Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (27802)	8/2/2007 5:45:45 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

I'm guessing the explanation is you misread something.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (27802)	8/2/2007 5:58:13 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

For one thing claiming 2/3 of those polled "dislike" Rush is false & clearly misrepresents the poll. You might be correct stating that 42% dislike him & I bet that almost all of them are libs. So what?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (27802)	8/2/2007 8:07:52 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Heh! Heh! Hat tip to Ed Driscoll.com On the day of his radio show's 19th anniversary yesterday, I thought Rush Limbaugh made a surprisingly good observation about the MSM's overblown reaction to the Journal's future: <<< The New York Times are having a cow. The rest of the Drive-Bys are having a cow. I'll give you some examples here as the program unfolds, some of the headlines, some of the stories. They're all worried what he's going to do to this venerable institution. Oh, no! How will he destroy it? And, of course, if these people were honest, if they really think he's going to destroy the Journal, they'd be happy, wouldn't they? >>> As Rush notes, "the New York Times set the agenda" for much of the rest of the legacy media: <<< in an interview in 2005, Rupert Murdoch was the asked about the New York Times, and he said, you know, the problem with the New York Times is not really the New York Times. It's the rest of the media. The rest of the media adopts the New York Times agenda. Whatever is on the front page of the New York Times is what television cable news networks decide is news -- at least the networks, CBS, NBC, CBS, the liberal networks. The New York Times always was called "the paper of record." Stories on the front page throughout the front section, determine what the agenda is in the press. In fact, when I moved to Sacramento is the first time I learned this. When I moved to Sacramento in 1984 to begin the program there that eventually became this program, the news director out there -- consultant, actually, who had hired me, was also consulting the station. I remember my first day there, he went strolling through the newsroom one morning, and all he found was the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the San Francisco Chronicle. He blew up. He started shouting, "Where's the New York Times? You can't do news anymore without the New York Times!" The newsroom had to have the New York Times because the New York Times set the agenda. So Murdoch was making this point. He said that means that there is a whole market out there for a different way to do news and treat news, and he started talk in this interview in 2005 about the Wall Street Journal having the infrastructure in place to do that. >>> Sounds like a great way to reset the Parliament of Clocks. eddriscoll.com rushlimbaugh.com eddriscoll.com