The Pardu

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

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

National Review Editor Warns Against "White Nationalist" Labels

Image result for racist apologist
Watch the end of the following segment.  NBC stages a panel of liberal and progressive guests.   

Any rational human being would expect the conservative late boomer white editor of The National Review, Rich Lowry, to take exception to Joy Ann Reid's accurate depiction of a White House with a few too many so-called "white nationalists."


Lowery's argument is pure social folly and conservative apologist rationalization.  The actual answer is for Trump to rid the White House of anyone who holds views contrary to a healthy diverse America. StumbleUpon

Monday, June 5, 2017

Comcast/NBC's Megyn Kelly And Trump's Putin

Megyn "White Santa; white Jesus", "Pepper Spray" Kelly's interview with Russia Putin interested me less than watching Donald Trump drag the US Presidency through the muck. Yet, I have found segments of the interview (via social media) intriguing. Intriguing regarding the scope of which Comcast-NBC Universal is moving to a Fox News current events model. I refuse to refer to Fox as a real news purveyor. 

Before a couple of references regarding the interview, I must ask. If you watched the ridiculous entertainment from Kelly did you actually expect to find a modicum of truth any pace in the interview? OK, work with me now; did you really? If you had a thought of yes which you would dare to state, the next question is: "Do you believe anything that comes from the mouth of one Donald J Trump?"  If you have come to know Trump as the world now knows Trump, a serial liar, you have to know his pathology may be shared with the Russian President. They are authoritarian liars with a purpose.

Megyn Kelly asked Putin about Russian Interference in the US elections. While we know the real answer, it is amazing NBC and Kelly offered Putin an international platform for what follows.


I tend to place much more faith in 17 US INTEL agencies which stated the direct opposite. An assessment report via The Intercept.
On another TV remote channel hoping session, I ran across Kelly asking Putin: "Do you have something on President Trump?"  

OK, let's dissect. 

First, is there a person on Earth who felt the question would garner a response other than Putin lie; (of which he didn't accomplish the lie so well)?  While on this point, if Putin hosts Russian TV  open sessions with only pre-approved questions, is there a person reading this who doesn't believe Kelly's questions were screened?  

Also, if Kelly crafted her questions, NBC really is becoming a Fox News lite. The question about something on Trump was actually rhetorical as the rational person would have no doubt how Putin would answer the question. Key certainly didn't expect a "yes" answer. Thus, Kelly provided mere entertainment for conservative Putin lovers or reality TV addicts (liberal and conservative)

As for Russian hacker interference in the US elections, even Putin should modify his response to better suit human beings who do not blindly follow and worship Donald Trump.

Thus Kelly's inaugural moments on NBC was nothing more than Fox News like entertainment with over 60 minutes of pure malarkey for reality TV worshippers or conservative Putin lovers. 

A reminder.


Tuesday, May 9, 2017

TrumpIsm: When Warned And You Fail To Respond

Trump is the Rattlesnake you failed to respect and avoid.

Do you remember the following appearance on Air Force One with his "arm candy" prominently displayed? It is all about the show.
Of course, rational viewers knew Trump was flying when he brandishing his wife for the public while hiding as if in a closet offering up a lie. Let's move on since we know Trump lies well over 80% of the time regarding his body of statements and communication. 

There are times when we learn lessons as a child, have the lessons reinforced as we grow older and experience ensues, and when we are fully developed those early lessons of adherence to those lessons pays off.

What did we learn for loving parents, siblings friends, and school about potential interaction with this animal?

Related image If we heeded the lessons we could possibly go through life and never have a bad experience with one of nature'ss more beautiful creatures.  We didn't have to learn the hard way to give this animal more than enough space for safe passage (your safe passage).  You listened and you absorbed and incorporated the lesson.
Yesterday afternoon Sally Yates appeared before a Senate Committee with "face-on" while delivering eloquent and sophisticated testimony of her warning to the Trump cabal.

WAPO piece with full transcript: Link.

You may want another look at the level of competency and professionalism as Yates dealt with the entrapping Ted Cruz. Do you really believe for on second Yates didn't know the details of the statute quoted by Cruz. She had to know he would go there and immediately consulting her notes clearly indicated she would throw Cruz's metaphorical IED (Improvised Explosive Device) back into his smug face. Cruz was ensnared by a deep constitutional law mind; he and his staff must have suffered a tsunami butt-pucker.

Watch again as the IED heads back to Cruz: link (30 seconds).

If you need to see the two minute interaction again, here you go.

What we have is a Trump problem.

Trump's party leadership is spreading the Trump (metastasizing) cancer throughout the ranks of the GOP.  If Trump had heeded the warnings, via Yates, from the INTEL community, yesterday would not have led to public statements which shed additional light on Trump's mindset, possible coziness with Putin and it would not have shown Ted Cruz as a Rattlesnake who cannot effectively set a witness back on their heels. 

If you didn't watch the hearing of yesterday, know that another noted GOP regressive blew himself up via his own IED questioning. The last 60 seconds of the video is most relevantSince real life doesn't have a dream sequence/flashback feature, I made this. #SallyYates

Herewith is the bottomline, on Trump's damage to his party, his administration and the now wounded Ted Cruz.

Why do Republicans so love public committee hearing when they challenged obvious more intellectually gifted and learn ed professionals and experts?

Image result for hari kari


Sunday, January 8, 2017

While Trump Lies Russian Hacking Draws More Attention

Let's start this piece with a syllogism.

  1. an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).
    deductive reasoning as distinct from induction.
    • "logic is rules or syllogism"
    • A categorical syllogism consists of three parts:
      • Major premise
      • Minor premise
      • Conclusion

Major premise:  Trump lies 80% of the time

Minor premise:  Trump talks and tweets incessantly.
Conclusion: When Trump speaks he is lying more than truth telling.

While millions have grown accustomed to Trump's lying, as he moves to the US Presidency his penchant for lying will become extremely troublesome (and dangerous). Of late, Trump's absolute refusal to consider the fact Russia assisted in his general election win has far-reaching implications for national security as well as the mental state of the nation. If we know he pathologically lies, his trust factor will sit towards the bottom of believability.

As US INTEL chiefs have released reports detailing the Russian hacking while attributing the espionage directly to Vladimir Putin(AKA V. Putin by Trump), the president-elect has circled the wagons around the issue. He nor his staff seem to admit US INTEL is point-on regarding the hacking. A refusal which is both perplexing and questioning as to why. Many media outlets are reporting on the matter; I have chosen and NBC and an MSNBC video segment for highlighting the extent of Trumps obtuse state of mind and related lying about matters of Russian hacking.

NBC News

The Rachel Maddow Show (must view)

It is important to recognize, international leaders read the same information we read about Trump; they also know Trump is a serial liar. Is there a reader among you who actually believe that is a good thing?

As of this morning, it seems Trump has moved away from his over-the-top defense of Putin's hackers. he apparently OK'd his future Chief of Staff to appear on Fox News and speak for him. Typical of a person who isn't big enough to reverse his puzzling refusals to accept the level to which Putin assisted in his election.  

Interesting. Now where do we go with Putin from this point?

The Guardian UK recently published a piece including INTEL of far too frequent contacts between Trump and Putin. The piece states that the US was warned of what seemed an odd chummy relationship between countries which have maintained a distant and adversarial relationship.
It may be worthwhile to also remind both Clinton and Trump received security briefings as the fall campaigns moved towards voting day. Clinton actually mentioned Russian hacking during a debate. Trump chose to mock the INTEL with mentioned of the prospect of a 400 lbs hacker sitting on a couch.

Thwshamee of it all.

We will end this piece with a reminder of Donald Trump's loss regarding the US popular vote.   

Alas, the failures of the US electoral System. One would think a 200 plus year old system would receive a degree of tweaking to stop new networks from calling state by state wins when everyone knows the final vote count wouldn't be as flashed across CNN's broadcast screens. Let's be real your Great-Great Grandfather didn't have election wins and losses available to him a mere 12 hours after the voting places opened for business. When did we move to election results required complete but midnight on election night?


Sunday, July 27, 2014

US Media And A Pro-Israeli Bias? Afraid So!

We undertake this piece for probing media coverage. We are not siding with either side of the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, I must add I am a major underdog kind-of-a-guy and the number of deaths and innocent victims of military ordinance is scoring very much beyond what appears as necessary. Especially, when I see images and video of Israelis on sofas and lawn chairs on hillsides cheering the bombing of an encircled Gaza. Cheering as if watching and experiencing a fireworks show.

Rula Jabreal

Embedded image permalink

Last Monday’s edition of MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily included a segment with journalist Rula Jabreal. Jabreal's frank commentary in response to a question (or set of questions) from show host Ronan Farrow created quite the fervor. If you are familiar with the consecutive day interviews with Jabreal, skip the video segments and focus on my interspersed comments and latter parts of the piece regarding Sean Hannity's treatment of a Palestinian guest and the Sunday July 27th, Meet The Press segment featuring David Gregory's attempts to feed US pro-Israeli sentiment.

A day later and after Jabreal accused the network of cancelling all future appearances, Chris Hayes (for some reason) had Jabreal back on the MSNBC airways. Hayes introduced his 7:24 minute segment with the frank speaking contribution with what I consider unnecessary comments about his network "....not taking kind to it...." He went on to somewhat patronize Jabreal via "I like Rula Jabreal" and then stated his disagreement and his implied desire to correct her. If you watch the segment Jabreal talked almost the full extent of the allotted airtime. Basically, she showed why MSNBC's "young lions" should develop a bit more before delving into interviews to which they are like lion cubs when it comes to guest temperament.  Actually, it appeared Hayes was given the mission of revisiting with Jabreal to close the matter while allowing her a bit more airtime. How does that old axiom go..."A woman scorned.....?"

Hayes made a point to directly address Jabreal's remarks about Andrea Mitchell as (alleged) "pro-Israeli" . His revisited the issue segment fell strikingly shallow as he remarked about Mitchell's "...body of work" (possibly implying that through the course of her career she has proven to be a credible journalist.)  A point that I will not dispute, but I retain the right to state she is clearly a conservative MSNBC show host. If for no other reason her political paradigm may seriously imbue a pro-Israeli perspective.   

I should clearly state, that I totally agreed with Jabreal's initial comments and I feel she handled her Chris Hayes "chastise session" equally well.

Jabreal's point was the reality of a pro-Israeli bias in US media (with a focus on MSNBC/NBC).  If anyone in the United States denies we have (or HAD) a pro-Israeli bias, that person is an outright liar or they live in a fantasy world.  If the nation is predominately pro-Israeli it is factually impossible to deny Jabreal's charge. While I was not afforded the time to seek data regarding pro-Israeli interviews or broadcast Vs Palestinian air-time.  I believe Jabreal and I am appreciative of her courage and zeal regarding the matter.  

If you watch any US News, or for that matter any international news broadcast, think of the number of times you have seen these men on television. 

Ron Dermer , Israel Ambassador to the US

Mark Regev, spokesperson to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


While networks conduct interviews of Palestinian officials, I personally cannot recall one face that regularly appears. Yet, I have found one Palestinian who was sat with Sean Hannity and received a Hannity performance that clearly must have excited his viewers. 

Watch as Hannity literally scolded Yousef Munayyer, a Palestinian guest. Notice the standard American conservative open-mouth-yelling at his guest. The segment is only 2:12 minutes.

Published on Jul 24, 2014
7-24-14 - ( Fox News ) - Sean Hannity got into a shouting match tonight with a Palestinian guest as Hannity repeatedly asked Yousef Munayyer whether he believes Hamas is a terrorist organization and Munayyer did not directly answer the question. In fact, Munayyer first scolded Hannity, saying that it’s “very telling” he brings on Palestinian voices only to shout them down. 
Hannity cried at Munayyer to answer the question about Hamas. Munayyer said the U.S. considers it a terrorist organization, but didn’t give his personal opinion. Hannity kept yelling at him to give a straight answer, shouting, “Can you hear?!” and “What part of this can’t you get through your thick head?!” 
As the segment came to a close and Munayyar asked to speak, Hannity said, “You had your chance. You didn’t say Hamas is a terrorist organization. Good-bye.”


We stepped outside of the MSNBC/Jebreal interviews to make a point. Yes, US Media is pro-Israel and broadcast with slanted pro-Israeli reporting.

Wouldn't you know David Gregory, the fledgling Meet The Press show host, followed script via offering his Sunday morning preponderant conservative show viewers yet another dose of pro-Israeli feeding. out-.....
Maybe Jabreal should not have been forthright in naming Mitchell as a biased host.  We must realize that Mitchell's show preceded Ronan's show last Monday. It is feasible Jabreal was sitting in a green room waiting to join Farrow and absorbed a full dose of Mitchell bias. I believe I recall that morning and Mitchell's broadcast may have come across as absent compassion for Palestinians dying in Gaza.

Yes, US media is consumed with coverage of the US Israeli/Palestinian conflict (war) that seems to have an Israeli bias. 


Friday, April 18, 2014

Tax Policy, The GOP, And You.... Part II

On April 15th (Tax Day) Fox News managers and producers broadcast a segment that smacks the face and psyche of Americans who understand and abhor income inequity born of GOP economic policy since the early 1980s.  Take a look at Ed Schultz's "Vulture Chart."  Do you notice the red (upper income) trend line took off in the early 1980s? 

Now, for Fox New's Hemmer and Varney.  Hemmer actually comments the about down sides of taxes (granted non of us care for taxes), and regulation. The host is big with mantra and talking points, but he should consider use of the word "regulation" as we consider our recent history of unregulated capitalism.

The segment speaks without any opaqueness about the Fox News audience.  

Income inequality is (excuse the colloquial phrase) "as serious as contracting cancer." Those of us who earn significantly less than the nation's top income earners are literally relegated to equally significantly shorter life-spans. Talking Points Memo published a piece today, with "death charts" illustrating the stark reality of "income privilege" Vs. the the less expanded life span. 

The stark reality....

The Curry County Democrats
A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts
The Atlantic, Derek Thompson
To understand the full story, you have to look at capital income — from assets like housing and stocks and bonds. This is where income growth for the top 1% has positively exploded, taking income inequality to record highs.

The chart, one of 16 in the Atlantic piece, provides an irrefutable illustration of income inequality. The also takes GOP and conservative mantra to the point of comical manipulation. The only problem with the comedic blabbering from the Right: People are not  paying attention. When we fail to pay attention to our growing oligarchy and growing income inequality, it simply grows and metastasizes. 

Growing income inequality should rightfully, lead to higher income tax burden for people at the top of the income strata. Conversely, middle income Americans and lower income Americans should rightfully pay lower federal taxes. We do have a progressive tax structure! 

It is interesting to watch how right-wing media runs interference for people who provide potential for contributions and funding, and does so without regard for people who earn less and are earning less on an ever-increasing basis.

While the Wall Street Journal recently published the following graphic, SLATE very adroitly dealt with the graphic message. Thus placing interpretation of the graphic along-side Right-wing false interpretation of data reality.

Excerpt (read carefully)
There is nothing wrong with having that debate—most liberals, I think, welcome it. There is something very wrong, however, with how the Journal presents America’s shifting tax burden, which it traces in the graph below. The chart is supposed to tell us that the entire top 20 percent of households—the group shown in red, which includes “couples with two children making more than $150,000,” as writer John McKinnon puts it—is now responsible for paying a vastly larger share of all federal taxes than it was at the start of the Reagan era. It’s not just the ultra-rich who are doing the heavy lifting. It’s the upper-middle class, too.
That is only true if you lump together the top 1 percent with the next 19 percent of taxpayers. Break them apart (as I’ve done below, using the same data sets as the Journal), and it’s clear that the only cohort responsible for a notably larger share of the country’s tax bill is the top 1 percent. (The graph includes a break where it shifts from Congressional Budget Office data, which ends in 2010, to figures from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center).

If you only look at federal income tax liability—so no payroll taxes or corporate taxes—then the entire top 10 percent has seen its share of the burden grow quite a bit. But that brings us to the bigger point: Income inequality is rising. And as long as we have progressive taxation, that means the rich will naturally pay a larger share of the tax tab. The Journal, to its credit, acknowledges this. What it fails to point out is that, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center, only one group is paying a higher average tax rate than it did during the Bush era. Again, that’s the top 1 percent.
Right-wing media knows its viewers and ultimately knows who pay their "freight."  

MSNBC's Alex Wagner, Ezra Klein and Janell Ross, The National Journal, discussed the American tax experience.

The average American knows the wealthy have a form of conferred privilege. They have such singularly due to their wealth and opportunity inherent in wealth.  We also know the average American has enough tax knowledge to know that wealthy pay the progressive tax and they know the progressive rates mean we pay less.  Ah yes, the voting public and the non-voting public have some knowledge of the progressive tax, the public has no information feeds that provide easy to find relational perspectives.

Also on Tax Day Media Matters published a piece among pieces that addressed the information void and the lack of information dissemination via network news (ABC, NBC, CBS). 
Relationship Between Income Tax Rates And Income Inequality

If as indicated by both Gallup and Pew Research, Americans get their news from television, and the three major networks didn't provide coverage of the relationship between taxes and income inequality over the course of the past year, one should ask why? The rational person should think in terms of how can public opinion focus on issues critical to matters of importance to the non-wealthy, if media shone such issues.  

Now, do you think media inadvertently avoids issues of growing income disparity?  Surely, you wouldn't be so naive.

Friday, February 7, 2014

US Senate Votes Against Extending Unemployment Insurance; No Mainstream Network Covers The Vote!

In the shadows on some issues.  Why?
Media Matters continues to nail  the extent to which electronic media seeks ratings. How could it be the US Senate denial of unemployment insurance payments (even for three months retroactive back to last December, 28th) did not garner one second of coverage on network news?  

The failure to mention the Senate vote, is particularly striking since across the political spectrum (Democrats, Independent and Republican) Americans favor extending the payments. Of course, favoring the extension tails off once you look at favorable data from Republicans. Nonetheless, all favor extending the payments.

According to a Quinnipiac University survey, 58% of registered voters nationwide say they favor a three-month extension of the benefits for people currently out of work. 
The poll, which was released Wednesday, indicates a partisan divide, with overwhelming support from Democrats (83%-13%), majority backing from independents (54%-41%), and opposition from Republicans by a 54%-42% margin.
 The fact that not one mainstream network even mentioned the US Senate vote, speaks volumes about news producers and managers. If the data above is accurate and Quinnipiac has a reputation for accuracy with a progressive slant what you are about to see can only be attributed to ratings aversion. Are these networks avoiding issues that might 'turn-off" right-wing politicians. How is it so coincidental all three ignored a vote that may have you sitting at home with no income? The only answer is to avoid shame for the GOP and the prospect of Right-wing backlash from entities in DC. Let's face facts, the issue is an issue of interest to the public.

Broadcast News

See Media Matters here.

One more look at the shame of major network news.

Causes of Economic Harm

Yes, for a moment we digress away for the foibles and politics of network news managers and producers.  We simply cannot resist a snapshot of how FOXPEN (Fox Propaganda and Entertainment Network) covers another issue that impacts perception of the political Right.

Chris Christe Anyone?
Media Matters Chart: Mentions of Chris Christie on Cable News

People who are unaware of current events and issues critical to the nation, make bad choices.

What happens to the (common) people who do not earn millions per year (as do many broadcasters) when people vote the nation into political "OOOPs"; like electing George W. Bush twice. 


Thursday, January 9, 2014

Video Quick Hits: Christe and Limbaugh

 We did not have a good day !

Before we get to our salient points, we offer Both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell must have consulted the GOP Playbook on the unemployed. They both mentioned the "J" (jobs) word yesterday.

Now for the quick hits.

According to AL Sharpton's Politics Nation (and each evening MSNBC News show host) yesterday was simply not a good day for conservative America. Chris Christe's flatulence is showing via a "WaterGate" like "BridgeGate" scandal that has parked well within the purview of his "picnic basket." 

Rush Limbaugh took-on our recent dip to severe cold (Polar Vortex) with typical insane rhetoric developed for low information voters (people).  How can people actually listen to Limbaugh as he refutes a weather phenomenon that drove temperatures well into below average less across 85% of the nation?  Well, the demagogue on Clear Channel's EIB Network has steeped on the toes of a well established and competent weather broadcaster.  Al Roker took Limbaugh to task and he did so very effectively. Roker capped his exposition with a "Stuff It" for Mr. Limbaugh.

First, a 12 minute broadcast about Christe's scandal. The twelve minute segment is spot-on and worth every second.

Even the normal restrained Al Roker could no longer sit idly by while Limbaugh mocked reality. It is actually tragic more public figures do not take the Right-wing mouthpiece to task.

America's conservatives are seriously losing it!

Friday, November 1, 2013

Why Is US Electronic Media Joining The Kochs And The GOP As Pied Pipers Of Misinformation

During a two week period when American news media has proven it is about little more than attracting viewers to prop-up ratings. This week we find yet another example of crafty people obviously longing for attention or money who manage to lead networks news shows astray.  

Fox News has been at the pinnacle of such flawed and misleading reporting; NBC and CBS also joined the charade parade with episodes that should have generated thoughts of, "Let's dig deeper for more details."  Yet neither of the three networks performed above the level of a college journalism intern. Since, we know those television management teams, producers and editors are at least fairly competent professionals, their 'lazy' reporting is suspect. Suspect as to motive and intent.

We know the Fox News mission regarding the ACA: join the GOP,  libertarians and the Kochs in killing the humane critical program. CBS and NBC's flawed reporting were astounding and uncharacteristic. The misleading reports were especially astounding since non-network professionals literally busted the networks. A writer employed by Salon Dot Com recently screeded on misleading reporting.  And believe it or not, Greta Van Sustren (and her team) over on Fox busted a false CBS report, and another writer with the LA Times recently busted CNBC's "Obama Hatter" Maria  Bartiromo guiding a guest down a path that the network had to know was an oasis.  We use the figurative "Oasis" based on past anti-administration and anti-Obama "hatred" from Bartiromo. Each case of misleading on-camera performances not only harm the potential good of the ACA, the stories also provide viewer induced ratings that garners revenue. 

The ACA is providing significant opportunity for news ratings. But, it is not the only politically charged issue that provides prime 'red meat' for administration haters, GOP politicians and network ratings. Ratings seeking may not have been the ultimate motive or enticement for a comparable flub by 60 Minutes. 

There are few news shows and electronic news weekly magazines that can compare to 60 Minutes as a former without question credible investigatory source on information. CBS's 60 Minutes team has also fallen victim to 'red meat' hunters and monthly ratings scrimmages. An alleged Benghazi insider sat for an interview with 60 Minutes, which led to a 47 minute segment on Fox News. Media Matters is reporting there are major issues with the alleged witnesses story.  As I watched the segment I wondered how the CBS news magazine guest   could have been on the scene of the killings and fires an escape as he apparently escaped.  Isn't it amazing no one at the network had the same thought. Or, if there was a thought about the guy's credibility, it was shuttered away for some reason. How could highly compensated (supposed) investigatory professionals and producers violate a basic canon of journalism: seek validation or seek more than a single source?

60 minutes

We are embedding the 60 Minutes video and linking to the Media Matters piece.  You simply must watch this interview and follow with a quick read of the Media Matters piece. link to video)

As previously stated, we have grown to expect such non-credible exhibitions from Fox News.  When historically reliable and formerly credible media joins in the hunt for red meat, we as a nation are seeing the early stages of real trouble.  Obama Derangement Syndrome has been historically avoided by credible media.  When the likes of NBC, CBS (60 Minutes) join the feeding frenzy, we open ourselves up for further dissolving into a well set plutocracy trap by people such as the Koch brothers and their well funded GOP. 

Each Sunday millions watch 60 Minutes. If the Media Matters piece we believe and posted here is accurate, we wonder if 60 Minutes will broadcast a clarification.  We know the Media Matters revelation will not get a mention on Fox News. 

It is critical that credible media revisit such misleading reports.