1m22s

fuck-fox news.

hurp durp

that's all well and good, foxnews is probably much more "evil" than msnbc; but partly, as Jon Stewart said, "because they're better at it".

the lines between ALL news and entertainment are totally blurred to the point of the inability to find an actual factual news source for many stories.

>> ^Golgi:

that's all well and good, foxnews is probably much more "evil" than msnbc; but partly, as Jon Stewart said, "because they're better at it".
the lines between ALL news and entertainment are totally blurred to the point of the inability to find an actual factual news source for many stories.


Sick of this "both sides do it" bullshit.

No, they don't.

In violation of NBC news' guidelines which MSNBC is exempt from. This is just posturing by boss Phil Griffin who wants to show who's boss and maybe win goodwill from the other side.

the exemption is for CNBC, which means NBC does not consider CNBC to be a news agency.

>> ^gwiz665:

In violation of NBC news' guidelines which MSNBC is exempt from. This is just posturing by boss Phil Griffin who wants to show who's boss and maybe win goodwill from the other side.


Except Griffin isn't part of doing anything yet, and won't be for another 6mo. This is all old NBC guys, no giant fox/republican conspiracy to be had. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hm - when did Fox News fire Olbermann? That's the only way her stupid rant makes any sense. I don't care if news bozos donate to campaigns. I think making that information public is a good idea, but the concept in and of itself is not offensive to me. I'd rather hear the news from a person whose bias I knew than listen to a guy pretending to be "neutral" who hides their biases.

So what if Olbemann donates to Democrats. Wow - WHAT A SURPRISE! Knock me over with a feather. He's a leftist. Gee - I woulda never pegged him for it... Uh - on second thought - no - I could tell that he was a biased dingus the second he started flapping his lips. And you know what? I prefer it that way. There's no questions. I know who he is and where he's coming from. I completely disagree with his pespective - but I know what it is. That's a good thing.

Anyone pretending (like MadCow) that it is some sort of 'secret' that Fox opinion guys go right is an idiot. What?! Hannity donates to (gasp) Republicans? Why... Why I never heard of such a thing...! Please. There's no secret there. And Hannity is not an anchor, so who cares who he donates to anyway? Olbermann is a commentator. He's entitled to donate to whoever he wants, and more power to him. MSNBC behaved stupidly - just like NPR did with Juan Williams. This whole affair does nothing but highlight MSNBC management's incompetence.

KO broke the rules. KO has been punished.

What's that got to do with Fox? This is misdirection.

Bah! Who cares about Hannity!... Let him do what he wants. It isn't like he was a real journalist or anything.

I'm glad someone is paying attention. Pot and kettle:

Isn't the internets great? Takes - what? About a day for people to cull through MadCow's trough of rabid foam-flecked spittle to find proof that she's not only an idiot but a lying, slimy, hypocritical idiot. Nice to see average people putting this specimen in her place. Yeah - you're a stupid hypocrite Maddow. We all knew it, but it's nice to see it proved so simply and eloquently with your own video. Now we can just erase your smarmy voice from your newscast and just replace it with, "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!"

The issue isn't whether they allowed these candidates or activists to plug their causes on the air. That's always going to happen.

The issue is whether the commentator/anchor/personality themselves donated money to candidates they were interviewing, without disclosure to their viewers.

Chris Mathews didn't, Rachel Maddow didn't, Ed Schultz didn't.

Olbermann did, and was punished for it.

@silvercord, you know that the actual clip they cut to after Rachel saying "sometimes they just have the fundraisers on the air" was actually Glenn Beck literally saying to Bachman "what can I do to help you raise money?", and that was in the center of a long list of people working at Fox who also were headlining Republican fundraisers and making a on-air political candidate endorsements, right?

FWIW, I think Maddow's proclamation at the end about how Keith's suspension is proof that they're not political rings pretty hollow too. The rule that Keith broke was that he didn't ask for permission to donate first, not that there's a hard and fast rule about donations.

But I think she's got a point about there being a qualitative difference between personally donating to candidates, and making explicit, on-air endorsements of candidates and headlining fundraisers for political campaigns.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://silvercord.videosift.com" title="member since April 14th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(138, 43, 226);">silvercord, you know that the actual clip they cut to after Rachel saying "sometimes they just have the fundraisers on the air" was actually Glenn Beck literally saying to Bachman "what can I do to help you raise money?", and that was in the center of a long list of people working at Fox who also were headlining Republican fundraisers and making a on-air political candidate endorsements, right?
FWIW, I think Maddow's proclamation at the end about how Keith's suspension is proof that they're not political rings pretty hollow too. The rule that Keith broke was that he didn't ask for permission to donate first, not that there's a hard and fast rule about donations.
But I think she's got a point about there being a qualitative difference between personally donating to candidates, and making explicit, on-air endorsements of candidates and headlining fundraisers for political campaigns.


Two things. MSNBC is just as much in the tank for the lib/prog/soc folks as FOX is for the conserv/rt wing/teaparty people. Second, I used to think that part of the journalistic effort was to discover the truth about every corruption. Alas, I was wrong. Today's journalism is about pointing out the corruption of the people you disagree with while turning a blind eye toward those you do. It doesn't really matter which hypocritical side you are on any longer; the train is going over the cliff.

>> ^silvercord:

Two things. MSNBC is just as much in the tank for the lib/prog/soc folks as FOX is for the conserv/rt wing/teaparty people.

Depends on when you tune in. If you watch during the daytime, it's pretty much right-wing or false equivalency central. In the evenings you have a solid block of people who're all openly left in varying degrees.

There's no time I could tune in Fox and hear anything other than far-right lunacy.

>> ^silvercord:
Second, I used to think that part of the journalistic effort was to discover the truth about every corruption. Alas, I was wrong. Today's journalism is about pointing out the corruption of the people you disagree with while turning a blind eye toward those you do. It doesn't really matter which hypocritical side you are on any longer; the train is going over the cliff.


The way I see the state of play, you have the right fabricating corruption and blaming everything bad in the world on the left (whether they had even the remotest control over it or not), while the left points out true corruption on both the left and the right.

The left says that we're stuck with two parties, one whose policies are far too heavily influenced by big business, and the other whose policies are indistinguishable from those of big business.

The right mostly cheers the defeat of things like the DISCLOSE act, and having the SCOTUS strike down essentially all campaign finance reforms.

WTF is up with that?