So now she’s going after CNN? This little fella’s something else.

and then you have MSNBC which is a little more objective, a little more liberal. ”

LMAO

Dave, you are indeed a funny guy. Nice to see you talking man to man with RM.

Don’t hit on her Dave . …MSNBC ” objective … a little more liberal ” . I see , Dave . You are a nitwit .

Of course, once again, Rachel is correct here.

But Dave is wrong. CNN is not “out of business” and in fact they are dong very well internationally (profits are up).

Some people say Letterman is a nasty , bitter ,unfunny ,boring , lecherous sleazebag . Kind of harsh , but I concur .

Good, then don’t watch.

Dave won’t miss you.

Apostrophe jones said:
Some people say Letterman is a nasty , bitter ,unfunny ,boring , lecherous sleazebag . Kind of harsh , but I concur .

Ahh, so he says something you disagree with, therefore he’s a “nasty, bitter, unfunny, boring, lecherous sleazebag”?

Just curious, did you believe all this before you knew of his political leanings?

Rachel was spot on and anyone who thinks CNN is doing well need only look at their ratings in contrast to Rachel’s and Keith’s. Sure fox has more viewers than both combined but, as Rachel pointed out they’re a hack political operation. If you don’t believe that then ask yourself why Angle outed them in her interview with Cameron who feigned ignorance when she stated that her campaign only wanted friendly media and only wanted them to ask the questions they wanted to answer. Which is why she has repeatedly appeared on fox. She may be a wingnut lunatic but, she knows of what she speaks. Angle, Paul and Palin will only appear there because they’re friendly which is not what a real news org is supposed to be. Not a haven for idiot candidates who can’t hold their own with ALL media!

stoogedudes said:
Ahh, so he says something you disagree with, therefore he’s a “nasty, bitter, unfunny, boring, lecherous sleazebag”?

He never said that. Why do you just make things up?

vomit

The reason CNN does poorly is because they paint themselves as something they’re not; and that is down the middle. Look at all the exclusives they get from this administration. Wolf takes any criticism of this president by a conservative with an defensive follow up question. Gloria is so far up Obamas ass the only person she can see in front of her is Tommy. Rick Sanchez is a freekin moron . When he does his show they have these ten blogs rotating under his screen, which means they’re trying to influence the issue or he only has around ten viewers. I give MSNBC props because you get what you expect. So next time Wolf and John are bragging going to have lunch with the president they might think twice on how this will be perceived.

Apostrophe jones said:
Some people say Letterman is a nasty , bitter ,unfunny ,boring , lecherous sleazebag . Kind of harsh , but I concur .

stoogedudes said:
Ahh, so he says something you disagree with, therefore he’s a “nasty, bitter, unfunny, boring, lecherous sleazebag”? Just curious, did you believe all this before you knew of his political leanings?

notsofast said:
He never said that. Why do you just make things up?

This exchange is great….

The key to this exchange is that Apostrophe jones said…”Some People Say…”

Tommy Christopher and many of the writers here use that term to slam people…possibly even make stuff up that noone has ever thought of except for the writer…

Now Apostrophe jones uses “Some People Say…” and you lefties get your panties in a wad??? Get over it.. I am quite sure that Apostrophe would quit using the this term if Mediaite writers would…. (I don’t speak for Mr. Jones mind you!)

To Apostrophe Jones….thanks for showing them how they write.

It’s a shame that Maddow thinks the only reason people tune into cable news is because they want to hear opinion. Most of us want to be educated and informed so that we can formulate our own opinion. But I’m not surprised by her statement. Clearly, she has bought into her own cult of personality and has developed quite a case of megalomania. I rather tune into a channel that presents the facts of a story to me and allows me to grow my own opinion than watch someone who validates the way I already feel, even though I may not know the facts, and does not cause my opinion to evolve and grow. Maddow causes division in this country just as much as Hannerty does.

Also, Dave, CNN is far far far from out of business. Perhaps you should look at CNN’s ledger. The network is quite healthy financially and still experiencing growth. Maybe that explains why your ailing network, which is practically on life support, wants to merge with CNN.

Thank you BatBoy . You got it .

Ah, Rachel Maddow talking about “objectivity.” Sort of like an atheist speculating about God.

Dave says MSNBC is a ‘little more objective’. If by objective, he means extreme far left.

gary says: “The reason CNN does poorly is because they paint themselves as something they’re not; and that is down the middle. Look at all the exclusives they get from this administration. Wolf takes any criticism of this president by a conservative with an defensive follow up question. Gloria is so far up Obamas ass the only person she can see in front of her is Tommy. Rick Sanchez is a freekin moron ….”

Well, you’re right about the last item, but you’re wrong otherwise about CNN. If you had said that they lied about bing “the most trusted name is news,” then you would have been on to something. Wolf is considered conservative in some quarters, and I don’t know who Gloria is, but your comment is so metaphorical and mean-spirited that it doesn’t warrant comment.

It’s CNN that is fair and balanced while Fox is the most trusted by conservatives and reactionaries who want their beliefs re-enforced. Where’s that leave MSNBC? It’s the place for politics, just as NBC advertises. You may not appreciate the liberal slant, but at least they don’t mislead their viewers about the purpose of the network.

So which of the three are the most trustworthy? By that I don’t mean anything subjective, I mean which of the three news networks gets the story right most of the time? That is a question I’m hoping to have an answer to in a year’s time before starting the media watchdog watchdog organization, Who’s Watching the Watchdogs?

But did they compare codpieces after the show?

Letterman is big with lesbian crowd.

Not only does Hayes look like her, he talks like her and has like the same mannerisms. It’s kinda creepy.

Maddow wants to be trusted? She just lied about the Sherrod story. She just lied about Fox. Maddow lies all the time. Breitbart tape was not edited, she lied. Fox did not repeatedly run the false story, she lied.

gordonbloyershow says: “Letterman is big with lesbian crowd.”

And based upon all of your comments here I’d have to guess that the Gordon Bloyer Show is big with the blow hard crowd.

gordonbloyershow says: “Maddow lies all the time. Breitbart tape was not edited, ”

How do you f$%king sleep at night? If the Breitbart tape was not edited, there would have been no story! It would have been 44 minutes long!

God’s sake, Gordon, you lose more credibility with every comment. You should be ashamed for such bald-faced lies, but that would require integrity and a conscience.

RM- can I have the name of your barber?

CNN is committing the greatest crime of all – it’s BORING.

Dave says MSNBC is a ‘little more objective’. If by objective, he means extreme far left

Truth is where you find it. Truth often HAS a liberal “bias.” I see very little verifiable truth on Fox News.
Objective or not, at least I can VERIFY most of Maddow’s research, something I can NOT say the same about Fox News commentary.

Hey Glenn I wasn’t trying to be mean spirited, just honest. This administration knew exactly what to do . Forget FOX and you can’t trust MSNBC because they’ll eat their own, so get CNN on your side Do you think it was coincidence that they had a reporter in the car when Obama called Sherrad to opologize for her firing.They are the 1st people to come out with information because it’s hand fed to them.. They send out feelers all the time for this administration.They are the 1st people to get interviews with Axelrod, and the rest of the talking point people they want us to hear. Lately all they talk about is how this president doesn’t get enough credit for what he’s done. Sorry I burst your bubble but you need to open your eyes.

I missed the ‘Dave & Ray Show’? Damn!

msNBC is a little more objective? Okay, maybe during Alex Witt’s weekend show.

Other then that it’s ‘HARD TO PORT MATEY!’

GBR, have you followed the Sherrod story or are you still believing the nonsense that was put out by the left the first day. There were NO edits in the tape Brietbart used. It was segment of the total speech which if you knew anything, is not the same as editing. YOU make a fool out of yourself everytime you post.

CNN fact-checked an SNL sketch critical of Obama. Not even Maddow has had the balls to do that.

Mediaite’s Steve Krakoff writes:
“Letterman bungles the whole Shirley Sherrod timeline but that’s nothing new.”

Not sure why Mr. Krakauer came this conclusion and took a cheap shot. Perhaps it was b/c we all viewed the interview through our own political prism.

I watched the video again and all I heard was Letterman say, “Then Fox News gets ahold of it and reports it as factual, as factual, as factual.”

I try to keep an open mind and am not beyond admitting I’ve made a mistake. So if someone can point out where Letterman “bungled the timeline”, please post a reply.

SHOULD BE
Mediaite’s Steve Krakauer writes….

MSNBC is a little more objective…a little more liberal …………………..?..?

ROFLOLOLOLOL!

roxsteady said:
Rachel was spot on and anyone who thinks CNN is doing well need only look at their ratings in contrast to Rachel’s and Keith’s. Sure fox has more viewers than both combined but, as Rachel pointed out they’re a hack political operation. If you don’t believe that then ask yourself why Angle outed them in her interview with Cameron who feigned ignorance when she stated that her campaign only wanted friendly media and only wanted them to ask the questions they wanted to answer. Which is why she has repeatedly appeared on fox. She may be a wingnut lunatic but, she knows of what she speaks. Angle, Paul and Palin will only appear there because they’re friendly which is not what a real news org is supposed to be. Not a haven for idiot candidates who can’t hold their own with ALL media!

….or maybe Angle, Paul & Palin will only appear there because they are tired of the stupid ‘gotcha’ games the MSM plays. The MSM isn’t fair to these candidates…so why SHOULD these candidates want to appear on their networks? ..The progressive MSM slobbers all over the candidates that they want to see voted into office… just look to the journolist for proof of that. …..you kid yourself if you think that these candidates….or any candidate…would not want to give interviews all around if they thought they would be treated fairly. They know better. So don’t blame the ‘idiot candidates’ who won’t willingly walk into the MSM traps… ..Blame the idiot progressive media outlets you seem to hold to no accountability.

gordonbloyershow said:
GBR, have you followed the Sherrod story or are you still believing the nonsense that was put out by the left the first day. There were NO edits in the tape Brietbart used. It was segment of the total speech which if you knew anything, is not the same as editing. YOU make a fool out of yourself everytime you post.

By only showing that brief portion and framing the story the way he did, he took her comments out of context. That’s why there was a story.

Also, manipulating a video is considered editing it. He chopped off the beginning and the end – edited. This isn’t semantics, just truth by definition.

newsjunkie said:
It’s a shame that Maddow thinks the only reason people tune into cable news is because they want to hear opinion. Most of us want to be educated and informed so that we can formulate our own opinion. But I’m not surprised by her statement. Clearly, she has bought into her own cult of personality and has developed quite a case of megalomania. I rather tune into a channel that presents the facts of a story to me and allows me to grow my own opinion than watch someone who validates the way I already feel, even though I may not know the facts, and does not cause my opinion to evolve and grow. Maddow causes division in this country just as much as Hannerty does.

I watched the interview last night and what Rachel was saying is basically, why put up a personality, put their name on the show and them make them be something other than who they are? There is nothing wrong with choosing for yourself who has valuable analysis, as long as that person is credible. Do people have any reason to tune in to Anderson Cooper rather than anyone else if everyone is just delivering headlines and reciting facts?

How do most people choose which local nightly news to watch? I would think it has more to do with what channel they are watching before and what channel they are going to be watching after, not because there is a substantive difference between the newscasts themselves. And that’s okay because the idea is (or was) that local news shouldn’t have to be profitable. In return for the broadcasting license, everyone watching whatever the t.v. gives them get exposed to at least some news every day.

Cable news is supposed to be the equivalent of the editorial page of the newspaper. As far as the model that Rachel’s employer uses, NBC is the front page news, MSNBC is where you find the editorial columns, if you will, of Maddow, Mathews, Scarborough etc. (their tagline being “The place for politics” ). Fox’s model is straight news in the day, opinion shows at night. But their tagline is always something along the lines of only being able to trust them in all things, news and opinion.

I don’t think it’s fair to equate Hannity with Maddow and accuse her of dividing the country. Having a particular point of view in your analysis shouldn’t be regarded so badly, it’s been around for the entire history of our democracy and can be informative and valuable. I repeat, can be. As Maddow said, the key is credibility, and the best part is that it’s totally optional to consume it.

Myself, I read the news in the morning, and I tune into the political shows at night. I go into the experience already informed on the facts, but find the analysis of authors, soldiers, doctors, activists, politicians, journalists, columnists, etc, helpful to provide insight into the how or why, the opposite side’s point of view and perhaps shine a light on an unexplored element. Sometimes, I see something I am not already familiar with that makes me go “hmmmm” and I turn to my trusty internets and do some research to find out more.

The problem is that people feel like they should get all their news from the t.v., then pick the channel they like the most and come onto boards like these and throw uninformed insults back and forth at each other like sports fans of opposing teams.

Basically, if you want the kind of news you described I would recommend reading it, because there is just not enough time between commercial breaks to do the news properly on television and also make money off of it.

GlennBeckReview said:
That is a question I’m hoping to have an answer to in a year’s time before starting the media watchdog watchdog organization, Who’s Watching the Watchdogs?

GOL (giggled out loud)

“You have the people at Fox who represent kind of the screaming right-wing conservative viewpoint, and then you have MSNBC which is a little more objective, a little more liberal.”
——————————

This Gem from the Misogynist-In-Chief!

Hey Dave, still bitter about Jay taking the Tonight Show – and kicking your ass every night in the ratings!!!!
- keep looking to improve those ratings with msnbc viewers Dave, but that’s a DWINDLING MARKET!
lol! lol! lol!

I think that John King, Howard Kurtz, and Rick Sanchez at CNN have more credibility and objectivity in their little toe than Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews have all put together. Most of the other CNN anchors are also pretty good in my opinion even though some of them talk too much about tabloid news which gets boring (they should put that on their Headline News network instead). I prefer objective news where I can make my own decisions as opposed to so-called “opinion news” where someone biased toward the far right or the far left is trying to tell me what to think!

However I will give Rachel Maddow credit as being more credible and better behaved than her evening colleagues are at MSNBC but she is just as biased toward the far left as her colleagues are in my opinion.

Mitch Dworkin
Dallas, Texas

In our modern times there really isn’t a ‘far left’ unless you are noting that the ‘right’ has gone ‘so far right’ that everyone else is by default ‘far left’.  However the political grid isn’t a globe and one cannot go so far right they end up being left.  The modern ‘far right’ needs to be more cautious as hate fear and vitriol often have side effects… such as the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Dark Ages, and the Salem Witch Trials.