being on the other side, politically is not wrong. Being factually wrong, (which fox "commentators" often are), is wrong.
I think you're seeing it through a warped lens. They're morally wrong. The policies they push hurt people.
Good example of facts being all wrong. RealClearPolitics, just another conservative site pretending to be moderate, says Brinkley was liberal. He was the conservative member, Huntley the liberal, of the duo. It was arranged that way. I watched Brinkley smiling as he announced that Reagan was winning in 1980. Nonpartisan Chancellor announced quizzically that of all the world events, for some reason John Lennon's murder was getting attention. McGee was well-known as a conservative. Brokaw worships the WW2 generation and was the Pentagon's spokesman in belittling the Shuttle, putting pressure on NASA to launch in cold conditions, killing a crew. I thought the right considered CBS the liberal network? Now it was NBC? Looks like everyone's against you.
Ha! Damn I would like to meet a man that could actual say that with a straight face and scare me a little.
I think you have trouble with the facts. The article says Huntley and Brinkley had gravitas, not that either one was conservative or not.
They were? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Chris-Matthews-forgets-his-show-began-in-99# http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...ooking-the-role-of-media-in-selling-iraq-war/ Between August 20, 2002, and the start of the Iraq War on March 19, 2003, Gen. Barry McCaffrey appeared on NBC, CNBC or MSNBC to offer comments on Iraq more than 140 times. He was on MSNBC at least 75 times. McCaffrey was one of 75 military analysts that the New York Times exposed as participants in a Pentagon propaganda campaign. As described in the exposé, “The campaign, begun in 2002 but suspended after the article’s publication, sought to transform the analysts into “surrogates” and “message force multipliers” for the Bush administration, records show. The analysts, many with military industry ties, were wooed in private briefings, showered with talking points and escorted on tours of Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.” The conversation on cable news programs stigmatized opposition. MSNBC host Chris Matthews used his program, “Hardball,” to highlight European opposition to going to war in Iraq. He was constantly asking guests to explain their anti-Americanism. On February 6, 2003, one day after Powell did his presentation at the UN, he asked Sen. John Edwards about the French: MATTHEWS: How would you encourage the countries of France, I don’t mean the governments because Chirac could be doing anything. We don’t know what his motives are. Why do the polls show in Spain, in all the countries, even the ones who’ve signed the letter supporting the president’s position, why all over Europe and most of the world they think we’re the one causing this fight. That the Iraqi — we’re the more dangerous country. How did that happen? Is that Bush’s fault, the perception that we’re Goliath and Iraq is David, and we’re the bad guys? Whose fault is that or is it the policy’s fault? Matthews, as New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman reported, wanted MSNBC host Phil Donahue to be fired. “Executives expressed increasing unease about his vocal opposition to the looming war in Iraq.” Matthews was upset that “significant resources” were being put into Donahue’s show. “With the war looming, MSNBC president Erik Sorenson and Phil Griffin decided to take him off the air “to make way for 24/7 war coverage.”
When MSNBC began, the head guy (whatever his name was) blustered that Fox wasn't conservative enough and that his network would fill in the gap to Fox's right. They had Chris Matthews, a fake Democrat who had criticized Bill Clinton every day of his presidency (as had Bill Mahr, by the way). They signed Donahue but quickly fired him for opposing the Iraq War, as did the majority of Americans (and the vast majority outside the fascist South). It's like the Republican Party, which was the liberal party in Lincoln's time. You can find events early in MSNBC's history which oppose the network as we know it now. So what.
MSNBC intended to out-conservative Fox, got nowhere in the ratings, and then tried its present pretense of liberalism. You should have read the news more back then.
You state nonsense as if it were fact. Sorry, my friend, but I ain't buying. You must be confusing MSNBC with CNN. CNN hired a new president about the time Bush first got elected and they wanted to move their reporting to the right to capture more audience. I don't know that they actually did much, though, beyond interviewing conservative viewers to see what they might watch. MSNBC was a JV between Microsoft and NBC. The idea was to use PowerPoint for all the network's graphics and the content was shared between MSN and NBC. When MSNBC chose to drop news and do nothing but left wing politics, Microsoft ended the JV. They didn't want a bunch of bullshit defacing their news site at MSN.com. There wouldn't be an MSNBC without Microsoft dumping at least a half a $billion into it. MSNBC is still getting nowhere in the ratings. Maybe they should change their hosts or something. Or maybe they might follow Fox's lead in how to make a network people will watch. It's not about being biased, it's about hiring superstars. When Paula Zahn left CNN, she was hired by Fox. She's no conservative. When Greta Van Susteren left CNN, she was hired by Fox; and she was the biggest and most vocal apologist for Clinton during his impeachment (no conservative). The guy who does their Sunday News show is Mike Wallace's son, a registered Democrat, and who worked for years at ABC on nightline (among others). But you know best
