• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC bias the Left doesn't recognize

FreeWits

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
279
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. I'm regularly asked for examples. Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias? Even if you call it hyperbole, that would still be highly inappropriate for an objective news source to say.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mueller has never said Trump is guilty of anything, therefore, Trump's base would not have to believe Trump over Mueller to believe Trump is innocent. These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading. MSNBC may end up being factually inaccurate when all of the facts come out, and if they turn out to be right, it would be by happenstance given that the facts aren't out yet. (They often admit the facts aren't all out yet themselves.) For those that make the argument that MSNBC is an objective news source, sorry to inform you, but you have been severely misled.
 
Can you link some example quotes that lead you to this perception
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. ...

Some, yes, but I wouldn't say many. Most member of this forum, both left and right, are pretty intelligent and wouldn't try to say that the media outlets you named were without bias.
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. I'm regularly asked for examples. Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias? Even if you call it hyperbole, that would still be highly inappropriate for an objective news source to say.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mueller has never said Trump is guilty of anything, therefore, Trump's base would not have to believe Trump over Mueller to believe Trump is innocent. These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading. MSNBC may end up being factually inaccurate when all of the facts come out, and if they turn out to be right, it would be by happenstance given that the facts aren't out yet. (They often admit the facts aren't all out yet themselves.) For those that make the argument that MSNBC is an objective news source, sorry to inform you, but you have been severely misled.

Let me ask you. Is Fox news biased?
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't.

Really? Are these posts invisible? I don't ever recall seeing a post here where someone said MSNBC and CCN are not biased. There's perhaps one poster I can think of who might just be dumb enough to say it, but I cannot name this person for obvious reasons.




Hey....you're not using a stupid lie as a jumping-off point for a stupid rant, are you?
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't.

I have never said that I thought MSNBC or CNN wasn't biased.
If you're producing "news product" for a profit, you have no choice BUT to be biased because you have to serve your target viewer demographic and be responsive to their bias.

In the days when TV news was run as if it were something presented "in the public interest" they didn't have to worry about profits, so viewers got told what they NEEDED to hear and not necessarily what they WANTED to hear.


Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias?

You're confusing commentary or analysis with news, "almost every day".
What am I going to do with people like you?
Do they act that way when there is a breaking story about Trump or Mueller? Nope.
It's AFTER the breaking story, when they bring in the pundits and talking heads. That is not news, it is infotainment.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent).

The key word is COMMENT. Shall we look up some of the COMMENTS being made on FOX?

These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading.

Again!!

HELLO!!

33279.jpg
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. I'm regularly asked for examples. Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias? Even if you call it hyperbole, that would still be highly inappropriate for an objective news source to say.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mueller has never said Trump is guilty of anything, therefore, Trump's base would not have to believe Trump over Mueller to believe Trump is innocent. These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading. MSNBC may end up being factually inaccurate when all of the facts come out, and if they turn out to be right, it would be by happenstance given that the facts aren't out yet. (They often admit the facts aren't all out yet themselves.) For those that make the argument that MSNBC is an objective news source, sorry to inform you, but you have been severely misled.

I have never heard a poster at DP defend msnbc as objective journalism. Not once.

What does that say about your premise? What does that say about you?
 
Can you link some example quotes that lead you to this perception


Yeah, I missed where anyone claimed that MSNBC didn't have a leftwing bias.
 
Last edited:

"Really good interview" that was supposed to say....I got caught over stretched again, trying to do too many things at the same time.

Hollywood Reporter has been on my radar last year or so, seen showing up with good work, which is rare anywhere anymore but I would never have expected it from them.

I have no idea what that is all about...
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. I'm regularly asked for examples. Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias? Even if you call it hyperbole, that would still be highly inappropriate for an objective news source to say.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mueller has never said Trump is guilty of anything, therefore, Trump's base would not have to believe Trump over Mueller to believe Trump is innocent. These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading. MSNBC may end up being factually inaccurate when all of the facts come out, and if they turn out to be right, it would be by happenstance given that the facts aren't out yet. (They often admit the facts aren't all out yet themselves.) For those that make the argument that MSNBC is an objective news source, sorry to inform you, but you have been severely misled.

In light of Trump's recent tweet about his son -- The meeting my...son, Donald, had in Trump Tower...was a meeting to get information on an opponent. -- tacitly attests to there having been collusion. What it doesn't tacitly or explicitly attest to is criminally conspiring. If that tweet is what the speaker had in mind or referred to when making the remark you've described, it's not an inferentially uncognet statement.

Red:

  • [*=1]Who said it?
    [*=1]In what program segment?
    [*=1]On what program? (Based on the info in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] paragraph of the OP, I presume it was said on Deadline: White House.)
The answers to those questions are germane because MSNBC, like all cable news programs, have segments and/or programs that are editorial and they have segments/programs that are news and news analysis.


Blue:

  • What it sounds like is an inference. Inferences are fine if they are sound/cogent. As goes the inference you've summarized, whether it's sound/cogent or not depends on the basis the speaker had for making the remark. Can you point us to a video clip (or transcript) of the conversation in which the remark was uttered?
  • Your question predicates itself on a false dichotomy. Objective news and bias are not mutually exclusive things. News can have any combination of a host of qualities, some of which are mutually exclusive and some of which can coexist within the same story, to say nothing of doing so (either) in the same program or network:
    • objective or subjective,
    • normative or positive,
    • biased or unbiased,
    • factually and contextually accurate or factually and contextually inaccurate.

Tan:
What Mueller has "said" can be found in the indictments, guilty-plea agreements, sentencing documents, briefs, and subpoenas, his office has filed in court, and in the questions DoJ attorneys have been asking in the Manafort trial. AFAIK, Mueller hasn't in any way, shape or form otherwise remarked on his investigative activities, targets, strategies, etc.


Teal:
What is your definition of bias? Mine, in the context that's germane to his thread/post, is very straightforward -- an inclination of temperament or outlook -- thus here's bias for and bias against.


Pink + Teal:
???​


  • [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as part of an editorial, almost nobody was misled.
    [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as news analysis, almost nobody was misled.
    [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as news (information), whether they're misleading depends on the context.
Re: the first two instances, the only people who could have been misled are the ones who didn't apprehend the context in which the remarks were presented.​
 
My concerns with MSNBC is that it's too conservative, and too focused on Trump. They used to be more issue oriented, which also meant they were pushing for Progressive reforms.

Not as much now.
 
Who said it?

They hired some former Watergate prosecutors, that's where this started. They said that in most conspiracy investigations, getting the suspect to admit to the conspiracy was the holy grail. Trump's done it on national tv.

That became a theme, as the shenanigans of Trump, Guiliani, and some others keep damaging their own case.
 
They hired some former Watergate prosecutors, that's where this started. They said that in most conspiracy investigations, getting the suspect to admit to the conspiracy was the holy grail. Trump's done it on national tv.

That became a theme, as the shenanigans of Trump, Guiliani, and some others keep damaging their own case.

Well, that narrows the field, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were Phil Lacovara, but it need not be he who made the remark.

(Note: I presume by "they" you mean MSNBC.)
 
Well, that narrows the field, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were Phil Lacovara, but it need not be he who made the remark.

(Note: I presume by "they" you mean MSNBC.)

Mostly it's Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Ackerman. But they've had others, but those are the regulars on MSNBC. They really bring a lot to the table.
 
Mostly it's Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Ackerman. But they've had others, but those are the regulars on MSNBC. They really bring a lot to the table.

News programs employ and put on the air a variety of personnel:
  • News anchors -- journalists; they deliver news, information and editorials; they also moderate discussions among program participants
  • Program hosts -- may or may not be journalists; they deliver information and editorials, which, of course, is aggregated analysis they use to, in turn, present a case; they also moderate/direct discussions among program participants
  • Commentators -- may or may not be journalists, but they nearly always are editorialists
  • Correspondents and reporters (different terms for the same role) -- journalists; they deliver news and information
  • Analysts -- may or may not be journalists; they deliver expert analysis of news, events and situations; occasionally they are asked by a host or other person on a show to offer their expert professional opinion about an event(s), happenstance, etc., but they don't usually go so far as to editorialize.
  • Contributors -- may or may not be journalists; sometimes they serve as analysts and other times as commentators; their dual role can be manifest in the same segment. They're always experts at something.
Sometimes one person may, as is the case with news anchors, perform multiple roles. When that happens, viewers must, if they are to comprehend the nature of the remarks they hear, be able to distinguish among positive and other kinds of statements. (Doing that isn't supposed to defy or remotely tax an adult's thinking skills, but apparently it does more often that one might think.)


Looking at Jill Wine-Banks' site, she attests to being a "contributor and legal analyst;" consequently, she's one of the dual-role people. As with most such folks who appear on television news and information shows, one has to know what their "claim to fame" is and what they're talking about to know whether they're speaking as a contributor or as an analyst.

Looking at Nick Ackerman's site, it's not clear what exactly is his position at MSNBC. MSNBC characterizes him as a legal analyst, so I suspect that's what he is.

n_msnbc_brk_ackerman_171113_1920x1080.760;428;7;70;5.jpg



You'll notice that I've above qualified my remarks with terms like "usually," "nearly always," and so on. That's because news networks, despite their being so named, aren't really "all news, information and analysis all the time." That is, a person who is primarily employed as an analyst could well appear on show A as an analyst and on show B as a commentator. Because that happens, one must, as noted above, know the nature of the program and program segment one is watching to discern accurately the nature of the remarks one is hearing from any given person on the screen.

Only re: commentators is that pretty much not ever in question; they're 99% of the time opining and making arguments one way or another. They're job is to present their point of view on a matter. All that one need be aware of is that the on-air commentators' points of view cannot be taken to be the network's owners', editors' and producers' points of view. On the rare occasion a network (as opposed to a print publication) expresses its own point of view, it'll (1) be clearly noted as such and (2) it'll be expressed by a news anchor or, less often, a program host. E.g.,


  • Fox News regrets....
  • MSNBC demands...
  • CNN adheres to....
News anchors and program hosts also express their own opinions about things. When they're doing so, they won't attest to what their network thinks, says, does, doesn't do, regrets, insists upon, etc.; they'll just say whatever it is they want to say in their editorial. Generally, news anchors' editorials appear at the start or end of a show or, less often, a program segment.
 
In light of Trump's recent tweet about his son -- The meeting my...son, Donald, had in Trump Tower...was a meeting to get information on an opponent. -- tacitly attests to there having been collusion. What it doesn't tacitly or explicitly attest to is criminally conspiring. If that tweet is what the speaker had in mind or referred to when making the remark you've described, it's not an inferentially uncognet statement.

Red:

  • [*=1]Who said it?
    [*=1]In what program segment?
    [*=1]On what program? (Based on the info in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] paragraph of the OP, I presume it was said on Deadline: White House.)
The answers to those questions are germane because MSNBC, like all cable news programs, have segments and/or programs that are editorial and they have segments/programs that are news and news analysis.


Blue:

  • What it sounds like is an inference. Inferences are fine if they are sound/cogent. As goes the inference you've summarized, whether it's sound/cogent or not depends on the basis the speaker had for making the remark. Can you point us to a video clip (or transcript) of the conversation in which the remark was uttered?
  • Your question predicates itself on a false dichotomy. Objective news and bias are not mutually exclusive things. News can have any combination of a host of qualities, some of which are mutually exclusive and some of which can coexist within the same story, to say nothing of doing so (either) in the same program or network:
    • objective or subjective,
    • normative or positive,
    • biased or unbiased,
    • factually and contextually accurate or factually and contextually inaccurate.

Tan:
What Mueller has "said" can be found in the indictments, guilty-plea agreements, sentencing documents, briefs, and subpoenas, his office has filed in court, and in the questions DoJ attorneys have been asking in the Manafort trial. AFAIK, Mueller hasn't in any way, shape or form otherwise remarked on his investigative activities, targets, strategies, etc.


Teal:
What is your definition of bias? Mine, in the context that's germane to his thread/post, is very straightforward -- an inclination of temperament or outlook -- thus here's bias for and bias against.


Pink + Teal:
???​


  • [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as part of an editorial, almost nobody was misled.
    [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as news analysis, almost nobody was misled.
    [*=1]If the segment/remarks were delivered as news (information), whether they're misleading depends on the context.
Re: the first two instances, the only people who could have been misled are the ones who didn't apprehend the context in which the remarks were presented.​

1) Can you establish that Trump has in fact admitted guilt almost every day, even by inference?
2) I told you where I watched the information. I don't have to give you that information from another source. It's your job to find the information.
3) I did not offer a false dichotomy, because you misinterpreted my comment as a dichotomy, which it was not. Those were merely two popular options. I wasn't trying to offer an all-inclusive dichotomy, especially on a character limit.
4) Well, feel free to find any place where Mueller has found Trump guilty of a crime of substance. There has been no arrest as of yet.
5) My definition of bias, in this case specifically against Trump, is prejudice against Trump that is unfair. So, for instance, saying Trump has admitted guilt nearly daily without evidence of this is a great example of the result of this prejudice. One without this unfair prejudice would offer up hard evidence.
6) Calling something an editorial does not exempt one from bias or misleading people. People can still be misled unfairly by opinions. The same is true with analysis.

Update: Btw, see, it's not very easy to find something from the TV on the internet and link it. People have said that's easy and everything on TV is put on the Internet very quickly. Not so. I gave enough information to figure out where this information came from, yet you guys cannot find the information. It's unfortunate that so many people on here use a strategy of trying to "win" by causing lots of work for the other person rather than dealing with the actual information.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard a poster at DP defend msnbc as objective journalism. Not once.

What does that say about your premise? What does that say about you?

When it comes to covering breaking news stories, all of the cable networks are pretty much equally good.
Fox sometimes skips coverage of certain stories but the ones they cover, they do a regular professional job.

After the story breaks, and they bring in the analysts and the talking heads, and the "experts"...that's when you see the bias.
Each channel caters to the built in bias of their identified target viewer demographic. They have to, or they would lose their viewer demo, and their ratings would tank. That affects the bottom line, which tends to make the board of directors and the CEO very upset.

There it is, American cable news networks in a nutshell. You're dealing with a consumer product, not a public service.
If you WANT a public service presented strictly in the public interest, you're probably going to have to be willing to pay a monthly fee, or be willing to let a small amount of your tax dollars or a portion of your cable bill get devoted to supporting it.

C-SPAN is such an entity. The name stands for "Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network".
A small portion of your cable bill, a few bucks, gets used to subsidize their operations, and I think a tiny portion of the taxes on your cable bill get used as well if I remember correctly.
Now, imagine that C-SPAN got a big steroid injection so that they could expand beyond Congress and Senate and do regular 24 hour news coverage. A few more dollars from your cable bill. Since C-SPAN isn't required to make a profit, they can afford to report what you NEED to hear instead of telling you what you think you WANT to hear.
It would be accurate, objective, impartial and balanced, because in order to GET the viewers, it would HAVE to be.
People like you, the ones who hate bias, would probably LOVE it.
Or would you??

After almost thirty-some years of being conditioned to see and hear profit oriented sensationalized cable news, a presentation like I just described might seem dry, maybe a bit long winded, maybe even a little bit boring.

For people my age, who grew up with news presented "in the public interest" in loss leader format, it would be ideal because it would look and sound like AP, or Reuters, or BBC, or any of the old school Harry Reasoner, Walter Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley teams.
 
When it comes to covering breaking news stories, all of the cable networks are pretty much equally good.
Fox sometimes skips coverage of certain stories but the ones they cover, they do a regular professional job.

After the story breaks, and they bring in the analysts and the talking heads, and the "experts"...that's when you see the bias.
Each channel caters to the built in bias of their identified target viewer demographic. They have to, or they would lose their viewer demo, and their ratings would tank. That affects the bottom line, which tends to make the board of directors and the CEO very upset.

There it is, American cable news networks in a nutshell. You're dealing with a consumer product, not a public service.
If you WANT a public service presented strictly in the public interest, you're probably going to have to be willing to pay a monthly fee, or be willing to let a small amount of your tax dollars or a portion of your cable bill get devoted to supporting it.

C-SPAN is such an entity. The name stands for "Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network".
A small portion of your cable bill, a few bucks, gets used to subsidize their operations, and I think a tiny portion of the taxes on your cable bill get used as well if I remember correctly.
Now, imagine that C-SPAN got a big steroid injection so that they could expand beyond Congress and Senate and do regular 24 hour news coverage. A few more dollars from your cable bill. Since C-SPAN isn't required to make a profit, they can afford to report what you NEED to hear instead of telling you what you think you WANT to hear.
It would be accurate, objective, impartial and balanced, because in order to GET the viewers, it would HAVE to be.
People like you, the ones who hate bias, would probably LOVE it.
Or would you??

After almost thirty-some years of being conditioned to see and hear profit oriented sensationalized cable news, a presentation like I just described might seem dry, maybe a bit long winded, maybe even a little bit boring.

For people my age, who grew up with news presented "in the public interest" in loss leader format, it would be ideal because it would look and sound like AP, or Reuters, or BBC, or any of the old school Harry Reasoner, Walter Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley teams.

I watch cSpan.
 
Many people on the Left, who are on this forum, regularly say that Fox News is biased, but the MSNBC's and CNN's of the world aren't. I'm regularly asked for examples. Well, today, on MSNBC, they said that President Trump is admitting guilt (in context of the Mueller investigation) almost every day. Does that sound like objective news, or does that sound like bias? Even if you call it hyperbole, that would still be highly inappropriate for an objective news source to say.

Another comment they made in the same show (8/10/18 between 4:30 CT and 5:00 CT on MSNBC) was that Trump's base believes Trump over Mueller (in context of Trump's base believing Trump is innocent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mueller has never said Trump is guilty of anything, therefore, Trump's base would not have to believe Trump over Mueller to believe Trump is innocent. These kinds of comments show extreme bias, to the point that they are being misleading. MSNBC may end up being factually inaccurate when all of the facts come out, and if they turn out to be right, it would be by happenstance given that the facts aren't out yet. (They often admit the facts aren't all out yet themselves.) For those that make the argument that MSNBC is an objective news source, sorry to inform you, but you have been severely misled.

Since you don’t watch any other outlets but the three you mentioned, you really don’t know what’s going on in the World, do you?
 
Virtually every liberal I know agrees MSNBC has a liberal bias. But they also never had the “Fair and Balanced” claim.
 
News programs employ and put on the air a variety of personnel:
  • News anchors -- journalists; they deliver news, information and editorials; they also moderate discussions among program participants
  • Program hosts -- may or may not be journalists; they deliver information and editorials, which, of course, is aggregated analysis they use to, in turn, present a case; they also moderate/direct discussions among program participants
  • Commentators -- may or may not be journalists, but they nearly always are editorialists
  • Correspondents and reporters (different terms for the same role) -- journalists; they deliver news and information
  • Analysts -- may or may not be journalists; they deliver expert analysis of news, events and situations; occasionally they are asked by a host or other person on a show to offer their expert professional opinion about an event(s), happenstance, etc., but they don't usually go so far as to editorialize.
  • Contributors -- may or may not be journalists; sometimes they serve as analysts and other times as commentators; their dual role can be manifest in the same segment. They're always experts at something.
Sometimes one person may, as is the case with news anchors, perform multiple roles. When that happens, viewers must, if they are to comprehend the nature of the remarks they hear, be able to distinguish among positive and other kinds of statements. (Doing that isn't supposed to defy or remotely tax an adult's thinking skills, but apparently it does more often that one might think.)


Looking at Jill Wine-Banks' site, she attests to being a "contributor and legal analyst;" consequently, she's one of the dual-role people. As with most such folks who appear on television news and information shows, one has to know what their "claim to fame" is and what they're talking about to know whether they're speaking as a contributor or as an analyst.

Looking at Nick Ackerman's site, it's not clear what exactly is his position at MSNBC. MSNBC characterizes him as a legal analyst, so I suspect that's what he is.

n_msnbc_brk_ackerman_171113_1920x1080.760;428;7;70;5.jpg



You'll notice that I've above qualified my remarks with terms like "usually," "nearly always," and so on. That's because news networks, despite their being so named, aren't really "all news, information and analysis all the time." That is, a person who is primarily employed as an analyst could well appear on show A as an analyst and on show B as a commentator. Because that happens, one must, as noted above, know the nature of the program and program segment one is watching to discern accurately the nature of the remarks one is hearing from any given person on the screen.

Only re: commentators is that pretty much not ever in question; they're 99% of the time opining and making arguments one way or another. They're job is to present their point of view on a matter. All that one need be aware of is that the on-air commentators' points of view cannot be taken to be the network's owners', editors' and producers' points of view. On the rare occasion a network (as opposed to a print publication) expresses its own point of view, it'll (1) be clearly noted as such and (2) it'll be expressed by a news anchor or, less often, a program host. E.g.,


  • Fox News regrets....
  • MSNBC demands...
  • CNN adheres to....
News anchors and program hosts also express their own opinions about things. When they're doing so, they won't attest to what their network thinks, says, does, doesn't do, regrets, insists upon, etc.; they'll just say whatever it is they want to say in their editorial. Generally, news anchors' editorials appear at the start or end of a show or, less often, a program segment.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I am not trying to be mean here, but I am not one of those guys that cares. Trying to avoid bias swings for the status quo. The status quo sucks dead male moose reproductive members.

Everybody brings something to the table, a lot of the time it's crap, but 90% of everything is crap.

What I do care about is that they've done all this before, they can add perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom