NICHOLAS KRISTOF: I’m sure that at mosques around this country, especially the more radical mosques, this is going to be seen as one more evidence that people are picking on us.
So Kristof acknowledges the existence in America of “radical mosques.” Isn’t that the very proof of the need for inquiry along the lines Peter King is conducting? What Kristof suggests sounds like appeasement. People in “radical mosques” might feel like they’re under scrutiny? Good.
The Fox News Channel absolutely dominated its cable news competition in February. In terms of overall viewers, the top 11 cable news shows were all on Fox. In the coveted 25-54 demographic – the group that advertisers pay particularly close attention to – Fox took 11 of the top 15 spots.
The Rachel Maddow Show earned the top spot for an MSNBC program. Despite her struggles with factual accuracy of late, it seems Maddow has assumed the role of leading prime time anchor left vacant by Keith Olbermann’s departure.
Also, this clarification for those who do not know that this is the norm:
Here are some of the highlights from Nielsen that will help you cut through all the clutter of ratings, shares and spin for February:
For the 110th straight month, Fox was the most-watched news channel in total viewers for both Total Day and Primetime.
Overall, Fox News Channel was the fourth most watched basic cable network in Primetime — behind USA, TNT and History. By comparison in the news universe, MSNBC was 26th and CNN was 29th. By comparison to other widely known channels, ESPN ranked 6th, MTV was 1th and AMC finished 17th. And who else in the world of news does better than top sports and entertainment programming outside of the legendary “60 Minutes” on CBS?
During Total Day, FNC was the sixth most-watched cable network, while CNN was 27th and MSNBC was 28th.
In Primetime, Fox News beat all three news channels – MSNBC, CNN, HLN – combined in total viewers. In Total Day, Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in total viewers.
Some on the left have been crying foul at CNN’s decision to air live Rep. Michele Bachmann’s response to the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. None have been more vocal than MSNBC libtalker Rachel Maddow.
One media critic had enough. On Thursday, the Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik laid into Maddow’s criticism, saying it derives from “the mentality of a lockstep party member, not a journalist.” Zurawik’s gripe was Maddow’s insistence that because Bachmann was not officially representing a political party, her speech should not have been given comparable treatment to the president’s or to Rep. Paul Ryan’s Republican response.
Journalists “don’t let political parties tell us who we should and shouldn’t cover,” Zurawik added. “I have a West Highland terrier named Bugsy who has better journalism credentials and chops than you do,” he quipped.
Here is the portion of the Baltimore Sun article that I think sums up the corrupted thinking at MSNBC and specifically Rachel “Madcow.” Take note “Z on TV” references the video, which can be seen in the link above:
….The essence of my critique: The Tea Party has played a major role in shaping the new Congress, and it has already had a significant effect on American life. Given that, if you aren’t sure about whether or not to cover, you err on the side of inclusion — not exclusion. Provide citizens with as much information as you can so that they can make the best decisions about their lives.
But check out the video MSNBC thinks I should see and note that Maddow’s argument boils down to this: Bachmann should not have been covered because she was not “ordained” by the Republican Party as its official responder.
This is the mentality of a lockstep party member, not a journalist. Unless the party “ordains” someone to speak, they shouldn’t be covered by the press, in Maddow’s thinking.
Memo to Maddow: That’s not the way journalists think. We bring citizens as much information as we can whether THE PARTY ordains it or not. Just like we don’t let the executive branch tell us which news operation is a “legitimate” journalistic enterprise, and which isn’t, we don’t let political parties tell us who we should and shouldn’t cover. Journalism 101 at Goucher College where I teach.
CNN was right in covering Bachmann. And by the way, there are interns at CNN’s Washington bureau who have better journalism credentials than you do, Ms. Party Operative Think. In fact, I have a West Highland terrier named Bugsy that has better journalism credentials and chops than you do….
Here is some more critiquing of bad stats from MSNBC’s “smartest” host via NewsBusters:
….It appears Maddow must have been out of the country during Desert Storm when Patriot missiles were used to take out Iraqi Scud missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although their success rate was a great source of debate at the time (see the July 1996 Center for Defense Information study), no one disputes that some Scuds were indeed shot out of the air.
More importantly, at least twelve countries are currently using Patriot technology as part of their missile defense programs.
Maddow was either oblivious to these facts or was being disingenuous with her argument.
But that wasn’t the MSNBCer’s only miscue in this brief discussion, for she clearly didn’t understand why the Reykjavik Summit fell apart. Even the liberal website Wikipedia agrees with Moore’s view:
In 1986 Reagan had proposed banning all ballistic missiles, but wanted to continue research on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that could potentially be shared with the Soviets. Yet Soviet suspicion of SDI continued, and U.S.-Soviet relations — already strained by the failure of the Geneva Summit the previous year[citation needed] — were further strained by the Daniloff-Zakharov espionage affair.
At Reykjavík, Reagan sought to include discussion of human rights, emigration of Soviet Jews and dissidents, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, Gorbachev sought to limit the talks solely to arms control. […]
Gorbachev, however, citing a desire to strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty(ABM Treaty), added the condition that any SDI research be confined to laboratories for the ten year period in question. Reagan argued that his proposed SDI research was allowed by any reasonable interpretation of the ABM treaty, and that he could not forget the pledge he made to Americans to investigate whether SDI was viable. He also promised to share SDI technology, a promise which Gorbachev said he doubted would be fulfilled, as the Americans would not even share oil-drilling technology. […]
The talks finally stalled, Reagan asking if Gorbachev would “turn down a historic opportunity because of a single word,” referring to his insistence on laboratory testing. Gorbachev asserted that it was a matter of a principle, and the summit concluded.
As such, Moore was quite correct that the failure of this Summit was over SDI, and Maddow was once again wrong.
And this is supposedly MSNBC’s most intelligent prime time commentator.
Okay, she got some stuff wrong, typical and expected. However, she is correct in part — even though she wasn’t referencing this aspect of modern missile defense. Two things, first the bad news: the newest missile our Pentagon boys are worried about is the “Carrier Killer,” or the the Dong Feng 21D. One commentator mentions this in regards to this new threat:
….This new ballistic missile (flies up, falls down from close to orbital height with limited or no guidance on the way down) goes hundreds of miles and can carry a tactical nuclear warhead, and is not really defensible (moves too fast, detonates too high, etc.) beyond taking it out before it’s launched with pre-planned Tamahawk strike, tactical nuke strike, etc….
So this is the type of missile that Patriot missiles are useless against. So even though Maddow wasn’t even talking about this (or knows about it), she is technically right. Which is why missiles on missiles may not be an only option for future defense, although a part of it. The Dong Feng can be fired from 900 miles away, which is why this (the second point — which is good news) is one of our up and coming defenses, the first successful test was in February 11th, 2010 (see video).
This is the type of stuff that will defeat “Carrier Killers” and ICBMs. All traced back to Reagan’s insights, and not Maddow’s, or, Madcows!
Ex Google lobbyist Andrew McLaughlin working as the No. 2 tech policy guy in the White House discussing net neutrality with Google lobbyists (registered and unregistered) while Google stood to profit from the administration’s Net Neutrality rules.
Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson taking a job as Treasury Department chief of staff within 9 months of his work for Goldman.
Former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst being hired by Obama’s IRS and then writing new regulations on tax prep — regulations that H&R Block has endorsed, and that will help H&R Block.
Obama officials meeting off campus for official business for the sake of avoiding the Presidential Records Act.
And this nugget from the same NYTimes piece: “Two lobbyists also cited instances in which the White House had suggested that a job candidate be “deregistered” as a lobbyist in Senate records to avoid violating the administration’s hiring restrictions.”
The firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. As my colleague Byron York has explained: “The method of Walpin’s firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general.”
Giving a car company (Chrysler) to a political entity that spent millions to get you elected. This deal involved alleged threats by a since-indicted car czar to knee-cap investors who didn’t want to agree to the White House’s deal.
That’s what makes this clip from Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show even more interesting. Ratigan gives six minutes of air time to Ted Rall, the cartoonist last seen shark-jumping by insulting the late Pat Tillman for dying in service to the country. Now Rall has a new idea for improving the country, and Ratigan seems very interested the the proposal (via Verum Serum and Directorblue):
Ironically, it was only about a month ago that Sharon Angle was excoriated by several MSNBC talking heads for making a reference to “2nd amendment remedies.” Is Chris Matthews going to call out Ted Rall and/or Dylan Ratigan for letting him promote this? Rachel Maddow wanted to know if Angle’s language was finally too extreme. Well is it still extreme when it’s coming from the far left over your own TV channel, Rachel? If so, maybe you should poke your head down the hall and say something.