Conservative talk radio called in all their chips to demand loyalists' support for 1/2 Hour News Hour, the Fox News Channel's "answer to The Daily Show," whose pilot, as we reported, aired Sunday night.
Limbaugh, who did a cameo appearance with Ann Coulter in a lead-in sketch, told the Ditto Heads: "The key is that it needs an audience."
It's the latest right-wing cause: " Korny Konservative Komedy: you vill vatch it." They've determined that what the right needs is a comedy show to promote their issues (the götterdämmerung of the Bush administration isn't funny enough, apparently).
Comedy has been working for liberals because comedians are writing with the comedy premise to be funny, not to promote something.
Keith Olbermann: "If you start out saying, ...this is going to be conservative comedy, or this is going to be liberal comedy, aren't you guaranteeing it‘s not going to be funny, because you‘re selling something, rather than trying to be funny? "
The whoremasters sounded desperate- pulling up his top, and flashing his ample orbs, Rush told his tricks: "I‘m going to be blatant here. ... in order for this show to have a chance of success, for these two pilots to be picked up and actually made into a regular series, with some substantive production values, and so forth, it needs an audience."
Michael Medved was pretty hard on most of the material, but defended the show as a mission, referring to it as a "cause."
"No, The 1/2 Hour News Hour doesn't count," Medved wrote in his blog, "as dazzling, deathless television, but if it fails -- particularly after the collapse of the Dennis Miller Show -- it will be a long, long time before right-wingers get another shot at entertaining our own troops via TV and demonstrating that conservatives do, after all, possess a sense of humor." (The italics are ours to show how the always-practical conservatives must justify this little piece of fluff not only as a political tool, but as a patriotically correct TV distraction for the troops).
After all that help, the heavily-promoted show did pretty well for Sunday night cable- way better than the preceding, Sean Hannity‘s Amerika. Known around Fox Plaza as .5HNH, the show drew just under a million and a half viewers- about a third of which was in the money demo, aged 25 to 54.
Unfortunately, getting the horse to the Konservative Komedy Korner couldn't make him stick around long enough to drink.
The audience peaked 11 minutes into the show. There were 648,000 younger viewers at 11 minutes after, and went straight down from there, reaching a nadir of 340,000 at the 27 minute mark, which doesn't bode well for getting that audience back next week.
Conservative flame blog Hog On Ice wrote: "Even in a world where the media are dominated by the left wing, you do NOT get twelve bad reviews to two good reviews just because you made fun of Hillary Clinton. This show SUCKS. You can't force your listeners to fill their eyes and ears with diarrhea every week until .5HNH becomes a success.
The 'source' thread has been concluded...sorry 'bout the outcome; I know it probably hurts, especially getting schooled by a dullard. Better luck next time; carry on as best as you can.
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 08:15 AM
"We're just giving conclusions..."
BTW who's 'we'; do you speak for someone more than yourself...I think you self-destructed
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 08:32 AM
"Puts . . . are those the same GAAPs that served Enron so well"
Poor Joanie, whiffin away.
GAAP would be Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Screw the little guy, hardly. I made the point that to better protect the public a 401 k is a much better device.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Joanie
Awhile back the thread was on Producers and people were throwing out the good vibes and I noted your comment regarding Tina
"...Sorry, accolades but not from me.
Posted by: joanie | January 29, 2007 at 09:56 PM"
Forgot to ask. Why do you have it in for the Producer of the Dave Ross Show, Tina. She runs a good show.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 25, 2007 at 09:46 AM
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ritter.htm
For those who might be interested in 'sources'; read and weep!
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 10:17 AM
" ...Poor Joanie, whiffin away. GAAP would be Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Though not the first on this blog to try to correct your ignorance, I will give it a another try:
GAAP + generally accepted accounting principles - plural - note: more than one.
Thus, Puts . . . are those the same GAAPs that served Enron so well?
Now thank me for helping you in your learnin'.
Duffman, you might want to find somebody a little smarter to emulate . . .
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 01:04 PM
Duffman: I never look at sites posted by people not smart enough to link them.
But, I'm sure you're kicking an old horse again about Ritter's internet escapade. No, not honorable.
What does that have to do with being right on Iraq and his expertise on Iran?
Until you conservatives get your cocks out of the sex sites and your heads into more intellectual and informational sites, we will have people like Bush and Cheney running things.
Wonder what your conservative god thinks of your so-called sources?
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Therefore, you are ingnoring the sources you so demanded...pretty close-minded. This 5(so-far)part series might just open your eyes; plenty of reading and 'sourced' to the max. Don't you get it; he 'flip-flopped' ...and reached conflicting conclusions. If you choose to ignore it, so be it.
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 01:25 PM
hot link it duff . . . I always do
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 01:35 PM
You're obviously more computer acclimated than I; I'm not sure how to do that or I would...dullard, remember.
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Hey, I taught Steve just a week or so ago . . . when you have the opportunity to learn something, take it. :)
I'll look at it.
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Would gladly welcome being schooled in that regard.
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Duffman, I may read this but I'm having a problem with the first six paragraphs already.
(First of all . . . I can't figure who's talking when . . . it is a very poorly organized site!)
But, Israel seems to be saying that Ritter is agreeing that there are weapons in Iraq in his Congressionalal testimony in 1998 but he isn't saying that. He's simply saying his mission is to find weapons . . . That first cited testimony tells me nothing and I don't see its relevance to the column at all.
Sorry, can't read it all today but I'm not sold so far.
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 02:00 PM
"Until you conservatives get your cocks out of the sex sites and your heads into more intellectual and informational sites, we will have people like Bush and Cheney running things."
Please don't paint me with that brush...as I can tell you I am definitely not of that ilk! [Might be more appropriate for your friend 'Ritter']
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Would you not agree that it is indeed a 'source'.
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 02:04 PM
go here and scroll down about a third of the way to the chart of tags. It is the second row. Under the column "code example" it tells how to do it.
When you try it out, the link should be black and if you click on it, it should take you to your link. If it does, use the back button to return to BW and post it.
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 02:06 PM
The moon is made of green cheese. Believe it. I said it. Joanie said it.
She is a source.
Now, Duff, we'll never be hungry again.
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Many thanks!
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM
I am not disrespecting your source. I was questioning what he is trying to say.
His citation says that Ritter's mission was to find WMDs. But, his analysis seems to be saying that Ritter admitted that there were WMDs to find.
There's a difference. Just because his mission was to find them didn't mean they were there to find . . . so I am a bit confused right now.
What do you think Israel is asserting here?
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 02:10 PM
Point taken, however if you read Israel's 5-part series in 'relative depth' - you might see that he has significant factual back up (i.e. Ritter's own words and actions).
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 02:12 PM
BTW: not that it has anything to do with anything, but were you aware of Ritter's arrest record?
Posted by: Duffman | February 25, 2007 at 02:14 PM
Yes, I referred to it above.
And regarding Ritter's own words. . . that's the problem. So far, I don't see where Ritter's words proved Israel's analysis. But, much more to read.
Have bookmarked it and will read it.
Leaving now . . . have a good day.
Posted by: joanie | February 25, 2007 at 02:44 PM