Do More Now Listen To Limbaugh Than Watch Network News?

Viewership for the week of May 3 was a combined 19,410,000 for the ABC, CBS and NBC network newscasts according to the trade site MediaBistro.Com

This puts them behind radio talk show giant Rush Limbaugh who has 20 million plus weekly listeners according to Wikipedia citing the trade publication Talkers Magazine.

The breakdown is: 7,430,000 viewers for Brian Williams at NBC Nightly News; 7 million for ABC World News With Diane Sawyer; and 4,980,000 for Katie Couric at CBS Evening News.

Newsbusters.org did a little research and found that that is a combined loss of 1.67 million viewers from the week of May 4, 2009.

And 70 percent of the viewers of network news is over the age of 54.

The good news for the nets is they still beat Sean Hannity who has 16 million radio listeners and 1.9 million viewers of his Fox News Channel show.

OTOH, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Dave Ramsey, who are tied for 6th place among radio talk show hosts with about 6.25 million weekly listeners, handily spank Katie Couric.

Now, there is a bit of apples vs. oranges in making these comparisons since radio audience is determined by Arbitron and is based on unduplicated listeners, while the TV networks use Nielsen Media Research which reports an average of nightly viewership over the week with obviously most of the same people watching  each night.

A year ago, however, the answer as to who touches more would not be debated.

 

Do More Now Listen To Limbaugh Than Watch Network News?

Do More Now Listen To Limbaugh Than Watch Network News?

William Thrasher Back On Job After Typical L_beral Sh_t

Philadelphia Police Officer William Thrasher has been reinstated with 13-months back pay after an arbitrator determined he probably didn’t utter the phrase “TNS” in the company of a Temple University journalism student on a ride-along as Thrasher patrolled a filthy, crime-ridden, no-snitch North Philadelphia neighborhood.

Thrasher is white and TNS apparently stands for “typical n_gger sh_t”

The arbitrator, Charles D. Long Jr., made the determination after the journalist, Shannon McDonald, refused to turn over her notes and in, his opinion, was “defensive, deflective and difficult” as a witness.

Thrasher was 24 at the time of the January 2009 ride-along and had two years on the force. Miss McDonald also quoted Trasher as describing the area as “disgusting” and saying “it’s like they’re animals”.

Thrasher was fired by Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey in April 2009

Now, Thrasher has denied saying TNS and said that the animal reference concerned the perpetrators of a particular homicide and not the neighborhood but just suppose he was actually guilty. Should a young man have his dreams dashed for words said in frustration?

What would Martin Luther King Jr. say?

It seems that Mayor Michael Nutter, who is black, and Ramsey, who is at least part black, missed a huge opportunity to improve race relations in a city known for racial polarization by failing to come to Thrasher’s defense.

Black leaders are going to have to come understand that racial tolerance, compassion and mercy is a two-way street.

Again, what would Martin Luther King Jr. say?

William Thrasher Back On Job After Typical L_beral Sh_t

William Thrasher Back On Job After Typical L_beral Sh_t

 

Smartest Liberal Publication In The World Covers The President

Smartest Liberal Publication In The World Covers The President — Liberals really are stupid. They are the kind that would tell jokes about Jewish merchants at a discussion on the problems of the Mideast. The problem for the rest of us is that they don’t realize this, and in fact consider themselves rather brilliant. This means that they close their minds and  inure themselves to correction to such a degree  that they  viciously attack those who attempt to provide it. After all, those who deign to disagree with them have to have some kind of serious character flaw such as racism or misogyny.

Anyway liberals really are stupid. The crown jewel of the liberal media establishment is the Washington Post which provides guidance to liberal politicians, bureaucrats, academics and lesser media figures throughout the world.

Yesterday, they ran a story about President Obama pushing alternative energy in Iowa. In lieu of the President’s pix, however, they used one of Malcolm X.

Really.

Expect President Obama to soon send National Security Adviser James Jones to Arizona to deal with our own border crisis. And expect his remarks to go something like this .

Smartest Liberal Publication In The World Covers The President

Philadelphia Inquirer Circ Jumps (Ha Ha)

This year’s spring report by the Audit Bureau of Circulations showed a  jump to 356,189 readers for the Philadelphia Inquirer making it the 11th largest newspaper in the country.

The report covered the six months ending March 31, 2010.

Last year’s March report had the broadsheet at 288,298.

So what accounts for this wonderful bit of news for the ink-stained wretches on North Broad Street? The Philadelphia Daily News is now  considered an edition of the Inky for the  purposes of counting circulation.

Last year, The Daily News had a circulation of 99,103.

So does 99,103 + 288,298 = 356,189? Oh let’s forget the math and not harsh anybody’s buzz. The Philadelphia Inquirer is now the 11th largest paper in the country!!!

AP Anti-Pope Distortions

AP Anti-Pope Distortions — First The New York Times , now Associated Press.

Once respected conveyors of information have now become archetypes of bigots.

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors. It was quickly shown to be false.

On April 9, AP put on the wires that the future Pope Benedict “resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children” in 1985.

Well, lo and behold, it seems those pleas were made by the pervert priest himself , Father Stephen Kiesle, who was seeking dispensation from his vow of celibacy.  It seems Cardinal Ratzinger was not inclined to let him off the hook. You think AP might have  thought that worthwhile to mention that tidbit?

Further, abuse cases at the time were the responsibility of the local diocese, in this case Oakland.

This means, IOW, that Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to remove Kiesle from the ministry. That, however, doesn’t matter in this case because the Diocese of Oakland had already done so after he was after he was arrested in 1978 on misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct and received three years’ probation in a plea bargain. Kiesle, however, went on to do volunteer work which Oakland Bishop John Cummins kiboshed upon learning that he was doing so.

Kiesle was laicized two years after the controversial letter, on the eve of his 40th birthday which was in keeping with the then policy  of not granting dispensations to priests under the age of 40.

Kiesle was convicted in 2004  of molesting a girl in 1995–note: this was eight years after his defrocking. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He lives today in  California as a registered sex offender.

And has anyone ever wondered at why the same crowd that expresses so much outrage at Pope Benedict is equally outraged at the Boy Scouts policy of not allowing homosexual scout leaders?

AP Anti-Pope Distortions

AP Anti-Pope Distortions

New York Times Lies About Pope

New York Times Lies About Pope — I guess it’s a sign of the Times. The self-esteemed Grey Lady, that paper that likes to bill itself as America’s paper of record appears to have been caught in blatant falsehoods regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s involvement in the priest pedophilia coverup.

Father Raymond J. de Souza, a chaplain at Queen’s University in Ontario, spells it out.

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

 • The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

 • The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover.  He is prima facie not a reliable source.

• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland.  Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).

 • A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.

To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.

The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why.

Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.

15 May 1974

Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.

12 September 1974

Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.

9 July 1980

Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.

17 July 1996

More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.

It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession requir
ed notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.

10 September 1996

Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.

24 March 1997

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.

14 May 1997

Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.

Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.

12 January 1998

Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.

6 April 1998

Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.

13 May 1998

The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.

30 May 1998

Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.

19 August 1998

Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.

21 August 1998

Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral

New York Times Lies About Pope

Things You Might Have Missed

Things that you may not have seen in the local media:

The amendments to Obamacare approved by the House of Representatives yesterday in a  220-207 vote includes ending government subsidies to banks for making student loans giving all lending responsibilities to the federal government. Do you think the feds are going to be as diligent as the banks in chasing down deadbeats and who will have to cover the uncollected debt?

Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of Globovision, Venezuela’s only remaining TV channel that takes a critical line against President Hugo Chavez was arrested Thursday and charged  with making remarks “offensive” to the president. Will any prominent Democrat speak out against this?

Oh yeah, and North Korea has threatened nuclear strikes on South Korea and the United States and has apparently just sunk a South Korean ship.

Turn The Light Off For ObamaCare, Inky Covers Tea-partyers


Turn the lights off for ObamaCare. If you don’t you may as well turn them off for the Democratic Party.

Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “Tea-party activists who oppose the legislation outnumbered supporters, with about 200 sign-wielding, slogan-shouting tea partyers attending a morning news conference before Obama arrived” regarding President Obama’s socialism sales pitch at  Arcadia (nee Beaver College) University, yesterday. The story, which ran on page B-1, included a large color photo of the tea-party protesters.

When the Inky stops covering for the left, the game is over.

Granted, they ran a puff-piece beneath it about how Obama’s supporters came out in force, but the treatment in totality was far from the Pavlovian salivating that  the paper gave us in its coverage of the Young Man from Wherever in the Summer of ’08.

Arcadia, btw, did not allow protesters on campus.

Why Does The Left Hate Fox News?

Why Does The Left Hate Fox News? — Fox and Friends this morning featured a report that solid intelligence was obtained from the “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit on Christmas, and that he has been cooperating with investigators.

Fox indicated that the reason for the cooperation was that the rather gentle handling  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received during his arrest caused his Nigerian family to support the FBI in encouraging the cooperation.
 
The story was given good play and treated as significant and could be considered  vindication for the Obama Administration’s policy regarding the treatment of terrorists captured in these situations, a policy which was roundly criticized by conservatives.
 
So why does the left hate Fox News? 
 
It’s not because Fox is unwilling to criticize conservatives because it does.
 
It’s not because Fox is unwilling to give liberals a voice because it does.
 
It’s not because Fox is unwilling to give liberals credit for success because it does.
 
It’s because Fox is willing to criticize liberals — which is something no other broadcast news organization is willing to do.
 

 

Here are seven huge flaws in the way liberals think as per John Hawkins:

 

1) Liberals believe they can change human nature.
2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies.
3) Liberals don’t have enough respect for our culture and traditions:
4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy (i.e. they believe that those who agree with them are on the side of the angels regardless of how they behave and those who disagree with them are evil regardless of how they behave or their reasoning. This means they are willing to defend those ranging from the blatantly corrupt such as Barney Frank or Charles Rangle to the tyrannically brutal such as Che Guevera or Hugo Chavez.
5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people.
6) Liberals have too much faith in government.
7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not.

 

The liberals who hate Fox are no different than members of a cult. They hate Fox not because it is unfair or dishonest but because it dares criticize their comfortable religion.

Inky Uphappy Over Free Speech Ruling

The Philadelphia Inquirer  — in its news stories and opinion columns — seems unhappy with yesterday’s 5-4 ruling in which the Supreme Court said that well a privately funded documentary regarding a political figure is just as protected by the First Amendment as, well,  a 60 Minutes documentary regarding a political figure.

The decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission  overturns laws prohibiting corporations and unions from contributing to political campaigns.

Sounds bad? Maybe until you realize that what it does is level the field a little between, say, the owner of a chain of pizza shops and George Soros, and would allow that pizza shop owner to attempt to influence an election to the same degree as Philadelphia Media Holdings LLC.

Here’s what the court says:

Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban not withstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

Why would the Inky take issue?

And while on the topic of the Inky, today’s editorial concerns the Luzerne County judge scandal. Still no mention of the party that starts with the letter D.