msnbc's maddow admits to deceptive editing

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by JohnC1908

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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

[oaklandroadie]

Originally Posted by 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

Yeah, your no shill! :wink

[gator996]

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




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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Wow that was some defense of Maddow you posted there.

[JohnC1908]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

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]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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...

[gator996]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

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?



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


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...-Voting-System

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by gator996

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...

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]

Originally Posted by 108

stop watching these channels

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

Long ago.

Long, long, long ago.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by secgator

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

Long ago.

Long, long, long ago.

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.

TV ratings mean that much to you???

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

[secgator]

Yeah right.

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]

Originally Posted by JohnC1908

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]

Originally Posted by secgator

Yeah right.

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?