Support NeoGAF

[The Albatross]

CNN has been one of the leading voices and examples of the toxic 'both sides are the same' rhetoric that has helped to fuck up our culture. They give like 3-4 hours a day to fucking Wolf Blitzer. They are not better than MSNBC.

I'm not saying which one fits my world view better, I'm saying which one presents news more than the others. MSNBC fits my world view the best, but it does not report news, it's an entertainment, reality TV channel. Really, all three are closer to the E!, Bravo network, or Monday Night RAW than they are to a news channel. If I want to feel righteous about something, I'd turn on MSNBC. If I want to be informed, though, I turn off the TV.

FWIW, I have three dogs in the fight that I'd defend mostly to the death: NYT, PBS, and NPR. They're my standards for good news and good journalism. Pro Publica for investigative, BBC for euro-centric international news (for me). I'm sure there's plenty of other good agencies worldwide, I just don't follow them often to vouch for them.

They do, though. Just because there's no other options on television don't think that they're good or journalistic, or that the bar is so low that "it's not that bad." They're bad, unequivocally bad journalism, that makes you less informed about the world.

 

[Jarate]

You guys are really salty that a TV station tried to get ratings.

And no, Rachel is not conspiratorial or any of the other shit words flung around. She just wants to get to the bottom of something that the government is trying to actively cover up.

 

[EatinOlives]

I mean, it's not wrong, none of the three major news networks are very good, but putting CNN up as the best is dubous. MSNBC isn't great, but CNN really has done just as much damage, just in a different way, than Fox has to general culture and discourse of the country. I can't say that MSNBC has been some shining light in the darkness, but CNN was the leader in it all.

Cable news has a shitton of problems overall, but that post was a black hole of discussion. "It's trash because it's trash. Trash. Did I mention the word trash?"

 

[Lord Frieza]

I'm not saying which one fits my world view better, I'm saying which one presents news more than the others. MSNBC fits my world view the best, but it does not report news, it's an entertainment, reality TV channel. Really, all three are closer to the E!, Bravo network, or Monday Night RAW than they are to a news channel. If I want to feel righteous about something, I'd turn on MSNBC. If I want to be informed, though, I turn off the TV.

FWIW, I have three dogs in the fight that I'd defend mostly to the death: NYT, PBS, and NPR. They're my standards for good news and good journalism. Pro Publica for investigative, BBC for euro-centric international news (for me). I'm sure there's plenty of other good agencies worldwide, I just don't follow them often to vouch for them.

Okay, now you're just talking stupid.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

There's a lot of bullshit they're all the same-ism from people who don't actually watch Rachel Maddow. False equivalence has served us SO WELL recently!

 

[Rentahamster]

You know the FBI and CIA have confirmed that the Russians DID meddle in our election and it IS a big deal.

It's not as confirmed as you think it is. Furthermore, the FBI and CIA don't have that high of a standing for me in terms of my "organizations that have a history of truth telling" list.

I don't expect Tucker Carlson to last too long. He doesn't have any personality that I feel like would draw people in, the way other right wing hosts did/do. He's just a confused looking man-child, that is always "just asking questions".

Don't underestimate Carlson. He's already building up a significant following, and he's not a "traditional" conservative pundit. Well, not anymore, anyway.

I would highly suggest not going down the road with him. I promise you, it's entirely pointless.

I promise you, there's a point

 

[Robdraggoo]

In the words of Lord Shaxx

"Now let's see you do it again"

Hehe

 

[n0razi]

Maddow sucks, can we get Colbert to replace her?

 

[Rentahamster]

There's a lot of bullshit they're all the same-ism from people who don't actually watch Rachel Maddow. False equivalence has served us SO WELL recently!

Here's an analysis that can be derived from actually watching her show.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12...ussia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/

ONE DAY AFTER her network joined the rest of corporate media in cheering for President Trump’s missile attack on Syria, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was back to regular business: seeing Russian collaboration with Trump at work.

It’s “impossible,” fellow anchor Lawrence O’Donnell told Maddow on April 7, to rule out that “Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week – so that his friend in the White House could have a big night with missiles and all of the praise he’s picked up over the past 24 hours.”

Maddow concurred, suggesting that only the FBI’s ongoing probe into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russian electoral interference will determine the truth. “Maybe eventually we’ll get an answer to that from [FBI Director] Jim Comey,” Maddow said.

The Washington Post noted that the “conspiracy theory” drew “derision from across the political spectrum.” But it was not out of place.

MSNBC, the country’s most prominent liberal media outlet, has played a key role in stoking the frenzy over Trump’s alleged involvement with Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential race — in lock step with the Democratic Party’s most avid partisans.

The Intercept conducted a quantitative study of all 28 TRMS episodes in the six-week period between February 20 and March 31. Russia-focused segments accounted for 53 percent of these broadcasts.

That figure is conservative, excluding segments where Russia was discussed, but was not the overarching topic.

Maddow’s Russia coverage has dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues, including Trump’s escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants (1.3 percent of coverage); Obamacare repeal (3.8 percent); the legal battle over Trump’s Muslim ban (5.6 percent), a surge of anti-GOP activism and town halls since Trump took office (5.8 percent), and Trump administration scandals and stumbles (11 percent).

Maddow’s focus on Russia has helped her ratings, which are at their highest level since 2008.

 

[The Albatross]

Saying "they're all bad" isn't saying they're the same. It's saying they're all bad, which they are. I'm very glad Maddow muscled out whoever FOX's talking head is, as she and I probably see eye to eye on most political issues. Television "news" is not looking to inform you, it's looking to:

a) Sell you something (heart medicine, erectile dysfunction drugs, cash-for-gold, etc)
b) Make you mad, righteous, or madly righteous
c) Reinforce your opinions (like going into the Official Rating Thread of the videogame you've already pre-ordered)

There is good journalism, it's just not on cable TV. NPR, PBS, and the NYT are all, generally, excellent journalism with strong journalistic standards, huge reporting budgets as a percentage of their costs, and real editorial standards. Less fluff, less sensationalism, and a real desire to inform you. They're all variably brilliant.

Okay, now you're just talking stupid.

What don't you like? That the cable television "news" networks are reality TV channels like E! or Bravo?

 

[Trey]

No schtick

Even Obama agrees with me


And the Juan thing is way overblown

You point a gun at me if you want to dance, b.

 

[legacyzero]

Russia Russia Russia

 

[Lord Frieza]

I promise you, there's a point

There really isn't, and it's sad that you think there is.

 

[EatinOlives]

They do, though. Just because there's no other options on television don't think that they're good or journalistic, or that the bar is so low that "it's not that bad." They're bad, unequivocally bad journalism, that makes you less informed about the world.

You can learn plenty from programs like Rachel's, even if you don't like the conclusions that she arrives at (although they are rarely off base or illogical). She and her team do a pretty good amount of legwork on getting sources and providing context on stories that otherwise get lost in a shuffle of seemingly disconnected happenstance. She's clearly anti-Trump and anti-GOP, meaning you're not there to hear "both sides" and you're not there to hear about simple factoids with no commentary attached. But that doesn't make it worthless, or "trash" or "bad journalism" or whatever other dismissive buzzword you want to throw around.

If you want to have nuanced discussions about this and other cable shows go right ahead, but you haven't said anything of substance. Your posts have amounted to little more than "I like to go on the internet and complain about shows I've never watched!".

EDIT: And no, the entire show is not Russian dot-connecting. There's plenty there as well, including keeping tabs on obscure state and local news from random corners of the country.

 

[commedieu]

They fumbled the email thing. But you're hard pressed to find more in depth coverage on MSm than this show.

Props.

 

[Rentahamster]

There really isn't, and it's sad that you think there is.

It's sad to be worried about our media and primary opposition party encouraging our thin skinned president to engage in hostilities with the rest of the world? Not 4 years after our previous president told Mittens that the 80s called and wants their foreign policy back?

Sad!

 

[Lord Frieza]

What don't you like? That the cable television "news" networks are reality TV channels like E! or Bravo?

You need to go home now, my man.

 

[HellforLeather]

One ideologue replaces another.

 

[Lord Frieza]

It's sad to be worried about our media and primary opposition party encouraging our thin skinned president to engage in hostilities with the rest of the world? Not 4 years after our previous president told Mittens that the 80s called and wants their foreign policy back?

Sad!

Like I said before, I'm not going down this road with you. You can continue to be dismissive all you want while pretending that you're not, and that it's all just you looking above all the partisanship.

 

[DonShula]

Regular reminder that Maddow is a Stanford grad and former Rhodes Scholar who holds a Ph.D. from Oxford. (Hannity dropped out of two universities.)

She is not your typical cable talking head, although the way her show is constructed is kinda hacky and manipulative. Entertaining, though!

Hacky and manipulative? How so? She gives you 20 minutes of information on a topic each night before the first commercial. She has no talking heads yelling at each other. She doesn't fill the airtime with meaningless words meant only to take up space like Wolf Blitzer.

She basically presents an argument in an intelligent manner and invites you to think on it.

I'm not seeing either hacky or manupulative.

Edit: and to the poster who said that she was a slightly better version of Lawrence O'Donnell whose post I can't find anymore, you've obviously not watched both shows. Lawrence O'Donnell does Fox News level stuff for the left. He's almost pure entertainment at this point.

 

[ZeoVGM]

She's every bit as bad as Hannity

This is factually incorrect.

Not arguable, not up for debate.

Hannity spreads fear-mongering and purposefully pushes ignorance. Maddow does not.

 

[banktree]

People on both sides need to spend more time researching the issues and the politicians from actual news sources, not talking heads with opinions. While their beliefs and personal lives differ, she really is no different than an O'Reilly or a Hannity: Another opinion giver with a bias.

Real news is reported without bias and should be treated seriously. The more we get away from Maddow and Carlson and Hannity and the like, the better things will get.

 

[Rentahamster]

You need to go home now, my man.

You don't open your mind up to the possibility that sensationalism is good for ratings? That politicians sometimes (always? lol) want to distract you to keep you complacent? That corporate sponsored media has an agenda? Because if you close your mind to those possibilities outright, that is not looking at a broader view of the situation.

Also:

https://books.google.com/books?id=O...ese narratives get spun the right way&f=false

Instead, Hillary kept pointing her finger at Comey and Russia. "She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way," this person said. That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech.

 

[DonShula]

People on both sides need to spend more time researching the issues and the politicians from actual news sources, not talking heads with opinions. While their beliefs and personal lives differ, she really is no different than an O'Reilly or a Hannity: Another opinion giver with a bias.

Real news is reported without bias and should be treated seriously. The more we get away from Maddow and Carlson and Hannity and the like, the better things will get.

Have you not watched Maddow's show? She reports news. And it's often stuff no one else is reporting. And then she gives it context and ties it back to the stuff everyone else is reporting. She doesn't sit there at a desk and read the day's news. She picks a topic and gives it more than 3 minutes.

 

[EatinOlives]

While their beliefs and personal lives differ, she really is no different than an O'Reilly or a Hannity: Another opinion giver with a bias.

New drinking game: take a shot every time a braindead false equivalency is blurted out in this thread.

 

[Lord Frieza]

You don't open your mind up to the possibility that sensationalism is good for ratings? That politicians sometimes (always? lol) want to distract you to keep you complacent? That corporate sponsored media has no agenda? Because if you close your mind to those possibilities outright, that is not looking at a broader view of the situation.

Also:

https://books.google.com/books?id=O...ese narratives get spun the right way&f=false

You know, I'm tempted, but I'm like 99% sure you know very well what the argument actually is about here, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[The Albatross]

You can learn plenty from programs like Rachel's, even if you don't like the conclusions that she arrives at (although they are rarely off base or illogical). She and her team do a pretty good amount of legwork on getting sources and providing context on stories that otherwise get lost in a shuffle of seemingly disconnected happenstance. She's clearly anti-Trump and anti-GOP, meaning you're not there to hear "both sides" and you're not there to hear about simple factoids with no commentary attached. But that doesn't make it worthless, or "trash" or "bad journalism" or whatever other dismissive buzzword you want to throw around.

If you want to have nuanced discussions about this and other cable shows go right ahead, but you haven't said anything of substance. Your posts have amounted to little more than "I like to go on the internet and complain about shows I've never watched!".

You are right that I really don't watch Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., anymore. I really can't stand them. I think they're all terrible, O'Reilly and Hannity are probably more terrible than Maddow (who I agree with politically, where as I disagree politically with the FOX people, and I think the FOX guys are also nasty human beings where I bet Maddow is probably a good person).

I agree with you though, you're not watching Maddow (or O'Reilly, etc) to "hear simple factoids with no commentary." Frankly, I don't read the NYT or listen to NPR to "hear simple factoids with no commentary," there's nothing simple or trivial about either of those. I'd take it a step further, though, you're not watching those shows to be informed, you're watching them to be entertained and probably to feel righteous. My problem with those shows isn't so much even a problem with how the shows present themselves, it's a problem with how they're perceived. The three channels are perceived as being news channels, or they're perceived as sources of information. They're not. Now, the perception of the cable news channels isn't really entirely their fault, some of it is just perception that they can't control, but so much of their marketing, slogans, and advertising reinforces the misperception that they're trying to inform you, or that you can trust them, and that they're part of the news departments on those networks. I actually like the new MSNBC slogan of "This is who we are," as the slogan is admitting "We're about television personalities," but the messaging around the slogan is usually that they're "refereeing" something (CHuck Todd), or judging a fight (Matthews), coming from positions of trust.

I'm happy that Maddow ousted whatever talking head FOX is putting on TV, just happy in a sort of vindictive, cheerleading, righteous way, but I'm not any more optimistic about (for instance) our democracy or how informed the public is about something. At least in one way, it's more depressing. I used to hold onto some slight thread of hope that the left was more interested in the news than the right, which is why generally more people on the left subscribe to the NYT or listen to NPR, where as more people on the right wanted to have somebody reinforce their opinions and feel righteous (FOX News, or how right-wing radio talk shows have succeeded while left-wing radio like Air America never succeeded as well). It seems like this doesn't break down as neatly to a left/right issue anymore, and that righteous talking heads mascarading under news departments work variably well on both sides.

So, ra, ra, happy that FOX is seeing a slump, but, eh.

EDIT: And no, the entire show is not Russian dot-connecting. There's plenty there as well, including keeping tabs on obscure state and local news from random corners of the country.

I didn't comment about the Russia thing, that's someone else.

Although your zinger about me not contributing substance, I dunno, I think that's a matter of perspective. If you enjoy watching cable news channels, then I'm not sure you're the best judge of substance.

 

[Rentahamster]

 

[Lord Frieza]

You are right that I really don't watch Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., anymore. I really can't stand them. I think they're all terrible, O'Reilly and Hannity are probably less terrible than Maddow (who I agree with politically, where as I disagree politically with the FOX people, and I think the FOX guys are also nasty human beings where I bet Maddow is probably a good person).

I agree with you though, you're not watching Maddow (or O'Reilly, etc) to "hear simple factoids with no commentary." Frankly, I don't read the NYT or listen to NPR to "hear simple factoids with no commentary," there's nothing simple or trivial about either of those. I'd take it a step further, though, you're not watching those shows to be informed, you're watching them to be entertained and probably to feel righteous. My problem with those shows isn't so much even a problem with how the shows present themselves, it's a problem with how they're perceived. The three channels are perceived as being news channels, or they're perceived as sources of information. They're not. Now, the perception of the cable news channels isn't really entirely their fault, some of it is just perception that they can't control, but so much of their marketing, slogans, and advertising reinforces the misperception that they're trying to inform you, or that you can trust them. I actually like the new MSNBC slogan of "This is who we are," as the slogan is admitting "We're about television personalities," but the messaging around the slogan is usually that they're "refereeing" something (CHuck Todd), or judging a fight (Matthews), coming from positions of trust.

I'm happy that Maddow ousted whatever talking head FOX is putting on TV, just happy in a sort of vindictive, cheerleading, righteous way, but I'm not any more optimistic about (for instance) our democracy or how informed the public is about something. At least in one way, it's more depressing. I used to hold onto some slight thread of hope that the left was more interested in the news than the right, which is why generally more people on the left subscribe to the NYT or listen to NPR, where as more people on the right wanted to have somebody reinforce their opinions and feel righteous (FOX News, or how right-wing radio talk shows have succeeded while left-wing radio like Air America never succeeded as well). It seems like this doesn't break down as neatly to a left/right issue anymore, and that righteous talking heads mascarading under news departments work variably well on both sides.

So, ra, ra, happy that FOX is seeing a slump, but, eh.

I mean, the fact that you would even say this sentence kind of kills any credibility you have tried to make in this argument. I mean, "probably," dude? Come on.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Any dirt rubbed into the eyes of Fox News is good to me.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Oh, a Noam Chomsky Pokemon card gets played. That explains a lot.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

Here's an analysis that can be derived from actually watching her show.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12...ussia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/

Interesting analysis, but:

-the article's bottom line is that she has spent roughly half of her airtime over the last two or three months on in-depth coverage of the Trump campaign/administration's collusion with Russia.

-the tone of the article seems to indicate that this should be a bad thing. Why? If all this smoke turns out to be fire, as I'm pretty sure it inevitably will, and Trump ultimately gets nailed in a way that makes Nixon look look like a jaywalker, which I believe will happen, then her intense coverage of this will have been justified.

If not... well it still kind of is, because this is crazy shit.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh, a Noam Chomsky Pokemon card gets played. That explains a lot.

It's a reasonable card to play. MSNBC started out vanilla, but leaned left in reaction to Fox, for viewers and ads, rather than balance.

Ironically the country and media has shifted so far rightward that MSNBC is now sort of center right, especially in its support of the dems, who are outside of some social issues, safely center right.

Also, so far, the main problem with Maddow's Trump/Russia reporting is style and cadence. She has done some good reporting, and very little of her reporting has been refuted by facts so far.

We will have a better idea how good or bad it is in terms of content, when the FBI report is exposed.

I mean, the fact that you would even say this sentence kind of kills any credibility you have tried to make in this argument. I mean, "probably," dude? Come on.

I suspect that was a typo of sorts.

 

[The Albatross]

I mean, the fact that you would even say this sentence kind of kills any credibility you have tried to make in this argument. I mean, "probably," dude? Come on.

OH OOPS! I meant the opposite -- Entirely meant "Maddow is Less Terrible than the other two" or "O'Reilly/Hannity's show is more terrible than Maddow's show"

That was very obviously a typo... all of my other posts have said the opposite, even that one, and the rest of the sentence doesn't even make sense otherwise.

Oh, and I said "probably" because I don't watch Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. Just assuming their shows (or Tucker Carlson's show taking over for O'Reilly) is terrible.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Interesting analysis, but:

-the article's bottom line is that she has spent roughly half of her airtime over the last two or three months on in-depth coverage of the Trump campaign/administration's collusion with Russia.

-the tone of the article seems to indicate that this should be a bad thing. Why? If all this smoke turns out to be fire, as I'm pretty sure it inevitably will, and Trump ultimately gets nailed in a way that makes Nixon look look like a jaywalker, which I believe will happen, then her intense coverage of this will have been justified.

If not... well it still kind of is, because this is crazy shit.

He compared what's happening with Russia to Benghazi, apparently. That should give you a good idea of what his mindset is on the whole thing.

 

[Rentahamster]

Oh, a Noam Chomsky Pokemon card gets played. That explains a lot.

Yes, it actually does!

 

[Lord Frieza]

It's a reasonable card to play. MSNBC started out vanilla, but leaned left in reaction to Fox, for viewers and ads, rather than balance.

Ironically the country and media has shifted so far rightward that MSNBC is now sort of center right, especially in its support of the dems, who are outside of some social issues, safely center right.

Also, so far, the main problem with Maddow's Trump/Russia reporting is style and cadence. She has done some good reporting, and very little of her reporting has been refuted by facts so far.

We will have a better idea how good or bad it is in terms of content, when the FBI report is exposed.

Chomsky is fine overall, but he too has hand waived Russia's interference as basically no real big deal, so that's mainly what I was referring to. Explains a lot about where Rent's mindset is coming from if he's following that lead.

 

[Rentahamster]

He compared what's happening with Russia to Benghazi, apparently. That should give you a good idea of what his mindset is on the whole thing.

That your mind is closed into the nature of partisan politics within the context of truth-telling and within the context of history gives you a good idea of where your mindset is too.

 

[Lord Frieza]

That your mind is closed into the nature of partisan politics within the context of truth-telling and within the context of history gives you a good idea of where your mindset is too.

Sure, bud, sure.

 

[Rentahamster]

Chomsky is fine overall, but he too has hand waived Russia's interference as basically no real big deal, so that's mainly what I was referring to. Explains a lot about where Rent's mindset is coming from if he's following that lead.

Do you find Chomsky less credible than Maddow?

Sure, bud, sure.

 

[rjinaz]

This is factually incorrect.

Not arguable, not up for debate.

Hannity spreads fear-mongering and purposefully pushes ignorance. Maddow does not.

Lol, hey when you live directly on the wall long enough, both sides start looking exactly the same I guess. Just sides. That you are above and not on.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Do you find Chomsky less credible than Maddow?

What does it really matter to you? You've compared her to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, and all the Russia allegations to Benghazi. It's obvious where you're coming from, despite your wish to portray yourself as above all the partisanship.

 

[EatinOlives]

You are right that I really don't watch Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., anymore. I really can't stand them. I think they're all terrible, O'Reilly and Hannity are probably less terrible than Maddow (who I agree with politically, where as I disagree politically with the FOX people, and I think the FOX guys are also nasty human beings where I bet Maddow is probably a good person).

I agree with you though, you're not watching Maddow (or O'Reilly, etc) to "hear simple factoids with no commentary." Frankly, I don't read the NYT or listen to NPR to "hear simple factoids with no commentary," there's nothing simple or trivial about either of those. I'd take it a step further, though, you're not watching those shows to be informed, you're watching them to be entertained and probably to feel righteous. My problem with those shows isn't so much even a problem with how the shows present themselves, it's a problem with how they're perceived. The three channels are perceived as being news channels, or they're perceived as sources of information. They're not. Now, the perception of the cable news channels isn't really entirely their fault, some of it is just perception that they can't control, but so much of their marketing, slogans, and advertising reinforces the misperception that they're trying to inform you, or that you can trust them, and that they're part of the news departments on those networks. I actually like the new MSNBC slogan of "This is who we are," as the slogan is admitting "We're about television personalities," but the messaging around the slogan is usually that they're "refereeing" something (CHuck Todd), or judging a fight (Matthews), coming from positions of trust.

I'm happy that Maddow ousted whatever talking head FOX is putting on TV, just happy in a sort of vindictive, cheerleading, righteous way, but I'm not any more optimistic about (for instance) our democracy or how informed the public is about something. At least in one way, it's more depressing. I used to hold onto some slight thread of hope that the left was more interested in the news than the right, which is why generally more people on the left subscribe to the NYT or listen to NPR, where as more people on the right wanted to have somebody reinforce their opinions and feel righteous (FOX News, or how right-wing radio talk shows have succeeded while left-wing radio like Air America never succeeded as well). It seems like this doesn't break down as neatly to a left/right issue anymore, and that righteous talking heads mascarading under news departments work variably well on both sides.

So, ra, ra, happy that FOX is seeing a slump, but, eh.



I didn't comment about the Russia thing, that's someone else.

Although your zinger about me not contributing substance, I dunno, I think that's a matter of perspective. If you enjoy watching cable news channels, then I'm not sure you're the best judge of substance.

LOL, yeah hit me right back with another "zinger", that'll show me! I'm sorry, but up until this last post you truly hadn't said anything of substance, unless you consider just going down the list of cable news networks and calling them various degrees of trash to be substantive.

You're not really understanding what I'm talking about when I'm explaining what the appeal of Maddow's show is. Nobody's saying that NYT, the BBC, or NPR are presenting factoids with no commentary, but they don't editorialize unless it's actually an editorial piece. Maddow's show IS an editorial piece through and through and doesn't pretend to hide it. It's not entirely different from other editorial shows like Lawrence O'Donnell that comes on after Maddow's, although Lawrence is even MORE opinionated, and even MORE of an editorial (he repeatedly and plainly calls Trump "stupid", "imbecilic", etc.). I get personal enjoyment from those moments but as you said, that's simple catharsis and mostly just for entertainment value.

Maddow's show is a little different. Not entirely different, it's not a barrage of objective fact and not without opinionated commentary. But to be clear, she is not where I get all my news from, and I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one. But one typically doesn't "get their news" from editorial pieces from any one publication, so I'm not sure that's a distinction worth getting worked up over. And yes, she does from time to time talk about factoids I wasn't aware of, including but not limited to updates on local and state matters that simply aren't covered on a national level. There's mentions of things like, for instance, yesterday she was pointing out that nobody from the State Department was at a meeting with ambassadors from a crapton of different countries (literally what the State Department is for), and only Trump and nobody else was there. Why was that, and what's going on there? That sort of thing.

I'm aware of the different value that different news outlets provide. Some are strictly opinion pieces, some are more investigative, some are just a cavalcade of talking heads arguing with each other (CNN's favorite and my own most despised format). But they're not all the same, and while Maddow's show is not the bastion of political reporting (that accolade fits outlets like NPR better), it's not without its worth, and pointing that out is not "lowering the bar". She has her niche and fills it successfully, and *gasp*, one even learns a thing or two from her show!

 

[Rentahamster]

Interesting analysis, but:

-the article's bottom line is that she has spent roughly half of her airtime over the last two or three months on in-depth coverage of the Trump campaign/administration's collusion with Russia.

-the tone of the article seems to indicate that this should be a bad thing. Why? If all this smoke turns out to be fire, as I'm pretty sure it inevitably will, and Trump ultimately gets nailed in a way that makes Nixon look look like a jaywalker, which I believe will happen, then her intense coverage of this will have been justified.

If not... well it still kind of is, because this is crazy shit.

It promotes hostile escalation between nuclear powers. Fear mongering is bad. Saber rattling is bad. It takes away time from other issues that are important like universal health care, military downsizing, infrastructure spending, free college/college debt forgiveness, drug war liberalization, etc.

Given her political expertise, journalistic acumen, and influential platform, Maddow is ideally suited to explore the Democrats’ 2016 electoral collapse in an insightful way. But the time and investigative zeal that Maddow has devoted to Russia has come at the cost of any such analysis. Maddow has shunned critical issues such as the Democratic establishment’s embrace of neoliberal financial policies and rejection of economic populism. Her audience has heard next to no discussion of why a segment of Obama voters abandoned Democrats for Trump or didn’t vote at all. Instead, lengthy segments have suggested that Clinton and the Democrats were done in by such Russian “active measures” as anti-Clinton bot attacks (their key target, a Bernie Sanders Facebook fan page in San Diego); hackers interfering in Congressional races; and fake news stories and social media posts.

The Danger of Hyperbole

On several occasions, Maddow has described Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 race as an “attack on our election.” On March 21, she went further:

This is not part of American politics. This is not, you know, partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare against our country. And it did not end on Election Day. We are still in it.

But whatever Russia may have done, it was not “international warfare.” And it was most likely far less consequential than U.S. interference in other countries over many decades, including Russia itself.

But what if the allegations are ultimately disproved or go nowhere? Maddow and likeminded influential liberals will have led their audience on a fruitless quest, all the while helping foment anti-Russia sentiment, channeling Democratic Party energy away from productive self-critique, and diverting focus from the White House’s actual policies.

And what if the media’s focus on the “Russia Connection” ends up goading Trump to become more bellicose with Russia? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently moved its doomsday clock to its highest point since 1953. Among many contributing factors, the Bulletin warned: “The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters.”

 

[Rentahamster]

What does it really matter to you?

Credibility matters.

You've compared her to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, and all the Russia allegations to Benghazi. It's obvious where you're coming from, despite your wish to portray yourself as above all the partisanship.

I've compared only the specific points that are similar, and not the ones that aren't. Do you live in a black and white world where it's either all one thing or all the other? Or do you think that a more nuanced view of the situation is in order for something as complicated as this?

 

[aeolist]

Chomsky is fine overall, but he too has hand waived Russia's interference as basically no real big deal, so that's mainly what I was referring to. Explains a lot about where Rent's mindset is coming from if he's following that lead.

the problem is that some people are saying "we shouldn't jump to conclusions with regards to russia until we see some solid evidence, of which there has been absolutely none so far" and other people hear "russian interference is no big deal".

chomsky also points out that anything russia did pales in comparison to completely unwarranted US interference in other democracies over the last hundred years, which is irrefutably true. this doesn't excuse anyone but is worth pointing out since a lot of the liberals who are losing their minds over russia are pro-intervention and think we should be toppling regimes whenever we feel like it.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Credibility matters.



I've compared only the specific points that are similar, and not the ones that aren't. Do you live in a black and white world where it's either all one thing or all the other? Or do you think that a more nuanced view of the situation is in order for something as complicated as this?

There are times when things really are more black and white than gray. And yeah, this is one of those times. The Beast of Both Sides needs its meat, though

 

[Lord Frieza]

the problem is that some people are saying "we shouldn't jump to conclusions with regards to russia until we see some solid evidence, of which there has been absolutely none so far" and other people hear "russian interference is no big deal".

Comparing the current Russian inference to Benghazi is a clear sign of one over the other. Believe it or not, I am able to read for myself.

chomsky also points out that anything russia did pales in comparison to completely unwarranted US interference in other democracies over the last hundred years, which is irrefutably true.

True, but also totally irrelevant.

this doesn't excuse anyone but is worth pointing out since a lot of the liberals who are losing their minds over russia are pro-intervention and think we should be toppling regimes whenever we feel like it.

Huh? What? Where in the hell did this come from lol?

 

[Ouroboros]

I was hoping OP would have a 10 paragraph intro before stating the fact.

 

[Stinkles]

It promotes hostile escalation between nuclear powers. Fear mongering is bad. Saber rattling is bad. It takes away time from other issues that are important like universal health care, military downsizing, infrastructure spending, free college/college debt forgiveness, drug war liberalization, etc.

The Danger of Hyperbole

But whatever Russia may have done, it was not ”international warfare." And it was most likely far less consequential than U.S. interference in other countries over many decades, including Russia itself.

Embarrassing. And what's the source of that zinger?

Unless you think Maddow's job is Symmetrical Comparative Literature.