The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Jennifer Stefano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Stefano. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2014

The Daily Banter And Fox News' Pirro Rant (VIDEO)

I deliver news for Fox News! 
I do not watch Fox News. As a craven news geek, I have no problems avoiding the network as it is in no way a news network. Since you already know my thoughts about the network as the television propaganda department for the GOP, there is no need to rehash that. The manner in which Fox News feeds its dedicated viewers is noteworthy.  

People who spend time receiving messages from Fox News are not expending those viewing hours for information. They sit and absorb "paradigm feed" like being "slopped' by a hog farmer to her/his hog pens. And, Fox News delivers.

How many times have you run across a Fox News video segment and noticed each segment has a few things in common? My reference is to host on camera demeanor, not the Fox News Anti-Obama message; a message focused 24/7 on Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS).

First, the raised eye-brows and glaring eyes while delivering the core message. As if the host is saying, "Here it comes folks, now open wide while I feed you another spoon of slop." 

Next, the raised voiceThe message has to be yelled into the brains of Fox News viewers as the message must permeate "tin foil" hats. Yelling also placates the psyches of those who tune-in for fresh "red meat." Network producers and writers are fully aware of the power of viewer high-fives in living rooms across the nation. Have you ever viewed a dull sporting event? Did you see any high fives? 

The message has to also reach the Fox News audience with commensurate vocabulary. When delivering the message to Fox News viewers, Fox writers avoid use of multi-syllable words. If a script could be enhanced with a word beyond the level of eight-grade education, the Fox writers avoid such words. 

Another delivery technique....delivery of messages to the invisible subject who's picture is affixed to the Fox set camera; as if the subject is watching the show. 

Finally, the finger pointing (O'Reilly central). Let's face it, if you want to be successful over on Fox, you must emulate host with the major audience numbers. How else to feed the sycophants?  

Fox and other noted wide mouth finger pointers.
        
Common DemeanorConsistent Message

Since O'Reilly's antics are well known, and Alex Jones falling for Piers Morgan's baiting received word-wide attention, and Jennifer Stefano's Jerry Springer Show like "go-off on MSNBC is also well document, let's move to a former TV personality turned Fox News entertainer.

The following deck and excerpt from The Daily Banter is a must read about a recent broadcast with host Jeanine Pirro. In case time doesn't permit, I have inserted a YouTube video from the piece along with a an item from Bob Cesca's list of Pirro’s ridiculousness. Cesca also addressed new mantra from certain right-wing demagogues. Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney recently mentioned a 60% increase in terrorist attacks.
(Jeanine) Pirro’s five-minute tirade had everything: finger-wagging, fear-mongering, misinformation, wild conspiracy theories, the phrase “cut and run” and, naturally, ball-shaming. It’s a cocktail of Obama Derangement Syndrome delivered with laser-like precision directly into the outrage cortexes of typical Fox News viewers, likely inducing octogenarian white-guy erections with tensile strengths not experienced since Don Ameche, Wilford Brimley and Hume Cronyn splashed around in that magical pool in Cocoon.
4) As if Obama was watching her ridiculous show. Next, Pirro shifted into addressing the president directly. 
“Now, Mr. President, you may see yourself as a war hero. The truth? There has been a 60 percent increase in radical Islamist terrorism since you’ve been in office.” 
It’s unclear which study she was talking about, but the only report we could find that involves a 60 percent increase in terrorist attacks had to do with North Africa, and the increase wasn’t overall for the years 2009-2014, it was from 2013 when there was a 60 percent increase over 2012. If we look at the overall post-9/11 trend for that region, the biggest increase took place between 2001 and 2009 under a different president. Furthermore, other than in 2013, terrorist attacks declined in North Africa from 2009 to 2012. This can’t really be attributed to Obama, but if we’re talking about blaming Obama for the spike in 2013, then he deserves credit for the decline as well, right?
north_africa_attacks
There’s another study by RAND which was recently cited by the always trustworthy Dick Cheney which showed a 60 percent increase in terrorists groups — not terrorism. The study also indicated that this increase was due to weakened governments in the nations where the terrorist groups are forming.

Effective delivery ODS to Fox viewers is easily accomplished. When viewers tune-in to Fox with an anti-Obama paradigm that verges on seething, proper deliver requires nothing more than a mix of the non- verbals as posted above, outright, lies, fodder from The Drudge Report, and creative writers. Fox host are seasoned and highly compensated personalities who should be required to secure licensing from the same licensing authority as the WWE: The Screen Actors Guild.
StumbleUpon

Friday, March 28, 2014

ACA Enrollment, US History And Jennifer Stefano's Poor Punditry



Despite one half a billion dollars spent by the Koch brothers, incessant Fox News anti-ACA broadcasts and an unfatohmable number (53 plus votes at $1.6 million per vote) of House votes to repeal the ACA, enrollments happened and reached revised projected CBO goals. See Advisory Dot Com (below) and the 2.11.2014 Brainwrap graph. 

And, of course, there are people who are so adamantly against medical coverage for people with no coverage, they actually fight against the law hand and foot. Hence, the silliness of the Hobby Lobby case and many CEO threats to reduce workforces if Obama was reelected in 2012.

Some of us have followed ACA enrollments via the Charles Gaba, Brainwrap, webpage: ACAsignups.net. Others have supported the ACA without close enrollment scrutiny because it is the right thing for the nation. And, yes, there are many who do not support Obamacare, but will express an affinity for the ACA.





Go figure! 

I have developed the following set of BrainWrap running graphs (from 11.2013 - 2.1014) as visual representation of how enrollments have grown from the early weeks of HHS ACA website failure. The post was originally developed for my "Data Scroll" page and will be moved to that page after an initial run here.

From the doldrums of a failed website to the revised projections!

11.26. 2013


BrainWrap, Charles Gaba ACAsignups.net; December 2013 

12.03.13




12.24.2013

aca-sign-ups

12.31.2013


1.21.2014


1.28.2014
Embedded image permalink

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the failed ACA roll out led to lowering its enrollment projections by one million.

See more after break below

StumbleUpon

Battle of the Year: Hayes Vs Stefano; Who Got Schooled?



Early in the week, the Obama Administration announced an extension for Americans who are in the midst of the ACA enrollment process via an extension to April 15, 2014 (Vs the actual March 31, 2014 deadline).

The deadline extension was reported for people who for whatever reason are immersed in enrolling for the ACA. I have read the deadline change would predominately benefit people who had attempted to enroll in the ACA and may have a record of their efforts. It was reported as not an open extension for all. I frankly suspect however, some will take advantage of the deadline change and start the process. But, I ask, how should the Administration handle people who for various potential reasons failed to compete the sign-up process by this coming Monday?  


Needless to say, right-wing media, conservatives and all who work for the vast Koch brothers network are seething about the deadline extension. Chris Hayes MSNBC, ALL IN, found out the level and scope of angst and ugliness as he invited a regional director from the Koch brothers Americans For Prosperity to sit in discussion.  Discussion did not ensue. 

Hayes sat with Jennifer Stefano and another guest (for the latter portion of the interview).  

Ms. Stefano joined Hayes and seemed to be primed for a classic conservative go-off.  She never answered the question related to why angst from the two week extension, she also failed to discuss any references to GOP refusal to enact Medicaid Expansion.  Since we know MSNBC provides on-air topics to guest (or some form of brief) , we know Stefano was not surprised with Hayes's questions. The real issue is, why not answer the questions. If she could not provide an answer her employers would find palatable, why not opt out of the interview? Yet, Stefano opted for a sports analogy we have all heard,"...a good offense if the best defense." 

Since I used a sports analogy above, allow me to say the following is the rightful domain and key responsibility of the show host. The host role: ask the initial question and monitor the segment for accomplishing the focus of the segment. So, let's say Hayes fired-off the opening and initial "offense" and possibly placing the guest in a defensive posture. It is a basic dynamic of "challenge" TV reporting or questioning when the guest is known to hold opposing views. Unlike many Fox News host/guest interactions resulting from carefully chosen and strategically placed (validating) conservative guest.  

Clip 1. The Question (39 seconds)


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Read more after the break below

StumbleUpon

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Chris Hayes, Jennifer Stefano, AFP, ObamaCare

 

As the Obama Administration has granted 15 additional days for enrollment in the Affordable Care Act, it should be no surprise GOP derangement is over the top.

Chris Hayes, MSNBC, ALL IN made the mistake of booking a guest who is an executive of the Koch Brothers Americans for Prosperity (AFP). What you are about to see could supplant the most classless and crass Jerry Springer staged "fool spectacles."  

   

I introduce AFP's Jennifer Stefano.  Warning! After viewing first three quarters of the segment you will know two things. You will know why it is important to fight Koch takeover of our society and, more important, you will see why the old Springer show fell out of vogue with millions. Actually, you will know a third item. You will have witnessed the level of communication and the type of video segment that will go viral on conservative social media and websites. In fact, you might even think of a Bill O'Reilly finger-pointing yelling segment from Fox News. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/52452609#54789581

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Stefano yelled seven million Americans had suffered insurance policy cancellations. As of march 6th, 2014, Charles Gaba, a very reliable ACA tracking source addressed reports of a lesser number of cancellations: reports of five million. 
Since Stefano snapped and yelled about seven million cancellations you might want to read this short piece from the Gaga ACAsignups.net webpage. As you read the piece know that Gaba is writing in response to a critique of his 'dead-on' accurate enrollment tracking. You have to know the Kochs are not to sit idly-by and watch Gaba's tracking without dispatching a "data-assassin." 
http://acasignups.net/graph

Since you may not have visited the Gaba link above, I am posting a segment of the screed that addresses Stefano seven million cancellations.
Well, I forgot about one more thing: Not all of those 4.8 million "cancelled" policies were actually cancelled. 
Another commentor, danslabyrinth, reminded me that thanks to President Obama and HHS announcing their "grandfathering" policy which extended the deadline for existing non-compliant plans by a year (and, more recently, by another two years, to as far out as the end of 2016), this 4.8 million figure has already been vastly reduced. By how much?
Well, according to this article about the additional 2-year extension, 1.5 million people never had their policies cancelled after all (or at least, they had them reinstated after originally being cancelled, anyway): 
It's not clear how many people will actually be affected by the most closely watched provision of the new regulations, the two-year extension on policies that were previously subject to cancellation. The administration cites a congressional estimate of 1.5 million, counting individual plans and small business policies. 
About half the states have allowed insurance companies to extend canceled policies for a year under the original White House reprieve. The policies usually provided less financial protection and narrower benefits than the coverage required under the law. Nonetheless, the skimpier insurance was acceptable to many consumers because it generally cost less. 

"It's not likely to affect a large number of people but it certainly avoids difficult anecdotes about people having their policies canceled," said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, an expert on insurance markets. "I think it's a small and dwindling number of people who are affected." 
Now, that 1.5 million figure isn't given as solid...but then again, neither is the 5 million figure (I've heard the number claimed being as low as 4.7 million or as high as 6 million, but the 6M sources are, to put it mildly, a bit shakey to say the least). 
UPDATE: Thanks to Tim Dickinson for pointing me towards the source of the "1.5 Million UNcancelled Policies" estimate...which is actually the same updated CBO report which lowered the exchange QHP estimate from 7M to 6M: 
In November 2013, the Administration announced that state insurance commissioners could give health insurers the option of allowing individuals and small businesses to re-enroll in coverage that did not comply with certain market and benefit rules, such as the prohibition against adjusting premiums based on health status, that were scheduled to take effect in January 2014. CBO and JCT estimate that, as a result, roughly 11⁄2 million people in the individual and small-group markets will renew policies in 2014 that are not compliant with those rules. In addition, because subscribers may renew such coverage between January and October of 2014, CBO and JCT estimate that half a million people will continue to be enrolled in noncompliant policies in 2015.  
So, here's what I'm willing to do: Since 5M is the most-cited figure, I'm willing to use that. And since 1.5 million appears to be the maximum number that have taken the administration up on their extension offer, I'm even willing to knock a couple hundred thousand off of that in the interests of being, shall we say, "conservative".
This means that we can subtract 1.3 million from 5 million, leaving 3.7 million people who genuinely had to replace their existing non-compliant health insurance policy with a fully-compliant one...via either the ACA Exchanges or off-exchange, directly through the insurance companies.
And as I explained yesterday, until I know how many of those 3.7 million replaced their policy off-exchange instead of on the exchanges, I have no way of knowing how many to "subtract" from the graph and therefore can't do so.
The AFP executive spent the last two minutes of her on-camera appearance deflecting from a potentially intelligent point-counter-point with a typical Fox News-like performance. Stefano successfully deployed the very technique used by Mitt Romney to disarm a scantily prepared and (appearing) reticent Barack Obama during their first debate. Romney deployed the Gish Gallop debate technique via overwhelming Obama with machine gun-like issues and comments laced with either half-truths or outright lies. I suggest based on reading in preparation for this piece, Stefano also threw veracity on the floor of the host studio.
The Gish Gallop
Named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. 
She spoke repeatedly of how Hayes, "did not know her," while reminding of many of the Springer Show segments. Yet, the one thing she left for all to see and hear. Other than the Fox News Network, we now know her and we know she is very much not fit for prime-time appearances on national television.
StumbleUpon