Which Cable news channel?

[Mr. Brown]

If you had to pick one Cable news channel to watch from now on which one would you choose and why?

[Kilgore]

BBC America.


I don't watch too often but all the others have at least a couple blowhard douchebags that I can't stand.

[Stax]

BBC. Don't know BBC World enough to say, CNN would probably be my 2nd choice, Headline News sucks dick, CNBC doesn't do regular news enough, Fox sucks dick, MSNBC is ok but annoying after an hour or so, and I don't really know Sky/Bloomberg.

[Mr. Brown]

shit I forgot BBC America on the list.

[Stax]

shit I forgot BBC America on the list.

I just voted for BBC as if it were BBC America.

[Mr. Brown]

I'm also trying to decide on which channel I'm gonna watch for the conventions. I got a few hours, but I think I'm gonna go with CNN.

[Claydon]

BBC World, they tend to have the most complete coverage and some of the best television journalism I have ever seen. If you had asked me this in the 90s I would have chosen CNN, when Bernard Shaw and company were there, it was the best damn journalism in the history of journalism.

[Fletch]

CNN seems to have the least annoying people to me, the BBC's a close second.

[Limp]

Who gives a damn about who is shoveling shit into your brain? If a donkey wearing a tie can tell me what happened in the world today I would watch it.

[Mr. Brown]

Yeah but what if that donkey is really a republican? Think about it.

[Stax]

Alan Colmes? lolwut?

[Claydon]

Who gives a damn about who is shoveling shit into your brain? If a donkey wearing a tie can tell me what happened in the world today I would watch it.

We really do not care what your wife is wearing around her neck.

[Mr. Brown]

Alan Colmes? lolwut?
lutz

[Mr. Brown]

who do yall think would be best to watch for the convention coverage?

[Claydon]

who do yall think would be best to watch for the convention coverage?

Probably CSPAN, because you will basically get the raw feed without the filtered bullshit of the networks.

[Stax]

lutz

Double lulz.

Or perhaps a triple lutz.

[Stax]

Probably CSPAN, because you will basically get the raw feed without the filtered bullshit of the networks.

Yeppers. Although I'm probably not going to watch much outside of the big fella's speeches anyways. Maybe the veeps/keynote speakers too.

[Mr. Brown]

Double lulz.

Or perhaps a triple lutz.
Flying forward one-and-a-half somersaults, pike

[Kilgore]

Is Tom Brokaw going to do some of the DNC coverage on MSNBC? If so I'll watch that.

Robin Mead's hotness almost makes up for the worst evening line up on cable news. Glen, Nancy, AJ I want to back all of their faces in.

[Mr. Brown]

Probably CSPAN, because you will basically get the raw feed without the filtered bullshit of the networks.
every time I turn on CSPAN it's fucking book tv.

But they are prob the best for no extra b.s.

[kpickle]

I like foxnews as long as fox and friends isnt on.

[Mr. Brown]

Is Tom Brokaw going to do some of the DNC coverage on MSNBC? If so I'll watch that.

Robin Mead's hotness almost makes up for the worst evening line up on cable news. Glen, Nancy, AJ I want to back all of their faces in.
I watch her in the morning sometimes. I miss younger Soledad O’Brien and don't mind looking at Alison Stewart

[Claydon]

every time I turn on CSPAN it's fucking book tv.

But they are prob the best for no extra b.s.

CSPAN is fantastic, I watch certain big events on it such as conventions, certain testimony to congress or the senate because there is no bullshit, just a camera and a mic. One of the best things I watched was David Kays report about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. The interesting thing about that is that the networks played a 10 second sound bite of him saying "there are no WMDs in Iraq..." about 2 sentences later and what the networks did not play is the his report pointing out that there were mountains of duel use materials found. Organophosphates are a petroleum based compound that can be used in insecticides or chemical weapons. Iraq had enough of this stuff to last them for 20 years as an insecticide......why so much? Not to get into the WMD debate YET again, but the point is, through the networks you get nothing, CSPAN gives it to you uncensured.

[Creepnation]

None of the above?

[Soup Nazi]

Any of the BBC's really. I can actually stand all of the networks in small doses but I have never watched Bloomberg. Maybe I should check it out.

[BIG PIZZLE]

fIG86fK7PKo

[nuclearjew]

Comedy Central should be on the list.

[dick_darlington]

Is Tom Brokaw going to do some of the DNC coverage on MSNBC? If so I'll watch that.

Robin Mead's hotness almost makes up for the worst evening line up on cable news. Glen, Nancy, AJ I want to back all of their faces in.

robin meade was one of the main reasons i watched nbc 5 chicago news as a kid!

i voted bbc because, that is the news source i can tolerate the most.

[Creepnation]

The BBC isn't as bad as the American networks, which are basically just big, "news" versions of Entertainment Tonight, except of pushing forward the agenda of Reality Tv stars, its the American government.

Like with the invasion of Georgia, none of the major news networks really said anything until our government gave their official response. They didnt know what side they should take.

[Lone Wolf]

I'm a big fan of Olbermann ... so fucking sue me

[miniumwager]

I'm not a fan of any of the cable news networks and their agenda's. I'm also not a right-wing person however, drudgers.com on the bottom left are newspapers from around the world. They are pretty accurate of the "real" veiwpoints.

[shdaow]

I voted BBC... but no Comedy Network?!? Surely John Stewart and Stephen Colbert out do all the news agencies combined!

EDIT: Yeah JEW!

[freegood]

I don't watch Bloomberg enough, but Al Hunt's show is pretty good for political coverage.

PBS NewsHour is highly recommended. I listen to the day after's broadcast at work.

[Mr. Brown]

I voted BBC... but no Comedy Network?!? Surely John Stewart and Stephen Colbert out do all the news agencies combined!

Umm that's not a cable NEWS channel. if you really get your news only from Comedy Central (not network) than you shouldn't even be in the Poltics and Controversy section of the board. imho

[Debo]

I would like to state that I prefer to get my news from the WSJ. But, if I am going to watch it on TV then it is Fox News because I am part of the VRWC.

[Hobnail_Boot]

MSNBC for teh Olbermann and now for teh Dr. Maddow. And I agree with other posters: Comedy Central (TDS, Colbert) > all the options above.

[yard]

fox here....
i find it funny that the left news sources like msnbc, etc... are so much more biased...

the liber media is much more biased than the conservative media...

Yes fox has a conservative bias, but NOTHING to amount to MSNBC's left bias........

[Archangel]

You're rather daft, aren't you.


Tell me, how DOES the Kool-Aid taste?

[Archangel]

Debo and Hanover watch Fox News? Never would have guessed.


The Beeb ftmfw, by the way.

Also, CNN International >>> CNN US.

[Debo]

Debo and Hanover watch Fox News? Never would have guessed.


The Beeb ftmfw, by the way.

Also, CNN International >>> CNN US.

As I stated before, I rarely watch the news on TV. But Fox does have a good line up of political commentators outside of O'Reilly and Hannity (e.g., Barners, Williams, Krystal, Wallace, Hume, Kondracie (?), etc.).

[Insomniac]

I, too, am a C-SPAN fellow. And I love Book TV. Cum buckets for it.

[Hobnail_Boot]

fox here....
i find it funny that the left news sources like msnbc, etc... are so much more biased...

the liber media is much more biased than the conservative media...

Yes fox has a conservative bias, but NOTHING to amount to MSNBC's left bias........
The only anchors on MSNBC who are openly left are Keith Olbermann and maybe Chris Matthews (although Matthews is very critical of both democrats and republicans). The reporters are "fair and balanced" in their reporting (i.e. Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, David Shuster, et al). The pundits are a mix, but it is clear who's liberal and who's conservative.

I assume you believe MSNBC is "left" because Bill O Reilly told you so, not based on your own observations. Have you ever watched MSNBC?

"If it's on FOX News, it MUST be true!"

[Mustard]

I can't remember the last time I had the priviledge of watching the BBC news. I don't get it now... :( So I watch a 50/50 mix of MSNBC and CNN. If Jim Cramer is on doing Mad Money I'll watch CNBC. I get Bloomberg, but I'm not into heavy financial news so if I do watch it, its for about 10 minutes before I lose interest and watch reruns of girls gone wild commercials...

The only time I watch Headline News is when I'm visiting my dad because thats all he watches, besides hunting and fishing shows. I'm not sure about Sky news, I don't think I've ever watched that one.

And I'd rather chop my own dick off with a tongue dispenser than watch more than four seconds of Faux News. It would be like that scene in A Clockwork Orange where he is forced to sit there with his eyes open while he watches what is put on the screen against his will... I'd probably just gnaw my arms off rather than be forced to watch that neverending load of horse shit journalism. That station is a news channel like I'm an olympic gymnast.

[Hanover Fist]

Outside of shows of sporting events or the history/discovery channels, I would say I probably watch less than 5 hours of tv a year. In the off chance that something significantly newsworthy happened I find FOX to have superior coverage than the other networks. I don't watch O'Reilly or Hannity or any talking head shows and I don't need someone to tell me what my opinions are. I've been around enough and had enough life experiences that I can form my own opinions based on numerous sources and knowledge.
I probably read science publications to a ratio of about 100:1 to tv watching.

BBC? Fuck the BBC, I don't even think it's available here, and I wouldn't care if it was.

[willy62]

Fox is far superior and a lot less biased than any others.

[momsshizzle]

I choose BBC America because that's the only foreign news agency I can get on Direct TV that has more news about America than American news broadcasts!

[yard]

The only anchors on MSNBC who are openly left are Keith Olbermann and maybe Chris Matthews (although Matthews is very critical of both democrats and republicans). The reporters are "fair and balanced" in their reporting (i.e. Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, David Shuster, et al). The pundits are a mix, but it is clear who's liberal and who's conservative.

I assume you believe MSNBC is "left" because Bill O Reilly told you so, not based on your own observations. Have you ever watched MSNBC?

"If it's on FOX News, it MUST be true!"

i am actually an independent...vote both democrat and republican.. it all depends on the candidate.....
i get my opinions from what i have seen on the two channels in question...

but your statements are the problem i have with most that are far left or right...you have a chip on your shoulder against those that share your views...

It also seems to me that the left is much more "angry" than the right. this comes into play when expressing their views.

so chill out and let others express their views without attacking them... there is this thing called the first amendment... i know you liberals know what it is all about.. hell you tried to keep ward churchill in his job with that argument...
so chill out and let others express their views....

[Hobnail_Boot]

i am actually an independent...vote both democrat and republican.. it all depends on the candidate.....
i get my opinions from what i have seen on the two channels in question...

but your statements are the problem i have with most that are far left or right...you have a chip on your shoulder against those that share your views...

It also seems to me that the left is much more "angry" than the right. this comes into play when expressing their views.

so chill out and let others express their views without attacking them... there is this thing called the first amendment... i know you liberals know what it is all about.. hell you tried to keep ward churchill in his job with that argument...
so chill out and let others express their views....
I did "let" you express your views. I only responded to your views. Call it "debate" or "discussion" or "conversation" or whatever. Why would you post your views here if you didn't expect people to challenge them?

Also, I'm not a "liberal" or "conservative," Like you, I'm a (registered) independent, but I am angry with the Bush administration and congress for getting us into a war that has cost 4000+ American lives (including 2 of my friends) and trillions of dollars. And for allowing our economy to get so out of whack. And for dividing the country along party lines in such a way that nothing gets done in government. And for passing legislation that allows the government to spy on American citizens without a warrant. I could go on. If that doesn't make you "angry," then I don't know what to tell you.

[yard]

i am intrigued how any administration ruins an economy???? we live in a free market and practice capitalism.. the government merely helps protect consumers from fraud, etc.... the economy is being controlled by market forces, not bush.

also up until two years ago, we had one of the best economies that we have ever known....
did anyone give credit to bush then?????NO
so why blame him now.

[yard]

the reason i responded like i did was because of the statement that i thought MSNBC was too far left because oriley told me it was....

contrary to most lefties beliefs, moderates, and others that do not share the lefties views are not stupid, and do not need to be lead by some loudmouth......

[Hobnail_Boot]

i am intrigued how any administration ruins an economy???? we live in a free market and practice capitalism.. the government merely helps protect consumers from fraud, etc.... the economy is being controlled by market forces, not bush.

also up until two years ago, we had one of the best economies that we have ever known....
did anyone give credit to bush then?????NO
so why blame him now.
We do have a "free market" in the U.S., but the government also plays a large part. For instance, why did the Fed "bail out" several U.S. banks this year? Why did the Bush administration ignore "loopholes" in commodities laws that caused energy prices to increase? Why were consumers not "protected" from fraud during the housing crisis? Those are all major issues that affect(ed) our economy. You statement that "we had one of the best economies that we have ever known" is simply not true. The economy was good for a few "up until two years ago" (and still is for the wealthy), but not the "middle class" as it was during the Bill Clinton presidency.

[Debo]

We do have a "free market" in the U.S., but the government also plays a large part. For instance, why did the Fed "bail out" several U.S. banks this year? Why did the Bush administration ignore "loopholes" in commodities laws that caused energy prices to increase? Why were consumers not "protected" from fraud during the housing crisis? Those are all major issues that affect(ed) our economy. You statement that "we had one of the best economies that we have ever known" is simply not true. The economy was good for a few "up until two years ago" (and still is for the wealthy), but not the "middle class" as it was during the Bill Clinton presidency.

Stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.

For starters:

- The Fed did not bail anyone out. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan for $10 a share. The Fed played a role in organizing the sale and they swapped good paper for bad paper (I can live without the fed doing either of these).

- From 2003-2007 we did have a good period of growth. His point seems to be that you were probably complaining about the economy then, just like you are now.

- The increase in energy prices was caused by loose monetary policy, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. The only way that Bush can influence monetary policy is to cut taxes (this raises the amount of money in the system) or to put pressure on the Fed President to cut rates (This is unethical because the Fed is an autonomous bank that should be free of political games).

- Consumers protect consumers. The government just fucks up the process. To save myself some typing, I suggest that you watch Chapter 7 of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series here (http://www.ideachannel.tv/).

- Your populist statement about the middle class is pure left-wing talking points that has zero basis in reality.

[freegood]

Stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.

For starters:

- The Fed did not bail anyone out. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan for $10 a share. The Fed played a role in organizing the sale and they swapped good paper for bad paper (I can live without the fed doing either of these).

The deal wouldn't have happened if taxpayers didn't assume ownership of those toxic securities.


- From 2003-2007 we did have a good period of growth. His point seems to be that you were probably complaining about the economy then, just like you are now.

Growth was great for businesses, but those gains weren't passed on through wage increases for the median worker. It mostly went to the rich (250k/year and above).


- The increase in energy prices was caused by loose monetary policy, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. The only way that Bush can influence monetary policy is to cut taxes (this raises the amount of money in the system) or to put pressure on the Fed President to cut rates (This is unethical because the Fed is an autonomous bank that should be free of political games).

Doesn't the Treasury Sec. have some influence on a strong or weak dollar?

It's not exactly certain whether speculation and selective loopholes have boosted energy prices by double digit percentages. I wouldn't be too dismissive about it either...


- Consumers protect consumers. The government just fucks up the process. To save myself some typing, I suggest that you watch Chapter 7 of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose series here (http://www.ideachannel.tv/).

Depends on what you're talking about. There's many cases where it took the threat of government regulation or the process itself to enact changes in corporations.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Anderson cooper is dreamy.

[Debo]

The deal wouldn't have happened if taxpayers didn't assume ownership of those toxic securities.

I disagree. If the Fed didn't do anything, JPM would have payed less for BSC to compensate for the additional shit paper that was on their BS. Instead of $10 a share, they might have paid $6 (random number).


Growth was great for businesses, but those gains weren't passed on through wage increases for the median worker. It mostly went to the rich (250k/year and above).

Well, wage inflation isn't good either. Growing businesses provide jobs for their workers. And a growing economy provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start their own businesses.

The amount of wealth going to the Top [insert percentage here] is irrelevant because people move into and out of the top income bracket all of the time. My best friend was making a killing during the real estate boom, now he is out of a job. He has gone from the top 5% of income earners to the bottom 5% in under 18 months. This kind of situation happens all of the time.

Doesn't the Treasury Sec. have some influence on a strong or weak dollar?

It's not exactly certain whether speculation and selective loopholes have boosted energy prices by double digit percentages. I wouldn't be too dismissive about it either...

It is the Treasury's role to defend the dollar. But they can only do so much (it is kind of like the government spending more to stop a recession. It might stall one, but it isn't going to prevent one from happening).

The lose policies of the Fed and the rise in protectionism have done more to hurt the greenback than the Treasury has.


Depends on what you're talking about. There's many cases where it took the threat of government regulation or the process itself to enact changes in corporations.


I agree that the government should play a role. But to think that the government is more concerned about my wellbeing than I am is insane in my opinion.

The seatbelt mandate is a good example. Why should I be forced to wear a seatbelt? If I crash, I am going to be the one that suffers the consequences of my actions (unless I fly into someone, but this is a rare case). The same big government logic applies to the motorcycle helmet laws.

[Rover]

I agree that the government should play a role. But to think that the government is more concerned about my wellbeing than I am is insane in my opinion.

The seatbelt mandate is a good example. Why should I be forced to wear a seatbelt? If I crash, I am going to be the one that suffers the consequences of my actions (unless I fly into someone, but this is a rare case). The same big government logic applies to the motorcycle helmet laws.That's what I don't understand. Why would anyone expect a government bureaucrat to care about anything other than making sure your forms are filled out correctly? Building on your seatbelt example, can you imagine what happens when the government starts to have a real, vested economic interest in your health? When national healthcare rolls out, we'll all be on soylent green and distilled water and there will probably be tax credits for treadmill purchases.

[freegood]

I disagree. If the Fed didn't do anything, JPM would have payed less for BSC to compensate for the additional shit paper that was on their BS. Instead of $10 a share, they might have paid $6 (random number).


Jamie Dimon disagrees. (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/dimon-says-jpmorgan-didnt-cherry-pick-bear-assets/)


Well, wage inflation isn't good either. Growing businesses provide jobs for their workers. And a growing economy provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start their own businesses.

The amount of wealth going to the Top [insert percentage here] is irrelevant because people move into and out of the top income bracket all of the time. My best friend was making a killing during the real estate boom, now he is out of a job. He has gone from the top 5% of income earners to the bottom 5% in under 18 months. This kind of situation happens all of the time.


A growth in the median income doesn't always mean wage inflation. Gains in productivity for businesses and the resulting profits just weren't passed on to the average worker.

The problem was that when we were in a liquidity bubble, it enticed sheepish Americans to tap out their credit cards, then take on a low interest loan with their home as collateral and ultimately tap out their homes like an atm. We were clearly spending above our means while the rest of the world provided us cheaper goods to mask the average American's decline in real wealth. Idiots assumed they'd get richer with the homes they lived in. Rich man, poor man bull shit.



It is the Treasury's role to defend the dollar. But they can only do so much (it is kind of like the government spending more to stop a recession. It might stall one, but it isn't going to prevent one from happening).

The lose policies of the Fed and the rise in protectionism have done more to hurt the greenback than the Treasury has.


I don't disagree...

The point is as the head of the executive branch, Bush does have influence and tools in hand to affect the economy. Perhaps not as much as the Fed, but it's not like the Fed live in sequestered Ivory towers as our fabled Supreme Court justices are portrayed to be.


I agree that the government should play a role. But to think that the government is more concerned about my wellbeing than I am is insane in my opinion.

The seatbelt mandate is a good example. Why should I be forced to wear a seatbelt? If I crash, I am going to be the one that suffers the consequences of my actions (unless I fly into someone, but this is a rare case). The same big government logic applies to the motorcycle helmet laws.

There's several reasons.

Statistically, seat belts/moto helmets have been proven again and again to save lives or reduce the occurance of debilitating injuries. A headon collision going 10 mph is going to fuck you up let alone a 60mph human hamburger experiment.

People, as rational as they are, generally tend to think in short term gains and evaluate risk taking accordingly. Seatbelt stats aren't going to compel customers to spend an extra 200 (random price) when buying a car. For single men, if it doesn't help you get laid, that's 200 bucks in lost beer money. So maybe you can get one added on in the future as a mod. Well...do you know anyone who has modded their seatbelt to be safer? ....Their catalytic converter to be cleaner than regulation?

If individual concerns doesn't get you, then think about the commons and externalities passed onto the public. The supply of healthcare and insurance coverage is finite. You might be a macho man for not wearing a sissy belt, but someone has to operate on you if fly out the windshield after a gnarly crash and breaking more bones than you should. And that dude has to be paid, whether by the insurer or Uncle Sam. Without seatbelts or helmets, premiums would have to rise because the risk occurrence of serious injuries increases.

That's considering if you didn't kick the bucket. If your fatality could've been prevented with wearing a belt, how does your surviving family deal with that mindfuck? "If only we spent that extra 200 for those queer seat belts boofucking hoo." At least that rational victim's risk assessment is now more inclined to invest in a seat belt. Economic theory ftw!

Okay... I admit regulation might not always be the best answer. But the way people are and the businesses they run, sometimes the government has no choice to step in when the shit hits the fan.

[Mustard]

Fox is far superior and a lot less biased than any others.
reading this made me spit out my bite of McChicken because I laughed so hard at it.

holy.fucking.shit...

[footsies]

MSNBC is pretty good but the newsbabes are hotter on fox.

[coolguy]

anyone who voted for fox news is fuckin' retarded

[redsox39]

I'm a big fan of Olbermann ... so fucking sue me


Keith Olbermann = Bill O'Reilly

[coolguy]

Keith Olbermann = Bill O'Reillyumm... no.

[ADD]

Keith Olberman makes outlandish statements about rappers?

[redsox39]

anyone who voted for fox news is fuckin' retarded

...says the new guy sitting in his parents basement collecting star wars figures...

Apparently, the majority who voted...do watch it. Just because the give you both sides, doesn't mean they are sucking the Rep. Dick. It just means they are giving handjobs to both sides instead of just one. I know it can be shocking to the system when you find out there is a whole nother perspective on the world besides yours and Keith Olbermann's, but the sensation will pass, I promise...

[coolguy]

holy shit how do you know what i'm doing right now

*hides qui gon jinn under desk*

[redsox39]

Keith Olberman makes outlandish statements about rappers?

Bill O'Rielly makes outlandish statements about dead republicans before their bodies are cold?

Quit being a D-bag, They both market to the same group. Crazy, retarded, Partisan hacks. And both think they are better than the rest of the world.

[coolguy]

but.. but... one's a liberal and one's a conservative

[ADD]

At least Olberman's funny at times

[coolguy]

At least Olberman's funny at timesi dunno, o'reilly can be pretty funny when he's cursing out the interns and throwing shit

[redsox39]

I don't know what is worse...the people who cling to Bill because "he is fucking right on man!"

Or the people that cling to Keith because "dude, he totally gets it man".

They are never right everytime, and I wish Keith would have stuck to sports!

[}{arlequin]

bbc all the way. any format, but since it's all encompassing, i went for basic.

u.s. media sucks. everytime i watch it, i can't shake the feeling they're broadcasting to 12yr olds

btw, while i'm at it, is local news REALLY necessary? i mean, who the fuck cares that an 18-wheeler overturned on your local highway? you get to find out about it at 9 or 10pm, meanwhile you were already stuck in that mess at 4pm. pointless reporting at its finest.

[ADD]

As do I.

But I loathe O'Riley. Not because of where he works, but because he's a giant douche

[Mr. Brown]

bbc all the way. any format, but since it's all encompassing, i went for basic.

u.s. media sucks. everytime i watch it, i can't shake the feeling they're broadcasting to 12yr olds

btw, while i'm at it, is local news REALLY necessary? i mean, who the fuck cares that an 18-wheeler overturned on your local highway? you get to find out about it at 9 or 10pm, meanwhile you were already stuck in that mess at 4pm. pointless reporting at its finest.
I keep an ear to local b/c you need know when there a new string of robberies in a particular location. Also when some nut case is rapping women on UMD campus. I'd burn that whole city to the ground if my sister or any of my cousins got attacked.

[Fletch]

u.s. media sucks. everytime i watch it, i can't shake the feeling they're broadcasting to 12yr olds

That's probably the level they're aiming for. USA Today is written at what, a 6th grade level or something like that? TV news probably does the same.

Local news I watch more for entertainment and to laugh at the dumb shit they talk about.

[redsox39]

but.. but... one's a liberal and one's a conservative


One of them is a crazy leftie and one of them is a crazy rightie.

[redsox39]

I keep an ear to local b/c you need know when there a new string of robberies in a particular location. Also when some nut case is rapping women on UMD campus. I'd burn that whole city to the ground if my sister or any of my cousins got attacked.


I hate it when they go around and rap women!

[Da Raider]

i choose MSNBC. The anchors all hate eachother and frankly don't really give a shit about the news, only themselves. And hopefully someone will smash Olbermann in the fucking face with a hammer on live tv.

[Alcestis]

i choose MSNBC. The anchors all hate eachother and frankly don't really give a shit about the news, only themselves. And hopefully someone will smash Olbermann in the fucking face with a hammer on live tv.

Just posted on tmz.com (http://www.tmz.com/2008/08/30/its-my-party-and-ill-be-a-little-bitch-if-i-want-to/#comments).

The folks at MSNBC wants us to make them the place to get our info on one of the most important decisions ever. Turns out we're getting that info from a bunch of whiney, back-stabbing, petty anchors.

An epic feud has erupted on the air between Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Shuster. They're all accusing each other of being bias, partisan and all around D-bags. They can no longer hide their contempt for each other on the air. The deal is that Scarborough is odd man out because he's a former Republican congressman. The others are known Democrats, except for Shuster, who claims he's never had an affiliation with anything except Just For Men haircare.

Olbermann is winning the "Biggest whiney, self-absorbed douchebag" poll.

[zaphrodesiac]

Olbermann and Matthews are the biggest hack idiots in the fucking business.

[Mr. Brown]

did you really just post a "news" article from tmz? which in turn sites the new york post?

[Alcestis]

Pat yourself on the back, you have the ability to read.

And if you pay attention to any "news" articles posted from MSNBC, they'll actually quote TMZ. Something I find very amusing.

[Mr. Brown]

yeah i was being sarcastic. hard to emote emotion when typing

[Mustard]

did you really just post a "news" article from tmz? which in turn sites the new york post?
Would that be the same NY Post that is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is constantly blasted and called out for his ridiculous statements by KO on MSNBC?

Getting legit news from the NY Post is like the smallest step above getting legit news from The Onion. The NY Post is the Faux News of newsprint, and anything they print I can generally laugh off as either not credible, or partisan in nature.

[Mr. Brown]

Hey page 6 is where turn to first every morning.

[Mustard]

Hey page 6 is where turn to first every morning.
Yep, you nailed it. Every morning when I wake up the first thing I do is turn on Fox and Friends for my news, then read page six, then repeatedly punch myself in the balls to feel alive again.

[Stax]

c-OpIXfXKO8

[Hoser]

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are all the news anyone needs.

[Mr. Brown]

shut up

[Hoser]

Blow me

[Pike Bishop]

Pat yourself on the back, you have the ability to read.

Give the dude another five years, he might learn how to write, too.

[nirvanasaves]

I tend to turn to CNN. I find it to be the most neutral in its coverage (compared to MSNBC & Fox News. I like MSNBC but it's definitely left leaning. Fox News is the worst channel broadcasting today.

[Hobnail_Boot]

Jon Stewart Skewers FOX News On Their Palin Hypocrisy (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/09/05/jon_stewart_skewers_fox_news_on_their_palin_hypocr isy.php)

[nirvanasaves]

I love that clip

[Mustard]

Jon Stewart Skewers FOX News On Their Palin Hypocrisy (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/09/05/jon_stewart_skewers_fox_news_on_their_palin_hypocr isy.php)
This proves that at least 23 people are functionally retarded.

[Hobnail_Boot]

GZ1nDl8yLvk

[Hobnail_Boot]

"Obscure FOX News blog trickles out truth: McCain lying about Obama tax plans" (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/09/06/obscure_fox_news_blog_trickles_out_truth_mccain_ly ing_about_obama_tax_plans.php)

[Okie Medicvet]

If you had to pick one Cable news channel to watch from now on which one would you choose and why?

I don't get BBC where I live unless it's online, but I do like to read their articles, as they have a great leg up when it comes to reporting international matters. And the cable channel I get a lot of my news from isn't even on that list...it's C-Span. I get to listen to candidates and party representatives speeches without the talking heads and commercial interruptions and compacted for our edification into soundbites.

Also, they have more comprehensive coverage of the results of Hurricane Gustav, interviewing different people at length, for instance, asking questions of people standing in line for govt. distributed ice and mre's and tarps and cots if needed. Gustav is still affecting hundreds of thousands of people, and yet now that most newscasters don't have a storm blowing hard at them they act like there's nothing left to report, which I think is pretty messed up.

[BSM]

CURRENT didn't even make the list -

Real Shame. Not.

[Rover]

MSNBC admits bias and shitcans Olbermann and Matthews. It finally took Brokaw and Williams stepping up. Brokaw might be left-leaning, but at least he's fair and professional.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html

MSNBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/MSNBC+Interactive+News+LLC?tid=informline) is removing Keith Olbermann (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Keith+Olbermann?tid=informline) and Chris Matthews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Chris+Matthews?tid=informline) as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.
David Gregory (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Gregory?tid=informline), the NBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NBC+Universal+Inc.?tid=informline) newsman and White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) correspondent who also hosts a program on MSNBC, will take over during such events as this fall's presidential and vice presidential debates and election night.
The move, confirmed by spokesmen for both networks, follows increasingly loud complaints about Olbermann's anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) and GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=informline) nominee John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) on his "Countdown" program, was effusive in praising the acceptance speech of Democratic nominee Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline). He drew flak Thursday when the Republicans played a video that included a tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that if the networks had done that, "we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize."

[Genius]

I can't say that I'm surprised by that, but the timing, yes. NOW they are too liberal? They haven't been since the beginning? WTF? Olbermann may be a jackass, but he makes comments like that all the time, and did so during the last election, too. MSNBC looks like a bunch of pussies right now.

[Hobnail_Boot]

MSNBC admits bias and shitcans Olbermann and Matthews. It finally took Brokaw and Williams stepping up. Brokaw might be left-leaning, but at least he's fair and professional.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html
I believe MSNBC's election shows will drop in ratings because of this. Maybe.
I can't say that I'm surprised by that, but the timing, yes. NOW they are too liberal? They haven't been since the beginning? WTF? Olbermann may be a jackass, but he makes comments like that all the time, and did so during the last election, too. MSNBC looks like a bunch of pussies right now.
Yep.

[Okie Medicvet]

Well I guess I shouldn't watch CNN right now because they are reporting in the news, along with Time magazine online, that Palin wanted to ban books and prays to her god for war. But what do they know, snopes says it's false.:rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm saying this, but snopes is beginning to lose credibility where I'm concerned, especially since they are not willing to at least say it is in the 'maybe' category.