4 ms·

I don't watch cable news because the few times I have watched it lately it has been of very poor quality. Notably, Rachel Maddow has been caught embellishing t

I don't watch cable news because the few times I have watched it lately it has been of very poor quality. Notably, Rachel Maddow has been caught embellishing the Russia story to the point where I think it's clear she has a strongly partisan view of the issue which interferes with her ability to do unbiased reporting. I think I had heard about Maddow's Emmy but forgotten about it. Please note that I did not claim that RT's coverage was superior to any other specific coverage, just that RT tends to cover many more of that kind of embarrassing, unflattering story that generally is not part of the major media/entertainment companies' coverage. My point was not about the Flint crisis specifically, it was about the importance of those unflattering kinds of stories to the democratic process.

DonHopkins 9y ago
So no specific examples, huh? How many times do I have to ask you for evidence? You're the one who first demanded specific examples, then reneged multiple times when asked to provide the same thing yourself. You want to have it both ways: in your mind, RT's extremely biased and politically motivated reporting of the Kremlin's official position on Ukraine doesn't disqualify their non-award-winning coverage of Flynt that you can't even produce examples of, but the bias you perceive when Rachel Maddow dares to criticize Trump by reporting his own words and deeds in her coverage of the Russian scandal totally disqualifies all of her award-winning reporting on the Flynt water crisis. Bullshit, comrade. That's totally dishonest and hypocritical of you. You asked for specific examples, and now that I gave you some you don't want to discuss them, and still refuse to prove any specific examples of your own. I gave you those specific examples that you asked for. So I wish you would provide the same when asked again and again. I'll give you another try, now. Please give me links to those RT articles about the Flynt water crisis that you claim are unbiased and better than Rachel Maddow's coverage, and give me links to Rachel Maddow's reporting on the Flynt water crisis that show she's biased. Otherwise admit you don't have any evidence, even though you demand it from other people. Your stonewalling and deflecting and false equivalencies means it's true you have no evidence, and you're ignoring the evidence I gave you, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. At least you've admitted that you're guilty of whataboutism, even though you don't understand what the term actually means. Your own words: "OK I'm guilty." "Specific examples please."

DonHopkins 9y ago

So no specific examples, huh? How many times do I have to ask you for evidence? You're the one who first demanded specific examples, then reneged multiple times when asked to provide the same thing yourself. You want to have it both ways: in your mind, RT's extremely biased and politically motivated reporting of the Kremlin's official position on Ukraine doesn't disqualify their non-award-winning coverage of Flynt that you can't even produce examples of, but the bias you perceive when Rachel Maddow dares to criticize Trump by reporting his own words and deeds in her coverage of the Russian scandal totally disqualifies all of her award-winning reporting on the Flynt water crisis. Bullshit, comrade. That's totally dishonest and hypocritical of you. You asked for specific examples, and now that I gave you some you don't want to discuss them, and still refuse to prove any specific examples of your own. I gave you those specific examples that you asked for. So I wish you would provide the same when asked again and again. I'll give you another try, now. Please give me links to those RT articles about the Flynt water crisis that you claim are unbiased and better than Rachel Maddow's coverage, and give me links to Rachel Maddow's reporting on the Flynt water crisis that show she's biased. Otherwise admit you don't have any evidence, even though you demand it from other people. Your stonewalling and deflecting and false equivalencies means it's true you have no evidence, and you're ignoring the evidence I gave you, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. At least you've admitted that you're guilty of whataboutism, even though you don't understand what the term actually means. Your own words: "OK I'm guilty." "Specific examples please."