I didn't see that comment. I would say that Maddow is a smug bitch who plays a victim, Beck is can be crazy and sometimes too excited, Olbermann is a piece of shit a$$hole who just loves to attack. I cant think of any of the people on any of those channels who I actually really like.

He irritates me.

 

But how feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

A man who cries is now a woman?

 

And athough he can be a little crazy at times, at least he is not a complete a$$hole like Keith Olbermann.

this seems more than a little sexist, if not mysoginistic too.

Look at EVD casting stones with the "ist" accusations :)  That lightened up my day more than a bit.

 

How about he cries like a woman?  Does that fit better within your sensibilities, Mr. PC.

I never suggested any such thing.  I didn't know she was gay.  She just looks like a man.

He irritates me.

 

But how feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

A man who cries is now a woman?

 

And athough he can be a little crazy at times, at least he is not a complete a$$hole like Keith Olbermann.

this seems more than a little sexist, if not mysoginistic too.

 

.....and this seems a little hypocritical.

He irritates me.

 

But how feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

A man who cries is now a woman?

 

And athough he can be a little crazy at times, at least he is not a complete a$$hole like Keith Olbermann.

this seems more than a little sexist, if not mysoginistic too.

 

.....and this seems a little hypocritical.

I agree, but many liberals are. Then again, who am I to judge?  None of us fully practice what we preach, so I'm willing to give Hts a break! :wave:

He irritates me.

 

But how do you feel about the woman who is always crying on Fox?

 

 

 

 

You can see how MSNBC is at 1:20 in that video

What, willing to laugh at a clown masquerading as a journalist?  The idiot deserves derision for his fake tears and manipulative emotionalism.

^you're right about all of the above!

I'm no Chris Matthews fan, but watching the video, he doesn't even almost cry like the video purports, he just sighs at the berating he's getting from that d-ckhead, who's little sidekick says, "wow, he's going to cry".  Was there any point in that anyway?

The thing you have to remember is that most politicians and journalists are alcoholics. If you wake up in the morning shaking until you have a morning beer, then you have a lot to cry about. That's why you see all these Republicans cry these days. In the case of Glen Beck, it's just terrible acting.

I'm no Chris Matthews fan, but watching the video, he doesn't even almost cry like the video purports, he just sighs at the berating he's getting from that d-ckhead, who's little sidekick says, "wow, he's going to cry".  Was there any point in that anyway?

Maybe it was just a precursor to that "thrill up his leg," (or was it a "tingle?" I never knew for sure :-P) speaking of clowns masquerading as journalists who engage in "manipulative emotionalism."

The thing you have to remember is that most politicians and journalists are alcoholics. If you wake up in the morning shaking until you have a morning beer, then you have a lot to cry about. That's why you see all these Republicans cry these days. In the case of Glen Beck, it's just terrible acting.

Did you miss the recent election, David? It's not so much the Republicans having that morning beer.

I'm no Chris Matthews fan, but watching the video, he doesn't even almost cry like the video purports, he just sighs at the berating he's getting from that d-ckhead, who's little sidekick says, "wow, he's going to cry". Was there any point in that anyway?

Maybe it was just a precursor to that "thrill up his leg," (or was it a "tingle?" I never knew for sure :-P) speaking of clowns masquerading as journalists who engage in "manipulative emotionalism."

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Maybe you could post a another misleadingly titled video that doesn't show what it purports to show.

 

I'm sure Mika Brzezinski ("little sidekick" and his MSNBC co-worker) knew what she was talking about, after all Chris Matthews Man-crush on Obama was/is well known.

While many of these love affairs with Obama have waned across the country, Chris Matthews 'bromance' with Obama continues. So if I was a betting man, I'd say yes, he was on his way to tears.

Don't bet.  Prove.

Why think when Beck/Matthews can tell me what to think?

 

This is a major problem today.  And, even worse, about 10x more people watch / listen / read to Beck than those who watch Matthews.  Beck's followers are also much more cult-like and faith-based, making it all the more dangerous.

 

Question: does anybody know anyone who faithfully watches Beck (for reasons other than comic relief), who you can honestly say that you respect their intelligence?

 

I'm sure Mika Brzezinski ("little sidekick" and his MSNBC co-worker) knew what she was talking about, after all Chris Matthews Man-crush on Obama was/is well known.

While many of these love affairs with Obama have waned across the country, Chris Matthews 'bromance' with Obama continues. So if I was a betting man, I'd say yes, he was on his way to tears.

 

I'm pretty sure Mika Brzezinski is a Democrat (though not a very liberal one, or at least not one with enough spine to hang out in the wolf's den). News anchors on these shows are no different from shock jocks on the radio. They blow things out of proportion and try to make people look bad. Negativity = ratings.

 

And no, Matthews was not about to cry, not even close. It was more exhaustion and "get me the f$&k out of here." Speculation is nothing. These shows are jokes.

Everyone should read this to understand the slimy depths the news media has plunged into:

 

Ted Koppel: Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news

 

By Ted Koppel

Sunday, November 14, 2010

 

To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust...

 

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts...

 

CONTINUED AT POST SITE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

Question: does anybody know anyone who faithfully watches Beck (for reasons other than comic relief), who you can honestly say that you respect their intelligence?

 

I appreciate Beck whenever he mentions books that are mostly unknown. Most any book recommendation I appreciate though, regardless the source.

 

Better question: Can you honestly respect the intelligence of anyone who faithfully watches any television?

Everyone should read this to understand the slimy depths the news media has plunged into:

 

Ted Koppel: Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news

 

By Ted Koppel

Sunday, November 14, 2010

 

To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust...

 

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts...

 

CONTINUED AT POST SITE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

 

 

That Koppell article is mostly a load of self-important crap, as Olbermann points out in his response.  This idea of some journalistic holy grail---objectivity---is overrated and flies in the face of history.  Morrow was very opinionated as was Cronkite, the two most lionized reporters in history.  If anyone thinks that partisanship and wars of words only existed since the advent of Fox News and CSNBC, then they haven't actually read a newspaper in this country for the last 150 years.  There is a good book out now about just how partisan  media, specifically print journalism, has been over the years.  My goodness, some of the things said about Lincoln during his Presidential run/Presidency make the attacks Obama has endured seem tame.  I can't for the life of me remember the name of the book, though.  All in all, I tend to agree with the Time writer in his take on the situation  Also, you can check out the video for Olbermann's response.

 

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/

^Olbermann's response is great. MSNBC has to exist because Fox News exists. There should not be one without the other.

 

With that said, there was in fact a time when networks presented more air time to two arguments (the Fox News 2:1 rule never existed before Fox News). What Olbermann misses is that usually the guy who comes on the show with no facts and nothing but bloated air ends up looking like a jackass. If you want to really destroy your enemies, let them come on your show and have them destroy themselves. That was the genius of old guard liberal media like CBS in the 1960's. They didn't snuff their opponents. They let them do an interview. If they were full of sh!t, they would make the editorial decision to tear them apart. Nowadays, more and more people only interview at "safe" media. The brains and the balls are out of the mainstream news business. That is not good for America. There is a difference between ripping someone a new ass because they are full of sh!t and ripping someone a new ass because you don't like them (or are trying to get rich/enrich your buddies). If the audience members have any brains in their heads, they should be able to see that. The answer is media literacy. There is no way to get rid of of Fox News and MSNBC. That's like gun control. Once the weapons are out there, people will use them.

 

Olbermann is wrong in comparing the incompetent, emasculated, and spineless treatment of the buildup to Iraq with fact-based reporting. It was pure bullsh!t and pure propaganda. We didn't get any facts from the television media. They did not check any of their sources. They repeated some of the White House press releases verbatim. Any liberal or conservative journalist worth his weight in shit who hadn't drank himself into his Ford Tempo saw the bold-faced lies from a mile away. That was a television news media who had no clue how to do their jobs. They let fear stop them from trusting their instincts. They didn't have the balls to go after Bush when it was easiest and could have made a difference.

 

I am glad MSNBC has finally grown a spine and is taking on Fox News. However, Fox News should never have been made. This is an arms race now. But I think the problem is more the audience than anything else. A news network can air whatever trash they want to (and they sure as hell air a lot of trash), but what is disturbing is how many people are watching and still take it seriously. Like all television, they are just trying to sell soap. The bottom line is ratings, and you get them any way you can. Koppel is right about that. There is no doubt the trend today is to tell the audience what they want to hear. Challenge them and risk losing viewers? Hell no! Cronkite was from a different era in this business. He'd deep-six the entire CBS news division if it meant getting the truth out. Guys like him aren't in television anymore. It's all about spoon-feeding the audience. Everything in "Network" did really happen. This is the most important quote from Koppel's article:

 

I recall a Washington meeting many years later at which Michael Eisner, then the chief executive of Disney, ABC's parent company, took questions from a group of ABC News correspondents and compared our status in the corporate structure to that of the Disney artists who create the company's world-famous cartoons. (He clearly and sincerely intended the analogy to flatter us.) Even they, Eisner pointed out, were expected to make budget cuts; we would have to do the same.

 

I mentioned several names to Eisner and asked if he recognized any. He did not. They were, I said, ABC correspondents and cameramen who had been killed or wounded while on assignment. While appreciating the enormous talent of the corporation's cartoonists, I pointed out that working on a television crew, covering wars, revolutions and natural disasters, was different. The suggestion was not well received.

 

News = a Disney movie.