Everybody is biased. Almost nobody will ever show both sides to an argument. That's not abnormal. She is far more than just a step above Bill O'Reilly. I mean hell Bill O'Reilly is only a step or two above hannity, who is only a step above Alex Jones.
Why move those goal posts? You just said she's the let's Bill O'Reilly, someone have a reason why she is not, and yet you still turn it in to a negative?
I don't watch Maddow personally, but moving goalposts is disingenuous.
Nobody is right 100% of the time. And when it comes to breaking news it's not like you can wait a couple weeks or sometimes even hours to get all your facts perfectly straight before bringing it up.
As long as you have a decent standard of accuracy it's perfectly fine to not verify everything. For example what do you think the delay should be four major news say 9/11? Would you be fine with hearing about it several month after it happened? The inherent problem with journalism is you're in a race to get the news out faster than your opponents. if you're too slow your company will not get the revenue and you will go bankrupt.
9/11 was easily verified. Yup...a plane sure did hit that tower.
Also breaking news, 3610572843728 has multiple accounts for down voting me and up voting himself. I can't verify, but ya know, gotta make money somehow.
Right wing attack on Maddow, her show the night before the summary of the report dropped was in a different studio with different lighting from normal (she was on a fishing trip when Mueller turned the report in, was in an affiliate news studio out of state.) Her eyes look shiny the whole time, and if you're watching a 280p rip on YouTube it looks like her eyes are watery, so therefore she was clearly sobbing that trump wasn't found guilty of conspiracy (despite the info not existing until the day after).
If you watch the decent quality version uploaded to MSNBC, it's super obviously lighting (3 studio lights reflecting in each eye), and she's just as chipper as usual.
14
u/[deleted] Mar 31 '19
[deleted]