Conservative Hack Prefers Like-Minded Ideologues; Moves to Fox News

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Novak Leaving CNN to Join Fox News
By JACQUES STEINBERG

Robert Novak, the conservative commentator and columnist who was a fixture on CNN since its inception a quarter century ago, said today that he was joining its more popular competitor, Fox News, as an occasional contributor.

Mr. Novak described his move in a telephone interview after CNN released a statement saying that his "tenure on the network" would end on Dec. 31, when his contract expires. Mr. Novak had not appeared on CNN since Aug. 4, when he uttered an expletive and then bolted from a live interview in which he had been needled by James Carville, a Democratic strategist, as pandering to "these right wingers."

Their interviewer, Ed Henry, later said on the air that Mr. Novak was aware that he was about to be asked about the continuing fallout from a 2003 column in which he identified a C.I.A. operative by name. That column relied on a leak that has since become the subject of a wider-ranging government investigation that resulted in the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Mr. Novak said that his departure from CNN had been "a mutual decision," one that seemed obvious to him after the network canceled the two main programs on which he had appeared, "Crossfire" and "The Capital Gang."

"I turn 75 in February and I wanted to do a good deal less," he said. On Fox News, he said, he will serve as an occasional contributor, though not for any particular program.

In the statement, Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN's domestic networks, made no mention of Mr. Novak's role in the C.I.A. leak case, or of the August incident. Instead, the network wished him well and thanked him for his "incisive analysis" over the years.
Click to expand...

You will not be missed.

How's for the PAD-inspired thread title?
 
So what conservative commentators are left at cnn? As far as I know novak was it. This is a credibility issue. You don't need novak but you need at least someone. Hell we joke about colmes but at least he's there. Sure he only grows a spine for a couple minutes a week, but at least he's there.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So what conservative commentators are left at cnn? As far as I know novak was it. This is a credibility issue. You don't need novak but you need at least someone. Hell we joke about colmes but at least he's there. Sure he only grows a spine for a couple minutes a week, but at least he's there.[/QUOTE]

Lou Dobbs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Credibility? Who are the liberal commentators? James Carville? Is he even on tv anymore?[/QUOTE]

Maybe you're right. Its just if I was accused of being liberally biased I'd do everything to try to at least keep my conservative commentators.
 
lol, I laugh every time I hear "Fair and Balanced" on Faux News. Seriously, only the brain-washed kool-aid drinkers who refuse to hear the whole side listen to that channel.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Fox news IS the balance to CNN's 'faux' objectivity. The fulcrum lies between the two.[/QUOTE]

Because two anchors/journalists on CNN are also Air America hosts, in order to counter Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's stanuchly conservative radio programs? (Three if you count Neil Cavuto, whom I also believe has a radio program?)

Because the editor of "The Nation" or "Mother Jones" gets to serve as an anchor on CNN during news primetime (6PM), in order to counter "Weekly Standard" contributing editor Brit Hume?

Because Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel (now *there's* a name from the past), and other liberal scholars get so much air time on CNN that Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and various and sundry "scholars" from such agenda-oriented institutions as the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and L Brent Bozell all get equal time on Fox?

Please, bmulligan; you might be onto something if you weren't full of shit. Fox is strewn with commentary shows that feature no liberal orientation, with the exception of Greta van Susteren and the Charlie McCarthy to Sean Hannity's Edgar Bergen, Alan Colmes. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a listing of CNN programs that are unabashedly liberal? Perhaps you can enlighten me with CNN programs that are more news commentary and analysis than straightforward news? Even in the hypothetical that any of the above rhetoricals I proposed are true, there is simply an imbalance of straight news versus analysis/commentary shows that shows Fox has no intention of letting "you decide" the issues.

Of course, there is also (how could I forget this boob?) John Gibson, another Fox anchor, whose publications serve as clear evidence of his political leanings; before you retort in the way I imagine you, keep in mind that he fails to keep his publications and his news separate; evidence of that lies in the "war on christmas" that was fabricated between Gibson and O'Reilly, in order to sell the former's book.

The only CNN host that I can picture with overt political leanings is Lou Dobbs; while he's alright sometimes, and most of his news presentation is straightforward, when it comes to immigration, he's lost. He's not ashamed to admit that he wants the borders closed, and he wants them closed now. While I don't completely disagree with that, I also know, for damn sure, that I'm not getting the complete picture on immigration from Dobbs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because two anchors/journalists on CNN are also Air America hosts, in order to counter Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's stanuchly conservative radio programs? (Three if you count Neil Cavuto, whom I also believe has a radio program?)

Because the editor of "The Nation" or "Mother Jones" gets to serve as an anchor on CNN during news primetime (6PM), in order to counter "Weekly Standard" contributing editor Brit Hume?

Because Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel (now *there's* a name from the past), and other liberal scholars get so much air time on CNN that Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and various and sundry "scholars" from such agenda-oriented institutions as the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and L Brent Bozell all get equal time on Fox?

Please, bmulligan; you might be onto something if you weren't full of shit. Fox is strewn with commentary shows that feature no liberal orientation, with the exception of Greta van Susteren and the Charlie McCarthy to Sean Hannity's Edgar Bergen, Alan Colmes. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a listing of CNN programs that are unabashedly liberal? Perhaps you can enlighten me with CNN programs that are more news commentary and analysis than straightforward news? Even in the hypothetical that any of the above rhetoricals I proposed are true, there is simply an imbalance of straight news versus analysis/commentary shows that shows Fox has no intention of letting "you decide" the issues.

Of course, there is also (how could I forget this boob?) John Gibson, another Fox anchor, whose publications serve as clear evidence of his political leanings; before you retort in the way I imagine you, keep in mind that he fails to keep his publications and his news separate; evidence of that lies in the "war on christmas" that was fabricated between Gibson and O'Reilly, in order to sell the former's book.

The only CNN host that I can picture with overt political leanings is Lou Dobbs; while he's alright sometimes, and most of his news presentation is straightforward, when it comes to immigration, he's lost. He's not ashamed to admit that he wants the borders closed, and he wants them closed now. While I don't completely disagree with that, I also know, for damn sure, that I'm not getting the complete picture on immigration from Dobbs.[/QUOTE]

Did I say the fulcrum is exactly in the middle? No, not even close. But you have just stated that CNN is more liberally biased than objective. And if you really believe that there is such a thing as "straighforward" news, you are more naive that I thought. Bias can be telegraphed through a seemingly innocuous "news" story, and CNN has the experience and the payoffs to have mastered the visage of objectivity.

You need to chill out and stop taking shit so personally cause the crap you're so full of is leaking out. You'll eat poo from the CNN plate all day like it's filet mignon, but anything that comes from me is automatically right-wing-reactionary-bullshit. Becuase you let your prejudices get the better of you, I don't consider you an impartial judge on whether CNN is 'neutral'.
 
I never claimed to be Captain Moderate. It's disappointing that, despite the claims I made about Fox's presentation and employees, you merely circumvented everything I said to respond with something intellectually akin to "Nuh-uh, they are liberal!"

So, since you want to take the easy way out, and make claims (not backed up with *any* evidence whatsoever, disappointingly enough) about CNN's status, perhaps you can point me in the direction of a conservative media watchdog site? I think Bozell has one, but I can't think of the name.

As far as chilling out, I'm perfectly placid, my friend. You're the one who managed to qualify your original claim such that it changes the implications entirely, and additionally manage to avoid everything I've said, meanwhile claiming that I'm the berserk one making crazy claims and acting like a lunatic. Please, shecky.

Let's focus on the matter at hand: I showed my hand, so quit yer bluffing and either show us what you have or fold.
 
Your implied premise and characterization of my comment was that I was equating the liberal slant of CNN to the consertvative bias of Fox news. I was not. Nor did I ever imply that Fox news was impartial or objective.

CNN International just did a 5 minute news story glorifying the benefits of gay marriage in England. They interviewed more than twice as many happy gay marriage supporters as opponents. On the opposition? They interviewed 2 priests who offered the standard 'goes against god' argument. They then went on to extoll the economic virtues of the Brittish law and cite examples of how homosexuals are subjugated to persecution. That seems balanced to me.

Aside from simple news 'events' like a fire, shooting, or other 'happening', political news is presented with an attitude and careful use of language to convey opinion in almost every news story, CNN or any other. It's a shame you don't, or can't, notice it.

The bottom line is that CNN is not the standard by which bias can be measured. It is not the balance point in the equation. Although, it's much further toward the center than, say, MSNBC.

Nice attempt to discredit me by claiming I take the "easy way out", am "full of shit", offer "no evidence", and "avoid eveything I say" by avoiding everything I say and being full of shit.

read
 
1. In a recent CNN segment, Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena made a staggering claim: that al Qaeda endorses John Kerry for president. During Arena's videotaped report, which discussed whether al Qaeda might attack the U.S. again before November's elections, she commented, "Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." Oh really? Speculation by whom? Well how about Bush's Attorney General John Ashcroft. A couple weeks ago Ashcroft announced that the terrorists were definitely attacking this summer and we're all going to die, so duck and cover, run to the hills, all that good stuff. (Incidentally this was all news to Tom Ridge, who had no idea what Ashcroft was talking about). But during that announcement, Ashcroft said, "The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to have advanced their cause. Al Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." Got it? If there's another major attack, make sure to vote for the guy who let it happen. Otherwise, uh, the terrorists have won. Now, we expect this kind of utterly contemptible bullshit from Ashcroft, but to hear it bastardized into "there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House" is really quite... what am I saying. Obviously we expect this kind of utterly contemptible bullshit from CNN as well.

2. It seems that the administration will go to any lengths to make sure they get their oil war with Iraq, and CNN are more than willing to help them if it means more ratings for the desperate cable news organization. Several alert viewers informed us that CNN's Judy Woodruff announced on CNN last week that the Bush administration was "encouraged" by the UN inspectors' recent discovery of 12 empty rockets, which begs the question, "encouraged whaa?!?" And also last week CNN were banging Donald Rumsfeld's war drum for him, insisting that "Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something." Yes folks, that was the actual headline on CNN's website. According to CNN, "The failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction 'could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation' with U.N. disarmament resolution." Why don't they just put up a headline which says "Come ON! WAR already! Crispy-fried Iraqis are our top ratings-getter!"

3. Judy Woodruff
Hi-jinks were the order of the day at a recent Bush event in Fargo, ND, when Karl Rove grabbed the microphone of CNN's John King and proceeded to do a little "reporting" of his own. "The president is making an incredible presentation to the audience here in Fargo, North Dakota," said Rove. "The crowd has received an overwhelming - his reform message of Social Security. The crowd broke into a strong applause when the president attacked the mainstream media..." King interrupted, "It's not bad. I'd keep your day job, but that's not bad." Not bad? How dare you, Mr. King! "I'd say more than not bad," gushed Judy Woodruff, back in the studio. "I think we're ready to hire Karl Rove right now. We'll start - we'll make the phone call right after the show." You know, I don't know what's worse... the idea that Karl Rove's spin is so similar to CNN's regular reporting that Judy Woodruff can't tell the difference, or Woodruff assuming CNN can employ someone they already work for.

4. Despite the fact that most people were just sitting on the sidelines watching the GOP kick itself in the balls, it wasn't just feckless pundits who were trying to turn this story into some kind of Republican vs. Democrat freak-fest - mainstream media outlets were desperate to get in on the act too. CNN tried especially hard, even going so far as to produce some dubious graphics indicating that compared to Republicans and Independents, Democrats were overwhelmingly in favor of removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube:

191_cnn1.gif


Would you look at that graph! Why, those heartless Democrats are clearly "out of the mainstream" on this one! Except, if you take a closer look at the graph, you'll notice that it doesn't start at zero and stop at 100; it starts at 53 and stops at 63. This is a classic example of how to "lie with statistics" - that is, to doctor a graph to make it produce an emotional, visual result. Thanks to Media Matters, here's what the graph should look like:

191_cnn2.gif


Wow... that doesn't have quite the same impact, does it? In fact, if you take into consideration that the margin of error in the poll is 7 percentage points, the results are pretty similar. Now take another look at the CNN poll above. Liberal media my ass.

5. On August 4th, Robert Novak said "Well I think that's bullshit" and walked out of the CNN studio, live on air. I still get goosebumps just thinking about it. Ah yes...

But anyway, immediately after Novak's hissyfit, CNN suspended him indefinitely, saying that his behavior was "inexcusable and unacceptable." A CNN spokeswoman said, "We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," and the network apologized to its viewers for the cranky conservative columnist's bullshit explosion.

However, it seems that CNN's idea of an "indefinite suspension" is about 26 hours, as they posted Novak's syndicated column on their website on August 5th. And - why, yes - they published his column on August 11th too. With a little picture of him on the front page of their Politics section, no less.

C'mon CNN - if you don't want Robert Novak saying "bullshit" on your TV shows, do us a favor and get his bullshit off your website as well.

6. We've been chronicling CNN's transformation from serious news network to third-rate infotainment channel/government propaganda machine for some time now, but last week marked a new low for the once-proud station. If you're still in any doubt that the name "Bush" is synonymous with "success through under-achievement," witness CNN's latest hiring - failed radio DJ and first cousin of Dubya, Billy Bush. Billy was fired from his morning show on Washington's banal Z104 for continuously low ratings, and you can't argue with a resume like that. No wonder CNN snapped him up so quickly. What, you think they hired him because he's related to the President? You think that pairing him with Fox News defector Paula Zahn will help boost the all-important right-wingnut demographic that CNN has been gagging for lately? Don't be silly. When you're looking for a new morning anchor, you look for quality, substance and experience - and that can be summed up in just two words - Billy Bush. He's got so much depth and gravitas, he doesn't even have to comb his hair. For a great example of Billy's journalistic skills, click here. And here.

7. CNN - NEW! Weeks on chart: 1 - According to US News and World Report, the executives over at CNN, worried that their network "looks too liberal," are "making overtures to congressional conservatives … practically begging them to come on." Hmm, that's funny. As far as I can tell, the only thing liberal about CNN is how liberally they heaped praise on Dubya during his first 100 days in office.

8. Ah, the media. So very biased in favor of the left. Jeez, you almost have to feel sorry for conservatives considering how little face time they get in the mainstream media. It must be a real struggle for the right-wing opinion to be heard when those rotten liberals have got all the major news organizations in their pockets. Which is why we were surprised by the results of a recent DNC study of CNN. Believe it or not, between January 1 and March 21 this year CNN carried 157 live events involving members of the Bush administration (96%) and 7 events involving senior Democratic officials (4%). And CNN aren't the only culprits. On March 20, for example, all the cable news channels ignored Democratic press briefings by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt - despite the fact that the House was voting on the budget and the Senate was about to pass campaign finance reform. However, on that same day the networks did manage to squeeze in live appearances by George W. Bush, Ari Fleischer, John Ashcroft, and, of course, Laura Bush (for good measure). So don't worry folks, your Democratic leaders actually are working hard on your behalf, it's just that the "liberal" media would rather you not know about it.

I could go on, but what's the point?

Sources: Top Ten Conservative Idiots, various editions
 
[quote name='bmulligan']cropped directly from the democratic underground.com Glad to see you can form your own opinions instead of parrot those of your liberal masters.[/QUOTE]

I provided examples instead of making up shit.

And of course it's DU. I cited the Top Ten Conservative Idiots in my previous post. But hey, if you want to continue believing CNN is liberal, then by all means, keep drinking the kool-aid.
 
No, you cut and pasted a quick google from other's ideas of bias. They could very well be making shit up, but you probably didn't even read the entire copy. You really don't know, but you assume they are true becuase they're on a website that's inherrently biased itself. Talk about taking the easy way out...


They are mostly correct examples, however, citing examples of conservative bias or administration bias is not an anti-venom for making CNN a "neutral" media outlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top