NBC = National Bizarro Channel

You say hello and I say goodbye.

You say hello and I say goodbye.

Following my earlier entry regarding NBC and its local affiliates’ ridiculously-biased coverage of the Hamas vs. Israel situation, I discovered that they doubled down their efforts last night.

My local Sacramento NBC affiliate, KCRA, did an entire segment called, “Israel War Crimes” last evening – and they must’ve used the phrase, “killed innocent civilians” half a dozen times.

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends – it’s the bizarro world of newscasting. Up is down, black is white, night is day. Everything is completely upside-down at NBC News. Innocent civilians killed by Israel? You know, that is known to happen when you fire rockets into a country – killing innocent civilians – and they fight back; and, for good measure, the instigator, as former President Clinton outlined, is adept at hiding themselves among those innocent civilians because they don’t care about protecting the human life in their own territory.

So how is it that Hamas hasn’t committed any war crimes in this scenario, NBC???

In other words, how stupid or deliberately contemptuous are you, NBC?

For good measure, this morning I caught some of Glenn Beck’s radio program and they were talking about the pregnant woman in Los Angeles who had to wait in traffic because the President was in town and heading to another fundraiser.

Huge story when you consider how much attention the Chris Christie bridge incident received at the national level. That was a governor of a State; this is the President of the United States. True, the intent wasn’t quite the same, but the effect certainly was – as, in the case of Christie and the bridge we were informed of people who experienced medical crises and couldn’t get the attention they needed. Same with this lady in L.A.

Yet, when I flipped over to the Today Show, there was nary of mention of this story. They were talking about the guy who Tweeted about the airline, yada yada. But the Christie story was so big – why didn’t this story get any national attention?

Because we’re in the bizarro world of news reporting, where NBC is concerned.

I’m not one to organize or encourage boycotts, and given that the Golf Channel is owned by NBC and there’s no chance in Heck that I’ll stop watching that – I can at the very least encourage you to boycott NBC News because believe me, they are not providing an accurate depiction of what’s really happening in the world as it matters to you.

You might try a different option, like Beck or maybe Al Jazeera.

Sterlingvision requires second opinion.

Worst sportscast ever.

Worst sportscast ever.

This is what it comes down to – if you are a New York Yankee fan who sometimes must rely on the radio broadcast to keep abreast of what’s happening, you absolutely cannot trust anything Yankee play-by-play man John Sterling says.

You need a second opinion. So basically you need to be in a sports chat with other fans who are watching the game to validate – or in many cases, invalidate – any claim made by Sterling. Tonight is merely a microcosm; it happens every game. When Yankee firstbaseman Brian McCann came to bat in the middle innings, Sterling told us that, earlier in the game, he’d “had a home run stolen from him” (by a leaping catch “over the wall” by the Texas Rangers outfielder).

I knew what I needed to do.

I immediately asked the Yankee Sports Yappers, “Because it’s Sterling I have to ask; did McCann really have a home run stolen from him earlier in the game?”

The replies came flooding in with a unanimous, “No.”

They explained the ball looked like it would’ve hit the wall.

There are multiple reasons for this happenstance. First, Sterling’s eyes don’t seem to be too sharp – as he often loses sight of the ball and misses home run calls, or thinks he sees a ball hit the ground that was caught by a fielder, etc. etc.

But there’s a bigger problem, which is that Sterling also has an infomercial to sell about the greatness of the New York Yankees. So tonight’s compelling storyline in a scoreless game (at the point he made the remark of McCann’s earlier at-bat) is that of the “hard luck” Yankees; they can’t catch a break. With that backdrop, it’s more dramatic to embellish what would’ve happened to McCann’s ball – i.e., it definitely would’ve been a home run.

What’s remarkable is that Sterling doesn’t care that people can record game or see the highlights later and refute that which he casually and matter-of-factly presents.

I mean we are already Yankee fans; ergo, we don’t need to be sold on the greatness of the Yankees. We just want to know what the hell is happening in the game. Is that too much to ask?

Oh and even if his cohort Suzyn Waldman sees the play (and replay) better than Sterling, she will never correct him on the air. So the listeners are the losers.

We always need to defer anything we hear until we can get a second opinion.

As the great NY Post columnist Phil Mushnick also offers, Sterling also presents a dichotomous view – i.e., on the one hand he tells us “you never know in baseball” – yet he so often definitively tells us exactly what would’ve happened (e.g., “That would’ve been a double play ball if the pitcher hadn’t touched it.”) or what will happen (e.g., with a runner at second base, “Now all they need is a basehit and they’ll score a run.”).

He’s also notorious for lacking in descriptive calls of balls and strikes – basically the primary thing he’s there to do for his listeners, e.g., “There’s a strike.” (not bothering to tell us if it was a swinging or looking strike, or what kind of pitch it might’ve been). Those are things we want to know because we can’t see it for ourselves; it helps us paint a picture. Sadly, the last thing you’d want is a picture painted by Sterling.

Tonight I also was treated to another classic Sterlingism. See, he also doesn’t care much about what certain terms in baseball actually mean – hence, I guess we are expected by him not to care about such petty things either. On that note, there is one definition for pitching a “shutout”. It is a complete game pitched by a starting pitcher in which he allows no runs.

Not to Sterling. He routinely tells you a starter “pitched a shutout” even when he didn’t finish the game. Tonight, during the 7th inning after Yankee starter Chase Whitley had departed the game, he said of him, “He pitched great; he pitched a shutout.”

Wow, that’s quite a feat; he pitched a shutout before the game was even over. Yeesh!

For good measure, I was also treated tonight to the daily dose of “Snide Suzyn” Waldman, who not only is onboard for the “Yanks are the greatest” infomercial, but she can’t seem to contain herself when it comes to snobbishly talking badly about every other major league team.

Tonight, she said of just-acquired (from the San Diego Padres) thirdbaseman Chase Headley something like, “Imagine how excited he must be. I mean the Padres don’t have many rabid fans. If the team wins, that’s nice; if not, they go to the beach.”

Wow, that’s quite a put-down of an entire city’s fans. What a pro! A class act all the way. (Stay classy, San Diego!)

Funny thing about both Sterling and Waldman, they also never notice all the empty seats in overpriced Yankee Stadium as they tell us that each game is a sellout, or when they casually offer, “45,000 fans disagreed with the umpire’s call”.

But that’s life for the listener when you’re forced to rely on Sterlingvision. It requires a second opinion.

Prez citizenship issue wasn’t solely a ‘birther’ conspiracy.

Indo-amnesia

Indo-amnesia?

Part of what this site is about is providing a complete picture whenever I hear the media leave out an important part of a news story.

So, in that regard, the guys on the Glenn Beck radio program were talking about conspiracy theories and the traction some of them have been getting lately. They mentioned the so-called “birther” conspiracy, which none of them believed, pertaining to those who questioned President Obama’s eligibility to be president based on whether he was actually born in Hawaii. They cited how this was a theory launched by Hillary Clinton – I’m not sure that’s quite accurate; it was a Philadelphia lawyer who was a Hillary supporter who filed the court case against the President’s eligibility but I don’t know of any evidence that he was put up to it by the Clinton campaign.

Anyway, I don’t think many people realize that this court case opened by Philip J. Berg provided not one, but two arguments against the then-Senator Obama’s eligibility. Though the “birther” part of it became the most renowned – conservative media like World Net Daily ran with it – there was a lesser-known second part of the case which related to Obama’s time as a child in Indonesia. (Sidebar: I just saw the acronym “VRWC” and had to look up what it meant – don’t you hate when you have to do that? I also had to look up the text-chat acronym “smh” recently, which means “scratching my head” – and VRWC stands for “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, go figure.)

Now, the argument went like this: Obama moved to Indonesia in the mid-late 60s and attended school there – supposedly during a time in which you could not attend an Indonesia school unless you were an Indonesian citizen. What’s more, you couldn’t become an Indonesian citizen unless you consciously renounced the citizenship of the country from which you came. So, then, if this is what happened with Obama, the question would be: how and when did he ever reclaim his renounced U.S. citizenship when he returned to America – i.e., did he go through the process that immigrants undergo to become citizens?

Just to be clear, I’m not endorsing this theory at all; I’m merely pointing out that there were two parts to the citizenship question. I’m going to loosely classify this as one of those common misconceptions like the “Play it again, Sam!” (that wasn’t the actual line in Casablanca) or the “I can see Russia from my house.” remark attributed to Sarah Palin (never said it). So, when you say “birther” conspiracy, you’re only half-right.

Here’s the funny thing, when I did a Google search on the Indonesian citizenship subject, the first article that came up was one from Beck’s own website, TheBlaze.com. So I think Beck was aware of this, he simply opted to only mention the “birther” part of the conspiracy – presumably because that’s the part people know.

Interestingly, TheBlaze.com article actually debunks the Indonesian citizenship argument; the short version is this: a child couldn’t renounce his citizenship in Indonesia, one could only do so as an adult. So that basically squelches that. (Actually, this was the first time I’d heard the debunking of it so even I learned something by bringing this up again.)

So if you never knew about the Indonesian part of the Obama citizenship question, now you know. You’re welcome.

Use of ‘Israel offensive’ is offensive.

Where NBC bias comes first.

Where NBC bias comes first.

Use of ‘Israel Offensive’ is offensive.

It’s the definition of insanity all over again. It’s the mainstream media’s same ol’ same ol’ portrayal of the goings-on in the Middle East, ad nauseam, over and over, yada yada. It never stops.

My local NBC affiliate as part of its daily roundup of world news, provided this update on the Middle East fighting:

“Israel continued its offensive in Gaza despite international calls for a truce.”

Wow! Biased much?

I question whether Sacramento anchor Dierdre Fitzpatrick even realizes how biased that line, dictated straight from NBC headquarters, really is. It’s simply a byproduct of the marching orders by which she operates. I mean they can’t all be Sharyl Attkisson; they do have their livelihoods depending on reading these types of hyer-biased headlines.

Where do I begin? How about: “calls for a truce”.

You can’t be serious!!! The international community can call for truces until they’re blue in the face; there’s one small problem. Only one side actually wants peace. As one guest on Glenn Beck’s program last week outlined, the Hamas side can’t even answer the question about peace. They don’t even have an answer. That’s because they have one simple goal: to complete wipe Israel off the map. When that happens, maybe they’ll declare peace.

Yet the media continues to present it as if there are two objective sides to the peace coin. I mean, what they’re ostensibly suggesting is that Israel should just sit back and be fired upon and not retaliate, because to do so wouldn’t be promoting peace.

I came up with a sports analogy, though in no way do I want to diminish the sober situation over there. So Hamas-Palestine fires rockets into Israel and Israel fires back. The media then portrays Israel as being on the “offensive”.

This is the equivalent of the sports referee who doesn’t see the guy who shoves someone on the field but then sees the guy he shoved retaliate with a shove back – and calls the penalty on the guy who retaliates for “instigating” the fight.

It’s a classic case – but with one stark distinction. The sports referee is innocent because he simply missed the first guy shoving because he was looking elsewhere (they ought to deploy instant replay to correct such calls, given they use replay to overturn every other conceivable call).

In the media’s case, they had to have seen who fired first. They couldn’t have missed it – hence their portrayal of an Israeli “offensive” is willfully malicious. It’s the distinction between ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. Theirs is a willful disinformation campaign for the explicit purpose of presenting Israel as the villain.

Here’s what strikes me, reverting to my original point about the definition of insanity. Even many “mainstream” people seem to understand what’s really happening over there, and who the instigators are. Here are two examples.

President Bill Clinton last week – an excerpt I heard on Friday’s Michael Medved show – outlined the Hamas stratagem in articulate fashion. They basically position themselves in a no-lose situation; they fire into Israel and then hide themselves behind innocent citizens, whose lives they care nothing about protecting. Then when Israel fires back, the world can blame them for “killing innocent civilians”. If they don’t fire back, Clinton said, they are made to look weak on the global stage.

A few years back, we even had a Hollywood comedy, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”. Incidentally, I recently gave props to director Dennis Dugan for his music choices but I should’ve also ascribed kudos for his courage in making a movie that wasn’t afraid to present a pro-Israel viewpoint. (One of my favorite movie lines of all-time was when the Arab-American said of other Americans, “They hate us,” to which the Israeli-American replied, “They hate us too – because they think we’re YOU.”)

So if these mainstreamers get it, then why does the so-called “mainstream” media, like NBC, continue to intentionally get it wrong? What do they have to gain when they can so obviously be refuted with evidence? I guess it’s simply that they don’t want to offend Arab-Americans and yet they don’t seem to worry about offending Jewish and Israeli-Americans (election after election, the Democrats win the Jewish vote, so I suppose the media thinks they are in the Left’s pocket).

Now, as I often do, I will disclose that I actually interned at KCRA Sacramento (NBC affiliate) almost 25 years ago. With that backdrop, I am disappointed that they toe the company line when it comes to NBC’s clear and unquestionable left wing bias on every occasion.

There’s one example I will never forget – though on this one I’m convinced that the KCRA anchor was doing his own editorializing even though it fits the NBC Left mode. The anchor was Gulstan Dart. In January 2009, he reported President George W. Bush’s last day in office this way:

“After eight tumultuous years as President, George W. Bush said goodbye today.”

As a result, I am going to use today’s example of NBC bias at KCRA to kickoff the Gulstan Dart President Obama-says-farewell countdown clock. We’re roughly 2.5 years away from the President’s final day in office, and I am counting the days until I tune in to see if Gulstan Dart presents his final day in office with a pejorative adjective like the “tumultuous” he ascribed to the Bush presidency. I mean, one would think that if Bush’s eight years were tumultuous then you can certainly say the same of our current President’s first 5.5 years.

We’ll have to wait a while to find out, but suffice it to say that when that day arrives, I’ll be watching you, KCRA and Gulstan Dart.

BBC does British better.

BBC 1, ESPN 2

Unofficial Open coverage rankings: BBC 1, ESPN 2

As I’ve noted before, the British Open, since I was about 11 years old, has been my Super Bowl. I have also noted recently that when it comes to media coverage of this prestigious event, nobody does it better than BBC Sport.

Now, even though I’m about to condemn ESPN for how its coverage pales in comparison to that of BBC, I do have to give them proper respect for giving us the option on their Watch ESPN Internet App to watch BBC’s coverage.

Also, there’s probably a huge caveat in this comparison, which is that BBC’s coverage is commercial free. I imagine that’s probably because the Great Britain television model renders BBC to be like our PBS. I’m sure that’s how they get around not showing commercials. But right out of the gate that’s one reason alone you should opt for the BBC feed – you don’t miss anything due to commercials.

But here’s the thing, even if you take that out of the equation, you still get more golf on BBC than on ESPN during the windows in which ESPN isn’t on ad breaks.

On BBC, you see golf shot after golf shot, followed by more golf shots. It is “NBG” coverage: Nothing But Golf; as much as can be shown. Sure, you can question which players they choose to showcase during the first two rounds because no one can show them all. What you can’t argue is the fact that all you see are golf shots.

More striking is what you don’t see: the BBC commentators covering the event. Not once. (Granted, I’m never up quite early enough to see the kickoff of the BBC coverage; actually I don’t think we can see their kickoff because they start even before ESPN does and we are only privy to the BBC feed starting when ESPN’s coverage begins.)

ESPN, on the other hand, for prolonged stretches thinks we’d rather be watching them talk about golf than to see the golf itself. Not only do they cut away from live action entirely to show pre-recorded feature stories, but they also bring in their feature story report to tell us things on camera that he could just as easily tell us as we’re watching live golf action. But no, that’s not the ESPN way. They have something they want to tell you and, by God, they want your undivided attention. They won’t let live sports interfere with their mission. Their steadfast that way.

For good measure, ESPN also feels the need to try to distract us with an incessant bottom-of-the-screen crawl – at times it can even impede the view of the golf ball. As Mushnick often writes, it’s the “any stat, any time” phenomenon – as their ticker includes scores according to just about any order imaginable, i.e., scores in order of World Ranking, scores for past champions, etc.

BBC doesn’t see the need for such distractions.

The only way to draw these comparisons is to watch both networks simultaneously, which I have done each day. So, case-in-point. On Friday, Sergio Garcia was shown live as he hit his approach shot to the 2nd green. He holed that shot for an eagle. BBC was in the right place at the right time; at that point in the tournament, Garcia was two shots out of the lead. His approach should’ve been shown live.

Ah, but ESPN missed Sergio’s spectacular shot. Why? They were engulfed in “Tiger’s on the first tee” mode. That meant we saw Tiger’s walk to the first tee, followed by – at the exact moment Garcia struck his shot – a two-shot of commentators Mike Tirico and Paul Azinger gabbing about what we might expect from Tiger’s second round. Sheesh!

One last point – and I covered this at length last year – the other thing BBC gets right is its leaderboard. Yes, there is a right way to display players whose scores relative to par are tied while the round is in progress. That way is to list the player who has played the most holes first. Such positioning actually affects how tied players will be paired together the following round (something CBS’ Jim Nantz always covers at the end of 3rd rounds – who will be paired with whom the following day, and when it comes to ties it is determined by which player finished his round first), hence it is the proper way to display tied players on the leaderboard. You’d imagine the Brits are more sticklers for tradition than we Yanks, so they show leaderboards the way they should be shown.

But not ESPN. They instead contort themselves to list whomever they think is the biggest name first. Tiger always moves to the top – even at one point when he was tied with Adam Scott who is ahead of him (and every other player on the planet) in the Official World Rankings. Okay, we get it. Tiger always comes first in American coverage – but they have now taken it to a ridiculous extreme, whereby they decide to list, say, Charl Schwartzel before, I don’t know, Victor Dubuisson – even when Dubuisson has played more holes. Why when there is a simple formula that would solve that problem?

There is actually a reason to show the player who’s played more holes first. Case-in-point, at this moment on Sunday, Marc Leishman is in the clubhouse at -12. Hence, he’s the “clubhouse leader”. Hence, his name should be shown first among those at -12.

So, of course, ESPN is showing his name last, with Fowler then Furyk ahead of him. Bigger names, you see! That’s how not to do it!

Why, because if there’s anything worth doing wrong, ESPN will do it – which is why I recommend, no, I strenuously recommend you go with the BBC, aka “International” feed. Oh, and if you enjoy Peter Alliss’ guest commentary on the ESPN side, fear not; you get more of him on the BBC feed.

You’ve heard of “Breakfast at Wimbeldon”. Well, when it comes to the British Open, the BBC is what’s for breakfast.

Oh but there is one nice thing about ESPN’s Open coverage, which is that they left Chris Berman back-back-back-back in the States.

Bud could learn from R&A

Never in America

Never in America

How do you like that? A nasty storm was coming in so the R&A moved up the tee times and salvaged the 3rd round and the fans onsite. 

As NY Post columnist Phil Mushnick can attest, this is something you wouldn’t see in what he calls “Baseball in the age of Bud” (MLB Commissioner Bud Selig).

Granted, the losers were West Coast Americans like myself who got up at 5:20 AM thinking I was an hour ahead of the leaders teeing off, only to find that they’d already played 8 holes. I actually hadn’t felt so cheated since the ABC JFK Jr.’s plane is missing (1999) fiasco – or during the 2005 Masters when the entire tournament swung during the Saturday non-coverage window (also affected by weather). At least this one was covered, albeit earlier than most of us in America were awake.

Only thing I wonder is this: I had an exchange with Frank Nobilo on Twitter where I questioned the decision to move up the tee times; I wanted to see if the storm really materialized as predicted. He said yes it did; actually he said, “Did you not see Noah building the ark out there at 4:30 local time?”

Well, I didn’t see that because by that time I had turned off ESPN’s replay coverage. So did ESPN show the heavens opening up or were they trying to sell us replay coverage as live coverage? You tell me. I don’t trust them with anything, so I can only hope they did the right thing.

I was glad their replay started with the leaders at the first tee. I thought that was perfect; because that was likely what most of us had missed. But no, that was short-lived and too good to be true (and too good to be ESPN); after two holes they cut to the 11th, which I’d already seen.

Practice? Tighlman’s talkin’ about PRACTICE???

Liverpool, home of 'Tigermania'

Liverpool, home of ‘Tigermania’

Golfchannel’s Kelly Tighlman kicked off the Saturday 2:30 PM Golf Central Pregame show with this self-fulfilling (and insulting) prophecy:

With 2 majors, a European and PGA Tour event going on around the globe, how is it a practice round is making such big news today? Well, it’s Tiger Woods.

Of course the correct answer to her question is, “Because we decided to make big news out of a practice round.”

Tighlman and company then proceeded to devote fully seven minutes recapping and discussing Woods’ abbreviated (he skipped holes 7-12) practice round. So, with four significant golf tournaments taking place, Golfchannel decided to devote the first quarter of its golf program… talking about practice!

It’s two of my biggest pet peeves in news coverage rolled into one pathetic presentation. First is the obvious “all Tiger, all-the-time” (Phil Mushnick quote, not mine) coverage which presumes that no one else playing golf even matters. We’ve covered that one ad nauseam.

Second, and even more irritating is when the media plays innocent when propelling news stories to the top of the headlines, as if it happens by osmosis – i.e., they have nothing to do with how a story becomes “big news”.

THEY DECIDE WHAT’S NEWS AND WHAT ISN’T!!!

You know, like when you hear the news anchors tell us, “It’s the story that just won’t go away.”

As if the news story is hanging around the front door of the news station and won’t stop pestering them unless they keep reporting it.

Please, we’re smarter than that, Kelly. I’d like to say, as Mark Jackson often does, “You’re better than that.”

But I can’t because, sadly, you aren’t.

Since when is Zantac a P.E.D.?

Not on roids, just drawn that way.

Not on roids, just drawn that way.

This Zantac ad made my stomach hurt.

Remember the adage about how media and advertising perpetuate images of beauty to which regular people can’t live up – i.e., encouraging disorders like anorexia or bulimia and the like?

Well, nevermind the real-life waif supermodels, have you noticed how ridiculously cartoon characters associated with advertising are drawn?

I mean, check out the guy above. I suppose Zantac is trying to say that it’s product has the strength to fight heartburn, but gee whiz!! I mean the only way a real life human being could like this character is to max out on steroids. Is that the message Zantac wants to portray to its audience?

We’ve seen it before. In recent years, there was another strapping male character whose product I can’t recall; looked very much like Mr. Zantac.

On the female side, I’ve already posted about the horrifyingly svelt Esurance character below. I mean, if you were to blow her up to life size, she’d have maybe an 8-inch waist.

esurance

 

Why, oh why, is this necessary??? They’re cartoon characters. You can’t just make them look like normal people – you have to make them into freaks? Does this really help to sell the product?

Ah well, the beat goes on I guess.

Life imitates Life… as a House.

Familiar suit

Familiar dispute

As I do every July, I regularly check Hoopshype.com for the latest NBA free agent rumors. On this day I came across a familiar storyline. NBA star Kevin Garnett was being sued for making additions to his house which are allegedly blocking his neighbor’s signature Malibu ocean view.

Almost immediately, I realized I’d seen that plot before. Soon after, I realized it wasn’t in real life but in a movie starring another Kevin.

Admittedly, I had to IMDB the name of the film; it was Life As A House – not only starring Kevin Kline but also featuring Kristen Stewart and that Annakin Sykwalker dude. Though I remembered it being set somewhere in Marin County or the Bay Area, according the IMDB synopsis, it too is set in Southern California.

This sort of thing probably happens all the time down there in So Cal; nonetheless, we’ll see if anyone else picks up on this example of life imitating art.

Fox News trumpets skewed poll.

Bolling for bias

Bolling for bias

Filling in for Sean Hannity, Fox News Channel’s Conservative stalwart host Eric Bolling repeatedly spent his broadcast touting a Quinnipiac poll that supposedly indicates that people think President Obama is “the worst president since World War II.”

Right off the bat, I was suspicious. Then, they showed the poll results. To the question, “Who was the worst president since World War II” – in first place was President Obama at 33%.

In second place? You guessed it: George W. Bush at 28%.

What does that tell you? That a significant percentage of the people polled are probably too young to remember few if any presidents before the last two. That’s a bit suspicious when the current president finishes first and his predecessor second.

Heck, they may as well have asked who the best president since World War II is; they’d have probably gotten the same results. Even better, they could’ve asked, “Do you remember any presidents before Obama and George W. Bush?”

Come to think of it, if a poll were conducted today that asked the question, “What’s the greatest sitcom of all time,” I get the sense that “Big Bang Theory” would finish ahead of “I Love Lucy” – for the same reason.

It is somewhat noteworthy that Nixon was third and Carter fourth – and they have long been known as bad presidents. But that at least shows a modicum of legitimacy, in that at least the top 4 worst presidents weren’t merely the last four presidents (Obama, G.W. Bush, Clinton, G.H. Bush).

Nonetheless, for Bolling to be citing this poll as if it’s really telling is a massive stretch propelled by his obvious bias – which he proudly displays on a regular basis on Fox’s The Five and Cashin’ In.

Go ahead and buttress Conservative ideology with logical arguments and solid evidence, Eric. But when you give credence to an obviously-skewed poll like this one, you lose credibility.

Just Google “Quinnipiac Poll” like I just did and you’ll see plenty of other publications supporting my point.

Nice try, Eric. Better luck next time.