4 ms·

I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I

by bargl 6y ago

I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I mean he's my only example, but Jon Stewart did a skit with him and the quote that got me was, "how many times have you seen your show on my show?" It was a nod to the fact that Chris Wallace does actual news not opinion pieces. I'd actually say he's better and less opinionated than Don Lemon (CNN). This is not me defending FOX. It's more of me railing against other forms of news that I also don't like but sometimes get a presumed pass. I see them as the opposite side of the coin. EDIT: I know this is going to get down-voted. But if you disagree I'd really like to know why. I am someone who listens to others, and am curious why you disagree with this sentiment.

untog 6y ago
> But if you disagree I'd really like to know why. I'll take a stab at it. I agree with you that Fox actually does have some decent news output at various points in the day (dearly departed Shep...), but I simply don't think that CNN has any equivalent to the Fox opinion programming. MSNBC comes closer but it still doesn't have hosts spouting outright disinformation on a regular basis.
- bargl 6y ago
  Who do you like on CNN? Any specific shows you like over there? I named Don Lemon, but I also really dislike a lot of what Anderson Cooper talks about. Shep was awful. What alternate news sources do you like to go to for unbiased news? What forms of disinformation have you found? And I'd like to classify disinformation as a situation you feel they are being purposeful about misinformation. I believe we're both going from the same definition but it's always good to be clear upfront.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    > What forms of disinformation have you found? One example is the remarkably-common “mistake” of putting a “(D)” after the name of an obscure congressman or senator caught committing some crime or other, when the person in question was a Republican. Or the recent coronavirus coverage e.g. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/490776-74-journalism-professors-accuse-fox-news-owners-of-spreading-coronavirus%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/4907...
    - bargl 6y ago
      On the topic of COVID-19 I can do nothing but agree with you. My biggest complaint about reporting at CNN on this topic is that they use Total numbers sometimes and Per-Capita others. Stick with one please. For example. We have done more testing in the USA than in Italy, we also have more deaths than Italy. When you look at Per-Capita the opposite is true. When you mix and match you can say, no we do more daily testing but THEY have more per capita deaths. All of this is when I looked a few days ago, it's possible that there will be a period that we have the highest per-capita in one and not the other etc. But all of that tells a story when you look at it holistically. Fox seems to be instead trying to balance Economics with the health implications. Which is a very important thing for us to consider and we as a world do with things like the seasonal Flu etc. Mislabeling is ridiculous. My frustration came from their treatment of Yang and Gabbard. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/476951-cnbc-uses-wrong-photos-for-andrew-yang-tulsi-gabbard https://thehill.com/homenews/media/476951-cnbc-uses-wrong-ph.... Yes I know CNBC not CNN, but I've spent 30 minutes writing this and I've seen similar things at CNN. Anyway thanks for your reply.
triceratops 6y ago
This is prime r/enlightenedcentrism material.
- bargl 6y ago
  What's your point? I see you've posted this to anyone commenting on CNN/MSNBC.
alasdair_ 6y ago
> I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. I was sharing a personal anecdote of something that happened to me. Why would I add “CNN/MSNBC” to the sentence when I didn’t watch those channels? Nowadays, outside of a couple of notable exceptions (Fareed Zakaria’s GPS and Perhaps one or two others) all of the stations are absolute total garbage. They are only worth watching when a live, raw feed of a major event is occurring and I turn it off when the commentary starts.
- bargl 6y ago
  >I was sharing a personal anecdote of something that happened to me. Fair enough. I infrequently get situations where I have to watch Fox/CNN or at least it's on in the background. But I find them both to be aggravating in similar ways. I comment because a lot of people use this to justify their side by attacking the other. I've been leaning into other sources a lot. I find Bloomberg still has issues but I like them more.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    My current "quick" source of news is NPR's five minute reports that get updated many times per day, I mostly listen on Amazon's Alexa while I make coffee. The BBC also has a similar short "headlines" podcast that is worth listening to that is updated hourly. For long-form stuff, I find a lot of the finance-focused news sources to be about the most reliable/ spin-minimizing. Stuff like The Economist, the Wall Street Journal and Marketplace (NPR) generally get the facts correct and are generally fairly clear when expressing an opinion versus stating a face. Their biases (e.g. The Economist is pro-free market) are clearly stated up-front. Le Monde Diplomatique is a solid addition, as is the English version of Al Jazeera (the Arabic version is supposedly much more biased but I can't confirm that). Der Speigel is good but I rarely read it. Kommersant.ru is also decent (I use Google Translate). Again, even in. countries with authoritarian regimes, the ruling-classes need a way to roughly understand what is going on and usually this means the financial publications are closer to "the truth" than other sources. Channel Four news from the UK is a solid TV News show, with journalists that hammer home on tough questions, but I haven't watched it regularly for a decade and it may have changed a lot.
munk-a 6y ago
I'm left leaning so it might just be bias from where I'm sitting but I dislike Fox, CNN & MSNBC but I feel like Fox is the greatest evil of those since Fox has an immense number of syndicated stations that pipe their message over local markets and since the media alternatives on the right are so few - go past Fox and you're getting into Brietbart and Daily Stormer pretty quickly, while as there are several left leaning alternatives - my problem with that is that Fox seems to capture nearly all of the right wing folks while the left-wingers are more fractured and have a less unified bubble... MSNBC and CNN are both biased, but they're different biases and a lot of folks also tune into NPR, PBS[1] and independent local news sources. 1. Yup - the News Hour is where like 90% of the MSM consumers I know get their news now.
- bargl 6y ago
  I can get behind that. I really have a problem with Fox being the single source of truth for right wingers. But that's been changing a bit as the right moves further to the right. Another interesting albeit anecdotal thing I've notices is the progressive portion of the party moving so far left that they have started classifying some democrats as conservative. I don't think this has played out in the MSM yet but it's going to. I can (as someone who now leans more left than right) say that if I had to pick I'd choose CNN over FOX/MSNBC. But I'd still have blindspots. If you listen to any of the networks in isolation you can't see the counterpoint. I'd also argue that our modern algorithms are more harmful in this way. If you watch one leaning show, it recommends that over others for a while.

by bargl 6y ago

untog 6y ago

> But if you disagree I'd really like to know why. I'll take a stab at it. I agree with you that Fox actually does have some decent news output at various points in the day (dearly departed Shep...), but I simply don't think that CNN has any equivalent to the Fox opinion programming. MSNBC comes closer but it still doesn't have hosts spouting outright disinformation on a regular basis.

bargl 6y ago
Who do you like on CNN? Any specific shows you like over there? I named Don Lemon, but I also really dislike a lot of what Anderson Cooper talks about. Shep was awful. What alternate news sources do you like to go to for unbiased news? What forms of disinformation have you found? And I'd like to classify disinformation as a situation you feel they are being purposeful about misinformation. I believe we're both going from the same definition but it's always good to be clear upfront.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  > What forms of disinformation have you found? One example is the remarkably-common “mistake” of putting a “(D)” after the name of an obscure congressman or senator caught committing some crime or other, when the person in question was a Republican. Or the recent coronavirus coverage e.g. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/490776-74-journalism-professors-accuse-fox-news-owners-of-spreading-coronavirus%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/4907...
  - bargl 6y ago
    On the topic of COVID-19 I can do nothing but agree with you. My biggest complaint about reporting at CNN on this topic is that they use Total numbers sometimes and Per-Capita others. Stick with one please. For example. We have done more testing in the USA than in Italy, we also have more deaths than Italy. When you look at Per-Capita the opposite is true. When you mix and match you can say, no we do more daily testing but THEY have more per capita deaths. All of this is when I looked a few days ago, it's possible that there will be a period that we have the highest per-capita in one and not the other etc. But all of that tells a story when you look at it holistically. Fox seems to be instead trying to balance Economics with the health implications. Which is a very important thing for us to consider and we as a world do with things like the seasonal Flu etc. Mislabeling is ridiculous. My frustration came from their treatment of Yang and Gabbard. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/476951-cnbc-uses-wrong-photos-for-andrew-yang-tulsi-gabbard https://thehill.com/homenews/media/476951-cnbc-uses-wrong-ph.... Yes I know CNBC not CNN, but I've spent 30 minutes writing this and I've seen similar things at CNN. Anyway thanks for your reply.

triceratops 6y ago

This is prime r/enlightenedcentrism material.

bargl 6y ago
What's your point? I see you've posted this to anyone commenting on CNN/MSNBC.

alasdair_ 6y ago

> I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. I was sharing a personal anecdote of something that happened to me. Why would I add “CNN/MSNBC” to the sentence when I didn’t watch those channels? Nowadays, outside of a couple of notable exceptions (Fareed Zakaria’s GPS and Perhaps one or two others) all of the stations are absolute total garbage. They are only worth watching when a live, raw feed of a major event is occurring and I turn it off when the commentary starts.

bargl 6y ago
>I was sharing a personal anecdote of something that happened to me. Fair enough. I infrequently get situations where I have to watch Fox/CNN or at least it's on in the background. But I find them both to be aggravating in similar ways. I comment because a lot of people use this to justify their side by attacking the other. I've been leaning into other sources a lot. I find Bloomberg still has issues but I like them more.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  My current "quick" source of news is NPR's five minute reports that get updated many times per day, I mostly listen on Amazon's Alexa while I make coffee. The BBC also has a similar short "headlines" podcast that is worth listening to that is updated hourly. For long-form stuff, I find a lot of the finance-focused news sources to be about the most reliable/ spin-minimizing. Stuff like The Economist, the Wall Street Journal and Marketplace (NPR) generally get the facts correct and are generally fairly clear when expressing an opinion versus stating a face. Their biases (e.g. The Economist is pro-free market) are clearly stated up-front. Le Monde Diplomatique is a solid addition, as is the English version of Al Jazeera (the Arabic version is supposedly much more biased but I can't confirm that). Der Speigel is good but I rarely read it. Kommersant.ru is also decent (I use Google Translate). Again, even in. countries with authoritarian regimes, the ruling-classes need a way to roughly understand what is going on and usually this means the financial publications are closer to "the truth" than other sources. Channel Four news from the UK is a solid TV News show, with journalists that hammer home on tough questions, but I haven't watched it regularly for a decade and it may have changed a lot.

munk-a 6y ago

I'm left leaning so it might just be bias from where I'm sitting but I dislike Fox, CNN & MSNBC but I feel like Fox is the greatest evil of those since Fox has an immense number of syndicated stations that pipe their message over local markets and since the media alternatives on the right are so few - go past Fox and you're getting into Brietbart and Daily Stormer pretty quickly, while as there are several left leaning alternatives - my problem with that is that Fox seems to capture nearly all of the right wing folks while the left-wingers are more fractured and have a less unified bubble... MSNBC and CNN are both biased, but they're different biases and a lot of folks also tune into NPR, PBS[1] and independent local news sources. 1. Yup - the News Hour is where like 90% of the MSM consumers I know get their news now.

bargl 6y ago
I can get behind that. I really have a problem with Fox being the single source of truth for right wingers. But that's been changing a bit as the right moves further to the right. Another interesting albeit anecdotal thing I've notices is the progressive portion of the party moving so far left that they have started classifying some democrats as conservative. I don't think this has played out in the MSM yet but it's going to. I can (as someone who now leans more left than right) say that if I had to pick I'd choose CNN over FOX/MSNBC. But I'd still have blindspots. If you listen to any of the networks in isolation you can't see the counterpoint. I'd also argue that our modern algorithms are more harmful in this way. If you watch one leaning show, it recommends that over others for a while.