Naw, There's Nothing Wrong With MSNBC!

Hateful Left won't admit sorrowful state of MSNBC

A nonsensical (and one-line, to boot) blog post at Enormous Thriving Plants has prominently revealed, once again, the blinkers that any ideologue must don in order to justify and promote their worldview.

At issue was a recent appearance on ABC News by Laura Ingraham, in which she was her usual demagogic self. She went so far as to suggest that Barack Obama's administration was more "impassioned" about Fox News than about Islamic terrorism.

It's not shocking that Ingraham would make such an inherently stupid argument. While any Presidential administration's commentary about a news organization is inappropriate and quite possibly even unethical, it isn't as if Fox News hasn't earned its scorn. It most certainly has.

But then there is the other side of the coin.

As the Obama administration plods further and further through its mandate it becomes more and more apparent that they've settled into Fox's old role as the sychophantic attack dog of the government.

Many left-wing ideologues will go to spectacular lengths to pretend that this isn't so, and that Fox News is still worse than anything MSNBC has ever imagined becoming. Take the spectacularly self-"unaware" serial annoyance Sparky, who insists the difference between Fox and MSNBC is that MSNBC just reports the News, while Fox creates it:

"Yeah, 'cause the MSNBC commenters get their left-wing talking points pushed onto the MSNBC news shows...
Media differentiate Beck's 'opinions' from Wallace's 'news,' but record shows Wallace repeatedly echoes Beck
Oh wait, that's FOX?
Oh right, Patrick makes another false equivalence--unshocking how he does that again.
Wanna back up any of your crap, Patrick? Show how 'MSNBC have become everything FOX was'?
Or are you comfortable in making yet another baseless accusation, have it disproven (again) and add it to your ever growing list of wrongs.
You just love being wrong, don't you? You might want to seek help for that."

No one with any sense would ever accuse Fox News of being a paragon of journalistic integrity.

But no one can realistically claim that MSNBC only reports the news in a "just the facts" fashion. In fact, when MSNBC recently couldn't find sufficient evidence for their claims that a racially-motivated assassination attempt on Barack Obama was imminent, they simply made it up:



If MSNBC promoted Brewer as a commentator or pundit, that would be one thing. But they don't. They promote Brewer as a News Anchor, and that brings with it certain expectations, which Brewer -- and MSNBC as a whole -- consistently flaunt.

In fact, MSNBC's efforts at creating a story didn't stop there. When Ingraham's partner-in-demagoguery, Rush Limbaugh recently made a bid to become part of an investor's group purchasing the NFL's St Louis Rams, MSNBC stirred up outrage by reporting quotes attributed to Limbaugh that he apparently has never uttered.

And while some MSNBC anchors have clearly crossed that line between reporting the news and creating the news, some of them have just mastered the art of asking stupid questions:



That's Contessa Brewer asking John Ziegler why Sarah Palin was offended by David Letterman's Top 10 list. After Ziegler explained to Brewer that Letterman calling her "slutty" and suggesting that Bristol Palin was publicly impregnated by Alex Rodriguez while Palin herself watched, Brewer actually asked the question again.

So not only has Brewer mastered the art of asking stupid questions, she's mastered the art of asking stupid questions twice.

At the end of the interview, Brewer complains that Ziegler has insulted her and asks for his mic to be cut off -- and it is.

It's unsurprising that neither Audrey nor Sparky will admit to the sorry state of MSNBC. Both have consistently shown that the only factor that truly determines if they'll applaud or oppose almost anything is whether or not it comes from a source reputed to share their extreme ideological bent.

That MSNBC will prove troublesome for the Obama administration's newly found desire to serve as the arbiter of which networks are and aren't "real news" networks isn't exactly a secret, nor is it even a marginal opinion.