I've added a page to my site that includes sound clips. The link is on the right. I figured I'd post some of the more inane quotes by the people who are almost always immune to media scrutiny.

I may also do video at some time too. I need to brush up on video editing and find a good tool to do that. Sound is easy - Audacity works well enough for my needs. The other obstacle, especially if I get into posting video clips, is server space. I am currently considering upgrading my plan so I can have more space to host some of these classic quips.

Oh, dear God---not the 'MSM' nonsense again.

The worst part is that the only thing that the wingers who tout this liberal media myth don't postulate is a REASON.

The whole mythology that there’s a liberal media in the U.S., it just baffles me that anyone can even take that seriously any longer, when the media is owned by a handful of the largest corporations in history, institutions that could not have less of an interest in upsetting the economic status quo and no real interest in an informed public. Basically, their concern is making profit, and their perception is that the way you make profit is to entertain rather than inform. -- Mark Hertsgaard

The meaning of Mark Hertsgaard's comment should be painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't consume the infotainment garbage that passes for news these days. That means:

* All the basic television networks in the US
* Especially Faux News
* The Mourning Crawl
* Basically any newspaper that comes from New York
* Tabloid formats especially
* You're not off the hook either, New York Times.
* Pretty much all talk radio---fortunately Rush Limbaugh and other such right wing goons are usually carried over AM, which is good because their blather won't escape the atmosphere and provoke space aliens to lay the smack down on us.

How does one recognize quality news media? There are a few hard and fast rules; one of them is that the quality of the news tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of Anna Nicole Smith 'news' they carry. Example:

Faux News search after 'anna nicole smith'

Sveriges Radio search after 'anna nicole smith'

Just to subject my hypothesis to true rigor, I tried various black metal spellings of Anna Nicole Smith, such as 'Ænna Nikol Smidur', and even 'The Orcs march from the North Gate, to Ænna Nikol Smidur, who is also in the North; RAGGGGGHHHH!!!' to no avail. QED.

Any media outlet that hosts a dedicated Anna Nicole Smith section does not deserve to be called a news-gathering organization. Period. There again, I noticed that Faux News use Google to power their searches, so maybe that's just liberal Google skewing my results and giving me the impression that Faux are a sensationalist, pathos-oriented infotainment slop-bucket and not the fine bastion of objective journalism that they are.

BTW---who is 'Ghandi'?

I forgot CNN---they're more dreck.

Ya know, I never would have thought to look to see if the news sited had a dedicated section to the person I won't name but I saw that MSNBC also has a section dedicated to her too. Thus, NBC is not a news-gathering organization either.

Thanks for polluting my blog with that name. I'll probably delete your comments not because I disagree with you but because you put her name in there.

Celebrity news is not news. It's garbage but I guess it sells. Speaking of news, I wonder why the Tim Hardaway comments weren't able to 'out media coverage' John Rocker's? In fact, Tim's comments didn't even 'out media coverage Rush Limbaugh's comments, after which if you recall, Michael Irvin said "I agree with Rush."

We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 21 days.