MSNBC fired Cenk Uygur because he wouldn't tow the party line. Has Fox ever fired someone because they weren't conformist enough? Real question. If they haven't I'd say MSNBC is worse, If they have, Fox wins because they have more insipid people working for them.
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I like Bill O'riley. Fightingfan
I don't like Bill O'riley.
You don't know what entertainment is.
I understand hating the guy's views, but does anyone actually think O'Reilly is unentertaining? The guy is probably the most fun to watch on cable news because he's such a bombastic assh*le. I hate his opinions, but it would suck if he got cancelled.
people love to draw a false equivalancy with these two to sound wise.
MSNBC is bad, but Fox takes bias to a whole other planet.
BossPerson
Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.
I don't know whats worse FOX lying or MSNBC reporting on everything FOX does. The big corperations own the media in this country they dictate everything your told. The rich spend billions getting what they want and what they want is more for them and less for you.
people love to draw a false equivalancy with these two to sound wise.
MSNBC is bad, but Fox takes bias to a whole other planet.
Rhazakna
Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.link a video to the dumbest thing Maddow's ever said.
people love to draw a false equivalancy with these two to sound wise.
MSNBC is bad, but Fox takes bias to a whole other planet.
BossPerson
Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.link a video to the dumbest thing Maddow's ever said. I'm not going to looking for videos. I do remember her saying that people who want small government can see the results in Somalia. Anyone who knows the first thing about the situation in Somalia, or the first thing about minarchism should know why this is stupid. I'm an individualist anarchist, not a small government type, so I'm not defending the Tea Party or anyone else. However, in circles of anarchists the "f*ck off to Somalia" argument has become a running joke, and the argument isn't any better when applied to minarchism. Anyone who looks into the Somali situation honestly wouldn't use that argument. She's either ignorant or willfully dishonest.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.link a video to the dumbest thing Maddow's ever said. I'm not going to looking for videos. I do remember her saying that people who want small government can see the results in Somalia. Anyone who knows the first thing about the situation in Somalia, or the first thing about minarchism should know why this is stupid. I'm an individualist anarchist, not a small government type, so I'm not defending the Tea Party or anyone else. However, in circles of anarchists the "f*ck off to Somalia" argument has become a running joke, and the argument isn't any better when applied to minarchism. Anyone who looks into the Somali situation honestly wouldn't use that argument. She's either ignorant or willfully dishonest. Yea, a lot of leftists like to use Somalia (whether sarcastically or not, its hard to tell) as an example of what you get with zero government or zero gun control.
Definitely Fox. MSNBC is bad too, but at least they acknowledge that they're a progressive network instead of claiming to be "fair and balanced". That said, I probably watch Fox more than MSNBC and CNN due to the entertainment value and because its fun to find blatant bias.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]link a video to the dumbest thing Maddow's ever said. BossPerson
I'm not going to looking for videos. I do remember her saying that people who want small government can see the results in Somalia. Anyone who knows the first thing about the situation in Somalia, or the first thing about minarchism should know why this is stupid. I'm an individualist anarchist, not a small government type, so I'm not defending the Tea Party or anyone else. However, in circles of anarchists the "f*ck off to Somalia" argument has become a running joke, and the argument isn't any better when applied to minarchism. Anyone who looks into the Somali situation honestly wouldn't use that argument. She's either ignorant or willfully dishonest. Yea, a lot of leftists like to use Somalia (whether sarcastically or not, its hard to tell) as an example of what you get with zero government or zero gun control. I know, and the leftists who do that just make themselves look stupid to those of us who have actually researched the situation in Somalia. I don't think they're being sarcastic mostly, and Maddow definitely wasn't. Considering such a lax standard of intellectual rigor, I'd bet this isn't the only time she's pulled his kind of bullsh*t, but I don't watch her show enough to be sure.
Definitely Fox. MSNBC is bad too, but at least they acknowledge that they're a progressive network instead of claiming to be "fair and balanced". That said, I probably watch Fox more than MSNBC and CNN due to the entertainment value and because its fun to find blatant bias. Commander-Gree
I think Fox chose "fair and balanced" as their slogan to annoy liberals. They obviously don't believe it themselves. It works very well, too.
Fox News is run by the GOP. The republican National committee regulates the content that it produces. Fox News is so heavily influenced by the Republican party that it makes the first admendment a joke. The bubble that Fox News produced til the end of Mitt Romney's surpise election failure is an example of this.
The Democratic party doesn't have their hands in the content of MSNBC.
I understand hating the guy's views, but does anyone actually think O'Reilly is unentertaining? The guy is probably the most fun to watch on cable news because he's such a bombastic assh*le. I hate his opinions, but it would suck if he got cancelled.
I never have and never will believe claims like this. If you really think he's so bad then entertainment would be further down on your list of priorities. You can get entertainment from watching a movie, you don't need mind-rotting pundits to get it. In my experience, these are just the claims made by people smart enough to know why people like O'Reily are vilified, yet not smart enough to disagree with them.
people love to draw a false equivalancy with these two to sound wise.
MSNBC is bad, but Fox takes bias to a whole other planet.
Rhazakna
Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.
Umm...when historical revisionists/religious extremists like Bill O'Reily are trotted out as the voice of reason then something is far more wrong. If being snarky is the worst thing you can say about Rachel Maddow then I'll take her over anyone on Fox any day of the week.
Fox News is run by the GOP. The republican National committee regulates the content that it produces. Fox News is so heavily influenced by the Republican party that it makes the first admendment a joke. The bubble that Fox News produced til the end of Mitt Romney's surpise election failure is an example of this.
The Democratic party doesn't have their hands in the content of MSNBC.
Blue-Sky
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks was fired for being too critical of Obama, and Uygur is no radical, he's a pretty mainstream progressive. MSNBC may not be directly run by Democrats in that sense, but they're beholden to the party line.
Every time I'm in the mood for watching some O'Reilly Factor, Ann Coulter is hosting... :x I like to watch Megyn Kelly on mute Shepard Smith is pretty good, and Geraldo Rivera has an epic stache...that is all
people love to draw a false equivalancy with these two to sound wise.
MSNBC is bad, but Fox takes bias to a whole other planet.
theone86
Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.
Umm...when historical revisionists/religious extremists like Bill O'Reily are trotted out as the voice of reason then something is far more wrong. If being snarky is the worst thing you can say about Rachel Maddow then I'll take her over anyone on Fox any day of the week.
Who the hell thinks O'Reilly is the voice of reason? Saying Maddow is better than O'Reilly is one hell of a backhanded compliment. And no, that's far from the worst thing I can say about her. That's not even the worst thing I said about her in this thread. Keep blinding yourself to the stupidity of your intellectual compatriots, You're only hurting yourself, not me.
MSNBC tries to be a foil to Fox, and ends up being just as worse. Both are terrible, and is arguably one of the reasons why American News Media is the laughing stock of the world.
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"] You don't know what entertainment is. theone86
I understand hating the guy's views, but does anyone actually think O'Reilly is unentertaining? The guy is probably the most fun to watch on cable news because he's such a bombastic assh*le. I hate his opinions, but it would suck if he got cancelled.
I never have and never will believe claims like this. If you really think he's so bad then entertainment would be further down on your list of priorities. You can get entertainment from watching a movie, you don't need mind-rotting pundits to get it. In my experience, these are just the claims made by people smart enough to know why people like O'Reily are vilified, yet not smart enough to disagree with them.
Glad you seem to know more about the inner-workings of my mind than I do, assh*le. I don't agree with anyone on cable news about much of anything, so I care about being entertained by them because that's all they can offer me. O'Reilly is a loud, bombastic relic from a bygone age. It's quite entertaining to see him try to cope with the modern world. If you don't see that, fine. But don't tell me I secretly agree with him, which is why I'm saying he's entertaining. I don't think I agree with O'Reilly on anything, quite literally.
I just turn on PBS or C-SPAN when I want some government-related news.
It's boring, but the more boring it is = the more factual it is.
Oh who am I kidding, I actually am entertained by people not barking about stupid crap and actually talking like intelligent, rational people (well maybe not so much for C-SPAN but still).
I understand hating the guy's views, but does anyone actually think O'Reilly is unentertaining? The guy is probably the most fun to watch on cable news because he's such a bombastic assh*le. I hate his opinions, but it would suck if he got cancelled.
Rhazakna
I never have and never will believe claims like this. If you really think he's so bad then entertainment would be further down on your list of priorities. You can get entertainment from watching a movie, you don't need mind-rotting pundits to get it. In my experience, these are just the claims made by people smart enough to know why people like O'Reily are vilified, yet not smart enough to disagree with them.
Glad you seem to know more about the inner-workings of my mind than I do, assh*le. I don't agree with anyone on cable news about much of anything, so I care about being entertained by them because that's all they can offer me. O'Reilly is a loud, bombastic relic from a bygone age. It's quite entertaining to see him try to cope with the modern world. If you don't see that, fine. But don't tell me I secretly agree with him, which is why I'm saying he's entertaining. I don't think I agree with O'Reilly on anything, quite literally.
I'll tell you whatever I want, assh*le. If you really disagreed with him you'd realize the price of so many mindless drones hinging on every word he says is too high a price for any entertainment value he brings. No, I'm convinced you agree with him to some degree.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Fox is more bombastic, but the idiocy is pretty comparable. When snarky, derisive assh*les like Rachel Maddow are trotted out as the voice of reason on cable news, something is wrong. Very wrong. Then again, given that this board is largely liberal, I can see how the stupidity of MSNBC isn't immediately apparent, because people agree with the overall message. People aren't so hard on bullsh*t they agree with, this is true throughout society.Rhazakna
Umm...when historical revisionists/religious extremists like Bill O'Reily are trotted out as the voice of reason then something is far more wrong. If being snarky is the worst thing you can say about Rachel Maddow then I'll take her over anyone on Fox any day of the week.
Who the hell thinks O'Reilly is the voice of reason? Saying Maddow is better than O'Reilly is one hell of a backhanded compliment. And no, that's far from the worst thing I can say about her. That's not even the worst thing I said about her in this thread. Keep blinding yourself to the stupidity of your intellectual compatriots, You're only hurting yourself, not me.
People who watch F*x. And okay, that may be a backhanded compliment, but that's still just confirmation that F*x is indeed worse than MSNBC. Snarky vs. bathsh*t crazy, which one is worse?
Umm...when historical revisionists/religious extremists like Bill O'Reily are trotted out as the voice of reason then something is far more wrong. If being snarky is the worst thing you can say about Rachel Maddow then I'll take her over anyone on Fox any day of the week.
theone86
Who the hell thinks O'Reilly is the voice of reason? Saying Maddow is better than O'Reilly is one hell of a backhanded compliment. And no, that's far from the worst thing I can say about her. That's not even the worst thing I said about her in this thread. Keep blinding yourself to the stupidity of your intellectual compatriots, You're only hurting yourself, not me.
People who watch F*x. And okay, that may be a backhanded compliment, but that's still just confirmation that F*x is indeed worse than MSNBC. Snarky vs. bathsh*t crazy, which one is worse?
I never have and never will believe claims like this. If you really think he's so bad then entertainment would be further down on your list of priorities. You can get entertainment from watching a movie, you don't need mind-rotting pundits to get it. In my experience, these are just the claims made by people smart enough to know why people like O'Reily are vilified, yet not smart enough to disagree with them.
theone86
Glad you seem to know more about the inner-workings of my mind than I do, assh*le. I don't agree with anyone on cable news about much of anything, so I care about being entertained by them because that's all they can offer me. O'Reilly is a loud, bombastic relic from a bygone age. It's quite entertaining to see him try to cope with the modern world. If you don't see that, fine. But don't tell me I secretly agree with him, which is why I'm saying he's entertaining. I don't think I agree with O'Reilly on anything, quite literally.
I'll tell you whatever I want, assh*le. If you really disagreed with him you'd realize the price of so many mindless drones hinging on every word he says is too high a price for any entertainment value he brings. No, I'm convinced you agree with him to some degree.
So you actually do think you know my opinions better than I do. What an arrogant piece of sh*t you are. O'Reilly has never said anything I can think of that I agree with. Let's rundown a few things. The thinkers I most admire are people like Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Emma Goldman, Renzo Novatore and Voltairine de Cleyre (amongst others). I am a mutualist, which would make me a libertarian-socialist. Now, I would be surprised if you're at all familiar with any of these people or concepts, but just do a bit of googling. Even someone with your reasoning skills should be able to see the difference between people that I mentioned and O'Reilly, or any conservative. Don't tell me what I think, you c*nt. I know what I think, you don't. Just because I can find entertainment in some old prick on TV spouting off his opinions doesn't mean I agree with them. "You can be entertained by this guy, therefore you must agree! No one can be entertained by a pundit unless they agree with him! Huuurrrrrr!"
Log in to comment