Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

Jaded

By Jaded
in Political Network Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ruby24
ruby24

Lauer should be ashamed of himself. He was a disgrace and he was totally sexist in the way he treated Trump vs. Hillary, imo. Fuck him. I've been remembering 2008 lately and the absolute glee the

pennben
pennben

So, the lady should just smile more and be pleasing to the male gaze.  I just don't have the strength anymore.......

alias1
alias1

Rachel is just reporting the facts.  There is no chance for Bernie.  I think she's appalled (and frustrated) at the level of discord in the democratic party right now.  Rachel has been fair to everyon

33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

(edited)

First full hour of Monday's Morning Joe gone and they have talked of nothing else but Trump, Trump, and more Trump.  

Mika had been plugging an upcoming segment about Trump's weekend Twitter war with Elizabeth Warren, but before Mika could read how Senator Warren epically owned Trump via Twitter, Joe had a hissy fit about how an elected official could be so juvenile (don't remember his exact words.)

http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-elizabeth-warren-twitter-war/

STFU, Joe, you little p-word.

Edited by 33kaitykaity
  • Love 3
BennyB

BennyB

(edited) 
Goddamnit, Tweety has Ann Coulter on

I know Sharpie....I mute or ff whenever she comes on.  I also feel the same way when Liz Mair comes on....she's the one who published the GQ photo of Melania Trump in Utah for the 'Never Trump' movement.  While I hate D.J.T. with the fire of a thousand suns, I also think there's a special place in hell for women who use other women (in this especially vulgar fashion) to further their own ambitions.  And yet there she is on MSNBC, blithely commentating away as if nothing ever happened.  Gah!

Edited by BennyB
Because sometimes, less is more!
  • Love 4
Mumbles

Mumbles

Mair is a hack whose political career flamed out early this season when she backed Scott Walker, only to get shitcanned by him shortly before he himself flamed out. That stunt with Melania was clearly designed in the hopes that either Cruz would win, or the convention would be contested, and Mair would land a job with the prevailing candidate. She epitomizes soulless political hackery. 

  • Love 2
bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

You nailed it Mumbles. These people pretend to be in politics because they have deeply held convictions about what's best for America. But it's all about marketing themselves and raking in the dollars from either the candidates they work for or their media appearances.

What a joke it is when people like Mair and the contemptible Rick Wilson and others in the "Stop Trump" movement get on their moral high horse and say that Trump isn't fit to be President. That may be true, but they had no problem supporting a ticket with Sarah Palin on it. And their great alternative to Trump, Ted Cruz, is probably one of the slimiest and most dishonest people to ever run for President.

And they attack Trump for being anti-woman, when the Republican Party doesn't even support equal pay legislation, and Cruz and Kasich, want abortion outlawed even in case of rape and incest.  (Kasich's already defunded Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and Cruz said he would do it on Day One if he's President)

I wish that some of the MSNBC hosts would call out these Stop Trump hacks out on their hypocrisy. But I think that because of their own hatred of Trump they're giving these people a free pass.

IMO, the real reason the Republican establishment hates Trump is not ideology, as racial and religious fear mongering has been a staple of the party for years. It's because they're afraid they won't be able to control him. As Matt Taibbi once wrote, their attitude towards George W. Bush was, "he may be an idiot, but he's our idiot."

(By the way, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on soulless political hacks. David Brock, Hillary's top political hit man, used to work for right wing Republicans before he switched sides because that's where the money was.)

Edited by bluepiano
  • Love 2
NextIteration

NextIteration

It's hard to attack the folks in the StoptRump movement when all the hacks in the pro-tRump movement are doing the same, in my estimation.  It's all about the horse you choose to ride, and I think in this particular POTUS campaign season they all suck.

Thanks though, for confirming that it was Mair's group that was behind the malicious Melania tweet.  She and Coulter have adam's apples in common.

bluepiano

bluepiano

That article is making the same point I was trying to make. Whether it's the political operatives or the pundit/commentator class, in general these people are opportunists who are angling for air time, consultant fees, and book deals.

And now, because of the proliferation of political websites and "online magazines," the bar for being a so-called expert who can show up on MSNBC or other media outlets keeps getting lower. I saw a guy being interviewed by Chris Hayes who was identified as a "Senior Political Writer." He looked like he was about 22.

  • Love 4
Padma

Padma

(edited)

I guess it takes longer than a year for cable news folks to understand what Trump is doing when he smears opponents at his rally speeches. (A hint: he knows you're going to show him making the slurs against someone and keep talking about it with  people who are just sharing opinions, not facts! He's trying to drive Hillary's negatives up, the same way he did with Carson, Jeb, Rubio, et al. I couldn't believe the discussions I was hearing about the 1990s today).

They also seem to have zero awareness of Trump's infidelity--and that he actually LEFT his wife and three children to take up with his 24 year old girlfriend. When he attacks the Clintons, I think people really should mention that (even if they don't want to get into Ivana's whole "rape" thing. Seriously, he's so arrogant but he knows how lazy the tv media is--and that the written press often do a good job but not enough people will read it.)

As for David Brock, I've read a different version of his story. He got a $1 million advance to take down Hillary in The Seduction of Hillary Clinton". But instead of it being a hit piece (like his previous books), he found he liked her and didn't want to keep writing   right wing stuff. There's certainly been money to be made from his switch, but no more opportunities than the very lucrative ones he was getting on the right.  He said after "Seduction"  was (LATimes word) "measured" a lot of his old conservative buddies wouldn't speak to him anymore.

Anyway, believe it or not, but I kind of do. He's probably a guy who was chasing money (which he could get from either party loyalists) and then found he was on the wrong side after all.     

For all the time that MSNBC and CNN are on air, their lack of interest in clear fact-checking is quite amazing.  You would think they'd have a couple of staffers assigned to go through the major papers every day to nail down the facts, not just repeat and argue over candidates' claims, but... apparently not.  A permanent on-air fact checker--a Glenn Kessler type for MSNBC, five minutes three times a week (they could re-run throughout the day)--would be very helpful in sorting fact from fiction. It would be the opposite idea from having people like Ann Coulter on, though--giving airtime to someone who's made a career out of lying--so ... guess not.                              

Edited by Padma
  • Love 5
Medicine Crow

Medicine Crow

13 hours ago, Padma said:

I guess it takes longer than a year for cable news folks to understand what Trump is doing when he smears opponents at his rally speeches. (A hint: he knows you're going to show him making the slurs against someone and keep talking about it with  people who are just sharing opinions, not facts! He's trying to drive Hillary's negatives up, the same way he did with Carson, Jeb, Rubio, et al. I couldn't believe the discussions I was hearing about the 1990s today).

They also seem to have zero awareness of Trump's infidelity--and that he actually LEFT his wife and three children to take up with his 24 year old girlfriend. When he attacks the Clintons, I think people really should mention that (even if they don't want to get into Ivana's whole "rape" thing. Seriously, he's so arrogant but he knows how lazy the tv media is--and that the written press often do a good job but not enough people will read it.)

As for David Brock, I've read a different version of his story. He got a $1 million advance to take down Hillary in The Seduction of Hillary Clinton". But instead of it being a hit piece (like his previous books), he found he liked her and didn't want to keep writing   right wing stuff. There's certainly been money to be made from his switch, but no more opportunities than the very lucrative ones he was getting on the right.  He said after "Seduction"  was (LATimes word) "measured" a lot of his old conservative buddies wouldn't speak to him anymore.

Anyway, believe it or not, but I kind of do. He's probably a guy who was chasing money (which he could get from either party loyalists) and then found he was on the wrong side after all.     

For all the time that MSNBC and CNN are on air, their lack of interest in clear fact-checking is quite amazing.  You would think they'd have a couple of staffers assigned to go through the major papers every day to nail down the facts, not just repeat and argue over candidates' claims, but... apparently not.  A permanent on-air fact checker--a Glenn Kessler type for MSNBC, five minutes three times a week (they could re-run throughout the day)--would be very helpful in sorting fact from fiction. It would be the opposite idea from having people like Ann Coulter on, though--giving airtime to someone who's made a career out of lying--so ... guess not.                              

My bold.  I've said it before & I'll say it again, they're all afraid of him & what he'll do if they say anything negative about him.  (Megyn Kelly)  They (the media) don't want to take the chance of losing an interview or telephone call from him because, after all, he's what's "making news".  DISGUSTING!!!

  • Love 3
Padma

Padma

43 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

My bold.  I've said it before & I'll say it again, they're all afraid of him & what he'll do if they say anything negative about him.  (Megyn Kelly)  They (the media) don't want to take the chance of losing an interview or telephone call from him because, after all, he's what's "making news".  DISGUSTING!!!

I think you're right. He believes if someone "hits" (i.e. criticizes) him "I hit him back ten times harder." And he can do it.  I'm reading a biography of Trump and before one word was written the author received a threatening letter from Trump's lawyers warning him not to proceed. (They knew because he'd written and asked for an interview.)

I thought Lewandowski was kind of creepy, but his new campaign guy Paul Manafort seems actually quite menacing and thuggish. No wonder, given his Russian connections and general "enforcer" demeanor, the CIA is having concerns about sharing intelligence with Trump (and probably his inside circle, too, through him. He does what he wants, after all, rules be damned.)  He's not just a "tough guy businessman". At least the written press has been doing a good job in covering him. Cable news, with a few exceptions, has been a complete disgrace. 

  • Love 5
NewDigs

NewDigs

What a ridiculous press/media display this morning. You would have thought Trump was speaking at the UN!

Was it Katy Tur who was all proud of herself for being in a back "alley" 'cuz she thought Trump would exit there? Then had to step aside to get out of the way of a local resident's car? Good grief.

I figured she was there because her shots didn't show any protesters. Points with The Donald, doncha' know?

I'm not really seeing Trump scrutinized by the tv people at all. Either his past or his present. Not everyone googles or stays on top of print media but most catch the tv adulation.

And I still wish one of them would have asked why, during a streamed town hall, he referred to his mother as his "fathers's wife". That right there seems very odd and perhaps telling.

  • Love 3
rcc

rcc

1 hour ago, Medicine Crow said:

Yes, Padma, I read up on Manafort & he's a REAL piece of work.  I've attached a link for those not familiar with this "character".  Talk about rolling in the mud with pigs .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

When I first saw this guy was working for Trump his name sounded so familiar. I have relatives in Conn. and he's well known in that state for different things. A real piece of work he is. Not surprised Trump chose someone like him for his campaign.

  • Love 2
Medicine Crow

Medicine Crow

12 minutes ago, rcc said:

When I first saw this guy was working for Trump his name sounded so familiar. I have relatives in Conn. and he's well known in that state for different things. A real piece of work he is. Not surprised Trump chose someone like him for his campaign.

My sister is in Connecticut & gave me an ear-full about him!!!  LOL.

  • Love 2
Mumbles

Mumbles

David Brock is nobody to be sympathetic about and certainly nobody to trust. He infamously wrote a hit piece on Anita Hill before his "conversion" that characterized her as a "little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." Despicable. And his "conversion" coincided with his dating one of Hillary's press people. Hmm. He and Ariana Huffington (another "convert") are not to be trusted. As Maya Angelou said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

And yes, today's breathless account of The Most Important Meeting Ever was gross. My favorite part was when Luke Russert got peeved because there were protestors near him and he couldn't hear the studio. That pesky First Amendment and right to free speech and assembly! Don't these people know that this is a VERY IMPORTANT MEETING?

  • Love 4
33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

'I F-loved this segment with the picture of tRump as a small boy and Lawrence constantly referring to tRump as "little donald trump."  Yeah, I know Lawrence hates tRump, but this take-down was classic.  

Quote

Speaker Ryan gives Trump a civics lesson

Speaker RyIan gave Donald Trump a major lesson in government during a meeting on Capitol Hill, putting into perspective how hard it will be for Trump to pass his outrageous legislative agenda. Lawrence discusses the unity summit with Norm Ornstein and Ch... 

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word?field_issues_target_id=&field_publish_date_value%5Bmin%5D&field_publish_date_value%5Bmax%5D&field_publish_date_value%5Btimezone%5D=dates_timezone&field_publish_date_value%5Bdate_selector%5D=&page=5

33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

Roberta Lange of the Nevada DNC was on with Andrea Mitchell.  They played a few of the worst voicemails Lange got, but Andrea did not ask Ms. Lange why the Bernie supporters were so upset or why she, Ms. Lange, was in the can for HRC.  puke.gifAndrea Mitchell is not a journalist.  (The words I want to use are too sexist and I'm too mad.)

Egg

Egg

48 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Roberta Lange of the Nevada DNC was on with Andrea Mitchell.  They played a few of the worst voicemails Lange got, but Andrea did not ask Ms. Lange why the Bernie supporters were so upset or why she, Ms. Lange, was in the can for HRC.  puke.gifAndrea Mitchell is not a journalist.  (The words I want to use are too sexist and I'm too mad.)

Yeah, grilling someone over why people are threatening her/her grandchildren is victim-blaming. If threatening her is not okay (and it's NOT), there's no need to try to excuse those making the threats. 

  • Love 6
33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

(edited)
55 minutes ago, Egg said:

Yeah, grilling someone over why people are threatening her/her grandchildren is victim-blaming. If threatening her is not okay (and it's NOT), there's no need to try to excuse those making the threats. 

Oh, so the Bernie supporters got mad for the fuck of it, got it.  There's no reason to wonder why Ms. Lange did what she did, got it.  /sarcasm

Edited to add -- Andrea could have asked about this public call for her resignation.

Dan Rolle, Democratic candidate for Congress in Nevada

Edited by 33kaitykaity
NextIteration

NextIteration

10 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Oh, so the Bernie supporters got mad for the fuck of it, got it.  There's no reason to wonder why Ms. Lange did what she did, got it.  /sarcasm

My understanding of the situation now that the dust has settled for a day or three, is that the Sanders delegates were ill prepared, and didn't understand the governing rules.  Also, though the Clinton delegates were out-maneuvered at the county level convention by one rule, that rule wasn't in effect at the state level. 

Quote

Based on the county convention results, Bernie Sanders had 2,124 delegate slots to the State Convention and Hillary Clinton had 1,722 delegate slots to the State Convention.

On Saturday at the State Convention, after all of the alternates were seated, Hillary Clinton filled 1,695 of her delegate slots and Bernie Sanders only filled 1,662 at the State Convention — giving Clinton a 33-delegate margin of victory.

Clinton only had 27 delegate positions vacant on Saturday. Sanders left 462 vacant. Clinton filled 98 percent of her available delegate slots at the State Convention, and Sanders only filled 78 percent of his available delegate slots.

In plain terms, the Clinton campaign organized and got nearly all of their delegates to the State Convention. The Sanders campaign did not.

This is a thorough well thought account by a Clinton delegate, so there may be some bias, but it closely reflects other accounts that are coming out.

  • Love 1
33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

Just now, NextIteration said:

My understanding of the situation now that the dust has settled for a day or three, is that the Sanders delegates were ill prepared, and didn't understand the governing rules.  Also, though the Clinton delegates were out-maneuvered at the county level convention by one rule, that rule wasn't in effect at the state level. 

This is a thorough well thought account by a Clinton delegate, so there may be some bias, but it closely reflects other accounts that are coming out.

Here's a step-by-step account of the fraud by the Clintonistas and their butt-girl DNC chair.  

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/nevada-democratic-convention-what-happened-roberta-lange-delegates-election-fraud-videos-recount-denied/

  • Love 1
Padma

Padma

I just saw the MSNBC report per Chris Jansen. Not exactly objective, imo, as she quoted Sanders saying something in support of the demonstrations (not violence), but falling far short of what Reid hoped he'd say.

I didn't follow it, but I saw the Nevada chair and believe her that she's been threatened, and so has her family and that people have harassed her by going to her workplace. (Yes, her work as chairwoman is voluntary.)

I don't think there's any excuse for that and was disappointed in Jansen's reporting. Also, would it be too much to ask MSNBC reporters to read Sanders' full statement? Perhaps some have, but I haven't seen it. It's typical of this election year when so many "key words" are extracted from various candidates' statements. Personally, I like to see/hear complete sentences--and in context, if possible.

On another point, from Katy Tur to Robert Costa to the woman who covers Sanders whose name I forget, I think a lot of reporters' comments seem very compromised this year by reporting on the candidates who also are sources for them and give access. It's annoying to feel I keep getting the campaigns' point of view and spin on events, when I just want the facts.

  • Love 2
NextIteration

NextIteration

It's great to see them using Harry Enten of 538, he's encyclopedic and as unbiased as they come.

Katy Tur behaves like she deserves a tiara for getting the luck of pulling tRump out of the 17 last summer.  Does Bob Costa ever actually write anything for WaPo or does he just show up on the teevee machine?

I don't understand why they swapped out Kasie Hunt and Chris Jansing on Sanders watch.

Padma

Padma

(edited)
23 hours ago, Egg said:

Yeah, grilling someone over why people are threatening her/her grandchildren is victim-blaming. If threatening her is not okay (and it's NOT), there's no need to try to excuse those making the threats. 

I was surprised to see Tamron Hall's interview with the Nevada Dem chair this morning. She played two of the threatening messages Lange had received--"hanging, execution".."rigged system payback"--but adopted a rather prosecutorial tone about it. When told by Roberta Lange that (1) it was unfair to assume she was "in the tank for Hillary; and (2) that the source of the discontent was that Clintons had all nearly all their delegates present at the convention while Sanders was 500 short of his total, Hall didn't seem all that interested in the explanation.

She did grill Lange on "Why, as the Nevada chair, you weren't more concerned about the Sanders' campaign headquarters getting shot at. Shouldn't that matter to you?"

Lange told her "I heard about it for the first time at 10 p.m. last night."  Hall:  "Why didn't you call the police when you heard about it? Why weren't you concerned enough to confirm it with them?"  Lange: "It was 10 p.m." (Hall may be forgetting the time difference. This interview was at 8:30 a.m. PST.)  Lange added--and I don't disagree with her, even if it was in the news earlier (and I don't know that it was--although, if the headquarters was really shot at I'm sure it would be)--"Why didn't they call us when it happened and report it? We heard nothing at all about it until yesterday."

Then Tamron showed Trump's latest troublemaking tweet about the poor Bernie supporters--so mistreated--and "now turning to me".

From Sanders and his theme of income inequality to a man who wants to give a 40% tax cut to the wealthiest 1% and make Carl Icahn a top advisor. But Trump says he's an "outsider" unlike Hillary so it wouldn't surprise me if he -does- pick up some votes from supporters of the man he's called "Crazy Bernie" and dubbed "a communist".

Edited by Padma
  • Love 1
33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

(edited)
31 minutes ago, Padma said:

I was surprised to see Tamron Hall's interview with the Nevada Dem chair this morning. She played two of the threatening messages Lange had received--"hanging, execution".."rigged system payback"--but adopted a rather prosecutorial tone about it. When told by Roberta Lange that (1) it was unfair to assume she was "in the tank for Hillary; and (2) that the source of the discontent was that Clintons had all nearly all their delegates present at the convention while Sanders was 500 short of his total, Hall didn't seem all that interested in the explanation.

She did grill Lange on "Why, as the Nevada chair, you weren't more concerned about the Sanders' campaign headquarters getting shot at. Shouldn't that matter to you?"  Lange told her "I heard about it for the first time at 10 p.m. last night."  Hall:  "Why didn't you call the police when you heard about it? Why weren't you concerned enough to confirm it with them?"  Lange: "It was 10 p.m." (Hall may be forgetting the time difference. This interview was at 8:30 a.m. PST.)  Lange added--and I don't disagree with her, even if it was in the news earlier (and I don't know that it was--although, if the headquarters was really shot at I'm sure it would be)--"Why didn't they call us when it happened and report it? We heard nothing at all about it until yesterday."

Wow, someone asking Lange real questions and not letting Lange pretend to be totally innocent and blameless and pure as the driven snow -- will wonders never cease?  

Thank you, Tamron.

Edited by 33kaitykaity
  • Love 2
WendyCR72

WendyCR72

Enough with the personal attacks. I feel like I should start just camping out here because posters cannot be civil to each other's opinions. Quit with the insults, quit with the politics.

Again, this thread is about the channel more than the content if one needs guidelines.

If the mod notes are ignored, if people cannot be civil, I'll gladly deal with those who wish to snub their noses personally.

I hope this note makes my stance crystal clear.

  • Love 1
NextIteration

NextIteration

2 hours ago, Padma said:

Then Tamron showed Trump's latest troublemaking tweet about the poor Bernie supporters--so mistreated--and "now turning to me".

From Sanders and his theme of income inequality to a man who wants to give a 40% tax cut to the wealthiest 1% and make Carl Icahn a top advisor. But Trump says he's an "outsider" unlike Hillary so it wouldn't surprise me if he -does- pick up some votes from supporters of the man he's called "Crazy Bernie" and dubbed "a communist".

That shouldn't surprise you, you heard the hacked tRump voicemails right?  Tamron was a star, talking about using his discount at Gucci for a green dress at the shop in tRump whatever, right?

WendyCR72

WendyCR72

Obama is NOT part of the MSNBC crew. I get the post was likely a joke, but it opens this thread up to the usual tug of war, and it goes to hell quickly. For the last time: This is for the channel and discussions about staff and their handling of the stories. Agree with how it's done or not. But leave the politicos to the CNN boards or any other site that loves to debate this stuff until people scream. Which means discuss Maddow, Todd, Brian Williams (sigh), and so on. For the billionth time. Politics and the endless rollercoaster rides go off this site.

Unless/Until Sanders/Obama/Clinton/Trump become part of the team, I don't want to get into gory details about them. Only the folks that talk about them.

Another such post, and I'm at the point where I'll lock the thread until the message becomes clear.

  • Love 2
WendyCR72

WendyCR72

16 minutes ago, Padma said:

Sincere mod question: So do you just want us to talk about the moderators themselves and not the content of the programs?  Or is it okay to talk about the content (inc. political content) as long as it's actually part of an MSNBC program and not something outside of it?

Ideally, the first, but even I know that's kind of impossible. All that would be left is discussing time slots, hair styles and probable annoyance at the staff. So, after much thought, in the interest of clarity and thread harmony, yes. If things must be discussed in addition to how an MSNBC person handles any given story, keep it to show context . I think we're all adults and know how that works.

I think that can give a bit of leeway. Still, it is important that even within context, people will view things 1,000 different ways, and the key factor is not disintegrating into personal ideological arguments and respecting both sides and leaving it at that here. If you (universal you) have issues with a dissenting opinion, simply disagree civilly and/or scroll.

So please keep that in mind, first and foremost.

  • Love 3
Padma

Padma

Thank you, Wendy. I have a criticism of MSNBC (though they're not the only ones who do this) that will work perfectly with what you wrote.

Yesterday, I caught a bit of "All In" and it had something important that I wanted to catch more completely at midnight. However, just before the end of the program, there was the news about the Egyptian plane that disappeared off radar in the Mediterranean.

That interrupted Hayes as "breaking news" which was understandable. What -wasn't- understandable to me is why this event--which no one knew any details of at all for HOURS--continued to preempt everything on MSNBC yesterday.

I understand the possibility that it was a bomb--or, less likely, mechanical failure--and that 66 people were killed. But I didn't understand why that meant preempting everything scheduled that night in order to talk for hours about NOTHING. I kept turning back hoping they'd resumed broadcasting--with a crawl along the bottom and live updates as needed. But, no.  They knew nothing and--while they kept talking to aviation and security experts by phone--they didn't know anything either (and were too responsible and professional to give a "looks like terrorism!" soundbite).

I guess they feel people are more interested in a plane crash than in their regular programming. Are they? I found it annoying.

  • Love 3
car54

car54

It is sad, but I kind of welcomed them covering the plane crash as a break from all Trump news all the time.

I happened to be watching Andrea Mitchell when she was the one to announce that Morley Safer passed away just days after retiring.   You could hear her voice break --I'm sure she has known him a long time--it was very touching.

Dejana

Dejana

(edited)

Plane crash coverage is a ratings winner for cable news. When CNN went all in on that missing Malaysian plane a couple of years ago, even Piers Morgan won his time slot as his show was days from cancellation. "Breaking News" has long ago been obliterated into meaninglessness by cable news due to sheer overuse.

Edited by Dejana
NextIteration

NextIteration

(edited)

Matthews is a little back to normal, it's night time on the Mediterranean so nothing new with "break".

I caught Andrea, is it horrible that I have zero empathy for her at all?  I am though, heartsick that Safer died, and just days after retirement.

Padma - can't you catch it what you need online?  I know it's hard to get all the clips going directly to the site, but if you google around sometimes you get lucky.  They really messed that up, in some effort I think to do what all the networks require now - log in through your cable provider to get anything.

Edited by NextIteration
NewDigs

NewDigs

24 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Plane crash coverage is a ratings winner for cable news. When CNN went all in on that missing Malaysian plane a couple of years ago, even Piers Morgan won his time slot as his show was days from cancellation. "Breaking News" has been long ago obliterated into meaninglessness by cable news due to sheer overuse.

Piers Morgan. Ugh.

MSNBC actually did well by not reporting on that so-called debris field CNN was so excited to report. And I was quick to criticize that dereliction of duty.

Did I just say something nice about MSNBC? I feel dirty.

Padma

Padma

3 hours ago, NextIteration said:

Padma, here is the link for the Wilmore interview.  That's the jewel you missed anyways.

Also, there is an All In thread here.  Hat tip to M. Darcy for making it easy to find that link for you.

Thank you so much for that, Nexiteration! That was very kind of you! (Also thanks to M. Darcy. Plus, I often want to follow up with something from All In--this makes it easy. And great to know where to discuss it here. I guess I assumed it didn't have enough following for a thread of it's own. It's one of my favorite MSNBC programs now, so...great to know it doesn't have to only show up here. Thanks! 

jjj

jjj

(edited)

I am furious at the way MSNBC is letting Kornacki display the actual ballot vote in Washington State.  He is showing the *CAUCUS* percentage win of Sanders from over a month ago with "PROJECTED WINNER" on his picture.  But with his finger Kornacki is DRAWING the actual ballot results, which are early, but which show Clinton winning.  This is supposed to be live coverage and he is completely misrepresenting the ballot vote outcome.  It really undercuts the story Sanders has been telling that "when the vote turnout is higher", he does better.  There were around 23,000 caucus votes cast, and over 650,000 ballot votes (maybe much higher; I am not sure).  And the percentage is dramatically flipped in the ballot vote, as many of us expected.  But you would not know that from the graphics on MSNBC.

Edited by jjj
  • Love 6
NewDigs

NewDigs

Spent more time than usual today with MSNBC on the teevee and it would seem some of the media Trump-tide is turning. Not quite such an avalanche of Trump-love as usual. 

Plus, I was finally able to put a name with a Sirius voice. Joy Reid is a treasure, imho. I listen in my car more than watch the tv and often wondered who this voice of reason belonged to. 

And I just now heard Halperin wonder what Bernie might have to do to have a movement. Fiber? 

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...