Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[pfife]

which MSNBC hosts are texting the Biden White House?

What does MSNBC have to do with a comparison of CNN and Fox?

Edited January 10, 2022 by pfife

[oblong]

Opinionated host of an opinion show is coordinating messaging with politician. Which one is fox and which one is cnn?
 

 

[ewsieg]

4 hours ago, pfife said:

which MSNBC hosts are texting the Biden White House?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/29/biden-lawrence-odonnell-biden-526232

If you don't think O'Donnell and Klain haven't texted each other about politics, you're delusional.

4 hours ago, pfife said:

What does MSNBC have to do with a comparison of CNN and Fox?

A lot in this specific issue.  If Cuomo was on MSNBC and there were no sexual assault complaints, he may have survived this, even though as I outlined, I do think what he did was worse than what Hannity did.  Oblong wants to just say both are opinionated hosts on opinion shows, but again, one was using his position to try and change the position of a decision that was already known.  The GOP didn't show up on 1/6 and one guy contested a state and a bunch more jumped on.  This was a decision made well before and it was well reported in the media.  Hannity was simply stating that this was a dumb move.  Once we saw what that spurred on 1/6, he did what I hope all people would do if they saw an emergency situation and had contact information of someone that could do something about it.   Cuomo was using his sources to try to obtain as much information before a story came out, either to ensure they could counter immediately or possibly help keep it from coming out at all.  I'm actually kind of shocked that some of don't have the ability to see a difference.

[pfife]

25 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/29/biden-lawrence-odonnell-biden-526232

If you don't think O'Donnell and Klain haven't texted each other about politics, you're delusional.

A lot in this specific issue.  If Cuomo was on MSNBC and there were no sexual assault complaints, he may have survived this, even though as I outlined, I do think what he did was worse than what Hannity did.  Oblong wants to just say both are opinionated hosts on opinion shows, but again, one was using his position to try and change the position of a decision that was already known.  The GOP didn't show up on 1/6 and one guy contested a state and a bunch more jumped on.  This was a decision made well before and it was well reported in the media.  Hannity was simply stating that this was a dumb move.  Once we saw what that spurred on 1/6, he did what I hope all people would do if they saw an emergency situation and had contact information of someone that could do something about it.   Cuomo was using his sources to try to obtain as much information before a story came out, either to ensure they could counter immediately or possibly help keep it from coming out at all.  I'm actually kind of shocked that some of don't have the ability to see a difference.

In what capacity is Odonnell texting McClain?  As a journalist?  The article didn't say.

Otherwise I stopped reading after "If Cuomo was on MSNBC" because I don't care about   hypotheticals.   I asked what actual MSNBC had to do with the comparison, not a pretend MSNBC that you made up that employed Cuomo.

Edited January 11, 2022 by pfife

[ewsieg]

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

In what capacity is Odonnell texting McClain?  As a journalist?

Otherwise I stopped reading after "If Cuomo was on MSNBC" because I don't care about hypotheticals. 

I'd argue none of the prime time folks on the cable news channels are really journalists, but they do teeter a gray line.  This is not a 'but your side' argument.  My point with CNN is that simply it wants to be known as a trusted source for news, not trusted by republicans, not trusted by democrats, just trusted period.  As such, I simply believe that even if Cuomo was only offering advice to his brothers administration, to CNN brass, they would have been more upset about that then MSNBC brass would be to hear that O'Donnell told Klain he thinks Biden should focus on X or Hannity telling Meadow what he thinks Trump should do.

[pfife]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'd argue none of the prime time folks on the cable news channels are really journalists, but they do teeter a gray line.  This is not a 'but your side' argument.  My point with CNN is that simply it wants to be known as a trusted source for news, not trusted by republicans, not trusted by democrats, just trusted period.  As such, I simply believe that even if Cuomo was only offering advice to his brothers administration, to CNN brass, they would have been more upset about that then MSNBC brass would be to hear that O'Donnell told Klain he thinks Biden should focus on X or Hannity telling Meadow what he thinks Trump should do.

literally made up. 

I asked what actual MSNBC has to do with this comparison and you keep bringing up not actual MSNBC but some MSNBC that you "simply believe" would have done something somewhere also fake.  Super boring.  Your beliefs aren't what  I'm asking about, I'm asking about an actual entity that exists. 

  

Edited January 11, 2022 by pfife

[ewsieg]

10 minutes ago, pfife said:

literally made up. 

I asked what actual MSNBC has to do with this comparison and you keep bringing up not actual MSNBC but some MSNBC that you "simply believe" would have done something somewhere also fake.  Super boring.  Your beliefs aren't what  I'm asking about, I'm asking about an actual entity that exists. 

  

The facts are CNN fired Cuomo.  FoxNews didn't fire Hannity.  Someone pulled the 'but what about Hannity' card and I simply gave my opinion about why it was different.  Part of that reasoning is that I believe CNN has a different standard for their primetime opinion folks than other stations.  Another part of that reasoning is I believe what he did was actually worse. 

[oblong]

It’s like trying to say that what McConnell did in 2016 with Garland is different than what he did with Amy Barret in 2020. 
 

but yes. You are correct in one sense. CNN has standards. Fox doesn’t.  That was the whole point. 

[pfife]

I know man, I read it and said.... yeah the whole point was the double standard.... but we had to talk about some fake shit before agreeing with the initial post I guess 

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

It’s like trying to say that what McConnell did in 2016 with Garland is different than what he did with Amy Barret in 2020. 

but yes. You are correct in one sense. CNN has standards. Fox doesn’t.  That was the whole point. 

I call BS.  It's nothing like that.  The face of one news network, that wants to claim they are trustworthy, worked behind the scenes, using the resources of CNN, to give his brother an edge to deal with legitimate issues that have derailed political aspirations of folks from both parties.

The other, said what needed to be said, from an advisory position (which shows how bad that POTUS was that he listened to a opinion show on cable), to a loose cannon president, but when his network decided to back Trump, he swallowed any pride he might have still had, and chose money over integrity by doing exactly what his company wanted him to do.

From a fake 'i'm a journalist" aspect all cable news wants to pretend their primetime folks are journalist (when it comes to viewers, not when it has to defend itself in court), Cuomo was clearly worse with that aspect.  No if and's or but's.   For a horrible people ranking, both of these guys are 1 percenters though.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by ewsieg

[pfife]

so it's different because the standards are different between the networks, which is exactly the point you're arguing against ineffectively because you're literally making the same point.

[Archie]

I disagree that CNN is any different than FoxNews.  The standard for both are the same and that's to promote their politics and their candidates.  For every Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson there is a Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and Anderson Cooper.  There all the same but the difference for most, if not all of you here is that you like what CNN tells you so you think their legitimate when really they're both a like.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

so it's different because the standards are different between the networks, which is exactly the point you're arguing against ineffectively because you're literally making the same point.

Yes, almost like there is nuance in the world.  I'm admitting that the networks have different standards, but also saying what 1 did (cuomo) was worse than what the other did (hannity).

[CMRivdogs]

This is a really good thread, read the whole thing....

 

[pfife]

4 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Yes, almost like there is nuance in the world.  I'm admitting that the networks have different standards, but also saying what 1 did (cuomo) was worse than what the other did (hannity).

Frankly I'm just glad we're talking about things "in the world" now.   B/c that whole thing about MSNBC was not in the world.

[oblong]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

37 minutes ago, oblong said:

 

This is also pretty epic. And yes, Rand is another moron. 
 

 

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, Archie said:

There all the same but the difference for most, if not all of you here is that you like what CNN tells you so you think their legitimate when really they're both a like.

I mean, the fact that Fox News is currently party in a multiple multibillion dollar libel lawsuits involving the previously election is a pretty significant difference as well.

Edited January 11, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Yes, almost like there is nuance in the world.  I'm admitting that the networks have different standards, but also saying what 1 did (cuomo) was worse than what the other did (hannity).

I think when you take Hannity's role on 1/6 and consider it in the context of all the lies told on Fox News about the last election, as well as the fact that the network is currently tied up in close to $4bil in libel lawsuits involving the last election, it all seems pretty fucking bad

Edited January 11, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

23 hours ago, ewsieg said:

2) CNN, while failing a bit at times IMO, has consistently claimed they were "The most trusted name in news".  FoxNews has gone the way of MSNBC, just in the opposite direction.  There is no claim by FoxNews to try and show both sides.  While I don't like it, no one should have been surprised that major players on FoxNews had direct ties with major players in the GOP.  

Come on.

Let's not act like they were ever held to much of a high standard back during the "fair and balanced" days.

[pfife]

A couple weeks back or so I mentioned the wingers all talking about FBI Agent Ray Epps inciting the riot.   

I'm sure you all are shocked to hear that the wingers were totally wrong.  This thread is worthwhile.

 

[ewsieg]

6 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I think when you take Hannity's role on 1/6 and consider it in the context of all the lies told on Fox News about the last election, as well as the fact that the network is currently tied up in close to $4bil in libel lawsuits involving the last election, it all seems pretty fucking bad

I'm not saying Hannity is not bad.  I'm simply saying that when you're talking about primetime hosts on any cable news station, you're talking about an extension of some political party.  Hannity/Tucker, they are arms of the GOP.  Do I think that's how news stations should handle themselves, no, but I understand that is what it is.  So do I think FoxNews is a cancer that is hurting this country, yes.  Do I think we'd be better off without FoxNews, yes.  But when I look at what Hannity did there, he had access to the chief of staff of POTUS and just like everyone else, he was wondering WTF was going on and urging action.

CNN proved they were fine with coziness with the DNC years ago.  Rather wikileaks proved that when it showed that their hosts regularly were in contact with the DNC, even helped the DNC prop up Clinton over Sanders.  Did Jake Tapper get fired when emails indicated that he allowed the DNC to dictate how a segment with him would go?  He's still there today.  When Donna Brazille (spelling?) leaked debate questions to Clinton, that was a step to far and she was suspended and if I remember she technically was not fired, they just let her resign once her contract came up.  

[pfife]

LOL @ the notion that Tapper is biased towards Democrats

[Archie]

8 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I'm not saying Hannity is not bad.  I'm simply saying that when you're talking about primetime hosts on any cable news station, you're talking about an extension of some political party.  Hannity/Tucker, they are arms of the GOP.  Do I think that's how news stations should handle themselves, no, but I understand that is what it is.  So do I think FoxNews is a cancer that is hurting this country, yes.  Do I think we'd be better off without FoxNews, yes.  But when I look at what Hannity did there, he had access to the chief of staff of POTUS and just like everyone else, he was wondering WTF was going on and urging action.

CNN proved they were fine with coziness with the DNC years ago.  Rather wikileaks proved that when it showed that their hosts regularly were in contact with the DNC, even helped the DNC prop up Clinton over Sanders.  Did Jake Tapper get fired when emails indicated that he allowed the DNC to dictate how a segment with him would go?  He's still there today.  When Donna Brazille (spelling?) leaked debate questions to Clinton, that was a step to far and she was suspended and if I remember she technically was not fired, they just let her resign once her contract came up.  

I don't think we would be better off without Fox News. There is a need to tell the other side of the story than the liberal propaganda we get from CNN, MSNBC, and the main stream outlets.  All of those, including Fox are only telling us one side and thats the side they want you to hear.  I will say it again...the people on this site think CNN and other liberal media is fair and impartial because they like what they hear.  You guys are not even a little bit impartial.  In a conversation here a few months ago one poster here made the comment that CNN and MSNBC were the most unbiased in their reporting.  I about fell down laughing.

Fox also takes a beating from the farther right organizations like Newsmax and Brietbart.  They feel Fox is too kind to the dems.

[romad1]

Dr. Fauci should definitely do financial disclosures like he has been.  He spoke for all of us on the hot mike.