Tuesday Links and Open Thread

  • Fox News planning a move to a deluxe apartment in the sky?
  • Monday’s numbers: Bill O’Reilly-Megyn Kelly-The Five 1-2-3.
  • Video: Shepard Smith on NSA data mining.
  • May numbers: Fox News up double digits, +42% in key demo.
  • May: CNN up; HLN mixed; MSNBC tanks.  Weekend numbers.
  • Q&A: Neil Cavuto from Orlando.  Sunday’s Reliable edges Buzz.
  • Conan videos: Jake Tapper part one, part two.  FNC plugs CNN!
  • The Schultz Tapes: It depends on what the meaning of ‘often’ is.
  • Nightly Show videos: Christiane Amanpour
  • TCG: What about Jim?  Cable news and the biological imperative.
  • Kelly File video: on media coverage of Duggar family.

91 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-previews-duggar-interview-not-going-to-be-a-cross-examination/

    So, what does the following mean?

    “Fox News’ Megyn Kelly warned viewers Monday night that her upcoming, exclusive sit-down with Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar might not be as “tough” as the hosts of The View and others have predicted it will be.

    “I’ll take that reputation as a tough but fair journalist,” Kelly said. “However, this isn’t going to be a cross-examination of a family. It’s going to be an interview. I want to hear their story. And I think America wants to hear their story now.”

    Is that going to merely be some Hume-like softball game with Cheney? Is the fix in? The Duggars are too toxic for Republicans like Huckabee and Santorum and for the the FRC to be “grilled”? Are we just purposefully creating low expectations/

    My own sense is that the Duggars went to FOX for one very simple reason: they were likely to get the velvet glove treatment.

    And, if this interview is as milquetoast as Kelley is indicating it may be, can we call Kelley a “tough but fair journalist?”

    This was a horrible, horrible incident or, given the number of victims, escapade. Let’s hope the Kurtz interview was simply shtick and the interview is going to be truly substantive. I, for one, am not interested in some weak tea emotive piece. Far, far more is required to fully exploit this opportunity.

    • It’s inexplicable, isn’t it?

      Megan is an attorney and she doesn’t understand that the way you get info from a punch drunk family on a public hot seat is to say that you are going to sift them like bad flour because that’s the tough as nails sort of journalist you are, America.

        • Please. The Duggars have attained iconic status among (some) rightists who worship every drop of generic ketchup they squeeze from the bottle. If this interview ends up being as lacking in substance as Kelley seems to suggest it may be, and I doubt it will, it will be solely because FOX is not going to shatter the icon.

        • Well, no threat of him making liberals endearing. He does make a good chew toy for Ceceilia which is kind of fun.

          • He’ll be talking to himself henceforth. But that will suit him fine as he loves the sound of his own thoughts.

          • I’m thinking of a place where no one comments at all anymore. Seldom at least. Good place to bloviate and no one talks back.

          • You might try the graveyard of lost snorkels. Quiet as the John Edwards fan club these days.

          • Drudge Report doesn’t have a comment section. I WAS referring to the graveyard of lost snorkels. I’m not going there. Too many ghosts.

          • Royal Clucker knows that Drudge doesn’t have a comment and simply provides news links. But that doesn’t stop him and others on the far-left from calling it a right wing hate site.

          • They don’t like the links. Same reason they don’t like Fox News. Takes people to places they would prefer people not go.

          • A great logical leap, to say the least.

            If I wanted to ban FOX, why I would I come to a place in which FOX is much adored and deemed as infallible as a Pope in the Middle Ages? That would make no sense.

            An informed citizen must always question the media, hold it to account. I make no apologies for seeking to hold FOX accountable, much as I make no apologies for seeking to hold the other American cable news networks, the broadcast news networks and PBS accountable.

            Banning? Pshaw!

          • Interesting. I don’t deem FNC as being infallible, but this Protestsnt does see the Pope as being an emissary from God.

            Im not sure how people are Catholic when they believe nothing from the preeminent teachings of Catholicism….not even those concerning Christ as sole redeemer.

          • That may be what that Catholic thinks.
            Rethinking that analogy may be a good idea.
            More snobbery and insults.

          • It has never been the case that everything the Pope utters was infallible. The infallibility came into play when the Pope as the Vicar (Visage) of Christ speaks in proclamation of a teaching of Christ as infallible and that proclamation is confirmed by the Bishops. That’s not to say many, if not most, Catholics understand that. Indeed, the great sin of the Church is that it has never actively taught how the doctrine works. Such ignorance created the loyalist of adherents. I very much doubt the present Pope is much of a believer in infallibility, or, indeed, of the unbroken Apostolic succession. As a Catholic from one parent (my mother being an ardent Presbyterian) and as a Catholic who worships with some frequency at an (higher sort of) Episcopal/Anglican church, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the Pope is merely the RC Bishop of Rome and that the Sea of Rome has primacy in Catholicism much as Canterbury as primacy in Anglicanism. I imagine the current Pope would be understanding of that.

            Now if I could just understand how anyone could believe in the infallibility of any American cable “news” network. I suppose only through faith ….

          • To your last statement: No one does. It’s just your formulation that you don’t understand…

            I didn’t mean to suggest that I think the Pope is speaking from God if he were to say that black robes look better than white ones or that Montepulciano D’Abruzzo is the best damn Italian wine (though it is).

          • Did I mention you? Do you speak for the entire left? My God, do you have an ego problem!

          • Did I ever say Drudge was a right-wing hate site? No, I did not. You’re being dishonest. Indeed, I don’t think it is a right-wing hate site. Marty said she want someplace to go where people don’t comment. Hence, my suggestion. The value of Drudge is two-fold:

            That is an index, almost a search engine.

            That it is comedic in the manner in which it decides upon placement of articles with some of the least important in the most prominent positions and in the colorful headlines which often have only a tenuous connection to the stories.

            All that said, if you glance at Drudge and open a few links, you’re actually likely to learn something, unlike the experience with any number of rightist and leftist sites.

          • For God’s sake, don’t give him an opening to start talking about (censored by poster in the interests of blog decency)!

          • An odd thing to say given the escapades of Sandusky, Hastert and Duggar of late. Not to mention Vitter, Sanford, Ensign. No, I’d say “deviated perverts”, whatever than may mean, are a bi-partisan, pan-ideological sort.

          • “Deviated preverts” were a line from a movie. See a physician about your lack of humor.

          • No, were it Remi, I’d limp back into battle, but, for all bluster and careless assertions, he was genuine.

          • She has a lot more patience than me. But, then, I’m a grouchy old man whose e-mail has been down for two freaking days. TPC claims their engineers are working on it. They didn’t like my latest suggestion to fire the engineers and hire new ones.

      • What’s inexplicable is she said anything at all. Most attorneys have a very good idea about when to talk and when not to talk. If you don’t learn that in a trial tactics class, you learn it by watching clients constantly blabbering and getting themselves in all manner of trouble for doing so. I’m not so sure that created any harm for herself, but it’s rather like saying, “I am giving a retirement party for my husband next week. It’s going to be deathly dull, and the food will be terrible and the liquor cheap. But, you can come if you want to. Can’t imagine why you would.”

        • Oh, I think “most attorneys” would have seen that she handed out a pre-party favor to the both the Duggars and her audience.

          • Unlike States Attorneys General who appear on tv after they’ve indicted police officers or some high profile pol. Never happens.

          • Certainly to the Duggars, to politicians who have exploited them and some other members of her audience. As for others, as for journalism, I have my doubts.

          • First it was that she wasn’t doing herself any favors, now it’s lofty journalism that’s being tarnished.

          • No, I have consistently said that if she does what she says she is going to do that is shoddy journalism. That’s clear in my initial post. It is too important a matter to treat lightly or to turn into a mere human interest story.

      • A link from Mediaite. Ok. Read the comments and be prepared to lower your IQ 50 points. It’s a foregone conclusion that MK can’t or won’t conduct anything but a cover-up interview. Fox covers up for pedophiles. Megyn will discuss recipes with Michelle Duggar that involves large amounts of tater tots. Bad news for Republicans because they like pedophiles. No interview has been conducted but the meme has begun. More brilliance from the haters.

        • It seems to me that Kurtz and Kelley opened that can of Pringle’s, not Mediaite.

        • A link from Mediaite? Why, when the unedited video segment has been posted here for over 11 hours now? Thanks for alerting me to this. One of the few things I ask is that people not link to stuff in the comments that’s already linked in my posts. But noooooo…

          • Because his link is better than yours. Can’t be bothered with the rules when there is something bigger at stake here like MEGYN KELLY and coming to foregone conclusions. Let us all bow down.

          • Now, really. We extract the words from a rather tedious on-air discussion, giving due and proper credit, because the written word often emphasizes or underscores meaning far better than a mere chat. Isn’t that often the very essence of good journalism? Perhaps, you see it differently. I feel I provided a service which obviously fostered a great deal of interest. I think you’d have a good point if I linked to Mediaite or Breitbart and merely repeated the the conversation in a koffee klatch of no particular import. This frames the matter for posterity far more effectively.

          • If that serves your purpose to say so, but that wouldn’t be deflection, would it? It would be cunning. I appreciate that.

          • I’m trying to remember when I got something right. But, then, I am getting a bit senile.

      • The fascination with screwed up families has always escaped me be they Duggars, Khardasians, or Jacksons. I suppose if the Addams family had professed conserative values, lame liberal trolls would be sniffing for dirt on Uncle Fester.

        • I’m not sure that works all that well. Van Susteren was all over the Jackson story. Intensely and endlessly.

        • It’s like that for both sides. Only when I was growing up in the dullsville dark ages folks harbored disapproval for the enjoyment and glee at seeing fine ideals shattered like chalkware.

    • A shame. The Sciutto topic is actually far more interesting. And, in my view, far more important.

        • Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully prepared to discuss the Kurtz/Kelley interview all day. Although it lacks the significance of the Sciutto story, it strikes at the heart of all that is wrong with American cable news, and it so perplexing. There is obviously an ulterior motive for this. It is as choreographed as that long walk Kelley took down the hallway on Election Night 2012. I just can’t figure out what it is. Or, what the goal was. Ars gratia artis?

          • You brought it up. You are deflecting as you so well when you are caught dead to rights. The Kelly walk is so relevant here. Pathetic. Requiem in pace.

          • A minute ago she was handling it like ten year old socks, now it’s meticulously choreographed.

          • He gets off on this crap. And he gets all the attention he craves. Poor schlubs at mediaite aren’t quite up to the task.

  2. Yikes!

    If you have a bit of time read the Science Codex article reached by the “biological imperative” link. This ought to be required reading, especially for journalists. I’ve long understood that there is a predisposition to judge people by their political choices, but I’ve never thought it an actual biological imperative. That seems very dangerous.

      • Sorry it took me so long to respond. I’ve been much in a celebratory mood over the resignation of Sepp Blatter.

        So, you are suggesting that in the manner of Rose Sayer (later Allnut) that nature is what we are put on this Earth to rise above? Yet, she much succumbed to nature did she not?

        When I was but a fair lad, I would go to political rallies and events with my mother, my grandmothers, one of my grandfathers and my aunts. All were devoted Texas Democrats of the pinkish sort. It was all great fun with music and jokes, mounds of tamales and churros. Beer for the adults, and red cream soda for the kiddos.

        But, my best friend, I’ll call him Andrew (although his name was Sean) had a mother who was a Republican of the very traditional country club sort. She often hosted teas with chicken salad sandwiches without crusts and inverted grapefruit halves with cheese and olive laden toothpicks inserted in a satellite-like pattern. It all seemed elegant and polite but dull and dreary.

        Those types of activities create images which remain with one. To this day, Democrats seem like fun-loving sorts still favoring tamales, beer and churros, but Republicans, of the Texas sort, are still dull and dreary but no loner elegant nor polite. So, it is possible to overcome some of the predispositions.

        • So you’re saying you were able to rise above your tribal nurturing and your youthful psychological associations and see the Republicans for what they truly are.

          And here people think you superficial and calculated?…

          • You buying that hogwash?
            The answer is rife with condescension and puffery. And Dems are just everyday people? Sure.

          • Let me assure you, Marty, that among Texans, a love for tamales knows no class distinction, no partisanship, it has no ethnic divide, there is no gender gap. Tamales unite all Texans. And, if you find a Texan who prefers chicken salad sandwiches on crustless bread to tamales, he is likely named Tucker or Buckley or Ainsley or Regan. In other words, not Texans.

          • I care! I love it! It’s all crystal clear now.

            Sean aka Andrew was at the club learning tennis moves from the pro and the “Watusi” from Buffy Jo, while TRRE was at the senior citizen’s banquet hall fulfilling the weekly indoctrination imperative and mopping the brow of “Uncle Gus”.

          • You are good, C. You ought to write a soap opera. Internet Trolls and How They Find Relevance. I’m done with the nonsense. It’s up to you continue to fight the good fight. You are about he only one willing to engage.
            The whole thing is a façade. A good back and forth is one thing, but too much of this stuff is insulting to everyone’s intelligence. As an aside, there is one other poster who comes here every now and then. He has a different perspective but is able to state his case with intelligence and I often learn something from him. He is a gentleman and not a troll. He makes his point and moves on. The challenge is all yours. Besides, all this hooha is not on cable news and J$ will probably yell at all of us soon!

          • No, that group of 50’s and 60’s Republicans in Texas were a class act. My opinion of them hasn’t changed. But, Republicans in Texas have changed.

  3. Am really surprised Amanpour would slip such a dis at Brian Williams. Even people at NBC that don’t like him won’t appreciate her spitting in their nest.

  4. I went back and looked at the Weekend “Numbers” for 17 and 18 May 2014. I didn’t use 24 and 25 May, the last weekend of the month, because that was Memorial Day weekend and the results might tend to be skewed. What was noticeable is that FOX dropped a bit, MSNBC rose a bit, and CNN rose dramatically.

    For Sunday, FOX rose a bit, CNN rose by double the amount FOX rose and MSNBC declined slightly.

    Does this mean that CNN is truly improving as we’ve been told? Perhaps. In any event, very interesting.

  5. Today’s most popular links:
    5 biological imperative
    4 FNC plugs CNN
    3 deluxe apartment in the sky
    2 What about Jim?
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 The Schultz Tapes: It depends on what the meaning of ‘often’ is.

  6. Anyone know if Chris Wallace has interviewed Jeb Bush yet? He’s had some very tough interviews with all of the following.

    Ben Carson
    Marco Rubio
    Carly Fiorina
    Rand Paul
    Scott Walker
    Mike Huckabee
    Ted Cruz

    If the answer is, “No, he has not interviewed Bush,” does anyone know why or care to speculate.

    Color me baffled (by this) — unless the only reason is because he has yet to officially announce a run for president. (It didn’t stop him from appearing with Megyn.)

      • Since Jeb Bush is now set to announce his candidacy on Monday, June 15th, perhaps we’ll see him ‘tangle’ with Chris Wallace on Sunday, June 21st.

        Could be interesting and entertaining — perhaps even combative.

        • I’d actually look forward to that interview. If Wallace has some conservative ideological predisposition, and I don’t think he does, he has never been reticent to hold the Bush’s accountable. A nice sort of balance between that portion of the rightist media which fawns all over anyone Bush and that portion which reflexively criticizes anyone Bush as a mere RINO. I think it would be an informative interview.

Comments are closed.