Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Author booted from Benghazi interview for calling Fox a "wing of the Republican party" declines to go on MSNBC, saying, "You're just like Fox, but not as good at it"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 250
    More: Followup, Fox News, Tom Ricks, MSNBC, military affairs  
•       •       •

10535 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 4:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-28 01:15:37 PM  
I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.
 
2012-11-28 01:17:51 PM  
So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?
 
2012-11-28 01:17:59 PM  
ohsnap.jpeg
 
2012-11-28 01:27:20 PM  
This will be a fun thread to watch

/POPCORN
 
2012-11-28 01:28:41 PM  
Obviously a Liberal plant...
 
2012-11-28 01:29:45 PM  
Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.
 
2012-11-28 01:30:05 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.
 
2012-11-28 01:30:13 PM  
It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.
 
2012-11-28 01:30:41 PM  
But all he wants, he says, is to get back to the little place in Maine where he spends most of his time, writing and occasionally venturing out to see who caught how many lobsters. And did I mention we should all be more like that?

Yeah, fark having jobs and shiat.
 
2012-11-28 01:30:46 PM  
When I talked to him Tuesday, he said yeah, actually, he had had some other TV invites, but we shouldn't waste too much time clicking around looking for his next appearance: "MSNBC invited me, but I said, 'You're just like Fox, but not as good at it.' They wrote back and said, 'Thank you for your candor.'"

I like this guy.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:07 PM  

JerseyTim: Yeah, fark having jobs and shiat.


Well, I know personally when I'm pushing 60, I don't want to retire. I still want to work 96 hours a week.

/derp.
 
2012-11-28 01:34:39 PM  

cman: This will be a fun thread to watch


You seem to have an inordinate amount of fun watching threads.
 
2012-11-28 01:35:22 PM  

BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.


MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.
 
2012-11-28 01:35:45 PM  

sigdiamond2000: cman: This will be a fun thread to watch

You seem to have an inordinate amount of fun watching threads.


Of course I do.

There aint nothin better than scathenfrith
 
2012-11-28 01:36:42 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


I can't say I disagree with "neither FNC or MSNBC."
 
2012-11-28 01:37:50 PM  

Cythraul: MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.


MSNBC does not equal Fox News, you're absolutely right. It still doesn't mean they don't have an obvious bias. And to be fair, if you're NOT watching the news and taking everything in with a grain of skepticism on how it's reported or the follow-up there of, you're doing it wrong.
 
2012-11-28 01:38:44 PM  

sigdiamond2000: You seem to have an inordinate amount of fun watching threads.


Careful. He's looking at you on the monitor.

b.vimeocdn.com
 
2012-11-28 01:43:42 PM  
True, that.
 
2012-11-28 01:53:32 PM  
FTFA: But that an "Earth to Fox" message was calmly delivered by someone who also thinks MSNBC tells only half the story was extra enjoyable in my view, because seeking to please - the lobby, sources, TV producers, or anyone in a position of power - is the root of much wrong in this town. Politicians have a base, not journalists, and if you can't go up against your "team" on either the right or left, you have ceased to be that.

Can't really argue with that too much. Although part of the reason that people on the right can rip each other on Fox and people on the center-left can rip each other on MSNBC is because their respective audiences have already bought their bona fides. Olbermann and Maddow used to rip Obama to shreds just like people on Fox ripped W to shreds over the Harriet Miers fiasco back in the day.
 
2012-11-28 01:53:45 PM  
Oh yeah, both sides are totally bad.
 
2012-11-28 01:56:14 PM  
He's funny, I like him.
 
2012-11-28 02:09:53 PM  
He's written several books (including Fiasco, which I have but haven't ready yet), but I read his blog: Best Defense, over at Foreign Policy.

Also, he could easily do the "Evil Santa Claus" costume.

/stubmitter
 
2012-11-28 02:12:30 PM  
I like the cut of this man's jib.
 
2012-11-28 02:18:52 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?


Wow, they really aren't very good, then.
 
2012-11-28 02:19:15 PM  

Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.


"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat" - Will Rodgers.
 
2012-11-28 02:28:43 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?

Wow, they really aren't very good, then.


Yeah, but just wait...when the inevitable Rachel Maddow/Megan McCain sex tape comes out...wowza!
 
2012-11-28 02:29:36 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


Probably the Washington Post...
 
2012-11-28 02:32:55 PM  

whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?

Wow, they really aren't very good, then.

Yeah, but just wait...when the inevitable Rachel Maddow/Megan McCain sex tape comes out...wowza!


not sure if fap
 
2012-11-28 02:36:50 PM  
Say what you want about his opinion on FOX News, but he hit ACORNBC dead-on.
 
2012-11-28 02:47:52 PM  
That is pretty much how I feel about the "news" it's pretty sad when I feel like all the best news programs are produced overseas.
 
2012-11-28 02:52:51 PM  
So, is Benghazi a scandal yet?
 
2012-11-28 02:59:30 PM  
Were I MSNBC I would have renewed the invitation to discuss his assertion. Would have been interesting, and would have put themselves above Fox in that they're willing to face it.
 
2012-11-28 03:00:49 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Say what you want about his opinion on FOX News, but he hit ACORNBC dead-on.


I swear I've come to look forward to your posts more and more. And I'm taking notes.
 
2012-11-28 03:01:25 PM  

Earguy: Were I MSNBC I would have renewed the invitation to discuss his assertion. Would have been interesting, and would have put themselves above Fox in that they're willing to face it.


Chances are, they probably did that, and he still refused. I've seen Maddow take on such accusations before in the past, and I'm sure she'd love to have him on her show.
 
2012-11-28 03:15:41 PM  
I think the echo chamber that is created by having clearly partisan news organizations and the unclear line between news and opinion they create are horrible. Fox News and MSNBC are both supremely guilty of this and studies have shown Fox News and MSNBC viewers both being misguided on political topics. Going by matters of degree of wrong is pointless, both are bad in that they add to the echo chamber and help create our current climate of hyper-partisanship.

I have to give credit to this guy for being willing to call them out on it, but unless he finds away to parlay it into a further discussion it's not going to make any difference.

I get most of my news from Google News and I have to say being able to drop down the topic and see multiple sources is a great feature, but it requires active effort. Not sure I would support a return to a fairness doctrine, but maybe a clear guideline from the FCC about can be called news because much of what Fox News/ MSNBC report isn't.

/CNN attempts to be E! news are a whole other issue
 
2012-11-28 03:16:51 PM  
I want to subscribe to this guy's newsletter.
 
2012-11-28 03:20:10 PM  

zedster: I think the echo chamber that is created by having clearly partisan news organizations and the unclear line between news and opinion they create are horrible. Fox News and MSNBC are both supremely guilty of this and studies have shown Fox News and MSNBC viewers both being misguided on political topics. Going by matters of degree of wrong is pointless, both are bad in that they add to the echo chamber and help create our current climate of hyper-partisanship.

I have to give credit to this guy for being willing to call them out on it, but unless he finds away to parlay it into a further discussion it's not going to make any difference.

I get most of my news from Google News and I have to say being able to drop down the topic and see multiple sources is a great feature, but it requires active effort. Not sure I would support a return to a fairness doctrine, but maybe a clear guideline from the FCC about can be called news because much of what Fox News/ MSNBC report isn't.

/CNN attempts to be E! news are a whole other issue


The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught how to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.
 
2012-11-28 03:26:49 PM  

cman: The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught how to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.


unless we try we will never know :-/
As anyone tried a more serious news station in the US market? I don't real consider AJE in that category based on the fact they have a large backing of ex-BBC people and target the Middle East and African stores, so not really US market oriented
 
2012-11-28 03:28:40 PM  

zedster: cman: The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught how to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.

unless we try we will never know :-/
As anyone tried a more serious news station in the US market? I don't real consider AJE in that category based on the fact they have a large backing of ex-BBC people and target the Middle East and African stores, so not really US market oriented


Headline News was a subnetwork of CNN that had 30 minute news segments. They had no opinion at all, just newscast after newscast. That didnt sell, so it is the bullshiat that it is now
 
2012-11-28 03:49:21 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?


Just not as good at it. And for that, I'm glad.
 
2012-11-28 03:50:27 PM  
and was he thrown of MSNBC too or did they let him continue?
 
2012-11-28 04:10:24 PM  
The media HATES it when you tell the truth.
 
2012-11-28 04:10:47 PM  
That's funny.

However I believe MSNB is liberal biased but FOX is Republican party partisan.

Those are two very different things.
 
2012-11-28 04:11:05 PM  

BronyMedic: MSNBC does not equal Fox News, you're absolutely right. It still doesn't mean they don't have an obvious bias. And to be fair, if you're NOT watching the news and taking everything in with a grain of skepticism on how it's reported or the follow-up there of, you're doing it wrong.


i think the problem i have with fox is that their bias pervades their entire organization. If i tune in to see a pundit, i generally expect some level of bias, because they are opinion people. But when i turn it on during the day, i expect to see normal news reporting, without a bias. When you watch MSNBC's pure news coverage, its just news. When you watch CNN's pure news coverage, its just news. When you watch Fox's pure news coverage, its still biased.
 
2012-11-28 04:11:06 PM  

Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.


Democrats aren't liberal. They'd be the conservatives in almost any other country on Earth
 
2012-11-28 04:11:27 PM  
MSNBC is not as bad as Fox but I've been watching cable news more since before the election and yes, MSNBC is definitely soft on the Obama administration, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. If Bush had been pulling the same crap as Obama they would have been all over that sh*t.
 
2012-11-28 04:12:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Say what you want about his opinion on FOX News, but he hit ACORNBC dead-on.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-28 04:12:29 PM  
THAT would be the difference. I suspect he would be allowed to complete his thoughts had he appeared on the show.

I sort of think he's right, although I think their is a higher factual content to much of what MSNBC reports - I don't see them creating Benghazis out of mostly thin air, for example.

And he's sort of right in that fewer people watch, and in thrall to, the wit and wisdom of the various MSNBC pundits. But I think that speaks favorably about the channel.

I don't watch either Fox or MSNBC. I watch very local or PBS if I have to watch television news. I prefer NPR and Fark for my worldview.
 
2012-11-28 04:13:28 PM  

sigdiamond2000: cman: This will be a fun thread to watch

You seem to have an inordinate amount of fun watching threads.


The problem is he doesn't just watch, he has to open his mouth.
 
2012-11-28 04:14:32 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.


Even as a card carrying liberal, I can claim MSNBC jumped the journalistic shark when Al Sharpton is one of the main on air personalities. It's now officially useless "info-tainment".
 
2012-11-28 04:16:01 PM  

ManateeGag: and was he thrown of MSNBC too or did they let him continue?


He used to be on Olbermann's show a lot back when he was on MSNBC. Not sure if that's related or not.
 
2012-11-28 04:16:19 PM  

ManateeGag: and was he thrown of MSNBC too or did they let him continue?


I suppose his declining to go on in the first place is sort of like him throwing himself out?
 
2012-11-28 04:16:42 PM  
He's wrong: Both networks revel in hyperpartisanship. FNC's revelers just happen to be blonde.
 
2012-11-28 04:17:14 PM  
MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.
 
2012-11-28 04:17:27 PM  

Tavillion: Mike_LowELL: Say what you want about his opinion on FOX News, but he hit ACORNBC dead-on.

I swear I've come to look forward to your posts more and more. And I'm taking notes.


Seriously. I hated him at first, but man, he's one of my favorites now
 
2012-11-28 04:18:17 PM  
As much as I enjoy watching TRMS at least a couple of nights a week, he's not all that wrong. Ed Schultz is probably the worst of the bunch, closely followed by Lawrence O'Democrat. Maddow and Harris-Perry at least maintain fingertip-contact with reality.

Still, bias towards facts is better than bias towards "Bullshiat Mountain".
 
2012-11-28 04:18:28 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


I suspect most people would agree that it's neither of those, and I'd like to believe that most people would agree that whatever it is, it's not on cable television.
 
2012-11-28 04:18:50 PM  
The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?
 
2012-11-28 04:19:42 PM  

Sgt Otter: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

I can't say I disagree with "neither FNC or MSNBC."


It is hard to argue.

Of course, nowadays there are no other options I know of offhand. Al-Jazeerah?
 
2012-11-28 04:20:00 PM  

nekom: So, is Benghazi a scandal yet?


No, but they can't tell a chicken from the pile of feathers that's left.

farm5.staticflickr.com 

www.inspirefusion.com
 
2012-11-28 04:20:14 PM  

zedster: cman: The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught how to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.

unless we try we will never know :-/
As anyone tried a more serious news station in the US market? I don't real consider AJE in that category based on the fact they have a large backing of ex-BBC people and target the Middle East and African stores, so not really US market oriented


Why would you want 24 hours a day of just news? That's boring. You're not going to watch TV all day anyway. Just DVR the PBS News Hour and watch that instead.
 
2012-11-28 04:20:15 PM  

furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.


Joe Trippi Disagrees

I was watching election night and was like WTF is Trippi doing on Fox News, but this article makes it seem like either he actually enjoys it or has suffered extreme Stockholm syndrome.
 
2012-11-28 04:20:33 PM  
He got booted off of Fox.
He declined an invitation from MSNBC.

I, too, think he should reconsider the differences in his position, even if he sees no difference in the networks.
 
2012-11-28 04:20:51 PM  
nice try libs but he apologized to Fox News and now he's on the attack biting the hand that USED to feed him.
 
2012-11-28 04:21:29 PM  
one lethal cock-up
 
2012-11-28 04:21:32 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.


hardly
 
2012-11-28 04:21:39 PM  

Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?


Excellent point. And from what I've seen of AJ recently, they've quite a few former CNN reporters.
 
2012-11-28 04:21:57 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


So you probably think that the two party system works great, then, right?
 
2012-11-28 04:22:06 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


NPR.

They did their own review to determine if they have a bias. Turns out they interview more Repulicans than Dems, and feature more negative stories about Obama than GOP politicians.
 
2012-11-28 04:22:15 PM  

BronyMedic: JerseyTim: Yeah, fark having jobs and shiat.

Well, I know personally when I'm pushing 60, I don't want to retire. I still want to work 96 hours a week.

/derp.


The thing that suprised me at retirement was that I had no idea how I ever had time for "work" at the 7am-7pm thing.

Like the Tooth Fairy, retirement is not what you were told.
 
2012-11-28 04:22:47 PM  

tlchwi02: BronyMedic: MSNBC does not equal Fox News, you're absolutely right. It still doesn't mean they don't have an obvious bias. And to be fair, if you're NOT watching the news and taking everything in with a grain of skepticism on how it's reported or the follow-up there of, you're doing it wrong.

i think the problem i have with fox is that their bias pervades their entire organization. If i tune in to see a pundit, i generally expect some level of bias, because they are opinion people. But when i turn it on during the day, i expect to see normal news reporting, without a bias. When you watch MSNBC's pure news coverage, its just news. When you watch CNN's pure news coverage, its just news. When you watch Fox's pure news coverage, its still biased.


Really? Andrea Mitchell and Martin Bashir are amongst the worst offenders on any channel. Tamron Hall has gotten into the act, too. And then when you have the obvious primetime opinion-makers, Maddow and Matthews, anchoring the election coverage, instead of legit news folks like, say, Chris Jansing or Alex Witt, your network really can't say it walks the neutral ground at any standpoint.
 
2012-11-28 04:24:30 PM  
Well, he's dead on. The observations made in this thread that MSNBC doesn't compare to Fox are exactly the same thing he's saying; he's just saying it with a less charitable view than some posters here because MSNBC doesn't flatter his political beliefs. If MSNBC were as effective as Fox, we would expect to see conservatives more incensed about it and liberals more ready to argue that MSNBC is unbiased - because the reporting would mesh more easily with the narratives pushed by each of those worldviews.
 
2012-11-28 04:24:46 PM  
I wish more journalists would write like Melinda Henneberger. This was a nice article.
 
2012-11-28 04:25:40 PM  
i614.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-28 04:26:06 PM  
I think part of the problem, that people have with Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc....is they
equate their 24/7 coverage as "news". I don't watch much of any of them anymore,
got burned out during the run up to the election.
I know that Fox has a newscast between 7pm - 8pm (eastern), and when it is over
that idiot Sheppard Smith says "that is the news, the OPINION starts now.
Everything after that are OPINION shows, not NEWS shows.
I'm sure MSNBC is the same. They have a news show, then OPINION shows
the rest of the night.
I just got tired of the talking heads, and resorted to READING the news from various
news sources on the web (USA, ENGLAND, RUSSIA, CHINA, FRANCE, JAPAN, etc),
instead of someone telling me the news.
 
2012-11-28 04:26:58 PM  
that's pretty awesome.
 
2012-11-28 04:27:27 PM  

Lexx: Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.


Not by a mile. Al Jazeera's reporting is good at pushing a certain type of provincial Arab worldview, and does so consistently. The BBC may be a bit comfortable with the British government but does pretty well in covering the rest of the world.
 
2012-11-28 04:27:37 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


I'm on his side. The broadcast news shows are decent. NPR is great. Reuters, AP, etc.
 
2012-11-28 04:27:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Sgt Otter: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

I can't say I disagree with "neither FNC or MSNBC."

It is hard to argue.

Of course, nowadays there are no other options I know of offhand. Al-Jazeerah?


I'm of the opinion that the best sources of news tend to be print rather than video. I read both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, and consider myself pretty well informed. When I make the mistake of turning on FNC or MSNBC and happen to catch them covering a news story that I had previously read about in either the WSJ or NYT, I almost always find the TV coverage to be superficial, one-sided, and apt to leave the viewer under-informed or misinformed. If I want superficial with a side of questionable journalistic standards there's a whole universe of blogs I can read without having to watch a talking head shouting at me from the left or the right.
 
2012-11-28 04:28:29 PM  
He'd better watch his mouth. Soon he won't be able to get an interview on TMZ because they're afraid of being called a tabloid rag. Nor will he ever bathe again, due to that "you're wet" comment.
 
2012-11-28 04:28:30 PM  
Hand that man a Pulitzer Prize!

He courageously reports what Fox and the MSM don't want you to know.

That they have become a band of partisan hacks since the silly old "there's two sides to every story--the Democratic Side and the Republican Side--and provided you give twenty seconds to a spokesperson from the DNC and RNC, spinning pseudo-issues like whirling dervishes, you're objective and have done your job competently and well" rule went to Hell in a handcart.

Advertisement
Al Jazzeera: America's most trusted news source!

Advertisement
Mother Beeb: So sometimes we get it wrong? No big woof!
 
2012-11-28 04:28:49 PM  
Author booted from Benghazi interview for calling Fox a "wing of the Republican party" declines to go on MSNBC, saying, "You're just like Fox, but not as good at it"

Looks like MSNBC needs some
youngsgifts.com
 
2012-11-28 04:29:28 PM  
Both FNC and MSNBC cable News channels suck. One blows the right and the other blows the left (relatively speaking)

Does this mean if I'm watching CNN, I'm probably doing it with smug superiority?
 
2012-11-28 04:30:00 PM  

thornhill: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

NPR.

They did their own review to determine if they have a bias. Turns out they interview more Repulicans than Dems, and feature more negative stories about Obama than GOP politicians.


also on average NPR listeners are the most well informed of any broadcast media viewers/listeners
 
Bf+
2012-11-28 04:31:37 PM  
I like this guy. I do.
But he forgot to end with "so vote Republican."
 
2012-11-28 04:32:08 PM  

X-Geek: [i614.photobucket.com image 373x330]


How does being annoyed by someone (in this case two things) make one feel superior? Its farking annoying to hear people spin news constantly.
 
2012-11-28 04:32:56 PM  
Maddow is the only one I watch. Her voice is like honey to my ears.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:08 PM  

zedster: furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.

Joe Trippi Disagrees

I was watching election night and was like WTF is Trippi doing on Fox News, but this article makes it seem like either he actually enjoys it or has suffered extreme Stockholm syndrome.


Appearing on the network is not the same as hosting a three hour show every day. I mean, this is exactly the type of clearly not thought out false equivalence that has led to the differences between the networks being ignored.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:10 PM  
Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:23 PM  

coco ebert: MSNBC is not as bad as Fox but I've been watching cable news more since before the election and yes, MSNBC is definitely soft on the Obama administration, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. If Bush had been pulling the same crap as Obama they would have been all over that sh*t.


I think the big difference is that MSNBC clearly delineates news from opinion. They are very one-sided in their commentary (with exceptions, like Joe Scarborough and that one Republican consultant who sat in on election night, but those are few and far between), and arguably even more one-sided than Fox in their selection of talk show guests. (Ed Schultz brings in people who agree with him; Bill O'Reilly brings in people who disagree with him, and then insults them; pick your poison.) But MSNBC's big, big advantage is that their actual news reporting isn't nearly as thoroughly infested by partisan talking points as Fox News is.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:25 PM  
Lexx
The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?


AJ is terrible unless you are looking to verify your belief that Islam has been in a constant stage of jihad all over the world because the US and Israel have been trying to exterminate Muslims since the days of Muhhamed. I know, the US has been around for 200 years but try explaining that to someone who reads AJ. Speaking of people who red AJ, have you ever read the comment section of AJ? It's an outlet for those cavemen to try to justify stoning women and cutting peoples heads off while running around in the streets screaming "Allah Akbar."
 
2012-11-28 04:34:30 PM  

Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.


Cheerleader, not mouthpiece - mouthpiece implies that the party is sending requests, Fox and MSNBC do what they do for their own reasons, not at the behest of one party or the other.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:33 PM  
This Benghazi thing and whatever your personal politics are aside, It should be farking obvious that Fox News is Paul Verhoeven movie level of satirical sensationalism. It's like a caricature of a news outlet. It doesn't matter what "side" they're on. I would recognize that no matter what "side" they're on. They're a farking cartoon.
 
2012-11-28 04:34:52 PM  
So... when does ol' Sweetcheeks McBallsack (aka halfof33) come in and start derpshiatting about a tu quoque fallacy?


/TU QUOQUE!
 
2012-11-28 04:35:38 PM  

halfof33: Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.


Ah, there we go....right on cue....
 
2012-11-28 04:35:54 PM  

halfof33: Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.


Were the last 5 attacks even similar to each other ???
 
2012-11-28 04:36:24 PM  
They are very one-sided in their commentary (with exceptions, like Joe Scarborough... but those are few and far between),

Three hours. Every day.
 
2012-11-28 04:36:29 PM  

Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?


I just about always consider Al Jazeera the least biased (not necessarily best) source for US political news. The BBC is generally okay if it doesn't involve the UK or any part of the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict, on which BBC is not only biased but often an active participant in spreading misinformation (Jon Donnison, for example).

Generally, wire services like the AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, if lacking depth.

NPR's Morning Edition is definitely left-leaning but I haven't caught them intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Other programming on NPR, like On the Media & On Point are full blown left but still fact-based. Talk of the Nation is fully a joke.

Most of the major print sources have a smattering of leanings, often far more dependent on the reporter than the publication. I find read-worthy stuff all the time in majors like Wash Post, NYT, WSJ, and yes, even USA Today.
 
2012-11-28 04:37:39 PM  

cashdaddy: Ah, there we go....right on cue....


well it would be hypocritical for me not to bash the douche when he is bashing the left.

He's just wrong, so maybe he should just go back to keeping lobsters off his lawn.
 
2012-11-28 04:37:51 PM  

Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.


Yeah--but his point still stands. Shilling partisan opinions as facts news is really, really irresponsible. And he's right--Fox news is so much better at it.
 
2012-11-28 04:37:53 PM  

Earguy: Were I MSNBC I would have renewed the invitation to discuss his assertion. Would have been interesting, and would have put themselves above Fox in that they're willing to face it.


That would depend on their goals and motivations;
if good, balanced news is the goal - renew the invitation
if the goal is to enhance the glow of the left and soil the right - let the guy go count lobsters.
 
2012-11-28 04:38:08 PM  
Would someone kindly assplain to me why anybody in their right mind would claim to believe in, trust, or otherwise support or affiliate with either the GOP or DFL as they play out these days?
I am asstounded at the stupid demonstrated by both sets of "adults". These are "the best and brightest" "adults" considered successful, honest, worthy of Public Trust, and leaders of men and nations?
Shirley, just stop.
 
2012-11-28 04:38:51 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


Deutsche Welle?
 
2012-11-28 04:38:55 PM  
Rick's should really stand behind his assertions instead of popping-off and then talking about retiring to his lobster cabin. He's like the guy who thinks he cool because he slicked back his hair instead of shaking your hand.
 
2012-11-28 04:39:30 PM  
*Ricks even.
 
2012-11-28 04:40:23 PM  

cashdaddy: halfof33: Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.

Ah, there we go....right on cue....


Can you tell me exactly why it's so different? In terms of failures/coverups, how is it different from 9/11?
 
2012-11-28 04:42:10 PM  
I only watch news for signs of the apocolypse. That makes CBN the most reliable news source
 
2012-11-28 04:45:07 PM  

Jackson Herring: Oh yeah, both sides are totally bad.


MSNBC is not quite as blatantly partisan as Fox News so it doesn't count. Good to know.
 
2012-11-28 04:45:12 PM  

cman: zedster: I think the echo chamber that is created by having clearly partisan news organizations and the unclear line between news and opinion they create are horrible. Fox News and MSNBC are both supremely guilty of this and studies have shown Fox News and MSNBC viewers both being misguided on political topics. Going by matters of degree of wrong is pointless, both are bad in that they add to the echo chamber and help create our current climate of hyper-partisanship.

I have to give credit to this guy for being willing to call them out on it, but unless he finds away to parlay it into a further discussion it's not going to make any difference.

I get most of my news from Google News and I have to say being able to drop down the topic and see multiple sources is a great feature, but it requires active effort. Not sure I would support a return to a fairness doctrine, but maybe a clear guideline from the FCC about can be called news because much of what Fox News/ MSNBC report isn't.

/CNN attempts to be E! news are a whole other issue

The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught howtold what to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.


FTFY
 
2012-11-28 04:46:16 PM  

furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.


Yup... Morning Joe is essentially 3 hours of Joe Scarborough b*tching about Obama. I don't think anyone at Fox News has EVER praised Obama at any point in the last 4 years. I mean even when his job approval rating goes up, the Fox "pure news" anchors report as if someone had just shat on their desk.
 
2012-11-28 04:46:20 PM  

Jackson Herring: Oh yeah, both sides are totally bad.


your response looks tired
 
2012-11-28 04:47:37 PM  
halfof33
cashdaddy: Ah, there we go....right on cue....

well it would be hypocritical for me not to bash the douche when he is bashing the left.

He's just wrong, so maybe he should just go back to keeping lobsters off his lawn.


You are what independents call a partisan douche bag who is ruining the country. How dare someone not have blind loyalty to one side or the other.  fark you, you don't deserve a vote
 
2012-11-28 04:47:51 PM  

TimonC346: cashdaddy: halfof33: Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.

Ah, there we go....right on cue....

Can you tell me exactly why it's so different? In terms of failures/coverups, how is it different from 9/11?


The guy someone else didn't vote for was PoTUS. Sorry it's not exact, but that doesn't seem to matter much these days.
 
2012-11-28 04:48:25 PM  

DeltaPunch: furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.

Yup... Morning Joe is essentially 3 hours of Joe Scarborough b*tching about Obama. I don't think anyone at Fox News has EVER praised Obama at any point in the last 4 years. I mean even when his job approval rating goes up, the Fox "pure news" anchors report as if someone had just shat on their desk.


Does "Morning Joe" really count if nobody watches it?
 
2012-11-28 04:48:48 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


If you can't see that MSNBC is as biased as Fox News is then please do us all a favor and don't breed. And yeah, those of us who can see that both of those sources are worthless pushers of propaganda for their respective parties are superior to those of you that can't.
 
2012-11-28 04:49:43 PM  
MSNBC STATUS:
[ ] NOT TOLD
[ ] TOLD
[ ] farkING TOLD
[ ] TOLD LIKE THE FIST OF THE NORTH STAR
[ ] THE CHRONICLES OF TOLDIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE TOLDROBE
[ ] TOLDENEYE 64
[ ] THE 40 YEAR TOLD VIRGIN
[ ] FRUIT TOLD-UP
[ ] TEXAS TOLD'EM POKER
[ ] BLACKBERRY TOLD
[ ] TOLD NAVY
[ ] STONE TOLD STEVE AUSTIN
[ ] TOLD MCDONALD HAD A FARM
[ ] CASH4TOLD.COM
[ ] TOLDERONE
[ ] PTERODACTOLD
[ ] CURE FOR THE COMMON TOLD
[ ] TOLDTINO'S PIZZA ROLLS
[ ] TOLDPLAY
[ ] TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TOLDLES
[ ] BATTLETOLDS
[X] AUSTIN POWERS TOLDMEMBER
 
2012-11-28 04:49:57 PM  

Brubold: Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.

If you can't see that MSNBC is as biased as Fox News is then please do us all a favor and don't breed. And yeah, those of us who can see that both of those sources are worthless pushers of propaganda for their respective parties are superior to those of you that can't.


It must be lonely up there, being superior to all us lesser people.
 
2012-11-28 04:50:42 PM  

falcon176: nice try libs but he apologized to Fox News and now he's on the attack biting the hand that USED to feed him.


You're joking, right? Some guy at Fox News says it, so it must be true? Ricks went to the newspapers and said something along the lines of "If I apologized, I would really like to know what I said." Fact is, he never apologized to Fox News, and I doubt he was ever fed by the hand he bit.
 
2012-11-28 04:51:25 PM  
I can't believe there are people defending MSNBC. Have you ever turned it on? They do the same lockstep bullshiat, even if you like one or two of their people. Pull the damned blinders off their eyes. It's not always wrong to say, "They're both as bad as the other," no matter how many of you infantile headjobs think you've discovered some clever point about the nature of the human intellect by touting its "fallacy" over and over.

There are plenty of excellent not-completely biased new sources (NPR, BBC, even occasionally (cough) CNN) out there, stop defending the ones that are awful, even if they happen to carry the standard for your political beliefs.
 
2012-11-28 04:51:29 PM  
This, I can fap to
 
2012-11-28 04:55:18 PM  

Cythraul: Brubold: Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.

If you can't see that MSNBC is as biased as Fox News is then please do us all a favor and don't breed. And yeah, those of us who can see that both of those sources are worthless pushers of propaganda for their respective parties are superior to those of you that can't.

It must be lonely up there, being superior to all us lesser people.


I can always just talk to myself. I do so love intelligent conversations.

/stolen from George Carlin
 
2012-11-28 04:55:52 PM  
They are all biased. MSNBC and Fox are receding into the right-wing distance. Al Jazzera keeps it pretty factual. I won't hold my breath for a news outlet to speak outside of its interest. Nice to round things out with the foreign sources, Reuters, BBC, RT, etc.

//don't forget
//wsws
 
2012-11-28 04:56:12 PM  
I like this guy's style. I'd like to party with him/subscribe to his newsletter.
 
2012-11-28 04:56:42 PM  
I'm surprised there's not more responses from people I have farkied in derptastic red on here cheering this guy on now that he's going after MSNBC.
 
2012-11-28 04:56:51 PM  

cman: zedster: cman: The problem is is that we Americans dont want real news. We want Brangelina, we want to be scared out of our shoes, we want to be taught how to think. News organizations cannot exist on news because people dont buy that crap. That is why we have Fox News and MSNBC, because it sells. Partisan news networks sell.

unless we try we will never know :-/
As anyone tried a more serious news station in the US market? I don't real consider AJE in that category based on the fact they have a large backing of ex-BBC people and target the Middle East and African stores, so not really US market oriented

Headline News was a subnetwork of CNN that had 30 minute news segments. They had no opinion at all, just newscast after newscast. That didnt sell, so it is the bullshiat that it is now


I never noticed that Headline News was not still around. Suppose having a TV and a cable subscription would help with that.
 
2012-11-28 04:57:54 PM  

zarberg: I'm surprised there's not more responses from people I have farkied in derptastic red on here cheering this guy on now that he's going after MSNBC.


You need to add more people to your list. There's plenty of them in here.
 
2012-11-28 04:59:53 PM  

The Southern Logic Company: Author booted from Benghazi interview for calling Fox a "wing of the Republican party" declines to go on MSNBC, saying, "You're just like Fox, but not as good at it"

Looks like MSNBC needs some
[youngsgifts.com image 448x238]


You should have read TFA. He didn't accept their offer, and they replied to his comment with class.

When I talked to him Tuesday, he said yeah, actually, he had had some other TV invites, but we shouldn't waste too much time clicking around looking for his next appearance: "MSNBC invited me, but I said, 'You're just like Fox, but not as good at it.' They wrote back and said, 'Thank you for your candor.'"
 
2012-11-28 05:01:05 PM  
I do agree with him, But at least MSNBC admits that they swing left. Part of the fun of watching Fox is to see the feathers fly when you call them out

//Meddow is the only show really worth watching
 
2012-11-28 05:02:19 PM  
"Liberal truth"? That's a often-told lie, right?
 
2012-11-28 05:02:23 PM  
editorial bias =/= constant lying

MSNBC is clearly pro-Dem, and Fox News is clearly pro-GOP. Both have similar formats for many shows. But that's where the similarities end.
 
2012-11-28 05:03:12 PM  
MSNBC and FNC are media outlets not new organizations. Infotainment that tickles your fancy. You can argue all you want that MSNBC "isn't as bad" as FNC no one is going to stop you from mental masturbation. Its not as if MSNBC isn't trying to become the same machine as FNC they just haven't gotten the formula exact yet. All any of the networks do is side step issue and reassert your own position when challenged.
 
2012-11-28 05:04:30 PM  
I haven't really been paying attention. Is it just the libs who hate the 'both sides are bad' crowd, or does the right wing jump on them too?

/both sides are bad for different reasons
 
2012-11-28 05:04:40 PM  
People choose the flavor 'kool-aid' that tastes good to them; the problem with Fox is that they drank the kool-aid.

Imho people will always pitch a particular flavor of reality, but when you begin to believe your own BS and reality consistently is the opposite of what you're schilling... you're not helping the public debate.

But that isn't Fox's agenda. There are a lot of Fox kool-aid fans out there, and they really like it; the stronger the better. It would not surprise me if the older populace has to die off before Fox changes its model, there's just too much money in it.)

I used to work as an Intelligence analyst and the hardest thing to do is separate objective and subjective. Some, if not most people can not help themselves from cherry picking 'facts'; and 'crystal balling' what those particular facts mean - regardless if there is an overwhelming number of facts that dispute what they want to believe.
 
2012-11-28 05:04:47 PM  
Cythraul

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-28 04:49:57 PM
Brubold: Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.

If you can't see that MSNBC is as biased as Fox News is then please do us all a favor and don't breed. And yeah, those of us who can see that both of those sources are worthless pushers of propaganda for their respective parties are superior to those of you that can't.

It must be lonely up there, being superior to all us lesser people.


You have no idea how lonely it is. There are a shiat ton of you dumbasses
 
2012-11-28 05:05:25 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: I do agree with him, But at least MSNBC admits that they swing left. Part of the fun of watching Fox is to see the feathers fly when you call them out


No, you see it's not that Fox is biased, it's that they tell "the other side" of the story.
 
2012-11-28 05:07:24 PM  

Gdalescrboz: You have no idea how lonely it is. There are a shiat ton of you dumbasses


You inspire me. I'll make an effort to be less of a burden on the independently intellectual in the future.
 
2012-11-28 05:07:27 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


He'll do a nice spread in Harper's Weekly.
 
2012-11-28 05:09:38 PM  

Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.


I look at Democrats as cats and Republicans as dogs. It is very difficult to herd cats since they're far too individualistic and tend to have loose affiliations to their alphas. Meanwhile, dogs have an incredibly strong pack mentality and loyalty to the alpha. They also know that failure to submit results in banishment from the pack, where the chances of surviving on your own are low.

And on the subject of dogs, I always liked this comic:

images114.fotki.com
 
2012-11-28 05:11:53 PM  
robohobo

I haven't really been paying attention. Is it just the libs who hate the 'both sides are bad' crowd, or does the right wing jump on them too?


Both sides hate intelligent people
 
2012-11-28 05:12:34 PM  

flamingboar: Maddow is the only one I watch. Her voice is like honey to my ears.


So...the sound of a 15 year old boy talking while holding his nose = honey

mmmkay
 
2012-11-28 05:13:19 PM  
Fox News was created to be a propaganda arm of the Republican party.

MSNBC was created so General Electric could make more money from NBC News. Eventually they figured the existence of Fox News created a market demand for competing liberal-oriented programming and targeted that market.

See the difference?
 
2012-11-28 05:15:03 PM  

MrEricSir: ItchyMcDoogle: I do agree with him, But at least MSNBC admits that they swing left. Part of the fun of watching Fox is to see the feathers fly when you call them out

No, you see it's not that Fox is biased, it's that they tell "the other side" of the story.


Hello! Fox LATINO.

See, Fair and Balannnnnnnceeedddddddd
 
2012-11-28 05:16:34 PM  
So this is what cognitive dissonance on fark looks like.
 
2012-11-28 05:16:43 PM  
Well, it depends. Was Joe Scarborough going to interview him?
 
2012-11-28 05:18:00 PM  

Gr8Zen: Lexx:
Generally, wire services like the AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, if lacking depth.

You might want to check the "facts" that AP puts out. They may not leave an obvious slant, but you their market is newspapers (and especially small town ones at that): they slant things by changing the "facts".

Favorite story: AP's description of Sarah Palin dropping the puck in Philly to polite applause. Utube: crowd acting like Phlyer fans.
 
2012-11-28 05:19:48 PM  
oh and i566.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-28 05:21:23 PM  
I are serious author. This are serious.
This guys sounds like a complete douchebag. Let me guess, he's a Libertarian.
 
2012-11-28 05:21:37 PM  
Speaking as a liberal who has never watched MSNBC, it does come across as a wannabe FN from what I've seen on fark. I don't really care that it's "not as" biased as Fox. Nothing is..

I have never heard of my liberal or democrat friends mention watching MSNBC. Whereas my Republican friends (and especially their parents (and i would assume ESPECIALLY their grandparents)) watch Fox constantly. So in that sense, this guy is right, they are like Fox (a pandering entertainment network masquerading as news in order to build a brand) but not as good at it.
 
2012-11-28 05:24:01 PM  

Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?


Christian Science Monitor does a great job as well.
 
2012-11-28 05:25:48 PM  
BSABSVMSNBC?
 
2012-11-28 05:26:35 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Both FNC and MSNBC cable News channels suck. One blows the right and the other blows the left (relatively speaking)

Does this mean if I'm watching CNN, I'm probably doing it with smug superiority?


No, you'd have to go all the way to c-span for that.
 
2012-11-28 05:27:28 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


My guess is his idea starts with not being on cable.

Or television, for that matter.
 
2012-11-28 05:31:55 PM  

thecpt: X-Geek: [i614.photobucket.com image 373x330]

How does being annoyed by someone (in this case two things) make one feel superior? Its farking annoying to hear people spin news constantly.


You don't get the feeling that Ricks is showing that he feels superior to both? I only skimmed TFA, but the situation reminded me of the xkcd, so I updated it. Personally, I can't watch Fox for more than a few minutes before changing the channel in disgust. I'll watch MSNBC, but try to take note of hypocritical comments. I like the first half of Colbert, but what's with all the friggin' singing? Daily Show++
 
2012-11-28 05:32:28 PM  

hubiestubert: Obviously a Liberal plant...



I wouldn't mind seeing him on Stewart or Colbert - except they all do just about the same thing. At this point he's just a guy taking shots at Fox and MSNBC, and there is a million of us out there.
 
2012-11-28 05:35:30 PM  
No HERO tag for this guy?
 
2012-11-28 05:37:14 PM  

ZzeusS: hubiestubert: Obviously a Liberal plant...


I wouldn't mind seeing him on Stewart or Colbert - except they all do just about the same thing. At this point he's just a guy taking shots at Fox and MSNBC, and there is a million of us out there.


Yes but he's the Real Shady
 
2012-11-28 05:38:06 PM  
i716.photobucket.com

Yay for someone who actually calls everyone on their bullshiat rather than calling one side on theirs and polishing the turds on the other side. More guys like this and, heaven forbid, we might actually get some real dialogue in this country.
 
2012-11-28 05:40:33 PM  

X-Geek: [i614.photobucket.com image 373x330]


Damn you!

/better you than me
//I would've gone the lazy route
 
2012-11-28 05:41:45 PM  
There's no such thing as non-partisan news these days. They're either labeled "Republicoonts" or libtards who kisses every hair on Obama's ass.
 
2012-11-28 05:42:23 PM  

Gr8Zen: Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?

I just about always consider Al Jazeera the least biased (not necessarily best) source for US political news. The BBC is generally okay if it doesn't involve the UK or any part of the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict, on which BBC is not only biased but often an active participant in spreading misinformation (Jon Donnison, for example).

Generally, wire services like the AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, if lacking depth.

NPR's Morning Edition is definitely left-leaning but I haven't caught them intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Other programming on NPR, like On the Media & On Point are full blown left but still fact-based. Talk of the Nation is fully a joke.

Most of the major print sources have a smattering of leanings, often far more dependent on the reporter than the publication. I find read-worthy stuff all the time in majors like Wash Post, NYT, WSJ, and yes, even USA Today.


Only rightwingers find NPR to be liberal. So, yeah, go back to Fox.
 
2012-11-28 05:42:39 PM  
I don't know who this motherf*cker is, but if he runs for president, call me.
 
2012-11-28 05:43:28 PM  

cman: This will be a fun thread to watch

/POPCORN


So has this thread provided sufficient entertainment, or are you disappointed by the lack of hand-wringing among the faithful MSNBC watchers (who apparently don't actually exist)?
 
2012-11-28 05:46:53 PM  

Cythraul: MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.


Is it that hard to feel superior to MSNBC and Fox? The guy wrote a book. When's the last time an infotainment commentator read a book that hasn't been cliffnoted for them by their staff?
 
2012-11-28 05:47:24 PM  

DarwiOdrade: cman: This will be a fun thread to watch

/POPCORN

So has this thread provided sufficient entertainment, or are you disappointed by the lack of hand-wringing among the faithful MSNBC watchers (who apparently don't actually exist)?


MSNBC is just a strawman for FOX. If it weren't for FOX nitwits crying about i, I wouldn't even know it exists.

/FOX. The most popular cable news show, but yet somehow NOT part of the MSM.
 
2012-11-28 05:50:10 PM  
It boils down to this: If you actually want your news biased, then fark you, your opinions are worth shiat. I'm a lefty and it actually makes me proud MSNBC doesn't get half the viewers FOX does, because it means there's less of us who want extreme partisan nonsense.
 
2012-11-28 05:50:24 PM  
Hero tag is still on vacation?

I freakin love this guy!
 
2012-11-28 05:50:33 PM  
There is no such thing as unbiased news. Each station decides what is reported on and what isn't. That every other segment on NPR is about the plight of the poor and/or black is proof they are biased because they think that is more important than anything else that is happening. That fox news is still talking in circles about Benghazi is proof fox news is biased too. Even if their segments appear on the surface to be unbiased, the fact they are reporting these (non)stories and the frequency at which they do reveals their biases. I don't give a fark if, within a specific 30 second news segment, two sides are given equal time to spout off a one-line zinger, the decision to even bring up or ignore a subject matter reveals bias.

And if you want to argue that one of these two stories really is important and deserving to be on the nightly news then it is clear to me you can't step outside of your own biases.

A chicken would argue that 20+ million chickens slaughtered in the US every day that isn't reported is proof that these news stations are biased because every news segment is human-centric.
 
2012-11-28 05:50:33 PM  
Wait, is there actually anyone who disagrees with that statement?
 
2012-11-28 05:53:09 PM  
Both on TV, both biased but msnbc mostly presents a progressive viewpoint, which they advertise, while FN spews right-wing propaganda while claiming to be balanced.

Not the same, sorry. That should be clear after the convention, debate and election coverage.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-28 05:56:33 PM  
Yes both channels are bad but NOT equally bad!
MSNBC is all about crooks and criminals Friday night. Wait....what....yeah I guess they are, the Friday night crooks and criminals are just lower class crooks and criminals. What you gonna do! What you gonna do! When they come for you!
 
2012-11-28 05:57:29 PM  

Toots de la Footsjelly: Yes both channels are bad but NOT equally bad!


Be careful. Lots of people around these parts think that sort of thing is impossible
 
2012-11-28 05:59:46 PM  
Bi-Partisanship
 
2012-11-28 05:59:49 PM  
Lest we forget Democracy Now

//Whose
//Warren Peas?
 
2012-11-28 06:01:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-28 06:06:35 PM  

signaljammer: Lest we forget Democracy Now


They're not NPR.

Democracy Now runs on lots of NPR affiliates, but they're not under the NPR umbrella. The confusion is understandable, though, since a lot of NPR affiliates use Democracy Now and its equally-batshiat cousin Alternative Radio as fillers here and there, especially since Car Talk called it a career.
 
2012-11-28 06:07:19 PM  
If you portend to the title of journalist, would you like to know at what precise you will know that you have screwed the pooch? When you say "News for..." It's news or it ain't. I could open a newspaper that caters to albino hookers who drive Volvos, but, um.. well you get the idea.
 
2012-11-28 06:08:03 PM  

ghare: Gr8Zen: Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?

I just about always consider Al Jazeera the least biased (not necessarily best) source for US political news. The BBC is generally okay if it doesn't involve the UK or any part of the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict, on which BBC is not only biased but often an active participant in spreading misinformation (Jon Donnison, for example).

Generally, wire services like the AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, if lacking depth.

NPR's Morning Edition is definitely left-leaning but I haven't caught them intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Other programming on NPR, like On the Media & On Point are full blown left but still fact-based. Talk of the Nation is fully a joke.

Most of the major print sources have a smattering of leanings, often far more dependent on the reporter than the publication. I find read-worthy stuff all the time in majors like Wash Post, NYT, WSJ, and yes, even USA Today.

Only rightwingers find NPR to be liberal. So, yeah, go back to Fox.


I'm pretty much as moderate as it's possible to be, despite strong feelings on a lot of topics. You think Talk of the Nation isn't leftish and doesn't have an agenda?

I find Marketplace to be the only truly centrist news program on npr.
 
2012-11-28 06:08:30 PM  

Nabb1: I like the cut of this man's jib.


How do you know he's circumcised?
 
2012-11-28 06:08:59 PM  
precise moment, I accidentally left out a whole word. : )
 
2012-11-28 06:10:59 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


I doubt that a total lack of bias is even possible.
 
2012-11-28 06:16:18 PM  
While MSNBC is not unbiased, it does push a democrat voice in the media, it's not as overt -nor as ridiculous- as Fox 'News' does it.
 
2012-11-28 06:19:18 PM  
At this point, I think if you started a 24 hour news network that just reported the facts and didn't allow any extremists of either side but welcomed reasonable discussion on topics in a non-biased debate style programming with scorekeeping and whatnot you'd actually be able to do fairly well. It may even been shocking at first (at least to people who have lived in the 24 hour news bubble for the past decade+). Something like that could even make me want to turn my cable back on. I stopped paying any credence to the news somewhere around October 2001 when they pretty much stopped trying to report facts and just play heartstrings. Maybe this guy is a sign that the rest of the nation has gotten tired of this crap too, if this past election cycle didn't do it though I doubt anything will.
 
2012-11-28 06:19:22 PM  

skullkrusher: Toots de la Footsjelly: Yes both channels are bad but NOT equally bad!

Be careful. Lots of people around these parts think that sort of thing is impossible


Let me be clear here.
Fox and MSNBC are mouthpieces. But Fox is mostly conjecture. MSNBC is about 50% conjecture but the other 50 is reporting. It's when the real zealots get the mic the problems happen and for the past 15-20 years that mic has been in their hands way way too much on both sides of that coin.
 
2012-11-28 06:31:36 PM  

X-Geek: thecpt: X-Geek: [i614.photobucket.com image 373x330]

How does being annoyed by someone (in this case two things) make one feel superior? Its farking annoying to hear people spin news constantly.

You don't get the feeling that Ricks is showing that he feels superior to both? I only skimmed TFA, but the situation reminded me of the xkcd, so I updated it. Personally, I can't watch Fox for more than a few minutes before changing the channel in disgust. I'll watch MSNBC, but try to take note of hypocritical comments. I like the first half of Colbert, but what's with all the friggin' singing? Daily Show++


Oh you meant him specifically. I thought you were trying to say on a general basis. I could say the exact thing as in the comic, but Its not to establish superiority. Those shows like you said, are hypocritical and just annoy the crap out of me.
 
2012-11-28 06:36:10 PM  

CygnusDarius: While MSNBC is not unbiased, it does push a democrat voice in the media, it's not as overt -nor as ridiculous- as Fox 'News' does it.


A couple minor differences are that msnbc doesn't tend to just make shiat up, or systematically, 'accidentally', label politicians with the wrong party letter.

There is a scientific term for what fox does: lie.
 
2012-11-28 06:40:03 PM  
www.puertochan.org
 
2012-11-28 06:40:24 PM  
The Real News Network has some decent articles that you normally won't find on other news sites. I check out several sites a day for my news and generally stay away from the MSM as much as possible.
 
2012-11-28 06:43:33 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


NPR
 
2012-11-28 06:50:48 PM  

Evil High Priest: CygnusDarius: While MSNBC is not unbiased, it does push a democrat voice in the media, it's not as overt -nor as ridiculous- as Fox 'News' does it.

A couple minor differences are that msnbc doesn't tend to just make shiat up, or systematically, 'accidentally', label politicians with the wrong party letter.

There is a scientific term for what fox does: lie.


Yes, but one thing is our everyday lies, and then there's the bombastic lies Fox shows on tv.
 
2012-11-28 06:54:19 PM  
I blame Walter Cronkite. Without him the expression, "In this journalist's opinion" would not exist. A journalist doesn't have an opinion, a journalist reports the facts. An editorialist or commentator may have an opinion, but a journalist should not (at least publicly).

I was watching a bit this morning on CNN and the infotwat was interviewing a lawyer representing Hobby Lobby in a case to exempt the company from specifically providing "morning after" pills to its employees. Much like Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company founded by evangelical Christians and they feel that providing that specific medication is tantamount to paying for an abortion. Fast forward to the end of the interview when the CNN woman says, "And this will be my final question...'Let me just say that when a company like yours restricts a woman's access to contraception that is the same as the government doing it.' " Find a question in there.
 
2012-11-28 06:58:18 PM  
So basically, he's mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore?
 
2012-11-28 07:02:21 PM  
While I disagree with his comments about FNC he certainly is right about MSNBC and good on him for at least having applying the same standards to both outlets.

He's still wrong about FNC, though.
 
2012-11-28 07:12:04 PM  

furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.


Yeah, that's been my observation as well. I think MSNBC falls squarely into the "reality has a liberal bias" category: yeah, they may have a point of view, but it's based on facts.
 
2012-11-28 07:27:11 PM  
If it's not on BBC or NPR, it didn't happen.
 
2012-11-28 07:32:35 PM  
It's a sad day when Comedy Central has the most balanced politics on cable: Daily Show for the liberals and Colbert Report for the conservatives.
 
2012-11-28 07:36:03 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


Well, it sure ain't MSNBC.
 
2012-11-28 07:37:34 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.


Only because you don't agree with it.
 
2012-11-28 07:39:23 PM  
illegal.tender:

Yeah, that's been my observation as well. I think MSNBC falls squarely into the "reality has a liberal bias" category: yeah, they may have a point of view, but it's based on facts.

That is a trite statement. Why can't you come up with an original thought?

The difference between conservatives and liberals is the way each one weighs its values and prioritizes. It isn't a question of which side is congruent with facts. There are no "*right* answers here, only priorities.

Which is most fair?
1) Everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes
2) Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes
3) The more someone makes, the larger the percentage of their income they pay in taxes

Answer: There is no "most fair". Even within answer 3 there are an infinite number of ways to create a progressive tax plan.

The difference between Rs and Ds isn't facts vs fictions, its the differences in their values and the way you prioritize those values against one another.
 
2012-11-28 07:39:25 PM  

Tumunga: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it sure ain't MSNBC.


You just have to pick what corporation you want news from. GE? Time Warner? Murdoch Enterprises? Disney?
 
2012-11-28 07:40:50 PM  

InmanRoshi: AdolfOliverPanties: It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.

Even as a card carrying liberal, I can claim MSNBC jumped the journalistic shark when Al Sharpton is one of the main on air personalities. It's now officially useless "info-tainment".


Sure, but MSNBC has the influence of horse shiat on large numbers of people, so it is in some respects a falser analogy than most would like to see.
 
2012-11-28 07:42:53 PM  

Evil Mackerel: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Deutsche Welle?


Fark Politics tab?
 
2012-11-28 07:45:23 PM  
Oh hey, another guy "just trying to sell books".

I guess righties are used to people making shiat up "just trying to sell books". That's probably why they assume everyone else is doing the same thing.
 
2012-11-28 07:46:13 PM  
keep farkin' that chicken!
 
2012-11-28 07:47:35 PM  

occamswrist: illegal.tender:

Yeah, that's been my observation as well. I think MSNBC falls squarely into the "reality has a liberal bias" category: yeah, they may have a point of view, but it's based on facts.

That is a trite statement. Why can't you come up with an original thought?

The difference between conservatives and liberals is the way each one weighs its values and prioritizes. It isn't a question of which side is congruent with facts. There are no "*right* answers here, only priorities.

Which is most fair?
1) Everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes
2) Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes
3) The more someone makes, the larger the percentage of their income they pay in taxes

Answer: There is no "most fair". Even within answer 3 there are an infinite number of ways to create a progressive tax plan.

The difference between Rs and Ds isn't facts vs fictions, its the differences in their values and the way you prioritize those values against one another.


Sure there is. Not in finance or maybe even foreign policy... but on some of the other fronts... which group considers disregarding decades or centuries of scientific research as "nope, don't believe in it" a part of their platform? Frankly, even bringing up the word "belief" or pretending such things are political in the first place is distinctly incongruous with even the concept of fact.
 
2012-11-28 07:50:05 PM  
Test can u see this???
 
2012-11-28 07:55:09 PM  

you are a puppet: Speaking as a liberal who has never watched MSNBC, it does come across as a wannabe FN from what I've seen on fark. I don't really care that it's "not as" biased as Fox. Nothing is..

I have never heard of my liberal or democrat friends mention watching MSNBC. Whereas my Republican friends (and especially their parents (and i would assume ESPECIALLY their grandparents)) watch Fox constantly. So in that sense, this guy is right, they are like Fox (a pandering entertainment network masquerading as news in order to build a brand) but not as good at it.



yeah, this. People that I know that watch MSNBC also watch a few other channels and tend to also read, and I don't discover this unless I take the time to pay attention. Fox viewers watch Fox. All The Time. The TV is left on in their places all day while they go around the house. Sometimes more that one TV is on so they can move around the place (if their are the affluent big-house people) and not miss a juicy bit.
 
2012-11-28 07:55:52 PM  

BesiktasBoy83: Test can u see this???


Yessir

Fark had a fart and some shiat broke apart
 
2012-11-28 07:59:04 PM  

lordjupiter: Oh hey, another guy "just trying to sell books".
I guess righties are used to people making shiat up "just trying to sell books". That's probably why they assume everyone else is doing the same thing.


It's amazing how all these people who write books end up on talk shows right after they're published, where they mention their books. Coincidence? NO FARKING WAY.

/dun-dun
 
2012-11-28 08:01:17 PM  
That's why I get all my news from divining goat entrails and sheep testicles.
 
2012-11-28 08:01:49 PM  

Sweaty Dynamite: I blame Walter Cronkite. Without him the expression, "In this journalist's opinion" would not exist. A journalist doesn't have an opinion, a journalist reports the facts. An editorialist or commentator may have an opinion, but a journalist should not (at least publicly).

I was watching a bit this morning on CNN and the infotwat was interviewing a lawyer representing Hobby Lobby in a case to exempt the company from specifically providing "morning after" pills to its employees. Much like Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby is a privately owned company founded by evangelical Christians and they feel that providing that specific medication is tantamount to paying for an abortion. Fast forward to the end of the interview when the CNN woman says, "And this will be my final question...'Let me just say that when a company like yours restricts a woman's access to contraception that is the same as the government doing it.' " Find a question in there.




What you are asking for is referred to, appropriately derogatorily, as stenography reporting. Ask Questions, Write Down/Report Answers. It is the current default reporting style in newspapers, and it is the laziest and least useful thing a journalist can do. In the interest of balance the reporter spends about half their time with two possible viewpoints, and leaves the reader just reading a "he said, she said" view of any issue.

Not everything a journalist does is "ask a question"
 
2012-11-28 08:04:48 PM  

douchebag/hater: While I disagree with his comments about FNC he certainly is right about MSNBC and good on him for at least having applying the same standards to both outlets.

He's still wrong about FNC, though.


This is why no one takes you seriously.
 
2012-11-28 08:06:29 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


Ready for the punchline? He says CNN is the best of the bunch.
 
2012-11-28 08:10:43 PM  
So when is he scheduled to promote his book on the only equal opportunity news skewer on television, The Colbert Report?
 
2012-11-28 08:11:28 PM  
It's nice that DW and AJE got a mention somewhere up there, but really if anything is a left-wing equivalent to FOX News, it's RT. MsNBC is partisan, but it's decidedly centrist.
 
2012-11-28 08:19:52 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Both on TV, both biased but msnbc mostly presents a progressive viewpoint, which they advertise, while FN spews right-wing propaganda while claiming to be balanced.

Not the same, sorry. That should be clear after the convention, debate and election coverage.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 850x467]


NO DON'T YOU GET IT THEY ARE EXACTLY EQUIVALENT AND THIS BRAVE AMERICAN IS SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
 
2012-11-28 08:20:53 PM  

Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.


Watchtower?
 
2012-11-28 08:22:02 PM  
Oh please, the vast majority of you can't even seem to use the words {liberal,democrat,republican,conservative} correctly.
 
2012-11-28 08:24:04 PM  

zimbach: It's nice that DW and AJE got a mention somewhere up there, but really if anything is a left-wing equivalent to FOX News, it's RT. MsNBC is partisan, but it's decidedly centrist.


The difference between the two is that Fox News was designed from the ground up to be the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. MSNBC didn't start out liberal but realized there was a market for liberal commentary when Keith Olbermann became successful and then began targeting their commentary towards that audience.
 
2012-11-28 08:35:55 PM  

ProfessorOhki: occamswrist: illegal.tender:

Yeah, that's been my observation as well. I think MSNBC falls squarely into the "reality has a liberal bias" category: yeah, they may have a point of view, but it's based on facts.

That is a trite statement. Why can't you come up with an original thought?

The difference between conservatives and liberals is the way each one weighs its values and prioritizes. It isn't a question of which side is congruent with facts. There are no "*right* answers here, only priorities.

Which is most fair?
1) Everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes
2) Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes
3) The more someone makes, the larger the percentage of their income they pay in taxes

Answer: There is no "most fair". Even within answer 3 there are an infinite number of ways to create a progressive tax plan.

The difference between Rs and Ds isn't facts vs fictions, its the differences in their values and the way you prioritize those values against one another.

Sure there is. Not in finance or maybe even foreign policy... but on some of the other fronts... which group considers disregarding decades or centuries of scientific research as "nope, don't believe in it" a part of their platform? Frankly, even bringing up the word "belief" or pretending such things are political in the first place is distinctly incongruous with even the concept of fact.


There are facts. And sometimes our scientific understanding is close enough to those facts we can gain a degree of predictability over nature. And then there are policies. Those policy decisions are what separate the parties. If the policy can be made with the word "should" as in "We should reduce the amount of CO2 humans emit" then you aren't making statements of fact, but rather value judgement.

Let's not confuse individuals whose beliefs are incorrect with party platforms because I wouldn't want to claim that bans on dihydrogen monoxide represent the Democrats platform. In that case, it isn't that a ban on dihydrogen monoxide is scientifically wrong, just that from a values-perspective, it is ridiculous to suggest.

Can you show me a scientifically incorrect statement in the R or D platform?
 
2012-11-28 08:41:45 PM  

Mentat: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Ready for the punchline? He says CNN is the best of the bunch.


any network that slaps me in the face with their Wolf Blitzer has a lot of apologizing to do.
 
2012-11-28 08:44:45 PM  
We'll he does have a point... that FAUX atheist S.E. Cupp is on MSNBC and she is nothing but a right-wing shill.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:17 PM  

zedster: As anyone tried a more serious news station in the US market? I don't real consider AJE in that category based on the fact they have a large backing of ex-BBC people and target the Middle East and African stores, so not really US market oriented


Believe it or not, the International feed of CNN that's targeted to every other country in the world that isn't Canada or the US is actually pretty good and informative.

But if I want national news, I watch NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. I get more out of those 30 minutes than I do watching a whole day of cable news from the US.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:33 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


Probably something in print. It doesn't take someone egotistical to see what a joke cable news is. I've found CNN to be the less irritating of the 3 cable news networks, but even they leave much to be desired. You'll learn much more by reading.
 
2012-11-28 09:07:30 PM  
Worthy of HERO tag.
 
2012-11-28 09:21:56 PM  

halfof33: Claiming that the Benghazi attack was similar to the last five attacks against embassies is nonsense, and to the extent he is calling out anyone, right or left, for stating so, he is an idiot.


marketingtomilk.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-28 09:24:36 PM  

Lexx: The best journalism out there, right now, is Al Jazeera and the BBC. Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Scary world, eh?


Well. The BBC can take the piss out of itself at least.

Newsnight is the flagship BBC TV news programme. Yes, it was involved in scandal and infamy. But would any broadcaster in the US allow anything like this to go out?

The Face Of Oblivion: Lexx: Considering the recent scandals, however, it might actually be Al Jazeera.

Not by a mile. Al Jazeera's reporting is good at pushing a certain type of provincial Arab worldview, and does so consistently. The BBC may be a bit comfortable with the British government but does pretty well in covering the rest of the world.


How is the BBC "a bit comfortable with the British government"? It's funded by anyone who owns a TV, but the beeb is obsessively compulsive about being impartial. During elections, it has to give fair time to all candidates.

The US used to have the same sort of broadcasting standard, didn't it? I want to say, "the fairness doctrine", requiring all political broadcasts to be unbiased. Amirite? I'm sure I read somewhere that its repeal led to the rise of Limbaugh and his ilk.
 
2012-11-28 09:29:32 PM  

Cythraul: BronyMedic: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

Well, it's certainly not Infowars.

I do have to give this man a round of applause. At least he's sticking to his principles, and saying what a LOT of Americans feel at this moment. They're tired of the news not reporting the news, and instead spinning it to serve the agenda of a political faction.

MSNBC =/= Fox News. It's a bit of a false equivalency. His comment reeks of 'they're all bad, and I have now found a way to feel superior to it all.' Seems a bit egotistical.

So I'd really like to know which news sources he feels are legitimate and unbiased, if any.


CurrentTV
 
2012-11-28 09:32:49 PM  

iron de havilland: How is the BBC "a bit comfortable with the British government"? It's funded by anyone who owns a TV, but the beeb is obsessively compulsive about being impartial. During elections, it has to give fair time to all candidates.


True. It's silly to compare that to Al Jazeera where the Emir of Qatar has editorial influence over the network and what it can and can't show and accommodates the news network to their agenda.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great network to watch, especially for Middle East coverage, even though it is biased.

Long story short, I don't think David Cameron has as much editorial influence over the BBC that the Emir of Qatar has over Al Jazeera.
 
2012-11-28 09:41:08 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Sure there is. Not in finance or maybe even foreign policy... but on some of the other fronts... which group considers disregarding decades or centuries of scientific research as "nope, don't believe in it" a part of their platform? Frankly, even bringing up the word "belief" or pretending such things are political in the first place is distinctly incongruous with even the concept of fact.


fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-11-28 09:50:59 PM  
Until episodes of Lockdown have Benghazi attacks every ten minutes, MSNBC is not "like" Fox, unless you're going to suggest that humans are "like" fish in that both have spinal cords.
 
2012-11-28 09:54:41 PM  

DubtodaIll: At this point, I think if you started a 24 hour news network that just reported the facts and didn't allow any extremists of either side but welcomed reasonable discussion on topics in a non-biased debate style programming with scorekeeping and whatnot you'd actually be able to do fairly well. It may even been shocking at first (at least to people who have lived in the 24 hour news bubble for the past decade+). Something like that could even make me want to turn my cable back on. I stopped paying any credence to the news somewhere around October 2001 when they pretty much stopped trying to report facts and just play heartstrings. Maybe this guy is a sign that the rest of the nation has gotten tired of this crap too, if this past election cycle didn't do it though I doubt anything will.

At this point, I think if you started a 24 hour news network that just reported the facts and didn't allow any extremists of either side you would be attacked relentlessly by Fox as having an extreme Liberal bias, even more Liberal than MSNBC. There is nothing that Conservatives hate more than facts. (MSNBC plays fast and loose with the facts a bit as well, but since the facts and reality have a Liberal bias, its not quite as bad there)
 
2012-11-28 09:54:55 PM  

illegal.tender: furiousxgeorge: MSNBC, which gives three hours every morning to a Gingrich Revolution Republican congressman and has non-opinion based news shows that are neutral to network standards is just like Fox which has zero liberal hosts of any kind and displays bias in what should be non-opinion based news broadcasts. 

Sorry, having some liberal opinion programs does not make them Fox. They have a conservative led program too, and remain neutral outside of opinion shows. Fox does not feature this sort of balance, it is wall to wall propaganda.

Yeah, that's been my observation as well. I think MSNBC falls squarely into the "reality has a liberal bias" category: yeah, they may have a point of view, but it's based on facts.


Anytime anyone says "reality has a liberal bias", it is appreciated, because it shows to me that said person is a smug, pretentious moran and I can automatically ignore anything else they have said. And I say that as a liberal.
 
2012-11-28 10:01:58 PM  
Apparently you lib idiots haven't seen the msnbc commercial that celebrates Obama winning the election. Unbiased? Lol.

Deep de derp
 
2012-11-28 10:11:48 PM  
I think MSNBC leans almost as far left as Fox leans right - and they are equally as partisan - but there is a critical difference: MSNBC is far, FAR more factual. I don't believe they have a platform of dishonesty like Fox and the Republican Party as a whole does.

/orphaned republican
 
2012-11-28 10:24:58 PM  

flamingboard: Cythraul: I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.

NPR


LOL
 
2012-11-28 10:40:54 PM  

occamswrist: There are facts. And sometimes our scientific understanding is close enough to those facts we can gain a degree of predictability over nature. And then there are policies. Those policy decisions are what separate the parties. If the policy can be made with the word "should" as in "We should reduce the amount of CO2 humans emit" then you aren't making statements of fact, but rather value judgement.

Let's not confuse individuals whose beliefs are incorrect with party platforms because I wouldn't want to claim that bans on dihydrogen monoxide represent the Democrats platform. In that case, it isn't that a ban on dihydrogen monoxide is scientifically wrong, just that from a values-perspective, it is ridiculous to suggest.

Can you show me a scientifically incorrect statement in the R or D platform?


Outside of Huntsman, Romney was actually the least moronic of the 2012 presidential candidates in that he actually *believes* in evolution. The fact that "do you believe in long established biological science" is a valid question is an embarrassment to the country.

I'm almost shocked he was able to secure the GOP nod with out of the box thinking like, "I've never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work."
 
2012-11-28 11:11:25 PM  

giftedmadness: Apparently you lib idiots haven't seen the msnbc commercial that celebrates Obama winning the election. Unbiased? Lol.

Deep de derp


They don't claim to be unbiased though. They proudly toot their progressive horn. Fox does claim to be Fair & Balanced.

Both are biased. Fox is more heavily biased to the right than MSNBC is to the left. All news sources have a bias, apply your critical thinking to whatever you hear.
 
2012-11-28 11:17:32 PM  
Gumby?
 
2012-11-28 11:33:37 PM  

BronyMedic: sigdiamond2000: You seem to have an inordinate amount of fun watching threads.

Careful. He's looking at you on the monitor.

[b.vimeocdn.com image 640x361]


"Security breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach."
 
2012-11-28 11:34:01 PM  
Most of those chortling over Tom Ricks's highly unusual ninety seconds on Fox News this week were wowed by the way he spoke liberal truth to conservative power, informing his astonished interviewer, Jon Scott, that the Sept. 11 tragedy at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, had been "hyped" for political reasons, especially by ... Fox itself.

Basically he got on air and spouted a liberal talking point on Benghazi.

Obama was completely incompetent before, during, and after Benghazi, you may decide for yourself if he tried to lie about the facts because he knew he was incompetent or whether the lies were part of the incompetence but just because the liberal wing of the media decided to play along with the Obama administration and Fox didn't does not mean Fox are the bad guys. These are after all the same organizations that saw fit to destroy Joe the Plumber simply and make a story out of him when he didn't matter a bit in the least.

But Benghazi? Where four Americans died? Oh you're just being "political" if you cover that.

If this exact same thing had happened under Bush, take the "politicization" and crank it up to by about a hundred fold and throw in a heavy dose of spitting rage and you would have the liberal response.
 
2012-11-28 11:39:59 PM  

randomjsa: Most of those chortling over Tom Ricks's highly unusual ninety seconds on Fox News this week were wowed by the way he spoke liberal truth to conservative power, informing his astonished interviewer, Jon Scott, that the Sept. 11 tragedy at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, had been "hyped" for political reasons, especially by ... Fox itself.

Basically he got on air and spouted a liberal talking point on Benghazi.

Obama was completely incompetent before, during, and after Benghazi, you may decide for yourself if he tried to lie about the facts because he knew he was incompetent or whether the lies were part of the incompetence but just because the liberal wing of the media decided to play along with the Obama administration and Fox didn't does not mean Fox are the bad guys. These are after all the same organizations that saw fit to destroy Joe the Plumber simply and make a story out of him when he didn't matter a bit in the least.

But Benghazi? Where four Americans died? Oh you're just being "political" if you cover that.

If this exact same thing had happened under Bush, take the "politicization" and crank it up to by about a hundred fold and throw in a heavy dose of spitting rage and you would have the liberal response.


Earn that paycheck, you shill. You don't give a damn about dead Americans.
 
2012-11-28 11:42:15 PM  

Farkomatic: I think MSNBC leans almost as far left as Fox leans right - and they are equally as partisan - but there is a critical difference: MSNBC is far, FAR more factual. I don't believe they have a platform of dishonesty like Fox and the Republican Party as a whole does.

/orphaned republican


Exactly right, MSNBC doesn't make shiat up but they have a partisan bias nonetheless. CNN just has an ignorant bias.
 
2012-11-28 11:45:19 PM  

occamswrist: Can you show me a scientifically incorrect statement in the R or D platform?


Direct from the Republican Platform 2012.
 
2012-11-29 12:30:07 AM  

Corvus: That's funny.

However I believe MSNB is liberal biased but FOX is Republican party partisan.

Those are two very different things.


I concur. Well stated.
 
2012-11-29 06:46:24 AM  

LucklessWonder: giftedmadness: Apparently you lib idiots haven't seen the msnbc commercial that celebrates Obama winning the election. Unbiased? Lol.

Deep de derp

They don't claim to be unbiased though. They proudly toot their progressive horn. Fox does claim to be Fair & Balanced.

Both are biased. Fox is more heavily biased to the right than MSNBC is to the left. All news sources have a bias, apply your critical thinking to whatever you hear.


that's like saying it's okay to be a murderer if you just admit that you are one. nice logic.
 
2012-11-29 07:05:06 AM  

Dinjiin: Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.

I look at Democrats as cats and Republicans as dogs. It is very difficult to herd cats since they're far too individualistic and tend to have loose affiliations to their alphas. Meanwhile, dogs have an incredibly strong pack mentality and loyalty to the alpha. They also know that failure to submit results in banishment from the pack, where the chances of surviving on your own are low.


That's a perfect description. Bravo.
 
2012-11-29 08:53:45 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Long story short, I don't think David Cameron has as much editorial influence over the BBC that the Emir of Qatar has over Al Jazeera.


I thought that was because Cameron used all his editorial influence with Sky News or one of Rupert's other phone-tapping lie-rags on that side of the pond, and then denied it.
 
2012-11-29 09:42:09 AM  

giftedmadness: LucklessWonder: giftedmadness: Apparently you lib idiots haven't seen the msnbc commercial that celebrates Obama winning the election. Unbiased? Lol.

Deep de derp

They don't claim to be unbiased though. They proudly toot their progressive horn. Fox does claim to be Fair & Balanced.

Both are biased. Fox is more heavily biased to the right than MSNBC is to the left. All news sources have a bias, apply your critical thinking to whatever you hear.

that's like saying it's okay to be a murderer if you just admit that you are one. nice logic.


Sounds like you're in agreement with many liberals in this thread. They're both bad but Fox is the poster child.
 
2012-11-29 10:47:17 AM  

Dinjiin: Lumpmoose: Anyone who thinks MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrats is far over-estimating the ability of liberals to form and maintain coalitions.

I look at Democrats as cats and Republicans as dogs. It is very difficult to herd cats since they're far too individualistic and tend to have loose affiliations to their alphas. Meanwhile, dogs have an incredibly strong pack mentality and loyalty to the alpha. They also know that failure to submit results in banishment from the pack, where the chances of surviving on your own are low.

And on the subject of dogs, I always liked this comic:

[images114.fotki.com image 450x303]


Democrats are light-brown-spotted lemmings, and Republicans are dark-brown-spotted lemmings.
 
2012-12-01 12:35:35 AM  

LaughingRadish: "Liberal truth"? That's a often-told lie, right?


Because the Right never does this. Ever. Nope. Because, you know, that'd be hypocrisy of the highest order. Ayup. It sure would be. If that were the case.
 
Displayed 250 of 250 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report