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
    More: Followup, Fox News, Tom Ricks, MSNBC, military affairs  
•       •       •

10544 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 4:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-28 01:30:05 PM  
15 votes:

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 01:29:45 PM  
15 votes:
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 04:10:47 PM  
10 votes:
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 01:30:13 PM  
9 votes:
It is a false equivalency by a mile, but at least he can claim his integrity.
2012-11-28 03:20:10 PM  
6 votes:

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 01:35:22 PM  
5 votes:

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 04:11:06 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:11:05 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:59:30 PM  
4 votes:
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 06:01:40 PM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-11-28 04:18:50 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:27:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:27:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:22:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:20:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:17:14 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:14:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:10:24 PM  
2 votes:
The media HATES it when you tell the truth.
2012-11-28 03:28:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:26:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:01:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:47:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:36:50 PM  
2 votes:
Say what you want about his opinion on FOX News, but he hit ACORNBC dead-on.
2012-11-28 02:19:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:12:30 PM  
2 votes:
I like the cut of this man's jib.
2012-11-28 01:37:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:36:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:34:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:27:20 PM  
2 votes:
This will be a fun thread to watch

/POPCORN
2012-11-28 01:15:37 PM  
2 votes:
I wonder what his idea of a non-biased news source is, then.
2012-11-28 09:41:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:47:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:47:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:35:30 PM  
1 vote:
No HERO tag for this guy?
2012-11-28 05:21:23 PM  
1 vote:
I are serious author. This are serious.
This guys sounds like a complete douchebag. Let me guess, he's a Libertarian.
2012-11-28 05:13:19 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:12:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:04:40 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:56:51 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:51:25 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:34:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:30:00 PM  
1 vote:

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
2012-11-28 04:28:30 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:28:29 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:26:06 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:25:40 PM  
1 vote:
i614.photobucket.com
2012-11-28 04:22:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:21:29 PM  
1 vote:
one lethal cock-up
2012-11-28 04:20:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:18:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:18:17 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:12:29 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:50:27 PM  
1 vote:
and was he thrown of MSNBC too or did they let him continue?
2012-11-28 03:15:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:56:14 PM  
1 vote:
He's funny, I like him.
2012-11-28 01:53:32 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:38:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:30:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:17:51 PM  
1 vote:
So, MSNBC is also a wing of the Republican Party?
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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