Media

Greg Gutfeld: "The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites."

|

Greg Gutfeld, host on two Fox News Channel shows (Red Eye and The Five), talks to the LA Times about his days as a men's mag editor, using midgets to generate buzz at an industry confab dedicated to generating buzz, blogging at the Huffington Post 1.0, and his ongoing feud with the pop band Maroon 5 (whose leader called FNC "evil" and told the network to stop playing the band's tunes).

And there's this:

In the old days, major media was outrageously liberal, but they owned all the players on the teams, they owned the ball, they owned the stadium. And when Fox News shows up to play, everyone else wants to take the ball and go home. You hear nothing but whining about Fox News because they're kicking everybody's butt. And I love that. The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites — they say they're totally tolerant, but when they run into someone who doesn't share their assumptions, they say, "Fox News is evil, and it must be stopped."

More here.

A lot of Reasoners have been on Red Eye over the years and the show, which airs weekdays at 3 A.M., continues to grow in popularity and cultishness (yes, those two things may be at odds with one another).

Here's an episode from earlier this year featuring Gutfeld, Bill Schulz, TV's Andy Levy, the non-Doobie Bros. Michael McDonald, Ann Coulter, and yours truly.

Advertisement

NEXT: "[T]he troubles began as soon as the dancing started"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. now is this moar gutfield humor ?

    1. nah, bombast aint particularily funny

        1. For everyone about to enter this thread, Tony trolled and 50 people who should know better responded. Please be aware of the piles of horseshit downwind.

  2. Speaking of liberals in the media, Charles Pierce proves yet again that his book “Idiot America” is the least self aware and most unintentionally ironic book ever published.

    http://www.grantland.com/story…..just-money

    Grantland really is like The Onion sports section.

    1. John, if you want least self aware, you’ll like this Greenwald bit complaining about how Bob Schieffer treated Ron Paul’s ideas as completely nuts, and about how the supposedly unbiased journalists are really biased, but how they have fake objectivity.

      I mostly agree with all that. What makes it hilarious is this quote:

      To these types of journalists, “objectivity” compels that lies and truths be treated equally and never resolved ? that is, when the dispute is between the two parties (they allow themselves exceptions to this mandate ? their overt swooning for George Bush and contempt for Al Gore in 2000 was probably the most blatant example,

      That’s right, according to Greenwald, “probably the most blatant example” of overt media “swooning” for a candidate in recent member is the media obviously favoring GWB over Gore in 2000.

      1. (in recent “memory” of course, even if Chris Matthews did feel a tingle in his leg from Obama.)

      2. oh come on, Greenwald isn’t the “least” self-aware, the entire Jon Stewart opus has to take the cake (and eat it too). Or maybe he is incredibly self-aware, and just a complete douchebag.

      3. The 2000 presidential campaign is one of the few things to which they can point where the target of media swoon wasn’t a fellow leftist.

        I don’t watch Schieffer but saw his Ron Paul interview and wondered if that was the norm for the journalist. I have no problem with challenging questions for politicians but from what I’m reading Schieffer doesn’t challenge those who share his ideology.

      4. The same media that called the election for Gore while the polls were still open, and in which cheering was heard live on the air in the major network studios.

      5. their overt swooning for George Bush and contempt for Al Gore in 2000 was probably the most blatant example

        Um, wut?

        1. Since they didn’t show open contempt for the Republican candidate, it was a relative swooning.

          1. That, and the fact that much of the media wasn’t fully onboard with Gore. Why, they actually reported some negative things about him, the traitors!

            1. The lefty medias was so disappointed by Gore’s inability to lie as well as Clinton that they actually ridiculed him at times for saying the kind of outrageous, attention-getting things that they swooned over Clinton for saying.

              “I invented the Internet!”

    2. Well, Charles Pierce pretty much wrote about how grateful Mary jo Kopechne would have been to Ted Kennedy if she’d survived and lived to be old enough to sign up for medicare.

      If you ever get a chance to read that old column of his you’ll see cluelessness (not to mention tastelessness) carried to champion heights.

      And, yes, fascinating that this guy had the gall to write a book in which he basically called Americans idiots.

      1. how grateful Mary jo Kopechne would have been to Ted Kennedy if she’d survived and lived to be old enough to sign up for medicare.

        *GLUBB!!!*

      2. Not that I disagree with you too much on this (and I should really only speak for myself), but don’t we spend a lot of time on here calling American’s idiots?

        1. talk bout the pot calling the kettel black

        2. just those that use apostrophes inappropriately

          1. … or can’t even spell the grade school word “kettle” correctly.

      3. Well, Charles Pierce pretty much wrote about how grateful Mary jo Kopechne would have been to Ted Kennedy if she’d survived and lived to be old enough to sign up for medicare.

        Some dumb cunt at HuffPo thinks Mary Jo would have been glad to die for Teddy’s career.

    3. That article is priceless.

      Lockouts are attempts by management to exercise control over their workers. Period.

      No shit.

      In 2005, following proudly in the footsteps of generations of American nuns, Stern instituted a “dress code” for his players so that the various corporate wolverines in the VIP seats wouldn’t think that Yo! MTV Raps had broken out in the lower bowl. And, no, you don’t exactly need the Enigma machine to decode what that was all about.

      Because offending middle class whites has been great for the NBA so far.

      1. Workplace dress codes? Nobody has those!

        1. It’s a slippery slope. Soon they’ll be forced to wear uniforms.

  3. Yes, whatever people may want to believe, Fox News is no more biased in its views than many other major media sources are in theirs.

    1. And even if they are who cares? I don’t see liberals running around worrying about the horrible effects of Pacifica on unbiased journalism. They just hate that there is a news organization out there that they can’t control.

      Hell Fox isn’t even that conservative. It is more tabloid than anything else.

      1. I agree, especially about them being a tabloid first and foremost. Of course, that’s true of most media these days. “Hot blonde chick lost!”

      2. Seriously. Since Glenn Beck got fired, there’s only one die-hard conservative regular on the channel in Hannity. There’s a couple of moderate conservatives in O’Reilly and Huckabee (whose weekend show nobody watches anyway), and a couple of libertarians in Gutfeld and Stossel. Every other regular personality on there is either a standard media liberal or a tabloid news person.

        But to the left, if a media outlet has even one non-lefty that’s one too many for them.

        1. You forgot Napolitano…or however you spell it.

          1. Aren’t Stossel and Napolitano on Fox Business? I dont get that channel. I like to keep my cable bill lower than my winter heating bill. I dont get the stations that require 400 channel packages.

        2. I would classify O’Reilly as an old style liberal. He generally holds traditional values and is quick to basically say, “There ought to a law!” whenever he doesn’t like something about society. He seems to have no recognition at all of the concept of Constitutional limits on governmental authority and condemns anyone who talks about limits as an “ideologue”, a term he uses as a pejorative. He is too quick to want the government to “solve” a problem to be called a conservative.

      3. Tabloid is a good description, but more of format and content than point of view. I think one must acknowledge that they do market themselves as the conservative alternative to other news networks.

        The thing that is really disgusting about the hatred of Fox is that so many people relly think that no one (except evil corporationey rich people) could possible be a conservative (or whatever) and that things like Fox are tricking people into believing things that they don’t “really” believe.

        1. They also accept racism and religious fanaticism as explanations for not being liberal.

          It’s actually funny to see liberals wrestle with the concept of others having the integrity to hold principles other than those which are to their own personal short-term benefit.

    2. The main problem with FNC is that it’s aimed at the LCD of the Republican base, pretty much the yahoos. Fox rarely demonstrates intelligent conservative/libertarian analysis or opinion.

      1. i agree. but napolitano is a welcome exception

        1. naplitano was better before he got his show, he’s been doing a lot of lion-towing.

          1. lion-towing? Surely you mean loin-towelling

      2. The main problem with FNC is that it’s aimed at the LCD of the Republican base, pretty much the yahoos.

        This is a problem with all media. It generally focuses on a base consumer.

        The fact that Fox adds diversity allows the consumer to have choice with the added effect of making them more discerning.

        ie “The NYT says this but FNC says this…hmm perhaps I should figure out for myself.”

        Fox focusing on a base of republicans when before there was no outlet focusing on republicans is ultimately not a problem but a good.

        Fox rarely demonstrates intelligent conservative/libertarian analysis or opinion.

        What do you expect? We do not live in a libertarian utopia….yet.

        1. Yes, aiming at the LCD is a common problem with the media. While Fox is often bad, MSNBC is even more often insufferable.

          1. If you want to make money in any business, it is best to aim for the big, sweet spot in the population of consumers. There is a limited market for the high and low extremes. Yes, I am saying that the media does not target the LCD, unless you include Jerry Springer as part of “the media”.

  4. HURRRRR IT OKAY TO BE BIASED BECAUSE EVERYONE IS BIASED.

    Still, I would rather watch Fox’s conservative agenda then the liberal agenda.

    1. Actually, yes. It is okay to be biased, as long as you’re up front about it. When you sit there and proclaim objectivity while engaging in biased reporting, there’s a problem. I’m far more comfortable with people admitting bias and then having to explain why what they’re telling me is true/bad/whatever regardless of that bias than proclaiming I must believe their analysis because of their supposed ‘objectivity’.

      1. Then they should probably drop that “fair and balanced” meme.

        Seriously though, they’re no worse than MSNBC, but nobody threatens to have their music held off of that network.

        Thankfully I already hated that band.

        1. i think they do the “fair and balanced” thing SPECIFICALLY to piss off liberals

          i have seen libs at DU claim (seriously) that “Faux news” should be sued for “false advertising” based on their fair and balanced thang.

          so, in that respect, it’s working.

          1. i think they do the “fair and balanced” thing SPECIFICALLY to piss off liberals

            No.

            Fox news his hitting the American center. It does piss off the left simply because the left hates the center.

            They have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the US is to the right of where they perceive it to be.

            Not more libertarian mind you…just more conservative.

        2. fox has liberal commentators on the staff and from what I’ve seen make a serious effort to have opposing view on to argue both sides of things.

          1. It is rare on Fox to not have both liberal and conservative viewpoints represented when discussing an issue. Most of the time (Hannity and The Five being exceptions) there isn’t the many v. one gangup presentation that has been the norm for issue discussions on most news show for as long as I can remember. Fox is not perfectly “fair and balanced”, but it is a hell of a lot closer than the other networks. That, plus the fact that Fox’s bias is more in tune with the political sensibilities of the general population is the reason that Fox dominates the cable news channels.

      2. ^^^exactly. When a host is out front about being a righty or lefty, at least I know what to expect. And what makes Red Eye different is that 1) it tends to make fun of everyone and 2) it does not take itself very seriously. Nothing more insufferable than a chat show where participants really seem to believe their own bullshit.

        1. And what makes Red Eye different is that 1) it tends to make fun of everyone and 2) it does not take itself very seriously.

          Aka “The South Park Method”

        2. Bill Maher, for example.

      3. It is okay to be biased, as long as you’re up front about it. When you sit there and proclaim objectivity while engaging in biased reporting, there’s a problem.

        Look at the early history of journalism in this country. Most papers were openly partisan and made no secret of the fact that they supported one party or ideology over another. It’s only been since around the post WW2-era or so that this passive-aggressive conceit by journalists regarding “objectivity” was established.

        1. What Red Rocks said

        2. Waaaah, I don’t want to have to critically weigh issues when I watch the news. I just want a robot to dump the facts on my empty head.

          1. Waaaah, I don’t want to have to critically weigh issues when I watch the news. I just want a robot to dump the facts on my empty head.

            Robots can’t critically weigh issues–human beings, however, can process a narrative and think critically about whether what they’re being presented with is the whole picture.

            You sound rather butthurt just because it would make sense for journalists to stop the charade about objectivity when they clearly are not.

            1. What Red Rocks said. Again.

            2. Clearly my attempt at humor fell flat, so you didn’t get that I was making fun of Tony’s pollyannaish claim that facts could be delivered without any sort of bias or interpretation.

  5. FOX News is evil and must be stopped.

    There is no liberal equivalent of FOX News and there never was. You can say MSNBC is exactly the same on the opposite side, but you’d be wrong. MSNBC doesn’t lie on a constant basis.

    FN is propaganda. They lie. That’s what’s wrong with them.

    1. Tony spoof?

      1. That was my first thought, too. But I think it’s the real thing. Sad, so sad.

        1. It’s sad to be against lying?

          1. you have mentioned lying twice. With no examples. By contrast, MSNBC’s thing with Maddow/Hoover Dam was bullshit squared. Factor in damn near anything Matthews has said about Obama and that just ups the ante.

            1. or CNN when it came out that they actually had an agreement with Saddam to not report certain stuff in order to get “access”.

              the big “lying” canard that people bring up with fox news (lefties bring up) is the stupid BGH case that allegedly established their “right to lie”

              that’s really a gross distortion. but that’s about all they have.

              otoh, i have not heard about any fox reporters being outed for literally fabricating stories, which HAS happened at the NYT among others.

              1. Dan Rather to the white courtesy phone …

                1. FAKE BUT ACCURATE!!!

                2. NBC, the rocket motors you ordered for the truck crash test have arrived and don’t forget to hold off running that very well-done story by Lisa Meyers about WJC allegedly raping a woman until after the election …

                  And remember everybody, nobody mention all the criminal investigations of WJC until after the election.

            2. This is typical of the average liberal mindset. There’s nothing but truth (what he believes) and lies (what someone else believes). Liberals cannot fathom the concept that an intelligent person, with all the same facts and knowledge he has, can come to a very different conclusion. This is why liberal MSM bias is so pervasive, they think the FACTS are liberally biased, and they are only the messengers.

          2. I am against lying Tony. But if you somehow think that CNN or MSNBC are any better then you’re delusional. There is a reason why Fox became as big as it was, and that was because the charges of left wing bias were accurate. Now Fox is simply a right wing version of it. But they fulfill a market need.

    2. tony,
      even for you, this is lunacy. I truly hope this is a spoof because, if not, you are beyond delusional. Two simple facts should be enough to convince anyone of the institutional leftward tilt in the media: 1) its sheer popularity and 2) that its mere existence causes liberal heads to explode.

      1. oops..in both 1 and 2, “its” refers to Fox..

      2. Do you believe there are such things as facts?

        What on earth makes you think the best way to uncover facts is to “balance” a supposed political bias in mainstream news reporting with more partisan spin? Shouldn’t facts be nonpartisan? Do you think it’s possible that mainstream news reporting might, on occasion, actually get their facts right, considering that’s what their job is?

        FOX News sees it as its job to correct for this phantom bias by being biased in the other direction. What that amounts to, in the end, is propaganda for a political party.

        Your problem is the facts don’t agree with your worldview very often, and rather than change your opinions, you prefer to have some bloated propagandist tell you what you want to hear.

        1. of course, there are facts. I simply do not trust the mainstream’s interpretation of them. Fortunately, today is full of information sources and I can balance Fox with the alphabet soup networks, any number of newspapers, and so forth. You, on the other hand, are mired in the dinosaur cocoon, believing that if the NYT prints it and CBS regurgitates it, then it must be true.

          Like all liberals, you are pissed at the loss of your monopoly, failing to grasp that the left’s own obtuseness caused it. Were the media truly unbiased, there would be no market for Fox or talk radio or a bazillion conservative blogs and websites.

        2. “Shouldn’t the facts be non-partisan?”

          Well no shit. The questions are, who’s delivering the facts? And which facts are relevant? And which issues are important enough that I should spend my valuable time gathering peoples’ opinions about what those facts are?

          Anyway, what about the whole thesis > antithesis > synthesis. I thought you lefties loved that shit?

          1. “Anyway, what about the whole thesis > antithesis > synthesis. I thought you lefties loved that shit?”

            Only when they can use it to try to attack right wingers. Everything is absolute except when right wingers think things are subjective (economics and value) then things are suddenly absolute again.

        3. “Shouldn’t facts be non-partisan.”
          Yeah, sure Goldilocks. And cute bears should tuck me into bed at night as the moon smiles.
          Are you just naive or dishonest? If latter, a little ironic to talk about “lying.” Or maybe you really believe this shit. Other news channels are just giving you the facts, no critical filter needed on your part. Mussolini would have loved you.

        4. Shouldn’t the facts be non-partisan?

          Well, to the facts favor the policies of one party or the other, no.

          And meaning comes from context, so that the sifting and winnowing and presentation of raw data is done through an interpretive screen. Which, given the sorry state of the Republic, will likely be partisan.

          1. Spot on, Dean. It’s funny to hear a self-labeled liberal talk about “just the facts, ma’am” of TV News, as though he’s never heard of Marshall McCluhan or the notion that every text has a context, subtext,etc.

            1. One of the most impressive aspects of right-wing propagandists in this country is how they become so-phisticated relativists whenever it’s convenient. But they’re dogmatists, mostly religious too, so that doesn’t make sense. I don’t see why it’s so hard to see that if facts are fuzzy to people it may be because the facts don’t accord to their dogma. That’s just a more likely scenario than the one in which this universe has produced the perfect political party: the Republicans. That’s what you’d have to believe to justify FOX news.

              1. Is it Thursday yet?

                1. If you close your eyes and click your heels together three times, every day can be Thursday.

              2. What a fine example of projection: take all of your own faults and ascribe them to your opponents.

              3. The most impressive aspect of left-wing propagandists in this country is how they ditch any sort of nuanced understanding of an event or concept whenever it doesn’t suit their agenda.
                “Gunz Keeel! Just take them away and violence will stop – don’t talk to me about culture or law or the relationship between the two…”
                Actually, it’s not the most impressive aspect of left-wing propandaists. It’s how successful they are at passing along straw man arguments as “facts.”

              4. You mean like how the actual facts collected from economic data doesn’t mesh well with Kenyesianism dogma?

        5. Do you think it’s possible that mainstream news reporting might, on occasion, actually get their facts right, considering that’s what their job is?

          Is it?

    3. Operation Tailwind
      Dateline NBC truck explosion
      CBS 60 Minutes Audi acceleration story
      Dan Rather and the obviously fake Bush memos
      ABC’s Primetime Live and Food Lion
      Every single local network news (FOX included, of course) on things from Four Loko to alcohol soaked tampons

      In some of the cases the networks apologized, in others not. “Too good to check” is an old media saw.

      1. Are you claiming that specific instances of bad reporting justifies a 24-hour partisan propaganda outfit?

        1. tony,
          you are the one accusing Fox of lying. When presented with multiple incidents of lying from non-Fox outlets, you seek to shift the discussion.

        2. Wow Tony. For a guy who despises the “religious” (whatever the fuck that snide handwave is intended to mean), you pull the “isolated incident” card out with a pretty deft flick of the wrist. Are you sure you aren’t employed by Holy Mother Church?

          1. Hey cut the church some slack, they only ask you to tithe 10% of your income.

    4. I’m a news junkie and I watch FNC, MSNBC, CNN, CNNI, Al-Jazeera, BBC, and France24 throughout the week. FNC and MSNBC are both propaganda when compared to the others. However, FNC lets its bias drip into its reportage way more than MSNBC.

      1. Bullshit. MSNBC and BBC oozes bias (as does FNC). CNN is more subtle about it but just as biased. I’ve only watched al-jazeera for their coverage of the arab spring stuff and that was actually pretty good.

        1. Speaking of which here is the BCC on climate change coverage:

          Yes, glad you stopped this ? I was sent it too, and decided to
          spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
          well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
          are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
          coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
          being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
          expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
          say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
          clear that we think they are talking through their hats.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..artiality/

          1. The loonies don’t deserve coverage just because they open their mouth and say something. Giving any “debate” time to climate change deniers is ITSELF a lie, because it presents the assumption that there is some scientific controversy, and there isn’t. There’s a political controversy, yes, but the job of the news is to report facts, not “Scientists say X, other people say say Y, you be the judge.”

            1. Giving any “debate” time to climate change deniers is ITSELF a lie,
              ————————-
              thanks, Tony, for encapsulating the liberal conceit in a single line: “something is because we say it is; contrary viewpoints will not just be disavowed, all efforts will be made to de-legitimize them.” No one argues that climate changes, just the degree to which man is involved, something science has yet to prove.

              1. You’re just wrong and you’re wrong because liars have told you lies over and over.

                You’re a walking defense of my argument and you don’t even know it.

                1. I swear Tony you have to be a person who is just spooking liberalism. I really want to believe that.

        2. here’s a fucking hint for tony, and heck… anybody else.

          people tend not to see bias, when it conforms with their viewpoint.

          duh. that’s because they tend to see their viewpoint as the Obvious Truth(tm), so it’s not bias to recognize those OT’s, but it is bias to spout some bullshit… bullshit being defined as that which diverges from the OT

          there are some obvious facts, that in themselves are not spun and are not evidence of bias.

          but again, merely by choosing certain stories, one must choose NOT to report certain stories. what stories are imporant? bias creeps in

          word usage in reporting? bias

          which “man on the street” interviews one chooses to air, and how one edits them? bias

          etc. etc.

          1. All good points. But FOX News’s bias doesn’t creep, it’s there deliberately to counter perceived biases. That is journalistic malpractice right off the bat. Who are they to appoint themselves to be that arbiter? They don’t present their case to be a contrary alternative, they present it as god’s truth, and its consumers consume it as such.

            1. HAHAHAHAHA

              Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

              Or, a brilliant spoof.

            2. Captain, I am sensing we are being trolled. No one is this stupid.

          2. which “man on the street” interviews one chooses to air fabricate

            FTFY

        3. Just my opinion, FWIW. The real insidiousness comes more in what’s covered vice how it’s covered. I can’t really speak to that for the foreign outlets because I’m more interested in political stuff and that focuses me on the U.S. outlets. Cheers

        4. Back in the day when a lot of countries still brodcast over short-wave, I listened to a lot of international broadcasters on short-wave radio. (Nowadays, I download a lot of audio from various international broadcasters.)

          It’s amazing how biased so many of these broadcasters are. Not necessarily in favor of a party, but in favor of a limited point of view on a broad range of issues: press releases from groups like Greenpeace, World Wide Fund For Nature, Amnesty International, and some others are routinely treated as “news”, and spokesmen from such groups are routinely interview subjects (and often the only interview subect) on a story. In Europe, anything to further the EU superstate is a must. Multiculturalism is loved, while nuclear power is hated. (Germany’s media is particularly bad when it comes to the hatred of nuclear power.) Multiculturalism, however, never seems to include American culture.

          1. But that’s because American culture isn’t really culture. In their eyes its just a bastard amalgamation of brain farts from the riff-raff of the west. I mean we invented flight, split the atom, invented the computer, landed a man on the moon, cracked the genome, etc ad finim but we will always, always be nothing more than country bumpkins in their eyes. Never mind the fact that outside of America, and the Latin south, the West is pretty much dead. It’s like some Tolkien lord of the rings movie. The great kingdoms have vanished leaving only citidal America and the tertiary fortresses, South America, behind.

            1. And instead of a Gandalf or Aragorn, we have fucking Pippin in the white house, getting high of pipe weed and frying some fucking crispy bacon.

              1. And instead of a Gandalf or Aragorn, we have fucking Pippin in the white house, getting high o[n] pipe weed

                Thread Win. Absolute and inarguable.

    5. Spoken like a true sock puppet. Don’t waste your time on this mindless bozo. All he knows are leftist talking points. What a boob.

    6. MSNBC doesn’t lie on a constant basis.

      That’s not fair. I’m only one man, and can only do so much.

      1. No, you are Ken[t].

        1. Use of “the K-word” towards a more-or-less female bodied person is the equivalent of saying “the n-word” to a melanin-suffused individual. See you in court.

          1. Excuse me, I’ve got a 500 pound sack of specially treated vaginal sand for a…Ken Shultz. Anybody want to sign for it?

    7. There is no liberal equivalent of FOX News and there never was.

      Walter Cronkite.

      MSNBC doesn’t lie on a constant basis.

      Again: Walter Cronkite.

      1. “For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.”

      2. “The cold war would have ended if McGovern had been elected.”

    8. You can say MSNBC is exactly the same on the opposite side, but you’d be wrong.

      True, MSNBC isn’t so much a left-wing version of what Fox News is, as it is a left-wing version of what a left-winger imagines Fox News to be.

      Of course, Fox was a right-wing version of the way the right sees the liberal media, so MSNBC is a caricature of a caricature. I can’t even imagine what would happen if the right tried to create a right-wing version of what they imagine MSNBC to be.

      Well, I guess I can: they would dress monkeys in suits and run subtle, intelligent subtitles underneath like “Herp de derp! Democrats sure are dumb and evil. Republicans are great. You know what would be the best thing about a Republican dictatorship? Killing all the Democrats in creative and horribly painful ways! Derpity derp!”

  6. And I’m so fucking sick of conservatives thinking they understand tolerance and claiming it means every aspect of their stupid bullshit should be allowed to go unchallenged.

    1. That’s not Gutfield’s complaint here. Some critics (at least citizen critics) actually want it taken off the air.
      This is similar to how I heard some “progressives” react to the Tea Party. It wasn’t just that they insisted they be called “Tea Baggers” at every moment; some felt they had no right to protest at all.

      1. FOX News (and maybe even more so talk radio) put free speech to the test. Free speech is great. 24/7 partisan propaganda is bad, be it Rwanda or the US. FOX News is republican party propaganda, and it justifies itself by claiming (without evidence) that the rest of news reporting is biased for Democrats. The two wrongs make a right school of journalism.

        It is objectively evil and makes people stupid and this has been proven. Perhaps that’s just one of the prices of freedom.

        1. tony,
          the rest of the media is a tool of the DNC and always has been. Please explain why, if this is not the case, the NYT for one ALWAYS endorses the Dem nominee even when that person is such an obvious loser than 49 states support the Repub. Please. Fox is a creation of the mainstream’s abdication of its role.

          1. The NYT editorial page is allowed to endorse candidates, just like any other editorial page including many that perennially endorse Republicans.

            The editorial page is different from the news pages. For the vast majority of news stories, the NYT and other mainstream outlets get their facts right, because that’s their job.

            FOX News’s job is to spin facts or tell lies in service of a political party. One of those lies is that all mainstream news is in the tank for the Democrats. That’s a ridiculous claim and one you still haven’t provided the slightest bit of evidence for.

            1. The editorial page is different from the news pages. For the vast majority of news stories, the NYT and other mainstream outlets get their facts right, because that’s their job.

              The NYT omits, obfuscates, and distorts in the interest of its benefactors because that’s what media outlets do, Tony, and have done in this country for most of its life. Crying like a bitch about Fox News isn’t going to change that fact.

            2. If you don’t notice bias in the “news” section of newspapers you are willfully blind. As has been mentioned on here before EVERYONE writes with bias even when they honestly try not too (and most of them are not being honest).

              1. it’s not merely that they WRITE with bias, it is that the very stories they choose to cover – is an aspect of bias.

                there is NO way any news channel CAN be unbiased. setting aside the fact that NYT is so obviously biased, that it’s beyond ridiculous, there *is* no way to report the news in an unbiased fashion

                WHAT stories to report is always the first question, since contrary to the meme, the NYT does not report “ALL the news that’s fit to print”.

                that would be an impossibility

                obviously bias is evidenced in HOW a story is covered, but it is ALSO evidenced in what stories are chosen in the first place.
                .

                1. Deciding which stories to report and how prominently is just as much part of journalism as reporting them is. Bias is a threat to both, but real journalists are trained to avoid it. You don’t counter the chance of bias creep with deliberate bias and call it fair and balanced.

                  1. well , if they are TRAINED to avoid it… lol

                    1. Again with the convenient relativism.

                      How easy it becomes to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

                    2. Yet you easily accuse media outlets who disagree with your viewpoint as producing nothing but propaganda.

                      Time to pluck that plank out of your eye, Tony.

                    3. Tony|11.28.11 @ 9:01PM|#
                      How easy it becomes to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

                      Tony|11.28.11 @ 9:02PM|#
                      You’re just wrong

                      One. Minute. Apart.

                      ROTFLMAO!!!

                2. Yep and further than that the layout of the newspaper. What goes on the front page, what size font is the headline. Hell the headlines themselves are often a prime example of bias. What picture is chosen. You are either a liar or a moron to not notice these things.

                  1. All of those are journalistic decisions. Never perfect, because they are human beings. But it’s at least part of their ethos to be unbiased. It’s part of FOX’s ethos to be biased.

                3. it’s not merely that they WRITE with bias, it is that the very stories they choose to cover – is an aspect of bias.

                  The classic example is the way the NY Times covered the Augusta National Golf Club’s refusal to admit women. They ran something like 50 stories on this supposedly big controversy, and when the day for the big demonstration arrived, a couple of busses showed up with about 30 demonstrators: fewer than the number of Times stories.

                  1. I don’t even think activist journalism is bad. Propaganda for a political party that is heavily allied with corporate interests is though.

                    1. you dont like MSNBC then?

                    2. MSNBC and all it’s pro-corporate rhetoric.

                    3. Like all the “green” GE commercials? If so, I agree.

        2. “…without evidence…”

          Do you live under a rock?

          1. wtf? html?

            http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta…..-6664.aspx

            Anyway, Pew did something a while ago and had the same conclusion. And another poll had a commanding majority of the population saying the MSM had a left-wing slant.

        3. Objectively evil and makes people stupid? And this has been proven? Really?

          1. FNC (aside from redeye) is some stupid shit, but it has been proven in multiple studies that your average fox viewer is more informed about current events than the average viewer of any other channel. That is to say, as dumb as you average fox viewer is, the viewers of ton’y preferred networks are even stupider.

        4. I agree with about 50 percent or more of your blather. But since Fox also features a few libertarian viewpoints, I think it’s a sweeping statement. Yeah, I know, that’s just how you roll, your sweeping statement and strawman schtick. “Hey, I’m just Tony, being Tony, fellas, it’s just my M.O. to exaggerate and mischaracterize…okay, ‘lie’, about what you believe.”
          Anyway, call Fox evil if you wish, it’s a semi-free country. But does this mean you want it banned? Some clarification is needed.

          1. I’m not clear on this myself. I strongly believe in free speech. I strongly believe that FOX News hurts the country. I’m not sure what to do.

            The fact that it’s not just supporting one of two centrist parties, but is supporting a radically ideological party that is so divorced from facts that it will literally destroy the planet if it gets its way tends to make me devalue freedom in this instance. That’s their fault though. I will forever resent the GOP for radicalizing me.

            1. The fact that it’s not just supporting one of two centrist parties, but is supporting a radically ideological party that is so divorced from facts that it will literally destroy the planet if it gets its way tends to make me devalue freedom in this instance.

              Jesus Christ–pull out the fainting couch. You couldn’t sound any more hysterical and incoherent if you tried.

              1. That’s what’s so fucked up about it all.

                Imagine a scenario: the Republicans, nearly alone on the planet, are wrong about climate change. The entire worldwide scientific community and the oil industry are correct about climate change. What will Republican stated policies do? Yeah, pretty much destroy the planet. We’ll be jerking off to freedom till we’re all dead.

                1. Yeah, pretty much destroy the planet. We’ll be jerking off to freedom till we’re all dead.

                  I expect a royalty check by the end of business tomorrow or you’ll be hearing from my attorneys.

                2. global temperatures will increase 1 degree in the next 50 years, as opposed to the 0.9 degrees it will increase if we enact economy-crushing carbon taxes and regulations.

                  1. ^^^this^^^

                3. Imagine a scenario:

                  Sorry, no one has time for your mental masturbation.

                  1. I realize it’s a stretch that the entire scientific community and the oil industry are right and the Republicans alone in the world are wrong.

                    1. I realize it’s a stretch that the entire scientific community and the oil industry are right and the Republicans alone in the world are wrong.

                      I realize it’s a stretch that the Green Revolution you were furiously jerking off to over the last decade is blowing up in your face.

                4. We’ll be jerking off to freedom till we’re all dead.

                  Oh, Noes! Noes! Teh FREEDOMS — !!!

                  [::insert shrill, womanish shriek here::]

            2. believing in free speech means that even those with whom you disagree can say what they want. When that idiot Biden claims that blocking the jobs bill means more rapes and murders, that’s free speech that is moronic, yet to the left it’s “just Joe”.

              Given how much of the press has couched OWS, stop with the notion any centricity from the Dems. There are no centrist Dems; there are a few Blue Dogs but they are reviled by the Pelosi/Reid/Frank/Durbin wing.

            3. Voltaire is rolling his eyes over in his grave at you. You do realize that your position also means the existence of MSNBC is not so safe either, right? There are people on the other side, who could also cite numerous twists of the truth from MSNBC commentary. How would you feel if a majority were able to get the government to ban it for that reason? Would you cry foul or just say, “Oh, okay, my side lost. Maybe in 50 years we’ll be on top again and can ban their viewpoint.” ?

              1. Has anybody seen my penis? I feel like I left it here last week, but haven’t been able to find it anywhere. Kthx.

            4. Tony is a free speech absolutist… until someone goes on TV and disagrees with him.

            5. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Big shocker.

              1. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

                “Eat your peas. Bitch.”

            6. so divorced from facts that it will literally destroy the planet

              Should i pull out some choice quotes from good ol’boy progressives from the 20s and 30s in regards to the Negro question?

              yes FNC is divorced from facts (though probably not how you think they are) but how about some historical context here. Fox sucks but lying media conglomerates literally used to get poeple killed because of the color of their skin. In every sense of the word lying Fox news in an ocean of lying News outlets is an improvement to what we use to have.

        5. Free speech is great.

          “… BUT — !!!”

        6. If 24/7 propaganda is bad, then all 3 cable news stations and 9 of the 10 largest newspapers in the country should be shut down right now. What FOX does is no different than what the rest of the MSM.

        7. New flash Tony. Media has always been Partisan. Go look up some papers from 100, 150, 200 years ago and its the same shit. This crock that the media as an unbiased check against government never fucking existed.

    2. The less we expect of you Tony, the more you fail to provide.

    3. And I’m so fucking sick of conservatives thinking they understand tolerance and claiming it means every aspect of their stupid bullshit should be allowed to go unchallenged.

      And I’m fucking sick of you liberals getting sand in your vagina whenever your philosophical narratives aren’t accepted hook, line, and sinker.

    4. I am far more tolerant then you are.

      Of course i am a libertarian so I don’t know how that helps at all.

      All i see is two intolerant groups whining about how intolerant they both are.

      You both have beams in your eyes so don’t throw stones or some other mixed metaphor.

  7. I’m torn between lovin’ the show and wanting to turn the mute button on whenever I see it pop up. Still for a once in awhile looksee it goes well with a BLT and a beer. Tried it once with popcorn and brewer’s yeast and spent the next day on the toilet.

  8. Muffin

    1. Yes, here’s another study of its kind, by Pew.

      Overall FOX News watchers score low, like network morning show watchers, local TV news watchers, evening national news watchers, and blog readers.

      However, Limbaugh listeners and O’Reilly Factor watchers ranked at the top, along with NPR, Daily Show, newspaper readers and Lehrer.

      So naturally you are going to praise O’Reilly and Limbaugh, right?

      1. For having an audience stupider than people who watch the Daily Show?

        Okay, but that survey brings up an excellent and relevant point. The key to being well informed is having an omnivorous news diet. FOX News tells you that every mainstream source of news reporting is biased and only they are telling the truth. For some reason it never occurs to viewers that this is ludicrous and FOX News is obviously the one lying. But it does keep them from consuming information from anywhere else.

        1. again you accuse Fox of lying. Again you provide not one example. Others on here has laid myriad cases of other media lies. And Fox says nothing about others being biased, though its existence speaks volumes about public perception of those others.

          By the way, you ignored the part about Factor viewers (a Fox show) and Rush listeners (probably Fox viewers) coming off as quite informed.

            1. good example of failing to separate news from talking heads. Hannity is not a reporter, no more than Ed Schultz is. And, I don’t recall anyone claiming that what Carter left behind was good, so the claim of that as a lie is more interpretation than anything else.

              Look at the actual news shows, like the 6 and 7p ET hours. Those are, for the most part, straight newscasts with reports from the field, not talking heads batting things around.

    2. I doubt too many here are fans of Fox or think of it as a reliable go to source for accurate news and commentary (and more than MSNBC is). Again, you’re off on an irrelevant tangent. Gutfield’s commment is on target: critics don’t just want to argue with the notions belching from Fox News blowhards, they want it gone.

      1. Sorry, that’s “any” more than MSNBC is.

      2. moob,
        you are exactly on target. It’s not Fox’s ideology that bothers liberals, it is its mere existence.

      3. I want it gone, yes. It is not an example of the virtues of free speech. It is propaganda in the service of a political party. That is the opposite in spirit to free speech. It is evil and makes people stupid.

        1. of course, you want it gone. Like most liberals, you believe your point of view is the only one worthy of airing. And once again, you fail to see the malicious truth: Fox, and talk radio, are results of the mainstream’s persistent bias and unwillingness to do its job.

          Its blowjobs disguised as coverage of a single-term US Senate back-bencher in ’08 is but one example. Here’s your comparison: 15 year old claims that no one can verify were treated as truth and prime evidence of why Cain should be de-legitimized; but, the fact that Obama was the only guy in the congregation unaware of Jeremiah Wright’s views and the only guy in Chicago unaware of Bill Ayers’ past was not newsy enough.

          1. Just the fact that you think Obama’s preacher and a college professor he had perhaps a passing acquaintance with is equivalent in salaciousness to Cain having settled with women who accused him of sexual harassment shows how warped your mind has become by these news sources and why they are evil.

            Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are bogeymen FOX news invented to make you scared of Barack Obama. They are irrelevant to everything. Herman Cain paid women who accused him of sexually harassing them. The GOP wins when you are stupid.

            1. Cain having settled with women who accused him of sexual harassment

              Oh, can I throw in a few facts here? Non-partisan ones, I promise.

              (1) Cain didn’t settle with anyone. His employer did, via an industry-standard process that excluded him from any role.

              (2) Settlements prove nothing about the underlying merits. What we know about this settlement puts it in the “nuisance” category – its cheaper to settle than to fight and win.

            2. passing acquaintance? Really? Ayers freaking INTRODUCED OBAMA TO CHICAGO’S WEALTHY WHO FUND CAMPAIGNS. He was also on at least one board with Obama in Chicago where a lot of money got doled out. And, had a Repub sat in a church with the likes of Wright, he would be dead meat.

              Herman Cain “paid” no one and you know it, which makes you a liar. The NRA settled with one former employee who threw a grenade and has since hidden behind her lawyer. All the claims, by the way, have miraculously fallen off the media radar. Why is that?

              Besides, your party not only put forth the likes of Kennedy, it enthusiastically backed Clinton twice, and was ready to do likewise with Edwards, each of whom makes Cain look like a Buddhist monk.

            3. Tony, your last post is the equivalent of a guy ejaculating before he can fully remove his trousers.

              To wit, in your excited and ethusiastic haste to be immediately responsive to wareagle’s post, you wrote, “Herman Cain paid woman who accused him of sexually harassing them.”

              Ah, Tony…you forgot that it was the National Restaurant Association which allegedly paid women who alleged that Mr. Cain sexually harassed.

              Do you have any citations to even allegations, much less proof, that Mr. Cain, in his individual capacity, paid these coniving Kens?

              1. If only you’d turn that impressive nitpickery in the direction of Meggen Kelly on occasion.

                1. We all know Kelly’s a moron. We just can’t tell her that on the internet.

                  1. I mean, to clarify, where she’ll read it. I just noticed that what I wrote looked weird.

            4. Cain having settled with women who accused him of sexual harassment

              Fucking deep pockets! How do they work?

              1. It’s particularly funny to be lamenting about Cain on a day when another accuser has stepped forward. But that’s most days.

                It could all be a conspiracy. But it’s not by Democrats. I’m not even being paid and I know that the best thing for Democrats is for Cain to have a successful primary run.

                1. What accuser? All she said was she had an affair with him. BFD.

                  1. Agreed. But if the media ignored these issues it would be doing the Democrats a favor.

        2. Propoganda is part of free speech, dumbass. That’s what the “free” indicates. Otherwise, Obama wouldn’t be allowed to say a single fucking word.

          1. Awesome.

        3. “I want it gone, yes.”
          Ah, scratch a progressive and you get a little intolerant fascist.
          Would you want the government to take it off the air?

          1. I want murder and poverty gone too. Does that make me a fascist? I don’t like bad things.

            1. I want murder and poverty gone too.

              The government imprisons and kills poeple who murder and do all sorts of things to fight poverty. (in fact the government imprisons people to fight poverty.)

              So answer the fucking question.

              “Would you want the government to take it off the air?”

              1. …like he already answered. We imprison people who commit murder. Can’t very well imprison “poverty” but we certainly imprison those who refuse to “contribute” to the welfare state.

                He just wants it done in a way that only speech he personally doesn’t like would get banned.

                1. Well, yes I would. And I would like Murdock to be imprisoned for treason.

                  This country is in the shitter because of people like them, and we need an intelligent 5 year plan to get us out of it.

              2. Maybe my opinion is that government shouldn’t do anything about it, but the world would be a better place without it.

            2. I want murder and poverty gone too.

              Disagreeing with Tony, Politically = “Murder” and “Poverty.”

              Huh. Live and learn.

          2. it is amazing that the modern progressive doesnt at all realize his/her own fascist flavor.

        4. It is evil and makes people stupid.

          “PRESENT!!!”

        5. Propaganda in the service of a political party *IS* free speech, you dimwit.

        6. This has to be a troll. There is no way this is real.

          1. I imagine that must be what the obstetrician, pale and trembling, must have muttered in the delivery room, as well.

    3. “In a survey of 612 New Jersey natives,…”

      I see what you did there.

    4. Yeah, but Republicans in general know more than Democrats…(google Pew). And Libertarians dominate lefties in economics (WSJ).

      1. They did not like that outcome so they re-did the studies and stuck “necessarily” in front of several questions to make them have the opposite answer (according to them) so they could say everyone is equally right.

    5. Hey you opened that can of worms…

      So now you have to live with this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

      You voted for Obama right?

  9. It’s a good thing Fox News has more libertarians now, but my worry is that they will all be expunged when the Republicans take office again.

  10. That’s what we’re here for. Make it seem like Republicans have principles.

  11. Sorry for being busy earlier, but I was able to drag myself away from work long enough to find this link for John.

  12. Fox vis-a-vis NBC, ABC et al is pure false left / right paradigm stuff.

    The truth is that FOX is insufferably statist as is NBC, ABC et al.

    The facts that Fox Business has judge Napolitano and that ABC had Stossel mean less than a pimple on the penis of a protoza. Like a June night in December. Or just because Epi can tell us that OJ once ran through airports, doesn’t mean he knows jack about Xs and Os.

  13. “Red Eye” is lame, and “The Five” is total crap.

    The only watchable episode of “Red Eye” was when Kerry Howley was on. Reason needs to bring her back.

    1. The only watchable episode of “Red Eye” was when Kerry Howley was on.

      I think she hates libertarians now.

      In all honesty and sadly libertarianism has that effect on many women….

      But I think it is only a coincidence that we are all assholes whom women hate…sort of like how all OWS people are all white and have college diplomas in puppetry and other worthless majors.

    2. Don’t forget the S.E. Cupp episodes. They do have some hot women on. Lame is certainly a good description though. I catch it every few months and never feel liked I missed anything in between.

      1. Her last name can’t really be Cupp. Every time I see her with that name under her visage I wonder what her Cupp size is.

  14. The guy is a isochronous jackass

    1. isochronous jackass

      A daily political/comedy show that airs at 3am….

      Pretty sure he could not be anything but…

      1. Hmm, I have a draft in my blog, and I’ll let you know when I post it. You are correct in criticizing my assessment: he’s a Pat Dollard? ? ? aeonian jackass.

  15. “…they say they’re totally tolerant, but when they run into someone who doesn’t share their assumptions, they say, “Fox News is evil, and it must be stopped.”

    People become especially sensitive after they’ve been lied into supporting a war they wouldn’t have supported otherwise.

    I should say this reaction isn’t much different from the criticism of yellow journalism in support of the Spanish-American War way back when.

    There’s nothing new under the sun.

    So, suffice it to say, Fox News may be just as bad as everybody else in a lot of ways–but Fox News still sucks.

    And isn’t that typical of Fox News’ defenders?

    *whiney voice* When the liberals suck, everybody gives them a free pass! So why don’t we get a free pass for totally sucking too?! */whiney voice*

    Congratulations, Fox News! You suck just like the liberal news outlets. How’s it feel?

    1. IOW, this act is just another in the long line of false left / right paradigme plays.

      1. Ken, btw, my mother-in-law was a real BLEEP on Thanksgiving. She gave my wife a ton of shit and then my wife was a real BLEEP to me afterwards.

    2. This^ a thousand times over.

    3. People become especially sensitive after they’ve been lied into supporting a war they wouldn’t have supported otherwise.

      The NYT must be the exception to this rule.

      Is there any war that they have not supported?

      1. Is there any war that they have not supported?

        The War on Eminent Domain?

        1. Nope – they’re all for that one. “Public Good” and all.

    4. Not to defend Bush or the Iraq war, but if you are making an educated decision based off of faulty intelligence, you aren’t exactly lying. Should they have double or triple checked the intelligence, sure, but that doesn’t make them liars. And IIRC Fox News wasn’t the only outlet praising and pushing the war at the beginning. And it certainly wasn’t a unilateral decision by Bush, with no input from Congress (coughDemocratscough). Unlike a certain “kinetic action”.

  16. lied into supporting a war they wouldn’t have supported otherwise.

    Concern troll looks concerned.

    1. Somebody lied the American people into supporting Libya?

      Can you show me a link for that?

      You show me yours, and I’ll show you mine.

      1. Can you cite to the lies you are referencing? “Never attribute to malice that which you can attribute to incompetence”

        1. I can point to their effects!

          “Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

          ‘Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link’

          WASHINGTON (AP) ? Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

          Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

          The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.”

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..iraq_x.htm

          Yeah, so, check the date–6 months after we invaded Iraq, almost 70% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11.

          Speculating about why that was? Doesn’t require much speculation.

          Could Powell’s bogus photos of mobile WMD labs in the wake of the anthrax attacks have had anything to do with it?

          Could the president’s bogus speech about Saddam Hussein WMD program going after yellowcake in Niger have had anything to do with it?

          Could the shitty news coverage by Fox News and others in the run up to the Iraq War have had anything to do with it?

          I say it’s all of the above and then some.

          1. People forget what they thought and when they thought it.

            There’s some kind of cognitive bias that makes them think they always knew what they they know now, too.

            Everybody knew the subprime crisis was gonna hit in hindsight. But there was a whole year between the time New Century cratered and Lehman Brothers bit the dust–but in that window? Hardly anybody shorted what should have been shorted.

            But that couldn’t have been because they didn’t know then what they know now. No, no…was it because they didn’t feel like it? …because they don’t like having too much money?

            It definitely works that way with financial crises, and the next one will work the same way too–hardly anyone will have seen it coming, and almost everyone will claim afterwards that they saw it coming all along.

            It’s bad enough when we’re trying to predict the future. Sometimes we have to believe what we’re told about the present. Colin Powell (most trusted man in America at the time) showing us satellite photos of what he says are mobile WMD labs, and who am I to argue with him? I’m not an expert!

            But treating those in power with a little skepticism is what good journalism is all about–and there wasn’t any of that going on at Fox News. Quite the opposite! Anyone who questioned the White House line was all but denounced as traitors to their country and terrorist sympathizers.

            It was shameful. I’ll never forget it.

            1. Ken, why do you hate Amerika?

          2. Are those lies or mistakes? Like I said, you sure have a high evidentiary hurdle to clear to rationally call them “lies”. The cold reality – the one you don’t want to admit – is that the American people wanted war and it has nothing to do with lies or misleading charts or whatever — we wanted blood for 9/11 – Arab blood – and we went and got it.

            1. +

              Someone was gonna have to die as payback for 9/11. Would have been the same in any other country under similar circumstances. The bloodlust had to be satiated. A casus belli would have been found or fabricated no matter what.

              Partisanship never entered the equation.

              1. “Someone was gonna have to die as payback for 9/11. Would have been the same in any other country under similar circumstances. The bloodlust had to be satiated. A casus belli would have been found or fabricated no matter what.”

                Oh, yeah, well, obviously, any time some terrorist attacks us–the only option is to do something unbelievably stupid. No matter what the facts are regardless of whether it’s in the best interests of the United States!

                Is that what I’m supposed to think?!

            2. An honest mistake?! I think Powell made an honest mistake–in trusting his sources.

              “I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, … Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.

              I feel terrible … [giving the speech] … It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.[4]”

              —-Colin Powell

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..retraction

              Did you keep up with the actions of John Bolton? Do you understand why he wasn’t confirmed as UN Ambassador?

              1. An honest mistake?! I think Powell made an honest mistake–in trusting his sources.

                Then that makes it not a lie.

                Oh, yeah, well, obviously, any time some terrorist attacks us–the only option is to do something unbelievably stupid.

                Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description? Do you know what it means to make a positive observation vice a normative judgment?

                Read the words that are there, not the ones that make you fly off of the handle.

                1. “Then that makes it not a lie.”

                  If Bill Clinton lied about Whitewater, does it really matter whether he knew he was lying? If he lied money from the RTC (intended to bail out depositors in a failed S&L) ending up in his campaign fund–does it really make any difference whether he genuinely, truly, in his heart of hearts, really believed that his lie was true?

                  Have you or have you not kept up with John Bolton’s illustrious infamous career in intelligence gathering on questions of WMD? Are you or are you not familiar with why he wasn’t confirmed as UN Ambassador?

                  Are you or are you not familiar with the Plame Affair?

                  Plausible denials about whether someone knew they were lying doesn’t mean the American people weren’t lied to. The question isn’t about the personal integrity of the president–I don’t give a shit about the personal integrity of George W. Bush.

                  The question is whether the American people would have supported the invasion of Iraq–if they hadn’t been lied to about Saddam Hussein’s links with Al Qaeda and mobile WMD labs.

                  It is absurd to think the American people would have felt the same way about the Iraq invasion regardless of whether they thought Saddam Hussein was complicit in 9/11.

          3. I honestly don’t remember ever being told by the media that the reason we HAD to go into Iraq was because of 9/11. I DO remember a lot of blustering about WMD’s and how Saddam was an evil, genociding bastard.

  17. Off-topic, but I just watched the mid-season finale of The Walking Dead on my DVR. Anyone gonna stick with it? The plot twist at the end was obvious, but it just did earn my viewership for the midseason premiere since I’m curious where they will go from now.

    1. I didn’t finish the second half of last night’s episode (I’ll finish tonight), so don’t spoil the plot twist and ending. But yeah, I’m sticking with it. My wife is a zombiephile, so that pretty much makes me one too…

    2. I hear the audio version on NPR every morning…

  18. I have this idea for a new show.

    It’s news meets succinct, fact-based reporting of noteworthy, timely information.

    It’d be huge.

    1. You could call it the Snewz Hour

  19. I remember reading an article way back in the 90s which discussed almost exactly what Gutfield laments.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find the article. As I recall he was a reporter who had been in the biz for many years, and his complaint about newsmedia was not that it was biased, but that it was completely hypocritical about it.

    I’ll paraphrase, but I’ll never forget his point:

    Ignore that 9 of 10 newsroom editorial staffers are liberal democrats, but get a conservative to take over one editorial room, and NOW we’ve got a problem.

    1. “Ignore that 9 of 10 newsroom editorial staffers are liberal democrats, but get a conservative to take over one editorial room, and NOW we’ve got a problem.”

      Preface: I don’t watch *any* TV news.
      But your (and his) point is 100% valid. Lefties never fail to call it ‘faux news’, totally ignoring the bias of their fave propagandists.

  20. I haven’t watched Fox News in a few years, but they definitely changed for the worse a long time ago. Or maybe I changed? I just remember that after 9/11 they seemed to shift from “fair balanced” and “alternative to liberal news” to Bush/War cheerleaders. I watched OReilly and hanntiy from 96-01, but then it became unwatchable. Seemed to just be a lot more petty and neocon to me.

    1. Maybe they are “better” when their guy isn’t in office?

      1. Their hysterical shrieking over Obama clouds out any real criticism. They’re not any better now.

        1. Tony|11.28.11 @ 9:33PM|#
          “Their hysterical shrieking over Obama clouds out any real criticism….”

          Right, shithead:
          “involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard in 1972?73. Four of these documents[2] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS”

          “Who’s to Blame for America’s Massive Debt?
          Bush policies account for $7T: Washington Post”

          The lefty press is amazingly innocent of hysteria. Or not.
          Keep posting bullshit, shithead.

  21. Ken Shultz|11.28.11 @ 8:19PM|#
    “…Everybody knew the subprime crisis was gonna hit in hindsight. But there was a whole year between the time New Century cratered and Lehman Brothers bit the dust–but in that window? Hardly anybody shorted what should have been shorted….”

    Disagreed. Watching the Euro debt debacle?
    Portugal’s paper is now junk, but junk pays. Until it doesn’t.
    There are a bunch of folks who figure they can time the market and swipe a big return *JUST* before it tanks.
    Well, some will and others will find there are no chairs available when the music ends.

    1. Not sure I’m following–the way I wrote that was kinda confusing…

      When I wrote “Everybody knew the subprime crisis was gonna hit in hindsight.” I meant that most people didn’t know it was gonna happen until after it already happened.

      After July of ’07, or thereabouts, when the New Century cratered, the brightest, most well motivated minds the world has to offer could have shorted all sorts of investments tied to Lehman Brothers! …for a whole year before Lehman cratered.

      But they didn’t! And the reason has to do with the future being unpredictable in real time.

      If you know for sure which way some European bond is gonna go because of the problems in the Eurozone? Go all in with leverage!

      On the other hand, if you, like most rational people, think the future remains uncertain? Then you might wanna hedge your bets.

      The future remains uncertain–even on the Euro! The only thing I’m certain about is that whatever happens with the Euro? Most of the uncertain people today will talk about what happened as if they knew it was going to happen all along.

      It’s human nature.

      1. Ken,
        “On the other hand, if you, like most rational people, think the future remains uncertain? Then you might wanna hedge your bets.”

        Yes, I do. But if you are willing to take the risks, there is a lot of money to be made if you don’t.
        That was my point about the mortgage and the Euro-debt bubbles.
        No one “knows” X will happen until it does, but we all bet on some predictions every morning.

    2. Everybody knew the subprime crisis was gonna hit in hindsight.

      Well no shit everyone knew, if you bothered to look and use common sense. Christ, I told my boss back when the interest rates on housing loans went through the floor in the early part of the 2000s that they were trying to blow up a housing bubble, and telling my friends up through the ultimate collapse that buying a house in that market was a “bigger fool’s” bet.

      The way housing was ramping up throughout the decade made it insanely obvious that a bubble was being blown, it was just a question of what was going to pop it.

      1. “Christ, I told my boss back when the interest rates on housing loans went through the floor in the early part of the 2000s that they were trying to blow up a housing bubble, and telling my friends up through the ultimate collapse that buying a house in that market was a “bigger fool’s” bet.”

        It’s a good thing your boss didn’t use tons of leverage to short the banks with heavy exposure to subprime back in the early 2000s–becasue he would have lost a ton of money between the early 2000s and July of 2007.

        After 2007, why didn’t you tell your boss to use tons of leverage and short the banks with heavy exposure to subprime, who were still making all that money at the time?

        Oh, and using your crystal ball, where should he use tons of leverage to make his next big bet? And please don’t tell me about what happened last week in Europe as if it were about to happen next week.

        You people seriously think you can predict financial crises? You think all the money managers out there just missed the boat–for a year–because they were lazy?

        Because they were Democrats?

        Tell me why!

        Because the explanation that the future is uncertain seems a lot more plausible.

        Will easy money and government overspending lead to inflation? Sure–eventually. Whether we fall off that cliff next week, next year or 2035 is anybody’s guess though.

  22. According to researchers at UCLA:

    Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. … Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts.

    1. I don’t understand why a liberal bias in the news would justify stupid shit in the name of conservatism.

      Who cares if it’s stupid so long as it’s broadcast by conservatives?

      That wouldn’t be okay if the shoe were on the other foot either. If the bias in the news was overwhelmingly conservative, that wouldn’t justify stupid shit in the name of liberals either.

      That’s the whole point!

      “The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites.”

      The conservatives who justify the stupid shit their news organizations broadcast by pointing to the stupid shit liberals broadcast?

      They’re hypocrites too.

      A pox on both their houses.

      1. What “stupid shit”, Ken?

        What are you talking about?

    2. Of course, by the same logic, Drudge Report is more liberal than Good Morning America. That doesn’t pass a smell test.

    3. *hands clapped tightly over ears* “LALALALALA I CAN’T HEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR YOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUU — !!!”

  23. Don Imus was right. Anne Coulter does have an Adam’s apple. YIKES! TRANSVESTITE!!!

  24. I are sure glad dem stewpid ‘mericans are dose other guys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.