Can MS - NBC be trusted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnR77

Guest
Can MS - NBC we trusted?

After listening to this audio as well as the 2nd website below convinces me that they cannot be trusted.

Just one example they falsely accuse Cardinal Burke of asking for Pope Francis to resign.

Completely false !

An “Ultra-Conservative Crusade" Against Pope Francis? - Crisis Magazine


Nick Sandmann suing NBC, MSNBC for $275 million over ‘defamation’ against Covington boys | News | LifeSite


John
 
Last edited:
  1. Cardinal Burke came out in support of Archbishop Vagano’s letter, which asked Pope Francis to resign. If you support someone’s call for a resignation, it’s ridiculous to turn around and say “well, I didn’t call for it.”
  2. Anybody can file a civil lawsuit – doesn’t mean a thing until it gets to trial and verdict.
  3. They’re certainly way more trustworthy than Breitbart, Lifesite, and Alex Jones.
 
Just look at CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, Huffpost, and 90% of the media. Do they ever have differing opinions on anything of substance? It’s like they’re all following the same marching orders, and they better not dare fall out of line.
 
angel12 said:
They’re certainly way more trustworthy than Breitbart, Lifesite, and Alex Jones.
Click to expand...
Nope, MS-NBC cloaks themselves in the veneer of being an unbiased network news source, which does make them worse.

Breitbart and Lifesite wear their bias on their sleeve and are just websites. You are really desperate to include alex jones who is just a single media personality.
 
So NBC cannot be trusted but quality news outlets like Cris and LifeSite can?

I’m seeing some bias here.
 
Do Breitbart, Lifesite, Crisis, ChurchMillitant, and Lepanto offer differing viewpoints?

Just marching orders?
 
Alex Jones is an extremely popular voice of the alt-right. He has millions of listeners and likely thousands of “interesting characters” who enjoy his programming.
 
Where do people get time in their life to be overly concerned about whether some talking head is trustworthy or not?
It’s about in place 18,922 on my priority list right now but I get the impression for others it’s like in their top 5.
 
Last edited:
When I did electrical work, some guys would have Rush Limbaugh playing on their radios for much of the day. I was glad later when radios were prohibited from the jobsite, since the noise was considered a potential safety hazard.

I get a daily dose of cable news now when I’m over helping my mom. She 93 and likes MSNBC and CNN, but not Fox. They all put their own ideological spin on the news, and when you listen to it day after day it becomes part of your life.
 
I guess it’s like everything else. Some of us listen to a little bit of news or talk radio as entertainment or just to fill in time, some people get really into the pudding and start taking it way too seriously. If you are housebound or stuck doing a boring job and just want something to make noise and keep you company, fine, but most of the news is so obviously biased these days, none of it is trustworthy. “Trustworthy” to me died somewhere between Woodward and Bernstein taking down Nixon, and the Obama era.
 
Feanor2 said:
Alex Jones is an extremely popular voice of the alt-right. He has millions of listeners and likely thousands of “interesting characters” who enjoy his programming.
Click to expand...
Yea, he’s more comparable to Louis Farrakhan though than with a major network.
 
No. Nor can any US media outlet be trusted not to slant news for a particular market.
 
Now why couldn’t MSNBC be trusted??? Like Kim Jong-un, they’re very trustworthy.
 
Last edited:
1cthlctrth said:
It’s like they’re all following the same marching orders, and they better not dare fall out of line.
Click to expand...
“It’s a massive conspiracy,” is one conclusion. However, the nature of paranoia is to view greater unity as a sign of a deeper conspiracy, as opposed to any sort of challenge to one’s own preconceived notion.

No single source should be trusted further than their documentation. I have found a problem in both Breitbart and LSN of self-documenting, that is, using previous stories they have written as evidence of the current story. So, if multiple sources have the same information, it is useful to see where they get that information. If they come from various sources independently developed, it is likely that at least the facts are correct. However, I have found the more sensational news, that which is called fake, is usually different outlets using the same resource. Then, the only question that should be considered is whether the resource is reliable.

Sorting through what is fake and not takes a little digging. More importantly though, it takes an open mind and willingness to consider one’s own narrative is wrong. If one puts in this effort, I to not know that it matters as much if one’s starting point is left or right.
 
I avoid the obvious bias sites on both ends of the spectrum (e.g. Breitbart; HuffPo) like the plague, but Theo makes an interesting point about MSNBC that does make it particularly irksome to me: they do cloak themselves in the veneer of being an unbiased network news source when they are not.

My mother watches MSNBC non-stop, so I am unfortunately subjected to it when I visit. Here’s a recent example. During the supposedly non-opinion daytime programming, they call voter ID laws “voter suppression laws.”

As someone who works in legal news for a major media entity, I know that ‘voter ID law’ is the neutral term that an unbiased source would use, whereas ‘voter suppression law’ is the left-leaning opinion term and ‘voter fraud law’ is the right-leaning opinion term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top