This entry was posted on June 2, 2011 at 7:33 am and is filed under FNC . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
59 Responses to “Glenn Beck’s Final Show Date Set?”
whitney, maybe Beck’s audience has decreased, but he’s STILL the #3 rated show in all of cable news!!!!!
From TV Newser: “As we reported yesterday, Beck had a rough month ratings-wise in May, slipping -17% in total viewers and -33% in the adults 25-54 demo compared to last year. That said, he still handily topped his competition on CNN and MSNBC. In fact only two shows drew higher ratings than Beck in all of cable news: “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity,” both of which are in primetime.”
Anyway, it sucks that Beck is leaving the show. Even though I love the guy, I can’t see myself tuning into some webcast every day. And his “specials” throughout the year? How can any momentum be gained by having a program on once every couple of months?
Like him or not, Beck is educational and brings us stories no one else dare present.
“Like him or not, Beck is educational and brings us stories no one else dare present.” – missy
I especially liked the ones which highlighted the contributions made by women and African-Americans during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. And the accomplishments of slaves who were self-taught. I don’t know why these people and their histories aren’t taught in the schools. I certainly never learned about them.
Last Friday he ran segments from previous shows that featured what carolmr said. It was very good, and the ratings showed it. #3 in P2+ and #1 in the demo.
Unfortunately the regular shows have been going down hill. I rarely get beyond 10 or 15 minutes into it before tuning out due to sheer boredom. It seems, paraphrasing T.S. Elliot, “This is the way the worldprogram ends – Not with a bang but a whimper.”
By the way, no one else dares to present the stories Beck does because he makes them up out of thin air from his paranoid mind. Why do you think he needs a chalkboard to write it on? He’s just like Russell Crowe in “A Beautiful Mind”.
Just as other cable programme hosts do, Mr. Beck has guests on who do know their shite.
I often use a chalkboard for the classes I teach whenever my lesson doesn’t present well using graphics or other projections. Images, even those on a chalkboard, help to hold attention and focus the thoughts of students. It’s worked for centuries.
Just as other cable programme hosts do, Mr. Beck has guests on who do know their sh!te.
I often use a chalkboard for the classes I teach whenever my lesson doesn’t present well using graphics or other projections. Images, even those on a chalkboard, help to hold attention and focus the thoughts, and it’s worked for centuries.
How about those crazy, wacky, paranoid stories Beck’s spinning tonight? Totally made up out of thin air from his paranoid mind! Nazi death camps? What nonsense!! And who are those holocaust survivors he’s interviewing? They can’t be real–Beck made all this up! Obviously he’s hired actors to play these nonexistent people!
For the last couple years, Beck has constantly veered back and forth between The Crazy and some serious historical programming. The man who called the black president racist is also the one who has done several meaningful programs about the African-American experience in the past, and the present. Dude’s effin bipolar. Not that there’s anything wrong with that..
missy5537
understand your feelings. I just was not enamored by his silliness. Don’t know why he felt the need to do that, and whether that was the final straw with Ailes.
Unfortunately with Ailes it might have been $ and cents; as it was at WOR in NYC when the jettisoned his radio show.
I feel your pain missy5537 since you liked him/his show.
Johnny, stop trying to take things so literally… we all know the death camps and holocaust survivors are real. But, when he comes out with his conspiratorial attacks against Obama, Democrats, the “Muslim caliphate”, etc., he’s the typical crazy guy writing on the chalkboard.
P.S. There is nothing wrong with writing on a chalkboard, but when you’re writing crazy stuff like he does… especially misspelling oligarchy (when choosing the first letter of every sentence on his chalkboard), randomly putting communist magnets next to people’s names, and drawing arrows and baselessly linking Van Jones to George Soros to President Obama and so on… you look like a complete and utter clown. Period.
That’s what Johnny does, Prog. He’ll completely ignore Beck’s massive doses of The Crazy, then find something redeeming to praise, instead of being honest like I was. Johnny’s deal is to defend Fox News. It’s what he does.
Honestly, I think Beck is a frustrated preacher and it seems his end-times rap is taken from the likes of the “end times” authors he has had on his show. Frankly, Beck has been dipping into the work of these people for much of his “last time-end times” rap, and that’s why it’s turned into a desultory goo for the smiling white guy.
He should have taken advice and broken down and cried more often. Even Tina Brown was impressed with that act.
Do I think he’s been insincere; yes, I do.
Poll tested topics from the clown.
Guess that’s why he needs a staff of writers and production aids to put on his hour shows each day.
Just to appear as a chalkboard talk takes a huge staff and large production budget.
As someone here said, “I pretty much agree with most of what he’s said. It’s his silliness that was/is objectionable.”
Whoever I’m quoting I thank you for articulating that thought.:)
No what Johnny does is expose liars, people who claim Beck makes up what he says out of thin air. Not SOME of what he says, mind you. Because that might allow for Beck to have said something correct at some point. No, it has to be that Beck just makes it ALL up out of his paranoid mind.
That’s not even an opinion any more. It’s just a lie. And I expose such lies. Although in this case Josh beat me to it. He nailed it before I did.
Yeah yeah, but you claim independence while running a rightwing blog with a faux Fox News logo, and you only show up to defend THEM. You have an agenda, and pretend you don’t. Just like Fox News.
I do agree that Prog’s sweeping generalization was off the mark, as sweeping generalizations tend to be.
Really Joe, you ought to tell the truth about my blog, at least when talking to me. Where is this ‘faux Fox News logo’ that you claim is on my blog? Post the link so everyone can go see it.
And please tell me all the right-wing positions I have advocated on my ‘rightwing’ blog. Or maybe, if you can’t do those two little things to back up your attack, you might just take it back.
“The logo right next to your name looks a lot like the Fox logo to me.”
That’s nice, but you said I ran a ‘rightwing blog with a faux Fox News logo’. I asked you to show everyone where my blog has a ‘faux Fox News logo’ on it. You know, like post a link. Either you can, or you can’t. Which is it?
“Your blog consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox News.”
False again, and easily disprovable with good old fashioned mathematics. Count up the links on my front page right now, and if they are mainly or mostly link to Fox News I’ll contribute $100 to the charity of your choice. If they are not mostly links to Fox News you will contribute $100 to the charity of my choice and apologize to me for smearing me with a falsehood. Are you game to start the count?
” It’s a Fox News-based blog, which – if you haven’t heard – is rightwing.”
Because you say so? That’s a laugh. You’re rightwing because Fox is rightwing because Joe sez so? What’s right wing about Shepard Smith? Geraldo? Bob Beckel? Joe Trippi? Alan Colmes? Is a blog about MSNBC (a political operation masquerading as a news operation) automatically a leftwing blog because it’s about MSNBC–even if there are no political discussions whatsoever in the posts?!?
But none of this matters because your basic premise isn’t true. My blog is not Fox-News based. It covers all cable news channels. Posts that deal specifically with Fox News are a small fraction, outnumbered by 6-1, 7-1, maybe even 7-1 or more by posts about cable news in general.
You are entitled to have whatever opinion you like of my blog. But you obviously either don’t read it, or don’t care to tell the truth about it. As evidenced by how many of the statements you made in your comment above are flat-out false.
He does have an agenda. Excerpted from “About JSP”: “… your source for the latest cable news developments, exclusive videos, and the truth about Fox News.”
His blog seems to pretty much follow that stated mission to the letter and I’m not seeing anything that could even remotely be construed as right-wing or conservative. No need to pretend that there is an agenda beyond what is explicitly claimed.
Johnny Dollar; I like the effort you’ve put into your blog; didn’t catch that you were an apologist for any POV, actually. If you place that much effort into your work you should have a POV that comes through.
just my view. i like this thread and site; I hear/read stuff here first that even Drudge doesn’t have.
Most of the stories are criticisms of lefties, and cable news outlets not called Fox. Almost ALL of the Fox stuff is a defense of them. And Fox is run by a conservative political operative as a political operation. Fox is a rightwing organisation, and Dollar’s blog is about as fair and balanced as THEY are.
I’m not gonna take a constant shellacking about everything NOT conservative being a “liberal MSM”, then put up with some “independent” horsecrap from conservatives.
I didn’t say all the links were to Fox. I said it consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox. That would obviously include links to other things to bash the left, and praise Fox, for.
I apologize for nothing, ESPECIALLY rejecting this “independence” BS. Yeah, I know..Bill O’Reilly is independent, too. And Rachel Maddow. And ME. That’s crap. You want independence? You got it right here with Spud. If you’re gonna fight for one side, as most of us do, you’re not independent. Quit being dishonest about it.
joeremi Says:….You’ve got to get “that” side out…since not many view that channel at all.
There’s a reason for that I believe. Your re-iteration and re-statements don’t go unnoticed. so have at it. Just don’t turn into Beck.
Joe I don’t like to call anyone a liar, but your claim that ‘most of the stories are criticisms of lefties’ is just bullcrap. I have 14 cable news stories linked in today’s post. Only ONE even deals with a lefty–Schultz’s suspension to end Monday–and the story (from tv newser) is down-the-middle fair and impartial. So that’s not true. None of them is a criticism of other cable news outlets.
“I said it consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox.”
Today’s post, out of 14 links, has ONE link that is a defense of Fox. Ergo, 13 that aren’t. Two links actually go to fox news. Ergo 12 don’t and go to other sites. Again you are not telling the truth.
“That would obviously include links to other things to bash the left”
Yeah, like what? There isn’t a single bashing the left link in today’s 14 links. So once again you aren’t telling the truth.
“Quit being dishonest about it.”
considering all the falsehoods you just spewed against my site, impugning my honesty in the process, you have a lot of nerve to make that statement.
I’ve been to your site many times, and have no interest in arguing the merits based on one day. IN MY OPINION, you are a conservative; running a rightwing site; who rarely comes here to comment on ANYTHING that doesn’t involve a defense of Fox News. I have a right to believe my own lying eyes, and I don’t care WHAT you think of me.
No, you don’t want to back up your smears based on one day, and you don’t want to back up your smears based on all the days on the front page of the site. You’ve declined to do either.
It’s very easy to throw out allegations; it’s not so easy when you make claims that are easily verifiable (your site is ‘mainly’ this, and ‘mostly’ that) when anyone who looks at the site can see that you aren’t telling the truth.
Why you insist on smearing me is what I can’t understand. I don’t know what I did to cause this reaction. But I will not sit idly by and take it when my integrity is attacked, or my website is smeared with obvious, blatant falsehoods.
My problem is that you constantly defend Fox News as though you are “fair” and “independent”. You went after me on Twitter a while back because I dared to call your blog conservative. I DO NOT understand that bizarre defensiveness. If I had a blog that claimed to “tell the truth about Fox News”, how do you think that would be perceived? Independent? Fair? Bull. The Truth About Fox News is either For, or Against. You are For, as you have shown here repeatedly.
I despise the wishy-washy “independent” moniker that people – including O’Reilly – place on themselves so they don’t have to take responsibility for their ideology. The Truth About Cable News may qualify as “idependent”, i. e., ICN. The Truth About Fox News is an ideological POV. Period.
You can hold whatever bizarre notions you like of what ‘truth’ means. I don’t care if you rip on my slogan. I do care when you don’t tell the truth about the content of my site.
I don’t like being BSed by the same crowd that berates me about the “liberal MSM” all the time. I have to listen to this crap, then be told that something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”. It is not.
My biggest gripe about Fox News will go away in less than a month. I always catch the last 30 seconds of Beck when I watch the DVR’d Special Report and again with Red Eye. I hate that.
-right-leaning vs independant-
Not everything about cable news or even Fox, for that matter, is ideological.
“I don’t like being BSed by the same crowd that berates me about the “liberal MSM” all the time.”
What does this have to do with me. When did I ever berate you about the ‘liberal MSM’?
“I have to listen to this crap, then be told that something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”.”
Again, why do you bring up listening to that crap in this discussion with me? Have I been berating you about the ‘liberal MSM’? Are you just making up stuff about me as you go along?
“something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”.”
Well, except for the slight problem that every claim you made to prove my site is ‘right-leaning’ was untrue. Other than that, fair point.
It’s not independent. Neither is Fox News. You’re a conservative, Fox is conservative. I don’t like being berated by false claims of “independence”. You’re as “independent” as I am.
C-Span isn’t a news outlet but it does consist of mainly political programming, and it is easy to objectively demonstrate that it plays everything right down the true middle day in and day out. When watching C-Span, though, it feels noticeably conservative in comparison to most news outlets I listen to, read, or watch.
I think that’s because most news outlets are decidedly liberal and anything, including C-Span, will come across as conservative in comparison. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Fox News presents more conservative and libertarian points of view than any of the other networks do. But that says more about its competitors’ lack of balanced programming than it does about Fox.
Its conservative evening/primetime programming consists of just Hannity & Hannity. Beck is libertarian, not conservative and Smith doesn’t seem to be. O’Reilly’s not a liberal but he certainly isn’t a conservative, either. Is Greta Van Susteren a conservative? Maybe. Heck, even Red Eye consists of one conservative, one liberal, and one libertarian with no zealots in the mix (a little kinky, perhaps.)
So I think calling FNC a right-wing organisation is bunch sh!te-bull.
I think calling libertarian “not conservative” is nauseating semantic horsehockey. Libertarian is to conservative as progressive is to liberal. And O’Reilly is a conservative, no matter what blather he claims. I watch his show; he believes in mainly conservative policies.
Furthermore, as long as Roger Ailes and Bill Sammon are stocking their “newscasts” with rightwing talking points – when their not busy creating entirely fake “controversies” – FNC will be a rightwing political organisation.
Ok, I’ll call libertarians “conservative” and I’ll equate socialists as “liberals”. That’s fair.
And presenting some issues from a conservative perspective is no different than how Rachel Maddow presents some issues from her liberal perspective. It’s only a fake controversy if you can’t accept the perspective, and it’s only wrong if they never present issues from the perspective of the other side. Fox usually does.
Joe, you’ve gone off the deep end this time. Dollar is far more fair than you realize or are willing to admit.
That said, you have a point about $’s propensity to act as a rapid-fire reaction War Room to anything negative that comes FNC’s way, no matter how trivial it may be. $ doesn’t pick his targets…he rebuts everything. Often he has reason to do so because the criticisms he’s rebutting are questionable at best. But it does have a cumulative effect on the uninitiated or casual reader to lend to the impression you just gave. I’m not sure $ is cognizant of this point as he’s too close to the matter.
$ doesn’t respond well to generalizations. He’s a lawyer after all. If you want to take him on, and have a chance at being successful at it, you have to be specific in your argument. You can’t meander. You can’t change the argument. You can’t get sidetracked. You have to stick to the specific charge you are trying to level and you have to document it well. Otherwise he’ll chew you up and spit you out. As just happened to you.
He may be better at the tit-for-tat than I am, but I don’t see how he can call something “the truth about Fox News”, then claim it’s not an ideological POV. “Rapid fire War Room reaction to anything negative that comes FNC’s way” is inherently ideological, because FNC is.
Because J$ generally employs an abundance of objective evidence to successfully challenge the factual inaccuracies he discovers about Fox News, the ideological POV of either Fox News or J$ is not relevant to his findings. It might partially explain why he enjoys his hobby, though.
I’m sorry, there’s no way someone could create a blog with the goal: “the truth about MSNBC”; a blog in which the general mood is to defend against inaccurate slanders against that network; and expect any self-respecting conservative to accept that it is “independent”.
The problem is an age-old one. Conservatives (I used to be one, I know this) consider their POV the “fair and correct” one, and everything else is “liberal and wrong”. That’s how you get righties telling you – with a straight face – that what they are espousing is The Truth, as if it’s not an ideological one. It’s “fair, balanced, right”. Period.
So a serial defender of Fox News can proclaim “independence, balance” because FNC is not right..it’s in the correct center. I get it. Now figure out how I could run Joe Remi’s Place: The Truth About MSNBC, and get away with the same conceit. Good luck with that.
When he argues a point of view in his defence of Fox News, that would be ideological and your “truth” argument makes sense. But that’s not what he usually does. He usually finds a questionable or ridiculous claim made by someone against Fox News and then rips them apart by gathering and presenting objective evidence sufficient for any reasonable person, regardless of ideology, to conclude the claim to be false.
You’re begging the question because I’m pretty sure you, not J$, planted the “independence, balance” claim on him.
You’re begging the question because I’m pretty sure you, not J$, planted the “independence, balance” claim on him.
Nope. I made an innocent “conservative” comment to him on Twitter a while back – I believe I mentioned it in this thread – and he “corrected” me that he and his blog were “independent”, and went to great pains to inform me that my attempts to call him or his blog conservative was a “smear”. I’m obviously still pissed off about it. I don’t take kindly to be accused of slander from a Fox News apologist BSing me with “fair and balanced”.
We have something in common. I don’t like having my blog smeared as a ‘rightwing’ propaganda blog by people who make up phony claims about its content out of thin air. From your insistence that the blog has a ‘faux Fox News logo’ on it to your ridiculous claim that the links are mostly to Fox News or articles defending Fox News, your arguments are clearly, obviously, on their face untrue.
Yeah, the site doesn’t have a fascination with a bunch of loony Fox haters called Newshounds, either. Fox News is a hack political entity, and you’re a serial defender of said hackery. Enjoy the ride.
As long as you keep changing your attacks instead of defending the ones you’ve already made (admittedly difficult since untruths are inherently indefensible) there can be no reasonable discussion. Get back to me when you are able to back up your claims about the content of the links I post with actual data that supports your charges…which would be about the 12th of Never.
I don’t want to hear about “attacks” from someone who had a fit on Twitter and accused me of smears because I dared to call your site a conservative blog. A site committed to the defense of Fox News is inherently tilted to the right, just as Media Matters’ committment to criticizing them pegs them as lefty. It’s not rocket science, and it’s not “balance”. You have your ideology, I have mine. One of us is honest about it.
Funny thing is, I don’t think I’ve ever heard J$ make a political-statement, here or there. One may infer that, based upon a singularly focused, lawyer-like defense of Fox News, but it’s only an inference.
It’s a pretty blatant inference, and I resent being labeled a smear merchant for noticing it. If I practiced a singularly focused, lawyer-like defense of MSNBC, then b/tched when someone accused me of being left-leaning, everyone here would crucify me.
If you’re being labeled a smear merchant it’s for misrepresenting and falsifying the contents of my website. You can draw whatever inferences you like about me, but then don’t be all shocked! shocked! if I point out the utter lack of any examples from my own words to support them. I have yet to see you quote me espousing all these ‘rightwing’ positions on my website, which should be pretty easy to do if, as you claim, the entire website is ‘rightwing’.
And of course your statement about the articles I link to (they are mostly from ‘Fox News’, or ‘defending’ Fox News, or ‘attacking’ lefties) is an utter fabrication, made up out of thin air, so it’s no surprise that you never did make any attempt to justify a smear that is indefensible on its face.
Look, I’m not going to waste my life counting stories. I’ve been to your site enough times to know it’s a combination of defenses of Fox, links to Gretawire, a bizarre fascination with Newshounds which you use to back up your concept that “the left” is out to get your precious “news” channel, and benign links to ratings and such. It’s a rightwing site, in defense of a political rightwing organisation.
I may not have the lawyer-like skills to beat you in a technical tit-for-tat HOW DARE YOU SIR argument, but I’m not STUPID. I object to you accusing me of a smear, and will never speak to you again.
“Look, I’m not going to waste my life counting stories.”
No, you’ll just level a bunch of charges about how most of the stories are this or that, and when asked to back it up…oops, actually count the stories? Sorry, that’s a waste of my life.
To which I say, if you can’t be bothered to find out what the truth is, then you shouldn’t spout off charges that are false.
“I object to you accusing me of a smear…”
You have a perfect right to object, but what I just described above sounds a lot like a smear to me, and your refusal to either back up your claims or admit you were wrong and apologize kind of puts a capital S on the smear, from where I’m sitting. Your mileage may vary of course.
“…and will never speak to you again.”
Well I bowed out of this last night and let you have the last word, but you had to come back and continue your attacks on my site. Whether you talk to me or not is your affair, but when you talk about my site and don’t tell the truth about it, I will not roll over and respond with ‘Please sir, may I have another?’.
Out of this whole thread of comments between Johnny and JR, where Johnny is his typical paranoid, nit-picking self, it’s awfully ironic that he says MSNBC is “a political operation masquerading as a news operation”, when his favorite network has a ridiculous slogan claiming to be “fair and balanced” and employs several potential presidential candidates.
Maybe Johnny should think about how the CEO running Fox is a former media consultant under 3 GOP administrations, including Rudy Guiliani’s mayoral campaign. And who’s running MSNBC, again? Oh yeah, GE and Comcast. Their networks’ slogan is “lean forward” and “the place for politics” with no hosts who want to run for President. Where is the political operating there?
Tell us, Mr. Fox truth teller… please enlighten everybody on how Fox is “fair and balanced” when they don’t even have a real liberal hosting a show at a decent hour, along with several former Bush operatives like Karl Rove and Dana Perino as paid contributors.
June 2, 2011 at 8:00 am
As it is no one has been viewing his offerings. IMO, he kissed his audience off months ago.
June 2, 2011 at 8:51 am
whitney, maybe Beck’s audience has decreased, but he’s STILL the #3 rated show in all of cable news!!!!!
From TV Newser: “As we reported yesterday, Beck had a rough month ratings-wise in May, slipping -17% in total viewers and -33% in the adults 25-54 demo compared to last year. That said, he still handily topped his competition on CNN and MSNBC. In fact only two shows drew higher ratings than Beck in all of cable news: “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Hannity,” both of which are in primetime.”
Anyway, it sucks that Beck is leaving the show. Even though I love the guy, I can’t see myself tuning into some webcast every day. And his “specials” throughout the year? How can any momentum be gained by having a program on once every couple of months?
Like him or not, Beck is educational and brings us stories no one else dare present.
June 2, 2011 at 11:10 am
“Like him or not, Beck is educational and brings us stories no one else dare present.” – missy
I especially liked the ones which highlighted the contributions made by women and African-Americans during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. And the accomplishments of slaves who were self-taught. I don’t know why these people and their histories aren’t taught in the schools. I certainly never learned about them.
June 2, 2011 at 11:24 am
Last Friday he ran segments from previous shows that featured what carolmr said. It was very good, and the ratings showed it. #3 in P2+ and #1 in the demo.
Unfortunately the regular shows have been going down hill. I rarely get beyond 10 or 15 minutes into it before tuning out due to sheer boredom. It seems, paraphrasing T.S. Elliot, “This is the way the worldprogram ends – Not with a bang but a whimper.”
June 2, 2011 at 11:24 am
Oops. Sorry. Looks like strikeout html doesn’t work.
June 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm
How can you possibly be “educational” when you don’t have any education or knowledge of anything you’re talking about?
June 2, 2011 at 12:42 pm
By the way, no one else dares to present the stories Beck does because he makes them up out of thin air from his paranoid mind. Why do you think he needs a chalkboard to write it on? He’s just like Russell Crowe in “A Beautiful Mind”.
June 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm
How can you possibly be “educational” when…
Just as other cable programme hosts do, Mr. Beck has guests on who do know their shite.
I often use a chalkboard for the classes I teach whenever my lesson doesn’t present well using graphics or other projections. Images, even those on a chalkboard, help to hold attention and focus the thoughts of students. It’s worked for centuries.
June 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm
What, Proglib, so women and African-Americans didn’t contribute during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars?
It’s fine if you want to take a cheap shot, just don’t generalize so much. That is all.
June 2, 2011 at 1:55 pm
How can you possibly be “educational” when…
Just as other cable programme hosts do, Mr. Beck has guests on who do know their sh!te.
I often use a chalkboard for the classes I teach whenever my lesson doesn’t present well using graphics or other projections. Images, even those on a chalkboard, help to hold attention and focus the thoughts, and it’s worked for centuries.
June 2, 2011 at 2:25 pm
How about those crazy, wacky, paranoid stories Beck’s spinning tonight? Totally made up out of thin air from his paranoid mind! Nazi death camps? What nonsense!! And who are those holocaust survivors he’s interviewing? They can’t be real–Beck made all this up! Obviously he’s hired actors to play these nonexistent people!
June 2, 2011 at 3:02 pm
For the last couple years, Beck has constantly veered back and forth between The Crazy and some serious historical programming. The man who called the black president racist is also the one who has done several meaningful programs about the African-American experience in the past, and the present. Dude’s effin bipolar. Not that there’s anything wrong with that..
June 2, 2011 at 3:12 pm
It’s better than no polar at all.
June 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm
missy5537
understand your feelings. I just was not enamored by his silliness. Don’t know why he felt the need to do that, and whether that was the final straw with Ailes.
Unfortunately with Ailes it might have been $ and cents; as it was at WOR in NYC when the jettisoned his radio show.
I feel your pain missy5537 since you liked him/his show.
June 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Johnny, stop trying to take things so literally… we all know the death camps and holocaust survivors are real. But, when he comes out with his conspiratorial attacks against Obama, Democrats, the “Muslim caliphate”, etc., he’s the typical crazy guy writing on the chalkboard.
P.S. There is nothing wrong with writing on a chalkboard, but when you’re writing crazy stuff like he does… especially misspelling oligarchy (when choosing the first letter of every sentence on his chalkboard), randomly putting communist magnets next to people’s names, and drawing arrows and baselessly linking Van Jones to George Soros to President Obama and so on… you look like a complete and utter clown. Period.
June 2, 2011 at 4:03 pm
That’s what Johnny does, Prog. He’ll completely ignore Beck’s massive doses of The Crazy, then find something redeeming to praise, instead of being honest like I was. Johnny’s deal is to defend Fox News. It’s what he does.
June 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Honestly, I think Beck is a frustrated preacher and it seems his end-times rap is taken from the likes of the “end times” authors he has had on his show. Frankly, Beck has been dipping into the work of these people for much of his “last time-end times” rap, and that’s why it’s turned into a desultory goo for the smiling white guy.
He should have taken advice and broken down and cried more often. Even Tina Brown was impressed with that act.
Do I think he’s been insincere; yes, I do.
Poll tested topics from the clown.
Guess that’s why he needs a staff of writers and production aids to put on his hour shows each day.
Just to appear as a chalkboard talk takes a huge staff and large production budget.
As someone here said, “I pretty much agree with most of what he’s said. It’s his silliness that was/is objectionable.”
Whoever I’m quoting I thank you for articulating that thought.:)
June 2, 2011 at 5:06 pm
No what Johnny does is expose liars, people who claim Beck makes up what he says out of thin air. Not SOME of what he says, mind you. Because that might allow for Beck to have said something correct at some point. No, it has to be that Beck just makes it ALL up out of his paranoid mind.
That’s not even an opinion any more. It’s just a lie. And I expose such lies. Although in this case Josh beat me to it. He nailed it before I did.
June 2, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Yeah yeah, but you claim independence while running a rightwing blog with a faux Fox News logo, and you only show up to defend THEM. You have an agenda, and pretend you don’t. Just like Fox News.
I do agree that Prog’s sweeping generalization was off the mark, as sweeping generalizations tend to be.
June 2, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Really Joe, you ought to tell the truth about my blog, at least when talking to me. Where is this ‘faux Fox News logo’ that you claim is on my blog? Post the link so everyone can go see it.
And please tell me all the right-wing positions I have advocated on my ‘rightwing’ blog. Or maybe, if you can’t do those two little things to back up your attack, you might just take it back.
June 2, 2011 at 5:29 pm
The logo right next to your name looks a lot like the Fox logo to me.
Your blog consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox News. It’s a Fox News-based blog, which – if you haven’t heard – is rightwing.
I don’t mind that you have an agenda. I mind that you keep pretending you don’t.
June 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“The logo right next to your name looks a lot like the Fox logo to me.”
That’s nice, but you said I ran a ‘rightwing blog with a faux Fox News logo’. I asked you to show everyone where my blog has a ‘faux Fox News logo’ on it. You know, like post a link. Either you can, or you can’t. Which is it?
“Your blog consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox News.”
False again, and easily disprovable with good old fashioned mathematics. Count up the links on my front page right now, and if they are mainly or mostly link to Fox News I’ll contribute $100 to the charity of your choice. If they are not mostly links to Fox News you will contribute $100 to the charity of my choice and apologize to me for smearing me with a falsehood. Are you game to start the count?
” It’s a Fox News-based blog, which – if you haven’t heard – is rightwing.”
Because you say so? That’s a laugh. You’re rightwing because Fox is rightwing because Joe sez so? What’s right wing about Shepard Smith? Geraldo? Bob Beckel? Joe Trippi? Alan Colmes? Is a blog about MSNBC (a political operation masquerading as a news operation) automatically a leftwing blog because it’s about MSNBC–even if there are no political discussions whatsoever in the posts?!?
But none of this matters because your basic premise isn’t true. My blog is not Fox-News based. It covers all cable news channels. Posts that deal specifically with Fox News are a small fraction, outnumbered by 6-1, 7-1, maybe even 7-1 or more by posts about cable news in general.
You are entitled to have whatever opinion you like of my blog. But you obviously either don’t read it, or don’t care to tell the truth about it. As evidenced by how many of the statements you made in your comment above are flat-out false.
June 2, 2011 at 5:47 pm
-J$ agenda -
He does have an agenda. Excerpted from “About JSP”: “… your source for the latest cable news developments, exclusive videos, and the truth about Fox News.”
His blog seems to pretty much follow that stated mission to the letter and I’m not seeing anything that could even remotely be construed as right-wing or conservative. No need to pretend that there is an agenda beyond what is explicitly claimed.
June 2, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Johnny Dollar; I like the effort you’ve put into your blog; didn’t catch that you were an apologist for any POV, actually. If you place that much effort into your work you should have a POV that comes through.
just my view. i like this thread and site; I hear/read stuff here first that even Drudge doesn’t have.
June 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm
…plus we get JDollar….when I saw someone quote Johnny Dollar’s comments…I knew J Dollar had arrived.
June 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Most of the stories are criticisms of lefties, and cable news outlets not called Fox. Almost ALL of the Fox stuff is a defense of them. And Fox is run by a conservative political operative as a political operation. Fox is a rightwing organisation, and Dollar’s blog is about as fair and balanced as THEY are.
I’m not gonna take a constant shellacking about everything NOT conservative being a “liberal MSM”, then put up with some “independent” horsecrap from conservatives.
I didn’t say all the links were to Fox. I said it consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox. That would obviously include links to other things to bash the left, and praise Fox, for.
I apologize for nothing, ESPECIALLY rejecting this “independence” BS. Yeah, I know..Bill O’Reilly is independent, too. And Rachel Maddow. And ME. That’s crap. You want independence? You got it right here with Spud. If you’re gonna fight for one side, as most of us do, you’re not independent. Quit being dishonest about it.
June 2, 2011 at 6:12 pm
joeremi Says:….You’ve got to get “that” side out…since not many view that channel at all.
There’s a reason for that I believe. Your re-iteration and re-statements don’t go unnoticed. so have at it. Just don’t turn into Beck.
June 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Joe I don’t like to call anyone a liar, but your claim that ‘most of the stories are criticisms of lefties’ is just bullcrap. I have 14 cable news stories linked in today’s post. Only ONE even deals with a lefty–Schultz’s suspension to end Monday–and the story (from tv newser) is down-the-middle fair and impartial. So that’s not true. None of them is a criticism of other cable news outlets.
“I said it consists mainly of defenses of, and links to, Fox.”
Today’s post, out of 14 links, has ONE link that is a defense of Fox. Ergo, 13 that aren’t. Two links actually go to fox news. Ergo 12 don’t and go to other sites. Again you are not telling the truth.
“That would obviously include links to other things to bash the left”
Yeah, like what? There isn’t a single bashing the left link in today’s 14 links. So once again you aren’t telling the truth.
“Quit being dishonest about it.”
considering all the falsehoods you just spewed against my site, impugning my honesty in the process, you have a lot of nerve to make that statement.
June 2, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I’ve been to your site many times, and have no interest in arguing the merits based on one day. IN MY OPINION, you are a conservative; running a rightwing site; who rarely comes here to comment on ANYTHING that doesn’t involve a defense of Fox News. I have a right to believe my own lying eyes, and I don’t care WHAT you think of me.
June 2, 2011 at 6:30 pm
No, you don’t want to back up your smears based on one day, and you don’t want to back up your smears based on all the days on the front page of the site. You’ve declined to do either.
It’s very easy to throw out allegations; it’s not so easy when you make claims that are easily verifiable (your site is ‘mainly’ this, and ‘mostly’ that) when anyone who looks at the site can see that you aren’t telling the truth.
Why you insist on smearing me is what I can’t understand. I don’t know what I did to cause this reaction. But I will not sit idly by and take it when my integrity is attacked, or my website is smeared with obvious, blatant falsehoods.
June 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm
My problem is that you constantly defend Fox News as though you are “fair” and “independent”. You went after me on Twitter a while back because I dared to call your blog conservative. I DO NOT understand that bizarre defensiveness. If I had a blog that claimed to “tell the truth about Fox News”, how do you think that would be perceived? Independent? Fair? Bull. The Truth About Fox News is either For, or Against. You are For, as you have shown here repeatedly.
I despise the wishy-washy “independent” moniker that people – including O’Reilly – place on themselves so they don’t have to take responsibility for their ideology. The Truth About Cable News may qualify as “idependent”, i. e., ICN. The Truth About Fox News is an ideological POV. Period.
June 2, 2011 at 6:44 pm
You can hold whatever bizarre notions you like of what ‘truth’ means. I don’t care if you rip on my slogan. I do care when you don’t tell the truth about the content of my site.
June 2, 2011 at 6:48 pm
I don’t like being BSed by the same crowd that berates me about the “liberal MSM” all the time. I have to listen to this crap, then be told that something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”. It is not.
June 2, 2011 at 7:02 pm
My biggest gripe about Fox News will go away in less than a month. I always catch the last 30 seconds of Beck when I watch the DVR’d Special Report and again with Red Eye. I hate that.
-right-leaning vs independant-
Not everything about cable news or even Fox, for that matter, is ideological.
June 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“I don’t like being BSed by the same crowd that berates me about the “liberal MSM” all the time.”
What does this have to do with me. When did I ever berate you about the ‘liberal MSM’?
“I have to listen to this crap, then be told that something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”.”
Again, why do you bring up listening to that crap in this discussion with me? Have I been berating you about the ‘liberal MSM’? Are you just making up stuff about me as you go along?
“something that is clearly right-leaning is “independent”.”
Well, except for the slight problem that every claim you made to prove my site is ‘right-leaning’ was untrue. Other than that, fair point.
June 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm
It’s not independent. Neither is Fox News. You’re a conservative, Fox is conservative. I don’t like being berated by false claims of “independence”. You’re as “independent” as I am.
June 2, 2011 at 7:13 pm
“It’s not independent.”
Just keep repeating that, and ignore and/or misrepresent the actual content of my site. If you say it enough times, it magically becomes twoo!
June 2, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Nice Princess Bride reference.
I’ll shut up now.
June 2, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I got a quarter on that bet…
June 2, 2011 at 8:58 pm
C-Span isn’t a news outlet but it does consist of mainly political programming, and it is easy to objectively demonstrate that it plays everything right down the true middle day in and day out. When watching C-Span, though, it feels noticeably conservative in comparison to most news outlets I listen to, read, or watch.
I think that’s because most news outlets are decidedly liberal and anything, including C-Span, will come across as conservative in comparison. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Fox News presents more conservative and libertarian points of view than any of the other networks do. But that says more about its competitors’ lack of balanced programming than it does about Fox.
Its conservative evening/primetime programming consists of just Hannity & Hannity. Beck is libertarian, not conservative and Smith doesn’t seem to be. O’Reilly’s not a liberal but he certainly isn’t a conservative, either. Is Greta Van Susteren a conservative? Maybe. Heck, even Red Eye consists of one conservative, one liberal, and one libertarian with no zealots in the mix (a little kinky, perhaps.)
So I think calling FNC a right-wing organisation is bunch sh!te-bull.
June 2, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I think calling libertarian “not conservative” is nauseating semantic horsehockey. Libertarian is to conservative as progressive is to liberal. And O’Reilly is a conservative, no matter what blather he claims. I watch his show; he believes in mainly conservative policies.
Furthermore, as long as Roger Ailes and Bill Sammon are stocking their “newscasts” with rightwing talking points – when their not busy creating entirely fake “controversies” – FNC will be a rightwing political organisation.
June 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“they’re”
Really, could we get an Edit button around here?
June 2, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Ok, I’ll call libertarians “conservative” and I’ll equate socialists as “liberals”. That’s fair.
And presenting some issues from a conservative perspective is no different than how Rachel Maddow presents some issues from her liberal perspective. It’s only a fake controversy if you can’t accept the perspective, and it’s only wrong if they never present issues from the perspective of the other side. Fox usually does.
June 2, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Joe, you’ve gone off the deep end this time. Dollar is far more fair than you realize or are willing to admit.
That said, you have a point about $’s propensity to act as a rapid-fire reaction War Room to anything negative that comes FNC’s way, no matter how trivial it may be. $ doesn’t pick his targets…he rebuts everything. Often he has reason to do so because the criticisms he’s rebutting are questionable at best. But it does have a cumulative effect on the uninitiated or casual reader to lend to the impression you just gave. I’m not sure $ is cognizant of this point as he’s too close to the matter.
$ doesn’t respond well to generalizations. He’s a lawyer after all. If you want to take him on, and have a chance at being successful at it, you have to be specific in your argument. You can’t meander. You can’t change the argument. You can’t get sidetracked. You have to stick to the specific charge you are trying to level and you have to document it well. Otherwise he’ll chew you up and spit you out. As just happened to you.
June 2, 2011 at 9:35 pm
He may be better at the tit-for-tat than I am, but I don’t see how he can call something “the truth about Fox News”, then claim it’s not an ideological POV. “Rapid fire War Room reaction to anything negative that comes FNC’s way” is inherently ideological, because FNC is.
June 2, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Because J$ generally employs an abundance of objective evidence to successfully challenge the factual inaccuracies he discovers about Fox News, the ideological POV of either Fox News or J$ is not relevant to his findings. It might partially explain why he enjoys his hobby, though.
June 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I’m sorry, there’s no way someone could create a blog with the goal: “the truth about MSNBC”; a blog in which the general mood is to defend against inaccurate slanders against that network; and expect any self-respecting conservative to accept that it is “independent”.
The problem is an age-old one. Conservatives (I used to be one, I know this) consider their POV the “fair and correct” one, and everything else is “liberal and wrong”. That’s how you get righties telling you – with a straight face – that what they are espousing is The Truth, as if it’s not an ideological one. It’s “fair, balanced, right”. Period.
So a serial defender of Fox News can proclaim “independence, balance” because FNC is not right..it’s in the correct center. I get it. Now figure out how I could run Joe Remi’s Place: The Truth About MSNBC, and get away with the same conceit. Good luck with that.
June 2, 2011 at 11:17 pm
When he argues a point of view in his defence of Fox News, that would be ideological and your “truth” argument makes sense. But that’s not what he usually does. He usually finds a questionable or ridiculous claim made by someone against Fox News and then rips them apart by gathering and presenting objective evidence sufficient for any reasonable person, regardless of ideology, to conclude the claim to be false.
You’re begging the question because I’m pretty sure you, not J$, planted the “independence, balance” claim on him.
June 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm
You’re begging the question because I’m pretty sure you, not J$, planted the “independence, balance” claim on him.
Nope. I made an innocent “conservative” comment to him on Twitter a while back – I believe I mentioned it in this thread – and he “corrected” me that he and his blog were “independent”, and went to great pains to inform me that my attempts to call him or his blog conservative was a “smear”. I’m obviously still pissed off about it. I don’t take kindly to be accused of slander from a Fox News apologist BSing me with “fair and balanced”.
June 3, 2011 at 6:56 am
We have something in common. I don’t like having my blog smeared as a ‘rightwing’ propaganda blog by people who make up phony claims about its content out of thin air. From your insistence that the blog has a ‘faux Fox News logo’ on it to your ridiculous claim that the links are mostly to Fox News or articles defending Fox News, your arguments are clearly, obviously, on their face untrue.
June 3, 2011 at 7:20 am
Yeah, the site doesn’t have a fascination with a bunch of loony Fox haters called Newshounds, either. Fox News is a hack political entity, and you’re a serial defender of said hackery. Enjoy the ride.
June 3, 2011 at 7:28 am
As long as you keep changing your attacks instead of defending the ones you’ve already made (admittedly difficult since untruths are inherently indefensible) there can be no reasonable discussion. Get back to me when you are able to back up your claims about the content of the links I post with actual data that supports your charges…which would be about the 12th of Never.
June 3, 2011 at 8:21 am
I don’t want to hear about “attacks” from someone who had a fit on Twitter and accused me of smears because I dared to call your site a conservative blog. A site committed to the defense of Fox News is inherently tilted to the right, just as Media Matters’ committment to criticizing them pegs them as lefty. It’s not rocket science, and it’s not “balance”. You have your ideology, I have mine. One of us is honest about it.
June 3, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Funny thing is, I don’t think I’ve ever heard J$ make a political-statement, here or there. One may infer that, based upon a singularly focused, lawyer-like defense of Fox News, but it’s only an inference.
June 3, 2011 at 2:21 pm
It’s a pretty blatant inference, and I resent being labeled a smear merchant for noticing it. If I practiced a singularly focused, lawyer-like defense of MSNBC, then b/tched when someone accused me of being left-leaning, everyone here would crucify me.
June 3, 2011 at 2:35 pm
If you’re being labeled a smear merchant it’s for misrepresenting and falsifying the contents of my website. You can draw whatever inferences you like about me, but then don’t be all shocked! shocked! if I point out the utter lack of any examples from my own words to support them. I have yet to see you quote me espousing all these ‘rightwing’ positions on my website, which should be pretty easy to do if, as you claim, the entire website is ‘rightwing’.
And of course your statement about the articles I link to (they are mostly from ‘Fox News’, or ‘defending’ Fox News, or ‘attacking’ lefties) is an utter fabrication, made up out of thin air, so it’s no surprise that you never did make any attempt to justify a smear that is indefensible on its face.
June 3, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Look, I’m not going to waste my life counting stories. I’ve been to your site enough times to know it’s a combination of defenses of Fox, links to Gretawire, a bizarre fascination with Newshounds which you use to back up your concept that “the left” is out to get your precious “news” channel, and benign links to ratings and such. It’s a rightwing site, in defense of a political rightwing organisation.
I may not have the lawyer-like skills to beat you in a technical tit-for-tat HOW DARE YOU SIR argument, but I’m not STUPID. I object to you accusing me of a smear, and will never speak to you again.
June 3, 2011 at 3:05 pm
“Look, I’m not going to waste my life counting stories.”
No, you’ll just level a bunch of charges about how most of the stories are this or that, and when asked to back it up…oops, actually count the stories? Sorry, that’s a waste of my life.
To which I say, if you can’t be bothered to find out what the truth is, then you shouldn’t spout off charges that are false.
“I object to you accusing me of a smear…”
You have a perfect right to object, but what I just described above sounds a lot like a smear to me, and your refusal to either back up your claims or admit you were wrong and apologize kind of puts a capital S on the smear, from where I’m sitting. Your mileage may vary of course.
“…and will never speak to you again.”
Well I bowed out of this last night and let you have the last word, but you had to come back and continue your attacks on my site. Whether you talk to me or not is your affair, but when you talk about my site and don’t tell the truth about it, I will not roll over and respond with ‘Please sir, may I have another?’.
June 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Out of this whole thread of comments between Johnny and JR, where Johnny is his typical paranoid, nit-picking self, it’s awfully ironic that he says MSNBC is “a political operation masquerading as a news operation”, when his favorite network has a ridiculous slogan claiming to be “fair and balanced” and employs several potential presidential candidates.
Maybe Johnny should think about how the CEO running Fox is a former media consultant under 3 GOP administrations, including Rudy Guiliani’s mayoral campaign. And who’s running MSNBC, again? Oh yeah, GE and Comcast. Their networks’ slogan is “lean forward” and “the place for politics” with no hosts who want to run for President. Where is the political operating there?
Tell us, Mr. Fox truth teller… please enlighten everybody on how Fox is “fair and balanced” when they don’t even have a real liberal hosting a show at a decent hour, along with several former Bush operatives like Karl Rove and Dana Perino as paid contributors.