5 ms·

There are left wing Breitbarts just like there's MSNBC for TV. The issue then becomes why these are far less popular. Its not because of a FB algorithm - that

by volak 8y ago

There are left wing Breitbarts just like there's MSNBC for TV. The issue then becomes why these are far less popular. Its not because of a FB algorithm - that's for certain. I can ask everyone in my family if they've heard of Breitbart and 99% will say yes. If I ask if they've heard of Rachael Maddow.. maybe 40%? This is despite both of them engaging heavily in anger porn

jerkstate 8y ago
That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a static background graphic behind her. The rest of her show proceeds with interviews of a single guest with relevant topical experience (prosecutors, congresspeople, attorneys etc.) It's what you'd expect from a Rhodes Scholar and Oxford Ph.D. I never leave her program feeling angry, only ever informed. Contrast this with Fox News, where the last time I tuned in to that channel 3 angry people were screaming across a table at each other about how liberals are going to outlaw hamburgers. The camera is flying around like a sportscast, and there's graphics and animations blaring in the background. The people in the room seem to have no relevant credentials as to the topic at hand. Are there any environmental experts at the table? Food science experts? No, there's just "political analysts" and "strategists".
  - Kye 8y ago
    The only reason I don't watch her show anymore is the endless drug company ads.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    The las time I watched Maddow was when there was some news coming out about Trump's possible hotel deal in Moscow, and how it ostensibly was canned in Aug 2017 and not April. She was spinning a huge web of conspiratorial possibilities. She's a brilliant advocate, well informed, and never 'crosses the line' - but she's definitely an advocate. I'd listen to her more if she moved over to NPR or something along those lines.
  - jliptzin 8y ago
    Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      Have a gander at comedian Jimmy Dore's take on Rachel Maddow: https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+Maddow https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+M... Jimmy is a Bernie guy by the way, not a Trump guy. I recommend any Democrat who is confident in their beliefs to spend some time watching him to see if your information feed might be overlooking some information or perspectives. EDIT: it's interesting, although not surprising, that simply offering an alternative perspective results in downvotes.
      - nilskidoo 8y ago
        This is an environment filled with people who believe adding a prefix or suffix to Capitalism somehow makes a good Capitalism. Thinking outside of boxes only happens offline, contrary to everything the cult believes.
      - autokad 8y ago
        i definitely agree you should not be downvoted for offering an alternative perspective
    - burfog 8y ago
      If you don't read the second paragraph, it seems 100% obviously a case of sarcasm. For some reason, sarcasm goes over badly on HackerNews. Given the second paragraph though, and prior post history... I think it was serious. OMG.
      - ModernMech 8y ago
        Do you actually have anything to add to the diacussion though? I contrasted Rachel Maddow and Fox News with examples. You just want to shake your head and downvote, fine, but don't add a comment like this with absolutely no substance.
  - kodz4 8y ago
    Not sure why you need to be downvoted. I think the commonality is that Rachel Maddow and the talking heads at Fox News aren't journalists. They spend their time telling their audiences how to think. They just do it differently. If you want the news rather than someone telling you how to think you don't need either. Btw Glenn Greenwald has reported about the biases of Rachel Maddow quite a number of times.
    - sodosopa 8y ago
      Greenwald has also been complicit with Assange and Wikileaks. He shouldn’t be the torchbearer around reporting biases.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    I don't watch her, but I'm told she pushes a lot of Russian conspiracy theories.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by volak 8y ago

jerkstate 8y ago

That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.

ModernMech 8y ago
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a static background graphic behind her. The rest of her show proceeds with interviews of a single guest with relevant topical experience (prosecutors, congresspeople, attorneys etc.) It's what you'd expect from a Rhodes Scholar and Oxford Ph.D. I never leave her program feeling angry, only ever informed. Contrast this with Fox News, where the last time I tuned in to that channel 3 angry people were screaming across a table at each other about how liberals are going to outlaw hamburgers. The camera is flying around like a sportscast, and there's graphics and animations blaring in the background. The people in the room seem to have no relevant credentials as to the topic at hand. Are there any environmental experts at the table? Food science experts? No, there's just "political analysts" and "strategists".
- Kye 8y ago
  The only reason I don't watch her show anymore is the endless drug company ads.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The las time I watched Maddow was when there was some news coming out about Trump's possible hotel deal in Moscow, and how it ostensibly was canned in Aug 2017 and not April. She was spinning a huge web of conspiratorial possibilities. She's a brilliant advocate, well informed, and never 'crosses the line' - but she's definitely an advocate. I'd listen to her more if she moved over to NPR or something along those lines.
- jliptzin 8y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Have a gander at comedian Jimmy Dore's take on Rachel Maddow: https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+Maddow https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+M... Jimmy is a Bernie guy by the way, not a Trump guy. I recommend any Democrat who is confident in their beliefs to spend some time watching him to see if your information feed might be overlooking some information or perspectives. EDIT: it's interesting, although not surprising, that simply offering an alternative perspective results in downvotes.
    - nilskidoo 8y ago
      This is an environment filled with people who believe adding a prefix or suffix to Capitalism somehow makes a good Capitalism. Thinking outside of boxes only happens offline, contrary to everything the cult believes.
    - autokad 8y ago
      i definitely agree you should not be downvoted for offering an alternative perspective
  - burfog 8y ago
    If you don't read the second paragraph, it seems 100% obviously a case of sarcasm. For some reason, sarcasm goes over badly on HackerNews. Given the second paragraph though, and prior post history... I think it was serious. OMG.
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      Do you actually have anything to add to the diacussion though? I contrasted Rachel Maddow and Fox News with examples. You just want to shake your head and downvote, fine, but don't add a comment like this with absolutely no substance.
- kodz4 8y ago
  Not sure why you need to be downvoted. I think the commonality is that Rachel Maddow and the talking heads at Fox News aren't journalists. They spend their time telling their audiences how to think. They just do it differently. If you want the news rather than someone telling you how to think you don't need either. Btw Glenn Greenwald has reported about the biases of Rachel Maddow quite a number of times.
  - sodosopa 8y ago
    Greenwald has also been complicit with Assange and Wikileaks. He shouldn’t be the torchbearer around reporting biases.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  I don't watch her, but I'm told she pushes a lot of Russian conspiracy theories.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]