Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
As a result, half of this country takes Sean Hannity as gospel while the other half does the same with Maddow. Both are biased pieces of human excrement.
Odd take. Hannity has never strayed from the tea party line, never has asked a difficult question about the party line or misdeeds and boasts about his roles in campaigns. And then claims objectivity and an absence of bias. Which his viewers appear to accept.
Maddon acknowledges her political biases, gets extremely passionate about her show topics while always trying to document and objectively support her positions. She hasn't had to retract or apologize for egregious errors in fact like the other guy, at worst a bit embarrassed by getting used in the 2005 tax "release".
What brings her, in your estimation, a Hannity level piece of excrement?
Look no further than her embarrassment earlier this year with the tax return. She had the biggest primetime TV news flop since Geraldo went into Capone's vault. She literally is just as bad as Hannity when it comes to her biased crap she peddles. The only difference is she polishes her turds better than he does.
But I acknowledged her screwup using a small part of Trump's tax return that still appears valid. She was played well by his people, but still hasn't been shown to openly lie, nor support the use of alternative facts.
What aside from her politics makes her a pos in your view? If it's just politics, that's fine, I just am curious.
She presents facts, but does so very selectively and often lies via omission. I'd say what she does is worse than Hannity as she does it in a manner which tries to trick you into seeing you saw a real in depth investigation when instead you saw cherry picked facts while completely ignoring any fact which does not support her claim.
Beyond just the tax return also came her idiotic coverage of the Niger incident. There is plenty to rip Trump and Co. on there (I could list endlessly the screw-ups surrounding that). However, she manipulatively tried to tie it in with the completely unrelated travel ban.
Here is a good breakdown. This is just one example, but it fits into a pattern of how she conducts her show. It's a different style from Hannity, but equally as dishonest as he is.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ra ... 4f1c3ad52fThe articles says it best:
------
The Trump era has been a boon for the Rachel Maddow Show. It was the highest rated cable news program in total viewers and the coveted age 25-54 demographic in the most recent quarter this year.
“By reducing the story to its mythic fundamentals,” Janet Malcolm wrote earlier this month, “Maddow creates the illusion of completeness that novels and short stories create. We feel that this is the story as we listen to and watch her tell it.”
It’s a tactic that right-wing hosts like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones have perfected, building myths using unrelated or unreliable information in ways that brought us the birther lie and the Benghazi controversy, putting the country on a path to fake news and the Trump presidency.
On Thursday, Maddow reduced the story so thoroughly that it lost any semblance of the larger truth.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Oh, I guess you're not "immediately being called a Trumpist" by others here when you draw false equivalence after false equivalence but instead are merely being told that you come off as one. Really big difference there.
