Glenn Beck (1 Viewer)

[Spanky267]

I think they have exaggerated the president's connection to ACORN. He hasnt worked for them. But he has a relationship with ACORN and it's affiliate organizations.

He has a relationship to more aspects of existence than can be noted, what you fail to realize is that this not in any way, shape, or form evidence of anything more than a relationship. One needs much more evidence than a mere relationship to assume any conclusion whatsoever.

Did I draw any conclusions? I believe that the comments of the talking heads on the right regarding the President and his relationship with ACORN has been hyperbolic.

No you are nastier than that. You imply a conclusion by suggesting Obama has a relationship with ACORN. The worst kind of rhetoric IMO.

I did not imply a conclusion. The President has never worked for ACORN. Has he made speeches to the group or to it's affiliates? I believe so. But the corruption and improprieties at ACORN have nothing to do with the President.Edit: I realize that I made a poor choice in words when I wrote, "the preseident and his relationship with ACORN." I am of the opinion that the president does not have a formal or informal relationship with the group.

 

[The Commish]

Yadda yadda yadda.... all this criticism of the Maddow piece by 2 objective people and not word Boo about Glenn Beck's take which I linked above.

Beck's an idiot...that's what this thread is about Are you looking for something else?? If you want to argue that Maddow is less of an idiot than Beck, fine. Go for it, but in the end they are both some brand of idiot and employeed by their respective employers to accomplish the same thing which is to get the their parties riled up by giving half the story and twisting reality. If you find them so different that you need to distinguish between them that's cool too. I don't see the need.

Great posting.

I don't see how this is good posting. It misses the central issue, namely that Maddow--while clearly a liberal as she herself states--offers facts that are readily available, while Beck cites facts that seemingly have no connection to reality outside of his own mind. That is a HUGE difference, and the fact that some people remain blind to this central point is not only alarming, it is sad as well.

I've never said Maddow makes things up. I have simply said she only brings up the facts that support her position and blantantly ignores the ones that hurt her position. That's what partisan do.....in that respect, she's no different than Beck IMO. Is Beck a loopy nut? Of course. I've never suggested otherwise. In the end, whether Beck is making crap up or Maddow is intentionally leaving part of the story out because it hurts her position is of little consequence.....neither is giving an acurate picture. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Yadda yadda yadda.... all this criticism of the Maddow piece by 2 objective people and not word Boo about Glenn Beck's take which I linked above.

Beck's an idiot...that's what this thread is about Are you looking for something else?? If you want to argue that Maddow is less of an idiot than Beck, fine. Go for it, but in the end they are both some brand of idiot and employeed by their respective employers to accomplish the same thing which is to get the their parties riled up by giving half the story and twisting reality. If you find them so different that you need to distinguish between them that's cool too. I don't see the need.

Great posting.

I don't see how this is good posting. It misses the central issue, namely that Maddow--while clearly a liberal as she herself states--offers facts that are readily available, while Beck cites facts that seemingly have no connection to reality outside of his own mind. That is a HUGE difference, and the fact that some people remain blind to this central point is not only alarming, it is sad as well.

I've never said Maddow makes things up. I have simply said she only brings up the facts that support her position and blantantly ignores the ones that hurt her position. That's what partisan do.....in that respect, she's no different than Beck IMO. Is Beck a loopy nut? Of course. I've never suggested otherwise. In the end, whether Beck is making crap up or Maddow is intentionally leaving part of the story out because it hurts her position is of little consequence.....neither is giving an acurate picture. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that while Maddow may not cover every single issue, and who could in a media environment that is focused on 3-5 minute sound bits, she does offer SUPPORT for her claims that can be verified by other sources than herself. Which, if one were to take the time to do said research would also find the "counter" argument you seem so concerned about. Beck, however, does NOT offer such support and instead makes use of hyperbolic red herrings meant to paint a particular fact that is nothing more than his basic opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this as a form of entertainment, but to call what he is doing the same thing as what Maddow is doing is nothing less than mind boggling. And I have no idea why this is so hard to understand either.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I love how this has turned into an examination of Maddow.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I love how this has turned into an examination of Maddow.

I would argue it is still focused on Beck's lack of credibility, how Maddow became the sounding board is a bit strange. I am chalking it up to the general hatred found round these parts of smart women that won't sleep with men.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that while Maddow may not cover every single issue, and who could in a media environment that is focused on 3-5 minute sound bits, she does offer SUPPORT for her claims that can be verified by other sources than herself. Which, if one were to take the time to do said research would also find the "counter" argument you seem so concerned about. Beck, however, does NOT offer such support and instead makes use of hyperbolic red herrings meant to paint a particular fact that is nothing more than his basic opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this as a form of entertainment, but to call what he is doing the same thing as what Maddow is doing is nothing less than mind boggling. And I have no idea why this is so hard to understand either.

I understand it just fine. What I don't understand is why you think the approach matters. In the end, we get one sided views from both. I am NOT saying they have the same method....THEY DON'T. I am saying that when the dust clears, they both end up in the exact same spot on corresponding ends of the spectrum. That's all. I don't care how they get there, just that they get there.

 

[Bonzai]

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that while Maddow may not cover every single issue, and who could in a media environment that is focused on 3-5 minute sound bits, she does offer SUPPORT for her claims that can be verified by other sources than herself. Which, if one were to take the time to do said research would also find the "counter" argument you seem so concerned about. Beck, however, does NOT offer such support and instead makes use of hyperbolic red herrings meant to paint a particular fact that is nothing more than his basic opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this as a form of entertainment, but to call what he is doing the same thing as what Maddow is doing is nothing less than mind boggling.

And I have no idea why this is so hard to understand either.

I understand it just fine. What I don't understand is why you think the approach matters. In the end, we get one sided views from both. I am NOT saying they have the same method....THEY DON'T. I am saying that when the dust clears, they both end up in the exact same spot on corresponding ends of the spectrum. That's all. I don't care how they get there, just that they get there.

The point is that they do not end up in the exact same spot on the corresponding ends of the spectrum. Jesus.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that while Maddow may not cover every single issue, and who could in a media environment that is focused on 3-5 minute sound bits, she does offer SUPPORT for her claims that can be verified by other sources than herself. Which, if one were to take the time to do said research would also find the "counter" argument you seem so concerned about. Beck, however, does NOT offer such support and instead makes use of hyperbolic red herrings meant to paint a particular fact that is nothing more than his basic opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this as a form of entertainment, but to call what he is doing the same thing as what Maddow is doing is nothing less than mind boggling.

And I have no idea why this is so hard to understand either.

I understand it just fine. What I don't understand is why you think the approach matters. In the end, we get one sided views from both. I am NOT saying they have the same method....THEY DON'T. I am saying that when the dust clears, they both end up in the exact same spot on corresponding ends of the spectrum. That's all. I don't care how they get there, just that they get there.

The point is that they do not end up in the exact same spot on the corresponding ends of the spectrum. Jesus.

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

 

[Brutis]

Are we still discussing the awesomeness of Beck?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Yadda yadda yadda.... all this criticism of the Maddow piece by 2 objective people and not word Boo about Glenn Beck's take which I linked above.

Beck's an idiot...that's what this thread is about Are you looking for something else?? If you want to argue that Maddow is less of an idiot than Beck, fine. Go for it, but in the end they are both some brand of idiot and employeed by their respective employers to accomplish the same thing which is to get the their parties riled up by giving half the story and twisting reality. If you find them so different that you need to distinguish between them that's cool too. I don't see the need.

Great posting.

I don't see how this is good posting. It misses the central issue, namely that Maddow--while clearly a liberal as she herself states--offers facts that are readily available, while Beck cites facts that seemingly have no connection to reality outside of his own mind. That is a HUGE difference, and the fact that some people remain blind to this central point is not only alarming, it is sad as well.

I find it to be a great posting because I agree with The Commish in that I think they're both hacks.ETA - I rarely watch either of them because they're both annoying as ####, to be honest. Neither one offers an unbiased point of view, and neither one's beliefs coincide with my own. Perhaps you're right in that they present their opinions in a different matter - I don't watch enough of them to know in-depth. Like I said, I've seen enough from each of them to know that I don't really care to see more. I'm not sure how that's "sad", in your mind. My extremely liberal friends love Maddow and hate Beck. I don't have any ultra-conservative friends, but I'd imagine they hate Maddow and love Beck. Regardless of how they offer their points (I haven't watched either video that this thread is apparently about), I find them both to be partisan hacks, pandering to people who believe the same things they do. That's cool - that's how they make their money. But arguing that one is better than the other because of the way they present their facts? That's just silly, in my "uncultured" opinion.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yadda yadda yadda.... all this criticism of the Maddow piece by 2 objective people and not word Boo about Glenn Beck's take which I linked above.

Beck's an idiot...that's what this thread is about Are you looking for something else?? If you want to argue that Maddow is less of an idiot than Beck, fine. Go for it, but in the end they are both some brand of idiot and employeed by their respective employers to accomplish the same thing which is to get the their parties riled up by giving half the story and twisting reality. If you find them so different that you need to distinguish between them that's cool too. I don't see the need.

Great posting.

I don't see how this is good posting. It misses the central issue, namely that Maddow--while clearly a liberal as she herself states--offers facts that are readily available, while Beck cites facts that seemingly have no connection to reality outside of his own mind. That is a HUGE difference, and the fact that some people remain blind to this central point is not only alarming, it is sad as well.

I find it to be a great posting because I agree with The Commish in that I think they're both hacks.ETA - I rarely watch either of them because they're both annoying as ####, to be honest. Neither one offers an unbiased point of view, and neither one's beliefs coincide with my own. Perhaps you're right in that they present their opinions in a different matter - I don't watch enough of them to know in-depth. Like I said, I've seen enough from each of them to know that I don't really care to see more. I'm not sure how that's "sad", in your mind. My extremely liberal friends love Maddow and hate Beck. I don't have any ultra-conservative friends, but I'd imagine they hate Maddow and love Beck. Regardless of how they offer their points (I haven't watched either video that this thread is apparently about), I find them both to be partisan hacks, pandering to people who believe the same things they do. That's cool - that's how they make their money. But arguing that one is better than the other because of the way they present their facts? That's just silly, in my "uncultured" opinion.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on a topic that you admit you don't have any in-depth knowledge of.

 

[The_Hoser]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

They don't end up anywhere near the same spot on opposite ends of the spectrum. Maddow can be over the top, but she at least attempts to use facts to back up her opinion.Glenn Beck is no more factual than the Weekly World News, so unless you spend a lot of time worrying about being attacked by half-bat babies, you can probably safely dismiss anything that tool says.

 

[the moops]

Does tommy know that Maddow prefers women?

 

[Spanky267]

Does tommy know that Maddow prefers women?

shhhh......don't tell him.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I find it to be a great posting because I agree with The Commish in that I think they're both hacks.ETA - I rarely watch either of them because they're both annoying as ####, to be honest. Neither one offers an unbiased point of view, and neither one's beliefs coincide with my own. Perhaps you're right in that they present their opinions in a different matter - I don't watch enough of them to know in-depth. Like I said, I've seen enough from each of them to know that I don't really care to see more. I'm not sure how that's "sad", in your mind. My extremely liberal friends love Maddow and hate Beck. I don't have any ultra-conservative friends, but I'd imagine they hate Maddow and love Beck. Regardless of how they offer their points (I haven't watched either video that this thread is apparently about), I find them both to be partisan hacks, pandering to people who believe the same things they do. That's cool - that's how they make their money. But arguing that one is better than the other because of the way they present their facts? That's just silly, in my "uncultured" opinion.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on a topic that you admit you don't have any in-depth knowledge of.

I shouldn't even respond because, well, you often share your opinion on topics you have no clue about, but I will. I'll admit that I don't watch Beck or Maddow with regularity. It's because they're both idiots.Like Commish said, if you want to argue that Maddow is the lesser of two evils because she offers "more facts" than Beck does, more power to you. I don't really give a #### enough to argue about two people I don't care about.

 

[The Commish]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

 

[SHOUT]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

You are pulling what you say Maddow does. You are ignoring a HUGE fact in your argument that does not fit your idea. You are using all true statements to make a point while ignoring facts that would hurt your point. Maddows use of verifyable information as opposed to Beck making things up is the biggest piece of the pie when you compare the 2. For you to use Maddow's method while saying it makes her no better then Beck is kind of funny.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Not sure why it is so hard to understand that while Maddow may not cover every single issue, and who could in a media environment that is focused on 3-5 minute sound bits, she does offer SUPPORT for her claims that can be verified by other sources than herself. Which, if one were to take the time to do said research would also find the "counter" argument you seem so concerned about. Beck, however, does NOT offer such support and instead makes use of hyperbolic red herrings meant to paint a particular fact that is nothing more than his basic opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with doing this as a form of entertainment, but to call what he is doing the same thing as what Maddow is doing is nothing less than mind boggling. And I have no idea why this is so hard to understand either.

I understand it just fine. What I don't understand is why you think the approach matters. In the end, we get one sided views from both. I am NOT saying they have the same method....THEY DON'T. I am saying that when the dust clears, they both end up in the exact same spot on corresponding ends of the spectrum. That's all. I don't care how they get there, just that they get there.

That is absurd. One does it by listing their sources, the other does it by making sweeping claims that cannot be supported. The difference is night and day, and the fact you think they are same just shows how unable many are to discern the difference between facts and myths. They DO NOT even end up in the same friggin' universe.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

I think everyone sees what you are trying to argue. The bottom line remains, Maddow offers researched resources, Beck does not. The fact that you want to make them same simply shows you like to apply Beck's method of argumentation, i.e., weak.

 

[Spiderman]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

I think everyone sees what you are trying to argue. The bottom line remains, Maddow offers researched resources, Beck does not. The fact that you want to make them same simply shows you like to apply Beck's method of argumentation, i.e., weak.

Maddow is nothing more than a commentator with a liberal point of view. You believe she offers researched opinions, but that's simply because you agree with her. I'm sure others feel the same way about Hannity, etc.

 

[Bonzai]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

I think everyone sees what you are trying to argue. The bottom line remains, Maddow offers researched resources, Beck does not. The fact that you want to make them same simply shows you like to apply Beck's method of argumentation, i.e., weak.

Maddow is nothing more than a commentator with a liberal point of view. You believe she offers researched opinions, but that's simply because you agree with her. I'm sure others feel the same way about Hannity, etc.

The key is that, on far more occasions that Beck, Hannity et al., reality also agrees with her.

 

[Chunky Soup]

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

You've been saying there is (basically) no difference between them yet you admit (or at the very least, have admitted) to not ever seeing Maddow. You sound credible

 

[CBusAlex]

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.

If a person were to watch Maddow's show, and then watch a show that presented the other half of the facts from a conservative point of view, that person would have a reasonably complete understanding of whatever issue they were covering on which to make their own judgement, right?If a person were to watch Beck's show, and then watch a liberal show that presented no facts and appealed only to emotion (Bill Mahr?) would that person be able to do the same?

 

[Spiderman]

The key is that, on far more occasions that Beck, Hannity et al., reality also agrees with her.

I'm not so sure that Maddow represents the reality of any issue beyond the liberal spin - that's about it.

 

[urbanhack]

The key is that, on far more occasions that Beck, Hannity et al., reality also agrees with her.

I'm not so sure that Maddow represents the reality of any issue beyond the liberal spin - that's about it.

I'm guessing you don't watch the show.

 

[Spiderman]

The key is that, on far more occasions that Beck, Hannity et al., reality also agrees with her.

I'm not so sure that Maddow represents the reality of any issue beyond the liberal spin - that's about it.

I'm guessing you don't watch the show.

On a regular basis, I can't say I do. I will watch occasional segments, and, yes, what she does do is spin everything to her liberal point of view.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Colbert defends Beck.

 

[The Commish]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

You are pulling what you say Maddow does. You are ignoring a HUGE fact in your argument that does not fit your idea. You are using all true statements to make a point while ignoring facts that would hurt your point. Maddows use of verifyable information as opposed to Beck making things up is the biggest piece of the pie when you compare the 2. For you to use Maddow's method while saying it makes her no better then Beck is kind of funny.

You aren't comprehending what I am saying. I am not ignoring ANYTHING. I have acknowledge Maddow goes about painting her slant completely differently than Beck does. There's no question about that. However, in the end, they both end up with a view of the talking points for their party designed to get "their side" all riled up. Given that, they are general equals when it comes to being "journalists" imo.

 

[The Commish]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

If you don't want to compare pieces in a vacuum, then do a systematic comparison. Or watch both of them for a week. Or do something. But you guys are making sweeping generalizations without any underlying evidence.And it wasn't like I scoured the Internets trying to find a comparison that made Glenn Beck look bad.... someone else posted the Maddow story on ACORN and went on for pages and pages on how bad and unfair it was... so I just looked up if Beck had ever done anything on ACORN and all of a sudden.... crickets.

Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me.

That's pretty sad: the difference there is huge.

I did all this just to appease TG a few months ago....it was a waste of my time. Bottom line is, to me, the means don't justify the end. I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares? It's still a skewed story/view. I have no need for that crap. Give me the facts and I can create as equally skewed stories/views on my own if I choose. Only difference is, I will admit it's my skewed story/view instead of trying to pass it off as gospel.Just like this discussion today. I know it's my view, and mine alone. And it's based completely on my political position and what I have witnessed from each of them.

 

[The Commish]

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.

If a person were to watch Maddow's show, and then watch a show that presented the other half of the facts from a conservative point of view, that person would have a reasonably complete understanding of whatever issue they were covering on which to make their own judgement, right?If a person were to watch Beck's show, and then watch a liberal show that presented no facts and appealed only to emotion (Bill Mahr?) would that person be able to do the same?

I personally don't think either group is capable of getting all the facts out (even for their own side) during their shows. They simply don't have the time in this soundbyte world. I think if the above scenario plays out above, you end up with an individual who understands the liberal bias and one who understands the conservative bias. Problem is, the truth is usually neither of these....it's usually somewhere in between. It's sad that we have to go to foreign sources to get information that isn't ladened with liberal/conservative slant. Again, not saying that those sources don't have a tendency one way or the other (no way to avoid "spin" given human nature) but I'll take the info from someone with no dog in the fight over a person with an axe to grind with their opposing view 24 x 7 365.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I did all this just to appease TG a few months ago....it was a waste of my time. Bottom line is, to me, the means don't justify the end. I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares? It's still a skewed story/view. I have no need for that crap. Give me the facts and I can create as equally skewed stories/views on my own if I choose. Only difference is, I will admit it's my skewed story/view instead of trying to pass it off as gospel.Just like this discussion today. I know it's my view, and mine alone. And it's based completely on my political position and what I have witnessed from each of them.

By definition, anyone giving you there version of the facts is presenting a skewed view. So whether you read it in a newpaper, hear it on NPR, BBC, or from any source, the person who decided which facts to give you is biased and therefore it is impossible to get completely, 100% objective, full version of the facts, under your standard.

 

[The Commish]

I did all this just to appease TG a few months ago....it was a waste of my time. Bottom line is, to me, the means don't justify the end. I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares? It's still a skewed story/view. I have no need for that crap. Give me the facts and I can create as equally skewed stories/views on my own if I choose. Only difference is, I will admit it's my skewed story/view instead of trying to pass it off as gospel.Just like this discussion today. I know it's my view, and mine alone. And it's based completely on my political position and what I have witnessed from each of them.

By definition, anyone giving you there version of the facts is presenting a skewed view. So whether you read it in a newpaper, hear it on NPR, BBC, or from any source, the person who decided which facts to give you is biased and therefore it is impossible to get completely, 100% objective, full version of the facts, under your standard.

Guessing you missed this:

Again, not saying that those sources don't have a tendency one way or the other (no way to avoid "spin" given human nature) but I'll take the info from someone with no dog in the fight over a person with an axe to grind with their opposing view 24 x 7 365.

It's in the post just above the one I quote here.

 

[tommyGunZ]

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.

If a person were to watch Maddow's show, and then watch a show that presented the other half of the facts from a conservative point of view, that person would have a reasonably complete understanding of whatever issue they were covering on which to make their own judgement, right?If a person were to watch Beck's show, and then watch a liberal show that presented no facts and appealed only to emotion (Bill Mahr?) would that person be able to do the same?

I personally don't think either group is capable of getting all the facts out (even for their own side) during their shows. They simply don't have the time in this soundbyte world. I think if the above scenario plays out above, you end up with an individual who understands the liberal bias and one who understands the conservative bias. Problem is, the truth is usually neither of these....it's usually somewhere in between.

BS.

It's sad that we have to go to foreign sources to get information that isn't ladened with liberal/conservative slant. Again, not saying that those sources don't have a tendency one way or the other (no way to avoid "spin" given human nature) but I'll take the info from someone with no dog in the fight over a person with an axe to grind with their opposing view 24 x 7 365.

No, what's sad is the current belief that the two sides of the story are always equal. Which is rarely, if ever the case. Jim: "Adrian Peterson is the best back in football."

John: "Nah, Edgerinn James is the best back in football."

The Commish: "Both of you are equally biased because you own those guys. Therefore your arguments have no merit - they're both exceptional athletes who play the same position and have similar builds. They're equal."

 

[The Commish]

BS.

It's tough to be in the business of defending either one of these crap wagons isn't it?? ETA: Again, I am not saying they are equal. Just not different enough to make much of a difference.

 

[tommyGunZ]

BS.

It's tough to be in the business of defending either one of these crap wagons isn't it?? ETA: Again, I am not saying they are equal. Just not different enough to make much of a difference.

Not really. Several people have tried to explain the difference to you in numerous threads, but you're hell bent on sticking to your position. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can watch Beck and Maddow and not see the difference, but I've resigned myself to the understanding that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

 

[Parrothead]

BS.

It's tough to be in the business of defending either one of these crap wagons isn't it?? ETA: Again, I am not saying they are equal. Just not different enough to make much of a difference.

Not really. Several people have tried to explain the difference to you in numerous threads, but you're hell bent on sticking to your position. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can watch Beck and Maddow and not see the difference, but I've resigned myself to the understanding that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

 

[Spiderman]

BS.

It's tough to be in the business of defending either one of these crap wagons isn't it?? ETA: Again, I am not saying they are equal. Just not different enough to make much of a difference.

Not really. Several people have tried to explain the difference to you in numerous threads, but you're hell bent on sticking to your position. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can watch Beck and Maddow and not see the difference, but I've resigned myself to the understanding that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

That explains many of your positions.

 

[CBusAlex]

I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares?

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like my perspective on the world to have some basis in reality.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Of course they do. One ends up giving a biased POV from the "conservative" side...the other the "liberal" side. Neither is genuinely interested in getting all the facts on the table. That's not their agenda....doesn't make the networks ETA: Apologies for the word "exact" here. They don't end up in the exact same spot....they can't. I just don't think the difference is really worth noting. That's all.

Watch the Glenn Beck piece.It has nothing to do with getting any facts on the table. It has to do with inciting baseless emotion in the audience.There IS a difference there even if all you who seem to think that you've peeked behind the curtain are missing it.

AGAIN....not saying there isn't a difference. Just saying that difference isn't as great as a lot of folks want it to be. Whether one chooses to use emotion to rile up their "side" or half the facts to rile up there "side" is of no consequence to me. In the end, they are both painting a clearly biased view of a set of events. Both of which are pretty useless IMO.ETA: I think it's foolish to compare "pieces" in some sort of vaccum. Does Beck bring out little toys to make illustrations? Yes. Does Maddow dress up in hip wadders to make fun of Palin? Yes...both have had childish moments. Has Beck had more childish moments? Sure. Does that matter to me? Not much....they both have proven they are willing to sink to that level.

I think everyone sees what you are trying to argue. The bottom line remains, Maddow offers researched resources, Beck does not. The fact that you want to make them same simply shows you like to apply Beck's method of argumentation, i.e., weak.

Maddow is nothing more than a commentator with a liberal point of view. You believe she offers researched opinions, but that's simply because you agree with her. I'm sure others feel the same way about Hannity, etc.

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

 

[Gigantomachia]

The key is that, on far more occasions that Beck, Hannity et al., reality also agrees with her.

I'm not so sure that Maddow represents the reality of any issue beyond the liberal spin - that's about it.

Wow, you just don't get it.

 

[Neofight]

I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares?

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like my perspective on the world to have some basis in reality.

Ah, reality. Those were the days!But seriously, don't you think that those preoccupied with facts have become a bit blasé?

 

[The Commish]

BS.

It's tough to be in the business of defending either one of these crap wagons isn't it?? ETA: Again, I am not saying they are equal. Just not different enough to make much of a difference.

Not really. Several people have tried to explain the difference to you in numerous threads, but you're hell bent on sticking to your position. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can watch Beck and Maddow and not see the difference, but I've resigned myself to the understanding that people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

This is probably the most irony drench post I have ever read at FBG....good job.

 

[The Commish]

I get that some of you think Maddow is better because she uses "facts" to create her skewed stories/views. My question is, who cares?

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like my perspective on the world to have some basis in reality.

As do I, which is why I don't turn on either of these whack jobs and spend my time reading for myself or watching channels like BBC and BBC America

 

[The Commish]

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

Would you be ok with Beck if he told you where he gets his info from? That seems to be your sticking point, yes? That he doesn't cite where he gets his ideas from? It's a curious line to draw really. Who cares where they come from? If they are distorted and twisted to fit an agenda, they are virtually useless even if they come from the most well respected thinkers out there, no?

 

[urbanhack]

THE RED PHONE IS ON MY DESK. CALL ME IF I'M LYING.

:lmao;

 

[Gigantomachia]

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

Would you be ok with Beck if he told you where he gets his info from? That seems to be your sticking point, yes? That he doesn't cite where he gets his ideas from? It's a curious line to draw really. Who cares where they come from? If they are distorted and twisted to fit an agenda, they are virtually useless even if they come from the most well respected thinkers out there, no?

Whether or not Maddow's sources are distorted and twisted can be verified by checking the source, which she offers. I would LOVE for Beck to cite a source, even one, but just like last night with his silly little white board that supposedly spoke to how America moved from bondage to freedom and then back to bondage was grounded in nothing but his own imagination. He even said he didn't know where the board came from, he even asked someone off camera if they knew--no response--so he said whatever and continued his rant.You still seem to be missing this key point, namely, regardless of how Maddow spins her information--and I agree EVERYONE spins information--at least she offers the source for you to go and check yourself. Beck has no sources, other than the voices in his head I reckon.

 

[bigperm]

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

Would you be ok with Beck if he told you where he gets his info from? That seems to be your sticking point, yes? That he doesn't cite where he gets his ideas from? It's a curious line to draw really. Who cares where they come from? If they are distorted and twisted to fit an agenda, they are virtually useless even if they come from the most well respected thinkers out there, no?

Whether or not Maddow's sources are distorted and twisted can be verified by checking the source, which she offers. I would LOVE for Beck to cite a source, even one, but just like last night with his silly little white board that supposedly spoke to how America moved from bondage to freedom and then back to bondage was grounded in nothing but his own imagination. He even said he didn't know where the board came from, he even asked someone off camera if they knew--no response--so he said whatever and continued his rant.You still seem to be missing this key point, namely, regardless of how Maddow spins her information--and I agree EVERYONE spins information--at least she offers the source for you to go and check yourself. Beck has no sources, other than the voices in his head I reckon.

Site a source for what?Everything Beck points out can be easily found. All of his statistical information is sourced. All of his opinions on the radicals in the Obama administration can be sourced directly from their own books and taped conversations and videos that he's played. He's constantly given the names of books of political ideas and history that have influenced him. Perhaps the people that trash Beck are just too damn lazy to look anything up for themselves. I guess that's the Progressives way.

 

[Spiderman]

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

Would you be ok with Beck if he told you where he gets his info from? That seems to be your sticking point, yes? That he doesn't cite where he gets his ideas from? It's a curious line to draw really. Who cares where they come from? If they are distorted and twisted to fit an agenda, they are virtually useless even if they come from the most well respected thinkers out there, no?

Whether or not Maddow's sources are distorted and twisted can be verified by checking the source, which she offers. I would LOVE for Beck to cite a source, even one, but just like last night with his silly little white board that supposedly spoke to how America moved from bondage to freedom and then back to bondage was grounded in nothing but his own imagination. He even said he didn't know where the board came from, he even asked someone off camera if they knew--no response--so he said whatever and continued his rant.You still seem to be missing this key point, namely, regardless of how Maddow spins her information--and I agree EVERYONE spins information--at least she offers the source for you to go and check yourself. Beck has no sources, other than the voices in his head I reckon.

This sounds like a distortion - Maddow's sources are offered, and Beck doesn't offer sources (except for his crazy inner voice)???? I don't listen to Beck, but this seems to be very fishy.

 

[The Commish]

No, it's because she actually cites where her information is coming from. HUGE difference, irrespective of your ability to understand that.

Would you be ok with Beck if he told you where he gets his info from? That seems to be your sticking point, yes? That he doesn't cite where he gets his ideas from? It's a curious line to draw really. Who cares where they come from? If they are distorted and twisted to fit an agenda, they are virtually useless even if they come from the most well respected thinkers out there, no?

Whether or not Maddow's sources are distorted and twisted can be verified by checking the source, which she offers. I would LOVE for Beck to cite a source, even one, but just like last night with his silly little white board that supposedly spoke to how America moved from bondage to freedom and then back to bondage was grounded in nothing but his own imagination. He even said he didn't know where the board came from, he even asked someone off camera if they knew--no response--so he said whatever and continued his rant.You still seem to be missing this key point, namely, regardless of how Maddow spins her information--and I agree EVERYONE spins information--at least she offers the source for you to go and check yourself. Beck has no sources, other than the voices in his head I reckon.

He's pretty forth coming in thefact that a lot of his is his own opinion/theory. I get the point you are making. I understand it completely. I just don't understand why you think it's such a distinguishing point. Beck makes #### up and sping it into his conservative bias. Maddow takes information from other sources and spings it into liberal bias.....for the sake of this discussion, we'll ignore the fact that most of her "sources" are of liberal spin anyway. That doesn't matter to me. My point is, in the end, they've both taken information (whether personally made up or found elsewhere) and spun it to fit their agenda. It's disingenuous in both cases and I have no use for either approach.It's quite simple for me...in that link to the ACORN report Maddow did she siad "THE truth about ACORN......" It wasn't THE truth...if it were she'd have included all the shady crap they've been linked to also. I'd be fine with her framing it as some truthful things about Acorn.....like I said before, the truth generally lies between what the libs and neocons present. ACORN has done some good things AND bad things. To report on them in any other way is simply disingenuous IMO.

 

[bigperm]

This sounds like a distortion - Maddow's sources are offered, and Beck doesn't offer sources (except for his crazy inner voice)????

I don't listen to Beck, but this seems to be very fishy.

Have you watched Beck's piece on ACORN?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O373c7Up4KQ

Yeah, Defending Acorn saying Beck made anything up on them really makes you look uninformed or a member of Acorn.