Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Piers Morgan should send Alex Jones a Christmas Card; The Abomination of CNN is Official

CNN, how sad, how mighty you have fallen.

You have become an embarrassment to TV journalism. First, Kathy Griffin, and now this.

You've become so desperate for ratings and notice that it took Alex Jones to help out your asinine, David Frost-lite buffoon, Piers Morgan.

Morgan should give Jones a key to Atlanta. Hell, even Ted Turner has to be shaking his head. This, folks, is an abomination of the first degree. CNN used to be relevant--now, in its eager attempt to garner attention and traction, it has resorted to allowing a crass alleged comedienne simulate oral sex on its core air talent and make Piers Morgan look like an amateur sent in from the London Little Leagues.

Want more about this from my side? I'll probably surprise you if you listen to my take today on the radio show from 1: 30 -3 PM PT Live. Listen here for an embellishment TODAY!!

*Follow me on Twitter


  1. Your bias is showing. Or your envy.

    Piers comes off as a calm and rational interviewer. Jones looks like a lunatic.

    Perhaps you should stick to radio commentary on this blog and save your opinion pieces for the twelve people who listen on your 1000 kw station.

  2. You are full of crap, I think Piers Morgan came out the winner here. Your boy Alex Jones sounded like the buffoon he already is. It takes courage to put someone that disagrees with you on your own show. All you have been bringing to "your show" are the people you want to kiss up to.

  3. The antidote for this type of television is Al Jazeera. Objective journalism. Not a freak show. I like Piers, but the vulgar New Year's Eve show was too much, and now letting Father Coughlin air his weird views? What's next? Glenn Beck round 2? Mind-numbingly stupid.

    1. A fill in on KGO this weekend during Copeland's show had a great segment on Al Jazeera and the news in general. If I can find a way to post it I will.

    2. that fill in was me, david w. kgo website probably has that information.

      people who tout the 2nd Amendment are morons. that's my base take on it.

      i liked piers more when he started than i do these days, but i don't watch cable news, so what the fuck do i know?

  4. If Alex Jones had been in a straight jacket during that entire segment I wouldn't have found it the least bit strange.

  5. This guy did a great job, like many of the gun nuts in gun threads, of setting back his cause. Perfect spokesperson. Shouts down his opponents and refuses to answer questions, only answers in other question.

    11,000 gun deaths in the US vs 35 gun deaths in the UK

    BOOM. Game over.

  6. Ok, ok Rich. We get it. You hate Morgan. You've hated him from day one. You'd rather have that old fossil Larry King shuffling through CNN's halls tossing softball after softball at his guests. We get it. But your hatred for evertying Morgan touches has so clouded your judgement you can't see anything he's involved with straight.

    I watched the show. Morgan handled things fine under the circumstances. CNN does deserve some blame for booking that loon to face Morgan and show EP Jonathan Wald deserves some of the blame for following the "any publicity is good publicity" theory for guest booking. But mostly the reason that interview was such a train wreck was entirely due to the guest Jones.

  7. Morgan couldn't have slid a word in sideways if he had wanted to. The guy was a lunatic! Perhaps Morgan realized Jones would self destruct on his own without his assistance.

    I wouldn't want Jones speaking on behalf of anything I would feel strong about. Idiots like him don't help the toters cause at all!

  8. Lieberman, I give you this: You've got freaking balls. Little balls, maybe, but balls nonetheless.

    What a disaster you are. OK, go sign the "Deport Piers Morgan" petition that's online. We get it. You are a hater. Rightfully so in many cases. However, who the hell are YOU of all people to do what you did on the air "all over the world" (horseshit)on little KOMY?

    You're an embarassment!

    To try to hide the fact that Alex Jones has been a bartered advertising spokesman for Michael Zwerling and "Youngevity" -- inspiring a separte VIDEO on the Lieberman website, and KSCO, is SHAMELESS. Snake oil, with Alex Jones dishing it out on what is nothing more than Genesis Communications - the same one that Kareluses for his little 5 station part-time syndication.

    How arrogant of you. Maybe your buddy, Eric Rhodes, would like to know about your ethics, Richie! Same with the other trades you right you own publicity for. Maybe I'll do it for you.

    Then, to comare yourself with Ronn Owens when Billy got the best of your non-stop interuptions and tripe? Bashing KGO, again, if not rightfully so, but putting your "legend" on the air on your second day? Are you nuts?

    Your anger about how you are the little train that could was HORRID. No Jim Brown as promised (wrong hour), the "I don't even work here, this is only my second day" line was priceless. The gremlins and your rage! Man!

    Again, if it wasn't for Billy, you'd have NO CALLS again. You're a ballbusting bully, Rich.

    To have these illusions (or, delusions) of grandeur are funny. You need to learn, first, to tell the truth, be accurate, don't make crap up and realize that all media all the time to a very small town is boring. You'll be lucky to last six weeks. Maybe you need to sign Ike's Sandwiches up now whyile you have the chance. What happened to Vetucci? Did he bail on you, too? Big Vinnie, you're becoming a South Bay media clown in your own right. Own it, baby. Yeah, I can think of several who could do it against you or with you. They won't do it, as you do, for free. Good luck, dude.

  9. This guy set gun rights back many years; I'm no fan of Piers but I don't have a hate-on for him either. For all the lunatics like him out there, this argument should be used against any of them: if the black helicopters and all the firepower the U.S. can muster is going to come down on our ass someday, then why would you defend to the death the rights of such an obviously rotten country? These guys are so irrelevant; they're practically outside the human race.

  10. I dunno, Rich, I think Morgan found the issue he can rant about, like Lou Dobbs on immigration or Ed Schultz on union-busting or Glenn Beck on facts.

    Only, Morgan doesn't rant. The fun in watching him comes from his Edgar Kennedy slow boil. He takes inspiration from Joe Pine. It's what made that old SNL Point/Counterpoint skit so effective. ("Jane, you ignorant slut." "Dan, you pompous ass.") Maintain civility until your head is about to explode.

    Morgan pulls it off playing to a Wednesday matinee crowd who believe an aquiline nose and a British accent grant you the favor of social class. Nice work if you can get it, and I commend Sir Piers (see: "snowball in hell") for recognizing the talents that his lack of education and unholy mentoring have spawned.

    Nevertheless, I am nothing if not practical. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then Morgan is doing God's work on earth.

  11. I look forward to seeing the purse-lipped,peeping tom Piers(see hacking scandal) face a more than worthy opponent, Larry Pratt of Gunowners of America . I predict that once again, Pratt will leave Morgan sputtering something about "have you ever been properly loved, you stupid , stupid man?" I think it's friday.

  12. Rich,
    The way biases drive your criticism really undermines you credibility.

    Morgan adeptly stays out of the way and allows a gun nut to make an jackass of himself.

    I don't understand how you can expect the public to be receptive to your broadcasts when you are so narrow-minded and opinionated about other performers. Also I'm feeling more than a whiff of resentment toward the success of others.

  13. I'm shocked crazy ass Christine Craft has not come on here to defend Alex Jones. Her rants on this forum after the CT massacre were the equivalent of Jones' performance yesterday. I agree with other posters, Rich's constant attacks on Piers appear as plain petty jealousy. Btw Rich, I did not miss a single one of your weekend shows but I've now missed both of your weekday shows. From my perspective this time slot is a loser....

  14. i like alex jones but ya gotta realize, alex is tight with the radio station that rich is now on, so..... do the math.

  15. jones starts a drive to get piers kicked out of the country...gets over 100k signatures

    thats news

    piers had him on because its cool to confront the moron that hates you

    stern did it all the time....made for great radio

    this made for great tv because the cnn audience saw jones for what he is...either a lunatic...or a guy who makes his bones portraying a lunatic

    piers did well

    SUICIDE MURDER PILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    gonna be green days next big hit

  16. What is it about owning a gun that makes one feel "brave" and "tough" to shout down those they disagree with? Very little civil discourse on the subject, but that seems to be the way we are at the moment on a lot of subjects.
    I do believe a replay of the previous nights Daily Show would beat Morgan live if Comedy Central would make the move.

  17. Re: Anonymous @ 8:31 AM

    "What is it about owning a gun that makes one feel brave and tough...?"

    Same thing that makes somebody in a large pickup or SUV feel brave and tough while tailgating a Prius.

    As for Piers Morgan, he is definitely exploiting the gun issue. I agree with him on the substantive gun control issues, but he his sensationalizing the subject by booking guests that he can justifiably call idiots. However, I've seen him do many outstanding interviews with mainstream public figures that have been outstanding -- every bit as good as David Frost, Charlie Rose or CSPAN'sBrian Lamb. JW

  18. People who need to carry guns for protection seem like pussies to me.

    Europe has the same level of depression, same movies, same video games, all that shit. Less guns. Much less death. There's no real argument against that.

    You want to own a gun? Own a gun. I don't give a shit. It's your "right." Whatever floats your boat. But if you can tell me that the 1st Amendment can be limited by things like "free speech zones" then it only follows that the much more outdated 2nd Amendment can be limited by the types of guns people have, the access to guns, and the laws limiting their use.

    Now please don't tell me that there will "still be guns in the hands of criminals" because when you say that you're really talking about urban youths, aka, black kids. They're not the ones blasting white people in schools and movie theaters, which is the reason this is an issue now.

    So...yeah, go own your gun. Feel tough. Go shoot an animal. Grow hair on your balls, and all that. But stop talking bullshit nonsense about how wrong it is to limit access to certain types of guns, or to have no digital registry/database. Fucken aye, I can access my entire life by my phone, but there can't be a digital registry. Awesome plan.

    -David Weintraub

  19. David, how would a "digital registry" have had any impact on the Connecticut shootings? You talk about the hirsute scrotums of gun owners(how would you know?),be advised that millions of American women are also gun enthusiasts.The young mother in the news who just successfully defended herself and her young twins with her firearm, was not armed because she was desirous of either growing a penis or hairy scroti. She did manage to save her life and her kids' lives.
    You might find it instructive to read the 2nd amendment case law, at least from the Supreme court, to get a sense of what that phrase about rights not being "infringed", really means.

    1. wasn't aware that i said a registry would have stopped newtown. interesting.

      anyway, i can are less about your take on guns. i read it. not interested.

    2. well anon,formerly David Weintraub,don't bother to do the actual hard work it takes to be informed about something you talk about. Leave that to the professionals.
      You see, the Supreme Court interprets the intent of the Constitution and how any proposed gun laws are implemented or not. It isn't about"my take on guns", it's about federal law and reality.
      There are sources that summarize decisions that would't take you too long to read,or perhaps so. pity

    3. It wouldn't take you long to re-read what I wrote. Probably only slightly longer than it would take you to assume whatever you'd like.

      I didn't say it was about your "take" on guns. All I said was I don't really care what it is.

      However, what I did say, which you seemingly glanced over because it didn't fit into your "take" on guns, was that Europe didn't experience near the same level of gun-related violence, even though they have access to the same supposed drivers behind gun violence, at least according to those who support the NRA in the media. Things like video games, movies, etc. They have the same levels of depression, etc. etc. But again, you didn't choose to respond to that.

      As for the "professionals", I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Maybe you're a gun expert, or you're referring to the John Lotts of the world? I don't know. Or maybe you're claiming that you in fact are the professional in a broadcasting capacity. Again, I don't know. Yet if it's the latter you're referring to, I would only advise that you tread lightly there because i don't think your ground is necessarily that firm. After all, we're not in Florida... - David Weintraub

  20. David...I'm a lawyer( an actual profession where one studies the bill of rights), and I don't have to pretend to be a broadcast professional. I've worked in markets larger than you can dream of,including CBS Network sports. I avoid Florida, whenever possible, so I don't get your reference.
    In any event, my guest today , on the radio is Larry Pratt, head of Gunowners of America.( the very bright fellow who has gored Piers more than once) Catch it live at 4pm california time. See www.thekarelshow.com for times and stations. And no, Rich, it won't conflict with your show in the same time zone. I'll be filling for Karel once a week regularly, starting today and am delighted.

    1. So you think because you have a law degree that you are therefore an expert on the Bill of Rights, or ConLaw? That's pretty hilarious. I can assure you it doesn't give your potential argument(s) any more weight regarding the 2nd Amendment (or any Amendment), if your choose to make one. This is in fact a fact. My guess is the Bill or Rights was for the people to interpret, but I could be wrong.

      I have many family members and friends who are lawyers, but none would be so bold as to claim their argument on the 2nd Amendment carried more weight than that of another solely because they went to Law School.

      As for the expert broadcasting experience you bring to the table, I can't really comment on that because I heard you do one segment about dogs and a few others that didn't move me. Yet I will give you a lot of credit for your ability to understand my dreams. THAT is impressive.

      Now if you want to answer any of the things I actually said, feel free. I welcome it. Yet I'm betting all you want to do is spout your gun-toting-touting bullshit with the claim that you're somehow more of an expert on the topic because you a) have a law degree b) own a gun c) are a woman. All of that substance and $2.25 will get you a copy of today's NYTIMES.

      (Oh, and the Florida reference had to do with "standing your ground." Get it? There was a 50/50 chance that would fly right over your gun-toting head. A betting human would have figured "yes, it will." Maybe if you tamp down the studies of R. Dworkin's books the humor will flow more freely. Clearly, that's how you're spending your time)

  21. if you "guess" that the Bill of Rights was "for the people to interpret?, you are beyond instruction.Have you not heard of the separation of powers? The people through their ability to elect their representatives, choose the individuals who propose legislation. The Executive often proposes legislation , using the bully pulpit, and votes up or down when a bill reaches the executive desk and administers the agencies of government The judiciary interprets the Constitution and the constitutionality of law placed before it in a case or controversy. That's basic high school government class, not law school. In law school you read the opinions and study the interplay of public interest and law. In the practice of law, at the firm of my employ and every other,there is often a constitutional issue that accompanies a state issue and the interplay of both is critical to an effective practice.

    If your many family members who happen to be lawyers have taught you that the "people interpret the Constitution", they have done you a disservice.

    I'm not a betting human. I don't know who "R.Dworkin" is.