Why are Beck and Fox the only ones reporting on Saudi national?

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/26/why-won%E2%80%99t-the-media-talk-about-saudi-national/

Beck has documentation that shows the government attempting to cover up what it knows about the Saudi national taken to the hospital and questioned after the Boston Marathon explosion. MSM refused to investigate this story. Some reporters have written the story, but they can't get the stories published. Why? Something very bad is happening in government -- on top of Benghazi, this is totally unacceptable.

MSNBC

MSNBC is ten times more partisan than Fox. It's become painful to watch any part of MSNBC. Today, one host after the other acted like high school adolescents as they reported on Obama and Christie meeting to tour the hurricane damage in NJ. While Chrisitie was acting like a grownup doing his job, the MSNBC hacks practically giggled like gossips wondering if Obama and Christie were going to kiss and whether Christie would be wearing Obama's ring. It's really sad to watch these people unravel.

This is what passes for critical thinking nowadays, I suppose

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/06/10/the-fox-news-msncb-taste-test-conclusions/#comment-289023

Yes, Mr. Kelly watched three whole hours of both Fox and MSNBC, then made assertions about both, but didn't bother to back up his assertions, because, well, it's just too much work and stuff I guess. Besides, Kevin Drum likes it and that's totally space awesome.

The funniest part was when Kelly praised Rachel Maddow for being fact-based. I'm not sure what you can tell from watching one episode of a show, but obviously not much if Kelly thinks Maddow is space awesome in her quest for facts.

Kevin Drum grabbed ahold of what Kelley wrote because it frames Fox conservatives as lock-step conspirators in a concerted effort to bring down the Kenyan, while it frames liberals as free-thinking rabble rousers who don't care what anyone thinks -- they are going to have their say, by golly.

This is much funnier than Jon Stewart, even if it's unintentional.

When will liberals get honest?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/negative-campaigns

I'm familiar with Kain's writing. It's has always been marked by a subtle, intellectual dishonesty. This ariticle at Mother Jones is that, and it's also unintentionally humorous, mainly because half-way down there's a rotating MSNBC ad highlighting the likes of Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews, after Kain has written this:

Certainly politics brings out the worst in people, and it brings out the very worst in our political leaders. In a democracy, this is on constant, gaudy display, becoming only more pronounced in the Fox News era, in which "organic" grassroots movements like the Tea Party are fertilized by talk radio and cable television and the blogosphere.

It's funny that Kain mentions Romney, the Republican primary, the Tea Party and Fox News regarding negative campaigning while failing to mention Democrats, Obama (except to say that Obama sat out the negativity in the GOP primary), MSNBC and the worst purveyors of negativity on tv, Matthews, Schultz and the rest of the MSNBC gang.

It's this type of mealy-mouthed capitulation to politically correct group politics and partisan dishonesty that's destroying credibility among modern liberals. If you're going to discuss negative campaigning then include both parties, because it's the Democrats who are going negative with the most vigor right now, and to ignore their contribution is incredible. But this is Mother Jones, so I understand -- who would expect objectivity?

Newt Gingrich -- Sad way to end a political career

Gingrich is looking like a grumbling old fool as he attacks Fox and whines about the unfair campaign. It was ridiculous enough for Santorum to play the rebel outsider, but Newt? This is absurd. Gingrich has been a political animal all his life -- made his living in the unproductive pit of the political realm. Gingrich should move along -- the GOP has moved along, without Newt.