Please tell us where to get the good news, sir.
Bloomberg is basically what news with no filter would look like. Probably because people use it to make large bets on real world outcomes.
I like the Washington Post and politico for the leaks.
24/7 news as a category is just a flaming dumpster fire best avoided entirely.
Zikzak watches no cable news, has said this on numerous occasions, says all cable news is bad but has no idea whoās doing what. Basically comes in with the take Hillary and Trump are the same (if we call MSNBC Hillary and Fox News Trump). Top notch work.
To be clear, I donāt think a single person on the planet should watch Joe ScarredBr0, Chuck Toad, or Chris Matthews. Thereās a lot to bash on MSNBC.
I also basically never watch the 24/7 channels but I know an awful lot of people who doā¦ and they are one and all very uninformed but think they are extremely well informed. Additionally every single time I watch cable news I find myself mega tilted by some super slanted bullshit thing theyāve said in 5 minutes or less. Much less if FNC.
I donāt know anyone but super old people who get up and turn on the teevee and watch MSNBC or any other news outlet all day long. Every other hour youād have to be turning off MSNBC because of a host you canāt stand watching. I watch between 6pm and 9pm many days, but barely pay attention for most of it unless something interesting is going on, especially on āSet Up the Buffer with Brian Williamsā to fast forward through Bill Kristol and for whatever other craphead disgraced idiots he interviews. I donāt watch anything else on the channel.
Specifically Iām talking about my grandparents + MIL. Thatās 3 people, 2 FNC (the grandparents) and 1 CNN (The MIL). All of them are cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
This is where examples of who the hosts are and what theyāre saying would be good.
I want catface to answer, though, because Iām really looking forward to finding out what his source of unbiased news is.
I donāt want to get into defending a subreddit i donāt frequent, but I agree with you here. I went to the thread linked and the comments seemed to indicate clearly that the downvotes were not because they prefer trump to warren as is being falsely proposed here, but because they are discussing why they prefer Sanders to Warren and thus the āSorryā comment isnāt mildly relevant to the discussion.
It seems like it would be more effective to to discuss why Bernie or his policies may be less appealing than another candidateās rather than trying to find isolated incidents of possible toxic suppporters? Isnāt this what some news outlets did with the Dayton shooter liking a Warren tweet? Did anyone feel like that was a valid argument against her?
If one could point to instances where Bernie is promoting toxic behavior and not condemning it, then I would understand it the argument.
The New Yorker, Atlantic, Rolling Stone, Harperās, Foreign Affairs, Democracy Now, Libcom.com, The Economist, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, C-Spanā¦
For the most part, needing to know the ānewsā 5 seconds after it happens and having to fill many hours of ratings grabbing TV every day, makes for pretty low quality.
Dude, Iām not talking about you, Iām talking about guys like catface who quite likely only consume biased sources. I know what sources are out there, but I want people who say stuff like this to say what they consume. Now you gave a nice cheat sheet for people.
Now to be fair that graphic is from 2012 so itās probably gotten worse since than but cable news is hot garbage.
I love how you frame this as some gotcha, like Iām going to say I get my news from RT.
I get probably 90% of my political news from this forum in one form or another. Someone will post a tweet or an article, and Iāll google it and find articles to fill in the gaps. I have been cutting back my reddit and twitter usage pretty drastically, but I also get news from there. I am obviously distrustful of any non-sourced tweets and reddit posts, but usually itās a way I find out about things rather than learn about them, if that makes sense.
I probably watch 3-4 hours of cable news a week, and probably 90% of that is when my wife throws on ari melber while we do our chores. But Iāve seen enough of all of the MSNBC people and most of the CNN people that I feel comfortable saying that they suck. They suck for a lot of reasons, but I think my largest gripe is that they never provide appropriate context for anything. Itās entertainment meant to sell ads, and that means that everything has to be given importance, but not the kind of importance that will put people in the wrong mood to buy health insurance or paper towels.
This sentence is all you need to know about how much has changed:
Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on peopleās current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news
The study seems hilarious that even the most āinformedā consumer still failed the test (talk radio to NPR).
That assessment doesnāt even remotely play today, and MSNBC for sure doesnāt just talk to āoneā audience. The media landscape has been turned on its head since 2012. NPR is an absolute joke, and the Sunday morning politics shows are terrible (Chuck Toad is one of the stars). If anything, media coverage has gotten much better during the Trump era, because there are actually tons of interesting (read horrible) things to cover daily. Itās not tan suits and a boring president and looking for stories. There are too many to cover daily.
Also, I didnāt look deep into the methodology, but Iām guessing they just asked people if they watched cable news or any of the programs mentioned. Iām guessing they didnāt ask if they get their news elsewhere. I didnāt watch much if any cable news back then, and didnāt consume any of the other stuff in that chart either. I was still very informed, and Iām guessing I would have gotten most of their questions right.
Which part is supposed to show how much has changed? Why are you confident that now MSNBC is doing a better job?
No, itās not a gotcha, I genuinely want to know where you consume your news when youāre just trying to get straight news because you seem to hate absolutely everything.
I get most of my headlines from this site as well. I go to msn.com and look at their daily stories as headlines, being careful to see who theyāre from (they link a lot of terrible outlets). Every outlet, no matter what it is, has good and bad content (yes even Fox News has occasional good content that I wonāt consume).
The only two shows I think are worthy of being consumed on a regular basis on MSNBC are Rachel and Lawrence. I think people like Ari and Chris Hayes are only occasionally good, and they both have the same issue, loving to dunk on idiots who should never be given a platform.
I mean I donāt know what to say about your infotainment comment, because thatās TV in a nutshell. Everything is a form of marketing no matter what it is. Some people are trying to cover important stuff so it doesnāt drop from the news cycle. Some people donāt care. Namath nailed the whole cable news model yesterday. An outlet is defined by what it covers and what it doesnāt/degrees of reporting, and often not how it does the reporting. The bias isnāt in usually on how a story is covered but in whatās reported/not reported.
Never said Bernie condoned this behavior, and agree not much productive can be made of it. I knocked for Bernie in 2016. Iām not anti-Bernie, Iām anti-Berniebro (at least the toxic ones that I linked to).
Voting third party over Warren is tacitly voting for Trump, so I think we are arguing semantics.
I see there are a bunch of new posts here and figure something must have happened. Nope it is just the most recent 100 post nunnehi derail where every other post is him trying to convince us how he is so much better than us for whatever banal reason. JFC.
3 Likes
Do you think NPR is a good source of news with their both sidesing and downplaying really bad shit? Or that Chuck Toad is an excellent source of whatās really going on in the Sunday programs?
NPR is low level Koch brother propaganda now (it probably wasnāt in 2012), and the Sunday programs are often the adminstrationās propaganda (definitely was not in 2012). Fox News works for the president, and MSNBC is reporting on the president daily.
From back when I used to watch this stuff, yes, overall itās vastly improved from what it was on MSNBC because they have tried to branch out to get, you guessed it, more eyeballs which translates to more ad money.
There was once a time when I could tolerate Chris Matthews. It was pre-2001 Iām going to guess. I donāt know if you remember what the big story was prior to 9/11. It was just months and months (or a month, I donāt remember) of breathless coverage about Chandra Levy because of her connection to a Congressman. 9/11 wiped it from the news coverage, because that was basically the only big story going on then beside Dubyaās incompetence. The speculation was that the Congressman had something to do with her disappearance, but many years later it was found out that she was murdered by a serial killer. So, yeah, Iām gonna guess things are a bit better now outside of the usual suspects, and I can totally prove that the āgoodā outlets listed in that study suck now.
Stahhhhhhhhp
1 Like
So Tulsi didnāt make it in, huh? Dam.
Back in my day, Emerson College would have never been allowed into the polling racket. Our College Algebra class was taught by an 8th grade Algebra teacher.