star2city Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 This is not meant to be political, but what a national embarassment Ed Schultz is: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/waterco...-brown-winning/
sioux7>5 Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 He should be out of a job asap for suggesting that people commit a felony.
MplsBison Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 I suppose "that side" needs someone like a Rush to represent the vocalization of their fantasies.
Oxbow6 Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 You look up "Tool" in the new urban dictionary and there is his big fat ugly mug! Guy's a total JA! Minnesota can claim him since he sends most of his time near DL.
fightingsioux4life Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 Ed Schultz should not have said what he said. This isn't Iran or Saddam's Iraq, where elections are rigged for one person or one party. His "warmonger" comment about John McCain in 2008 was also out of line; McCain has always been cautious about using military force in foreign places. And during the 2004 election cycle, MoveOn.org put together an ad comparing George W. Bush to Hitler; again outrageous and uncalled for. But this shouldn't surprise anyone who has followed the media during the information age. Last week, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the relief response by the Obama Administration was motivated by a thirst for political power and influence. Never mind that the United States has been involved in humanitarian relief for years under both Republican and Democratic governments (the Somali relief effort started under Bush 41 and continued under Clinton). Or what Pat Robertson said about Haiti making a deal with the Devil to get rid of the French, which is why the earthquake happened. Robertson's influence has waned considerably from what it was in the mid 1990's, so his only option is to be more outrageous and controversial. It's all about ratings, ad rates and (most important of all to the hosts of these talk shows) attention. People tend to tune into media outlets that echo and reinforce their own personal political biases and preferences (Fox News on the Right, MSNBC on the Left). CNN tries to be all things to all people and it isn't working like it did when they started back in 1980. Most media outlets are owned by big corporate conglomerates, which means whatever brings in the big ratings and subsequent ad revenues will remain on the air and in the best time slots for listeners/viewers. Outrageous and controversial content sells; "real" news does not. When they held Walter Cronkite's funeral, they should have had a funeral for journalistic objectivity at the same time. Schultz will get a lot of ratings and attention for what he said, which is why he said it in the first place. The former makes the network happy the latter makes Schultz happy. It's the same reason Fox News brought Sarah Palin on board as a commentator. Palin is very polarizing; either you love her or hate her. Those that love her will tune in every chance they get to listen to her. Those that hate her will also tune in just to hear what she has to say, even if it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to them. It's a win-win, no-brainer to the network and to Palin (especially if she is seeking the 2012 GOP Nomination). In retrospect, Bobby Knight (whom I am not a big fan of) was ahead of his time. All those chair-throwing antics were cold and calculated actions to either get his team motivated or to get the media attention that his ego demands or both. This was very effective in a time before the Internet, YouTube and Cable/Satellite TV became a prominent force in our lives. Now these tactics are even more effective and influential, which is why tactics like those used by Schultz, Robertson and Limbaugh will continue being used. It's sad commentary on our media and society, but it's also the truth.
Goon Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 Schultz will get a lot of ratings and attention for what he said, which is why he said it in the first place. The former makes the network happy the latter makes Schultz happy. The Network that Ed is on is getting the worst ratings. He is losing to Fox and CNN. No one probably heard it anyways.
fightingsioux4life Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 The Network that Ed is on is getting the worst ratings. He is losing to Fox and CNN. No one probably heard it anyways. Actually, I think the comment was made during coverage of the Haiti earthquake.
Goon Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 Actually, I think the comment was made during coverage of the Haiti earthquake. I think you're right, so it was probably unheard.
LB#11 Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 Ed Shultz has always been a controversial figure who liked to stir the pot. In his younger years he had fun with whatever he was doing, these days he seems like a mean spirited man who doesn't have any fun at all. Guess what I'm saying is, don't be like Ed Shultz.
moser53 Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 I'm sure Ed's comments were tongue and cheek. The Republicans are running a pro choice candidate in Mass. I guess you do what it takes to win. If the anti choice crowd in the Republican party think there leadership want abortion to end they will continue to be disappointed. They like the issue. They had 8 years to do something about it. If it was such a pressing issue they should have shut down the government for it. They would shut down the government for taxing the rich more. Of course we all have our priorities like money..
redwing77 Posted January 19, 2010 Posted January 19, 2010 I'm sure Ed's comments were tongue and cheek. The Republicans are running a pro choice candidate in Mass. I guess you do what it takes to win. If the anti choice crowd in the Republican party think there leadership want abortion to end they will continue to be disappointed. They like the issue. They had 8 years to do something about it. If it was such a pressing issue they should have shut down the government for it. They would shut down the government for taxing the rich more. Of course we all have our priorities like money.. Wait a minute.... You say Ed was kidding and then switch to Republican bashing? Huh? Ed's more flip floppish than John Kerry. Early on, he was a dyed in the wool Republican, then he was liberal, then he came clean: He's anyone's bitch provided he gets attention. He's got a liberal radio talk show now, so he's liberal. Ed did this just for ratings. If an NA called him on it, he'd flip flop or, more likely, just play word games to avoid the issue entirely like every politician regardless of political party affiliation does when confronting the prospect of being wrong in public. Hey, ask Hillary Clinton sometime about her visit to Iraq and the snipers. You get the picture. He's an idiot and so is Rush because the hardest part of life as a radio talk show host is selling the truth without bias. If Rush or Ed does it, they'll lose viewers and be taken off the air. The TRUTH doesn't sell. That's why Fox News is so biased to the conservative side and CNN left of center and MSNBC is practically Chinese communist. CNN was, in its hayday of Walter Cronkite and the guy before him (I can't remember his name), relatively unbiased because the people behind the desk provoked trust and faithfulness of their audience. They'll tune in and believe them so there is no need to embellish or twist the truth. There was no need to play to ratings because they were the prime act on TV. Now, that's no longer the case. They can't sell the truth, so they sell an ANGLE on the truth. So now, the media is seen as a farcical abomination by those who seek the truth and Big Brother by the ignorant and apathetic masses that can't be bothered to find the truth for themselves. Now people are turning to the internet to find the truth and that, quite honestly, is frightening because, though the truth is more likely found on the internet, how do we know people are getting there and not to some whackjob calling for the death of our troops and the deification of Barack Obama?
moser53 Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 Wait a minute.... You say Ed was kidding and then switch to Republican bashing? Huh? Ed's more flip floppish than John Kerry. Early on, he was a dyed in the wool Republican, then he was liberal, then he came clean: He's anyone's bitch provided he gets attention. He's got a liberal radio talk show now, so he's liberal. Ed did this just for ratings. If an NA called him on it, he'd flip flop or, more likely, just play word games to avoid the issue entirely like every politician regardless of political party affiliation does when confronting the prospect of being wrong in public. Hey, ask Hillary Clinton sometime about her visit to Iraq and the snipers. You get the picture. He's an idiot and so is Rush because the hardest part of life as a radio talk show host is selling the truth without bias. If Rush or Ed does it, they'll lose viewers and be taken off the air. The TRUTH doesn't sell. That's why Fox News is so biased to the conservative side and CNN left of center and MSNBC is practically Chinese communist. CNN was, in its hayday of Walter Cronkite and the guy before him (I can't remember his name), relatively unbiased because the people behind the desk provoked trust and faithfulness of their audience. They'll tune in and believe them so there is no need to embellish or twist the truth. There was no need to play to ratings because they were the prime act on TV. Now, that's no longer the case. They can't sell the truth, so they sell an ANGLE on the truth. So now, the media is seen as a farcical abomination by those who seek the truth and Big Brother by the ignorant and apathetic masses that can't be bothered to find the truth for themselves. Now people are turning to the internet to find the truth and that, quite honestly, is frightening because, though the truth is more likely found on the internet, how do we know people are getting there and not to some whackjob calling for the death of our troops and the deification of Barack Obama? Republican bashing is one of my favorite hobbies. I realize I don't make many friends on this board when I go there. But that's how I feel.
Goon Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 From the words of Sir Winston Churchill.. Fortunately, I never had a heart. Well I am over 40...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 20, 2010 Posted January 20, 2010 I'm sure Ed's comments were tongue and cheek. The Republicans are running a pro choice candidate in Mass. I guess you do what it takes to win. If the anti choice crowd in the Republican party think there leadership want abortion to end they will continue to be disappointed. They like the issue. They had 8 years to do something about it. If it was such a pressing issue they should have shut down the government for it. They would shut down the government for taxing the rich more. Of course we all have our priorities like money.. You make a good point. It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if Conservatives actually got their way on abortion. It could be entertaining watching the Religious right and other conservative bible thumpers try to spin cutting social programs for the poor and disabled so that billionaires can have more as something Christ would have advocated.
Recommended Posts