Maddow is a maroon...

[fairsheet]

There...I said it. (Although, I imagine I've said it before). To disclaim though....I don't know that SHE'S a maroon, I just know that her teevee schtick is. It's no wonder Jon Stewart rendered her down to a quivering glob of goo, when she interviewed him last year. And for what it's worth...the SAME is true as to O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox's bimbo stable.

So.....Tonight, she went on, and on, and on....about how our CIA is incompetent. It didn't "predict" 9/11 nor did it "predict" Crimea. But she gratuitously added...they do know our private data. Well...let's not forget the infamous and/or famous CIA Director George Tenet. Li'l George didn't just put all the blame for 9/11 on the CIA, he gave Tenet the "Medal of Freedom"!

So..what's this tell us about Tenet and his CIA? It tells us virtually nothing. The ONLY thing it illuminates, is the Bush Administration. The Director of the CIA serves at the behest of the president. The only things we and the world (and vice versa) know, are those things that our elected president wants us to know. And yeah.....I know that upsets a whole lotta Americans. They're entitled to their upset. But...."intelligence" and "transparency" are oxymoronic. We can have one or the other, but we can't have both.

So..Maddow yammers her silly case. Then, she spends a few minutes on Pooty-Poot making a worldwide jackass of himself, then she flips back to her silly case.

Tenet and the CIA were all over Iraq and their non-existent WMD. Li'l George just wanted to make a different case. Our current CIA was all over Crimea, but they left it to Pres. Obama to play this one out as he sees fit.

 

[gigi]

Wish they'd pull the plug on all these talking heads.

 

[fairsheet]

Wish they'd pull the plug on all these talking heads.

I'm convinced that we were a whole better off with just the Big-3 news broadcasters. Our natural tendency is to assume that more information is always better than less information. But..I don't think that's necessarily true.

This Maddow thing is a good example. She has no proof whatsoever, that our CIA "missed" 9/11 or Crimea. In the "olden" days, a broadcast or print journalist wouldn't even thought to put out such story without some sort of new "smoking gun" evidence.

Does Maddow's thing represent information? Of course it does. Is it information that's of the least informative value? I don't think so. And sure...Maddow, Maher, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, don't claim to be journalists. But for way to a large a part, they have supplanted real journalists.

 

[marvin martian]

I'm convinced that we were a whole better off with just the Big-3 news broadcasters. Our natural tendency is to assume that more information is always better than less information. But..I don't think that's necessarily true.

This Maddow thing is a good example. She has no proof whatsoever, that our CIA "missed" 9/11 or Crimea. In the "olden" days, a broadcast or print journalist wouldn't even thought to put out such story without some sort of new "smoking gun" evidence.

Does Maddow's thing represent information? Of course it does. Is it information that's of the least informative value? I don't think so. And sure...Maddow, Maher, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, don't claim to be journalists. But for way to a large a part, they have supplanted real journalists.

You're right on. Maddow, Hannity, Limbaugh, Matthews et al are entertainers. They are producing a product to appeal to a specific audience, and they do it well. They tell their audience what they want to hear. Maddow's audience wants to hear that all the world's ills are the fault of George W. Bush, even six years after the end of his administration. Her role is to feed that need, and protect Obama from any criticism, deserved or otherwise.

On the other hand, "real journalism" is mostly dead. Once the networks were taken over by left wing ideologues in the 1960s and 70s, any objectivity they once had was killed off rapidly, and they became the Ministry of Propaganda for the Democrat party, which is what they have been ever since. This gave rise to Fox News and right wing talk radio, which was a response to the overwhelming left-leaning of the networks. I've found that the foreign press, particularly German and British, tend to actually give the best information on American political news and opinion.

 

[SW48]

There...I said it. (Although, I imagine I've said it before). To disclaim though....I don't know that SHE'S a maroon, I just know that her teevee schtick is. It's no wonder Jon Stewart rendered her down to a quivering glob of goo, when she interviewed him last year. And for what it's worth...the SAME is true as to O'Reilly, Hannity, and Fox's bimbo stable.

So.....Tonight, she went on, and on, and on....about how our CIA is incompetent. It didn't "predict" 9/11 nor did it "predict" Crimea. But she gratuitously added...they do know our private data. Well...let's not forget the infamous and/or famous CIA Director George Tenet. Li'l George didn't just put all the blame for 9/11 on the CIA, he gave Tenet the "Medal of Freedom"!

So..what's this tell us about Tenet and his CIA? It tells us virtually nothing. The ONLY thing it illuminates, is the Bush Administration. The Director of the CIA serves at the behest of the president. The only things we and the world (and vice versa) know, are those things that our elected president wants us to know. And yeah.....I know that upsets a whole lotta Americans. They're entitled to their upset. But...."intelligence" and "transparency" are oxymoronic. We can have one or the other, but we can't have both.

So..Maddow yammers her silly case. Then, she spends a few minutes on Pooty-Poot making a worldwide jackass of himself, then she flips back to her silly case.

Tenet and the CIA were all over Iraq and their non-existent WMD. Li'l George just wanted to make a different case. Our current CIA was all over Crimea, but they left it to Pres. Obama to play this one out as he sees fit.

She usually spends her entire day and show trying to connect dots between thousands of pages of emails for the sole purpose of throwing out something against a politician hoping it sticks.

 

[SW48]

You're right on. Maddow, Hannity, Limbaugh, Matthews et al are entertainers. They are producing a product to appeal to a specific audience, and they do it well. They tell their audience what they want to hear. Maddow's audience wants to hear that all the world's ills are the fault of George W. Bush, even six years after the end of his administration. Her role is to feed that need, and protect Obama from any criticism, deserved or otherwise.

On the other hand, "real journalism" is mostly dead. Once the networks were taken over by left wing ideologues in the 1960s and 70s, any objectivity they once had was killed off rapidly, and they became the Ministry of Propaganda for the Democrat party, which is what they have been ever since. This gave rise to Fox News and right wing talk radio, which was a response to the overwhelming left-leaning of the networks. I've found that the foreign press, particularly German and British, tend to actually give the best information on American political news and opinion.

What is a good place to get German and British foreign press on American politics?

 

[marvin martian]

What is a good place to get German and British foreign press on American politics?

BBC has a US news section that's generally pretty good: http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada/
I also like the Financial Times' US news page: http://www.ft.com/home/us
Der Spiegel also has something similar and they have good feature writing in their online magazine.

 

[fairsheet]

She usually spends her entire day and show trying to connect dots between thousands of pages of emails for the sole purpose of throwing out something against a politician hoping it sticks.

The difference between Maddow and Fox though, is that she's bound to found her conclusions on facts. The conclusion she reaches as to the CIA fails because her facts are insufficient, not because they aren't facts.

 

[SW48]

The difference between Maddow and Fox though, is that she's bound to found her conclusions on facts. The conclusion she reaches as to the CIA fails because her facts are insufficient, not because they aren't facts.

She is actually very smart but only goes on these tirades normally against one party. Which puts her in the Hannity/Sharpton/ed schulz club.

 

[fairsheet]

You're right on. Maddow, Hannity, Limbaugh, Matthews et al are entertainers. They are producing a product to appeal to a specific audience, and they do it well. They tell their audience what they want to hear. Maddow's audience wants to hear that all the world's ills are the fault of George W. Bush, even six years after the end of his administration. Her role is to feed that need, and protect Obama from any criticism, deserved or otherwise.

On the other hand, "real journalism" is mostly dead. Once the networks were taken over by left wing ideologues in the 1960s and 70s, any objectivity they once had was killed off rapidly, and they became the Ministry of Propaganda for the Democrat party, which is what they have been ever since. This gave rise to Fox News and right wing talk radio, which was a response to the overwhelming left-leaning of the networks. I've found that the foreign press, particularly German and British, tend to actually give the best information on American political news and opinion.

This one's confounding. As to pure teevee news, it sort of looks like the more dominant the news source, the higher their quality of product. That may sound counterintuitive to some but....look to say...the BBC. I think their product is better than that of any of our sources, YET they have very little competition.

Similar seems true in the case of the print media, although I can't say for sure. In Ireland, I read the "Irish Times". In Indonesia, I read the "Jakarta Post". Both seem like top-quality products, to me. The seem really big and "dominant" to me. But then..I don't really know what other Irishmen and Indonesians are reading.

 

[fairsheet]

She is actually very smart but only goes on these tirades normally against one party. Which puts her in the Hannity/Sharpton/ed schulz club.

You skipped over the "facts" thing, almost as if you consider it irellevant.

 

[SW48]

You skipped over the "facts" thing, almost as if you consider it irellevant.

Maddow doesn't always have facts. Her opening rant is almost always full of loose ties that don't seem to stick. Like on Christy and the other politicians she is trying to take down. Does she make a great case for them being scumbags? Absolutely but criminals? Well if you consider politicians criminals...

 

[SW48]

Remember we had O'reilley and Maddow chat room night to watch the shows all of us together and see who had their facts straight. Noone showed.

 

[fairsheet]

Maddow doesn't always have facts. Her opening rant is almost always full of loose ties that don't seem to stick. Like on Christy and the other politicians she is trying to take down. Does she make a great case for them being scumbags? Absolutely but criminals? Well if you consider politicians criminals...

"Loose ties" are subjective, not matters of fact. I realize that you don't think her loose ties make her case. But, her loose ties are real.

There're "tight-ties", "loose-ties", and "non-ties". The last is Fox's specialty.

 

[SW48]

"Loose ties" are subjective, not matters of fact. I realize that you don't think her loose ties make her case. But, her loose ties are real.

There're "tight-ties", "loose-ties", and "non-ties". The last is Fox's specialty.

Again we had Fox and Maddow chat room night to see who was on the up and up and no one showed. So its your opinion that they are facts and sometimes they are just like Fox sometimes has the facts but we'll never know unless we show up to see.

 

[fairsheet]

Again we had Fox and Maddow chat room night to see who was on the up and up and no one showed. So its your opinion that they are facts and sometimes they are just like Fox sometimes has the facts but we'll never know unless we show up to see.

Those inclined to actually "defending" O'Reilly, are on the right fringe. Those who would waste time defending Maddow, are on the left fringe. You're dreaming if you think you can orchestrate a rational discussion between these two fringes.

 

[Renee]

Remember we had O'reilley and Maddow chat room night to watch the shows all of us together and see who had their facts straight. Noone showed.

I showed because I thought it was going to be over Riley and Maddow talking to each other , not separately

 

[gigi]

I'm convinced that we were a whole better off with just the Big-3 news broadcasters. Our natural tendency is to assume that more information is always better than less information. But..I don't think that's necessarily true.

This Maddow thing is a good example. She has no proof whatsoever, that our CIA "missed" 9/11 or Crimea. In the "olden" days, a broadcast or print journalist wouldn't even thought to put out such story without some sort of new "smoking gun" evidence.

Does Maddow's thing represent information? Of course it does. Is it information that's of the least informative value? I don't think so. And sure...Maddow, Maher, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al, don't claim to be journalists. But for way to a large a part, they have supplanted real journalists.

I couldn't agree with you more on most everything you said. The only place we part company on this is that I DO think the talking heads put out stuff with the least informative value. Most of it is a lot of what-ifs and it all relies on selling motive.

It's all so divisive.

 

[fairsheet]

I couldn't agree with you more on most everything you said. The only place we part company on this is that I DO think the talking heads put out stuff with the least informative value. Most of it is a lot of what-ifs and it all relies on selling motive.

It's all so divisive.

"They" say that of the cable teevee "news" talkers, O'Reilly's audience is the biggest. Fox makes big bucks off O'Reilly and therefore O'Reilly is paid multi-millions.

But think back to the 60's. If Cronkite's audience was ten TIMES what O'Reilly's is, CBS would've kicked Cronkite to the curb. In fact to remain viable, Cronkite had to draw an audience 20 to 30 times (in population adjusted terms) what O'Reilly's is.

What Cronkite did, was almost infinitely more difficult than what O'Reilly and Maddow do. And, it's not about the bigger number of people he had to appeal to. It was about the fact that that bigger number encompassed so many more different perspectives and expectations.

By the way....The highest salary Cronkite ever achieved, was $100k per annum.

 

[crowfoot]

"They" say that of the cable teevee "news" talkers, O'Reilly's audience is the biggest. Fox makes big bucks off O'Reilly and therefore O'Reilly is paid multi-millions.

But think back to the 60's. If Cronkite's audience was ten TIMES what O'Reilly's is, CBS would've kicked Cronkite to the curb. In fact to remain viable, Cronkite had to draw an audience 20 to 30 times (in population adjusted terms) what O'Reilly's is.

What Cronkite did, was almost infinitely more difficult than what O'Reilly and Maddow do. And, it's not about the bigger number of people he had to appeal to. It was about the fact that that bigger number encompassed so many more different perspectives and expectations.

By the way....The highest salary Cronkite ever achieved, was $100k per annum.

we get the news coverage we deserve