msnbc's maddow admits to deceptive editing

[g8orbill]

to smear McCain on gun laws-great ethics

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/02/27/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-gleefully-admits-using-edited-video-smear-gop

[gator996]

Don't get your panties in wad over this bil...

Maddow & MSNBC didn't even edit this footage and what was cut out isn't really
all that earth shattering...


That edit was made by local Arizona TV station KTVK, but it generally followed the principles of TV news edits you see every day: here’s the question, skip a bunch of blah-blah, here’s the answer. Watch any TV clip of a White House briefing, and you’ll see the same thing. At issue here, though, is whether that edit was fair to John McCain, an issue that, again, Rachel Maddow raised on her show Thursday night when she aired KTVK’s clip.



Maddow not only brought up the "editing" issue but this from the Tuscon hero that was in attendence...she agrees with Maddow's point.

(From your link.)

Patricia Maisch, the woman who disarmed the Tucson shooter, she was in the room at that John McCain town hall. She saw the whole thing happen. She saw that woman ask the question about what John McCain thought should be done about gun violence and saw him answer by saying you need some straight talk. And Patricia Maisch, who was in the room, told Talking Points Memo in an interview after the town hall that she found Senator McCain’s response "Unsatisfactory." "In my opinion she said, "the comment the Senator made saying Karen needed some straight talk was a bit disrespectful in light of her son being murdered by a man with a gun less than a year 'ago." According to TPM's interview Patricia Maisch said she's hopeful McCain will support expanding background checks for gun sales but "you never know with these guys. I hope he does the right thing."




Here's the another article with the full video...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/full-video-of-sen-john-mccains-straight-talk-answer-to-shooting-victims-mother/

[g8orbill]

I don't wear panties

[fredsanford]

Maddow has more ethics than all of Fox combined.

[g8orbill]

shab- I think you call your statement an oxymoron

[gator996]

What happened to the personal insult bil? :joecool:

[CHFG8R]

Who cares? It's MSNBC. They are a propaganda outlet. Why would you expect anything resembling traditional, objective journalism from them. . . or FOX for that matter?

[reformedgator]

I don't wear panties

Neither does she.:laugh:

[viningsgator]

Maddow might be the only credible one at MSNBC so I'll give her a slight pass. Fool me once.....

[gatorman_07732]

Maddow has more ethics than all of Fox combined.

Maybe more testosterone

[fredsanford]

Maybe more testosterone

Ahh, the right's good, old homophobia. I love how it helps them lose elections.

[gatorman_07732]

Ahh, the right's good, old homophobia. I love how it helps them lose elections.

How exactly do you make that correlation? I'm not shocked in any way that you would do this however. I have news for you, there are women that portray the tough girl image that are straight.

[fredsanford]

How exactly do you make that correlation? I'm not shocked in any way that you would do this however. I have news for you, there are women that portray the tough girl image that are straight.

Clearly, much like the panty comment, your remark was a shot at her being a lesbian.

[gatorman_07732]

Clearly, much like the panty comment, your remark was a shot at her being a lesbian.

Not at all, just a shot at her personality and how she comes across. You have no idea what is my heart, so don't accuse me of things.

[mocgator]

Do you think the media would edit Sarah Palin to make her look good like ABC does for Michelle Obama?

[108]

stop watching these channels

[gator996]

Do you think the media would edit Sarah Palin to make her look good like ABC does for Michelle Obama?


Some are beyond "saving" through editing...

...Bachmann, Pallin, & Cain come to mind immediately.

:laugh:

[PSGator66]

You mean like Biden, Pelosi and Reid? Biggest jokes in the country!

[JohnC1908]

It's Rachel Maddow, a left version of Hannity/Limbaugh. This is surprising?

[gator996]

IMHO JohnC...that's a stretch

[oaklandroadie]

Serious question 996...are you employed by an organization to specifically post pro-democrat and pro-MSNBC propaganda in THFSG? We had an article about "shills" put up here a few weeks ago, and in my opinion, much of your posting fits the bill.

[fredsanford]

It's Rachel Maddow, a left version of Hannity/Limbaugh. This is surprising?

Anyone making that comparison is delusional.

It's like saying Kiss and Rush are the same as rock bands.

[gator996]

Serious question 996...are you employed by an organization to specifically post pro-democrat and pro-MSNBC propaganda in THFSG? We had an article about "shills" put up here a few weeks ago, and in my opinion, much of your posting fits the bill.

No.

Former republican here who left the party in the 80's after Reagan...


Shill?
Why because I don't agree with you? :laugh:


If you think Hannity & Limbaugh = Maddow...I legitimately call BS...


Maddow's done serious documentaries on the road to the Iraq War, Tim McVeigh as a domestic terrorist, she's criticized the Obama administration on gay marriage, veteran's aid & benefits, drone policy...


What bit of hard journalism has Hannity or Limbaugh ever done?

[JohnC1908]

Anyone making that comparison is delusional.

It's like saying Kiss and Rush are the same as rock bands.

No, it's really the same. Make extreme partisan comments, take things out of context, and attract a loyal audience resulting in advertisers who line your pockets. You just happen to justify one and vilify the other.

[gator996]

So John, in your estimation, is there anyone in major media you would not generalize with the same description?

Because if not...they're all Rush Limbaugh?

[gatorman_07732]

No.

Former republican here who left the party in the 80's after Reagan...


Shill?
Why because I don't agree with you? :laugh:


If you think Hannity & Limbaugh = Maddow...I legitimately call BS...


Maddow's done serious documentaries on the road to the Iraq War, Tim McVeigh as a domestic terrorist, she's criticized the Obama administration on gay marriage, veteran's aid & benefits, drone policy...


What bit of hard journalism has Hannity or Limbaugh ever done?

996, I like you and even enjoy your wild and colorful posts/threads but I can in no way believe you were at any time a Republican. Well then again there are some nutty pubs :laugh:

[JohnC1908]

So John, in your estimation, is there anyone in major media you would not generalize with the same description?

Because if not...they're all Rush Limbaugh?

Sure, on the left for example...Stewart and Colbert. Nowhere near as nasty and partisan. The theme of Maddow's show is a carbon copy of Hannity/Limbaugh, just with the opposite take. MSNBC is nothing more than an answer to FOX.

[108]

Title reads as if Maddow deceptively edited

[madgator]

Ahh, the right's good, old homophobia. I love how it helps them lose elections.

it's not homophobia if she is really a man....

[Minister_of_Information]

Maddow has more ethics than all of Fox combined.

I LOL'd.

[gatorman_07732]

Title reads as if Maddow deceptively edited

I don't believe she edited anything, but someone else did and when these liberal think they have something juicy they run with it.

[PIMking]

Maddow has more ethics than all of Fox combined.

On picking up chicks?

[gator996]

996, I like you and even enjoy your wild and colorful posts/threads but I can in no way believe you were at any time a Republican. Well then again there are some nutty pubs :laugh:



Yeah, the rational ones left loooong ago and the nutty ones have taken over now...

:grin:

[fredsanford]

No, it's really the same. Make extreme partisan comments, take things out of context, and attract a loyal audience resulting in advertisers who line your pockets. You just happen to justify one and vilify the other.

Well, we have the Fox shows making things up out of whole cloth and Rachel posting facts and figures.

You know that darn reality and its well known liberal bias! :laugh:

But seriously, nowhere near the same.

[gatorman_07732]

I LOL'd.

MOI I'm still laughing, and damn think I hurt something laughing so hard :laugh:

[gator996]

Sure, on the left for example...Stewart and Colbert. Nowhere near as nasty and partisan. The theme of Maddow's show is a carbon copy of Hannity/Limbaugh, just with the opposite take. MSNBC is nothing more than an answer to FOX.


A carbon copy of Limbaugh/Hannity? :lie:

Oh yeah, Maddow is a Rhodes scholar Stanford graduate...

Hannity dropped out of NYU & Adelphi...
Limbaugh flunked out of some small ass school also....




Stewart & Colbert are comedians/satirists not newspeople.
Have you ever watched Chris Hays or Melissa Harris-Perry?


Sorry to burst your bubble but FOXNews isn't regarded as a legitimate news organization by most in the industry...

Roger Ailes was the media guy for Nixon, Reagan, & Bush (and Rudy G)...

And, you think its not just the media arm of the Republican party?



Yeesh...

[jdrgator]

Sure, on the left for example...Stewart and Colbert. Nowhere near as nasty and partisan. The theme of Maddow's show is a carbon copy of Hannity/Limbaugh, just with the opposite take. MSNBC is nothing more than an answer to FOX.

What do you mean by "theme of Maddow's show." That sounds a bit weasly to me, JC.

[JohnC1908]

A carbon copy of Limbaugh/Hannity? :lie:

Oh yeah, Maddow is a Rhodes scholar Stanford graduate...

Hannity dropped out of NYU & Adelphi...
Limbaugh flunked out of some small ass school also....






Their education seems a bit irrelevant to this discussion. I'm just talking about theme of her show. Strongly report one side, show/play manipulative soundbites, and attract a very partisan audience. Does she not do this?

[JohnC1908]

What do you mean by "theme of Maddow's show." That sounds a bit weasly to me, JC.

See my post above. If you want to say Limbaugh is in a league of his own I'll admit that, however I see little difference between Maddow and Hannity's shows.

[gator996]

Their education seems a bit irrelevant to this discussion. I'm just talking about theme of her show. Strongly report one side, show/play manipulative soundbites, and attract a very partisan audience. Does she not do this?


John, I understand what you're saying...

You're the one containing this to "theme"...and my response would be that shock jock M.O.'s dominate all sorts of TV programming...

That's why I asked if everyone in your opinion is Rush...

How is Colbert & Stewart any different in your description...because you don't find them nasty & partisan?

Many conservatives here do...



That comparison doesn't mean much to me.

To say Maddow is just like Hannity/Limbaugh to me means the content of their shows are similar...


...they ARE NOT.

[jdrgator]

See my post above. If you want to say Limbaugh is in a league of his own I'll admit that, however I see little difference between Maddow and Hannity's shows.

I think you are largely right about a parallel in "themes" in the sense that they are not straight up news reporting shows. But I disagree about there being little substantive difference between Hannity and Maddow.

[Matthanuf06]

John, I understand what you're saying...

You're the one containing this to "theme"...and my response would be that shock jock M.O.'s dominate all sorts of TV programming...

That's why I asked if everyone in your opinion is Rush...

How is Colbert & Stewart any different in your description...because you don't find them nasty & partisan?

Many conservatives here do...

That comparison doesn't mean much to me.

To say Maddow is just like Hannity/Limbaugh to me means the content of their shows are similar...

...they ARE NOT.

Right. Maddow is an extreme left winger. Hannity is a religious extreme right wing neoconservative. Of course they are different

[gator996]

Here's what others have said about her...but I guess that just makes them all leftists in your opinion....

A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria."[46] A Newsweek profile noted that, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence... But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has accused Maddow of acting like 'a lockstep party member.'"[47] Maddow has likewise been criticized by the editors of The New Republic for her program, which they called "A textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective."[48] On awarding the Interfaith Alliance's Faith and Freedom Award named for Walter Cronkite, Rev. Dr. C Welton Gaddy remarked that "Rachel’s passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government.” [49]

A Time profile called her a "whip-smart, button-cute leftie." It said that she radiates an essential decency and suggested that her career rise might signify that "nice is the new nasty



One thing I didn't know is that she also received a Phd from Oxford....



So yeah, on an intellectual Rachel & Sean are practically twins :laugh:

[oaklandroadie]

Here's what others have said about her...but I guess that just makes them all leftists in your opinion....

A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria."[46] A Newsweek profile noted that, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence... But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has accused Maddow of acting like 'a lockstep party member.'"[47] Maddow has likewise been criticized by the editors of The New Republic for her program, which they called "A textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective."[48] On awarding the Interfaith Alliance's Faith and Freedom Award named for Walter Cronkite, Rev. Dr. C Welton Gaddy remarked that "Rachel’s passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government.” [49]

A Time profile called her a "whip-smart, button-cute leftie." It said that she radiates an essential decency and suggested that her career rise might signify that "nice is the new nasty

One thing I didn't know is that she also received a Phd from Oxford....

So yeah, on an intellectual Rachel & Sean are practically twins :laugh:

Yeah, your no shill! :wink

[gator996]

I'm a "shill" for posting positive & negative comments of others about Maddow?

:huh:


I personally like smarter, more intellectually accomplished folks dispensing news & opinion...

...I also liked to listen to Buckley ...didn't agree with him much but at least he brought his game with information to back it up....


Hannity is 100% opinion...non-journalist



Do you listen to anyone who doesn't simply reinforce you already held beliefs?

If not, who's the shill?

[MastaG8r]

Here's what others have said about her...but I guess that just makes them all leftists in your opinion....

A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said that she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria."[46] A Newsweek profile noted that, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence... But for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has accused Maddow of acting like 'a lockstep party member.'"[47] Maddow has likewise been criticized by the editors of The New Republic for her program, which they called "A textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective."[48] On awarding the Interfaith Alliance's Faith and Freedom Award named for Walter Cronkite, Rev. Dr. C Welton Gaddy remarked that "Rachel’s passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government.” [49]Wow that was some defense of Maddow you posted there.

[JohnC1908]

I think you are largely right about a parallel in "themes" in the sense that they are not straight up news reporting shows. But I disagree about there being little substantive difference between Hannity and Maddow.

What's the difference? To be honest I see no more than a combined 10 minutes of both a month. They have guests who reinforce their views, condemn members of one corrupt party, and play mouthpiece for the other. Yes Hannity will have a few liberals on unlike Maddow but it seems they are generally easy targets for him to use as a punching bag.

[g8orbill]

Maddow is just being the beyotch she normally is, because she is mad she doesn't have a johnson

[gator996]

Wow that was some defense of Maddow you posted there.

That's because I'm not a "shill"...

I posted the entire section from Wikipedia so that you wouldn't consider me cherrypicking to win an argument.

But, I see that didn't stop you from focusing only on the negative criticism.



OK, let's try another approach....


When was the last time Hannity ran a story that was critical of the tea party or the republican party?


Maddow has routinely criticized the administration over a number of issues.



So which one is a "shill"???

[MastaG8r]

That's because I'm not a "shill"...

I posted the entire section from Wikipedia so that you wouldn't consider me cherrypicking to win an argument.

But, I see that didn't stop you from focusing only on the negative criticism.



OK, let's try another approach....


When was the last time Hannity ran a story that was critical of the tea party or the republican party?


Maddow has routinely criticized the administration over a number of issues.



So which one is a "shill"???Did somebody deny that they BOTH are shills, in the sense that they will uncritically put out arguments and information fed to them by the respective political parties they support?

Please don't make that silly argument that rivergator uses to defend the supposed impartiality of blatantly partisan commentators like Maureen Dowd - that if they criticize Dem pols like Clinton or 0bama then that shows they're not necessarily biased. Get real. The only time commentators like Dowd or Maddow criticize Democrats is when they perceive them as not being Liberal enough, being too accommodating to Republicans or doing something to hurt the precious Democrat brand.

That's like saying maybe Rush Limbaugh isn't so biased because he is often critical of Republicans. It's true, he is! Of course he only criticizes them for not being Conservative enough, but still.

[oaklandroadie]

That's because I'm not a "shill"...

I posted the entire section from Wikipedia so that you wouldn't consider me cherrypicking to win an argument.

But, I see that didn't stop you from focusing only on the negative criticism.

OK, let's try another approach....

When was the last time Hannity ran a story that was critical of the tea party or the republican party?

Maddow has routinely criticized the administration over a number of issues.

So which one is a "shill"???

Broseph- Didn't you post a thread a few Saturdays back about a "really good episode of Up with Chris Hayes that everyone should watch!"? ( read what is in quotes in a Cartman, or Dave Damesheck mimicking Bill Simmons voice).

PS...has anyone ever seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow at the same time in the same room?

[gator996]

Did somebody deny that they BOTH are shills, in the sense that they will uncritically put out arguments and information fed to them by the respective political parties they support?

Please don't make that silly argument that rivergator uses to defend the supposed impartiality of blatantly partisan commentators like Maureen Dowd - that if they criticize Dem pols like Clinton or 0bama then that shows they're not necessarily biased. Get real. The only time commentators like Dowd or Maddow criticize Democrats is when they perceive them as not being Liberal enough, being too accommodating to Republicans or doing something to hurt the precious Democrat brand.

That's like saying maybe Rush Limbaugh isn't so biased because he is often critical of Republicans, when the fact is that he only criticizes them for not being Conservative enough.



Her continued coverage of the challenges faced by veterans meets your criteria above?

Her documentary on Tim McVeigh fits the criteria above?

She was the 1st major media anchor to cover the implications of US Drone policy...
that fits one of your criteria above?


Yeah, exactly like Rush screaming about who the next "RHINO" is... :laugh:

[gator996]

Broseph- Didn't you post a thread a few Saturdays back about a "really good episode of Up with Chris Hayes that everyone should watch!"? ( read what is in quotes in a Cartman, or Dave Damesheck mimicking Bill Simmons voice).

PS...has anyone ever seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow at the same time in the same room?



Yeah, I did...
Its on voting reform....

I'll pull the links for you but will you watch it? Or will you choose to be a shill? :grin:



The 4 videos are on this Daily Kos page....


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1159991/-Chris-Hayes-panel-discusses-how-to-improve-our-Voting-System

[MastaG8r]

Her continued coverage of the challenges faced by veterans meets your criteria above?

Her documentary on Tim McVeigh fits the criteria above?

She was the 1st major media anchor to cover the implications of US Drone policy...
that fits one of your criteria above?


Yeah, exactly like Rush screaming about who the next "RHINO" is... :laugh:Of course it does. She is occasionally willing to be critical of Democrats for not being true to Liberal ideals, in the same way that Limbaugh goes after Republicans who don't toe the Conservative line. They are both hard core ideologues. Individual politicians come and go - their loyalty is to their respective ideologies, Left and Right, and the political parties that embody them.

[secgator]

stop watching these channels

If you're referring to MSNBC--most people actually have stopped watching.

Long ago.:yes:

Long, long, long ago.:laugh:

And half of those that left MSNBC shifted to Current TV. Till half their audience--all 37 of them---gave up on them as well. So Gore sells the network to terrorists--catches hell from the left wingers...not because of the terrorist and extremist affliations of Al Jazeera, but because of the 'environmental' implications (ya know, all that environmentally unfriendly oil rich region)...and the rest as they say 'is history'.

Given that everything to do with the far left media groups like MSNBC and Al-JaTerrorism networks is so F-d up like it is....it really must suck to be a liberal more than I could ever imagine.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ncgatr1]

As I said before, how many guns used in violence in this Country are in the possession of it's original permitted owners? This all BS brought up by the parasite party, also known as the Democratic Party.

[gator996]

If you're referring to MSNBC--most people actually have stopped watching.

Long ago.:yes:

Long, long, long ago.:laugh:

And half of those that left MSNBC shifted to Current TV. Till half their audience--all 37 of them---gave up on them as well. So Gore sells the network to terrorists--catches hell from the left wingers...not because of the terrorist and extremist affliations of Al Jazeera, but because of the 'environmental' implications (ya know, all that environmentally unfriendly oil rich region)...and the rest as they say 'is history'.

Given that everything to do with the far left media groups like MSNBC and Al-JaTerrorism networks is so F-d up like it is....it really must suck to be a liberal more than I could ever imagine.:laugh::laugh::laugh:


TV ratings mean that much to you???

You probably :love: 1D, Britney Spears, and Justin Bieber because their "popular" too...

[secgator]

Yeah right. :laugh:

Ratings DO indicate just how worthless MSNBC is. Those abysmal viewership ratings are indicative of just little the public cares about the lib point of view which MSNBC spews.

Their little minds are so desperate for being heard as they spout their biased and deceitful opinions that they resort to editing the truth so as to sway others towards their warped concepts. Never worked as those....er, 'ratings'...show.

But no...MSNBC isn't biased at all are they--as their leftie lemmings so staunchly maintain. No that is, until lead anchorMAN Rachel Madcow has to admit they got caught with their pants down doctoring the facts. Now if one of their arrogant anchors actually comes up with a conscience and admits to being so far up the Pile in Chief's ass as per instructions from network memo, then they may garner some respect.

[gatorpa]

See my post above. If you want to say Limbaugh is in a league of his own I'll admit that, however I see little difference between Maddow and Hannity's shows.

Hard to agree with this. Hannity has really lost his objectivity over the last 4-5 yrs, thus I rarely even watch him, Maddow on the other hand is a shrill hack and I watch her just for the sheer entertainment.

[gator996]

Yeah right. :laugh:

Ratings DO indicate just how worthless MSNBC is. Those abysmal viewership ratings are indicative of just little the public cares about the lib point of view which MSNBC spews.

Their little minds are so desperate for being heard as they spout their biased and deceitful opinions that they resort to editing the truth so as to sway others towards their warped concepts. Never worked as those....er, 'ratings'...show.

But no...MSNBC isn't biased at all are they--as their leftie lemmings so staunchly maintain. No that is, until lead anchorMAN Rachel Madcow has to admit they got caught with their pants down doctoring the facts. Now if one of their arrogant anchors actually comes up with a conscience and admits to being so far up the Pile in Chief's ass as per instructions from network memo, then they may garner some respect.



What is the list for primetime TV News ratings?
Where can you get it?

[JohnC1908]

Hard to agree with this. Hannity has really lost his objectivity over the last 4-5 yrs, thus I rarely even watch him, Maddow on the other hand is a shrill hack and I watch her just for the sheer entertainment.

I read this twice, you seem to be illustrating my point.

[RealGatorFan]

Maddow has more ethics than all of Fox combined.

Well, she is more man than all of Fox combined.

[jdrgator]

What's the difference? To be honest I see no more than a combined 10 minutes of both a month. They have guests who reinforce their views, condemn members of one corrupt party, and play mouthpiece for the other. Yes Hannity will have a few liberals on unlike Maddow but it seems they are generally easy targets for him to use as a punching bag.

Hey, I don't watch much news at all either, not anymore. But Hannity has been fact and integrity challenged since he came on the scene. Plenty of documented evidence. Can't really say that about Maddow though and that to me is the difference.

There are plenty of good conservative journos out there, Hannity is absolutely not one of them.



Maddow is just being the beyotch she normally is, because she is mad she doesn't have a johnson

Eighth grade locker room humor. Very Christian of you, bill. :laugh:

[JohnC1908]

JDR what in the world makes Maddow's show anywhere close to journalism?

[jdrgator]

Well, she is more man than all of Fox combined.

says a lot about fox

[g8orbill]

Hey, I don't watch much news at all either, not anymore. But Hannity has been fact and integrity challenged since he came on the scene. Plenty of documented evidence. Can't really say that about Maddow though and that to me is the difference.

There are plenty of good conservative journos out there, Hannity is absolutely not one of them.





Eighth grade locker room humor. Very Christian of you, bill. :laugh:

jdr- you expounding on Christianity made me laugh

[jdrgator]

jdr- you expounding on Christianity made me laugh

As does yours.

[jdrgator]

JDR what in the world makes Maddow's show anywhere close to journalism?

I don't think that is really the point, JC. It's been clear for over a decade now that many of these ostensibly cable news programs are not traditional news; that they are opinion shows about news events. This doesn't mean they are all the same. Perhaps it's my own view of Hannity, whom I believe to be one of the most deceitful of show hosts, who while not as bad as Rush, he resides in the same general locale.

[gatorpa]

I read this twice, you seem to be illustrating my point.

Your read was not the issue my typing was. I meant to type disagree. :embarrased:

[JohnC1908]

Your read was not the issue my typing was. I meant to type disagree. :embarrased:

Heh, no worries...happens to the best of us.

[rivergator]

I don't think that is really the point, JC. It's been clear for over a decade now that many of these ostensibly cable news programs are not traditional news; that they are opinion shows about news events. This doesn't mean they are all the same. Perhaps it's my own view of Hannity, whom I believe to be one of the most deceitful of show hosts, who while not as bad as Rush, he resides in the same general locale.


yep, they are opinion. it's the host's take on the news, and they bring in guests for more opinions.
my problem, of course, is when they get the facts wrong. because, clearly, there are people who believe them.

[MastaG8r]

yep, they are opinion. it's the host's take on the news, and they bring in guests for more opinions.
my problem, of course, is when they get the facts wrong. because, clearly, there are people who believe them.Just to be clear...your problem is only when FOX allegedly gets facts wrong. That's dangerous for America because people are being misinformed. But when MSNBC airs video clips deliberately edited to create false impressions of what was said, and then follows up with commentary adopting the false impression as reality and castigating the speaker for it...well that's just sort of cute. Certainly not any real cause for concern.

[gatorpa]

Just to be clear...your problem is only when FOX allegedly gets facts wrong. That's dangerous for America because people are being misinformed. But when MSNBC airs video clips deliberately edited to create false impressions of what was said, and then follows up with commentary adopting the false impression as reality and castigating the speaker for it...well that's just sort of cute. Certainly not any real cause for concern.

Come on man you know when MSNBC does it that's just an honest mistake!

Much like when the O admin blames some crap video for an attack on a consulate or denies being the originator of the sequester only to be proven in err. They aren't attempting to BS anyone, they just make lots of mistakes.