Saturday, September 27, 2014
On Fox and MSNBC
They're both biased, no question about it. But over the past several years, Fox has added Ed Henry, John Roberts, Howie Kurtz, and Maria Bartiromo (hell, they've even added Dennis Kucinich and the ragin' Cajun, James Carville). Compare that to MSNBC which has done little more than plop additional leftist guttersnipes to its already full-to-the-brim posse of skin-crawlers/stooges. It isn't even a contest at this point, folks. MSNBC is significantly worse..................................................................................P.S. And I also ask my colleagues to try and name me one, ONE, anchor on MSNBC who is even remotely as fair as Sheppard Smith - JUST ONE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I will agree with RN that Fox is the "king" of this, as they do get far better ratings. Whatever they are doing, they are better at it.
While MSNBC has the attitude of failure all over it. Last time I watched it, they spent a lot of time talking about Fox News. Big sour grapes.
I would also add that Fox has some solid reporters; people like James Rosen, Jennifer Griffin, and Catherine Herridge.
MSNBC takes their cue from Media matters....word for word.
At one time I thought Chris Matthews was solid,but he's turned into a nonsensical loon who see's a racist behind every tree.
Rusty: Did you stop thinking Matthews was solid before his leg-tingling comment, or after?
We note that most leftist guttersnipes are not interested
in talking head cable news, but
watch Stewart, Colbert and John
Oliver..unlike the FoxFan, they
see humor in the idiocy that passes for politics these days...
but in a way Fox is quite hilarious.
There are a lot of tress. There are a lot or racists. Some geographic locations have more or less of both. Racists don't need trees to hide behind.
But you know that don't you RS?
BB, let me be clear here, I make a huge distinction between leftists (the MSNBC people, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, etc.) and liberals (Ron Wyden, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, hell even Chuckie Schumer). The latter I can work with, have a conversation with, and maybe even reach a compromise with. The former I wouldn't even want to have a cup of coffee with.
" The former I wouldn't even want to have a cup of coffee with. "
They'd be the types to spill the coffee, then sue the company that they bought it from for millions of dollars because of it.
The problem I have with Fox is not necessarily their panel guests [though the 4 to 1 ratio on 'The Five' is blatantly annoying]...it's the cadre of 'experts' that are on nearly every segment of Fox. Bolton, Guiliani, Keane and Kagan from ISW, Señor, Crocker, Liz Cheney, Theissen, etc....
When your sole stable of 'experts' all have a distinct and palpable partisan agenda......your a PR outlet for a political party. No better than MSNBC.
Yeah, dmarks, that they would totally do.............CI, when I said that Fox was much better I meant that Fox is a 2.8 and MSNBC is a 0.4, something like that. And Fox does have SOME liberal commentators; Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, Joe Trippi, Alan Colmes (yeah, I know, he's quite ineffectual), Mark Hannah, Stuart Rosenberg, Dennis Kucinich, James Carville. Hell, they even employ Jesse Jackson's daughter
I should have clarified....I have no issue with panel guests on the commentary programming.....its the cadre of above named 'experts' during the allegedly 'hard news' segments on Fox.
And CI,what would you call David Corn,Howard Fineman,Eugene Robinson and Joan Walsh? Try to name a voice from the right on MSNBC,they are a far more partisan then FOX.
Its comical when liberals call FOX liars,yet when you ask them to name three lies from FOX the change the subject or use their standard play of name calling.
Will said: "Alan Colmes (yeah, I know, he's quite ineffectual)"
I disagree. I think he was one of the best... at least compared to Sharpton, Voldemort, etc etc etc.
David Corn? He's the one who's still on the waiting-list for a lip transplant, right?
I'm not arguing that MSNBC is any better than Fox, whatsoever. I'm arguing, that from my perspective, both are the TMZ of cable "news".
I'm saddened for our society, that most people seem to get their information from any of the cable networks. Such is why we find ourselves in the dire straights of ignorance that we do today.
Yeah, I think that we can agree that they're both bad and I totally share your lament (hell, a lot of kids actually get their news from Jon Stewart!).
Well said CI.
MSNBC has actually had one of his hosts spew racist epithets over the air.
Has Fox ever gone that low?
"(hell, a lot of kids actually get their news from Jon Stewart!)"
Stewart is a smug, smarmy, skinny left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh.
I used to like Stewart but lately he's been rubbing me the wrong way, too.......Still take him over Bill Maher, though (not to mention, Matthews, Maddow, Schultz, O'Donnell, Harris-Perry, Hayes, Finney, Toure', Sharpton, etc. on MSNBC and Hannity, Huckabee, Fox and Fiends, Van Susteren, etc. on Fox).
IMO, MSNBC was a bit of late-comer: a viewing option for those who were nauseated by FoxNews. Free market etc, if one is disgusted with MSNBC, their clear choice is to bask in the wisdom
of Shaun Hannity.
BB: I am disgusted with, and run away from both. A clear and easy choice.
Agreed
Cable news' one and only Great Cornholio.
When I need a few good chuckles I tune into Hannity. He NEVER fails to get me laughing at him.
MSNBC, pretty much, yeah, what you said dmarks.
Post a Comment