Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

Posts Tagged ‘journalism’

The October surprise ignored by the media

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton cheerleaders and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were practically chortling because a much-anticipated Julian Assange press conference turned out to be just about WikiLeaks’ tenth anniversary, with no Clinton-damaging October surprise.

But there had already been an October surprise on Monday. It’s just that only Fox News (and various alternative media sites piggy-backing on their story) chose to report it (emphasis added):

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.

Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.

Think about that for a moment. Not only did the Department of Justice and FBI hand out immunity deals to most of the people involved in the Clinton email affair (apparently without the usual requirement that they provide complete and truthful testimony), but they also agreed not to examine documents that might reveal a cover-up and to destroy the computers holding those documents so that no one could ever examine them.

I can think of only two explanations. Either the DOJ/FBI people responsible are so naive and easily duped that they shouldn’t be trusted to manage a kindergarten classroom or they colluded with the Clinton team to destroy evidence and obstruct justice. The latter is clearly far more likely. And it makes Watergate seem like the equivalent of jaywalking.

This is an October surprise that should have been breathlessly declared breaking news. It should have led off questioning at the vice presidential debate. It should have led to countless reporters clamoring for answers from Mills, Samuelson, FBI Director James Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton herself. It should still be dominating the news cycle today.

Instead, a Google News search for “fbi destroy laptops clinton aides” (sans quotes) yields only this. Nothing from the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or Boston Globe; nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC; nothing from the Associated Press or Reuters.

The people who in journalism school worshiped Woodward and Bernstein, who preened about how they were going to “speak truth to power,” are in cahoots with the Democratic power elite to keep the American people in the dark.

Meanwhile, four Republican congressional committee chairmen have sent a letter to AG Lynch:

… The Republicans expressed “concern” that the “FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.”

The letter repeatedly cited Congress’ interest in the “evidence” that may have been jeopardized under the side arrangement.

The new letter asked Lynch why the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops and, significantly, what legal authority the FBI has to destroy records subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena. The letter also asked if the FBI followed through and in fact destroyed “evidence” from the laptops or the laptops themselves.

Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman said: “We have received the letter and are reviewing it.”

Based on past history, I predict DOJ will provide a less than satisfying response, various Republicans will bluster for a few minutes in front of microphones (and will be completely ignored by the MSM), and nothing more will come of it.

This country has become no better than a banana republic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Protested pipeline parallels existing pipeline

Posted by Richard on September 9, 2016

Protesters rallied at the State Capitol in Denver last night in solidarity with the lawsuit and violent protests by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and environmentalists against the Dakota Access pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux claim the pipeline will “disturb sacred sites” and its passage under the Missouri River will imperil their drinking water. In addition to the above-linked article about the rally, the Denver Post published an Associated Press “explainer” purporting to tell us what we need to know about the pipeline and the protests. But that “explainer” omitted some information critical to putting the claims of the protesters into perspective.

Rob Port of the Say Anything blog actually read through the 1206-page report on which the Corps of Engineers based their approval of the Dakota Access pipeline. He learned something interesting from a graphic on page 1008 (emphasis added):

Before reading this report I had no idea there was another pipeline already running through this area, but there is. It’s called the Northern Border Pipeline. It’s a natural gas line built all the way back in 1982, and the Dakota Access Pipeline follows it often, including through the areas currently being disputed by protesters.

This is no mere coincidence. I spoke with Justin Kringstad at the ND Pipeline Authority who told me that the Dakota Access line “generally follows the same corridor” as the Northern Border line, and that this sort of thing is “not uncommon.” It can be easier to get easements and regulatory approval for a pipeline built where another pipeline has already gone through.

Public Service Commissioner Julie Fedorchak also told me that the Dakota Access line “tried to follow wherever possible the Northern Border pipeline.”

The two routes aren’t exact, but through the area where pipeline construction has sparked violent protests the two lines run side by side according to Energy Transfer Partners.

Digging into the history of the Northern Border pipeline’s approval, Port learned that the Standing Rock Sioux, who now claim that the new pipeline will “disturb sacred sites,” had no such objection (in fact, no objection of any kind) to the building of the Northern Border pipeline along the same route.

The attempts to stop the Dakota Access pipeline aren’t really about sacred lands or water quality; those are just cover stories. This is just another battle in the leftist/environmentalist war on fossil fuels (and thus on affordable energy and economic growth).

This is another example of a blogger doing what the journalists reporting the story failed to do: dig into the facts to determine how credible the claims they’re reporting are. Most journalists today can’t be bothered with that, except maybe for whatever Trump says. Certainly not for whatever claims their environmentalist and leftist allies make. Those are simply accepted without question. These aren’t real journalists, they’re just leftist/environmentalist PR flacks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Aw, poor baby needs a union

Posted by Richard on April 1, 2015

My day started with preparing for a 7:30 AM videoconference with someone in Bangalore. It ended after a 6 PM videoconference with folks in Beijing and San Jose. As I was eating my late supper, I read the new issue of Reason magazine that arrived recently. It had a quote that just cracked me up.

It’s old, dating back to January, but it was new to me. A reporter for Politico named Mike Elk, apparently explaining one of the reasons he’s trying to unionize his employer, said “I can’t work the kind of hours I did when I was 24.”

Elk is 28.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Calling out the New York Times

Posted by Richard on February 28, 2014

The New York Times extols the benefits of increasing employee wages. Tom Maguire wonders why they don’t eat their own dog food. It’s brief and doesn’t lend itself to excerpting. Hit the link; you’ll get a good chuckle out of it.

HT: Thomas Lifson

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Objective journalism?

Posted by Richard on July 14, 2013

Breitbart.com’s Big Journalism reports that:

After George Zimmerman was found not guilty of all charges on Saturday evening, an Associated Press reporter, Cristina Silva, tweeted this out from her verified twitter account: “So we can all kill teenagers now? Just checking.”

And the Huffington Post reported the George Zimmerman verdict like this:

huffpo-zimmerman

Yesterday, John Nolte posted a roundup of the “malicious fraud and lies” propagated by the media regarding George Zimmerman — certainly incomplete, but sufficiently extensive to prove the point — entitled “Guilty Until Proven Innocent: How the Press Prosecuted Zimmerman While Stoking Racial Tensions.” Regarding this item in Nolte’s roundup, I’d like to add a bit more information:

March 19, 2012 – CBS News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Is White

A small detail that the Obama administration and the media apparently missed was that the white versus black racial narrative they were preparing to invest so much into was missing just one thing: a white person.

Proof of this is that CBS News falsely claimed Zimmerman was white about a week before the story exploded.

In their venomous zeal, the media and Democrats likely assumed that someone with the last name Zimmerman had to be white. But they were wrong, as Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Never ones to back off a good narrative, rather than use this revelation to tamp down tensions or correct their reporting, the media simply made up out of whole cloth a new racial category: the “white Hispanic.”

It’s even more contemptible than that. Zimmerman isn’t just Hispanic, he’s part black. Did you ever see an MSM report identifying him as a “black and white Hispanic”? Of course not.

They aren’t journalists. They’re propagandists.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Newsweak news

Posted by Richard on October 18, 2012

A couple of years ago, when the Washington Post sold Newsweek to Sydney Harman for $1, some wags said he paid too much. Now, Newsweek editor Tina Brown has announced that it’s ceasing print publication and will be online only.

I’m sure I’m not the only one whose reaction was, “Newsweek has a website?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

More damning “Fast and Furious” revelations

Posted by Richard on October 3, 2012

A week or so ago, the Spanish-language network Univision aired an interview with President Obama. As Investor’s Business Daily observed, it was a far cry from the fawning interviews full of softball questions that Obama has been able to count on from the mainstream media. They actually asked tough questions, particularly regarding Operation Fast and Furious and the administration’s immigration policy, and followed up with more tough questions when fed the usual pabulum. (The Daily Caller has the video and more about the interview.) I wish the presidential debates were being hosted by people like Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas.

Last Sunday night, Univision aired an hour-long investigative report on Operation Fast and Furious with lots of new revelations. The Examiner called it “hard-hitting” and “devastating.” The Blaze called it a “bombshell” and highlighted “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Operation Fast and Furious” (although those of us who get our news online and don’t rely on the MSM knew some of them).

Breitbart and Newsbusters both noted the almost complete absence of interest in these revelations by the mainstream media. ABC News did report on the story online (but not on ABC Nightly News), but not exactly prominently:

Nothing shows how much the media wants to downplay this story more than the ABC News site, which finds the Fast and Furious scandal a lower priority than Woman Sues Over Personality Test Job Rejection, Anne Hathaway Marries Adam Shulman, Banned Books Week: 10 Books That Keep Censors Jumping.

Why do I single out ABC News? Univision and ABC News enjoy a partnership. So what you have here is ABC downplaying the superb investigative work of its own partner.

Is anyone surprised by the MSM blackout? Not me. I admit I’m somewhat surprised (pleasantly) by Univision’s interview and investigative report. I understand they generally lean liberal. But in these two instances, they did journalism as it should be done — and as the MSM has long since quit doing it.

Thank you, Univision! These two stories could (and should) reduce the support for Obama in the Hispanic community by a small but measurable amount.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Same story, two countries

Posted by Richard on July 10, 2011

While researching the current state of the Gaza flotilla for my previous post, I found the same July 7 Reuters story in two places. But there are some not-so-subtle differences (emphasis added throughout). On the Reuters UK website, the second paragraph states:

Greece, just over a year after nine people were killed when Israeli marines stormed a pro-Palestinian flotilla, imposed a ban on all Gaza-bound ships saying it feared for the safety of the activists who are now trying to find a way to set sail. 

I wouldn't call descending onto the deck by ropes from a helicopter "storming," but I won't quibble about that. But that sentence makes it sound like the whole flotilla was the scene of violence and leaves the impression that the Israelis were responsible for it. All the vessels were boarded peacefully except one, the Turkish ship Mavi Marmora. And there's ample video evidence proving that the Israelis were brutally attacked on the Mavi Marmora by "peace activists" who were members of a Turkish Islamist group allied with Hamas.

So the version from the Jerusalem Post (still under the Reuters byline) is somewhat more accurate: 

Greece imposed a ban on all Gaza-bound ships saying it feared for the safety of the activists who are now trying to find a way to set sail. A year ago, nine people were killed when IDF commandos stormed a Turkish flotilla ship and were met with violence.

Toward the end of the story, an even bigger difference jumped out at me. The Reuters UK version states: 

Israel says its blockade of Gaza is aimed at stopping weapons from reaching the enclave's rulers, Hamas — an Islamist group that is branded a terrorist group by some Western nations.

 

That smarmy bit of equivocation is corrected in the JPost version: 

Jerusalem says the blockade on Gaza is aimed at stopping weapons from reaching the Strip's rulers, Hamas — an Islamist terrorist group.

I wonder if a JPost editor made those changes or if Reuters routinely matches its "narrative" to the local audience in this way. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Shocker! The New York Times employs a double standard!

Posted by Richard on November 30, 2010

This isn't really news, now is it? It's been clear to many of us for years that the New York Times' real, but unspoken, motto is "All the news that fits our agenda, we print." In the latest example, here's how the Times explained their decision to publish a series of articles based on the stolen documents released by WikiLeaks:

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. … The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

And here's how they explained their decision just over a year ago to ostentatiously ignore the ClimateGate documents:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. 

Compare and contrast. Extra points for explaining how the Hadley CRU's leaked documents illuminated the goals, successes, compromises, and frustrations of the anthropogenic global warming proponents in a way that the fawning media coverage they receive cannot match.

PowerLine's Scott Johnson didn't want to belabor the point, simply noting that "the two statements are logically irreconcilable." James Delingpole, on the other hand, thought it important to belabor the point, and he helpfully offered a few other examples of the Old Gray Lady applying its peculiar situational ethics to promote its ideological agenda.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Michael Yon’s Moonshine on Ama Dablam

Posted by Richard on November 24, 2010

Over the last five years or so, Michael Yon has not only proven himself today's pre-eminent war correspondent, he's also developed into one of our finest photographers. His dispatches from Iraq showed that he has a natural eye for composition, and gave us some memorable war images.

Recently, Yon posted one of the most stunning mountain photos I've ever seen. Take a look. And don't forget, Yon is an independent journalist who relies on donations and sales of books and photos to finance his work. Let's keep him out there doing the wonderful job he's been doing. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Time magazine says Rush was right about oil spill

Posted by Richard on July 29, 2010

Many weeks ago, early in the history of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Rush Limbaugh argued that calling it a crisis or an environmental catastrophe was unwarranted and mere environmentalist hype. He pointed out that the natural seepage of oil from the ocean floor every day in the Gulf was about equal to the amount being spewed each day from the well. He pointed out that the microbes in the ocean water consumed that natural seepage and would do the same with the plumes of oil spreading throughout the Gulf. He argued that, while the accident was serious and unfortunate, it was not a catastrophe and would not, as environmentalists claimed, do permanent and significant harm.

Now, more than a hundred days after the spill began, Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says that the "obnoxious anti-environmentalist" Rush was right

President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted that the spill was an "environmental catastrophe." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

Well, Limbaugh has a point.

The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is unusually light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Alaska's Prince William Sound, is very warm, which has helped bacteria break down the oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water have helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. And finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of Spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I've ever seen that were actually black. "It comes back fast, doesn't it?" van Heerden said. 

Read the rest — it's fascinating. Apparently, the harm to fish and wildlife has been very modest, the damage to the marshes is a mere blip compared to the coastal wetlands lost every year for other reasons, and the oil-eating microbes, as Limbaugh predicted, seem to be doing a bang-up job. It's becoming increasingly difficult to even find any remaining oil to clean up.

Limbaugh claimed (tongue firmly in cheek, as usual) that the missing oil is "hiding next to the 3.6 million jobs that have been saved, admiral.  It's hiding right next to all the heat that the global warming people can't find."

BTW, here's something that's peeved me about the coverage of the oil spill almost from the beginning: Crude oil is measured by the barrel. No one in the oil industry ever measures a volume of oil by the gallon. Gasoline, milk, and water are measured (in the US) by the gallon, but it wasn't gasoline, milk, or water that was spilled.

There are 42 US gallons per barrel of oil. Admittedly, many people don't know that. But rather than educate their audience by stating this in their stories, the MSM have routinely specified the spill rate and the total amount of oil spilled in gallons. It gives them bigger, scarier numbers to report. Lazy journalism? A reflection of their own ignorance? Or a subtle way to further their anti-energy-industry agenda? I don't know, but it annoys me. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Journalists and legal scholar agree: government should shut down Fox News

Posted by Richard on July 22, 2010

JournoList was a private email list of leftist news and opinion journalists started and run by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. Klein shut it down (ostensibly) after the Dave Weigel scandal. Leaked JournoList emails revealed that Washington Post reporter Weigel, who covered the conservative movement, loathed conservatives and used his reporting to undermine and discredit them at every opportunity.

In recent days, additional JournoList archives have been leaked to the Daily Caller, and they contain some eyebrow-raising revelations: journalists plotting to cover up the Jeremiah Wright story and take steps to protect candidate Obama from negative news, arguing in favor of smearing some right-wing pundit ("Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares") as a racist in order to "raise the cost on the right of going after the left," and wanting to watch Rush Limbaugh die of a heart attack because "he deserves it." 

Any number of commentators have weighed in on this ongoing story, like John Fund, James Taranto, Greg Gutfeld, and Alexander Marlow. The latter focused on the latest Daily Caller story's "far-from-shocking revelation" that the JournoList folks really hate Fox News. The discussion of how to control or shut down Fox News, which included people from Time magazine, the Guardian, and the New Republic, is interesting. But the part that really struck me was this: 

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

Broadcasting permit?? Fox News is a cable network. It doesn't broadcast. So it doesn't have or need an FCC license (not permit). Even ABC, CBS, and NBC don't have FCC licenses, only their local affiliates do. Because the networks themselves don't broadcast over the "public airwaves," only their affiliates do. I'm stunned that an apparently respected professor at a purportedly prestigious law school doesn't know this.

(Of course, the situation could change if FCC chair Julius Genachowski's "net neutrality" scam becomes the camel's nose in the tent regarding FCC regulation of non-broadcast communications.)

I wondered how Prof. Zasloff came to be so incredibly ignorant. Well, according to UCLA Law School, this is how:

Jonathan M. Zasloff
Professor of Law
B.A. Yale, 1987
J.D. Yale, 1993
M.Phil. International Relations, Cambridge, 1988
M.A. History, Harvard, 1990
Ph.D. Harvard, 2000
UCLA Law faculty since 1998

Wow. I'm feeling smugly superior, and damned glad I was never intellectually crippled by an Ivy League education.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

While you watched a tennis match, debt grew by $1.7 billion

Posted by Richard on June 25, 2010

Even non-tennis-fans like me are aware of and amazed by the Wimbledon match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, which took 11 hours and 5 minutes (Isner won; I got it wrong when I first posted). Shortly after it ended, Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida tweeted, "Think Wimbledon tickets are expensive? Our National Debt has gone up by $1,729,000,000 during the Isner v. Mahut match."

An interesting factoid. If true. The folks at the St. Petersburg Times' PolitiFact.com decided to fact-check his ass. They determined that not only was he right, he arrived at the number using the most conservative methodology (well, he is a conservative). 

PolitiFact.com initially assumed (quite reasonably, IMHO) that "during the Isner v. Mahut match" meant the time period from when it started until it ended — about two days. Depending on whether they used CBO numbers or OMB numbers, they came up with figures four to six times larger than Buchanan's: 

Why so different? We contacted Buchanan's office and an aide clarified that what they'd actually meant in the tweet was how much the debt had risen during the 11-hour, 5-minute match itself. (The match was suspended for darkness twice and there were delays on the third day to give extra rest time.)

So, using our first method, the 11-hour debt increase works out to $1.718 billion, while using the second, it's about $2.4 billion. Of these two, the first is spot-on.

Since the size of the federal debt is a moving target, and since economists periodically re-evaluate its size, we'll grant Buchanan leeway here. While we think the wording of his tweet suggests the full, 48-hour period, his 11-hour number strikes us as a reasonable estimate. So we rate his statement True. 

Not just true, but conservatively true. 🙂 

But what really gave me a laugh was the USA Today story about Buchanan's estimate. Although they quoted Buchanan's tweet, and thus had the correct number ($1,729,000,000), they described it in the headline as "$1.7T" — "T" as in trillion. That's off by a factor of 1000.

They've since corrected it, but a commenter, urbanrealtor, noted that they weren't exactly open and above-board in their handling of the gaffe: 

I like how when they fixed the error (originally this article said 1.7 Trillion) they deleted all the comments making fun of the mistake. 

They shouldn't have tried to cover their embarrassment by deleting comments (and wording their correction so vaguely). But I can understand their mistake. For one thing, in my experience, most journalists are extremely math-challenged. For another, in this Age of Obama, it's natural for all his MSM sycophants to assume that everything is in the trillions. [rimshot]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Retracto gets a theme song

Posted by Richard on February 12, 2010

The other day, I mentioned in passing Big Journalism contributor Retracto, the Correction Alpaca. I really like that alpaca — great picture! Thanks to Gary Eaton, Shelli Eaton, and Michael Broderick, Retracto has a theme song, and it's pretty catchy. Check it out!

And for those of you who don't care for rock 'n roll, but like cartoons, there's this version with just the lyrics. Weird. Personally, I much prefer the song.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Fair and balanced vs. one-sided and ugly

Posted by Richard on January 22, 2010

Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin undertook the unpleasant task of watching MSNBC's election-night coverage of the Massachusetts senate race, and what he found was "frothing lunacy":

If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests — former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.

And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged — she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast — to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.

Read the rest for examples from the "two hours of nonstop bilious rage." (And see update below.)

Johnny Dollar pointed out a significant difference in coverage of the candidates' speeches:

During Tuesday night's coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate's speech. Fox News Channel aired both candidates' speeches in their entirety.

MSNBC ran 100% of Coakley's speech, but just over a third of Brown's. CNN ran 80% of Coakley's, but only a quarter of Brown's. Yes, he spoke longer. But he'd just pulled off a stunning upset, and thus what he had to say was news. She was simply conceding defeat and then slinking back into obscurity.

So, do TV viewers have a clear preference for election coverage? You bet they do. Fox News won the ratings battle in a landslide (emphasis added): 

In the first of many elections night taking place in 2010, Fox News dominated the cable news networks, with its highest prime time viewership since Election Day 2008. FNC was the #1 news network by far, topping CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined in prime time and total day, total viewers and the A25-54 demographic. Sean Hannity has his best ratings ever in total viewers at 9pmET – the hour Bret Baier announced Scott Brown’s victory.

• FNC didn’t just clean up on cable. The network had more viewers during prime time than The Jay Leno Show, and Greta Van Susteren’s 10pmET show and Hannity’s 9pmET show topped all ABC prime time programs.

In the 25-54 demographic during the three hours after the polls closed, Fox News beat CNN 4-1 and MSNBC almost 5-1.

UPDATE: Olbermann's insane rants are too much even for John Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment – Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »