They span the spectrum alright.  From A to B.

great, i hopethey get along with the present B's..Bennet and Beck.

Not sure what the point is here, except that MMFA wants control over who is hired at CNN.

More whining. Of all the three major cable news channels, CNN is by far the most fair and balanced. 

They regularly have a nonpartisan type, a left and a right winger, all quite capable of verbalizing their opinions and refuting the other side when discussing issues and candidates. These are not Karl Rove or Dick Morris types, they may be staunch conservatives but they generally act and argue their points appropriately and respectfully.

Tommy, like the "whining" thrown in. Classy.

It is.  To complain about a network hiring someone who disagrees with you politically is whining.

I agree.

What about hiring someone who publicly lies, denigrates, insults, misquotes, or relies on anonymous quotes?

Well, that would disqualify most, if not all, conservative commentators in MMFA's eyes, and perhaps yours.  

Only if every single conservative commentator has a proven track record of engaging in the activities I mentioned.

MMFA does seem to make an issue out of Tara Wall.  Based upon just the info that MMFA provides about her, I agree with your sentiment.  Yeah, she worked for the RNC, big deal.  

So is there an honest way to "further the conservative agenda" where they would be somehow granted "immunity" here?

Let's just say that if this is the juiciest information they have on Tara Wall, I believe she should have been granted immunity in this item and gotten no more than a passing mention much like Hilary Rosen did.

Fair enough

Did you see that she's now a columnist for the Washington Times?

BTW, Milbank is a former "Friend of Countdown."

I'd hardly consider him to be a conservative commentator.

It is not whining to point out that a news organization, and one that conservatives LOVE to hold up as an example of the liberal media (Clinton News Network, anyone?) hires five new "analysts" during an election year - and a CLOSE election at that - and ALL FIVE are well know right-wingers. (That's balance?  That's objective? Give me a break!!)  It's not about who CNN hires.  It's about the myth of the liberal media.  In an effort to be "conservative enough" (for who I have no idea - the average fox viewer will still watch fox) the corporate media, in general, has moved significantly to the right of center.

It's bad enough that there is a well documented conservative bias in the media, but it's intolerable that the myth of liberal bias (or even objectivity) still persists and is given merit.

CNN's new "top political reporters and commentators" that "[s]pan" the "[s]pectrum" include reported McCain adviser Alex Castellanos, former RNC official Tara Walls, Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody -- who once described a male blogger as Fred Thompson's "angry girlfriend" -- and Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank.

It's the fact that they said that the commentators "span the spectrum" that's the conservative misinformation. It's not true that they span the spectrum. Dana Milbank was banned from KO's show because of his offensive comments and has smeared Hillary on several occasions. Two others are clearly righties. Another has dubious partisan leanings, but worked for the RNC and now works for the Looney Times (Wash Times).

That's not a spectrum of advisors.

Did you actually read this article? Or do you just start posting?

MMFA's point-- and it's well taken-- is that these new pundits are all slanted to the right.

CNN is the biggest culprit when it comes to the old MSM tactic of having a 'balanced' debate that involves two or three admitted Republican "consultants," versus a journalist who explains the Democratic position. They do this constantly.

Their in-league-with cousin, AOL, is even worse. Ever seen their "news?" Just this minute, they are highlighting "9 things Obama has done wrong' as a lead story! 

P.O.V., you are right. Does MM want to rid the airwaves of all conservative voices? Do they want to disallow them?

Also, Milbank is a reliable liberal. (Reminder - This is the same guy who showed up on the set of MSNBC wearing an orange hunting outfit after the Cheney hunting accident.) MM is now eating one of their own because of one poor remark.

What's of the fact that Carville and Begala have been firmly planted at CNN for years? Cristiane Amanpour? We could go on ...

How about some balanced airwaves, folks!

Can you give any examples of Christian Amanpour being less than factual?  (perhaps that's your definition of liberal:  someone who reports facts.)

"MM is now eating one of their own because of one poor remark."

Actually, NO. They're "eating one of their own" because Milbank cited anonymous secondhand quotes to disparage Barack Obama, and then copped an attitude when he got called on it.  He was completely unapologetic for his lack of responsibility.

What's Christiane Amanpour done to get dragged into this?  Was it the God's Warriors thing?  

MM is now eating one of their own because of one poor remark.

Milbank has been a constant source of MMFA concern the last year or two. He's a company boy, not a "liberal." Mr status-quo.

*sigh*

You WITHers just don't get it do ya?

The point here is not that these people are conservatives. It's that they are purveyors of conservative misinformation.

I'm sure CNN could have found some non-liar conservatives somewhere to put on the air. They do exist...don't they?

"The point here is not that these people are conservatives. It's that they are purveyors of conservative misinformation"

Funniest post of the day! 

How it that even the least bit funny?

Thank you.  That is exactly the point.   

Care to show us where exactly MM wants 'control' over who gets hired at CNN?

I thought it was pretty obvious.  The point is that CNN claims that these guys "span the spectrum of US politics", but 3 of the 5 have strong Republican ties, and Milbank has demonstrated his willingness to throw ethics to the wind to smear Obama with a third-hand, out of context quote.  I guess in Washington, that is the spectrum of US politics.

How did they leave Corsi off the list? CNN can do what they want. Fox can do whatever pleases their flock. Therefore, maybe MMFA will be able to do their thing. I hope the Cons here would agree.

Sorry POV didn't see your fine post. Guess I was too late.

Actually I'm going to agree with you PoW... Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, they can all hire whoever they want and position themselves as they want- left right or center. It seems that MMA, Move-on and other left leaning organizations, along with most of their  denizens only want to stifle opposing viewpoints, not promote their own. That's more a sign of insecurity than conviction in your own beliefs.

Again, you and your ilk miss the entire point. It being, they CAN of COURSE hire whoever they want, but we are also free to criticize their hirings, especially when there is so little balance in who they did hire. we don't try to stifle anyone's speech, but you guys seem insistent, that when we do call out something "bad" that somehow we're intolerant, and want someone tossed in jail or something like that. Of course, you'd be wrong, because then we'd be neglecting our own freedom of speech. It's so adorable how you don't seem to understand this whole comment, criticize, and call out business. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean we have to agree with it, and doesn't mean we should shut up and not say something.

Milbank may have messed up on the Obama "quote", but he's really pretty good most of the time.  I wouldn't lump him in with Brody et al.

To sum up, CNN hired 5 new analysts.  Of the 5, 3 are Republican partisans outright (Castellanos, Wall and Brody); one is a Democrat, and one a reporter who has been misquoting Obama and saying snarky things about Hillary lately.  He may be the most objective one of the bunch, but I'd put no money on that.

what goes up, must come down............someday....................maybe after Nov 4, 2008 ?

Unlike the rest of the liberal msn, at least CNN appears to be trying to provide a balanced coverage. . . . However, these new moderates, or tepid conservatives, hardly balance out the overwhelming liberal bias that has permeated CNN for years

Surely you jest.

nice trick. Define CNN as liberal and the new hired guns provide a " balance ".

And you can show us, of course, the liberal misinformation on CNN correct? Please, you MUST have some examples that you can cite. I mean, they are the "liberal" CNN after all.

I guess this means Milbank no longer will be on Countdown to confirm for Keith Odouchebag that the latter is correct in everything that he says.  Did Odouchebag have Milbank on the show after his article about Obama's arrogance?

from this moment on, i regard you as a name calling poster who deserves little credibility on yourpostings.

KO dishes it out insults all the time to a broad audience. I'm sure he can take it.  I typically don't, and won't, throw out insults to others, including posters on here, who don't routinely do the same themselves.  And the few times that I have, I've apologized.

To use a relevant Olympics analogy, Olbermann's show is like a gold medal winner on the gymnastics balance beam - always on point, never strays, narrow and focused, no room for wobbling or wavering, straight down the line.

Milbank slipped and fell on the mat, poof, he's off the team. 

And why did Milbank slip off? Because he was dishonest. So far, every post of yours in this thread is based on your premise that facts are subjective, and that anything anyone says should be regarded as just an opinion. Truth be damned.

Let me just say that the "truth", as you define it, I want no part of....considering your track record. So it gets damned quite often when you troll around and find me, and your panties wad up over something or another.  

There aren't multiple definitions of "truth." Milbank's dishonesty was very clearly shown here, but you choose to ignore any factual evidence so that you can claim that partisanship and bias are the real reasons that Milbank is being singled out.

I was specifically referring to Olbermann's show in the post you responded too.  Anyone that can come here with a straight face and tell me that partisanship and bias have no place in who Olbermann chooses to have on as guest on his leftwing lovefest are either lying, or delusional.

Anybody's guess on which of those categories you fall into. 

Well, then here's another inconvenient truth for you: Milbank quit the show before Olbermann made any public comments about his Obama column. Which still doesn't discount the fact that Milbank's column was a dishonest smear piece. Olbermann's partisanship doesn't enter into the equation. You just saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot at him, in spite of the facts.

 

"Olbermann's partisanship doesn't enter into the equation"

You can't possibly be this dense.  My entire post was a response to Steve's post about Olbermann, specifically.  You choose to respond to it, and now you want to tell me that Olbermann is not part of the equation?

Lay off the Clams Sweetheart, they are starting to disrupt blood flow to the brain. 

Yes, Thomp.Steve asked, "Did Odouchebag have Milbank on the show after his article about Obama's arrogance?" And you responded by falsely claiming that Milbank was off the show for not toeing the party line. In fact, Milbank says that he quit his MSNBC gig the day before the appearance of his dishonest smear piece on Obama, and Olbermann says that he found out about Milbank's departure after the piece appeared. Either way, Milbank was not kicked off the balance beam for partisan reasons. He wrote a dishonest hack piece, refused to acknowledge his errors, and now he's being held up by CNN as a leading light in political commentary.

And now I guess it's time for you to post more childish and petty insults at me...

"And now I guess it's time for you to post more childish and petty insults at me..."

Nah, I'm done. 

"Odouchebag"? What are you, 12? 

Must have been listening to Mark Levin who has 12 year old schoolyard nicknames for every liberal he likes to talk about it. It's kind of annoying actually. No, it's really annoying, and then there is his voice. Sorry, getting off topic.

Or it could be the liberal talk radio hosts who say "Grampy McSame". 

They are schoolyard, aren't they? 

I agree. Grampy McSame is pretty stupid also.  

Me too. I don't like the name calling or nickname assigning that either side does. I don't like it when some of my esteemed posters on here call others names as well. And just speaking for me, I try to maintain respectful disagreements with public figures, even Limbaugh, who I just call Rush, or Limbaugh. It's dumb to call him Limpbaugh, or other stupid things. Why? Because I'm smarter than he is, and don't need to stoop to his level to get my point across.

 

Well said.

How about Limboob?...

You gotta admit that's funny?  Or, Ole' Fathead?

How 'bout Old Feces Mouth?  Slimebaugh is not bad.

Come on!, work with me here?

 

I reserve the right to say "grampy mcsame," as it's obviously endearing...as an aside, an admirer of my mother told her "you're as cute as a little 'ole pig."  This was in South Dakota during the Depression, so pigs were sought after.

Yes. What is that old saying about mud wrestling with a pig? I've noticed that here, especially in threads dealing with O'Reilly and Limbaugh.  Both are truly dangerous and loathsome media personalities, but I don't get what talking about their penises accomplishes.  It just seems to take credibility from a site that is otherwise a really useful weapon against media menipulation.  Just my opinion. 

Manipulation, that is.

But, those are in the comments section, and not in the actual article. It's not the website that is impugned, it is the folks who write such things. Can't really blame that too much on the site, as MMFA, I have found, tends to let more things get posted and less administering of the website, which is both good and bad. Saying that the comments are the same as the rest of the site (not sure if that's what you were doing or not) would be like equating the comments section at Kos to the actual content of the site like Mr. O'Reilly does on an almost daily basis, never drawing a distinction between the 2.

No, of course the comments are different from the site's contents, and honestly some of the posts I've seen here are hilarious, but I just think the effort is better served when the comments are better. You know, when something particularly egregious shows up on Fox, I like to check MMfA, first to see if they caught it (they always do), and second to see what other people think of it. Sometimes, the discussion is brilliant - sometimes it isn't.  Again, just my opinion.  

I don't care what they call Sen. George McCain on talk radio...

Just as long as it's 50 - 50.  Instead on the 90% of talk radio the Cons currently control.

You're right about that.  Talk radio is helping to tear society apart.  I used to be able to have calm, reasonable disagreements with conservatives I know.  Now many - not all, but many - just resort to reciting the Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh insults they hear on the radio. The other terrible thing is that the right-wing talkers are really scaring the gullible elderly. You know, those people who grew up when the "news" was more like news? They're not just mad, they are genuinely terrified of other Americans because they listen to these guys and believe them.

8 homes posted:

Instead on the 90% of talk radio the Cons currently control.

Let me guess...this is some kind of conspiracy?  Maybe if the libs had a good message that people wanted to hear then they would control 90% of talk radio.  

Grampy McSame is an earned title where ODouchebag is just a silly name calling frustration.

What has become clear to me is that liberal is defined to be any viewpoint that disagrees with the far right.

That's the game. 

Anybody who doesn't want to fight endless wars,

doesn't want to keep the wealth distribution as is (which is the same gap between rich and poor we had before the Depression), and persists in the silly and amoral notion that working people have a right to see a doctor if they get sick...

Is a dang liberal! 

I read Media Matters' emails every day, and find them enlightening if often depressing and/or infuriating. But I usually don't have time to come to the web site for details and comments. I had no idea the place was so infested with right-wing trolls...

We suspect that there are a few people posting under more than one name.

I have never liked or trusted CNN News, and now I see 5 more reasons not to!  Especially Dana Milbank!  Please, Washington Post--get rid of this destructive person!  He is a narcissist who likes to humiliate the Democrats (i.e., Clinton and Obama) and refuses to take responsibility for taking quotes out of context!  He is obviously self-important and reminds me of Phil Gramm--that disrespectful McCain adviser who said we are a nation of whiners!  Milbank meet Gramm!  You deserve each other!!!