Mush Limpdick finally admits that the Corporate Media is NOT "Liberal"

[FORD]

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 10:07 AM PST
Limbaugh Admits Conservative Bias of Media (Updated Transcript)

by JohnKWilson

A few minutes ago on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh finally came out and admitted the conservative bias of the mainstream media in America. It came when Rush was complaining about the difficulty in finding liberal soundbites to play and ridicule on his show. Rush declared, “If it weren't for MSNBC, there wouldn't be any liberal soundbites.”

Limbaugh said that he hates MSNBC and wanted to tell his employees to ban clips from the network on his show. But he realized that he couldn't do that because MSNBC was the only media outlet where he could get liberal soundbites. (He admitted that “Al Gore's network” has them, too, but apparently Rush doesn't want Current TV to get any attention.)

Furthermore, Limbaugh admitted that most of MSNBC's programming didn't reflect any liberal viewpoint: “MSNBC's it....And it's two shows, three shows.” Interestingly, among these few shows with liberal viewpoints allowed that Limbaugh identified was Morning Joe, the show named for host (and former Republican Congressman) Joe Scarborough.

For years, as I note in my book, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason, Limbaugh and other conservatives have promoted the myth of the liberal media in America. Now, Limbaugh has finally confessed the truth: liberal views are so isolated in the corporate press that the only places he can find liberal views in the mainstream broadcast media are a few shows on one cable news network. It's proof that there isn't a liberal bias in the media.

UPDATE: Here is the full transcript from Rush Limbaugh's website:

if it weren't for MSNBC we wouldn't have any liberal sound bites. I've told Cookie I'm sick of it, ban MSNBC, and we can't, 'cause there's no other place to get liberal sound bites. There isn't any other place. I mean CNN is just insane over there. They emphasize their hosts, they have guests, but just roll tape on 'em and it's so boring. It's not worth putting anything from CNN on the air.

If it weren't for MSNBC there wouldn't be any liberal sound bites. Now, that has to mean something. That has to mean that they're rare, that they're not everywhere. They may be everywhere in print, but, you know, left-wingers on the radio, genuine cuckoo's nest. You wouldn't even want to go there. I wouldn't play that stuff. MSNBC's it, and it's two shows or three shows. It's it is morning thing with Scarborough, it's the Larry O'Donnell show at night, and maybe occasionally something from Reverend Sharpton. (interruption) Well, yeah, sometimes Sergeant Schultz. Sergeant Schultz is out there walking amongst abandoned railroad cars looking for the future of America. I know there's Algore's channel, but that's nothing worth highlighting. It really says something. MSNBC is the only place in the media to get these liberals.

Link

Thanks for clearing that up, Mush. Hope your buddies over at FAUX take note of this

[Nitro Express]

That's because there is more money in marketing to the right. FOX always pulls better ratings than MSNBC. Right wing radio does better than left wing radio. To be honest. Liberals are actually boring. What's funny is liberals watch the conservative shows because they always seem to know what they are saying. If you don't make any money for the network, you are gone. It's that simple.

[FORD]

The reason why FAUX has "better ratings" than MSNBC has to do with factors that have nothing to do with actual viewers choosing it over MSNBC.

1) Since the switch to digital broadcasting, all digital tuners, whether cable or over the air antenna are capable of two-way communication, and the Nielsen Ratings Company - which is itself conveniently owned by Rupert Murdoch now- counts every TV tuned to FAUX, including all those TV's that Rupert paid to place in airports, doctors offices, the local Korean restaurant (which I haven't been back to since they refused to change the channel) and even fucking gas pumps in some states. Nobody is actually watching these TV's, but they're on and tuned to FAUX, because the old vulture bastard paid for the TV, and his own ratings company counts that as legitimate viewers.

2) Collusion by the right wing owned cable/satellite companies who carry FAUX and CNN in their basic lineups, but only offer MSNBC in higher priced packages (let alone something like Current TV which is in the highest price digital tiers.) Comcast does it because their ownership are blatantly Busheep Republicans. TimeWarner's motives are more obvious - they own CNN. And even though Comca$t has since bought a huge chunk of MSNBC, they haven't yet purged all the "liberals" from the network. The minute they accomplish that (2 down - Keith and Cenk - 3 to go) then Comcast will magically find room in their basic lineup for the channel.

It's time to demand a-la-carte cable/satellite programming. All news channels should be equally available and none should require $100 or more a month just to watch them.

[Nitro Express]

I will say one thing Ford. You are good at cooking up the right wing conspiracy bullshit.

I really don't think the right or the left really have more power than one or the other. The country is pretty much evenly split. The big money tries to buy either side off. Neither side has proven to be more benevolent that the other. When the Republicans have all the power they behave badly and when the Democrats have all the power they behave badly. They both seem to put corporate interests over the interests of the people who elected them to office. The only difference is the marketing slogans and the illusion they sell. Once they get the power they pretty much give the big banks, war industry, oil companies, and other big corporations they want. I mean this current flavor of Democrat rule is sponsored by GE, Goldman Sachs, and big pharma who helped write the Democrats healthcare bill. Honestly, one side isn't any better than the other.

[FORD]

No "conspiracy bullshit" needed here. It's all a matter of record what is owned by Murdoch, Comca$t and AoHell-TimeWarner.

[Guitar Shark]

Still using Comcast as your internet provider, FORD?

[Nitro Express]

Facts? Then how come I get MSNBC with my basic cable hookup? Maybe where you live it's different. Maybe in Republican states like Wyoming we get MSNBC with Rachel and Ed in all their glory free with basic cable. Maybe in liberal Seattle Rupert Murdoch is working harder?

[FORD]

Still using Comcast as your internet provider, FORD?

Yes....but only because they have a monopoly and no other options are available. The only DSL available here from Qwest was the lowest speed they have, (1.5mbps) and I've seen no indication from Century Link that they plan on improving those options, despite the fact that they continue to advertise 20mbps service on their TV ads.

I don't pay Comcast for TV anymore though. Not enough worth watching, and what there is, I can get to with "alternative methods" (which I will not elaborate on, due to industry trolls who monitor this board)

[FORD]

Facts? Then how come I get MSNBC with my basic cable hookup? Maybe where you live it's different. Maybe in Republican states like Wyoming we get MSNBC with Rachel and Ed in all their glory free with basic cable. Maybe in liberal Seattle Rupert Murdoch is working harder?

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that Wyoming's cable companies are going to be the last ones on the list to go to the all digital upgrade (as rural states always are, when it comes to new technology)

[Nitro Express]

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that Wyoming's cable companies are going to be the last ones on the list to go to the all digital upgrade (as rural states always are, when it comes to new technology)

Not in ski resort towns where the average house price is $630,000. We have digital cable available and high speed internet. Now in some little town in northeast Wyoming they might still be in the dark.

[Guitar Shark]

The only DSL available here from Qwest was the lowest speed they have, (1.5mbps) and I've seen no indication from Century Link that they plan on improving those options, despite the fact that they continue to advertise 20mbps service on their TV ads.

I know, that's pretty annoying. I live in a new neighborhood and Qwest repeatedly told me that my only DSL option was the slowest one.

[FORD]

One would think that being in the same general vicinity of the State Capitol would be a priority area for DSL providers. The state buildings themselves are on T1/T3 lines, of course, but true high speed DSL would probably be a big seller in the surrounding area if it were available. I know a lot of people who would be happy to dump the Comca$t monopoly if they had another choice.

[Nitro Express]

Quest is horrible. I had a tenant that needed to add some more phone lines and I hired an electrician and when it was US West you could call in via the contractors line and get a real person. Nobody even answered at Qwest. Just a recording. Not the best service especially when phone lines mean money.

I have heard nothing but bad about Comcast. My uncle has them as does my sister in law. Lot's of problems and it seems like they don't maintain their network very well.

I can't complain about our local cable company. The neighbors were running a trenching machine putting in a new sprinkling system and they cut the cable. This was Saturday afternoon. I called the cable company they had a guy out in a half hour. He did a temporary splice and then returned on Monday to run a whole new cable. I can't complain.

The line going down the main road is fiber optic. We are right off it so our internet runs pretty damn fast. Not bad for living in the sticks.