Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Can't have a thread that includes the word Russia without whataboutism. And almost always by the same ctrl-left posters.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Thanks, 45. Rachel Maddow beats Fox News in ratings
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
- Status
Can't have a thread that includes the word Russia without whataboutism. And almost always by the same ctrl-left posters.
Which you have to do in order to survive on the air. Nobody cares about straight reporting on cable. Again I'll ask the question does she spread hate and ignorance? Her "gimmick" is there so she doesn't get canceled. Do you disagree with her positions?
Unfortunately, the rest of MSNBC is rapidly becoming an enclave for "moderate" Republicans and former Fox News reporters, but Maddow's success possibly points foward to a change in media focus in general. This is still cable TV, however, and doesn't even scratch the monolithic juggernaut that is AM radio. A lot of Maddow's strength is that she's always had a strong presence on the internet through the liberal blogosphere.
I like Maddow.
She disappoints me all the time, but I can say with certainly that she tries to do good and does a good job not devolving into the gross cynicism common with opinion pundits.
I like how generally pretty happy she is. That is always nice to see.
She is probably the only opinion pundit on cable that I have ANY respect for.
And I know people do not like her windup, but usually very informative I find.
She disappoints me all the time, but I can say with certainly that she tries to do good and does a good job not devolving into the gross cynicism common with opinion pundits.
I like how generally pretty happy she is. That is always nice to see.
She is probably the only opinion pundit on cable that I have ANY respect for.
And I know people do not like her windup, but usually very informative I find.
Escape Goat
Member
Relax and watch some Thor 2.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
I prefer gimmick free news (for the most part) of the BBC or NYT
jack_package_200
Banned
Schattenjäger;234652231 said:
Be less transparent.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Garbage>>>>Msnbc>cnn>>>fox
Robdraggoo
Member
I just miss Olbermann
He did it to himself.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What do you base this analysis on? Ask yourself why you're being selective with this train of thought.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
http://www.vocativ.com/388500/election-interference-us-45-countries/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...arn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/
http://www.newsweek.com/cia-has-been-undermining-governments-years-531609
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dling-doing-years-vladimir-putin-donald-trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
I was asking about the specific story. We're all exquisitely aware that the US interferes with other countries. In fact you'll note that nobody has ever actually denied this, on the left or the right, as your magnificent miss-the-point list demonstrates.
But these stories aren't dismissing another story because America is/was bad.
Maddow is one of the few watchable personalities in all of cable news. Yea sure cable news is not good, but she is one of the few bright spots.
Also it's funny that people apparently took so much stock in Maddow that one goof from her shattered their ability to view her as credible. Has she ever paraded around saying her and her show are the paramount of news journalism? She knows what she is, a talk show host.
Also it's funny that people apparently took so much stock in Maddow that one goof from her shattered their ability to view her as credible. Has she ever paraded around saying her and her show are the paramount of news journalism? She knows what she is, a talk show host.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is the phrase you bolded that you disagree with:
Whatever the extent and outcome of this investigation is, you take the position that it is more consequential than our history of interference?
Because that's the point it was making. Albeit, a flawed one since comparing one event to an entire history of events is of course going to stack the deck.
Both sides bruh. Both siiiiiiiides
Edit: Ahhh that Whataboutism. Right on schedule.
Rentahamster said:
Yes you do.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Are you a mind reader?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The mistake you are making is that those posters' analyses are specific and nuanced with respect to those pundits' specific approaches to cable news as well as their personal preferences in media consumption, whereas your misinterpretation of what they said incorporates Maddow/Oreillley/et al's political beliefs in a general "what is their overall contribution to society" that ignores the nuance that those posters were talking abouit.
SolarPowered
Member
Good for her. I look forward to watching her content more than anyone else's in this political climate.
GuyKazama
Member
The Five beat her yesterday. Looks like Fox is back on top.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-monday-april-24/327598
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-monday-april-24/327598
Uh, so you're saying it pretty different then?
Lord Frieza
Member
I can think for myself, despite what you may think. And really, if you can't see the clear difference, you're just lost in your own world, and there's probably not any real point in even breaking in down, because you are just going to keep muddying something that isn't all that muddy and just going to dismiss anything else as partisanship bias.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Do the Fox News people put out their shows for free? Maddow puts her whole show's audio up as a free podcast within hours after it airs.
I'm just thinking about the earlier conversation about her "chasing ratings." It seems like she also cares about just informing the public. Do Fox or CNN feel the same? (I honestly don't know, I never search for their stuff because their TV is trash.)
I've listened to her daily for years, she's been on top of the Carter Page story for months, well before any other news outlet put a serious focus on it. What investigative journalism does Hannity do, people who think they're the same?
I'm just thinking about the earlier conversation about her "chasing ratings." It seems like she also cares about just informing the public. Do Fox or CNN feel the same? (I honestly don't know, I never search for their stuff because their TV is trash.)
I've listened to her daily for years, she's been on top of the Carter Page story for months, well before any other news outlet put a serious focus on it. What investigative journalism does Hannity do, people who think they're the same?
Lord Frieza
Member
Fox, and many of its personalities definitely care about 'informing' the public to their 'truth'. I don't know about CNN. It's mixed there. There are times when I think they legitimately care about what they're doing, and there are other times when I think they're just doing the both sides things because fuck it, that's what we do nowadays.
I've been subscribed to her podcast (which as you say is a free audio recording of her show and available shortly after her show airs) since Microsoft introduced the Zune. It was one of the first podcasts I ever subscribed to.
As you say, she's been doing this (something that could easily rob her of views) for years because she seems to care more about informing the public than anything else.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The "I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you because it's so obvious" defense is a yellow flag that it's actually not that obvious.
As a side point, I have a suspicion that you might be misunderstanding my point still.
Lord Frieza
Member
If it's not obvious why it is that any kind of analogy of Maddow to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck is nonsense in any way or form, then call it what you want.
And yes, of course, I and everyone else are always just misunderstanding your point. Your comparison of the current Russian scandal to Benghazi was just too complex and complicated for my partisanly blinded mind is all
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Can you rephrase this please? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Well, if you keep paraphrasing what you think I said wrongly, then what else am I supposed to think?
Do you not think that Benghazi gate and Russia gate are two issues that one party uses, rightly or wrongly, to inflict political damage on the other party? I'm speaking to it specifically as a tool. Not speaking towards the magnitude or "truthiness" or either case, but am including context of the exploitation of evidence, or lack thereof, as a tool.
Lord Frieza
Member
I don't know how to make it clearer, and I know it won't go anywhere
Lol, just like I said, so complex lol. I know what you said, but I am too blinded by my partisanship, as you so well know, I can never see the true face.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Rephrase. All you have to do is say the same thing and change up the vocabulary and sentence structure a touch.
Welp, congrats on being honest with yourself I guess? I think you're being too hard on yourself though, to wit, I didn't say you were blinded by partisanship.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked