Trump isn’t conservative so that’s going to be hard to find. |
But yeah, this is what makes it hard. The GOP as a party has lost its gd mind - supporting a criminal rapist election denier who is stealing all THEIR money while they smile. Who DO you get to come on and talk who is credible and does represent THIS R party - not the party of yore or the party we wish it were - and who isn't going to use the opportunity to just lie, and lie, and lie? No names come to my mind. I guess you'd want someone like Rich Lowry from the National Review because - at least last I checked - he was still of that world even if he's not ALWAYS spouting the party line. Even someone like Sarah Isgur is probably too RINO for today's GOP. I like Jonah Goldberg but of course I like him, I'm a Democrat. I really don't know who you get on, where you feel like you can count on them to be reasonably truthful and also to represent this GOP. |
You people arguing about which of these cable news networks is more objective and credible is hilarious. They are highly toxic poisons to any of the duped sheep that tune in for their daily dose of hate the other side rhetoric. Their sole job is to keep the sheep in line by making sure their viewers remember why they hate the other side so much that they don't care about how awful their side is. People like Hannity and Maddow are being paid 30 million dollar annual salaries because they are very good at their toxic agendas; not because of their straight forward, objective approach to political news. They are part of the reason why much of America thinks it's "okay" that we have a choice between the two weakest presidential candidates in the history of America in a single election. I just can't with you people... |
I don’t actually watch any cable news, though I have watched the odd Rachel Maddow segment and the fact that you lump her well-researched pieces in with Sean “Russia ‘Rites My Pieces” Hannity is both sides garbage. |
Exactly, when discussing these two networks, both sides is indeed garbage. |
Trump or Biden will be president and some people are interested in watching programming about that. You don't have be to watch it....most voters do not. |
This is true. To each their own. Some presumably watch for entertainment purposes knowing to take everything they hear with a grain of salt. A contradiction is only necessary when someone suggests these cable news networks have straight forward news reporting agendas. They simply don't. It's big money business with partisan persuasion as the primary agenda. It's not healthy and frankly sad for anyone to watch such programming daily as their primary "news" source. |
There is no unbiased source of news. Does not exist. Always understand the bias of any media you consume. |
True but the evening news on ABC, CBS, & NBC is based on an honest effort towards facts first reporting. Their reporting isn't perfect but their primary agendas aren't political persuasion by presenting half truth news with a slant like you'll find on Fox News and MSNBC. |
This is not about different opinions or different interpretations of facts. This is about all the Republicans who do nothing but lie; who cannot acknowledge even the most basic facts because Trump demands that they say he is great and he won and loads of other bullshit, and these cowards submit to his every demand. They have forfeited any expectation to be taken seriously and to be given a platform by any legitimate news organization. As long as Republicans are going to present themselves as delusional cult members following a sociopath, they should be treated as such. |
this and I basically said this earlier. Yes, she is liberal. That said, she also has done a TON of research and presents those facts in her pieces, podcasts and books. Her 30 minute piece on Monday used some of the research she did for her book and podcast about the Nazi infiltration of our government in the 30s. It is worth your time to read that history and learn from it. Chris Hayes is very much the same. I listen to his WITHpod from time to time and it is excellent. Very thoughtful, scholarly discussions. I am listening to one right now about polling and why it seems so wonky at this point in time. As a former market researcher (we didn't do political polls, but same methodologies apply), I find these things fascinating. |
The prime time cable news hosts are very good at what they are paid very well to do which to present current political news in a one-sided manner to maintain the thoughts of the major party political base. Some of these hosts knowingly use altered facts in their presentations and some don't but their agendas are the same. Acknowledging the similar agendas behind the reporting from Maddow and Hannity isn't an attempt to equate the legitimacy of what they are reporting. Political bias in media has always existed but it's influence has become increasingly toxic since Rush Limbaugh took partisan journalism to another level in the 1990s with his daily in your face divisiveness that was easily accessible by the American public. Cable news has had a noticeably detrimental impact on our political landscape and while Fox News may be the worst of the worsts in many ways, MSNBC has long been a consistent player in the same game. Long term exposure to partisan journalism, even if based in 100% factual reporting, is never healthy. |
The audience is perfectly capable of choosing what they would like to consume. If I respect the analysis of Lawrence O'Donnell I can see what he has to say. If I respect ronna McDaniel, I can see what she has to say. MSNBC certainly does not have to consistently air her views if the audience has zero respect for her analysis. Have her on as a guest to get her perspective but don't give her your stamp if approval if it drives away your viewers. Or if you do hire her, expect to lose viewers that don't value her election denying crap. The viewers don't want to support a company that provides financial support to an insurrectionist sympathizer and that is their right |
Is she going to go back calling herself Romney? |
DP. You just made the PP's point. |