Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

Toni said:

Swammerdami said:

Toni said:

I never watch/listen to Rachel Maddie or any of the talking heads that claim to report the news. I read it instead or listen to NPR or PBS.

Click to expand...

...
WHERE else did these stories appear, with the dots connected to Trump as well as Ms. Maddow did?
Really: WHERE else would you find this story?

Click to expand...

Connecting the dots is bad?

The big reason I don’t watch the news is that too many were opinionating and not informing. I want information and sometimes that means connecting the dots especially for topics where some of the information is somewhat esoteric to most of the audience. It may not be obvious that A is connected to D if you aren’t aware of B and C.

Click to expand...

You've lost me completely.
First you lump Rachel with the "talking heads" you deprecate.
Then you agree with me -- and Rachel -- that connecting dots is good.

It would be almost impossible for you or I to construct that Kazakh story by ourselves from any ordinary news. Rachel can do because there's a large research organization available to her.

Swammerdami said:

Toni said:

Swammerdami said:

Toni said:

I never watch/listen to Rachel Maddie or any of the talking heads that claim to report the news. I read it instead or listen to NPR or PBS.

Click to expand...

...
WHERE else did these stories appear, with the dots connected to Trump as well as Ms. Maddow did?
Really: WHERE else would you find this story?

Click to expand...

Connecting the dots is bad?

The big reason I don’t watch the news is that too many were opinionating and not informing. I want information and sometimes that means connecting the dots especially for topics where some of the information is somewhat esoteric to most of the audience. It may not be obvious that A is connected to D if you aren’t aware of B and C.

Click to expand...

You've lost me completely.
First you lump Rachel with the "talking heads" you deprecate.
Then you agree with me -- and Rachel -- that connecting dots is good.

It would be almost impossible for you or I to construct that Kazakh story by ourselves from any ordinary news. Rachel can do because there's a large research organization available to her.

Click to expand...

I wonder, when does "connecting the dots" become conspiracy theory or is it just in who is saying it?
She does spin a compelling yarn but they were too few and infrequent for me to give her my time on a regular basis. But I do wonder if I was more amenable because of the source.
Are her connections as tenuous as those from the Fox News box of animal crackers?

TV and credit cards said:

Are her connections as tenuous as those from the Fox News box of animal crackers?

Click to expand...

No.
Her stuff is well thought out, but easy to trash to the satisfaction of fascists who lack the wherewithal to follow anything more complicated than tic tax toe.
Her extrapolations are generally more solid than Fox’s direct reporting, as far as correspondence to facts.

Toni said:

thebeave said:

Elixir said:

Swammerdami said:

I've avoided her for months but I just clicked on a Rachel Maddow show. (I clicked in part because my kids had mentioned Kazakhstan as an up-and-coming holiday destination.)

Click to expand...

She is a real talent. Connecting dots, mainly.
She can deliver an extra extraordinary amount of information in a minimum of words, her adjectives are biased but her facts, though selective, are relevant to her points.
I tire of her voice rapidly, but if it’s something I wanted to know she delivers it well.

Click to expand...

RM has some talent as a broadcaster and political pundit, but I would be careful about taking her at her word. Looking at the Ad Fontes Media Bias chart, her score is on the low side, both in terms of bias (-18) and reliability (31). The frequently derided and dismissed NY Post has a bias of +9, and a reliability of 31. So, RM and NYP are about equally reliable, but RM is far more biased to the left than the NYP is biased to the right. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

What’s the bias in this case?

I never watch/listen to Rachel Maddie or any of the talking heads that claim to report the news. I read it instead or listen to NPR or PBS.

Click to expand...

Maddow is slotted into the more analysis and 'wide variation' than reporting facts, rating around the same on that scale as "The Blaze". So that chart isn't worth a fucking damn.

Maddow has a good deal of noise, and she is partisan to the left, but not particularly untrustworthy. Just that there noise to info ratio might be elevated, as expected for cable news (which is why I don't watch it).

Jimmy Higgins said:

Maddow has a good deal of noise, and she is partisan to the left, but not particularly untrustworthy. Just that there noise to info ratio might be elevated, as expected for cable news (which is why I don't watch it).

Click to expand...

Not to wear out the analogy, but much of the “noise” is biased explanatory diatribes, connecting more squares than tic tax toe.
The connections are real but not always indicative of the implied funny business. However without such explanation, duller viewers like myself might not arrive at the desired conclusion that Trump and his Republican enablers are all evil scumbags.
I find that assumption offensive, having determined that Trump was a lying evil scumbag over 40 years ago, almost certainly before Rachel had any idea about it.

thebeave said:

Elixir said:

Swammerdami said:

I've avoided her for months but I just clicked on a Rachel Maddow show. (I clicked in part because my kids had mentioned Kazakhstan as an up-and-coming holiday destination.)

Click to expand...

She is a real talent. Connecting dots, mainly.
She can deliver an extra extraordinary amount of information in a minimum of words, her adjectives are biased but her facts, though selective, are relevant to her points.
I tire of her voice rapidly, but if it’s something I wanted to know she delivers it well.

Click to expand...

RM has some talent as a broadcaster and political pundit, but I would be careful about taking her at her word.

Click to expand...

And yet you never say this about any right wing commentator. Ever.

Swammerdami said:

Toni said:

Swammerdami said:

Toni said:

I never watch/listen to Rachel Maddie or any of the talking heads that claim to report the news. I read it instead or listen to NPR or PBS.

Click to expand...

...
WHERE else did these stories appear, with the dots connected to Trump as well as Ms. Maddow did?
Really: WHERE else would you find this story?

Click to expand...

Connecting the dots is bad?

The big reason I don’t watch the news is that too many were opinionating and not informing. I want information and sometimes that means connecting the dots especially for topics where some of the information is somewhat esoteric to most of the audience. It may not be obvious that A is connected to D if you aren’t aware of B and C.

Click to expand...

You've lost me completely.
First you lump Rachel with the "talking heads" you deprecate.
Then you agree with me -- and Rachel -- that connecting dots is good.

It would be almost impossible for you or I to construct that Kazakh story by ourselves from any ordinary news. Rachel can do because there's a large research organization available to her.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry you don’t understand. In general, when I try to watch network news, everyone is doing a lot more opining than presenting information and context. That includes Maddow. Talking heads is just a) a great band and b) a general term for news presenters, at least afaik.

To me, it doe not matter whether I agree with the political bias or not: I want information and context. Context, to me, includes connecting the dots.

Taken together these two stories reek of corruption in the Trump Administration and the Trump Organization and how to even tell the two apart.

Under Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton... the commingling of private commercial interests and state policy would have instantly caused a congressional investigation and possibly a DOJ investigation.

Now this obvious conflict of interest is totally ignored.





Oh and Saudi Prince big welcome at the White House

Isn't this the same Saudi Prince who had the Saudi Journalist murdered?