Patterico's Pontifications

8/26/2008

Why You Should Watch MSNBC

Filed under: Media Bias — DRJ @ 12:39 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Better than reality TV could ever hope to be.

— DRJ

32 Responses to “Why You Should Watch MSNBC”

  1. No better demonstration ever of the “leanings” of the MSM, and their divorce from reality.
    You Go, Joe!

    Another Drew (9b55da) — 8/26/2008 @ 12:58 pm

  2. I’ve never had a reason to watch MSNBC but, now, maybe I do. Scarborough might pop Olby in the nose!

    oldirishpig (24cbbf) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:10 pm

  3. There are liberals on Fox News all the time (partial list: Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Mara Liasson, Bob Beckel, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Michael Eric Dyson, Liz Wiehl, and Shep Smith leaves hints he’s one constantly), but none of them have been subjected to anything like “Jesus, why don’t you get a shovel?”

    A justifiable response could have been, “Hey, Keith, maybe you pick a shovel up for me where you get your DNC kneepads.”

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:24 pm

  4. MSNBC has to do something and choosing to be the far-left network is one strategy. The fate of Air America might give them pause but these folks don’t know economics anyway, so why worry ?

    Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:37 pm

  5. Shuster tried to explain the to Scarborough the difference between fiction and reality.
    Maybe someone needs to do the same for you?

    “McCain dismisses Maliki timetable”

    The link is to google. follow it.
    It’s old news for people who pay attention.

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:44 pm

  6. And here’s something else to amuse you
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/middleeast/20oil.html

    BAGHDAD — Iraq is on the verge of reviving an 11-year-old contract with China worth $1.2 billion, its largest oil deal since the invasion in 2003, an Oil Ministry official said Tuesday.

    The deal sets new terms for an agreement reached between China and Iraq under Saddam Hussein in 1997. Unlike that agreement, which included production-sharing rights, the new one is a service contract, under which China would be paid for its work at the Ahdab oil field southeast of Baghdad but would not be a partner in the profits.”

    I guess it wasn’t about oil after all.

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:44 pm

  7. Actually Mike, I think MSNBC is wise to be so rabidly liberal.

    Some liberals these days feel utterly impotent, and seeing conservatives get shut up probably makes them feel tough. MSNBC isn’t going to beat CNN or FNC at being fair, so they are filling a neat niche.

    I wish more outlets were honest about their bias. I want to see newspapers have ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ in their name if they want to be biased.

    Of course, MSNBC isn’t honest about their bias. Olbermann thinks he is a real arbiter of what’s true and false, and has the right to shut up critiques in the name of ‘fairness’ rather than his own editorial view.

    But they should be. They would probably see a ratings boost if they adopted the motto ‘voice of the progressive’ or something like that.

    Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:47 pm

  8. “I guess it wasn’t about oil after all.”

    That being the case, can you explain what it was about, without your head exploding?

    Another Drew (9b55da) — 8/26/2008 @ 1:56 pm

  9. AD – Nope. Not a chance.

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:27 pm

  10. It’s old news for people who pay attention.

    Yeah… More than a month old…

    Perhaps now that there is a solid agreement, his view has changed? He’s allowed to do that, right? I mean, Obama changed his mind on FISA and the like, so McCain can change his mind on set, negotiated policy that will be in place by the time he gets into office… Right?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:29 pm

  11. I was being ironic and facetious. You know what the words mean, right?

    I’m with Alan Greenspan: “It’s all about oil.”

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:31 pm

  12. JAR – Thanks for proving me right.

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:39 pm

  13. Scott, when he changes his mind McCain denies he ever believed anything else.

    “I never said that!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFVatXy8Bhc&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

    McC doesn’t just change his mind. He lies.

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:44 pm

  14. JAR wrote: I’m with Alan Greenspan: “It’s all about oil.”

    You linked to a blog thread that had nothing to do with Greenspan with the exception of that disjointed quote.

    If you’re really interested in what Greenspan himself said, read this.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/26/2008 @ 2:47 pm

  15. Well then, why don’t you just google “Greenspan and “It’s all about oil”

    More non-news.

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:07 pm

  16. JAR consistently provides gleenwaldian links. Add that to routinely being mendouceous …

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:13 pm

  17. JAR wrote: Well then, why don’t you just google “Greenspan and “It’s all about oil”

    I did, once I went to your link and found nothing about Greenspan. Why couldn’t you have done that?

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:14 pm

  18. Coming from a Baracky supporter, complaints about changing positions, and claiming to have never changed, is fuckin’ rich.

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:17 pm

  19. JD wrote: Coming from a Baracky supporter, complaints about changing positions, and claiming to have never changed, is … rich.

    And prefacing it almost every single time with “I have always said…”

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:25 pm

  20. JAR, you tell someone to google a speech after they link the speech?

    Are we supposed to just read liberal blogs and base everything on that, and when the primary literature is available, just stick our fingers in our ears and hum?

    Sorry, you can’t win this argument.

    Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:32 pm

  21. JAR – I’m with Alan Greenspan

    From Bob Woodward, that right-wing fanatic:

    Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”

    “Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through.

    Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy. (A complete underestimation, given that the market has pushed oil much higher)

    Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

    So Alan Greenspan believes:

    1) Saddam Hussein was likely to gain control of a nuclear weapon if we did nothing.
    2) Saddam Hussein was giving evidence that he wanted to control the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor for transport of much of the middle east’s oil. Not just Iraq, but most of the gulf states.
    3) Disruption of the oil supply could translate into chaos for the global economy.
    4) Taking out Saddam was essential.
    5) Oil is a factor, but the war was not an oil grab.

    On the contrary, it was Saddam Hussein that was apparently trying for an oil grab, and potentially with nukes, given enough time.

    I agree with Greenspan, and so does, apparently, JAR, if one can believe his words.

    Apogee (366e8b) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:37 pm

  22. It will interesting to see the reactions from the talking dickheads at MSNBC and in the DNC itself if, please God, Baracky is whipped. One hopes we avoid another 2000 finish, wherein Obama emulates the Gore selectively sue to win strategy. Will it be blamed on racism from whites?

    Interestingly, Media blog at NRO cites a poll that McCain is down 54% to 26% with 21% undecided in a head to head matchup with Colin Powell. Isn’t Powell BLACKER than Obama? Can the msm still cry racism if the Magic Negro loses to McCain? If Powell were actually the RINO nominee, I wonder if the affirmative action neophyte Obama would garner even a majority of African American voters???

    madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:38 pm

  23. oy!
    “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows — the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:44 pm

  24. UNBELIEVABLE — that’s the best thing I’ve seen this whole campaign season.

    We’ll know whether the lunatics really run the asylum if Olbermann gets Scarborough axed.

    Wasn’t Dan Abrams made Gen. Mngr. of MSNBC a couple years ago, which resulted in his show being taken off the air in favor of what ultimately became Olbermann’s show? How is it that he didn’t have the gas to save himself this time?

    WLS (26b1e5) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:48 pm

  25. For general interrest
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5660122&page=1

    “The health of U.S. banks is quickly deteriorating, and the government fund set up to protect depositors might not have enough money to insure everybody, analysts told ABCNews.com.
    …
    At the beginning of the year, 90 banks were on the FDIC watch list. There are now 117, FDIC chairwoman Sheila C. Bair announced at a press conference this afternoon. That is the highest number in five years, but some analysts expect the list to grow even more in coming months.”

    And by the way, get your money out of WaMu, now.
    http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/08/wamu-offering-5-12-month-cds.html

    I really wish you’d talk about policies for once

    JAR (b249e3) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:50 pm

  26. JAR – read your own links.

    “the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
    He wrote that in his book. Later, after he was asked to clarify that statement, he said this:

    Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

    Not American Oil companies. “The global economy.”
    Why?

    Because, again, as Greenspan apparently believed, it was Saddam Hussein that was apparently trying for an oil grab, and potentially with nukes, given enough time.

    Since you take Greenspan’s word as gold, lets see what he had to say about the Democratic Party.

    Greenspan told the Journal he was “fairly close” to former President Bill Clinton’s economic advisers, but added, “The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, (Hillary was ahead at the time) but the Democratic Party … has moved … very significantly in the wrong direction.” He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade.

    JAR wants to quote Greenspan only when it’s helpful to his lefty talking points, however, when someone is asked to clarify a statement, then you cannot quote the statement and not the clarification. That would be tellingly dishonest.

    Once again, I agree with Greenspan.

    Apogee (366e8b) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:01 pm

  27. JAR is a copy and paste machine today. Look! Over there!

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:17 pm

  28. #25 really a riot how things with economy, price rise of oil, etc. all went to hell in a handbasket when dipshits Reid and Pelosi took over the reins of Congress. The promise was to lower fuel prices and instead they’ve doubled. Of course that still leaves us with the most ethical Congress in history…Bwahh. Blame it on Bush though. Your boy the magical Negro wants prices for gasoline to be more on a level with Europe’s though.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:19 pm

  29. I am grilling some Wagyu beef, and going to curl up on the sofa and watch some more of that circus on MSNBC.

    JD (5f0e11) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:22 pm

  30. …(the) network’s decision to market itself as the cable net of choice for Bush haters.

    Brilliant! A 70 day business plan. And these idiots believe they are entitled to run your life.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:50 pm

  31. JAR, trying to change the subject, wrote: And by the way, get your money out of WaMu, now.

    Schmucky Chuckie? Is that you?

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:55 pm

  32. JAR, you know you were called on your misrepresentations of Greenspan in the past. You remind me of Obama – repeating the same discredited line trying to pretend it did not already show your lack of credibility the last time you used it.

    SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2008 @ 4:57 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0963 secs.