These things would be 100x more entertaining if it weren't for the talking-heads.

I have a question. How much does John Oliver make compared to Chelsea Handler?

shouldn't they make exactly the same amount?

Or we could even compare how much he makes compared to every other person who works as a talking head at his network...shouldn't they all make exactly the same amount? I doubt they do.

How about NBC, which hired Chelsea Clinton? Did she make more money because of her last name? You betcha.

Oliver should stick to showing monkey videos, at least they are legit.

Why doesn't Chomsky find a nice socialist system he can believe in, and fucking MOVE there!?

No, he has to live here, where he is free to spew his BS because he won't be happy until the US is a third-world shithole where everyone is miserable.

This talking-head linguist wants high energy prices, that will save the future. Give me a break. If he paid $4 a gallon for gas, he'd be blasting the oil industry. Now gas is a smidge cheaper, he's blasting production. He can't make up his mind. Maybe he can magic his ass from place to place.

This is so fucking obvious. Especially in a consumer based economy.

What this talking head does not acknowledge is THIS IS WHAT THE 1% WANTS.

They want the middle class to revert to slaves.

Can we have a name and badge number so we can make thousands of complaints on this officers employment record and get him removed....please? It looks like Richard Recine in Helmetta, NJ
This is what you get when idiots listen to the talking heads on Faux and believe them.
EDIT: I put in a request to his supervisor (r.manney@helmettaboro.com) for the forms to make a formal complaint against Richard Recine....if this kind of thing bothers you, do the same. Together maybe we can make a difference.

I'm mostly referencing the big news channels and their desire for having someone to interview on-screen. The best reporting I've seen about this current conflict has come from bloggers.

@radx The talking heads on the news outlets in the US have been spineless about everything for a long time now. I think it's partly due to fear of being cut out by the parties/administrations, and that they're more concerned with putting non-threatening well-dressed people in as the on-air talent rather than someone who is a good journalist.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense (complete). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Sorry-You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The '24-hour-news' cycle is an illusion. This shit is pumped-into homes 24/7 with a view to PROGRAMMING you.

If you'd like an example of how effective the formula of disinformation and distraction has become, you have but to read this thread and compare the opinions and editorializing on this ("Palins' a fucking idiot", fucking, "fox is shit, blah, blah, blah") particular distraction, to a grade-school argument over which character from the Transformers is the strongest, why dogs are better than cats, etc.

Editorializing over these talking-head fuck-sticks....Mind-numbingly retarded and an insult to meaning and intelligence. Please peeps, get a clue.

Television has become the worst drug imaginable, a weapon and tool of fascists and thugs, and you people eat the shit up like Skittles....Behold the instrument of your brain's demise.

Wait. So the guy who may or may not have actually reached out to Tim Cook personally about his sexual orientation simply (and correctly) refused to discuss any actual names, but some random talking head with no special knowledge about Tim Cook's sexual orientation claimed he was gay, and that is supposed to constitute an outing?

The title should read: "CNBC host behaves unprofessionally and spreads unconfirmed rumors." Saying that he outed Tim Cook implies that the CNBC host had some special knowledge confirming that the rumors are true, and at this point we just don't know.

The real issue here is that some guy wrote a column about gay CEOs and consistently ran into the fact that very few of them are willing to be named.

This is speculation here, but my guess is that if you've managed to become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, then on a personal level you are probably confident enough and socially stable enough to come out of the closet.

The real reason these gay CEOs (whoever they may be) aren't coming out of the closet is very likely just because the act of a CEO coming out is perceived to negatively affect share prices. I don't know whether this is just an assumption made personally by these CEOs or if the board of directors at their company actively made it clear to them that it would be a bad move, but this phenomenon is the real story and we shouldn't let all of this viral nonsense about Tim Cook being "outed" distract us from fixing it.

...as opposed to all the other media talking heads?

The only climate change "debate" going on is between those who are not capable of understanding the science.

People have come to respect television and talking heads way too much. If you want a scientific opinion, why don't people ask a scientist? If you asked one at random you're 99.5% sure to get a "yup, the evidence says it's true." -- that's the approximate ratio of scientific opinion.

I note that you didn't address in any way shape or form the entire wealth of scientific evidence provided by the link, and provide nothing of similar value in return (.gov or otherwise) to back up anything you say.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is this: the science is true whether you accept it or not, and it will be taught and passed on to the next generation because schools are full of people who went to university, and university is full of the people who are doing the science, or capable of understanding the science. Your type is dying out and if we can get over the hurdle of the next 100 years or so whilst limiting the damage you and your ilk do then i think we'll actually be alright as a species.

Scientific evidence is hard to understand. To really understand the value of statistical results, you need to understand statistics. Really thorough technical papers can take months of poring over until you eventually piece everything together. I accept that not everyone is going to be able to look at the evidence themselves and make their own minds up, so you have to choose someone to listen to. I just think you've been convinced by the wrong group, and i'm just a random person on the internet who is involved with science and tells you that NASA is a very reliable source of science. What reason would i have to trick you? Instead you want to believe a talking head on the television who has no understanding of science?

I've trying to do you a solid; i've given you the evidence in as pure a form as i could find. Why would you be combative with me? If you were interested in the science then you should approach it scientifically - be thorough, methodical and without bias. The link i provided to you IS information provided by climate scientists. I am qualified to work in climate physics btw, so i'm going to give a hazy answer to that - no i'm not currently employed in climate research.

Edit:
I see you're talking politics. Is that why you're biased to the evidence? Science doesn't bend for politics.

Saw a few FOX talking heads say this year wasnt as "funny" . Now that I've got a chance to see it I can tell wny, Obama body slammed FOX (and friends) I'm, sure they were all fuming by the end. X)

That's some hairline on this talking head.

Talking heads... why do they still exist?