Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[MDS]

"he rapes women but makes a good point about putting the embassy in jerusalem, so lets hear him out"

[ice grillin you]

CNN is a subpar news network.


It is not even remotely in the same solar system as FoxNews. CNN is centrist bullshtein with centrist/center left opinion folks in prime time. They are not the propaganda wing for the entire left wing of the country.

On the one hand I agree that fox is unique in being the propaganda arm of the white house (if that's what you are saying) so it's a different sort of animal, but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

I knew this motherfarger was a racist pos a long time ago but had no idea he was a conspiracy theorist Qanon type

[PhillyPhreak54]

To be fair - is there anything worthwhile on the pro-Trump side to report?

If you mean in terms of the reporting, I think yes. Nobody likes to think they're getting played but we all are, and we probably overate ourselves in our ability to see through it. On the pro-trump side there's obviously a lot of bullshtein but there are also some good points to be made which you won't hear from the left. Same is true on points from the left. Each side puts on its own spin like in any debate and I find listening to both sides gives a clearer picture.

If you mean anything worthwhile reporting on pro trump in terms of policy, I also think yes. Not much domestically imo but I agree with some of his foreign policy. I don't automatically think just because it is his view it is automatically by definition terrible. I'm no expert but I'd say I agree with about 25% of his foreign policy (though I don't often like the way he goes about it) and maybe 0% of his domestic though I could probably think of something if I really wanted.

I'm not being obtuse when I say this but I can't think of anything domestically or internationally of his that I support. I hate his guts but if there was something that was worthwhile I'd say yeah ya know that isn't bad. But everything in my opinion he's touched has failed miserably.

It's one thing to be a bad president and leader. It's another thing to be that and be an outright racist. And it's everyone surrounding him too. I mean we have Mike Pompeo saying today that he's looking hard at Hillary's emails. For what? Nevermind the fact that he isn't supposed to be one sided and using his position to campaign.

[ice grillin you]

Love you to death J but just stop...you can't talk to these people

[Eagaholic]

CNN is a subpar news network.


It is not even remotely in the same solar system as FoxNews. CNN is centrist bullshtein with centrist/center left opinion folks in prime time. They are not the propaganda wing for the entire left wing of the country.

On the one hand I agree that fox is unique in being the propaganda arm of the white house (if that's what you are saying) so it's a different sort of animal, but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

I knew this motherfarger was a racist pos a long time ago but had no idea he was a conspiracy theorist Qanon type

Good lord, come back when you got some game. Pro tip - give it a try sober.

[ice grillin you]

but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

[Eagaholic]

To be fair - is there anything worthwhile on the pro-Trump side to report?

If you mean in terms of the reporting, I think yes. Nobody likes to think they're getting played but we all are, and we probably overate ourselves in our ability to see through it. On the pro-trump side there's obviously a lot of bullshtein but there are also some good points to be made which you won't hear from the left. Same is true on points from the left. Each side puts on its own spin like in any debate and I find listening to both sides gives a clearer picture.

If you mean anything worthwhile reporting on pro trump in terms of policy, I also think yes. Not much domestically imo but I agree with some of his foreign policy. I don't automatically think just because it is his view it is automatically by definition terrible. I'm no expert but I'd say I agree with about 25% of his foreign policy (though I don't often like the way he goes about it) and maybe 0% of his domestic though I could probably think of something if I really wanted.

I'm not being obtuse when I say this but I can't think of anything domestically or internationally of his that I support. I hate his guts but if there was something that was worthwhile I'd say yeah ya know that isn't bad. But everything in my opinion he's touched has failed miserably.

It's one thing to be a bad president and leader. It's another thing to be that and be an outright racist. And it's everyone surrounding him too. I mean we have Mike Pompeo saying today that he's looking hard at Hillary's emails. For what? Nevermind the fact that he isn't supposed to be one sided and using his position to campaign.

I agree with the second part. In terms of policy, he has actually done some things that were traditionally democratic agenda like re-doing NAFTA. Bernie had been championing that for years I think. I think moving the Israeli capitol to Jerusalem was Obama's? Or at least was an intention.

edit - I should say recognizing Jerusalem. Not a good move imo whether trump or obama did it.

[Diomedes]

but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

The equivalency here is false. 

Humor me with a little thought experiment:  If CNN (or for that matter, MSNBC) were, like you allege, for the Left as Fox is for the Right, I think this is what you'd find on CNN:

When Obama farged something up--calling the cop who arrested Louis Gates Jr. stupid, for example--a fox equivalent CNN would have reported the news by leading with the "exclusive bombshell" that the cop had x number of citizen complaints, or that he was involved x years ago in a questionable shooting of a black man (even if he hadn't fired his weapon, or been reprimanded following investigation of the incident, the fact he was present would be enough to say, loudly, he was "involved"), or some other similar angle.  The report would omit entirely the audio of Obama saying "stupid," and following the "news" insinuating that the cop was at fault, they'd cut to an interview with one of Louis Farrakhans slicker, not quite card carrying associates, for "analysis."  The focus of the reporting would not only ignore the news---that the president had called a cop stupid---but would make news by elevating non-germane material, which confuses the matter, diminishes the negative attention that goes to "their" president, etc.

There is no version of Fox for the left.   

[Munson]

Yeah that categorization of CNN as purely motivated by anti-Trumpness is definitely wrong. They bend over backwards trying to both sides most things when they can, it's just that lately the guy has become so unhinged and nuts that there's no way to do it anymore. But CNN literally gave us the "this is the night that he became president" meme all because he stuck to a script/speech for once without ranting like a discount Adolf. Like, I'm pretty sure Dana Bash is horny for the term "new tone" because the few times Trump has sounded like a sane person who wasn't just attacking someone else, she's on the air afterwards getting being Lucy'd by Charlie Brown, pretending like some sort of pivot happened. And everyone else on CNN talks about the "new tone" like Very Serious Reporters and then 12 hours later Trump tweets about wanting all the brown immigrants to stop coming here or something.

FoxNews would never, ever ever ever, bend over backwards so far to try and both sides something.

[Eagaholic]

but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

The equivalency here is false. 

Humor me with a little thought experiment:  If CNN (or for that matter, MSNBC) were, like you allege, for the Left as Fox is for the Right, I think this is what you'd find on CNN:

When Obama farged something up--calling the cop who arrested Louis Gates Jr. stupid, for example--a fox equivalent CNN would have reported the news by leading with the "exclusive bombshell" that the cop had x number of citizen complaints, or that he was involved x years ago in a questionable shooting of a black man (even if he hadn't fired his weapon, or been reprimanded following investigation of the incident, the fact he was present would be enough to say, loudly, he was "involved"), or some other similar angle.  The report would omit entirely the audio of Obama saying "stupid," and following the "news" insinuating that the cop was at fault, they'd cut to an interview with one of Louis Farrakhans slicker, not quite card carrying associates, for "analysis."  The focus of the reporting would not only ignore the news---that the president had called a cop stupid---but would make news by elevating non-germane material, which confuses the matter, diminishes the negative attention that goes to "their" president, etc.

There is no version of Fox for the left.

I'll not only humor you Dio, but agree. I agree with you in that there is no equivalent of fox for the left - Munson made that point yesterday and I agreed with him - this is the other part of the quote that had been edited out.

On the one hand I agree that fox is unique in being the propaganda arm of the white house (if that's what you are saying) so it's a different sort of animal, but cnn is every bit as  driven in its anti trump obsession as fox is with his support.

It seems apparent to me that fox and the white house work closely together to shape whatever narative the WH wants reported (probably for trump to just blow up 5 minutes later with a tweet after fox reports it). So a fox personality like Hannity is just a cross between a media shill and deputy WH spokesman. But obviously there can't be an equivalent that opposes trump because they aren't a propaganda arm.

To your last point, Munson, it's fine with me to just agree to disagree. When I see opposing points of view presented by someone on CNN it is just there to be dismantled, not like giving a fair shake for the sake of objectivity. I try to be objective but there are some shows of fox I just can't stomach so I can't speak for them (Ingraham, pseudoceleb judge judy puke). But on their daily news debate show The Five they always have someone representing the left, usually Juan Williams, who makes very solid counter arguments and stands up well when others try to shout him down. At the end of the day though, I'm not that concerned with how any particular network and its personalities present, so much as my original point that all teevee news that I can find is biased and agenda driven and there's nothing neutral. We may disagree on the degree to which CNN does so, but it's fine to have different opinions and I appreciate when we can have some civil discourse about it (rather than the circular firing squad Obama referred to, certainly not in terms of liberals in general, just those who can't tolerate the slightest dissention from one's own brand, which imo could contribute to losing the election).

[Diomedes]

...all teevee news that I can find is biased and agenda driven and there's nothing neutral.

I think that's fair.  I'd like to think PBS does a good job but I don't watch enough television news to judge them against the other.  I only know their NPR counterpart, which is in my view about as fair as you can get in news coverage.  For the longest time in my life, television news was obviously the dumbest news you could find.  I figured that was because television is the lowest common denominator.  But since social media appeared, FB and Twitter have taken the mantle, and massive idiot audiences.

[Eagaholic]

...all teevee news that I can find is biased and agenda driven and there's nothing neutral.

I think that's fair.  I'd like to think PBS does a good job but I don't watch enough television news to judge them against the other.  I only know their NPR counterpart, which is in my view about as fair as you can get in news coverage.  For the longest time in my life, television news was obviously the dumbest news you could find.  I figured that was because television is the lowest common denominator.  But since social media appeared, FB and Twitter have taken the mantle, and massive idiot audiences.

I can remember a time when network news held it self to a high standard of reporting. I've heard but never bothered to verify that, by regulation, if there was a partisan position reported on the news, it was mandated for the opposing point of view to be presented. At some point, maybe during Reagan, the christian right lobbied hard to get that removed so they could give content that was unopposed. And ever since then that pandoras box has been open. I remember thinking it was so strange that Dan Rather resigned in disgrace for misreporting on George Bush's alleged shirking of duty in the texas national guard, even though he apparently believed it to be true. By then that sort of thing was a business as usual norm, but I think Rather was an artifact from a bygone industry standard of neutrality (at least by their standards then).

[ice grillin you]

I respect your vigor dio but realize you are trying to reason with a fake news Qanon trumper

best to bail out

[Eagaholic]

Whhaaa dont talk to him dio youre talking reasonably cancel him i'm soo triggered whaaa

In my experience people who are into politics usually have their comfy bubbles and don't take kindly to anything that threatens it

[ice grillin you]

racists trigger me....my bad