So, which is it., ABC? Is five years or life in prison the maximum?
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
NBC in DC posts liberal group mocking Tea Party as if it were event video
In what I consider always disappointing, in a mocking-the-conservatives, laughing at non-liberals fashion, NBC in the nation's capitol posted a quite juvenile article by Jim Iovino along with a video of a group of fake Tea Party protesters, who seem to be a lefty group that did a mocking video of the protests for YouTube.
It's about context, and this one is foul. This station posted the fake video and mocking article more than likely just to be their usual evasive, unclear and misleading selves, leading some to never even question whether it was a real video, leaving a really misinformed impression on liberal fools (after all, that's now NBC's job, with MSNBC and CNN, it appears). Or, it was to leave some to think it was a shallow attempt to offer fake video to further mock the protest, setting off those in favor of the protest. Either way, not sure when doing news became doing distracting, divisive, unclarified comedy. Apparently, its only the dumb who would like to get real news from the media any longer, eh? The smart people all simply want comedy.
Why would they do such a thing? Why, because everyone knows that people who don't like taxes and have conservative, rational, small government mindsets are not protesters, they are the enemy of all. That's NBC's (and MSNBC's), and CNN's, take, among others, at least. Chris Matthews and Keith Oblermann are masters of dodgy news shows, so these guys are simply following the existing, and most recent, company model. Change is always good, of course, despite all else.
If they haven't cowered into their cave with their fake video, click the link and have a look at the article and the video provided to us by these alleged journalists. Video is of course on YouTube, numblingly. Because they are a liberal news outlet, I guess they are burdened with helping the poor and needy and cannot afford to carry camera to actual events, have to find it online. (That's sarcasm. Deal with it.) Where else would they get video but YOU TUBE, the most important news source in history, eh?
1 Million Tea Bags, But No Place to Dump | NBC Washington
I am discouraged that such pseudo-news -- is this TV's further destruction of the already questionable "new journalism" concept? -- continues without full frontal insults from all comers -- liberals, conservatives, other news outlets, and even fake news champions such as Jon Stewart. Comedy doing news is one thing -- and illegitimate source of news. News doing comedy, especially in such subject matters, is really discouraging for the whole industry.
- jR, AirFarceOne (Twitter)
It's about context, and this one is foul. This station posted the fake video and mocking article more than likely just to be their usual evasive, unclear and misleading selves, leading some to never even question whether it was a real video, leaving a really misinformed impression on liberal fools (after all, that's now NBC's job, with MSNBC and CNN, it appears). Or, it was to leave some to think it was a shallow attempt to offer fake video to further mock the protest, setting off those in favor of the protest. Either way, not sure when doing news became doing distracting, divisive, unclarified comedy. Apparently, its only the dumb who would like to get real news from the media any longer, eh? The smart people all simply want comedy.
Why would they do such a thing? Why, because everyone knows that people who don't like taxes and have conservative, rational, small government mindsets are not protesters, they are the enemy of all. That's NBC's (and MSNBC's), and CNN's, take, among others, at least. Chris Matthews and Keith Oblermann are masters of dodgy news shows, so these guys are simply following the existing, and most recent, company model. Change is always good, of course, despite all else.
If they haven't cowered into their cave with their fake video, click the link and have a look at the article and the video provided to us by these alleged journalists. Video is of course on YouTube, numblingly. Because they are a liberal news outlet, I guess they are burdened with helping the poor and needy and cannot afford to carry camera to actual events, have to find it online. (That's sarcasm. Deal with it.) Where else would they get video but YOU TUBE, the most important news source in history, eh?
1 Million Tea Bags, But No Place to Dump | NBC Washington
Clearly, NBC and MSNBC envy the success of imaginary news man Jon Stewart and "realize" that the future of news is not news, but fake news and comedy bits. Lenin said religion was the opium of society; NBC knows that, today, it is actually comedy bits that make people laugh and somehow agree with you, like feeding a dog a treat and he'll follow you.
I am discouraged that such pseudo-news -- is this TV's further destruction of the already questionable "new journalism" concept? -- continues without full frontal insults from all comers -- liberals, conservatives, other news outlets, and even fake news champions such as Jon Stewart. Comedy doing news is one thing -- and illegitimate source of news. News doing comedy, especially in such subject matters, is really discouraging for the whole industry.
- jR, AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Powered by ScribeFire.
News stories: there's journalism, and then there's 'Romper Room' reports
I listened to 60 Minutes of in my car this past Sunday, since my local CBS affiliate happens to be the one who airs across FM 87.7 in my area (the one assured TV channel on FM radio across all markets, as far as I know). I think I got more out of it by purely listening to it (while 60 Minutes is not a jumpy or distracting video broadcast).
That said, listening to this TV show on a radio reminded me of why TV news is so often shallow, while reports such as those on 60 Minutes actually do what journalism ought to do: tell a story. Good news media does not just create a sound byte that's as throwaway as many 140-character Twitter posts.
Listening to local TV news on the radio would be nauseating. That CBS show is still worth listening to, on several levels.
- jR
That said, listening to this TV show on a radio reminded me of why TV news is so often shallow, while reports such as those on 60 Minutes actually do what journalism ought to do: tell a story. Good news media does not just create a sound byte that's as throwaway as many 140-character Twitter posts.
Listening to local TV news on the radio would be nauseating. That CBS show is still worth listening to, on several levels.
- jR
Politifact: Obama pushed through a budget that is contrary to campaign pledges
While it is weakened, potentially, by a deference to short-sighted mainstream sound-bite obsessed (hit and run, drive by, smash and grab, scratch and sniff, whatever you wish to nickname it) journalism, Politifact is also going the distance to reflect comments against the tell-tale mirror of -- of all things! -- recorded facts. Something that, for one thing, TV news rarely manages to accomplish (nighttime MSNBC chatter shows, most of all are guilty of this, I opine). It is an offshoot of the Poynter Institute, both based in St. Pete, Florida.
Here, Politifact nobly nails Pres. Obama for letting the pigs run wild out of the barn. So to speak.
Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Boehner meant that Obama had broken his campaign pledges, referenced on the White House Web site, to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." That's a reasonable interpretation of what Boehner said.Obama thoroughly proving himself contrary to who he pretended to be, on some levels, while his worst "toss-off" lines are more prophetic of his moves, it seems at this early date, than his detailed rhetoric or denials of allegations.
Obama did indeed make those pledges during the campaign. Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate, pledged to eliminate earmarks and "veto every earmark pork-barrel bill," and Obama, though stopping short of that, did pledge to get tough on them.
For example, here's Obama in the first presidential debate: "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Are we in trouble, or WHAT?
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Economy of Scale in Change in the Country: Politics, political parties, media influence, 'popularity' opinion
Interregnum: a beautifully Latin term for "leadership vacancy" (see definition).
The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.
How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.
-----
Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:
Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.
This first segment was written in the context of the market meltdown ...
That's good stuff. And exactly what journalism is NOT any longer, except with rarity, in local dailies or TV, or in national dailies ("national" meaning stuff like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, but of course that includes LA Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Washtingon Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the likes).Shumaker, the real-life model for the comic-strip character Shu, was a walking indoctrination into a culture of journalism that once held sway in America: Confident, straight-talking, blue-collar, irreverent, abrasive — but also undeniably talented and privately idealistic.
The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.
How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.
-----
The Future of The Republican Party « Jon Taplin’s Blog
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”
Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:
Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.
As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)
And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).
Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.
It was fun while it lasted.
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do.
McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Campbell Brown: use of middle name 'race-baiting'; dumb-baiting is OK
Commentary: Race-baiting wrong, but so is over-reaction - CNN.com
First, how is it that Hussein is foreign, yet Barack Obama does not sound that way? Wha? What Brown could not say, somehow, is that Obama's middle name is Saddam's last name, and that is the real reason the use of it sets off Obama fans. It is as if fate itself is going to force this man into the White House, despite a lack of leadership, military work, or even ever having run something aside from his campaigns.
What liberals are frightened of - I can only guess as I do not consider myself very liberal about much of anything - is that using "Hussein" will turn some simpletons otherwise sold on the two-year-old national politician Obama. This is a bit ironic - tragic, even - since Obama cannot seem to be first to comment on anything, including his own friendships and policies.
Why not just come out with it, Campbell Brown: Stop adding to the fakery managed so well by the Obama campaign and say, of the middle name, "it sounds like an enemy's name" instead of putting up the sensational term "race-baiting". Air your real worry rather than adding to the misinformation. Stop, for goodness sake, stop taking shots at McCain for these folks who are doing what? using Obama's given name against him? That is absurd for all but the most simple-minded. Absurd!
If people can hurt Obama's chances with his own middle name, he is way too insecure to be worthy of the Oval Office. You are servicing liberals by joining in that crazy talk, and ought to be brought out into the light as a propoganda voice of theirs, plain and simple. Of, get the act straight and stop playing to their tune.
This reminds me that Brown was only a burgeoning national face as an NBC desk anchor a few years ago. She replaced the coldly dumped Paula Zahn (disappeared without a trace months earlier), who was not so good, either, in my opinion. Zahn was dropped without a peep, so I guess I am not alone in feeling that way. It appears that CNN is convinced the 8 pm hour must have a woman who better suits an entertainment reporter, doing news that is far too deep for their thinking.
To her credit, Brown did have a clue about something that Larry King, the king of call-it-in hosting, couldn't grasp (see prior post). Thanks for this goes in part to her grandfather:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Look everybody, we all know we are in uncharted territory here. Never before has there been an African-American presidential nominee. So without question, race is going to be a part of the conversation.Incredibly, Brown said this in a "No bias, no bull" commentary during her show, "Election Center". It ought to be called "Election Left", not center. Yet she says the "implication" is "clear"? What a screwy, classless PR job she's doing for the Obama campaign! To someone who lacks her - either closed-minded or intentionally ironic - bias, this was a glorious bait-and-switch effort to cast a bad light on McCain by knee-jerk political correctness and hypocrisy of the finest sort.
Race-baiting doesn't have to be and yet it is happening in this campaign. Twice this week, surrogates for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain have made a point of calling Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Barack "Hussein" Obama.
The implication here is clear. It's foreign sounding. It's Muslim sounding. It's un-American sounding. It's dangerous-sounding. What it is, is race-baiting. And that is what is dangerous.
First, how is it that Hussein is foreign, yet Barack Obama does not sound that way? Wha? What Brown could not say, somehow, is that Obama's middle name is Saddam's last name, and that is the real reason the use of it sets off Obama fans. It is as if fate itself is going to force this man into the White House, despite a lack of leadership, military work, or even ever having run something aside from his campaigns.
What liberals are frightened of - I can only guess as I do not consider myself very liberal about much of anything - is that using "Hussein" will turn some simpletons otherwise sold on the two-year-old national politician Obama. This is a bit ironic - tragic, even - since Obama cannot seem to be first to comment on anything, including his own friendships and policies.
Why not just come out with it, Campbell Brown: Stop adding to the fakery managed so well by the Obama campaign and say, of the middle name, "it sounds like an enemy's name" instead of putting up the sensational term "race-baiting". Air your real worry rather than adding to the misinformation. Stop, for goodness sake, stop taking shots at McCain for these folks who are doing what? using Obama's given name against him? That is absurd for all but the most simple-minded. Absurd!
If people can hurt Obama's chances with his own middle name, he is way too insecure to be worthy of the Oval Office. You are servicing liberals by joining in that crazy talk, and ought to be brought out into the light as a propoganda voice of theirs, plain and simple. Of, get the act straight and stop playing to their tune.
This reminds me that Brown was only a burgeoning national face as an NBC desk anchor a few years ago. She replaced the coldly dumped Paula Zahn (disappeared without a trace months earlier), who was not so good, either, in my opinion. Zahn was dropped without a peep, so I guess I am not alone in feeling that way. It appears that CNN is convinced the 8 pm hour must have a woman who better suits an entertainment reporter, doing news that is far too deep for their thinking.
To her credit, Brown did have a clue about something that Larry King, the king of call-it-in hosting, couldn't grasp (see prior post). Thanks for this goes in part to her grandfather:
But let's also be careful here and use our heads. Some Obama supporters on the left are up in arms over something McCain said at the debate Tuesday night -- when he referred to Obama as, "that one."
McCain: It was an energy bill on the floor of the senate, loaded down with goodies. Billions for the oil companies. And it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? Might never know. That one.
Some people have interpreted that comment as having racial undertones. Give me a break.
With that, there's some hope for her. Consistency? Not a chance. Good writing? Umm, no. But some slim glimmer of hope that she just might pull out a decent piece of journalism now and then.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)