Tonight’s debate - November 20
drummerboy said:
Ya coulda asked me that. I've been saying that for almost 3 years.
I think I've been writing that here even longer and you might be the only one who's agreed with me. I guess it sounds more credible when a billionaire says it.
drummerboy said:
Ya coulda asked me that. I've been saying that for almost 3 years.
I know, but unfortunately you haven't had a platform on TV.
ml1 said:
I think I've been writing that here even longer and you might be the only one who's agreed with me. I guess it sounds more credible when a billionaire says it.
It's not more credible, his audience was just bigger than that on MOL.
drummerboy said:
Ya coulda asked me that. I've been saying that for almost 3 years.
Since you’ve been saying it for almost three years, there was never a need to ask.
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
Ya coulda asked me that. I've been saying that for almost 3 years.
Since you’ve been saying it for almost three years, there was never a need to ask.
Not only that, but what would the question have been?
drummerboy said:
Not only that, but what would the question have been?
“Why do you keep repeating what ml1 has been saying longer than you have? And when is a billionaire going to chime in so we can believe it?”
Smedley said:
Uh...last night was not Maddow's on-air debut. She's been around for ~15 years. So there's plenty of material out there, prior to last night, from which to form an opinion.
Thought it was a comment about her performance in last night's debate.
So you think she is not truthful? Based on a couple of definitions
Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.
or
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
Trying to understand your strong opinion which apparently had nothing to do with last night's debate.
I think Maddow is a partisan hack. I'm certainly not singular in this opinion. From her wikipedia profile:
>>>A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria".[57] A Newsweek profile said, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence ... but for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." The Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik accused Maddow of acting like "a lockstep party member".[58] The editors of The New Republic similarly criticized her—naming her among the "most over-rated thinkers" of 2011, they called her program "a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective".<<<
I don't watch the show, I've only caught bits and pieces. I do remember once she had like one page of an old Trump tax return or something and she was breathlessly reporting and teasing that it was a bombshell and it turned out to be a dud. And then of course Russiagate -- she covered every nook and cranny seven ways 'til Sunday until the Mueller report let the air out of that balloon. Then it was like oh well, nothing to see here, let's move on to the next anti-Trump diatribe.
Her show is what it is -- it's about tossing red meat to the left for ratings. Just like Hannity does on the right.
What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
You can be quick to label writers of non-progressive opinions you don't like as partisan hacks. But I bet you'd struggle to name even one media type on the left a partisan hack. Can you name one? I'll wait.
Do you think the ethics, standards and integrity of journalists with right bias are so far inferior to their counterparts on the left, that such an imbalance of partisan hacks is supported?
Or are your own biases showing through in your assessment of media?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
You can be quick to label writers of non-progressive opinions you don't like as partisan hacks. But I bet you'd struggle to name even one media type on the left a partisan hack. Can you name one? I'll wait.
Do you think the ethics, standards and integrity of journalists with right bias are so far inferior to their counterparts on the left, that such an imbalance of partisan hacks is supported?
Or are your own biases showing through in your assessment of media?
as I said - I consider someone a hack when they continuously lie or engage in bad faith reporting. It's not based on on whether they express conservative opinions or not. It's based on how well they adhere to the truth - i.e. verifiable facts.
Apart from the anti-anti-trumper left (guys like Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi), no, I can't think of a lefty journalist who does that. I can find you reams and reams of evidence of the right-wing "journalists" (quotes very intentional) who do that.
Maybe you can provide me evidence of continual lying of people you consider left-wing journalists. You must have a ton of it since you think it's so prevalent.
eta: or to take a different tack - who do you consider to be right-wing journalists? Opinion writers and columnists are not journalists for the most part. So who else is there? Discredited liar John Solomon? Who else?
Smedley said:
I think Maddow is a partisan hack. I'm certainly not singular in this opinion. From her wikipedia profile:
>>>A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria".[57] A Newsweek profile said, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence ... but for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." The Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik accused Maddow of acting like "a lockstep party member".[58] The editors of The New Republic similarly criticized her—naming her among the "most over-rated thinkers" of 2011, they called her program "a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective".<<<
I don't watch the show, I've only caught bits and pieces. I do remember once she had like one page of an old Trump tax return or something and she was breathlessly reporting and teasing that it was a bombshell and it turned out to be a dud. And then of course Russiagate -- she covered every nook and cranny seven ways 'til Sunday until the Mueller report let the air out of that balloon. Then it was like oh well, nothing to see here, let's move on to the next anti-Trump diatribe.
Her show is what it is -- it's about tossing red meat to the left for ratings. Just like Hannity does on the right.
What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
I've watched Maddow for years. She is a favorite. I do believe she is partisan but my disagreement with you is your calling her a hack which as I posted above describes someone who is so partisan that they ignore the truth again using standard definition.
.
"Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true."
or
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction."
So you either think she is not supporting what is morally right or factually true.
or her intentions do not reflect her personal convictions.
I would disagree with both.
The tax paper was a favorite show for detractors to point to. It was overblown.
However. among her less discussed successes was her recent show exposing Missouri's sudden demand that women submit to a second invasive pelvic exam for no bleeping reason to schedule an abortion.
No one covered it. It was something that the health department dreamed up quietly. Just more abuse of women that no one cared about, but the doctors gave Maddow a tip. And for what its not worth to anyone on the average news show.the doctors were forced to do this and this was the only clinic in a state of 1,000,000 women of child bearing age and one of several states that have only one clinic.
But then again to some people it may just make her a feminist hack.
By the way her expose ended the practice.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
You can be quick to label writers of non-progressive opinions you don't like as partisan hacks. But I bet you'd struggle to name even one media type on the left a partisan hack. Can you name one? I'll wait.
Do you think the ethics, standards and integrity of journalists with right bias are so far inferior to their counterparts on the left, that such an imbalance of partisan hacks is supported?
Or are your own biases showing through in your assessment of media?
as I said - I consider someone a hack when they continuously lie or engage in bad faith reporting. It's not based on on whether they express conservative opinions or not. It's based on how well they adhere to the truth - i.e. verifiable facts.
Apart from the anti-anti-trumper left (guys like Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi), no, I can't think of a lefty journalist who does that. I can find you reams and reams of evidence of the right-wing "journalists" (quotes very intentional) who do that.
Maybe you can provide me evidence of continual lying of people you consider left-wing journalists. You must have a ton of it since you think it's so prevalent.
eta: or to take a different tack - who do you consider to be right-wing journalists? Opinion writers and columnists are not journalists for the most part. So who else is there? Discredited liar John Solomon? Who else?
I don’t consider “continuous lying” as a criteria for being a partisan hack. That is your own definition.
I’m not saying Maddow continually lied in her coverage of Russiagate. But was it good faith reporting? Was she an objective and detached observer? Did she follow the facts as they were rather than the facts as she wanted them to be?
No, no, and no.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266
Morganna said:
Smedley said:
I think Maddow is a partisan hack. I'm certainly not singular in this opinion. From her wikipedia profile:
>>>A 2011 Hollywood Reporter profile of Maddow said she was able to deliver news "with agenda, but not hysteria".[57] A Newsweek profile said, "At her best, Maddow debates ideological opponents with civility and persistence ... but for all her eloquence, she can get so wound up ripping Republicans that she sounds like another smug cable partisan." The Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik accused Maddow of acting like "a lockstep party member".[58] The editors of The New Republic similarly criticized her—naming her among the "most over-rated thinkers" of 2011, they called her program "a textbook example of the intellectual limitations of a perfectly settled perspective".<<<
I don't watch the show, I've only caught bits and pieces. I do remember once she had like one page of an old Trump tax return or something and she was breathlessly reporting and teasing that it was a bombshell and it turned out to be a dud. And then of course Russiagate -- she covered every nook and cranny seven ways 'til Sunday until the Mueller report let the air out of that balloon. Then it was like oh well, nothing to see here, let's move on to the next anti-Trump diatribe.
Her show is what it is -- it's about tossing red meat to the left for ratings. Just like Hannity does on the right.
What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
I've watched Maddow for years. She is a favorite. I do believe she is partisan but my disagreement with you is your calling her a hack which as I posted above describes someone who is so partisan that they ignore the truth again using standard definition.
.
"Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true."
or
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction."
So you either think she is not supporting what is morally right or factually true.
or her intentions do not reflect her personal convictions.
I would disagree with both.
The tax paper was a favorite show for detractors to point to. It was overblown.
However. among her less discussed successes was her recent show exposing Missouri's sudden demand that women submit to a second invasive pelvic exam for no bleeping reason to schedule an abortion.
No one covered it. It was something that the health department dreamed up quietly. Just more abuse of women that no one cared about, but the doctors gave Maddow a tip. And for what its not worth to anyone on the average news show.the doctors were forced to do this and this was the only clinic in a state of 1,000,000 women of child bearing age and one of several states that have only one clinic.
But then again to some people it may just make her a feminist hack.
By the way her expose ended the practice.
I’m sure she does some good reporting. I’m not familiar with the story you cite but it sounds like did good work on it. I have no opinion on whether she’s a feminist hack. I do think she’s a partisan hack.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
You can be quick to label writers of non-progressive opinions you don't like as partisan hacks. But I bet you'd struggle to name even one media type on the left a partisan hack. Can you name one? I'll wait.
Do you think the ethics, standards and integrity of journalists with right bias are so far inferior to their counterparts on the left, that such an imbalance of partisan hacks is supported?
Or are your own biases showing through in your assessment of media?
as I said - I consider someone a hack when they continuously lie or engage in bad faith reporting. It's not based on on whether they express conservative opinions or not. It's based on how well they adhere to the truth - i.e. verifiable facts.
Apart from the anti-anti-trumper left (guys like Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi), no, I can't think of a lefty journalist who does that. I can find you reams and reams of evidence of the right-wing "journalists" (quotes very intentional) who do that.
Maybe you can provide me evidence of continual lying of people you consider left-wing journalists. You must have a ton of it since you think it's so prevalent.
eta: or to take a different tack - who do you consider to be right-wing journalists? Opinion writers and columnists are not journalists for the most part. So who else is there? Discredited liar John Solomon? Who else?
I don’t consider “continuous lying” as a criteria for being a partisan hack. That is your own definition.
I’m not saying Maddow continually lied in her coverage of Russiagate. But was it good faith reporting? Was she an objective and detached observer? Did she follow the facts as they were rather than the facts as she wanted them to be?
No, no, and no.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266
+10
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
...What is your opinion of Maddow? Do you believe she is a fair, unbiased and nonpartisan journalist?
It's possible to be fair and "biased" and partisan. There is no need for a journalist to be non-partisan. As long as they stick to the truth.
And excuse me, but I don't think anyone can be criticized for bashing today's Republican party too much. That's an absurd criticism - they are the most corrupt , lawless and amoral political party in a hundred years. (hello Mitchie!)
Those quotes from wikipedia don't mean a helluva lot to me. Someone has to provide evidence that their target is a "hack" - which to me means promoting untruths in support of your side or bias. One can write pages and pages where Hannity just outright lies about stuff - I've yet to see anything like that about Maddow.
And since you don't actually watch the show, you're just relying on other people's evidence-free commentary for your opinions. Weak soup if you ask me.
And this is coming from someone who finds Maddow frequently annoying and too cutesy and breathless for my taste.
OTOH she does some great investigative work sometimes - stuff that you rarely find outside of a program like Frontline.
You can be quick to label writers of non-progressive opinions you don't like as partisan hacks. But I bet you'd struggle to name even one media type on the left a partisan hack. Can you name one? I'll wait.
Do you think the ethics, standards and integrity of journalists with right bias are so far inferior to their counterparts on the left, that such an imbalance of partisan hacks is supported?
Or are your own biases showing through in your assessment of media?
as I said - I consider someone a hack when they continuously lie or engage in bad faith reporting. It's not based on on whether they express conservative opinions or not. It's based on how well they adhere to the truth - i.e. verifiable facts.
Apart from the anti-anti-trumper left (guys like Greenwald, Mate, Taibbi), no, I can't think of a lefty journalist who does that. I can find you reams and reams of evidence of the right-wing "journalists" (quotes very intentional) who do that.
Maybe you can provide me evidence of continual lying of people you consider left-wing journalists. You must have a ton of it since you think it's so prevalent.
eta: or to take a different tack - who do you consider to be right-wing journalists? Opinion writers and columnists are not journalists for the most part. So who else is there? Discredited liar John Solomon? Who else?
I don’t consider “continuous lying” as a criteria for being a partisan hack. That is your own definition.
I’m not saying Maddow continually lied in her coverage of Russiagate. But was it good faith reporting? Was she an objective and detached observer? Did she follow the facts as they were rather than the facts as she wanted them to be?
No, no, and no.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266
well - if we're gonna have a discussion about hacks, you'll need to define hack for us.
If we're gonna go with this:
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
That's kind of the opposite of Maddow, but certainly describes Hannity.
drummerboy said:
If we're gonna go with this:
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
That's kind of the opposite of Maddow, but certainly describes Hannity.
Excerpt from above link:
New York Times reinforces policy prohibiting reporters from appearing on cable shows like Maddow
BY JOE CONCHA - 05/31/19 09:29 AM EDT
The New York Times has begun re-enforcing a standing policy that forbids reporters and editors from appearing on cable news opinion programs deemed too partisan, a list that includes MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," according to a Vanity Fair report.
The story includes an anecdote about the Times's finance editor David Enrich being invited to appear on Maddow's prime-time program earlier this month to discuss a report regarding President Trump, Jared Kushner and allegedly suspect transactions involving Deutsche Bank before Trump took office.
After Enrich agreed to appear he was instructed to back out by his superiors. "The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow," reads the report by Joe Pompeo, who went on say that a Maddow producer was "miffed about the cancellation," according to sources.==========================================================
PS I agree that Hannity is a partisan hack.
RealityForAll said:
Excerpt from above link:
New York Times reinforces policy prohibiting reporters from appearing on cable shows like Maddow
BY JOE CONCHA - 05/31/19 09:29 AM EDTThe New York Times has begun re-enforcing a standing policy that forbids reporters and editors from appearing on cable news opinion programs deemed too partisan, a list that includes MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," according to a Vanity Fair report.
The story includes an anecdote about the Times's finance editor David Enrich being invited to appear on Maddow's prime-time program earlier this month to discuss a report regarding President Trump, Jared Kushner and allegedly suspect transactions involving Deutsche Bank before Trump took office.
After Enrich agreed to appear he was instructed to back out by his superiors. "The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow," reads the report by Joe Pompeo, who went on say that a Maddow producer was "miffed about the cancellation," according to sources.
==========================================================
PS I agree that Hannity is a partisan hack.
That's circular reasoning.
Your proof that people are right to consider Maddow too partisan, is that the NY Times doesn't want its reporter on a program that some people consider too partisan.
drummerboy said:
If we're gonna go with this:
"Political hack", also called partisan hack, is a pejorative term describing a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
That's kind of the opposite of Maddow, but certainly describes Hannity.
Well in your world left-slanted cable news hosts are righteous truth seekers and right-slanted hosts are partisan hacks, so of course this is your opinion.
considering that Hannity is literally a Trump advisor, he deserves his own special category of hackery.
There just has to be a better way. These few minutes of mutual candidate destruction does not serve the Party. And the giant carrot top in the White House has already declared that he will not debate
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Uh...last night was not Maddow's on-air debut. She's been around for ~15 years. So there's plenty of material out there, prior to last night, from which to form an opinion.