NBC’s Mitchell Digs Back to 2005 to Locate Beck’s Hate Speech, But Can’t Find Any on MSNBC


There’s no evidence political vitriol of any kind drove Jared Loughner’s murderous rampage, ABC, CBS and NBC all acknowledged, but that didn’t deter them on Monday night from taking up the left-wing line holding conservatives culpable as NBC, incredibly, managed to castigate Sarah Palin and go back more than five years to find an incendiary quote from Glenn Beck – but couldn’t find anything over the line from its own Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz.

“It was, by all accounts, a lone and very disturbed man who shot that gun on Saturday,” ABC’s Diane Sawyer noted, “but nonetheless, as we all know, a lot of people began asking questions for different reasons. Is this a moment we can talk about what is civility and respect in America?” From Tucson, on CBS Katie Couric set up a story: “We may never know for sure what drove Jared Loughner to open fire here last Saturday, but some, on both ends of the political spectrum, say the vitriolic rhetoric we hear every day was a factor.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams intoned: “Has political speech in this country become too charged, too toxic, and did it play a role in this tragedy?” Reporter Andrea Mitchell contended any link to the shooting is irrelevant: “Whether or not there is any connection between Saturday's shooting and angry rhetoric, it has certainly reignited the debate over political speech between right and left.”


After running a soundbite of FNC’s Glenn Beck denouncing the media for blaming Palin, Mitchell proceeded to regurgitate that very charge: “This map from Palin’s Web site targeted Giffords' district and the others with the iconic cross hairs of a gun sight. Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized that week, and the Congresswoman criticized Palin's map with Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie.”

Skipping over everything aired on MSNBC, Mitchell went back to 2005 to discredit Beck: “Beck himself has been widely criticized for comments like this about liberal activist Michael Moore.” Viewers heard audio from Beck on his radio show from May 17, 2005: “I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore. I could just be choking the life out of him. Is this wrong?”

Only at the very end of her piece did Mitchell slip in: “In the wake of the shootings, a liberal blogger on the Daily Kos took down his recent post that Giffords was quote ‘dead to him’ for voting against Nancy Pelosi for Democratic leader.”

On ABC’s World News, Jake Tapper pointed out: “One acquaintance from 2007 said the shooter was liberal and his obsession with Giffords pre-dates Sarah Palin's much criticized map of congressional targets for defeat, including Giffords, by three years. So, from the right, come charges of political opportunism by the left.”

After a clip of Rush Limbaugh castigating Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Tapper aired a bite of Dupnik trashing Limbaugh: 


The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he’s irresponsible, uses partial information – sometimes wrong information – attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior, in my opinion is not without consequences and I think he’s irresponsible.


Jeff Greenfield, on the CBS Evening News, recalled how “a generation ago some intellectuals on the left were flirting with revolutionary violence espoused by the black panthers and the weathermen. One leading literary magazine put a diagram of a Molotov cocktail on its cover,” but, he insisted in leading into comments from Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris, “these days the harshest words about government usually come from the right.”

Couric ended her newscast by quoting from an e-mail sent days ago by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:


She said, quote: “We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down,” unquote. No matter what the shooter’s motive, this tragedy provides us all with an opportunity to step back, take stock and have a conversation.


From the Monday, January 10 NBC Nightly News:


BRIAN WILLIAMS: We're back now from Tucson with more on the shootings here and the political fallout. A question was raised almost as soon as the news broke. Has political speech in this country become too charged, too toxic, and did it play a role in this tragedy? NBC's Andrea Mitchell in Washington for us tonight with more on that story. Andrea, good evening.


ANDREA MITCHELL: Good evening, Brian. Whether or not there is any connection between Saturday's shooting and angry rhetoric, it has certainly reignited the debate over political speech between right and left, with conservative commentator Glenn Beck tonight challenging the media to show leadership and everyone to denounce violence. On Fox News tonight, conservative commentator Glenn Beck accused the media of trying to destroy Sarah Palin.

GLENN BECK, ON FNC: They're desperately using every opportunity to try to convince you that somehow or another, Sarah Palin is dangerous.

MITCHELL: His complaint, criticism that Palin crossed a line when she used gun imagery last year against twenty Democrats, including Gabrielle Giffords.

SARAH PALIN, MARCH 26, 2010: But this BS coming from the lame stream media lately about this, about us inciting violence.

MITCHELL: But this map from Palin’s Web site targeted Giffords' district and the others with the iconic cross hairs of a gun sight. Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized that week, and the Congresswoman criticized Palin's map with Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie.

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, ON MSNBC ON MARCH 25, 2010: The way that she has it depicted  has the croshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.

MITCHELL: After Saturday's shooting Palin's team defended the map on a conservative podcast.

AUDIO OF REBECCA MANSOUR: We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross hairs like you see on a map.

MITCHELL: Still, they removed the map from their Web site on Saturday, but today it was still up on Palin's Facebook page. Today, Palin e-mailed Beck to say-

BECK, READING E-MAIL: Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence.

MITCHELL: Beck himself has been widely criticized for comments like this about liberal activist Michael Moore.

AUDIO OF GLENN BECK, MAY 17, 2005: I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore. I could just be choking the life out of him. Is this wrong?

MITCHELL: The issue blew up right after the shooting with the Tucson sheriff's first briefing. He lit up the Internet by blaming the media.

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK: The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.

MITCHELL: In the wake of the shootings, a liberal blogger on the Daily Kos took down his recent post that Giffords was quote “dead to him” for voting against Nancy Pelosi for Democratic leader.

And today, we learned that the day before she was shot, Giffords' e-mailed a Republican friend saying: “I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.” Brian?


— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read more:


MSNBC Falsified Story Stirs Up Racial and Anti-gun Hatred

By Bill Smith: In blatant disregard of the truth, MSNBC follows CBS into the annuals of history (the toilet) for falsifying a news story by controlling or editing camera shots and by preparing and presenting a false narrative that seems be the intent on inflaming racial tensions and casting false allegations of threats. Racial bias was deliberately projected by the MSNBC reporters on to a story with blatant statements impugning whites at a rally as potential racist and threats to a black President.

When in fact, the person at the center of the story narrative was hidden from the public by parlor camera tricks and a false narrative. That person was a patriot citizen who happens to be black. MSNBC actions to falsify this story showed its bias against the general public participating in recent rallies and town hall meetings MSNBC introduced its own form of racial bias and evidenced a willingness to smear Americans exercising both their first and second amendment rights.

MSNBC willingness to advance and promote a false story to pursue either a biased agenda or to boost ratings was indeed despicable. This action opens up to question what other lies MSNBC may have perpetrated on the American public with fictitious or edited camera shots and falsified news story narratives. Americans rely on a free free press to report unbiased and truthfully. Media bias in the past years has become a matter of major concern. However, for members of the press to falsify the news, destroys and jeopardizes public trust and places all Americas at risk.

As identified by Adam Bitely at NetRight Nation, "MSNBC is up to their typical routine of running erroneous reports. One from yesterday was particularly troubling." It is unfortunate that Adam and the rest of the public have observed MSNBC as prevaricator of the truth.

Let's look at the doctored MSNBC broadcast:   Now, view the true version of events as reported by ABC News:

Today, Bill Wilson, President of America for Limited Government sent a letter calling on MSNBC Executive Producer Steven Capus to fire all involved with producing a misleading broadcast that Wilson termed a "nefarious assault on decency." Bill Wilson is right. However, it is also time for the print media, the network media and the cable channels to take seriously false reporting and to police their own actions including calling MSNBC into accountability. A free press will not remain free if society becomes so distrustful that it turns to and trusts in government to monitor the accuracy of the "press." When that happens, the freedom of the press will cease to exist.

Cross-posted at the ARRA News Service

Has the Daily Kos community soured on Keith Olbermann?

keith olbermann daily kosA survey found that 65% of Daily Kos' discussion of a recent Olbermann segment is negative.  

Last week, Fox News' Sean Hannity made an off-the-cuff offer to partake in waterboarding for charity, an announcement that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann met with his own charity offer.

"For every second you last, a thousand dollars -- live or on tape, provided other networks' cameras are there," the MSNBC anchor said. "A thousand dollars a second, Sean, because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. Oh, and I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life, when you admit the horrible truth -- waterboarding, the symbol of the last administration, is torture."

Over the past few years, members of the liberal blogosphere have been among Olbermann's most ardent supporters, perhaps none more so than the diarists at Daily Kos. During every show of his the community hosts an "open thread" and Olbermann himself often blogs at the liberal site.

But the negative response the Kos community had for this Olbermann segment and others indicates a certain level of animosity is growing towards the MSNBC host. As of this writing, Olbermann's charity offer has spawned nine diary posts and nearly 1,400 comments at Daily Kos. I surveyed a sizable percentage of these comments and found that approximately 65% of the discussion of Olbermann is negative. About 30% of the comments are positive, while the remaining 5% is neutral.

"Someone should ask Olbermann why he would want to inflict any such treatment on any other living human," one commenter wrote. "And, if what he is proposing comes up short of what we did with our 'enhanced interrogation techniques' what's to be gained by giving Hannity any attention."

Much of the negative coverage followed in this vein, while Olbermann supporters said that the anchor's offer was a good idea, one that would finally teach Hannity that waterboarding constitutes torture.

"I disagree," one person wrote. "This is co-opting Hannity's stunt. I think Hannity is now in a losing position. Either he backs out, or Olbermann makes some actual good come out of Fox News."

This isn't the first indication that the Daily Kos community has soured on Olbermann. When CNBC's Jim Cramer appeared on the Daily Show -- an appearance that many considered an embarrassment to CNBC and its parent company -- the Kos community harshly criticized Olbermann for not highlighting the interview on his show. Many accused him of bowing down to alleged demands that MSNBC anchors not mention the Cramer/Stewart interview. Olbermann himself showed up in the comment threads to defend himself from these charges.

But if this is a sign that the Kossacks have turned on Olbermann, who will take his place in the cable news lineup as the liberal blogosphere's darling? Both Rachel Maddow and (ironically) FNC's Sheppard Smith have been getting favorable coverage from Daily Kos in recent months. Might one of them become the blog's newest champion?

Simon Owens is a media journalist and social media consultant. Email him at or read more of his writing at his blog

All those flip-flops wearing out the kids

 Cross posted from the CR Voice.

Looks like Obama supporters, especially young supporters, are a little disenchanted to learn that their primary minted messiah is little more then a chicago style, back room politician.

 “I think there has been some erosion of the aura of excitement about a different kind of politician that Barack -- they really fueled Barack Obama’s rise. It’s helped him with fundraising, given him these huge crowds at events. I’ve been talking to voters this past week for a story I’m working on, and I’ve had some people, young people who felt that Obama was the candidate of a generation, saying they’re distressed by some of the standard political moves that they’re seeing now.” – USA Today’s Susan Page on MSNBC’s Hardball, 6/2/08

See the full video here.

A Moment with Keith Olbermann - (satire)



As the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown”, Keith Olbermann has established himself as the premier television journalist in America in the eyes of left-leaning political junkies. Having broken free of the intellectually stifling environment of sports broadcasting, Olbermann tackled his new assignment with all the élan of Andrei Chikatilo on his first day as janitor at the Moscow Home for Unwed Mothers. His enthusiasm has paid dividends, drawing viewers in the near six-digit range to the nightly broadcast in which he delights in lampooning the most newsworthy right wing figures of the day.


Success has made Olbermann a very busy man, which makes landing an interview with him a Herculean task for a right-leaning journalist. It was through sheer monomaniacal persistence that I was able to get a few minutes of his time to sit down for the following one-on-one. I hope the reader will find it as enlightening as I did.

Walt Gilbert: Good afternoon, Keith.

Keith Olbermann: It’s Mr. Olbermann. You don’t know me. You have no right to address me by my first name without first getting my permission. 


You see, that’s the problem with you right wingers. You see the world and all its people as nothing more than automatons that you can program to do your nefarious bidding through lies, deceit and unconscionable treachery. You see yourselves as the great puppet masters of humanity, pulling the strings of ignorance to elicit the Pavlovian responses that keep you in power. You have no respect for human dignity. You do not care that the world is soaked in the blood of children as a consequence of your quest for power and wealth. You sow fear and hatred wherever you plod as you lay one jackbooted foot before the last, traversing the globe in your diabolical bloodlust. Control is your unholy grail. And the crushed souls of the victims who lie in your path are little more than “collateral damage”, as you euphemistically view it in your Mephistophelean minds.

W.G.:  My apologies. Good afternoon, Mr. Olbermann.
K.O.:  Good afternoon to you, too. . .Walt! You may call me Keith.

W.G.:  Thank you. If I may, I would just like to begin by telling you how much of a fan I was of your work when you were at ESPN. I found you to be a very entertaining sportscaster, and often laughed out loud at your obscure references and ironic critiques.  What made you decide to move on from that genre of broadcasting?


K.O.: The growing popularity of NASCAR, in spite of my persistent mockery and derision, led me to conclude that the sports world is populated by a vast collection of chaw-spitting dullards worthy of no more respect than the garden slugs they represent on an intellectual level. All the swinging of sticks and throwing of balls for the entertainment of poltroons in the stands lost what minimally redeeming value it had when it finally occurred to me that the sports world was being overrun by the bastard sons of backwoods moonshiners and sister-courting simpletons who know nothing beyond how to make a left turn while strapped into a sheet metal-covered cage bolted onto an outrageously expensive wad of nuts, bolts and wires designed to do nothing more than ravage the planet we temporarily call a home, yet treat with no more concern for the future than is attributable to the common housefly. The tedious conversations with slack-jawed rubes and the monotonous recitation of meaningless facts and statistics became so mind-numbingly repetitive that I could no more imagine myself enduring another day of it than I could imagine myself standing before the throng of tuxedo-clad fatheads at the Espies in a singlet and cowboy boots.


W.G.:  So, you’ve lost all interest in sports? I think a lot of readers will find that shocking, given that it was your calling for so many years. What made you decide to go into the world of political commentary?


K.O.: I don’t care what your so-called “readers” find shocking, frankly. In fact, it was the people who make up your so-called “readership” that drew me out of that tar papered hovel they called a studio in Connecticut and into my corner office in Manhattan where I am finally getting the respect that my keen intellect and rhetorical adroitness command. It became painfully clear to me that my estimable skills as an analyst were the proverbial pearls cast before the swine that are the sports fans who huddle daily before their idiot boxes to find out which juiced-up jock managed to knock a leather-encased sphere of twine over a fence and into the grasping hands of a teeming mob of howling, drunken nitwits whose lives are so bereft of meaning that the mere act of finding oneself in the path of a ball is deemed sufficient cause to hop around and shout with glee like a toddler upon discovering the wonders of the backyard kiddy pool.


The people who read the tripe you and your ilk put out are responsible for the demise of a once-great nation, filled with hope and promise. You, sir, have poisoned the collective mind of this nation with the vile, putrid, hate-filled bilge that emanates from your so-called “think” tanks. You, sir, have lowered the standards of the intellectual life of our people to such an extent that the barest glimmer of independent thought is subjected to the moronic hoots of the Jerry Springer audience you call a party. The slightest expression of dissent is howled down as though it were a solar eclipse taking place over a time-forsaken land of Cro-Magnons. You, sir, represent a toxin to this nation’s – nay, this world’s – mind, body and soul. And, it is my task – my mission – to eradicate the planet of the scourge of your slithering, reptilian horde of mental vipers just as St. Patrick did the Emerald Isle.


For all the mouth-breathing fatuousness of the sports world, it represents a mere dram in comparison to the vast reservoir of venom that you and your kind are pumping into the veins of all that is good about the world. And, so, I have my priorities. And, when I succeed in making the world aware of the pestilence that you represent, those priorities will take hold and we will all be gloriously free of your presence, once and for all.

W.G.:  And, with that, I see we’re out of time. Thank you for your time.
K.O.: Good day, sir!


Why is Cable News So Bad?

 Crossposted at Right Minds

The 2008 presidential election started earlier than ever before. Americans crave political news—the Democrats held over twenty well-watched debates, and the Republicans had over a dozen, all of which were endlessly analyzed by talk radio hosts, bloggers, and TV talking heads.
It is possible to find a wealth of enjoyable, informative commentary on talk radio—Laura Ingraham (when she is not kicked off the air for—apparently—violating her contract), Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin, among many others, host intelligent programs. Likewise, the blogosphere provides interesting and amusing analysis of the news. Even network news, while often biased and shallow, does at least attempt objectivity and decorum. So why is cable news so stupid?
It is hard to find a cable news show that makes even the most cursory attempt to be either a) unbiased, or b) dignified. I confess to be unfamiliar with CNN’s shows—whenever I tune in to that channel, it always seems to be showing a program about such uninteresting topics as the plight of North Dakota’s turnip growers, or the growing market for grain silos. But I do watch both Fox News and MSNBC enough to be familiar with their entire prime time lineups. And both are pretty painful.
Fox News starts its prime time coverage with the O’Reilly Factor, aka the No Spin Zone. Bill O’Reilly is an extremely talented TV personality, and that accounts for his massive popularity, but he is also an egotist and a blowhard. His ego means that he is constantly getting into embarrassing arguments with other media figures (for example, Keith Olbermann), and starting understaffed social crusades (three million people is an impressive cable audience, but not enough to make a boycott really effective).
O’Reilly’s tough questioning ensures that few prominent political figures want to appear on this show, which means that the O’Reilly Factor often degenerates into Bill O’Reilly hollering his positions at some overmatched “strategist”, which turns what should be entertaining political debate into an embarrassing shoutfest. In addition, O’Reilly is a clever but shallow thinker, which means that his political positions are often ill-though-out.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is worse. His show is built around the fact that he is not Bill O’Reilly—Olbermann seems to harbor a stalker-like obsession with O’Reilly. He often names O’Reilly his “worst person in the world”, fanatically covers every O’Reilly gaffe, and often launches into a bad impersonation of O’Reilly’s voice when especially angry (which is often). I personally thought the show jumped the shark when Olbermann put on a puppet show acting out some event in Bill O’Reilly’s life.
The rest of the show is a sort of liberal Biazzro World—Olbermann lets liberals pretend, for a moment, that Bush is a sort of Richard Nixon/Bond villain combo, a world in which Olbermann is Edward R. Murrow (Olbermann has even appropriated Murrow’s “good night and good luck” line). Olbermann is by turns a psuedostalker and a nut.
After Olbermann comes Verdict with Dan Abrams. Dan Abrams used to be general manager of MSNBC, but got tired of that job and reentered broadcasting. Abrams is perhaps most notorious in conservative circles for gleefully speculating that Rush Limbaugh might be arrested for vote fraud. However, in other circles, he is known for…not much really, but he is a vegetarian, which probably the most interesting thing about him. His show is about as interesting as he is.
Fox News fills the 9 p.m. hour with Hannity and Colmes, which is a sort of less intelligent version of the O’Reilly Factor. Alan Colmes is more interesting and intelligent than he seems on TV—his talents are not exhibited well against the combative and bullying Hannity, so he is usually just ignored and brought out when the frequent well-known conservative commentators need a liberal punching bag.
Fox News follows Hannity with On the Record with Greta van Susteren, which provides important coverage of missing teenagers, runaway brides, and celebrity sex scandals. The most amazing aspect of the show is that Greta van Susteren has a job—she is certainly not particularly attractive, has little personality, and has a gravely, annoying voice. Sadly, her show is quite popular, presumably among the same people who read supermarket tabloids a lot.
MSNBC fills the hour with a repeat of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, in keeping with their commitment to making sure that Olbermann is on air as much as possible. (When not on Countdown, Olbermann anchors election night coverage, and sometimes moderates debates).
Cable news, in contrast with other media, seems to almost universally either boring, stupid, or biased (or all three). Neither Fox News nor MSNBC has a prime time show which could be called worthwhile. Possibly, media leaders are simply responding to what viewers want, which is the ultimate arbitrator—but it would nice if cable news could inject some civility and balance into its reporting.


McClellan's revelations. Where?

There are no "revelations" in McClellans book.
He only got a 2 million dollar advance which means that the book isn't going to make that much money for the publishing company which means it was put out solely for political purposes and a lib agenda.
McClellan was never a good press secretary. In fact, he sucked. He let Helen Thomas and David Gregory walk all over him.
Because he didn't ever really know what was going on. He was asked and encouraged to sit in on meetings but rarely ever did.
So, how in fact is he able to write a tell all when he was never really privy to insider information at the meetings.
If he was privy to anything important, than he's a modern day Judas who was disgruntled with his boss and stabbed him and his colleagues in the back.
Also, McClellan was hated and mocked by the press and now he's praised. Go figya that one out. Again, lib agenda. It only burns when it's burnin for us.
Let us not forget he was fired. Tony Snow replaced him and Snow actually sat in the briefings and meetings and presented issues to the press in a very knowledgeable way.
As the press still brings up Valerie Plame, we must remind liberal idiots everywhere that SHE WAS NOT COVERT!
Plame outed herself when she gave $1,000 three years earlier to the Gore campaign. Wilson also contributed. She listed her CIA "cover" company as her employer in her FEC filing. She said she worked for Brewster Jennings & Associates, a fictitious Boston-based firm designed to provide cover for some CIA operatives and employees. These are public records. She was not a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who In America" entry. She was there for a length of time that disqualified her from protection under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.. Plame's identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the mid-1990s.

This book will fizzle out like a bad fart.

If liberals like Keith Olbermental aka "bath tub boy" aka "2 minute Sam" want to learn any "revelations" about Bush and Iraq perhaps they should read the John Loftus Report, listen to FBI agents like George Piro and take a minute to know history.  As they will find that at the lead up to the first showdown with Saddam in 1991, Saddam hid his warplanes in Iran fearing they'd be destroyed by our bombers.  The libs would like to believe that Iran and Iraq hated each other but they forget "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  The WMD is either in Iran or Syria.

Perhaps the only revelation that McClellan missed was that Bush waited TOO long to invade Iraq???



Syndicate content