TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023
The topic was never discussed: It seemed to us that Tucker Carlson was especially demagogic / disordered last night.
He has truly become a master of the leap in logic and the unfounded factual claim mixed with the smirk and the sneer, along with his very strange laugh. On evenings like last night, the dissembling comes so thick and so fast, and in so many variations, that it's quite hard to keep up.
Apparently, the millions of people who watch his show don't realize that they're being misled. For that reason, one part of Rupert Murdoch's newly released testimony is truly stomach-churning.
(It was "like a fire bell in the night," one well-known American citizen once said.)
We refer to Murdoch's testimony in the lawsuit being brought against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems. Headline included, the start of the New York Times' front-page report captures that part of the testimony:
Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the conservative media empire that owns Fox News, acknowledged in a deposition that several hosts for his networks promoted the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump, and that he could have stopped them but didn’t, court documents released on Monday showed.
“They endorsed,” Mr. Murdoch said under oath in response to direct questions about the Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo, according to a legal filing by Dominion Voting Systems. “I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” he added, while also disclosing that he was always dubious of Mr. Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.
That's the start of today's front-page report about Murdoch's testimony. That passage is a bit imprecise about the nature of the "false narrative" which several Fox hosts endorsed—but that being said, good God!
Disordered as Carlson so commonly is, four Fox hosts were more at fault in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election! Specifically, we refer to their now-acknowledged "endorsement" of the crazy claim about the way Dominion's voting machines had supposedly taken millions of votes for Donald J. Trump and scored them as votes for Joe Biden.
By now, Carlson's dissembling is truly shocking in its degree of moral and mental disorder. Just a bit more than two years ago, four Fox hosts were worse!
Four Fox hosts were worse—and Murdoch himself let it go! The financial rewards are too damn high— and just for the record, things aren't necessarily all that great Over Here.
Last night, Carlson's scattershot dissembling went on and on and on. We may review the particulars tomorrow—but for right now, we're puzzled by what we saw, or by what we didn't see, on today's Morning Joe.
There it sat, on the Times' front page, the report about what Murdoch had said under oath! By any measure, it was major news—but when the Morning Joe carnival came on the air, the children completely ignored it.
As this morning's show began, Joe and Mika were joined by two sidekicks and three guests. Or they may have been joined by three sidekicks and only two guests. It all depends on the way you conduct your census.
Whatever! Major news about Fox and Trump was sitting right there on the Times' front page—and in the first minute of the program, Mika teased it as an upcoming topic.
That's when the weirdness started. From that point on, Morning Joe's gashouse gang just pattered on, completely ignoring this very high-profile topic.
We kept checking in through the first two hours, and we never saw the topic being discussed. Right on up through 8 A.M., this morning's discussions were a notably weird Grade A tapioca, as you can see for yourself.
As you can see by searching on the Internet Archive's recording of the four-hour show, Murdoch's testimony was completely ignored until 9:15 A.M.
At that point, Mika read an extremely brief "hostage statement"-style account of the matter, then instantly moved ahead to what she called "other news." Joe was present until at least 8:30 A.M., but this rather obvious topic was simply never discussed.
The program was playing some sort of a game. The Fox News Channel is very powerful, and we the people seem to get conned in a wide assortment of ways.
Mika taken hostage: Again, to see Mika's hostage statement, just click on the Internet Archive's recording of the four-hour show, then search on the key word "Murdoch."
Judging from appearances, someone must have been holding a paycheck to her head! But as you can see through your "Murdoch" search, the topic was never discussed.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. What's with all this dembottery, dear Bob?
To begin with, this not about election fraud, but only about the role of Dominion machines in it.
And second, what's the alternative? Is it to ignore the claims, like your goebbelsian media ignores everything that doesn't fit into their hitlerian narrative?
No, dear Bob. Claims were made about the Dominion machines, they were addressed, and (allegedly) found wanting.
...that's, dear Bob, exactly how journalism works...
This is amazing. Do you even believe this yourself? No, you're probably pulling a "Fox" move here.
DeleteGot it Mao Jr. Journalism works exactly by repeatedly hosting loons you know are lying until the company that is being financially damaged by the loons you know are lying files a lawsuit to get compensated for the financial damage caused by the lying loons you repeatedly hosted makes you slow your roll. Not sure taught that way in J school, but an interesting concept.
Delete
DeleteWhy, dear dembot, we certainly prefer loons to spooks playing 'experts', while war-mongering, earnestly accusing the duly elected president of being a foreign agent, and seriously insisting that the Russians blew up their own multi-billion-dollar pipeline.
Yes, the loons. Give us the loons, dear dembot, please.
I thought you were teaching us exactly how journalism works?
DeleteAnd we thought you were insulting the least worst establishment news service. Anything else?
DeleteReally can't stand your ground can you.
Delete"(It was "like a fire bell in the night," one well-known American citizen once said.)
ReplyDeleteWe refer to Murdoch's testimony in the lawsuit being brought against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems."
The quote is from Thomas Jefferson and it was made in the context of the controversy over whether to admit Missouri to the Union, thereby spreading slavery beyond the Mississippi River.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Murdoch and Dominion systems. So, why did Somerby use it? And why didn't he attribute it to Jefferson? Who knows? There is always a lot of filler and padding in Somerby's essays and it is largely a waste of time trying to make sense of it.
But this is a fine example of how to confuse readers and waste their time while saying nothing. Ironically, that is what Somerby is accusing Mika of doing on her show -- talking about all sorts of unrelated stuff without getting to the point, teased briefly at the beginning of the show. I have no doubt, however, that watchers found all that other stuff they discussed on the show much more interesting and important than Murdoch's admission of something that everyone already knew -- Fox News lies to promote its bottom line.
A week or so ago, Somerby admitted to not watching the film Tar, but fast-forwarding through parts that he considered boring. Today, he tells us he didn't actually watch Mika & Joe's show either, "checking back periodically" to see what was being discussed.
ReplyDelete"We kept checking in through the first two hours, and we never saw the topic being discussed. Right on up through 8 A.M., this morning's discussions were a notably weird Grade A tapioca, as you can see for yourself.
As you can see by searching on the Internet Archive's recording of the four-hour show, Murdoch's testimony was completely ignored until 9:15 A.M.
At that point, Mika read an extremely brief "hostage statement"-style account of the matter, then instantly moved ahead to what she called "other news." Joe was present until at least 8:30 A.M., but this rather obvious topic was simply never discussed. "
This means that Somerby doesn't actually know what was discussed during those time periods. He only knows that they weren't talking about it when he checked back. And no wonder he doesn't know who were guests and who were side-kicks. That might require viewing the show instead of skimming it.
If you don't pay attention to a show, you aren't qualified to discuss what was said on it. The same goes for movies and books that have just been skimmed and not actually read.
I don't care whether Joe or Mike or anyone else discussed Murdoch. What do they have to add to his deposition testimony? We all know what Tucker Carlson is like and we all know what Murdoch said -- beyond that there is nothing to discuss. A news network lied repeatedly to its viewers -- it was Fox News. We' ve been calling out their lies for years. So why does that deserve the kind of attention Somerby is calling for now? It plainly doesn't.
This is just another manufactured complaint against the mainstream media. Mika talked about something else -- the horror! And Somerby is playing the fool today -- or else he is playing us for fools. You choose.
So you're apparently paid to criticize Bob. If not, can you provide a link to a SINGLE COMMENT you made out of the THOUSANDS of comments you have made where you even agree partially with Bob about something?
ReplyDeleteIf you fail to do this, I hope you think about it in the morning when you wake up because that makes you a shameless SHILL that can in no way represent the meaning of the word LIBERAL. A sell out.
Shill for what? Somerby's incompetence? Why couldn't someone be criticizing Somerby for fun or because they think a bigot who pretends to be liberal while pushing conservative memes ought to be publicly exposed?
DeleteHow many things do you think I would find to agree with in Tucker Carlson's evening broadcasts? Do you suppose I agree with anything Trump says? Does that imply I'm paid to oppose them too? Some things must be challenged as part of one's civic duty.
civic duty definition: "Civic responsibilities are actions that citizens should do to create a better society, but are not required to" [or paid to do]
If they aren't a straight up paid for shill, they would have some minor, random thing they happened to agree with Somerby on out of the (tens of?) thousands of comments they made. I don't think they can do it.
DeleteLet's wait and see.
If you wrote this many freaking words about anyone, anyone in the world, you would eventually have some point of intersection of agreement. I maintain if you don't have that, it is because you are following a procedure where you MUST ONLY CRITICIZE.
DeleteBring it, shill. Prove me wrong.
They can't even agree with Somerby's strong, outright criticism of Tucker that his blog post opens up with. And they seem to take Bob's (even minor) criticisms of any CNN or MSNBC talking heads as sacrilege!
DeleteSomerby doesn't bother writing things that liberals might agree with, because that is not his purpose here. His goals are to (1) criticize the mainstream media (except Fox); (2) attack journalists and cable news hosts and portray them as unreliable; (3) attack women and gay men and specifically Rachel Maddow for innocuous things; (4) tell us that our nation is sliding into the sea and it is all because of us [liberals]; (5) tell us that people cannot think straight, that famous experts said so, and that liberals are especially bad at thinking; (6) undermine the concept of expertise, mock education, convince readers that experts know nothing, even Einstein; (7) defend conservative under fire, such as Rittenhouse, Trump, Moore, Carlson (who was abused); (8) ridicule Democratic candidates and women (Hillary, Kamala); (9) quibble over stats and misrepresent what they are saying; (10) defend actions of conservatives, such as book banning, Karens, capitol insurrectionists (secession is a right, he says). Why would there be anything to agree with in that pile of manure?
DeleteOops, left out Somerby's attacks on black women, such as the qualifications of the recent new Supreme Court Justice, and his defense of police who kill unarmed black people.
DeleteWall of text.
DeleteWell I got as far as (1)
I quote from TODAY'S post.
"It seemed to us that Tucker Carlson was especially demagogic / disordered last night.
He has truly become a master of the leap in logic and the unfounded factual claim mixed with the smirk and the sneer, along with his very strange laugh. On evenings like last night, the dissembling comes so thick and so fast, and in so many variations, that it's quite hard to keep up.
Apparently, the millions of people who watch his show don't realize that they're being misled. For that reason, one part of Rupert Murdoch's newly released testimony is truly stomach-churning. "
This is not a criticism of Fox? Try again.
Waiting for that link to just ONE POST that EVEN SLIGHTLY agrees with ANYTHING Somerby has written.
You do know what dissembling is right? It would be rather ironic if you didn't.
DeleteIf you can only read as far as point 1, then you don't belong here. It suggests you won't have read Somerby's long-winded essay either and will yourself be unprepared to discuss anything in it.
DeleteCorby is crazy af. Go play some bridge psycho loser!
DeleteIf you make a long list of points, and your first is immediately, provably wrong based on the CURRENT blog post, what does that make you?
DeleteSo, you equate a criticism of Tucker Carlson with a criticism of Fox generally, and you think that if Somerby criticizes Fox, then that means he is including Fox in with the rest of the media who he daily attacks? Those are connections that Somerby has not made today, or any other day. He usually talks about the blue tribe media, blue tribunes, and explicitly excludes Fox from his diatribes. And he hasn't mentioned anyone else at Fox beyond Carlson in a long time (if ever), whereas he has attacked many MSNBC and CNN hosts, journalists and opinion writers.
DeleteHe's criticized Fox plenty of times. Should I bring out the links or do you just want to slink off?
DeleteWho cares?
DeleteYour reasoning is 1. Liberals and liberal media cannot be criticized and 2. If liberals and liberal media are criticized it has to be accompanied with a proportional amount of criticism of Republicans.
DeleteThat doesn't make any sense at all. It's the reasoning of a stupid child.
No, my reasoning is that someone who calls hinself a liberal shouldn’t behave like a bigot nor engage in specious and nonsensical criticism of some made-up blue tribe. Oh, and a former teacher shouldn’t be against expertise and knowledge. Speakng of stupid children, your paraphrase wasn’t even close — but maybe pretty good for a Russian troll.
DeleteSomerby, until very recently, has been gushing over Tucker, his straightforward approach, bla bla bla, but uh oh, very recently, Tucker was caught saying Trump is a “demonic force” and a “destroyer”. Now Tucker’s in the doghouse, along with whatever Somerby thinks “liberals” are. Oh well.
DeleteYour accusation is a confession. You call yourself a liberal and behave like a bigot and engage in specious and nonsensical criticism.
DeleteYou're a fucking idiot!
6:54 addled as you may be, it’s ok, we’re all “friends” here, it’s going to be ok, together we can get through anything. Now us grownups may be struggling to hold back a few guffaws at your expense (it’s a natural reaction to loonies like yourself), but we are here for you. It’s alright.
DeleteMmmmm perhaps 6:45 has come under the influence of some “demonic force”.
Delete"Judging from appearances, someone must have been holding a paycheck to her head!"
ReplyDeleteThis is Somerby's weak attempt to bothsides what Murdoch did. Mika didn't talk about Murdoch and she gets a paycheck, so she must have been [x] (insert what you think she did) for money, just like Murdoch did when he had his hosts lie to viewers about Trump's election loss.
Somerby is such a maroon. Does he think anyone will fall for this lame false equivalency?
These two sentences by Somerby are contradictory:
ReplyDelete"But as you can see through your "Murdoch" search, the topic was never discussed."
"At that point [9:15 am], Mika read an extremely brief "hostage statement"-style account of the matter..."
Or perhaps Somerby is splitting hairs over the meaning of the word discuss. How many side-kicks have to weigh-in before a topic is discussed? Apparently Joe must be present, since Somerby complained he was gone when Mika finally made her statement:
"Joe was present until at least 8:30 A.M., but this rather obvious topic was simply never discussed. "
Maybe it doesn't count as discussion unless Joe says it. These are the words Somerby uses to describe Mika's discussion of other topics:
pattered on; notably weird Grade A tapioca; carnival
And when she did discuss Somerby's preferred topic, she was reading a hostage statement.
Only men like Joe get to discuss things apparently. Mika's efforts are just noise to him, as he refers to Mika and her side-kick guests as "children."
If she had said anything, would Somerby have even heard it? She ultimately did report on the topic, but Somerby's complaint is apparently that her report was too short, not that it was absent, as he pretends to claim, up until he admits that she did talk about Murdoch eventually.
What an asshole Somerby is.
Somerby is drawing a distinction between merely reading a statement about a topic, versus having a discussion about it. Not that hard to understand.
DeleteDo we know how much of their show is scripted? I dont’t think so.
DeleteYou're the asshole.
ReplyDeleteYour posts always follow the same format. Cookie cutter.
So do yours.
DeleteBullshit.
DeleteYour template is:
1. Quote Somerby
2. Make a simpering, sniveling observation and add some speculation
3. The speculation has become true, it's a new paragraph!
4. Condem Bob for his awfulness
What's my template, asshole?
Name calling, more name calling, complaint about nyms, calling people mice, more name calling.
DeleteNotice that you never address the substantive issue raised in anyone's comments.
DeleteIt is true that Somerby has admitted to not watching a show he is criticizing. Does that seem OK to you?
What's my template, gentle reader? Don't evade now, it's impolite.
DeleteI have often criticized Somerby's writings. It's bad form to critique a show or book or anything else that you haven't watched/read etc.
DeleteNow, what's my template? Are you admitting to being disingenuous with these changes of subject?
See @3:49
DeleteThat was supposed to be a template?
DeleteWell I've never called anyone a mice. And you are the only person I call names.
Do you know what a template is? Yeah you do. You're dissembling again.
The use of “hostage statement” is
Deleteparticularly dubious here, it doesn’t
make any sense.
Anonymouse 3:49pm, the other anonymouse is not me. I truncate the a’hole word out of respect for all my old Sunday School teachers.
DeleteOn the other hand, you’ve written all, but maybe three of the comments on this board.
Do you know a good psychologist? You need one.
No, I haven't, not even close. You generally underestimate the number of commenters here, especially the ones who are critical of Somerby.
DeleteI saw with my own eyes the number of commenters here when you tried to cover Joe Bob Billy’s tracks by updating that nym to the letter “a”.
DeleteThat’s nonsense. Joe Bob wasn’t here that much.
DeleteCorby was verified. When she changes nyms all her posts update to that nym.
DeleteWhen she changed to “a” all posts went to that. Many one-after-the-other posts. I took pictures. I can cut-n-paste an entire thread of posts from “a”.
DeleteAnd yet no one else can find them…
DeleteCorby was verified as a nym that some unidentified person was using, just like you are using Cecelia and often have dozens of comments yourself. The only difference is Corby was mostly on topic whereas you attack others.
DeleteBecause google has now fully dated and you get nowhere search on “a”.
DeleteBefore google had fully updated you could pull up “Joe Bob Billy” and the first sentence or so of that post. When you clicked to the site you saw the post with the sentence, but the nym was changed to “a”.
Cecelia you pretend to be a female while defending the immorality of right wingers, who have decided trans people can no longer exist. The irony!
DeleteThat’s one lame deflection.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:35pm, no, Corby identified under the nym of Corby. When posts that had been written by Corby changed to another nym, we then knew that the Artist Formerly Known As Corby changed her nym. This last time she changed it to “a” to obscure her posts from a google search.
DeleteShe wrote posts and then replied to her own posts.
You can accuse me of lying about everything to my shoe size, but that’s all deflection.
Deflection makes no sense in that context. None at all.
DeleteYour credibility at attacking a commenter for changing their name is zero, all your non sequiturs aside, you’re pretending to be a female, while attacking trans people no less!
You are a hoot, I’ll give you that. But it’s one of those sad/funny things; your goofiness, just like your right wing stance, is a function of unresolved trauma, you are a wounded lost soul, and that is sad. I hope you find peace someday.
Anonymouse7:10pm, I’m savvy enough to know that you’re stringing along several insults that you think bother me in particular solely because I’ve made fun of them in the past.
DeleteI don’t have to be a psychologist to see that and to know that this is troll work and is also the mindset of the people who justify such things to themselves.
I’m goofy as the day is long, but I get anonymices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSuch important observations, Cecelia. “Anonymices blah blah blah.” And really on topic. Not. You’re such a fucking broken record, because you’re so weak you can’t brook any criticism of Sacred Bob. You’d rather attack the commenters than discuss the post. You idiots complaining about and attacking the commenters have turned Somerby’s comment section into a fucking cesspool.
DeleteRight, mh. All that is supposed to be your and the anonymices turf.
DeleteWhy would any liberal need to hear from Somerby about how awful Tucker Carlson is?
ReplyDeleteMost of us do not watch him because it is a pure waste of time. So is talking about how bad he is. The idea that we should commend Somerby for his discerning vision for calling out Carlson is silly.
Who's idea was it to commend Somerby? Quote please.
Delete"Waiting for that link to just ONE POST that EVEN SLIGHTLY agrees with ANYTHING Somerby has written." [@3:45 pm above]
DeleteYou're equating that with COMMENDING Somerby? Do we need to switch languages here?
DeleteCommend definition: "present as suitable for approval or acceptance; recommend"
DeleteSo not "slightly agree with anything" [they've] "written."
DeleteWhat Carlson is involved in here concerns defrauding the public in a very
Deletespecific, terrible way. So it goes beyond
him just being lousy.
So pointing out that he dissembles all the time, maybe that would be in order?
DeleteBob developed a “leave Fox Alone” playbook around 2005. He was clearly repelled, and it was a convenient
Deletedodge. Over time he became warped
from watching one side at picking
at it. It was funny he really had
nothing to say about Haniddy,
He’s tried to pass him off as an
honest broker in recent years.
As all readers can see, the shill is flailing desperately, throwing out every trick possible. But they aren't very good at it. They have been laid bare.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't made a single contribution to discussion of Somerby's essay or any actual topic. You are only attacking other commenters. But you think you have the upper hand?
DeleteI am signing off on this now. I don't want to participate in clogging up the comments section with this silliness. You can stick around and call me whatever names you want. I don't care.
Awww couldn't complete the challenge? So every comment you've ever written on this blog has been solely to criticize Somerby. You realize this means you are fully exposed, right?
DeleteFrom @4:06 pm:
Delete"We should not discount the possibility Bob is
only pretending to be outraged at what those idiots
on Fox did, so he can jeer at Morning Joe for not
being outraged enough."
I didn't write this but I agree with it.
So you're offering a quote that you didn't write, and it's a backhanded criticism of Bob. This is the best you can do?
DeleteI was actually rooting for you, believe it or not.
4:31 they are trolling you hard. I don't think they are serious at all.
DeleteOr do you think it's possible they are paid to troll as they do? Can you imagine having to act like a complete fool all day long?
DeleteAnything is possible Somerby says.
Delete“ Can you imagine having to act like a complete fool all day long?” Tell us what it’s like, 5:12. You ought to know. And you add NOTHING to the discussion here. YOU are the troll.
DeleteHow do you define troll?
DeleteNot adding something to the discussion that Bob is guilty of attacking black women? Go stick it in your ass you fucking idiot.
DeleteLet's discuss more how Bob attacks black women.
Deletemm - add something to the discussion we're having here about how Somerby is "abusive" towards Kamala Harris. You fucking disingenuous dumbshit cunt. Discuss the abuse towards of Harris!!!
DeleteIf you review my comments, you will notice that I (mh) have never mused whether Somerby is a bigot or a paid agent or a misogynist. I do not know if he is those things. But I respect the right of others to speculate. I do know that he majorly changed his tune and turned against liberals, while still claiming to vote for Democrats. He frequently misrepresents stuff, and that ain’t ok, in my opinion. Even if his target is the hated msm, he still has an obligation to make accurate criticisms.
DeleteOkay let's discuss it. Let's discuss the abuse of Kamala Harris. What do you have to say about it?
DeleteHe attacked her during the election for using the dept of labor’s gender gap stats. His language was demeaning.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAdd something to the discussion you fucking idiot cunt rag dickwad. Add something. Now. Discuss the abuse of this blog against Kamala Harris.
DeleteNow.
Show us the demeaning abusive attack, fucker.
DeleteAnd then we can talk about trolls. Faggot cunt.
Show us the demeaning attack.
DeleteWhy does it bother you so much, 8:16? You seem almost pathologically triggered. Are you Somerby’s gay lover and are personally injured when he gets criticized? Do you know how weird you look to everyone here?
DeleteSorry. You're right. I acted poorly. I am a little offended of accusations that there are "demeaning abusive attacks" on Kamala Harris - which is obviously just some idiot troll trolling - probably you - you're posts are idiotic as fuck 90 percent of the time. But letting it trigger me is my fault, so sorry to verbally abuse you.
DeleteJust get help 10:11.
DeleteSorry, took the evening off to see Korngold’s Die Tote Stadt. A Freudian opera!
DeleteAnonymouse 10:11pm, you’re not abusing or hurting anyone but yourself and making creepy and malign anonymices look better in comparison.
DeleteBob is a weirdo.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't keeping a notebook, but it seems to me
Morning Joe had plenty to say about Murdouch and the
dominion case. Unlike Bob, they have been paying attention
while Bob stupidly put his hands in his ears and chanted
"Trump, Trump, Trump, Jail Trump!" and it's no surprise
he could be surprised at what went on at Fox. Some
people might have taken an interest in this as it was
going on, if they were serious about writing about
the Media.
If Bob could have gotten past his petty hatred
and resentment of the rest of MSNBC he might have
gotten some of it. But, too dumb.
We should not discount the possibility Bob is
only pretending to be outraged at what those idiots
on Fox did, so he can jeer at Morning Joe for not
being outraged enough.
The Fox stuff was the lead on O’Donnell last night, and he had a lengthy discussion about it. He pulled no punches, and came down very hard on Murdoch and the Fox hosts. It’s an ongoing story and has been discussed all over MSNBC prime time. Somerby is a pretender.
DeleteChris Hayes tonight, leading off the show discussing Tucker Carlson's text message demanding a reporter should be fired for reporting the truth:
Delete“Please get her fired,” Carlson texted Hannity and Ingraham. “Seriously … What the fuck? I’m actually shocked. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
"My God, how craven can you get"
Remember, David in Cal recommends we watch Tucker Carlson to get the stories no other news outlet will give us. Bwahahaha!!
Huffington Post is leading with the detail that Murdoch
ReplyDeleteshared Biden's not yet public campaign materials with
Kushner.
OMG I’m watching Colbert & he’s saying nothing about Murdoch!
ReplyDeleteCecelia is a detective.
ReplyDeleteOh, please.
DeleteI beg to differ. Cecelia is good at detecting the dingieberries in Somerby’s ass, cause that’s where “she” keeps her head buried.
Deletemh, the better to see you dingleberries.
DeleteOMFG! Over at MSNBC it took until 9:15 AM before they brought up the Murdoch story!! Meanwhile, for literally years, an astute liberal blogger criticizing the media would have been continually occupied commenting about the trash Fox puts out to secure its viewership. Go watch a few Jon Stewart reruns to see how it is done properly. Instead, all this time Someday routinely doled out prattle about Morning Joe and the forever targeted Maddow, fastidious ignoring Murdoch's bullshit, a practice falling in lockstep with the mainstream media that Bobby is so fascinated with criticizing. Ironically they have that in common: ignoring the seriousness of Fox's activities. As if satisfying the needs of dumbasses like Mao and David in Cal was a priority.
ReplyDeleteUnamused, can you think of another reason why the media isn’t keen on pointing the finger and drawing attention to their particular outlets?
ReplyDeleteCecelia, in normal times the right of
Deletean outlet not to self incriminate,
but that’s pretty moot in such times.
It does remind one Fox once had
a fairly credible Media review
show, that even critiqued Fox!!
I’ve been a fan of Kurtz, but he’s right in this.
DeleteNever been a fan, rather.
Deletegoyard
ReplyDeletekd 14
off white clothing
off white shoes
supreme outlet
off white outlet
kd shoes
palm angels
off white hoodie outlet
supreme clothing