KeepHip.com

This guy is just reading Republican talking points too. Not at all interesting - and way worse than Hannity.

His first guest is billionaire Lynn Tilton who tells the hardscrabble story of being a single mother having to make her own way in the world as an investment banker. (I'm not really being sarcastic here, this is presented as a "pulled herself up by her bootstraps story".) Then they rag on TARP, but never mention that Bush was responsible for that. Everything Obama did, however, gets pinned on the President by name.

They just ran a bit on a black Republican, Michel Faulkner, who's challenging Charlie Rangel. Rangel, represents Harlem in the House. They let him go on for just a minute about how bad Rangel is, but the only thing he said about his own candidacy is that he wanted to stop black folks from being so "dependent on the government." No comment on whether white folks, being better and all, need such weening.

How he ranked his own segment when is karaoke fund-raiser was empty and he has no chance of winning is, you guessed it!, beyond me.

Beck is a horrible actor.

Beck is starting off with the leaders of four Tea Party organizations. It's as lily white as you might imagine. The Tea Party believes in "physical responsibility." I did not know that!

Beck disses the NAACP for their comments regarding the Tea Party, then a few minutes later says the Tea Party needs to repudiate racism - which is exactly what the NAACP asked the Tea Party to do.

I'm totally unsurprised by the junk science advertisements.

Evan Bayh is useless.

Listening to Hannity is like listening to a book of RNC talking points, and yes, that means it's just as boring as it sounds. What's the appeal of this guy? I'm going to have to find a right-winger and ask about that.

He shows 20 seconds of a 60 Minutes clip and says it only showed one side of the story. I guess I should take his word on that?

This Brent Bozell segment is pure lunacy. They had the nerve to talk about the president whining about the media to "shut them up." And what was his life's work again?

I can't pay attention to this Carol Channing segment. I can't pretend to care.

FOX News is incredibly consistent in their naming schemes. The estate tax is never the estate tax, it's always the "death tax."

The same with "Obamacare."

Also, Dana Perino is doing a show now and the "we report, you decide" motto is nothing more than a joke. She keeps ranting on how sad and pathetic Joe Biden is, and asks how long before Democrats own up to being in charge of the economy, and how clearly it wasn't Bush's fault. This is all rendered as opinion with no facts to back it up.

They also keep showing Anthony Weiner (D-NY) bitching out Peter King (R-NY) just like they did Howard Dean's video during his campaign, but it doesn't look all that horrible to me. I don't get how you turn getting pissed off over denying heath care to 9/11 victims against him.

I'd include a quote from "Why don't conservatives fact check MSNBC?" but it's very short, and the whole post is worth reading.

Brent Baker writes for NewsBusters, "Katie Couric Boasts She’ll Be Buying a Prius, the Favorite Car of Obama-Loving Liberals" (emphasis in original):

Confirming her membership in Manhattan’s liberal elite, Katie Couric boasted on Tuesday’s Late Show that she plans to follow Tom Friedman’s admonition, that in refusing to move away from oil “we have met the enemy and he is us,” and so she’s realized she “should” buy a Toyota Prius, the favorite of conspicuously superior liberals, or at least a hyprid. Couric recounted how her daughter told her “‘we should turn in the car we have’ and ‘get a Prius or a hybrid.’ And I said, ‘you know, Ellie, we should do that.’ And we're going to look into it.”

Is a mere mortal capable of measuring this stupidity?

Baker can tell who Prius owners will vote for based purely on a stereotype. (22% of "Obama-loving liberals" are . .. Republicans, only 35% of Prius owners self-identify as Democrats.) Prius owners are members of the "liberal elite" because . . . well, they just are. Baker has read enough liberal minds to tell that Prius owners think they are are "conspicuously superior", whatever the hell that means. Overall, we get that idea that buying a Prius is just bad, but are not really told why. Maybe if you assume liberals do anything en masse, it becomes tainted? Cooties, perhaps?

Lastly, this clown is the "Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center." I can tell hiring is a meritocracy over there.

NewsBusters, "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias", catches Newsweek in the act:

Take, for example The Index feature in the Scope section. Assigning a number score from zero (awful) to 100 (awesome), Newsweek writers snarked that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal [score of 15] has often "[railed] against big government" but is now complaining "big government isn't doing enough to protect his shorelines." Writers also smacked around conservative J.D. Hayworth, former Rep. Vito Fossella and failed Idaho congressional candidate Vaughn Ward while praising author Joe McGinniss [score of 74] for moving next door to Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, residence. No Democrats were ridiculed by name.

You see, because criticizing Republican governors is liberal bias, even if you attempt to justify it.

"ABC Leaves Ideology Out of Investigation Into 9/11 Truthers: 'They Come From All Over the Political Spectrum'" says NewsBusters. And because they don't use the Truther label as a alternate pejorative to 'liberal', that's a bad thing.

Nightline's Chris Bury on Monday investigated the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, but made no effort to look at the ideological make up of those who believe that the government was behind the 2001 terror attacks. Reporting from the group's convention, he asserted, "Over the weekend hundreds of Americans calling themselves 9/11 Truthers gathered at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. They come from all over the political spectrum."

However, according to a 2007 poll by Rasmussen, 35 percent of Democrats believed that President Bush knew about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in advance. Yet, Bury blandly explained, "They are an eclectic group with widely different agenda, including war protestors, first responders who feel neglected and families of some 9/11 victims."

NewsBuster's use of the word "however" here is proof that's the whole operation is just a propaganda enterprise. Like many conservative organizations, they're not interested in exposing a double standard, they're interested in implementing one.

If you read the entire article, they consider how many Democrats believe stupid stuff like Bush knowing 9/11 was going to happen, but nowhere does the article consider how many Republicans do. Worse, they call out Nightline for positing the possibility that Republicans can.

This is not the thought process of someone interested in fairness. The irony of calling out Nightline for saying "They Come From All Over the Political Spectrum" and only looking the beliefs of Democrats to "challenge" that statement is completely lost on these simpletons.

Noel Shepperd of NewsBusters infamy is at it again:

CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday demonstrated just how ignorant most media members are of how the federal budget works.

During the most recent installment of "Fareed Zakaria GPS," the host actually said, "[T]he Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit."

Actually, the shame is all Zakaria's, for the ignorance on display was astounding.

In fiscal 2000 before the Bush tax cuts, our government brought in $2.025 trillion in unified revenues while spending $1.789 trillion. Seven years later, before the recession hit, we received $2.568 trillion, a 27 percent increase. BUT, our expenditures rose to $2.729 trillion, a 53 percent rise.

Adjusting for inflation, 2.025 trillion in 2000 dollars is 2508.00 in 2008 dollars. In other words, inflation adjusted revenues were barely flat, even if you ignore the growth of the population, and thus, the economy. Tax revenues should inch up with inflation and grow with a larger economy, Bush's tax cuts prevented tax revenues from doing either, thus contributing to the deficit.

But he goes on to say:

To further illustrate the stupidity on display, even with tax cuts, receipts grew faster than the rate of inflation.

Really? Not according to the numbers I'm seeing.

He finishes with a rant about controlling spending, without nothing that the stupid wars we fought were the main cause of the growth of spending in the Bush years. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Oh my god.

After bitching that Reuters deleted a story "without explanation", NewsBusters goes and does it themselves.

It's not sloppy, it's lying.

Y'all try to figure this one out for me.

(Update: the link was moved here.)

In a world where they remain silent over Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter's antics, NewsBusters decides to take Rachel Maddow to task for allowing Michael Steele to make fun of himself.

Eliot Spitzer's favorite prostitute, Ashley Dupré, is now writing an advice column, "Ask Ashley."

NewsBusters, "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias" has an item about it. Now I can see how documenting what those wascally liberals are up to is appropriate for a site like NewsBusters, but does that really apply when the column is appearing in the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post?

I must say I'm shocked, shocked, by the low standard they use to report on "liberal" bias in the media.

"NewsBusters Attack on Gore Backfires."

That's the NewsBuster's mantra, claim bias first, then seek "evidence."

It's mighty disingenious to just purge the original article by replacing it with a "correction", isn't it?

I also expected comments on the thread to be more entertaining than egg on the posters faces. Perhaps the error was caught too quickly? Oh well.

NewsBusters boss Brent Bozell is upset that the story of the Navy SEALS accused of abusing a terrorist isn't getting more ink:

But you won’t hear that outrage because the American people don’t know about this story because, believe it or not, our national media won’t report it.

There is no one except Fox emerging in a Nexis search of TV news transcripts. No ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN. How can this merit nothing? There is no sign of a story in major newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, even the Associated Press and other wire services. (One exception: Gannett News Service ran an article from the Navy Times, even if it didn’t make USA Today, Gannett’s largest property.)

Here's CNN's story.

Here's CBS's story.

Here's the Chicago Sun-Times story.

This is another of the typically weak cases made for "liberal bias" in the media: stories that either don't appeal much to news editors or that just get lost in the noise is somehow substantial proof of anti-conservatism. This ignores the real world, where far more substantial stories like say, Blackwater, don't match a liberal's expectation of coverage either.

"Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds plays dumb on an epic scale."

This made me start to think about something: are the folks at right wing blogs - especially those like NewsBusters that are devoted to media bashing - hypocrites for calling out Obama's criticism of FOX News? NewsBusters has beaten the "liberal bias" drum since its inception, is it really fair for them to try to take Obama to task for what has been so far a passing (and not to mention accurate) comment about FOX far more blatant biases?

"Fox Fever" in 11 words: FOX News isn't conservative because of the people who watch it.

"Why Winning the Nobel Peace Prize Could Hurt Obama."

Because there really are downsides to winning these things, you see.