A “Both Sides Do It” for the Ages

Sullivan:

Let me first second Kirsten Powers’ loathing for Media Matters’ campaign to shame and target individuals for appearing on Fox News. But the memo she cites is from a year ago. And I have to say that even if it means agreeing with David Brock, I’m afraid I have to confess that I do not regard Fox News as a legitimate news organization. It’s a propaganda channel for the far right, and not much worse than MSNBC’s leftist partisan smugbursts. And an administration, in my view, should be open to all at regular press conferences (okay, not heckling by the Daily Caller) … but does not have to legitimize propaganda machines by appearing on them. I’d keep off MSNBC and Fox if I were in any administration. They both poison our discourse. Let these propaganda channels put talk radio on TV all day if they want. You don’t have to enable them.

Because, you know, MSNBC is just the flip side of the FOX coin.






217 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab25 says:

    Because, you know, MSNBC is just the flip side of the FOX coin.

    Man, I wish. Given the naked greed and hatred spewed like a fountain by FOX on any given day, that would mean MSNBC was run by angels.

  2. 2
    Baud says:

    The only difference between MSNBC and Fox is the amount of skew in the polls they believe in.

  3. 3
    trollhattan says:

    WTF?!

    “…and not much worse than MSNBC’s leftist partisan smugbursts.”

    I know looking for Sully logic is like fishing for salmon in a gasoline storage tank, but WTF is he even trying to say?

  4. 4
    cathyx says:

    Sully is such a republican. I think shaming and targeting those who appear on Fox news is a great idea.

  5. 5
    Cassidy says:

    @trollhattan:

    but WTF is he even trying to say?

    I got bills to pay and people pay me to say this shit because it’s something they can quote at dinner parties and sound smart.

  6. 6
    Roger Moore says:

    It’s a spinal reflex. He’s simply incapable of saying something bad about the right without a reflexive “both sides do it”.

  7. 7
    dmsilev says:

    @trollhattan:

    I know looking for Sully logic is like fishing for salmon in a gasoline storage tank, but WTF is he even trying to say?

    “I have to appear fair and even-minded, but since I can’t think of an actual equivalence between Fox and MSNBC, I’ll just make something up.”

  8. 8
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @trollhattan: Why waste the effort tryIng to figure it out? Never been a fan. My dad enjoys him on Maher’s show, so I guess he provides some value.

  9. 9
    roc says:

    Wow. Can they make it *any* more clear that they don’t pay the *slightest* attention?

    Maddow taking down a Conservative target with factual information is equivocated to Beck/O’Reilly/et al using make-believe, dog-whistles and conspiracy theories to tar a Liberal target.

    Because — content, approach, integrity and attachment to objective reality be damned — she’s just a Liberal beating up a Conservative and they’re Conservatives beating up Liberals so it’s *obviously* just another instance of “both sides do it”.

  10. 10
    rupert says:

    I still have no idea who Andrew Sullivan is, I’ve never read him and from all the other lefty bloggers who DO read him, I have no idea why they do nor do I understand why anybody gives him any credence.

    Quotes that I have seen have demonstrated that he’s just another disingenuous, inside-the-beltway hack who is more enamored by his own ‘cleverness’ than he is by any attempts to provide credible, well-thought, commentary. But even a blind pig finds an acorn now & then, eh?

    I’ve never thought of MSNBC is being leftist; they merely have slightly larger cojones when it comes to actually being ‘fair & balanced’. After all, they canned Phil Donohue during the build-up to the Iraq War II, all for appearances sake and to try to project a respectable level of ‘credibility’ with the Bush administration and the huge number of, sadly, easily misled Americans with a hardcore blood-lust coloring their every thought.

  11. 11
    Turgidson says:

    Sullivan lecturing anyone else on being smug is just…I just…words fail.

  12. 12
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    He disagrees with FOX and people on MSNBC call him out for being an idiot. See, they are equal.

  13. 13
    Lolis says:

    I heard that the other day from a Democrat. So much stupidity in the world.

  14. 14
    Ben Franklin says:

    @cathyx:

    To many it is a point of pride to avoid reading or watching what they refer to as nonsense.

    It’s important to see the nonsense, for distinguishing purposes.

    How can you recognize good, if evil is not visible for comparison?

  15. 15
    Tractarian says:

    “Leftist Partisan Smugbursts” MUST become a new BJ tagline.

    Or perhaps a Lexicon entry?

    “Leftist Partisan Smugbursts”: The term unrepentant Villagers like Andrew Sullivan use for when liberal-leaning pundits say things that are correct or justified by evidence or experience. Contrast with Fox News’s equally-reprehensible “making sh!t up.”

  16. 16
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    My favorite part of Sullivan’s piece is this absurdity:

    Megyn Kelly is razor-sharp.

    But I suppose we have to remember that Sullivan has no interest in shaving… anything.

  17. 17
    Suffern ACE says:

    @trollhattan: That being smug about being correct is just as bad as being loudmouthed while being wrong?

  18. 18
    Poopyman says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    so I guess he provides some value.

    So does a well-executed bowel movement, but that’s no reason to waste time mulling over its meaning.

    I’m going back down to Kay’s thread….

  19. 19
    Disco says:

    Well, Ed Schultz is a blatant attempt to counter the same-timeslot blowhard on Fox, Bill O’Reilly, even if it doesn’t work. I fucking hate Ed.

    On the other hand, Rachel Maddow is great. Best political personality on TV. She presents concepts very clearly, sometimes with a good touch of humor, and without any hyperventilating.

  20. 20
    trollhattan says:

    @roc:
    Out of curiosity, has Fox ever employed somebody with a fraction of Rachel’s smarts and intense preparation? It’s an actual question, because I try not to pay no attention, other than clips shown on TDS and Colbert.

  21. 21
    Baud says:

    @Poopyman:

    So does a well-executed bowel movement

    Well said, Poopyman. Well said.

    ;-)

  22. 22
    Disco says:

    @trollhattan:

    Her style doesn’t work in conservative media.

  23. 23
    White Trash Liberal says:

    Well… He is saying that Fox is kind of worse. In the same way that flesh eating bacteria is kind of worse than poison oak.

    No? He’s just crouching criticism of his crazy party (the party that will stop greasing his palms the moment he stops being the token homosexual conservative) in order to always have the reasonable centrist credential that is mistaken for objectivity?

    Centrism is the Molloch of Orthodox Capitalism.

  24. 24
    Suffern ACE says:

    The Nation = The National Review
    Salon = Worldnet Daily
    Huffpost = Pajamas Media.
    New York Times = Washington Times.

    Now that that is clear, please tune into NBC Nightly News.

  25. 25
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Who is this Kristin Powers? Is she related to Austin Powers?

  26. 26
    cathyx says:

    @Ben Franklin: I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you in favor of democrats appearing on Fox?

  27. 27
    roc says:

    @trollhattan: “smug”, in the context of MSNBC has a tendency to mean “Maddow”. Particularly among those who peddle bullshit and when they get called on it resort to complaining about their delicate fee-fees.

    Because she has the gall to use facts and logic to explain that the Emperor really *is* stark raving naked and then to point and laugh. Not only at the Emperor, but at his enablers and all with a not-too-small dollop of bemusement at those who were ever taken by the whole ‘invisible cloth’ thing in the first place.

  28. 28

    Due to Sully’s historic false equivalence, the corpse of David Broder is now walking the streets of DC like a golem. Do not approach.

  29. 29
    Culture of Truth says:

    What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Sullivan again?

  30. 30
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure she’s a Fox News Democrat, i.e. a “Democrat” who appears on various Fox News shows to either fully agree with the wingnut talking points du jour or to wear the strawman outfit so that she might be savaged.

  31. 31
    trollhattan says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    That’s a MAN, baby!

  32. 32
    Tractarian says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    Wasn’t Megyn Kelly the one who said Andrew Sullivan isn’t a real journalist?

    Razor-sharp, indeed.

  33. 33
    trollhattan says:

    @Bubblegum Tate:

    IIUC the Fox oeurve for guest worker Democrats, hit her just right with a stick and you get candy!

  34. 34
    Turgidson says:

    @roc:

    Yeah, I mean, there’s no secret where MSNBC’s primetime lineup stands on the issues of the day, just as with Fox – so on that basic level there’s a comparison that can be made. And if you have a problem with that as a first principle, so be it. And MSNBC’s hosts aren’t above skewing the facts to fit the story they want to tell. But they don’t just make shit up and create an alternative reality to keep their audience scared and angry 24/7.

    At this point in time, the GOP and conservatives are just simply wrong on pretty much every issue that is worth having an opinion about. They’re wrong on the facts, the empirical data, the morality, everything. That isn’t MSNBC’s fault, and they’re not a liberal propaganda shop just because they go to greater lengths to point this out than other networks do. But…both sides do it, so never mind.

  35. 35
    Poopyman says:

    @trollhattan: Fembot.

  36. 36
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Tractarian: She is right about that, his site is more of a news aggregator, rather than a generator of news.

  37. 37
    billiecat says:

    When Sullivan says Fox is “not much worse” than MSNBC, I think he means that at least MSNBC is dumb enough to book him occasionally. Hopefully they will see this crap and stop wasting their airtime on him.

    I used to read Sullivan because I thought he could be reasonable, even if I disagreed with a lot of what he said, and I like to check my opinions with reasoned counterarguments. Lately, though, his bombastic ego and innate blowhard-ism has overwhelmed any value to the debate he may ever have added, and I’m auditioning new people for that role.

  38. 38
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Culture of Truth: One has a beard and one does not.

  39. 39
    Hill Dweller says:

    I just watched the video of Krugman’s appearance on Morning Joke. Is there are more stupid collection of people on TV outside of Fox?

  40. 40
    trollhattan says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Wait, isn’t Limbaugh on beard #4?

  41. 41
    Turgidson says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    I actually think Megyn does have enough native intelligence and journalistic acumen that she could be a competent anchor somewhere besides Fox if she was weened off the Kool-Aid beforehand. Razor-sharp might be a stretch, but I don’t think she’s as much of an idiot as Fox anchors seem to have to be as a condition of employment.

  42. 42
    Patricia Kayden says:

    When Olbermann donated $$$ to a Democratic candidate, he was suspended. When Ed Shultz called a female Rightwinger a slut, he was suspended.

    I’m not aware of any Faux Noise commentator being punished for calling someone on the Left any number of derogatory names or for donating $$$ and actively campaigning for Republican candidates (including promoting Tea Party gatherings).

  43. 43
    dedc79 says:

    I was not aware that MSNBC employs the full range of former/current/future Democratic aspirants to the White House. Oh, right, that’s because they don’t.

  44. 44
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Well damn. The only way to put down a David Broder golem for good is to change his party registration from Independent to…well…anything else, really. That should negate its existence.

  45. 45
    SatanicPanic says:

    @trollhattan: If they’re smart they won’t waste time on preparation- FOX viewers will believe pretty much anything

  46. 46
    bemused says:

    There is slant and then there is lying. Huge difference. I have heard msnbc hosts correct statements, acknowledge errors. Rachel Maddow will admit a reporting mistake almost excessively apologizing. MSNBC host also identify the groups or organizations their guests are connected with. It would be big news if Fox has ever done the same.

  47. 47
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @Hill Dweller: Well, someone still seems to think Wolf Blitzer produces something of value by being on screen too. CNN has plenty of dumb to go around, it’s not just Fox.

  48. 48
    Tractarian says:

    @Turgidson:

    Yeah, I mean, there’s no secret where MSNBC’s primetime lineup stands on the issues of the day, just as with Fox – so on that basic level there’s a comparison that can be made.

    That’s true, I suppose. (Although I still don’t see Fox News employing a former liberal Democratic congressman as morning host.)

    But, on a deeper, more fundamental level, we’re still comparing one news network aligned with the Party of Harry Reid and another network aligned with the Party of Rush Limbaugh.

    In other words, yes, the networks may be partisan, but that doesn’t tell you anything about whether the views they espouse are extreme or reasonable.

    To be a mainstream Democrat these days, after all, is to be a milquetoast MOR centrist. A mainstream Republican these days is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. The party-aligned networks definitely reflect that dynamic.

  49. 49
    Roger Moore says:

    @Turgidson:

    Sullivan lecturing anyone else on being smug is just…I just…words fail.

    Unless it’s a “How To” type of lecture.

  50. 50
    Baud says:

    @Ben Franklin:

    To many it is a point of pride to avoid reading or watching what they refer to as nonsense.

    This is me, to be honest. Not so much a point of pride. Rather, I just don’t feel like the nonsense is worth my precious time.

  51. 51
    Disco says:

    @Cluttered Mind:

    But Wolf Blitzer is not maliciously stupid like the people on Fox. He just can’t help it.

  52. 52
    redshirt says:

    As a Liberal, I enjoy watching the 3 hour liberal gab fest on Fox News every day. Just Friends, sittin’ around gabbin’ about liberal stuff. As opposed to the right wing propaganda site MSNBC and their “Morning Joe” pukefest.

  53. 53
    jrg says:

    Cut Sully some slack. Sure, he’s off base sometimes, but look at both sides of the coin… Is he really any worse than those Ugandan fundies that want to execute gays?

  54. 54
    japa21 says:

    The day MSNBC goes to court to defend its right to make up lies and call it news, like Fox did, then I will accept that there is a modicum of equalness, but still only a little. Yes, Ed is a blowhard, but he generally stays within the realm of reality.

  55. 55

    Which former liberal Congressman from the 1990s is on FOX for 3 hours every morning, I wonder?

  56. 56
    bemused says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    No. Krugman was remarkably patient with the children.

  57. 57
    roc says:

    @trollhattan: Fox doesn’t run those types of shows as a rather explicit decision. If Fox had ever employed someone on par with Maddow, it would be incidental and wouldn’t come through in the programming.

    So who knows?

  58. 58
    redshirt says:

    I think the money men created MSNBC for the sole purpose of having a “LOOK! Both sides do it” example.

  59. 59
    honeybooboo says:

    Wrong way Cole going the wrong way as usual. In fact MSNBC is becoming more like a left version of Fox. They are not nearly as full of shit as Fox but they definitely walk a fine line and often over step it.

    They will NEVER be like Fox because the left simply doesn’t think/work that way. We have our own stupidity but it’s generally not about creating our own reality like the right does.

    So it will ALWAYS be apples and oranges to compare the two.

  60. 60
    Roger Moore says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Sullivan again?

    Accent. That and Sullivan is sexually interested in grownups.

  61. 61
    Jim Pharo says:

    Who or what is this “Sullivan” of which you speak? Not familiar with the reference…

    /snark

  62. 62
    Cluttered Mind says:

    I do not believe that accusing a news organization of being “partisan” is a valid criticism of their journalism. Partisanship doesn’t matter. There’s just good journalism, bad journalism, and propaganda. There’s no “unbiased” news outlet because news itself is never unbiased. A wise man said that reality has a well known liberal bias. In practice, this means that any news source that actually tries to get all the facts right is going to be slandered as being partisan and liberal, for no better reason than refusing to go along with the FOX daily memo stating that 2+2=5.

  63. 63
    SenyorDave says:

    OT, but please tell me that the DNC did not devote significant resources to helping this POS get elected. It is hard to imagine a Republican being much worse (although being a democrat in ND is like being a conservateive Republican, while being a Republican in ND pretty much assures that you are complete wingnut). Her positions are bad enough, but she goes out of her way to trumpet her opposition to almost every part of the Democratic party platform.

    On guns, she seems to be one of the “NRA is too liberal for me” types.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/po.....38898.html

  64. 64
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @Disco: There has to be a better way to employ someone that stupid than as a major CNN anchor.

  65. 65
    trollhattan says:

    @honeybooboo:
    You. Again. Moar cowbell.

  66. 66
    Ben Franklin says:

    @cathyx:

    Are you in favor of democrats appearing on Fox?

    I’m not opposed to it, but my overall point is that information whether obtained from Fox or Glenn Greenwald can be instructive.

    The internet is the most wonderful Library in the World. But you have to filter and corroborate, which makes it almost as onerous as the Dewey Decimal System.

    If you consider how much crap is on the internet, and dismiss all the data on that basis, you lose IMO.

  67. 67
    bemused says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    I remember something about Hannity having Kasich on and asking him how they could help him in his run for governor.

  68. 68
    Disco says:

    @Cluttered Mind:

    sidekick for David Gregory?

  69. 69

    @Cluttered Mind: I heard that if you say “Both Sides Do It” backwards 3x it sends Golem Broder to beetlejuice land.

  70. 70
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Baud:

    Same thing I said to CathyX

  71. 71
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @SenyorDave: I would prefer a Democrat who votes with the Republicans 100% of the time in the Senate to a Republican who votes with the Democrats 100% of the time, so long as there aren’t too many of them. Getting to 60 reliable votes is important but it’s not the only thing in the senate that is. If Harry Reid could get 60 votes whenever he wanted but 25 of them came from Republicans, then he’d be the Senate Minority Leader and Mitch McConnell could still block whatever he wanted.

  72. 72
    Cluttered Mind says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Either that or it summons Richard Cohen. I’m unwilling to take that chance.

  73. 73
    Baud says:

    @SenyorDave:

    She ran in support of Obamacare, IIRC. I’m glad to have her because the alternative would be a wingnut.

  74. 74
    Tonal Crow says:

    Sullivan is a strange creature. He re-examines positions, and is often willing consequently to change them. In this, he’s unlike nearly all on the right. On the other hand, his first impulse on any new issue is to side with the crazy-cons, or at least to spew their propaganda. The post described here is a great example of the latter.

    BTW, the both-sides-do-it infection is the reason I contend that Bobo is the most dangerous propagandist alive.

  75. 75

    @Cluttered Mind: HA! Thanks, I needed a laugh.

  76. 76
    cathyx says:

    Fox news is to news as Jerry Springer is to talk show.

  77. 77
    Culture of Truth says:

    So having an opinion makes anyyone just like Fox?

  78. 78
    Tonal Crow says:

    @cathyx:

    Fox news is to news as Jerry Springer is to talk show.

    Fox “News” is to news what cheerily-packaged diseased dog squat is to food.

  79. 79
    Jay says:

    Well, I don’t MSNBC IS Fox, but I don’t think think Schultz & Sharpton help MSNBC deal a fatal blow to the comparison. At least Tweety & Lawrence O. have worked in Washington and know a smidge about how it operates. Maddow’s wonkiness makes her great; I mean, how many Rhodes Scholars have their own cable shows?

    But…well, yeah: Ed & Rev. Al really do drag MSNBC down. I mean, Schultz, for Pete’s sake, was an anti-immigrant RIGHT wing talk show host when the getting was good, and, reading between the lines, the big reason Sharpton got his show was because he backed the Comcast merger, something I doubt he would’ve done in the past. These two can scream and lie just as loudly as anyone on FOX, so they are probably the major figures giving critics ammo for the “MSNBC IS FOX!!!!!!!!!!1111” comparison.

    So, why not replace these two frauds with some combination of Alex Wagner, Wes Moore (another Rhodes Scholar and a frequent MSNBC guest), and Chris Hayes? This would make for a lineup whose youth, racial and gender diversity best reflects where America is going, while bridging to the network’s Tweety/Lawrence old guard. Plus, Hayes, Moore and Wagner are smart, serious commentators whose purely issues-based nerdiness could form a whole programming block with Maddow’s, driving a final wedge between MSNBC and FOX: “FOX is the place for screaming dumbasses, and MSNBC is not.”

  80. 80
    Mararama says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus: this sounds even better when it’s spoken as if you’re Dirk Diggler!

  81. 81
    different-church-lady says:

    A couple of nights ago I happened upon the wikipedia entry for The New Republic, and I have to say that after reading about Sully’s track record there I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone listens to a single word he says.

    Near as I can explain it, punditry is just one step removed from a private sociopath club dedicated to putting on public performances.

  82. 82
    wvng says:

    @bemused: “Rachel Maddow will admit a reporting mistake” I love it when she is accused of making a mistake when she didn’t. She really gets into the details of why not, destroying the accuser in the process.

  83. 83
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @Turgidson:

    I actually think Megyn does have enough native intelligence and journalistic acumen that she could be a competent anchor somewhere besides Fox if she was weened off the Kool-Aid beforehand. Razor-sharp might be a stretch, but I don’t think she’s as much of an idiot as Fox anchors seem to have to be as a condition of employment.

    Sorry, but she’s as much of a fucking idiot as any of them. After Lt. Pike pepper-sprayed the protesters at UC Davis right in their faces from a distance of a foot or so Kelly had this to say as she dismissed the cruelty of the act:

    (I)t’s like a derivative of actual pepper. It’s a food product, essentially.

    Oh, yeah! It’s practically a condiment!

    She has a million of them. And that’s because she’s a moron.

  84. 84
    wvng says:

    @Jay: Agreed completely.

  85. 85
    Ed Drone says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Sullivan again?

    125 lbs.

    Ed

  86. 86
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Well, yeah. MSNBC is a liberal propaganda outlet that plays fast and loose with the facts. Do I have to go over that again? Rachel Maddow, made-up plastic Glocks, the whole deal?

    Please, please, please: even if you agree with propaganda, approach it with a critical mind.

  87. 87
    Roger Moore says:

    @cathyx:

    Fox news is to news as Jerry Springer is to talk show.

    Fox news is to news as Conservative thought is to thought.

  88. 88
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Turgidson:

    Yeah, I mean, there’s no secret where MSNBC’s primetime lineup stands on the issues of the day, just as with Fox – so on that basic level there’s a comparison that can be made. And if you have a problem with that as a first principle, so be it. And MSNBC’s hosts aren’t above skewing the facts to fit the story they want to tell. But they don’t just make shit up and create an alternative reality to keep their audience scared and angry 24/7.

    ^ see, this is smart. It’s not that hard to get there. Is MSNBC like Fox? No, it’s not a 24/7 alternate reality machine like Fox. Does it promote liberal propaganda? Of course it does.

    If you fail to question the narratives you’re fed, they will self-destruct on you.

  89. 89
    Tim I says:

    John, you’re completely wrong once again – why should today be any different.

    PS: What do you have against David Brock?

  90. 90
    bemused says:

    @wvng:

    She’s just as passionately detailed in either case! Sometimes I get impatient with the long buildup…get to the point already…but then I have to admit to myself that I always learn something new and interesting. She’d be a fantastic professor if she ever gets tired of being in the media biz.

  91. 91
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @Turgidson:

    As others have pointed out, Kelly basically reverts to her lawyer training: She makes the argument she’s being paid to make.

  92. 92
    Librarian says:

    The greatest difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox is owned by a right wing media mogul who has an ideological commitment to having that stuff on the air, whatever the ratings. MSNBC is owned by a corporation that has no such commitment, but will fire everybody on it and cancel all their shows and replace them with any programming it wanted if it thought that it would get higher ratings. To be truly equivalent to Fox, MSNBC would have to be owned by somebody like George Soros or some other leftist billionaire who will have the same commitment to keep it on the air as Murdoch does. This is the real reason why any comparison between the two is total bullshit.

  93. 93
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I saw that post by Sullivan and instantly felt better about not paying to read his site.

  94. 94
    Hill Dweller says:

    @AA+ Bonds: Maddow and Hayes provide more credible criticism of the Obama administration than anyone on television. Neither are getting talking points nor pushing the desired narrative of the WH.

    This is coming someone that despises MSNBC. Their daytime lineup is every bit as awful as the other cable networks. Maddow, Hayes and MHP are all good, but the rest of their lineup can disappear for all I care.

    It annoys me MSNBC is widely considered a liberal network despite having very few actual liberals on air.

  95. 95
    SatanicPanic says:

    @AA+ Bonds: Please, go over it again. I’m amused already.

  96. 96
    Ted & Hellen says:

    I saw Andy Bareback Sullivan on the street in P Town a couple of years ago and suppressed a strong urge to spit at his feet. (I felt that going for the face would be…tacky.)

    I wish I had indulged.

    A more entitled, arrogant, unself aware pig I cannot imagine. His freakishness is only compounded by his alleged gayness, which reflects badly on non-psycho gay people.

    I am still hopeful he will turn out to have been straight all along and working on a life-capping opus based on his ruse.

  97. 97
    Ruckus says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:
    news generators

    I think you have it right. And here I thought that “news organizations” were supposed to report important events, not be the important events.

    Silly me.

  98. 98
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Ruckus: Oops I meant to write he doesn’t do any reporting, just provides links to those who do.

  99. 99
    PeakVT says:

    @Hill Dweller: On a national network, no. Local news, OTOH…

  100. 100
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: I think his “independent blogger” experiment is not going to last for long. Six months, tops.

  101. 101
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Hill Dweller: Not on TV, but NYT op-ed pages with Bobo, MoDo, MoU and Chunky Bobo, is an assemblage of not so bright and smug. They do probably have better manners than the Fox News crew, though.

  102. 102
  103. 103
    WarMunchkin says:

    I am a dick for saying it, but if you’re reading Sully, you’re part of the problem. For how many years has this been going on? There’s nothing of value said by Mr. Sullivan – his words have value not because of expertise or authority, but because people think he’s valued by others. Don’t read him. That time is better spent reading an economics or policy textbook.

  104. 104
    askew says:

    Who cares about MSNBC and Fox right now when CNN has finally fired Erik Erickson, James Carville and Mary Matalin?

    http://www.mediabistro.com/fis.....ors_b94936

  105. 105
    Mike E says:

    Kthughulu on Talk of the Nation now

  106. 106
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @askew:

    EsoE heading to Fox News. No one could have predicted….

  107. 107
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    @trollhattan:

    Out of curiosity, has Fox ever employed somebody with a fraction of Rachel’s smarts and intense preparation?

    And is there a liberal show on FOX like there’s a conservative “Morning Joe” on MSNBC?

  108. 108
    kindness says:

    I read that post over at Sully’s and wanted to e-mail him, but I never do. Why bother.

    First off: Kirsten Powers is a liberal? Maybe to Fox but not in my universe. Second off: John got it. MSNBC does not equal Fox. Maybe to Sully. Depends which meds he’s on on any given day.

  109. 109
    Poopyman says:

    @askew: Thank FSM! AND they fired Bill Bennett. Now how can we encourage them to keep tossing more of their “contributors” out?

  110. 110
    Schlemizel says:

    Sully’s default position is always with the wingnut position. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS

    as such he never adds light to a subject.

  111. 111
    shep says:

    @Disco: Shultz is, of course, obnoxious. He learned his trade spewing lying “conservative” propaganda. At least he eventually learned to start spewing the truth.

  112. 112
    Calouste says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    Sullivan is the text book definition of stupidity. Doing the same thing (siding with the crazy-cons) over and over and expecting different results.

  113. 113
    Allan says:

    Telling the truth about Republicans is just as reprehensible as lying about Democrats.

  114. 114
    MomSense says:

    @trollhattan:

    Let’s go burst some smug and all send in our “A reader writes” replies all at once!

    We can call it a Sully smugburst flashmob!

  115. 115
    Felonius Monk says:

    @cathyx:

    Sully is such a republican. I think shaming and targeting those who appear on Fox news is a great idea.

    Shaming and targeting Sully is also a great idea.

  116. 116
    matt says:

    why do people respond to that dogshit-gargling asshole anyway?

  117. 117
    Nick says:

    “—MSNBC’s Dan Abrams indignantly defends the Bush administration against critics who suggest the White House isn’t telling the truth about the rationale for war:….”

    “A few months later, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough (4/10/03) demanded that war critics apologize:….”

    http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/.....-war-lies/

    And don’t forget Phil Donahue and Ashley Banfield.

  118. 118
    mouse tolliver says:

    @redshirt: Actually, in the early ’00s the money men tried to turn MSNBC into an exact replica of Fox. They even filled their prime time lineup with racist, rightwing nutjub hosts like Alan Keyes and Michael Savage.

  119. 119
    Heliopause says:

    Because, you know, MSNBC is just the flip side of the FOX coin.

    Some of the individual shows are the flip side of FOX. But in general, no.

  120. 120
    Cassidy says:

    @Calouste: Sully isn’t stupid. He just can’t detox off that sweet wingnut cash. He’s knows which side his car an dhouse payments fall on.

    I will give Sully credit in that he does the mercenary pundit act with a good bit more credibility. GG otoh….

  121. 121
    Mandalay says:

    @Librarian:

    The greatest difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox is owned by a right wing media mogul who has an ideological commitment to having that stuff on the air, whatever the ratings.

    Not so sure about that. There has been a definite softening of tone on Fox lately, in line with the (alleged) self-reflection going on in the Republican Party. That wouldn’t have happened if Murdoch really had an “ideological commitment”, rather than an interest in retaining non-wacko Republicans as viewers.

    But more importantly, Murdoch jumped ship from the Conservatives to Tony Blair’s Labour Party in Britain. Hardly the act of someone with “ideological commitment”, but definitely the act of someone interested in being on the right side of the powerful.

    If the Republican Party really starts to fracture and disintegrate, Murdoch would align with the Democrats in a heartbeat.

  122. 122
    Suffern ACE says:

    @mouse tolliver: MSNBCs point, if I recall, was to hound the clintons on behalf of GE. After the clintons left, they lacked identify but needed to be profitable. But personally, I’ve been suspicious that they went “liberal” when GE decided the future was in green industry and actually started to need viable liberals to push for those concerns.

  123. 123
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Have I mentioned recently that Sullivan is a worthless sack of Tory shit?

    No?

    OK, then I just have.

  124. 124
    Suffern ACE says:

    @askew: THANK GOD! Those “All-Star Election Teams” were getting a little long in the tooth. Let’s hear what Bill Bennett has to say. “Well, it just goes to show you how immoral Democrats are and we’ve lost our moral compass as a nation when they are in office.”

    At the same time, why to I get the feeling that Bill, Mary, and James are going to be replaced with someone more odious and younger who will be on my TV until I pass on?

    Now if we can get ABC to realize that their political analysis team of Cokie and George and Sam has been around since 1984…

  125. 125
    trollhattan says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    I keep getting it wrong, because I call him a Tory sack of beagle shit.

  126. 126

    Check out this ad I just saw for freelancers over at Media Bistro:

    Job Requirements Award-winning national news magazine (Circ. 200,000) with conservative audience seeks seasoned journalism pros to freelance. Front-of-book topics include American trends, politics, business, media, and limited foreign affairs. Back-of-book material includes travel, life style, health, and money. We place a premium on active voice, fine writing, great original sources, and keen instincts for compelling prose. Must have reporting chops; accuracy a must.

    Please send email with resume and links to your work to:
    davidp@newsmax.com AND kenc@newsmax.com

    Ha ha ha! Award-winning? What award has Newsmax ever won? Also, accuracy a must? Since when! Hilarious.

  127. 127
    Cassidy says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: But he’s not Glenn Greenwald. It can always be worse.

  128. 128
    Ted & Hellen says:

    God, I hate that Bareback Andy is gay. It’s embarrassing for the rest of us.

    I am hopeful that the stilts holding up his P Town sex shack will give way this summer and he’ll be washed out to sea.

  129. 129
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Suffern ACE: I didn’t think GE was in ownership anymore.

  130. 130
    handsmile says:

    @Judas Escargot, Bringer of Loaves and Fish Sandwiches:

    THIS! THIS! THIS! (a point alluded to by Hill Dweller #38 and redshirt #51 as well)

    Joe Scarborough, right-wing blowhard, reliable GOP stooge, and former Confederate congressman, presides over his frat party for 15 HOURS every week on the “liberal” MSNBC. And yet the Zombie Lie persists that MSNBC and Fox are but two sides of an equally tarnished partisan coin. It drives me to eat my own brains!

    Here’s the “liberal” MSNBC’s most prominent daily morning employee on yesterday’s appearance by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (Warning: it’s a Politico link and it will make you stupider):

    http://www.politico.com/story/.....86822.html

    Far better to go to Krugman’s own blog and read his take (and the comments) on the matter. From Professor Krugman:

    “Scarborough seems upset, and under the delusion that my more or less standard Keynesian views are way off on the fringe. Also, that the Swedish thingie is given by Norwegian royalty.”

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

  131. 131

    Meanwhile, CNN might be getting more palatable. At least, Erick Erickson is leaving for Fox (where he should have been from the get-go) and Mary Matalin & James Carville have been shown the door.

  132. 132
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cassidy: once, making reference to certain blogs that were annoying me with their hectoring and purism, I evoked Colbert’s “Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger” bit: every day on those blogs was an “all-wag edition.” Greenwald is like that. So is onetime MSNBC mainstay Jonathan Turley, whose profile seems to have become much lower than it once was…

  133. 133
    srv says:

    Isn’t this fucker behind the pay wall yet so we don’t ever have to talk about him again?

    Seriously, give me some George Soros money, and I’ll put Bobo and the whole crew behind a pay wall and we can all live happily ever after.

  134. 134
    Pete Mack says:

    If you go by the Sunday shows, exclusive of Maddow, they really are both horrible. While Fox is certainly worse, I can’t stand watching either of them

  135. 135
    japa21 says:

    @Southern Beale: By accuracy they mean no spelling or grammatical errors. Still a high bar.

  136. 136
    Bruce S says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    Are there dumber folks on TeeVee outside of FOX than Scarborough’s roundtable?

    Yeah, but they’re all on “reality” shows. The idiot Scarborough spent this morning trying to debunk Krugman’s moderate common sense – mostly by mischaracterizing him – and was of course enabled by the likes of Steve Ratner, one of those multi-millionaires who thinks that the key to solving long-term deficits is cutting back on the most cost-effective health insurance available in the US and forcing people who don’t have the luxury of making gobs of $$ sitting on their asses to continue to work until they’re 70. These “deficit hysterics” elitists are, quite frankly, borderline sociopaths. Also, not very bright.

  137. 137
    Bruce S says:

    @Pete Mack:

    Chris Hayes “Sunday Show” on MSNBC is the best topical talk show on television – ever – bar none! Frankly, even Maddow’s cutesy single talking head format, with roll-ins and the occasional one-on-one interview pales compared to Chris Hayes’ moderated discussions.

  138. 138
    wasabi gasp says:

    I like booberry pie.

  139. 139
    Ed Drone says:

    @Pete Mack:

    Oh, I don’t know. Chris Hayes “Up” and Melissa Harris-Perry’s show Saturday and Sunday mornings are pretty decent, to my way of thinking. A few too many “We’ll get back to the upcoming Apocalypse after these messages,” though. Extended discussion is impossible.

    After noon, though … [sound of crickets]

    Ed

  140. 140
    Xenos says:

    @trollhattan:

    Out of curiosity, has Fox ever employed somebody with a fraction of Rachel’s smarts and intense preparation? It’s an actual question, because I try not to pay no attention, other than clips shown on TDS and Colbert.

    Gretchen Carlson, blond Foxbo, was a Rhodes Scholar, like Rachel. She is no dummy, just deeply dishonest and not a little bit bonkers. Her depiction of a profoundly dumb kook is a masterful piece of acting.

  141. 141
    kc says:

    God damn it, why are y’all still reading (and quoting) Sullivan?

    Stop it!

  142. 142
    Schlemizel says:

    It just occurred to me that this jackass went (is going) behind a pay wall.

    I hope to Pasta you didn’t spend any money for the opportunity to read shit like this John.

  143. 143
    WarMunchkin says:

    @handsmile: What I don’t get about that shit is that I learned it standard in high school history and econ 101 that World War 2 got the U.S. out of the depression => massive spending on weapons production leading to employment. It’s right there in these basic textbooks. And then I hear all of my intellectual betters giving me some nonsense.

    And that’s how I was indoctrinated and became a Keynesian.

  144. 144
    handsmile says:

    @Mandalay:

    With respect, if you had the least familiarity with the phone/computer hacking and police corruption scandals, investigations, and now trials involving Rupert Murdoch and his British News International media holdings, it would not be possible for you submit that comment in good faith.

    Moreover, through what has been revealed by these investigations and the courageous reporting of the Guardian newspaper since 2010, far from “jumping ship” Murdoch has been lowering the plank of his yacht to craven leaders of all major British political parties for decades. He is (at the moment, was) the “powerful” to whom British officials desperately sought to be on the right side of.

    If you’re interested, here’s where you might begin:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....ng_scandal

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

  145. 145
    Bruce S says:

    @Southern Beale:

    “CNN might be getting more palatable”

    Certainly, on weekday mornings, Soledad O’Brien is far preferable to Scarborough, that dull sidekick, Mika, who stares at him like he’s some fountain of wisdom and the table full of Beltway and Wall Street elitist assholes, some of whom claim to be Democrats while reinforcing GOPer talking points.

    Scarborough’s show was cast exactly like a ’50s sitcom, around a quirky “couple” comprised of whiny “wife” and bullying “husband”, cranky “uncle”, bright-eyed “son” and recurring cast of like-minded folks from their upscale neighborhood. And like most sitcoms, they are shamelessly repeating the same basic scripts as the show goes into successive seasons.

  146. 146
    Schlemizel says:

    @Xenos:

    I knew that about Carlson – also, I seem to remember reading she graduated with honors from Stanford.

    My assumption is they have photos of her in flagrante delicto with dead children, a yak, 3 members of Stalin’s Politburo and the reanimated corpse of Hitler. Unless she plays dumb for Roger he releases the pix. Either that or the money is much much better than even my assumption of obscene.

  147. 147
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @WarMunchkin: Wait a god damned minute. Are you suggesting that, because something works, it is evidence that it works? Heresy.

  148. 148
    Xenos says:

    @Schlemizel: Carlson is from Michelle Bachman’s hometown. There is something in the water in Anoka, Minnesota… some rare isotope of Einteinium that has a powerful reverse effect on intelligence.

  149. 149
    Trinity says:

    I just can’t with Sully. Can’t.

    I hope his paywall endeavor fails miserably.

  150. 150
    bemused says:

    @Xenos:

    Michelle Bachmann was actually a babysitter for Gretchen Carlson and her sibs, lol.

  151. 151
    Fred says:

    When I lived in the states I had no cable and a little beat up portable on the kitchen counter. Nevr saw FOX, never wanted to.
    I landed in Stockholm just as my nation’s army landed in Baghdad. I got to watch the nightmare on two english speaking networks, BBC and FOX.
    BBC was dramatic but coverd the events with dignity and professional clarity.
    FOX was appalling. The “news presenters” cheered as bombs killed people. They had Ollie North (the convicted criminal) as an imbeded cheer leader. They referred to the US troops as “our side”. FOX News was an embarrasment to my country. Then again, my country was an embarrasment to my country but…
    So I won’t be checking out FOX News network any time soon, thanks.
    MSNBC has many good shows, especially Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnel is good too. I even like Ed Schultz but I can see why an above commenter might, “hate” him.
    But comparing FOX to MSNBC as an example of “Both sides…” is moronic and lowers my oppinion of Andrew Sullivan. But I really haven’t been visiting “The Dish” much of late because, well, Andrew Suulivan.

  152. 152
    Chris says:

    @Mandalay:

    I remember reading a couple years ago that there was a difference between Murdoch, head of NewsCorp, who’s just in it for the money, and Ailes, head of the American branch of NewsCorp, who’s in it for the ideology. So that doesn’t seem implausible to me.

  153. 153
    eemom says:

    Oh yay, Cole is posting about Sullivan again. For a minute there I was afraid the bizarre fixation of this blog upon that worthless vortex of verbal masturbation might be closed for repairs, or something.

  154. 154
    handsmile says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    And I bet those “basic textbooks” had nothing about Jesus riding on a dinosaur or about how African emigrants enjoyed plantation life. See, that might be your indoctrination problem right there.

    Also too, you might want to consider finding some other “intellectual betters” or simply laughing at the ones you have now.

  155. 155
    kay says:

    I think this is the sort of thing that AS is good at.

    Hopefully it will go on for weeks and he’ll do that “Jeff disagrees”, “Meghan pounces!”, “Brad counters Meghan” thing he loves so much. The first names always make laugh. So insidery!

  156. 156
    Baud says:

    @eemom:

    Oh yay, Cole is posting about Sullivan again.

    Cole is supposed to redesign the site next week, so all the Sullivan posts will seem like new again.

  157. 157
    Howlin Wolfe says:

    @rupert: Here, here, Rupert!

  158. 158
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @eemom: Again? Don’t you mean still?

  159. 159
    Howlin Wolfe says:

    @Suffern ACE: Washington Post = ????? Maybe the National Inquirer?

  160. 160
    muddy says:

    @Xenos: I saw a brief clip of Gretchen Carlson on the couch with the other 2 idiots recently, and she was trying to tell them they were wrong – it was something about women. I was amazed to see an actual pissed off WTF???? face on her, I didn’t know she had it in her to disagree. I wish I could remember where I saw it. It was the first glimpse of humanity I ever saw on Fox-n-fwends.

  161. 161
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    And they said politics in the United States had become post-partisan racial Sullivan

  162. 162
    Punchy says:

    Megyn Kelly is teh hawt.

  163. 163
    Chris says:

    @rupert:

    I’ve never thought of MSNBC is being leftist

    True, but I have no idea what “leftist” would even mean in the U.S. of A. This is the country where even Huey fucking Long presented his ideas not as socialism but as the thing that would save America from socialism.

    I’ve more or less accepted that I’m “leftist” in America because the political spectrum is skewed so far to the right that even John McCain and George W. Bush are dismissed by a non-trivial number of my fellow citizens as liberals, moderates and RINOs, but that’s more of a commentary on American politics than on mine.

  164. 164

    @Punchy: If you like snarling ice-maidens.

  165. 165
    handsmile says:

    @Chris:

    Roger Ailes has been an employee of Rupert Murdoch’s since 1996, when he was hired to create the Fox News Channel. And recently…

    “He signed a new deal in October 2012 that keeps him at the network for another four years through 2016, at which time he will have served as head of Fox News Channel for twenty years. Salary terms were not revealed although his earnings for the 2012 fiscal year were a reported $21 million inclusive of bonuses. In addition to heading Fox News and chairing Fox Television Stations, Ailes also chairs Twentieth Television, MyNetwork TV and Fox Business Network.” [all Murdoch-affiliated media properties] [from Ailes’ Wikipedia entry]

    Ailes may be one of the most loathsome and pernicious figures in the American corporate media (and let’s not forget his recently-exposed efforts in 2011 to cajole David Petraeus into running as a GOP presidential candidate!), but Rupert Murdoch is one of the worst people on the face of the planet.

  166. 166
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Punchy: Too banally evil. Doesn’t work for me.

  167. 167

    @handsmile: Have you noticed how both Petraeus and McCrystal had to say bye bye to their military careers after undercutting Obama.

  168. 168
    aimai says:

    @Mandalay:

    Oh, yeah, what some other poster said upthread. Its true that Murdoch is ideologically corruptible–that is he got into bed with the Chinese in a heartbeat in order to get closer to their market–but that is just to say that he’s a true authoritarian with fascist leanings, not that he would ever go for the Democrats and any kind of progressive policies. He already owns his stake in the US media and he will always side with the most corporatist and repressive and anti democratic party we’ve got going because that is the side with the big benjamins and that doles out the most safety for him and most money for his corporate interests. He may be opportunistic but his opportunism will not cause him to make a deal with the devil.

  169. 169
    pluege says:

    …just another episode of:

    The Many reasons Not to Read Andrew Sullivan

  170. 170
    MikeJ says:

    @handsmile:

    what has been revealed by these investigations and the courageous reporting of the Guardian newspaper since 2010

    It’s courageous to report when your competition is doing something bad?

  171. 171
    Trakker says:

    @Fred:

    But I really haven’t been visiting “The Dish” much of late because, well, Andrew Suulivan.

    Good Grief. I get sick of the Sullivan bashing here. Of course he says some stupid stuff, he’s a CON-FCKING-SERVATIVE. But he’s also one of the few sane, intelligent conservatives around and I read him because I want to be right when I form opinions, and for that I need to hear dissenting opinions. I fear living in a bubble of any kind, feeling all superior to those outside my bubble (even though it IS true**hack**cough)

    Sullivan admitted awhile back that he rarely watches MSNBC, so maybe he should face the fact that he doesn’t know enough to pass judgement on it (even though I do the same about FOX News which I never watch—gives me bleeding ulcers).

    MSNBC spins, cherrypicks, and even distorts facts at times and it drives me crazy because liberals generally have the facts on their side. My only challenge to Sullivan would be, let’s do a test of FOX viewers versus MSNBC viewers on real, important facts and see whose viewers are right most often. I’d be willing to bet my kid’s tuition that MSNBC viewers would win by a large margin.

  172. 172
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @MikeJ: It is contrary to the ethos of Jake Tapper.

  173. 173
    NonyNony says:

    @Chris:

    Murdoch, head of NewsCorp, who’s just in it for the money

    If by “money” you mean “power” then sure.

    If Murdoch just cared about money alone, he’d be less of a canker on the body politic. Murdoch craves power. And when he can’t have power for himself, he sucks up to it.

    That’s why he ditched the Tories in the UK for Blair’s Labour party – it looked like the Conservatives were going to be spending a good long time in the political wilderness, and Murdoch couldn’t stand being away from the people with the power.

    Roger Ailes is a loathsome human whose views I could never agree with, but his boss is worse. Because his boss is nothing but a junkie with a jones for people with power, and that makes him far more terrible than Ailes could ever be.

  174. 174
    Baud says:

    Obama outlines his immigration plan.

    Kerry confirmed as Secretary of State with 3 republicans voting no.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

  175. 175
    mai naem says:

    @Xenos: Gretchen Carlson is not a Rhodes Scholar. She went to Stanford and studied Sociology. Don’t mean to diss the liberal arts majors here, but sociology is not chemical engineering or something. She studied at Oxford but not as a Rhodes Scholar. I am assuming it was one of those semester abroad deals.

  176. 176
    Jamey says:

    @Roger Moore: As opposed to Bobo’s “do as I say, not as I do” lectures at Old Eli…

  177. 177
    salvage says:

    Sullivan is an awful stupid awful thing.

  178. 178
    Jamey says:

    @Tonal Crow: Getting Sully to change his mind is like watching someone you dislike go through the stages of Kübler-Ross scale. Over and over and over again.

    He cannot simply admit that he was wrong without attaching a higher moral purpose to his having embraced an obviously wrong position. Then he does proper penance and “polite” moderates applaud his openmindedness and lack of ego.

    Fuck Sully. I hope he smokes weed laced with paraquat.

  179. 179
    mai naem says:

    @Baud: I read that the Sandy bill was approved in the Senate something like 62-36. I understand that the House is full of full blown mental cases who should be institutionalized but thirty fucking six senators voted against this? Really?? I sincerely hope that the next time some fucking hurricane hits the deep south the Dems votes against any relief bill in the Senate.

  180. 180
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @mai naem: Engineer, are you? Dumb fight to pick. You are right that she was not a Rhodes and that it was a semester/year abroad thing. As a matter of fact, I would it is kind of bullshit for her to claim Oxford at all.

  181. 181
    trollhattan says:

    @handsmile:
    I see recent photos of Ailes and wonder how the hell he’s alive when he’s the poster boy for Bad Life Choices, but then I realize he probably has access to the same doctorsmechanics keeping Darth Cheney alive, and I haz a sad.

  182. 182
    Baud says:

    @mai naem:

    Menendez was on tv saying he was taking names. Likely just talk but we’ll see.

  183. 183
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Fox just bends Democrats over and gives it to ’em good. MSNBC leans forward.

  184. 184
    Mandalay says:

    @aimai:

    …not that he would ever go for the Democrats and any kind of progressive policies

    I see no evidence that Murdoch gives a flying shit either way about progressive policies such as pro-choice, gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, resolving immigration, more gun laws, etc.

    All he cares about is power, profits and influence, and I don’t see much daylight between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. Both parties practically fall over each other while prostrating themselves to big business and Wall St.

    So I think Murdoch would be fine ramming his dick up Democrat ass instead of Republican ass.

  185. 185
    Mandalay says:

    @handsmile: Sorry but I don’t have any idea what the hell you are talking about. Perhaps if you eased up on the condescension, and ramped up on the explanation…

  186. 186
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @kay:

    Hopefully it will go on for weeks and he’ll do that “Jeff disagrees”, “Meghan pounces!”, “Brad counters Meghan” thing he loves so much. The first names always make laugh. So insidery!

    Moe is amused.

  187. 187
    handsmile says:

    @MikeJ:

    Yes, absolutely. Two brief reasons:

    The respective political clout of each news organization. The Tories, LibDems, and Labor all craved the editorial and reporting blessings of Murdoch’s British media entities, and were eager to assist him in expanding his empire (e.g., BSkyB);

    The Guardian was repeatedly pressured by the Metropolitan Police to ease off of its investigations into allegations of phone hacking by News Corporation employees, beginning in 2008 (iirc) following a Guardian report that a 2006 police inquiry had been inadequate. Subsequent articles revealed the full extent of Met Police cover-up of phone hacking. This is now an on-going official investigation, “Operation Elveden.”

    Also, in September 2011, the Met threatened to file a court order under the Official Secret Acts to force Guardian reporters to disclose confidential sources in this matter. Such an unprecedented threat was quickly rescinded after what would be called here “bipartisan” outrage.

    All of this (and so much more) is laid out in exhaustive detail in the findings of the Leveson Inquiry, published in November 2012.

  188. 188
    mai naem says:

    @Jamey: I cannot stand the American media Brits who come here with their Oxbridge accents and the whole freaking Village automatically assumes they’re brilliant. I’ve never liked him. He’s a selfish prick who gives a crap about absolutely nobody but himself. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – if Sullivan wasn’t gay, he would be anti-gay. He would have never given a crap about the US dropping it’s immigration rules regarding AIDs if he wasn’t HIV+. The last time I spend any decent amount of time at Sully’s website was when he was discussing abortion and his attitude was “OMG, I didn’t know people had to choose between abortion and dying.”

  189. 189
    bemused says:

    @mai naem:

    Think Progress has the list of the 31. Of course, they had no objections to disaster aid for their states.

  190. 190
    Punchy says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I wasn’t necessarily judging her based on her ability to carry a convo or derivatize Schrodinger’s equation, but perhaps rather her ability to support her back whilst on her knees and elbows…

  191. 191
    Jamey says:

    @WarMunchkin: THIS!11!!!

  192. 192
    catclub says:

    Fox and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch wanted to draft David Petraeus as a republican presidential candidate that they would back with their editorial support.

    Let me know when MSNBC does anything remotely similar.
    Fox also hires (as noted by others) likely presidential candidates: Newt, Huckabee, Palin, Who else?

  193. 193
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @Jay: I love Schultz and Rev Al, although Schultz and Matthews overreacted after President Obama’s first debate performance. MSNBC should replace Matthews’ repeat show at 7 pm with something else.

  194. 194
  195. 195
    Mandalay says:

    @Trakker:

    But he’s also one of the few sane, intelligent conservatives around and I read him because I want to be right when I form opinions, and for that I need to hear dissenting opinions.

    This. I am not keen on Sullivan myself, but your larger point is valid. Anyone who never looks at the other side of the argument, and blindly dismisses the opposing view, is uninformed.

  196. 196
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @muddy: I saw a clip of her yesterday, when the brown-haired Doocey said something about HRC’s concussion: “Was she pushed?”. There was a brief flash of “Oh, for fuck’s sake” before she composed herself

  197. 197
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    When Fox gives Barney Frank three hours in the morning to talk to a group of left-leaning centrists with a token disengaged center-rightist to correspond to Mika B., all this ‘mirror image’ stuff will make a bit more sense (make less nonsense?).

    And even more than the news of Erickson going home, the fact that this new guy at CNN sees Carville and Matalin for the worn out schtickters they are may just be a sign of intelligent life.

  198. 198
    muddy says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: That was probably it. I was so astonished that she made a human face that I forgot the topic. Thanks.

  199. 199
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Punchy: I get that. I just think that, if she were interestingly evil, she would be more intriguing. She is just right wing douche-bag evil enough for it to outweigh her physical attractiveness. YMMV.

  200. 200
    Bruce S says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    I agree that Shultz and Rev. Al bring a lot to MSNBC. They are certainly a bit more rough around the edges than Maddow or Chris Hayes, but they speak to a segment of the potential audience that the younger, nerdier (and excellent) anchors like Maddow, Hayes and Wagner do not. Ed Schultz is the only guy on MSNBC who could walk into a bar in the Midwest and talk for an hour with the locals about hunting, fishing and football with total comfort. And Rev. Al has credibility with the more grass-roots African American community that no one else on the network could muster. His lack of broadcast professionalism is a virtue. I used to have serious issues with Rev. Al in his halcyon days – I thought he made some very bad choices and tended to be reckless in his campaigns. But he’s redeemed himself and has perspective on President Obama that reflects the black commmunity in general, as opposed to the narcissism of Tavis Smiley. He’s authentic and very sharp.

  201. 201
    Mandalay says:

    @mai naem:

    Don’t mean to diss the liberal arts majors here, but sociology is not chemical engineering or something. She studied at Oxford but not as a Rhodes Scholar.

    Somewhat OT, but Margaret Thatcher did get a degree in Chemistry….from Oxford University. But her successor as Prime Minister was John Major, who left school at 16 and never went to college. And while Major was Prime Minister, his counterpart in Australia was Paul Keating, who left school when he was 15!

    This was only 20 years ago, but sadly it seems unthinkable now that Britain or Australia will ever have another leader without a college degree.

  202. 202
    RalfW says:

    This is why I will not be one of Andrew’s PBS-lite totebaggers.

    Fuck his false equivalency. Uppers is one of the best politics shows on TV, and while I get a bit bored with Rachel Maddow, I know she researches and digs in for, y’know, facts.

    Kiss my hairy ass, Andrew. Unless you’d enjoy that.

  203. 203
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Trakker: I don’t think Sully is that guy. He is sui generis and, as a result, all one learns from him is the viewpoint of a gay, Catholic Tory with crushes on Maggie Thatcher and Barack Obama who first feels and then thinks about things. This is not a particularly widespread point of view.

  204. 204
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    FOr me Sully, is forever and always the guy who called me a decadent fifth columnist, a couple of years before deciding I was right. I look at everything he says through that light. I do think it’s a mistake to dismiss him, because under the heading of “Dumb person’s idea of a smart person”, I think he has an outsized influence on the MSM; he’s their brilliant (Oxbridge) gay friend– Joe Klein must have made a dozen self-congratulatory references to how happy and proud (of himself) he was to attend Sully’s wedding. More importantly, he was being quoted hither and yon in his “running down the streets screaming, naked and smeared with beagle poop” (h/t Ms B Cracker) rantings about Obama’s first debate, in venues like the network morning shows where I’m willing to bet his name recognition among the audience was lower than that of a Kardashian husband, but where I’d be willing to bet all the producers and newsreaders read his blog regularly.

  205. 205
    AdamK says:

    Chris Hayes’ show is the best thing on television.

  206. 206
    Bruce S says:

    @AdamK:

    Best non-fiction thing on television. Great show, which I look forward to during the week. But it ain’t Justified. Or Boardwalk Empire. What I love about Chris Hayes show is that it’s not a singular talking head format – which even Maddow suffers from. Also have to give Lawrence O’Donnell props for his good-natured mean-spiritedness in dealing with The Crazy. He truly takes no prisoners. And chuckles to himself while administering the coup de grace to insufferable morons.

  207. 207
    shep says:

    @Trakker:

    …let’s do a test of FOX viewers versus MSNBC viewers on real, important facts and see whose viewers are right most often. I’d be willing to bet my kid’s tuition that MSNBC viewers would win by a large margin.

    Been done. A couple of times. FOX viewers are the least informed people in the country. MSNBC didn’t fair that well either but their numbers were brought down by self-described “conservatives” (which fits with the science that shows that when you show believers facts that contradict their beliefs, it only reinforces their beliefs). Daily Show viewers knew their shit, though. I have no explanation why NPR listeners did well.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online.....-informed/

  208. 208
    RalfW says:

    @shep: I have no explanation why NPR listeners did well.

    Perhaps NPR listeners also read newspapers, watch TV nooz too? I think NPR’s audience is probably the most likely to not single-source.

  209. 209
  210. 210
    taylormattd says:

    @Culture of Truth: one trolls shady online classifieds for anonymous, bareback gay sex, and the other is the founder of the Daily Beast.

  211. 211
    Vico says:

    @kay: My favorite of those insider tics is “Ambers.”

  212. 212
    The Tragically Flip says:

    Chris Matthews voted for Bush. He’s not called “tweety” as a term of endearment on the left. He sounds more liberal recently (whether told to, or just inferring he should to keep his job) but I won’t ever accept him as a liberal. He’s a Standard issue villager.

    I get there are some similarities between the two, but the differences outweigh them.

  213. 213
    shep says:

    @RalfW: Fair point and possibly the only explanation. It certainly can’t be Kai Ryssdal.

  214. 214
    nice strategy says:

    BJers have lost perspective on this issue. MSNBC has flogged Kerry’s old testimony to the Senate FR Committee on several programs just this week, and I don’t believe its a coincidence. Lawrence O’Donnell has a caustic tone increasingly akin to Keith Olbermann, who became a ball of outrage that should have embarrassed any free-thinking liberal. Even Maddow makes leaps and overbroad generalizations that should be cringeworthy to a fully informed audience.

    I disagree with Sullivan: FOX is much, much worse in their use of propaganda techniques. Yet MSNBC has chosen to jettison any claim to objective journalism, and there are far too many interviews between between people who agree with each other to begin with and pat each other on the back for their insightful analysis. Ed makes statements in the form of questions — a trick they surely learned from FOX — several times in most segments.

    Also, the snide dismissals of Sullivan, as if he was some MSM Sunday morning fool, are thoroughly pathetic. He can be a blowhard but he’s also one of the most influential opinion journalists in the world, one who has spent many column inches criticizing the Pope and torture policies and many more championing gay marriage and legalizing pot. Liberals who can’t see that he’s been a powerful ally for most of the past 10 years are being willfully blind. His criticisms of the MSM are regular, on-target, and ultimately more persuasive than Media Matters. If you don’t have the patience for his over-reaction and then partial retraction nearly live analysis, then don’t read him.

    The idea that the partisan media is a sad substitute for real journalism is not just villager spin.

  215. 215
    dww44 says:

    @Bruce S: Good analyses with which I agree. I would add that both Shultz and Sharpton are “populists” in the older and better sense of the term. They are both genuine and neither is at all mean-spirited. They do have their place on the network.

  216. 216
    shep says:

    @nice strategy:

    Lawrence O’Donnell has a caustic tone increasingly akin to Keith Olbermann, who became a ball of outrage that should have embarrassed any free-thinking liberal.

    “Free-thinking liberals” care more about substance than style. Some of us are even outraged about some of the substance. In this case, it’s false equivalence between propaganda and something akin to real journalism, even if it’s real journalism with a caustic tone.

  217. 217
    John Weiss says:

    John,

    Baloney. You know that isn’t right.

Comments are closed.