Media Matters declares victory

[mudwhistle]

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.

The purpose makes all the difference but the end result is the same.

I can tell you've had this discussion before. The brothers that set off those bombs were Muslims and they were doing it for political reasons, regardless what you claim.

BTW, weren't we talking about Beck and Fox being opinion rather than news? Nonsense. I see more opinion on MSNBC and CNN every day than I do on Fox. (CNN and MSNBC censor too much for them not to have slanted coverage) The reason I know is because I watch them all. Perhaps most of your feelings of Fox are drawn from opinion from their detractors rather than their actual coverage.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The purpose makes all the difference but the end result is the same.

I can tell you've had this discussion before. The brothers that set off those bombs were Muslims and they were doing it for political reasons, regardless what you claim.

You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.

Joe Green shoots Joe Blue, kills him. He does so because Joe Green (privately) hates blue people. That kills Joe Blue but it doesn't tell blue people to be afraid, ergo not terrorism. Joe Green bombs a Blue People church, now you have terrorism.

The message is crucial. No message = no terrorism. Doesn't make it any better or easier to take but without a message it's just random violence. So I'm afraid your point about CNN being "less honest" by not calling it terrorism actually makes its own opposite case.

BTW, weren't we talking about Beck and Fox being opinion rather than news? Nonsense. I see more opinion on MSNBC and CNN every day than I do on Fox. The reason I know is because I watch them all. Perhaps most of your feelings of Fox are drawn from opinion from their detractors rather than their actual coverage.

No, I don't recall that we were talking about that but would your strawman like a drink?

In any case what I've seen is that Fox (and I believe MSNBC too) put their straight-news in the daytime and the commentary shows at night in prime time. They do that
by design, because that's where the money is, and again it confirms that objective news doesn't sell; controversy sells. That's the whole Fox business model in a nutshell. No pun intended.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

BS, getting Beck kicked off the air was one of MM's biggest accomplishments. His insanity and flat out lies had advertisers running away in droves.

Doesn't help your cause when you lie at the same time you're critical of the lying.

Glenn Beck didn't get kicked off Fox. He left.

Glenn Beck usually ended up in the Hospital around Christmas time every year, stressed out from all of the harassment and slander that was focused on him from the left. He has a better security detail than the President now because of all of the death-threats. Lawyers representing you know who showed up at Fox and tried to get him fired when he was hammering the White House and Obama in particular. Nothing he said about him was untrue.

Now Fox has "The Five" which replaced Beck and is more popular, they have Gretta at 6, O'Reilly at 7, Megan Kelly at 8, and Hannity at 9. The libs can't compete with that. Fox is clobbering the competition. Now Media Matters wants to go after Fox Spanish Language Channel because they aren't making any headway with Fox News. In the process MSNBC is sucking all of the idiot libs from CNN and everyone else, yet still they only have less than a 3rd of Fox's audience.

That is not a victory.


All Media Matters has is lies and hatred. Nothing else.

I found a new avatar for you...you're welcome!

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The purpose makes all the difference but the end result is the same.

I can tell you've had this discussion before. The brothers that set off those bombs were Muslims and they were doing it for political reasons, regardless what you claim.

You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.

Joe Green shoots Joe Blue, kills him. He does so because Joe Green (privately) hates blue people. That kills Joe Blue but it doesn't tell blue people to be afraid, ergo not terrorism. Joe Green bombs a Blue People church, now you have terrorism.

The message is crucial. No message = no terrorism. Doesn't make it any better or easier to take but without a message it's just random violence. So I'm afraid your point about CNN being "less honest" by not calling it terrorism actually makes its own opposite case.

BTW, weren't we talking about Beck and Fox being opinion rather than news? Nonsense. I see more opinion on MSNBC and CNN every day than I do on Fox. The reason I know is because I watch them all. Perhaps most of your feelings of Fox are drawn from opinion from their detractors rather than their actual coverage.

No, I don't recall that we were talking about that but would your strawman like a drink?

In any case what I've seen is that Fox (and I believe MSNBC too) put their straight-news in the daytime and the commentary shows at night in prime time. They do that
by design, because that's where the money is, and again it confirms that objective news doesn't sell; controversy sells. That's the whole Fox business model in a nutshell. No pun intended.

And you act like Fox is the only one that does that.

BTW, they didn't tell anyone ahead of time that they were sending a message, nor did they do so while they were trying to escape. However:

During an initial interrogation in the hospital, Dzhokhar—who had not been read his Miranda rights—said Tamerlan was the mastermind. He said the brothers were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups. Boston Marathon bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the suspect clearly stated his intentions, and they were political.

 

[Pogo]

BS, getting Beck kicked off the air was one of MM's biggest accomplishments. His insanity and flat out lies had advertisers running away in droves.

Doesn't help your cause when you lie at the same time you're critical of the lying.

Glenn Beck didn't get kicked off Fox. He left.

Glenn Beck usually ended up in the Hospital around Christmas time every year, stressed out from all of the harassment and slander that was focused on him from the left. He has a better security detail than the President now because of all of the death-threats. Lawyers representing you know who showed up at Fox and tried to get him fired when he was hammering the White House and Obama in particular. Nothing he said about him was untrue.

Now Fox has "The Five" which replaced Beck and is more popular, they have Gretta at 6, O'Reilly at 7, Megan Kelly at 8, and Hannity at 9. The libs can't compete with that. Fox is clobbering the competition. Now Media Matters wants to go after Fox Spanish Language Channel because they aren't making any headway with Fox News. In the process MSNBC is sucking all of the idiot libs from CNN and everyone else, yet still they only have less than a 3rd of Fox's audience.

That is not a victory.


All Media Matters has is lies and hatred. Nothing else.

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Pravda means "truth" and Izvestia "news", prompting the Russian people to say, "v Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy" (In The Truth there is no news, and in The News there is no truth).

 

[mudwhistle]

BS, getting Beck kicked off the air was one of MM's biggest accomplishments. His insanity and flat out lies had advertisers running away in droves.

Doesn't help your cause when you lie at the same time you're critical of the lying.

Glenn Beck didn't get kicked off Fox. He left.

Glenn Beck usually ended up in the Hospital around Christmas time every year, stressed out from all of the harassment and slander that was focused on him from the left. He has a better security detail than the President now because of all of the death-threats. Lawyers representing you know who showed up at Fox and tried to get him fired when he was hammering the White House and Obama in particular. Nothing he said about him was untrue.

Now Fox has "The Five" which replaced Beck and is more popular, they have Gretta at 6, O'Reilly at 7, Megan Kelly at 8, and Hannity at 9. The libs can't compete with that. Fox is clobbering the competition. Now Media Matters wants to go after Fox Spanish Language Channel because they aren't making any headway with Fox News. In the process MSNBC is sucking all of the idiot libs from CNN and everyone else, yet still they only have less than a 3rd of Fox's audience.

That is not a victory.


All Media Matters has is lies and hatred. Nothing else.

I found a new avatar for you...you're welcome!

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

The purpose makes all the difference but the end result is the same.

I can tell you've had this discussion before. The brothers that set off those bombs were Muslims and they were doing it for political reasons, regardless what you claim.

You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.

Joe Green shoots Joe Blue, kills him. He does so because Joe Green (privately) hates blue people. That kills Joe Blue but it doesn't tell blue people to be afraid, ergo not terrorism. Joe Green bombs a Blue People church, now you have terrorism.

The message is crucial. No message = no terrorism. Doesn't make it any better or easier to take but without a message it's just random violence. So I'm afraid your point about CNN being "less honest" by not calling it terrorism actually makes its own opposite case.



No, I don't recall that we were talking about that but would your strawman like a drink?

In any case what I've seen is that Fox (and I believe MSNBC too) put their straight-news in the daytime and the commentary shows at night in prime time. They do that
by design, because that's where the money is, and again it confirms that objective news doesn't sell; controversy sells. That's the whole Fox business model in a nutshell. No pun intended.

And you act like Fox is the only one that does that.

I don't "act like" anything; I described how it works. I mention Fox because they, after all, created that model. The same model that the CNNs and MSNBCs followed down the glory hole.

Rupert Murdoch built his fortune on tabloid gossip rags. That's basically what Fox Noise is -- a gossip channel using politicians instead of celebrities. Then they carry news in the daytime, but prime time is where they make their money and draw their ratings. Like any television channel.

BTW, they didn't tell anyone ahead of time that they were sending a message, nor did they do so while they were trying to escape. However:

During an initial interrogation in the hospital, Dzhokhar—who had not been read his Miranda rights—said Tamerlan was the mastermind. He said the brothers were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups. Boston Marathon bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the suspect clearly stated his intentions, and they were political.

It still doesn't matter what his motivations were, if he didn't apply them to his design. See the Joe Green/Joe Blue analogy. I put it there for a reason.

Terrorism is a coercion device. It's used to make a point of political intimidation: "Gays must die". "Death to America". "Down with the government". It says "do as we say or more will die".

There was no such message in Boston. If you have to do an interrogation to find out what the point was, then no point was made. Nobody had to interrogate Al Qaeda to determine what the motive for 9/11 was, did they?

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

You are correct in that I have; but on the second point my clarification is this: regardless what the brothers' motives were or what they thought they were, they did not set up what they did to make a political point, which is required in order to be called "terrorism". Had they bombed something at least symbolic they might have made a statement, but without a statement of intimidation, we don't call it terrorism. It can't be terrorism if nobody knows the motives.

Joe Green shoots Joe Blue, kills him. He does so because Joe Green (privately) hates blue people. That kills Joe Blue but it doesn't tell blue people to be afraid, ergo not terrorism. Joe Green bombs a Blue People church, now you have terrorism.

The message is crucial. No message = no terrorism. Doesn't make it any better or easier to take but without a message it's just random violence. So I'm afraid your point about CNN being "less honest" by not calling it terrorism actually makes its own opposite case.



No, I don't recall that we were talking about that but would your strawman like a drink?

In any case what I've seen is that Fox (and I believe MSNBC too) put their straight-news in the daytime and the commentary shows at night in prime time. They do that
by design, because that's where the money is, and again it confirms that objective news doesn't sell; controversy sells. That's the whole Fox business model in a nutshell. No pun intended.

And you act like Fox is the only one that does that.

I don't "act like" anything; I described how it works. I mention Fox because they, after all, created that model. The same model that the CNNs and MSNBCs followed down the glory hole.

Rupert Murdoch built his fortune on tabloid gossip rags. That's basically what Fox Noise is -- a gossip channel using politicians instead of celebrities. Then they carry news in the daytime, but prime time is where they make their money and draw their ratings. Like any television channel.

BTW, they didn't tell anyone ahead of time that they were sending a message, nor did they do so while they were trying to escape. However:

During an initial interrogation in the hospital, Dzhokhar—who had not been read his Miranda rights—said Tamerlan was the mastermind. He said the brothers were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups. Boston Marathon bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the suspect clearly stated his intentions, and they were political.

It still doesn't matter what his motivations were. See the Joe Green/Joe Blue analogy. I put it there for a reason.

Terrorism is a coercion device. It's used to make a point of political intimidation: "Gays must die". "Death to America". "Down with the government". It says "do as we say or more will die".

There was no such message in Boston. If you have to do an interrogation to find out what the point was, then no point was made.

The point was to tell America that we cannot escape from Allah's judgement. Even in our own country. We aren't safe. We have to live in a near police state to feel safe.

You don't know this?

I guess you need someone to deliver that message to whatever media outlet you choose to frequent in order to recognize it.

 

[Pogo]

And you act like Fox is the only one that does that.

I don't "act like" anything; I described how it works. I mention Fox because they, after all, created that model. The same model that the CNNs and MSNBCs followed down the glory hole.

Rupert Murdoch built his fortune on tabloid gossip rags. That's basically what Fox Noise is -- a gossip channel using politicians instead of celebrities. Then they carry news in the daytime, but prime time is where they make their money and draw their ratings. Like any television channel.

BTW, they didn't tell anyone ahead of time that they were sending a message, nor did they do so while they were trying to escape. However:



So the suspect clearly stated his intentions, and they were political.

It still doesn't matter what his motivations were. See the Joe Green/Joe Blue analogy. I put it there for a reason.

Terrorism is a coercion device. It's used to make a point of political intimidation: "Gays must die". "Death to America". "Down with the government". It says "do as we say or more will die".

There was no such message in Boston. If you have to do an interrogation to find out what the point was, then no point was made.

The point was to tell America that we cannot escape from Allah's judgement. Even in our own country. We aren't safe. We have to live in a near police state to feel safe.

You don't know this?

I guess you need someone to deliver that message to whatever media outlet you choose to frequent in order to recognize it.

Once again .... if the point has to be ferreted out and disseminated after the fact on a slow news drip, that's not terrorism. It's a guy with a grudge. When terrorism happens, there is no doubt as to what the message is, IMMEDIATELY. That's the whole point of doing it. You run a deep scar into the public mind on your particular issue.

When Eric Rudolph bombs an abortion clinic, do you really need to wait for an interrogation and somebody to write a story about it to find out what the point was??

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't "act like" anything; I described how it works. I mention Fox because they, after all, created that model. The same model that the CNNs and MSNBCs followed down the glory hole.

Rupert Murdoch built his fortune on tabloid gossip rags. That's basically what Fox Noise is -- a gossip channel using politicians instead of celebrities. Then they carry news in the daytime, but prime time is where they make their money and draw their ratings. Like any television channel.



It still doesn't matter what his motivations were. See the Joe Green/Joe Blue analogy. I put it there for a reason.

Terrorism is a coercion device. It's used to make a point of political intimidation: "Gays must die". "Death to America". "Down with the government". It says "do as we say or more will die".

There was no such message in Boston. If you have to do an interrogation to find out what the point was, then no point was made.

The point was to tell America that we cannot escape from Allah's judgement. Even in our own country. We aren't safe. We have to live in a near police state to feel safe.

You don't know this?

I guess you need someone to deliver that message to whatever media outlet you choose to frequent in order to recognize it.

Once again .... if the point has to be ferreted out and disseminated after the fact on a slow news drip, that's not terrorism. It's a guy with a grudge. When terrorism happens, there is no doubt as to what the message is, IMMEDIATELY. That's the whole point of doing it. You run a deep scar into the public mind on your particular issue.

When Eric Rudolph bombs an abortion clinic, do you really need to wait for an interrogation and somebody to write a story about it to find out what the point was??

Once the religion and nationalities of the suspects were ascertained and the statement taken that confirmed that it was indeed because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the message was clear. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

 

[Pogo]

The point was to tell America that we cannot escape from Allah's judgement. Even in our own country. We aren't safe. We have to live in a near police state to feel safe.

You don't know this?

I guess you need someone to deliver that message to whatever media outlet you choose to frequent in order to recognize it.

Once again .... if the point has to be ferreted out and disseminated after the fact on a slow news drip, that's not terrorism. It's a guy with a grudge. When terrorism happens, there is no doubt as to what the message is, IMMEDIATELY. That's the whole point of doing it. You run a deep scar into the public mind on your particular issue.

When Eric Rudolph bombs an abortion clinic, do you really need to wait for an interrogation and somebody to write a story about it to find out what the point was??

Once the religion and nationalities of the suspects were ascertained and the statement taken that confirmed that it was indeed because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the message was clear. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

Is there some part of the term "immediately obvious" that is somehow not immediately obvious?

What the Karazamov brothers did -- the actual act, the event, the news -- carried no message. Ergo it is not terrorism. There's no more to it than that.

Had the second one got away and gone underground, and we never found out anything about their motivations -- what would we have then? The victims would be just as dead.

Regardless what the background motivation was, there was no message in the act, therefore it's not terrorism. So CNN was correct to not call it that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again .... if the point has to be ferreted out and disseminated after the fact on a slow news drip, that's not terrorism. It's a guy with a grudge. When terrorism happens, there is no doubt as to what the message is, IMMEDIATELY. That's the whole point of doing it. You run a deep scar into the public mind on your particular issue.

When Eric Rudolph bombs an abortion clinic, do you really need to wait for an interrogation and somebody to write a story about it to find out what the point was??

Once the religion and nationalities of the suspects were ascertained and the statement taken that confirmed that it was indeed because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the message was clear. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

Is there some part of the term "immediately obvious" that is somehow not immediately obvious?

What the Karazamov brothers did -- the actual act, the event, the news -- carried no message. Ergo it is not terrorism. There's no more to it than that.

Had the second one got away and gone underground, and we never found out anything about their motivations -- what would we have then? The victims would be just as dead.

Regardless what the background motivation was, there was no message in the act, therefore it's not terrorism. So CNN was correct to not call it that.

Bullshit.

You must think that 911 wasn't terrorism ether.

Also, it's your opinion that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because of your bias, not because it is a fact before hand, especially when one had never been bombed before. However the Boston Marathon bombing was just one of several attempts by Muslims to attack innocent civilians in America and the purpose is clear.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Pogo]

Once the religion and nationalities of the suspects were ascertained and the statement taken that confirmed that it was indeed because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the message was clear. Sorry if you can't figure it out.

Is there some part of the term "immediately obvious" that is somehow not immediately obvious?

What the Karazamov brothers did -- the actual act, the event, the news -- carried no message. Ergo it is not terrorism. There's no more to it than that.

Had the second one got away and gone underground, and we never found out anything about their motivations -- what would we have then? The victims would be just as dead.

Regardless what the background motivation was, there was no message in the act, therefore it's not terrorism. So CNN was correct to not call it that.

Bullshit.

You must think that 911 wasn't terrorism ether.

Also, it's your opinion that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because of your bias, not because it is a fact before hand, especially when one had never been bombed before. However the Boston Marathon bombing was just one of several attempts by Muslims to attack innocent civilians in America and the purpose is clear.

Bullshit.

By that logic, every time a bomb goes off it's Muslims.

It's my opinion (and everybody else's) that bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism because -- duh -- it's an abortion clinic. It is, here it comes again, immediately obvious. It's the whole point of terrorism. You pick a target that is an obvious symbol, and if it's not clear enough you put out a missive claiming responsibility. A symbol like an abortion clinic. A lesbian bar. A tower of capitalism. A military building.

What in the fuck is symbolized by the freaking Boston Marathon? The quality of endurance?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 am always pointing that out? Seriously?

 

[Pogo]

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 am always pointing that out? Seriously?

Again, it's not all about you. But in this case it is in your OP.

When I say "you guys" I mean the body of Foxpologists as a group.
And it's a subordinate clause anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 am always pointing that out? Seriously?

Again, it's not all about you. But in this case it is in your OP.

When I say "you guys" I mean the body of Foxpologists as a group.
And it's a subordinate clause anyway.

Funny, a couple of posts ago I wasn't apologizing for Fox, now I am. I wonder what happened.

My OP did not mention Beck, I gave my opinion of what he thought, and you want to get all pissy because I made him look a lot dumber than you could. Get over it.

 

[Pogo]

I am always pointing that out? Seriously?

Again, it's not all about you. But in this case it is in your OP.

When I say "you guys" I mean the body of Foxpologists as a group.
And it's a subordinate clause anyway.

Funny, a couple of posts ago I wasn't apologizing for Fox, now I am. I wonder what happened.

My OP did not mention Beck, I gave my opinion of what he thought, and you want to get all pissy because I made him look a lot dumber than you could. Get over it.

Try to follow along willya...

Your OP doesn't mention Beck, it mentions ratings. And that's what the above post was about too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, it's not all about you. But in this case it is in your OP.

When I say "you guys" I mean the body of Foxpologists as a group.
And it's a subordinate clause anyway.

Funny, a couple of posts ago I wasn't apologizing for Fox, now I am. I wonder what happened.

My OP did not mention Beck, I gave my opinion of what he thought, and you want to get all pissy because I made him look a lot dumber than you could. Get over it.

Try to follow along willya...

Your OP doesn't mention Beck, it mentions ratings. And that's what the above post was about too.

Are you confused? The OP doesn't mention ratings, neither does the article on PuffHo.