Comments on: Shuster: Another opinion…

by: Jimmie Jamz

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:12:12 +0000

We all know that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. So why are we so fogged up about his election to the presidency? One cannot tell me that he is NOT a Muslim. His name speaks louder than my suppositions and juxtapositions ever will. His father was a Muslim in Somalia. 95% of people in Somalia are muslim… so go figure. Barack Hussein Obama (Osama)… is a wolf in sheeps clothing…

by: Paul Levinson

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:05:32 +0000

Missy - you’re apparently irony impaired … :)

by: ImNotBlue

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:30:18 +0000

Missy, I think the number was that high if you reduce it to sub-groups. Of all the WPITW recipients, who are somehow involved in politics, 99% of them are Republicans or Conservatives… or associated with FOX News. But perhaps only 80% of the total WPITW recipients are political. Either way, far from objective, fair, or deserved.

Onto the article:
When Olbermann attacks Rush Limbaugh by constantly calling him a “comedian,” we all laugh. Olbermann’s tick-like verbal attacks and facial expressions are usually welcome when they are directed at Fox News. But they have no place in supposedly even-handed coverage of a Presidential campaign.

This is the key passage. In short what Mr. Levinson is saying is, “Make fun of Limbaugh, Republicans, and FOX News… that’s okay. But the sarcasm directed towards Democrats… and specifically the Presidential candidates… is a no-no.”

The give-away is his stated appreciation of such rhetoric used against Conservatives, followed by the statement that it’s supposed to be “even-handed coverage.” Clearly, he does not want “even-handed coverage”… he wants favoritism. “Even-handedness,” (which is a phrase that should NEVER be associated with MSNBC’s prime-time lineup) is the exact opposite of what he wants.

by: Jim

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:24:52 +0000

I think it was close to 99% of all winners of which there political affiliation was known. Many of the winners were just derelicts who happened to be in the news that day.

by: Spud

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:04:02 +0000

The number wasn’t that high last time I checked. But it’s definitely up there…

by: Missy

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:33:05 +0000

Sorry newswatcher. I think someone at Olbermannwatch did a study that showed that about 99% of his WPITW “winners” were conservatives. If you’ve got info. that proves otherwise, please let us know.

by: newswatcher

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:06:36 +0000

It’s too funny! Olbermann comes under attack for liberal bias, but if he points out something about a democrat, OMG, what shocking behavior! He’s an equal opportunity sarcastic wit who finds humor in the shenanigans of both political parties and ALL candidates can expect to be on the receiving end.

by: Missy

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:52:42 +0000

The guy’s half right - he opines that Olbermann and Matthews also attack the Clintons. But then he lauds Olbermann for his attacks on Rush and on Fox News!

So it’s as we thought - it’s OK for conservatives to be attacked, but liberals such as the Clintons are sacred cows, subject to no derision, earned or not.

Sorry Mr. Levinson, I reject your premise. It is up to MSNBC to see that ALL people, not just liberals or not just the Clintons, are treated with respect. Likewise, all on air “talent” should be treated alike as well. It is hardly fair that Shuster is the sacrificial lamb when, as pointed out in Hillary’s letter, the network exhibits a “pattern” of this type of behavior (thanks to Matthews and Olbermann).

Matthews, Olbermann AND Shuster ALL need to be given a few weeks off and sent to “sensitivity” school. And maybe Fox can send John Gibson along as well. Then let them come back, apologize and treat EVERYONE (even conservatives) with respect.