Re: London bombings, today's great moments in broadcasting<br><br><br>Fox News host Brian Kilmeade: I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened. »<br><br>Fox News contributing correspondent Simon Marks: "[T]hese people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London. »<br><br>Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume: "my first thought when I heard" about the attack "and I saw the futures this morning," was "Hmmm, time to buy. »<br><br>Fox News host John Gibson: echoed previous day's comments that if IOC had picked France, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?" »<br><br>Limbaugh on London attacks<br>Limbaugh downplayed London bombings, claimed "40 people dead" is "not a successful terrorist attack" »<br>"It's like I said -- 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded out of over 1 million people in that transit tube. It's not a successful terrorist attack, folks."<br><br>Limbaugh's response to London: Durbin, NYT, Gitmo critics are "aiding and abetting" the terrorists; bin Laden "sounds like John Kerry" in 2004 »<br>"When bin Laden talks about the 'evils'of the United States and why it must be attacked, it sounds like John Kerry and his 2004 presidential campaign.<br><br><br><br>
Media matters does a pretty good job of context on their website with providing comprehensive transcripts and long video/audio clips. Brock gets really ridiculous sometimes. He was complaining a while back that the NPR ombudsmen was advancing the myth that the ombudsmen at CPB were on the left and right (they're both pretty conservative). I read the column he was complaining about and the tone of the whole thing ranged from conciliatory to sarcastic to disappointed, he was certainly not being some Tomlison shill.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
QT link<br><br>The correct context to make them sound like idiots? Brit Hume's first thoughts were of futures trading? Or does he share the same insight as Rush that not enough people were killed or maimed to make this a real success of a terror attack? <br><br>It's really okay to step out from your little bubble for brief moments of insanity like this and say "yes, FoxNews sucked." <br><br><br><br>
highly partisan.... well doh!<br><br>And somehow Shepard Smith (a link not found on Media Matters) contradicting his own network and spinning his own made-up conclusions is not worthy of criticism? <br><br>Brit Hume's comment is not worthy of criticism? The clip sure gave a lot of breathing room before and after the comments as not to change their context.<br><br><br>So why attack Media Matters? Please clear things up for me if any of this, as shown in the two clips, is taken out of context and edited for partisan attacks.<br>As you are a champion of honest media, please explain how any of these comments are worth your praise? I thought you might even agree with me that FoxNew's and Rush's comments were lame.<br><br><br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Brit Hume's comment is not worthy of criticism? The clip sure gave a lot of breathing room before and after the comments as not to change their context.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And what exactly was Hume saying that was "worthy" of criticism (other than his comments were made on FOX NEWS!)? Out of 1,440 minutes (of a 24 hour news story), we get a snippet of Hume talking about the stock market . . . OMG!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>As you are a champion of honest media, please explain how any of these comments are worth your praise?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Other than tugging, pulling, pushing, dragging the leftist party-line bogeyman shrieking of FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS!, what was so "bad" about these comments ... snippets, really, gleaned from an all consuming 24 hour news story. <br><br>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
<br>QT ~ouch!~<br><br>Talk about Bias!<br>Dubin calls a spade a spade<br>and you'd think he'd shot their<br>faverit huntin' dawg... <br>but these guys get flipped off again<br>as *Ho-Hum* "just comments" <br><br>Dare I say it?<br><br>It just goes to fit<br>(...letz all say it together...)<br>"THE NEO-CON TEMPLATE!"<br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.