Kurtz Ignores MSNBC’s F-bomb in ‘Reliable Sources’ Segment About Halperin’s D-word
July 3, 2011 No Comment
CNN's Howard Kurtz began Sunday's “Reliable Sources” talking about Mark Halperin's infamous D-word said of Barack Obama on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” Thursday. Rather hypocritically, there was absolutely no mention of the following F-bomb dropped during prime time on MSNBC's “The Last Word” just three days prior (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, vulgarity warning): ACTOR PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN: Not fair! It's not fair! All my life, I've been afraid of becoming like him, all my life. All my life with you and it`s not fair. You can't just say he is sorry and make it all go away. It's too late. It's not that easy. It's not fair. It's not fucking fair. This was a video montage put together by Lawrence O'Donnell's staff. Everybody knew that word was there, but MSNBC left it in. Yet when Mark Halperin said President Obama acted like a “dick” three days later, the network behaved like he had mentioned the most horrible thing ever uttered on this television station. How could Kurtz – who claims to be a “media analyst” – have missed this? Just as curious, Kurtz noted how he had to apologize for a guest saying “dick” during a discussion about WeinerGate a few weeks ago. But he neglected to tell his viewers that MSNBC had intentionally aired a far worse vulgarity three days before Halperin's. Such a revelation would have made MSNBC's reaction to the D-word rather hypocritical as it certainly couldn't have been due to such a minor vulgarity by comparison to what was aired Monday evening during prime time. It would have instead made it quite clear that Halperin's offense wasn't the word he used but who it was addressed to. Why Kurtz opted not to delve into this Sunday seems equally hypocritical.
Continue reading …So just couple of days ago Amato blogged about MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan’s recent xenophobic tirade over Team USA’s disheartening soccer loss against Mexico. Well Buchanan’s appalling views are in the news again. Heather then eviscerated Buchanan for defending tax cuts for private jets and pretending poor people do not pay any taxes. Now t he MSNBC analyst (I will keep harping on this phrase, which I will expand a little while later in the post) has now fired off an absurd shot against the supporters of same-sex marriage by writing a column in support of … prejudice. Here is a graf from Buchanan’s latest hateful rambling [Warning: Link goes to WND] : What is the moral basis of the argument that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy? In recent years, it has been associated with high levels of AIDS and enteric diseases, and from obits in gay newspapers, early death. Where is the successful society where homosexual marriage was normal? Well I guess we can give this guy a little credit for honesty I suppose. He doesn’t hide his bigotry and his latest hateful rambling serves the purpose of reminding everyone the deep strain of conservative prejudice. The question though is why does someone who is so overtly championing bigotry, continue to get a platform at network like MSNBC. What does he bring to the table? I guess MSNBC employs someone like him because he fits the progressive caricature of conservatives. May be his comments generate some buzz, ratings, and heck blogposts like this one. I am sure MSNBC loves segments like the so called “epic battle” between Buchanan and Maddow . Yet, does that justify a network looking the other way, while boosting the profile of someone who is so transparently hateful. I don’t need to go into too much details on Buchanan’s ugly past. Just in recent months he mocked President Barack Obama as “affirmative action all the way” after a birther dust up. Jamison Foser made the case almost a year ago for Buchannan’s departure from MSNBC : Despite a decades-long track record of offensive comments about … well, nearly everybody, Buchanan continues to write columns and appear as a commentator on MSNBC. During his time in public life, Buchanan has defended Adolf Hitler — repeatedly. He has peddled Holocaust denial claims and compared suspected Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk to Jesus Christ. Buchanan has reminisced fondly about his childhood in segregated Washington, DC, and complained that “Old heroes like … Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King.” He wrote that “integration of blacks and whites” was likely to result in “perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed … side by side with the capable.” Buchanan’s anti-integration views were so hard-core, even Richard Nixon characterized Buchanan’s them as “segregation forever.” When 67 blacks were shot to death by South African police, Buchanan dismissed the massacre as “a few South African whites mistreating a couple of blacks.” In 1989, Buchanan defended Bob Jones University’s ban on interracial dating. 1989! You should read Foser’s entire post if you want to get a refresher on this guy’s past. Yet, Buchanan continues to be employed by MSNBC. MSNBC just did a huge song and dance about suspending Mark Halperin (although as Kos noted there are bigger issues than what Halperin said about the President ). The question every progressives should be wondering how can MSNBC justify keeping such an overt bigot on its payroll, who continues to preach so much hatred. Progressives should ask hosts such as Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell whether they feel good about associating themselves with an employer, who continue to look the other way while Buchanan fires off his bigoted ramblings. Just because Buchanan may generate some ratings (and I have not seen any data on that) that doesn’t justify MSNBC’s promotion of individuals who continue to spread so much bigotry and hate. I hope progressive organizations consider putting same pressure on MSNBC, the same way they did on CNN for allowing Lou Dobbs a prominent platform to spread his message of hate. Oh and it will certainly be interesting if Keith Olbermann has anything to say about this.
Continue reading …Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of the Daily Kos, demonstrated that he can locate a vast right-wing conspiracy just like the rest of the Kosmonauts. Mark Halperin's suspension, for him, proved once again that Halperin is a right-wing fellow traveler with Joe Scarborough, who's the “real president” of MSNBC: I think it's wonderful that Halperin betrayed his full feelings about Obama on the air. It's tiresome seeing people pretend that he's some sort of neutral political arbitrer [sic], when he's engaged in a long-running jihad against the truth. Halperin, a real dick, was hired as MSNBC's “senior political analyst” at the behest of another dick, the network's real president Joe Scarborough. As I wrote after being blacklisted from that network: According to Nexis, since the premiere of Morning Joe on October 22, 2007, Mark Halperin, MSNBC's “senior political analyst,”
Continue reading …Maddow Condemns Corporate Funding of Get-Out-The-Vote Efforts for GOP – Then Asks if Democrats Should Do Likewise
June 30, 2011 No Comment
Do as I suggest, not as I claim to eschew. Those wascally Wepublicans and their corporate-financed efforts to compel voter turnout, Rachel Maddow complained on her MSNBC show Tuesday, before suggesting possible Chinese or Brazilian manipulation of American elections through legalized bribery to unpatriotic conservatives (video after page break) — MADDOW: That stuff, that organizational capacity, will now be handled through means that can be 100 percent corporate funded to an unlimited degree. If FreedomWorks is now going to be doing the get-out-the-vote efforts for Republican candidates, who are the donors to FreedomWorks? Really, who are their donors? You don't know, I don't know, they don't have to tell us. If China or Brazil decides that they like one of the Republican presidential contenders this year, and they would prefer that person to Barack Obama, what's to stop China or Brazil from giving a million bucks to FreedomWorks to go get out the vote, to go do organizational work for that candidate? What's to stop them from giving a $1 million donation? Or a $10 million donation? Or a $10 billion donation? Literally, what is to stop China from writing a $10 billion check to elect some favored Republican candidate in the next election, to elect some favored Republican candidate the next president of the United States? What's to stop that now? Later in the same show, however, Maddow appeared considerably less worried about the propriety of such practices when she said this to former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean — Do Democrats at this point see their challenge as finding their own billionaires who they like better? Or do Democrats have a qualitatively different challenge here? I mean, is there a way to compete with this other than fire with fire? “Their own billionaires” — provided they aren't from China or Brazil. (Not to worry, George Soros)
Continue reading …Rush Limbaugh: MSNBC’s Response Different If Halperin Defamed George W. Bush
June 30, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters reported Thursday, MSNBC has put Mark Halperin on indefinite suspension for making an intemperate remark about President Obama on “Morning Joe.” Just a few hours later, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his audience the network's response would have been much different if Halperin had said this about George W. Bush when he was president (video follows with transcript and commentary): RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now, let me ask you a question: If Mark Halperin had said this about say George W. Bush, would they be falling all over themselves to apologize? Nope. He would be, my guess is, “New ground had been broken. Finally, finally,” they would say, “a reporter has had the courage and the guts to tell the nation just exactly the kind of President we have. A gutsy move. It might have been over the line. It might have been a little bit risky. And it might be something he would never do again, but by golly, by gosh, the courage.” That’s how they would play it had Mark Halperin said it about George W. Bush. Taking this a step further, since Halperin apparently believed what he said was going to be edited out – he specifically asked if MSNBC was on a seven second delay – it's quite likely the technician that failed to bleep his comment about Bush would have been the fall guy – assuming there was one at all. But because MSNBC is the leading television propaganda outlet for this White House and the Democrat Party, that certainly wouldn't be enough in this instance. Something else to consider is it's unlikely the minor vulgarity bothered the network. As Breitbart reported a few hours ago, MSNBC allowed an audible f-bomb on “The Last Word” during prime time Wednesday evening. Nobody involved in that show has been suspended including the host. As Limbaugh pointed out there likely wouldn't have been this response if Obama was Republican, one must conclude the network just didn't like such a thing being said about a president it so faithfully supports. No, MSNBC was making it quite clear that until Election Day has passed, MSNBC personalities and contributors better be very careful what they say about the current White House resident. To complete the training, the next MSNBCer to say something really offensive about a Republican presidential candidate should be given a well-publicized promotion with a raise and a bonus. Of course, with all the MSNBCers doing that, it might be difficult to discern who the next one is.
Continue reading …
Mark Halperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for calling President Obama a “dick” live on air. The suspension came just hours after Halperin, a top editor for Time and a regular on “Morning Joe,” profusely apologized for the remark, which came during Thursday’s “Morning Joe” broadcast. MSNBC’s statement read: Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst. Halperin also issued a statement: I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it. Time magazine, where Halperin is Editor-At-Large, issued a statement of its own, saying it had warned Halperin about the comments: Mark Halperin’s comments on air this morning were inappropriate and in no way reflective of Time’s views. We have issued a warning to him that such behavior is unacceptable. Mark has appropriately apologized on air, via Twitter and on The Page. Halperin’s is the latest in a string of suspensions that MSNBC has issued over the past year. Most famously, the network suspended Keith Olbermann for undisclosed donations to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election. It also suspended Joe Scarborough for making undisclosed donations and, most recently, yanked host Ed Schultz for a week for calling radio host Laura Ingraham a “slut.” Halperin’s gaffe came on Thursday, when he was commenting on Obama’s Wednesday press conference. He first asked host Joe Scarborough, “Are we on the seven-second delay?” implying that he wanted to speak freely but not have his comments broadcast. Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski assured Halperin that he could speak freely and anticipated a controversial remark. Halperin said: “I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday.” Scarborough was in disbelief over Halperin’s comment and quickly directed his attention off-camera, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing?” Halperin apologized after the hosts realized that the show’s new executive producer was not familiar with the seven-second delay button. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the President and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said. “We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said. Scarborough also made light of the incident, telling his producer, “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.” Brzezinski actually made a similar slip of her own earlier this year, fumbling with the word “dip.” The show earned a seven-second delay in 2008 when Scarborough used the f-word live on air.
Continue reading …Mark Halperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for calling President Obama a “dick” live on air. The suspension came just hours after Halperin, a top editor for Time and a regular on “Morning Joe,” profusely apologized for the remark, which came during Thursday’s “Morning Joe” broadcast. MSNBC’s statement read: Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst. Halperin also issued a statement: I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it. Time magazine, where Halperin is Editor-At-Large, issued a statement of its own, saying it had warned Halperin about the comments: Mark Halperin’s comments on air this morning were inappropriate and in no way reflective of Time’s views. We have issued a warning to him that such behavior is unacceptable. Mark has appropriately apologized on air, via Twitter and on The Page. Halperin’s is the latest in a string of suspensions that MSNBC has issued over the past year. Most famously, the network suspended Keith Olbermann for undisclosed donations to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election. It also suspended Joe Scarborough for making undisclosed donations and, most recently, yanked host Ed Schultz for a week for calling radio host Laura Ingraham a “slut.” Halperin’s gaffe came on Thursday, when he was commenting on Obama’s Wednesday press conference. He first asked host Joe Scarborough, “Are we on the seven-second delay?” implying that he wanted to speak freely but not have his comments broadcast. Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski assured Halperin that he could speak freely and anticipated a controversial remark. Halperin said: “I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday.” Scarborough was in disbelief over Halperin’s comment and quickly directed his attention off-camera, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing?” Halperin apologized after the hosts realized that the show’s new executive producer was not familiar with the seven-second delay button. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the President and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said. “We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said. Scarborough also made light of the incident, telling his producer, “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.” Brzezinski actually made a similar slip of her own earlier this year, fumbling with the word “dip.” The show earned a seven-second delay in 2008 when Scarborough used the f-word live on air.
Continue reading …MSNBC: Mark Halperin ‘Suspended Indefinitely’ for Calling Obama A ‘[Short for Richard]‘
June 30, 2011 No CommentVia TV Newser , we learn that MSNBC has “suspended indefinitely” its senior political analyst Mark Halperin for stating on Morning Joe that President Obama was “kind of a [male appendage].” This is not exactly what the “No Labels” crowd at Morning Joe were expecting. The official MSNBC statement: Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air.
Continue reading …Rachel Maddow on NBC’s Today: ‘Embarrassing’ and ‘Rude’ Christie ‘Screams’ at Constituents
June 29, 2011 No Comment
Appearing on Wednesday's NBC Today, left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow slammed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: ” …his brand at this point is, 'I'm the guy who screams at my own constituents'….his brand is 'I will be rude.' And rudeness is actually what he's trying to sell as a form of political authenticity.” Co-host Ann Curry mentioned Christie criticizing President Obama for being too focused on popularity rather than policy and wondered: “Does the New Jersey Governor have a point that the President is making mistakes because he wants too much to be liked?” As Maddow launched into her rant against Christie, Curry interrupted: “But beyond argument and ad hominem, let's talk about, though, about Obama specifically. Do you think he's trying too hard to be liked?” View Video Below Maddow never really addressed the criticism of Obama, but continued to tear down Christie: “When he was asked recently by a constituent whether or not there was an issue of fairness with him sending his kids to private school when he was cutting public education so drastically, he screamed back at that constituent, 'That's none of your business!'….he's embarrassing himself in his own state, leaving – taking a state helicopter away from his son's baseball game so he can go meet with Iowa Republican donors.” Here is a full transcript of the June 29 segment: 7:09AM ET ANN CURRY: Rachel Maddow is the host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, joins us now. Rachel, good morning. RACHEL MADDOW: Hi, Ann. CURRY: Sarah Palin first, how much longer can she wait before she announces her decision? MADDOW: I think she can wait a long time. I think what the candidates are doing right now is essentially introducing themselves to a public who may not remember who Rick Santorum is or who Michele Bachmann is, for that matter. Sarah Palin does not have that problem. Nobody in America doesn't know who she is. I think she can wait a long time. We're a half year away from the Iowa caucuses still. CURRY: Really? So if she does wait that long or not, if she does announce that she's going to run, how will that change the Republican race? MADDOW: Well, I think that as long as Mitt Romney is the unquestionable front-runner, there is going to be some hunger among a significant number of Republican activists in particular for somebody else with a big name to get in. There's dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney as the front-runner. And so as long as there's nobody challenging him, and it looks like Tim Pawlenty does not pose any threat of doing that, I think that the race is going to remain quite wide open. CURRY: Well, Michele Bachmann seems to be considered right now a front-runner. I'm wondering, it seems to me that it might be argued that she's taking some of the support that Sarah Palin would want from the Tea Party. So one might argue – and there are those who are arguing that those two are going to have to confront each other at some point. Do you agree with that? MADDOW: You know, I don't think that there's any reason to think of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann competing for the same voters any more than there is to see that sort of competition between Herman Cain and Rick Santorum or between Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty. I think we're sort of past the glass ceiling where in people have to compete to be the female candidate. CURRY: Okay, that point well taken, but we are still talking about Tea Party favorites, right? So on that level. MADDOW: Sure, but there's a lot of competition for that. I mean, Tim Pawlenty wants to be seen as a Tea Party favorite. I mean, we just heard in Kelly's report there, Michele Bachmann is trying to make this case that she's a purist Tea Party candidate despite the fact that she has this hypocrisy problem with having benefitted herself from so much government spending. CURRY: Meantime, I want to get your take on something that Chris Christie said about President Obama, talking about the Democratic side of the ticket. Let's take a listen to what Chris Christie said. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The President and the People; Is Obama Failing to Connect to Everyday Americans?] CHRIS CHRISTIE: I think he's so concerned about making sure everybody likes him that he's paralyzed to be able to make decisions. And I think that's what it does when you're worried about being liked. You don't want to decide anything because you know you're going to aggravate somebody. CURRY: Does the New Jersey Governor have a point that the President is making mistakes because he wants too much to be liked? MADDOW: I think Chris Christie is really good at polishing his own brand. And his brand at this point is, 'I'm the guy who screams at my own constituents.' When he was asked recently by a constituent whether or not there was an issue of fairness with him sending his kids to private school when he was cutting public education so drastically, he screamed back at that constituent, 'That's none of your business!' That's his brand. CURRY: Okay, but beyond argument and ad hominem, let's talk about, though, about Obama specifically. MADDOW: Well, no, I- CURRY: Do you think he's trying too hard to be liked? Is it affecting his ability? MADDOW: It's not – it's not an ad hominem argument. Chris Christie is auditioning for vice president. Chris Christie would like to be taken seriously on the national stage. That's why he's embarrassing himself in his own state, leaving – taking a state helicopter away from his son's baseball game so he can go meet with Iowa Republican donors, when he's not running for president. CURRY: Right. MADDOW: He is auditioning. And his brand is 'I will be rude.' And rudeness is actually what he's trying to sell as a form of political authenticity. So to attack the President on that ground is to invite a favorable comparison with his own style. CURRY: So you're saying he doesn't have a point, okay. MADDOW: Well, he has a point for himself. CURRY: Okay, alright, there you go. And there also seems to be, however, growing discontent in the Left at President Obama, a discontent over his position on Libya, Afghanistan, the budget. Is this something that his campaign really needs to worry about as we now move towards the election? MADDOW: I think that the President – I mean we'll see some of it today, the President hosting a gay rights reception at the White House, still sort of sitting uncomfortably on his assertion that he does not support same-sex marriage. The gay community very excited about same-sex marriage rights having been extended in New York and that tension between the President's position and what the community sees as a victory. I think the President's going to have to worry about the Left when it comes time to rubber meeting the road and organizational enthusiasm on the part of the Democratic base being important to get out the vote. It may be too early for him to really be courting the Left, but we'll see it in terms of his strategy. CURRY: Alright, Rachel Maddow, thank you so much. Sorry to spring the Latin on you, but I knew you could handle it. So thanks so much. MADDOW: Oh, you know, I enjoyed it. Thanks. CURRY: And you can catch The Rachel Maddow Show weeknights at 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific on MSNBC.
Continue reading …