The “as usual” is what really makes this post. High five Will.
Yes you so brilliantly camouflaged it, I must have a gift.
It was supposed to be a joke, but maybe it fell flat because I conflated him with Francis Fukuyama. :smack:
Please just keep the casual associations to your personal boogeymen coming.
Hey, you’re just like my 10th grade English teacher. You’re a real nincompoop. So was she! Darn you guys.
Nope, no camouflage. My poll is so good that people answer it without even trying to.
Yes, I bask in the glow of Fox News daily, except I don’t and never have.
I sensed there was a joke in there, but I couldn’t quite parse it.
(I quite like Fukuyama!)
Funny. But there are a thousand things not accounted for in reducing it to that.
Here is my main one: How many carlson viewers scan all the networks to get other views vs how many O’Donnell viewers?
How do RW and LW people stack up for trying to say informed?
For me, I’m a Lawrence watcher, but I watch all the news channels, switching to the one that has the most “informational” value to me, involving not just the news, but the coverage approaches of them all. If there is one kind of story I will watch CNN more, for another, I need to hear what Fox is saying more.
We are coming to a point where triangulation is the only way to get info from the media. If you do that you may be surprised at how much truth is in plain sight.
As I said before, no camouflage, no party.
If true, please vote in November.
If you get any of your news from a cable TV channel, add 10 points and kick yourself in the neck.
Goddammit, you kids. I told you not to leave the gate open. Now we have Warnaby running around loose.
Glad I read to the end of the thread. I nearly corrected you myself.
I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean that to be as oxymoronic as it seems. And that irony is not in your wheelhouse, but wow.
I’ve noticed a cyclical pattern where he shows up, says a bunch of really stupid shit in a few different threads, and then disappears again for a while. If only he put as much effort into step 3 as he does step 2.
This seems to me to be a fair distinction.
But I can see why the tiger chose Lawrence O’Donnell as the left-wing comparison to Tucker Carlson, in that O’Donnell is probably the most openly partisan of the prime-time MSNBC hosts. O’Donnell does present solid news, but the focus of his show is too often can you believe how awful Trump is?
It’s a ratings-grabbing approach, and no doubt that’s why he does it. But perhaps it is not as respectable as are the more content-rich MSNBC shows of Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow.
The OP is pointless, because no true Doper would ever believe any of those options.
Just in case, #1 should be amended to add: It’s high time my side stopped being so nice, and instead adopted the ruthless tactics of the other side.
And #10 should include the following: The extremists on my side have no importance or influence, whereas the other side’s extremists have tons of supporters and are central to their ideology.
Yes.
But look, Chris Hayes himself would probably tell you that you shouldn’t rely on his show to educate you about the world. Like everyone else on cable, he is in a heated competition for certain commercially valuable eyeballs using a medium that is highly distorting. He is among the best in the business at minimizing the political antics and maximizing the solid journalism. But you would still be painfully ignorant about some of the most important things happening in the world, and have a highly polarized and simplified view of politics and policy if his show was 80% of your media diet—and he is a best case scenario!
There is no substitute for long-form journalism and scholarship for understanding what is happening in the world.
Good additions.
I don’t think Hayes viewers are prone to using his show as a sole source of info, or as a cocoon against current events. But in the cases of all the fox hosts vs their competition, they are most certainly doing this every single show.
Also, call me naive but I see Rachel Maddows show as long form journalism. She is on the Russia story. She gets stick for it. The libertarian/russian troll talking point on her is that she is the liberal glenn back etc. If she gets deep she’s glenn beck, if she doesn’t she’s shallow. She can’t win.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001
Even with long-form journalism and scholarship it’s important to keep in mind the question ‘who is paying the bills to support this work?’ The answers will usually range from “a single corporation” to “a combination of grants, federal and state government support, and individual donors,” with all variations in between.
Journalists may be utterly professional and may sincerely wish to adhere to the highest standards set for their line of work–and still find that their work is constrained or even directed in certain ways. The infamous February 2016 comment by then-chairman of CBS Les Moonves is a good reminder:
But this is the system we have. “News” is expected to turn a profit. Is it profitable to promote partisan division? You betcha.
I understand why i’ts lawrence but I find the comparison lacks the one thing we need right now: We have to be able to distinguish between the missions of these organizations and not pretend they are the same thing. That’s another road to serfdom.