Democratic socialist writer levels with voters: We want to ‘end capitalism’

RoleModelsinBlood31

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

PJ_Soul

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Just a note: there was one photoshopped photo of Palin that they didn't know was photoshopped at the time, and they apologized, and there was never any intentional fake news (fyi, reporting something wrong due to misinformation is NOT fake news). But look, all news outlets are going to have some errors here and there - normally they are corrected. That obviously isn't comparable to deliberately disseminating false or misleading information on a daily basis. Again, I still can't think of a left-leaning media outlet that does this, while the only mainstream right leaning ones have pretty much made it their mandate, and seem to be serving the WH.

RoleModelsinBlood31

PJ_Soul said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

Just a note: there was one photoshopped photo of Palin that they didn't know was photoshopped at the time, and they apologized, and there was never any intentional fake news (fyi, reporting something wrong due to misinformation is NOT fake news).

But didn’t you say they don’t make shit up? This one’s great.  Maybe they just accidentally cut out the 3 minutes of important video on this one?:

Anchorwoman Andrea Mitchell was caught showing a doctored video clip of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a rally in Pennsylvania. The edited version features Romney saying how amazing it is to get a custom made sandwich, using a touch screen ordering device at a Wawa convenience store. What viewers didn't see or hear was nearly three minutes of Romney discussing the extensive amount of paperwork faced by an optometrist he'd talked to in trying to get the post office to change his address. He expressed mock amazement at Wawa's efficiency to underscore how the private sector is often more efficient than Government.[38][39]

benjs

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

There's a whole page on Fox News' fake (or bastardized beyond recognition) news too.

Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com

mcgruff10

Back to the op's original story:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa

RoleModelsinBlood31

benjs said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

MSNBC is definitely not as bad as fox, but they’ve sure shown their stance. They’ve fucked up a handful of times with fake news and photoshopped bullshit.  There’s a whole Wikipedia page on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies

There's a whole page on Fox News' fake (or bastardized beyond recognition) news too.

Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com

Oh I know, there’s no denying their bias, I wasn’t going to try to defend them, as I said above. Msnbc isn’t as bad as fox but it’s not possible to claim they’re unbiased or that they haven’t had their share of issues.

mcgruff10

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

flywallyfly

mcgruff10 said:

Back to the op's original story:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa

Another link for the article WRITTEN by DSA for those who believe Fox is "fake news" ??

I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of DSA, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. 
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/8/1/17637028/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cynthia-nixon-democratic-socialism-jacobin-dsa

RoleModelsinBlood31

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

Welp, that just about settles that debate.

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

article 

Gtilley8

tempo_n_groove said:

Gtilley8 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

tempo_n_groove said:

MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart, won't be credited news sources on here.

In what way does MSNBC play fast and loose with facts to the extent to be lumped together with flat out reality-denyers?

I stopped watching MSNBC because it was so far left leaning. They are a partisan news channel, no?

Well, no. That would mean they literally have aligned themselves with a political party, which isn't the case.

Huh?

I don't recall ever hearing them side with a conservative or a conservative view yet.  Maybe I missed the one time that they did agree on one?

One doesn't have to side with a conservative view to be presenting unbiased facts.  I'm interested to know what you consider to be a solid conservative view (ie, major platform talking point), which we could all agree on.  

Immigration reform?

That seems to be one that both sides want but can't seem to agree on.

I'd agree with you, in principal, but it's not really the case.  The problem is, Republicans want to be able to import partially skilled people that will work for significantly less, or people with zero skills that will work in the service industry for nothing.  Democrats think that we should honor political asylum, and the laws that were on the books for the last 120 years, sans the last 2.  The nuts and bolts of each can be debated all day.  So saying that's a topic both sides agree on isn't really true.  The two sides are pretty much diametrically opposed.  

brianlux

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

Quoting fucked up on my last attempt. 

That article is 2013. Come on, things  have changed a bit with Fox since then. 

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

msnbc vs fox:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175

Is MSNBC worse than Fox News?

By DYLAN BYERS

 12/09/2013 12:34 PM EST

This is the quickest way to turn a pleasant dinner party into a shouting match: Posit that MSNBC is not as bad as Fox News, but rather worse than Fox News.

"How can you say that!? Fox News is practically an arm of the Republican party! Biased as MSNBC may be, it doesn't try to take an active role in presidential elections! It doesn't live in a choose-your-own-reality cocoon where the facts don't matter!"

The effort to defend MSNBC against comparisons to Fox News is always telling, because there was a time before MSNBC when liberals recoiled at the notion of agenda-driven programming in general. The acceptance of MSNBC was, like the acceptance of Super PACs, an acknowledgement that the rules on the ground had changed.

"I know it's biased, but how else to combat the misinformation on Fox!"... which is funny, because that's how Fox News started, as a counterbalance against perceived liberal biases in the mainstream media.

But here's the thing, and I hope it doesn't ruin your dinner: MSNBC is certainly as bad as Fox News, in terms of presenting ideologically biased information and demonizing the opposition. If you want to console yourself with the fact that Phil Griffin never tried to get someone to run for president, fine, you can have it.

In March, a Pew Research Center study -- yes, Pew -- found that 85 percent of MSNBC's programming is dedicated to "opinion," versus 15 percent that is dedicated to "news." Fox News dedicated just 55 percent of its programming to "opinion" and 45 percent to "news." (CNN dedicates 46 percent to "opinion" and 54 percent to "news.") During the 2012 election, the ratio of unfavorable to favorable treatment in stories on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on MSNBC “was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.”

Ok, fine. But MSNBC's opinions are rooted in fact, whereas the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys willingly peddle misinformation!

But see, that's the thing. Many of MSNBC's opinions aren't rooted in fact. Many of them are rooted in unfounded speculation. Melissa Harris-Perry's recent claimthat Obamacare is a racially loaded term conceived of "by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man" is based on... what? The fact that the term was first used by a woman? The fact that, from Reaganomics to Hillarycare, we've always ascribed names to signature policies and legislation?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a new essay for The National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke explains how MSNBC routinely demonizes the opposition to the point of absurdity:

For a display in extreme verbal calisthenics, ask an MSNBC type to defend these remarks. What you will witness is a slow crumbling of intellectual integrity, a defense that would never be offered on behalf of someone from the other side who practiced a similar flawed logic.

(WATCH - On Media: MSNBC leans backwards)

And that's the other thing: By now, an MSNBC defender reading this piece surely assumes I'm a pro-Fox News conservative. Because if you actually see America as America I and America II -- if you actually believe that every action taken against Obama's policies is inherently racist -- then you probably believe that I'm part of America II. Because, despite what Obama said in Boston in 2004, there are only two Americas: there's us and there's them, which leaves little room for independents.

One of the great media stories of the 21st century is the rise of MSNBC as a counterbalance to Fox News and a powerful platform for the progressive agenda -- an evolution that has done many great things for the Democratic party. The lesser told story is how the network, in a bid for ratings, repeatedly tempts its base away from the thing they had always prided themselves on when looking across the chasm at the conservative echo-chamber: facts.

Quoting fucked up on my last attempt. 

That article is 2013. Come on, things  have changed a bit with Fox since then. 

I actually thought the FOX numbers are low.

Interesting article though.

mcgruff10

I find this very Interesting (I paraphrased some of the article, read the whole article below):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/msnbc-network-of-resistance-too-busy-to-cover-yemen-crisis/

On July 23, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an “action alert”: July 2nd marked the one-year anniversary since MSNBC had last run a segment mentioning the U.S. participation in the war on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in which 22 million people — three-quarters of the population — remain in desperate need of food, water, and medical aid.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and eight other Sunni Arab states began their siege of Yemen, already the poorest of the Gulf nations. With logistical and intelligence support from the U.S., the U.K., and France, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused 52,800 injuries and 60 percent of civilian deaths, totaling nearly 10,000 deaths since the advent of the war, the United Nations reports.

What has the “Network of The Resistance” chosen to report on 455 times in the past year, while every ten minutes one child under the age of five dies from starvation?

President Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

The same week that Rachel Maddow was moved to tears on national television while reading an Associated Press report regarding the “tender age” shelters in South Texas, Yemeni civilians in Hodeidah were dodging airstrikes, part of the Saudis’ “Operation Golden Victory,” which claimed 280 lives that week alone.

While MSNBC was focusing on the scandal, their rivals at CNN and Fox News were following the developments in Yemen. On July 26, CNN published a video showing the poverty in the country and a resource-aid drop. On July 29, Fox News published a piece depicting witnesses’ accounts of the heavy fighting that killed dozens near Hodeida.

Joy Reid says there’s a “problem.” It’s more likely that it’s MSNBC’s blind spot to significant issues their viewers would benefit from learning about.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

I find this very Interesting (I paraphrased some of the article, read the whole article below):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/msnbc-network-of-resistance-too-busy-to-cover-yemen-crisis/

On July 23, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an “action alert”: July 2nd marked the one-year anniversary since MSNBC had last run a segment mentioning the U.S. participation in the war on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in which 22 million people — three-quarters of the population — remain in desperate need of food, water, and medical aid.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and eight other Sunni Arab states began their siege of Yemen, already the poorest of the Gulf nations. With logistical and intelligence support from the U.S., the U.K., and France, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused 52,800 injuries and 60 percent of civilian deaths, totaling nearly 10,000 deaths since the advent of the war, the United Nations reports.

What has the “Network of The Resistance” chosen to report on 455 times in the past year, while every ten minutes one child under the age of five dies from starvation?

President Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

The same week that Rachel Maddow was moved to tears on national television while reading an Associated Press report regarding the “tender age” shelters in South Texas, Yemeni civilians in Hodeidah were dodging airstrikes, part of the Saudis’ “Operation Golden Victory,” which claimed 280 lives that week alone.

While MSNBC was focusing on the scandal, their rivals at CNN and Fox News were following the developments in Yemen. On July 26, CNN published a video showing the poverty in the country and a resource-aid drop. On July 29, Fox News published a piece depicting witnesses’ accounts of the heavy fighting that killed dozens near Hodeida.

Joy Reid says there’s a “problem.” It’s more likely that it’s MSNBC’s blind spot to significant issues their viewers would benefit from learning about.

And what exactly has Team Trump Treason chosen to do about it? MSNBC isn't news. Its a channel devoted to opinion shows after opinion shows after opinion shows. I've never watched MSNBC for its "news." So, whats the point of pointing this out? Have Faux News viewers demanded the repubes in Congress or their president stop the blood shed? Of course not, because nobody gives a rats ass because 1) there's no oil and 2) Americans aren't dying in large enough numbers. National Review is just attacking "liberal" news media and making Faux's 1 mention into somehow they're so much better. What a hack attack piece of fluff from National Review.

The sex with a porn star that we now know was paid off to keep quiet before the election, that had it been known before the election may have resulted in Hillary being elected, yea thats worthy of 455 times of being reported on. Whats next? No mention by MSNBC of MS13 in El Salvador and how that biases them against Team Trump Treason and the major threat confronting the US?

cincybearcat

Kat said:

MSNBC has so many Republicans giving their cultish opinions that I almost stopped watching. Then a lot of Republicans started seeing truth and they weren't cultists. There's still a lot of GOP but I see reasonable punditry and discussion. I like that there are a lot of legal people and national security people giving opinions too....and Rachel really educates. imho. 

Rachel paints a picture that’s for sure. A 1-sided picture. Sometimes she’s spot on and others she is massaging the data and facts to fit her agenda. 

Its not the systematic deception that Fox does. It’s not outright lies like Fox...but it’s certainly more than just educating. It’s an attempt to influence.

Kat

And she did a fantastic job about Flint's water crisis. Love her for that. She has a team that researches for her I'm sure. If she gives one side of a picture, she still has panels to discuss and explain and she always asks if she explained it correctly. Props for that too.

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

I find this very Interesting (I paraphrased some of the article, read the whole article below):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/msnbc-network-of-resistance-too-busy-to-cover-yemen-crisis/

On July 23, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an “action alert”: July 2nd marked the one-year anniversary since MSNBC had last run a segment mentioning the U.S. participation in the war on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, in which 22 million people — three-quarters of the population — remain in desperate need of food, water, and medical aid.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and eight other Sunni Arab states began their siege of Yemen, already the poorest of the Gulf nations. With logistical and intelligence support from the U.S., the U.K., and France, Saudi-led airstrikes have caused 52,800 injuries and 60 percent of civilian deaths, totaling nearly 10,000 deaths since the advent of the war, the United Nations reports.

What has the “Network of The Resistance” chosen to report on 455 times in the past year, while every ten minutes one child under the age of five dies from starvation?

President Trump’s affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

The same week that Rachel Maddow was moved to tears on national television while reading an Associated Press report regarding the “tender age” shelters in South Texas, Yemeni civilians in Hodeidah were dodging airstrikes, part of the Saudis’ “Operation Golden Victory,” which claimed 280 lives that week alone.

While MSNBC was focusing on the scandal, their rivals at CNN and Fox News were following the developments in Yemen. On July 26, CNN published a video showing the poverty in the country and a resource-aid drop. On July 29, Fox News published a piece depicting witnesses’ accounts of the heavy fighting that killed dozens near Hodeida.

Joy Reid says there’s a “problem.” It’s more likely that it’s MSNBC’s blind spot to significant issues their viewers would benefit from learning about.

And what exactly has Team Trump Treason chosen to do about it? MSNBC isn't news. Its a channel devoted to opinion shows after opinion shows after opinion shows. I've never watched MSNBC for its "news." So, whats the point of pointing this out? Have Faux News viewers demanded the repubes in Congress or their president stop the blood shed? Of course not, because nobody gives a rats ass because 1) there's no oil and 2) Americans aren't dying in large enough numbers. National Review is just attacking "liberal" news media and making Faux's 1 mention into somehow they're so much better. What a hack attack piece of fluff from National Review.

The sex with a porn star that we now know was paid off to keep quiet before the election, that had it been known before the election may have resulted in Hillary being elected, yea thats worthy of 455 times of being reported on. Whats next? No mention by MSNBC of MS13 in El Salvador and how that biases them against Team Trump Treason and the major threat confronting the US?

Everyone in the world knows that fox news is biased but I wondered about MSNBC.  I didn't know much about it, I watch CNN and read the New York Times along with Yahoo news.  So I wanted to do some research to see what msnbc is all about; turns out they aren't that different than fox.  It went back to everyone making fun of op because it was a fox newspiece.

So from the article I just posted on msnbc I guess the most pressing matter in the world for them is a Presidential affair (which I could care less about).  

my2hands

flywallyfly said:

"The rise of “democratic socialism” has been one of the key developments in the Democratic Party in recent years, first with the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and more recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary win over party mainstay Rep. Joe Crowley in New York. 

One of the ways the movement is presented is with the claim that this is not your grandfather’s socialism -- or the socialism of the former Soviet Union, Venezuela or other failed states. It’s more “Scandinavian health care” than overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

But now a democratic socialist writer is leveling with voters, telling them that actually, yes, they want to topple capitalism. 

"I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a member of [the Democratic Socialists of America], and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/02/democratic-socialist-writer-levels-with-voters-want-to-end-capitalism.html

So what?