3 ms·
Carlson and Maddow are both polemics that tend to spew nonsense, they are both main personalities for their respective networks (and political spheres) and bot
by amscanne 5y ago
Carlson and Maddow are both polemics that tend to spew nonsense, they are both main personalities for their respective networks (and political spheres) and both lead in ratings. Maddow also shows a well-developed ability to mash up opinion and fact, and I don’t accept that her distortions are somehow less bad.
Whether the rest of MSNBC is slightly less awful than the rest of FOX is irrelevant to that point.
- DoctorOW 5y agoThis doesn't address my point at all.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- amscanne 5y agoPerhaps I misunderstood: what is the point you were making? I don't think broader criticisms of Fox News and MSNBC are relevant. Rachel Maddow obviously also demonstrates an "inability to separate talking points from journalism".
- DoctorOW 5y agoSimple. Both Carlson and Maddow are claiming they aren't journalists reporting for news programs as a legal defense for failing journalistic standards. My point was on air, Tucker Carlson is represented as a journalist on a supposedly non-partisan news network. Rachel Maddow has made no such claims.
- amscanne 5y agoHave you seen these shows? To me, Tucker Carlson comes off more as a talk show, and Rachel Maddow’s show is styled as news and analysis. Heck, Wikipedia agrees with this perception: the description and genre of Maddow’s show both begin with news, which is not true of Carslon’s show. Now I don’t think either of them count as news, although I don’t doubt that a lot of both of their audiences treat them as news anyways. (However, even the most clueless don’t think they are “non-partisan” news networks… they just believe their side is the “fair and balanced” one.) So I simply don’t understand the claims you’re making. The opposite seems true to me, but I figure it’s just a wash.