Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

Expressions of Honorable Skepticism

USA Today is Biased Against Progressives

Read this article:

Progressive revolt against Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema is exactly why Trump will win (again)

Progressives want to censure Kyrsten Sinema, the first Arizona Democrat to win a Senate seat in 30 years. Genius idea: Hurtle left, right off a cliff.

A group of Arizona Democrats are demonstrating why President Donald Trump will more than likely be a two-term president.

The party’s liberal wing simply cannot resist the temptation to shoot itself in its Birkenstocks.

Witness the liberals riding in on their unicorn, hoping to censure the first Arizona Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate in 30 years.

It seems Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is just not Democratic enough. So the party’s progressive caucus is asked the Arizona Democratic Party to censure her on Saturday. The party has decided to push the vote to its annual meeting in January.

“We really support Kyrsten Sinema, we want her to succeed, we want her to be the best senator in the country,” Dan O’Neal, state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America, told The Republic’s Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. “But the way she is voting is really disappointing. We want Democrats to vote like Democrats and not Republicans.”

Sinema won because she’s a centrist

The problem is, that’s not what the people who decided last year’s Senate race — the ones who quite likely will decide next year’s presidential race — want.

Sinema won last year because she ran as a centrist, one who could appeal to moderates who are sick to death of the long-running, never-ending trench war between the Republican and Democratic parties.

Why government needs to pop our bubbles: My social media feeds look different from yours and it’s driving political polarization

She won GOP-rich Maricopa County, as moderates saw in Sinema someone who would abandon the fox holes and go in search of that rare earth called middle ground.

But the progressives complain she’s too quick to throw in with Republicans. They cite her vote to confirm William Barr to be U.S. attorney, among other things.

Indeed, Sinema was one of three Democrats to vote for Barr’s confirmation.

But she also has voted against Trump’s positions 81% percent of the time this year, according to the FiveThirtyEight Trump Tracker.

In June, she voted yes on a bill to provide $4.5 billion in emergency humanitarian aid to migrants on the U.S-Mexico border. In March, she voted to block Trump from declaring a national emergency in order to divert funds on the border wall.

This is no way for Democrats to win

During last year’s campaign, Sinema made no secret of her desire to be seen as independent. She’s more pragmatist than party loyalist.

That was the secret sauce that allowed her to defeat Martha McSally, who hopped into Donald Trump’s hip pocket on the day she announced for the Senate.

Don’t play into his hands: Trump wants you to think he’s racist so you won’t notice he’s corrupt and killing jobs

Rather than taking a lesson from Sinema’s success, the Democratic Party nationally seems determined to do a reverse-McSally, embracing candidates who have pushed even its centrist candidates to the left.

Removing criminal penalties for illegal immigration, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free college, free child care, mandatory gun buybacks, slave reparations and impeachment impeachment impeachment.

Democrats seem determined to hurtle left, right over the cliff.

Just don’t expect Kyrsten Sinema to follow them.

Laurie Roberts is a columnist for the Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared. Follow her on Twitter @LaurieRoberts.

Infighting within a political party happens all the time. There are many Republicans who are anti-Trump, yet the media pays little attention to them. Why then does USA Today make a big deal out of a few left-wing extremists among Democrats merely expressing their dissenting opinions? They may call themselves Progressives, but I don’t, because I would call nearly all Democrats Progressives or Liberals. The hard-core left is outside the political mainstream of the USA and always has been. In order to win a Presidential election, Democrats MUST appeal to the center. That’s obvious! Appealing only to the left has always been a formula for failure.

This clearly shows the bias among media outlets like USA Today. Because the media paid so much attention to Trump’s laughable campaign in 2015 and 2016, he gained public attention and respectability, enabling him to take over the Republican Party and then America itself. And that seems to be happening again. Quarreling within an opposing party in one state has nothing to do with Donald Trump’s chances of being reelected next year. Shame on USA Today for claiming otherwise! Stop misrepresenting the Democratic Party and Progressivism, USA Today! STOP TELLING YOUR READERS WHO TO VOTE FOR AND WHAT TO THINK!

Especially with crap like this:

Removing criminal penalties for illegal immigration, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free college, free child care, mandatory gun buybacks, slave reparations and impeachment impeachment impeachment.

Implying, of course, than only the left-wing extremists advocate these things. No, mainstream Democrats do too. Including me! They only look extremist if you are a hard-core conservative bigot.

A Suspicious Story about Katy Perry

Katy Perry is one of the world’s biggest pop stars. Early in her career, before she became really respectable, she put out a song that struck me as profoundly stupid and this video of her performing it live didn’t help:

MALE peafowl have those massive tail feathers, not the females. And the song is clearly a metaphor. Buckley figured that one out fast enough. Jump ahead about nine minutes on this video and watch the Peacock song, referred to there as 2nd Place on the list:

Continue reading

The Bigotries of “Everyday Feminism”

Everyday Feminism is a hard-core progressive website that publishes articles of opinions promoting what is called “intersectional feminism”, the idea that promoting women’s rights must be paired with promoting rights of EVERYONE, including blacks, gays, lesbians, transgender people, and Muslims, among many other marginalized groups in the United States. But there are two groups of people that seem to be DEMONIZED by the writers of this site: whites and men. And if you are a WHITE MAN (like me), I am guessing you must be an agent of Satan fit only to be exterminated. OK, that is hyperbole, but I do feel constantly excluded and disrespected by this site.

Look at these articles:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/told-white-friend-black-opinion/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/what-is-whitemale-privilege/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/white-privilege-explained/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/white-liberals-perpetuate-racism/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/hatred-of-racism-supports-racism/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/white-people-say-progressive/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/11/why-white-women-terrify-me/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/everyday-ways-you-may-be-sexist-without-knowing-it/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/dating-faux-feminist-men/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/reasons-to-beware-feminist-men/

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/07/cis-men-socialized-to-be-abusive/

Every one of these articles implies that whites and/or men are by their very NATURE sexist and/or racist, and thus cannot be trusted by feminists who oppose racism, regardless of their stated intentions.

And yet….
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/08/dear-feminist-men/

One article calling for men to be allies against sexism does not make up for many others depicting men as unworthy to be such allies. You simply CANNOT have it both ways; you either are truly inclusive of EVERYONE, or you are not. And in my judgement, you are NOT inclusive of white men at all. You make them targets. And I refuse to accept being a target!

Even more offensive, you have been begging for money!

Dear Beloved Reader, we’re going to be real with you. We’re asking you to join our membership program so we can become fully financially sustainable (and you get some cool perks too!) With dropping ad rates across the media industry, we’re at continuous risk of shutting down. And we don’t want you to face Trump and his kind without the unique resources we provide. If everyone reading this only gave $10, we could raise enough money for the entire year in just one day. That’s right, with the price of a single lunch out, you can save us. We’re an independent feminist media site, led entirely by people of color, and that pays everyone who writes for us. If Everyday Feminism has been useful to you, please take one minute to keep us publishing the articles you’ve come to rely on us for. Thank you! Click here to join!

No, I won’t contribute a cent to your site. Not unless you change your attitude!

I’m against ALL racism, including that of African tyrants like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. And I’m against ALL sexism too, including the reverse sexism of some of Everyday Feminism’s writers. These extremists, in turn, make the anti-feminism of “Men’s Rights Activists” seem credible, which is dangerous.  This verbal abuse of white men simply has to stop!

 

Roger Ailes can now be called Roger Dead

Roger Ailes was the founding President of FOX News, which was a creation of Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation. For all practical intents and purposes, FOX News was the American conservative version of Pravda: a news source which had the effect of propagating right-wing politics at the expense of objective reporting. Last year, as a result of a series of sexual harassment accusations by women associated with the network, Ailes resigned as FOX News President. And now he has died.

Rolling Stone writer Matt Tabbi, already known as a dedicated enemy of corruption and hypocrisy in our governments, wasted no time going after Ailes.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-roger-ailes-was-one-of-the-worst-americans-ever-w483013

Continue reading

The downfall of Milo

Milo Yiannopoulos, the weapons-grade asshole who was banned from Twitter last year, has suffered another blow to his overinflated and dishonest ego: he has been forced to leave breitbart.com!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39043496

Milo Yiannopoulos quits Breitbart News

A senior editor at a conservative website has resigned and apologised after a furore over comments that appeared to condone paedophilia.

Milo Yiannopoulos said in a statement his “poor choice of words” was detracting from his colleagues’ work, so he was quitting immediately.

He had already lost a book deal and a speaking engagement over the row.

Videos surfaced of him discussing the merits of gay relationships between adults and boys.

But Mr Yiannopoulos, the tech editor, denied he had endorsed child abuse and said one video had been edited to give a misleading impression.

“I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors,” the 32-year-old wrote in his resignation statement on Facebook on Tuesday.

At a press conference on Tuesday, he explained that he had been referring to his own experiences as a victim of child sexual abuse.

He said that two men, including a priest, had touched him inappropriately when he was in his young teens.

“I haven’t ever apologised before, and I don’t intend on ever doing it again,” the hero of the so-called alt-right movement read to a room full of reporters.

“To be a victim of child abuse and at the same time be accused of being an apologist for child abuse is absurd.”

But the mea culpa came too late to save him from being axed in the line-up at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland.

The organising group, the American Conservative Union, said his response had been “insufficient”.

Milo is known to be openly gay, and I suspect that his comments about pedophilia were intended to play into the all too common stereotype that gays (and transgendered people, who he has also attacked) are mostly child molesters. But this was a serious miscalculation on his part. If you are trying to stir up hatred, doing it against some group you are actually a part of, even if you disown the group, is stupid. It will ultimately backfire on you, as we see here.

You do not merely quit an organization that made you famous in the first place. It is clear the operators of breitbart.com finally figured out that Milo had become more of a liability than an asset to them. He was out of control and needed to be stopped.

Now, if only we could do that also to Donald Trump!

Falsehoods about the “regressive left”

1. Progressives are now using the same subversive and highly inflammatory tactics that they have seen conservatives use against their liberal opponents for decades. But for some reason they are condemned as “intolerant” for this. That’s like going to fight with someone else when you have only a dagger when your opponent has a gun; you should not be condemned for insisting that you need a gun too!

2. Progressives are not a monolith; they are individuals and may disagree with each other as well as with conservatives. If one progressive activist claims something is racist, sexist, or otherwise prejudicial, that only reflects the opinion of that one activist; others may not agree.

3. Criticism is not censorship! If Progressive activists attack right-wing opponents via the media, that is not an indication that they are calling upon the government to shut their opponents down. Unless and until you actually hear the progressive ask for any such thing, you lie when you claim such. Freedom of speech is just that and must apply to all.

4. The media has NEVER been dominated by liberals. Back in the 1960s and 70s, the media simply reported the truth about what was going on in America and around the world, often causing conservatives to look bad. In the 1980s, President Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, which insisted that all media outlets be fair and balanced. With that gone, corporations could then gobble up or create all sorts of media outlets (like FOX News) and force them to represent only views they could tolerate, resulting in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press becoming a non-issue. Even worse, conservatives made their own “echo chambers” on the internet like Breitbart.com, NewsMax, RedState and others that are just like the Soviet Union’s Pravda. Only a bogus ideology dedicated to corruption and violating human rights needs to do such things.

There is no such thing as the “regressive left”; that very concept is not valid and never can be. Just as there is no such thing as “liberal fascism”. Conservatives have been lying outright about their opponents for decades; we should no longer accept any of that.

Some Right-wing Bigots have NO Shame!

Sometimes Conservatives are so desperate for validation of their extremist crusade against their political opponents that they will grab at straws and refer to things that have NOTHING to do with their politics. Below is an example of this chicanery:

http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/01/11/leah-reminis-scientology-fight-front-andrew-breitbarts-war/

How Leah Remini’s Scientology Fight Is A Front in Andrew Breitbart’s #WAR

Please note that RedState is yet another one of those right-wing propaganda mills, like breitbart.com, FOX News, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, and others.

I don’t know any Scientologists that I’m aware of and my only connection to L. Ron Hubbard is having read his bad science fiction novel Battlefield Earth back in the ’80s and later—primarily out of morbid curiosity—watching the even worse film adaptation starring Scientologist John Travolta.

The writer starts off with something that looks completely reasonable and true. If it had stuck to the actual issue of the Church of Scientology vs. Ms. Remini, I would highly recommend it. Instead….the article goes into left field, pun intended!

Last night while watching episode 7 it dawned on me why I am so involved with this show: What Leah Remini is doing is the most Andrew Breitbart-esque thing I have seen anyone do since his untimely passing. Like Andrew did with the Democrat-media complex, Remini is throwing down the gauntlet and challenging a corrupt institution to prove her wrong.

I only met Andrew Breitbart a couple of times, both of which were in chaotic and noisy environments, so I can’t claim to have been his friend or to have really known him personally. Still, he is one of relatively few people I would consider to be personally inspiring to me.

And what did Breitbart do to be so inspiring? Save one or more lives? Create an invention to make millions of lives better? Write a fictional story to entertain and impress readers? Hold public office and push for legislation to make government better for the people?  No, none of these things! He was a writer and publisher of propaganda attacking liberals!

I have no idea what Remini’s politics are. Maybe when you publicly pick a fight with a global cult that has virtually unlimited resources, there isn’t even room for politics in your life. Whether she knows it or not though, Remini’s fight is the same fight for liberty and truth that Andrew Breitbart fought, just on a different front. She is in effect saying to a the cult of Scientology, “I’m going to follow the facts where they lead and if you don’t like it, f*** you. Bring it on. Accuse me of whatever you want, I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m just going to take what you throw at me and use it to show everyone who you are and why you need to be taken down.”

She is executing her takedown just like Andrew would, by telling stories. Data and analysis don’t change people’s minds anywhere near as well as good storytelling.

Scientology is responding with the same sort of tactics the institutional left used against Andrew. According to the people whose stories Remini is telling, anyone who leaves Scientology or speaks ill of it is declared to be a “suppressive person” and is considered “fair game.” Scientologists then use any and all means to intimidate, discredit, or personally destroy those people. They employ private investigators to dig up dirt. They falsely accuse them of crimes. They follow them with cameras in order to capture embarrassing video.  It is like an even more fanatical version of the Saul Alinsky tactics employed by far left progressives.

As I recall, it was Breitbart and his cronies that engaged in disruptive and deceitful tactics against liberals. Like having a guy pose as a pimp to misrepresent how ACORN did its business.

Remember when “Joe the Plumber” tripped up candidate Obama into being honest about wealth redistribution? In just a few days the media investigated the background of a private citizen more thoroughly than they ever did Obama’s. How about when the New York Times crowdsourced their sleazy fishing expedition into Sarah Palin’s emails from when she was Governor of Alaska? Have you ever heard of a black conservative who hasn’t been smeared as an “Uncle Tom?” Or a scientist skeptical about man’s role in climate change who hasn’t been accused of being in the pocket of Big Oil? Racism, sexism, misogyny, are all part of the litany against those who have a different opinion. It’s all the same though. Speak out against progressive orthodoxy and you will be smeared or destroyed. The more effectively you speak out, the more weapons they will bring to bear, not to refute what you say but to silence you from saying it.

Of course, the first two sentences are assertions not backed up with proof. The reference to Sarah Palin’s emails is ironic considering how obsessed Republicans have been about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Hypocrisy much? Also, black conservatives may have sexist (if male), religious (if Christian fundamentalist) or economic (if rich) reasons to sell out the best interests of their own race, much like Milo Yiannopoulos does in backstabbing the gay community despite being gay himself, because he is a white man too. And Big Oil is indeed rich enough to corrupt both governments and scientists; the evidence for man-made climate change is solid. It’s OK to have a different opinion as long as it does not hurt people or render them powerless, as conservative policies often do. And most obvious of all……CRITICISM IS NOT CENSORSHIP! Unless Andrew Breitbart or the others that work for his propaganda site could show attempts on their lives or even death threats sent to them by known liberals, they cannot legitimately claim to be targets of attempts to silence them. That’s just dishonest hyperbole.

I can’t help but think Andrew would be a huge fan of what she is doing. He might even be helping her if he was still with us.

Did he ever attack Scientology before he died? Did he ever attack any extremist cult? If not, that assertion is entirely baseless. The implication that liberals are also members of some extremist cult is nothing but libel.

National Geographic has sold out!

Read this horrible story:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/09/438853832/national-geographic-reshapes-itself-in-725-million-deal-with-21st-century-fox

In a $725 million deal, the 127-year-old National Geographic magazine is leaving behind its nonprofit status and becoming a key piece of a new venture between its parent organization and 21st Century Fox.

The dramatic shift will place the venerable magazine, with its iconic yellow-rimmed covers, under a new venture called National Geographic Partners. Fox will own 73 percent of the new company, with the National Geographic Society owning 27 percent.

Those proportions are similar to the ownership split of National Geographic’s cable TV channels. The new deal is being called an extension of that partnership, which began 18 years ago and now reportedly reaches more than 500 million homes worldwide.

James Murdoch, who took over the post of CEO of 21st Century Fox from his father, Rupert, this summer, said:

“We are privileged to have the opportunity to expand our partnership to continue to bring to audiences around the world, ‘The world and all that is in it,’ as National Geographic Society’s second president Alexander Graham Bell stated more than a century ago. We believe in the Society’s mission of bringing the world to audiences through science, education and exploration.”

The new media company will be headed by CEO Declan Moore, a 20-year veteran of National Geographic who is currently its chief media officer. Gary Knell, the CEO of the National Geographic Society, will remain in that role.

“We will now have the scale and reach to fulfill our mission long into the future,” Knell said. “The Society’s work will be the engine that feeds our content creation efforts, enabling us to share that work with even larger audiences and achieve more impact. It’s a virtuous cycle.”

National Geographic Partners will combine the National Geographic TV channels with a list of media properties that, according to a news release, includes “National Geographic magazines; National Geographic Studios; related digital and social media platforms; books; maps; children’s media; and ancillary activities, including travel, location-based entertainment, archival sales, catalog, licensing and ecommerce businesses.”

The deal will raise the value of the National Geographic Society’s endowment to nearly $1 billion.

 21st Century Fox is in turn owned by News Corporation, which also owns…..FOX News! 

Hasn’t the Murdoch family and their companies done enough damage to the mass media already?! Why take over National Geographic, one of the most respected publications in history?! HOW DARE THEY?!!

Let us not forget what happened to MySpace when it was part of the FOX empire. 

Andrew Breitbart is Dead

Conservative media activist and trickster Andrew Breitbart died today at the age of 43. As far as I’m concerned,  that was simply justice after all the contemptible lies he told using media manipulation to advance his right-wing agenda, which I see as itself dishonorable. He was even responsible for the unjustified downfall of ACORN shortly after Barack Obama became President, which ACORN had helped get elected.

I think we need to do what we can to either reestablish ACORN or replace it with a simular organization. I only regret that Breitbart will not live to see that happen. But there are plenty of other Republican bigots out there we can seek to punish! Their day of reckoning will come if we just have enough backbone to go after them and make them pay!

A stupid way to protest (NSFW)

As much as I support the Occupy Wall Street protests and similar movements in America and even around the world, I do have my limits of tolerance to the tactics of protesters. I thought, for example, that Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason for her meeting with the North Vietnamese as a way of protesting America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

But at least she was classy about it. These women in Ukraine were not!

Continue reading

Rachel Maddow vs Politifact

The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series)

Image via Wikipedia

As an Honorable Skeptic, I never assume that anyone or anything is infallible, not individuals like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow nor websites like Politifact. So when there is an actual conflict between them, one must look at the actual facts to judge who or what is right. Facts, not ideology. FACTS, not personal preferences.

Look at this claim:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

“Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”

Rachel Maddow on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 in a segment on her television talk show

False

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

The quote attributed to Maddow is indeed hers. But it was taken out of context.

Continue reading

A Jewish conspiracy?

Last night, I heard that CNN anchor Rick Sanchez got fired from that network. The reason: He’d made some anti-Semitic remarks at a radio show. His attacks against Jon Stewart, who happens to be Jewish, were simply outrageous.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/01/cnn.sanchez/index.html?hpt=T2

DO YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID THAT IS?!

If Jews control the media, the banks, or other major institutions in the world, despite being such a small minority, then that means non-Jews are extremely WEAK and INCOMPETENT. That’s why Rick Sanchez’s comments were insulting not merely to Jews, but to EVERYBODY!

I can’t believe that this was the same guy who did this  a year ago:

You can bet neither FOX News nor MSNBC will offer him a job anytime soon!

Why I despise Alex Jones

Because the man is a fuked up lunatic, even worse than most of those right-wingers who spew their hate on FOX News!

Check this out:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/elite-moves-to-lobotomize-zombify-global-population.html

{{{Elite Moves To Lobotomize, Zombify Global Population

The Alex Jones Channel

Aug. 4, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg

THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING!!! LINKS ARE BELOW
The establishment media and the scientific dictatorship are promoting brain-eating vaccines that virtually lobotomize people and rewire their brains into a state of subservient compliance so that their natural instinct to get angry and rebel against the tyranny being imposed upon them is neutered and sterilized.
“Academics say they are close to developing the first vaccine for stress — a single jab that would help us relax without slowing down,” reports the Daily Mail.
FOR MORE INFO
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSpkLk…
FOOD THE ULTIMATE SECRET EXPOSED PT2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B9MeO…
http://www.infowars.com/food-the-ulti…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art…
http://www.infowars.com/new-york-time…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/establish…
http://www.infowars.com/oxford-bioeth…
http://www.infowars.com/category/feat…
}}}

Continue reading

Holding CNN accountable for phony “balance”

CNN published an article on its website about climate change. Two bloggers with a strong interest in the subject looked at it and quickly debunked its credibility.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/new-study-lays-out-11-indicators-of-a-warming-world-media-focuses-on-contrarian-views/

From time to time, journalists like Andy Revkin and Keith Kloor protest that the mainstream media doesn’t do an awful job covering the issue of climate change. They believe that the well-documented, systematic bias of undermining scientific conclusions by “balancing” them with contrarianism is behind us. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably false.

The above image is from the self-proclaimed “Most Trusted Name in News” CNN’s coverage of NOAA’s just-released 2009 State of the Climate Report, copy from The Financial Times. The State of the Climate report details how the planet is warming as captured by 11 different indices, from land surface temperature to glacial mass balance.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/misleading_reporting_from_fion.php

Thingsbreak has produced a graphic illustration of how lazy journalists mislead in the name of “balance”. On right is his colour coding of her story on the NOAA report on the State of the Climate in 2009, with red marking coverage of “Climategate” and contrarians and green marking coverage of the report that the story is ostensibly about. This, from the red coverage, quite takes your breath away:

David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also “lacks credibility”.

Tim Lambert, the blogger, who follows climate journalism as a hobby, says Harvey lacks credibility.

Harvey’s story was so bad that even Keith Kloor said that it was “glaringly flawed”.

CNN must have noticed the criticism and acted on it. The article has now been REMOVED from its website! Another victory for honest reporting, as opposed to fake “balance” in reporting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/29/climate.change.noaa.ft/

Page not found

We’re sorry! This page is not available. Please visit the CNN homepage or use the search box below.

How (I think) the corporate dominated media shaped last year’s Presidental election

At the risk of sounding like a crackpot conspiracy theorist , here is how I think the mainstream media manipulated the election process to make a candidate as much to their liking as possible:

OK, Democrats, the best possible candidates for you are Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Ignore all the others, ESPECIALLY Dennis Kucinich. He is too extreme!

Republicans, we want John McCain to be the next President. The others are too weak and we especially don’t want RON PAUL in charge!

Great! The Democrats are fighting, fighting FIGHTING over Obama and Clinton! YAY! Let’s play that up for all it’s worth, to make the Republicans look stronger.

Finally, Obama has won the Democratic nomination. And McCain has won on the Republican side. Maybe we can get a WOMAN on the Republican ticket to attract some of the Hilary supporters and ensure McCain’s victory. Here’s Sarah Palin! Obama has picked a white guy to be HIS running mate. Ho hum….

Damn! Obama WON. No matter, once he takes office, we can whip up the opposition to him as much as possible to give him a hard time. Then he will NEVER threaten our interests.

Let’s work to destroy FOX News!

Ever since it was founded in 1996, FOX News, contrary to its claim to be “fair and balanced” has instead consistently promoted a neo-Conservative agenda, ultimately leading to the election of George W. Bush as President in 2000, his re-election in 2004, and the waging by Bush of not one but two wars on the other side of the world. These wars have killed thousands of American troops, injured tens of thousands more, and driven America deeper in debt than it has ever been, finally ending up with us in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative

It’s time to make FOX News, and its overlord, Rupert Murdoch, pay!

Continue reading

Notice to the New York Times: FIRE BRIAN STELTER!

In my last blog entry, I noted that the New York Times published an article by reporter Brian Stelter claiming that executives at News Corporation and General Electric, the parent companies of FOX News and MSNBC respectively, had arranged a cease-fire between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. Subsequent actions by Olbermann proved that article to be false. So what did Stelter do?

He wrote another phony article!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/media/08feud.html

At Fox and MSNBC, Hosts Refire the Insult Machines
Published: August 7, 2009

Executives at two of the country’s largest media companies are still trying to salvage what was essentially a cease-fire between MSNBC and the Fox News Channel.

 
 
The two cable news channels temporarily resumed their long-running feud this week after The New York Times reported that their parent companies, General Electric and the News Corporation, had struck a deal to stop each other’s televised personal attacks.

Fox News executives felt that MSNBC had broken the deal when Keith Olbermann, in an apparent show of independence, insulted his 8 p.m. rival, Bill O’Reilly, and the News Corporation’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, on Monday. On his show, “Countdown,” Mr. Olbermann called Mr. O’Reilly a “racist clown.”

Mr. O’Reilly responded with his own attack two days later on his program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” where he claimed that G.E., through MSNBC, was “promoting the election of Barack Obama and then seeking to profit from his policies.”

The chief executives at General Electric, whose NBC News division operates MSNBC, and News Corporation, which owns Fox News, reached an unusual agreement last spring to halt the regular personal assaults on each other’s channels.

Eric Burns, the former host of Fox’s media criticism show “Fox News Watch” and the author of “All the News Unfit to Print,” said, “Even in an age where there seemed to be no boundaries, people at the very top of two networks thought, ‘Well, I guess there are boundaries, because they’ve been crossed.’ ”

But the agreement was strained almost from the start, according to employees at the channels, even though it mostly succeeded in stopping the vicious personal attacks lobbed by the two hosts until this week.

Despite the renewed tensions, Mr. Murdoch and his counterpart at G.E., Jeffrey R. Immelt, are still seeking a truce in a feud that has embarrassed both companies, said three employees at the companies with direct knowledge of the situation. Mr. Murdoch was said to be particularly incensed by Mr. Olbermann’s and Mr. O’Reilly’s sniping.

The deal extends beyond the prime-time hour that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly occupy. Employees of daytime programs on MSNBC were specifically told by executives not to mention Fox hosts in segments critical of conservative media figures, according to two staff members. The employees requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters.

In a statement, G.E. said, “While both companies agreed that the tone should be more civil, no one at G.E. told anyone at NBC News or MSNBC how to report the news.”

Some Fox employees said they were told in June and July not to flagrantly criticize General Electric. Fox said in a statement Friday, “This has nothing to do with preventing anyone from practicing journalism or interfering with freedom of speech — this is about corporate responsibility. We’ve never suppressed any stories about NBC or G.E. — both organizations are covered as news warrants.”

Still, some watchdog groups said the months-long cease-fire challenged the claims that the two media companies did not interfere in their on-air content.

The advocacy group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting asked its supporters on Friday to contact G.E., urging it to renounce the agreement with Fox.

Jeff Cohen, the founder of the group, said the deal between the two networks’ parent companies was a reason to be wary of corporate-owned TV news.

“It should remind news consumers of who calls the tune and pays the bills — and that TV reporters and even loud-mouthed commentators have corporate bosses whose interests are often not about unbridled journalism,” Mr. Cohen said.

Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com, said Thursday that it appeared that “the owners of two large news organizations colluded to make sure their audience got less, not more, information, and to promote their business interests, not the public interest.”

She asked, “How is it any different from a media organization making a deal with a politician not to expose a scandal in exchange for a political favor? We’d call that corruption, and I think this is the same thing.”

The executives had sought for years to tamp down the attacks by Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly, to little success. Frustrated by the refusal by NBC’s chief executive, Jeffrey Zucker, to halt the attacks on Mr. O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, personally instructed Mr. O’Reilly’s program to aim at Mr. Immelt, people familiar with the situation said.

Peace talks, such as they were, resumed in the spring between G.E. and News Corporation executives. At a lunch in April, Mr. Ailes and Mr. Immelt agreed to tone down the attacks. It was not visible to viewers until after Mr. Immelt and Mr. Murdoch shook hands at an off-the-record conference sponsored by Microsoft in May and word of a cease-fire trickled down to both news divisions.

Mr. Olbermann told viewers on June 1 that he would halt his jokes about Fox News because he believed that Fox had played a part in inciting the death of the abortion doctor George Tiller. Inside Fox, executives chuckled. They knew that a pact had already been struck by Mr. Olbermann’s bosses to end the feud.

In the months after, when MSNBC would say something that strained the agreement, Fox News would respond accordingly, and vice versa.

In July, after Mr. Olbermann condemned Fox’s Glenn Beck for letting a guest assert that a terrorist attack in the United States might be a good thing, Mr. Beck booked a segment about G.E. and declared that a “merger between G.E. and the Obama administration” was “nearly complete.”

After the detente was reported by The Times on Monday, the fighting resumed and Mr. Olbermann claimed there was no deal among the parent companies. That was met by heated skepticism among bloggers.

Two days later, Mr. O’Reilly had his turn. His news hook: The Securities and Exchange Commission had fined G.E. $50 million on charges of misleading investors. And on Thursday, Mr. O’Reilly showed Mr. Immelt’s and Mr. Zucker’s faces and wondered how long they could allow “this barbaric display” — that is an Olbermann reference — “under the NBC News banner.”

Mr. Olbermann and MSNBC declined to comment Friday.

It remains to be seen whether the personal attacks will be halted again. Fox’s stance on Friday suggested that the corporate criticism would not.

“At this point,” a Fox spokeswoman said Friday, “the entire situation is more about major issues at NBC and G.E. than it is about Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann.”

That is simply a load of bogus crap! Here is a clip from Countdown on June 17, 2009, in which Olbermann made yet another long and scathing attack on FOX News:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#31416352

Then the very next night, he did it again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#31435467

And yet AGAIN on July 7:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#31788895

Which would lead me to ask, “What cease fire?” It looks like it was business as usual, with the exception of any direct references to Bill O’Reilly. Again, it was because of the George Tiller issue that Olbermann felt he should refrain from making fun of his rival. But any attack on FOX News in general would certainly be an attack on O’Reilly by implication. You don’t make several attacks on a rival during a “cease-fire”.

Finally, on July 17, Olbermann attacked the notion of news organizations agreeing to cover up any actual news, calling it “slimy”. So if Stelter was correct, that means Olbermann is one of the world’s biggest hypocrites. By this time, if there HAD been a deal of some kind between News Corp. and G.E., Olbermann should have been fired.

The fighting wasn’t “resumed” because it never ended! BRIAN STELTER LIED!

So now, I will repeat my demand to the publishers of the New York Times: Brian Stelter committed libel and not only refused to apologize for it, but has repeated his offense. Any reporter that wrote as falsely as he did, I’d have fired within a week, and Stelter should be NOW!

Bill O vs Keith O, Part 2

This is the direct sequel to this earlier blog entry:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/the-feud-between-keith-olbermann-and-bill-oreilly/

The feud between these TV news titans came to a head on June 1, 2009. The previous day, Dr. George Tiller, who O’Reilly had stigmatized for years as “Tiller the baby killer” because he was one of the few doctors who provided late-term abortions, was shot to death at his Lutheran church by an anti-abortion fanatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller

That prompted Bill O’Reilly to attempt some damage control:

At the same time, Keith Olbermann was dealing with the situation in his own way. He made his most bitter attack against O’Reilly and FOX News yet, accusing them of responsibility for Tiller’s death, and declared that FOX News needed to be subjected to a “quarantine”.

Thus, he made the decision to retire his mocking of O’Reilly, merely being content to quote his words. Frankly, I would have done the same. The whole situation was just too disgusting to make fun of. 

And that’s where it stood until July 31, when this article was published in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/media/01feud.html?_r=1

Voices From Above Silence a Cable TV Feud

Virginia Sherwood/NBC, left; Steve Fenn/ABC

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel regularly trade swipes at each other on their cable news shows.

Published: July 31, 2009
It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to help bring it to at least a temporary end.

At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN).

“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.

The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.

“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”

The parent companies declined to comment directly on the details of the cease-fire, which was orchestrated in part by Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, and Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president who oversees corporate affairs at the News Corporation.

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment.

Civility was not always the aim of Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly, men who, in an industry of thin skins, are both famous for reacting to verbal pinpricks. Both host 8 p.m. programs on cable news in studios a few blocks apart in Midtown Manhattan.

The conservative-leaning Mr. O’Reilly has turned “The O’Reilly Factor” into a profit center for the News Corporation by blitzing his opponents and espousing his opinions unapologetically. He found his bête noire in the liberal-leaning Mr. Olbermann, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” who saw in Mr. O’Reilly a regenerating target he nicknamed the “Bill-o the Clown.”

The 6-foot-4 Mr. Olbermann started sniping regularly at the also 6-foot-4 Mr. O’Reilly in late 2005, sometimes making him the subject of the “Countdown” segment, the “Worst Person in the World.” Mr. O’Reilly was also a stand-in for the perceived offenses of the top-rated Fox News.

By punching up at his higher-rated prey, Mr. Olbermann helped his own third-place cable news show. “Honestly, I should send him a check each week,” he remarked to a reporter three years ago. Fox noticed. Mr. Murdoch remarked to Esquire last year that “Keith Olbermann is trying to make a business out of destroying Bill O’Reilly.” Mr. O’Reilly refused to mention his critic by name on the “Factor,” deeming him a “vicious smear merchant,” but he regularly blamed Mr. Zucker for “ruining a once-great brand,” NBC.

In late 2007, Mr. O’Reilly had a young producer, Jesse Watters, ambush Mr. Immelt and ask about G.E.’s business in Iran, which is legal, and which includes sales of energy and medical technology. G.E. says it no longer does business in Iran.

Mr. O’Reilly continued to pour pressure on its corporate leaders, even saying on one program last year that “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt.” The resulting e-mail to G.E. from Mr. O’Reilly’s viewers was scathing.

The messages hit nerves on both sides. Mr. Immelt remarked to MSNBC staff members last summer that he would “never forgive Rupert Murdoch” for Fox’s behavior, according to two people who were present. In private phone calls, the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, told NBC officials to end the attacks.

In February, Mr. Zucker told Newsweek what he had told Mr. Olbermann privately: “I wish it weren’t so personal.” The previous year, Mr. Murdoch said that Mr. O’Reilly “shouldn’t be so sensitive” to the attacks lobbed by MSNBC.

Over time, G.E. and the News Corporation concluded that the fighting “wasn’t good for either parent,” said an NBC employee with direct knowledge of the situation. But the session hosted by Mr. Rose provided an opportunity for a reconciliation, sealed with a handshake between Mr. Immelt and Mr. Murdoch.

But like any title fight, the final round could not end without an attempted knockout. On June 1, the day after the abortion provider George Tiller was killed in Kansas, Mr. Olbermann took to the air to cite Mr. O’Reilly’s numerous references to “Tiller, the baby killer” and to announce that he would retire his caricature of Mr. O’Reilly.

“The goal here is to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air,” he said.

The next day, Mr. O’Reilly made the extraordinary claim that “federal authorities have developed information about General Electric doing business with Iran, deadly business” and published Mr. Immelt’s e-mail address and mailing address, repeating it slowly for emphasis.

Then the attacks mostly stopped.

Shortly after, Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, told producers that he wanted the channel’s other programs to follow Mr. Olbermann’s lead and restrain from criticizing Fox directly, according to two employees. At Fox News, some staff members were told to “be fair” to G.E.

The executives at both companies, it appears, were relieved. “For this war to stop, it meant fewer headaches on the corporate side,” one employee said.

Tensions still simmer between the two networks, however, and staff members have been unwilling or unable to stop the strife altogether. This week, for instance, the Fox host Glenn Beck called Mr. Obama a racist, prompting rebukes on a number of MSNBC shows. But for now, the daily back and forth has quieted.

“They’ve won their respective constituencies,” said a former member of MSNBC’s senior staff. “They don’t need to do this anymore, really.”

Olbermann was returning from a two week vacation. When he resumed hosting his show on August 3, he addressed that article directly:

He must have been furious! Had he kept his word and never made fun of Bill O’Reilly again, it would have made him look like a corporate shill, not a legitimate newsman. So in this case, he had to break his word in order to preserve his credibility!

And his action proved to be justified on August 11, when O’Reilly attacked General Electric the parent company of MSNBC:

Thus it appears there was no deal on the side of O’Reilly and FOX News as well. Olbermann shot back the next evening:

So now, I have just one question: Has Brian Stelter been fired from the New York Times yet?

Oh and by the way, Keith Olbermann would not need to do damage control if someone was insane enough to kill Bill O’Reilly. He already denounced one such threat made against his rival on August 19, 2008. That’s right, ONE YEAR AGO!

And that’s why Olbermann is the better man.

The Insanity of Glenn Beck

Conspiracy nut. Obsessive extremist. Racist who accuses others of racism to cover his @$$. That’s Glenn Beck, who calls himself a libertarian but acts more like a member of the John Birch Society of several decades ago. And he doesn’t belong on television, unless you also think Ku Klux Klansmen also belong on TV.

I wonder if he would think I am racist and  hate white culture too. Since I am white myself, of course that is nonsense. Likewise, Barack Obama is himself half-white and was raised by this white mother and white grandparents.

And if you see something “wrong” with trying to level the playing field for people of all colors, then you are a race-baiter yourself.

And he loses it at a rude caller and makes himself look totally stupid:

He also gets caught lying about stupid stuff on the View:

And has even made an idiotic threat against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which was simply not funny:

And perhaps worst of all, he made a joke about Michael Jackson on the day he died:

Corporate advertisers are already abandoning Beck.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/advertisers-deserting-fox-news-glenn-beck-2009-08-14

So now we need to make sure we finish him off. If you agree, sign this petition:

http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/?id=1970-1040742

An example of biased, fraudulant reporting

I just found this on WorldNetDaily, a web “news” source appealing to right-wing extremists:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106815

CNN finally ‘fires’ Lou Dobbs!


Posted: August 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

It took him a long time, but CNN President Jon Klein finally got around to doing what he should have done a long time ago. In order to maintain the professed trademark of his network for objectivity in broadcasting, he realized he had no choice but to fire Lou Dobbs.Of course, cautious as he is, Klein did not fire the anti-immigration crusader directly, or even alone. He threw Dobbs overboard as part of a vendetta against radio talk-show hosts in general.

As first reported on the Website TVNewser.com, in a conference call on Aug. 11, Klein told his producers they should no longer book radio talk-show hosts on CNN shows: not on “The Situation Room,” nor Larry King, Anderson Cooper or Campbell Brown. From now on, said his edict, no radio talkers will appear on CNN. Period.

Why? Because, argued Klein, radio talk-show hosts are incapable of understanding or commenting on the important issues of the day. “Complex issues require world-class reporting,” sniffed Klein. Not only that, TVNewser.com quotes Klein as complaining that radio hosts too often do nothing more than “contribute to the noise,” and their comments are “all too predictable.”

Sign the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press!

Klein’s dead wrong, of course. Yes, we Americans do confront complex issues today, but radio talk-show hosts like me, whether liberal or conservative, are more than capable of dealing with them. After all, that’s what we do for a living. We research the issues. We explain them to listeners. We take listener calls about them. We talk about them, on average, three hours a day – without a teleprompter. We understand the issues far better, in fact, than any blow-dried anchor that does little more than read a script, written by somebody else, for one hour at the most.

Now, I must admit, I was both puzzled and disappointed to learn of Klein’s manifesto. Puzzled because radio talk-show hosts have long played an important role at the network. “Crossfire” actually began with two talk radio hosts, Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden. Other CNN personalities of yesterday or today – Larry King, Mary Matalin, Bill Bennett, Roland Martin, Glenn Beck and yours truly – hosted, or continue to host, their own radio shows.

I’m disappointed by Klein’s decision because I enjoyed six good years at CNN – as co-host of “Crossfire” and “The Spin Room.” Since leaving the network (not voluntarily), I have jumped at the chance to appear occasionally as an unpaid guest on “The Situation Room,” “Reliable Sources” or other CNN programs. I’m a big CNN fan, and I’ll miss being part of it.

But my grief is more than outweighed by one giant consolation: At least, this means the end of that pompous, arrogant and obnoxious Lou Dobbs. After all, Lou Dobbs is also a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. So Klein’s edict – “No Radio Talk Show Hosts on CNN” – must mean the end of Lou Dobbs.

And it’s about time. Dobbs contradicts everything CNN supposedly stands for. He doesn’t just report, he pontificates. He doesn’t just deliver the news, he pollutes it with his own opinions . He doesn’t even pretend to be in the middle of the road, he exults in being on the extreme right.

 

Actually, Klein missed two excellent opportunities to fire Dobbs. First, when Dobbs assumed the role of chief executioner for undocumented workers. No fine points about breaking up families or crippling certain American industries for Dobbs. If they’re here illegally, they should be sent back across the border, all 12 million of them. It’s the kind of daily rant you expect from right-wing Fox News, but not from “news leader” CNN.

Klein should also have dumped Dobbs for fanning the flames of the “birther” issue. Long after every serious news operation had dismissed questions about the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate as totally whacko, Dobbs kept beating the birther drum on CNN. But, instead of admonishing him to stick to “world-class reporting,” Klein himself said Dobbs was raising a legitimate issue.

Still, better late than never. We now know Lou Dobbs will be fired because we know Jon Klein is a man of his word. After all, he’s the president of CNN, “the most trusted name in news.” Surely, Klein would never ban all radio talk-show hosts from CNN and leave talk show host Lou Dobbs on the air. Would he?

 

The title of that article is totally misleading, since there is no confirmation that Lou Dobbs has been fired from CNN yet. So why did Bill Press write such nonsense?
 
Indeed, there is no link on the article to the original report on TVNewser.com, nor is there any confirmation on the website for CNN. See for yourself that the site for Lou Dobbs’ show on CNN is still up as of this writing:
So here we have an unconfirmed report about something that the CNN President supposedly said and it is posted not on the CNN website itself, but as commentary on another website without a shred of proof!
 
BILL PRESS, YOU ARE  EVEN WORSE THAN LOU DOBBS HIMSELF! In the name of journalistic integrity, I demand that you retract your bogus statement and issue a formal apology to CNN and to Lou Dobbs!
 
Update: I finally found the report on TVNewser.com referred to by Bill Press, thanks to MediaMatters for America:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908120051

Yesterday, TVNewser reported that CNN president Jon Klein “asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts.” According to TVNewser, this was Klein’s reasoning:

“Complex issues require world class reporting,” Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is “all too predictable.”

TVNewser writes that Lou Dobbs — who hosts both a radio show and a CNN show — is “presumably not affected by this.”

But beyond being a radio host, Dobbs regularly violates each of the standards set out by Klein — as Media Matters has extensively documented.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/no_more_talk_radio_hosts_on_cnn_124031.asp

Tuesday, Aug 11
No More Talk Radio Hosts on CNN?
Exclusive: TVNewser has learned, and a CNN spokesperson confirms, that in his morning editorial meeting today, CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts. “Complex issues require world class reporting,” Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is “all too predictable.”

One of CNN’s longtime show hosts, Lou Dobbs, hosts a daily radio show. A few political contributors also host radio shows including Bill Bennett and Roland Martin. They are presumably not affected by this.

But this means other talk radio hosts who appear regularly on CNN, probably won’t in the near future including names like Stephanie Miller, Michael Medved, and Ben Ferguson.

> Update: Roland Martin stopped hosting his show on WVON last October when he became senior analyst for the “Tom Joyner Morning Show.”

Posted by Chris Ariens

So here is a report that couldn’t possibly be true. Are they implying that the CNN President is so ignorant that he didn’t know that Lou Dobbs hosts a radio program? And why wouldn’t any of the producers ask him directly if Lou Dobbs was to be fired as a result of this order?

I hereby write off TVNewser.com as a reliable news source!

The feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly

I first took notice of Keith Olbermann when I happened to see a video on YouTube of him condemning President Bush for his conduct during the Iraq War.

I thought that was quite amazing, but then I saw these special reports on Bill O’Reilly, which totally blew me away!

You can’t get more damning than that! There are only two possibilities: Either Olbermann slandered Bill O’Reilly (in which case Bill O and FOX News should have sued Keith O and MSNBC as a matter of honor), or he told the truth (in which case FOX News should have fired Bill O). There is no third option. The fact that no slander lawsuit was ever filed and that O’Reilly works at FOX News to this day shows beyond all reasonable doubt that FOX News is a channel with no integrity whatsoever.

Here’s another example of Olbermann busting  O’Reilly for falsehoods relating to World War II:

And unlike Bill O, who never makes an apology for his mistaken statements, Keith O does! One evening, he slammed New York Times managing editor Bill Keller for not firing a reporter who had not only printed a false story, but had committed plagerism to boot!

But the very next night, Keith O apologized for his condemnation of Keller. Appearantly, Olbermann had never worked at that newspaper before and knew nothing beforehand about how it was run. So he practiced what he preached!

There is no question that MSNBC is slanted towards the Liberal perspective. I suspect that was done because of FOX News appealing so much to right-wingers, so MSNBC had to balance it out. FOX News certainly has no business calling itself “fair and balanced”, nor does Bill O’Reilly have any business calling his show a “no spin zone”. Look at how arrogantly he dealt with Richard Dawkins:

….and then with Kirk Cameron, treating him with kid gloves while continuing to bash Dawkins:

And he even got into a shouting match with Geraldo Rivera over illegal immigration and drunk driving! How unprofessional!

Meanwhile, Olbermann took on Wal-Mart for several days to expose its terrible wrongdoing towards a disabled former employee:

Until Wal-Mart was forced to back down:

Now, those blind and moronic FOX News fans who call Olbermann a liar, without specifying what he lied about, are YOU going to file a slander lawsuit against him? Is anyone? If not, SHUT UP! In matters of credibility and honor, Keith Olbermann beats anyone at FOX News hands down! The only reason you distrust Olbermann is political prejudice, the irrational assumption that somehow Conservatives have a monopoly on truth and virtues and therefore anyone non-Conservative must be misguided, dishonest, even evil. WRONG! Grow up and deal with real life and not the nationalistic crap you’ve been spoon fed since you were babies!

When I was a child, I had absolute faith in God, in my parents and my country, like most children tend to have. In 1979, I would watch the news and see reports about American hostages being taken in Iran, about the Shah being deposed, and about Iranians chanting “Death to America!”, and I couldn’t understand why. What had we Americans ever done to Iran? I got the impression that the Iranians were evil people who hated us just because we were different.

But years later, I attended college and it wasn’t until then that I finally learned the truth: that in 1953, we Americans, through the CIA, had helped overthrow a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and allowed the Shah to take absolute power there. Why? Because that Prime Minister had attempted to nationalize the oil fields owned and operated by British and American oil companies, in HIS OWN COUNTRY! WHAT ARROGANCE AND HYPOCRISY WE DISPLAYED BACK THEN! NO WONDER THE IRANIANS WERE SO ANGRY! But in 1979, these disgraceful facts were never revealed by the mainstream media. The implication was that the Islamic Revolution of Iran had occured for no logical reason. But that was a lie of omission.

If someone like Keith Olbermann had been around in 1979 reporting the political news and slamming reporters of other networks for screwing with the truth, perhaps we would have learned the truth about the Iranian situation much sooner and we the people would not have been stupid enough to elect Ronald Reagan as the next President of the United States.

In any case, it was me learning the truth about Iran and what we did to it that made me reject forever the Conservative Republican politics of my parents and most of my other relatives. I wised up, and it’s about time millions of Americans did also and stopped acting like SHEEP being led to their slaughter by the pied pipers of FOX News and the Republican leaders.

Keep up the good work, Keith Olbermann. This Honorable Skeptic salutes you and hopes to see you on the air for many years to come!