- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 5, 2010 at 10:27 pm #596911
charlabobParticipantYou don’t suppose this has anything to do with the perceived rightward lurch of the country in this election, do you? Perceived because the numbers don’t indicate any such thing and corporations, such as the parent company of MSNBC, have everything to gain from keeping that fact from the sheeple. Once more, the revolution will not be televised — or even reported accurately.
November 5, 2010 at 11:34 pm #707597
JanSParticipantthe whole thing smacks of “excuse” to me.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/5/917970/-Griffins-defense-of-suspension-makes-no-sense
and, of course, the plot thickens…
November 6, 2010 at 12:31 am #707598
SmittyParticipantI think it’s ridiculous. Everyone knows his bias (and Sean’s, and Glenn’s, and Rachell’s) so why can’t they donate?
Dan Rather? Maybe. KO? Give me a break.
November 6, 2010 at 12:40 am #707599
HelperMonkeyParticipantis it a sign of the coming apocalypse that Smitty just agreed with charlabob and JanS? ;)
November 6, 2010 at 1:05 am #707600
JoBParticipanthelper monkey…
we’re experiencing hard times..
not end times :)
I have noticed that when Smitty isn’t busy trying to sell the republican party line..
he is capable of critical thought…
I am not sure WTF qualifies as critical thought..
but it’s a start.
November 6, 2010 at 9:56 am #707601
HMC RichParticipantIf Overbite had just cleared his intentions with NBC, he could have donated and not been removed.
Too bad, they might get someone in who generates ratings now. God, I feel like the worst person in the world right now. He still could go to CNN or ABC. He hasn’t been fired by them yet.
Actually, I hate to see him go. At least he was passionate about his leftist views. Keith has a lot more charisma than some of the other MSNBC “unbiased” presenters.
I wonder if he gets a show after Maher? Now wouldn’t that be a one two punch!!!
November 6, 2010 at 2:37 pm #707602
redblackParticipanti suppose from where you’re sitting, rich, facts would appear to have a leftward slant.
not trying to be contrary; i’m just saying that, for example, msnbc’s reporting of the BP oil apocalypse was not as comprehensive as it should have been. BP draws a lot of water, so to speak, and i’m pretty sure corporate and legal were watching the reportage very carefully, dictating what could and couldn’t be presented for fear of getting those ad dollars revoked.
notice there is never any mention of how much big oil receives in taxpayer subsidies. (now there’s some spending we can cut from the federal budget, huh?) or that they pay very little, if any, corporate taxes.
all corporate “news” operates the same way: don’t piss off the sponsors, even if they are thieves and murderers.
November 6, 2010 at 7:52 pm #707603
dawsonctParticipantRich, Olbermann is a COMMENTATOR, just like Beck and O’reilly and Hannity, etc., etc., etc, ad nauseam, on Faux. Why should his commentaries be any less opinionated than those on the farright? Do his jabs hurt your feelings (the collective farright wing, that is)?
—
Why are those on the farright so threatened by someone having a different opinion than they do?
November 8, 2010 at 6:22 am #707604
JoBParticipantNovember 8, 2010 at 12:54 pm #707605
metrognomeParticipantwhat this whole episode shows is that MSNBC has ethical standards for its employees and enforces them while Faux Noise doesn’t expect its employees to live up to any standards except to say and do whatever it takes to make more money for Rupert Morebucks. Interesting that Faux Noise Corp gave a cool $$mil to the Republican Governors Association because they felt it was in the best interests of the country. Fair and Balanced???? Right!!!
I can hardly wait to hear what Keith has to say about Dubya’s memoirs … actually, I quit watching him because it was too much like watching Faux Noise, but I may tune in to see his and Rachel’s shows. The Doonesbury cartoons this week have been hysterical.
BTW, did you hear the latest from Michelle Bachman … there was one unsubstantiated internet source that said Obama’s trip to India was costing US taxpayers $200 mil a DAY … and she repeated it without verifying it. You go girl!
November 8, 2010 at 4:08 pm #707606
JoBParticipantmetrognome…
I am not sure what Olberman’s reinstatement shows except that MSNBC realizes that 250,000 viewers might affect it’s bottom line.
The funny thing is that this suspension will probably bring lots of viewers back who like you had stopped viewing because he was beginning to sound to much like a noise machine.
i confess.. i often read parts of his commentary.. but seldom actually watched him.
As for Ms Bachman.. what do you expect from someone who felt that Katrina was god’s judgment wiping out the sin in New Orleans?
she will repeat anything nasty without verifying it…
November 8, 2010 at 6:55 pm #707607
charlabobParticipantWho would she verify it with? G-d? :-) I forgot — these people do talk to G-d. Worse yet, (s)he answers.
Here’s a cheerful thought — Boehner will be third in succession for the presidency.
November 8, 2010 at 7:14 pm #707608
JanSParticipantcharlabob…not a good way to start my Monday….bet that brought tears to his eyes when he realized that!!! ;->
November 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm #707609
JoBParticipantcharlabob…
maybe that thought will be enough to sober republicans long enough for temporary sanity to force another choice.
or.. maybe not
November 9, 2010 at 7:07 am #707610
HMC RichParticipantUmmm…. thanks for clarifying what a commentator is. I guess 20 plus years in television didn’t prepare me for that distinction. Wink.
Although, there just might be a few out there that don’t know the difference, so in the end I suppose it is good for you to say so.
Charla, you are right (or at least I agree with you about Michele Bachmann’s mistake). I may lean right, especially the more you post, but I want the numbers to be correct and CNN did what it is supposed to do. It is what the press is supposed to do. That being said some of you are so adamant in your disgust with FOX news that you would not admit they ever tell a story truthfully.
Now, when all is said and done it will be interesting to see what the true cost was.
I can attest to the fact that some media outlets are slaves to their advertising masters. No doubt about it. Others are not quite so beholden but their sales staff wince when negative stories come out. Kind of like mid term elections make people wince.
Yes, Rupert Murdoch likes the Republican party more. GE gave 689,000 to the Democrats and 410,000 to Republicans. Other media outlets gave monies to political organizations. Here is a link that eventually lists some interesting findings http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/news-corps-million-dollar-donation.html
November 9, 2010 at 3:20 pm #707611
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
the most interesting find at open secrets is this one…
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php
where the source of the money isn’t tracked at all.
As for FAUX news.. i don’t suppose you recognize a witch hunt when you see one?
Olberman fell to a witch hunt generated by FAUX news about violation of a little known policy at NBC that not well understood and is irregularly enforced.
BAD BAD Olberman.
He didn’t hide his donations.
November 10, 2010 at 2:15 am #707612
redblackParticipantrich: way to put lipstick on a pig, buddy!
what i said is true: don’t piss off the sponsors for fear of losing ad dollars. it’s a sound business philosophy.
as such, it has no business in the field of journalism.
what we have now on cable is not journalism. at best, it’s advocacy. both “sides” do it. if you are/were in television, you know this. journalism is a losing business proposition; political football/entertainment puts asses in seats and eyeballs on the ads.
after production costs, the bulk of the $5 billion that was spent in the last election – and the billions spent in all other elections – went straight into broadcasters’ pockets as profit.
this system is broken.
November 10, 2010 at 2:32 am #707613
charlabobParticipantDon’t read this, Rich — I wouldn’t want to be responsible for pushing you even further right.
:-)
Redblack, I was/are in journalism (print) and I have to disagree with your assessment of what’s on cable: MSNBC reports on things that (1) are true and (B) never show up on any other corporatist medium. I would have to say that the damnable “National Enquirer” was the first to report on John Edwards secret life and Fox was, for a long time, the only corporatist medium that picked up on it. Their “editorial comments” and attempts to make Edwards into a symbol for all progressives/liberals/trial lawyers was not news — the actual story was.
You’re right about profits — sadly, news is a loss leader and long, insightful stories are just losses (because no one watches them.)
November 10, 2010 at 2:43 am #707614
redblackParticipantcharla, it’s more about what they don’t or won’t report. i agree that msnbc goes places other corporate media hasn’t, but they will never go beyond the corporate or legal departments’ limits.
think of the war protest reportage. or the BP apocalypse reportage.
or bhopal, india, in ’84.
nope, can’t let americans know that having whatever industry sells has a real, human cost.
November 10, 2010 at 10:24 am #707615
HMC RichParticipantI do believe that we are more in agreement on this issue.
When Rolling Stone did the article on General McChrystal that ended up making him resign, I was satisfied because that writer did what they were supposed to do. They reported and did not keep stuff off the record. I remember Geraldo and others screaming about the sanctity of journalism ethics. I just shook my head.
When these media entities are “partners” with their advertisers or supporters, there is not going to be unbiased reporting. Some are better than others.
Now, compare and contrast what this blog is doing and we see a HUGE difference. Thank You West Seattle Blog (TR and Patrick).
Don’t worry Charla. You said something but I can’t remember.
I do believe there is plenty of room for many different personalities and styles. But some of them should have picked other careers.
November 10, 2010 at 1:53 pm #707616
redblackParticipantyeah, rich, and the reason geraldo and rest of them were screaming was because they got scooped, and they know that they wouldn’t have asked the questions matt taibi did. because their parent companies wouldn’t have allowed it.
the founding fathers did not intend for the press to be an announcement service for the government, the people who own the government, or the people who are trying to buy the government but need your help.
or their sponsors.
November 10, 2010 at 4:04 pm #707617
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
if you can see this clearly in concept..
why can’t you see this as it relates to FOX news?
****
i keep telling you guys..
if you want the other perspective
try free speech tv…
it’s on the web.
November 18, 2010 at 9:42 am #707618
HMC RichParticipantJoB, it is on Directv too.
Yes Redblack. Amazing how many have sold out to be popular or somehow feel relevant.
I wish all politicians disliked the media as much as Nixon did. I get tired of seeing politicians get a pass from so called journalists. Of course, understanding the business, they would not get return interviews if they were tough on them. Selling out.
November 18, 2010 at 9:43 am #707619
HMC RichParticipantPS. I can’t stand Matt Taibi but he can’t be wrong all the time either.
November 18, 2010 at 6:11 pm #707620
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
and DISH :)
knowledge is a powerful thing..
the minute we begin to evaluate arguments
instead of just dismissing them because they don’t agree with what we think we already know
we have learned something useful.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.