Shirley Sherrod, Who was Wrong?

[ScottT]

ScottT, I dont have an affection for any of the "spin" news programs and as I've said earlier in this thread, MSNBC was banished from my cable system some time ago.

The only way I would see an Olberman or Maddow clip is on the internet.

In short, I'm not fond of being subjected to false stories, selective story telling and lies ... that would go for any of the aformentioned hosts.

Feel free to point out some MSNBC lies, I'll join with you and repudiate or "refudiate" (as Sarah Palin would say) the nonsense.

Well, I appreciate such a suggestion of "fairness", Terence.

The thing is, though.....you never voluntarily attack MSNBC or other networks / news sources not considered to be right-leaning (the key word here being VOLUNTARILY).

But yet you are obsessed with Fox. Nobody has to ask you about Fox. It just flows from you constantly---like lava from a hyper-active volcano.

Why not MSNBC, CNN, or the NY Times?

Just asking....since you "don't have an affection for any of the 'spin' news programs".

[Terence]

ScottT wrote:
The thing is, though.....you never voluntarily attack MSNBC or other networks / news sources not considered to be right-leaning (the key word here being VOLUNTARILY).

ScottT, it seems Faux News is the biggest offender these days with no shortage of material to be disgusted and outraged. You make this out to be Right vs. Left, but I view it as Truth vs. Lies.

As I see it, CNN and MSNBC et al are guilty of slant and bias but nowhere near the degree of Faux News. What I don’t understand … Faux News touts their ratings, so why stoop to lies and false stories ALONG WITH slant and bias? The answer … the agenda, but it’s too obvious and hurting them at this point. That’s why Glenn Beck went from 5 million viewers to 2 million ... and dropping (along with advertisers dropping out.)

The tipping point with me was the “Death Panel” lies and the long list of agenda items that followed… changed my view completely of Faux News. I used to watch Fox News during the 2nd Gulf war with Rick Leventhal attached to military units and had no problem with their coverage.

Again, If you see lies on those stations (and they check out) feel free to post and I will denounce the lies. I have to admit, I haven’t seen much CNN over the last few years and MSNBC’s gone from my cable (as I’ve said.)

ScottT also wrote:
It just flows from you constantly---like lava from a hyper-active volcano.

Catchy, I kinda’ like that.

Jeffredan wrote:
Bill O'Reilly may be a lot of things, but he is not a liar

Jeffreydan, I understand that O’Reilly doesn’t go on TV every night and lie. I also realize his show and Greta Van Susterens’s show are closer to being “watch able” plus, O’Reilly knows when to “ease off the throttle” and tell it like it is. He was just caught in my example in a “mistake” at Tom Coburn’s expense.

[ScottT]

ScottT wrote:
The thing is, though.....you never voluntarily attack MSNBC or other networks / news sources not considered to be right-leaning (the key word here being VOLUNTARILY).

ScottT, it seems Faux News is the biggest offender these days with no shortage of material to be disgusted and outraged. You make this out to be Right vs. Left, but I view it as Truth vs. Lies.

As I see it, CNN and MSNBC et al are guilty of slant and bias but nowhere near the degree of Faux News. What I don’t understand … Faux News touts their ratings, so why stoop to lies and false stories ALONG WITH slant and bias? The answer … the agenda, but it’s too obvious and hurting them at this point. That’s why Glenn Beck went from 5 million viewers to 2 million ... and dropping (along with advertisers dropping out.)

The tipping point with me was the “Death Panel” lies and the long list of agenda items that followed… changed my view completely of Faux News. I used to watch Fox News during the 2nd Gulf war with Rick Leventhal attached to military units and had no problem with their coverage.

Again, If you see lies on those stations (and they check out) feel free to post and I will denounce the lies. I have to admit, I haven’t seen much CNN over the last few years and MSNBC’s gone from my cable (as I’ve said.)

ScottT also wrote:
It just flows from you constantly---like lava from a hyper-active volcano.

Catchy, I kinda’ like that.

Jeffredan wrote:
Bill O'Reilly may be a lot of things, but he is not a liar

Jeffreydan, I understand that O’Reilly doesn’t go on TV every night and lie. I also realize his show and Greta Van Susterens’s show are closer to being “watch able” plus, O’Reilly knows when to “ease off the throttle” and tell it like it is. He was just caught in my example in a “mistake” at Tom Coburn’s expense.

Terence---

Would it be inaccurate to assume that, since Fox has so many more viewers than all those other stations you mentioned combined.....and you so strongly feel that Fox is "the biggest offender these days with no shortage of material to be disgusted and outraged by".....that you think most of the people who regularly watch Fox are just "naive" & incapable of understanding (as you apparently do) that they're being "lied to"?

Am I in the pallpark?

[Terence]

ScottT wrote:
Would it be inaccurate to assume that, since Fox has so many more viewers than all those other stations you mentioned combined.....and you so strongly feel that Fox is "the biggest offender these days with no shortage of material to be disgusted and outraged by".....that you think most of the people who regularly watch Fox are just "naive" & incapable of understanding (as you apparently do) that they're being "lied to"?

Well, just a few numbers for you: O’Reilly usually has about 2.7 million viewers nightly, Spongebob has 3.5 million, Hannah Montana has 3.9 million and WWE has 5.2 million viewers.

CBS evening news with Katie Couric has 5.2 million viewers nightly.

You’re asking me about the Psyche of Fox viewers? I would suggest calling Frank Luntz and get him to break down the demographics for you. Who’s to say all of those viewers are religious followers, casual watchers or haters.

Apparently, Fox and others like Limbaugh think they can get away with lies, problem is, it’s easier to fact check now … as opposed to 10 years ago.

Over and Out

[ScottT]

ScottT wrote:
Would it be inaccurate to assume that, since Fox has so many more viewers than all those other stations you mentioned combined.....and you so strongly feel that Fox is "the biggest offender these days with no shortage of material to be disgusted and outraged by".....that you think most of the people who regularly watch Fox are just "naive" & incapable of understanding (as you apparently do) that they're being "lied to"?

Well, just a few numbers for you: O’Reilly usually has about 2.7 million viewers nightly, Spongebob has 3.5 million, Hannah Montana has 3.9 million and WWE has 5.2 million viewers.

CBS evening news with Katie Couric has 5.2 million viewers nightly.

You’re asking me about the Psyche of Fox viewers? I would suggest calling Frank Luntz and get him to break down the demographics for you. Who’s to say all of those viewers are religious followers, casual watchers or haters.

Apparently, Fox and others like Limbaugh think they can get away with lies, problem is, it’s easier to fact check now … as opposed to 10 years ago.

Over and Out

Terence---

You DO realize that a huge portion of the viewers who tune into shows such as "Spongebob" & "Hannah Montana" are people who don't watch cable news for obvious reasons (i.e. CHILDREN), don't you??

I mean, really----plagiarizing Rachel Maddow's "rationalization" for this pretty much answers the question I originally asked about why you fail to ever criticize networks like MSNBC.

Furthermore, if we WERE to take her argument seriously......then it's also pretty indicative of where she is on the viewership food chain.

[Jeffreydan]

The M*A*S*H* finale had ratings that FNC couldn't achieve in an oak tree's lifetime, so it's obviously the standard bearer for quality news & commentary.

[Terence]

ScottT wrote:
You DO realize that a huge portion of the viewers who tune into shows such as "Spongebob" & "Hannah Montana" are people who don't watch cable news for obvious reasons (i.e. CHILDREN), don't you??

I mean, really----plagiarizing Rachel Maddow's "rationalization" for this pretty much answers the question I originally asked about why you fail to ever criticize networks like MSNBC.

Furthermore, if we WERE to take her argument seriously......then it's also pretty indicative of where she is on the viewership food chain.

What in the world does Rachel Maddow and MSNBC have to do with anything here? It looks like “lava” is spewing from a different volcano now.

My statement on the ratings was a reaction to your words:

people who regularly watch Fox are just "naive" & incapable of understanding (as you apparently do) that they're being "lied to"?

Your general statement that “I” think all fox viewers are naïve deserved some ratings comparisons, if that were true, “ALL” of the WWE and CBS evening news viewers are also naïve, you can pitch the other shows if you like, I just added them for perspective. However, I think you would be surprised how many adults are watching spongebob.

I’m sure there’s some casual watchers and “haters” in the Fox ratings; If you’ve seen the Howard Stern movie, there’s a scene where two executives are trying to figure out why his ratings were so high, it turned out, the “haters” were listening 3 times longer than the fans because they wanted to hear what Stern would say next.

I don’t have a problem with Faux News being on top of the ratings, I’m suggesting if they want to keep some credibility, they need to “tone it down” and maybe get the facts straight more often … losing the “agenda” wouldn’t hurt either.

[ScottT]

ScottT wrote:
You DO realize that a huge portion of the viewers who tune into shows such as "Spongebob" & "Hannah Montana" are people who don't watch cable news for obvious reasons (i.e. CHILDREN), don't you??

I mean, really----plagiarizing Rachel Maddow's "rationalization" for this pretty much answers the question I originally asked about why you fail to ever criticize networks like MSNBC.

Furthermore, if we WERE to take her argument seriously......then it's also pretty indicative of where she is on the viewership food chain.

What in the world does Rachel Maddow and MSNBC have to do with anything here? It looks like “lava” is spewing from a different volcano now.

My statement on the ratings was a reaction to your words:

people who regularly watch Fox are just "naive" & incapable of understanding (as you apparently do) that they're being "lied to"?

Your general statement that “I” think all fox viewers are naïve deserved some ratings comparisons, if that were true, “ALL” of the WWE and CBS evening news viewers are also naïve, you can pitch the other shows if you like, I just added them for perspective. However, I think you would be surprised how many adults are watching spongebob.

I’m sure there’s some casual watchers and “haters” in the Fox ratings; If you’ve seen the Howard Stern movie, there’s a scene where two executives are trying to figure out why his ratings were so high, it turned out, the “haters” were listening 3 times longer than the fans because they wanted to hear what Stern would say next.

I don’t have a problem with Faux News being on top of the ratings, I’m suggesting if they want to keep some credibility, they need to “tone it down” and maybe get the facts straight more often … losing the “agenda” wouldn’t hurt either.

Sorry, no "lava" here, Terence----just a fact. Your "answer" with the use of viewership numbers for other non-news programs (Spongebob, Hanna Montana, etc) was the one Maddow tried to use against O'Reilly. You took it from her.

THAT'S "what in the world" Maddow & MSNBC have to do with it.

As for FNC "losing their credibility" unless they "lose the agenda"-----your "sources" have long since beaten them to that.

[Terence]

ScottT wrote:
Sorry, no "lava" here, Terence----just a fact. Your "answer" with the use of viewership numbers for other non-news programs (Spongebob, Hanna Montana, etc) was the one Maddow tried to use against O'Reilly. You took it from her.

THAT'S "what in the world" Maddow & MSNBC have to do with it.

Well if Rachel Maddow and myself did something similar, so-be-it, I assure you I haven't taken anything from Rachel Maddow, as I've already said in this thread, I don't have MSNBC on my cable system. And, you're the one that brought up the number of Fox viewers - remember.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of the "doings" at MSNBC though, maybe you can sign up for a nielsen box and help them with their ratings.

Fox is mostly junk, and you're coming to their defense, what a maroon.

[Jeffreydan]

Fox is mostly junk, and you're coming to their defense, what a maroon.

Hmmm, mostly junk.

I'm curious how, after thoughtful observation of every show that FNC broadcasts, you came to the conclusion that most of the network is junk.

[Cap'n Billy]

I've poked a lot of fun at Anderson "Teabag" Cooper in recent months (Get your minds out of the gutter!), but I have to give him a kudo or two for this follow-up report on that woman and her husband. And another one for his admission that he should have challenged her assertion that Breitbart

would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.

And if this Cornell Law Professor is right, a lawsuit by Sherrod may just Make Andrew Breitbart's Day!

[ScottT]

ScottT wrote:
Sorry, no "lava" here, Terence----just a fact. Your "answer" with the use of viewership numbers for other non-news programs (Spongebob, Hanna Montana, etc) was the one Maddow tried to use against O'Reilly. You took it from her.

THAT'S "what in the world" Maddow & MSNBC have to do with it.

Well if Rachel Maddow and myself did something similar, so-be-it, I assure you I haven't taken anything from Rachel Maddow, as I've already said in this thread, I don't have MSNBC on my cable system. And, you're the one that brought up the number of Fox viewers - remember.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of the "doings" at MSNBC though, maybe you can sign up for a nielsen box and help them with their ratings.

Fox is mostly junk, and you're coming to their defense, what a maroon.

Yah. Sure, Terence.

@ 3:14.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6b7Z8CzJgI

Yes, we know.....such brilliant minds think "similar".

Yes, I DID bring up the Fox viewer numbers first. To which you responded by repeating an answer you got from the network you "don't have on your cable system".

Yeah, I guess by watching MSNBC at your neighbor's house every night, you don't really need it on YOUR cable package.

[Terence]

Wow ScottT, I think you're on to something here, the liberals are somehow channeling information directly into my brain without a TV set, QUICK ... call Glenn Beck, he needs to do a whole series of shows on this - with blackboard of course, this is right up his alley.

No, this was my source:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/27/ca ... ship/58279

You'll notice the numbers match up & I picked the spongebob because he's at the bottom of the list, the rest were random.

Whatever, keep whipping a dead horse.

I'm kinda' thinkin' you've got a little "thing" for Rachel Maddow ... aaahhh ... aaaahhhh, nudge, nudge, c'mon admit it.

[Jeffreydan]

I'm kinda' thinkin' you've got a little "thing" for Rachel Maddow ... aaahhh ... aaaahhhh, nudge, nudge, c'mon admit it.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

If I weren't married, I'd be SO tapping that!

[tim.ned@gmail.com]

This story had nothing to do with Sherrod or Breitbart. This story is about Bill O’Reilly. During the health care debate, Maddow ran several attacks against Bart Stupack because of his stance on abortion. It pertained to a piece of rental property in Washington that nobody cared about and consequently even my liberal friends who I discussed this with never heard the story. Why? Because it wasn’t news and outside of MSNBC nobody else picked up her so-called exclusive and important story.

Then the White House finds out that the Sherrod video is going on fox so Sherrod is fired before the airing on O'Reilly. Bill apologies the next day but of course the news goes worldwide!

In the mist of this Maddow get’s her 5 seconds of fame since O’Reilly showed her video on his program. An esteemed recognition that Olbermann couldn’t achieve with years dedicated to attacking O’Reilly.

But Rachel acheives this recognition and debate with O’Reilly that she and Olbermann have been seeking. And with this opportunity she finally has her chance and what does she do? She converts it to a sponge bob story.

There exists a reason for NPR. It’s a great place for these boring commentators.