re: #88 Obdicut

But why is it less convincing? I’m perfectly willing to listen, but can you give an actual explanation of why?

MSNBC has a three hour long morning shoe hosted by an elected GOP member. It’s really, really odd to me that it’s called a far-left station with such regularity.

But far beyond that bit of moderation on the part of MSNBC, the main issue for me is that Fox is so extremely and dramatically biased, not just in its hosts and commentators, but in its direct news reportage. Charles has shown how often Fox repeats biased stories uncritically, and how their reportage on issues like, say, climate change, are uniformly from the position also held by the GOP— with the added problem that this position is the factually inaccurate one.

It’s less convincing because you see what you want to see. It’s kind of like looking at art. I may think something is beautiful because of the technique of the painter. You may think it’s ugly because you hate the colors. I would never sit here and tell you that FOX is a paragon of impartiality because it has PLENTY of imperfections. But I also see many warts on MSNBC that you might see as “beauty marks.” Neither of us is 100% correct or 100% wrong.