Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by balamw, Apr 23, 2014.
MOD NOTE: I moved all of the recent posts on TV news channels from the Nevada Rancher thread here.
There is a huge difference between Faux and MSNBC in that MSNBC does not tell you what you should be thinking 24/7. I watch the latter every day and they just report the news. For example, today they reported on the Georgia Gun Bill expected to be signed today by their Governor. It was just a report, there was no editorializing at all.
Now if you are referring to the evening commentary shows, those are opinion shows with a decidedly liberal agenda. But I like them too. They do not fabricate and misrepresent events like Faux and the conservative blogosphere do on a regular basis. They don't alter the appearance of reporters they don't like and they don't take comments out of context with the intent of misleading like Faux does frequently.
Seriously? Have you ever watched The Ed Show or Al Sharpton's show? Straight out of the Fox News playbook.
Well you are probably right, I just am a bit down on most mass media these days so was a bit guilty of a knee-jerk reaction. Mea culpa. Still, it's healthy to watch/read from a variety of sources to get a fuller picture.
I distinguished between their news and political commentary shows. With Faux it is propaganda 24/7. I just watched Al Sharpton the other night. He frequently shows clips of Republicans saying stupid things. They are providing him his source material.
Can't dispute that. Who knows better about saying stupid things than Sharpton?
Fox News consistently beats out all competitors when it comes to market share for Cable News Networks. Ratings equal dollars from advertisers which keep the shows on the air. Many people do not like their coverage but apparently more do because they continue to watch.
Ratings - TVNewser
Fox News Sees Continued Growth - Forbes
Yeah, imagine as if this your method to legitimize Faux News as a reputable news source.
Does that mean they're a legitimate news company?
Same can be said about McDonald's. Bit it does not mean high quality.
I'd trust a Big Mac before Faux News.
Good question. How do we determine the standard of which is a legitimate news company? I believe that Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, MSNBC News, CNN News and even Al Jazeera are all legitimate news sources. You may not like what you feel is a biased when they report the news but they do report news.
Many people in this country get their news from Fox News. People who dislike Fox News insult those people just as the other end of the spectrum insult MSNBC. The truth is, the people who visit forums, like this one and watch the news, regardless of political leaning are far more informed about what is going on then those that do not.
Neal Boortz, a long time talk show host on WSB (Cox Broadcasting) which was nationally syndicated had an often repeated quote: "Don't believe anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction."
You can't believe anything you hear on any news station, read in a newspaper or see on a website unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true or you have researched it.
Except Fox News has been caught distorting facts at a higher rate.
It was also one of their stations that successfully argued to the Florida Supreme Court that they had a legal right to lie to their viewers.
One of the multitude of reports concerning Fox Propaganda Corp.
Fox Can Lie Lawsuit. When our courts don't insist on the truth from our news sources, we as a society are in big trouble. Think of the cold war era U.S.S.R.
Remind me again, who's been caught editing recordings for the news. What network faked the blow up from the side Chevrolet trucks?
NBC News prodder fired over editing of George Zimmerman's 911 Call
NBC Admits it Rigged Crash, Settles GM Lawsuit
Yes, they all do lie.
I'm talking about consistency.
I would love to say "MSNBC is a irresponsible as Fox News", but sadly I wouldn't know. Like most people, I don't know crap about MSNBC because it's all worthless filth. Just like everybody else in the cable news business.
I get the "Fox News is worse than MSNBC thing". The numbers are there to indicate that Fox News is more dishonest. That being said, you cannot possibly argue that one liar is worth more trust than another.
Everybody has lied in their lives.
According to your logic, we should trust nobody.
Don't confuse liberal vs conservative as lie = lie. Watch this Rachel Maddow clip. She is liberal. You may disagree with her, but I can't see you justly calling her a liar. She is one of the most articulate reporters around.
Just to clarify, Rachel Maddow isn't a reporter. She's a news anchor. Reporters go out and investigate the story, dig into the facts and write. News Anchors read the news. She is also a Talk Show Host. She hosts a talk show on MSNBC and had one on Air America before it floundered into bankruptcy. But she is not a reporter.
Yes, you are correct although the focus is on honesty in reporting by corporations. Do you think she is a liar?
Since Rachel is not a reporter but rather a news anchor, she reads content that someone else writes and edits. Whether she is honest would have no bearing because she is simply the delivery method for others work.
You are avoiding the question. This is her show, she along with MSNBC are held responsible for its content.
Do I think she is honest? No, but I don't think she is dishonest either. I have not heard enough of her comments to make that distinction. When you are a news anchor reading content written and edited by others, we cannot gauge your personal honesty. Her commentary pieces are opinion. Again, something that you cannot use to gauge her honesty. No more than you can tell me if Heather Childers is honest. However, I do think we may agree she has nice legs.
If you've ever been in a news studio when the news is airing, you would understand what I'm talking about. These anchors do not know what they are saying. They are simply reading from the teleprompter.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with you.
One of the greatest contributions American journalism has made was the standard set by people like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.
For most of their careers these guys were, by your standard, simply "anchors" - reporting the news gathered by other people.
But I think their impact - and their role in the news reporting process - was much much greater than that.
Here is not the place to go in to great detail on this subject. But I'd highly recommend you read more about the process whereby Walter Cronkite anchored the news that President Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. He wasn't some talking head parroting whatever came over the wire. He was a principled journalist weighing the reliability of every piece of information he was given, and balancing that against the "newsworthiness" of those facts to his audience.
Rachel Maddow hasn't been tested the same way as Cronkite, Murrow and Rather were. But I'd argue she is following in their footsteps.