|
fade5 posted:Yay, MSNBC's doing really good! They need to fix that, and also the "let's show Hardball twice daily during afternoon/early evening hours" thing. There have been rumors going around that Ezra Klein might get his own show at some point, so maybe they'll give over one of those hours to him. az posted:
Eh, she's only a year younger than me, and that was pretty much the way most young ladies looked back in those days.  She's pretty foxy in that pic, but her current style definitely suits her a lot better.
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 21:56
|
|
Now if they could nail the "24-hour" news thing I'd be really happy. The prison documentaries are cool, but 1. when they're airing I can't get news and 2. they get kinda depressing after a while. It's really noticeable on weekends; I want to watch news on Saturday and Sunday evening too.
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Frankly, I think if a conservative turns on MSNBC, watches Maddow, and think she's talking to them like they're dumb, there might be just the slightest possibility that they are dumb. That's just me though. E: Also I'll just agree with the posters above me, and reject once more the false "moral equivalency" claims. Even at their worst, MSNBC is nowhere near as bad as Fox News in the "pandering to what an audience wants to hear" stakes. You'd never have seen O'Reilly or Hannity get pissed off at Romney's poor debate performance the way Matthews got pissed off at Obama in the first debate. This is because Fox News deals in doling out safe conservative fantasies, and so they blamed everyone but Romney for his lovely performance in the last two debates (Obama was rude, the moderators were biased, the questions were loaded, and so on). Whereas Matthews was pissed off squarely at Obama and his team for obviously sandbagging the first debate and not treating it seriously. He didn't lay the blame on the moderator, or on Romney being an absolute prick (which he was), he saved his wrath for the guy he's supposed to be backing for not doing enough prep work. Similarly, it's why you'd never see a Karl Rove-style meltdown by an MSNBC pundit. Because A)their guys would have been unhappy, but they wouldn't have waffled over Ohio on orders from the Obama campaign the way Rove did under Romney's orders; and B)because MSNBC wouldn't have hired a loving guy running an Obama (or Romney) super PAC to provide "political analysis", because it's an obvious conflict of interest. E2: Also, I just remembered when MSNBC had a big flap over Keith Olbermann donating some money to Democratic Congressional candidates without prior approval. Do you think Fox News would have a similar policy (and policy-related shitfit) regarding their guys donating money to Romney or other Republican candidates? Hell, it's probably a loving payroll deduction over there. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Phone posted:Dunning-Kruger, motherfucker!! I prefer the "As You Like It" theory: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea, teabaggers are pretty legit dominated by racist loons. They literally formed like, days, after Obama was elected to angrily declare themselves Taxed Enough Already and tell us how taxes were killing us and it's all his fault because he's a communist-Nazi-socialist- It goes even further than that. The Tea Partiers have been systematically excising any moderate Republicans from the party, to the point where even the Republicans that are normally open to compromise and doing business in Washington have been literally bending over backwards to try and paint themselves as hardcore no-compromise conservatives. This is because the Tea Partiers have made it so that Republicans that would likely win in a national election are getting stomped on in the primaries and so have no shot at gaining the nod. Look no further than the 2012 presidential primaries for evidence. As a result, this is why you saw very few Republicans (prior to 2012) come out and say that the "birther" movement was complete lunacy, or that they needed to tone down the racism and sexism and appeal to a younger demographic, or that they shouldn't play chicken with the country's credit rating the way they did, or that they should pass the veterans jobs bill regardless of what advantage it might give Obama. Because the Tea Party and the insane right-wing conservative movement have pretty much entrenched themselves in the modern-day Republican party to the point where the more moderate politicians and pundits are literally poo poo-scared to denounce anything that's obvious insanity, because they know it won't be popular with the extremely vocal minority that makes up the Tea Party and its' base. Post-election, there have been some brave souls in the Republican party that are making increasingly louder calls for compromise in Washington, along with the rejection of the conservative entertainment complex and the Tea Party that it arguably spawned. That said, we're still a loooooong way away from that happening (if it ever does). That's why it's (for the most part, anyways) currently not worth wasting time on trying to win back anyone who's bought into the nonsense that the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News currently peddle. They're too far gone. The Democrats won this election in part by showing they had a spine, and standing up to them and speaking truth to fools. And if Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews making some of those same points on their shows offends their delicate Republican sensibilites, well boo loving hoo. Lord knows we've had to put up with O'Reilly  and Hannity  and Beck  and Limbaugh  for a hell of a lot longer than they have had to put up with MSNBC and its' shows.
Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Here's a news item for those of us who've wondered how Fox News might react towards a guest who opines that they might not actually be "fair and balanced":quote:Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:It would be great if more of Fox's guests would call them out on the ridiculous overhype of Benghazi like this. Soon you'd be left with Hannity and Neil Cavuto interviewing each other. For that matter, one of Fox News' own staff has called them out on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32porQUkwoU
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:When loving Gerardo calls you unethical you've shat the bed pretty bad. That's like Jerry Springer asking if you have any shame. Yeah, at this point the only people who are buying into any kind of shenanigans regarding Benghazi are Fox News and the absolute die-hard conservatives who are desperately seeking any reason they can to impeach Obama. Even McCain's starting to realize he's fighting a losing battle at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
Myrdhale posted:I can't believe it's Geraldo of all people that's standing up for Obama. Given that this is the right-wing media thread, you have to imagine there's at least a few people at Fox News who are wondering how long the benefits of collecting a FN paycheck will continue to outweigh the downside of being associated with an increasingly toxic and corrosive conservative movement.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Nimmy posted:Like everyone in that room that called Ohio for Obama. It depends; the numbers guys probably don't care so much (obviously not, since they told Rove he was full of poo poo on-air), and they wouldn't have to worry too much about getting a gig at CNN or MSNBC or wherever. Most of the talking heads during Rove's meltdown are likely either true believers, or content enough to keep on getting a check as long as Fox News cuts 'em. I'm thinking more of the on-air guys that kick back on some of the more ridiculous Fox News bullshit (like Geraldo and Shep Smith), and some of the ones that are more "news"-y and less partisan (names escape me at the moment, but I'm sure FN has at least one or two ). Then there's Megyn Kelly, who is A)a favorite of Ailes and B)has a contract coming up sometime in the next year or so. Even though she can be just as much of a conservative partisan hack as the next Fox News talking head, you'd have to think snagging her would be quite the coup for CNN (who would likely give her her own show) or even MSNBC (who I could very easily see pairing her up with a more liberal commentator, in their version of "Hannity & Colmes"). That said, I see Ailes pretty much giving her whatever she wants in order to keep her (which would likely be Greta Van Susteren's show, since she's getting trounced in the ratings by Lawrence O'Donnell as of late).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:The crazy part is, why would Ricks apologize to Fox News privately then lie about it publicly? It's so obvious that Fox just completely made up the story about the apology. Even for them this is insanely transparent. Say what you will about Fox and their storied history of dishonesty, they used to be at least somewhat good at it. They used to put effort into it. Now it seems like they just don't give a poo poo. Now Fox News is claiming this constitutes an "apology" for his "behavior" by Ricks: quote:Update: Clemente calls Ricks’ response “utterly dishonest,” and told TVNewser what Ricks told FNC staffers after his segment: Yes, clearly Ricks was just exhausted from his book tour and took it out on poor widdle Fox News. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Re: Fox/Ricks kerfuffle - I think we all can see this for what it is: they're still smarting over the election as are all the right-wing media pundits and talking heads, who routinely proclaimed a resounding victory for Republicans in general and Romney in particular. Then Election Night arrives, and we're all entertained beyond our wildest dreams as their credibility proceeds to get flushed right down the shitter.  When I refer to Fox News' credibility, I don't mean it in the terms that most of us here would take it to mean (i.e., credible news journalism that's mainly free of bias). I mean credibility with their core audience of conservatives, who prior to Election Night likely felt that they were watching the only network that would report the real news. Then they saw state after state go for Obama, and though many of them did and do buy into the "OBUMMER STOLE THE ELECTION" conspiracy theories, there is evidence that a lot more were just completely shocked by the realization that Fox News was in fact not reporting the news, but was instead parroting the Republican party line in order to maintain viewership among the faithful. There have been signs (such as Maddow and O'Donnell beating Hannity and GVS in the ratings post-election) that the Fox News hold on the conservative mind is starting to slacken. This doesn't necessarily mean that their viewers have suddenly seen the light and become liberals or anything like that; indeed, more than a few people have disdained Fox News as no longer being conservative enough, because they just bent right over and took it on Election Night instead of showing how the election was obviously stolen. And I think it's also very likely that a good many people realized just how blatantly Fox News has been lying to them, and just quit watching altogether. Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:In the demographic that thinks Colbert is serious, I'm not surprised to see that they absolutely have no concept of sarcasm. It's the same mindset that led to Sarah Palin getting pranked by some guys claiming to be the Canadian PM, and not even remotely figuring out it was a prank, even after they said they loved Sarah's documentary "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" 
Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
PsychoInternetHawk posted:I'm not sure if they're trying to spin it to the public, or if Fox is really interested in Benghazi gaining traction anywhere else. That's why I think the whole Ricks flap can be traced back to just how badly things went for the right-wing on Election Night. Because Fox News (along with the usual crew) kept promising conservative America a Romney victory. They weren't being even the remotest bit objective, or trying to present to Republican viewers the possibility that their guy might lose. Nope, they kept feeding the echo chamber what it wanted to hear: Romney was leading in every swing state, several traditionally blue states were leaning Romney, people were tired of Obama, blah blah blah. And when it backfired on them, they, along with everyone else in the right-wing bubble (except maybe the numbers wonks that told Rove he was a loving idiot on camera) were absolutely shocked. Sure, some people still stick to the stories that help them sleep at night (Obummer stole the election, he promised free stuff, voter fraud, etc.), but I'm pretty sure a lot of people just woke up and realized that the "fair and balanced" network (along with others, like Limbaugh) had been lying to them this whole time. Which is why you now see Republican politicians attacking the conservative entertainers like Rush and Fox News, because the spectacular failing of the conservative media outlets has seriously damaged not only their individual brands, but the brand of the Republican party as a whole. That's why I think the whole Ricks thing has caused Fox News to go into a collective snit, because at this point their credibility among the conservative base has been seriously damaged by the Election Night results. So as a result, they're going to be hypersensitive whenever someone points out they're full of partisan poo poo for quite a while yet. Because the Election Night scars are still fresh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I mean, I think that the whole Fast & Furious operation was stupid and a pretty big black eye to the whole government. The rest of it is all pretty blown up and I also have no idea about Benghazi, but I would say that Fast & Furious was sort of a big deal. Benghazi is only a big deal to Republicans, who somehow think Obama had the ability to A)send troops in to save Vilerat and the others like he was sending in a Star Trek away team via transporter, and B)simultaneously cast "magic missile" (except there'd be a whole bunch of 'em, and they would only hit the bad guys and completely avoid the good guys). It's all smoke and mirrors for John McCain to both position himself as the de facto head of the Republican party and also to pressure Obama to give up on nominating Susan Rice to replace Hillary, and instead nominate John Kerry. Which would conveniently free up a Senate seat that they are convinced Scott Brown would just slide right on into. (they also conveniently ignore how Republicans in Congress refused to approve the funds needed to provide additional security for consulate/embassy staff in Libya  )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They also somehow believe that Aircraft carrying reinforcements suddenly exceed the speed of light whenever the president wills it. I've mentioned it before, but you know the Fox/Drudge/Rush Kool-Aid is pretty strong when people I served with in the military were making these sorts of claims, and acting like the military is just a bigger-budgeted SWAT team, and generally completely forgetting how slow-moving any military force (short of a small rapid response team, which would had to have already been on high alert prior to the incident) generally is in responding to anything outside of a direct attack on the force itself. To say nothing of the massive casualties that would have been inflicted on both military and civilians by troops and/or missiles getting flung into a zone where we had zero intelligence available. But no, numerous FB friends of mine acted like the USAF, USMC, Navy SEALs, and Green Berets could all be teleported in at will, like Space Marines in a particularly tough game of Warhammer 40,000.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Branis posted:i'm sure if you asked them directly they would unashamedly say they would rather an AC-130 flatten 100 civilians to save 4 americans than let those americans die. These people are proud of giving no fucks about anybodies lives but americans. Correction; they only give a gently caress if the Americans die under a Democrat president, which is the most horrible tragedy known to man and grounds for impeachment and treason of every single Democrat in elected office, the president's cabinet, etc. If it happens under a Republican president? "They were brave souls who knew the risks when they took the job. It's a tragedy but we must all come together and support ARE TROOPS and ARE PRESIDENT."  CommieGIR posted:But yes, there are multiple people I personally know in my USAF service who think that Obama could just wave some magic wand and make reinforcements teleport in. Why? Because Fox News said so! And for the reasons I stated above, 99.9% of them wouldn't say a goddamn word about these magical Super Troops/Planes if it happened under a Republican president, other than "it's a tragedy, but don't worry, ARE BOYS will wipe <insert offending country here> off the face of the map!" 
Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
You know it was bad when I found myself agreeing with goddamn Charles Krauthammer of all people, when he said that pulling all resources out/bombing the poo poo out of Libya was a bad idea, because then it'd just create a vacuum that would eagerly be filled by jihadists/Iran/China/Russia/insert geopolitical foe here. I also found it particularly ironic considering that many of these same people initially pitched a bitch when Obama got NATO to provide support to the Libyan rebels, claiming he was going to get us into yet another war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 03:38
|
|
So many people I know called for invasion of Libya after the attack, I just had to sit there and shake my head.
|
I see that there. posted:The amount of double-speak the right is capable of is not mind blowing, it's terrifying. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: though we're all guilty of it to some degree, the levels of cognitive dissonance required to go through daily life as a conservative must be staggering.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Everyone forgets 'Beergate', where the prez sat down to have a beer with that college professor and the cop who arrested him for trying to get in his own house. It always amuses me to think that one of the reasons many people cited as why they voted for GWB--who was an alcoholic and coke addict before getting a heavy dose of Jesus, like a lot of recovering addicts do--was because they felt like he was a guy they could have a beer with. Fast-forward to today and the current president, a guy you could actually have a beer with, is the most reviled person on Earth in their eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
In a more lighthearted vein, here's Megyn Kelly's reaction to a brand new Fox News "Breaking News" alert graphic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKzJs_Tf5lM
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Is this some new conservative meme I haven't caught wind of yet or my local crazy person makin' up stories? It sounds like they're making up poo poo in yet another effort to try and convince people that--despite 20 years of Republican presidencies that definitively proved otherwise--trickle-down economics really does work! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Crossposting from the Republican Rebuilding thread, the "Santa Claus" charge pushed by Rush and pals has apparently not been lost on Obama:quote:Obama struck a playful tone throughout his speech at a toy factory to warn Americans that they could be in for a “lump of coal” for Christmas if Congress fails to extend current middle class tax rates.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:My guess is there are conservative GE shareholders who agreed to let MSNBC hire progressive hosts ONLY if a conservative block were put on in the morning. The sad part is, it's practically "Fox and Friends", right down to the attractive blonde female co-host (Mika Brzezinski). And even F&F lets Gretchen Carlson do more than Mika does on "Morning Joe", as I've never really seen Mika get all argumentative or defensive with a guest the way Gretchen occasionally does. Mika's purpose on the show seems to me to literally to be there only
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:MSNBC show hosts don't try to dress up what they do as fair and balanced - they are there to present their editorial views. Even Matthews encourages people to disagree with him and do their own homework. Also MSNBC frequently has leveled criticism at the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. They aren't quite the cheerleaders your post makes them out to be but your objections to their bias are valid points. I am very wary of what they say even though I watch the network. It's like the saying goes: when Republicans get bad news, they want to kill the messenger; when Democrats get bad news, they want to kill themselves. All you need to do is look at the debates for proof. Obama flubs the first debate, and right away Matthews and other liberal pundits were ready to hand the race to Romney then and there, all the while excoriating Obama and his team for not practicing or taking the debate seriously enough. When Romney got whipped in the remaining two debates, and Ryan got whipped in the VP debate, did the Republicans collapse in a fit of weeping and garment-rending, claiming that Romney had lost them the election, the same way Matthews and others cried about Obama? Did they gently caress. They immediately blamed everyone within sight: the debate moderators, the liberal media, the audience in the "town hall"-style debate, and on and on right up to Obama and Biden themselves. The only people they did not blame were the guys on their side: Romney and Ryan. They even went further; rather than claiming Romney and Ryan's losses in the debates might have handed Obama and Biden victory on Nov. 6, they instead claimed that Americans would be "turned off" by the Democrat ticket, because Obama and Biden were acting like smug "un-presidential" assholes. MSNBC has a liberal slant that is undeniable, but to say they're even remotely as bad with their slant as Fox News is with their conservative bias is disingenuous, to say the least. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Lord Lambeth posted:I don't know why the government doesn't smash apart the Murdoch empire like they did with AT&T. Because too many Republicans are in bed with Fox News, since it's literally their party's propaganda wing. Being so closely tied to Murdoch isn't quite as dangerous to politicians in the US as it is to UK politicians (at least, not yet anyways), what with the whole phone hacking scandal that's been shaking the foundations of his British empire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
So it turns out that Roger Ailes wasn't satisfied with making Fox News the propaganda wing of the Republican party, he took an active hand in trying to find its' presidential candidate for the 2012 elections.quote:Fox News chief Roger Ailes tried to get David Petraeus to run for president against President Obama in 2012, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward reported on Monday night.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted this in the Republican Rebuilding thread, so many of you have probably already seen it, but it was just too good not to crosspost here: Fox News Puts Karl Rove on the Benchquote:The post-election soul searching going on inside the Republican Party is taking place inside Fox News as well. Fox News chief Roger Ailes, a canny marketer and protector of his network’s brand, has been taking steps since November to reposition Fox in the post-election media environment, freshening story lines — and in some cases, changing the characters. According to multiple Fox sources, Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris. Both pundits made several appearances in the days after the election, but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly. Inside Fox News, Morris’s Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line. At a rehearsal on the Saturday before the election, according to a source, anchor Megyn Kelly chuckled when she relayed to colleagues what someone had told her: “I really like Dick Morris. He’s always wrong but he makes me feel good.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:What a great new slogan for Fox News. Jon Stewart was thinking along the same lines, just with a different Megyn Kelly quote: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Sme of the sites I visit have been discussing Fox and MSNBC in the wake of the elections, and one thing I've never noticed them mention, even if they defend MSNBC against Fox, is that Fox doesn't just go after Democratic politicians and left-leaning figures, but the segments of the population that vote blue as well. Especially since the election when we hear about entitled poor people, minorities who want free stuff, Muslims who don't speak out enough against terrorism, and slutty single women. Do Olbermann or Ed Schultz on their worst days have segment devoted to trashing "racist rednecks" or "stupid fundies?" IBill Maher does, but he isn't on MSNBC, is he? Maher's not on MSNBC (he's on HBO), and neither is Olbermann anymore (I'm not sure what he's on these days). I don't honestly recall any segments on MSNBC in recent days where Maddow or Matthews or Sharpton or anyone took conservative voters to task or ripped on Republicans as a whole as being idiots. They do talk about specific conservative individuals or groups that have done something particularly repugnant (and also newsworthy); but I don't recall ever seeing them leading up to the election (or after) saying "Republicans, what a bunch of rubes" in terms of the actual Republican electorate (now, Republican media types and politicians being rubes is a different story ).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Current TV Apparently he got fired from there, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
For anyone wanting a trip down Memory Lane, here's part 1 of Mediaite's "17 Of 2012′s Craziest And Most Memorable Moments In Television". Besides Fox News, it also covers some interesting moments from other right-wing media (Limbaugh) and some of the "lamestream media" networks (MSNBC, CNN, HLN).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House? quote:President Obama met with Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz. The Huffington Post Media Group's Arianna Huffington was also in attendance. White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest released a statement saying that "the President met with influential progressives to talk about the importance of preventing a tax increase on middle class families, strengthening our economy and adopting a balanced approach to deficit reduction."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Wait, what? When did this happen? Where was this? Did I miss something in the thread because this sounds delightful, by which I mean awful. Here ya go!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican President had events where he only met with conservative journalists or bloggers? I mean seriously, can you imagine? This just firmly reinforces my belief that the conservative media is filled with nothing but absolute contempt for their audience. If they actually respected their audience, they wouldn't distort history and flat-out lie to them so goddamn much. Especially when their lies are so easily and quickly disproved.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:This really isn't that hard to do, if you have some free time. Mike Stark is guy that used to drive a number of talk radio hosts nuts like this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhR2VnVma0 I don't know if he's still active but he did put together a sort of primer for calling these types of shows. I don't know if he wants it just thrown out there but I have a copy here and if anyone wants a link PM me. Holy poo poo, that was great. Rush sounded like the epitome of  until he was finally able to "turn" the call "around" on the guy (by dodging the question and attacking the questioner).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:I don't think things are quite as bleak as you make them out to be. Sandra Fluke is probably a good example, where she was invited tot he Democratic convention specifically because of the attacks on her. Rush may still be the figurehead of the party, but his brand of vitriol drives of a lot of people, and demographics don't seem to be in the Republican's favour right now. In terms of social conservatism anyway, I think the pendulum is swinging the other way. I've posted some links earlier in the thread somewhere, but if you go on Daily Kos and do a search for Limbaugh, you'll see several stories about how Rush's ratings have been declining; and how advertisers are routinely fleeing from his show, in many cases after they've been notified their ads are running during his show; and how a lot of that is directly attributable to his attacks on Sandra Fluke; and how Clear Channel, who own the company that distributes his program, are more than $2 billion in debt; and how Clear Channel is also owned by good ol' Bain Capital, who love to liquidate companies after piling tons of debt onto 'em. Rush may not be getting forced off the air any time soon, but his show (and hopefully his influence) is definitely on the wane. And judging from the increased levels of crazy he's been spouting since the election, the dude knows it and is very poo poo-scared.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:Actually it's closer to 16 billion in debt, with most of that due in a balloon payment in 2014 unless new financing can be found. Even if Clear Channel/Premiere Radio Networks dies a fiery death, some company will come along and pick up the network. When Bain+Friends came on board CC was worth around 8 Billion or so, now that -8. Thanks for that correction, I don't mind being wrong in this particular instance.  quote:Everyone from Producers on up are getting fired by the dozens today throughout the company. They haven't done a large round of layoffs like this since Inauguration Day 2009 (Hoping to fly under the radar) but rumor had it these layoffs were coming as soon as the election was over to avoid any Bain/Romney blowback. This is the only part that brings me no joy. As much as I would love to see Rush and his ilk forced off the air--or at least forced to a much smaller profile on fewer stations--I take no glee in knowing that a lot of people lost their jobs simply because the morons in charge are running their company into the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Adar posted:A little off topic, but when you owe this much money and pile on the debt that fast, it's not actively "management running things into the ground" anymore. Something is fundamentally wrong with their business model and has been for some time. That's pretty good news if you like non-terrible radio. Oh, no doubt. I'll take solace in the fact that this is just accelerating the collapse of at least part of the right-wing entertainment complex. Also, I don't think anyone else posted this yet, but it's official: hell has frozen over. quote:Ann Coulter "OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it. It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans." I linked to Breitbart here, but you can also find the article on HuffPo and the other usual sites. Normally I wouldn't give Breitbart a page hit if I could, but the comments section is just delightful.  quote:What's up with Ann Coulter lately? She's been talking about caving on everything backing Chris Christie. We lost the election we know but do you give up the war because you lost a battle?!? I say H E L L NO!! quote:Ann Coulter is just another Boehner, have watered her brain down to moderation, correct that - liberalism. quote:It's time for her to step aside and get out of the way. Let folks like Malkin, Star Parker, etc. move in. Sean has to find new guests that actually know what grassroot conservatives want. quote:SEE???? quote:Great how Coulter says "We". Romney lost the election and he was more left politically than anything. She and Bill Kristol should marry. Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Surprised nobody's commented on the Ann Coulter "We Lost" story. Come on, guys, who doesn't love seeing a demoralized Coulter arguing with Hannity! Here's the video of her on Hannity. At one point he actually tells her "You sound like Obama!"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP83AL0MWfc
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:No...NO. I don't want a "liberal coulter." I don't want someone as dishonest and demagogic as that hack on the progressive side. Nor should any other progressive. I don't see her ever becoming "Liberal Coulter", but I can certainly see her getting added to the Ailes "get my permission before booking" list that Rove and Morris are on. But for different reasons: they got added to the list because they were revealed as complete dunces on Election Night, whereas Coulter might get added if enough "real conservatives" start boycotting her as not being "conservative enough" any more and it begins to impact FN's ratings badly enough. Hell, there were a bunch of comments on the Breitbart page that said she revealed herself to be a RINO and that she had been "corrupted" by the evil media. I could very easily see those same people writing letters and emails, demanding she no longer appear on FN television.If Ann loving Coulter isn't conservative enough for the Republican base anymore, then truly, we have entered some very interesting times. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Spacedad posted:They don't even know what conservatism is anymore - it's just about being insane, stubborn, and belligerent. They're acting more like a cult where the members aren't even sure of what the doctrine is, but everyone has to be in lock-step with agreement or else they get declared a traitor and booted. Even when Obama and the democrats take traditionally republican positions, suddenly those positions are the "worstest mostest socialistest thing ever." They don't stand for anything anymore other than enviously wanting to be in power instead of someone else, and so demonizing literally everything the target of their envy does. It does have some of the earmarks of the final days of a cult movement, doesn't it? The increasing insularity, infighting between members who want to change with the times vs. the members who just want to deny reality, the purging of anyone not considered "pure" enough...at this point, all they need is a Marshall Applewhite figure to tell them when the comet's going to be passing by.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 04:00
|
|