Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
In all seriousness though, your opinion is one thing. To flex objective as if its fact is quite another. What I'd love to know is how you think Olbermann isn't a better comparison to O'Reilly.
|
I mean, they're all pretty similar and blowhardy, but I think Olbermann is a better analogue to Hannity in that they're both these sort of calamitous doom-sayers who overstate everything and who always feel like they know more about things than you do. But, yeah, again, all these guys are essentially the same clown.
And, hey, how could you possibly rail on me for not being objective when you're a flippin Chris Matthews fan?
Quote:
|
You claim to watch more Cable news than me, but I don't know how much of its sinking in. What cable news do you watch? Who do you watch?
|
Hmmmm, well I check in on every cable news networks' biggest shows semi-regularly. I cringe the whole way through and I dislike I think all of the hosts on a personal level but, for whatever reason, I still watch every show. That was one of my points in my first post - how the cable news pundit is given this platform and, without fail, becomes an unlikable, self-serving, self-aggrandizing douche. I used Rachel Maddow as an example. Rachel Maddow was charming and informed when she was paired up with Pops Buchanan, but ever since she landed her own show, she's morphed into another Olbermann. Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews & Sean Hannity are the worst, I think
Quote:
|
Regardless of who's opinion falls where, you painted punditry, punditry you clearly don't watch, with a broad stroke. I'm asserting that theres still good jorunalism exhibited out there, and I used examples.
|
Well, look, I'm all about broad strokes and generalizations, but I really do think the 24 hour news cycle has many flaws
And these studio shows with the one blowhard in the middle are the absolute last place I'd look to find "good journalism"