Is there any other way to describe their "coverage"?
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way.
Man that's a tinfoil hat phraseology bingo in one thread title.
Sensationalist. What Benghazi was to FOX, Martin is to MSNBC.
Sensationalist. What Benghazi was to FOX, Martin is to MSNBC.
Death can be highly profitable to the mega-millionaire talking heads on the rage-cable networks. MSNBC might get lucky and make millions and earning raises in salary if they succeed in getting people killed. Ideally, black people killed and then they can rage on for a month and make millions more.
Except Benghazi is a justified covered event, Zimmerman/Martin, blown out of proportion.
Benghazi was a justified covered event. Fox's coverage has been a bit disproportionate to what's been found out.
The conservative media also had a field day blowing up the Z/M incident. Unless you expect me to believe that he suddenly became a RW cause celebre because you all were watching MSNBC.
Conservative Media blew up the Z/M incident? By reporting the truth and not the racial craziness? Hmmm...
No, FOX never called for riots and protests over Bengazi. But obviously you approve of the coverage FOX did, or you wouldn't cite it as justification for MSNBC.
After what came out on both events both were blown out of proportion.Except Benghazi is a justified covered event, Zimmerman/Martin, blown out of proportion.