According to Hugh Hewitt, the vice president shooting a man in the face is not a news story worth any kind of coverage. No, in the mind of the right this yet another episode in the dastardly plot by the MSM allied with the Democrats to attack the beloved Vice President (well, not so beloved). As “evidence” Hewitt references the ratings for cable news, and you won’t get any argument from me about how clueless MSNBC and CNN are, while Fox may be propaganda it’s well-packaged propaganda. But if you’re going to use ratings as indication of irrelevance, well… the best show on Fox News was O’Reilly, with 2.2 million watchers. If Bill O’Reilly were on any of the big 3 networks, however, he would have been yanked a while ago.
Last week NBC Nightly News had 9.8 million viewers, ABC had 9.18 million, and the much hated CBS had 7.97 million.
People on the left and right infuse way too much power into the idea of the old media just dying off at the mercy of a band of bloggers. Things are changing and that’s good, but the hype train needs some big time slowing down.
According to Hugh Hewitt, the vice president shooting a man in the face is not a news story worth any kind of coverage.
He said no such thing and you know it. What he DID say was that the story is not worthy of the breathless coverage it has been given and the press looks absurd trying to, as many Democrats are, to ’scandalize’ the story. I probably disagree with Hewitt more than I agree with him, but on this he’s 100% correct.
Last week NBC Nightly News had 9.8 million viewers, ABC had 9.18 million, and the much hated CBS had 7.97 million.
I’d like to see a comparison of what those ratings were 10, 20 and 30 years ago. How much do you want to bet that it looks kind of like what it feels to ski down a huge slope with the 76 ratings much higher than the 2006 ratings.
People on the left and right infuse way too much power into the idea of the old media just dying off at the mercy of a band of bloggers.
I agree with that, but the mainstream media, especially the big three networks and the largest newspapers are so out of touch with the public they don’t even recognize it. They’re just as bad as Hollywood and music industry. They refuse to admit they have a shitty product.
Oliver, he’s right. WHo cares? This should have only been a Sunday story and that’s it. It’s Wednesday and there is still talk about it. It just exposes the liberal bias in the media.
The fact that the Cheney Administration was at first so tight-lipped about it was what bred speculation about what really happened. Cheney finally went on the air with brown-nosing Brit only after it became obvious that the usual knee-jerk secrecy was the wrong path to take.
If what to accept what O-Dub says as being an accurate representation of the network and cable news programs, doesn’t it seem a touch ironic that the leftists are so up in arms over Fox, when it represents such a tiny sector of the marketplace?
In additon, the cable news shows have strong inherent disadvantages that naturally, significantly restrict their ratings versus the more pervasive major broadcast networks. In other words, if CNN or Fox had the same facilities and broadcast venuesopportunities as CBS etc, they might well surpass the mainstream media. It would be interesting to measure each’s ratings against rating potential and see how they stack up.
Dugger
This whole thing would have been a non-story if Cheney had notified the press in a timely fashion, not holding back, and expressed some kind of remorse or regret about shooting a guy. It would have been acknowledged as an accident and blown over immediately. Instead, it was held back for 22 hours (or whatever, until the next day), the VP obviously was holding back information even from his own press secretary, they allowed a civilian to alert the press, she only alerted the local paper, that statement was merely to brush it off and blame the victim, and Cheney has said nothing. What do you think is going to happen? Whether or not it actually is a cover-up, the way they handled it makes it look like one. They acted suspiciously, so why are they surprised when people suspect something?
And far be it from me to bring up the spector of partisanship, but seriously, if a Democrat VP had shot someone, right-wing pundits would have called for his resignation from the minute it was announced, at best. Freepers would be calling for the death penalty. Hey, right-wingers, you’ve got a beam in your eye.
The ratings comparison doesn’t work, but it also wouldn’t work to look back in time either. Back in ‘76 the networks were the ONLY source of TV news and so, yea, they had higher ratings. Now they have competition and still consistently beat the cable outlets.
Dugger, I’m not sure about your statement. News is all CNN does. CBS has to divide its time and energy. I’d like to think that the all news stations might put in a bit more effort.
JD, I can only speak for myself but Fox pisses me off because its the pot calling the kettle black. All that time they harp on the “biases” of others while steadfastly denying their own conservative bias. Even if I agree that CNN or MSNBC has a liberal bias, surely you must agree that FN has the conservative bias.
This is “news about news”. Why were’n't we told? Why werent we told? I don’t know about you, but being the first person to hear a news story has never been one of my life goals. I’m just as happy reading yesterday’s paper, as I am reading today’s
LB, I’m not sure FOX denies having a conservative bias… That’s the difference.
It’s so amusing watching the right-wing apologists stuff their heads even further up their arses trying to find some basis to argue away this one. Don’t stop for a moment to think of all the two-bit crap y’all scream to high heaven about when a democrat does it. remember the scandal of clinton getting a haircut on an airplane? you kept that pile of nothing up in the air for a while, didn’t ya.
fox is sooo tiny. it sure does a nice job getting access to dick cheney when he finally feels like talking about something. must be their people skills. does fox admit it’s conservative? i don’t know, if “we report, you decide” is their credo, i would think they’re saying they’re nothing but facts.
It really won’t matter to some how much data is displayed to refute
the myth of the liberal bias of the media.
It’s all relativistic.
Anyway, if any live in California, the authorities are always crying
‘drought’ no matter how much rain we get. It’s the same for the
canard massagers who cannot let go of that last demon, the media.
Who else can they blame for all the negative republican press?
Frank,
Fox, which I love, does have the “fair and accurate” slogan.
LB, I would still like to see the percentage of hits, available audience versus tuned in audience for comparable news progams, CNN, Fox whoever versus MSM broadcast networks.
Dugger
The fact is Cheney shot a 78 year-old man in the face and it would be a big story even if it were a purely innocent accident.
The fact is the various stories concocted by Cheney and his handlers have many, many contradictions.
For example, the owner of the ranch purportedly witnessed the shooting and provided helpful details that the 78 year-old man Cheney shot in the face was at fault. But now the story is coming out that the ranch owner didn’t see Cheney shoot a 78 year-old man in the face and initially thought the Secret Service fuss was beacuse Cheney had had a heart attack.
We were also told that alcohol wasn’t involved. Today, we come to find Cheney admits to having a beer before he shot a 78 year-old man in the face.
Of course, Cheney refused to see any law enforcement officials for 14 hours after he shot a 78 year-old man in the face.
For once I agree with Oliver. Fox is not a big deal. I’m amazed that the left in general makes it the focus of so much vitriol. It’s comparing apples to oranges, but I don’t think Fox is any more “right” than PBS is “left” in its political and cultural coverage.
We were also told that alcohol wasn t involved. Today, we come to find Cheney admits to having a beer before he shot a 78 year-old man in the face.
Once again Flanagan engages in dishonesty. He frames it as though Cheney had thrown back a can of Bud before he raised his gun and started firing.
Here is what happened:
Correct. We d taken a break at lunch go down under an old ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hour-long tour of ranch, with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn t go back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00 p.m.
So he had a beer during lunch. The shooting occurred just before 7:00 pm. That means Cheney had a beer SEVEN HOURS before this happened. So no, alcohol was not involved.
Would it even be possible for you to just for ONCE attempt to engage in some intellectually honest or is your chronic lying a condition you’re afflicted with?
So he had a beer during lunch. The shooting occurred just before 7:00 pm. That means Cheney had a beer SEVEN HOURS before this happened. So no, alcohol was not involved.
Again, Jay Caruso blindly believes whatever his hero tells him.
The fact is we were initially told no one was drinking. That assertion rapidly became…inoperative.
As I mentioned earlier, every person stopped for DWI almost always claimed they only had one drink hours before.
And yet another factor: Cheney has had 4 heart attacks that we know of. This means he is likely on several medications–medications that likely don’t react well with alcohol.
Given the fact that events of the shooting has changed several times and the fact that Cheney refused to see a police officer later that evening—one can only reasonably surmise that Cheney’s account to FauxNews is false.
Another point: Cheney and his handlers keep telling us Cheney’s victim was 30 yards away at the time he was shot. Yet, we know a pellet from Cheney’s shotgun lodged close enough to the victim’s heart to trigger a heart attack. Sorry, but using a 28 gauge with 7 1/2 shot will simply not do that kind of damage. Chances are the distance was much closer to 30 feet.
Again, Jay Caruso blindly believes whatever his hero tells him.
Wrong again Flanagan. I’m just going by what we’ve learned from all involved. Everybody has said there was no drinking. You have to assume everybody involved is lying. I don’t make assumptions. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. Otherwise, STFU.
The fact is we were initially told no one was drinking. That assertion rapidly became& inoperative.
And nobody was drinking. Having a beer 6 hours prior to going hunting does not constitute drinking while hunting. Again with the bullshit.
As I mentioned earlier, every person stopped for DWI almost always claimed they only had one drink hours before.
Good for you and it means absolutely nothing.
And yet another factor: Cheney has had 4 heart attacks that we know of. This means he is likely on several medications medications that likely don t react well with alcohol.
Oh so you’re a doctor now? Cheney is not a stupid man, and considering his health I am sure he has been given clearance by his doctors to enjoy an occasional beer.
Given the fact that events of the shooting has changed several times
How have they changed?
and the fact that Cheney refused to see a police officer later that evening one can only reasonably surmise that Cheney s account to FauxNews is false.
No you can’t. Partisan drones, yes.
heney and his handlers keep telling us Cheney s victim was 30 yards away at the time he was shot. Yet, we know a pellet from Cheney s shotgun lodged close enough to the victim s heart to trigger a heart attack. Sorry, but using a 28 gauge with 7 1/2 shot will simply not do that kind of damage. Chances are the distance was much closer to 30 feet.
I can only sit here and shake my head at your ignorance. First of all, the pellet migrated to the heart and that is what triggered the heart attack. Second of all, as you normally repeat over and over again, Whittington is a 78 year old man. Throw a rubber ball at a 30 year old man and nothing can happen. Throw a rubber ball at an 80 year old man and you can break bones. Whittington’s body is obviously weaker than due to age and that is why that much damage was done. If the distance were 30 feet as you claim, Whittington would in all likelihood, be dead.
What an incredible amount of speculation and conjecture and horse shit all wrapped up in jadegold oh so pithy comment.
Cheney is not a stupid man
“We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators”
Jay, there’s a lot not asked and a lot not answered.
The shooting was just before 6 p.m. Texas is in the Central Time zone. I think you’re probably seeing reports that give the time of the shooting in Eastern. Remember, according to Armstrong, it was still sunny with darkness coming on. This time of year, it’s dark at 7.
When was lunch? You seem to assume it was right at noon. Has anyone asked or answered? If you take Cheney’s account of when they went back into the field and work backwards, lunch could have been much later.
When did Cheney finally talk to local law enforcement? There have been several different reports. Do I have the answers? No and hell no. But the details of this story seem a tad uncertain. Don’t you wonder at all why that is?
Would this be a ‘one day story’ if it was say…Brad Pitt who shot his hunting buddy? Just askin’……
[...] iot. But you knew that already. Lame Stream Media? Oliver Willis has a short piece reminding us that new media [...]
The following is a from an earlier interview between Neil Cavuto and his guest, former Cheney staffer Ron Christie, on Fox News prior to Cheney’s “But I’m Really a Nice Guy” act shown on Fox:
The rest can be found at
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/15/dick-cheneys-feelings/
CAVUTO: This is a Fox News alert. The lawyer accidentally hit by Vice President Dick Cheney suffering a mild heart attack this morning. Doctors say he s doing just fine and could be released in a week. Meanwhile, the White House press corps again beating a dead horse as it tries to find out why they were not told right away about the Vice President s hunting accident. Not one person bothering to ask, in the meantime, how Dick Cheney s feeling about all this. After all, he s a human being and injuring someone else in an accident can take a huge toll. With us now someone who knows the Vice President pretty well. Ron Christie is a former Cheney advisor and author of Black in the White House. Good to have you back my friend.
Vice President Cheney remains in our thoughts and prayers.
CAVUTO: This is a Fox News alert. The lawyer accidentally hit by Vice President Dick Cheney suffering a mild heart attack this morning. Doctors say he s doing just fine and could be released in a week. Meanwhile, the White House press corps again beating a dead horse as it tries to find out why they were not told right away about the Vice President s hunting accident. Not one person bothering to ask, in the meantime, how Dick Cheney s feeling about all this. After all, he s a human being and injuring someone else in an accident can take a huge toll. …
Vice President Cheney remains in our thoughts and prayers.
CHRISTIE: Hey Neil. Good to see you again buddy.
CAVUTO: You know Dick Cheney pretty well. What s going through his mind?
CHRISTIE: Dick Cheney is a very nice man, a very warm individual. From the opportunity, and as I talk about it in my book Neil, the opportunity to work on his staff you get to work with him very closely and get to see what sort of person he is. He s a very caring person…..It s a very warm, very caring guy. He s doing exactly what I would expect he would be doing.
After blaming the poor republican lawyer who Cheney accidentally shot didn’t sell, they are now trying to sell the story that poor ole VP Cheney who’s really a nice guy, really needs our sympathy cause he screwed up. I really dont give a flip when or how Cheney told the media. The first thing he should have done was to take responsibility for what happened. After all thats what we teach our children to do.
This is why I dont watch Fox. I guess they pretty much have abandoned the “fair and balanced” claim. No wonder. Thank God for Kieth Olbermann and Countdown.
Jay, do you have any proof that Cheney was not drunk when he shot his friend. If he WAS drunk at the time, maybe, just maybe that is why he waited till the next day to meet with the police. Remember Chappaquidick. Only Ted Kennedy was not the President or Vice-President. I am sure no one believes that Cheney shot his friend on purpose, but when you mix alcohol and pain killers and then go driving, like coach Sutton did Friday, he rear-ended a woman in front of him 2 or 3 times and then drove across 4 lanes of traffic twice before hitting a tree.
Quaker,
I realize you are just engaging in rank speculation for partisan sniping but on this:
“But the details of this story seem a tad uncertain.”
You, I and OW could know exactly what happened and go back honestly relate it and our accounts probably would not match 100%. The details of ANY story are usually uncertain. In fact, if all the details fit 100%, I would be more suspicious.
Dugger
So when the official version of events keeps changing, we should just write it off to “normal variation”?
Or do we have a different plan when the story involves a Democrat?
Where were all you benefit-of-the-doubters back when Drudge was snickering over the mysterious blonde woman leaving John Kerry’s house after dark!!!!!?
And, another thing, Dugger.
I have “speculated” nothing. I have only pointed to questions that have either not been asked or not been answered. I have made no assumptions about what the answer to those questions might be.
If we had a working press corps, we might actually know the answers.
[...] of to the administration s propaganda network, Fox, he would have done his interview with Brian Williams. But then, Williams may have asked him a tough questio [...]
Quaker, A little paranoia is seeping in. What offcial story? You said details are uncertain. yes. They always are. Who decides what the “official” story is. This is a private matter that happened to the Veep and the people around him. Does it occur to you that the classic MO of conspircay theoricists is to piece together innocent differences in details and make a giant evil conpircacy out of them. JFK and RFK conspiracy freaks are stiill doing that.
Sermant, there could be numerous non-damning reasons reasons for Cheney doing what he did. Better first to have a crime before you determine criminous evidence. Otherwise, how people behave under stress is very and always will be very unpredictable. Second guessing that behavior and attributing malice to illogical or unexpected actions isn’t really kosher. Perhaps you have a handbook on how plus 60 year old heart patient are supposed to behave after accidentally shooting someone at close range with a shotgun.
Dugger
Dugger
Dugger;
In the infamous interview (The new ‘Checkers’ speech) Cheney
says there wasn’t enough room in the ambulance for him
or he would have gone with Whittington to the hospital.
Instead, Cheney goes to the ranchhouse and has dinner.
wouldn’t any prudent person of modest affection found another
vehicle and followed? I mean, that is, if he was so concerned
about the health and welfare of his friend.
Unless he had another reason for a long wait before going to the
hospital.
Semanticleo makes another heuristic jump in human logic.
Dugger;
I think most of us know what we would have done.
And if he (Cheney) is incapacitated by his medical condition;
perhaps he should give the job to someone who isn’t.
BTW;
Can you think of non-damning reasons?
I’ll leave the conspiracy theories for others to spin.
I just want some simple questions asked. Asking questions isn’t creeping paranoia.
First the sheriff says he sent somebody out the night of the shooting. Then he didn’t. Ms. Armstrong first says “no alcohol, none, zippo” and later says “maybe a couple of beers” and Cheney says yes he drank one. Cheney was on the grounds the whole time but made an appointment to be interviewed the day after the shooting. First it was Ms. Armstrong’s idea to contact the Corpus Christi newspaper, then it was Cheney’s.
Most of all, the first public announcement from Cheney’s office is: OK, we sent the seven bucks for the bird stamp.
All perfectly normal.
No Quaker, Not at all pefectly normal. And not at all a sign of anything other than bad accident. My side did this some time ago with the Vince Foster mess. Certain details could not be explained. Certain pieces were missing. Certain statements are inconsistent. Thre were ‘delays’. So, ipso facto, Vince Foster was not a depressed man who killed himself but a victim of the Clinton mafia. You are headed the smae way and I’ll be d*mned if common sense or logic will get in the way.
Semant, he need not be incapitated. Again what is the standard against which we are measuring Cheney’s behavior?
Dugger,
Codswallop.
Once again, you’re equating “asking questions” with “spinning conspiracy theories.”
Actually, this sounds to me like just what you say it is: a bad accident. So why is the Vice President being so cagey about it? No public statements until several days after the fact? And then only to a “friendly” news outlet?
And, of course, you people did the sensible thing and just “got over it,” as I recall.
Great Scot! Today after four separate investigations have determined that Foster killed himself, one needn’t look very far to find conservatives who insist he was murdered. (Yes, I’m looking at you, ian.)
But in this instance, anyone who dares question the glaring inconsistencies offered to us by the media is seeing boogiemen under the bed.
Let’s just all take Dick at his word and go about our business, yes?
No. Some didn’t get over Foster (and Wellstone and October Surprise etc). And I believe there is a decent sized segment of the right and the left who laugh a little at them (I find G Gordon Liddy entertaining , but he was one of the leading “if you can’t explain every detail it must be a conspiracy” theoreticians). And all G Gordon was doin’ was askin’ questions. And logically you can never win a debate with that mindset – because you can’t explain every contradiction and every misspeak and atypical behavior pattern. But a good comnspiracy explains them at all.
Dugger
What’s that got to do with me?