He didn’t say that emergency aid shouldn’t or wouldn’t be provided. He just said that the additional money spent for that purpose should be matched with additional cuts elsewhere.
You can agree or disagree with that position, but I don’t think its an unreasonable one for a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative to take.
OK, I found footage of the full interview. I can’t see where he said he’d block emergency funds until they were offset with budget cuts. If he wants to juggle the figures after the fact, he can introduce bills, suggest, speechify, and lobby his fellow congresspeople all he wants to make that happen AFAIC. I’ll withhold further comment on the matter as being off-topic and inappropriate for this forum.
If an operation with “News” in its name picks a fight with one with “Comedy” in its name, then the outcome is already determined.
The “mainstream media” doesn’t go after or ignore things based on political leanings, they do it based on popularity. They jumped on the Weiner because it involved sex and they (correctly) predicted people would eat it up.
The other argument I hear from conservatives is that the mainstream media gave Obama a pass and didn’t hold him to the same standards of other pols. I don’t think this was because of the (D) after his name, it was because of his overwhelming popularity (both here and abroad). The same thing could be said of Geore W Bush in the days, weeks and months after 9/11. Many on the left complained that the media gave Bush a pass on attacking Iraq. Why? Because his popularity shot through the roof in response to people uniting in the face of a massive terror attack. The mainstream media also glommed onto Clinton’s sex-riddled impeachment, because, again, it involved sex and a popular topic of conversation. The media just gave the people what they wanted to hear, read and see.
The mainstream media is mainstream for a reason: Their finger is really, really sensitive to the winds of the public at large. They’re about ratings. If a (D) is beloved, they’ll give the people what they want. If a ® is beloved, they’ll give the public what they want. If a scandal is involved and ratings will spike, it doesn’t matter if a (D) or ® is involved.
With Fox News, on the other hand, the only thing that matters is if a (D) or ® is involved.
And if it’s some sort of scandal involving an (R), they’ll just make it a (D) anyway.
NPR has a non-news person say something that might be considered biased, and they fire them. Fox has a corporate policy for bias, and they just deny it. You have a really good filter there.
Fox is having a fit because Matthews mistakenly admitted something everyone knows to be true, though he blames it on NBC News. If you watch TDS, you will know that Stewart relates the Fox claim that their commentators (like Beck) have opinions but that their news is fair and balanced - and then shows clips about how the so-called news programs toe the Fox line. I doubt no news organization would claim perfection, but Fox has bias as corporate policy. As does MSNBC to some extent, but as a counterweight to Fox and more in terms of commentators chosen.
The reason Stewart is so important is that they are the only “news” organization who doesn’t care if they piss off those in power and thus lose their opportunities for contacts, party invitations, and exclusive interviews. They can just make stuff up. He constantly criticizes CNN not for bias but for ignoring important stories in favor of fads. In a good world TDS might show funny clips of politicians, but never of news shows. We don’t live in that world.
Yup. You don’t mess with the court jester - his entire job description is making people look foolish.
In this case, there’s not much to the job, either.
More accurate, yes. Less biased, no.
KO is clearly promoting a left-wing agenda, while Hannity is clearly promoting a right-wing agenda. Nothing wrong with that; they are entitled to their opinions.
IMO the important differences between them are:
KO admits he is a liberal, while Hannity absurdly claims to be “fair and balanced”
KO doesn’t make shit up, or edit and decontextualize so much that he might as well be making shit up. Hannity does.
If KO gets something wrong, and it’s pointed out to him, he’ll correct it, or at the very least stop saying it. Hannity will run with discredited stories for as long as it serves his purpose.
On the other hand, KO loses it fairly often. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Hannity lose it.