What Impartiality?
The New York Times’ David Carr writes about things like MSNBC, Olbermann, Election Night, and impartiality…
If MSNBC were really worried about coming off as impartial, don’t you think it would have chosen somebody besides Mr. Olbermann, one of the most rabidly partisan figures in national news, to anchor its election coverage? Even Fox News knows better than to do something like that.
MSNBC is new to the network-as-political-identity game, and its parent company, NBC, is far less comfortable with pure play political programming than the News Corporation — and it shows. MSNBC backed into its current identity, driven by the outsize ratings of Mr. Olbermann, and the success of Rachel Maddow’s frankly liberal take on the world.
So what message is being sent by the suspension, which will end on Tuesday? Apparently, Mr. Olbermann is supposed to fire up the base like a convention keynote speaker at 8 p.m., but conduct himself like Brian Williams the rest of the time.
Inside Cable News 
November 8, 2010 at 8:28 am
I fail to get the point of this article.
If it’s that MSNBC & FNC prime-times have a political POV I don’t think anyone would disagree.
Should Phil Griffin have challenged us to find examples of MSNBC bias? No.
Should MSNBC give up the practise of allowing their primetime hosts to anchor election coverage? Yes; it’s causes just too much of a backlash for it to continue.
Did KO’s punishment fit the crime? Who knows; we still don’t have enough info to answer that question. If he flipped the bird at Billo on air he would likely get a suspension; not for flipping the bird at Billo; but for just flipping the bird. He’s not being punished for making the donations just not getting permission from the bosses first.
Most people feel KO should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases.
November 8, 2010 at 9:14 am
fritz3 hits the points spot on! Good for fritz.
November 8, 2010 at 9:35 am
I get the point of this article. High profile media writers like Carr and Zurawik from the Baltimore Sun have two irons in this fire.
1. They know how thin-skinned Olbermann is, and the more someone calls out MSNBC for being no different (and certainly no better) than Fox when it comes to partisanship, the more likely you are to get yelled at by name on the air Tuesday night.
2. Olbermann seems to be genuinely regarded as a blowhard, as a man with few friends in the business, and as a time bomb who won’t be at MSNBC for much longer. That makes him very, very easy to identifu as an example of what’s wrong with the media. Aside from some Kos crackpots, no one is going to come galloping to his defense.
November 8, 2010 at 9:47 am
Most people feel KO should be allowed to donate to whomever he pleases.
This is the tipping point that makes me throw up my hands and say “who cares?”. The only FNC outlet willing to address this story was Red Eye, and the decision was unanimous: “He’s a liberal commentator..who cares if he donates to liberals? He shouldn’t be fired.” Beyond the understanding that something had to be done because he pissed his bosses off, the right doesn’t care about this, so why should I? I don’t think any cable news hosts should contribute, but nobody agrees with me.
Most of the outrage around this stems from Keith contributing to liberals while anchoring election coverage. Clearly, the problem is with Phil Griffin’s decision-making about major news coverage, not KO’s political contributions.
So..I don’t care. He’s going to come back to work and do his apology-not-an-apology and scream at Fox and be a jerk that nobody wants to work with and the right will continue to despise him. And I’ll be timeshifting one hour of Brooke Baldwin’s Newsroom to 8:00. Call me when Griffin solves the real problem at MSNBC.
November 8, 2010 at 10:32 am
Here is a very “interesting” article from the Baltimore Sun’s Media Critic regarding KO, RM, & LOD.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/11/watching_msnbc_go_off_the_rail.html
I’ll have to TIVO RM tonight as she is now described by the author as a “Poetry Editor”.
Gotta get the popcorn tonight… 😉
November 8, 2010 at 10:42 am
“I don’t think any cable news hosts should contribute, but nobody agrees with me”
That’s great in theory Joe but it’s hard to police and there’s a slippery slope. Do you stop hosts from donating and not pundits & reporters? Do you allow the bosses to donate or owners? How about producers, directors, bookers etc. Where does it end? Why is it OK to ban hosts and not others?
The rule about asking permission is a really bad idea as well as this episode makes clear. It just confuses the issue.
Better to let everyone give but with transparency. FNC has it half right they just don’t have the transparency.
November 8, 2010 at 10:51 am
Good points, Fritz. I’ll answer it this way: I don’t want news-show hosts donating because it bothers me. Simple..impossible to justify or police. My own personal remote-controlled solution is…betcha Brooke Baldwin doesn’t donate to politicians..
November 8, 2010 at 12:44 pm
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 9:47 am
fritz3 Says:
November 8, 2010 at 10:42 am
How about this… a compromise: Anchors are allowed to donate to political campaigns and politicians… but if they do, they’re not allowed to interview until after the election. And they’re forbidden from donating to candidates whom they’ve already interviewed 6 months prior to the election (because very few campaigns are made or broken 6 months out).
Eh? Ehhhhh? Genius, right?!
November 8, 2010 at 12:54 pm
What needs to happen is for MSNBC to stop bitchen about FOX’s support for the GOP and proclaiming they don’t do the same while wearing we love Obama buttons and yea the same goes for O’reilly going on about NBC ties to the White House.
MSNBC and it’s supporters have just have to finally admit that they are just like FOX only they lean far Left while FOX goes hard Right…everything FOX dose is also done by MSNBC…deal with it..don’t throw tantrums when someone says it and don’t challenge people to find examples of on air talent campaigning for candidates because it’ll only take a few seconds to prove it.
November 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Aside from the fact that Fox has the ‘trumped up from nothing stories’ market cornered, I generally agree with Mlong. The lefty network does its lefty thing, the righty network does its righty thing..and I’m watching more CNN because “just news” is refreshing.
November 8, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I wish mlong was right and FNC & MSNBC were the same but with an opposite POV. There not. The FNC is the propaganda wing of the Republican Party; at MSNBC some of their hosts advocate for Democrats.
November 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Well, those “crackpots” galloped their way over in the hundred thousands (in the form of a petition), including different media figures and a couple politicians, and voiced their opinions on the Olbermann suspension. So, if you’re going to attack thousands of regular people who respond to something like this, at least identify them correctly.
I actually agree with that, until the very end. I don’t think… in fact, I’m pretty positive that MSNBC doesn’t love Obama as much as you want to believe. As far as I’m concerned, they have found too much to criticize him on. And, comparing his time as President to Bush’s reign, Fox absolutely adored Bush. That’s no question, and you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate criticism about him during those 8 years. And if there was criticism, it always followed with the Democrats being anti-American, not supporting the troops, etc.
November 8, 2010 at 1:44 pm
proglib, Seemed to me that ALL networks were totally in the Bush camp from late 2001 untill, at least, 2004. By June of 2004, things began to change, except, of course, on Fox.
November 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Fred is right about the post-9/11 period – which, from a purely academic POV, may not have been the correct approach journalistically, but I’m an American and it felt right to me – but apart from that, anybody who thinks the cablers never criticize their favored President doesn’t actually watch those networks.
November 8, 2010 at 2:08 pm
fritz3 Says:
November 8, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I wish mlong was right and FNC & MSNBC were the same but with an opposite POV. There not.
What is with the left and this desire to be “better than” everyone else? Is reality so tough to cope with that having a different opinion isn’t good enough, you must be BETTER than the other guy? Sad.
The FNC is the propaganda wing of the Republican Party; at MSNBC some of their hosts advocate for Democrats.
Nonsense. As J$ showed, their prime time hosts (and afternoon hosts) have all hocked for Democrats. As study after study has shown, FNC at least makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue… MSNBC, obviously doesn’t care about any of that
And saying, “they’re propaganda” over and over again, while contorting yourself to somehow make MSNBC different, is just getting tiresome. Come crashing down to Earth already.
ProgLib Says:
November 8, 2010 at 1:31 pm
So, if you’re going to attack thousands of regular people who respond to something like this, at least identify them correctly.
JWE3… next time, it’s “Crackpots who can write their name.” Gotta be specific… apparently.
And, comparing his time as President to Bush’s reign, Fox absolutely adored Bush.
Who didn’t see that comment coming a mile away? Of course, it’s STILL not true… as many people complained and disagreed with Bush… yes even on FOX. Some because they didn’t think he “went far enough,” and some because they didn’t agree with certain policy decisions… Just. Like. MSNBC does now.
That’s no question, and you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate criticism about him during those 8 years.
And here’s where you begin to see what the FOX haters are really saying. The key word is “legitimate criticism.”
Was FOX “criticizing” like MSNBC was criticising… no, they weren’t as angry and mean spirited, which is where Prog’s comparison is coming from. “Legitimate criticism” of someone as awful as Bush (from the far-left perspective) is more on par with Olbermann’s, “Shut the hell up,” comment… and FOX didn’t do that. Any type of criticism short of that kind of vitriol, doesn’t count as “valid.”
A side story to explain: When folks asked me my opinion of Bush, I always answered in the same way, “I don’t hate him.” The reason for that was because the spectrum of “valid criticism” for Bush had been defined as you must “hate him.” If you didn’t hate him, and even if you had specific disagreements with his policies, you must be a far-right whack job. The spectrum of “valid criticism” was defined in very black or white terms, even while most people were gray.
So back to understanding Prog’s comment… “valid criticism” of Bush, to someone like Prog (a far-left Liberal… and I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense) was hate and rage, and you didn’t really see that on FNC. However, the spectrum isn’t really as black and white as the far-left has presented it. There’s more than just “hate” or “love.” So while there was criticism of Bush on FOX, it wasn’t hateful enough for the far-left… and that’s why they deny it existed.
And if there was criticism, it always followed with the Democrats being anti-American, not supporting the troops, etc.
Well, since I used a lot of words to explain the previous sentence… I’ll keep this one short: That’s a lie.
November 8, 2010 at 2:19 pm
What is with the left and this desire to be “better than” everyone else? Is reality so tough to cope with that having a different opinion isn’t good enough, you must be BETTER than the other guy? Sad.
Oh that’s a beaut, Blue. Everybody thinks their approach is better than the others’. If not, they would pick a different one!
I was a conservative once upon a time. A very religious one, as are many. We didn’t just think we were better than lefties. We knew we were “right”, and they were doing the Devil’s work. Don’t even try..
November 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Imputing evil to your opposition is depressingly common. That doesn’t mean it isn’t occasionally true, but it’s still common.
November 8, 2010 at 2:32 pm
FNC at least makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue… MSNBC, obviously doesn’t care about any of that
Now we’re back to “just keep saying it and it will be true”. Glenn Beck works in Beck World; KO works in KO World. Aside from those two hours, both networks present both sides all the time. If you actually watched something besides Fox News, you would know that.
November 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Everybody thinks their approach is better than the others’.
But this is different. It’s natural to think your OPINION is better… after all, why would you have the opinion if it wasn’t the better one to have? But this isn’t mere “my opinion is better,” it’s “I’m a better person than you,” and that strikes me as strange.
There is an argument to made that MSNBC is “better” because their opinions are better, from someone who agrees with those opinions. Wouldn’t it just be easier to say, “Yeah, they have an opinion they put out in a lot of their programs, and so do we. I agree with my side.” than to make up some non-existent differences, and pretend like one side is better despite the similarities.
What I guess I’m trying to say is why argue the similarities based on nothing, instead of accepting them and arguing the difference of opinions?
And yes, both sides do it… but that doesn’t make it any better, does it?
November 8, 2010 at 2:46 pm
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Reviews of the election coverage suggest differently, don’t they?
November 8, 2010 at 2:50 pm
— FNC at least makes an attempt —
On election-night they did. MSNBC blew whatever credibility they had for criticism with that, and they didn’t start with much. Continuing with ‘They’re bad, we’re not’ is just silly at this point. They could have found a token R and avoided most of this.
November 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm
^ You’re not really going to attack my opinion about the vast majority of both networks’ coverage by dropping one election night on me, right? You know..the one I already hammered mercilessly? Come on, man, I deserve better than that.
And yes, I absolutely believe both sides consider the other inferior. It’s human nature.
November 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm
They could have found a token R and avoided most of this.
Absolutely correct, Laura. In fact, they could have had Chris Jansing (Fred’s favorite) 😉 or Lester Holt anchor the coverage & the product would have been 100% improved.
MSNBC’s election primetime election coverage was a car wreck in slow motion.
November 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm
MSNBC’s election primetime election coverage was a car wreck in slow motion.
In hindsight, it’s almost disturbing: “We’re gonna get killed in the election, let’s put on an ‘as it happens’ display of destruction.” Now I get it…it was performance art!
November 8, 2010 at 3:14 pm
“Reviews of the election coverage suggest differently, don’t they?”
Some do, some don’t.
Most here have opinions that differ but at least are willing to consider others may still have legitimate opinions, just a different POV. Blue states his opinions as absolute fact; when they are just opinions and often not very well thought out ones at that.
That’s a fact.
November 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm
And yes, I absolutely believe both sides consider the other inferior. It’s human nature.
I don’t think you’re inferior, Joe.
Come on buddy… let’s man-hug it out!
fritz3 Says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Some do, some don’t.
Most do.
Most here have opinions that differ but at least are willing to consider others may still have legitimate opinions, just a different POV. Blue states his opinions as absolute fact; when they are just opinions and often not very well thought out ones at that.
Perhaps you’d like to provide an example of that? Yes, I believe my opinions are correct, and have no trouble discussing them at length. Methinks you don’t like my opinions, or the fact that I don’t back down or walk away when confronted.
But, I’m okay with that.
November 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm
No man-hugs for me, Blue; I’m a racist homophobe.
“Opinion as fact” gets misunderstood regularly on blogs. I have a tendency to use “I think” and “in my opinion”, but some people (rightly, I suppose) consider it extraneous. Comments sections, by their very nature, are places for opinion. Most “statements of fact” should be construed as “the facts as I see them”. In my opinion.
November 8, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I was talking about MSNBC, and those who mindlessly attack Fox while defending the other. Whoever falls into that category can take it as criticism. Those who don’t, shouldn’t.
November 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm
“Perhaps you’d like to provide an example of that”
How about.
Fritz3 – “at MSNBC some of their hosts advocate for Democrats.”
INB – “Nonsense. As J$ showed, their prime time hosts (and afternoon hosts) have all hocked for Democrats. As study after study has shown, FNC at least makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue… MSNBC, obviously doesn’t care about any of that”
Some Fox hosts present both sides, most don’t. I doubt there are any serious studies that say FNC attempts to show both sides of an issue. Just which studies have said that FNC makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue?
November 8, 2010 at 4:02 pm
No man-hugs for me, Blue; I’m a r@cist h0m0ph0be.
“Opinion as fact” gets misunderstood regularly on blogs. I have a tendency to use “I think” and “in my opinion”, but some people (rightly, I suppose) consider it extraneous. Comments sections, by their very nature, are places for opinion. Most “statements of fact” should be construed as “the facts as I see them”. In my opinion.
November 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I was talking about MSNBC, and those who mindlessly attack Fox while defending the other. Whoever falls into that category can take it as criticism. Those who don’t, shouldn’t.
Oops, I was responding to Blue. You snuck in there with your sneaky sneakiness. 😉
November 8, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I hate it when that happens. Even more than having a video embed, you should pardon the expression.
November 8, 2010 at 4:13 pm
No, INB, that’s your own insecurity about people disagreeing with you, so you characterize it as that other person acting like they’re better. Liberals never say they’re better… they say they have more common sense, which conservatives respond with the same thing. So, it’s just a battle of who’s better than the other.
Dude, you just said that you think it’s “sad” how liberals supposedly have a desire to be “better than” everybody else. Then, here you are, basically, saying that Fox News tries to offer the other side, so that means they are better than MSNBC. Do you have trouble reading what you said just moments earlier, or do you not care? Why don’t you just work for Fox News and get the whole thing over with? By the way, just because Olbermann doesn’t bring on people to have a yelling match with doesn’t mean the rest of the network does the same thing. Every other show on MSNBC debates people on the opposite side. That’s just a fact, which you choose to distort.
Just like the people who say over and over again that MSNBC is the Obama loving channel? Talk about something getting tiresome… and being patently untrue.
INB still hasn’t figured out that nobody understands his sarcasm… mainly because he can’t understand other people being sarcastic. He just answers everything with a stick up his poop shoot.
Yes, I know there was criticism of Bush by Hannity and the over spending, and O’Reilly regarding the botching of the war. But, let’s not pretend that this was a daily thing on O’Reilly’s “talking points memo” or when Hannity would argue with the Democrat on “Hannity & Colmes”. Hannity, especially, would just complain about Democrats, all the time, and treated them like the bad guys because they wanted to pull out of an unjust war. The funny thing is that even though the Democrats went along with Bush and kept funding the war, there was Hannity right there still bashing them. By the way, why doesn’t Hannity complain about the billions spent on the war when bringing up the country’s defecit? Hmmm.
As opposed to Glenn Beck calling Obama a socialist, communist, Marxist and saying how he’s a racist with a “deep-seeded hatred for white people”? Yeah, that’s very legitimate and valid coming from Fox News. The Fox News viewers eat it up for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
By the way, INB’s attempt to analyze me is on full display, once again. I have never, ever said I hated George Bush. And, anytime I see somebody on my side saying it, I understand why they feel like that, but I don’t cheer them on and agree. Ignorant people like INB come in the bunches, and because a few nutjobs on the left are angry at Bush, anybody “far-left” (which I also am not) must feel the same way. INB and his ilk certainly see “far-left” and “liberal” as pejorative terms… that’s why they use it so much. And, I didn’t want the criticism on Fox about Bush to be hateful, I wanted it to be legitimate and hard-hitting. They NEVER offered that. EVER. They selectively picked their complaints because they didn’t want to lose their base viewers who might revolt against them.
Are you actually denying that Fox News NEVER called liberals and Democrats anti-American and not supporting the troops when they voiced their opposition against the war? That’s just about all you would hear coming out of the mouth of Hannity and his far-right pals for years and years.
November 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Oh my God, it’s contagious..
November 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Uncleararthur lives! This is my stop..
November 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Yeah, because INB is really showing how fearless he is by not backing down when typing behind a computer screen. That’s one tough guy over there. I better watch my back the next time I “confront” him on the internet. You too, fritz. 🙂
November 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm
-Clearly, the problem is with Phil Griffin’s decision-making about major news coverage, not KO’s political contributions. –
Exactly!
-Why the rule for straight news reporters?-
You know your opinion after you read the day’s paper; you know your bias before you open it.
… or NPR comedic hosts? Peter Sagal says it better than I ever could: http://petersagal.com/wordpress/?p=302
November 8, 2010 at 4:34 pm
You know your opinion after you read the day’s paper; you know your bias before you open it.
That was a great article. And it showed me something about myself of which I am sure. I am not biased, and now I know why I can be friends with some people I agree with on almost nothing politically: They’re not biased, either.
November 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm
” I didn’t want the criticism on Fox about Bush to be hateful, I wanted it to be legitimate and hard-hitting. They NEVER offered that. EVER.”
Man, it never amazes me how people just make stuff up.
I guess when they did commentary condemning Bush for pushing the Patriot act, or argued that military tribunals at Gitmo were unconstitutional, or claimed that Bush broke the law with NSA surveillance, none of that ever happened. Because ProgLib says so.
“They NEVER offered that. EVER.”
Tell me why I should believe anything else you ever say?
November 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm
For most of us, our biases tend to manifest in how we process and filter the information we receive from the world around us.
Brit Hume interviewed by Brian Lamb, C-Span, Jul, 2008:
I mean, David Brinkley, as I recall, is one of the first people I ever heard say that. You can’t be objective. You’re a sentient, thinking, human being. You’re going to have views in reaction to things.
But I’ll say this about it. I believe that fairness begins with an awareness that no, you’re not objective. And it is your professional duty and responsibility to be aware of that. And to carry that with you into the work that you do so that you can be fair. So, you could screen out.
You can be – you can think if you go to a hearing and you think that the politician whose running the hearing is obstreperous personality, whether it’s Phil Graham or Barney Frank, that you think, I got to be careful here, because I don’t particularly cotton to this person. I need to make sure that I play this straight. That I’m fair. I think that’s where it begins. I’ve always thought that. And it’s not that hard to do.
I mean, think of the people in the professions that we – other professions that we – in the practice of law. Lawyers represent clients they disagree with. They even represent viewpoints they disagree with. They do it all the time. And they do a good job of it, because they’re professionally trained to do it.
We as journalists are or should be professionally trained to do that as well. To go out and assess a story based on its news value and to order it and prioritize what we see in such a way as to reflect news values and report it that way.
November 9, 2010 at 10:22 am
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm </i.
I’ll hug all the ra@ism and h0m0ph)bia out of you! These arms were meant for squeezin’.
As to the “opinion as fact,” I agree. I’m not going to litter my posts with, “IMO” all the time. We get it… or at least, I thought we did.
If I’m providing hard facts, I’m going to link to them to back it up. Otherwise, it’s my opinion… that’s why it says my name at the top of the post!
fritz3 Says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Just which studies have said that FNC makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue?
Well… there was the study last week that compared O’Reilly with Olbermann for a week… and showed that O’Reilly is pretty fair.
But you said “most hosts don’t” try to show both sides. Which ones? Heck, even Hannity has a Democrat or two on his panel (which takes up two segments of the show). Beck doesn’t have many guests, but you could count him if you’d like. Other than that… I’ve seen Democrats advocating their points on all other programs. Am I wrong?
November 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
joeremi Says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm </i.
I’ll hug all the ra@ism and h0m0ph)bia out of you! These arms were meant for squeezin’.
As to the “opinion as fact,” I agree. I’m not going to litter my posts with, “IMO” all the time. We get it… or at least, I thought we did.
If I’m providing hard facts, I’m going to link to them to back it up. Otherwise, it’s my opinion… that’s why it says my name at the top of the post!
fritz3 Says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Just which studies have said that FNC makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue?
Well… there was the study last week that compared O’Reilly with Olbermann for a week… and showed that O’Reilly is pretty fair.
But you said “most hosts don’t” try to show both sides. Which ones? Heck, even Hannity has a Democrat or two on his panel (which takes up two segments of the show). Beck doesn’t have many guests, but you could count him if you’d like. Other than that… I’ve seen Democrats advocating their points on all other programs. Am I wrong?
ProgLib Says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Liberals never say they’re better… they say they have more common sense, which conservatives respond with the same thing. So, it’s just a battle of who’s better than the other.
Apparently you didn’t see Rachel Maddow’s “defense” of Olbermann (which is what we were talking about, no?):
Sure does look like she thinks what she does, and what MSNBC does, is somehow better than what FNC does… even though, much of what she said about was provably false (see the J$ video).
Then, here you are, basically, saying that Fox News tries to offer the other side, so that means they are better than MSNBC.
You misunderstand me. My problem is when they think that their better, yet do the exact same thing. Maddow thinks their better because they don’t “fundraise,” yet they do. However, that’s not to say there aren’t more tangible ways of comparing the two networks, and finding differences… differences which (in one’s opinion) made a network better or worse. Pointing to FNC’s multiple viewpoints, versus MSNBC singularity is a real difference. Point to MSNBC and saying, “We’re left wing, so we’re better,” is not a fair criticism… that’s just a difference of opinion. Get it?
Why don’t you just work for Fox News and get the whole thing over with?
Someone else was willing to pay me more.
Every other show on MSNBC debates people on the opposite side.
Do they? Do they consistently have people from the other side on, and speak to them respectfully about their issues? Or is it election night all over again and again and again?
INB still hasn’t figured out that nobody understands his sarcasm… mainly because he can’t understand other people being sarcastic.
I had no idea that (a) you were a judge of comedy, and (b) you spoke for everyone. How nice for you!
He just answers everything with a stick up his poop shoot.
It’s uncomfortable, but the audiences’ love watching me type.
Yes, I know there was criticism of Bush by Hannity and the over spending, and O’Reilly regarding the botching of the war. But, let’s not pretend that this was a daily thing
Like I said… the left will acknowledge there was criticism… but it “wasn’t enough” for their liking. Everything is framed by their standards. It wasn’t enough criticism, so FNC must have “loved” him. Black and white, just as I said.
Hannity, especially, would just complain about Democrats, all the time, and treated them like the bad guys because they wanted to pull out of an unjust war.
Hannity disagreed with Democrats, and argued his point… therefore, Hannity = bad. Got it.
The funny thing is that even though the Democrats went along with Bush and kept funding the war, there was Hannity right there still bashing them.
Well, clearly their reluctance to defund the war, was reason for Hannity to stop his criticism. Sure, they still were publically speaking out against the war, and primarily didn’t want to defund because they thought it would hurt the troops… but since that one thing should have been enough for Hannity. Right? Isn’t that how it goes? Agree with a small part of the plan, and then the opposition will keep quiet, no matter what else you do?
Wait… no it isn’t. Nevermind.
By the way, why doesn’t Hannity complain about the billions spent on the war when bringing up the country’s defecit?
And that’s relevant, how?
Yeah, that’s very legitimate and valid coming from Fox News. The Fox News viewers eat it up for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Why does everything come back to Beck? Can’t you argue on your own merits? Why does the left want to complain about what Beck does and says, yet still be able to do and say things just like him? Ugh.
Of course, you missed the point (purposely?) of what I was saying. Let me try again… to the far-left, KO’s “shut the hell up,” comment was the center point… point zero, on the spectrum. Now, anything that was more friendly or respectful than “shut the hell up,” was seen as “weak criticism” of Bush. Get it?
As for Beck’s comment… it was his opinion, right or wrong or over-stated. KO’s comment was a disrespectful direction towards the President. But honestly, it’s so far off topic, I think I’m going to end it here.
“Ignorant people like INB come in the bunches,”
Like grapes.
“…and because a few nutjobs on the left are angry at Bush,…”
Really? “A few?” Really? Do you think we don’t remember 2000-2008? Do you think we’ve never seen MoveOn, ThinkProgress, or any of the other sites? Oh how quickly some forget.
And, I didn’t want the criticism on Fox about Bush to be hateful, I wanted it to be legitimate and hard-hitting. They NEVER offered that. EVER.
You realize you disproved this above, right? Go back up to where you were saying that FNC criticized Bush… but not enough. You definition of “legitimate” and “hard-hitting” is based upon where you stand politically… it’s skewed. So why you acknowledged they did criticize for valid reasons, because they didn’t do it to your standards… we’re back to “they never did it.” Again, very black and white… either they did exactly what you thought they should, or they didn’t do anything.
Thank you for illustrating my point… again.
Are you actually denying that Fox News NEVER called liberals and Democrats anti-American and not supporting the troops when they voiced their opposition against the war? That’s just about all you would hear coming out of the mouth of Hannity and his far-right pals for years and years.
Did some commentators or guests say that? Probably.
Did the entire network echo the same comments as you state above? Absolutely not.
ProgLib Says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Yeah, because INB is really showing how fearless he is by not backing down when typing behind a computer screen.
Hey Prog… how’s that scathing review of J$ coming along? They’re really looking forward to it since you promised.
I’d hate to think you backed down.
HA!
November 9, 2010 at 5:36 pm
^ I’ll wait for the Reader’s Digest version.
November 9, 2010 at 8:03 pm
^ I just read Humor In Uniform and move on… 😉