Skip to comments.Did a CNBC Reporter Not Have His Contract Renewed for Anti-Obama Statements?
Posted on 12/10/2010 10:10:04 AM PST by Nachum
The Daily Caller has learned CNBC reporter Matt Nesto will not have his contract renewed, which is up at the beginning of 2011. Were Nestos politics a factor in the networks decision not to bring him back? Nesto, known for his market research in appearances on the network throughout the broadcast day, is generally a low-key actor.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Fox News is going to have to start a whole ‘nother channel to hire all the ex-newscasters who dare to speak against “the annointed one”
They must be effectively dealt with if we are to save this republic.
The $20 billion was nothing but a shake down. The administration was given control of the disbursement of those funds. Let's see if Issa can get an audit on how that money was spent.
Besides, BP was not terribly worried about giving Obama the money because of their heavy investment in "alternative energy" projects. BP knew they would get that money back 10 fold from various government incentives.
No one will fund it.
It really is the evil verses the stupid and the evil are winning hands down.
The threat isn't the politicians or the various interest groups - they're just marionettes - its the fourth estate that seeks the power to take control.
Matt Nesto is the lowest-keyed reporter on CNBC.
But if dumped by CNBC, I hope he gets a gig on Fox Business Network...
even if we can’t get it here in Mid-Missouri.
(Suprising, you can get FBN in the unionized hell-hole of St. Louis).
Well, Charlie Gasparino and Dennis Neale (sp?) have left CNBC for
FOX/FNB. In reality, this is one case of the smart people leaving
(even if forced) a ship full of democRATS.
Did a CNBC Reporter Not Have His Contract Renewed for Anti-Obama Statements?
When CNBC ends, the last guy aboard will be Phil Lebeau (sp?),
the automotive-affairs reporter that ANNOYINGLY pimped for the bailouts
of GM and Chrysler.
What a piece of it.
And my response was that no one will fund an answer to the corruption of the fourth estate. As the media evolves from the old print model to online and integrated content that combines streaming media, there is no interest from conservative sources to build a network or foundation of a new press. None. Instead, it is being built piecemeal by the old media into a new format for delivering the same bias.
Soros spends $1 million and hires 100 reporters for NPR- two for each state. The Huffington Post is growing larger than traditional news outlines. Examples like that prompted my statement.
It is accurate.
OK, but what does ‘stupid’ have to do with it?
“there is no interest from conservative sources to build a network or foundation of a new press. None. Instead, it is being built piecemeal by the old media into a new format for delivering the same bias.”
Wrong. Dow Jones, National Review, Fox, Pajamas Media and Brietbart are each working to build a network, and doing a good job of it I might add. All of them are great sources of news and opinion. There are also great think tanks doing great work: The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation to mention just two.
Of course, with respect to news, it is objectivity we need. We need the conservatism in opinion sources.
Conservative sources of opinion will always have the problem of ideological diversity. Some will be libertarians, and others will be traditional conservatives. Some will be fiscal conservatives, and others will be social conservatives. After all, part of being a conservative is thinking for yourself. For those who seek some sort of ideological purity, almost no source of opinion will be worth supporting. We need to look for common ground and support a variety of sources of “conservative” opinion, even when we do not agree with everything a source says.
“Stupid” defines it. “Stupid” is the essence of it.
One side has control of the media, academia, the popular culture outlets of TV and movies, and publishing.
The other side submits their side to the evil side asking for permission to reach the mass audience. That permission has been mostly denied or distorted.
Forty years of pushing Socialism, humanism, the destruction of the family, and the power of government and the people still aren’t broken. But, they are being bent down.
Now, one side transitions to the new media to continue that war on culture and the other side doesn’t even know they should be trying anything in opposition.
If you don’t get that, I can’t help you. Go with God.
Thank you kindly for the explanation, Irish Catholic.
Do you remember this Palin quote? “I can see Russia from my house?” Ask those around you. Many of them will shake their heads and nod, even though that was Tina Fey's parody on Saturday Night Live. Which is remembered?
The influence of the national media dwarfs those you cited. Only Fox approaches the level of national media. The others do not in breadth and scope.
This was posted yesterday and I bookmarked it. Watch it all the way through and see how the media impacts the population. All those you cite have been in operation before 2008, in operation in 2010, and will continue to be in operation in 2012 where they will be dwarfed by the existing media.
See what damage they cause:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.