Wanda Sykes is Lovin’ on Limbaugh

wanda_sykes_notfunnyI love it when comedians try to be funny by trashing conservatives. 

The annual Correspondents’ White House Association Dinner always turns into a roast of the Press and some of the people in attendance.  The current President of the United States gets up and does some standup and this years event was no different.  It’s usually pretty funny and it is an annual tradition.  This year the proceedings took a strange turn.

While President Obama was very funny and self-deprecating, the “Comedian” Wanda Sykes took some time to continue the roast.  Of course we expect some good natured ribbing of the current administration, but none of that transpired.  Instead, Ms. Sykes took part of her time to trash Rush Limbaugh about his statements that he “Wanted the President to Fail”.  Either she ignored the real facts of his interview with Sean Hannity or she is being disingenuous.   I’ll go with the later.

She also compared him to Osama Bin Laden and mentioned that he (Rush) was suppose to be the 20th hijacker in the September 11 terrorist attacks but missed his flight being too high on Oxycontin.   She also hoped that his Kidney’s failed.  We also witnessed President Obama laughing at this diatribe.  Classy, real classy.

Am I being too hard nosed on this?  Am I devoid of a sense of humor?  Hardly.  What do you think would be the press reaction to President Bush laughing at someone on stage suggesting they hoped that Jeneane Garafalo had a heart attack.  Or that Alan Colmes would get cancer.  Or if Al Franken would die in a horrible car accident.  I believe this would be front page news on every paper and on every website.

 

Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

 

Rush Limbaugh’s comments to Sean Hannity (in context):

 

The only reason I bring up this type of thing again and again is that the former President (Bush) went through Hell during his administration from the same yea-hoos (the press) in the crowd that night.   What was suppose to be a funny and good natured event turned ugly.  Does Ms. Sykes have nothing else to kid about?  She is moderately funny and is talented but this begs the question – why wasn’t she actually funny during this event?  I guess she drank the Kool-Aid before she took the stage.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

15 Responses

  1. I love it! Wanda Sykes is great! In terms of the debate, show owns Rush now!

    The right has never had a cerebral discussion on the pros and cons. It was always fail, democRats, porkulus – the right thought how funny! Now all of the sudden they aren’t laughing.

    One sentence stopped them cold.

    You can’t answer this post https://robsrantings.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/uk-heads-toward-censorship/#comment-86, but cry about poor ol’ Rush you can. I love it.

  2. I figured you would say as much. Not sure that stopped anyone cold, but whatever you want to think. My whole reason for posting this to represent the hipocracy of the press.

    I doubt Rush even cares about Wanda Sykes. He can take care of himself, but most of what Ms. Sykes “opined” about is really not funny. Some of it is true – Rush’s Oxy habit is well documented. Like I mentioned, that was really not the point of the story, but I’m glad you got joy out of the diatribe.

    Also, I did answer your post last week. Feel free to go back and read through it. I’ll be waiting with baited breath for your new comments…..

  3. Not funny to you. Also, it has nothing to do with the press. The press reported the fact that Rush said what he said when he said it. Most news outlets did not link to Sykes. They linked to what the Pres said.

    You are smoking something if you think this proves anything about the press.

    To me it proves that the right is paranoid and can dish but can’t take it. All across the web it pains itself to point that out.

    (And I happen to know Rush was not amused)

  4. You obviously didn’t read what I was getting at in the story. The press would have had a field day if Bush would have laughed at comments like that from the other side. As pointed out in examples above – if the shoe was on the other foot the story would have been reported differently.

    The truth is that most of the press has sold out to the left but feel they are in the center and everyone right of them is radical and out of touch.

    There is a huge double standard when reporting on anyone right of the press – that was the point. Ms. Sykes is funny and should stick to comedy. Obama was very funny – they should have kept him on the stage longer. Probably a better career for him than politics….

  5. It is pure fanciful speculation that the media – which is hardly homogeneous – would have jumped on Bush for laughing at Rush (or presumably at anyone else).

    There were incidents of Bush being highly callous at soldier’s deaths in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Two points jump out: the press didn’t “go all over Bush” as you claim.

    Worse than the press not jumping on Bush, neither did the right. The right can only have a high moral ground if it establishes a standard that it can keep – it can’t.

    I’ll gladly post a link to the incident. I’ll tell you where it was published if you cannot recall the incident.

    There is a lot of manipulation in politics — and one of the most famous manipulations of all time is to invent an enemy. Vilifying the press is one of the ways right wing politicians move the mere masses.

    Facts, like the one I just pointed out in this response prove them wrong. It is time for you to question your assumptions as to who provides you with unbiased information: Fox, or NPR? Don’t fall for that the media is after the right. It is a trap.

    And that’s why every crappy right winger is so upset at Wanda.

    • Fanciful Speculation is a big word. Not sure I can handle that level of vocabulary.

      To not recognize that there is an obvious bias to the left is to ignore reality. The sheer fact that many surveys have been done of “journalists” indicating that they vote democratic most of the time. That in itself doesn’t prove bias, but studies have been done on the subject – here, here, here and here, just to show a few.

      Fox News is the favorite whipping boy of the left because they do have conservative leaning programs. The difference is that the news coverage is just that, news coverage. That’s how it is suppose to be.

      There is a lot of manipulation in politics — and one of the most famous manipulations of all time is to invent an enemy. Vilifying the press is one of the ways right wing politicians move the mere masses.

      You are correct that there is a lot of manipulation in politics. The truth hurts with media bias, sorry you can’t see that point. Once the MSM outlets simply report the news instead of using the newscast or front page of the paper as the OP/ED page, then I will move onto something else. Until then, these things need to be pointed out.

      Facts, like the one I just pointed out in this response prove them wrong. It is time for you to question your assumptions as to who provides you with unbiased information: Fox, or NPR? Don’t fall for that the media is after the right. It is a trap.

      As for myself, I listen to a lot of radio, read news stories, watch some news programs, etc. My opinions are my own – hence this forum. The problem is the way the media has gone. Fox News would not be as popular if the MSM’s were doing their job.

      There were incidents of Bush being highly callous at soldier’s deaths in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Two points jump out: the press didn’t “go all over Bush” as you claim. I’ll gladly post a link to the incident. I’ll tell you where it was published if you cannot recall the incident.

      I look forward to seeing the “TWO” incidents.

      Worse than the press not jumping on Bush, neither did the right. The right can only have a high moral ground if it establishes a standard that it can keep – it can’t.

      Don’t expect the Republicans to jump on Bush anymore than the Democrats to jump on Obama, although the Republicans are much more willing to eat their own than the Democrats.

      High Moral Ground? I don’t think this post has anything to do with that. The point was simply that if the roles were reversed and this happened over the last eight years, everyone on the planet would have done a story on it. As it stands, very little has been said. Either the MSM doesn’t care or it doesn’t fit with their messiah worship of Obama.

      And that’s why every crappy right winger is so upset at Wanda.

      I’m not really upset with Wanda Sykes. She is what she is. It’s the hypocrisy that those of us who espouse Conservative views feel is going on within the MSM.

      I’m not going to spend too much more time replying on this subject nor do I feel either of us will change minds. Feel free to reply but I may not get around to posting a response – but I will read it.

  6. FOX is not considered reliable by anyone except conservatives. It is popular among conservatives and no one else. They have made almost no inroads into self identified non-conservatives – which should tell you a great deal about FOX’s so called popularity.

    Among self-identified center, NPR is the news outlet of choice: in depth news, both side. I listen to NPR.

    It is not-very-noble of you to have posted four studies that only aim to prove your point. Your posting is biased reporting all its own. None of the sources you posted are independent. They are all part of well known conservative think tanks, including the ucla post.

    Don’t worry, I’ll fix that for you. Study after study shows the opposite. I doubt that you will read them: your mind is sealed, no matter the availability of facts to the contrary.

    Over time the responses to your blog will provide you with other points of view that will make you think.

    FOX News producer Charlie Reina stated that unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, FOX News’s editorial policy is set from the top down, stating that “The roots of FOX News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered.”

    cnsnews

    There is WSJ, FOX, Boston Herald, New York Daily News, NY Post, Washington Times, and many more.

    There is Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News

    Jim Hightower has There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

    David Brock wrote The Republican Noise Machine

    Then there is Franken Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

    I suggest you read and read them. It pays to get more info than just a box that talks to you.

    • So that’s why they have the highest ratings. Conservatives and Republicans could not get them there by themselves – obviously all of these viewers watch for some reason. The point was really of the other outlets outright bias to the left.

      I would dispute that NPR is a balanced source – not to mention extremely boring. That stuff could put a speed freak to sleep, but you feel free to listen. Obviously you are one of many, but I won’t be one of them.

      If my sources are biased to the right, the one’s that you posted are biased to the left. You can’t have it both ways “Independent”. Regardless of the source, Wikipedia is a poor place to send anyone – even if it is referencing a book.

      Also, you forget that this is my forum. I am a benevelent dictator. I graciously allow individuals like yourself to comment and state your point with me. I could easily delete your comments or not allow comments at all but that is not how I run my site. This is not hard news, this is a site dedicated to what I think and my opinions. I back up my thoughts and opinions with timely and relevant sources. If they do not live up to your standards, well that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

  7. You post because you want feedback. Feedback gives you a chance to prove or disprove your point.

    For example, the link you posted above proves that FOX is NOT the most popular TV news. Worse, it appears to be losing viewers!

    Total FOX is viewers is 551,000, total non-FOX viewers is 750,000.

    It is also no surprise that conservatives like FOX because it expounds the conservative point of view. Everyone in the world is fine with that – no one really cares that FOX is for conservatives. It is openly conservative.

    The problem for FOX is that it will not substantially gain viewers. When it gains them, it is among conservatives. It is bounded by its own limits. It will not appeal, nor be able to extend its message.

    Interestingly, CNN and HNL, both owned by the same organization, have 500,000 viewers. The differences between these and FOX is very small. A 5% shift will change the leader. So FOX is hardly far and away the leader.

    If you believe Pew Research (independent pollsters), then FOX viewers least informed.

    • I have no need for feedback. I started this website for my own selfish interests – to put my thoughts and opinions on paper (so to speak). I’m glad others read the posts, but I’m alright if no one reads.

      Also, in looking at your comments in this string, they seem very familiar to some I have read on The Great Illuminator site. Are these the weekly talking points or are you plagiarizing? Just curious.

  8. They are neither. Right media has talking points of the day. You must have confused my post with the daily right media talking points. There is at least a third logical choice. I assume since you didn’t ask you were not interested.

    Now about misinformed Fox News watchers: is it no comment?

    • I have always operated under the assumption of the third choice. Should I call you Independent, or Mike, or Marina or Angry Independent…….. Doesn’t really matter to me, although I am intrigued that the same paragraph can be traced to several sites including Wikipedia. So, either you are plagiarizing or you are the author. No middle ground.

      I’m a little suspicious of a study posted on a blog. Get me the real source (the link on the site leads you to nothing) adn we’ll talk.

  9. Independent describes my political position. I’ll let slide your other editorial points in you prior report, essentially poking humor at my choice of possible names. If this turns into a less than respectful exchange of ideas you may just get your wish on feedback.

    The Pew Research Center for People and the Press is at http://people-press.org/.

    The article you wanted a link for is at http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

    It studies how well informed individuals are and what news shows they listen to and/or favor.

    People who watch the Daily Show, Jim Lehrer, read major newspaper web sites, or listen to NPR were in the top category with over 50% being able to answer correctly questions about current events: who is the vice president, etc…

    People who watch Fox were among the lowest at 35%. That means that 65% of Fox viewers cannot identify the Vice President or other similar questions.

    The study is fairly lenient. It identifies as a high score if a person can get 15 out of 23 questions correct. 12 out of 23 would have been roughly 50%.

    • Good article. Glad to get the actual direct source I’m more disturbed that so many people that listen to all of these programs and networks have such low scores on the questions asked. Regardless of the source, this is a travesty for the public. Probably the same 50% that decide not to vote in any election.

      The FoxNews numbers are interesting, but really don’t surprise me based on audience size and in comparison to the other networks (yes when combining CNN and HLN the numbers are close – but how much overlap is in that audience? Just a side question). CNN is pretty low also along with the evening news.

      It is not surprising that the NPR and Lehrer (PBS) audiences are more informed as higher educated people are more likely to listen and watch to public radio and TV. I am highly educated (trust me, I have earned many degrees) and I don’t care to listen or watch either (except for Sesame Street from time to time with my kids). It is curious that the audience of O’Reilly and Limbaugh were near the top also.

      As far as your possible names, as stated, I really don’t care what name you use. I choose to use my own name (and likeness on the site). My friends over at The Great Illuminator choose to be anonymous like you, but they use Lego figures for their identities. Whatever floats your boat. I believe the point I was making was that the information you chose to use on one of your comments has shown up on several sites. Either you wrote the words or you didn’t. If you did, that is fine, but it seemed to be posted in several different formats. If not, source it next time.

      If this turns into a less than respectful exchange of ideas you may just get your wish on feedback.

      Whatever you think Chief. I have treated you with more than enough respect but have disagreed with 90% of your assertions. I’m not going to block your comments, so your more than welcome to comment – but I don’t wait with baited breath for people to make comments – good or bad. So…if you feel like taking your ball and going home, that’s your call.

  10. This exchange has been around the assertion that there is unequal treatment of conservatives in the media. We don’t live in a perfect world so no one expects every broadcast to be perfectly balanced, biases corrected, and no one ever offended.

    A key test to prove whether a bias exists is has there ever been a book written on the subject. The book format tends towards an in-depth look at the problem. I don’t expect a book to be unbiases. I do expect books on subjects to prove their point. The idea that a book will be reviewed requires the writer to make a case supported by evidence.

    The book format can have a very wide latitude. There are books that attempt to show Darwin’s theory is either true or false. The point being that there is a debate and everyone gets a chance at it.

    Notably, I have quoted four books that look at bias in the media. None support the notion of an anti conservative bias.

    Believe what you like, but this exchange has to at least get you to seriously look at the strength of the evidence for a principle you hold dear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: