But I can see why you consider Krugman to be liberal. Krugman cares about facts, and as we all know, facts have a liberal bias. If measured by the virtues of traditional American conservatism, which was all about, well, preserving what works rather than about being anarchists intent upon destroying government (the current Republican agenda in the United States), he would be conservative because of his vigorous defenses of capitalism and his opposition to changing government regulations that worked well for 50+ years… traditional conservationism is about opposition to change, and Krugman certainly has done that a lot over the past ten years.

But of course we don’t have traditional conservatives here in the United States anymore, just batshit crazy anarchists intent upon destroying government so that they can live in their capito-anarchist paradise. They are not true conservatives, they are revolutionary radicals no different from the anarchists of the late 19th century who tried to bomb the U.S. into being an anarcho-socialist paradise, even to the point of assassinating a President of the United States (McKinley). I have little truck with anarchists, I am far too aware of the fundamental mean-spiritedness of too many people to believe that anarchy — the current Republican policy here in America, which is all about destroying government — is a worthwhile goal. I have no patience with radicals of any stripe, and anarchists, being the most insane of all radicals, especially get my ire.

So, Mr. Duff, when did you become an anarchist? ;).

What may be confusing you is that the New York Times occasionally makes time to note what’s actually true in the real world, vs. the fictional world you right-wingers live in where unicorns are real, cotton candy grows on trees, and the U.S. has an actual left-wing mainstream media. Straying from the corral and occasionally stating that the Earth is, in fact, round, rather than reporting the controversy (“The round Earth theory: Opinions differ”) tend to irritate you flat-earthers. How *dare* they point out that, uhm, well, Saddam *didn’t* have a nuclear weapons program?! Granted, it took them *FIVE YEARS* to report such (and three years after Dear Leader’s own hand-picked inspection team reported the same), but still. Reporting the truth? Everybody knows that the truth has a liberal bias!

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

I did not personally watch Olbermann because I found him a bit… strident. I prefer Rachel Maddow’s evisceration-with-a-smile of right-wing loons, or Jon Stewart turning them into the punchline of jokes *using their own words*. But clearly there’s an audience for strident left-wing commentary, so it’s interesting to see whether we have a robust enough media industry left in America for Olbermann to pop up somewhere else. (Note that unlike the UK, which has right wing, left wing, and centrist media outlets, here in America we have right wing, righter wing, and ultra-batshit-lunatic-right-wing media… there is no U.S. newspaper like the Independent or Guardian).

— Badtux the Media Penguin

Two Democrats and two Republicans on the FCC voted for the merger. Only Michael Copps, the member who has shown reasonable foresight in the past, voted against it. And hence the public was robbed of one more opportunity for multiple media sources.

On my site I referred to the vote as “Copps and robbers.”

There is a built-in conflict of corporate interest in this arrangement. Comcast has to negotiate with the other media companies to have their shows on their cable system, and has its own shows to promote. It would obviously not charge itself for NBC Universal channels, but would it jack up the prices to other cable systems to make up the difference?

I can’t believe that anyone thought this was a good idea for competition or consumers.

As for why I call Fox an organ of the Republican Party rather than a news channel, well, Google for “fox news memo slant” and get oodles of memos by Fox News executives ordering their reporters to slant the news towards the Republican line… ’nuff said on that.

BTW, the biggest reason for the difference in ratings is that Sir Rupert Murdoch runs Fox News as a propaganda organ rather than a money-making enterprise, Fox News loses money each year because they pay cable companies to run Fox News on basic cable where everybody can get it. Meanwhile, MSNBC has to make a profit, thus charges cable companies the usual amount of money to carry it, thus is on premium cable. You have to pay extra to get MSNBC, you don’t have to pay extra to get Fox News. Does that make a difference? Hmm….

– Badtux the Ratings Penguin

Duffy, to paraphrase that infamous Republan (sic… an “ic” for an “ic”), Richard Nixon, you don’t have Olbermann to kick around anymore. He’s gone. Give it up, or be seen for the regressive fool you really are.

I was waiting for ‘Tux to do something so I could slip them in.

OT, or maybe not… I love those penguins!