Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Americans can recognize the difference between making up a scandal and covering one   (theweek.com) divider line 152
    More: Obvious, Fox News, MSNBC, Americans, political scandal, republican presidential candidates, exculpatory evidence, Marist, scandals  
•       •       •

4656 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-17 05:21:45 PM  

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


2/10
 
2014-02-17 05:25:35 PM  

theorellior: The Why Not Guy: Please, go on... I'd love to hear this one.

Pssst... you've got a hook in your mouth.


Yeah, it's called the lamestream MSM drive-by media.  He should try listening to some true Amercian journalists sometime, instead of the communists at CNBC.
 
2014-02-17 05:32:41 PM  

Skleenar: DeaH: It is scandalous that people are politicizing a tragic event to try to manipulate elections. The fact that it didn't work for the 2012 election, but they are still pushing it for 2016 is pretty scandalously stupid.

And yet, libs are letting the DemocRats get away with it.


Your meds need adjusting. It'll be okay. Just see your doctor. Soon.
 
2014-02-17 05:34:40 PM  
Too much Poe's Law in this thread.
 
2014-02-17 05:40:43 PM  

spelletrader: Too much Poe's Law in this thread.


Yeah.  He was a huge libtard allright.
 
2014-02-17 05:43:52 PM  

Skleenar: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Hear hear.  In all my years of non-partisan, dispassionate observation of the political process, I have never seen such a blatantly partisan and fact-free response to an issue as that of the libtards trying to shield their POTUS and SECSTATE from whatever it was that it is suggested they did that was blatantly scandalous in Benghazi.


Guys,
Are you aware you could have stopped at the sinker?

You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.
 
2014-02-17 05:45:40 PM  

nyseattitude: Guys,
Are you aware you could have stopped at the sinker?

You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.


They got the angler and his canoe, too.
 
2014-02-17 05:46:56 PM  

nyseattitude: You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.


Don't worry.  I've got one of these, too:

www.ronco.com
 
2014-02-17 05:47:54 PM  
I, for one, don't have an opinion until Sarah Palin gives it to me.
 
2014-02-17 06:00:20 PM  

JerkStore: I, for one, don't have an opinion until Sarah Palin gives it to me.


See?  This is what I hate--a blindly partisan allegiance to a "side" without considering facts.  If it wasn't for the fact that Liberals are twice as bad, I'd have a tough time recommending people vote Republican.
 
2014-02-17 06:11:07 PM  

Cletus C.: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Oh boy.


It's always amusing when someone goes so far derp, even you have to say something about it.
 
2014-02-17 06:14:01 PM  
Or, MSNBC has a better story to tell.  People resonate a lot more with being dicked around by local politicians than they do with something that happened the other side of the world in a barley liberated country.
 
2014-02-17 06:15:55 PM  

Name_Omitted: Or, MSNBC has a better story to tell.  People resonate a lot more with being dicked around by local politicians than they do with something that happened the other side of the world in a barley liberated country.


Take me to this place, for I have thirst.
 
2014-02-17 06:36:18 PM  

grumpfuff: Cletus C.: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Oh boy.

It's always amusing when someone goes so far derp, even you have to say something about it.


You know, I thought this particular troll was long gone. I'm sorry to see someone rattled the Benghazi bell and he came drooling out of his cage.
 
2014-02-17 06:52:15 PM  

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-17 07:15:05 PM  
www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com
 
2014-02-17 07:15:07 PM  

Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.



I love this one. The 24-hours after the bridgegate story broke compared to the 6 months ~January-June, 2013.

Apples-to-potatoes.

Thanks for emphasizing the point of TFA, though!
 
2014-02-17 07:17:54 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

Sure, if you start counting IRS coverage on July 1st, two months after the story broke, two weeks after the IRS testified the WH was not involved, and one week after it was shown that groups with 'progressive' and 'occupy' in their names were also targeted.

Do you enjoy being lied to or do you just not care?


LOL... I didn't even finish reading his comment.. I thought it was about Benghazi, but the point is the same... a 6 month period beginning after the supposed scandal was revealed to be a non-scandal compared to the 24-hours after the bridge thing broke.  Pathetic.
 
2014-02-17 08:31:32 PM  
Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.
 
2014-02-17 08:42:36 PM  
It's still American TV news so any praise I'd have for MSNBC is limited.
It's just not possible for it to not be shiat.
 
2014-02-17 09:08:11 PM  
Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?
 
2014-02-17 09:09:59 PM  
Another "legacy" of Mein Kampf: when I was sampling the readings to get a clue of A-hole's thinking. Right from the start he dismisses how the "liberal media" will lie, defame, and dismiss his writings. Limbaugh and followers learned this well, as any time a media disputes his facts, "See, I told you! Liberal media!".
 
2014-02-17 09:23:29 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


They're in the process of proving that pretty much every state official in NJ but Christie knew about the lane closures.
Whether he's a liar or an idiot this is destroying his aspirations to the White House. Does that make a difference?
 
2014-02-17 09:30:16 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


Well, it isn't a question of proving something about Benghazi and Clinton: there's nothing of consequence for her or Obama to have done. There was no way to have interceded.  OTOH, Christie sounds like he was complicit in a criminal enterprise. People fleeing subpoenas isn't evidence one associates w/ honest mistakes. So, the two incidents aren't equal. One was a tragedy. The other was a crime.
 
2014-02-17 10:15:14 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


In our moment of triumph???
 
2014-02-17 10:27:20 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


The bridge thing is an actual scandal. The only question is whether Christie is directly involved or not.
 
2014-02-17 10:39:33 PM  

ikanreed: The sad truth is that Fox is in a great position even if their audience dwindled to a fraction of other news sources.  Sucker-Americans are worth a fortune to advertisers, and Fox News does a fantastic job of slicing them out of the herd.


Food for thought here.

Networks' biases can be judged not on their programming, but their advertising. Advertisers want to know goddamn well which demographic they'll be reaching before they roll a campaign out.

I tuned in to FOXNEWS recently for a few laughs, and it struck me how narrow the advertising market seemed to be:

1. LifeAlert type products.
2. Gold "investment" opportunities.
3. Low end Billy Mays style commercials for stupid useless shiat like SlapChop.
4. Not a single ad for a high end item.

Conclusion: For all of FOX's crowing about ratings (an increasingly useless bragging point), the fact is that their audience seems to be old, poor, and ignorant. Even on their site they have ads for "Penny Stock Millionaires!" on the sidebar.

I'm sure FOX does well enough, but I think that their reputation as a broadcasting behemoth is overstated. The fact is, most people in this country DON'T watch them.
 
2014-02-17 10:42:11 PM  

ongbok: Are there that many bad spellers in the world? I can understand words that you may not use or read everyday, or those words that have weird spelling rules, but simple words like informed I don't understand. And didn't they have a friend that saw the sign and said "That's spelled wrong"? Or is it that their whole circle are bad spellers?


CSB: I went to a teabag protest once to counter-protest since it was my Congressional district.  I had a very detailed sign with lots of words on both sides quoting the Constitution and the Bible, and one of the teabaggers was trying to make fun of me for it.  I infromed him he had three words on his sign, and one of them was spelled wrong, which surprisingly made him walk away in silence.  Later in the day, I was told by an elderly gentleman that the Jews only supported health care reform because they are a tribal people.  The signs you see are are not outliers in the slightest, and it's not just the spelling.
 
2014-02-17 10:43:38 PM  

Kevin72: So, back to Wienergate.


I believe that's called a zipper.
 
2014-02-17 10:49:05 PM  

ifarkthereforiam: Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.


It's scandal-envy. Nixon did a fantastic job of tarnishing the dignity of the office of the Presidency, and the GOP has been salivating at the opportunity to find an equivalent Democrat ever since.

Nixon's scandal was actually a big turning point for the GOP because they interpreted the event as proof of the inherently liberal media. Everything from Limbaugh to O'Reilly goes back to the Republicans feeling like they had to push back against a phantom enemy. Nixon's resignation was the birth of the "liberal media" lie.

It's why the GOP tried the eviscerate Clinton over Lewinsky. They really thought they had a shot there to balance the scales, but it didn't quite work out that way. Nixon is still analogous with corruption. Clinton is analogous with indiscretion.
 
2014-02-17 11:34:49 PM  

Cletus C.: The Why Not Guy: Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic.

I love how Conservatives value ratings over accuracy in their news sources.

Huh? Listen bub, Community is getting hammered in the ratings by Big Bang Theory and American Farking Idol. That's the outrage!


That is an outrage. Community is the best show on tv.

/rick and morty growing on me though.
 
2014-02-17 11:44:43 PM  

Kevin72: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Because it was worse than Watergate, that's why.


Also Obama lied and people died.  Don't you know?

Study it out is all I'm sayin'
 
2014-02-18 12:50:16 AM  

cousin-merle: Kevin72: So, back to Wienergate.

I believe that's called a zipper.


Get this man an Internet immediately.
 
2014-02-18 01:01:37 AM  

TerminalEchoes: Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


Sorry concern troll, but the Christie story isn't going away until it makes sense. We still have no idea who shut down the bridge or why. We just know the order came from the governor's office.  Hell, the feds don't even seem interested in the Bridgegate stuff. They're looking into the charges of corruption surrounding the Hurricane Sandy relief funds.

I love shiatting all over how terrible cable news is, but I feel like when they do the right thing we should encourage them. Isn't political corruption precisely the kind of thing the media should be covering? Lord knows we don't need any more coverage of Ted Nugent's twitter or whatever horseshiat 24 cable news networks usually report on.
 
2014-02-18 01:02:11 AM  

contrapunctus: ifarkthereforiam: Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.

It's scandal-envy. Nixon did a fantastic job of tarnishing the dignity of the office of the Presidency, and the GOP has been salivating at the opportunity to find an equivalent Democrat ever since.


True that.

It's why the GOP tried the eviscerate Clinton over Lewinsky.

One of the truest things said on Fark. ... or anywhere.
 
2014-02-18 02:21:22 AM  
imageshack.com
 
2014-02-18 02:25:53 AM  
imageshack.com
 
2014-02-18 02:26:38 AM  
Sorry, had to make a correction. The first will go away shortly.
 
2014-02-18 06:28:34 AM  

Cletus C.: Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.


No, they're giving them credit for sticking with it and for covering actual scandals instead of fake ones.
 
2014-02-18 07:53:34 AM  
Deliberately causing traffic jams and then trying to blame it on your aides: the very latest trend in expressing your faith

Those trapped commuters just sang and danced all day
 
2014-02-18 08:44:30 AM  

Bartman66: Gee.. Oh look... a cheerleader of the (left/right) is telling us how the other side is.....
////facepalm


So vote Republican?
 
2014-02-18 09:01:28 AM  
Here's a hint right-wingers: A "scandal" needs something to be illegal or immoral to have happened.

Example:
Bridgegate (Christi): For political pay-back (immoral) the bridge was closed (maybe illegal).
Outing a CIA agent (Bush II):  Illegal, and immoral with coverup (lying under oath) added.
Firing attorney generals who wouldn't pursue cases against Democrats (Bush II): immoral

Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Benghazi, IRS, Fast and furious.  Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, if you stuck with incompetence maybe people would pay attention.
 
2014-02-18 09:05:19 AM  

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 537x385]

[www.bitlogic.com image 557x395]

[www.bitlogic.com image 560x437]

[www.bitlogic.com image 560x420]


Perfectly shows why I can't even get past the premise the Benghazi truthers are trying to sell, it makes no sense.
 
2014-02-18 09:05:53 AM  

Stoker: [imageshack.com image 800x622]


Oh, but a bastard son of a communist funded by a predatory money trader former Nazi collaborator do?
 
2014-02-18 09:08:10 AM  

Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence


Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.
 
2014-02-18 09:12:18 AM  

yakmans_dad: Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.


Nope, just another indication of massive incompetence.

Nothing illegal or immoral.  Just a disagreement with his policy which proved him to be incredibly wrong.
 
2014-02-18 09:29:27 AM  

Aldon: yakmans_dad: Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.

Nope, just another indication of massive incompetence.

Nothing illegal or immoral.  Just a disagreement with his policy which proved him to be incredibly wrong.


We'll have to disagree. But I'd like to remind you that we have crimes where recklessness is one of the elements.
 
2014-02-18 11:14:54 AM  

Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.


Given Ailes developed the idea for FOX while working in the Nixon and Bush1 administrations for the express purpose of circumventing the "prejudices of network news"  , I'm sure their coverage would have been fair and balanced.

http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon+era-blueprint-for -f ox-news
 
2014-02-18 11:32:00 AM  
contrapunctus:

1. LifeAlert type products.
2. Gold "investment" opportunities.
3. Low end Billy Mays style commercials for stupid useless shiat like SlapChop.
4. Not a single ad for a high end item.

Conclusion: For all of FOX's crowing about ratings (an increasingly useless bragging point), the fact is that their audience seems to be old, poor, and ignorant. Even on their site they have ads for "Penny Stock Millionaires!" on the sidebar.

I'm sure FOX does well enough, but I think that their reputation as a broadcasting behemoth is overstated. The fact is, most people in this country DON'T watch them.



Why do I see the same types of ads on History2 then?
 
2014-02-18 11:43:00 AM  
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends ... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report