Originally posted by williegoat: [Don] Imus was hilarious! Olejoedad, if you have never seen or heard him, you should look him up. He was an early victim of "cancel culture."
At least we agree on something.
Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Rob Bartlett, Sid Rosenberg—who gave way to Warner Wolf—and frequent guests Bo Dietl and Dagen McDowell... the people I named as Imus acolytes at the end of the previous page... these are the other people, beside Don Imus himself, whose likenesses would be carved into the "Mount Rushmore" of the Imus in the Morning show... if there were such a thing.
The first time I saw Imus was in the late ‘70s. He had a TV show called “Imus Plus” that was on late at night on one of the UHF channels. No one seems to remember it, but it was great. He had an audience that participated and he took phone calls. There was very little structure and no theme. It was a little bit like Phil Donahue, if Phil Donahue was Groucho Marx. I was an instant fan.
I just stumbled upon the circumstance that Bernard J. McGuirk passed in October of 2022. I hadn't known.
I remember him as the executive producer of the "Imus in the Morning" show and a regular part of the show.
My best memories of "Imus in the Morning" were when Bernard McGuirk donned a FedEx shipping envelope to represent an ecclesiastical skullcap and offered, in a comically thick Irish accent and dialect, his satirical and distinctly ribald impressions of Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York.
I think some of these performances are available on YouTube.
I remember Tim Russert (1950-2008), who was a nationally prominent NBC political journalist and longtime moderator of "Meet the Press," expressing the same thought about the "Cardinal Egan" sketches.
"Lord hear our prayers." Bernard McGuirk in one of his "Cardinal Egan" sketches, alongside Don Imus in this split screen from a 2006 TV broadcast.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-07-2024).]
The "risky list" is at the heart of a lawsuit against the U.S. Government, specifically the state department. The U.S. Government is funding propaganda the same way they are spying on U.S. citizens. They get by with a little help from our friends. I will let you do your own research.
"Well you see, son? These Magas 'll lie to ya every time. Every single time. They'll steal the pie right of your windowsill soon as you turns your back. You need the gov'ment to tell you what to believe. Sometimes ya disappoint me, boy"
The "risky list" is at the heart of a lawsuit against the U.S. Government, specifically the state department. The U.S. Government is funding propaganda the same way they are spying on U.S. citizens. They get by with a little help from our friends. I will let you do your own research.
This is the Summary, and the summary explanation of that image, according to the report's authors:
quote
GDI’s research looked at 69 U.S. news sites, selected on the basis of online traffic and social media followers, as well as geographical coverage and racial, ethnic and religious community representation. The index scores sites across 16 indicators – indicators which themselves contain many, many more individual data points – and generates a score for the degree to which a site is at risk of disinforming its readers.
The data from the study corroborates today’s general impression that hyperbolic, emotional, and alarmist language is a feature of the U.S. news media landscape.
Every site displayed some degree of cherry-picking facts, omitting relevant information, making unsubstantiated claims, and/or using logical fallacies. Many of the sites that regularly posted this kind of misleading, biased content also used sensational language to elicit an emotional response from the reader.
Fewer sites had widespread use of what GDI terms “targeting language,” which demeans or belittles people or organizations, rather than simply presenting the news. However, some of these sites specifically cover politics. The data showed that these adversarial narratives appear on both sides of the aisle with similar prevalence. Thirty-eight percent of articles directly targeted Democrats. And another 38 percent of articles targeted Republicans.
Taken together, bias, sensationalism and targeting distract, divide and, as a result, disinform.
Here are the ten sites that showed the least and greatest level of disinformation risk. Read on to find out how GDI determined this, what the data shows about the news media market overall, and what you can learn more about in our forthcoming report.
The image again, to refresh everyone's memory, whether their memory needs refreshing or not:
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2024).]
Yes, we have the 1st and 4th amendments, which limit what our government may do. The U.S. government is not prohibited from taking advantage of or even encouraging other entities to do their dirty work. There is no prohibition against an Englishman spying on U.S. citizens.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-01-2024).]
Perhaps I'm overlooking something that came up earlier in this thread, but "after Nixon's numbers" has me puzzled. I'm not making a connection. I don't understand what this means.
Having ventured so far with this remark, I changed direction and found this:
quote
Richard Nixon knew enough about current country-and-western music to put in two requests for a Johnny Cash performance at the White House next week. The President passed the word that he would like to hear Welfare Cadilac (as the song's composer spells it) and Okie from Muskogee, an almost satirically Middle American hymn ("We don't take our trips on LSD, / We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street, / 'cause we like living right and being free").
The choice of Welfare Cadilac seemed especially peculiar. Written five years ago by Guy Drake, a sort of combination Pa Kettle-Tex Ritter, the song portrays the welfare recipient as an improvident lout battening on the public purse. ("This house that I live in is mine but it's really a shack, but I always manage somehow to drive me a brand-new Cadilac.")
Nixon's choices did not agree with Johnny Cash's pro-underdog sympathies. When he expressed his reluctance, a White House aide told him that he could sing anything he wished. That freedom of song persists, even at command performances, is reassuring. That the President should request a number that ridicules society's least favored souls seems oddly off-key.
That's the entirety of something that's archived online at Time... as in "Time Magazine."
