless.

The culture there has gone so far south of what News actually is, that what's left there now is just a silly game, where there are few boundaries and ratings matter more than the state of things does.

And of course, there is the "Terrorist Fist Jab"

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/10/fox-calls-obamas-fist-bump-a-terrori st-fist-jab/

Any news organization (and I use the term VERY loosely in this case) that promotes the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Laura Ingram, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin as a source of fair and balanced news is clearly delusional. The racist overtones of the aforementioned caption only reinforces FOX News’s overall product – shrill and maligning tripe. And just think folks, this is only the beginning of the general election season. If you think this is bad, just wait until Roger Ailes and his FOX News Hate Machine go into overdrive. People thought that the racist Jesse Helms campaign against his opponent Harvey Gantt in 1990 was bad. You’ll think that disgraced former Republican Arizona Governor and noted bigot Evan Mecham is producing FOX News’s election year coverage. Folks, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Aw, c'mon about your 'hate machine' language.

Really.

I listen to Thom Hateman, er ah, Hartman, Mike Malloy [who rivals Ed Anger over at the now-defunct poor man's National Enquirer, ye olde Weekly World News] along with the uber-snide Stephanie Miller, all broadcast on KPOJ, 'progressive' talk radio.

Please spare us the hand wringing on this one. There are few conservatives who come close to slinging as much mud as they do. Those people have it down to an art form.

I'm not saying both sides aren't into hate.

But if you're going to go after the right, then at least be intellectually honest about how vitriolic your leftist pals have become.

Herb

I would say that it is very unprofessional for a broadcaster trying to market itself as a "news" outlet to call anyone's wife a "baby momma," but I haven't ever heard of this term being specifically an anti-Black slur. To me it sounds like they were playing on the sound of Obama's name to be cute. "Obama's baby momma" has a lot of Bs and Ms and is somewhat of a tongue-twister. This might have been funny on Saturday Night Live, but it doesn't belong on a news station.

I am thankful for two things. I don't have cable TV. I don't listen to talk radio.

And by the way, I think I'm pretty smart. thbpthpbthbpthbp!!!

Herb, I think Malloy is on par with the FOX crap, but Thom Hartman just isn't.

And, as always, you confuse disapproval with hate.

"Osama / Obama" = a slur on a name and is not defensible.

"Baby Mama" = racist slur, and is also not defensible.

Both of these are wrapped in the claim of a mistake, or ignorance. Neither of which is acceptable on national TV, and that makes both of those indefensible. Ok, maybe once could be excused, but not to the degree we see on FOX.

Everybody knows the implication of those two expressions, and everybody knows it's a blatant race and or creed degradation of the person.

Not ok, you know it, and I know it, along with everybody else, that does not have to "talk openly" among friends to feel good about it.

Obama has the name he's given, and has the race he has from biology. That's what makes these things just unacceptable.

Now, let's compare Thom.

He says our President is a criminal, or the worst ever, or that he is putting us in danger, or corrupt. He goes as far as to say why he thinks that is and what we should do about it. He does this with Republicans a lot.

Given the sheer amount of evidence, he's got it really easy, but he goes the extra mile.

He also invites them on to debate them, fact check himself and them, and make sure both sides are aired regularly and often.

The negative commentary he directs at people is linked directly to their life choices. They have control over those things. When he is done, you have a very rational assessment of things, are informed, and have a clear understanding of what is opinion and what is fact supporting it.

So, that is acceptable and defensible. In fact, it's damn solid for the AM dial. Unmatched, for the most part.

You see, they don't have to be assholes, where Obama has to be black.

You always ignore that part when trying to prop FOX up. You also always ignore it when you call people in here haters too.

I could pull at least 20 threads out of the archives on this, all ending the same way. You make some bull shit comparison, as if we've never had the conversation before. You then get your ass kicked about it, sometimes repeatedly, depending on how annoying it was, then you go silent.

You never really do admit you are just flat out wrong. I think you do this, for the reason I put on the Dodge list, inspired by this topic, BTW; namely, that you can bring it up another day. If you just admit it's stupid and that you are wrong, then you can't bring it up again, and again, and again.

That's a slimy, sleezy game Herb.

I'll give you Malloy. He does go way over the line I would feel good about, and does it often.

But to say that about Thom is just ignorant.

Alfredo, exactly!

FOX is not a news network. It's not even close to being that, where politics are concerned. It's news-tainment where opinion is so blended with facts that viewers end up less informed overall than on any other network.

Maybe this is a part of why Herb has such a problem with being accurate in his claims of hate!

FOX News bills itself as a purveyor of "NEWS", in fact branding itself as “FAIR AND BALANCED”. For this “FAIR AND BALANCED” news organization to engage in racially insensitive and politically motivated wedge speech would seem to corrupt the whole notion of “FAIR AND BALANCED”. It would seem more logical for FOX News to simply articulate their conservative predisposition front and center rather than pretending to report on issues without a presumed bias.

As for trying to compare politically opinioned radio talk show hosts to a “FAIR AND BALANCED” news operation is like comparing apples and oranges. Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh are not journalists – they are entertainers. Like Mort Saul without the wit. They each have an agenda, are marketed as such and are without any pretense of being “FAIR AND BALANCED”.

In terms of vitriolic hyperbole, the right wing radio cabal has it all wrapped up. If you were to research the numbers of successful conservative radio talk hosts compared to those espousing a liberal agenda, the numbers fall firmly on the side of the conservatives.

Nice catch.

Of course, entertainers hold a different standard. That makes it all so easy.

See, this is what FOX has done. Muddy the waters to the point where it's just noise and they put out the noise they think is FAIR so that things are BALANCED.

Way different than being fair and balanced in their coverage of things.

Spin doctors, all of them.

I listen to Thom Hateman.

Doubt that Herbocrite....

The FOX news network serves up a specific brand of ideological comfort food with its news. This is one of many flavors of ideological comfort food that are out there. I'm going to start a new topic about these "comfort foods" in the morning. I really need to get to bed now.

I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, but I don't understand how the term "baby momma" has a racist element behind it in itself. Previously, I had heard this term used to refer to an unwed teen mother. Of course, using this term to refer to any man's wife is a grave insult because it trivializes their marriage. I can just imagine the fireworks that would go off if tomorrow, I asked any one of my male co-workers, "hey, how's your baby momma doing these days?" Can somebody explain to me other uses or innuendo behind the term "baby momma" that I might have missed?

Of course his wife is his babies’ mama. Twice IIRC.

Everyone is too concerned with making something bad of it. Maybe they were talking about his children’s mama!

LOL.

Folks check out alexa.com

You will see that more people go to cnn than foxnews.

'You always ignore that part when trying to prop FOX up.'

I never gave Fox a pass. Please re-read my post:

'I'm not saying both sides aren't into hate. But if you're going to go after the right, then at least be intellectually honest about how vitriolic your leftist pals have become.'

Herbert Hoover Milhous

'I listen to Thom Hateman.'

'Doubt that Herbocrite....'

The only hypocrite is you, Trixter. Your constant flip-flopping on your supposed support of Mr. McCain tells us all we need to know about you.

And I likely listen to far more leftist broadcasting than you do from the right, including KPOJ, NPR & KBOO. That helps explain how I know so much about hand-wringing, America-bashing, self-loathing leftists. You guys are hardly a monolithic bloc and I've been reading your mail for years.

Herb

And that's exactly my point Herb.

Thom does not do hate radio, period.

The reason why lies in my post and is exactly the thing you ignore.

'Thom does not do hate radio, period.'

Fine. Let's give him that much. Let's say he's not into hate.

In the opinion of many, he proffers a snide, crass personae in the mould of Rush Limbaugh. He is also into intellectual dishonesty.

For example, this very morning, he rails about the evils of corporate influence.

How about the evils of those who line their own pockets through liberal lobbying influence? Leftist unions like the NEA, SEIU and all the other groups who are rarely if ever mentioned?

Naw, Mr. Hartman may be a nice guy. But he's like Bill Press and all the other myopic lefties. They have little to stand on whilst railing against their mirror images from the right.

Herbert Walker Milhous

Hey, I think corporate influence needs to be seriously checked.

There are rational, non hate reasons, for holding that opinion.

He's not like Rush at all, nor dishonesty.

Again, he REGULARLY invites counter points onto his show, for exactly that reason. Doesn't edit them, debates them, and generally gives them their time.

Often they significantly improve his position!

You are just picking on the wrong guy. Malloy? Sure, but not Thom.

All of FOX does not stand up to that guy and his quality of broadcast.

'...generally gives them their time.'

If there is a podcast of Mr. Hartman's 'interview' with Mr. Ralph Reed yesterday, Mr. Hartman interrupts just as much as Shaun Hannity interviewing his philosophical opponents. If Hannity is a bully, then so is Mr. Hartman.

Herb

I would actually vote for racist and clueless together. Howard Beale was right.

Rupert Murdoch just bought himself a journalism school, so we ought to expect a whole new generation of smug kids. Taught to lie with a straight face, trained to obfuscate and given plenty of reasons to never venture past the edge of their desk for a story. Anyone unfamiliar with Roger Ailes, Pat Buchanan or the roles they played for their former boss, Richard Nixon, might think that Fox (or Pat) is simply off-base, tawdry or sloppy. Rest assured, the network makes few mistakes, uses framing to define truth and is a well oiled political machine.

On the other hand, they do have slipping ratings. I mentioned this fact a few months ago and was slapped down. The truth is that MSNBC and CNN have beat Fox with far greater consistency over the past year than they have in the past. For instance, Keith Olbermann has outdrawn Bill O'Reilly in the 25-54 demographic enough times to make FNC nervous. Though his win this past week was heralded as a breakthrough, it is not the first time KO ko'ed Billo. The erosion is not just in commentary numbers. Other channels simply cover breaking news with greater depth and clarity.

Once the viewers solidly shift away, the days of business as usual at FSN will be numbered. Yes, that does call for celebration. Unfortunately, the shift from real journalism on television to simple minded entertainment did not begin and will not end with Fox. When Tucker Carlson is a shoe salesman, we can chuckle about it. When Jim Lehrer and Amy Goodman are in the thick of the ratings race, things will have actually changed for the better.

I imagine if Edward R. Murrow were still alive, he would get a kick out of Keith Olbermann's sign off.

Mr. Olbermann is a crazed, foaming at the mouth extremist.

Fox has nothing to be worried about from him. But if former McNeil-Lehrer co-anchor Robert McNeil were to join MSNBC, THEN I would worry.

Mr. Olbermann is a caricature of himself.

Herb

No, Mr. Olbermann is an articulate, thoughtful, well-researched extremist*.

Olbermann backs up what he says with verifiable facts. Is that why he scares you, Herb? I say 'scare' because you have caricatured him in a pretty scary way - I assume that's how he comes across to you.




(Herb's definition: extremist - anyone who speaks up in opposition of current right-wing policies or actions)

Mr. Olbermann is a crazed, foaming at the mouth extremist.

Like YOURSELF


Mr. Olbermann is a caricature of himself.

As YOU are too.

Thanks for setting us straight Herbocrite

http://podblanc.com/keith-olbermann-foams-mouth-over-rfk-obama-assassination-rem ark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7rUHpRg1Ik&feature=related

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/09/keith_olbermann_1.html

http://www.jossip.com/keith-olbermann-joins-david-gregorys-shit-list-in-the-midd le-of-a-live-broadcast-20080514/

It's called righteous indignation.

Edward R. Murrow would be proud.

"Good Night and Good Luck"

If Mr. Olbermann is a crazed, foaming at the mouth extremist, then Bill O'Reilly is a later day Morton Downey, Jr. Full of hot air and little substance. Nothing spells hate mongering, bombastic, self indulgent windbag like Bill O'Reilly.

Moht
Moht
Moht
Moht
Moht
Moht
!

Keith Olbermann is one of the best on TV. Day after day, Olbermann nails the right on their hypocrisy. That's why right wing zealots like Herb despise him.

Cockroaches scatter when the light is turned on.

Naw, Olbermann is simply a clown.
He's leftist entertainment, not news.

Herb

Herb, why would you link to a white supremacist group? Are you a fellow traveler of the White Now! crowd?

Vitalogy, that's why they call them crackers.

Herb writes:
Naw, Olbermann is simply a clown.
He's leftist entertainment, not news.

What's O'Reiley? Careful with your answer.

Naw, Olbermann is simply a clown.

If this is true then that makes Insannity and O'LIEly what??? COMPLETE IDIOTS!

"...white supremacist group..."

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Herb

Sure you don't Herbocrite....

The only hypocrite is you, who pretends to support Mr. McCain, then kicks him to the curb in order to back your leftist candidate.

What a poseur.

Herb

I supported him until I found out that HE wants to be just like DUHbya. THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT at ANY level.
You on the other hand don't want to do what is right for AMERICA.
YOUR the Herbocrite and bad for America.
Obama might think a little left of the line but if McSame is going to do exactly the same as DUHBya then I want NO part of it period!

Seriously, if anyone here is upset about the baby momma thing try to listen to Mike Malloy on Air America.

>>the baby momma thing

Fox has apologized for the incident...looks like some Fox producer in graphics wanted to get smart mouthed and got caught...not good for civility.

>> Nothing spells hate mongering, bombastic, self indulgent windbag like Bill O'Reilly.

funny...he just has the number one cable news show ever...think we're a little biased here?

"he just has the number one cable news show ever"

Overtaken by Keith Olbermann this past week!

In his last E-mail to Olbermann this past Tuesday from Tim Russert:

"Go get 'em KO!!"

Gee Broadway, Bill O'Reilly, the number one windbag on a cable news network. But since less than one percent of the US population watches Bill O'Reilly, I doubt his message of hate resonates much beyond evangelical bigots and their angry ilk.

Edselehr: "Herb, why would you link to a white supremacist group?"

Herb: "I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."

Me: "Really? Did you not explore your Nazi source? Do you vet any of your sources?"

http://podblanc.com/little-white-girl-lays-down-full-auto-ofasts-oklahoma-full-auto-shoot-trade-show
http://podblanc.com/bob-mathews-his-work-goes-on-tom-metzger
http://podblanc.com/fuck-niggers-fuck-jews-fuck-mexicans-too
http://podblanc.com/i-know-niggers-suck-johnny-rebel-with-dancing-hitler
http://podblanc.com/sleipnir-wille-zum-sieg
http://podblanc.com/even-jew-stewart-sees-aipac-power-and-pols-pandering
http://podblanc.com/national-socialism-and-power-reich
http://podblanc.com/nig-thugs-use-craigslist-iphone-scam-rob-kwa
http://podblanc.com/chaos-88-hurt-the-homeless
http://podblanc.com/nigger-sexual-predator-who-calls-himself-a-coach

Me: "Are you racist, or just clueless? Either way, I have not one shred of respect left for you Herb."

Wow Herb!
First a Christian Terrorist appologist, now a White supremacist appologist?

Are you branching out, or coming out of the closet?

Herb is just a run of the mill hater. One might call him a crazed, foaming at the mouth extremist. I think the truth has set us all free. Goodbye white hooded troll of the valley.

"Any news organization (and I use the term VERY loosely in this case) that promotes the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Laura Ingram, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin as a source of fair and balanced news is clearly delusional."

There is NEWS on that channel (Sheppard Smith, Brit Hume), and then there is commentary. In a question similar to the one posed by the MSNBC article, I have to ask if you're delusional, or just ignorant. News organizations typically have editorial content as well as news. Those of us who can tell the difference take a far less extreme view on Fox News.

>>Overtaken by Keith Olbermann this past week

MSNBC has always been in cellar ratings wise for years...where are you getting your data???

Well, where are you getting yours?

Let's see who's right, eh?

Because if ratings give anything credibility, as you say they do, let's see how much they have, respectively.

Although I hope you wont try and backtrack if some demographic is marginalized by you. " Oh please. 18 - 34 year olds? Who cares who wins that battle? " No. That wouldn't be fair.

Now about just some raw numbers of viewers.

I hadn't heard too much about the ratings shift form anyone other than Olbermann himself. I certainly won't hear about that from anyone on Fox. But let's just see who's winning. By the good old fashioned " most " demographic.

25-54 demographic
I guess that leave the Geezer (McBush) demographic for Billo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_106298.html

http://digg.com/politics/Olbermann_Beats_O_Reilly

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/10/olbermanns-ratings-top-oreillys/

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/a-ratings-coup-for-keith-olbermann /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyTO5E05Bio

http://hyerstandard.com/olbermann-surpasses-oreilly-in-the-network-news-ratings- war/

http://haas414.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/olbermanns-ratings-beat-oreilly-film-at- 11/

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=61450

Well this is interesting...sounds like each host is touting a ratings win of themselves. Someone needs to get us some overnight Nielson numbers which may require some $ to really settle this.

listen to Mike Malloy on Air America.

NO Fin way! Hate Monger big time! Just like LimBALH and O'LIEly.

he just has the number one cable news show ever...

Sorry BROADway that would be WWE's RAW. And it's not even close....

Raw is a NEWS show?

"Someone needs to get us some overnight Nielson numbers..."

According to Nielsen Media Research, the CNN program Anderson Cooper 360 was the second highest rated show on cable last week. No other news channel made the top ten.

I found an archive of Nielsen cable ratings that goes back to last fall, so I have compiled every entry by a news network.

It shows that for the week ending June 8, 2008, CNN had two shows in the top 20 with AC 360 at #4 and CNN Election Center at #18. No other news channel made the top twenty.

"[O'Reilly] just has the number one cable news show ever... think we're a little biased here?"

During the week ending May 4, 2008 The O'Reilly Factor hit #19. It was Billo's only top twenty appearance in almost a year of numbers. According to the same Nielsen archive, "Part two of Hillary Clinton with Bill O'Reilly on Thursday also made the top 40 with 3.193 million viewers, almost all of whom were 55 years old or older." Again, no other news channel made the top twenty.

The archive shows that CNN Election Center came in at #14 for the week ending 3/9/2008. Once again, no other news channel made the top twenty.

"MSNBC has always been in cellar ratings wise for years...where are you getting your data?"

The Nielsen archive shows that the top two spots in all of cable television were held by the same network for the week ending 3/02/2008. MSNBC nailed down #1 with the Democratic Debate and #2 with Special Coverage. With a combined viewership of over 14 million, they were alone among news networks in the top twenty.

CNN put two shows in the top 20 for the week ending 2/24/2008. The archive shows that AC 360 was #2 and the Democratic debate was #3 -- combining for over 14 million viewers. As ever, no other news channel made the top twenty.

The archive shows that two news networks hit the top twenty for the week ending 2/10/2008. Super Tuesday was good for cable. CNN scored #4, #6 and #7 with Election Center and a combined viewership of just under 12 million. FNC managed to draw almost 3.7 million and came in at #9.

Two news networks also shared the top twenty for the week ending 2/3/2008. CNN held the top two, and four of the top fifteen spots scoring around 20 million viewers. The Democratic debate came in at #1 and Anderson Cooper 360 at #2. Another night of AC 360 came in at #10 with the Republican debate at #15. FNC weighed in at #7 and #8 with the State of the Union address and post-speech analysis. Since the presentation was split into two parts, one can note that even among the Fox faithful, 40,000 people had seen and heard enough when the SOTU was over.

The archive of the week ending 1/27/2008 shows only one news network in the top twenty. CNN came in at #7 with the Democratic debate.

The Nielsen numbers show both FNC and CNN appeared in the top twenty for the week ending 1/13/2008. FNC placed the Republican debate at #10. CNN weighed in with AC 360 at #15 and the New Hampshire primary at #16.

CNN was alone among news networks for the week of 12/02/07 when the Youtube GOP debate came in at #9. Millions more watched it unfold on their computers.

The Oregon vs. Arizona game rounded out the top twenty for the week ending November 18, 2007. The Democratic debate came in at #19 for CNN. No other news channel cracked the top 20.

I combed back to September of 2007 for top twenty showings from the news networks. I came to the same conclusion that I argued for months ago: CNN has a stronger draw than FNC, and MSNBC is gaining ground. Over that time period, only CNN and MSNBC have held the two top spots or even rated in the top five. The ratings also show that Anderson Cooper is the most popular cable television news anchor. Captaindan is correct when he says, "more people go to CNN than Fox news."

According to Nielsen, September of 2007 was also the first time that Keith Olbermann beat Bill O'Reilly in the 25-54 demographic. As for the current battle, Nielsen has shown a flattening of Billo's numbers and a steady climb from KO. Among viewers 24-54 -- the demographic that advertisers most care about -- they are in a dead heat. I'm with Tim and Amus, "Go get 'em KO!!"

"Herb is just a run of the mill hater. One might call him a crazed, foaming at the mouth extremist. I think the truth has set us all free. Goodbye white hooded troll of the valley."

I'm going to be a bit more charitable, and assume that Herb is so unaccustomed to actually sourcing evidence for his arguments that he blindly, uncritically and unthinkingly just grabbed the link. I would be content with an "Oops, I'm sorry" from him. Which I have yet to see.

But he cannot evade the fact that his spin on the evidence is the same spin that white supremacists use to forward their agenda. This reveals a sad and discomforting side of Herb.

Almost everything on the "Politics and other things" board is sad and discomforting.

My bad on the NEWS SHOW thing.... I'm such a dummy sometimes....

I DVR O'Reilly pretty much every night and he occasionally and the end of his show will share ratings results...continual claims of his show beating out the combined audiences of MSNBC,CNN,and CNBC against his show in the 8pm easter live edition...even reported this last week.

Good grief...it's been a long time laughing stock joke about MSNBC ratings even on Don Imus before they nixed him...he would always make fun on air about their horrid numbers Guess this the same as radio...these hosts are taking their best numbers and tooting them on their shows.

I DVR O'Reilly pretty much every night.

OUCH!

Ok, let's settle something here.

O'Reilly is an entertainer, period end of story. So is Olberman and others.

The numbers they post are a measure of how entertained people are with the program. That's it. Those numbers do not reflect truth, nor do they indicate character, only popularity.

Works the same for dollars. One's bank account is no measure of one's character.

Make sense?

(god, I hope so)

Looking at the programs then, from this perspective, we are highly likely measuring affirmation as much as anything.

If you go back and fact check these programs, you will find O'Reilly having said a lot of bad stuff. You won't find so much of that on the Olberman program.

O'Reilly is a great broadcaster. He makes good TV. I've no problem with that. In fact, he's really, really great because he can pull the ratings, pushing very discriminatory and manupulative views.

Good on him, I guess...

Now the interesting thing is that Keith Olberman is also a great broadcaster. He can pull the numbers with different views and a much higher degree of fact checked content.

Know what?

Pro Wrestling pulls in the numbers too.

Think about that.

Pro Wrestling pulls in the numbers too.

Same with NECKcar. For that matter Ice Skating does as well......

Here's where I was going with that.

I think it's easier to get the ratings being an asshole than it is to get them being a stand up, solid person.

Why?

Because being an asshole carries with it a drama that can appeal on it's own merits. This does not add value to the information being presented, but carries with it morbid human interest.

This is what O'Reilly does!

Olberman is the better man because he can get the numbers and NOT do it with the asshole shock value ratings bump.

"I'm going to be a bit more charitable, and assume that Herb is so unaccustomed to actually sourcing evidence for his arguments that he blindly, uncritically and unthinkingly just grabbed the link. I would be content with an 'Oops, I'm sorry' from him. Which I have yet to see.

But he cannot evade the fact that his spin on the evidence is the same spin that white supremacists use to forward their agenda. This reveals a sad and discomforting side of Herb."

Edselehr, that is why you are a nicer guy than I am. I do hope you are right. I guess I feel that if this were the first time it might be different. Unfortunately, it is not and so I am a bit less charitable. He has shown all the poison and spinelessness of a jellyfish without any of the beauty or grace of that deadly sea creature.

We all get along well in spite of ourselves. There are few inexcusable things that have happened around here, but somehow he always seems to be in the middle of it when they do.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the same day that Herb ever posts a flat-out apology for anything that he's posted will be the same day that hell freezes over.

(If I wasn't so poor, I'd bet $50 on the first round of beverages at our next Meet & Greet.)

Your money is safe. You could bet the global GNP. A sincere direct answer, explanation or apology would not be forthcoming in this world or the next. As DT so eloquently says...

END OF LINE.

It's called FOX NEWS -- not FOX Commentary. To brand yourself as one thing but engage in another perverts the whole concept of being a legitimate news gathering operation. I mean look at the head of FOX News, he’s a former Republican image-maker.

As for editorial control, it doesn’t take a leap of faith to see FOX NEWS for what it truly is; a vehicle to promote conservative causes. I‘ve read several accounts of how producers for the so-called legitimate news component of the operation slant stories through a conservative prism.

If it is a legitimate news gathering organization, then why do so many people question the intergrity of their product?

"If it is a legitimate news gathering organization, then why do so many people question the integrity of their product?"

Exactly.

Some may remember that months and months ago I traced the history of Fox as a news gathering organization. I won't lay it all out again, but I will restate that it is remarkably consistent in message.

It has roots in newsreels of an era when theaters, distribution and actors were all studio property. Hearst may have controlled a newspaper empire, but the silver screen was even more powerful and held a captive audience. There was far more soul in radio even if journalists like "Murrow's Boys" had to paint it in words. In tandem, the mediums paved the way for television. Movietone made the transition for a time and was part of TV until 1963.

There were some historically significant reports, but on the whole, it was not always good journalism. Movietone News reflected a corporate, sometimes racist and often sensationalist point of view. The world was just another prop to be seen at a distance, prodded and made fun of, or wowed by the latest toys. While I will not knock the newsreels for their work during World War Two, to deny the role of propaganda would be foolish.

Television was the sharpest tool of the Cold War. The images of the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, and Apollo changed how America saw itself forever. The reality that we now live in an instant information society does not lessen the desire of some to control or distort the facts. Centuries past, I am sure the printing press was heralded as salvation for the truth when it blossomed too. Still, being able to vet our sources of information is a freedom we must exercise. Finding and sharing the truth is a small thing for our country to ask of us.

Fox News has hired Mike Huckabee as a political analyst. Just another "fair and balanced" person, eh??

If Fox News weren't preferred by so many of the more intelligent among us, you guys wouldn't be so touchy about it.

Like George W. Bush. Speaks volumes about the FOX News watching intelligentsia. It’s like Romper Room for the conservative set.

Dumber people watch Fox. This has already been proven.

Fox and their affiliates are definitely on the cutting edge:

• Defensive Driving
• Humping Hounds
• Celebrity Blowjobs
• Spanking Coworkers
• Dead Afghan Cocks
• Anal Seismology
• Amusing Vasectomies
• Sleeping on the Job
• Making Booze
• Cross Promotion

We are only touchy because they are seriously misrepresenting their product.

The bias they have isn't a problem. Bull shit is just bull shit. However, wrapping it up and trying to package it as something else is not ok.

I was just watching Senator Obama speaking to a church congregation in Chicago on C-SPAN. You can bet that after every visit to a church by Seantor Obama this campaign season, FOX NEWS will do its best to smear the church, its pastor and its congregants.

Yep.

Wish I had the link, but I read something from Newt, I think, saying the only way the GOP could win, or even mitigate the damage, was to smear hard. Forget the ideas competing on their merits. That's out.

Just hammer the other side hard.

Yeah, those are the guys I want representing me.

>>Dumber people watch Fox. This has already been proven

Good grief...thats a statement almost to dumb to respond to.

Intelligence Please!

Broadway, you have to consider the source of the statement.

Deane...yes I consider the source and expect more common sense posted on these boards by certain individuals. All of us here have lots of brain power, not very much wisdom to go with it.

Crying out for intellectual honesty.

Broadway, you are spot on.

Many, many liberals worship at the altar of knowledge...without discerning wisdom.

Herb

Hey Herb,

It's been since Friday that you've posted a link to a white supremacist group website in this thread.

I, like others, am hoping that you just posted a bunch of links that you Googled.

However, you've been suspiciously quiet about it since.

That's been bothering me all weekend.

I believe you to be at least honest in believing what you post, so let me ask you straight up;

Are you a white supremacist?

"Many, many liberals worship at the altar of knowledge...without discerning wisdom."

An absolute classic statement of truth.

"Are you a white supremacist?"

No and if I posted a link that had any racist mention, I confess to not seeing it and do not condone such talk.

If anyone is a supporter of equality around here, it is Ol' Herb...even liberals are getting the picture about how racist some liberal causes are:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm

And this, from an uber-leftist:

"For all her positive influence, I see Sanger as a tarnished heroine whose embrace of the eugenics movement showed racial insensitivity, at best. From her associates, as well as from some of the articles that were published in Sanger's magazine, The Birth Control Review, it is possible to conclude that "racially insensitive" is too mild a description. Indeed, some of her statements, taken in or out of context, are simply racist. And she never rebuked eugenicists who believed in improving the hereditary qualities of a race or breed by controlling mating in order to eliminate "undesirable" characteristics and promote "desirable" traits."

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618

To that, I'd add Robert KKK Byrd and Mr. Gore's own father, who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Thank You!!

You're welcome, and I thank you for bringing it up so I could set the record straight.

Some things both conservatives and liberals can agree upon without question.

What really fries my taters is how many African-Americans have bought into the 'pro-choice' view, particularly when so many little black babies are the ones to be aborted. It doesn't make sense in so many ways.

Herb

Agreed!

Hey, there's another one.

add: (my "agreed" was from before you added to your post BTW)

Just call me Herb 'Rodney King' Milhous.

Herb 'RK' Milhous

Yeah, I thought you probably were agreed before my hamfisted comment. No offense, but I'm still glad I made it, though.

HRKM

"What really fries my taters is how many African-Americans have bought into the 'pro-choice' view, particularly when so many little black babies are the ones to be aborted. It doesn't make sense in so many ways."

Last time I checked, abortion is a choice made by the woman no matter the race, not a requirement made by the government. If more black women are having abortions, that tells me more black women need to use birth control and receive more compreshensive sex ed.

>>more black women need to use birth control and receive more compreshensive sex ed

there is a ton of sex ed classed going on in our public school system all over...how's it workin for ya...

Where it's actually REAL sex education, it's working well.

Broadway, it worked great for me. I've had lots of sex in my day, never had an unplanned pregnancy or STD, and now thankfully DO have a planned pregnancy in the works.

However, not everyone receives the same education AT HOME. School is not the only place kids should be educated on sex.

>>REAL sex education

good grief...now we need something real...don't know where you're going...sounds like another seedy joke bout to happen.

Mr. Liggett: Now there seems to be a lot of confusion on this next question: asexual reproduction.

David Lightman: Ah-heh.
[whispers something to a classmate]

Jennifer: [overhearing, Jennifer starts to laugh]

Mr. Liggett: All right, Lightman. Maybe you can tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.

David Lightman: Um, your wife?

and the name of the movie is........???

It's an 80's classic with many scenes shot in the Pacific Northwest.

Here is a clue "It might help to beef up security around the W.O.P.R."

War Games. Greetings Joshua... Great movie.

Don't forget, Mr. "Rodney King", Margaret Sanger was born in 1879! That was a long. time ago, and she did far more "good" than "bad".

here's a bit from Wiki:

Sanger 1879-1966 was born in Corning, New York. Her mother...was a devout Roman Catholic who went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births)[1] before dying of tuberculosis and cervical cancer.

In 1916, Sanger published What Every Girl Should Know, which was later widely distributed as one of the E. Haldeman-Julius "Little Blue Books." It provided information about such topics as menstruation and sexuality in adolescents. It was followed in 1917 by What Every Mother Should Know.

Between 1921 and 1926, Sanger received over a million letters from mothers requesting information on birth control.[citation needed] From 1916 on, she lectured "in many places—halls, churches, women's clubs, homes, theaters" to "many types of audiences—cotton workers, churchmen, liberals, Socialists, scientists, clubmen, and fashionable, philanthropically minded women."[citation needed]

Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a social philosophy that gained strong support in the United States in the early 20th century.

Sanger remains a controversial figure. While she is widely credited as a leader of the modern birth control movement, and remains an iconic figure for the American reproductive rights movements, pro-life groups condemn Sanger's views, attributing her efforts to promote birth control to a desire to "purify" the human race through eugenics, and even to eliminate minority races by placing birth control clinics in minority neighborhoods.[22] Despite allegations of racism, Sanger's work with minorities earned the respect of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr.[23] In their biographical article about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood notes:

In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community's elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois.[24]

Oh, and hey, Mr. "Wannabe Rodney King":

Are you sure that you wanna be him? He's had a sad, hard life (and are you aware that he is black?):

After the riots King was awarded $3.8 million in a civil case. He then started a hip-hop label.

He was arrested again for spousal assault in 1999.

In 2001, he was ordered to undergo a year of drug treatment after pleading guilty to three counts of being under the influence of PCP and one of indecent exposure.[9]

On August 27, 2003, he was arrested again on similar charges as in 1991. It is alleged that King was speeding, ran a red light while under the influence of alcohol, failed to yield to police officers, and then slammed his SUV into a house, breaking his pelvis.

But hey, I'll happily be there with MY video cam to record what happens if you stand on your soap box in any predominantly black neighborhood and state: "What really fries my taters is how many African-Americans have bought into the 'pro-choice' view, particularly when so many little black babies are the ones to be aborted."

Yes, Herbbocrite, I'm calling you a racist. It's nothing new, either.

You've proven it to me time and time again when you bring up the holocaust and only wring your big white ham-fists only over the Jews.

You have NEVER, EVER, not once, mentioned, or shown any remorse for the dreaded Pope-water-holding Catholics, the gays, the blacks, the gypsy/Romany's, the physically or mentally disabled, or ANY of the OTHER groups of humans who were slaughtered in the name of racial (Aryan) purity. I have asked you so many times, and you just won't do it.

And yes, I'd say it to your face.

You bet Margaret Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem.

She was into eugenics big time. What you see as 'cutting edge' women's rights was actually a ruse, as she is on record as seeing black people as inferior.

'Planned Parenthood itself reports[18] that of the 132,314 abortions it did in 1991, 23.2% were on African Americans, 12.5% were on Hispanics, and 7% were on other minorities. Thus, the total
abortions on minorities is 42.7%. But minorities comprise only 19.7% of the U.S. population.[19] Therefore, relative to population *Planned Parenthood preferred to abort minorities three times[20] as much as whites.*'

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT

'We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members..'
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life

Herb

'You have NEVER, EVER, not once, mentioned, or shown any remorse for the dreaded Pope-water-holding Catholics, the gays, the blacks, the gypsy/Romany's, the physically or mentally disabled, or ANY of the OTHER groups of humans who were slaughtered in the name of racial (Aryan) purity. I have asked you so many times, and you just won't do it.'

Classic liberal myopia.

I've consistently defended ALL innocent life, yet the left has the gall to say they actually care.

Remember that the next time liberals push for snuffing life out with euthanasia, abortion and legalising illicit drugs.

Tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and that's what you get.

Herb

Concerned Women for America. Oh my goodness – we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. This uber conservative, anti everyone group of female misogynists hates everything that isn’t white, straight and evangelical Christian. CWA = women and minorities ride in the back of the bus. On the credibility index, they receive a big fat zero. I'm sure their patron saints are Lester Mattox and Randell Terry.

I don't carry H20 for the pontiff, but speaking of patron saints, here's someone who I'd put up there with Mr. Nixon:

http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/bio.html

(cracking up)

"Concerned Women for America"?

Jeez, even the name sounds hateful. I don't even want to say who/what I imagine comprises that membership, because then I will be labeled as the mysoginist, but still, it ain't a pretty picture! Apologies to Mrs. Herbbie, if there is one. You KNOW she's a member or founder.

So thanks! I didn't click on Herr's links, I figured it was just more of his "classical Herbbocrite myopia", so thanks for saving me the trouble...

Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum – hate mongers extraordinaire. Schlafly is such a bigot that she gives your run of the mill misogynists pause to wonder because she makes them look timid by comparison.

"I've consistently defended ALL innocent life"


That's (almost) funny.

(Your nose is growing, and Jesus is weeping)

These women hating conservative race baters (Concerned Women for America and the Eagle Forum) will make it their life’s work to discredit Michelle Obama this campaign season – and beyond. I’m sure Schlafly and company will go great guns doing their white, evangelical hating best spreading lies that would make their evangelical hating brother the Rev. Fred Phelps proud. It’s obvious they sing from the same sheet music.

Herb probably has a big stiffy right now!

He thinks Phyllis is thee PERFECT woman.

Ooops! Gotta go! It's time to tidy up the house, freshen up with some lipstick and a cloud of FDS, tighten my girdle, re-braid Baby M's hair and change her diaper, get the meatloaf out of the oven, and make a pitcher of icy martini's just for Mr. M. as he walks in the door. Oh wait. This is 2008.

"Oh wait. This is 2008."

So then, what are you actually going to do?

Herb, you're a despicable racist. I can't believe people like you actually exist in 2008.

Don't say that. You know Herb will throw one of his favorite retorts at you. It’ll go something like this: Just the ruminations of another ham-fisted, NAMBLA adoring, ACLU supporting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg loving, commie sympathizer determined to undermine the rights of the unborn, the 2nd Amendment, and the Richard M. Nixon Library and Birthplace.

Herb has zero credibility and most people here know that, so I'm not too worried. But, it does get tiring beating down someone for being wrong so often.

Do we have a final answer to the thread title question yet? Place your votes now..

If Herb is exhibit A, then I'm voting "Clueless". Egalitarianism and neoconservativism are like oil and water, but he can't seem to see that.

I'm with clueless, and for the same reasons.

Can't we choose "All of the Above"?

we're not being very nice here...whoops...just made an extremist rightist comment and offended someone.

"Just the ruminations of another ham-fisted, NAMBLA adoring, ACLU supporting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg loving, commie sympathizer determined to undermine the rights of the unborn, the 2nd Amendment, and the Richard M. Nixon Library and Birthplace."

Thank you, Talpdx. You said it better than I could have.

Herb

P.S. You only left out praise for Robert Bork.

Racism is clueless. So, I will vote for clueless.

I am sure the racist clueless one will ring in soon.

...or maybe Mrs. Schlafly would be a matron saint. Since I don't carry water for the pope, I'm not sure if there even is a category for matron saints.

Herbert Milhous Bork III

She IS the perfect woman for you, isn't she?

Unfortunately, she's probaby had intercourse, as she has had several children, so there goes sainthood.

Which of course puts that on the plus side for HerrB! It's probably been a while for her (the 1950's?), so you'll have to work extra 'hard' to get past the ugly ascots, big chains, and frumpy polyester below-the-knee skirts and into those starched white briefs.

Darn! If only they were nude!

I'm very happily married, but were I and Phyllis Schlafly both single....

Herb

>>mockpaperscissors.com

Man, liberals have a lot of time on their hands for belittling people

Spot on, Broadway.

It's yet another indication of how scary and Über-snide liberals become when they're on drugs.

Herb

I'm sure the same applies to Ted Haggard when he uses crystal meth.

I doubt if Ted Haggard includes Charles Manson on his post links. But if leftists want to throw in with Ted Haggard, be my guest. I don't carry water for the guy.

Herb

"Man, liberals have a lot of time on their hands for belittling people"

Yet again, with the unintended irony.

D'oh!

But he sure loves male prostitutes and making a mockery of his marriage vows. All in keeping with the Good Book I’m sure. It speaks well of evangelicals everywhere.

That must be one damn big bucket of water that Herrbocrite carries around!

(Oh, "piss-boy"...where are you when I need you?)

"I doubt if Ted Haggard includes Charles Manson on his post links."

Whoa, you're probably right on this one! He just uses the same harmless White Supremacists links that you do. That's OK, isn't it?

Broadway, not being nice is part of REAL conversation.

We can still be friends.

The deal is, with real conversation, one is faced with genuine (or as close as we can get) reactions from others.

Say we've got Weyland the bigot. Ignorance is a defense for this, THE FIRST TIME. So, our friend Weyland goes about his life as a bigot, perhaps surrounded by other bigots, or worse, non bigots unwilling to speak, or inhibited some how, so they just deal.

That's "being nice". It does nobody any real good.

One day, Weyland then bumps into somebody who actually chooses to let Weyland know the score on bigotry.

That's being a friend, and it does us a lot of good.

Perhaps this person likes Weyland, but is concerned about the bigotry. This is a justifiable thing, worth persuing.

If Weyland feels bad about being a bigot, that's really his deal. He could choose, for example, to feel good about bigotry and that's that. Or, perhaps deep down he knows is BS, and feels that tension and pain.

The very first thing often said is, "That's not nice." This is a confusion in that the intent matters.

You see, those of us who will engage a bigot, as such and deal straight, really only are hoping that some social pressure will encourage change and that's all a part of the healthy discourse. Anyone who groks this has been through the cycle in like kind and knows the drill. It's not a bad thing, but can be a difficult thing. It does have it's clear rewards however.

The other element of the confusion comes from associating this with the more general name calling to break people down.

The difference lies in the result. Bigotry is not defensible. Breaking this in someone is a healthy thing, or we all will reap what we sow; namely, a world where it's full of bigots!

That's not acceptable, so the pressure gets applied.

By contrast, the name calling is a self-serving act that brings good feelings at another persons expense. This too is not acceptable, and the same social pressures would then apply.

In the end, our friend Weyland is then presented with a choice. Reach acceptance on indefensible behavior and grow to be a better stronger person, or live in denial and continue on the path.

How Weyland feels about it is up to Weyland.

BTW: The movie, "The Great Debaters" illustrates this in action perfectly.

A few people, willing to speak, just and true, changed the face of the nation.

That is how it should be.

From above:

"If anyone is a supporter of equality around here, it is Ol' Herb..."

Equality? You?

Our resident Mr. Phyllis-Eagle Forum-Nixon-Aryan-Tater Lovin' Homophobic Troll?

You're certainly living on your own Planet Bizzaro, Herrbocrite.

And I really need to renew my vows to TBTA*





*Troll Bait Takers Anonymous.

Oh, darn it! I just noticed that Herrbocrite edited his earlier "liberals believe lies" post.

"Must...control...Fist...Of...Death"

Missing, I thought about you after reading about this documentary film, now being shown on HBO

RESOLVED
Directed by Greg Whiteley

High-school debates were once an entertaining, audience-friendly exchange of ideas and opinions. But today, debating has a whole new
look: one in which debaters deliver rapid-fire statements full of specialized jargon at a rate of up to an astonishing and virtually incomprehensible
400 words per minute. This documentary sheds light on the win-at-all-costs tactics of top high-school debaters--and shows
how an unlikely duo devised a strategy of bringing debate back to its roots by refocusing on personal experience and dialogue.
Interviews include several well-known former debaters including Josh Lucas, Jane Pauley, Karl Rove, Samuel Alito and Juan Williams.

I was involved in the Speech/Debate program at my high school many years ago. This documentary is a long time in coming. What Mrs_merkin highlights in her post was a problem when I participated. Many students in a debate would read material at such in a rapid clip that it was nearly impossible to keep up. That’s I why I gravitated towards other events in Speech/Debate tournaments. As for the competitive nature of the program, all very true. These kids tend to be very smart and very competative.

I saw the following on MSNBC.com: A booth at this weekend’s Texas Republican convention sold buttons asking, “If Obama Is President…Will We Still Call It The White House?”

This is the kind of crap that I'm sure we'll be hearing about all campaign season. Disgusting.

Mrs_M: Totally. I'm curious about the interviews! Great choices, IMHO.

I was involved with this in HS as well. Same turn off. Ended up "debating" in the little known, somewhat underground places beneath the drama stage!

Those conversations ended up being real! The debates were more of a game --a good one, don't get me wrong on that score. Our best and brightest were fierce people to engage. But, sometimes I wonder if they didn't just do it for the win and not for an actual RESOLUTION.

To me, that is the real point of it. Winning is good, but understanding is far better, and the beauty of that comes from losing just as much as winning!

(yeah, sounds Zen, but a lot of stuff I say does --go figure)

Before there was online discourse, we talked about stuff and through stuff. That first gay friend, the opposite sex, what is truth, and other such things.

We didn't have an archive, so the people involved mattered! Had to have them to resolve, or risk engaging well trodden paths over again to catch up.

This made us friends. Some of those friends still talk today. The conversations run deep sometimes. It's all but faded, but for a meeting once in a while, where we will pick it up and just talk.

In that mode, there was time to think. It's necessary for the average person to do this. Can happen in the car, over break, whatever.

As we grew apart, of course it's all slowly lost.

Now we have online venues, and they work the same way, and there are archives to look at, so people can come and go, thoughts preserved, paths there for the walking on our own time.

Cool stuff.

Those few years had a big impact on me. Conversations matter and there are a lot of forms they can take. They are something I learn new things about always. Never dull.

One thing about the rapid fire, jargon filled, pseudo-legalese found in these debate contests is the lack of the emotional side of things.

For those things where an absolute truth is not possible to know, and that's most things, we are left with value judgments --choices right?

Well, when making choices and forming right, just, good, correct paths, ideas, the emotional content weighs as heavy as the rational one.

And I think that's the difference between a strict rational debate contest and a conversation.

The world, in my opinion, is changed mostly by the latter, using the tools provided by the former.