Results for: mediaite Search Results
Family Filter:
2:46
*******www.zennie62**** Distributed by Tubemogul.
24 Dec 2009
445
Share Video

2:52
Mediaite's White House correspondent Tommy Christopher tweeting through his own heart attack is raising the question: where should the line be drawn when sharing personal information?
17 Sep 2010
443
Share Video

2:33
If 80 percent of success is just showing up -- two Democratic consultants are trying to give the The Huffington Post a run for their money. Peter Daou and James Boyce say they came up with the idea of a political website - where public figures would be invited to blog... ...during a meeting at co-founder Arianna Huffington’s house in December of 2004. They accuse Huffington and business partner Ken Lerer of presenting collaborated ideas as their own. (Video from MobLogic TV) Daou and Boyce are filing suit against Huffington and Lerer -- saying the latter violated a “handshake agreement” to work together on the site. And the stakes could be high -- Forbes reports the left-leaning blog was valued at $100 million in 2008. Politico - which broke the story - suggests the suit presents problems for the site’s heads. “The complaint is a direct challenge to the left’s most important media property ... And it challenges Huffington’s own oft-told story of coming up with the idea in conversation with Lerer and other friends.” And the accusation is being met with more than a few skeptics. Panelists on MSNBC’s Morning Joe -- where Arianna Huffington is a frequent guest -- say they aren’t buying Daou and Boyce’s story. JOE SCARBOROUGH: “Their credibility is undercut a bit by, they also claim to have written half the songs since Sgt. Pepper and said they created the atomic bomb and the Feds owe them, like $28,000.” PANELIST: “I had an assistant working with Ken Lerer in his office, and basically the two of them were really generating this website on their own. Arianna was doing it out of her blog. It’s an absurd idea, and it was Ken and Arianna did this thing together. It’s just not right to say it was stolen.” In a statement Huffington called the suit a -quote- “completely absurd, ludicrous supposition” by two men who’d been refused jobs at the site. And Business Insider’s Henry Blodget says beyond that -- Daou and Boyce are going to have a hard time making their case look legitimate in the court of public opinion. “We do find it curious that Daou and Boyce waited six years to make this claim. And, from a legal perspective, we note that ‘handshake agreements’ are the equivalent of the ‘dorm-room chitchat’ that a judge ridiculed in the Facebook case.” But Daou and Boyce aren’t the only ones claiming responsibility for The Huffington Post’s success. Earlier this year, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart told Wired Magazine it was actually HE who came up with the idea. ...which led a writer for Mediaite to conclude -- if you really think about it -- The Huffington Post model wasn’t really ANYBODY’S idea. “At this point, it seems like everybody but Tina Brown invented what we now know as The Huffington Post. ... the truth is that it probably wasn’t invented, only discovered —its model was an inevitable one that was simply waiting to be used.” Who’s telling the truth? And who’s huffing and posting? Get more multi-source media and entertainment news from Newsy****.
18 Nov 2010
524
Share Video

2:59
Transcript by Newsy**** BY ADNAN S. KHAN You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy ZAKARIA: What got my attention this week was a claim by Glenn Beck. Here he is on his radio show last Monday. BECK: “…What’s that number. What is the number of Islamic terrorist? One percent? I think it is closer to 10 percent but the rest of the PC world will tell you ‘OH! No it’s miniscule’” Uh-oh. Glenn Beck is out making enemies again. And this time he caught the ire of long time political columnist and journalist Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria pointed out that, by Beck’s estimate, there are 157 million terrorists in the world. Zakaria asks sarcastically, why this estimate isn’t getting any media coverage. Zakaria’s answer – because it’s ‘total nonsense’. RT agrees. “Man that is a lot of terrorists. If there are 157 million of them out there, why are we still in Afghanistan trying to stop 400 or so Al-Qaeda? That just seems crazy. Where are the rest of them? How many caves you need to hide them all?” Beck’s producer argues the host was using the “dictionary definition” of terrorist, which also includes people who advocate terrorism. Zakaria replies, by that definition Beck might be a terrorist himself. “Now, there is a Pew poll from March and some similar ones from other groups that find that about 20 percent of America is angry with the federal government. Does supporting such anger against the American government make one a terrorist? According to Glenn Beck's producer and his Dictionary**** definition, maybe, but in that case, how would one describe a man who has been fueling such anger against the American government on television daily for the last two years? How, in other words, would one describe Glenn Beck?” Beck recently rebuked Zakaria’s attacks. Mediaite says its surprised Beck even took notice, saying Zakaria... “…occasionally throws fairly well-disguised bombs from his perches at CNN and Time in a manner so serene many fail to notice.” But did Beck accidentally threaten to kill Zakaria? The Huffington Post explains. “Glenn Beck struck back … by wondering what would happen if he called for Zakaria to be killed, and insisting ‘it doesn't matter’ what the actual number of terrorists in the world is.” Beck points out it took only 18 terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center and says, Zakaria dismissing 11,000 terrorist attacks as minuscule is outrageous. On his radio show, Beck defended himself further. GLENN: “It doesn’t matter how many there are.” PRODUCER: “It’s enough.” GLENN: “What did he say? 1.1 million. That’s enough. 1.1 million is enough to wipe us off the face of the earth… (FLASH) … And it does matter how many people are willing to stand up against this and vocally say ‘no’ and say ‘enough is enough.’ That is the number we should be talking about.” Want to see more of the argument? We have the original videos which started the argument, linked in our transcript section. Original Beck Comments Fareed Zakaria on CNN Glenn Beck rebuking Zakaria Get multisource video news analysis from Newsy
16 Dec 2010
713
Share Video

2:52
Transcript by Newsy**** BY MAURICE SCARBOROUGH You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy PALIN: “My defense wasn’t self defense, it was defending those that were falsely accused. ... I know that a lot of those on the left hate my message, and they’ll do all that they can to stop me because they don’t like the message.” One week after stirring up controversy for her response to the Arizona shooting, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is defending herself against media criticism over her message -- and her use of the controversial term “blood libel.” SARAH PALIN: “...journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.” Palin sat with Fox News reporter Sean Hannity to talk about the backlash she received. The former governor spoke about attacks from the left, using targets to mark political rivals, and of course her use of the controversial term blood libel, which many claim she didn’t fully understand. “I don’t know how the heck they would know whether I did or didn’t know the term blood libel, nobody’s ever asked me. And blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case that’s exactly what was going on.” Many Republicans have commented on Palin’s recent appearances, with some like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich saying she needs to slow down and think through what she says. On MSNBC’s The Last Word, Republican and former Bush speechwriter David Frum tells Lawrence O'Donnell, Palin just needs to stop. “She should stop talking now really. ... What should’ve happened is that one video release statement should have been the end of the story. ... Having not done it right the first time, you have to live with the consequences and just cease. I don’t think there is a person left in America who would say she is in anyway to blame, she should accept that and quit arguing about it.” But a writer for Mediaite says why should she stop? Palin is the victim here. “...remember Palin was the one dragged into this conversation, by no choice of her own, with allegations implying she and others somehow contributed to the murders. Therefore, why shouldn’t anyone in her position be entitled to every opportunity to defend themselves against such vitriolic smears?” But on CNN political commentator Cornell Belcher says, regardless of who’s to blame, this interview didn’t bode well for Palin, and if she has any presidential aspirations - she needs to stop wasting opportunities to expand her political base. “This was an opportunity for Sarah Palin to be bigger and for her to broaden her base. She’s not doing that by going on Hannity. She didn’t turn 15 people who weren’t for her by appearing on Hannity. If you’re going to be a national broad based leader you’ve gotta reach out to the middle swath of America, and she’s just not doing that.” So what do you think? Is Sarah Palin helping or harming her own image? Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy
20 Jan 2011
1287
Share Video

2:44
Transcript by Newsy. BY JIM FLINK You're watching multisource politics video news analysis from Newsy. “We are talking about the end of the Western way of life if we don’t pay attention.” (The Glenn Beck Program) Glenn Beck predicts the coming caliphate in the Arab world -- and says, the goal of Islamic leaders is to end the Western way of life -- and to eliminate Israel from the world. Naturally -- that has caught the attention of a few people. And the ire -- of a few more. First more of Beck -- in his own words -- about the coming caliphate -- the ascendancy of Islam. “I’m sorry that I am the bearer of bad news. But you listen to the people who say they wanna kill you.” Rival network MSNBC wasted no time in jumping on Beck’s theory, calling it a grand conspiracy -- not to mention, manipulating current crises into a manufactured history. EUGENE ROBINSON: “I think frankly it is a case that he's done the conspiracy hole so deep he has to keep digging. (FLASH) So here's this guy who is just compounding people's anxiety with these loopy conspiracy theories and I think it's -- if you have that sort of platform, you have that megaphone that he has, that you have, that I have with a column, there's a certain responsibility that comes with that. If you don't recognize that you're just a jerk.” The liberal blog Media Matters thinks this is one big ratings ploy for Beck, who’s seen his ratings plummet in the past year. “He averaged just fewer than 1.8 million viewers each night last month. Really, they’ve been down since November. And yes, they're down hugely from 12 months ago when Glenn Beck was averaging 3 million viewers each night...Beck has lost more than one million viewers in the last year.” But The Examiner says -- it’s easy to criticize Beck. He’s not afraid to get out on a limb. And critics will know soon enough if Beck is right -- or wrong. “President Mubarak’s time in Egypt seems certain to end one way or another over the next nine months. In September Egypt will hold elections, and if anyone other than the Muslim Brotherhood is elected Beck’s theory falls apart.” Mediaite notes, Beck started the year by saying he would personally lead America in a new direction. Now, rather than criticizing others or simply coming up with theories, he must follow through. “So what should America do? What should Obama do that would make you happy? I don’t have any answers but, a month ago, you promised you would. It was a courageous thing to do (and something that made for great television), but now you have to live up to it.” We’ll leave you with one final Beck thought -- and invite your thoughts -- in our comments section. “I want the left to know, I plant my flag in this soil. If I’m wrong, so be it. So be it, then I am wrong. And you can discredit me all you want for the end of time if you want. But I’m telling you, I am not wrong on this one.” Get more multisource politics video news analysis from Newsy.
5 Feb 2011
871
Share Video

1:47
BY MOLLY BOLAND You're watching multisource global video news analysis from Newsy Who will shoot Obama? That’s what a Georgia voter asked Representative Paul Broun (Brown) during a town hall meeting. The audience laughed. Representative Broun said this: "I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president.” (Politics Daily) That response isn’t going over so well- with many media members complaining that Broun shouldn’t have taken the question so lightly. A reporter for The Examiner writes... “One would think, and hope, after the tragedy in Tucson, Broun, and his constituents, would exercise a little more civility, and sensitivity.” And The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan calls the Congressman's answer unacceptable and suggests that he resign. But Think Progress reports- this isn’t really unusual for Broun. “...Broun has used perhaps the most vitriolic rhetoric to describe his political opponents, including Obama...Yet until Broun stops telling his constituents that all of his political opponents are plotting to kill Americans with diabolical fascist plots, he should expect more and more of them to think violence is justified.” Broun does have his supporters. Conservative blogger Ann Althouse criticizes the media for jumping on the story when it was initially unclear what the original question was, since there isn’t any video of the meeting. “This non-quote has gone viral in the leftosphere, the leftosphere where no one seems to mind all the violent and over-the-top language and imagery at the week-long Wisconsin protests. ... You're trying to stir people up and create discord!” Congressman Broun later released a statement saying- he’s sorry it ever happened. “I condemn all statements—made in sincerity or jest—that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.” The secret service did investigate the situation and concluded it was just a case of an elderly person who now regrets cracking a poor joke. (Mediaite) Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter Transcript by Newsy.
1 Mar 2011
544
Share Video

3:47
BY MALLORY PERRYMAN You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy This Sunday….the secretaries are sent out to talk about Libya. Why the U.S. is there- and when it’s getting out. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tells NBC’s David Gregory- this is a limited mission that’s going according to plan. Robert Gates (U.S. Secretary of Defense): “The President has made it very clear there will be no American troops on the ground in Libya. This eventually is going to have to be settled by the Libyans themselves. Perhaps the UN can mediate or whatever but in terms of the military commitment, the president has put some very strict limitations in terms of what we ware prepared to do.” And sitting on Gates’ right- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who says the U.S. wasn’t going to opt out when the international community was calling for action. Hillary Clinton (U.S. Secretary of State): “Can you imagine David if we were sitting here and Gaddafi had gotten to Bengazi and in a city of 700,000 people he has massacred tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands had fled over the border destabilizing Egypt. Everybody would be saying, why didn’t the president do something?” The duo also sat down with CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, where Secretary Gates revealed- embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is doing his best to make the Allies- the bad guys. Robert Gates (U.S. Secretary of Defense): "We have trouble coming up with proof of any civilian casualties that we have been responsible for. But we do have a lot of intelligence reporting about Qaddafi taking the bodies of the people he's killed and putting them at the sites where we've attacked. “ As for what happens next, the secretaries say the U.S. expects coalition forces to take over enforcement of the UN-backed no-fly zone. As for intervening in other revolting nations, Secretary Clinton says- there are a few things that must happen before the U.S. will step in. Here, she’s referring to Syria. Hillary Clinton (U.S. Secretary of State): “If there were a coalition of the international community. If there were the passage of a Security Council resolution. If there were a call by the Arab League. If there was a condemnation that was universal.” On CNN’s State of the Union, Democratic Senator Carl Levin tried to simplify the argument for those in favor of intervention in Libya. Candy Crowley sums it up. Candy Crowley (Host, State of the Union): “You know Africa is full of countries where leaders are slaughtering their people in the hundreds of thousands and we’ve done nothing about that. So the tipping point to you is ‘Well if they ask us to come and the international community supports it, then we’ll go. That’s your… Sen. Carl Levin (D- MI): “That’s key. That’s absolutely critical.” But some Sunday round table members aren’t buying the secretaries’ mission accomplished press circuit. The BBC’s Ted Koppel asks- why Libya? Ted Koppel (The BBC): “The question hasn’t yet been answered as to why it is that Libya of all countries in that region has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011.” And ABC’s George Will argues the U.S. is way too optimistic about the chances of democracy in Libya. George Will (ABC): “Our objective now, believe it or not, is to create a vacuum by decapitating the regime by getting rid of Gaddafi, into which we hope in this tribal society that something good will flow.” But on the Meet the Press roundtable, Savannah Guthrie points out, President Obama isn’t thrilled about the situation either. Savannah Guthrie (MSNBC): “The president is obviously not happy with his set of choices. One person told me in a meeting he called this military action in Libya a ‘turd sandwich’ which he was quoting one of his national security aides who likes to use that term.” Finally- while Secretaries Gates and Clinton made their rounds on ABC, CBS, and NBC… Chris Wallace was pretty unhappy they didn’t stop by Fox News…and he let everybody know about it. Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday): “Despite the fact that we routinely have more viewers than two of those Sunday shows, the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and Fox News why they have sent U.S. servicemen and women into combat. We thought you’d like to know.” Mediaite notes- to be fair- the duo didn’t appear on CNN’s State of the Union either. So far, no on-air complaints from host Candy Crowley. 'Like' Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
5 Apr 2011
348
Share Video

2:24
BY SAMANTHA MCCLENDON ANCHOR JENNIFER MECKLES You're watching multisource science news analysis from Newsy The shape of your brain could indicate your political views -- that’s according to scientists at the University College London, who scanned 90 brains and found people who identify with different ends of the political spectrum have differently-shaped brains. ABC explains. “Scans revealed that the liberal students tended to have a larger region of the brain that processes conflicting information. That, say the authors, might make for tolerance to uncertainty in more liberal views. The conservatives tended to have a larger part of the brain that processes fear and identifies threats. They might be more inclined to integrate conservative views into their politics.” According to Live Science, it is not known whether nature or nurture is to blame for the difference of the brain structures. It says... “Perhaps there are differences in the brain as to why some people seem to have no interest in politics at all, or why some people line up for Macs while others stick with their PCs. All of these tendencies might be linked in some way to peculiarities of our personalities and the way our brains are put together, the researchers speculated.” And anchors on MSNBC have a little fun joking about the differences. “But look it’s interesting because we always suspected that liberals do nuance. The findings seem to say that liberals do nuance. And we always suspected that conservatives ran their campaigns run on fear. And this shows the biology of why they do this. It makes sense.” “So Glenn Beck has a massive amygdala.” “A giant, giant amygdala. 'Famine, frogs raining down!' Hey that am didn’t work out too well for him though.” “Didn’t work out too well for him at all.” TIME points out -- this isn’t the first time scientists uncovered biological differences between the two groups. It recalls a study done at the University of Nebraska that found liberals and conservatives had a difference in something called “gaze cues.” "Liberals were more likely than conservatives to follow another person's gaze, suggesting that people who lean right value autonomy more; alternative explanations suggest that liberals might be more empathetic, or that conservatives are less trusting of others.” But a writer for Mediaite isn’t convinced just yet, asking... “...what about people whose politics change over time? Are their brain parts growing, or shrinking? And what if you’re an economically conservative social liberal (or vice versa)? What kind of brain does that person have?” And a blogger for Smart Planet may have answers. “...the findings don’t mean political views are hard-wired into the brain. … The data don’t prove that these neuroanatomical differences actually cause political differences, but he suspects they might play a role.” According to the New York Daily News, the scientists acknowledge there are more categories than just liberal and conservative. Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy Transcript by Newsy
12 Apr 2011
529
Share Video

2:32
BY JENNIFER MECKLES ANCHOR JENNIFER MECKLES You're watching multisource US video news analysis from Newsy. “We’re going to take you live to New York where President Obama is making a highly symbolic visit to Ground Zero, now in the process of laying a wreath at what is hollowed ground in this country and around the world... in honor of the victims of that traumatic day. Nearly a decade now, since 9/11, and just days after the president announced the killing of Osama Bin Laden, who was behind the deadly 9/11 attacks.” (Video: NBC) Thursday’s visit to Ground Zero marked President Obama’s first official trip to the site while in office. While in town, he also stopped by several fire stations, places that lost men during the events of 9/11. (Video: Fox) But amidst the somber observance -- a few snubs, according to reports. First, an invite from Obama to former president George W. Bush. Bush was invited to attend but declined, choosing to remain out of the spot-light post-presidency. The Washington Post says that was a good decision. “Upholding a tradition of ex-presidents, Bush has refused to upstage or criticize his successor since he left the White House on Jan. 20, 2009. ... Even with a unifying portrait of Obama and Bush standing together at the spot where everything changed, Bush’s presence would have been controversial.” And another invite turned down. New York’s WPIX found what might be the only family invited who said -- no thanks. The Vigiano’s lost two sons on 9/11, but they said they would not attend the ceremony. “There’s not closure... I mean... No. There is none... To me its just gonna be a photo-op.” CNN agrees, but says, that might not be a terrible thing. “He is visiting as the commander of an amazing military victory for the US, and that does help burnish his own image. Some Republicans are complaining already that he risks exploiting 9/11, but you know he’s been really sensitive to that Brooke, there were no formal remarks, no attention-grabbing moments, and frankly he was smart to bring Rudy Giuliani with him since he’s such a popular hero from 9/11.” Finally, Mediaite takes a look at how coverage of 9/11 memorial events has changed over the years, pointing the finger square at MSNBC. “During the last Republican administration, any trip, tribute or mention of 9/11 was often dismissed by MSNBC commentators as Republicans exploiting a horrific event for political gain. ... Yet now that Obama took a trip there, one conversation this morning reflected the new seriousness and admiration that one should potentially attribute to a President’s decision to spend time reflecting at Ground Zero." 'Like Newsy' on Facebook for US video news analysis from Newsy. Get more multisource US video news analysis from Newsy. Transcript by Newsy.
7 May 2011
534
Share Video

2:12
BY AMY WILLMOTT ANCHOR ANA COMPAIN-ROMERO Family Guy might have taken a dark turn this Halloween. After an episode that features domestic abuse, many viewers are saying the show crossed the line. CNN’s Showbiz Tonight’s asked Doctor of Psychology, Wendy Walsh, who says the writers, who are normally some of the best satirists out there, didn’t follow the rules of good comedy. “They made fun of the victim more than they made fun of the assailant. Yes, they did allude that he was uneducated and without a job, and in the end, they killed him. But the main theme of the show was about this poor stupid woman who was too dumb to leave her relationship, her abusive relationship. And domestic violence is far more complicated than that.” In a review of the episode, a writer for AOL said - subject matter or no - the episode achieved something. “So while it may not have had nearly the extent of laughs we're used to, the episode still managed to leave us satisfied ... if a little uncomfortable at the same time. Plus, it left us thinking. And that's saying something.” Family Guy has always challenged boundaries, but Yidio says... “There are times to push the envelope creatively … But centering an episode around how hilarious it is that Quagmire's sister is being abused is not the right way to get us to say ‘Wow, they went there.’” Although Family Guy didn’t quite follow the ‘Halloween Special’ trend this October, their dark episode on domestic violence scared some viewers, including one writer from Jezebel. “Personally, I'm way beyond being offended by the show — I've long been numbed to shock-value offensiveness — and had stopped watching years ago anyhow. But being a sucker for a Halloween-themed episodes, I tuned in to Fox's ‘animation domination’ comedy block last night. What I saw was seriously awful.” Meanwhile, in one review of the episode, a writer from tvfanatic think that the show’s portrayal of domestic abuse showed a new side to the sitcom.. “I was afraid that Family Guy would go too far with its jokes. Fortunately, it didn’t. At least not to me. But it did take the alternate route of simply not being very funny.” Mediaite reports FOX has refused to air only two episodes of Family Guy in the past, because of the content; an episode about abortion and another that relied to heavily on Jewish themes for jokes.
8 Nov 2011
1138
Share Video

2:36
Image source: Wikimedia Commons BY ZACH TOOMBS Conservative blog The Daily Caller is calling out Media Matters. Tucker Carlson — the blog’s editor and a Fox News contributor — reports the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America considered launching an all-out campaign against Fox News. He spoke to Fox’s Steve Doucey on Tuesday about e-mails obtained by The Daily Caller. “This is a plan to discredit Fox in the eyes of its viewers. And one of the ideas in this memo is to send private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, reporters, staff.” The Daily Caller’s report relies on anonymous sources — current and former Media Matters employees, Carlson says. And it centers on an email sent from Media Matters contributor Karl Frisch to the organization’s head — David Brock. The Daily Caller reports, in that email, Frisch lays out a series of ideas to humiliate Fox News, including: “... ‘detailed opposition research’ on the network’s staff and executives, attacks against Fox News employees on Facebook and other social media, mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing ‘yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.’” On its own website, Media Matters has plenty of firepower aimed at Fox News but no response to The Daily Caller report as of Tuesday evening. But Mediaite**** quotes another unnamed source from Media Matters, who argues The Daily Caller report is suspiciously timed near the release of Media Matters new book -- a book that calls Fox a “propaganda machine.” “... [the report] comes one week before our book, The Fox Effect comes out, and Tucker Carlson is a Fox News contributor. This is an anonymously-sourced Daily Caller story, and that’s how we’re treating it.” Tuesday’s report was just one installment in a series. The Caller also reported Media Matters coordinated with several well-known reporters, including former POLITICO scribe Ben Smith. According to the Caller, one unnamed former employee of Media Matters said: “ ‘Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed****] will take stories and write what you want him to write.’ Staffers at Media Matters ‘knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith… so that’s where they sent it.’ ” But POLITICO’s media reporter, Dylan Byers defended his former colleague. “In publishing those quotes without providing evidence, the Daily Caller has put accusations on the public record regardless of whether or not they carry any weight ... Carlson's own feelings about these reporters' relationship to Media Matters falls very much in line with that of the anonymous sources.” Despite the drama, one Yahoo! contributor wonders why anyone, including Fox News and Media Matters, should hold news outlets and watchdogs to bias-free standards. “The Media Matters ‘expose’ doesn't matter because I realize there are media critics on all sides. Fox News often plays host to the conservative Media Research Center ... Any discerning citizen should be capable of determining which groups have political slants, and which do not, and gather information accordingly.”
15 Feb 2012
336
Share Video

1:35
BY BLAKE HANSON It had all the makings of a romantic evening. Red wine, mood music, and oh yeah — TV coverage of Virginia’s transvaginal ultrasound bill. For Virginia state delegate David Albo a romantic evening with his wife was going smoothly — until she flipped on the news. Take a look at the video of Albo on the House floor recounting what he saw on TV... “going ‘trans-v-burrr, trans-v this, trans-v that’.” “And I’m like this with my wife, and the show’s over and she looks and me and goes ‘I gotta go to bed.’” Virginia lawmakers passed a bill that would have required women seeking an abortion to have an invasive ultrasound procedure. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell supports the bill, but this week asked lawmakers to drum up a different version that calls for a non-invasive procedure. Albo wrote compromise language that removed the transvaginal ultrasound for early-term pregnancies. ABC News offers analysis on the incident... “It’s a joking moment probably meant to lighten the atmosphere after a politically charged week. But video of the speech … is sure to offend some who disagree with the controversial law he helped pass.” So you might be wondering, what does Mrs. Albo think of her husband’s story? Mediaite writes... “Yes, this went into the official record. I imagine dinner tonight must have been pleasantly awkward in the Albo household.” Finally, a writer for Newser is crossing their fingers chatter about the bill is over... “We'll hope this is the last word on Virginia's transvaginal ultrasound controversy for a long time.”
27 Feb 2012
442
Share Video