Skip to comments.The Hate-Bush Network, Minus Bush
Posted on 02/16/2009 5:58:20 AM PST by SJackson
You won't hear executives at MSNBC chanting "yes we can." The network that they cobbled together as a TV version of the left-wing screed Air America is in the ratings dumper. Advertising dollars that have never been easy are getting thinner.
Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Channel have owned prime time -- although O'Reilly has owned prime time for years. One night last week, for example, O'Reilly scored 3.5 million views compared to Olbermann's 1.4 million. Keith Olbermann may need to go back to sports. MSNBC is in big trouble without Bush to bash. Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews have filled their shows with nothing but anti-Bush hysteria for the last year. Now that their punching bag-in-chief has left Washington, they are lost.
Bush hating came naturally for MSNBC; their commentators lampooned Dubya at every opportunity. In addition to attacking Bush, they enjoyed trumpeting bad news with the hopes that it would make President Bush look bad.
After Bushs farewell address, Matthews came on the air and bashed Bush as a stupid buffoon who hung out with jocks, and proceeded to laugh at the notion that he reads books. This from the same Chris Matthews who said he got a feeling running up his leg while listening to Barack and also said it was his job to make sure this presidency (the Obama presidency) works. More people tuned into his diatribes that mocked the Bush presidency than the few who tune into his rants supporting Barack Obama.
Another commentator who loves to hate Bush, liberal activist Rachel Maddow, said on her show following the farewell address, this is the start of the part where we dont have President Bush to kick around anymore there can be no promise that we wont be compelled to try to keep on with the kicking around. She spoke with the caption, goodbye and good riddance, situated behind her. She then proceeded to kick Bush around for ten minutes straight, blaming him for everything from Katrina, 9/11, the existence of Hamas, the recession, and two worthless wars. She had practically filled her show with anti-Bush rants and guests. After January 20, she has struggled to find new material.
But we give her credit for attacking Obama, albeit from the left. She is a critic of the reluctance of the Obama administration to prosecute President Bush and Vice President Cheney and other officials for so-called "war crimes" related to interrogation tactics used on terrorists. She is giving relentless coverage to left-wingers calls for a Soviet-style inquisition.
Media bias is not something unique to MSNBC, they just take it to a whole new level. As the balance of the left-stream media gushes over how much Obama works out, the same media complained about Bushs weird obsession with exercise. While they went gaga for Obama's inauguration, the same correspondents complained about how much Bush spent on his more modest 2004 event. While the media were slamming Sarah Palin, they ignored Baracks propensity for gaffes including 57 states and Afghani-Iraqi translators. While the media drilled Republicans for a culture of corruption, they give Eric Holder, Tim Geithner, Bill Richardson, and Hilda Solis a free pass, saying they made honest mistakes.
MSNBC could look on the Obama administration with an eye of skepticism and provide needed details about his Cabinet picks and their corrupt and shady dealings. They could help Obama succeed by acting as a watchdog to keep him from going astray; instead they seemed poised to help him succeed by acting as his lapdog and propaganda office.
If MSNBC and the rest of the left-stream media continue to attack George Bush and the Republicans, even though neither are in control of anything, their attacks will sound even more insipid. Partisan propaganda is putting the media on the path to irrelevance. They could start a renaissance by serving as a less biased source that reports what is actually occurring. Just check out how many times ABC's Jake Tapper was viewed on Youtube for challenging Robert Gibbs on administration ethics.
Americans are not stupid; they know FOXNEWS is more balanced. O'Reilly talks to Susan Estrich, Al Sharpton and other leftists brave enough to face him. We searched for similar balance on MSNBC and find none.
MSNBC could drastically improve their ratings performance by exposing all of the pork in the stimulus bill, the negative side-effects of increasing healthcare, environmental regulation and big-city political machine corruption. MSNBC could continue rebuilding legitimacy by exposing the corruption of labor unions. MSNBC hosts love to bash big business, fine, but why not hold big labor accountable and shine some light in their direction. Just a clear and simple examination of how Obamas stimulus-policy money will be spent would increase their credibility.
Being students of the media, we wont hold our breath. We suppose they will continue attacking Bush and praising Obama, until their viewers are all gone. NBC executives are doing the shareholders of General Electric a disservice if they don't start changing this programming to secure a larger audience.
I agree with much of what is said here..but in fairness Rachel Maddow has had Pat Buchanan on her show a number of times...but perhaps the writer thinks he’s so far right that he’s left.
He is a nut with nutty ideas and a few conservative ideas.
That’s no problem the gov. has been subsidising liberal speech for decades. Offalman will just get on the dole and proceed.
Buchanan is a difficult person to characterize. Personally, I think he has a great deal in common with national socialism (not trying to be insulting, just trying to be accurate) and so I think fans of Obama will have a high tolerance for Buchanan. In the end, they’re all fascists together.
It's just all a distraction to keep from having to face the fact that their idiot sock money in the White House,Chicago,Hawaii, Disneyland or where ever the hell he is today is a total f**k up.
I think MSNBC is now kinda like a 6-cylinder engine which is down to four cylinders. Without Bush, they really can’t blast anyone much...and to sound nice and Teletubby-happy all the time...just isn’t what people watched them for. I think over the next six months...they will slip the worst of any network. It’ll be hard to sustain anything they had from last year.
If it matters, I thinks hes so far right that hes left.
MSNBC turns bias, hatred and double standards into an art forms, but their "numbers" show the rest of us can see right throught them...
“One night last week, for example, O’Reilly scored 3.5 million views compared to Olbermann’s 1.4 million. Keith Olbermann may need to go back to sports.”
I think one of the big differences here is, O’Reilly draws viewers who enjoy watching him, even if they don’t necessarily agree with him. He can be a blowhard at times, but mostly he’s civil to his guests and he’s willing to have almost anyone on. By contrast, Olbermann is *so* shrill and angry, his appeal is largely limited to the rabid far left.
Oh yeah, and ESPN doesn’t want him back!
Buchanan is John McCain without a Senate seat.
>>>MSNBC is in big trouble without Bush to bash.
So far at least not really. Even as he loses to o’Reilly, Olbermann’s current ratings are not quite double what they were before the primaries began. That is still a big jump.
Overall they can lose to Fox and still be making money. Talking head shows aren’t terribly expensive to run.
I am more concerned with Glenn Beck. I suspect that he was recruited specifically to be a “right wing Keith Olbermann”. That is, just as obnoxious, offensive and knee jerk. And while this may be emotionally gratifying, it lacks class, and is self-defeating in the long run.
Personally, I would like to see Rupert Murdock set up a journalism school with Brit Hume as the headmaster, with entire courses in subjects like “ethics” (which are not relativistic, nor determined by vote), “objectivity” (how not to spin, even though you have an opinion), and “integrity” (how to be able to look yourself in the face every morning).
I heard some numbers this morning.
0bama’s inaugural balls cost 170 mil, and Bush’s 50 mil.
Here come the bashing of Republican House members and Rush Limbaugh. MSNBC has plenty of targets. just watch.
Well, we know how Buchannan feels about Israel; and we know there is a ‘simpatico’ here, with the Left. So, why not have Buchannan on. . .a very safe bet, that reinforces the Left’s bias.
All of the so-called journalists on the left-wing news channels want Obama to succeed, yet they were unwilling to even wear an American Flag lapel pin during Operation Iraqi Freedom for “fear of showing a bias” toward the U.S.A.
Oh, boo hoo. World's smallest violin playing "Hearts and Flowers". And so on.
I'll weep a crocodile tear for them and wish them bad cess.
I don’t understand the fascination with Beck either. That guy is extremely hard to watch. Enough with the fourth grade histrionics already and please don’t eat ever again on TV. Him chewing chocolate made me gag so bad I turned my set off.
Not surprsing MSNBC is losing money. They’re slobs. One of their guys on in the evening never wears a tie.
All the more reason I won’t buy anything from a company that advertises with MSNBC or anything from GE.
Who paid that 170 million? I guess we have to keep in mind the rise in the cost of living! LOL!
Obams spends 170M on the inaguration and scolds Wall street for taking a holliday. Hmmm. Scolds the Big Three for taking corporate jets and is buying new helicopters for him self. Hmmm Wants to ram a spending bill down our throats in 24 hours and does. Then he takes a mini vacation. Hmmmm
Pat Buchanan is like a Japanese soldier that has stumbled out of the jungle 60 years later, still unconvinced that his side lost. He’s whoring himself and his philosophies every time that he appears on MSNBC and plays the part of the buffoon. So very sad.
O'Reilly and Olberman: both are absolutely hardened Democrats who wouldn't vote for Jesus if the Republicans ran Him for Saviour. The only, ONLY, difference is that O'Reilly uses the "conservative" and "fairness" stuff as his show-biz shtick.
And, it works!
I am more concerned with Glenn Beck. I suspect that he was recruited specifically to be a right wing Keith Olbermann. That is, just as obnoxious, offensive and knee jerk. And while this may be emotionally gratifying, it lacks class, and is self-defeating in the long run.
It does work though. Look at the results of the 2008 election.
Wrong.. mcLaim is always wrong.. Buchanan is sometimes correct..
Did you see the segment this morning about the Romantic
Obamas!!! They are so real, they act in public like they do in private. We have never seen such affection in a pres. couple before. These are just a few of the accolades.I could go on but you get the drift.
O’Reilly keeps telling us he’s ‘independent.’
Oh, barf. Glad I DIDN’T see it. I bet as long as she can wear the pants in the family, all goes well. When she’s challenged, ooooooo, watch it, baby.
Saying it doesn't make it true - show some facts supporting your position. I don't think you have any. "Feelings" about things are how liberals deal with the world - it's not how conservatives deal with it.
I don’t recall any PJB prediction that came to pass.
I can't stand him. But I watch him anyway. He has interesting guests and his topics are usually very interesting.
I use the mute button a lot only when he's talking.
Check out this interview by the bloviator with our favorite gal.
Example: because of non existant immigration policys the US... will become balkanized.. as it has become.. actually he wrote a whole book on the subject.. most of which became true..
The nation hasn’t become ‘balkinized’, thats over the top rhetoric at best.
I watch Bill O’Reilly, but I really do wish that he would let his guests complete a sentence or two. Even the ones in agreement with him must get frustrated as he jumps in before they can get their point out. He’s just rude, and I don’t think it’s necessary.
The lefties here on MSNBC have dissed our military,our nation, poor ole W and skew every story to make the Left, the Dems and of course BHO look like our saviors. All are false impressions and false factually. Frankly, I hope they go bankrupt and make the Left even more furious that the public won’t watch pure leftist hate even if a token Pub goes on the shows or not.
Of course it has. I can show you entire regions and cities where you have to search to find an English sign, or people that actually speak English.
It's so bad, that even our top Homeland Security Chief had people wandering around inside his private residence that were in this country illegally. Can anyone imagine the potential for sabotage, blackmail among other things that could totally compromise this country?
You've got government forms printed in multiple languages because most of these people have no desire to even learn the language. I could go on.
I am not grokking this. O'Reilly has admitted it openly on many occasions. He cannot .... ever .... bring himself to vote for a Republican. For him, the lesser of two evils in any election will be the Democrat. And that, my friends, included Bill Clinton, Kerry, and BHO, Jr.
During his years at a Catholic college, O'Reilly was assigned (I am sure) to read Rerum Novarum and other works concerning Christian Social Justice. Historically, these writings led eventually to the Europe-wide Christian Socialist Movement which sought to combine socialism, and even communism, with Christian principles. O'Reilly is also personally very familiar and influenced by the old Catholic Workers Party, championed by Dorothy Day and others.
Chrissie Matthews has spoken on this, and so did the late Tim Russert. Because of these convictions, many Catholic college grads (and intellectuals ... there is a difference) came to identify with the Democrat Party. Ironically, The Democrat Party never identified with them.
But these fellows admit often that they ALWAYS vote Democrat. Call O'Reilly and ask him. You'll get a most amusingly hedged, parsed, and indirect answer. Bottom Line: Democrat.
Independent? Sure. Independent Democrat.
‘I can show you entire regions and cities where you have to search to find an English sign’
Name the city. I’ll wait.
I could go on. You must live in some rural, out of the way area.
There are no ‘english’ road signs?
Sorry, I simply don’t believe that.
“I agree with much of what is said here..but in fairness Rachel Maddow has had Pat Buchanan on her show a number of times...but perhaps the writer thinks hes so far right that hes left.”
Pat B. fits the liberal stereotypes of all right-wingers, and its a bonus that he plays the anti-semite and will still be around to bash other Republicans. Thus, he was very useful on the Bush-bashing network. He’ll probably get fewer invited if he goes after Obama hard. On the flip-side are nonconservative wimps like David Gergen, who are filler to sound as if they might be conservative without actually arguing against any liberal POV.
Lenin used the term ‘useful idiots’ for such folks.
They would never have a real, engaging, articulate and attractive conservative. And when they do, they treat them horribly (viz Michelle Malkin).
Now you asked if the *street* signs have been changed? Yes some have, but most have not. Street signs as you know are difficulty at best to have changed due to numerous, obvious reasons.
You're splitting hairs here. Again, I can show you these regions, where you'd think you were in another country.
This is not even disputable.
I can show you entire regions and cities where you have to search to find an English sign
This is what you originally posted. Now you say I’m splitting hairs by asking if ‘street signs’ have been changed?
California is a ‘different country’ btw....(chuckle)
Wow, you must really live in some out of the way place.
Got news for you, this is occurring in every major city in America.
You should get out more, before you make ignorant comments.
I can show you entire regions and cities where you have to search to find an English sign
This is what you originally posted.’
Rather than toss around obnoxious insults that signify nothing, how about answering my question?
Or is it you made a irrational generalization that isn’t supported by anything ‘real’?
Yet you dispute this is occurring?
No offense friend, but you have your head buried deep, or else you live in a very remote, isolated spot.