Author Topic: Since when has MSNBC had any desire to do real journalism? (Read 10831 times)

ShyGuy · « **on:** October 20, 2012, 01:00:39 AM »

THIS IS NOT POLITICAL

Since when has Rachel Maddow had any desire to do real journalism?

Since when has Chris Matthews had any desire to do real journalism?

Since when has Al Sharpton had any desire to do real journalism?

Since when has Ed Schultz had any desire to do real journalism?

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2012, 01:43:35 AM »

I go to Al Jazeera for news and my family members think I'm a terrorist

ShyGuy · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2012, 01:54:46 AM »

Well, we all know you hate America, but you left, so that's good.

Shaymin · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2012, 05:05:44 AM »

Ever since CNN replaced Larry King with a noted hack in primetime.

"Countryside: To murder Piers Morgan."

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2012, 07:39:00 AM »

The main difference between MSNBC and FAUX NEWS is that the opinion-people on MSNBC are intelligent. Also, go to FAUX NEWS's site without an ad-blocker on and you'll see just how criminally stupid they are.

UncleBob · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:08:19 AM »

You know, I have no love for FOX News, but I equate those who use "FAUX News" to those who say "M$"...

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:18:03 AM »

It's catchy, UB, but I'll refrain if it offends you. It just works so well because of what they present though.

UncleBob · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:22:10 AM »

It doesn't "offend" me, per se. Just like "M$" doesn't "offend" me.

It's just... it stopped being clever a long time ago. It's like *that* joke, you've heard your buddy tell a thousand times over... and it was never very funny to begin with.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:24:21 AM »

Yeah I get it. But whenever I flip that channel on for a few minutes, it just reinforces that view.

Sundoulos · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:57:26 AM »

NBC News is the polite face of the real force, MSNBC. NBC News is simply MSNBC with its shirt tucked in. MSNBC is the revealed id.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:06:24 AM »

Burn all American news outlets along with the rest of the capitalist infrastructure

Morari · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2012, 06:28:42 PM »

Quote from: S-U-P-E-R on October 20, 2012, 10:06:24 AM

Burn all American news outlets along with the rest of the capitalist infrastructure

QFT

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2012, 07:13:20 PM »

And then it will be like North Korea. No society has succeeded with something other than capitalism. And there are good media outlets (like MSNBC and some CNN programs).

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2012, 07:59:26 PM »

Come to Funhouse University and get your degree in sociology with Professor TJ Spyke! Tuition is $900,000 because capitalism

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:11:45 PM »

You can pay me in cash, debit, paypal, or Ferraris. I guarantee my program will earn you hundreds of cents over a 10 year period.

ThePerm · « **Reply #15 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:09:24 PM »

I watch the BBC, and CCTV. I like watching both Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reily. I always liked to get news from multiple sources, just to see how they spin the news. When Glen Beck was on Fox news it was hilarious, because how the **** does that guy have this sort of job? Fox and Friends are a group of people I would like to collectively punch.

I've always had a passive interest in Journalism ever since the Daily Radar vs IGN wars.

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #16 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:19:19 PM »

O'Reilly is entertaining when he's not spewing his agenda, but you can never watch him for an hour without cringing. Glen Beck is now a jeans salesman, so that should give you an idea of what happens to you when Fox thinks you're too extreme. BBC is a good source too, but I don't get around to watching it enough. Like I said though, MSNBC might be biased too, but at least they are intelligent. Shepard Smith is probably the only decent human being on Fox, MSNBC has been scouting him, but Fox has him by the moneyballs.

Lithium · « **Reply #17 on:** October 20, 2012, 09:22:43 PM »

TV news sucks. Also finding unbiased news is pretty much impossible. Go to a bunch of news websites, get their rss feeds then use an RSS aggregator like feedly to combine it into one news source. Also always check the source if it is linked and have at least a superficial familiarity of think tanks/research institutes etc.. that journalists will cite.

some useful links:

http://openparliament.ca/ <-keep track of issues and your member of parliament (Canadian federal gov't) most of this is taken from Hansard transcripts and made into a more user friendly format than the official website.

The Canadian Parliament website <- hansard transcripts etc.

edit: found links to Provincial Hansard websites on the BC Hansard website

people from the UK can use this site which is similar to open parliament although, not being from the UK i never used it: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

shortcut: Enroll in Funhouse University's department of sociology

ThePerm · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:10:47 PM »

and of course, a better source for news is.....

Youtube

also, the worse place for news is.....

Youtube

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:52:57 PM »

Seriously why would anybody under 60 watch TV news anymore? We have the internet

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2012, 11:29:26 PM »

I just watch Matlock and Johnny Carson.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #21 on:** October 21, 2012, 01:06:48 AM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on October 20, 2012, 07:13:20 PM

And then it will be like North Korea. No society has succeeded with something other than capitalism. And there are good media outlets (like MSNBC and some CNN programs).

That really depends on how you define "something other than capitalism". You could easily argue that what China's doing now is something other than capitalism, or some of the countries in Northern Europe. And most of the failures of non-capitalist systems came in countries with a lot of other problems. Really though, pretty much everybody in the world uses some kind of a hybrid, which has proven to be the most stable and successful.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #22 on:** October 21, 2012, 01:42:21 AM »

BBC is usually a decent news source.

The Soviet Union would have become a utopia if it wasn't for that pesky Ronald Reagan! We just need to try it again!

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2012, 02:09:26 AM »

The Soviet Union was tremendously successful for a little while there. They turned a poor, backwards country into an industrial power. Who knows what would have happened if they hadn't had to funnel all their resources into an arms race. I don't know about a utopia, but it could have turned out better than it did.

Morari · « **Reply #24 on:** October 21, 2012, 10:55:52 AM »

Quote from: TJ Spyke on October 20, 2012, 07:13:20 PM

And then it will be like North Korea. No society has succeeded with something other than capitalism.

I sure don't see a lot of countries succeeding with capitalism either. Unless the rich getting richer at the expense of our planet's well being is success in your mind.

Tlon · « **Reply #25 on:** October 21, 2012, 10:57:41 AM »

I get my news from the back of a cereal box.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #26 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:10:09 AM »

The majority of the world uses it, and most countries are succeeding. I know you dont want to admit it since you dont like things like capitalism, laws, people having a right to protect their IPs, etc.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #27 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:19:33 AM »

Wanting to socialize healthcare, education, energy or banking means supporting a planned economy communist dictorship. Also anarchy. A thousand years of darkness.

Lithium · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:50:40 AM »

yeah but Chuck Norris will save us all from 2012 with an epic falcon punch

ShyGuy · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2012, 01:18:44 PM »

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on October 21, 2012, 02:09:26 AM

The Soviet Union was tremendously successful for a little while there. They turned a poor, backwards country into an industrial power. Who knows what would have happened if they hadn't had to funnel all their resources into an arms race. I don't know about a utopia, but it could have turned out better than it did.

I know, right? North Korea really did Communism better without the interference of the capitalist dogs.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #30 on:** October 21, 2012, 01:20:52 PM »

And most of the country is starving

ShyGuy · « **Reply #31 on:** October 21, 2012, 01:27:58 PM »

Me and the Spyke standing up for freedom!

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #32 on:** October 21, 2012, 02:43:19 PM »

By that logic, all the capitalist countries that are in shambles and starving prove that that system doesn't work.

Tlon · « **Reply #33 on:** October 21, 2012, 03:25:42 PM »

I wisthdraw my comment. I need capitalisim otherwise there would be no pictures at the back of the cereal box.

UncleBob · « **Reply #34 on:** October 21, 2012, 07:00:46 PM »

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on October 21, 2012, 02:09:26 AM

Who knows what would have happened if they hadn't had to funnel all their resources into an arms race.

I disagree with this choice of word.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #35 on:** October 21, 2012, 07:56:21 PM »

I suppose in the strictest sense they didn't have to, but from a geopolitical standpoint the other options were pretty bad.

ThePerm · « **Reply #36 on:** October 21, 2012, 08:26:14 PM »

government that benefits the people is the best type of government

there are two types of governments Functional and Dysfunctional. The system doesn't matter. A monarchy can be a good system if the monarchs make their subjects rich. Democracy is great on paper, but it can devolve into dysfunctionality and misinformation.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #37 on:** October 21, 2012, 09:28:42 PM »

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on October 21, 2012, 02:43:19 PM

By that logic, all the capitalist countries that are in shambles and starving prove that that system doesn't work.

Let's examine the historic ratios of failed communist countries per total versus the failed capitalist countries per total.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #38 on:** October 21, 2012, 09:56:06 PM »

We should just make the country run like Peter did on that episode of Family Guy where Y2K killed most people. have everyone draw a title out of a hat to determine who is the president, who are the Senators, etc. Might be a interesting experiment.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #39 on:** October 21, 2012, 09:57:34 PM »

Quote from: ShyGuy on October 21, 2012, 09:28:42 PM

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on October 21, 2012, 02:43:19 PM
By that logic, all the capitalist countries that are in shambles and starving prove that that system doesn't work.

Let's examine the historic ratios of failed communist countries per total versus the failed capitalist countries per total.

Basically every communist country got that way because of a revolution, which was able to happen because of the poor conditions in the country. They were predisposed toward failure. That and the smaller sample size would skew those numbers. And like I said, talking about it like things are black and white between capitalism and socialism is stupid, because pretty much every country is a hybrid of the two.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #40 on:** October 21, 2012, 10:04:11 PM »

I think most experts agree that communism works in theory, but it has never worked in practice. The only successful communist country is China, and they have largely embraced capitalism and blended it in with communism for a weird mixture.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #41 on:** October 21, 2012, 10:06:43 PM »

I'm sure you have excuses for all your Communist brother's failures, Insanolord. But let's not repeat the same mistakes from the past, especially when those mistakes include the DEATHS OF MILLIONS.

Wholesale slaughter of millions of my countrymen? Let's blame the Tsars! Defense of this seems like a seriously ignorant position to take.

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #42 on:** October 21, 2012, 10:59:31 PM »

I would never argue there weren't massive problems with the Soviet Union; I was only pointing out that they had some successes as well. I would, however, argue that those problems aren't endemic to that system and were dependent in the situation at the time.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #43 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:09:26 PM »

Erm the only reason the USSR failed was that Reagan passed a law making Russia illegal forever. Bombing starts in 5 minutes.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #44 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:10:28 PM »

That makes sense, It's just an amazing coincidence that the other Communist systems bombed out or underwent massive capitalistic reforms.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #45 on:** October 21, 2012, 11:12:22 PM »

Quote from: S-U-P-E-R on October 21, 2012, 11:09:26 PM

Erm the only reason the USSR failed was that Reagan passed a law making Russia illegal forever. Bombing starts in 5 minutes.

Yeah!!!

NWR_insanolord · « **Reply #46 on:** October 22, 2012, 07:38:25 AM »

Quote from: ShyGuy on October 21, 2012, 11:10:28 PM

That makes sense, It's just an amazing coincidence that the other Communist systems bombed out or underwent massive capitalistic reforms.

Like I said, the countries have become communist because conditions were bad enough that the people supported revolutions. Those countries had already bombed. I'm not saying it's great or even that it works at all, but saying it doesn't work at all after a few failed states switched to it and failed again doesn't make sense. If we see successful countries peacefully transition to it (give Scandinavia a few decades) and it still consistently fails, then we know for sure.

UncleBob · « **Reply #47 on:** October 22, 2012, 10:04:29 AM »

Everything you need to know about the Soviet Union...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

ShyGuy · « **Reply #48 on:** October 22, 2012, 07:11:23 PM »

Quote from: NWR_insanolord on October 22, 2012, 07:38:25 AM

Quote from: ShyGuy on October 21, 2012, 11:10:28 PM
That makes sense, It's just an amazing coincidence that the other Communist systems bombed out or underwent massive capitalistic reforms.

Like I said, the countries have become communist because conditions were bad enough that the people supported revolutions. Those countries had already bombed. I'm not saying it's great or even that it works at all, but saying it doesn't work at all after a few failed states switched to it and failed again doesn't make sense. If we see successful countries peacefully transition to it (give Scandinavia a few decades) and it still consistently fails, then we know for sure.

Let's give Fascism another try too, okay?