MSNBC sticks to the truth?

LOL

I'm sure you could do the exact same clip from MSNBC showing the praise for Obama being willing to talk and condemnation for Trump doing the same.

To be even more fair, Obama being grossly more competent than Trump makes it a lot easier for MSNBC to be a bit more subtle in their hypocrisy.

Listening to far left nuts don't make their spin true.
david cay johnston Really -- you can't get more Alt Left than this nut. Well may be but they anchor MSNBC.

@moonsammy:

Have a look at this interview from 1980. Pay attention to the patterns of his speech. Notice how they are different than the example used in the Nerdwriter analysis I posted above.

http://www.msnbc.com/documentaries/watch/today-show-1980-with-donald-trump-589527619719

At a later interview (1988?) you can hear that the patterns in his speech are a bit closer to the Nerdwriter. You can hear how he occasionally repeats words. He has had more practice with interviews here than in 1980 and it shows. How he crafts his speech is not a product of an untrained mind--it is intentional.

The way he dodges the "are you smarter than other people?" question is also interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmClYIQqEn8

Again, I'm not arguing that he's a genius. Just that assumptions of his intellect based on the choice to use simple language have been mistaken. His choice to use simple language is a big part of what gave him broad appeal among voters for whom higher education was out of reach. It may have won him the presidency.

I don't like him, but he isn't stupid.

Your are woefully making a mountain out of a molehill. That is water you are drinking day in day out from the lying elitist media. Keep drinking.

Bur never mind the actual FACTS of the video and that they are mountain and not molehills.

Look both of us want truth/ and honesty in our positions. Americans are sick of political BS. That is why Bernie and Trump bubbled to the top.

Trump won. Does he have faults - yep. Has he had some miss steps yep. Has he committed undeniable collusion with Russians-- Unknown and under investigation.

Has the media cast him in a negative light day in day out in. Absolutely.

Is the media biased? 100% yep - Should the media be so biased? NO-- Honest not biased.

last 4 months -CNN MSNBC CBS ABC 93% anti trump stories---FOX 50% -

""Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't"". ??? On what grounds do you state this ??? Fox is more fair and balanced than CNC/MSNBC and others.


HE was not expected to wing by a land slide It was to be close, which it was.


" Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality " Are you kidding. Democrats are the party of Debauchery. Democrats are a joke. Republicans have slipped to a new low but democrats promote the worst of society.

Democrats are American but they represent the blinded sheep degenerated by its politicians.

Your video, phil donahue on his 2003 firing from MSNBC, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

phil donahue on his 2003 firing from MSNBC has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

seems sort of *related=https://videosift.com/video/phil-donahue-on-his-2003-firing-from-MSNBC

I think what you do is (in the US, varies by region): You watch PBS/NPR (they try, but they do have a leftward bias--but relatively minimal corporate bias), MSNBC (obvious leftward bias), FOX News (obvious rightward bias).

Then for international news: BBC World Service and Al-Jazeera. For an asian source, I dunno. Anything coming out of China is no good, so you may as well get that second hand with interpretation.

That's a lot of work. I get my news from the Daily Show.

@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

Trump might not be completely right but he is not completely wrong. Fisa request did go out. To spy directly or indirectly on Trump and his staff I'm not sure yet.

But to bring a CNN clip as factual is anything but. CNN is king of FAKE news.

To be sure all programing
ABC, CBS,NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Late night shows ) is set to anti Trump programing 24/7 except for FOX .. They are only 1/3 anti Trump programing.

Good, a UK cunt is posing as an authority of USA politics and Trump. They why do we have CNN, CBS MSNBC.

What a loon. It is so nice to see the left blow its gasket.

@Janus
you are not alone,many here on the sift tend to lean in your direction,however,i find this to be misplaced skepticism.

when it comes to russian internal policies,and actions abroad i tend to agree with the assertion that RT leans towards russian state "message of the day".similar to how CNN,MSNBC and FOX play that game.

but when it comes to being critical of the USA,and considering just who chris hedges is as a journalist and writer.i find the criticism un-warranted.

that is just my opinion,you are free to disagree of course.

though i would like to point out that many media outlets that have produced fantastic content,with exceptional journalists,are under siege.TeLeSUR and aljazeera english are in the crapper due to funding,and small,independent outlets are also struggling to compete with the megalithic corporate media to bring critical analysis in these dangerous times.

so while i agree that a venue such as RT should be approached with a modicum of skepticism,i also feel very strongly that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

chris hedges has been a extremely vocal critic of power,corruption and the devastating affects of neoliberalism.pulitzer prize winning author and journalist.

so while this may be on on RT,it is chris hedges that has credit with me.he has proven to be a man of integrity.

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.