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

[Swammerdami]

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.

...
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?

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.

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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

...
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?

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.

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.

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?

 

[Elixir]

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

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.)

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.

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'.

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.

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).

 

[Elixir]

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).

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.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.)

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.

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

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

 

[Toni]

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.

...
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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[crazyfingers]

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.

A Mideast Development Firm Has Set Up Shop in Trump Tower

Dar Global bet big on the Trump name. It is now an essential foreign partner for the Trump Organization.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Says U.S. Will Sell F-35s to Saudis, Despite Pentagon Concerns

The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he planned to sell the advanced fighter jets to Riyadh.

www.nytimes.com

Oh and Saudi Prince big welcome at the White House

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/16/politics/saudi-crown-prince-trump-white-house

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Saudi Arabia is promising to invest $600 billion in the US. You just throw out a big number and Trump thinks that means something. What in the heck is Saudi Arabia going to invest $600 billion in? Affordable housing? Production plants? Does anyone appreciate how long it takes to spend that much? So Saudi Arabia gets stuff up front, doesn't do anything in the US and we've destabilized the Middle East just that much more. It'd be funny, in a hypothetical sense only, of Saudi Arabia armed with Trump sold weaponry destroying Israel. Of course, Trump doesn't care about Israel, so that wouldn't be a problem for him. As long as a port of New Arabia was called Trumpius.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

A Mideast Development Firm Has Set Up Shop in Trump Tower

Dar Global bet big on the Trump name. It is now an essential foreign partner for the Trump Organization.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Says U.S. Will Sell F-35s to Saudis, Despite Pentagon Concerns

The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he planned to sell the advanced fighter jets to Riyadh.

www.nytimes.com

Oh and Saudi Prince big welcome at the White House

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/16/politics/saudi-crown-prince-trump-white-house

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

Yup. Prince Bonesaw.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[thebeave]

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.)

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.

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

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

Ya know, you're actually kinda cute when you are so cocksure of your statements.

From this thread

Post #8

It seems this is a common defense these days. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson have used the same argument when they get caught spreading misinformation. Why anyone would take their word on things as the gospel truth is beyond me.

Post # 11

If you want to know what Maddow and Carlson said that warranted the lawsuits, you could start by actually reading the link I posted. It tells you in there. To summarize, they both used words that were a bit hyperbolic compared to their actual meaning. The difference between the two is largely insignificant. The point is what I said earlier. Both are biased, both lie and neither is to be trusted to always give you factual content.

I recall from a recent thread that you are a fan of Carl Sagan. Me too! He is an advocate for people supporting their claims with evidence. You should take heed of his advice. Instead, you make false claims about people without supporting evidence. You know who also does this? President Donald Trump. Wouldn't you rather follow the lead of Carl Sagan instead?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.)

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.

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

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

Ya know, you're actually kinda cute when you are so cocksure of your statements.

From this thread

Congrats on calling out Carlson... four years ago. Your attention to honesty in the media is compelling. Both sides!

And yes, I don't agree saying that something is "literally *insert whatever*" can be understood as exaggeration or opinion. The "literally" part is the disclaimer that implies 'I really believe this!' Oddly enough, it'd be an American company, the Herring Network buoyed by funding from American juggernaut AT&T that'd ultimately be responsible for the shit show that is OANN. Our democracy is going to hell because it was profitable for corporate media to help it along that path. That is really the lesson to be learned here.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.)

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.

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

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

Ya know, you're actually kinda cute when you are so cocksure of your statements.

From this thread

Post #8

It seems this is a common defense these days. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson have used the same argument when they get caught spreading misinformation. Why anyone would take their word on things as the gospel truth is beyond me.

Post # 11

If you want to know what Maddow and Carlson said that warranted the lawsuits, you could start by actually reading the link I posted. It tells you in there. To summarize, they both used words that were a bit hyperbolic compared to their actual meaning. The difference between the two is largely insignificant. The point is what I said earlier. Both are biased, both lie and neither is to be trusted to always give you factual content.

I recall from a recent thread that you are a fan of Carl Sagan. Me too! He is an advocate for people supporting their claims with evidence. You should take heed of his advice. Instead, you make false claims about people without supporting evidence. You know who also does this? President Donald Trump. Wouldn't you rather follow the lead of Carl Sagan instead?

Yeah I'm sure Carl Sagan would complain about people who have blue hair and claim people have TDS if they don't like Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is the really weird thing. Posting stuff like that makes things look like there is something to the statement made in some person's email. A statement that even if it were true, I don't think anyone would care. It is simply of note due to the complete apparent randomness of it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm also totally sure Carl Sagan would believe there's a significant number of illegal immigrants who commit violent crime.

And Carl Sagan would totally believe that it's diversity that's the problem! Oh, and he'd be a massive fan of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people!" argument.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.)

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.

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

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

Ya know, you're actually kinda cute when you are so cocksure of your statements.

From this thread

Congrats on calling out Carlson... four years ago. Your attention to honesty in the media is compelling. Both sides!

And yes, I don't agree saying that something is "literally *insert whatever*" can be understood as exaggeration or opinion. The "literally" part is the disclaimer that implies 'I really believe this!' Oddly enough, it'd be an American company, the Herring Network buoyed by funding from American juggernaut AT&T that'd ultimately be responsible for the shit show that is OANN. Our democracy is going to hell because it was profitable for corporate media to help it along that path. That is really the lesson to be learned here.

I think I could be forgiven if I didn't notice a post from... 4 years ago. I do have a decent memory for posts but not that long ago.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Carl Sagan would definitely completely ignore this and believe it's a non-issue!

Trump Administration Removes Report on Missing and Murdered Native Americans, Calling It DEI Content - Oklahoma Watch

The Trump administration removed a congressionally mandated report on missing and murdered Native Americans from the DOJ website, citing compliance with an executive order against DEI. Senators who championed the 2020 law are outraged, arguing the administration misclassifies tribal nations as a...

oklahomawatch.org

 

[blastula]

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh well just another nothing statement by Trump nobody needs to worry about, and if you do you have TDS. Carl Sagan approves.