(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

maddow is fake news.

Quote:Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki leaves out a question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated

Quote:No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

(08-04-2018 02:08 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

maddow is fake news.

Quote:Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki leaves out a question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated

Quote:No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

Do you really want me to go through the BS OAN puts out there? Hint, you really don't. They're almost in Alex Jones territory. Crisis Actor theories, multiple wacky conspiracy theories, open defense of Roy Moore, and the owner there has reportedly ordered its staff to not report on Russian meddling at ALL. Posobiec, a known peddler of Alex Jones level bunk and very disreputable person, works for OAN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network

MSNBC is far, far, far, far, far, far more reputable, and has exponentially higher journalistic and objectivity standards than OAN. Do you really want us to start doing what many on the right do to MSNBC, which is to nit pick their reporting, to OAN? The comparison wouldn't look pretty. Just look through the two wiki articles.

If you're getting your 'news' from OAN, youre getting consipiracy bunko, white nationalist claptrap, and youre not getting many news stories because the networks owner is deliberately not reporting them. If you watch MSNBC, nothing you see on Fox will surprise you. Because if its really news, even if it doesn't fit MSNBCs viewres viewpoint, it still gets covered on MSNBC. You watch MSNBC and you'll be informed. Watch OAN and you'll be handed a mass of misinformation, white nationalism, and outrageous conspiracy theories presented as news without the pretense of any journalistic or objectivity standards.

So Maddow noticed that the WH transcript left out a question and reported on it. She said deliberately. The WH seems to have an excuse that they've put up. So Maddow doesn't buy the WH excuse. He said she said.

Meanwhile OAN has a reporter that reported that David Hogg is really some sort of sleeper agent, Hillary Clinton ran a child orgy ring out of the basement of a DC Pizza Parlor, and actually tried to send fake actors into an anti-Trump crowd with a sign reading "Rape Melania" so that he could blame the anti-Trumpers for saying what he planted in the crowd, actively leaked stolen files from French President Macron to 4chan, and doxxed then encouraged his followers on twitter to target a woman who credibly accused Roy Moore of trying to have sex with her when she was 14 years old. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

No. There's no equivalence between OAN and MSNBC. You might not like MSNBCs analysis, but their news reporting is reputable. OAN has absolutely zero credibility, openly peddles unsourceable stuff, openly censors topics that make right wingers look bad, and has on air talent that repeatedly has tried to create literal fake news.

(08-04-2018 02:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:08 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

maddow is fake news.

Quote:Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki leaves out a question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated

Quote:No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

It was a non-story, but being the unhinged alt-leftist that she is, she tried to turn it into something, but failed miserably and got called out (and put in her place) by the amazon post (a rag in and of itself, but more reputable than fake news msnbc).

(08-04-2018 02:20 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:08 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

maddow is fake news.

Quote:Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki leaves out a question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated

Quote:No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

It was a non-story, but being the unhinged alt-leftist that she is, she tried to turn it into something, but failed miserably and got called out (and put in her place) by the amazon post (a rag in and of itself, but more reputable than fake news msnbc).

Seriously, no response about OAN. The OP is about an OAN 'news' story. Their credibility is the issue here.

But obviously you're having difficulty understanding the difference between a disagreement about the nuance of a story by Maddow, and outright making stuff up that goes on at OAN. They just make stuff up. They also refuse to report on newsworthy events simply because the owner doesn't like the story.

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

No, they don't.

If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

Number one, that's not actual objective reporting.

Number two, Maddow doesn't report exactly what Fox is reporting. She picks one two things that Fox reported and goes after them, usually based on far-left-leaning opinion rather that objective facts. At that's what she was doing the last time I watched her, or Fox, which has been a while ago.

Bottom line, if you think Maddow is “objective reporting,” I’m sorry.

(08-04-2018 03:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:20 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:08 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you watch Maddow, you'll know exactly what Fox News is reporting on a particular issue. She reports it. And she sources here stuff too. Its real reporting. If anything, Maddow's stuff is way too sourced. for most people.

maddow is fake news.

Quote:Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki leaves out a question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated

Quote:No, the White House didn’t intentionally edit a question to Putin out of a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

It was a non-story, but being the unhinged alt-leftist that she is, she tried to turn it into something, but failed miserably and got called out (and put in her place) by the amazon post (a rag in and of itself, but more reputable than fake news msnbc).

Seriously, no response about OAN. The OP is about an OAN 'news' story. Their credibility is the issue here.

But obviously you're having difficulty understanding the difference between a disagreement about the nuance of a story by Maddow, and outright making stuff up that goes on at OAN. They just make stuff up. They also refuse to report on newsworthy events simply because the owner doesn't like the story.

Its simply indicative of how warped the Republican party has become. I know there are similar blogs and websites on the left, but not nearly as many and they are seldom linked and played off as legitimate. I am amzaed at how often OAN, The Daily Caller, World Net Daily, The American Thinker, The Washington Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, Townhall, Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, The Daily Wire. CNS News, The Daily Signal, Mediate, The Free Republic are all linked and played off over here as legitimate sources of news. And yes, the left has them too, Raw Story, Salon, Daily KOS, Huffington Post, but I seldom see them linked to support a story.

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

Most ridiculous comment of the week...and that's saying something

(08-04-2018 08:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 03:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:20 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:08 AM)Kronke Wrote:  maddow is fake news.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch...associated


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...6039dedcb9

LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

It was a non-story, but being the unhinged alt-leftist that she is, she tried to turn it into something, but failed miserably and got called out (and put in her place) by the amazon post (a rag in and of itself, but more reputable than fake news msnbc).

Seriously, no response about OAN. The OP is about an OAN 'news' story. Their credibility is the issue here.

But obviously you're having difficulty understanding the difference between a disagreement about the nuance of a story by Maddow, and outright making stuff up that goes on at OAN. They just make stuff up. They also refuse to report on newsworthy events simply because the owner doesn't like the story.

Its simply indicative of how warped the Republican party has become. I know there are similar blogs and websites on the left, but not nearly as many and they are seldom linked and played off as legitimate. I am amzaed at how often OAN, The Daily Caller, World Net Daily, The American Thinker, The Washington Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, Townhall, Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, The Daily Wire. CNS News, The Daily Signal, Mediate, The Free Republic are all linked and played off over here as legitimate sources of news. And yes, the left has them too, Raw Story, Salon, Daily KOS, Huffington Post, but I seldom see them linked to support a story.

And even there, Salon, Daliy Kos, and Huffpost are light years more credible than any of those outlets on the right. While in the case of Kos and Huffpo, there's an issue with using crowdsourced reporting, they make an attempt to get it right and when they're wrong, they retract. The issue with Kos or Huffpo is that they provide selected news, not generalized coverage.

Comparing DailyKos to Gateway Pundit, Info Wars, or OAN is still not really appropriate. Gateway, InfoWars and OAN or their reporters routinely make stuff up. Markos takes his job seriously and genuinely cares about trying to get the stories that they report correct.

Raw Story does actually break some real news, but they tend to be a bit fast and loose. Best to double check them.

(08-04-2018 12:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  What is OAN?

The right’s equivalent of msnbc

No, MSNBC does actual objective reporting.

So does OAN. Both, however, have a viewpoint and only report from that viewpoint.

(08-04-2018 11:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 08:49 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 03:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:20 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 02:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. So was the question left out of the WH transcript or not? Actually yes. But they have some spin as to why it was left out. I think if that's what you're trying to burn Maddow on, its pretty weak.

It was a non-story, but being the unhinged alt-leftist that she is, she tried to turn it into something, but failed miserably and got called out (and put in her place) by the amazon post (a rag in and of itself, but more reputable than fake news msnbc).

Seriously, no response about OAN. The OP is about an OAN 'news' story. Their credibility is the issue here.

But obviously you're having difficulty understanding the difference between a disagreement about the nuance of a story by Maddow, and outright making stuff up that goes on at OAN. They just make stuff up. They also refuse to report on newsworthy events simply because the owner doesn't like the story.

Its simply indicative of how warped the Republican party has become. I know there are similar blogs and websites on the left, but not nearly as many and they are seldom linked and played off as legitimate. I am amzaed at how often OAN, The Daily Caller, World Net Daily, The American Thinker, The Washington Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, Townhall, Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, The Daily Wire. CNS News, The Daily Signal, Mediate, The Free Republic are all linked and played off over here as legitimate sources of news. And yes, the left has them too, Raw Story, Salon, Daily KOS, Huffington Post, but I seldom see them linked to support a story.

And even there, Salon, Daliy Kos, and Huffpost are light years more credible than any of those outlets on the right. While in the case of Kos and Huffpo, there's an issue with using crowdsourced reporting, they make an attempt to get it right and when they're wrong, they retract. The issue with Kos or Huffpo is that they provide selected news, not generalized coverage.

Comparing DailyKos to Gateway Pundit, Info Wars, or OAN is still not really appropriate. Gateway, InfoWars and OAN or their reporters routinely make stuff up. Markos takes his job seriously and genuinely cares about trying to get the stories that they report correct.

Raw Story does actually break some real news, but they tend to be a bit fast and loose. Best to double check them.

CNN routinely makes stuff up. NY times doesn't take the job of getting it right seriously. Huff Post is a joke. Salon is all opinion disguised as news.

LOL. Please let me know what CNN reporter actually plants fake protesters in a false flag operation so they can report on it.

1) You should present the whole story - That doesn't mean you are required to present unsourced conspiracy theories as fact nor present 'the other side' if they're no evidence that that source is truthful.

2) Not presenting the story with the spin desired by one side is not the same as not being fair.

3) Not allowing one side to simply change the subject isn't being unfair

4) Refusing to put on a panelist who has repeatedly lied, filibustered, and attempted to shout down the discussion is not bias.

OAN and/or its staff, frequently and deliberately makes stuff up. Their sourcing sucks, and they not only have a ideological bias in their analysis, but they deliberately use bias in infoentertainment presented as 'news' or 'factual reporting'.

(08-05-2018 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Please let me know what OAN reporter actually plants fake protesters in a false flag operation so they can report on it.

1) You should present the whole story - That doesn't mean you are required to present unsourced conspiracy theories as fact nor present 'the other side' if they're no evidence that that source is truthful.

2) Not presenting the story with the spin desired by one side is not the same as not being fair.

3) Not allowing one side to simply change the subject isn't being unfair

4) Refusing to put on a panelist who has repeatedly lied, filibustered, and attempted to shout down the discussion is not bias.

CNN and/or its staff, frequently and deliberately makes stuff up. Their sourcing sucks, and they not only have a ideological bias in their analysis, but they deliberately use bias in infoentertainment presented as 'news' or 'factual reporting'.

FIFY

(08-05-2018 04:33 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Please let me know what OAN reporter actually plants fake protesters in a false flag operation so they can report on it.

1) You should present the whole story - That doesn't mean you are required to present unsourced conspiracy theories as fact nor present 'the other side' if they're no evidence that that source is truthful.

2) Not presenting the story with the spin desired by one side is not the same as not being fair.

3) Not allowing one side to simply change the subject isn't being unfair

4) Refusing to put on a panelist who has repeatedly lied, filibustered, and attempted to shout down the discussion is not bias.

CNN and/or its staff, frequently and deliberately makes stuff up. Their sourcing sucks, and they not only have a ideological bias in their analysis, but they deliberately use bias in infoentertainment presented as 'news' or 'factual reporting'.

FIFY

Jack Posobiec - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec

(08-05-2018 05:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:33 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. Please let me know what OAN reporter actually plants fake protesters in a false flag operation so they can report on it.

1) You should present the whole story - That doesn't mean you are required to present unsourced conspiracy theories as fact nor present 'the other side' if they're no evidence that that source is truthful.

2) Not presenting the story with the spin desired by one side is not the same as not being fair.

3) Not allowing one side to simply change the subject isn't being unfair

4) Refusing to put on a panelist who has repeatedly lied, filibustered, and attempted to shout down the discussion is not bias.

CNN and/or its staff, frequently and deliberately makes stuff up. Their sourcing sucks, and they not only have a ideological bias in their analysis, but they deliberately use bias in infoentertainment presented as 'news' or 'factual reporting'.

FIFY

Jack Posobiec - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec

Really? Your going to use Left leaning Wikipedia as a source?