Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

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.

I'll put a FoxNews print article up against the equivalent with CNN or MSNBC any day and it'll stand up to them.  The bias with their print articles isn't bias within the article, but bias about what they choose to cover.  You start talking about their TV shows, and it's becoming harder and harder to find legitimate news on either Fox or MSNBC.  

I guess with where we are now, you're probably right.  FoxNews goes away tomorrow, many of those viewers go to even worse organizations.  They helped lead us to this point, which is probably the point the left are saying when they say Hannity should be fired.  

[ewsieg]

8 hours ago, pfife said:

LOL @ the notion that Tapper is biased towards Democrats

Maybe he's not, but the leaked emails certainly, IMO, doesn't put him in good light.

Quote

 

In another email part of the WikiLeaks dump, there was also a correspondence found between Jason Seher, who is a CNN producer for Jake Tapper's "The Lead," and the Miranda of the DNC.

Seher wrote, “Thanks for facilitating Luis coming on today, and bearing with us through a meelee [sic] of GOP nonsense and cancellations and all that. Any particular points he’ll want to make? We’re gonna stay Dem focused.”

The email was then forwarded to another DNC staffer with a message that said, “Need to know asap if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us.”

 

Maybe Tapper has no idea what's going on behind the scenes with his show and he's just the face of it, but in my experience watching Sunday morning news shows, a politician has no trouble getting the talking points that they want to out.  The above indicates to me that Tapper's show is going out of their way to make it comfortable and to mutually assist in doing that.  

I'm not even going to say that's wrong, but it does raise an eyebrow, just like Hannity's text to Meadows.  Which again, is way different than using your role/sources at a major media outlet to help squash and challenge allegations against your brother.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

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

They are also taking a beating in the courts, given the some $4 billion in libel lawsuits they are tied up in

[mtutiger]

40 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'll put a FoxNews print article up against the equivalent with CNN or MSNBC any day and it'll stand up to them.  The bias with their print articles isn't bias within the article, but bias about what they choose to cover.  You start talking about their TV shows, and it's becoming harder and harder to find legitimate news on either Fox or MSNBC.  

I guess with where we are now, you're probably right.  FoxNews goes away tomorrow, many of those viewers go to even worse organizations.  They helped lead us to this point, which is probably the point the left are saying when they say Hannity should be fired.  

Also, not "everyone on this site" loves CNN or MSNBC. I dont watch either one, nor do I read their articles.

I know Tater framed the debate, but at the end of the day, this debate over which one is worse is like arguing whether dying by lightning strike or shark attack is worse. Seems like both suck.

[ewsieg]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Also, not "everyone on this site" loves CNN or MSNBC. I dont watch either one, nor do I read their articles.

I know Tater framed the debate, but at the end of the day, this debate over which one is worse is like arguing whether dying by lightning strike or shark attack is worse. Seems like both suck.

Completely agreed.  And note, I wasn't trying to say which one was worse.  I initially was just speaking to the perceived bias that came with Hannity not being fired where Cuomo was.  Ultimately 1 did something worse, but I was merely pointing out who they worked for could be a factor as well and conceding that fact.

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Completely agreed.  And note, I wasn't trying to say which one was worse.  I initially was just speaking to the perceived bias that came with Hannity not being fired where Cuomo was.  Ultimately 1 did something worse, but I was merely pointing out who they worked for could be a factor as well and conceding that fact.

I could see that. But my counter would be that Donald Trump was (still is) far more influential, since he was President, which raises the stakes for Hannity's actions to be above that of Chris Cuomo/Andrew Cuomo.

Put another way, I have a lot more interest in Trump because I was a constituent of his. Whereas, since I don't live in NY, not so much with Cuomo. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by mtutiger

[pfife]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Maybe he's not, but the leaked emails certainly, IMO, doesn't put him in good light.

Maybe Tapper has no idea what's going on behind the scenes with his show and he's just the face of it, but in my experience watching Sunday morning news shows, a politician has no trouble getting the talking points that they want to out.  The above indicates to me that Tapper's show is going out of their way to make it comfortable and to mutually assist in doing that.  

I'm not even going to say that's wrong, but it does raise an eyebrow, just like Hannity's text to Meadows.  Which again, is way different than using your role/sources at a major media outlet to help squash and challenge allegations against your brother.

kidna weird that we're talking about Tapper then in attempt to strengthen your points about Tapper, you discuss someone who isn't Tapper.   You're right I guess, Hannity texting Meadows is the same as a a not show host texting not the Chief of Staff to the president.  The diferences just melt away when you don't consider them

Edited January 12, 2022 by pfife

[ewsieg]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

kidna weird that we're talking about Tapper then in attempt to strengthen your points about Tapper, you discuss someone who isn't Tapper.   You're right I guess, Hannity texting Meadows is the same as a a not show host texting not the Chief of Staff to the president.  The diferences just melt away when you don't consider them

You're likely correct, I envision Tapper just like Ron Burgandy.  He has no idea what's going on, just gets his makeup done and reads off of the teleprompter.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I could see that. But my counter would be that Donald Trump was (still is) far more influential, since he was President, which raises the stakes for Hannity's actions to be above that of Chris Cuomo/Andrew Cuomo.

Put another way, I have a lot more interest in Trump because I was a constituent of his. Whereas, since I don't live in NY, not so much with Cuomo. 

I understand using the importance of an issue as a factor, but I still am surprised that from a 'journalistic' viewpoint, no one seems to understand how it's not hypocritical that one was fired and the other wasn't.

Let's say O'Donnell texts Klain about coming on his show and says that he really thinks Biden pushing to break the filibuster for election rights is a bad idea, then those texts leak.   Now unrelated, a small town sports reporter gets a lead and finds corroborating evidence that the high school QB has sexually assaulted multiple girls.  But this kid is his cousin, so he not only buries it, he turns over everything he has to others that want to protect this douchebag so if it does come up they can instantly attack the girls.  

Now you have the power to fire only one of them.  Which one?  The one that simply covered up a story that might have made headlines in some small town, or the guy that tried to persuade POTUS from saving America and protecting it's democracy?

[pfife]

22 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You're likely correct, I envision Tapper just like Ron Burgandy.  He has no idea what's going on, just gets his makeup done and reads off of the teleprompter.

I don't think either of our envisioning is relevant.  When you tried to compare Tapper to Hannity, you presented texts from not Tapper.   It's really that straight forward.

[pfife]

13 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Let's say O'Donnell texts Klain about coming on his show.....

here we go with yet another hypothetical about MSNBC.   Same as it ever was. 
Might I recommend not "let's saying" and actually discuss something real?

Edited January 12, 2022 by pfife

[mtutiger]

14 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Now you have the power to fire only one of them.  Which one?  

That's not how the real world works. Both of them should be fired.

[pfife]

I think it's interesting that if Tapper's show staffer does something, then that means Tapper did it.  

Of course, the part that's missing here, super conveniently,  is that Hannity would also be responsible for what his show staffer does in this scenario.....  I mean, if you're actually interested in comparing apples to apples, which is debatable.

My bet is that comparison won't go well for those that chose to come here and defend Hannity for some reason.

[mtutiger]

12 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think it's interesting that if Tapper's show staffer does something, then that means Tapper did it.  

Of course, the part that's missing here, super conveniently,  is that Hannity would also be responsible for what his show staffer does in this scenario.....  I mean, if you're actually interested in comparing apples to apples, which is debatable.

My bet is that comparison won't go well for those that chose to come here and defend Hannity for some reason.

A lot of this harkens back to the debates Eric and I would have during the Trump administration about how his actions should be judged.

Just like how Trump's behavior shouldn't lower expectations or cause him to be graded on a curve versus other Presidents, Fox and it's employees shouldn't be judged on lower expectations or graded on a curve either based on the expectations that they don't pretend to be fair. 

That's not to say that CNN shouldn't be criticized either, they absolutely should when they screw things up.... I don't have any love for them. But a lot of this "CNN holds themselves to a higher standard, therefore I'm gonna criticize them more harshly" stuff nets out as letting Fox off the hook for it's own indiscretions IMO.

[ewsieg]

27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

A lot of this harkens back to the debates Eric and I would have during the Trump administration about how his actions should be judged.

Just like how Trump's behavior shouldn't lower expectations or cause him to be graded on a curve versus other Presidents, Fox and it's employees shouldn't be judged on lower expectations or graded on a curve either based on the expectations that they don't pretend to be fair. 

That's not to say that CNN shouldn't be criticized either, they absolutely should when they screw things up.... I don't have any love for them. But a lot of this "CNN holds themselves to a higher standard, therefore I'm gonna criticize them more harshly" stuff nets out as letting Fox off the hook for it's own indiscretions IMO.

Sounds like we both agree on much of this, but also disagree on the specific core of the issue, or at least what I may have been failing to properly speak to as to what I think is the core.

I'm not asking to grade Fox on a curve.  I'm stating that specific "journalists" on FoxNews are nothing but an extension of the GOP, conversely you have the same with MSNBC with the DNC.  Then you simply have DC based journalists that 'play ball' in order to get access, guess you could call them 'beat writers' and you can question if they get to close to those they report on.  I would categorize most of the Sunday morning shows along with the DC bureau's of most print media as the last one.   

I look at what Hannity did and I see it in an ethical grey area that his company is fine with because they 1) probably agreed with him and 2) when push came to shove, Hannity got in line and followed the company line.  I see what Tapper's producer did and again, see it as a grey area too. My guess is CNN was fine with that because Tapper (or I guess his producer rather) managed to get good guests.  I then see what Cuomo did and see that as borderline illegal and at the very least, I have to believe he broke company policy in using his resources in an attempt to squash and manipulate a national story.

For the above reasons alone I think there is a difference on why Cuomo was fired and Hannity was not.

In terms of the differences with the networks, I merely was adding the fact that Foxnews doesn't care if people call it biased.  They actually probably love that as that allows them to play the victim card with their viewers.  CNN, IMO, doesn't like being called fake news.  They feel they are above that and care more about their perception.  So adding that, it's a no brainer that Cuomo was fired and not really hypocritical that Hannity wasn't.

[Archie]

I still have trouble seeing the comparison of Cuomo and Hannity.  Hannity basically sent texts to the President's Chief of Staff telling him to shut Trump up.  Cuomo is accused of sexual assault and his network saw enough merit to the claims to fire him.  There's really no comparison.  Sexual assault accusations get just about anybody the ax these days.

[smr-nj]

8 minutes ago, Archie said:

I still have trouble seeing the comparison of Cuomo and Hannity.  Hannity basically sent texts to the President's Chief of Staff telling him to shut Trump up.  Cuomo is accused of sexual assault and his network saw enough merit to the claims to fire him.  There's really no comparison.  Sexual assault accusations get just about anybody the ax these days.

Isn’t a comparison being made between Sean Hannity and Chris Cuomo? Chris Cuomo isn’t accused of sexual assault.

Are you maybe confused?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

300 million. So that would mean even children and some babies 😂

[Mr.TaterSalad]

America has 329 million people (estimated). According to the United States Federal Register there are 256,662,010 voting age adults (estimated) in America. There are 73,100,000 children (estimated) in the United States. 155,508,985 adults voted in the 2020 election for President. So is Lindell talking about jailing not only everyone that voted in the 2020 election but also many non-voters and children as well? What evidence does he have? If he does have the evidence, why hasn't he presented to a court of law yet? If he has presented the evidence to a court of law, whom was it and when was it? Why hasn't that court of law followed up yet on the evidence if indeed Lindell did present it? If a court of law finds that some 300,000,000 million Americans, roughly 91% of the population, did commit some form of voter fraud or election interference as Lindell is claiming what happens then? Presuming that a vast majority if not all of the Prosecutors, Judges, Defense Attorneys and potential jurors would be apart of the 300,000,000 corrupt individuals, then what? Who tries and prosecutes all the cases? Who are the judges on all these cases? Who are the defense attorneys representing these people? Who would sit on the jury trials for these people? If these people 300,000,000 people are indeed culpable as Lindell claims, how many of them are flight risks? How many need to be held without bond or tethered? Where would those who need to be reprimanded without bond be held in the mean time? Would there be enough space to hold all those who are flight risk? Who would watch over those individuals as well, considering most of the Prison Guards would presumably be caught up in the 300,000,000 people Lindell is talking about? If they get convicted, then do we have enough prisons to house 300,000,000 people or even half that, if only half were guilty of election interference or voter fraud? If we don't currently have enough prisons to house the 300,000,000 or 150,000,000 people guilty of these crimes, can we afford to build new facilities to house these people? Where would these facilities be built at and who would build them presuming most of the construction workers would be caught up in the 300,000,000 people Lindell is referencing. When in prison who would feed, cloth, and monitor these individuals considering, as I stated earlier, that most of the Prison Guards, would be likely caught up in the 300,000,000 people that Lindell is referencing. When these prisoners get out of jail too do they have to go on probation? If they have to go on probation, would there be enough Probationary Officers to monitor the 300,000,000 people Lindell is referencing?

Edited January 12, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I still have trouble seeing the comparison of Cuomo and Hannity.  Hannity basically sent texts to the President's Chief of Staff telling him to shut Trump up.  Cuomo is accused of sexual assault and his network saw enough merit to the claims to fire him.  There's really no comparison.  Sexual assault accusations get just about anybody the ax these days.

Again, I believe Chris Cuomo was initially suspended and fired for running interference on behalf of his brother. The sexual assault allegations were the icing on the cake. Was not Sean Hannity trying to run interference for the President. Doesn't he have a moral and legal responsibility and journalistic integrity to revel to law enforcement and the public if he is aware that a situation involving violence and a crime was to take place?

[Archie]

27 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Again, I believe Chris Cuomo was initially suspended and fired for running interference on behalf of his brother. The sexual assault allegations were the icing on the cake. Was not Sean Hannity trying to run interference for the President. Doesn't he have a moral and legal responsibility and journalistic integrity to revel to law enforcement and the public if he is aware that a situation involving violence and a crime was to take place?

I can't remember all his text but what I do remember was good advice. Telling Trump to be quiet about the election because it will come back on him or something lime that.  Hannity is a radio and TV opinion show host.  Just like Lemon, Cooper, Carlson and the rest. I don't think journalistic integrity is even words they understand.

[Archie]

1 hour ago, smr-nj said:

Isn’t a comparison being made between Sean Hannity and Chris Cuomo? Chris Cuomo isn’t accused of sexual assault.

Are you maybe confused?

It came out right before he was fired

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/05/attorney-sexual-misconduct-allegation-led-to-cnns-chris-cuomo-firing.html

[oblong]

31 minutes ago, Archie said:

I can't remember all his text but what I do remember was good advice. Telling Trump to be quiet about the election because it will come back on him or something lime that.  Hannity is a radio and TV opinion show host.  Just like Lemon, Cooper, Carlson and the rest. I don't think journalistic integrity is even words they understand.

he didn't say 'Him'.  He said 'us'.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Again, I believe Chris Cuomo was initially suspended and fired for running interference on behalf of his brother. The sexual assault allegations were the icing on the cake. Was not Sean Hannity trying to run interference for the President. Doesn't he have a moral and legal responsibility and journalistic integrity to revel to law enforcement and the public if he is aware that a situation involving violence and a crime was to take place?

Maybe it was lost on me at the time, but to me, I thought everyone basically knew and agreed going into 1/6 that the GOP was going to put on a political stunt, look like a bunch of crybabies, and Biden would be officially named the president.  Obviously no way of knowing, but I'm confident that sans maybe 2-3 of the GOP reps that voted against certifying the election, they expected that it would allow them to show solidarity to Trump and they would go home to a Biden presidency as well.  Hannity apparently had the foresight to realize it not only wouldn't work, but it was dumb as well.   I don't see anything in his pre 1/6 texts indicating he thought it would lead to violence.  Then the day off, he's the one pointing out that this will hurt Trump's legacy.