ewsieg

Maybe it was lost on me at the time, but to me, I thought everyone basically knew and agreed going into 1/6 that the GOP was going to put on a political stunt, look like a bunch of crybabies, and Biden would be officially named the president. Obviously no way of knowing, but I'm confident that sans maybe 2-3 of the GOP reps that voted against certifying the election, they expected that it would allow them to show solidarity to Trump and they would go home to a Biden presidency as well. Hannity apparently had the foresight to realize it not only wouldn't work, but it was dumb as well. I don't see anything in his pre 1/6 texts indicating he thought it would lead to violence. Then the day off, he's the one pointing out that this will hurt Trump's legacy.

Sounds like we both agree on much of this, but also disagree on the specific core of the issue, or at least what I may have been failing to properly speak to as to what I think is the core. I'm not asking to grade Fox on a curve. I'm stating that specific "journalists" on FoxNews are nothing but an extension of the GOP, conversely you have the same with MSNBC with the DNC. Then you simply have DC based journalists that 'play ball' in order to get access, guess you could call them 'beat writers' and you can question if they get to close to those they report on. I would categorize most of the Sunday morning shows along with the DC bureau's of most print media as the last one. I look at what Hannity did and I see it in an ethical grey area that his company is fine with because they 1) probably agreed with him and 2) when push came to shove, Hannity got in line and followed the company line. I see what Tapper's producer did and again, see it as a grey area too. My guess is CNN was fine with that because Tapper (or I guess his producer rather) managed to get good guests. I then see what Cuomo did and see that as borderline illegal and at the very least, I have to believe he broke company policy in using his resources in an attempt to squash and manipulate a national story. For the above reasons alone I think there is a difference on why Cuomo was fired and Hannity was not. In terms of the differences with the networks, I merely was adding the fact that Foxnews doesn't care if people call it biased. They actually probably love that as that allows them to play the victim card with their viewers. CNN, IMO, doesn't like being called fake news. They feel they are above that and care more about their perception. So adding that, it's a no brainer that Cuomo was fired and not really hypocritical that Hannity wasn't.

I understand using the importance of an issue as a factor, but I still am surprised that from a 'journalistic' viewpoint, no one seems to understand how it's not hypocritical that one was fired and the other wasn't. Let's say O'Donnell texts Klain about coming on his show and says that he really thinks Biden pushing to break the filibuster for election rights is a bad idea, then those texts leak. Now unrelated, a small town sports reporter gets a lead and finds corroborating evidence that the high school QB has sexually assaulted multiple girls. But this kid is his cousin, so he not only buries it, he turns over everything he has to others that want to protect this douchebag so if it does come up they can instantly attack the girls. Now you have the power to fire only one of them. Which one? The one that simply covered up a story that might have made headlines in some small town, or the guy that tried to persuade POTUS from saving America and protecting it's democracy?

You're likely correct, I envision Tapper just like Ron Burgandy. He has no idea what's going on, just gets his makeup done and reads off of the teleprompter.

Completely agreed. And note, I wasn't trying to say which one was worse. I initially was just speaking to the perceived bias that came with Hannity not being fired where Cuomo was. Ultimately 1 did something worse, but I was merely pointing out who they worked for could be a factor as well and conceding that fact.

Maybe he's not, but the leaked emails certainly, IMO, doesn't put him in good light. Maybe Tapper has no idea what's going on behind the scenes with his show and he's just the face of it, but in my experience watching Sunday morning news shows, a politician has no trouble getting the talking points that they want to out. The above indicates to me that Tapper's show is going out of their way to make it comfortable and to mutually assist in doing that. I'm not even going to say that's wrong, but it does raise an eyebrow, just like Hannity's text to Meadows. Which again, is way different than using your role/sources at a major media outlet to help squash and challenge allegations against your brother.

I'll put a FoxNews print article up against the equivalent with CNN or MSNBC any day and it'll stand up to them. The bias with their print articles isn't bias within the article, but bias about what they choose to cover. You start talking about their TV shows, and it's becoming harder and harder to find legitimate news on either Fox or MSNBC. I guess with where we are now, you're probably right. FoxNews goes away tomorrow, many of those viewers go to even worse organizations. They helped lead us to this point, which is probably the point the left are saying when they say Hannity should be fired.

She was referring to kids, the exact quote: "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators" https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/07/sonia-sotomayor/fact-checking-sotomayor-kids-severe-covid-19/

I'm not saying Hannity is not bad. I'm simply saying that when you're talking about primetime hosts on any cable news station, you're talking about an extension of some political party. Hannity/Tucker, they are arms of the GOP. Do I think that's how news stations should handle themselves, no, but I understand that is what it is. So do I think FoxNews is a cancer that is hurting this country, yes. Do I think we'd be better off without FoxNews, yes. But when I look at what Hannity did there, he had access to the chief of staff of POTUS and just like everyone else, he was wondering WTF was going on and urging action. CNN proved they were fine with coziness with the DNC years ago. Rather wikileaks proved that when it showed that their hosts regularly were in contact with the DNC, even helped the DNC prop up Clinton over Sanders. Did Jake Tapper get fired when emails indicated that he allowed the DNC to dictate how a segment with him would go? He's still there today. When Donna Brazille (spelling?) leaked debate questions to Clinton, that was a step to far and she was suspended and if I remember she technically was not fired, they just let her resign once her contract came up.

Hasn't this always been the standard? (and not directed at just you, but rather everyone)

Her drunk day at the UofM game humanized her a bit for me, but I feel like she politicalized the flint investigation which ensured Snyder got off with at worst, a scratch. I still don't know if he's guilty, but after everything settles, many years from now, I'm pretty confident we will find out that Flood was preparing to indict Snyder for manslaughter. Plus if you really care about Flint, maybe don't spend two years fighting Flint in court about how much you're going to give them, work with your ally in the executive branch and get Flint what it needs without wasting administrative costs. While certainly not the brunt of it, she has some responsibility in the damn failures. Add in Oxford. Ok, offer your services, but we all know she what she was trying to do there. So when the district refuses, you attack them? Ridiculous. Her wanting in on that was no different than GOP wanting her to investigate nursing home deaths due to Covid. Neither want to find solutions or how to make them better, both just want a witch hunt.

When did you become a troll?

I really want viable alternatives to what we currently have, I suspect i'll end up having to vote D again though. I really dislike Nessel, Whitmer is alright, and to be honest, would probably need to read up a bit more on Benson. The pandemic caused a headache for all services, but it seemed like it was dealing with a bunch of issues prior to it as well.

They have said to expect a nastier flu season this year. Something ran through our house this last week and Covid tests kept coming back negative too. My wife complained about the same things but she's still dealing with a lot of fallout from her allergic reaction so it's tough to differentiate.

She also got skewered by the right over being caught maskless at a restaurant recently, despite the fact that all SCOTUS members are vaccinated and she is still attending virtually. Turns out that was a mistake and Politico issued a correction (which hardly anyone will see, especially on the right), so all is good.

Yes, almost like there is nuance in the world. I'm admitting that the networks have different standards, but also saying what 1 did (cuomo) was worse than what the other did (hannity).

I call BS. It's nothing like that. The face of one news network, that wants to claim they are trustworthy, worked behind the scenes, using the resources of CNN, to give his brother an edge to deal with legitimate issues that have derailed political aspirations of folks from both parties. The other, said what needed to be said, from an advisory position (which shows how bad that POTUS was that he listened to a opinion show on cable), to a loose cannon president, but when his network decided to back Trump, he swallowed any pride he might have still had, and chose money over integrity by doing exactly what his company wanted him to do. From a fake 'i'm a journalist" aspect all cable news wants to pretend their primetime folks are journalist (when it comes to viewers, not when it has to defend itself in court), Cuomo was clearly worse with that aspect. No if and's or but's. For a horrible people ranking, both of these guys are 1 percenters though.

The facts are CNN fired Cuomo. FoxNews didn't fire Hannity. Someone pulled the 'but what about Hannity' card and I simply gave my opinion about why it was different. Part of that reasoning is that I believe CNN has a different standard for their primetime opinion folks than other stations. Another part of that reasoning is I believe what he did was actually worse.

I'd argue none of the prime time folks on the cable news channels are really journalists, but they do teeter a gray line. This is not a 'but your side' argument. My point with CNN is that simply it wants to be known as a trusted source for news, not trusted by republicans, not trusted by democrats, just trusted period. As such, I simply believe that even if Cuomo was only offering advice to his brothers administration, to CNN brass, they would have been more upset about that then MSNBC brass would be to hear that O'Donnell told Klain he thinks Biden should focus on X or Hannity telling Meadow what he thinks Trump should do.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/29/biden-lawrence-odonnell-biden-526232 If you don't think O'Donnell and Klain haven't texted each other about politics, you're delusional. A lot in this specific issue. If Cuomo was on MSNBC and there were no sexual assault complaints, he may have survived this, even though as I outlined, I do think what he did was worse than what Hannity did. Oblong wants to just say both are opinionated hosts on opinion shows, but again, one was using his position to try and change the position of a decision that was already known. The GOP didn't show up on 1/6 and one guy contested a state and a bunch more jumped on. This was a decision made well before and it was well reported in the media. Hannity was simply stating that this was a dumb move. Once we saw what that spurred on 1/6, he did what I hope all people would do if they saw an emergency situation and had contact information of someone that could do something about it. Cuomo was using his sources to try to obtain as much information before a story came out, either to ensure they could counter immediately or possibly help keep it from coming out at all. I'm actually kind of shocked that some of don't have the ability to see a difference.

I don't like the idea that a mainstream news channel primetime host has the President's chief of staffs direct contact information, but I will give you an answer about why it's not the same thing. 1) Cuomo was in hot water over multiple other issues which already had him one foot out the door. 2) CNN, while failing a bit at times IMO, has consistently claimed they were "The most trusted name in news". FoxNews has gone the way of MSNBC, just in the opposite direction. There is no claim by FoxNews to try and show both sides. While I don't like it, no one should have been surprised that major players on FoxNews had direct ties with major players in the GOP. 3) a. The content itself. Read what Hannity said. He was offering advice, sound advice at that. He was pointing out how big of a mistake it was to claim a stolen election. Sounds like he was one of the few that recognized there could be potential harm to staging that ridiculous attempt to block Biden from getting the EC votes on 1/6. Now, how you keep a guy employed that then goes on TV and backs Trump after the fact, well, that's just further proof of what we already know, FoxNews doesn't have much credibility and their primetime shows are even worse. b. Cuomo wasn't just offering advice, he was using his sources that he's built up from working at CNN and as a journalist to help feed information to his brothers administration to help them 'get in front' of the situation. And by 'get in front', that means identifying accusers so they could get dirt on them and try and discredit them right away. If maybe instead of doing that, he just texted his brother, or his brothers staff and said 'hey, how about you stop sexually harrasing women and see how that works for you?' it would be on the same level as Hannity.

1) I somewhat feel like they are trying to imply this guy was in direct contact with Cruz and Hannity. I just did a google search for 'Ted Cruz office number' and it came up with the number above. 2) I like Tom Bodett I think it was Charlie Kirk, but if not, someone like him at some forum and a guest asks when it is time to grab the guns and fight back. Kirk tries to backtrack on the guy saying we don't need to go there and that would mean we're just like them, but i'm sure once he got done, he went on trying to make these folks believe the election was stolen from them. How do they think this will end? edit: Found it, it was Kirk

Just finished the season/series finale of Dexter. The ending was better than the original, that's not saying much.

Verizon 5g home internet launched this week. I can't find a coverage map but it's not offered for me. Based on the original 5g rollout, guessing parts of Detroit and southern Oakland county. Decent price points, especially if you're a Verizon customer.

He is a good standup. The fact that this new boba fett series basically starts out from an unscripted riff he did on parks and rec is fantastic. I was referring to his backtracking when someone challenges him though. Might just be the worst possible 'friend' you could have.