George Floyd...

[mmr007]

I'm more left than most people here, but I wouldn't defend MSNBC and interpret the different outcomes we see as a difference of intent or modus operandi from them.
Fox and MSNBC are both trying to get views and $$$ by riling up their audience.
MSNBC is not a selfless beacon bringing us awareness.

It may appear that the topics FOX cover are dumb and that the people they defend are indefensible, and that they are time and time again hypocrites...but that's just the hand they're dealt... The right side just has a higher number of terrible leaders and more baggage, so they are harder to defend. It's not FOX's fault .

But MSNBC is just as sensationalist and hypocritical as FOX. (Justified) reporting on Trump's mental and physical health at every opportunity, sure... but when Biden is visibly unwell...crickets. Criticism of the right's lifestyle and their elected officials' links to business all day long everyday...but the Pelosi/Newsom family cozying up to billionaires is never reported on somehow.
Just like Obama's tan suit, MSNBC also enjoyed reporting on inconsequential stuff like Trump's diet coke and Hamburger habits. Same practices.

FOX is not the one saying that Jews are a threat to society btw so I fail to see how that's relevant. There are extreme people on the left too who say stuff like "all white people are irredeemable racists" or "we should murder all billionaires" or "we should chemically stop puberty for all kids to make things fair"....and you're not making MSNBC accountable for them.

Now, don't get me wrong...the right should be criticized more. But MSNBC is still a pretty big pile of shit regardless

Ok so a couple of issues I have with this. I never said Fox reported anything about Jews or insinuated. What I said was...two sides can be doing essentially the same activity and one is full of shit and one is justified...it depends on the issue each takes a side about. Sometimes one side can just be plain wrong...not different and we need to respect the difference but wrong.

I don't really watch MSNBC but I have. MSNBC may have reported on Trump's eating habits, but they didn't demean the man over it in the same way Fox did over the tan suit calling into question Obama's suitability (no pun intended) to lead the free world in a tan suit. MSNBC only questioned Trump's eating habits because his health, weight and secrecy over his checkups and claim that he was the most fit president in the history of presidents seemed dubious. Fox was trying to get their viewers mad that a man in a tan suit lead the free world. Not the same thing.

I DID clearly say that MSNBC tries to agitate....I didn't say they were honorable.....to raise awareness. They do. They agitate to bring in viewers because that sells. They have an angle, and an agenda...and even a bias. But they aren't out there lying. Rachael Maddow wears her liberal bias on her sleeve but to equate her with Tucker Carlson is ridiculous.

None of these are true news. They are all just a news sound bite followed by talking heads reminding you what you heard in the sound bite means the end of life as we know it. I don't feel I misspoke about comparing the two but I feel like if I watch MSNBC I have to wade through the bullshit to get to the truth whereas with FOX I have to wade through the bullshit only to find a bigger pile of bullshit

 

[CanserDYI]

I find it funny when Lib's think me and them are on the same side when I tell them I hate right wingers. Its more funny when I say fuck libs and have right wingers think I'm one of them.

 

[mbardu]

This comment is an example of projection.

Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.

The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.

Screaming fascism at every turn is clearly not productive.
Like, largely left-leaning moderation on a largely left-leaning forum is not fascism, it's just fact.

It's a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" situation that detracts from the fact that even though we're not quite there, there are a tiny few things that actually do smell of fascist police state in America.

 

[bostjan]

It's understandable to have a fear of being wrong. Especially as news outlets, being wrong means losing credibility.

However, since the turn of the 21st century, news has basically all come from either Reuters, AP, or AFP. The networks then have to do something to set themselves apart from other networks that might just report straight news.

So, for example, a story from 2012...

Reuters - "Job growth steps up, but jobless rate rises."
NBC - "US economy's job engine revved up in July."
Fox - "Wrong-Way Growth: Jobless Jumps
In July as New Hiring Remains Slow."

 

[StevenC]

Thank you for actually providing some citation here, @Xaios.

So, pretty much, you've got the Commies calling other people Commies because extremist-fueled propaganda has everyone convinced that any dissenter who disagrees with them is a Commie with the propaganda serving to further polarize the populace and weaken the populace's ability to unite together.

So, either we are all Commies, or none of us are Commies?

But now in 2021, the insults/terminology has changed. But other than that, the tactic is the same.

My guy, I'm not Google and nor is Xaois. Do some due diligence if you're going to make the argument that both sides are as media influenced when it's verifiable not true.

 

[mbardu]

Ok so a couple of issues I have with this. I never said Fox reported anything about Jews or insinuated. What I said was...two sides can be doing essentially the same activity and one is full of shit and one is justified...it depends on the issue each takes a side about. Sometimes one side can just be plain wrong...not different and we need to respect the difference but wrong.

I don't really watch MSNBC but I have. MSNBC may have reported on Trump's eating habits, but they didn't demean the man over it in the same way Fox did over the tan suit calling into question Obama's suitability (no pun intended) to lead the free world in a tan suit. MSNBC only questioned Trump's eating habits because his health, weight and secrecy over his checkups and claim that he was the most fit president in the history of presidents seemed dubious. Fox was trying to get their viewers mad that a man in a tan suit lead the free world. Not the same thing.

I DID clearly say that MSNBC tries to agitate....I didn't say they were honorable.....to raise awareness. They do. They agitate to bring in viewers because that sells. They have an angle, and an agenda...and even a bias. But they aren't out there lying. Rachael Maddow wears her liberal bias on her sleeve but to equate her with Tucker Carlson is ridiculous.

None of these are true news. They are all just a news sound bite followed by talking heads reminding you what you heard in the sound bite means the end of life as we know it. I don't feel I misspoke about comparing the two but I feel like if I watch MSNBC I have to wade through the bullshit to get to the truth whereas with FOX I have to wade through the bullshit only to find a bigger pile of bullshit

Didn't mean to say you attributed the "nazi" bit to Fox, sorry if that was not clear.
Just showing that the fact there are some extremes in the "FOX watching" camp is not relevant, because there are also extremes in the "MSNBC watching" camp. In other words, I could have made your exact argument backwards, picking an extreme leftist position ("all white people are irredeemable racists who should be punished") and contrasting that with a more moderate rightist position ("maybe not all white people are bad").

Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should not have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.

Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often just shy of that. if that... MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.

At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for

And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.

 

[mmr007]

Didn't mean to say you attributed the "nazi" bit to Fox, sorry if that was not clear.
Just showing that the fact there are some extremes in the "FOX watching" camp is not relevant, because there are also extremes in the "MSNBC watching" camp.

Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should not have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.

Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often just shy of that. And MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.

At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for

And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.

There were times that as much as I hate Trump and his supporters I had to side with him over unfair treatment by MSNBC so I recognize that is a thing and I was surprised the universe didn't split open and engulf me immediately for feeling that way. Again, does MSNBC have an agenda and bias? Yes. Do I think that agenda is more closely allied with a better vision for a democracy in America than FOX? Yes. But I'm no fan of the channel.

 

[bostjan]

Maybe a more relevant set of examples, these were all the sites' own stories to which they linked back when I searched for "Rittenhouse verdict":

Reuters - "Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin murder trial"
MSNBC - "Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict is a symptom of a bigger sickness"
Fox - "Lying media had no effect on Rittenhouse verdict and propaganda was defeated"

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

My guy, I'm not Google and nor is Xaois. Do some due diligence if you're going to make the argument that both sides are as media influenced when it's verifiable not true.

I'm just trying to understand your perspective, my guy.

I could Google up some terms, read some articles, post a link, and you could still say: "No, no, no. That's not right. That's not true. That's not what I'm advocating." based on your own personal, subjective opinion. That is why I used that meme and asked YOU to provide citations to back YOUR statements from YOUR perspective.

I've done enough due diligence when I work in that industry, in that field, and have witnessed it all first-hand as an active participating worker; whereas, you're just a consumer on the receiving end of a screen.

Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should not have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.

Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often just shy of that. if that... MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.

At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for

And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.

^ Absolutely nailed it.

 

[profwoot]

This comment is an example of projection.

Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.

The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.

Projecting your own issues onto others? Accuse them of projection.

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, boiling everything down to "disagreement" is an absolutely insipid way of viewing the world. Fascist movements are plentiful and well-studied, and they follow very similar paths. Today's republican party is fascist. Not because I disagree with them, but because they are using the exact rhetorical and governmental techniques used by every previous fascist movement. Scholars of fascism have been warning about the republican party for years, but at this point it should be extremely obvious to anyone that hasn't been indoctrinated.

But, I hear you say, the republicans aren't [insert example of previous fascist movements' greatest atrocities]! Well yeah. Neither had any of the previous movements, until they did. It takes quite a while to build a society capable of accepting those atrocities, and the republicans aren't there yet. But they're sure trying. They literally tried to overthrow the results of a democratic election and install a dictator earlier this year, and have spent every day since downplaying it. To this day, most republicans in congress are not willing to admit that Biden won the election. The most popular talking head in the country is in the midst of a documentary series that, near as I can tell, is nothing but a fascist wet dream (granted, I haven't had cable in years and can't be arsed to read a word about Tucker Carlson).

It's especially rich that we aren't allowed to call republicans fascist but they constantly call liberals socialists and even communists, which is just so stupid I never even feel insulted by it. Democrats are almost as corporatist as republicans. They are not on a path that would ever approach communism.

 

[StevenC]

I'm just trying to understand your perspective, my guy.

I could Google up some terms, read some articles, post a link, and you could still say: "No, no, no. That's not right. That's not true. That's not what I'm advocating." based on your own personal, subjective opinion. That is why I used that meme and asked YOU to provide citations to back YOUR statements from YOUR perspective.

I've done enough due diligence when I work in that industry, in that field, and have witnessed it all first-hand as an active participating worker; whereas, you're just a consumer on the receiving end of a screen.

Everything you've said in this thread amounts to "I know you are but what am I".

Now, I work in law. That's my field and a few pages ago you said there was precedent and provided links that contradicted your argument because you didn't understand what was in the article or you didn't read it and just assumed it confirmed your biases. Weirdly no response to that. But you're getting stroppy because I didn't provide evidence that Fox News, the most watched cable news show in the USA, is the most watched cable news show in the USA? If you actually knew your industry like you claim I wouldn't have to explain to you that liberals, and particularly young liberals, are the bigger cable cutting demographic. This is all just bad faith.

 

[Emperor Guillotine]

Everything you've said in this thread amounts to "I know you are but what am I".

I beg your pardon? How so?

I have definitely not even remotely made a single comment in this thread that could be interpreted as: "I know you are but what am I?" I utterly refuse to engage in such immature rhetoric.

Dude, I'm being polite and just asking for additional backing so that I can better understand your perspective on things. How on earth is that wrong to you?

Now, I work in law. That's my field and a few pages ago you said there was precedent and provided links that contradicted your argument because you didn't understand what was in the article or you didn't read it and just assumed it confirmed your biases

No, man. That was you misinterpreting the point of my comment, which I later went back and clarified.

But you're getting stroppy because I didn't provide evidence that Fox News, the most watched cable news show in the USA, is the most watched cable news show in the USA? If you actually knew your industry like you claim I wouldn't have to explain to you that liberals, and particularly young liberals, are the bigger cable cutting demographic.

And again...I absolutely beg your pardon? I am not being "stroppy". I am being very, very, VERY polite and simply asking for some backing so that I can better understand your perspective. That's it, man. If someone politely asks you for links or citations, that person is not disagreeing with you, nor attacking/insulting you as you're doing to me right now in this thread.

Or wait... Have I been forbidden from engaging in the public discourse on this public forum by you based on your personal judgment?

And as far as your comment regarding "young liberals cutting cable", where is that coming from? Are you confusing me for someone else in this thread? I never said anything about that. Both polar sides spew shit. Both polar sides engage in the same behavior. Both polar sides have folks tuning right the hell out from the agenda machine that is the media outlets. But I never once addressed nor brought up: viewership age, viewership tendencies (just the polarization on both sides), cable-cutting, or young liberals and their particular penchant for whatever behaviors they engage in.

 

[Randy]

My anecdotal experience with Fox News is different. I remember in 2016, on the Spectrum streaming app I noticed that Fox News was the only new channel that worked when you were away from your home wifi, MSNBC and CNN both wouldn't let you watch them on mobile. I noticed a few other times Fox News was easier to access streaming than the alternatives.

I don't frequent the news sites much these days but I noticed for years Fox News had more tabloid type articles like celebrity bikini photos and stuff. Also was a long time Fox News website had easier to read articles with less ads, and also a lot of "more reputable" new sites would reference a video with no link or embed or it would be in their awful built in player with 1min commercial before it and you could t skip/skim the video whereas Fox would just embed the original Twitter post or YT or whatever.

Fox always felt way more accessible, easy to use, easier to get what you came for, etc. Dems too busy figuring their ratings are all based on brainwashing and not that they're just better at reaching their people.

 

[Adieu]

All I remember about Fox is "news stories" with pixel-masked nudity for no real reason and constant scare mongering about some nonsense like killer bees

But that must have been like the 1990s or something

 

[Randy]

All I remember about Fox is "news stories" with pixel-masked nudity for no real reason and constant scare mongering about some nonsense like killer bees

But that must have been like the 1990s or something

No that's pretty current but it's still fantastic clickbait. My commie ass falls for it every time. Salma Hayek wore a bikini to celebrate her 50th birthday? Okay fine maybe I'm a little curious.

 

[Adieu]

What, are they still lurking around the likes of Kid Rock hoping someone gets mauled by an escaped hyena in mid-orgy for a twofer "scoop"?

 

[Randy]

Too lazy for that kinda stuff tbh. They rely on dumb dumbs to crowdsource that content for them.

 

[mbardu]

Salma Hayek wore a bikini to celebrate her 50th birthday? Okay fine maybe I'm a little curious.

In Mac's voice: "Oh my God...That's disgusting journalism. Salma Hayek in a bikini online? Where did they post those?"

 

[CanserDYI]

In Mac's voice: "Oh my God...That's disgusting journalism. Salma Hayek in a bikini online? Where did they post those?"

Disgusting! Whats the link so I know to avoid it!

 

[Drew]

There were times that as much as I hate Trump and his supporters I had to side with him over unfair treatment by MSNBC so I recognize that is a thing and I was surprised the universe didn't split open and engulf me immediately for feeling that way.

I'd be curious, though, if it was the news coverage of Trump that seemed unfair, or if it was an editorial that seemed unfair.

The right likes to point to the latter and complain about the former, but they're not really one and the same thing. An editorial DOES have an opinion, IS choosing sides, and is arguing a case. News coverage is supposed to be reasonably factual. As liberals, we like to bitch about Fox News, and they certainly take this farther than anyone else I'm aware of at least before NewsMax and One America came along... but their actual newsroom coverage is... generally ok, if maybe there's some bias evident in what stories they choose to cover and which they don't. Their editorial coverage, however, is fucking abysmal.

MSNBC is kind of the same thing, but to a lesser degree and in the opposite direction. Their news coverage is fine, and wouldn't seriously offend a NewsMax viewer if identifying information was stripped out. But, Rachael Maddow isn't a reporter, doesn't pretend to be, and shouldn't be interpreted as one. She's a news commentator, with a very specific perspective and agenda, and anyone on the right pointing to her existence and saying she's proof that MSNBC is biased against the right is either being extremely disingenuous, or doesn't understand how the media works very well.