Wow!  (please take off your bold!)

So, let's change the name to MTFA - Media Therapists for America. 

MMFA is just fine and analysis is well within the mission statement.

They are analyzing empty air space for the moment. And they are editorializing as a op-ed columnist would. I found that odd, considering their argument when attacked by Rush, Billy, etc is to claim they only report facts.

Not exactly.

The question is "What will Fox Business Network look like?".

They are analyzing the performance of Fox News to try to answer that question.

I'm looking forward to MMFA's analysis of what the Wall Street Journal will look like under Murdoch's ownership also.

Another words putting the cart before the horse.

I still say this is an op-ed piece. MMFA claims not to do that.

I think you have a point.  I care about as much for pre-emptive posts as I do for pre-emptive invasions.

"They've (MMFA) moved beyond just reporting to editorializing..."

Golly-gee...! I'd complain to someone if I were you. You need to contact Rush or Billo about this ASAP.    ;>)

Thanks, MMFA, for reminding us what Cavuto is all about...right wing editorializing.

I've got Rush on the line right now. He's pretty upset, say MMFA are a bunch of phonies ;-)

Wait till I tell Billy, he'll probably pop a vain :-O

Jeter1: "[T}his does appear to reach beyond their so-called mission statement."

Jeter2: "Here's a great idea: Don't think you'll like it. Then don't [read] it."

Aw my little pearl Clams objects once again to any criticism directed at MMFA. Well hun, Brock allows for that, even though it seems to get your panties in a twist.

Here's a tissue. Now stop sobbing... 

Well, that's an interesting reaction, considering that I did nothing but quote your own words back to you. Apparently you fail to see your hypocrisy here. Instead of addressing the substance of MMFA's article, you attacked them for writing it in the first place. You object to their "editorializing," and yet you don't see any contradiction in dragging out the old saw, "If you don't like it, don't watch it." And then I'm accused of "getting my panties in a twist"?

Jeter, I read here daily but don't post much...  I enjoy your comments most days, but today you seem to be taking the "Tommy" role of "Why Is This Here?" and then namecalling people who question you on it.  You are better than that.  This is a great MMFA article and when Fox Business comes on the air, we can compare the reality to the prediction.  Nothing wrong with that. 

I believe Jeter's point, and it's a good one, is let them breathe their first breath before preemptively striking them down, that would seem only fair, would it not?

But why bother, even before their first sign-on they are crap to most of you...done deal. 

There's Tommy.  That was quick.

It is not Cavuto's first day on the air.  We all know what he is about based on years of history, as shown in the article.  If he is the face of the channel, then analyzing his past is reasonable.  There's no reason to think he is going to be a different person just because the logo over his shoulder is different. 

Exactly. If John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly announced that they were going to co-host a show on race relations, we already have more than enough to go on in order to hazard an educated guess about that show's content.

chrisgodawgs,

First of all I did not ask Why Is This Here? I simply made the observation that I found this an odd posting. Had a Liberal poster made that comment Clams wouldn't have said a word...he would have clammed up ;-)

I have spent the better amount of my time here being quite reasonable & polite. I disliked the name-calling here & said so many times. However, having been on the receiving end of so many attacks has finally convinced me that my civil manner was wasted on most.

As Solon often says, Dems have stood back & taken attack after attack without response & now they are fighting back.

Well Chris, so am I.

Jeter, I said that you are respectful most of the time (I actually said, "you are better than that").  So I agree that you are usually respectful on this site.  But to say that you did not question why this article is here is silly.  You said it was "odd" because it "appear(s) to reach beyond their so-called mission statement."  ie, it does not belong here.   

Pearl, I didn't attack anybody. I said I found it an ODD posting.

Where do you get attack from that?

Maybe if you ever stop re-writing my posts to fit your arguments I'll stop calling you a girl.

OK, change "attack" to"criticize" if makes you happier, but it still doesn't change my point one bit.

And just what was your point?

That instead of writing that I found this posting odd, I should just shut up cause it bothers you?

Go take a dip in the ocean & cool off.

I thought my point was fairly obvious. Instead of addressing the article's actual content, you brought up MMFA's mission statement (gee, we've never seen that before) and questioned the editorial nature of the article. And then you hypocritically scolded anyone who may object to the idea of a Cavuto business channel by saying, "If you think you won't like it, then don't watch it."

How can you address the article's content when nothing has aired on the channel MMFA is preemptively bashing?  That is absurd.  You can put out your conjecture, but that is all it is - there is nothing to criticize, yet - be sure, MMFA and you will have plenty you don't like.

So Jeter's point is right on target, too bad you won't take off your partisan blinding hatred for anything Fox and admit it, 

"How can you address the article's content when nothing has aired on the channel MMFA is preemptively bashing? "

Once again, the far right insists giving examples of their behavior is "bashing."

And don't worry, you won't have to watch it.  You sit tight and MMFA will cover it accurately and fairly so it will conform to your already preconceived opinions.  They will do all the legwork for you, life is good........

Another example of the far right being unable to discuss issues rather than trying to make everything personal.

What content?

It's editorializing, speculating, guessing about empty air space.

And that my dear Pearl was my point.

Yours seems to be that I'm not allowed to question or comment this posting as odd.

And quite frankly, if you don't think you'll like Fox Business News then by all means don't watch it. How do you get scolding out of that? Once again you just make it up as you go.

Why is something so simple so complex for you?

J,

It is complex for many.  For they just cannot get their hands around a topic's placement and its validity being questioned here.....so they always ask "Why not discuss the content?".

That would be like two fashion critics discussing why someone arrives at a black tie party in overalls - one accurately questions why they would show up dressed like that, while the other keeps asking "But what do you think of the content of the overalls?"

Someday they will get it........ 

This is funny.

The far right insists on telling MMFA how to run their site.

I understand derailing a discussion about a post's contents is to their benefit and just another version of "blame the messenger" but it does get old after awhile.

Oh, why don't you just post the bold faced mission statement again so we can all be reminded of what it is........and then accompany it with Merriam Webster's definitions of what the words within it mean.  That was so helpful.

It didn't seem too helpful.

You still refuse to recognize it as analysis.

The dictionary didn't help him with the definition of the word "ironic" - how do you expect it to help him with the concept of "analysis"?

Silly Jeter, To raise any question whatsoever regarding any topic posted here by the powers that be is considered an attack!!  There is no place for any of that among the patron saints of MMFA - their stauch defenders.

I think MMFA can take the criticism since they have a comments section, apparently some here feel MMFA's thread topics are too fragile to withstand these "attacks".

Tommy,

Let's face it, the bobbleheads don't like dissenting opinions. To question anything means you're attacking it.

Time to go re-read Coulter's book How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must ;-)

Dissenting opinions are fine.

However giving "why is this here" as many permutations as the eskimos have names for snow gets old.

If you have a problem with the site's content why don't you email its owners?

The other posters have given you their opinion on "why is this here" many, many times.

I didn't ask WHY IS THIS HERE?

I wrote I found this posting ODD.

It was an opinion, not me asking why it was here.

Geez...

Yes, odd because you think it goes beyond MMFA's mission statement.

That's just another permutation of "why is this here."

No John-Boy sometimes ODD is just ODD.

For instance I think you're odd, but I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be here.

The incoherence and lack of inner logic of your argument is starting to show:

You believe its odd but it belongs here?

Then why is it odd?

Because, as you stated, you think it goes beyond the mission statement.

Do posts outside the mission statement belong here?

Take the questions one at a time

Don't let your head explode.

Why don't we discuss whether being friendly to business and profits is really an objective way to report the news.

That's not speculation.

That is Roger Ailes point of view

That's pretty funny, Jeter,as you completely re-wrote the earlier post. You also used the term "troll" and contradicted yourself with your comments about Soros.

Beach I usually get your humor, but you've lost me this time :-O

Damn, I was hoping you'd point out that I was wrong on every pont, had nothing to back it up, and that I am, in fact, as Anotheramerican has stated, a troll.

Then I was going to concede defeat, and apologize for questioning you. I was going to admit total defeat.

Then, I was going to say;

¡¡ Feliz Cumpleaños, Jeter ¡¡ Traeme mas te helado, chingamadre ¡¡¡

Have a great one, tip one back for me, and any other sons of Brian Boru you might meet around Beantown. ;0)

P.S. Does the name Freud ring any bells? I don't know what the deal is with you and Tommy constantly calling me all sorts of feminine pet names--not to mention imagining me in panties--but it's beyond embarrassing.

If you see yourself as a seafood entree then which one of us really needs Freud?  :)

No, it's not odd. 

MMFA has done preemptive strikes before, this is no different:

Glenn Beck

The Path to 9/11 

Tucker Carlson 

"The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?"

My personal favorite in the realm of the surreal. It's similar to saying John Gotti was an effective crime fighter. Ever wonder why FOX viewers are so divorced from reality?

I found that amusing as well. I think it more likely that future historians will come to the opposite conclusion.

The reason anybody watches a business channel is not to be reassured, but to get the unvarnished truth about whether a stock is going to go up or down or how the bond market is moving or whether that lawsuit is going to damage company X. Money rests on this: if there's even the faintest hint that Fox is glossing over bad news or cheerleading a company, their audience will vanish, even if they are as politically conservative as the channel. Because gaebage is garbage. That's why there's a huge gulf between the reportage st the Wall Dtreet Journal and the edittorial page.

I think that's a valid point. However, Cavuto seems to have no problem mixing politics with finance on his current show. Will it be any different on the new network?

Doubtful, FOX always tends to make everything political.

My thought also P. Maybe this is for all of Dellberts pointy haired bosses. In this case one more source of business idiocy won't change the situations much. Bet they get some bitchen graphics.

PBG,

Great points.  It's one thing to falsely promote a political party.  It's another to falsely promote stocks and companies on which people are looking to invest actual cash.  If a network is going to intentionally "be friendly" to corporations, it is not doing anybody any favors.  Who wants to base their investment decisions on happy talk about these companies?  Gimme the unvarnished truth, whether it hurts the company or not, so I know where to put my money .  That is just too much for Fox to do, isn't it? 

Except it's been shown that these types of shows/programs don't always offer the truth.

You may remember this...

 “What startled me was the clarity of the evidence,” says Spitzer. “That the investment banks and Merrill Lynch, in particular, knew that it was giving a 'strong buy' to stocks when its own analysts said, 'This stock is a dog. It's not worth it. It's going south.' But they continued to push the stock.”

Just an observation:

This topic tells us more about what we can expect from MMFA than it says about the new Fox Business Network.    The left/libs simply cannot accept the fact that they do not control all of the media.  That is why the Democrat Party, HRC, and George Soros funded groups (MMFA for one) are trying to use the "Fairness Doctrine" and smear campaigns to get Rush, et al, off the air and crush the opposition through government thuggery.

Prediction:  It will not work, MMFA.  And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media.

FNC is number one, and I predict that FBN will be number one for business information.

Keep repeating the talking points, and maybe, just maybe someday they'll be true.

Soros doesn't fund MMFA. I do for one, I made a donation last year.

Fairness Doctrine won't take anyone off of the air, and aside from that fact, there isn't ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT talking about bringing it back into being. Not one. No pending legislation, nope, doesn't exist. For some reason being fair is the boogeyman of the right wingers on the radio. But again, never you mind that there isn't anyone actually pushing for this. Keep spitting out the false information about how if it were to come back into being, it was take right wing radio off of the air. It wouldn't. So get over it already.

Oh, and one more thing.

When repeating someone's words, you know, verbatim, this is not called "smearing". What Rush does daily on his show is smearing, you know making accusations, and throwing out "information" that is inaccurate and inflammatory, but again, repeating someone's words verbatim is NOT smearing.

Since MMFA started their campaign to "disappear" Rush from the radio airwaves, how many stations have dropped The EIB program?

Answer:  zip, zero, nada!

This is a question I always ask my good, good liberal friends -

Which was a bigger disappointment to you personally -  (a) the "Fitz-mas" fizzle over the so-called "Plame affair", or (b) the lack of interest in the phony controversy with Rush Limbaugh?

Why do you think we were disappointed over these things?

I was disappointed.

In the Plame case, disappointed in our media and legal system, and their inability to take on the corrupt Bush administration.

In the Rush case (The "phony" case,  that's the one that we asked Billybob & his friends to explain how it was phony for about a week, and none of them could come up with an answer), I was disappointed in the small but noisy group of my fellow Americans who make up the dittohead audience.Maybe not so much disappointed as embarrased that my country produces people that weak and gullible.

I don't know which was more disappointing, but I do wonder why Billybob seems to get off on being such a disappointment.

Oops, and one last thing that I forgot to add.

It's the Democratic party. You sound even more ignorant when you keep saying the "Democrat" party, when you and I, and everyone else in the world knows that it is NOT the democrat party, but the Democratic party. Again, you're repeating what you hear on the radio from your pals Boortz, Limbaugh, et all, and it just makes you sound ignorant. Stop it.

"Prediction:  It will not work, MMFA.  And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media."

Dear George (aka "soros"), HRC (aka Media Matters "Founder") & the Democrat(sic) Party:

You cannot dominate the media with all that money that you're not giving us.

So please stop. Cuz Rush listeners, like Billy Bob for instance, sez it's a waste of time. 

And in turn, we will stop recording Rush et al's own words and playing them back to the non-wingnut world, because that is "smearing" them. 

"... you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media."

By the way:

I find it uproariously hilarious to see the above right-wingnut comment on a thread that is about that ultra-liberal Rupert Murdoch using his money to get his hands on yet another media outlet. 

And you guys can go tell soros that all his money cannot buy him total domination of the media.

Yet Rupert Murdoch is doing exactly that:  Buying up total domination of the media so he can imprint his right-tilted viewpoint.  How many newspapers and tv networks does Soros own compared to Murdoch?  BillyBob?  How many? 

Fox Business News will soon eclipse the liberal CNBC because it will have the credibility that Media Matters claims it will not have.

How is CNBC liberal? I'll be waiting for your "examples" of this with links and things like that. I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of people don't even know that CNBC exists.

Again, examples of the "liberal bias" of CNBC please. And I'll be surprised if you can even come up with one.

One recent example was having the liberal Chris Matthews moderate the GOP debate.

CNBC promised viewers a debate on economic issues, yet the liberal Matthews used the opportunity to push his liberal agenda. http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/206

"the liberal Chris Matthews"

You are so right! Just type "Chris Matthews" into that search window at the upper right and the dozens and dozens of examples will underscore your point about the very, very liberal, left-wing Matthews. 

Kozakid, here's a little unsolicited advice that may help you.

Read the "mediamatters" item , especially the section about "bias".

Understand that labeling somebody with a particular political type and using that label to presume bias is no match for actually demonstrating bias in that person.

Look at the Newsbusters link you provided, and note that there is no "quote" from Mathews longer than one word.

Look at Mediamatters items, and notice the comprehensive nature of the transcripts and videos.

If you still don't understand which side is more credible, take a nap, then repeat.

"Fox Business News will soon eclipse the liberal CNBC because it will have the credibility that Media Matters claims it will not have."

I did not know that FBN was going to replace Asman, Varney, Buttner, Keenan, McDowell and Cavuto with credible people.

Credibility is like virginity.  You don't get it back.  Murdoch blew his years ago when he had his Times of London publish the "Hitler Diaries" as genuine.  When it blew up in his face he said, "Fox it," (well, close) "we're in the entertainment business."

Murdoch and Ailes (a propogandist rather than entertainer) are both quoted as describing CNBC as not "business friendly" enough.  Forget the fact that only a Robber Baron or sycophant could think that.  If you call yourself a "news" channel, you should be fact friendly, no more no less.

Sure, it will buy the credibility it cannot earn on its own, Murdoch will make sure of that, and the right-wing lapdogs that worship the almighty buck will be happy to buy in to that farce.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Q: The best predictor of future behavior?

A: past behavior

chharris7416

Actually, that's a good point -

MMFA PAST:  smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear

MMFA FUTURE: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear

Please join me in flagging this as spam.

I've never flagged anybody, and consider Billybob entertaining as long as he's trying to cobble together thoughts, but this new trick is just sad (he did a similar repeating thing with "cackle" somewhere else.)

I wish there was an alternative to flagging somebody completely, say, giving them a 20 word limit, or blocking endless copy & paste reruns.If forced to come up with original ideas, some of them might decide to just go out and play in the street.

Even a cursory review of your posts reveals a strong predilection for your calling everyone a "troll" or a "spammer".  You would have a little bit more credibility if you would be just a little bit more  reluctant to flame against everyone you disagree with.

Remember the boy who cried wolf!

Hope that helps! 

Was this cursory inspection the same type of effort you put into vetting The Federalist Society?

Performance art can be interesting, but I confess your "smear" work gives very little to the veiwer. You're a Post Modernistic Artist then?

I've heard many of the works of  this school need an interpreter to tell the buyer what they actually bought. You might consider hiring someone to do this, else we might have to critique it and I'm sure some of the plethera of sublties embedded therein will escape us.

Chow! Unless you've already eaten.

"Even a cursory review of your posts reveals a strong predilection for your calling everyone a "troll" or a "spammer"."

THAT IS A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT. 

IF YOUR "REVIEW" WAS MORE THAN JUST CURSORY AND INCLUDED THE OVER TWO YEARS THAT I HAVE FREQUENTED THIS SITE, YOU WOULD FIND THAT I HAVE NO PREDILECTION FOR CALLING PEOPLE NAMES IN THIS FORUM. 

I RARELY RESORT TO SUCH BEHAVIOR AND I ONLY USE THOSE TERMS WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETELY APT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT WAS. 

YOUR ACCUSATION OF A "STRONG PREDILICTION" IS FALSE AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN PROVE IT.

I hope THAT helps.

All the people who are interested in Fox are watching it already.  They might make some dent in CNBC, but so what.  Neither will have large audience, and neither will dent the ratings king: PBS The Nightly Business Report.  Check it out.

How about if just choose not to watch?  If enough people do that, it will go away on its own.

Many people, unfortunately, do not make informed decisions. 

I choose not to shop at Wal Mart because I chose to get informed.  I chose to learn about how Wal Mart treats its vendors.  I learned about what Wal Mart did to American companies like Rubbermaid and Vlassic.  I learned how Wal Mart uses the end of the aisle to reel you in, only to charge you the same price as other retailers.  I learned the truth behind the way Wal Mart "provides" health care coverage for its employees.

In order for people to make a conscious decision on whether or not to partake in something, they need information upon which to base that decision.

Peat90210,

So those who don't know all that crap about the evile Wal-Mart and an evile Fox business channel, can they get a V-chip to stop Fox from ever showing up on their boob-tube?  Will they flock now to K-Mart because of all the goodness and good will found there?  Will they even care?

Peatmoss, face it, people who look at a business channel or show are wanting information to help them with business decisions.  If the channel helps they will watch it, if it doesn't give them a product they need, they won't.

BillyB