Upvoting that feels dirty, at least in the direct sense.

I suppose this is inevitable, merely part of a process that has included turning points like ET's Reeses Pieces. But isn't there some point at which people (*enough* people, not just rabid anti-advertising nutters like me) get turned off by this and tune out in numbers high enough to affect the bottom line? Parasites (successful ones) generally avoid killing their hosts, but I suppose there are some mishaps along the evolutionary trail...

Urp. I just threw up in my mouth a little...thanks a lot.

Ok....mea culpa. After decades of being the propaganda wing for the far right, I do automatically think anyone willing to defend them must be a fan. I'm not a CNN fan, but I often defend them.

I agree, they offer the "other" side's view, often drafting it themselves. What I can't agree on is them being a source of information beyond what the right's talking points will be. As I noted before, their viewers are astonishingly less informed than people who watch zero news.

I agree, there is slant in most news today, sometimes outright zealous bias, and that's a bad thing no matter who does it.

I am surprised Fox can still think ahead enough to back freedom of the press, especially their nemesis CNN, considering the short sightedness and hyper partisan nature of their hosts and writers....pleasantly surprised. I often hope I'm wrong in my assessments, which are invariably cynical.

Lol.
I do get to say what constitutes American values in my opinion, an opinion informed by civics class, something it seems most people were deprived of. Those values are honesty, fairness, and equality under the law.....honoring one's word/agreements, helping the needy, standing up for right not just maximum profit internationally. These are historically the values America held dear....but no longer, at least not officially.

Fox does not honor those values, it rarely gives them lip service and never more.

Well, the boy cried wolf 1000 times this year, and twice there were wolves, you go ahead and drop everything and keep running, pitchfork in hand every time he cries out, I quit listening to him the second time there was no wolf, only a boy laughing at us. Call me emotional and dismissive, I disagree but that's fine. You don't want to know what I think about you and that boy.

Good reporters would not associate with those zealous, hyper biased, hypocritical blatant propagandists, so no, there aren't good reporters there. Maybe some who occasionally tell some truths, that's not enough by far to be "good", and as a network they've squandered any chance they had for redemption as a legitimate news organization with zeal and glee repeatedly.

Yeah.....you know me so well. I don't watch any Trump bashing sessions, they were boring before he was elected. I haven't had my tv on CNN in years, not that they're solely Trump bashing sessions, but they do host some.
You seem to think any news not stroking his ego is a bashing session, quoting him, out of bounds bashing, discussing his new policies, out of bounds emotionality, discussing his recent court losses, out of bounds schadenfreude, pointing out constant stream of blatant self serving lies, out of bounds emotional garbage. Only positive spin is real news...Fox is real news with real reporters, not >80% hyper biased hosts spouting opinion as fact. No thanks....Homie don't play dat.

I have no passion for any hyper biased sources, which is only one reason I won't watch Fox, the other being every time I do it seems it takes less than one minute for them to stray from the truth and go off on some hypothetical pathway based on nonsense, and I just won't intentionally give professional liars and Trump cheerleaders any of my attention or views.
Fool me once, shame on..shame on you....Fool me....you can't get fooled again.

Also, I'm not looking for a debate about CNN's lawsuit over security clearances/press credentials being used as political cudgels by immature "leaders" with unstroked egos, I'm not a lawyer and even they likely don't have much more than opinion on this subject, it's so unique....but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent, one that would have sent the right into violent fits had Obama banned Fox hosts after directly calling them the enemy of America for years, and one that may come back to haunt them in 2 years. Please recall how Fox treated Obama who still gave them one on one interviews where they were even ruder to the delight of the right, before casting aspersions at a political rival's character. Those in glass houses....

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Please name the CNN hosts/reporters who have actively campaigned for Democrats, speaking at their political rallies.

You want to conflate centrist (not far left) bias with rabid far right wing propaganda.
Again, you see two children, one covered in mud, one slightly dirty and you say "see, they're both dirty, equally". It's incredibly dishonest.

Ok, I, and almost all non right wingers disagree. CNN and Faux are no where near the same level. CNN may have some bias against the man who actively encouraged right wing terrorists to attack them as enemies of America and continues to do so....that's perfectly reasonable and professional.
What they don't do is make up stories out of thin air like Faux, edit video to create false impressions that are diametrically opposed to reality, hire mostly frauds who have been caught falsifying reports, repeat obvious lies because their preferred candidate/politician said them, or go on the campaign trail with candidates not to report, but to speak on their behalf. Your conflation of the two is either disingenuous, outrageously ignorant, or insane, you choose.

I watch more than enough Faux to know what they are, pure propaganda. You can deny it all you like, that only makes you look ignorant or dishonest. I'm certain I watch more Faux than you watch CNN, yet you've made similar (but less honest) claims about them, you must not watch it enough to know of what of you speak, you just take a convicted frauds word that they're liars as gospel and never investigate it seems.

You don't know me, sir, or you wouldn't make such a spurious claim. I gather information from multiple opposing sources. How could I debunk the lies from Faux and OAN if I don't watch them spout those lies?

Then how about what Trump himself did?...turnabout is fair play, so in this instance two wrongs might make things more right, at least more balanced. The left playing fairly, honorably, and attempting to avoid even the appearance of impropriety got us Trump, who has no such qualms. I hope Democrats don't sit on their high horse and complain that Trump doesn't play fair while he destroys our democracy and union....it's well past time to start tossing the steaming shit back at them.

Trump raped his pre-teen daughters on film and bragged about it, that's why he won't show us their long form medical and financial records.....that's far truer than his birther claims.
Also, his kids are all illegals, born to non citizens as anchor babies, (all his baby mommas are immigrants/invaders) when he tries to remove birthright citizenship they should be deported immediately. ;-)

No, none of those people are good at reporting news, not one can separate their rabid hyper biased opinions from fact, although Smith is doing better lately......but slightly better than god awful isn't good.
Fox is a joke, period. They don't have reporters, they have hosts. They're an opinion/entertainment/propaganda network, not a news network. It's really sad that you watch them but don't understand that basic fact, and you defend them as offering good reporting while also admitting they aren't even news...WTF, man?

The thing there is the news media is not being unprofessional, Trump is, but you're listening to him as if he wasn't an impudent infant and believing the nonsense that reporting on his constant vitriolic foibles is unprofessional. It's simply not.

Trump is the leader of the nation, not CNN, not his advisors, not Hannity. He is not being led to the right, he's dragging centrists far right or attacking them if they refuse to go along.
How about maybe he tries to lead towards civility and professionalism instead of impetuously attack any detractors like a spoiled brat, blaming them for his own actions?

Sticking Fox in there as well shows you aren't serious. Fox is pure propaganda to the extent their top rated hosts (they don't have reporters) actually went on the campaign trail with Trump and spoke at his rallies....talk about agenda.

Trump's actions and words are 98% negative, it's who he is. Reporting on him in a negative light IS honest reporting....for Christ's sake, he repeatedly lusted after his under age daughter publicly, how do you report that as a positive? "He has the fortitude of character to not act on his incestuous fantasies....at least publicly."? Can't say the same about his friend's wives or work subordinates, though.

The day of the synagogue shooting, which was targeted specifically because Trump said repeatedly that Jews are paying dangerous illegal aliens to invade the country, and with more bombs still in the mail, Trump again shirked any responsibility for his rhetoric and blamed the media for his named enemies (including the same media) being targeted by people who quoted his words in their manifestos, and again called the news media enemies of the people, the words that triggered the right wing terrorists in the first place. You argue that, by reporting his complete lack of civil leadership and his targeted threats that are being acted on, they are the problem and the one's taking jabs?! Trump didn't hold off media bashing for a single sentence, his call for unity and his blame and attack were in the same opening sentence of his remarks.

Trump is the leader of the free world, but he never once has he lead towards civility, and excessively rarely honesty or rationality. You expect cable news anchors to be the moral compass of the nation, and completely excuse president from that obligation?! *facepalm
Trump ran on being insulting and derisive of any non Trumpian coverage, Jim is just his latest target by proximity, it would be someone else if it wasn't him. Baby needs a bad man to spit up on.

If this behavior warrants removing credentials, Fox, Breightbart, and Alex Jones would have been permanently barred over a decade ago, but they're all more than welcome....largely because they were constant rude assholes to Obama and had zero respect for the office when he held it.
Good luck demanding professionalism and civility now, after 8 years of birtherism that ship sailed with Trump at the helm. Whining about it now like a thin skinned 3rd grader only makes Trump more ridiculous and hypocritical.....which is astonishing as he had already raised the bar of hypocrisy into orbit.

...That moment when you don't recognize either of the Hosts on the Emmys...

Those are both reputable sources outside the conspiracy theory circle.

Do you have a reputable, known source (not another fake .co virus hosting site, but a known, reputable, virus free .com, and not a brietbart or Fox or Alex Jones site either, I said reputable) that contradicts them, or are you once again just dismissing their evidence off hand for no reason besides you don't like it? They were far from the only sources for either report, but were two of the best known.
There is zero doubt about the snopes report about the stock photo fakes, (edit: and zero doubt that the movement created hundreds of fake accounts claiming to be popular liberals that had walked away due to the Democrats intolerance, lies, racism, and thugishness, accounts that usually went on to troll other liberals online viciously) the Russian involvement is harder to prove, not being an international investigative reporter, but is totally reasonable and logical. It's exactly the kind of movement they ran last election....divisive, insulting, internet based, decentralized, picture driven, right wing targeted, and easily proven fraudulent.

If I take the time to reference more reports, will you read and evaluate all their evidence, or once again find another reason to dismiss it without cause or inspection? I won't waste my time without your solemn word you'll do that, and there will be a quiz on what they said to prove you read it.
I'm guessing the answer to both questions is "no".

Still waiting to hear what Clinton will be charged with, btw.

No, I take the DOJ's word, and a court ruling.

You take the word of the accused and steadfastly refuse to investigate or believe any other contradictory source.

Everything you said is actually, factually wrong, which you would see if you looked at official sources and not Limbaugh and Breitbart, both of which are proven propaganda and totally untrustworthy.
Yes, right, IF any of that were at all true, there wouldn't have ever been a special council....but there still is, because it's simply not true. The investigation predates the dossier.
Of course, I know you won't look into it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

No point you posting links, you linked to a virus host before, I'll never click your links again.

Except that YouTube (a private company) refusing to host his videos isn't at all equivalent to the government dragging him away and silencing him against his constitutional rights. Obvious, perhaps, but worth saying anyway, given that's how the alt-right have been portraying his "takedown". Also, he was only banned from Twitter for a week and is back spewing his hateful dangerous lies on that platform as if nothing happened, with the tacit approval of its CEO, who loves the clicks.

Don't know about every christian, but almost every public internet hosting company disavowed him today....Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and Youtube all banned Infowars and removed his channels today for repeatedly violating their terms of service.

About
Damn
Time