Yesterday, August 24, 2010, this story headlined in Politico: CBS ties news ratings low Last week, “CBS Evening News” tied the all-time ratings low set last summer for a network evening news broadcast, TV Newser reports . An average of 4.89 million total viewers tuned into CBS for evening news last week, behind 6.51 million for ABC and 7.42 million for NBC. On October 16, 2006 — almost four years ago — I noted this about Katie Couric’s takeover of the CBS anchor chair. After seeing her ratings briefly skyrocket with an appearance from Rush Limbaugh in a “free speech” segment, Couric’s ratings were almost immediately headed south. I wrote: CBS and Ms. Couric’s failure illustrates a point that was easily predictable before Katie even sat down in the anchor chair. Putting Rush Limbaugh on CBS air in a “free speech” segment certainly pumped Couric’s ratings for a moment. But conservatives — Reagan were he here and surely Limbaugh himself — realized exactly what the problem was that lie ahead. CBS tried to demonstrate that they were free of liberal bias by giving ol’ Rush a few seconds of airtime. What they had no intention of doing was eliminating the liberal bias of the show’s writers, producers and reporters, much less of Ms. Couric herself. Result? The new boss is the same as the old boss. The philosophical presentation of the new CBS News hasn’t changed a whit from the days when Dan or Walter or Bill Moyers looked somberly into the lens to insist they were telling the news “the way it was.” Still, there had to be a terrifying “ping” when CBS execs realized that Rush Limbaugh brought higher ratings to CBS News than Dan Rather ever could. Could — would — that ever happen? Would they have the guts to make “America’s anchorman” the CBS anchorman? The people in charge of CBS News would sooner crunch down on a cyanide tablet before naming Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative the anchor and managing editor of their show. Even if it meant winning the ratings for the next century. Fair and balanced is not now or ever in the cards at CBS, and Ms. Couric’s ratings have tumbled accordingly. Besides, why would Rush Limbaugh want a demotion? It is now 2010. ” The Rush Limbaugh Show ” – featuring Rush as “America’s real anchorman” – cruises along in ratings heaven . I ts host not that long ago sign ed a new contract for a reported $400 million over 8 years. And Couric’s CBS Evening News is in the sad state reported yesterday by Politico . Will the CBS folks learn anything from this umpteenth lesson in media? Naaaaaaaaaaaah. Enough said.
Read the original:
Katie Couric and Rush: Ratings Non-Shocker
Is Greg Gutfeld the next Teddy Roosevelt? Should Pope John Paul II’s views on homosexuality be immortalized in the heart of New York’s gay community? Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld on Fox News, (and, we learn, an ex-intern here at The American Spectator ) is in the news lately for coming up with a unique take to the controversial decision to place a Mosque near Ground Zero. The Mosque is a project of the Cordoba Institute, headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf insists the Mosque would help “bridge the great divide” that opened between the Islamic world and Americans after the murderous savagery of 9/11. Fair enough, says Gutfeld. In the spirit of tolerance sought by the Sharia — favoring Imam and his liberal defenders, notably New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, President Obama and the New York Times — Gutfeld proposed a bridge over the yawning chasm of Islamic radical credibility. His idea? Install an Islamic gay bar next door. Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t have done better than Greg Gutfeld.
Apparently this is supposed to be humiliating to Sarah Palin or something: It’s tough to hear, so here is a transcript, adapted from a post by a Kos Kiddie who finds the whole thing hi-larious: Palin: like how? What’s up? Kathleen: You swore on your precious Bible that you would uphold the interests of this state, and then when cash was waved in front of your face, you quit. Palin: OH, you WANTED me to be your governor! I’m honored! Thank you! Kathleen: No, I wanted you to honor your responsibilities. That is what I wanted. I wanted you to be part of the political process instead of becoming a celebrity so that you could (inaudible). And if that is the best you could do, then good for you. If that’s the best you could do. Palin: Here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. (inaudible) That’s what I’m out there fighting for Americans to be able to have a Constitution protected so that we can have free speech…And ALSO there… Kathleen: In what way are you fighting for that? Palin: Oh my goodness! Kathleen: In what way? Palin: To elect candidates who understand the Constitution, to protect our military interests so that we can keep on fighting for our constitution that will protect some of the freedoms that evidently are important to you too. Kathleen: By using your celebrity status, certainly not by political status. Palin Daughter: How is she a celebrity? That’s my question. Palin: I’m honored! No, she thinks I’m a celebrity! Palin Daughter: That’s funny that you think she is. Kathleen: Well, you’re certainly not representing the state of Alaska any longer…even though… Palin Daughter: She’s representing the United States. Kathleen: Yes, I know. You belong to America now, and that suits me just fine. Yeah. Palin: What do you do here? Kathleen: I’m a teacher. Palin: Oh. [Here the lefties claim Palin rolls her eyes. Palin denies it .] Palin Daughter: Oh. Kathleen: Also I have a few other jobs. I’m married to a commercial fisherman. And so I fish. Palin: Oh that’s cool. So am I! I’m married to — we probably have a lot in common! Kathleen: Yeah. You know, I think that we do. Palin: Hi! (waves to camera) Are we on video? Kathleen: Too bad. I’m more of a still camera girl myself. (inaudible) I am, I am…I will tell you I’m very pleased to meet you. Palin: I’m honored to meet you, I really am. And, no we both agree on the freedom of speech and the – Kathleen: Yes we do. Palin: — you know – the protection of that. So, um, no I and, you know… best of everything to you too and, yeah. Kathleen: Thank you for coming over. Palin: Well, okay. It’s nice to meet you anyway. How embarrassing! Or something.
Go here to see the original:
Lefties: Sarah Palin Totally Embarrasses Herself by Having Conversation with Critic
Ted Olson said to Chris Wallace this weekend: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundamental constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. It’s a cute, simplistic argument, but it misses the mark. To those who applaud the decision, I say: would you like your favorite legislative victory to be scrutinized for its rationality by a federal judge? Let’s say you like ObamaCare. Would you like the future of ObamaCare to be decided by a federal judge analyzing whether, in his opinion, there is a rational basis for this government takeover of a huge segment of the economy? Would you like for that judge to be someone who gains a personal benefit from ruling against ObamaCare? Would you like the named litigants on your side to be people who would like to see ObamaCare overturned? OK then.
See more here:
Ted Olson Compares Gay Marriage Right to First Amendment
Just as NAACP delegates were debating a resolution Tuesday afternoon condemning racist elements within the Tea Parties, one NAACP member complained that there were reporters in the room even though it was supposed to be closed to the press. At this point, a live webcast broadcasting the event (which I was watching) was cut off. When I contacted the NAACP press office earlier in the day, a spokesman at first insisted that I wasn’t watching a live broadcast, but in fact a rerun from last year, or the night before. After the webcast got cut off, I called again, and a spokeswoman was startled that anything would have been broadcast online, reiterating that the resolutions process was supposed to be closed to the media. They seemed genuinely caught offguard, and promised to get back to me while they investigated what was happening. Before the webcast got cut off, I was able to get some sense of the working language in the draft resolution. To be clear, a lot of this language was being debated before the webcast got cut off — one reason, no doubt, that the NAACP prefers to wait until it has the final language before releasing any details on resolutions. But from what I saw on the screen, one provision said that “Some Tea Party members have used racial epithets and verbally and physically abused African-American congressman and others, and have been charged with making dangerous threats against duly elected public officials…” Another line of the resolution called the Tea Party movement a “threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.” The working draft concluded: “BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP call upon all people of good will specifically but not limited to all political parties and human rights organizations to publicly repudiate the racism and expel the racial instigators of the Tea Party, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.” One delegate raised objections to the word “expel,” arguing that it would violate free speech rights, while others debated whether they should use the singular Tea Party or refer to Tea Parties plural. There was also an effort to include the language “some,” to prevent people from interpreting it as an attack on all Tea Party groups. I’ll update this post when I have more. UPDATE: The Kansas City Star reports the resolution passed .
Read the original here:
NAACP Webcast Cuts off During Debate of Tea Party Resolution
