No sooner than I point out that in order for broadcast journalism to return to the days of the Cronkites and Reasoners, the companies supporting the industry would have to set their standards higher, MSNBC does just that.
Good-bye Keith Olbermann!
People are talking a lot right now that the vitriol needs to be leveled down a lot. Problem is there are too many people that thrive on it. To me journalism hit the current low when Keith Olbermann went on MSNBC. I think he’s the worst editorialist in the world. The reason, well, just look:
His stuff is only partisan, is only personal, and is only inflammatory. When faced with a situation where he has no facts to support his argument, he resorts to mocking and trivializing the object of his scorn. At the very best he sounds immature. At the worst, not someone you want your kids around. He’s thrived on MSNBC even though I think most of his content borders on slander. Let’s look at slander a little closer, shall we”
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person’s reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don’t contain statements of fact don’t constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.
OK, so let’s start with the obvious. Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the world” series. Can someone tell me how that is not slander? He states his stuff as “fact”. He presents arguments. He doesn’t “think” this person is, he proves it. And, how much lower in the estimation of the community can a person get than to be “the worst person in the world”?
Now, to me, the reason we’ve got the incredibly low standards in broadcast journalism is simply because the victims of the incredibly bad journalism never do anything about it. The only reason MSNBC puts Keith Olbermann on tv is because he makes them money. Lots of it. Even though his ratings are in the cellar, always have been, and have no reason to ever get better, he makes money. What if he didn’t? You think MSNBC would put up with him very long if he was costing them a lot of money? I think Mark Levin’s on to that concept as well:
As with Keith Olbermann not really thinking any one person is truly the worst person in the word, but stating they are anyway, I see Mark Levin wanting to sue the pants off Keith Olbermann, without really thinking he has to win. If every single one of the “victims” of Olbermann’s slander were to sue, it would create a legal mess for MSNBC that could cost millions and last for years.
Now, I’m obviously leaning towards the “right” here. I’m obviously more conservative than liberal. But, more than anything else, I’m sick and tired of the pathetic ethical and moral standards broadcast journalism has allowed itself to get to. Everyone trusted Walter Cronkite. It’s nothing but downhill since he went off tv. I don’t trust anyone in television any more. If it’s on cable television, then there’s something happening. I’ll get the details elsewhere.
Now, I’m not totally absolving bloggers and whatnot. But, whereas broadcast journalism used to set the bar for bloggers to shoot for if they wanted any respect, broadcast journalism instead dumbed itself down to the levels of the worst bloggers. So, at this time, there are no standards. What’s any better about The View than any blog?
What’s got to happen is someone has to take the lead. And, it has to be a power player. I don’t see MSNBC or Fox or anyone else taking that chance. So, maybe, if enough people follow Levin’s lead, and my suggestion, and sue the crap out of broadcast journalists who slander for profit, then maybe cable tv will be that someone who takes the lead.
4
Jan
Recently was sent this link:
That’s my image, here’s Townhall’s link. Since I was a young boy, I hated NPR. They’ve had a lifelong history of dumbing down content. If they were reporting a war, you heard incessant gun fire in the background. The noises alone drove me away. It just struck me that they thought the average listener was too stupid to know what war was, so they tossed in sound effects to help. The content never enticed me to stay. Once CNN, Fox, MSNBC, XM, Cable, radio, the internet, and a host of other outlets arose to fill their void, I forgot they even existed. They served no function in my life. And, from what I can gather, the same was true for most of the US.
Originally, President Johnson asserted the charter for CPB, that’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as:
Now, the problem you had in 1967 was a very limited media. Not so much politically, morally, or ethically, but physically. You had radio, and you had broadcast television. That was it. There were basically three channels on television, and depending on your radio, a whole bunch. Probably 20 or so. In 1980, things changed rather dramatically when CNN went on the air. No longer was it safe to assume that only a federally funded quasi-governmental agency would be the only one capable of delivering “good music”, “exciting plays”, or “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity”. They definitely got the “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity” part down real good. They’re a news company, that’s all they do.
At about the same time, satellite television was in its infancy. For those with S-band dishes, you remember those:
You could get programming from anywhere in the world. Literally. You weren’t tied to the big three any more. I had one of those buggers, I watched NASA real-time. That was cool. Suddenly I was watching R and X rated movies, my whole experience exploded. At that time it became evident to me that there really was no need for NPR, CPB. How did they justify their existence? Folks, that was around 1980 or so.
S-Band begat the Dishnets we know today. Now you’ve got hundreds of channels. Want Education, go to educationtv. Want classical music? Go to one of the several classical channels. Symphony? Broadway? Opera? It’s all there. Concerned what you’re government’s doing? Go to C-Span. The content absolutely overwhelms what CPB was chartered to do. The purpose for CPB obviously no longer exists.
So, given the obvious eliminated need for CPB, what would you expect happened to its funding?
Funny you should ask:
| Year | Allocation | Change |
| 1969 | $5,000,000.00 | |
| 1970 | $15,000,000.00 | 200% |
| 1971 | $23,000,000.00 | 53% |
| 1972 | $35,000,000.00 | 52% |
| 1973 | $35,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 1974 | $50,000,000.00 | 43% |
| 1975 | $62,000,000.00 | 24% |
| 1976 | $78,500,000.00 | 27% |
| 1977 | $103,000,000.00 | 31% |
| 1978 | $119,200,000.00 | 16% |
| 1979 | $120,200,000.00 | 1% |
| 1980 | $152,000,000.00 | 26% |
| 1981 | $162,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1982 | $172,000,000.00 | 6% |
| 1983 | $137,000,000.00 | -20% |
| 1984 | $137,500,000.00 | 0% |
| 1985 | $150,500,000.00 | 9% |
| 1986 | $159,500,000.00 | 6% |
| 1987 | $200,000,000.00 | 25% |
| 1988 | $214,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1989 | $228,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1990 | $229,400,000.00 | 1% |
| 1991 | $298,900,000.00 | 30% |
| 1992 | $327,300,000.00 | 10% |
| 1993 | $318,600,000.00 | -3% |
| 1994 | $275,000,000.00 | -14% |
| 1995 | $285,600,000.00 | 4% |
| 1996 | $275,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1997 | $260,000,000.00 | -5% |
| 1998 | $250,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1999 | $250,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 2000 | $300,000,000.00 | 20% |
| 2001 | $340,000,000.00 | 13% |
| 2002 | $350,000,000.00 | 3% |
| 2003 | $362,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2004 | $377,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2005 | $386,800,000.00 | 2% |
| 2006 | $396,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2007 | $400,000,000.00 | 1% |
| 2008 | $393,000,000.00 | -2% |
| 2009 | $400,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2010 | $420,000,000.00 | 5% |
| 2011 | $430,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2012 | $445,000,000.00 | 3% |
| $10,129,600,000.00 | 8800% |
Yup, it just keeps growing and growing. Then came the news that George Soros donated a LOT of money to NPR. They then promptly fired Juan Williams. He was the only remotely conservative spokesperson at NPR. They reason they fired Williams? For expressing an opinion. That used to be considered an exciting human activity. What it did now was assure the planet that CPB no longer cared about their charter. They only cared about appeasing their base. And, that base neither represents the public interest, nor even the US citizens’ interest. It only represents the internal philosophy of the people running NPR. That’s it. That makes it no different than MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other hard left propaganda tools George Soros employs. Someone tell me what the point of NPR existing at this point is. I really see absolutely none whatsoever. The history you’ll find on the History channel. The music’s all over Sirius/XM.
Then came the internet.
They really no longer need to exist.
They certainly do not need to be contributing to the national debt.
John Boehner wants ideas, listen to Darrell Issa. Defund NPR, no one will notice.
Accusing the Arizona immigration law of leading to the slippery slope of racial profiling has apparently worn thin. Linda Sanchez decided to up it a notch:
“There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups”,”It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics.”
I’m not sure where the documentation is. But, if she says it’s there, it must be. I can’t imagine she would make something up like that. No one in Congress would do that?
I can’t imagine she’ll back up her claims on Foxnews. I can’t imagine any other major media asking her to.
29
Jan
So I’m reading and deciphering the news that the economy grew at 5.7% last quarter and what that actually means in regards to how much money Obama spent to get that result. But, I read this:
In the forth quarter, consumer spending contributed 1.44 percentage points to GDP.
Call me picky, but when reading an article numbers, it sure would make me feel better if they knew how to spell those numbers. I mean, exactly which elementary grade did we learn how to spell “four”?
Chris Matthews blurts that out as the screen is fading. His guest was not given any chance to respond other than to blurt out “rubbish”.
I think he’s nuts.
What do you think?
They’re calling in the SEIU of course. The advantages of this of course are obvious:
- They’re already organized and staffed.
- You don’t have to worry about paying them since they’re on salary.
- If you’re a Democrat, you don’t have to question their loyalty.
- You don’t have to worry about explaining what the issue is.
- You don’t have to worry about CNN or MSNBC questioning why unions are beating up people at town halls.
- You don’t have to worry about the ACLU worrying about people’s rights being violated.
- Since they don’t wear swastikas, that means they’re OK with Nancy Pelosi, Whoopi Goldberg, Dick Durbin, Keith Olbermann, George Soros, or anyone else that might fear a mindless organized mob attacking at the behest of a political leader.
The list is practically endless.
Hillary Clinton gave a 35:44 speech you can watch in its entirity at MSNBC:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Only thing about this speech is it was actually over an hour long. MSNBC cut off the last 34 minutes. That’s kind of understandable, it’s a very windy speech with very little actual content. I didn’t watch it all. Here it is if you want to:
I doubt too many people will. But, for some inexpicable reason, just watch the first minute of the second version and about ten secounds of the MSNBC version and you’ll see what everyone’s scratching their head over. MSNBC crops off the first minute of the video. That actually had the most meat of the entire speech. Here’s a transcript of what MSNBC felt wasn’t worth airing:
What’s THAT supposed to mean? I would have thought she went to The White House to be told what she should be doing and how she should think about the future. Sure, the conspiracy theorists will run wild with that statement. But, I still think it’s more telling that MSNBC felt like they should edit her speech. Then again, I haven’t trusted anything on MSNBC for several years. Not sure too many people do:
| Foxnews | 1,248,000 | 48% |
| CNN | 554,000 | 21% |
| MSNBC | 319,000 | 12% |
| CNBC | 202,000 | 8% |
| Headline News | 287,000 | 11% |
| 2,610,000 |
Now, although MSNBC obviously felt they needed to give Hillary an assist, maybe that’s why only 1 in 8 people will admit to watching their channel.
Sometimes I feel like most of my views are totally contrarian. That beliefs in traditional values and harsh consequences for harsh actions is something most people can’t deal with. Then I see something like this on Facebook:
Results: Is the death penalty wrong?
Now, Facebook’s as hip as it gets. This ain’t a bunch of old folks chatting, it’s people of all ages, races, denominations, etc.. What I like about social networking sites is it’s not controlled. When Foxnews releases a poll, I know it’s tilted to the right. With CNN, it’s tilted to the left. With MSNBC, it’s whatever they want it to be. In other words, it’s filtered. With a volunteer poll like Facebook, it’s not. My only reservation about proclaiming something CNNesque like “2/3 of all Americans support the death penalty” is out of the millions on Facebook, only 24,000 have taken this poll.
But, even with those 24,000, it makes me feel a lot better knowing at 16,568 other people think an eye for an eye is appropriate.
1
Jun
Anyone notice anything about the price of gas lately? I have. So has AAA:
| Regular | Mid | Premium | Diesel | 85 | **E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price |
|
| Current Avg. | $2.512 | $2.668 | $2.762 | $2.378 | $2.085 | $2.744 |
| Yesterday Avg. | $2.502 | $2.656 | $2.751 | $2.369 | $2.077 | $2.733 |
| Week Ago Avg. | $2.424 | $2.575 | $2.666 | $2.324 | $1.986 | $2.613 |
| Month Ago Avg. | $2.061 | $2.189 | $2.267 | $2.254 | $1.766 | $2.324 |
| Year Ago Avg. | $3.975 | $4.221 | $4.372 | $4.791 | $3.316 | $4.364 |
It’s going up again. In fact, in 30 days, it’s gone up about 25%. That’s a pretty big jump if you ask me. Seems gas jumping 25% in 30 days would be news to some. It’s not to CNN. MSNBC does mention it, but is quick to point out that it was more expensive a year ago. Running for office, Obama talked about the price of gas and what he would do about it when elected. What has happened since he’s taken office is the retail price of gas has increased 42%. While the price of gas was “killing people” when he ran, it’s apparently not now that he’s elected. And, if you think it’s an issue now, the “press” will quickly remind you that you have no reason to complain now, it was more expensive sometime in the past and therefore all is good now.
And no one seems to care.
