|
readingatwork posted:Wait. What? My point is that there's deception (by omission or diversion typically) in the media that isn't always easy to spot by just searching for outright obvious lies spewed by Beck or O'Reilly. readingatwork posted:None immediately come to mind. Care to post of few of these? And I'm talking actual deception or the passing along of bad facts, not just you disagreeing with him. Start with this petty one. Is this legitimate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpPesCjgGzM readingatwork posted:HAHAHAHAHA! And now you're throwing Beck and Colbert into the same boat!? Wow... That video was just an example of Olbermann's theatrical style.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Zogo posted:They all play a part in the modern cable news echo chamber. And while Olbermann and Stewart are better than O'Reilly and Beck they actually drag down the intellectual discourse by regularly focusing their ridicule on them on a nightly basis with sarcasm and caricature. So you wish Olbermann and the others would just simply report the news Cronkite style with no opinion just to be clear right? I know ratings factor in, but are you really saying people like Olbermann are doing their whole thing for ratings and not because he is actually really passionate about it? I would say the claim about "it's all about ratings" is a correct claim more for the Fox news side because no matter how you look at it that whole organization is totally scummy, but I just don't see any way you can level the same claims of corruption and scummyness at MSNBC that you can at Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:So you wish Olbermann and the others would just simply report the news Cronkite style with no opinion just to be clear right? Honestly, not something that bland. You can do an opinion show without constantly ridiculing the lowest common denominator(s) you can find on TV. ApexAftermath posted:I know ratings factor in, but are you really saying people like Olbermann are doing their whole thing for ratings and not because he is actually really passionate about it? I can't get into the TV pundit heads as I don't know their motives and I've never met them. It does strike me as odd that Olbermann still to this very day (I watched his program earlier on Current TV) mimics Beck (with a retarded voice) and ridicules him incessantly. I don't want to watch a show where a guy stands outside a mental institution scoffing at the patients. ApexAftermath posted:I would say the claim about "it's all about ratings" is a correct claim more for the Fox news side because no matter how you look at it that whole organization is totally scummy, but I just don't see any way you can level the same claims of corruption and scummyness at MSNBC that you can at Fox News. That's another issue. O'Reilly's constantly trying to sell his products on his show as if it's an infomercial. "Bold and Fresh" hats, tote bags, shirts etc. I'm not trying to make all news networks equal in the culpability of misinformation and disinformation. Fox News on the whole is pretty boring to me but I don't mind some of the stock-related news on Fox Business. They're all in it for the money right? Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC aren't publicly funded channels like PBS. Recently MSNBC and Cenk Uygur parted ways. Uygur talked about how the head of the network (MSNBC president Phil Griffin) sat him down and gave him a "talking to" about how the "people in Washington" didn't like his tone. That's not laudable. Lately I've been watching more Current TV and RT (it seems to the place for TV personalities to be excommunicated lately) as they're newer in my area and something different. Zogo fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
I can't figure out what you guys are talking about anymore but I wanted to point out that when Cronkite was doing the news, news was not for profit, the news departments did not have to make a profit like the rest of the networks. Cronkite also attacked certain issues. When he came out with the statement below about the Viet Nam war, many people realized that something important was said and feel he made a major change in public thought about it. quote:Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Zogo posted:My point is that there's deception (by omission or diversion typically) in the media that isn't always easy to spot by just searching for outright obvious lies spewed by Beck or O'Reilly. What does he lie about? To what end? Fox News lies because it's run by Republican wingnut con-men who worship money and those who worship it in turn. What's MSNBC's angle exactly? quote:Start with this petty one. Is this legitimate? This is an out of context (and confusingly edited) clip of Oberman being wrong about... something. I'm honestly not sure what. Apparently he wrongly claimed that Fox News didn't report on the fact that two people weren't going to work for Hillary and that's... bad? How exactly is this indicative of persistent bias and deception to a political end and not just him getting his facts wrong this one time? I guess I'm just not getting something here. It just doesn't come across as in any way morally equivalent to the "gently caress the poor, the rich need another yacht" horseshit Fox has been playing lately. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWpz9NQipp0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMsJjmOGC_8&feature=related quote:That video was just an example of Olbermann's theatrical style. Fair enough. If you don't like his style then I can't really argue on that one. You don't like it, I kind of do (though Maddow, Maher, and others are better). We'll agree to disagree. Screw it. This line of conversation is boring and really belongs in a FN thread in DD somewhere. Let's talk about Real Time. What did people think of Maddow on Maher recently?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
Walter Cronkite owns. It's sad that he would literally have to have his own cable show to be able to actually put out that statement now instead of on the CBS Evening News. Typical Fox News viewers would get confused by the use of full sentences, "big words" and metaphorical prose as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
The difference between Cronkite (and modern analogs like Charlie Rose) and Olbermann, Beck and O'Reilly is that Cronkite comes across as a serious thinker, who took his job extremely seriously, who was interested not only in reporting the news but understanding the news, and who wanted his audience to understand the news as well. In contrast, Olbermann, Beck, O'Reilly (and most other modern newscasters) are vehicles for catharsis. They don't explain or analyze a situation so much as channel popular sentiment towards a situation. They channel their viewers' emotional state and thereby validate what their viewers already think or feel. I'm inclined to agree with Olbermann's positions, but when was the last time he reported on a story with as much nuance, diligence or intelligence as - say - a grad student writing a paper for an academic journal? Rarely, if ever - and that's the problem. When you watch a news program you should feel educated, not validated. Even Jon Stewart is better at this than Olbermann, because once you filter out his comedy and satire, his actual reporting is telling truth to power a lot more diligently and fairly than "hard news" networks ever do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
I never saw this before, Mos Def vs Christopher Hitchens on RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_oR5Oonq5A. Debating Hitchens is about as fruitful as playing russian roulette with AK47, not only are you going to lose, but you're going to lose terribly.... even moreso when you have terrible arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
I almost feel bad for Mos Def there. He's just completely out of his depth with Hitchens and Rushdie sitting there (as pretty much anyone would be). But if I remember that episode right he was annoying as hell for most of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
That's why I hate it when Maher wastes a slot on a celebrity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:The difference between Cronkite (and modern analogs like Charlie Rose) and Olbermann, Beck and O'Reilly is that Cronkite comes across as a serious thinker, who took his job extremely seriously, who was interested not only in reporting the news but understanding the news, and who wanted his audience to understand the news as well. One of the problems we have (in this thread too) is that 2 mistakes don't make both sides equal. 1 mistake maybe missing out on a detail while another mistake advocates the killing of lots and lots and lots of people. Not all lies are equal and not all mistakes are equal. When you make all of these equal, quite honestly, you are a dumb gently caress and part of the problem. It is also possible that one set of ideas are based on facts, the other side are based on disingenuous twisting and spinning of things to get some sort result. One side is an opinion of the truth, the other side is not. Pointing out dishonesty does not make you partisan. It makes you a journalist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:What does he lie about? To what end? Fox News lies because it's run by Republican wingnut con-men who worship money and those who worship it in turn. What's MSNBC's angle exactly? I'm not calling an Olbermann a liar. I just said that he's been caught in some half-truths before. I wouldn't put it past any TV pundit to embellish or sex up a story or headline once in a while. It could've been an honest mistake. MSNBC markets itself as a place for progressives to go for news. That's what their president has said in the past. readingatwork posted:This is an out of context (and confusingly edited) clip of Oberman being wrong about... something. I'm honestly not sure what. Apparently he wrongly claimed that Fox News didn't report on the fact that two people weren't going to work for Hillary and that's... bad? How exactly is this indicative of persistent bias and deception to a political end and not just him getting his facts wrong this one time? That clip alone really isn't indicative of a persistent bias. Although we know that Olbermann and most liberals are vehemently against what Fox News stands for and its very existence. readingatwork posted:I guess I'm just not getting something here. It just doesn't come across as in any way morally equivalent to the "gently caress the poor, the rich need another yacht" horseshit Fox has been playing lately. Again, I'm not attempting to morally equate any news network. A better way of putting it would be to say that there's a symbiotic relationship going on with all the cable news networks (they report on each other and ridicule each other regularly). Fox News is so bad that it's dragged the entire discourse down a few notches. And I'm not happy that other networks even regurgitate their stuff. Because after a while it's not very intellectually profitable to ridicule Beck and O'Reilly on a daily basis when they're talking about their absurd "diversion" topics. Lambasting and succinctly disproving Raëlism is easy and humorous but it doesn't really accomplish much after you've done it 260 days a year for 10 years straight. Also, SpaceMost summarized some more of what I was trying to get across.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
This Australian dude is SO WASTED and has been awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
This is vintage Maher - haven't had a show like this in a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
AHaha the drunk Aussie war correspondent just lit a cigarette on Overtime. He is my hero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
I want to beat Grover Norquist to death with a e: and Ron Christie. I knew I hated this oval office before, but I had never seen him in person. IRQ fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Oct 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Ron Christie has a very punchable face. Sexy Larry King 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Best show in a long time, though I was really hoping to see Cornell West jump over the table and beat Ron Christie into a coma.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that was a good episode, reminded me why I watch the show and deal with assholes like Fund and Christie. Loved how often the camera would center on West and the Australian guy going back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Sexy Larry King Would've preferred her over Ron Christie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Ron Christie has a very punchable face. Yeah, I had to fast forward most of his appearance. Thought it was funny towards the end when he made a gay comment about the other two men, "apparently they're getting a little too comfortable over there". When he is very obviously in the closet...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
God drat, the Aussie had to have had jack daniels in that mug. He was so shitfaced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
What a fantastic episode. I think the best part was Maher having to tell people to calm the gently caress down and shut the gently caress up. West and the Aussie dude were on fire together, especially the heckling during New Rules. Cornell West is the best guest. "Brother Bill"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 09:19
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I want to beat Grover Norquist to death with a I dreaded watching this week's show, because I figured my head would explode as soon as Norquist opened his mouth. But it was Ron Christie who really got under my skin. I don't know if it was the effeminate voice, or the cheap retorical trick of going 'at the time of 9/11, when over 3000 Americans lost their lives...'. loving hell, I wanted to punch through the screen...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
Ron Christie is somehow more of a piece of poo poo than Grover Norquist but goddamn I couldn't stop laughing when Maher told everyone to calm down and shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Ron Christie is somehow more of a piece of poo poo than Grover Norquist but goddamn I couldn't stop laughing when Maher told everyone to calm down and shut the gently caress up. Ron Christie is just a black empty headed Sarah Palin. Norquist is a truly evil gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 12:42
|
|
|
drat it, what happened to Kucinich? I suspect he would've had fun on the panel in that one lady's slot that was utterly dwarfed by Ware and West---to say nothing of the creepy segway you just know would've happened after Grover brought up his ventriloquism. Ware has been an...animated...guest in the past, but good lord he was on fire tonight. West should have went over the table on that fool Christie, though I was also a bit perplexed that he was putting forth SUCH effort in defense of Smith given he probably spent more time on him than even the OWS state of affairs. I'm glad Grover was the first guest to get him out of the way until Overtime, but this was the first and I hope the last time I ever see this Christie guy on there or anywhere on TV. Dude was utterly ridiculous and drat near sunk the entire episode if it were not for the combined efforts of Ware, West, and Maher to tear him a new one time and again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
The final new rule was kind of strange. Promoting LSD for creativity is fine but he just got done calling amphetamines like ritalin and adderal basically mind control drugs. They're incredibly useful for creative work. I don't see how drugs that increase your energy and metabolism have gotten this stigma that they destroy your imagination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
richardfun posted:I dreaded watching this week's show, because I figured my head would explode as soon as Norquist opened his mouth. This. Ron Christie made renowned insufferable douche Grover Norquist look like the Saint of Reason. This episode was going along quite nicely until Christie came out. It was amazing how fast it went downhill from there. And drat, I thought Ann Coulter was annoying when she interupted New Rules but Cornell West and the drunk Aussie were like two 13-year old boys in the back of the class snickering through the entire lecture. I thought Bill was gonna lose his mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
I thought long and hard about who that Christie guy reminded me of and I then shuddered and remembered Horace Cooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h2EYPvQDqE Yes, if you want to see the Christie ghost of Christmas past just observe. Anyone can see he's full of it on the show. George Carlin was there to clean up that mess. I believe Horace is in prison now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_bYnvR_fRg
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:The final new rule was kind of strange. Promoting LSD for creativity is fine but he just got done calling amphetamines like ritalin and adderal basically mind control drugs. They're incredibly useful for creative work. I don't see how drugs that increase your energy and metabolism have gotten this stigma that they destroy your imagination. Bill has always been weird on the topic of drugs and medicine. He's huge on science and reason but the second that topic reaches medicine at all that's all out the window and it's alternative therapies and vaccine skepticism all the way. :/
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Cornell West should have a segment every week. Only a 5 minute taped thing where he takes on whatever topic he wants. That was a good episode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
drat, that was a solid episode. I thought Ware was just being an Aussie, but yeah, he very well might have been drunk. Usually Cornell West is a little too pie in the sky, but he was great in this episode. He is not really effective when it's all left wingers. A surprisingly good team was made there with him and Ware. Ron Christie, holy poo poo. You can clip up everything he said and make a Republican soundboard. It's insane. How many times did he say American citizen? United, together, etc... I like the discussion about right wing comedians they had in overtime, but I don't think they quite got to the crux of the issue. It might have been lost in the people speaking over each other, etc... The sexy ladies in the middle of the show wasn't a good idea. Have them at the end. It was too much of an abrupt interruption in the middle of the show that was flowing nicely. But then again so was Christie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 03:44
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Dudebro posted:drat, that was a solid episode. I thought Ware was just being an Aussie, but yeah, he very well might have been drunk. Usually Cornell West is a little too pie in the sky, but he was great in this episode. He is not really effective when it's all left wingers. A surprisingly good team was made there with him and Ware. I thought West was gonna punch him in the face when he said that thing about the soundbites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Yeah I was familiar with Christie from MSNBC. God drat he is a loving annoying dweeb with a punchable face. I really wish once they would just stop the loving show dead in its tracks and refuse to move on until they get a republican to admit they are wrong or being dishonest. Just keep harping at them and repeating the thing they are calling them out on until they get just shamed as gently caress. Won't ever happen because Maher doesn't want to scare off right wingers from the show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Anyone watch yesterday's episode? It was one of those uneventful, but competent shows. Good discussion but no drunken Aussie. And Ms. Wagner, wow I love how Bill called David Patterson Fred Armisen, haha. And Patterson had a very awkward *crickets* joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Darrell Issa is so unbearably politician-y. Bill Engvall added nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
To be fair, those are two seemingly very sane right-wingers, Issa and Engvall. Although Engvall doesn't seem exclusively one-sided. Issa said a lot during overtime too, but it seemed like his heart was in the right place, but not his information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:To be fair, those are two seemingly very sane right-wingers, Issa and Engvall. Although Engvall doesn't seem exclusively one-sided. Issa said a lot during overtime too, but it seemed like his heart was in the right place, but not his information. Issa knows his audience. He always comes off as extremely reasonable on real time but go look at his actions as the head witch hunter in Congress. The man is pure politician. He's a wingbat when the right is watching and reasonable when the left is. Engvall on the other hand comes off as the typical middle American. Too busy with life to pay attention to politics too closely, too busy to scrutinize any talking point that "makes sense" on the face but, when presented with facts or counter arguments, is willing to accept it and make the correct judgment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Issa knows his audience. He always comes off as extremely reasonable on real time but go look at his actions as the head witch hunter in Congress. The man is pure politician. He's a wingbat when the right is watching and reasonable when the left is. This. Exactly this. The man is such a shitheel. He acts like a perfectly acceptable moderate most of the time on shows like Real Time. When he´s out of the spotlight (meaning, only C-SPAN's camera's are rolling) he is as much in favour of hysterical witch hunts as all the other Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 04:43
|
|