My David Gregory Prediction Finally Comes True

In December of 2008, I wrote a blog entry in which I said this about David Gregory and his recent appointment as the host of Meet the Press:

"I think, like the entire direction of NBC, "Meet the Press" will slowly (maybe even quickly) go downhill. Gregory is certainly not of the class of those who came before him."

Now, 4-1/2 years later, "Meet the Press" has seen 20-year lows and, well, David Gregory is on his way out.

When I made that prediction in 2008, I didn't have a crystal ball.  All I knew is that NBC, by appointing Gregory, had overtly decided to abandon the down the middle reporting that was the hallmark of Tim Russert and, instead, take the show to the political left.   In doing so, they were sure to lose conservatives, like myself, who had appreciated years of Russert's fairness.  At the same time, centrists as well, would probably abandon the show once they realized that the reporting was too far left.  Couple this with the fact that a guy like Gregory would do everything possible to protect and not criticize a sitting liberal Democrat President and, it is no wonder they lost audience.  After all, the show's name is "Meet The Press" with the implication that the press would ask the expected hard-hitting questions.  But, that's not where this show has gone.


The current speculation is that Chuck Todd will replace Gregory.  Todd too, is a lefty; just not as far left as Gregory, and unless the production staff takes "Meet the Press" to the center it isn't going to make much of a difference in ratings.


References:

Cutting Through The Fog: December 3, 2008: David Gregory and "Meet the Press":  http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2008/12/david-gregory-and-meet-press.html

'Meet The Press' Gets Some Of Its Lowest Ratings In Over 20 Years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/meet-the-press-ratings-third-week-abc-nbc-david-gregory_n_5288590.html

Playbook: Chuck Todd likely to replace David Gregory on 'Meet the Press': http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/08/playbook-chuck-todd-likely-to-replace-david-gregory-193735.html

Jeff Zucker and CNN's Closet Left-wing Media Bias

Jeff Zucker took NBC from "Must See TV" and drove it down to 4th place. He also turned that same network from a well respected news organization into one that just delivers a bunch of left-wing media hacks. He has now been hired as the new president of the ratings-languishing CNN.

Given Mr. Zucker's past, I would fully expect that CNN will come out of the closet and stop trying to pretend that it is a politically unbiased news organization.  In fact, my guess is that Zucker will quickly move to turn CNN into another MSNBC to further combat Fox News and fully promote liberal, left-wing, and progressive ideals.  Why else would the parent company of CNN, Turner Broadcasting, even consider hiring the likes of Jeff Zucker.

Maybe, now, Keith Olbermann can find a new home; after having been let go from both MSNBC in 2010 and Al Gore's Current TV in 2012.  After all, Mr. Zucker never saw an extreme left-wing newscaster/commentator that he didn't like.

--- CNN.com: Jeff Zucker named new president of CNN Worldwide: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/us/jeff-zucker-cnn-president/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Obama: The Man Who Would Be King

In an interview on NBC's Today Show, President Obama said the following: "What's frustrated people is that I've not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. "

Yes sir, Mr. Obama. Our founders developed a system of government that was based on a balance of power between the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branches of government. They did that so that people like "you" wouldn't be able to act like kings and simply run roughshod over those in this country that don't necessarily agree with you. Ours is a system that forces compromises.

Let's not forget what Thomas Jefferson once said: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." That's why we are a republic and that's why our system of government is the longest lasting form of democracy in the world today.

Who's The Real Racist

Yesterday, an NBC reporter, Ms. Kelley O'Donnell, singled out a Black person at one of the many Tea Party rallies and asked, on camera, if he was "uncomfortable" in attending that rally - implying that, somehow, a black wouldn't be accepted by a bunch of white, racist Tea Partiers (Click to See Video).

But, who's the real racist here? A bunch of Tea Party members who will readily accept any like-minded person and who could care less what color they are? Or, the white liberal journalist, Kelley O'Donnell, who lives in a world, like so many other Democrats, where Blacks have been stereotyped and pigeon-holed as having only one place in life as a Progressive Liberal? And, apparently, find it unbelievable and, I assume, unacceptable for any Black to step outside this box that the Democrats have so self-servingly put them in. Thus casting Blacks as abunch of mindless automatons of the Democratic Party.

Climate Change Week on NBC. What Uuuh surprise?

Apparently, NBC will incorporate "green" propaganda into all of it's prime time shows and their news activities next week (Click to See Full Story: "NBC enlists prime-time programs in green message"). Al Gore will also cameo on the NBC program "30 Rock" alongside other left wingers on that show such as Alec Baldwin and Tina "Trash Palin" Fey.

NBC, of course, has always been the news media's prime cheerleader for Obama and would do absolutely anything to push his left wing agenda; especially on climate change. That's because the parent company of NBC, General Electric, has a lot to gain if Obama is able to get "Cap and Trade" passed through both houses of Congress. Right now, Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of GE, sits on Obama's board of economic advisers. He clearly has the President's ear. So, it is no wonder that GE has gotten such favorable treatment within the details of the "Cap and Trade" legislation that is working its way through Congress. GE makes the wind turbines that are sure to benefit from "Cap and Trade". GE also wants to completely restructure our electric grid with their "Smart Grid" technology. For GE, the benefit could be in the billions of dollars; if not trillion in the next 20 or 30 years. Recently, the Obama mouthpiece, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, complained that Chinese built wind turbines were being bought by recipients of Stimulus Plan money and that restrictions should be imposed to insure that Stimulus funds were only used to buy American wind turbines (Click to See Full Story: "No Stimulus Funds for Chinese Wind Turbines, Says Schumer"). Gee! Who just might benefit from that action? Not gee...GE!

All I know is that if this kind of cozy relationship had existed during the Bush Administration, the New York Times and the Washington Post and others would have run daily front-page smack-downs until it relented. Just think about all the bad press that Cheney got whenever there was the slightest hint that Halliburton was benefiting from anything that the Bush Administration was doing. Yet, for the GE/Obama conflicts of interest, the mainstream media remains totally silent.

The only problem GE and NBC have with their all-out climate change offensive is the fact that NBC has no viewers. And, given their obvious left wing slant, I am quite sure that the only viewers that are remaining already have life size portraits of Obama and Gore on their living room walls. So, in effect, they will be preaching to the choir. But, then, I'm quite sure that Immelt will still score big with the O-man! And, Obama might throw Immelt another few billion dollars worth of bones for being such a good little doggie. Maybe something like forced retrofitting of the American Airline fleet with more fuel efficient jet engines built by -- Guess Who? -- General Electric.

By The Way: Isn't Immelt doing a great job in his role of advising the O-man on the economy? I'm sure glad that Obama picked a person like Immelt who has nothing but America's best interests at heart! This is the same guy that allowed General Electric to sell products to Iran; despite the trade embargo with that terrorist spawning country. And, he continued to sell to Iran; even though there was enough evidence that Iran was shipping weapons to Iraq that were used to kill our soldiers. Apparently, in the world of Immelt, he is "GE" first and American second. Maybe even third! Who knows?

The ACORN and Van Jones Stories Exposes a Real Media Bias

In a recent poll taken by Pew Research, the mainstream media managed to achieve new lows in public trust.

On accuracy in reporting, the opinion of our media fell to an unbelievable 29%.

On the fairness in dealing with all sides of an issue, the number was even more telling with only 18% of those being interviewed giving a favorable rating to the media.

(Click to the Chart from Pew's Website)

I find it interesting that this poll came out at nearly the same time when almost every news agency failed to at least mention the brewing controversy over ACORN. Even before that, the mainstream media completely ignored the background bio on that Obama radical, Van Jones. Instead, the only major media source to expose those facts was Fox News.

In effect, both of these stories had clear ties to Barack Obama and, under normal circumstances, would have been an explosive, paper-selling, front-page revelation. But, obviously, profits, viewership and subscription sales are less important than maintaining this President's image. And, this is why our American media isn't to be trusted with giving us the news.

The contrast in how the media treated George W. Bush and how they are now handling Barack Obama couldn't be clearer. If Bush was to have been seen as having the same kind of ties to someone like Van Jones or to a group like ACORN, you had to know that the New York Times would have spared no ink on those topics. For them, they would have figuratively used it as a means of "serial" killing the Bush Presidency with daily stories on the topic.

I am quite sure that there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who are totally clueless on both the Van Jones and ACORN stories because they only read the New York Times, L.A. Times, or other biased newspapers and/or they only watch NBC, CBS, ABC, or MSNBC or CNN to get their news.

Today, the mainstream newspapers are near bankruptcy in almost every major city. The network news, too, is sliding in their viewership. Yet, they persist in their left-wing bias towards reporting the news. I had a high school teacher who'd often use the expression "wake up and smell the coffee" when somebody in class was acting a little dopey. Maybe our mainstream media should, before it is too late, "wake up up and smell the coffee" too. That's because, if they don't, they'll wind up in smelling soup in the soup lines and wishing they would have smelled the coffee before their businesses went completely under!


(Click to See Full Pew Research Commentary)

The Fairness Doctrine: Unintended Consequences

It might just be a totally false belief by the Democrats that the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (See definition) will benefit them by getting a nemesis like Rush Limbaugh off the air. Take note of these comments by an FCC Commissioner (See Full Story). It just might be the popular Huffington Post and the Daily KOS who gets whacked under that law, too.

Another couple of fat targets for the Fairness Doctrine will be the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). For years, these taxpayer supported radio and television networks have had unimpeded left-wing slants to their broadcasting. These bastions of liberal voice might just have to become a lot more conservative in their programming. You've got to know that every conservative watchdog group in America will be itemizing every time a liberal like Bill Moyers gets airtime and there isn't any offsetting conservative programming. PBS and NPR will ultimately be forced, by the courts, to provide conservative alternatives. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi's face when someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is forced to get their own show on PBS or NPR! There won't be enough porcelain receptacles on Capital Hill to handle all the nausea and vomiting from the Democratic lawmakers. TUMS will be in short supply for all the heartburn.

ABC, CBS, and NBC will have to watch it, too. There just might have to be a "This Week with Rush Limbaugh" to offset that Clinton guy, George Stephanopoulos. Then, let's not forget about the Chris Matthews Show on NBC. How about an NBC show titled: "The Laura Ingram Show". "60 Minutes" might have to dedicate a few more minutes to conservative viewpoints to offset their liberal pablum. Maybe they will have to call it "90 Minutes" to be fair. Maybe a separate show called "60 Minutes Too!"

I just think the left of the left like Senators Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, and Feinstein and our dear Speaker of the House, little miss Pelosi, haven't really thought through the consequences of reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine. But, "thinking things through" has never been a Democrat's or, for that matter, any politician's long suit. That's why history is littered with so many bad laws that had to be repealed. They are being so blinded by the hatred for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio personalities that they don't realize that they might be shooting themselves in the foot.

My guess is that, if a Barack Obama is elected, we will the see the ugly face of the Fairness Doctrine. It will become another law that sees too much time in the courts; both in defending it and using it for some biased advantage. Ultimately, it will be rescinded. As for Rush Limbaugh. He will probably keep hammering the Democrats for many years to come and will be untouched by the Fairness Doctrine. Others like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram might not fare as well but will eventually return to talk radio when the "Doctrine" dies another death. That's just my viewpoint.


Image by Joe Gratz's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

The Networks Are Bleeding Bias

If you listen to the national media, critiquing itself, they claim that they are fair, with absolutely no bias towards any political party or any specific candidate. But, the people on the right have known this to be one of the great lies by the 4th Estate. They are "totally" biased toward the Democrats and NBC is certainly the worst. In fact, NBC's real mascot should be the Democratic Party's red, white and blue Donkey and not that prissy little "Peacock" they would have you believe is their "real" symbol.

So, it is no wonder that each of the three national television networks will be joining Barack Obama, with the highest levels of news personnel available on his photo-op junket to Iraq and other parts of the world. That's right, the big "guns" of Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams have all been figuratively attached to Barack Obama's hips as they report, nightly, on his trip to Iraq and other far points (See Full Story). This symbiotic relationship is absolutely designed to get their man, Barack Obama, elected; the person with whom their own ideologies is the best match.

When McCain went overseas, I think NBC "sent" one of the "janitors" from the NBC headquarters building at Rockefeller Center to accompany him on his trip. That's about as "high level" as things got. I have to laugh when the Democrats talk about re-establishing the "Fairness Doctrine" (See a recent blog entry of mine) to keep a media "balance" on our radio and television airways.

Obama has been "flopping around" on his military withdrawal plans from Iraq like a carp out of water and the "Big Three Networks" have failed to provide any true judgmental reporting on this. Now he's on his way to Iraq and they are going to make damn well sure that he looks "Commander-in-Chief-ee" to all their network viewers. To me this is similar to what the media did to get Jimmy Carter into office; another Democrat who never had the credentials to be President. Author Lawrence H. Shoup wrote in his book titled The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months..."

Carter's election was one that was "manufactured" (primarily) by a favorable media and whose own ideology was duty-bound to get a far-left and progressive Democrat elected President after the "questionable" years of Nixon/Ford. In that election, Carter got all the favorable press and his opponents were shunned; just as Hillary Clinton was shunned during the primaries and John McCain is getting the cold shoulder now. The National Media didn't get it right then; and they aren't going do what is right, now. Mark my words!

Note: The national network's even "appear" to be fudging their polls to make it look like Obama has a bigger lead than he probably has. Often, the CBS/New York Times or NBC/Wall Street Journal or ABC/Washington Post polls will have Obama leading McCain by more that 6 points. This is despite the fact that the two daily tracking polls generally have Obama only leading by no more than the margin of error: about 3 points.

Image by wallyg's photostream on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing (Click to View Other Works)