That seems to be the same position that noted conservative William Kristol has also taken in support of Olbermann. Although the douche part was not included in his brief statement of support.
Does Maddow ever come off as biased?
VERY much so.
Agreed.Just to let you know, most of what I'm reading from the right about the suspension, criticizes NBC for using such a cheesy excuse to suspend the guy. The consensus seems to be, that the ethics rule being applied to opinion hosts such as Olbermann is ridiculous, which I happen to agree with. The rule was put there to preserve the integrity and impartiality of their journalists, but Olbermann is no more a journalist than Hannity or Rush Limbaugh is. He is paid for his impartiality and partisan viewpoint, so such a standard should not apply.
That's okay, you hero Glenn Beck is a douche in my opinion.Don't get me wrong though... I still think he's a douche
Yes, she's extremely accurate. She does excellent interviews. When beginning an interview she states what she thinks the position of the interviewee is then asks the person if there is anything she had gotten wrong. And she is always well prepared.Without a doubt. Maddow is extremely biased. Although her reporting is factually indisputable, for the most part, due to her impeccable (sp?) research staff, it is always pointed at the flaws on the right. The flaws of the left goes unmentioned on her show.
Not fired. Suspended. For violating rules. And the liberals here lose their minds over it.
Really, are you serious? For the past 7-8 years, I've seen MSNBC as nothing more than the Anti-Fox :lol: It seems that the vast majority of their "news" and commentary since the '04 Pres election has simply been devoted to discrediting Fox hosts, :lamo: Once the Bush Era came to an end, people like Maddow, Chris Matthews and Olbermann became sycophants at the altar of the Obama Administration and were then free to focus nearly ALL of their efforts on Fox. Without Fox to provide them with material, how much "relevance" do you think any of these hosts would have? :shrug:Two different networks, two different sets of editorial policies and ethical standards. NBC's seem far superior to those of Fox, it's a real news provider rather than a propaganda vehicle.
Really, are you serious? For the past 7-8 years, I've seen MSNBC as nothing more than the Anti-Fox :lol: It seems that the vast majority of their "news" and commentary since the '04 Pres election has simply been devoted to discrediting Fox hosts, :lamo: Once the Bush Era came to an end, people like Maddow, Chris Matthews and Olbermann became sycophants at the altar of the Obama Administration and were then free to focus nearly ALL of their efforts on Fox. Without Fox to provide them with material, how much "relevance" do you think any of these hosts would have. :shrug:
Well, they clearly know the difference between expressing an opinion and actively supporting one side of the political spectrum.
MSNBC is obviously the anti-Fox-commentary. MSNBC doesn't have a 'news division' or headline news 'anchors' in any ethical sense, just blah blah. Fox also actually reports news in a non-insane fashion; one can go to their website and not be repulsed, unlike MSNBC or Huffington. Yes, I put MSNBC in the same group as MoveOn, AirAmerica and the rest of that genre - because their anchors/headlines are pundits.
MSNBC is obviously the anti-Fox-commentary. MSNBC doesn't have a 'news division' or headline news 'anchors' in any ethical sense, just blah blah. Fox also actually reports news in a non-insane fashion; one can go to their website and not be repulsed, unlike MSNBC or Huffington.
Raising my glass to Rachel Maddow this morning. Well done.