QUOTE OF THE DAY
“You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.”
Alessandra Stanley in The New York Times.
That — THAT — right there tells you all you need to know about what a turd filled cesspool of wrong our national news media has become.
Here’s a reporter writing for the fucking PAPER OF RECORD saying in no uncertain terms that there are journalists who should have no right to say some of the things that they say in the course of doing their jobs as journalists.
And that sentence of shit wasn’t buried in the fifth paragraph of the fucking piece — oh noes! It was the goddamn lede!!!
Doesn’t the Times employ editors to ummmm, you know. . . . edit these things before they get printed?
Congratulations Miss Stanley — you are the Bill in Exile Worst, and Dumbest, Fucking Person in the World.
September 5th, 2012 at 9:48 am
I was more concerned until I started reading and found it to be by an entertainment columnist. the column does have its points, MSNBC is progressive leaning. you just have to look for the news between the commentary.
I don’t do a lot of fact checking, but I have to say that I believe MSNBC to be more factualy correct than Fox News. some of the stuff you hear on Fox News is so ridiculous you don’t even need to think about it before deciding it is false.
that is one thing about web portals that I don’t like, they don’t differentiate between columnist rants and real news articles. they will put anything that is not sports or gossip under the news banner. nothing worse than clicking on an interesting headline and being led to some right wing nut job. (not to say this particular one was, she did recognise Fox News for what it is)
September 5th, 2012 at 10:31 am
We have a winner for the Josef Goebbels Award 2012!
September 5th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Remember when the NY Times was the standard bearer of journalistic integrity?
Yeah, I’m old
September 5th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Stanley sort of edited Sullivan out of the top of the list.
September 5th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
And here the Cumb Dunt gives a withering commentary on Michelle Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/us/politics/from-michelle-obama-a-heartfelt-testimonial-as-the-first-helpmate.html?ref=alessandrastanley
And with her tongue trying to poke into Ann Marie Antioinette Romney’s tight republican ass
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/politics/a-revved-up-ann-romney-at-republican-convention-tv-watch.html?ref=alessandrastanley
September 5th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
What in the living fuck? Oppose their RIGHT to say something? Isn’t that kind of like the opposite of “defend to the death your right to say it”?
Unbelievable.
September 6th, 2012 at 9:46 am
aw. come on guys. read the column. you missed the point. she was saying that news anchors need to report and moderate and not advocate. part of the column was about the lack of pure news coverage.
she has a point. the line between news reporting and commentary is blurry these days. thats why I said you have to look for the news between the commentary.
don’t do the same thing to her as the Republicans are doing to POTUS and the “you didn’t build that” out of context qoute.
September 6th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
“You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.”
I’ve read this several times and it makes absolutely zero fucking sense to me. These hacks have to be on some hardcore drugs or something…
September 7th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Is this woman an American? Does she understand the concept of freedom of speech? I rarely agree with anything Madcow and Schlutz have to say but they are perfectly within their rights to say it. Their shows are quite obviously liberal commentary on the news events of the day and reflect their political leanings. Their programs are not pure news coverage and they don’t pretend to be. Nothing dishonest here. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
September 22nd, 2012 at 2:48 am
I live in the UK, where we have freedom of speech. However in the UK (as I believe was once the case in the US) our broadcast media (not just the straight news programs) are required to provide fair and balanced coverage. This means that stations such as Fox News and the MSNBC would not be allowed to report in the UK as they do in the US. It means that, although there are some variations in reporting style and bias, they are relatively minor. The result? A society that appears to agree about the basic facts of an issue, and which appears to be far less fragmented than in the USA. So, I agree with the article’s point that news programs should report news, and not advocate. Do we have satire? Yes. Do we mock our politicians? Yes. Do we do this on our broadcast media? Yes. Do we feel our freedom of speech is limited by this? No.