This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

MSNBC, AKA The Joe and Mika network, just ditched Greta Van Susteren...

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

But a few days shy of her six-month mark on air, Van Susteren’s business is finished on MSNBC, according to people familiar with the situation. The anchor, whose show struggled to gain traction even as the rest of her colleagues were buoyed by anti-Trump hysteria, has parted ways with the network. She will not appear on the show on Thursday evening. She will be permanently replaced by Ari Melber, the network’s chief legal correspondent and host of the The Point on weekends. He will continue to appear across NBC and MSNBC shows as he takes over the 6 p.m. slot next month.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/msnbc-greta-van-susteren-part-ways

Good, I couldn't stand her, she's got a voice like a squeaky swivel-chair. Ari Melber's a much better choice.

I bet Megyn Kelly's gonna get an MSNBC show now.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
It's a tough day for the world of Greta Van Susteren fandom.

Dave, Eddie, and Susan I believe their names are...

View user profile
MISOGYNISTS..!!

View user profile
I refuse to watch MSNBC. I used to love morning joe and Bob and I would discuss the topics raised. I watched their evening line up. I was very unhappy with the free publicity they gave President Trump where they tried to show what a fool he was and how stupid his followers were......it was arrogance which was contagious and I believe in their stirring the pot for ratings they got President Trump elected. I really do not care who uses what bathroom. I have no problem with any of it, but I do have problems with the tax code, incentives for manufacturing, infrastructure, and the economy as a whole. You do not get ratings talking about good policy where there is a consensus of Americans who Agree. Rather, Fox takes stupid, and MSNBC takes smart, but America does not need stupid or smart, we need common sense honesty.

View user profile
She was a big promoter of Sarah Palin...and I wonder about her relationship with Roger Ailes.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I refuse to watch MSNBC.  I used to love morning joe and Bob and I would discuss the topics raised.  I watched their evening line up.   I was very unhappy with the free publicity they gave President Trump where they tried to show what a fool he was and how stupid his followers were......it was arrogance which was contagious and I believe in their stirring the pot for ratings they got President Trump elected.   I really do not care who uses what bathroom.  I have no problem with any of it, but I do have problems with the tax code, incentives for manufacturing, infrastructure, and the economy as a whole.   You do not get ratings talking about good policy where there is a consensus of Americans who Agree.   Rather, Fox takes stupid, and MSNBC takes smart, but America does not need stupid or smart, we need common sense honesty.

"Morning Joe" has a big cloud hanging over his head because of the unexplained death of an aide in his office...I think it was in Ft. Walton Beach. He resigned just before 9/11, so I've always wondered what he knew about that event. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, so I rarely watched his program and always wondered why he was on the MSNBC network. When he was in office, he voted with George W Bush almost 100% of the time. He's just like most Republicans in office...all about himself all the time.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:She was a big promoter of Sarah Palin...and I wonder about her relationship with Roger Ailes.

According to Wikipedia, she and her hubby are Scientologists and he was an advisor to Palin. She has a J.D. from Georgetown, so she's no dummy.

Scientologists! That explains a few things. She went to a private Catholic high school and Georgetown is a Jesuit school, so I wonder what her law professors have to say about Scientology.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote: I believe in their stirring the pot for ratings they got President Trump elected.  

Wait...     you think Morning Joe got Trump elected? How can anyone with a decent education honestly hold such a simplistic opinion?

I dare you to try to defend that ridiculous statement with some facts, some polls and clips of their "stirring the pot".

I know this going to come as great shock to you, but correlation is NOT causation.   DUH!

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
According to Wikipedia, she and her hubby are Scientologists and he was an advisor to Palin. She has a J.D. from Georgetown, so she's no dummy.

To say Susteren is a Scientologist and to posit in the same breath that she's no dummy, is a contradiction in terms of the highest order.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
del.capslock wrote:
According to Wikipedia, she and her hubby are Scientologists and he was an advisor to Palin. She has a J.D. from Georgetown, so she's no dummy.

To say Susteren is a Scientologist and to posit in the same breath that she's no dummy, is a contradiction in terms of the highest order.

Yeah, hard to reconcile the two. You can't get a law degree from Georgetown if you aren't pretty bright but Scientology seems so preposterous that you'd have to be kinda thick to go for it.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
MSNBC gave unprecedented coverage to President Trump in the Republican primary. It was not until he won that they came to their senses, but it was too late. Fifty percent of Americans find President Trump's tweets offensive, yet there is 40% hard core supporters who support his attack on Mika. If you have sold your soul to ratings, do not be surprised by the depth of stupid in America.

View user profile
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/06/27/study-tv-news-obsessed-trump-russia-probe

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:MSNBC gave unprecedented coverage to President Trump in the Republican primary.  It was not until he won that they came to their senses, but it was too late.   Fifty percent of Americans find President Trump's tweets offensive, yet there is 40% hard core supporters who support his attack on Mika.   If you have sold your soul to ratings, do not be surprised by the depth of stupid in America.

This is ridiculous. More people watch Fox than ever watched MSNBC. And other than Morning Joe, all the other programs hated Trump--Maddow and O'Donnell especially. To blame Trump on Morning Joe is nuts.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Good Taibbi article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/joe-scarborough-details-trump-falling-out-he-screamed-at-me-w490402

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
del.capslock wrote:
2seaoat wrote:MSNBC gave unprecedented coverage to President Trump in the Republican primary.  It was not until he won that they came to their senses, but it was too late.   Fifty percent of Americans find President Trump's tweets offensive, yet there is 40% hard core supporters who support his attack on Mika.   If you have sold your soul to ratings, do not be surprised by the depth of stupid in America.

This is ridiculous. More people watch Fox than ever watched MSNBC. And other than Morning Joe, all the other programs hated Trump--Maddow and O'Donnell especially. To blame Trump on Morning Joe is nuts.

Fox's ratings have dropped considerably and will continue to do so because their audience is aging, because of the multiple scandals that could no longer be swept under the rug, and because of the dismissal and demise of Roger Ailes.

Rachel Maddow is topping the ratings at the moment.

View user profile
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/06/27/study-tv-news-obsessed-trump-russia-probe

How much has the media’s obsession with the ongoing Russia investigation smothered the rest of the Trump policy agenda? A Media Research Center study of every broadcast network evening newscast in the five weeks since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller on May 17 found a whopping 353 minutes of airtime devoted to the Russia probe, or 55 percent of all coverage of the Trump presidency during those weeks.

The networks’ relentless coverage of Russia meant little airtime was spent on important policy topics, as the investigation garnered 20 times more attention than the new health care bill, 100 times more attention than the administration’s push to improve the nation’s infrastructure, and a stunning 450 times more coverage than the push for comprehensive tax reform.

The study also found one-third (34%) of the networks’ Russia coverage was based on anonymous sources, some of which later proved erroneous.

For this report, MRC analysts reviewed all 364 evening news stories — totaling nearly 640 minutes — that discussed President Trump or other top administration officials. Of those, 246 were full reports focused solely on the administration; the rest were brief, anchor-read items (36), or stories about other topics that included some mention of the administration (82).

The Russia investigation was by far the dominant topic in these stories, totaling 353 minutes of airtime, or more than half of all Trump coverage during this period. The Russia story was featured or mentioned in 171 evening news stories (126 full reports, seven brief, anchor items and another 38 mentions in stories on other topics).

ABC’s World News Tonight was the most enraptured by the Russia story, devoting 134 minutes to the investigation, or nearly two-thirds (63%) of all of its Trump news during this period. The CBS Evening News churned out 124 minutes of Russia news (54% of its Trump coverage), while NBC Nightly News spent a total of 95 minutes talking about the investigation (48% of its overall Trump coverage).



In contrast, the top policy issue during these five weeks — the debate about the President’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty — drew just 47 minutes of coverage. Top legislative items were almost completely lost during these weeks, with just 17 minutes spent on competing bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare, five minutes on efforts to boost the economy and create more jobs, and a meager 47 seconds on tax reform.

Without question, the President’s own comments about the Russia investigation, including his ubiquitous tweets, supplied the networks with a rationale for some of this coverage, but it’s not as if reporters felt compelled to cover all of Trump’s utterances. On the subject of infrastructure improvements, for example, the President spoke on camera at a variety of public events in early June, but the networks offered a mere three minutes of airtime — 1/100th as much as they spent on the investigation.

Our analysts found that one-third of all of the Russia/Comey stories (58 out of 171) relied at least in part on unnamed, anonymous sources for crucial information. Of course, these sources are only anonymous to viewers, not the reporters who talk to them. But their anonymity means viewers can’t weigh the information against any agenda — partisan or otherwise — that may contribute to the source’s motive in secretly talking to journalists. And in cases where the information turned out to be false, the anonymous source remains happily hidden from public view, sharing none of the blame for misleading the audience.

So what did TV viewers learn from the networks’ secret sources? CBS correspondent Jeff Pegues on May 17 offered nothing more than speculation about why then-Trump transition advisor Michael Flynn talked in December to Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak: “CBS News has learned that investigators believe Flynn may have been acting on orders from someone else.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

All of the networks used anonymous leaks to make it sound gravely important when word came that there would be questions posed to the President’s son-in-law, as NBC’s Peter Alexander did May 25: “Multiple U.S. officials tell NBC News tonight that Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, one of his closest advisors, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation....”

On June 8, NBC’s Pete Williams used anonymous sources to briefly float a guilty-sounding tidbit about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which he promptly dismissed: “Investigators tell NBC News the FBI was looking at whether Sessions had a meeting he didn’t disclose last year with Russia’s ambassador at a Washington, D.C. hotel. Justice Department officials have since said there was no such meeting.”

Sometimes, the anonymous sources were flat-out wrong. On June 6 ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir teased “exclusive reporting, what ABC News has learned — what the fired FBI director plans to tell Congress.”

Moments later, correspondent Jon Karl made the reveal: “Tonight, a source familiar with Comey’s thinking tells ABC News that the former FBI director will directly contradict what the President wrote in the letter telling him he was fired: ‘I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I’m not under investigation.’...According to our source, Comey will dispute that.

The next day, a transcript of Comey’s testimony was released showing the exact opposite, that Comey would support Trump’s statement. Without any reference to their misreporting from the previous evening, anchor David Muir on June 7 told viewers Comey “will acknowledge that he did tell the President that he was not under investigation, personally, on multiple occasions.”

Correspondent Jon Karl also made no reference to the earlier, faulty report, as he read the response from Trump’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz: “Kasowitz says the President feels completely and totally vindicated.”

TV’s obsession with the Russia investigation flies in the race of what the public says it actually cares about. According to a Harvard-Harris poll released late last week, “a majority of voters believe the Russia investigations are damaging to the country and are eager to see Congress shift its focus to healthcare, terrorism, national security, the economy and jobs.”

Given the disconnect, it should be no surprise that half of all voters see the media as biased against Trump, compared to only four percent who think the media are pro-Trump, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, with two-thirds of Republican respondents (68%) saying media coverage of the President is “poor.”

View user profile

That article is extremist and total BS. Newsbusters and the Media Research Center are FAKE NEWS.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/06/27/study-tv-news-obsessed-trump-russia-probe

HAH-HAH-HAH!

Talk about your confirmation bias! Here's the endorsements on the last page of the Newsbusters site:




Limbaugh and Hannity, now there's a couple of serious journalists. The sad thing is there are people who believe this shit.

This is right out of the totalitarian game plan: Delegitimize the serious media and call yourself Fair and Honest. Typical of every movement that has authoritarian impulses.

What's really sad is that there are "gullible dullards" AKA racist losers, who fall for it. How pathetic.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum