Who Is the Biggest Right-Wing Media Hack in Connecticut?

You forgot Hearst's Ken Dixon (0.00 / 0)

He's the one who wrote in 2009, "If you like this downturn, thank a Democrat." He's also the one who described newly elected congressman Jim Himes as "a forty two year-old blank slate."  He's also the one who referred to former Senator Chris Dodd as "Doodles," which he claims is a nickname the press (Dixon himself?) gave Dodd when he was single and dating.  He's also the guy who titled a diary on his Hearst blog: "Got a Great Idea, Like Hang the Lawmakers?"  That gem came just as a right-wing nutjob was being prosecuted for urging his folks to kill judges. Dixon is also the character who said that as Dodd was announcing his retirement, he was imagining that Dodd was climbing onto an ice flow on the river and floating down to his death.  Physical death.  Read his blog.

So he certainly needs to be included in the category.

It's also interesting that three of your five nominees are regularly published by Hearst in Southwestern Connecticut.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 21:23:30 PM UTC

I voted for Powell (0.00 / 0)

Simply because he seems to get far more exposure than the others.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:36:16 PM UTC

Response from Chris Powell (3.00 / 1)

Hi, Jon:

Thanks for your vote at My Left Nutmeg today. I'm not
able to post there but I'd be grateful if you could
bring to the attention of that audience that sometimes
people see and remember only what suits their
prejudices and that, while they were cursing me out,
they may have missed this, whose every position was
drawn from my column writing of the previous few
months:

http://tinyurl.com/66w26ar

cp

Since he responded so courteously, I gave him the courtesy of going to the link. In the article, he lists a slew of liberal positions he apparently has. Good for him.

So it raises the question, can you be a liberal and a racist?

Chris Powell: (http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13635)

For various reasons cities attract poor people, many of whom are unproductive and troublesome and drag down everything around them, especially schools, and the desire to get away from them and the slob culture that has taken over Connecticut's cities, with constant violence and depravity, is completely natural, especially if one has children. This desire is what long has determined residential patterns in the state and throughout the country.

The Norwalk case signifies that even an ex-convict wanted to get her son away from the sort of people who disproportionately inhabit Bridgeport -- people like herself -- and that no municipality can be indifferent to increasing the burden of poverty in its own schools.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 13:53:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honorable mention (0.00 / 0)

* Jim Vicevich (WTIC)
* Brad Davis (WDRC)
* Dan Lovallo (WDRC)

---

by: ctblogger @ Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 13:10:06 PM UTC

Not "right-wing hack" per se, but... (0.00 / 0)

In this discussion of Connecticut journalism, WNPR needs to be mentioned.  That station's news director Jon Dankosky needs to be remembered for his way out of bounds attempts to stigmatize gubernatorial candidate Ned Lamont for refusing to participate in WNPR's "debate."  Proper procedure by any number of organizations wishing to hold debates is to invite both candidates, or more if there are more, and if only one candidate responds affirmatively, the organization will cancel the debate.  But WNPR announced the debate, and then Mr. Dankosky imperiously declared that they would go ahead with a full hour's interview with Dan Malloy if Ned Lamont did not agree to participate.  That high-handedness was reinforced day after day as WNPR pounded away at Lamont for not participating, and coming off as if Lamont was avoiding debating per se, rather than the truth, which was that he simply had no desire to participate in Dankosky's debate.

The distinct lack of progressive commentators on WNPR, as well as the absence of minority commentators on that station, is disturbing.

Public broadcasting is supposed to offer an alternative to the mainstream media, to provide an outlet to voices that don't get a hearing in commercial media.  But that is not happening at WNPR.

Of course, you won't know about this comment on WNPR's "Where We Blog" online page, because they don't link to MLN.  They link to any number of other sites, but refuse to let their listeners know that the station is subject to criticism.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 17:19:30 PM UTC

Give Ned Lamont some credit. (0.00 / 0)

.
"... coming off as if Lamont was avoiding debating per se ..."
.
Let's give Ned Lamont credit for the smart brain God gave him.  

Ned was ahead in the polls at the time. He knew that any debate with Malloy would help Dan gain votes.  So, of course Lamont was "avoiding" any debate. Hello!  

Ultimately, as the numbers started going up for Malloy, Lamont was smart enough to attempt the debate against the former prosecutor. Unfortunately for Ned, he could not shine while standing on camera with Malloy.

Let's remember that the little country side-shows around the state were basically local events with little exposure to a broader public. We cannot use them as an excuse for not having real debates.

Ned was wise to avoid the TV or Radio Shows.  Yet, he stayed away from them, a bit too long.  In retrospect he should have been in front of a podium microphone about a week earlier.  

Yes, Lamont would still have lost the debate; but Malloy would not have been able to clobber him as a man who would not come out and play nice with the media boys.

---

by: KeepLeft @ Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:55:29 AM UTC

My point is this: (4.00 / 1)

It was wrong of Dankosky and WNPR to force Lamont or anyone to participate in their "debate," or else!  Dankosky loudly fussed that if Lamont did not attend his debate which Dankosky had unilaterally announced, he was going to go ahead and give Dan Malloy an entire hour of free air time.  That was an extremely high-handed tactic, and simply unfair.  Whatever debates or joint public appearances that either candidate participated in or didn't, it was an ugly misuse of the media to attempt to force one candidate to do anything.

And let's recall that Dankosky and WNPR did not do the same for Lamont when he was running against Lieberman.  In that race, Lieberman agreed to a single debate with Lamont, and that was it.  No outcry from WNPR about the lack of debates then.  And when Lieberman did rarely appear on WNPR, Dankosky shielded him from criticism by not permitting call-in questions.

This is a question of fairness and the use, or misuse, of public broadcasting.

---

by: thomashooker @ Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 14:09:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]