Tag Archives: msnbc

MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

On Thursday’s The Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan went after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complained about the lack opposition to the conflicts: “Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war?… there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares.” His solution to the supposed apathy? A draft. Ratigan began his rant by describing the financial and human toll of the wars. He particularly highlighted “the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed.” He argued: “We might even be creating more terrorists….being there may be doing more harm than good.” On his May 13 program , Ratigan condemned the U.S. military for “dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly.” Describing the limited number of Americans who have loved ones on the front lines, Ratigan proclaimed: “…it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars.” Ratigan then proposed: “…we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft.” He further declared: “Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there…” After a discussing the topic with a panel of military experts, Ratigan admitted: “I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic.” Even so, he concluded: “…the solution is still fairly simple….Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there….that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen.” An on-screen graphic read: “Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft.” Here is transcript of the July 1 segment: 4:30PM DYLAN RATIGAN: Well, day four in our ‘Fix It Week’ garage. And today we tackle a true matter of life and death in this country, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, already America’s longest war. The other, unfortunately, not far behind, long and costly. $731 billion spent so far in Iraq. $280 billion in our efforts in Afghanistan with no clear end in sight at the end of the deadliest month in the history of the war. The cost in American lives 4,396 soldiers dead in Iraq. 1,125 killed in Afghanistan. And then there are the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed. There are two main problems with what we’re doing overseas, as I see it, and why we’re not doing it well. The first, we have no political will to shift from a strategy that has been repeating itself for years with no apparent end in sight. And two, there may not even be an honest understanding of our enemy and what a modern day insurgent war strategy is, let alone, how to actually fight an effective counterinsurgency. We all know about the heroin, the bribery, the rampant political corruption. But what about our overall strategy? And what we’re doing? We might even be creating more terrorists. Our leaders may not even understand the insurgency that they are fighting against. Think about how difficult it would be to launch a so-called counterinsurgency strategy if you haven’t been able to be truly honest about how a modern day insurgency works. Very few people, unrelated, using the internet and communications to disrupt society. Bottom line, us being there may be doing more harm than good. So why isn’t that conversation taking place in our Congress and in our homes? Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war? Well, quite simply, like the cheap price of oil, there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares. They may say they care. But the politicians know, there’s no – the phone’s not ringing. No one really is expressing themselves. In fact, the number of active duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is at the lowest level since World War II. Which means the percentage of us that are exposed to the realties of war in this country, that we’ve been fighting for a decade, is the smallest it has ever been. Why is that? Well, more than a third of our soldiers have been sent back to the front lines multiple times. Some of the same soldiers sent back five and six times to the same war. Why is that? Well, it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars. It means that the fewest number of Americans are truly feeling the brunt of our wars. Meanwhile, those who are feeling it, feel it harder than any troops in American history. I think we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft. Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there and come up with a different way to deal with insurgent warfare in the 21st century. [PANEL DISCUSSION WITH MILITARY EXPERTS] RATIGAN: I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic. It’s why I asked these gentlemen to join me and benefit from it. But politically, for me, the solution is still fairly simple. I don’t see how, after all these years and all this time, we can continue these types of strategies without an either ‘get out’ or ‘get in’ strategy. Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there. [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: The Fix Solution: Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft] And explaining, not emotionally, but from a policy standpoint, why that is. And that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen. Either way, you have to let your politicians know how you feel. We, the people are critical to this process. Dylan.MSNBC.com has contact information for each and every member of Congress. Remember, you can get mad – or you don’t get mad, I should say, if you don’t get involved. This is a classic example.

The rest is here:
MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System

You have to hand it to Dylan Ratigan. The MSNBC bloviator melded immigration reform, the military industrial complex, and congressional gridlock into a scatter-brained diatribe at the top of his eponymous program on Thursday. In the wake of President Barack Obama’s speech on immigration reform earlier in the day, Ratigan railed against “Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law” and praised Obama for “doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country.” The former CNBC anchor who fancies himself a financial guru also babbled about a “War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border.” Then, interviewing Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Ratigan excoriated a Senate full of “weasels” that perpetuates an “utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government.” Not surprisingly, Becerra, a strident supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, concurred with the unhinged talk show host: “Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better.” While claiming to criticize both sides of the aisle, Ratigan continued to cheerlead for the Democratic president, asking Becerra, “How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us?” Without missing a beat, Becerra suggested dismantling one of America’s most treasured safeguards against tyranny – the Senate’s super-majority threshold for closing debate – and replacing it with what the Founding Fathers derided as “mob rule.” “Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule,” proposed Becerra. Ratigan proved it is possible to misrepresent a popular state law, posit outlandish conspiracy theories about the military, and undermine the foundation of republican government over the course of a five minute rant. The transcript of the relevant portions of the program can be found below: DYLAN RATIGAN: A problem, of course, made more pressing by the controversy over Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law. The government expected to file a lawsuit, in fact, against that law in the coming days. First the president drew our attention to health care. All of our attention, whether we like it or not, remains on our financial system, corrupt and destroying our country as it is. And now immigration. While short on true fixes, at least Obama is doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country. So when and if will we actually see reform? Will our lawmakers actually step up and do better on this effort when it comes to immigration, or will we just get another example of nothing more than “reform in name only” that perpetuates the most profitable aspects of illegal immigration, in this case cheap labor, and of course a War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border. Joining us now, California Congressman Xavier Becerra, an outspoken advocate for immigration reform. He’s also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, excuse me. You have to be pleased with the president at least drawing everybody’s attention to this, and approaching honesty by acknowledging the mess, not only in immigration in this country, but in Washington and its total denial and inability to lead us to a solution. Do you agree with him? Rep. XAVIER BECERRA (D-Calif.): Dylan I do agree with him, and it takes courage to say those things to the American public because right now the public is so very frustrated. RATIGAN: How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us? How do we come together in a way that resolves this in a way that is closer to fair than not? BECERRA: We shouldn’t let anyone kick the can down the road, as the president said. Everyone should be held accountable. In Congress, we need to see not just Democrats, we’re ready to go to work on this, but Republicans as well. And we know they’re out there. They were there three years ago. We know that there are some votes in the Senate that would want to do something but right now we need to see some courage on the Republican side in the Senate. Unfortunately right now, the Senate has become the graveyard for good ideas because Republicans are holding hostage any vote that doesn’t get to 60 in a house of 100. So you have to have the super-majority vote, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible to get good ideas into law. RATIGAN: Should we throw out all the senators in November and start over? BECERRA: Well there’s some very good senators who are trying to do some things here, so no no. RATIGAN: How do we tell the difference, how to we figure out who the weasels are? Don’t tell me it’s the Democrats and the Republicans because I’ve been doing this long enough to know there are just as many weasely Democrats as there are Republicans. The trick is trying to tell which is which within the party. BECERRA: Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule. In November, we’re going to operate on majority rule. Whatever individual wins more votes than the other, that person becomes the next congressman or the next senator. But in the Senate, you can have a majority and still not pass a bill to the president’s desk. So majority rule and we get a lot done. RATIGAN: So you would argue that the very same corrupt system that is bankrupting California, the need for a super-majority to do anything, and obviously nobody gets it, so special interests just continue to torch that state. And now the Senate has a duplication of that same utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government. Is that basically what we’re dealing with here? BECERRA: Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better. Take a look at the Wall Street reform bill. The Senate is making it almost impossible for us to get there. There are more than 58 votes for a bill and we still can’t get it to the president’s desk. Hopefully soon the senators allow this bill to go the president and stop holding it hostage. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

More here:
Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System

ABCBSNBC Lost One Million Viewers Last Quarter

The big three nightly news broadcasts, NBC Nightly, CBS Evening and ABC World, lost a combined one million viewers in the second quarter of 2010, according to TVNewser. These numbers are comparable to the first quarter , which saw Evening News and World News get their lowest average viewers ever, while NBC’s Winter Olympics coverage helped it get their highest average viewers since 2005. In the second quarter, NBC lost 440,000 viewers, ABC 260,000 and CBS 340,000. It was about this time last year that ABC and CBS’ news programs had their lowest ratings ever. These numbers are not at all surprising in light of the public’s continued distrust of the old media. As Newsbusters’ Rich Noyes wrote of a Rasmussen poll released earlier this month, “Perhaps as a result, the poll finds an astonishing two-thirds of the public (66 percent) say they are angry with the media, ‘including 33 percent who are very angry’ with the press.” Polls going back to 1997 displayed a continued public distrust with the news media. In a Pew survey , 54 percent of Americans believed that the news media “gets in the way of society solving its problems.” In 2006 a CBS poll showed 36 percent of adults had very little confidence in the news media. There is also an expanding array of media options, both on the air and online. Not only can many of the evening news programs be found online shortly after broadcast, but 24 hour news channels allow one to get the content of the nightly news well before the program is on, to say nothing of multimedia sites such as Huffington Post, Brietbart and others which allow consumers access to a lot of news and opinion. TVNewser also reports that the 24 hour channels are also losing viewers, though not at the same rate as evening news programs. ( Here , here and here .)

Follow this link:
ABCBSNBC Lost One Million Viewers Last Quarter

‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Over the weekend, Dave Weigel resigned as WaPo’s house chronicler of conservatives after revelations of his antipathy toward the people he was covering. Tonight brings us the spectacle of Ross Douthat, an ostensibly conservative columnist at the New York Times.  Appearing on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz show, Douthat proffered precisely zero criticism of anyone or anything liberal.  But he did manage to mock Mike Huckabee as “passive-aggressive.”  For good measure, Douthat suggested that “right-wing” people who question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union. The Nation’s Chris Hayes subbed for Schultz tonight, and he didn’t have to strain to elicit criticism of conservatives from Douthat.  After playing a clip of Huckabee stating the apparent fact that he polls better than other Republicans against Obama, Douthat opined. View video here . ROSS DOUTHAT:  I think that’s classically Huckabee. It’s sort of charmingly passive-aggressive. In the clip, Huckabee criticized no one.  What’s “passive-aggressive” about observing that one’s leading in some polls? Later, Hayes invited Douthat to riff off a poll that showed 24% of Americans don’t think Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. DOUHAT: There are two ways to read it, right?  Clearly on the one hand it’s illustrative of a certain kind of paranoia among many Americans, right-wing Americans about Barack Obama. On the other hand, I really think you can overstate the importance of these polls.  There are polls every year that show 42% of Americans believe in UFOs.   HAYES: Also disturbing! DOUTHAT: Also disturbing. But I also wonder, if you took that 21% [sic] and polled them and said what percentage know that being born outside the US — HAYES: Disqualifies — DOUTHAT: Is a disqualification for the presidency. Or if you polled them and said, what percentage know that Hawaii is actually a state?  That sounds like a joke, but– that sounds like a joke — Douthat was interrupted, but his point was clear.  Right-wingers: too thick to realize that Hawaii’s a state. Ross sounds like the quintessential NYT/MSNBC “conservative”: one most interested in ingratiating himself with his liberal masters.

See the original post here:
‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Matthews: Republicans Putting Pins in Kagan Like She’s a Voodoo Doll

From the morning to the evening Chris Matthews, during MSNBC’s coverage of Elena Kagan’s hearing on Monday, berated what he saw as GOP mistreatment of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, calling their performance at times, a “brutal assault” and even evoking strange imagery of Kagan having pins stuck in her by Republicans. Early in the day the MSNBC host complained that Republican Senator Jeff Sessions engaged in “a brutal assault on this nomination” by calling her “pro-terrorist” and “anti-military.” Matthews also claimed today’s hearing reminded him of how Anita Hill was treated by Republicans during Clarence Thomas’ hearings as he asked Democratic Senator Dick Durbin: Some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her?…Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Then finally, in the evening, on Hardball, Matthews charged the GOP had turned Kagan “into a voodoo doll , and they keep putting pins in her, as a way of getting at President Obama.” The following exchanges are from live MSNBC coverage (as transcribed by MRC intern Matthew Hadro) of the Kagan hearings and the June 28 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has not happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. This is a very tough, particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law. He went through all the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – infelicitous reference – but she is being used as Barack Obama… EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing- (Crosstalk) ROBINSON: -trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. He’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch- MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. … MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. SEN. DICK DURBIN: I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National Committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? SEN. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands. MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? SEN. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? SEN. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it. … MATTHEWS DURING HARDBALL: This is, this is pretty rough stuff. I’ve been saying this morning, watching the hearing. It’s almost to use an old, crude phrase. They’ve turned this nominee into a voodoo doll, and they keep putting pins in her, as a way of getting at President Obama.

Read the original here:
Matthews: Republicans Putting Pins in Kagan Like She’s a Voodoo Doll

Barnicle Can’t Bring Himself To Mention Byrd’s Klan Past

When Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond died, the MSM was quick to stress his segregationist past. The New York Times ran the headline ” Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100 ,” leaving readers to imagine the South Carolinian had remained an advocate of segregation.  The very first line of USA Today’s story described Thurmond as “the nation’s most prominent segregationist.”   Strange how the MSM can suddenly become reticent about mentioning someone’s segregationist past when the late politician in question is a Democrat.  On Morning Joe today, Mark Halperin and Mike Barnicle used elliptical language worthy of a State Department dispatch to avoid mentioning that Byrd had been a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan. H/t NB reader Ray R. View video here . MARK HALPERIN: A lot’s happened in America and the world and he was an eyewitness to it, spanning a lot of generations not just as a witness but as a participant.  Early in his career a much different man than he ended his career and his life. . . . . MIKE BARNICLE: He was a very interesting man whose life covered so many events, 1958–elected to the Senate.  But I mean, just the transformation in Robert Byrd over the years , it was very interesting to watch.  I know, I’m sure you do Mark, I’m sure you do Joe, know people in public life, United States Senators, who had, you know, some objections to some of Sen. Byrd’s views years ago and saw him grow into his role as he served “You know, some objections to some of Sen. Byrd’s views.”  Right. Like this one.   But of course Mike is a man of such delicate sensibilities that he would never mention just what he had in mind—at least when the recently departed is a Dem.

The rest is here:
Barnicle Can’t Bring Himself To Mention Byrd’s Klan Past

MRC-TV: The June 24 ‘Media Mash’ on Hannity

“The media, for like five seconds, those with thrill up and down their legs, they were a little critical of the Anointed One and what was one of the worst speeches in the Oval Office… but as soon as he fired McChrystal and hired Petraeus, they went nuts,” Sean Hannity observed last night at the beginning of his recurring “Media Mash” segment with NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell. The Fox News host then rolled a montage compiled by Media Research Center (MRC) analyst Kyle Drennen which showed the mainstream media hailing Obama as “brilliant” for the personnel move. After the montage, Bozell noted that the same media that proclaimed Obama sacking McChrystal as “brilliant” were claiming that the president really had no choice but to fire the Afghanistan commander. “If he had no choice, then it really wasn’t really altogether all that brilliant,” the MRC president observed. Bozell and Hannity also discussed  the media’s double standard in bashing BP CEO Tony Hayward — who had been relieved of duty for overseeing the cleanup operation — for yachting over the weekend, while ignoring President Obama’s weekend golfing excursion and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski admitting she was parroting White House talking points to defend the administration’s handling of the ongoing crisis. For the full MP3 audio of the “Media Mash” segment, click here . For video click here for the WMV file or watch the video embed above.

Go here to see the original:
MRC-TV: The June 24 ‘Media Mash’ on Hannity

Greta Van Susteren Says Spitzer-Parker Show ‘Bad News for Keith Olbermann!’

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren says the just-announced new CNN show pitting former New York governor Eliot Spitzer against faux conservative Kathleen Parker is bad news for MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Writing at her Greta Wire blog Wednesday, Van Susteren said, “[I]f CNN is to be successful, it will have to draw viewers from Keith Olbermann’s viewers.”   She continued, “The total number of cable news viewers seems to be a limited number so they have to grab from Olberman [sic].” Van Susteren elaborated as to why she doesn’t think Spitzer-Parker will take viewers from “The O’Reilly Factor”: You might ask why I don’t mention above Bill O’Reilly whose FNC’s O’Reilly Factor also airs at 8pm? That’s obvious — O’Reilly is SO FAR AHEAD OF EVERYONE IN ALL OF CABLE NEWS that NO ONE can lay a glove on him. No one even tries to compete with O’Reilly so I don’t include him in this discussion! O’Reilly dominates the cable news business. He has been #1 – by a giant margin – in ALL of cable for almost 10 years.  Is she right? Will this new program hurt Olbermann’s ratings, or has CNN become an also ran in this time slot? Stay tuned. 

See the original post:
Greta Van Susteren Says Spitzer-Parker Show ‘Bad News for Keith Olbermann!’

Col. Jack Jacobs: Most In Military Will Say McChrystal ‘Was Right’

Contessa Brewer got a lot more than she was likely looking for when she interviewed Col. Jack Jacobs this afternoon about the McChrystal situation.  The MSNBC host wanted to focus on the impropriety of McChrystal publicly airing his criticisms of Pres. Obama and others in the chain of command.   But while the Medal of Honor recipient readily agreed that McChrystal was out of line, and would probably pay with his job, Jacobs also went out of his way—twice—to add an inconvenient truth: that when it comes to the substance of the criticism, most in the military think McChrystal “was right.” CONTESSA BREWER: It’s about the sort of disdain for authority. And that worries me. JACK JACOBS: Well it sure worry you, and I think he’s going to wind up getting fired because of that; at least partially because of that. BREWER: But is his view not only about the President but about Joe Biden, about Jim Jones, the National Security advisor, about Karl Eikenberry [US ambassador to Afghanistan], on and on down the list: Richard Holbrooke — JACOBS: Those views are very widely held , by the way, inside the military and outside the military, about those people. That they’re ineffective, that Jim Jones, the National Security Advisor, does not have an impact on national security policy, that he has very little access. That Holbrooke hasn’t done anything and so on.  Those views are widely held. They’re not just held by McChrystal’s staff for example. Contessa didn’t respond to Jacobs’ startling assertion.  And when a bit later she closed with more concerns about respecting the chain of command, the colonel took a tough parting shot. BREWER: There are hundreds of thousands of enlisted men and women in the military who are taught not to question authority; they don’t go outside their chain of command.  what kind of message does this send to people at the lower levels in the military? JACOBS: Well, it’s not a very one. But let me tell you what’s going to happen.  Gen. McChrystal can’t stay in his position.  He’s probably going to tender his resignation, and it’s probably going to be accepted–or demanded in the first place.  He might stay.  There are certain circumstances in which he might stay.  Likely as not he is going to be gone, and he’s probably going to wind up retiring. And in the end, this is what the rank and file of military establishment is going to say, privately.  They’re going to say: absolutely right: you can’t do this, you can’t countenance your subordinates speak to the press and say that the rest of the chain of command above you are a bunch of knuckleheads. But they’re going to say: you know what?  He was right.

View post:
Col. Jack Jacobs: Most In Military Will Say McChrystal ‘Was Right’

Keith Olbermann Wins Award for ‘Excellence in Electronic Journalism’

It sure is a sign of the times when one of the most disgraceful and unashamedly liberal personalities in the television news industry wins an award for “excellence in electronic journalism.” Despite the seeming incongruity, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann won an Edward R. Murrow award Wednesday from the Radio Television Digital News Association. So what did Olbermann win for you ask? Writing the following tribute to his mother which aired on “Countdown” shortly after her death last year (video follows with commentary): In fairness to Olbermann, it was indeed a charming segment about her love for the game of baseball, though not surprisingly self-aggrandizing like virtually everything he does on and off the air. Of particular note was a video clip he showed of an interview he did with his mother after she was hit by a ball at a game at Yankee stadium on June 17, 2000. At the time he was working for Fox Sports. Readers are encouraged to forward to minute 3:45 when Olbermann asks his mother, “Have you been surprised by all the newspaper attention?” Her response told viewers everything they needed to know about the MSNBCer’s ego, “A little bit, but I want to know why they keep mentioning you!”  Delicious. In the end, as much as I find Keith Olbermann to be a disgusting caricature of what television journalism has degraded to in the past decade, this was certainly a touching tribute to his mother who in 2009, without any warning or apparent symptoms, died two weeks after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. I can imagine the pain he must have been going through at the time, and how difficult it was to get through those seven minutes without shedding a tear. Nice job, Keith.   That said, was this the best-written piece of electronic journalism last year, or did the folks at RTDNA get swept away by the emotional tug at the heartstrings? After all, 2009 was an eventful year what with America inaugurating its first black president, Tea parties breaking out all over the country, members of Congress getting verbally abused at town hall meetings, and the economy coming back from the brink of a depression. With this in mind, was one anchorman’s on air tribute to HIS mother REALLY worthy of such a commendation?   Before you answer, consider that NBC and MSNBC won more Murrow awards this year than any other news outlet. Any questions? 

The rest is here:
Keith Olbermann Wins Award for ‘Excellence in Electronic Journalism’