Butter & egg man Ed Schultz
A couple of nights ago while trying to fall asleep, I switched on MSNBC to see what the little rascals were up to. There was the evening rerun of MSNBC's butter and egg man Ed Shultz, a comical character who runs in the afternoon leading off 4 straight hours of Republican-bashing that passes as news commentary. His show has the imaginative name of....
"The Ed Show".
Catchy, ain't it?
Rather than fall asleep, Ed startled me when my virgin ears detected the words "turd blossom" made in reference to Karl Rove. Thinking I must be delusional, which one of my recent kibitzers accused me of being recently, I waited to see if ED would repeat the word. Sure enough, he once again referred to Rove as a "turd blossom".
This, as you may know, was a term of endearment that George W Bush used to call Rove. I don't think ED was using it as a term of endearment. Like everybody else on the left, Ed hates Rove with a passion.
Then yesterday, while seated at a local pub, there was ED again on the TV. This time he was doing a segment called "I'm fired up". (ED's always fired up.) Of course, he was rambling on about the usual MSNBC thesis statement (The Republicans are all
%^&*(%**s. What struck me however, is how long this talking head was going on without a commercial break. Now I know some smart alec is going to send me the tape and point out that there was indeed a commercial after 10-12 minutes whatever it is supposed to be. But when you are listening to ED, it seems like forever. Where is that commercial when you need it?
But seriously, how can you call yourself a professional news outfit when all you have is Ed, followed by Chris Matthews, followed by Keith Olbermann, followed by Rachel Maddow all saying the same thing night after night after night?
And turd blossoms?
Of course, that same smart alec is going to zing me with FOX NEWS as the polar opposite of MSNBC. Not quite. O'Reilly is not a strict ideologue. Fox still has Alan Colmes (barely), and there are a few liberal commentators like Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel and Juan Williams. I know-I know. Hannity and Beck are solid conservatives and hardly unbiased, but if you really want to compare and contrast MSNBC and Fox, it is quite clear which one is "more fair and balanced".
But this guy ED. What a joke.
There are two really interesting things about your anti-MSNBC rants.
ReplyDelete#1. Your complaint is simply that they bash Republicans and conservatives. You never mention the actual content of what they say and exactly why it lacks any merit. For instance, when Olbermann calls O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etcetera out on a lie, is he wrong? Were they not lying? Or are you just mad because he's picking on your side?
I'll agree that guys like him are little more than political hacks. I don't watch him because I don't need to have my beliefs constantly reinforced. Also, he gets downright nitpicky with his complaints. However, he is often right. He sometimes catches these conservatives outright lying or saying something absurd or barbarous.
#2. You're right, of course, that it's a joke to call something like MSNBC a "news" organization. However, you'll defend FOX News, which is a joke for pretty much the exact same reasons. In fact, MSNBC is pretty much just ripping off FOX's whole shtick, only they slant everything from the left.
Does this much cognitive dissonance ever give you a headache? Or are you able to hold these contradictory views without actually experiencing it?
Are you aware that MSNBC has conservative commentators as well? Ever heard of the show "Morning Joe?" So your point is moot and trashing MSNBC while extolling Fox News is still hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't take long for the smart alecs to show up (Just kidding). Anonymous is correct. MSNBC does have Lonesome Joe Scarboro. Pat Buchanen too, for whatever that's worth. I know Fox is conservative, but if you want to stack up how many opposing voices they have and how many guests they bring in with opposing views, Fox wins in a landslide. They also print stories or show them on tv that other networks ignore. I note that CNN is trying to carve out a niche in the middle, which may be a smart move except, they do have a liberal slant which in my view they try to mask. CNN INternational? Forget about it.
ReplyDeleteAs for treachers saving the world, who do you mean? The two dolts in Mass? Or Finkelstein or all the leftie indoctrinators on our uni campuses?
Ridiculous statement -and I am a teacher.
You didn't really address my points. In fact, all you did was repeat FOX's meme about how they supposedly show "both sides". I call bull, especially considering that conservatives are rarely even able to articulate the opposing side's point (like your posts about global warming). They have the APPEARANCE of giving both sides, but it's all smoke and mirrors. It's the old "Say a lie often enough and it becomes true" thing.
ReplyDelete"Smoke and mirrors"
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing it all up.
I'll believe otherwise when I see you accurately articulate a left-wing point of view.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteHere's a few examples:
Schultz- Karl Rove is a turdblossom
Olby: "slack jawed Tea-baggers"
Matthews; during 2006 midterms:
"Hey another democrat won-yeaaa"
I could go on till the cows come home but here is my challenge to you:
Set aside 4 hours to watch Schultz, Matthews, Olby and Rachel in succession. Then the next night watch OReilly and hannity Plus Beck in the afternoon.
Then you decide not which is perfectly fair and balanced, but which comes closer, (Ive already done it. And I spend more tim e watching MSNBC than I should.)
PS;
ReplyDeleteTo your point number 1-- I don't doubt that Olby and the others at MSNBC often catch Republicans doing or saying bad things. They are politicians, right? There will be plenty of gotcha moments.
My point is that it is completely one-sided. I know that Hannity and Beck are one-sided also, but at least Hannity brings in people who can debate with him. Bob Beckel is a good example. Lamont Hill who comes onto OReilly is another good example. You don't see that on msnbc. It is pure propaganda.
And again, Gary, I will say that if you consider what Hannity has on his show to be debate, then that's truly a sad state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteI watched Hannity's show some time ago. I also watched O'Reilly's. Neither one of them knows how to listen, all they can do is bloviate.
I prefer Stephen Colbert. It's essentially the exact same show as Hannity/O'Reilly only he's aware that what he says is ridiculous.
As for Glen Beck, that guy is not right in the head. I'd rather watch a 24 hour Olbermann marathon than 2 hours of that whack-job. (I don't want to watch Olbermann's show either - I just like watching his "Worst person in the world" clips on YouTube every now and then. Still, he catches a lot of those FOX News guys in outright, blatant lies. I don't know of a case of him lying on the same level as Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etcetera.
I mean, for Pete's sakes, Hannity, after an Obama speech, complained that Obama had called oil executives "evil" people, even though Obama said (very specifically and to the point) that they were NOT evil people. That guy's a liar. The worst part is that his fans don't even seem to care that he lies to them.
Stephen Colbert!!??
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. There is a whole generation who get their news from Colbert and Jon Stewart.
Gary, how many times do we have to have this exact same conversation? Colbert and Stewart are only funny if you have some knowledge of what's going on in the news.
ReplyDeleteI read this thing called my local newspaper. I also read from Yahoo News. If I didn't, I wouldn't get the jokes on those shows.
With that said though, I still think that a person would be more informed on the issues by watching Stewart/Colbert than by watching Hannity/O'Reilly/etcetera. All of these shows are a joke, the only difference is that Stewart and Colbert let their audience in on the fact that it's a joke.
And a funny aside, I just read about a study where conservatives were asked to watch Colbert's show, and most of them could not discern the fact that he was being satirical. They thought he was a genuine conservative! What does that tell you about conservative philosophy in this country, where you can't even satirize it without its followers thinking that you're doing the real thing!
And I just have to say that this must be the fifth time where we've done this. Here's the abbreviated version:
ReplyDeleteLance: I like Colbert and Stewart's shows. They're actually more informative than supposed "news" shows like Hannity/O'Reilly/etcetera.
Gary: You get all your news from their shows? I can't believe that!
Lance: I didn't say that. I watch their shows and get my news from the newspaper.
Gary: I can't believe that people get all their news from those shows.
Lance: I know a lot of fans of the show and this doesn't match their description.
Gary: How come you get all your news from those shows?
Lance: I don't.
Gary: I can't believe that you do.
Etcetera.
Debating a conservative - it's like bashing your head against a concrete wall, only with the wall, you might just get through it one day.
You miss one important thing. I do indeed believe that FOX is a joke, but I agree that MSNBC is also a joke. Colbert and Stewart are jokes too, but with them, that's the point!
ReplyDeleteYour last comment implies that you think conservatives are idiots
Well, some of them definitely are. I think that Beck is an idiot. So is Limbaugh. There are also a lot of liberal idiots out there as well though. I don't discriminate. Still, it's not my fault that all those conservatives couldn't tell when somebody was being satirical!
You may not like Rush and Glenn, but they are not idiots.
ReplyDelete