Media Matters declares victory

[mudwhistle]

In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'

This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.

Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.

Sounds like an excuse to me.

 

[Pogo]

The article in question is horseshit.

It claims that Fox personalities are leaving....using Glenn Beck as an example.

Beck only wanted to do one season and move on. Fox talked him into staying longer. Now Glenn Beck has his own internet network and he's become practically invisible. He's been kicked off of radio stations all over the country.

Did The Beck sell you a gold bridge too?

You're both wrong; MediaMatters didn't get Beck fired; Glenn Beck got Beck fired.

Beck wasn't fired.


Soros media propaganda outlets like Media Matters called it a firing. Beck just didn't renew his contract. As Beck explains it he didn't want to stay as long as did but they talking him into staying.

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.

See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did The Beck sell you a gold bridge too?

You're both wrong; MediaMatters didn't get Beck fired; Glenn Beck got Beck fired.

Beck wasn't fired.


Soros media propaganda outlets like Media Matters called it a firing. Beck just didn't renew his contract. As Beck explains it he didn't want to stay as long as did but they talking him into staying.

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.

See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.

Yeah, that's it.

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Beck left because of stress, and because he was tired of not being able to run his show exactly the way he wanted. Now, on his TV show, he has final say on everything.

I don't call it firing if they announce he's leaving months before he finally does. His ratings were pretty damned good for his time-slot, so I don't think you're being honest.

 

[Pogo]

Beck wasn't fired.


Soros media propaganda outlets like Media Matters called it a firing. Beck just didn't renew his contract. As Beck explains it he didn't want to stay as long as did but they talking him into staying.

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.

See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.

Yeah, that's it.

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.

Beck left because of stress, and because he was tired of not being able to run his show exactly the way he wanted. Now, on his TV show, he has final say on everything.

You left out "to spend more time with my family"

"Running his show exactly the way he wanted" is another way of saying his employer didn't like what he was doing. Which was my point in scenario (b). And as far as stress, it's a lot more work and responsibility to be in charge of everything (as in a web page kingdom) versus showing up at somebody else's TV studio with a script, so that doesn't wash.

I don't call it firing if they announce he's leaving months before he finally does. His ratings were pretty damned good for his time-slot, so I don't think you're being honest.

They were indeed, which is why I said scenario (a) is unlikely. And I don't remember a months-in-advance notice, but how much notice they gave would depend on whether they considered the talent immediately toxic or a general trend to a direction with which they would prefer their brand not to be identified.


Speaking of which -- do you believe Martin Bashir left his job voluntarily? Because that was spun the same way.

 

[mudwhistle]

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.

See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.

Yeah, that's it.

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.

Beck left because of stress, and because he was tired of not being able to run his show exactly the way he wanted. Now, on his TV show, he has final say on everything.

You left out "to spend more time with my family"

"Running his show exactly the way he wanted" is another way of saying his employer didn't like what he was doing. Which was my point in scenario (b). And as far as stress, it's a lot more work and responsibility to be in charge of everything (as in a web page kingdom) versus showing up at somebody else's TV studio with a script, so that doesn't wash.

I don't call it firing if they announce he's leaving months before he finally does. His ratings were pretty damned good for his time-slot, so I don't think you're being honest.

They were indeed, which is why I said scenario (a) is unlikely. And I don't remember a months-in-advance notice, but how much notice they gave would depend on whether they considered the talent immediately toxic or a general trend to a direction with which they would prefer their brand not to be identified.


Speaking of which -- do you believe Martin Bashir left his job voluntarily? Because that was spun the same way.

Bashir was asked to leave regardless what they said.

With respect for Beck, he explained the situation on-air. He said that he felt constrained by Fox producers.

Beck wanted to start his own channel. He didn't want to stay on someone else's channel and be the 5pm guy forever. It always was meant to be temporary, and Fox knew this when they hired him.

I think Beck is a bit of a Chicken Little sometimes, but he also pointed out some alarming truths about Obama and the people that helped put him in the WhiteHouse.

 

[Pogo]

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.



You left out "to spend more time with my family"

"Running his show exactly the way he wanted" is another way of saying his employer didn't like what he was doing. Which was my point in scenario (b). And as far as stress, it's a lot more work and responsibility to be in charge of everything (as in a web page kingdom) versus showing up at somebody else's TV studio with a script, so that doesn't wash.

I don't call it firing if they announce he's leaving months before he finally does. His ratings were pretty damned good for his time-slot, so I don't think you're being honest.

They were indeed, which is why I said scenario (a) is unlikely. And I don't remember a months-in-advance notice, but how much notice they gave would depend on whether they considered the talent immediately toxic or a general trend to a direction with which they would prefer their brand not to be identified.


Speaking of which -- do you believe Martin Bashir left his job voluntarily? Because that was spun the same way.

Bashir was asked to leave regardless what they said.

I agree. And I apply the same to Beck. Seems a double standard to buy the spin selectively.

 

[mudwhistle]

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.



You left out "to spend more time with my family"

"Running his show exactly the way he wanted" is another way of saying his employer didn't like what he was doing. Which was my point in scenario (b). And as far as stress, it's a lot more work and responsibility to be in charge of everything (as in a web page kingdom) versus showing up at somebody else's TV studio with a script, so that doesn't wash.



They were indeed, which is why I said scenario (a) is unlikely. And I don't remember a months-in-advance notice, but how much notice they gave would depend on whether they considered the talent immediately toxic or a general trend to a direction with which they would prefer their brand not to be identified.


Speaking of which -- do you believe Martin Bashir left his job voluntarily? Because that was spun the same way.

Bashir was asked to leave regardless what they said.

I agree. And I apply the same to Beck. Seems a double standard to buy the spin selectively.

If Beck had said someone should shit in Hillary's mouth I would have wanted his firing as well.

The two situations are totally different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'

This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.

Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.

Funny, I don't recall ever defending Fox, all I do is mock the idiots that think they beat them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you're quite gullible if you believe that. Nobody in broadcasting ever gets "fired" officially. But every commercial broadcaster who either (a) fails to bring his employer ratings, or (b) becomes a liability to his employer, is fired. Clearly (a) didn't apply.

See also Bashir, Martin from MSNBC. He wasn't "fired" either --- officially. He too "chose to resign", no doubt burdened by the tedium of national exposure. Bashir is prolly as we speak developing a web-only show where he can get to connect with his audience more ... intimately.

Yeah, that's it.

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.

My impression of Beck is that he thought he could carry a network all by himself. In other words, he didn't leave for a step down, he left because he thought he would be stepping up.

 

[Pogo]

In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'

This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.

Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.

Funny, I don't recall ever defending Fox, all I do is mock the idiots that think they beat them.

Where do you see anything about "defending"? What I said was that you misread what ratings mean.

Apropos of which, back to your original post RE CNN's format changing, that ship sailed long ago. And the devolution was directly related to ratings, which means profit, which is anathema to objective news. When CNN had the full-time news gig to itself it had the leeway to use straight news. When Fox came in and lowered the bar to what is in effect political gossip, that didn't undercut CNN's credibility but did undercut their bottom line. So, to their discredit, they followed suit.

Who wins, on both channels? Advertisers. Who loses? A populace that desires to be informed.

 

[Pogo]

Bashir was asked to leave regardless what they said.

I agree. And I apply the same to Beck. Seems a double standard to buy the spin selectively.

If Beck had said someone should shit in Hillary's mouth I would have wanted his firing as well.

The two situations are totally different.

Every instance is different. Bashir never poured gas on a guest and threatened to set him on fire or barked into the camera like a dog. Different strokes.

But speaking of things going into Hillary's mouth, are they still enabling Ted Nugent over there at Fox Noise?

 

[mudwhistle]

This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.

Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.

Funny, I don't recall ever defending Fox, all I do is mock the idiots that think they beat them.

Where do you see anything about "defending"? What I said was that you misread what ratings mean.

Apropos of which, back to your original post RE CNN's format changing, that ship sailed long ago. And the devolution was directly related to ratings, which means profit, which is anathema to objective news. When CNN had the full-time news gig to itself it had the leeway to use straight news. When Fox came in and lowered the bar to what is in effect political gossip, that didn't undercut CNN's credibility but did undercut their bottom line. So, to their discredit, they followed suit.

Who wins, on both channels? Advertisers. Who loses? A populace that desires to be informed.

There's more honest reporting on Fox than ever goes on at CNN.

Especially after their embarrassing coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Embarrassment That Is CNN Situation Room?s Coverage Of Boston « The Greenroom

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This of course completely misreads his own meaning "number 1 network" (by which he can only mean "#1 cable news network", by which he means ratings.

Nobody ever got ratings by being honest or 'fair and balanced'. That's hint #1.

Funny, I don't recall ever defending Fox, all I do is mock the idiots that think they beat them.

Where do you see anything about "defending"? What I said was that you misread what ratings mean.

Apropos of which, back to your original post RE CNN's format changing, that ship sailed long ago. And the devolution was directly related to ratings, which means profit, which is anathema to objective news. When CNN had the full-time news gig to itself it had the leeway to use straight news. When Fox came in and lowered the bar to what is in effect political gossip, that didn't undercut CNN's credibility but did undercut their bottom line. So, to their discredit, they followed suit.

Who wins, on both channels? Advertisers. Who loses? A populace that desires to be informed.

I didn't misread anything, I misstated it. Comes from being human.

 

[mudwhistle]

I agree. And I apply the same to Beck. Seems a double standard to buy the spin selectively.

If Beck had said someone should shit in Hillary's mouth I would have wanted his firing as well.

The two situations are totally different.

Every instance is different. Bashir never poured gas on a guest and threatened to set him on fire or barked into the camera like a dog. Different strokes.

But speaking of things going into Hillary's mouth, are they still enabling Ted Nugent over there at Fox Noise?

Haven't seen him as a guest since the election. But they did allow an agnostic/atheist to go on that was taking the Air Force Academy to court for putting God in their oath.

 

[Pogo]

So, in your opinion nobody ever leaves for a better gig?

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.

My impression of Beck is that he thought he could carry a network all by himself. In other words, he didn't leave for a step down, he left because he thought he would be stepping up.

Hard to see how when, as you guys are always pointing out, Fox --a TV channel, which means its viewers are passive sponges-- has a gazillion viewers, versus a website you have to go to pro-actively -- particularly a (at the time) brand new website you have to go promote. That move alone means a precipitous drop in audience.

If the world really worked like that then Sean Hannity and Neil Boortz and Keith Olbermann and Martin Bashir (etc ad nauseum) would have already quit TV for the internet. In fact the channels themselves would have closed up and gone that route.

Rationalization, thy name is Beckhead.

 

[mudwhistle]

Absolutely they do. Actually I'm saying the reverse: nobody leaves voluntarily for a step down. Which applies to both Beck and Bashir in the examples used. Both had national exposure on a cable TV network. You just don't get that kind of reach setting up your own web page. If that were the case those channels (and others) would have already themselves taken that path.

My impression of Beck is that he thought he could carry a network all by himself. In other words, he didn't leave for a step down, he left because he thought he would be stepping up.

Hard to see how when, as you guys are always pointing out, Fox --a TV channel, which means its viewers are passive sponges-- has a gazillion viewers, versus a website you have to go to pro-actively -- particularly a (at the time) brand new website you have to go promote. That move alone means a precipitous drop in audience.

If the world really worked like that then Sean Hannity and Neil Boortz and Keith Olbermann and Martin Bashir (etc ad nauseum) would have already quit TV for the internet. In fact the channels themselves would have closed up and gone that route.

Rationalization, thy name is Beckhead.

I never got the impression that Beck was happy at Fox. Like I said, he was really stressing because of the death threats and the constant harassment from lawyers and the IRS.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, I don't recall ever defending Fox, all I do is mock the idiots that think they beat them.

Where do you see anything about "defending"? What I said was that you misread what ratings mean.

Apropos of which, back to your original post RE CNN's format changing, that ship sailed long ago. And the devolution was directly related to ratings, which means profit, which is anathema to objective news. When CNN had the full-time news gig to itself it had the leeway to use straight news. When Fox came in and lowered the bar to what is in effect political gossip, that didn't undercut CNN's credibility but did undercut their bottom line. So, to their discredit, they followed suit.

Who wins, on both channels? Advertisers. Who loses? A populace that desires to be informed.

There's more honest reporting on Fox than ever goes on at CNN.

Especially after their embarrassing coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Embarrassment That Is CNN Situation Room?s Coverage Of Boston « The Greenroom

Two problems: your first sentence is ipse dixit and pure opinion. Quantify that and you'll have a point.

Second, and there are two problems within this, if you think that bullshit link makes the point, it doesn't -- it's focused on CNN's interpretation of a story (as terrorism)... which is not news. The event is the news, and CNN did cover that. News organizations, if that's what they are, have no business putting their own interpretations on the news. That's in no way "honest".

The second problem is that the theory is wrong anyway -- the Boston bombing cannot be described as terrorism. Terrorism carries a message. That's its whole point. When an abortion doctor is murdered, when a World Trade Center or Pentagon is hit, when a government building is blown up, that's a clear message. When bombs go off at a city marathon, the message is --- what? "Walk, don't run"?

 

[Papageorgio]

In other news, fleas declare victory over dog.

Fox went from being nothing to being the number 1 network, actually taking enough viewers from hard news CNN that they are changing their format, but Media Matters won.

Media Matters Declares Victory: 'The War On Fox Is Over'

So Media Matters gave up. Good, Media Matters is pretty irrelevant.

 

[mudwhistle]

Where do you see anything about "defending"? What I said was that you misread what ratings mean.

Apropos of which, back to your original post RE CNN's format changing, that ship sailed long ago. And the devolution was directly related to ratings, which means profit, which is anathema to objective news. When CNN had the full-time news gig to itself it had the leeway to use straight news. When Fox came in and lowered the bar to what is in effect political gossip, that didn't undercut CNN's credibility but did undercut their bottom line. So, to their discredit, they followed suit.

Who wins, on both channels? Advertisers. Who loses? A populace that desires to be informed.

There's more honest reporting on Fox than ever goes on at CNN.

Especially after their embarrassing coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Embarrassment That Is CNN Situation Room?s Coverage Of Boston « The Greenroom

Two problems: your first sentence is ipse dixit and pure opinion. Quantify that and you'll have a point.

Second, and there are two problems within this, if you think that bullshit link makes the point, it doesn't -- it's focused on CNN's interpretation of a story (as terrorism)... which is not news. The event is the news, and CNN did cover that. News organizations, if that's what they are, have no business putting their own interpretations on the news. That's in no way "honest".

The second problem is that the theory is wrong anyway -- the Boston bombing cannot be described as terrorism. Terrorism carries a message. That's its whole point. When an abortion doctor is murdered, when a World Trade Center or Pentagon is hit, when a government building is blown up, that's a clear message. When bombs go off at a city marathon, the message is --- what? "Walk, don't run"?

The purpose of terrorism isn't cut and dried, but I can say without a doubt it is meant to cause terror.

I think plenty there were terrified.

 

[Pogo]

There's more honest reporting on Fox than ever goes on at CNN.

Especially after their embarrassing coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Embarrassment That Is CNN Situation Room?s Coverage Of Boston « The Greenroom

Two problems: your first sentence is ipse dixit and pure opinion. Quantify that and you'll have a point.

Second, and there are two problems within this, if you think that bullshit link makes the point, it doesn't -- it's focused on CNN's interpretation of a story (as terrorism)... which is not news. The event is the news, and CNN did cover that. News organizations, if that's what they are, have no business putting their own interpretations on the news. That's in no way "honest".

The second problem is that the theory is wrong anyway -- the Boston bombing cannot be described as terrorism. Terrorism carries a message. That's its whole point. When an abortion doctor is murdered, when a World Trade Center or Pentagon is hit, when a government building is blown up, that's a clear message. When bombs go off at a city marathon, the message is --- what? "Walk, don't run"?

The purpose of terrorism isn't cut and dried, but I can say without a doubt it is meant to cause terror.

I think plenty there were terrified.

Of course they were but that's not what we mean by terrorism as a geopolitical term. Which is what your Hotair (irony noted) link wanted them to call it.

I mean, a building on fire or a tornado can cause terror too but we don't call it "terrorism". And I have no doubt the children and staff at Sandy Hook a year ago were terrified; doesn't make Adam Lanza a terrorist.