""So my question to liberals and democrats, why would you watch MSNBC or CNN""
Why would ANYONE watch those two so called news shows. There is good reason people call MSNBC the MSDNC network. And when Hillary was running people called CNN the Clinton News Network. Now that Hillary is out of the picture people just call CNN the Clown News Network.
Unless if changed dramatically over the past couple years... FOX news and TYT are two sides of the same sh1tty coin. Biased agenda driven unwatchable crap. Same goes for CNN and the rest of the so called "news".
Azula: My mommy didn't love me so I'm going to burn down your village.
Fox v. MSNBC and its ilk is a false dichotomy. Occasionally, every network will have some balance, if only by accident, but it's clear what the agendas of both are. It's dumb on either side.
There are better news sources out there, is my point. Or if you can't find them on a particular topic, read a handful of articles on sites with competing agendas so you're at least getting multiple takes.
I'm shocked at how many people in my generation still have cable, though, so this is a weird topic for me anyway, one that I suspect won't have nearly the same cultural relevance in 10-20 years.
Sadly, I am going to have to agree with Sable. Out of the 4 major news networks, Fox News is definitely the most fair and balanced. That's facepalm-material.
Almost all news outlets have descended into stupidity where they criticize Trump for not doing things that no other president has ever done in history. "How dare trump not acknowledge this death in this city at this particular time!" Just retarded.
That is the funny thing. Especially with Trump, Fox came the closest to being balanced, and yet even their negative to positive story ratio was 52/48 lol. So even Fox still ran more negative than positive stuff about him.
No other media outlet came close. That is disturbing.
I also do have to chuckle though that the website people here try to use to determine how reliable a site is has CNN and Breitbart as having the same factual reporting rating. Remember that next time you see someone "lol Breitbart" a link from them.
The right wing blog I have linked to and been insulted over using(Powerline) has a higher factual reporting rating than CNN lol.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
In fairness, I think "lol Breitbart" is a valid response. Your point really only holds weight if the person in question is holding it up to CNN specifically.
I also think comparing the positive/negative ratio is a bit of a false dichotomy in news articles. You can be factual without really taking a side, and those are often the easiest stories to digest. So like, Trump has terrible approval ratings right now, but you can report on them factually - even discussing the causes of the low ratings - without being inherently negative. They are what they are. The positive/negative comes with the interpretation and opinions, which is usually where you start to see the agenda come out.
Sure, agreed, but that's not my point. The bias of some sources to one side doesn't excuse bias of other sites in a different direction. F*** 'em both.
Or, perhaps more fairly, consider each article on its merits or lack thereof, because even horribly agenda-laden sites on either side will have good, informative articles every now and then. But that's harder than finding a more consistently reliable news source. So, "lol, media wars and sh*tty sites" is maybe my most honest response.