For the most part, it is true.
I, your humble blogger have given up on watching Fox News.
Before I explain why, there are two shows worth your time to watch.
That would be Special Report with Brett Baier and The Greg Gutfeld show on Saturday nights.
After that, you are better off looking at the Fox News website or even any other news source.
The question is, what gives? Why would I, a conservative that believes much of what we call the Mainstream Media or MSM, is left-biased give up on the only conservative if not equal time to the left-wing media bias?
Because of the Fox News cheer leading for one Donald J. Trump and his chaotic quest for the Republican nomination for president.
And folks, now that Mr. Trump in the presumptive GOP nominee, it is only going to get worse before it gets better.
Until this election cycle, I found Fox News to be fair to all the GOP candidates in each consequential election cycle. The 2004 one does not count for then President George W. Bush had no Republican opposition. There was no cheer leading for one candidate over the other. Once the nominee became clear, yes there was no question that the opinion hosts were going to be for the GOP over the Democrat no matter who or she was.
But this cycle it became very clear from the moment that Mr. Trump made his bizarre announcement of candidacy to now that the opinion hosts were almost falling in line and more like fawning in line to Mr. Trump. It has, dare I say it, seeped into the news coverage as well. maybe not in the same way of say Sean Hannity, but there is no question that Fox News Channel can now be called the Trump News Channel.
Take the prime time lineup.
Starting at 4:00 p. m. (All times are Pacific as after all, this is Right View From The Left Coast!) with Greta Van Sustren. The question I have is what member of the Trump family does she NOT have on?! Yes it is clear that she is a solid Trumpette.
Then there is as radio talker Mark Levin calls Bill O'Reilly, the Eight O'clocker (Five O'clocker here on the left coast). He will claim that he is down the middle whenever he interviews Mr. Trump. Which seems like every day to me. But in the same breath he will say that he is trying to help Mr. Trump whenever he is in trouble. Hey, Eight O'clocker! You're job is not to help Mr.Trump in any way but to ask really tough questions and get answers. Especially during the heat of the primaries. No, you are not down the middle with Mr. Trump, Eight O'clocker. You are and have been an enabler.
But not Meghan Kelly and the Kelly File at 6:00 p. m. She has been tough as nails and Mr. Trump has not liked it. There is a truce of sorts between Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Trump, but overall it is clear that Mr. Trump knows he will be challenged and he does not like that in the least.
But I can't even watch Mrs. Kelly the way that I used to
Which leaves the aforementioned Mr. Hannity.
I have to say that I liked when it was Hannity and Colmes. I guess that Alan Colmes just got tired of being Sean's punching bag night after night. I do not know. But since it has just become Hannity, it is just unwatchable. And Mr. Hannity fawning and drooling over Mr. Trump is rather revolting. For years on radio and television, Mr. Hannity has railed against those that he believes are not real conservatives. He has held himself up as the real deal. Yet once Mr. Trump announced, he jumped on that Trump Train head first.
Now there are those on the weekends, led by Jeannine Pirro, who are also on the Trump Train in nauseating fashion.
Look, they have the right to be open as to who they favor as they are opinion people, not the news people. But what I expect, especially when voters are making up their minds in the primaries and caucuses is not cheer leading for one candidate. I expect when other candidates are getting face time that they are not given an inquisition and the candidate of favor being fawned upon.
As a conservative this all reminds me of what we righteously accused the MSM of doing with one Barack Hussein Obama. Of fawning. Of not asking tough questions. Of making excuses when a certain candidate makes numerous faux pas. Of elevating someone that we did not think was all that qualified to be president.
I feel that I am living in an alternate universe when it comes to Fox News and Donald J. Trump.
But to be fair, the MSM does not get a pass. They have at a level given Mr. Trump a free ride. But the Trump News Channel, er Fox News Channel has taken it to another level.
My biggest concern is that Fox News has long been seen as a right-wing outlet. I would argue that it has simply been equal time to the left-dominated MSM. But this Trump-love, no Trumpaganda is too much for this conservative.
BTW, why to I recommend Special Report and Greg Gutfeld to still watch?
Special Report is Washington based and has been truly down the middle. And any show that features Charles Krauthammer is a must-watch.
Mr. Gutfeld is the only consistent opponent of Mr. Trump and has had the testicles to call his fellow hosts out on their fawning of Mr. Trump. Mr. Gutfeld needs to be given support.
This conservative has given up, for the most part, on Fox News for selling out to the Trump Train.
I hope that Fox News comes back after the election but until then, one is no worse watching or getting news from an MSM source.
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mainstream Media. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Please, Please Koch Brothers, BUY The Los Angeles Times!!
Yes, I want to see the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Koch brothers, Satan's spawn very wealthy libertarian businessmen buy the Los Angeles Times and the rest of the Chicago Tribune media empire.
If this is the effect of it all, I am all in!
I am with Allahpundit on this. If the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Koch brothers are that bad, then quit. If you think in a contracting job market for print journalists you will be able to get another job in just as good a newspaper for as equal a salary, good luck.
The irony is that the Newspaper Guild local really, really believes that the Times is an objective third party and just providing the facts ma'am. No really! Here is the Guild's statement:
Recently you’ve seen many petitions asking that the Koch brothers not be allowed to buy the Tribune Company’s newspapers. We understand why the Kochs breed this distrust. They are active political proponents of harsh right-wing positions. We’re also not certain that Tribune will listen to anything but money when the final decision is made.
What we do know is that great papers publish credible, trusted journalism online and on the printed page. Whoever comes to own these mastheads needs to understand that protecting newsrooms from ideological taint is no small thing. The future of American journalism depends on the ability to print truth, not opinion.
We call on Tribune to make a pledge that they’ll only sell to a buyer that will protect the objectivity of the news product by making a public commitment to doing so. The Newspaper Guild-CWA and the Communications Workers of America seek your support in this goal.
Get that next to last graph?! That they are objective?! All I can write is that I am glad I am not eating as I write this for my food would be all over the keyboard and screen. Are they fricking kidding?! Who is the Newspaper Guild to tell the company that they work for who they can sell the company to? What if the buyer, as Allahpundit notes here is George Soros? Would these douchebrains be down with that? And when did the Times become this paragon of objectivity? Was this when one-time publisher Otis Chandler decided to expose the John Birch Society and officially ending their ties to the Republican party? What?! You mean the Times used to be. . .a. . .right-wing rag?! Why yes indeed it was. So now a couple of wealthy bros can't buy a newspaper because they may damage so-called newsroom and editorial "independence".
Before Otis Chandler took over the Times in the early 1960s, the Times was pretty much an organ of the Republican party. Hard to believe I know. But when Otis took over, he wanted to change the Times' image of being in the hip pocket of the GOP. And he sure did by taking a 360 of the newspaper and it slowly but surely went far the other way. The evolution was complete after Otis ended up selling the Times-Mirror company to the Chicago Tribune. In fact and indeed, the Tribune company made it an official left-wing rag.
This recent post of mine kind of explains the Times at the national level. But it pretty much caters to the Hollyweird and West Los Angeles liberal elites. The rest of the city? Uh, not so much. And regional coverage? Abysmal.
Now, why are the Koch bros so bad?
Because they are open about their politics? As if people like the aforementioned Mr. Soros is not?
Does that mean that the Koch bros would simply make their potential publications and other media holdings just a mouthpiece for their causes?
Well, the Koch bros, David and Charles, do not strike me as two dudes that would just throw their money away. They would not buy the Times and the other Tribune holdings just because. They may want to leave their stamp on the media empire, but they want to make money at the same time.
I think what you would find is that the Times would not be in the hip pocket of the downtown Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, Hollyweird elites as they are now. There would be a balance of stories dealing with government corruption. And yes, even private corruption. The editorial page would probably show restraint rather than left or right wing bias at least for a while. After all the Koch bros would want to have their point of view out there. But again, I look for more hands off than a rebirth of Col. McCormick and his hold on, yes the Chicago Tribune. In fact, I think that the editorial page would be more libertarian than anything. It may be more like the Orange County Register in that respect.
But the thought that if the Koch bros were to buy the Los Angeles Times and a slew of staff were to leave, it would be totally awesome. A chance for many up and coming actual journalists to start at the top. What an opportunity.
It is why I support the Koch bros buying the Los Angeles Times. Because it is about time to clean house!
If this is the effect of it all, I am all in!
I am with Allahpundit on this. If the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Koch brothers are that bad, then quit. If you think in a contracting job market for print journalists you will be able to get another job in just as good a newspaper for as equal a salary, good luck.
The irony is that the Newspaper Guild local really, really believes that the Times is an objective third party and just providing the facts ma'am. No really! Here is the Guild's statement:
Recently you’ve seen many petitions asking that the Koch brothers not be allowed to buy the Tribune Company’s newspapers. We understand why the Kochs breed this distrust. They are active political proponents of harsh right-wing positions. We’re also not certain that Tribune will listen to anything but money when the final decision is made.
What we do know is that great papers publish credible, trusted journalism online and on the printed page. Whoever comes to own these mastheads needs to understand that protecting newsrooms from ideological taint is no small thing. The future of American journalism depends on the ability to print truth, not opinion.
We call on Tribune to make a pledge that they’ll only sell to a buyer that will protect the objectivity of the news product by making a public commitment to doing so. The Newspaper Guild-CWA and the Communications Workers of America seek your support in this goal.
Get that next to last graph?! That they are objective?! All I can write is that I am glad I am not eating as I write this for my food would be all over the keyboard and screen. Are they fricking kidding?! Who is the Newspaper Guild to tell the company that they work for who they can sell the company to? What if the buyer, as Allahpundit notes here is George Soros? Would these douchebrains be down with that? And when did the Times become this paragon of objectivity? Was this when one-time publisher Otis Chandler decided to expose the John Birch Society and officially ending their ties to the Republican party? What?! You mean the Times used to be. . .a. . .right-wing rag?! Why yes indeed it was. So now a couple of wealthy bros can't buy a newspaper because they may damage so-called newsroom and editorial "independence".
Before Otis Chandler took over the Times in the early 1960s, the Times was pretty much an organ of the Republican party. Hard to believe I know. But when Otis took over, he wanted to change the Times' image of being in the hip pocket of the GOP. And he sure did by taking a 360 of the newspaper and it slowly but surely went far the other way. The evolution was complete after Otis ended up selling the Times-Mirror company to the Chicago Tribune. In fact and indeed, the Tribune company made it an official left-wing rag.
This recent post of mine kind of explains the Times at the national level. But it pretty much caters to the Hollyweird and West Los Angeles liberal elites. The rest of the city? Uh, not so much. And regional coverage? Abysmal.
Now, why are the Koch bros so bad?
Because they are open about their politics? As if people like the aforementioned Mr. Soros is not?
Does that mean that the Koch bros would simply make their potential publications and other media holdings just a mouthpiece for their causes?
Well, the Koch bros, David and Charles, do not strike me as two dudes that would just throw their money away. They would not buy the Times and the other Tribune holdings just because. They may want to leave their stamp on the media empire, but they want to make money at the same time.
I think what you would find is that the Times would not be in the hip pocket of the downtown Los Angeles, West Los Angeles, Hollyweird elites as they are now. There would be a balance of stories dealing with government corruption. And yes, even private corruption. The editorial page would probably show restraint rather than left or right wing bias at least for a while. After all the Koch bros would want to have their point of view out there. But again, I look for more hands off than a rebirth of Col. McCormick and his hold on, yes the Chicago Tribune. In fact, I think that the editorial page would be more libertarian than anything. It may be more like the Orange County Register in that respect.
But the thought that if the Koch bros were to buy the Los Angeles Times and a slew of staff were to leave, it would be totally awesome. A chance for many up and coming actual journalists to start at the top. What an opportunity.
It is why I support the Koch bros buying the Los Angeles Times. Because it is about time to clean house!
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
So Who Gets More Ink, The Gay NBA Player Or The Baby-Killing Abortionist?
It is a good question for we do live in crazy times that an NBA player decides to tell the world he is a homosexual and a man on trial for his life for botching an abortion and the discovery of his House of Horrors juxtaposes on same day.
So people, who gets more ink? Or coverage in the so-called Mainstream Media?
Why once again, it is the dude that tells the world he is a homosexual.
Yes, according to the Mainstream Media, it is important, so earth-shattering news that a nearly washed up NBA player by the name of Jason Collins has an interview with Sports Illustrated in which he discloses that he is a gay man.
And for Jason, he is a twofer.
A BLACK, gay man that happens to play in the National Basketball Association.
This is suppose to be a first for he is the first current pro-player to say yup, I likes the guys and not the gals to have relations with.
Not only is it a revelation, but my local fish wrap, the Pasadena Star-News editorializes that this is so huge, why it compares to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in pro sports in 1947 as the first Black player in major league baseball. Of course with the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Well, back to that hyperbole later.
I eagerly look for coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial taking place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the same fish wrap.
Wait, who is this Kermit Gosnell anyhow?!
Well, it is suppose to be Dr. Gosnell, but what he did, I can not call him a doctor.
"Dr." Gosnell has spent the last 40 years as, to put it kindly, an abortion provider.
A butcher that preys on the young, poor and most vulnerable women is what this cretin really is.
The reason that "Dr." Gosnell is on trial is he was charged for third-degree murder in the death of one of his "patients", one Karnamaya Mongar. It appears that "Dr." Gosnell, well he just stuffed her with a lethal combo of anesthesia and painkillers. And the only reason this was discovered because this wonderful man of the community, while he was being investigated for illegal prescription drug use at his vaunted Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia.
The worst aspect of this abortionist is that he had absolutely no problem killing nearly full born babies. This "Dr." Gosnell, he was a specialist in late-term abortions. And hey, if the baby did not die this the body of a woman, well hell, just let him or her come out and a little snip to the back of the neck and voila! Problem solved. A dead baby.
Now before one thinks that this is some great man that justs brings a health service to vulnerable women, consider that this dude has had a rap sheet going back to 1989. This is not "Dr." Gosnell's first trip around the legal block.
There is a lot more.
But there is also another aspect to this case.
It is the lack of Mainstream Media coverage. It is also addressed in the Wikipedia piece. Why even a Washington Post reporter, Melissa Henneberger, wrote about the lack coverage that is in retrospect a bad thing. Because the Post in particular thought that it was little more than a local crime story in Philadelphia. Miss Henneberger said that one colleague thought that it was too lurid a story.
Too lurid a story?! Really?!
Even Miss Henneberger could not believe that "logic".
The real reason is that this is a such a case that it very well can and will make people think twice about the role of abortion in the United States today. And the abortuary industrial complex, with its tentacles deep inside the Mainstream Media can not let that happen. They will do all in their power to try to keep coverage of this trial at a minimum. And up to now, they have somewhat suceeded.
But those dastardly internets and that pesky Fox News Channel and some local coverage has elevated this case to a rightful national level.
But the Mainstream Media thinks that the more important story is an NBA player in the waning days of his career "coming out" as a gay man.
Well, to be honest, this is not the big deal athlete I would think want to be the first. In fact, Mr. Collins is currently not under a contract and is a free agent.
But to see the coverage of this over "Dr." Gosnell is a case of our priorities are really screwed up.
Somehow, Mr. Collins is elevated to hero status because as I noted, he admits that he likes guys, not gals.
And the comparison to Jackie Robinson is beyond insulting.
Here is the difference.
Mr. Robinson would have been regulated to playing baseball in separate, all-Black leagues known as the Negro Leagues. Had it not been for the vision of Branch Rickey. And while Mr. Robinson was working his way up to the Dodgers, he played in the South where the California-born Robinson was exposed to Jim Crow at its worse. How about not being able to go to the men's room? Oh he could, as long as he went to the Colored men's room. Lunch counters, the same. Drinking fountains, the same. Even seating at ballparks, the same petty humiliation because he was a Black man.
Does Mr. Collins or has he faced anything near that? Even being in the closet, so to speak? Sure, he heard more than his fair share faggots, queer, and other anti-gay epitaphs. But he could do all the things he wanted that but a few generations ago, Jackie Robinson fought for his right to be able to do.
Including being able to be a gay man.
And I'll go this far.
I don't care. I really don't care if Mr. Collins, hell the whole Washington Wizards team is gay. As long as the other players are down with it. For you see, pro sports has the right to do what it wants. I believe that no one should get in the way of what they choose to do. So long as the ramifications are to be understood by all concerned.
But really, what is going to affect the greater number of members of society?
Whether a pro athlete is gay or whether a butcher killing innocent babies will pay a price for his barbarity?
So people, who gets more ink? Or coverage in the so-called Mainstream Media?
Why once again, it is the dude that tells the world he is a homosexual.
Yes, according to the Mainstream Media, it is important, so earth-shattering news that a nearly washed up NBA player by the name of Jason Collins has an interview with Sports Illustrated in which he discloses that he is a gay man.
And for Jason, he is a twofer.
A BLACK, gay man that happens to play in the National Basketball Association.
This is suppose to be a first for he is the first current pro-player to say yup, I likes the guys and not the gals to have relations with.
Not only is it a revelation, but my local fish wrap, the Pasadena Star-News editorializes that this is so huge, why it compares to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in pro sports in 1947 as the first Black player in major league baseball. Of course with the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Well, back to that hyperbole later.
I eagerly look for coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial taking place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the same fish wrap.
Wait, who is this Kermit Gosnell anyhow?!
Well, it is suppose to be Dr. Gosnell, but what he did, I can not call him a doctor.
"Dr." Gosnell has spent the last 40 years as, to put it kindly, an abortion provider.
A butcher that preys on the young, poor and most vulnerable women is what this cretin really is.
The reason that "Dr." Gosnell is on trial is he was charged for third-degree murder in the death of one of his "patients", one Karnamaya Mongar. It appears that "Dr." Gosnell, well he just stuffed her with a lethal combo of anesthesia and painkillers. And the only reason this was discovered because this wonderful man of the community, while he was being investigated for illegal prescription drug use at his vaunted Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia.
The worst aspect of this abortionist is that he had absolutely no problem killing nearly full born babies. This "Dr." Gosnell, he was a specialist in late-term abortions. And hey, if the baby did not die this the body of a woman, well hell, just let him or her come out and a little snip to the back of the neck and voila! Problem solved. A dead baby.
Now before one thinks that this is some great man that justs brings a health service to vulnerable women, consider that this dude has had a rap sheet going back to 1989. This is not "Dr." Gosnell's first trip around the legal block.
There is a lot more.
But there is also another aspect to this case.
It is the lack of Mainstream Media coverage. It is also addressed in the Wikipedia piece. Why even a Washington Post reporter, Melissa Henneberger, wrote about the lack coverage that is in retrospect a bad thing. Because the Post in particular thought that it was little more than a local crime story in Philadelphia. Miss Henneberger said that one colleague thought that it was too lurid a story.
Too lurid a story?! Really?!
Even Miss Henneberger could not believe that "logic".
The real reason is that this is a such a case that it very well can and will make people think twice about the role of abortion in the United States today. And the abortuary industrial complex, with its tentacles deep inside the Mainstream Media can not let that happen. They will do all in their power to try to keep coverage of this trial at a minimum. And up to now, they have somewhat suceeded.
But those dastardly internets and that pesky Fox News Channel and some local coverage has elevated this case to a rightful national level.
But the Mainstream Media thinks that the more important story is an NBA player in the waning days of his career "coming out" as a gay man.
Well, to be honest, this is not the big deal athlete I would think want to be the first. In fact, Mr. Collins is currently not under a contract and is a free agent.
But to see the coverage of this over "Dr." Gosnell is a case of our priorities are really screwed up.
Somehow, Mr. Collins is elevated to hero status because as I noted, he admits that he likes guys, not gals.
And the comparison to Jackie Robinson is beyond insulting.
Here is the difference.
Mr. Robinson would have been regulated to playing baseball in separate, all-Black leagues known as the Negro Leagues. Had it not been for the vision of Branch Rickey. And while Mr. Robinson was working his way up to the Dodgers, he played in the South where the California-born Robinson was exposed to Jim Crow at its worse. How about not being able to go to the men's room? Oh he could, as long as he went to the Colored men's room. Lunch counters, the same. Drinking fountains, the same. Even seating at ballparks, the same petty humiliation because he was a Black man.
Does Mr. Collins or has he faced anything near that? Even being in the closet, so to speak? Sure, he heard more than his fair share faggots, queer, and other anti-gay epitaphs. But he could do all the things he wanted that but a few generations ago, Jackie Robinson fought for his right to be able to do.
Including being able to be a gay man.
And I'll go this far.
I don't care. I really don't care if Mr. Collins, hell the whole Washington Wizards team is gay. As long as the other players are down with it. For you see, pro sports has the right to do what it wants. I believe that no one should get in the way of what they choose to do. So long as the ramifications are to be understood by all concerned.
But really, what is going to affect the greater number of members of society?
Whether a pro athlete is gay or whether a butcher killing innocent babies will pay a price for his barbarity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)