How much longer can MSNBC stay on the air? For all the whining about FOX (some of which is justifiable) MSNBC is now the most politically biased network. Perhaps that’s why independent voters are moving towards FOX.
There is one bright spot for progressives. Apparently younger people love watching Colbert and the Daily Show. Is it really that surprising young people are so hideously ill informed about issues when those type of shows are their news sources? Yes, they are funny, but they’re not a good source of information. Just because a 23 year old male watches Jersey Short today doesn’t indicate how they will vote in the future. At least I hope not.
Why does Microsoft allow their name to be attached to the “liberal news network?” It’s baffling to me that Microsoft would continue to have their brand associated with Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and the rest of the leg-tinglers at that network.
The left pulled together every ounce of its faux outrage when it learned that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. I wonder how they feel about the fact that 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers and reporters went to Obama and Democrats?
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
This is hardly a shocking revelation to anyone who pays attention to the news on any network beside FOX. Most journalists lean left and despite their best efforts to remain objective their coverage tilts left. That’s why the Washington Post is so desperate for a race riot or anything they can cover that’s damaging to conservatives. I wonder how much these agents of change give to charity in comparison? Hmmm…
I don’t like Glen Beck. There, I said it. He’s an emotional, populist, conspiracy-believing talking head who’s not helping the debate in the United States. Beck isn’t a conservative and his on-air style isn’t good for Americans. I’m not the only conservative who shares this opinion. Peter Wehner has a great piece on Beck and he hits all the right points.
He [Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements–for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”-are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger–the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.
I don’t share Wehner’s opinion about Beck as a libertarian, but everything else is correct. Simply labeling Beck a right wing fanatic is a dangerous tactic and it only feeds his rhetoric. The public is becoming more and more disenchanted with the Democrat and Republican parties, and the rise of Beck is partly because of this trend. I for one, don’t care what the babbling man has to say about any topic.
George Orwell, in his seminal novel Animal Farm, floated the proposition that “some animals are more equal than others.” And nowhere is this more obvious than in the dawning of the new era we call the Obama administration and its approach to the economy and certain sectors of it, such as the auto industry and health care.
In our current version of Animal Farm, the fox has been given complete jurisdiction over the hen house. Occasionally, the farmer asks the fox about the alarming number of hens turning up dead in the henhouse.
Though covered in feathers and blood, the fox insists it’s an inside job; the hens are turning on each other, causing hen house mayhem that the fox insists can only be staunched if the farmer would give him more authority.
The farmer relents and the fox then turns over control of the pigpen to the coyote, while the wolf is in charge of the sheep. The hapless pigs, sheep, and hens, meanwhile, wonder why the farmer is so sheepish. Spies are sent to the farmhouse to gain some insight into the farmer’s easy acquiescence.
Peering into the farmer’s window, it all becomes clear. The farmer is asleep in his recliner, iPod in hand, with Family Guy blaring in the background on the television. The surprise gifts given by the fox to the farmer of a hand-held constant Internet connection and a satellite dish have had their desired effect. The pony keg provided by the wolf didn’t hurt either.
The level of press the mainstream media has devoted to Obama is unprecedented. The lovefest began on day one and it’s never stopped.
The nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs along with California’s Chapman University released a study that found the nightly newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes to Pres. Obama’s presidency in his first 50 days. That compares to 7 hours, 42 minutes for Pres. George W. Bush and 15 hours, 2 minutes for Pres. Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms.
Not only has Obama gotten more coverage, but that coverage has been more positive than his predecessors.
On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts, 58% of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, while 42% were unfavorable. That compares with 33% positive in the comparable period of Bush’s tenure and 44% positive for Pres. Clinton.
Wow, the press loves Obama even more than Clinton. The first 50 days of the Bush administration occurred in rather peaceful times. The economy was entering a small economic recession, but nothing close to what we’re facing today. That being said it would make logical sense that Obama would face harsher criticism during these perilous times than Bush received. Well, the press is basically an arm of the White House, except for Fox.
The first half hour of Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier,” which the study says most closely resembles the network evening newscasts, devoted 10 hours 24 minutes to the Obama administration, nearly as much airtime as CBS gave him.
But Fox News stands apart from its competitors here – only 13% of comments* were considered favorable. On ABC, 57% of the comments were favorable, compared to 58% for CBS and 61% for NBC.
Fox is definitely less friendly to Obama. Basically the idea of “objective journalism” is over. Each network is slowly but surely moving towards a niche audience. Fox was the answer to market dominated by liberal news coverage. Now that Fox has exploited this market MSNBC has tailored their news to liberals. That leaves CNN, ABC, and CBS in the lurch. They were already tilted to the left. What do they do now?
I love Fox’s TV show House. I started watching it a couple of years ago after a friend recommended it. Last night before the beautiful game I watched the latest episode in which the character Lawrence Kutner apparently committed suicide. Kutner is played by Kal Penn who is better known for his portrayal as Kumar Patel in a series of stupid comedies that are on constant rotation on Cinemax or Showtime… or whatever. Anyway, Kal Penn worked for the 2008 Barack Obama campaign and has now decided to pursue a higher calling. Namely, work in some ridiculously titled post ( Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, no really) in the White House. Penn’s role in the Obama administration is hilarious, but as ridiculous is that is it’s not my point.
Seriously, is this really necessary for a TV show character?
Since Kumar… I mean Kutner… Penn left the show so abruptly the writers had to come up with a way to ax the character hence the apparent suicide. For House this was a abrubt change so the producers changed the colors to make everything look darker (because suicide isn’t dark enough) and Fox added a fake obituary to their website. Fox even promoted the page at the end of the show. Huh? On the page there are fake letters from the other characters plus a way for fans of the show to express their sympathy through Facebook. Here’s my personal favorite fan post I found on Facebook:
Kutner, I really wish you wouldn’t have done that. You and House as a team would have been unstoppable. I’m really gonna miss you. You are amazing and your memory will live on forever!!!
Lest I forget, there’s a memorial video that serves as Kutner’s greatest hits. Is it really surprising that many Americans don’t know who the Vice President is or can barely find the United States on a map? People are so consumed with pop culture there’s little time for anything else. Entertainment has become such a part of our lives that when a TV show character dies (who wasn’t even an instrumental character) it’s worthy of a fake obituary. Thanks Fox, I’m sure Nancy Grace will be covering this story soon.
Recent Comments