But this is still a pretty confusing issue. In some regards, it looks like a lot of talk, that won’t have a lot of tangible results and addresses something that isn’t currently a real problem (which we know the left loathes to do… or at least that’s what they say when talking about voter IDs).
But it’s such a muddy issue, and the politicians have less impact than perhaps their bluster would lead us to believe, I’ll be surprised if it gets a lot of media attention.
Only just caught latter part of Matthews but it was especially delusional. Complete with “birther” talk and Tingles strange obsession about the OBama presidency somehow being erased.
Now that Ted Cruz has told us what the Republicans position will be on net neutrality McConnell and have caved to the real Republican leader and made it Republican policy. 🙂
McConnell and have caved >>> McConnell and Boehner have caved
-Net neutrality and FCC regulations-
This is an issues in which the wiser tactic would be for policy makers to refrain from partisan snark in favour of thoughtful consideration and debate of the others’ arguments. Bureaucratic regulation, by its very nature, will most certainly slow innovation. Our well-regulated power grid, for example, is mostly state of the art 1950s technology, and that industry has its own version of “net neutrality” that hasn’t served the masses well at all.
On the flip side, and not unlike the power grid, we’ve long passed the point where having robust access to the internet could be considered a luxury. We’ve already seen more than a few instances where service providers have chosen to slow down service to some customers who use too much bandwidth yet keep the pipes flowing fast for the ones who are an added revenue source for them.
Should we regulate so that everyone plays on the same field? Or would we be better off in the long run by letting innovation of the free market potentially render the whole problem moot through technological advancement? The knee-jerk of conservatives will probably be the latter choice and, for liberals, the former. But either way you choose it’ll be the lower income groups getting hosed the most.
“Should we regulate so that everyone plays on the same field? Or would we be better off in the long run by letting innovation of the free market potentially render the whole problem moot through technological advancement? The knee-jerk of conservatives will probably be the latter choice and, for liberals, the former.”
^^Show me an example of where a corporation; once given the ability to increase the cost of an essential services; has then lowered that cost “by letting innovation of the free market potentially render the whole problem moot through technological advancement?” There are none.
Charging for internet usage like a power or water bill is the free market way and that is always the conservative/Republican way. Saying “technological advancement” and “innovation” will save the day is a red herring and always the reason c/R use to justify allowing corporations to grossly overcharge for a service.
Cable/ satellite services and healthcare are perfect examples of what happens when corporations are allowed to control costs of essential services. Even corporations that provide the weapons the country needs to fight its wars have been proven to grossly overcharge the US for those weapons and to even hide test results when they show those weapons are defective to their users, US military personnel.
“But either way you choose it’ll be the lower income groups getting hosed the most.”
^^ No, only if corporations are allowed to charge for internet usage like a utility bill will lower income groups lose. There is no
‘innovation of the free market to potentially render the whole problem moot through technological advancement’ holy grail on the horizon that will make the internet providers charge less for their service. And if there were such a holy grail the internet providers would charge more for the innovation; not less.
^^Show me an example of where a corporation; once given the ability to increase the cost of an essential services; has then lowered that cost “by letting innovation of the free market potentially render the whole problem moot through technological advancement?”
When the PS2 first came out, it was $299 and came with one controller, no games.
Today, you can get a PS3 for less than $200 bundled with up to 4 games.
“When the PS2 first came out, it was $299 and came with one controller, no games.”
“Today, you can get a PS3 for less than $200 bundled with up to 4 games.”
^^The price drop was more about competition from Xbox and Nintendo than any wish to help out poor gamers farris. And PS3 may be an “essential service” to you but it isn’t quite the same as electricity, water or healthcare for those millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. Thanks for playing though. 🙂
“The price drop was more about competition… ”
With Internet access, there is very little competition. I have a choice between Cable, DSL, and -ugh- Dial-Up. (No Uverse or Fios here in the ‘burbs’.) Even though the last two have some choices, the ‘last mile’ is still Southwestern Bell.
Without free competition it should be treated as a utility.
Caught he last 10 or so minutes of Banfield’s show and she was showing GWB talking about GHWB live from College Station, TX. Was pretty cool. Would think it’d possibly be broadcast on CSPAN but nope.
Show me an example of where a corporation…
Fuel for your automobile is but one example. Adjusted for inflation, it’s cheap. Telephone service is another. Pricing on televisions has dropped enormously, and they’re way more advanced than they used to be. And note that I did not claim savings from “a corporation”, I said the “free market”, so of course some of the competitive pricing and improvements are due to competition.
Even internet services, especially when you define that as being “information access” , is considerably less expensive than it once was. You don’t have to pay extra for telephone service any more, for example. We’re also on the brink of a whole new model with HBO & CBS now starting to offer products that don’t require a cable/satellite subscription. I have a 4G Verizon Droid and still with unlimited data. It’s as fast as my Comcast cable so I could really cut the cord if I wanted. And cost shouldn’t be the only consideration. We’ve also seen extraordinary advancements (without pricing going through the roof, btw) that have to count for something.
I have a choice between Cable, DSL, and -ugh- Dial-Up. (No Uverse or Fios here in the ‘burbs’.)
It’s your local community that limits cable competition. Where I live we’ve had competing cable companies since the mid 80s, plus now DSL, wireless and satellite. We’ve had “on demand” viewing long before everyone else started to. You also have satellite and cell data availability. And think about how much your cable bill is if you don’t include the premium channels, multiple sets, HD, etc. They do offer internet only, which is the “essential” service after all.
I wonder why the MSM is so ho-hum over the Gruber remarks? I mean, I just can’t quite put my finger on it.
Andrea Mitchell tells CA congressman that the fires in his state are caused by climate change. Then, apparently hears the idiocy of her statement, and sorta backtracks. Lean Forward!
Come on lone… He’s sorry he was ineloquent all those times he said that. Why report it?
Mika Brzezinski made a point of comparing the response to Gruber to that which occurred when David Stockman said whatever he said about Reagan’s economic plan. What was interesting is that she was pretty out-front in saying that it’s bias, while Time Magazine Guy Whose Name Escapes Me went into his navel-gazing BS about “narratives” and whatever. Of course, all “narrative” means is “that thing which people in the press are inclined to believe or find important”. In other words, their personal bias.
^ It’s essentially a media blackout. I can see it now. The MSM will ignore it. FNC will cover it. So, it will become an “FNC story”. That way the MSM can be excused for not covering it and the Admin. will be excused for not giving a sh!t. And, FNC will be the bad guy for covering it too much.
Try watching television before deciding there’s a “media blackout”. I’ve seen at least 5 segments on MSNBC the last couple days (plus I’ve been told Morning Joe is covering it), and it’s all over my Twitter every day. The “blackout” seems to be on CNN, which barely covers the news anymore. Take it up with them.
It’s #inners, a hashtag used for people who comment during the show on Twitter. It used to be #uppers for his weekend morning show (still is with Steve Kornacki). Why do people discover things about MSNBC, then act bewildered that regular MSNBC viewers know about them?
“Objection, your Honor. Facts not in evidence.”
Ha. Kinda figured that was coming. But seriously, I’ve never heard it. I’m not aware of any cable hosts having a nicknamed following ala Rush & his dittoheads. Or any number of rock bands and their fans.
The Reid Report, #reiders. Most shows either have a nickname hashtag, or use the show’s name like #newsnation, #hardball or #redeye. I don’t understand the problem here.
Wow, Brooke Baldwin is about to do a segment on how the major networks haven’t been covering Gruber. This should be good.
Has she decided that CNN isn’t a major network?
Well, they’ve covered it some, as opposed to the Big Three that haven’t touched it. I saw it on CNN Tonight, last night, but they had much greater interest in Michael Brown than the few minutes that Gruber got.
Saw that; she said “the big 3 networks completely ignoring…”
And yeah, CNN has barely touched it considering the news value of it if you were to ignore the parties involved.
Disappointed that Newt didn’t weigh in on the media ignoring it portion since that’s what the headline was and instead talked about the lack of transparency from the WH (duh).
Stelter did what he typically does, began by saying that this story started in the “right-wing media” – which he would never say about a story starting in the “left-wing media”. Then went on to say that there isn’t really anything “new” here until Baldwin brought up the “stupid” remark.
Baldwin snarkily brought up “MSM conspiracy” to which Stelter obviously dismissed out of hand by bringing up his “experience at the NYT”. Yeah, the NYT who in their only reference to the story has dismissed it out of hand.
“The Big Three” is a silly target. They may still get good numbers because of reach and people not turning the channel after local news, but they are not considered a prime news source anymore. The only way to determine how a story is being covered is to aggregate broadcast, cable and internet, then decipher from that big picture.
I have major issues with the use of the word “conspiracy”, since it’s generally used by liberals to dismiss claims of bias. No one is calling it a “conspiracy”, we’re saying that the press lacks interest in an issue that hurts a Democratic president and his party. Other than that, the segment was basically okay.
^ Same here regarding the use of “conspiracy”. It’s a buzz word that denotes “crazy”. And, liberal media bias isn’t a conspiracy. It’s just bias.
And, I probably come across as not liking and/or respecting Stelter. That’s not the case. He’s fine. I just get perturbed when he’s presented as some sort of straight shooting media reporter. He’s good at what he does but he’s always been the anti-FNC guy.
It’s like when CNN used to present Jon Avlon as the arbiter of disagreements between the left and the right. Then, at the end, they finally just let him represent the left-wing view and stopped pretending.
Avlon is annoying. He’s a pretend-moderate which, to someone’s credit, he does seem to have dropped that persona.
I’m not aware of any cable hosts having a nicknamed following
He and MSNBC are trying really hard to make it a thing (it’s in the show’s opening graphics package and everything). But again, if a hashtag gets created in the middle of a forest…
And if your job includes discussing media bias, you might want to refrain from using the language of the Left, at least for that moment.
Also, Jon Avlon just has that look. Like he thinks he’s the coolest kid in town. Always smirking. Yeah, it’s moronic of me to dislike him cuz of that but it drives me up a wall. And, to be fair, I dislike him for sooo much more than that. 🙂
The #inners hashtag is for the use of viewers of the show so we can interact. Every time I’ve used it I’ve gotten reactions from people I don’t know, so excuse me if we happen to watch a show you don’t watch. This idea that the number one cable news show in a time period is the only one that “matters” is childish.
Btw, y’all doing a bang-up job of proving my point about the silliness of “haters”. You drone on about MSNBC shows and how “they don’t matter” and “nobody watches”, then go into fits about “haters” if people criticize FNC. You’re trying to pretend MSNBC is a non-entity while you complain about them as if it matters to you, then whine like babies when someone comes after your favorite channel.
You see, the trick here would be to just talk about cable news channels on a cable news blog, without all the b!tching and moaning. Observe: I reacted to the MSNBC comments without having a meltdown and accusing people of being haters. Give it a whirl.
Why does CNN keep hiring people who are so obviously covered with the residue of this Administration? Like, I guess Stephanie Cutter and Van Jones weren’t enough, they had to add Jay Carney to the stable. He then goes on to criticize Gruber’s comments, as though he didn’t spend several years speaking for the people who employed the man. I like Jake Tapper, but he was clearly pulling his punches while questioning the guy,
I’m really happy to know that Carney thinks Gruber is a person of remarkable hubris, but how about telling us what you knew and when you knew it? But no, Jay’s an employee, so that question isn’t happening. Ever.
Sad day for me as Luke Russert just signed off on the last Daily Rundown. Starting Monday TDR’s hour will be given to Jose Diaz-Balart and one of the three shows I always tried to watch on MSNBC (the others are TRMS and Up with Steve Kornacki) will end.
JDB has become one of my least favorite hosts on the network so seeing him get the hour and watch it become an English version of JDB’s Hispanic oriented Telemundo show is particularly galling to me.
What is equally sad is that Chuck Todd is now stuck in a show that runs for only a single hour a week and is even that is limited because he is forced by its format to spend much of that time talking to politicians and pundits that spout only platitudes and talking points. On last weeks show Amy Walters was the only guest who had no ax to grind.
On the plus side I’ve noted some improvement in both LOD’s and Chris Hayes’s shows of late (although Hayes is still a flawed host) and hopefully that trend will continue.
I know all this is subjective so and that others here have vastly different, and just as relevant, POV’s, but for me that’s the story.
One plus from Chuck Todd leaving TDR is that he’s now showing up all over MSNBC doing what he was originally hired for, political analysis. It’s nice to see him answering the questions again, because asking them is not his thing.
“One plus from Chuck Todd leaving TDR is that he’s now showing up all over MSNBC doing what he was originally hired for, political analysis. It’s nice to see him answering the questions again, because asking them is not his thing.”
^^Your right joe. I have noticed he’s appearing as a pundit a lot more lately. It’s a good point and cheers me up a bit.
Regarding JDB, I’ve tried to check out his show a couple times but everytime I’ve tuned in the discussion has been about immigration or something going on in Mexico City.
And, he does the stupid thing where he breaks out his super Hispanic accent when saying the last name of a fellow Hispanic. That gets on my nerves more than just about anything.
His show is pretty much unwatchable.
Well, if you grew up speaking Spanish, it stands to reason you would pronounce Mexican names with the appropriate accent. To do otherwise would be strange.
“Well, if you grew up speaking Spanish, it stands to reason you would pronounce Mexican names with the appropriate accent.”
Nah joe, I agree with LS here. JDB has a number of verbal tics that are really irritating to watch; such as his fawning over guests like whatever talking point they’re spouting is some great revaluation. He’s a Cuban version of Al Sharpton.
” I agree with LS here”
He’s so over the top. No Hispanics I know (and I know quite a few being that I basically live in Northern Mexico) speak like that. It’s a TV thing. Local news personalities do it as well. They all of the sudden go from talking like super whitey to someone who just crossed the border when pronouncing a last name.
My nephew is Hispanic and speaks Spanish fluently and that’s his #1 pet peeve.
You can agree with something silly all you want and it will still be silly. Pronouncing Spanish words with a Spanish accent is JDB’s natural way of talking. He pronounces English words in an Americanized manner because that’s how he learned them. For him to Americanize an Hispanic name would be like me calling Mexico Meh-he-co. Which would be ridiculous.
They all of the sudden go from talking like super whitey to someone who just crossed the border when pronouncing a last name.
I would define “super whitey” to be “non-regionalised standard American English” and would think, regardless of where you grew up, this would be an important skill for anyone in broadcasting. This may not be how they speak at home.
I find it amusing when a reporter on CNN goes from “Anglo speaking” to “I’m Rrrrosa Florrres, CNN” ..but would assume that that’s how Mom says it.
Now, if a person spoke Whitey, but pronounced their name with a British accent, that would just be weird.
We have a local reporter, Gasia Mikaelian -Spud will know who she is – who speaks perfect ‘American’ most of the time, but when she says her name she suddenly turns into Sofia Vegara. Because that’s what her name sounds like to her. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained to people.
Actually, Brits who watch Formula One are familiar with this phenomenon. Drivers from all over the world move to that largely British-based racing series, then slowly start talking a mixture of their own accent and Brit. In this situation the American would be the one talking funny when he moves back to his home accent.
Now, if a person spoke Whitey, but pronounced their name with a…
How about if such a person pronounced their name with a French accent? Pierre Salinger, born in San Francisco.
Lots of hosts resort to their native accent for effect. LOD often speaks with a ‘southie’ Boston, accent (things are often ‘wicked good’) for that reason), but JDB speaks that way all the time when on air. It’s different.
LOD speaks ‘southie’ as a joke occasionally, but when he went to Boston after the bombing, he spoke that way the whole time. It wasn’t an affectation, it took over his voice because he was home. And JDB speaks with a Spanish accent because he still speaks Spanish on Telemundo every day. Therefore his English words sound more American, and Spanish names continue to sound Spanish. It’s not an affectation. You’re imagining that it is because you don’t understand the linguistic dynamics.
I’ve always thought it usually a misnomer to say that a president is the leader of their political party. The label does seem to fit for Clinton throughout his ’92 campaign and two terms in office, and the same can certainly be said of Reagan. But I think we have to go back to Franklin Roosevelt to find one who was truly the party “leader” rather than merely its “primary participant”.
Seems to me that the most prominent candidate during the election cycle does not necessarily equate to being the one everyone else in the party follows. Why is it assumed that a political party is always led by a single individual?
I agree with Stewart about how Dems ran away from the President. Embracing him might not have helped, but weaseling away never helps. It didn’t help Republicans in ’08, running away from Bush, and I think it hurt us in ’12 with Romney. It all comes down to assuming that the voters are stupid, and only know what they see, right at this moment.
I respectfully disagree, Al. “Leader of the Party” doesn’t mean the day-to-day filling out timesheets and TPS reports stuff. It means providing the vision, direction, and strategery of said party.
And Obama’s hand in all 3 are unmistakable. Why are we talking about minimum wage, equal pay, amnesty, and climate change? Because those are the issues this WH has pushed relentlessly for the past year/6/whatever. Why is the WH line of attack “Give us what we want on immigration/budget or we’re just gonna do it ourselves via Exec Order?” Because that’s the strategy Obama himself is pushing.
Now, maybe you’re right that every single one of these decisions isn’t micromanaged by Obama and is carried out by a “inner core”, Senior Staff, or whatever. But … who hired those people and placed them in their respective positions of power?
The same way that every perceived sin of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, et. al. was attributed to Bush. He hired him. They’re his guys. He owns them. He’s responsible.
Stewart (and every other pundit) is right that it didn’t help to run kicking and screaming from Obama, but he (and every other pundit) never asks the follow-up: Why? Why would Democrats en masse jump the Good Ship Obama?
The reason they don’t ask the follow-up is they know the answerand don’t want to admit it: Obama’s positions themselves are politically toxic and publicly supporting him means supporting a whole raft of issues and positions that are as popular as bubonic plague.
“doesn’t mean the day-to-day filling out timesheets and TPS reports stuff.”
Why are we talking about minimum wage, equal pay, amnesty, and climate change?
Because these are issues various Dems have been pushing for years now. This is not to say that Mr. Obama only follows, because that’s not the case, either. My point being it is relatively uncommon that a single individual be the guiding force of a political party. So, in this respect, the president is playing about on par historically.
In a just world, the guy who dug up all these Gruber videos would win every singular Pultizer this year. This week alone, he’s done more investigative journalism than the rest of the MSM combined has for the past 6 years.
Like many people I’m a big fan of John Stewart and his quick wit. But after watching a number of interviews of him promoting his new movie ‘Rosewater’ I’ve really come to appreciate how really smart and articulate he is.
His knowledge of a wide range of subjects, both foreign and domestic, and his ability to speak about them intelligently, coherently and honestly is very refreshing.
I can see why NBC seriously considered him as a host for MTP. I think he would have been a really good host who wouldn’t have been afraid to hold politician’s feet, both Democratic and Republican, to the fire.
It will be interesting to see where he ends up after his contract runs out at the Comedy Network. Perhaps he will follow Al Franken’s successful conversion from comic to politician (a Warren/Stewart ticket would be pretty awesome) but more likely he will continue his new career as a film director.
The best is Pelosi saying she’s never heard of Gruber and he was non involved in their bill then comes the video of Pelosi talking about Gruber from 2009.
CNN reporters were almost indistinguishable from protesters when everything was going down. They actively down played violence and the truth of the shooting while continuously slamming the police response. What does it take for one of them to challenge a protester? A protester being rude to a CNNer of course.
The best is Pelosi saying she’s never heard of Gruber
I don’t know: Obama’s “Noone was misled” is pretty good too. Even if you throw Gruber out entirely, there’s still the whole “If you like your doctor…”
Interesting nobody here has mentioned the return of Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Fox & Friends. She missed a month after undergoing surgery to remove a tumor in her abdomen that proved benign. Glad she’s OK. 🙂
It’s not “interesting” that nobody mentioned it. You just did.
Remember when Ebola was the worst thing ever to happen in the USA and it was all the fault of Obama admin & the CDC and we needed a travel ban?
Today you have a press conference on the sad news that the Doc. who had ebola and was brought to the USA has passed away and FNC does not bother to cover it.
CNN and MSNBC showed the hospital’s press conference.
“Remember when Ebola was the worst thing ever to happen in the USA and it was all the fault of Obama admin & the CDC and we needed a travel ban? ”
Do you remember when it was the fault of Republicans and budget cuts and racism?
“Do you remember when it was the fault of Republicans and budget cuts”
^^ Still is.
African guy gets on plane and comes to the US with Ebola because of Republican “budget cuts”. Lol. Alrightythen.
1pm newscast is on and still no coverage of the story on FNC.
I find it odd they are not reporting on the story.
TONIGHT ON FOX NEWS: OBAMA ADMITS TO BEING A THIEF!!!!!