What else was she trying to imply by baselessly suggesting that the forged document was created before The Intercept published the real one?
That security at The Intercept was compromised.
What else was she trying to imply by baselessly suggesting that the forged document was created before The Intercept published the real one?
Louise Mensch, is that you? Is it true Jill Stein and Bernie are Russian agents too?!
Snowden was stranded in Russia by the Obama admin while he was trying to get to Latin America. When you cross the strongest country in the world, there's very few places you can hide.
Snowden is an American hero, and he performed a public service. Gtfo
If Snowden is such a hero of privacy and human rights, I'm sure he would have no problems of outlining his issues with the notoriously corrupt and intrusive Russian government. Oh, he's not going to because they shield his ass and party with him?
Frighteningly reductionist take on what actually happened. Most of us are good liberals here but to hand wave what happened is to abdicate responsibility. That's exactly what fox news would do in their sensationalist FOX NEWS ALERT OBAMA SNEEZED ON A COFFEE CAKE AND WALKED AWAY level of irresponsible news journalism that people should be held accountable for.
That was reductionist? More like realistic. Please tell me what responsibilities Maddow has to take for Tweeting about and reporting accurately on her possession of 2 pages of Trump's 2005 Tax Returns. Oh! You must be talking about that 1 hour time frame where everyone got hyped on her tweet thinking that it must be a smoking gun even though she never said such things. Yes, Maddow must be now exactly like FOX News brand of bullshit news because of that 1 hour time period of vagueness (not a lack of facts, not a lack of integrity, not an ignorant show of bias).
She's the Alex jones of liberals. They're not equivalents since there's miles between conservatives and liberals. She's not a liar but boy she's a bullshitter. And she's not a journalist, she's an anchor.
If you can't see the first tweet as a "heeeeeey you guys, we know what you want to hear.......... Sexysexy news" And then a later correction with what amounted to "jk lol" then I don't know dude. I was paying attention as it happens. I was in the thread as it unfolded
But whatever, if you just wanna keep waving it off then there's no point. I never once insinuated that she was anything like fox in this thread, nor was I one of the people claiming she was the lefts version of the super sperm salesman. She has a very real issues with her ability to sometimes contain her own hype for stories that aren't really anything at all in an attempt to always be at 100 just like every other need pundit. Not that sharing one characteristic doesn't make them equal
Edit: auto correct ate a few words
Yeh I was hanging on that whole story too. FACTUALLY and without your coloring of the situation to warrant the GAF-wide disappointment that happened, the tweet was "I have Trump's Tax Return". To which GAF went off and said OMG TRUMP GOING DOWN etc etc. for 1 hour (woopty fuckin doo) to which she clarified and specified exactly what she meant. That's what happened. It's not her fault GAF went into a frenzy of speculation and expectations only to be disappointed. The actual show itself was high quality and provided a lot of education in the usual awesome Maddow ways.
You keep saying i'm hand waving, I'm not. I'm viewing the situation for exactly what it was. People that want to vilify Maddow for that 1 hour of vagueness are blowing the situation out of proportion and coloring her in a way that's ridiculous and over the top. Acting like she's all of a sudden Fox News levels of journalistic bullshit. You say your not equating her to FOX news yet you said "That's exactly what fox news would do in their sensationalist FOX NEWS ALERT OBAMA SNEEZED ON A COFFEE CAKE AND WALKED AWAY level of irresponsible news journalism that people should be held accountable for."
So maybe I misunderstood you, or maybe you should walk back that comparison if you don't mean it.
I'm not equating her. I never said she was like anyone on their line up, I said that what happened in that situation is similar to the tactics used by fox news in a clearly over exaggerated scenario meant to bring levity. I'm sorry you're so fanatical in your support that you cannot bring yourself to entertain the fact that many people here perceived it as a sensationalist bait as it was happening. This'll be my last post on the subject because we clearly will not agree.
:lol She's not a news reporter and it's pretty sad that so many people conflate these things. She's literally NBC's version of fox news, she's as biased and a pat on the back that Hannity and fox news is for the right. You can argue about which has better viewpoints but they serve the same function and very much give their opinion and not all the facts to help push forward whatever agenda she has.
It's fine if you like her she is not a news source and should be viewed mostly as entertainment, same as Olbermann when he was still there.
As I said, they're not equivalents. Conservatives in America are scum 100% batshit crazy. Liberals are, for the most part, functional and decent human beings. That same difference carries over to the comparison, where one talks about lizard people while the other hypes up stories with little regard for the accuracy of facts or any sense of scale about them.
Just like president's merits shouldn't be compared to trump, Fox News is not a good barometer for network news media.
Greenwald and Mensch are cut from the same cloth so it's fitting you would bring one up in a defense of the other.
Rachel used to be a decent progressive, but has since been changed by the establishment. Now she's more likely to attack leftists with reckless abandon than even consider that the Washington way of thinking is flawed
MSNBC is openly editorializing and their official motto is lean forward so yeah shes good as a liberal host but she is most certainly not about presenting information so much as presenting a narrative that makes her opinions on information clear. Its like Daily Show without comedy. Very much about having an audience
I respect her for her obvious intellect on presenting topics.
Well I mean facts tends to have a liberal bias.
Rachel used to be a decent progressive, but has since been changed by the establishment. Now she's more likely to attack leftists with reckless abandon than even consider that the Washington way of thinking is flawed
So critics... what has she been wrong about, mislead people on? What leftists has she gone ham on who didn't deserve it?
There's 5 pages to this thread. Do we really need to rehash the for and against arguments instead of you getting caught up?
Rachel used to be a decent progressive, but has since been changed by the establishment. Now she's more likely to attack leftists with reckless abandon than even consider that the Washington way of thinking is flawed
I read the thread, and for as long as she's been on there was a single example given of her misleading people in a story. The part about the lefty was just brought up this page and not addressed at all. Other than that, it was just some vaugue hot takes on presentation and comparisons eith right wing nuts with no explanation. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up if you don't want to bother with it.There's 5 pages to this thread. Do we really need to rehash the for and against arguments instead of you getting caught up?
I read the thread, and for as long as she's been on there was a single example given of her misleading people in a story. The part about the lefty was just brought up this page and not addressed at all. Other than that, it was just some vaugue hot takes on presentation and comparisons eith right wing nuts with no explanation. So maybe you should just shut the fuck up if you don't want to bother with it.
Speak for yourself.You should probably take a break from the discussion.
I haven't heard of any in discussion about her (and asking seems to offend certain people). My guess though is she probably said something negative about Stein. Or maybe lit up Bernie at some point during elections?As someone who watches her show almost every night...what leftist has she attacked with reckless abandon?
Speak for yourself.
What's your problem?I don't claim to speak for anyone else.
There's 5 pages to this thread. Do we really need to rehash the for and against arguments instead of you getting caught up?
What's your problem?
I really don't care if you got the point. With the way you brought it up, I gave you the level of respect you earned. Basically, I thought you were a grade A dick, so I said something dickish back. That's all there really is to it. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the discusion with you. So go ahead, get your last word in. I'm not interested in wasting more energy on you, or shiting up the thread anymore with this stupid tangent.If you can't make your point without telling someone to shut up, you're not really making your point.
There's 5 pages to this thread. Do we really need to rehash the for and against arguments instead of you getting caught up?
When, in this thread, was it mentioned that she attacked people on the left.. with examples provided (unlike the non sequitur post on this page)?
Falling right into Russian propaganda I see. Snowden lives in Russia, anything he does, he does with Putin's blessing only. Putin owns his life and future. Putin see's Snowden as an asset to spread dissent and mistrust of Western institutions like our Intelligence Community. If you don't think those tweets were to muddy the waters on his Russian partnership, than you are falling right into Russian propaganda. I guess it works for those on the left sometimes as well as a lot on the Right.