No, it's not. This should be obvious: you don't fire your top-rated guy because he was low against the competition. If that's the case, you fire EVERYBODY and start a whole new line-up. Matthews got lower ratings than Donahue; Matthews didn't get fired. Nobody else but Donahue got fired, and nobody else but Donahue bucked the company line of supporting the war. That's not a coincidence. But MSNBC's particular host shuffle is really just picking away at details. Here's the real bottom line: WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? What Liberal Bias? http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm Chris Matthews Smooching Mitt Romney's Ass Matthews dissing Dems ... as usual There's much more but why bother? You neo-khans have selective amnesia and a complete inability to assimilate facts that don't fit your prejudices. I'm done wasting my time here.
Good, go away then. The only person that could truly believe that the mainstream media isn't liberal is a person that's been so indoctrinated to it that they don't even notice it anymore. You're a perfect example of how the press can influence the "sheeple".
LMAO His shows have generally focused on issues that often divide liberals and conservatives in the U.S., such as abortion, consumer protection (his most frequent guest was Ralph Nader, for whom he campaigned in 2000), civil rights and war protests. Donahue also hosted a talk show on MSNBC from 2002 to 2003. In 2002, Phil Donahue returned to television to host a show called Donahue on MSNBC. Its debut ratings were strong, but its audience evaporated over the following months. In late August 2002, it got one of the lowest possible Nielsen ratings (0.1), less than MSNBC's average for the day of 0.2. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." OK, so he had a lower than average rating, even for MSNBC. So why is that? Is it because people are tired of his liberal bs? And he was clearly anti war when he was hired by the warmongers at GE. Are you saying that they had no idea about him when they hired him? Are you saying that they should keep him on regardless? The trurh is, most people have cable now, and are able to watch something OTHER THAN the liberal mainstream media. That O'Reilly gets 5 mil or so viewers a night and the big 3 get 50 mil shouldn't bother you. The libs still control the media, although they ARE oozing towards the center ever-so-slowly as their rating drop to more conservative offerings....
And you're a perfect example of a reichtard ignoramus who can't learn a new fact. Thanks for taking the bait, fool, your complete inability to deal with the truth is duly noted. Not a single refutation of the facts I posted. Not one. What a wimp, what a total loser and poser you are. You keep squawking "liberal media" like a demented parrot without presenting any proof at all. It shouldn't be hard to prove it ... IF you could. But you can't, and only persons of your ilk think that accusations are facts and repeated accusations are proof. Go ahead, give us ironclad PROOF that the mainstream American media, not just some isolated program or some isolated commentator, AS A WHOLE is liberal. It should be easy.
Here's the part from wikipedia you failed to post: Despite the reasons given by MSNBC, AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that mentioned that Donahue had to be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war". A war that hadn't started yet, but one that NBC/GE desperately wanted. [Donahue] is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Again, why wasn't Matthews fired along with Donahue? A very simple question that totally refutes your ideological fairytale.
How about how they vote? Would this represent a good sample for you?Time after time, year after year, in survey after survey, the media show THEMSELVES to be liberally biased, even when they know why the poll is being taken. It shows that in years like 1972, when Nixon swept 49 states, 81% voted for McGovern... Did you understand that statement and its' implications? http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp Here's just the latest - see how out of touch they are with they way AMERICA voted.... In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticutâs Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide â 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didnât vote or said they did not know for whom they voted. Let's see, studies have shown that media votes 80% Democrat....... Nope, no indication of a liberal bias there. None at all. And like I said, Katie Couric anchors the CBS Evening News. And of course, she a shining example of a centrist.
"The core of the conservative âliberal mediaâ case is that surveys have shown that a majority of journalists vote Democratic in presidential elections. Therefore, conservatives argue that a pro-Democratic bias permeates the American news media. Conservatives then bolster this claim of liberal bias with anecdotes, such as the alleged inflections of Dan Ratherâs voice on the CBS Evening News or the supposed overuse of the word âultra-conservativeâ in news columns. "But other surveys on the views of individual journalists suggest a more complicated picture. Journalists generally regard themselves as centrists with more liberal views on social issues and more conservative ones on economic issues, when compared with the broader American public. For example, journalists might be more likely to favor abortion rights, while less likely to worry about cuts in Social Security and Medicare than other Americans. [See "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.] "But the larger fallacy of the âliberal mediaâ argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures." http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html It should be obvious that newsrooms are not managed by the workers but then again I guess few facts are obvious to reactionaries.
LMAO- Oh, there's a real unbiased source you've got there - archived articles include - "Emporer Bush", "W's war on the Environment", "the 2000 Campaign" which all about how Bush "stole" the election, "The Clinton Scandals", etc.... Why don't you just go straight to Dailykos for your talking points and just get it over with... I see lotsa problems with this that you and your article don't address- 1- they self identify as centrists? Maybe in the world of journalism this could be true. But in the real world, their voting record says otherwise. Your article talks about their social concerns. But how does that jive with the fact that 81% of them voted AGAINST Nixon, even though he fulfilled his campaign promise and got the US almost completely out of the Vietnam War, and got North Vietnam to Paris to sign the Peace Accords - which was DEFINITELY the most important social issue of the day? Nixon withdrew 1/2 million men from Vietnam, leaving only about 20k there, and reduced our involvement to pretty much just an air campaign. Cut the war budget by 80%. And yet they voted for McGovern. How do you explain this? Is it because conservatives wanted to ban "Deep Throat" . Was this more important to them at the time? Or was it just another smokescreen for the liberal media to justify their clearly liberal bias? 2- It gives an example of Dan Rather's inflection in his voice. Who cares - let's instead bring up 2 issues that REALLY happened. He called Florida for Gore way too early, saying that the polls were closed in Florida, which was a lie. They were still open in the more conservative panhandle - liberal's own estimates are that this phony call cost Bush 8-12k votes. Now everybody knew beforehand - through polls - that Florida would be a swing state for the elections, and that Miami, etc - home to ex new Yorkers - would vote more in favor of Gore, and that the panhandle would vote for Bush. Rather's lie that the polls were closed resulted in the debacle of Gore challenging the vote , the liberal Florida Supreme Court attempting to bypass the state's own voting laws, and the eventual ruling by the US Supreme Court to VACATE (by a 9-0 vote, which includes the loony Justice Ginsburg - put there by Clinton) the FL SC's illegal ruling to continue recounting votes. And what of Rather's whole airing the National Guard/ Bush forged documents and claiming them to be true? Nope, no bias there...... 3- Publishers, owners, etc can be conservative OR liberal. Depends on where you go. But in the end, what do they want to do first - sell papers or get out a political agenda? Let's say they do fire a few that don't "toe the line". Who are they gonna hire to replace them? There are practically NO conservative upper level management types around. This is because , as their voting record shows, that the lower level guys are mostly liberal, and early on in a journalists career, an openly conservatively biased person will never get the oppurtunity to get the good assignments that would allow their careers to progress to the level of management. And yes, the news rooms ARE managed by the workers - the liberally biased managers. That's why they're called "managers". That's the reality exposed in Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias". And he considers himself a liberal, not a "centrist". 4- It claims that the press's jumping on Gore cost him the election. But again, it completely ignores the fact that Gore lost the Florida race for 1 reason - Elian Gonzales. After this Clinton/Reno debacle, ExCubans in Miami, etc turned out in force to vote for Bush. This has been documented, again, not through rhetoric or opinion, but by examining voting records in heavily Cuban precincts. Liberals will never examine this issue and admit that Clinto/Reno made a huge mistake, both legally and morally. Originally, Reno said it was a Florida issue, and when they ruled that Elian should stay here with his family, Frankenstein's Bride stepped in and decided it should be a Federal issue - INS. Clinton could have given the kid amnesty - even though Reno lied and said that the "law" is that he should be returned to his father. To be clear, this isn't true for illegitimate children, which Elian is. A clear lie that the liberal press ignored. Another horrific lie was when the Clinton administration claimed that Elian didn't qualify as "any alien" when he applied for asylum - a decision that the courts struck down as ridiculous. Never hear about those lies either now, do we? Nope, no bias here either... I could go on and on, but you're totally oblivious to logic, so.... have a good day, you sheep...
This whole "liberal media" debate is a joke. Anyone who watches the evening news once or twice knows it is slanted. Every anchor is a committed liberal. Every talking head on the morning shows is a committed liberal. Even airhead shows like The View are filled with nutcase liberals. Maybe Whoopi is only a far left moonbat instead of being clinically insane like Rosie, but there are still three libs against one shy girl who is hardly Ann Coulter. What about the Sunday morning shows. Russert, Matthews and Stephanopoulis all worked for left wing Dem pol's. The panels are typically stacked three libs to one diffident conservative. Even the way they stack them is biased. They put that good looking woman from The Nation on as a credible commentator, when in reality she represents a marxist viewpoint. Is that really balance or is it a ploy to shift the idealogical center of the debate? The print media are even worse. The only two major dailies that are conservative are the Washington Times and the WSJ. The Journal's editorial page is neo-con, but its news, particularly its Washington bureau, is clearly liberal. Far left loudmouth Al Hunt ran their Washington bureau for years, and it is still run by liberals. The NY Times and Washington Post have traditionally decided what is news for the mainstream media. Both publications are reliably liberal, both in their editorials and in their news judgment. As an aside, Judith Miller was forced out of the Times for her perceived closeness to the Bush administration. So much for journalistic integrity. Other than Fox News and the occasional Glenn Beck, cable is a wilderness of liberal to far left scolds. Even the Weather Channel is controlled by leftwing global warming fanatics. ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh for totally innocuous remarks. Meanwhile Keith Olbermann suffers nightly breakdowns from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
obviously.. he should have flogged the log before leaving the house that morning that's what he should have done