What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official MSNBC Thread*** (2 Viewers)

squistion said:
The Grammys are not the Emmys. Show me someone else who won a Emmy for outstanding reporting that is considered a hack.
Alec Baldwin won an Emmy for mocking Trump.  The Emmy's was a full on roast of Trump.  I am not sure what planet you reside on. 

 
Alec Baldwin won an Emmy for mocking Trump.  The Emmy's was a full on roast of Trump.  I am not sure what planet you reside on. 
It was for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. If he had been given an Emmy for his outstanding investigative news reporting you would have a point. How are things on Mars?

 
It was for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. If he had been given an Emmy for his outstanding investigative news reporting you would have a point. How are things on Mars?
Dude, I think you're giving this way too much credit. The media and Hollywood hate Trump. Loathe him. It's like this board times ten. Maddow is a partisan hack, just like Fox News. She's just smarter than most.  

 
Dude, I think you're giving this way too much credit. The media and Hollywood hate Trump. Loathe him. It's like this board times ten. Maddow is a partisan hack, just like Fox News. She's just smarter than most.  
Nope you are completely wrong. Not even close to the same.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know Higgs/Tso is around here somewhere, I'm just wondering where, when, how...

C'mon out Higgs/Tso...

PM your brah.  

 
It's obvious to anyone with two eyes that she's a partisan hack.  That's not even debatable.
Max Threshold, I have asked you before to give specific examples, but you didn't provide one link because you never watch her show - your logic is always the same, when asked for proof of any kind to back your assertions, you always respond with "Just look at it, it's obvious" but the only thing that is obvious is that you don't know what you are talking about because you can't provide one example.

 
Max Threshold, I have asked you before to give specific examples, but you didn't provide one link because you never watch her show - your logic is always the same, when asked for proof of any kind to back your assertions, you always respond with "Just look at it, it's obvious" but the only thing that is obvious is that you don't know what you are talking about because you can't provide one example.
The examples is to turn on her show.  And watch it.  :shrug:

Like I said, it's not even debatable.  She's as partisan as partisan gets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahhh, squis, I see. 

I'm just wondering who likes the Cowboys and the Dodgers. 

Hiiiiiiiiiiigggggggssssss

PM your boy.  

 
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/rachel-maddow-flynn-plea-deal-points-the-finger-directly-at-mike-pence-involvement/#.WiM3rp8nroc.twitter

Rachel Maddow: Flynn plea deal points the finger directly at Mike Pence involvement

Friday night MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow took a long hard look at the plea deal worked out between attorney’s for former national security adviser Mike Flynn and special counsel Robert Mueller and concluded that Flynn’s statement opens the door for the investigators to take a long hard look at Vice President Mike Pence’s involvement.

Noting that Pence oversaw the Trump transition team, Maddow pointed that he likely was one of those who was aware that Flynn spoke withe the Russians about easing sanctions.

“Vice President Pence insisted publicly more than once that Mike Flynn never talked about sanctions with the Russians. That was always a false statement,” Maddow began. “Well, now we know that multiple members of the Trump transition team knew that was a false statement when Mike Pence said it. So, why’d they let him say it?”

“Honestly, what we learned today also raises the question of whether or not Mike Pence knew that was a false statement when he said it,” the MSNBC host continued. “Well, we can report exclusively tonight that Vice President Mike Pence has not spoken to Robert Mueller or his team of investigators nor has been asked to. We can also report tonight that the Vice President has not been asked to hand over any documents tothe Mueller investigation, but given what just emerged today in federal court, one has to expect that he knows that is coming.”

Watch the video below via Facebook (at above link).

 
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/rachel-maddow-flynn-plea-deal-points-the-finger-directly-at-mike-pence-involvement/#.WiM3rp8nroc.twitter

Rachel Maddow: Flynn plea deal points the finger directly at Mike Pence involvement

Friday night MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow took a long hard look at the plea deal worked out between attorney’s for former national security adviser Mike Flynn and special counsel Robert Mueller and concluded that Flynn’s statement opens the door for the investigators to take a long hard look at Vice President Mike Pence’s involvement.

Noting that Pence oversaw the Trump transition team, Maddow pointed that he likely was one of those who was aware that Flynn spoke withe the Russians about easing sanctions.

“Vice President Pence insisted publicly more than once that Mike Flynn never talked about sanctions with the Russians. That was always a false statement,” Maddow began. “Well, now we know that multiple members of the Trump transition team knew that was a false statement when Mike Pence said it. So, why’d they let him say it?”

“Honestly, what we learned today also raises the question of whether or not Mike Pence knew that was a false statement when he said it,” the MSNBC host continued. “Well, we can report exclusively tonight that Vice President Mike Pence has not spoken to Robert Mueller or his team of investigators nor has been asked to. We can also report tonight that the Vice President has not been asked to hand over any documents tothe Mueller investigation, but given what just emerged today in federal court, one has to expect that he knows that is coming.”

Watch the video below via Facebook (at above link).
I told you they were going after Pence this morning. It's all I heard yesterday. **** Blumenthal, all oily, started talking about Pence, even stumbling over sentences trying to bring everything back to Pence.

 
She already won one. 

News Discussion And Analysis

Good Morning, Landlocked Central Asia, The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)

:lmao:

 
How long has this been a category? 

I especially like the Investigative Journalism Award Katie Couric won. 

Holy criminy. The Kool-Aid, The Kool-Aid!

 
All In With Chris Hayes. 

Anderson Cooper. 

That's some high quality liberal hackery there.  
Chris Hayes reporting and analysis is solid. Anderson Cooper has done in depth coverage that won a lot of praise from his colleges and critics. Neither of them can labeled "hacks" along the lines of Sean Hannity or other Fox personalities.

 
Chris Hayes reporting and analysis is solid. Anderson Cooper has done in depth coverage that won a lot of praise from his colleges and critics. Neither of them can labeled "hacks" along the lines of Sean Hannity or other Fox personalities.
Bullying: It Stops Now. Anderson Cooper. I'm typing it off of the top of my head because it's funny. 

Hannity and Fox stink. 

They stink like fish. I never watch it. 

Now Russian Today, OTOH...

 
Chris Hayes reporting and analysis is solid. Anderson Cooper has done in depth coverage that won a lot of praise from his colleges and critics. Neither of them can labeled "hacks" along the lines of Sean Hannity or other Fox personalities.
He writes for The Nation. It's like writing for the Weekly Standard, only you get Emmys for writing for the Nation. You're proving your own point. Name one member of the brilliant right that got any consideration for their writing or reporting or television.  

 
Since I am sure you watched it, what in particular supports your claim that it was hack journalism?
I've watched her show. It's smirking, often inaccurate, and framed in a way that makes it one long op-ed. She may try and issue corrections to make it seem like a real news show, but it's not, and everybody knows it. Can you glean certain facts from it? Does she ask great rhetorical questions? Is it one of the better cable news shows on the air? Does the PSI of a football matter? Is KTLA the worst local news show on the gosh darn air?  

Maybe. 

 
He writes for The Nation. It's like writing for the Weekly Standard, only you get Emmys for writing for the Nation. You're proving your own point. Name one member of the brilliant right that got any consideration for their writing or reporting or television.  
George Will and William Buckley.

 
George Will and William Buckley.
Recently? There are plenty of people writing on the right that were brilliant in predicting Brexit and the rise of the American alt-right like Chris Caldwell of The Weekly Standard. Matt Labash writes great long form. Megan McCardle at Forbes should get consideration for best op-ed columnist at the major magazines, but is relegated to online journalism. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and David Brookhiser are top-notch commentators and opinion purveyors. Joesph Epstein at the American Scholar was one of the best essayists I've read in the past twenty years, yet nary a peep. Yet you'll never hear these hack names discussed in major media. Why is that?  

 
I've watched her show. It's smirking, often inaccurate, and framed in a way that makes it one long op-ed. She may try and issue corrections to make it seem like a real news show, but it's not, and everybody knows it. Can you glean certain facts from it? Does she ask great rhetorical questions? Is it one of the better cable news shows on the air? Does the PSI of a football matter? Is KTLA the worst local news show on the gosh darn air?  

Maybe. 
All the time. And I think it is unfair to label it as a straight news show, as it is news and opinion and in that respect it currently the best cable news show in that category (of new and opinion) in my opinion, which has been reflected by her top ratings which forced Fox to move Hannity opposite her (although I don't see how that move hurt either of them as they don't have the same audience).

 
All the time. And I think it is unfair to label it as a straight news show, as it is news and opinion and in that respect it currently the best cable news show in that category (of new and opinion) in my opinion, which has been reflected by her top ratings which forced Fox to move Hannity opposite her (although I don't see how that move hurt either of them as they don't have the same audience).
I agree with this post. Every time I watch Maddow, I glean certain facts. It's how they're framed. What I was joking about, I guess, is how they're framed. I would say I trust her reporting much more than Hannity's, but there's a subtle shift in fact to narrative that I don't necessarily trust. 

 
Recently? There are plenty of people writing on the right that were brilliant in predicting Brexit and the rise of the American alt-right like Chris Caldwell of The Weekly Standard. Matt Labash writes great long form. Megan McCardle at Forbes should get consideration for best op-ed columnist at the major magazines, but is relegated to online journalism. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and David Brookhiser are top-notch commentators and opinion purveyors. Joesph Epstein at the American Scholar was one of the best essayists I've read in the past twenty years, yet nary a peep. Yet you'll never hear these hack names discussed in major media. Why is that?  
I am not familiar with any of these writers so I have no opinion on their work, but I won't label them hacks like those that unfamiliar with Maddow. And I have yet to see one example of proof that she is a hack journalist as has been repeatedly claimed, hack defined as:

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

A hack writer is a pejorative term for a writer who is paid to write low-quality, rushed articles or books "to order", often with a short deadline. ... In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles.

 
I am not familiar with any of these writers so I have no opinion on their work, but I won't label them hacks like those that unfamiliar with Maddow. And I have yet to see one example of proof that she is a hack journalist as has been repeatedly claimed, hack defined as:

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

A hack writer is a pejorative term for a writer who is paid to write low-quality, rushed articles or books "to order", often with a short deadline. ... In journalism, a hack writer is deemed to operate as a "mercenary" or "pen for hire", expressing their client's political opinions in pamphlets or newspaper articles.
Okay, I'll grant you that. It's not low quality. "Partisan hack" is a pejorative, and a colloquial one these days. Let's call her an op-ed columnist on television. That's what I think people mean when they refer to others as "hacks." 

And the problem with not being familiar with any of those writers is that they have virtually no access because of their political beliefs. They're relegated. And it's partially self-induced -- the problem with National Review these days is that Buckley left it to Lowry instead of either of Ponnuru or Brookhiser, whom he had promised it to. But I'm just talking shop now. There's a deeper problem with media access for these people and their works: The inherent media bias towards the left and Fox's sensationalistic ratings and money grab. But that's another topic for another day. I've stomped on your thread enough.  

 
can you cite some inaccuracies from the past month or two?  If it's often, there must be a lot.
Funny, every time I watch her show -- not often -- she's running corrections that are pretty vital to her narrative that I've read about. I tune in, and there's a correction. You shouldn't need a "Dept. Of Corrections" that are often central to your narrative. It's a problem with her, I think. At least she corrects it, but it seems disingenuous to me. If you're going to run with it, get it right. 

Still better than Hannity pushing the Seth Rich garbage.  

 
Funny, every time I watch her show -- not often -- she's running corrections that are pretty vital to her narrative that I've read about. I tune in, and there's a correction. You shouldn't need a "Dept. Of Corrections" that are often central to your narrative. It's a problem with her, I think. At least she corrects it, but it seems disingenuous to me. If you're going to run with it, get it right. 

Still better than Hannity pushing the Seth Rich garbage.  
Seriously, I watch her show every night and any corrections are rare, they are the exception, not the rule. I don't know what you are referring to...

 
Seriously, I watch her show every night and any corrections are rare, they are the exception, not the rule. I don't know what you are referring to...
Maybe it's because I've read about them and tune in? 

That would seem to be self-confirming. Perhaps I should retract that statement until I spend a good month or two straight watching it. But you can't tell me she doesn't smirk a lot...

 
Maybe it's because I've read about them and tune in? 

That would seem to be self-confirming. Perhaps I should retract that statement until I spend a good month or two straight watching it. But you can't tell me she doesn't smirk a lot...
Hard not to smirk with Trump's outrageous tweets and behavior.

 
All In With Chris Hayes. 

Anderson Cooper. 

:lmao:

That's some high quality liberal hackery there.  
MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” “All in With Chris Hayes,” “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” were all nominees for the award.  Some real serious journalists right there.  No Trump-hating hack bias to these awards.  No sirree.  

 
MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” “All in With Chris Hayes,” “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” were all nominees for the award.  Some real serious journalists right there.  No Trump-hating hack bias to these awards.  No sirree.  
You're crazy, jon_mx. So wrong. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson Cooper is good.  Sure, his liberal tendencies often come out, but he is almost always fair and always keeps a good disposition, unlike the perpetually-snarky Maddow or the perpetually-douchey Hannity (both of whom are about as partisan as you can get). 

 
Anderson Cooper is good.  Sure, his liberal tendencies often come out, but he is almost always fair and always keeps a good disposition, unlike the perpetually-snarky Maddow or the perpetually-douchey Hannity (both of whom are about as partisan as you can get). 
Hannity should give Trump a producer credit on his show. People are aware they speak all the time, right? You're watching state propaganda.

 
Hannity should give Trump a producer credit on his show. People are aware they speak all the time, right? You're watching state propaganda.
And MSNBC is state propaganda when Dems are in charge.   It is pretty clear the Democratic wet dream is to hope to take the house and then take down both Pence and Trump and to get President Pelosi and MSNBC is onboard to help. 

 
And MSNBC is state propaganda when Dems are in charge.   It is pretty clear the Democratic wet dream is to hope to take the house and then take down both Pence and Trump and to get President Pelosi and MSNBC is onboard to help. 
That is an absurd statement. Do you have any specific examples of where they put out state propaganda when the Democrats were in charge?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top