IMITATIONS OF NEWS: The place to go for cherry-picked news!


Part 3—Rachel keeps conning her viewers:
Yesterday, the children were clowning hard at the new Salon.

Did you know there were this many lunkheads on the face of the Earth? That they could all be gathered under one roof?

The children offered two different posts about an important recent matter. On Fox, Megyn Kelly almost said “Fuckabee” instead of Huckabee!

This troubling matter was offered to help us see how dumb Kelly is. No one bothered to offer recent ratings:
Total national audience, 9 PM and 12 midnight
Thursday, November 6, 2014

Megyn Kelly, Fox: 3.652 million
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC: 874,000
Ratings aren’t a measure of quality. Beyond that, last week was good for Fox News types, less so for the liberal crowd.

That said, things weren’t much better the week before, when Maddow was preaching about the nation’s transplendent economy. This is the way the numbers looked the previous Thursday night:
Total national audience, 9 PM and 12 midnight
Thursday, October 30, 2014

Megyn Kelly, Fox: 2.947 million
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC: 1.016 million
Ratings aren’t a measure of quality. That said, Kelly starts looking a lot less stupid if you factor them in.

At Salon, they don’t. At Salon, the children keep themselves busy writing about how wonderful cereal is, about the things you shouldn’t feed cats, and of course about every pointless blip on the screen concerning race and/or sex.

On the Maddow Show, the host keeps herself busy handing you mountains of crap. Consider the propaganda she churned about our great economy.

For this performance, we must return to the Maddow program of Friday, October 31. Granted, it was Halloween. Perhaps for that reason, Maddow started with an unusually dishonest presentation, even for her.

In the first four minutes of her program, she failed to acknowledge or correct her previous absurd misstatements about what “Fox” was saying about the price of gas. She continued to mock Stuart Varney (Fox Business Network), even as she kept withholding what Varney had actually said.

Oddly, Maddow has become one of the most dishonest players we’ve ever seen on cable. That faux presentation was a good example of the relentless dishonesty her bosses let her present.

Maddow’s start was extremely bad that night. But then, she handed us this:
MADDOW (10/31/14): Thank heavens. We have Fox to now clear that up for everyone! So this is fun.

But the news here is this. Gas prices are way down. Gas prices are lower than they have been in years. Thanks to Fox, we know that’s good news for the economy. Good news for both your family budget and good news for the economy overall. Hooray!

But it’s definitely not the only piece of good news about the economy right now. The unemployment rate right now is below 6 percent. That’s the first time since the recession that it has been that low.

In terms of people putting in claims for unemployment benefits, that number is at a 14-year low right now. The economy is growing at 3.5 percent, which is a robust growth rate, robust enough that the Federal Reserve at least is stopping doing the monetary stimulus they have been doing since the recession. The chairman of the Fed, Janet Yellen, will be meeting with President Obama on Monday about that. They’re able to stop the stimulus basically because they believe the economy has been coming back on its own enough that it doesn’t need that booster shot anymore.

I mean, all that stuff that I just listed, that’s good news right now. Gas prices down. The unemployment rate, down. Jobless benefits, way down. Economic growth, way up.

It’s all going the right way right now. And both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 today closed at record highs—a record for both of them today. The Dow closed at 17,390 points today.
To watch the whole segment, click this.

In that passage, Maddow was explaining how the economy looks to someone who is paid $7 million per year. Or to someone who simply reads the statistics she receives from the White House.

Was it “all going the right way now?” Not exactly, no. Maddow was citing real statistics. But she was leaving other statistics out.

As she continued, she explained why “people are in a pretty good mood” about the economy. In this passage, we get a good example of what faux news can look like:
MADDOW (continuing directly): The consumer sentiment index, which is a measure of how consumers feel about the economy, it seems like one of those touchy-feely sociology measures of the economy. It’s actually one of the most important predictors of future economic growth. It’s how much confidence consumers have in the economy. That number is the highest it has been in more than seven years right now.

And as if all of that were not enough, happy freaking Halloween! The price of Halloween candy is down. It’s been stable for the past couple years, but this year’s Halloween candy is cheap. Ha, ha!

Add all that together and people are in a pretty good mood. And in politics, usually all of the economic indicators being up with an exclamation point except for the ones that are good when they’re down, and those right now are down with an exclamation point, usually that means good things for the party in power, right?

Things are going well, don’t change horses. That’s been the easiest principle in political prognostication since political prognostication.

Remember “It’s the economy, stupid?” Right, right. It’s the economy, stupid. And the economic news right now is good.
Were people really “in a pretty good mood?” Such sentiments are hard to measure, even if you’re actually trying.

Basically, Maddow wasn’t. With respect to the consumer sentiment index, her blog linked to an AP report by Christopher Rugaber. These were his first two paragraphs:
RUGABER (10/31/14): Consumers expect better economic growth and rising incomes in the coming months, pushing a measure of confidence to a seven-year high in October.

Maddow reported that the index was up. She failed to say that it still lagged far behind its status before the Great Recession.

Maddow was picking and choosing her facts, as she frequently does. As she continued, she mocked the way “Washington” was uniformly saying that the elections would display a Republican wave. (This claim by Maddow was utterly bogus, though such predictions turned out to be right.)

Then, she offered cherry-picked polls to suggest that four major Senate races were “virtually tied right now.” She included a cherry-picked poll from Iowa, where Joni Ernst ended up winning by 8.5 points. She included a cherry-picked poll from Georgia, where David Perdue won by 7.8.

Republicans won all four races which Maddow said were “virtually tied.” But this is the way it tends to go on this rotted-out, faux news program.

Maddow’s first ten minutes that Friday night were a tribute to the procedures which constitute faux news. Truth to tell, Maddow’s content is often much worse than her ratings.

At Salon, the children write about breakfast foods and about near-slips of the tongue. All around the corporate dial, we liberals keep getting it faux.

Tomorrow: The corporate selling of Maddow


  1. What is gained by presenting a false picture of the economy (at least as it affects middle and working class people)?

  2. She looks cool in those glasses.

    1. If you think a gawky teenage boy looks cool.

  3. "Ratings aren’t a measure of quality. That said, Kelly starts looking a lot less stupid if you factor them in."

    Which is it, Somerby? You can't have it both ways.

    1. Kelly says a lot of stupid stuff. Fox "News" is pretty much in the business of saying stupid stuff. SNL's parodies of Fox programs capture this perfectly with their end-of-skit fast scroll of "corrections," for example, "Marco Rubio did not bring pasta back from China." If your measure of quality is accuracy, then Fox is shoddy goods. If your measure is effectiveness of propaganda, then Fox is top drawer, and by that measure Kelly doesn't look so stupid. MSNBC can't compete on stupid, so it's stupid to try. If Nate Silver tells you that on election eve, the Republicans have a 75% chance of taking control of the Senate, and he tells you why, how stupid do you look spinning the election as up for grabs? And where does that show up on the quality scale?

    2. Oh, now ratings matter as a guide to how smart a cable news host is? Yeah, that's Fox Propaganda 101. The supposedly liberal author of this blog is a Fox troll.

    3. If there's a way for you (Joseph) to misunderstand things, you guys will find it.


      Oh, so Somerby isn't really saying how smart she is because of her higher ratings. He's only saying she's less stupid than she would be if her ratings were low.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    5. Which is a variation on the very tired meme that "we must be doing something right because we get good ratings". Um, yeah, lots of crap gets good ratings because lots of people like crap that makes them feel good about themselves. All the better if it's coming from a nice pair of legs under a glass table.

    6. What's really stupid is to have a serial plagiarist on your network and ignore it (CNN) or to constantly doctor video to make something look one way when, in truth, it is the opposite (MSNBC) or to have a guy who will use fake papers to try to bring down a candidate (CBS).

      None of those are Fox.

  4. In the real world, partisans cite, and are expected to cite, information that is favorable to their side. Maddow is a partisan. What was she supposed to do? Do the people at Fox, whose ratings are, apparently in Bob's view, a sign that they are smart, scrupulously cite facts that are detrimental to the Republican cause? Is Megyn Kelly a straight-down-the-middle Walter Cronkite?

    So the sentiment is the highest it's been in six years, but it isn't as high as it was before the "downturn," thus, Maddow is the one guilty of cherry picking. Perhaps, as a liberal, she must come out and only cite negative statistics, to prove to the world how honest she is. "You hit 40 home runs, leading the league." "Yes, but 14 years ago, right after Al Gore was robbed in the 2000 election, Barry Bonds hit 73. I suck. Here, take your bonus back."

    Of course, had she done that, it would be taken as proof that she was out to drag down liberalism by helping Republicans win. Similarly, she should cite polls showing her side losing, or else ... what? Did her "cherry picking" of polls hurt or help her side? Was it DESIGNED to hurt or help her side? Or did it just give Bob more fuel with which to feed the fires of his obsession?

    Fox lies, distorts, slants, sensationalizes, invents, twists, the news every day and night. Fox gets nearly twice the ratings of MSNBC. MSNBC does these things less than Fox, but still manages to get better ratings than CNN, which IS a down-the-middle news outlet. Bob wants MSNBC to be more like CNN. We find ourselves puzzled by Bob's naivete. We wonder if it is genuine, or just another sign of his perpetual crankiness.

    1. Chris Hayes did cite polls showing the Democrats losing. (Actually, he interviewed Nate Silver, whose polling models showed the Democrats losing.) And Hayes still spun the election as close. How stupid did that turn out to be? How much did that "hurt or help."

      Fox is Olympic-level stupid. MSNBC can't compete with that.

    2. If both Maddow and Chris Hayes had told Democrats that they were going to lose the election if they didn't turn out in record numbers, do you think that might have helped or hurt Democratic candidates? So, who does Maddow work for? Plutocrats who love conservatives, or liberals who want to see Democratic candidates elected? Judging by her actions, I would go with the plutocrats.

    3. As best we can tell (who cares what looks "stupid?"), by the logic exhibited by these two posters, the "Unskewed polls" movement (in which Fox News was a frequent participant) was actually a false flag operation run by, say, labor unions in order to trick the Republicans into a false sense of security, thus, depressing turnout. The correct thing to do for the Republicans was to terrify their base by convincing them they were going to lose. That's how you get people to the polls: demoralize them.

      We have no doubt that Bob finds these two people examples of an enightened audience, shining stars among his fandom. We politely disagree.

    4. "And Hayes still spun the election as close."

      Hate to let the truth disrupt what you already know, but many of those elections that Democrats lost were close. As well as some of those that Republicans lost.

    5. Like the one in Iowa?

      Yes, some of the elections were close. Few were really in doubt, and neither was control of the Senate.

    6. 12:46 - It is frustrating. I see your point. Sometimes dang it, it's such a drag these comments here by Bob and how far people are off the mark - and the reality of the situation!!!! I hear ya man!

    7. The question at hand (and the answer) ought to be obvious by now, and we apologize for our part in not making it clearer. So we will try again:

      Was what Maddow and Hayes allegedly did good or bad for getting Democrats elected (whether or not getting Democrats elected is, in itself, a good or bad thing is another topic for another day). Were they trying to HELP or HARM the side they purport to support? (we also apologize for channeling our inner Al Sharpton) Well, the answer is, are people more or less likely to vote in what they expect to be a close election -- that is, one in which every vote might count? Or are they more likely to vote when their side will almost certainly lose? We think the answer obvious. We think the obviousness of the answer makes the "corporatist" conspiracy theory to trick Democrats into not voting absurd. We think this whole thing is nonsensical, the product of Bob's Maddow/left wing bashing obsession, and the obsession of some of his commentariat to try to rush to his defense, even when to do so requires making arguments that might not even pass muster on Fox News. We think Maddow and Hayes were trying their best, as partisans, to help their side do as well as it could. We think they were doing what Bob complains the left doesn't do: fighting. In short, we think this whole thing is another example of Bob's cranky hypocrisy, There is nothing Maddow can do or not do that won't result in Bob attacking her. On this topic, as well as a few others, he is reliably irrational. He deserves no defense, because no reasonable defense can be made.

    8. "MSNBC does these things (lies, distorts, slants, sensationalizes, invents, twists, the news) less than Fox ..."

      That's a hell of an argument! Hahahahahahaha!

    9. 6:40 -

      "Were they trying to HELP or HARM the side they purport to support?"

      What if they were doing neither? Have you presented a false dilemma? I see a lot of black and white thinking in your posts. You need to get laid, pronto. ;) Just joking - have a good one man. I support you and feel your pain.

    10. Yes - 6:40 - you don't seem to show a gift for logic in your posts but I do support you and empathize with what you say and how you feel. Go have fun tonight.

    11. 6:42 - Yes, argument and logic is clearly not his strong suit but still it's frustrating to see one side criticized so harshly, consistently and often - and so caustically, when the other side does it worse and more successfully. It hurts sometimes so much one will leap across the walls of logic just to try to feel a sense of justice!

    12. 6:40 - You should listen to that Barry White promo thing on Youtube to help mella ya out!!! East side til I die!


  5. OMB (Saving Halloween Cherry Candies for Last With OTB)

    In this offering to his faithful, BOB continues his Faux news series with the parable of Rachel and the Cherry Picking.

    This is largely a tale of things untold. BOB instructs us not to fail to tell that which should be told.

    Before we get to the meat of the parable (or should we say fruit) we are reminded that there awful people still attacking our Megyn the faire, who once, we were told, was nice. BOB tells us that despite the attacks, she still has many many friends and higher ratings. BOB did not offer us any insight into his ratings. But in parables by BOB, it is important to say of others that which you never say about you.

    We'll return to the orchard at a later time.

    1. Once we were told Megyn Kelly was a straight news anchor, too. Actually several times. By Megyn Kelly. She may be smart, she may be pretty, but she's not a truth teller.

    2. KZ, you continue to think that selectivity is the same as cherry picking. It isn't. Cherry picking is when you selectively present facts to present a false or misleading argument. You seem to think it is just selectively presenting facts. That is what is wrong about your continuous whining on this subject.

    3. KZ is not the sharpest peacock in the meat drawer. He will continue to suffer for quite a while yet.

    4. Alas, Anon @ 3:36 we have yet to get to the cherries. Like Rachel and BOB, who often does his best to imitate Rachel down to each loose wire, screw, and perhaps same size Clown Shoe, we have decided to meander into our point with prolonged multi part prologues. We will get to the forest where the wild cherries grow. Be patient.

      We have many gaps to cross and may even pass a Tuscaloosa or two in a careful Interlude before reaching the orchard.

  6. OMB (Saving Halloween Cherry Candies for Last With OTB)

    Part 2 We left with the lovely MCECIC Megyn getting higher ratings than Rachel the wicked with, of course, BOB not disclosing his own ratings, which he used to segue to Rachel and the Cherry Picking.

    Rachel had picked her cherries on Halloween and Treated and Tricked her visitors with them. BOB, of course saved these cherries for almost two weeks since he had more important dragons to slay, such as the MIT Sexual Assault Survey. That beast took nearly a week to subdue, in part because BOB had to tell us how many times MIT failed to disclose the date of the survey, which we knew was Spring of 2014 because, despite their failure to disclose it to BOB, they disclosed it to everyone else (BOB's readers, turds that they are, kept trying to point this out in either an effort to be of assistance or an act of malicious hatred).

    When BOB felt time was right to discuss this parable, after telling us of his high school chum who wrote about Joe Alsop, and about George Bush who keeps beating the drum with excuses why some guy close to him lost a long ago election, his readers learned new things.

    Rachel started off very dishonestly. BOB did not tell you anything she said in her first four minutes was untrue. He said "she failed to acknowledge or correct her previous absurd misstatements about what “Fox” was saying about the price of gas." BOB, of course failed to acknowledge or correct his previously absurd misstatement that Maddow had said these things about Stuart Varney, whose name never crossed her sneering lips. In today's parable BOB correctly notes that Madddow's previous statements were directed at FOX, the network which employs Varney. But Bob continues to leave out that Rachel was implying that those in the news business use absurd statements followed by a question mark to plant stupid ideas in their viewers's minds which the news people themselves then can deny having ever saying or even implying (Does BOB lie like this all the time? We can't, and more importantly DIDN'T, say that with any certainty).

    When we come back, we'll take a look at those nasty economic cherries Rachel put in the goodie baskets of those foolish enough to visit her house of horrific clown deception. Eager readers may want to review the numbers Rachel used as portrayed here by BOB to see which, if any, were not really cherries.

    1. Now be careful. You've been told that "cherry-picking" is selectively choosing your facts to fit an argument.

      What Somerby does when he selectively chooses facts to fit his argument is NOT "cherry-picking."

      He's obviously going after pomegranates.

  7. OMB (Saving Halloween Cherry Candies for Last With OTB)

    Part 3 - Sayeth BOB: "Was it “all going the right way now?” Not exactly, no. Maddow was citing real statistics. But she was leaving other statistics out."

    Bless our souls we looked and looked for other statistics BOB might cite that proved his point that Maddow was "not exactly" right. BOB cited one statistic, the fact that the Consumer Sentiment Index, which Maddow cited as being higher than it had been since July of 2007, had once been higher. He faulted her for leaving that out.

    Unfortunately for BOB, his one and only one statistic did nothing to disprove Maddow had, in any way "not exactly" been correct in saying the things she cited were "going the right way." In fact, use of that one statistic not only proves BOB to be plucking at any cherry left behind on the tree, but foolishly using it to try and prove the truth of a statement he made which is demonstrably false.

    BOB Somerby: Bigger Liar than Al Gore? We don't know. We report. You decide.

    Coming Before the Post on Procrastination: Cherry Picking Polls
    (We get to take you back to the War on Gore).

    1. Two statistics she left out: (1) the long term unemployment rate has not budged, (2) the median salary is still decreasing compared to pre-2008. Kevin Drum and Atrios have both been following this regularly, so Maddow should know this.

    2. We'll reply to your response with assumed applause.

      Assumed because it is based on an assumption:

      First, your statistics are right about the "long term unemployment rate" and "the median salary." We could, but won't, argue you are wrong on both accounts. We'll say you are right.

      If you are right, by citing these two statistics
      you have done nothing to undermine Maddow's argument than you have done to bolster our point about BOB.

      You see, if your numbers are accurate, you have noted two statistics which BOB might have argued
      aren't going the right way to prove his point. But he did not. As we said, the only "statistic" he offered
      was from a survey of public opinion which served only to reinforce Maddow's accuracy (things going the right way) and thus undermine his argument.

      Now your BOBfan of median intellect (and we assume you are neither) would say but these two statistics prove Maddow is wrong. We are not here to prove Maddow is right or wrong. Only that BOB is what he accuses Rachel of being with nearly $7 million less in disposable income. And he doesn't know a cherry when he spits it out of his mouth.

      Maddow didn't say every possible economic indicator was going up or in the right direction, just the ones she chose to present. Only an anal fool would expect her to launch into an hours long recitation of all available numbers.

      And Bob was being an anal fool by choosing the exact words Alex Catellano used when he interrupted her in mid sentence while discussing pay equity on Meet the Press: "Not exactly."

      You get plus two. Bob minus one. You are three points better than BOB by our very rough rules of prehensile opposing digitalia.

      Glad to have you aboard.

    3. He argued with her on her own terms. I don't see that as a flaw.

    4. As for why he is "arguing" with her at all, now, that is an entirely different question, one for which the answer shifts, but is never found to be quite adequate. Perhaps you can give it a shot.

      With regards to the "things are getting better" argument, there is a big difference between "Things are going in the right direction," and "Things are perfect." Her money statement, "The economic news is good," is essentially correct. Good is not perfect, unless you are, once again, looking to find a way to attack Maddow. That is, unless you are Bob, and you want to knock something down so bad even a straw version will do. We will argue that Maddow's language is sloppy, allowing for an attack by someone possessed by a certain mentality, but overall her statements are certainly reasonable. We'll call it the "Inventing the internet" syndrome: somewhat awkward and/or inartful use of language being blown up into something that no sane person would allow it to become. But that's our Bob. We remember, many years ago, when Bob would have been pointing this sort of thing out. Now he does it himself. He has, we suspect, gazed too long into the abyss.

    5. We'll assume 'her" is Maddow. Who the Sam Somerby is "he." And what argument do you refer to?

    6. File Rachel's commentary under Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. All recent economic gains have gone straight to the uppermost income echelon. It's not a particularly great time to be working for a living. I don't think our corporate media has much of a clue.

    7. It depends on what you mean by "economic gains." The unemployment rate has gone down 1.5 points in the past year: about 180,000 people have jobs who didn't have them a year ago. Since the high water mark of unemployment, reached 5 years ago nearly to the month, the unemployment rate has declined 4.2%. That would mean almost 700,000 people have jobs now who didn't have them then. The growth in income has gone to the top, but the economy is improving. We agree that it's not a great time to be working for a living (it has not been such in maybe 15 years, perhaps longer), and we even agree that the "corporate media" hasn't much of a clue. We simply think it ludicrous to attack Maddow for it, particularly based on this relatively innocuous statement.

    8. More jobs in retail and fewer jobs that pay a living wage.

    9. A "journalist" without a clue. I think she's fair game for criticism.

      BTW, sugarcoated "official" numbers aside, what is the REAL unemployment rate?

    10. Why don't you check the archive of your favorite news source, World Net Daily, and find out for yourself.

  8. OMB (Saving Halloween Cherry Candies for Last With OTB)

    Part 4...Nothing is funnier than when BOB's parables turn to the sacred land of public opinion surveys. There is nothing that sets the political soul to soar or in flame like a poll. There is nothing more hapless than the average person with a firmly held opinion and a weakly grasped poll. In our view, when it comes to politics, neither Rachel nor BOB are more than average, their opinions are firm, and their grasp remarkably weak.

    That said, when BOB's parable of Rachel and the Cherry Picking came to polls, we chuckled mightily. Rachel, it seems, was guilty of cherry picking polls.

    Could BOB be right about Maddow cherry picking polls? No doubt. Maddow could have invented those polls. She cites no sources. Nor does BOB.

    We fished around a bit.

    The day before the election, three days after Maddow's Halloween cherry give away, Public Policy Polling wrote this:

    "Toss Ups Abound in GA, NC, NH, KS, IA"

    "PPP's final polls for the Senate and Governor in Georgia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Kansas, and Iowa find close races pretty much across the board.....

    In Georgia David Perdue leads Michelle Nunn 46/45. It still looks like this race is headed to a runoff. ....In the North Carolina Senate race Kay Hagan leads Thom Tillis 46/ Iowa we find Joni Ernst with a 48/45 advantage over Bruce Braley."

    The day before they wrote: "In Colorado, Cory Gardner leads Mark Udall 48/45."

    PPP wasn't the only pollster predicting close races.

    In Colorado, three other major polls had the race within two points in late October.

    In North Carolina. all three networks had Hagan less than 2 points ahead or tied.

    In Georgia the Atlanta Constitution had a 2 point race in Perdue's favor while CNN had Nunn up by 3.

    In Iowa Quinnipiac had the race tied while FOX and CNN had Ernst up by 1 and 2 respectively.

    You know what every one of these poll results had in common? The results all had the races closer than the margin of error for each poll.

    Can we talk? BOB is a big believer in polls. Why do we say that? Because his entire premise that the press caused Al Gore to lose, his holy assertion that thousands of dead Iraqis look up at the press from their grave because the press handed the election to Bush is predicated on polls. To be more accurate, one cherry-picked Cotton Picking pollster...Gallup.

    We get to do to BOB what he did to Rachel Maddow. Point out in hindsight just how wrong and foolish that is. Gallup predicted the results wrong. They had Bush ahead. Just like Maddow had four Senate races in a virtual tie. It didn't happen that way. Republicans won all four races at the ballot box. So did Al Gore.

    Polls are as accurate as any rough rule of thumb, and they can be pretty rough when their sample is so bad it records 16 points swings back and forth in voter sentiment during one week In a Presidential race when most other polls see movement of only a few points. Gallup did that in 2000. And BOB hangs his hat on their sorry tale.

    The problem with polls is they can't vote. The people who express their opinions in those polls can. But some of them don't. And that is why both Maddow and BOB, whether they pick cherries or throw berries can often end up nuts.

    We close with our favorite line from this service:

    "This claim by Maddow was utterly bogus, though such predictions turned out to be right."

    You can't ask for better BOBspeak than that in a piece about polls.

  9. I'm waiting for a liberal lover of MSNBC to take up the Martin Bashir mantle and say that Bob can eat sheyat. That's about all they have left.

    Unless they want to call him a racist/sexist.

    1. I'll be happy to do it right after your stirring defense of Glenn Beck and praise that Bob shits daffodils.

      And Bob is not racist. He is just a white missionary liberal imperialist. He is not sexist. He is just the grandson of a guy who did trained monkey shows and the son of a guy who ran a burlesque house.