dice wrote:they were NOT redundant when they decided to take a turn to the left. did other NON-mainstream cable networks follow them? yes. beyond the mainstream left, even. yet more evidence that there was an appetite for liberal opinion that wasn't already being served. if CNN, as far and away the biggest cable news outlet at the time, was liberal, MSNBC never makes the calculated decision to in that direction shortly after fox arrives on the scene
The cable news landscape was, and basically still is, sparse.
News has been slanted to the left for a long time, but the polarization has gotten worse over the years.
You attribute that to the creation of Fox News. I don't.
I think it has more to do with deeper cultural shifts.
the discussion was about mainstream media. CNN and MSNBC. and whether they as organizations are working for the democratic party like fox is for the GOP. media matters is not a news network
I brought up Media Matters because their aim is to attack the right, and their talking points get circulated.
In some instances, Media Matters actually has representatives on set.
Fox News has its straight news reporters, and its opinion journalists just like the other networks. I don't see how that's tantamount to the network being controlled by the GOP.
I don't think there's any formal collusion between any of these networks (although you seem to think so). I think their interests align.
For example, if a newsroom is 99% liberal (or conservative) groupthink and confirmation bias will inevitably set in.
every single show on every news network wants trump on their program. as does every late night show. the more ridiculous he got, the more pushback he got, the more jokes he was the butt of, and he stopped going on those shows
Disagree.
Trump went on Fallon relatively late in the election (the ep where Fallon mussed his air), and Fallon got a lot of heat for that.
Meanwhile, earlier in the primary, he went on Colbert for a softball interview and they talked about how much they hate each other.
And this was after his escalator speech that rankled so many people.
He was considered a buffoon and a nonentity in the primary, so they pumped him up, which dovetails with what was in the Clinton/Podesta leaks.
it means he's not the biased anti-trump stooge that trump opponents have tried to paint him as. it means that his investigation was not a "witch hunt." even so, they sure did uncover a lot of witches
No, it doesn't.
Some of Trump's harshest critics are from the right: Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, etc...
Unsurprisingly, a lot of them are war hawks who I'm sure didn't like Trump essentially calling Bush a war criminal.
a bit of an exaggeration. and mueller stated during the hearings that everyone on his team was hired based on their abilities:
Hey, well, if he says he's unbiased!
If he'd used that rationale and hired 17 Republicans, would you have felt the same way?
And again, I don't think this is a major issue. If anything, you'd probably want an adversarial special prosecutor so there's no appearance of impropriety.
there doesn't have to be evidence of an underlying crime to obstruct justice. clearly trump at minimum SUSPECTED that illegal activity had occurred amongst his campaign staff, whether directly authorized by him or not
"this is the end of my presidency. i'm f***ed" - trump's response to news of mueller's appointment, according to notes taken by trump AG jeff sessions's chief of staff
I understand the nature of the charge.
I'm just saying it's hard for me to get exercised about that when there was no underlying crime, similar to Bill Clinton perjuring himself during the Lewinsky affair.
By the letter of the law he was guilty, but that was a weak reason to try and remove a president.
with regard to FISA applications of low level campaign members, yes (carter page, specifically). there was, however, no illegal wiretapping. there were no plants in the trump campaign. there was no illegitimate objective in opening the investigation. all of which trump alleged
That's yet to be seen.
Whiting out information on the FISA application regarding Carter Page is truly dirty stuff, and that was used as a pretext to continue the investigation.
The Flynn stuff looks really bad, too.
There's also a lot of unanswered questions about Mifsud, Downer, etc...
and this is another destructive force of donald trump as president - he throws out so many wild conspiracy theories that his legitimate beefs are. he is the boy who cried wolf. the waters are constantly muddy...which is obviously the intent. it exhausts people, causing them to throw up their arms and say "i don't know what's the truth anymore." which gives him more space to behave badly
Fair point.
He absolutely says a lot dumb stuff, or needlessly exaggerates the truth.
CONGRESS armed ukraine, which trump famously illegally tried to withhold such aid from in exchange for non-existent dirt on biden, leading to impeachment. again benefiting russia, who ukraine, our ally, is at war with. congress also, as i mentioned, unanimously voted for sanctions on russia, which trump ALSO dragged his heels on
and trump's abandoning of the kurds in syria (again in opposition to the wishes of both sides of the aisle) was exactly what putin wanted
He also didn't renew missile treaties with Russia, which he could've done.
I think people are trying to hard to build some narrative that he's somehow in Putin's pocket.
I just don't think he ever viewed them as a major geopolitical threat. They have an aging population and an economy the size of Texas.
The Syria issue is complicated.
The Kurds were going to cut a deal with Assad, but America told them to fight for us, so they said okay.
After we pulled troops, everyone said they were going to be slaughtered. ABC News even ran a fake segment where they suggested the pogroms had begun, but it was just some gun show from Kentucky.
The Kurds cut the deal with Assad they'd always intended to cut.
I don't even think we should be in Syria.
trump's behavior toward russia as an american president tasked with serving american interests is unprecedented and blatant. and it's in combination with his refusal to divest from his financial interests AS president. as for the clinton foundation:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/nov/15/facebook-posts/no-russia-did-not-donate-145-million-clinton-found/
How is it in America's best interest to be hawkish with a nuclear power?
Do you think Hillary's "no-fly-zone" policy would've been more pragmatic?
That politifact article is misleading.
Even the WaPo and Snopes said the deal raises questions about corruption:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html
there is an incentive for any news network to extensively cover any major story that a lot of people are invested in. there is additional incentive for a liberal network (MSNBC) to do so when the story involves scandalous activity on the part of a republican president
Agree in principle, but it doesn't always work out that way.
For example, there was a lot of interest both left and right about Jeffrey Epstein, but there was basically zero coverage as to why ABC News spiked the story.
again, this comes down to the definition of collusion. what brennan has described and referred to as collusion apparently did not meet the definition of criminal collusion according to mueller. i would imagine that the affidavits were very specific about terminology
Agree, but that isn't what he was saying on television. That's my only point on that.
another thing trump is trying to have done: not report as COVID deaths those which involve other mitigating factors. which, of course, is largely how COVID-19 kills - by attacking those w/ conditions which make them more susceptible to major adverse reactions. it would not surprise me at all if there are a low percentage of "pure" COVID-19 deaths
Again, the I can't make heads or tails of the numbers.
One guy drunk driver with a BAC 7 times the legal limit was catalogued as a coronavirus death.
That seems off to say the least.
