Weekend Links and Open Thread

  • MediaBuzz videos: furor; Sanders
  • Reliable Sources: Roy MooreAT&T deal; ex-newsman elected (D).
  • Jake Tapper scorches Roland Martin over leaks to Donna Brazile.
  • Ingraham Angle video: Dems calling GOP the
  • Swells, including a ‘Trump’, attend Joe & Mika engagement bash.
  • Somerby: Does Maddow ever make a claim that isn’t embellished?
  • What if CNN is sold…to Rupert Murdoch?  Sunday talkers: preview.
  • Russia warns of crackdown on US media operating there…e.g. CNN.

44 thoughts on “Weekend Links and Open Thread”

  1. In Flanders Fields
    John McCrae, 1872 – 1918

    In Flanders fields the poppies blow
    Between the crosses, row on row,
    That mark our place, and in the sky,
    The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
    Scarce heard amid the guns below.

    We are the dead; short days ago
    We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
    Loved and were loved, and now we lie
    In Flanders fields.

    Take up our quarrel with the foe!
    To you from failing hands we throw
    The torch; be yours to hold it high!
    If ye break faith with us who die
    We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
    In Flanders fields.

  2. Today is Abby Huntsman’s last day before maternity leave. Int will be interesting to se who Fox chooses as fill-ins. Sandra Smith would have been the first choice but not now that she’s working three hours a day on two shows. It probably will be a collection but among those with F&F experience are Molly Line, Elizabeth Prann, Trish Regan, Heather Childers and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

  3. Spud hasn’t made a post since September 26th. Coincidentally, that was the day the neighbors and I dug up what was left in the potato patch.

  4. I have a feeling Keurig is going to be sorry it believed another MMFA lie, #BoycottKeurig is trending at number one on twitter.

    From Twitchy:
    Earlier this week, Sean Hannity was accused of claiming the 14-year-old in the Moore situation had given consent; the Left was all over social media claiming he was enabling a predator. Later it came out that Hannity had not said any such thing, and even Jake Tapper and Yashar Ali tweeted that he hadn’t, but that didn’t stop Media Matters and the Left from going after Hannity’s sponsors.


    • Ive said it here before……..if a company boycotts a show on Fox News…….Fox should say fine……you cant run ads on ANY Fox owned station including Fox owned local stations……no ads on FX….no ads on BIG Fox……no FS1 ads no nothing!……..these silly mediamatters boycotts would stop immediately.

      • In theory it sounds good to stop the lying smearing MMFA cult. However, I don’t expect any corporation to not accept money for a non-controversial advertiser. I am willing to bet Fox and other networks bend over backwards for advertisers and their demands.

        • someday Fox is going to have to play hardball or these boycotts will just go on and on………Ive brought ads (radio) for a company……..if you tell a company that if they join a national boycott of one of our shows…fine you cant buy ads on any of our networks…..enjoy placing ads on the low rated networks….they WILL think twice about doing something for 5 minutes of good PR from some weird political group like mediamatters……..until Fox fights back…these will just go on and on.

    • I think what happened is Hannity mixed up the names of the women involved in accusing Moore. Hannity corrected himself on his show, but by then Tapper had tweeted some scolding tweets to Hannity based upon tweets Tapper was getting from his followers claiming Hannity said an underaged girl could consent to have sex.

      Hannity came back at Tapper and told him what went down. Tapper deleted his scolding tweets with a quip about never watching Hannity’s show.

      For deleting these tweets with erroneous notions about a show Tapper had not watched, Tapper was then hailed as Diogenes, and many of his followers continued passing on the misinformation about Hannity.

      Typical day on Twitter.

  5. This weekend’s most popular links:
    5 preview
    4 isn’t embellished?
    3 party of abusers?!?
    2 to Rupert Murdoch?
    And the most popular link in this weekend’s links…
    1 Swells, including a ‘Trump’, attend Joe & Mika engagement bash.

  6. Of the three cable news channels, which one can claim the most paid pundits from the other party?

    My sense is MSNBC is out of the running. But are Fox News and CNN close to being tied in this category?

    Somehow I missed this HuffPost column with a list of paid “pro Trump pundits” on CNN.

    Jeffrey Lord
    Corey Lewandowski
    Kayleigh McEnany

    Jack Kingston
    Ken Cuccinell
    Ben Ferguson
    South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Baueri
    Scott Jennings (former Bush White House official)
    Jason Miller
    Stephen Moore
    Rick Santorum
    Alice Stewart
    David Urban
    John Phillips
    Paris Dennard
    Matthew Whitaker

    I take issue with the article that these are reliably pro Trump all the time. But then again the same could be said of the many anti Trump pundits on Fox News who are known to speak positively about President Trump on occasion.

    Anyway, I had no clue there were so many pro Trump folks at CNN,

    Your thoughts?

    • To my knowledge CNN doesn’t have a published list of their contributors (paid pundits). HuffPo has often misidentified people as Fox News contributors (even though Fox DOES publish a list of their pundits) so I’d say the chances of them getting some wrong in that article are pretty good.

    • I’d say it almost impossible to make a list of pro-trump people on any network……depends on what you biases are……I’m accused of being a “trumper” by the disgraced racist stooges…….I didn’t vote for him said I wasn’t going to many many times before the election and in 2020 I again wont vote for him…..I told people NOT to vote for him….I even wrote a blog post titled something like “trump parks on our graves”…….doesn’t matter…..I couldn’t support HRC so that makes me a “trumper”……of course SPUD over at INC did the same thing I did and the cowards don’t call him that………nowadays the insane call everyone who doesn’t attack Trump a pro-Trumper person….its silly and frankly makes them look like idiots to the rest of us.

      Not attacking Trump or saying he did something right doesn’t make you pro-trump……it makes you honest if he did something right……nowdaysTrump has broke the minds of many weak mined fools.

      • If you are suggesting it is “almost impossible to make a list of pro-trump (or anti-Trump) people on any network,” that’s a tough argument to make with those who:

        A. Accuse Brian Stelter, Rachel Maddow and Stephen Hayes of being anti-Trump.


        B. Accuse Sean Hannity, Mollie Hemingway, Jack Kingston, Ken Cuccinell, Ben Ferguson, Melissa Francis or the Fox & Friends co-hosts of being pro-Trump.

        Perhaps I misunderstood what seems to me a very narrow definition of what a pro-Trump (or anti-Trump person is.

        • If I say Trump did a good job in China this week……am I pro-trump………many of the now crazy would say YES i’m a Trumper…….but of course i’m not. I just can see he did a good job in China.

          For some its easy…Hannity, Cuccinell for others like Francis I would disagree that shes a Trumper as would most IMHO.

          The problem is the anti-Trump people are no longer rational…everybody who does not bash Trump or whine about Trump is a Trumper……forgetting that it not a journalist job to do any of that.

          Many anti-trump people would say Stelter isn’t anti Trump but thats because they agree with him……yet clearly he is.

          If you think theres a very narrow definition of what a pro-Trump (or anti-Trump person is…….then Yes you wont be able to understand what I’M talking about……..because you cant see it.

      • “Nowadays the insane call everyone who doesn’t attack Trump a pro-Trumper person.”

        Not sure to whom you are referring.

        Generally speaking when most media types like Michael Calderon, who wrote the aforementioned HuffPost column, refer to a pundit being pro-Trump they don’t mean a PR mouthpiece like a Kellyanne Conway or a Sarah Sanders.

        What they mean is that on a panel show like Outnumbered, Fox News Sunday, AC360, State of the Union, Reliable Sources or Media Buzz these pro Trump (and anti-Trump) pundits are almost always predictable about whether they will defend (or criticize) Trump, or his administration, during most discussions.

        • I would say when you get people saying ____ (fill in the blank) is not an ‘objective journalist’ because (s)he never attacks Trump (which is not the job of an objective journalist as it was taught to me) that would fill the bill pretty well.

          • Yeah, I definitely agree that some are difficult to label and are often falsely accused of bias on opinion shows.

            If some are going to criticize Faulkner and Francis for – what they say is — never criticizing Trump on Outnumbered, shouldn’t the same standard be applied to Maddow and O’Donnell (who some say never defend Trump)?

            Of course that’s a slightly different topic (about journalists or hosts) than what Michael Calderon was writing about (pundit panelists).

            Gatxer seems to question one of the basic assumptions in Calderon’s article.

            Namely, that by Gatxer’s somewhat narrow definition he doesn’t think MC can legitimately claim who is pro Trump (on CNN).

            Okay by me. That is his right.

Comments are closed.