Maddow deals in facts, has researchers that compare and evaluate sources, is bright and personable, allows opposing views to speak and debate with her, and corrects and apologizes for any factual errors that somehow sneak through.
Limbaugh either doesn’t care about facts or wouldn’t know one if it bit him in the ass. He does little research other than try to find the stories that could be misrepresnted or outright lied about to smear Obama. He allows mainly only his brain dead dittoheads on the air to fawn over him, acts like the ignorant prick that he is and pretends that he never makes mistakes.
I was referring to the posters that have been most active in this thread, and I typed employees when I meant appointees. I accidentally hit Submit Reply when I meant to Preview Post.
So. Some of the many “plausible” possibilities I requested above?
And maybe the cite I requested previously for the claim Originally Posted by doorhinge? “While the feds are desperately seeking Kelly’s EX in-laws and Stepien’s landlord, I still think they would be farther ahead if they offered Kelly a deal.”
Originally Posted by MacCat: Please cite some examples, or even one, of desperately.
Your one response to a request for a cite for your claim “There isn’t even any evidence that Christie is guilty of the most often cited, unproven rumor of Christie wanting to punish Sokolich for not supporting him.” was "I humbly concede the “most” part. I change it to “the often cited”.
Yet you did it again with…
Originally Posted by doorhinge"Are you aware that Christie closed the GW Bridge to punish Ft Lee Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing Christie’s re-election bid? It’s been reported by most, if not all, of the media."
Originally Posted by MacCat: And cite for the bolded above…
Your use of words fraught with inaccuracies, innuendo and disdain as well as your ignoring requests for cites for what you say will be called out.
No. The context in which you use it indicates that you are deliberately attempting to distract from the fact that the reporters mentioned deliver facts. By calling them entertainers, you are equating them with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. By that reasoning, if Responsible Reporters are ‘entertainers’, and Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers, and Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s entertainment deals with issues in the news, then Limbaugh and Hannity are Responsible Reporters.
Which they are not.
It was pointed out to you that such attempts to obscure reality are often used by Conservatives, and that those attempts are as transparent as a very clear thing. Why, then, do you continue to try to use tactics that, as you have been shown, do not work here?
How do you feel about the Great NJ Lane Reassignment debacle? Or Christie? Or the Port Authority? Or New Jersey?
The “context” that you refer to is your interpretation. I wanted to know which commentator in the MSNBC evening line up is considered a news reporter? They are considered television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors, but not news reporters. Television hosts, political commentators, pundits, news anchors are entertainers and the term “entertainer” is an adequate description of them.
Because the Official Republican Apologist(r) Social Media script doesn’t have a response for getting called out with actual facts. So far it’s been fairly successful, more’s the pity.
Why would you do with more plausible possibilities? The current ones are confusing enough and none have been proven.
They all start with the unverified assumption that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich.
Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because:
Sokolich wouldn’t support Christie for reelection.
Christie disagreed with Democrats over state Supreme Court nominations.
Christie wanted to somehow affect the Harbor Lights project.
What part of my correction didn’t you understand? The unproven rumor that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich is often cited. I’m currently discussing several versions of that unproven rumor with other posters.
MSNBC evening lineup entertainers Maddow and Kornacki both start their “versions” of the unproven “Christie wanted to punish Sokolich” rumors with - Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because (insert updated version here).
By golly, I did do it again. There’s just no excuse for sloppy workmanship. I’ll try really, really hard not to do it again. Thanks for pointing it out.
By calling them ‘entertainers’, you imply that they cannot be trusted since they are only entertainers and not news presenters who are delivering factual information. In other words, you’re implying that they are lying for the purpose of entertaining an audience. You are also attempting to create a false equivalent between news presenters and people like Limbaugh and Hannity, who actually are (and they admit it) ‘entertainers’.
It’s not working, and it doesn’t work with people who can see the difference between ‘entertainers’ and news presenters. It only works with people who can’t.
BS. Their versions both say that there are alternate likely reasons for the scandal rather than the early and unlikely Revenge on Sokolich theory that was early speculation. From Business Insider
Kornacki suggested revenge on Dawn Zimmer is a possible motive.
And cite for them saying “Christie wanted to punish Sokolich”…
:rolleyes: Your “Port Authority’s Wildstein is involved. And there’s proof. Port Authority’s Baroni is involved. Kelly is involved.” is obvious to almost anyone following Bridgegate. There was absolutely no reason for you to say that other than to pad your post and that’s why I said “Yes, we all know those three Christie employees are involved.” Really requires mind reading :rolleyes:
I said I typed employees when I meant appointees, and I said I accidentally hit Submit Reply instead of Preview Post. I would have caught it when previewing. *How is that in any possible scenario holding you responsible?
:smack::smack::smack:
Since I am a mind reader, I’ll venture you really meant what would I do with more plausible possibilities?.
Nothing, I just want you to back up your claim “There are many “plausible” possibilities.” Tell us some. You throw out things and don’t back them up.
It’s not irrelevant in a thread titled, “Did Christie (or his staff) intentionally cause the Fort Lee traffic jam?”.
You must have a very low opinion of “entertainers”. Why do you believe that entertainers are liars? Television hosts, political commentators, pundits, and news anchors are entertainers but that doesn’t automatically make them liars.
You made several assumptions about what I “implied”. Your interpretation of what I “implied” following the term “in other words”, is your words. I’m not responsible for your interpretation.
While I believe that Maddow is far and away the pick of the litter of the MSNBC evening lineup, that doesn’t mean her statements are not to be questioned. I find it interesting that TV hosts, political commentators, bloggers, and pundits can start with an unverified rumor, that Christie was punishing Sokolich, and attempted to prove the unverified first part by adding an additional, unverified second part. That’s like saying that 3 plus 2 equals 7 because 7 minus 3 equals 2. No, wait. It must be that 7 minus 2 equals 3. There is no evidence that 3 plus 2 equals 7 or that Christie was trying to punish Sokolich.
As a side note - I’ve only heard British news reporters and political commentators refer to the spokesmodels hired by media outlets to read the news as “news readers”. Maddow hardly qualifies as a simple “news reader”. I don’t consider her to be a “news reporter”, either. She’s a political commentator and pundit.
Does she also mention, every time, that there is no evidence that Christie wanted to punish Sokolich I) for not supporting Christie’s election, II) because Christie was fighting with Democrats about state Supreme Court nominations, III) Christie was threatening the Harbor Lights project?
I’ve used double quotes to emphasize words for so long that it might prove too difficult to change. Would you consider thinking of them as “air quotes”? You know, those finger gestures that people sometimes use tete-a-tete.