MSNBC vs Fox News

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Election interference by the USA has been an irritating thing if your country is affected. I still have an impression that the USA isn't necessarily the good guy in Venezuela. However, you cannot emphasize it enough that the Mueller report proved concerted efforts by Russia, in an election that was won by 73K strategically placed midwestern battleground votes by a guy who was so soft on Russia it takes a mental marathon not to interpret as a sign of compromise.

There is that Russian spy's book that came out recently saying the Kremlin has been grooming Trump for decades. But I really don't see their efforts in the 2016 election being all that sophisticated. All they proved is we have a lot of rubes who will believe whatever already fits their narrative. On a related note, I saw a headline earlier saying a study determined QAnon believers generally have a low IQ. If anything, access to anything and everything you want to believe without filter or credibility is the enemy here.

Too lazy to look for it now, but a few years back in the other place I posted a list of all the known times the US interfered in foreign elections since the 50's. I believe it was over 100 known times.

 

[SuperMatt]

I watch 1 hour of news a day: PBS News Hour. Other than that, I read a variety of sources online.

 

[SuperMatt]

There is that Russian spy's book that came out recently saying the Kremlin has been grooming Trump for decades. But I really don't see their efforts in the 2016 election being all that sophisticated. All they proved is we have a lot of rubes who will believe whatever already fits their narrative. On a related note, I saw a headline earlier saying a study determined QAnon believers generally have a low IQ. If anything, access to anything and everything you want to believe without filter or credibility is the enemy here.

Too lazy to look for it now, but a few years back in the other place I posted a list of all the known times the US interfered in foreign elections since the 50's. I believe it was over 100 known times.

Yep, lots of well-documented interference in foreign governments by both parties in America. We kind of got away with it because we were seen as this bastion of democracy, helping root out evil dictators all over the world. The failure in Vietnam put a big dent in that reputation, and 4 years of Trump has flushed it completely down the toilet.

 

[User.45]

I heard a quote from a Vice detractor a while back and I haven’t been able to take Vice seriously sense. “We send interns into war zones to discover local vegan recipes.” Honestly, it feels like they are sent somewhere with the only instructions "Go find the most miserable or filthy looking person and give their story the Hollywood treatment."

"Hollywood treatment".

They covered the WSB events better than Reuters, NYT or CNN.
They had a segment on vaccine trials in Native American populations. It's a very important topic because
1) the USA even has a recent history of force sterilization of Native Americans; which means distrust of the community in clinical experiments is huge and based on past history and experiences
2) If you enroll white people in trials exclusively, you'll generate evidence that will work extremely robustly for white people and less so for others, leading to misaligned healthcare protocols, inadequate communication and poorer outcomes in minorities. To give you en example some of the major sets of stroke studies involved about 36 black people total (out of ~1000 enrolled all over the world).

You won't see coverage like this, especially in a meaningfully done way elsewhere.
Or I found it interesting how Avocado farmers armed up to defend their produce from the cartels in Mexico.
Or how BLM impacted Blacks in Italy or France.

Left wingy, often anecdotal, but it covers a niche you'd only get better informed on if you sought out and talked to these people yourself. As long as you know how to handle anecdotal information, ain't nothing wrong with it.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

"Hollywood treatment".

They covered the WSB events better than Reuters, NYT or CNN.
They had a segment on vaccine trials in Native American populations. It's a very important topic because
1) the USA even has a recent history of force sterilization of Native Americans; which means distrust of the community in clinical experiments is huge and based on past history and experiences
2) If you enroll white people in trials exclusively, you'll generate evidence that will work extremely robustly for white people and less so for others, leading to misaligned healthcare protocols, inadequate communication and poorer outcomes in minorities. To give you en example some of the major sets of stroke studies involved about 36 black people total (out of ~1000 enrolled all over the world).

You won't see coverage like this, especially in a meaningfully done way elsewhere.
Or I found it interesting how Avocado farmers armed up to defend their produce from the cartels in Mexico.
Or how BLM impacted Blacks in Italy or France.

Left wingy, often anecdotal, but it covers a niche you'd only get better informed on if you sought out and talked to these people yourself. As long as you know how to handle anecdotal information, ain't nothing wrong with it.

On a similar vibe.





I think Vice can thank NPR for the trailblazing they did for elevated anecdotal reporting.

 

[User.45]

On a similar vibe.





I think Vice can thank NPR for the trailblazing they did for elevated anecdotal reporting.

You've gotta love Portlandia.

 

[Thomas Veil]

Fair enough. Also I don't know anybody who watches network news, so I really don't know why I'm pushing this issue. Even the highest rated shows on network news channels have a pathetically small percentage of the population watching...

Count me in that percentage, though. CNN isn't what it used to be. It was nice when Headline News was a half hour newscast 24 hours a day and CNN proper was more in-depth coverage. CNN's still just okay, and I have no idea what HN has turned into. (Does the channel even still exist?)

I'd probably try to watch PBS Newshour more often, but the problem lies in its title--it's an hour. For better or worse, my go-to news person is Lester Holt on NBC. They're not perfect, but they're better than CNN, where you feel like you're just dropping in on whatever ambulance they happen to be chasing at the moment. For live coverage of breaking events it's either NBC or MSNBC.

 

[shadow puppet]

Since I only have Sling Blue after dropping my cable, for televised news I have CNN, MSNBC, Fox (never watch though) and local NBC. I can catch local CBS using Pluto. Like @Thomas Veil, I also like Lester Holt. His delivery is straightforward without being ambulance chasing over the top. As for CNN, there are some I can handle better than others. But Cuomo makes me nuts so I avoid him.

Honestly, I get a good dose from some of the Twitter political reporter lists I follow. Quick, concise and allow me to decide what I'm going to follow up on.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

MSNBC, while considered liberal, has Joe Scarborough on in the morning for three hours - he's a conservative and former GOP congressman. In the afternoon is Nicole Wallace, who worked in the George Bush White House as well as for other Republicans. While some might consider them now to be liberal, in reality they are just anti-Trump and anti what the GOP has turned into under Trump. I don't watch Fox News - do they have any Democratic/liberal hosts?

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Russia (and the US) interfere in a lot of elections, and China. This isn’t news. It’s common knowledge. It’s certainly not 2 years worth of constant coverage.

I think the reason for the coverage was not just the usual foreign interference but that the Trump campaigned welcomed foreign help, including exchanging polling data with Russians. And we all remember "Russia, if you're listening..."

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think the reason for the coverage was not just the usual foreign interference but that the Trump campaigned welcomed foreign help, including exchanging polling data with Russians. And we all remember "Russia, if you're listening..."

As far as I remember the accusation was that Russia pushed a bunch of negative ads/news about Clinton on social media in swing states. That's so sophisticated that a 12-year-old American in his mom's basement could have pulled off the same thing.

If Trump coordinated this with Russia, they didn't exactly put their best guys on the project. Again, a 12-year-old could have done it.

If this is Russia's best effort then clearly we need to be more worried about our own rubes than the Russian government because that makes at least a 3rd of our citizens useful idiots.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

If Trump coordinated this with Russia, they didn't exactly put their best guys on the project. Again, a 12-year-old could have done it.

The Mueller report made it clear that there was no "if." The Trump campaign coordinated with Russia. And don't you think Putin is sitting happy now seeing what the idiot Trump did to the U.S. - a raging pandemic that was lied about and made worse by the culture war against wearing masks, a depressed economy with huge job losses and an even more divided populace? Trump won several swing states by tiny majorities. However 12-year-old-like Russia's efforts were, they very well could have been the deciding factor.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

However 12-year-old-like Russia's efforts were, they very well could have been the deciding factor.

That's why I'm saying we have a lot more of our citizens to worry about than Russia, if it took that a little of an effort to turn 1/3 of our country into conspiracy worshipping idiots. The root of that wasn't with Russia and started a long time ago, possibly by a longtime radio host that took a dirt nap earlier this week.

But also Clinton was easy to hate and the democrat system that created her, and for good reason. Against Trump the race shouldn't have even been close and no matter who won I don't think anybody would have called the 2016 election a triumph of democracy, more like witnessing the crumbling of it.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

But also Clinton was easy to hate and the democrat system that created her, and for good reason. Against Trump the race shouldn't have even been close and no matter who won I don't think anybody would have called the 2016 election a triumph of democracy, more like witnessing the crumbling of it.

I never understood the level of hate against Hillary other than what came from the GOP.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I never understood the level of hate against Hillary other than what came from the GOP.

Apologies for feeling too lazy to get into it in detail, but under her husband and Obama the Democrats started becoming Republican Lite and a meritocracy. She's the poster child for meritocracy "Look at my resume. I'm owed the Presidency!" She also displays zero empathy for the average American. The 2016 DNC was bought and controlled by the Clintons. Period. This isn't even getting into whatever dubious business dealings her and Bill were involved in, but she is the pinnacle of "You owe me your vote just because you've been doing it for the past 10 decades." with not much to show for it as a supporter. Same thing happened with the GOP base and as a result we got Trump.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Apologies for feeling too lazy to get into it in detail, but under her husband and Obama the Democrats started becoming Republican Lite and a meritocracy. She's the poster child for meritocracy "Look at my resume. I'm owed the Presidency!"

I'll grant you the other points you make because I don't know about them and am also too lazy to look things up. But as for meritocracy, she was First Lady for eight years, a two-term U.S. Senator and the U.S. Secretary of State. Those are pretty good qualifications.

 

[User.45]

Apologies for feeling too lazy to get into it in detail, but under her husband and Obama the Democrats started becoming Republican Lite and a meritocracy. She's the poster child for meritocracy "Look at my resume. I'm owed the Presidency!" She also displays zero empathy for the average American. The 2016 DNC was bought and controlled by the Clintons. Period. This isn't even getting into whatever dubious business dealings her and Bill were involved in, but she is the pinnacle of "You owe me your vote just because you've been doing it for the past 10 decades." with not much to show for it as a supporter. Same thing happened with the GOP base and as a result we got Trump.

I'll grant you the other points you make because I don't know about them and am also too lazy to look things up. But as for meritocracy, she was First Lady for eight years, a two-term U.S. Senator and the U.S. Secretary of State. Those are pretty good qualifications.

Likability aside, in successful/sane countries a good resumé actually makes people better and not worse job candidates.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Interesting that I can access the CNN and Fox News sites without issue, but I can't access the MSNBC site because I use an ad blocker on my browser. Are they hurting for money?

 

[Alli]

Interesting that I can access the CNN and Fox News sites without issue, but I can't access the MSNBC site because I use an ad blocker on my browser. Are they hurting for money?

Have you tried the app?