[Scape]

MSNBC... circling the drain.

[commanderkai]

Who?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Why Cenk Uygur Left MSNBC

Cuz no-one could pronounce his name?

[sandorski]

He is better on TYT anyway. I don't always agree with him, but he's always genuine and willing to speak his mind.

[N_Fiddledog]

The thing I don't like about Cenk Uygur is you have to spend too much time double checking his facts because Cenk Uygur-reality, and actual reality rarely match up.

For instance, he's bragging in the video about his great ratings. Elsewhere they're described as solid, but not great. The exception to that would be in June, but wait a minute, apparently he was on holidays for 2 weeks in June. So the June ratings burst he's blowing about was actually Al Sharpton filling in for him, and that would be why the talk is Al Sharpton is going to get the 6 O'clock slot.

Also, they didn't just offer him little intermittent commenting jobs like he claims. They offered him a regular weekend slot, as well as commenting spots.

Also he's expressed interest in the 10 O'clock slot. That would be opposite Greta Van Sustern on Fox. He didn't say he could beat Fox like he's boasting now. He said he could win in Greta's slot. She's the ratings underdog at Fox.

Also, did you notice in the vid he was talking about how great the other hosts were in one sentence, then in the next he's saying how he'd like to take their slot from them? He didn't get 10 O'clock. Sour grapes maybe?

Also I've watched Cenk more than a few times. I've never noticed all this "speaking truth to power" he says he does. The Dems are in power, right? My impression has always been he loves those guys.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040185
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f ... nbc-213624
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/busin ... nchor.html
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/cenk-uy ... -at-msnbc/

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Also I've watched Cenk more than a few times. I've never noticed all this "speaking truth to power" he says he does. The Dems are in power, right? My impression has always been he loves those guys.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040185
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f ... nbc-213624
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/busin ... nchor.html
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/cenk-uy ... -at-msnbc/

You need to watch him more often then. He's been very critical of Obama and Democrats.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski wrote:

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Also I've watched Cenk more than a few times. I've never noticed all this "speaking truth to power" he says he does. The Dems are in power, right? My impression has always been he loves those guys.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040185
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f ... nbc-213624
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/busin ... nchor.html
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/cenk-uy ... -at-msnbc/

You need to watch him more often then. He's been very critical of Obama and Democrats.

So your point would be you agree with Cenk when he says the reason his show is so popular on the internet is because he speaks truth to power.

Very well, there's a video at the link below showing the top fifty videos on his YouTube channel show me some speaking truth to power.

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07 ... ore-209932

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

sandorski wrote:

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Also I've watched Cenk more than a few times. I've never noticed all this "speaking truth to power" he says he does. The Dems are in power, right? My impression has always been he loves those guys.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118040185
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f ... nbc-213624
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/busin ... nchor.html
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/cenk-uy ... -at-msnbc/

You need to watch him more often then. He's been very critical of Obama and Democrats.

So your point would be you agree with Cenk when he says the reason his show is so popular on the internet is because he speaks truth to power.

Very well, there's a video at the link below showing the top fifty videos on his YouTube channel show me some speaking truth to power.

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07 ... ore-209932

Breitbart Fail.

Watch TYT. It does have fluff, but on the Political side it is critical of Obama.

[Zipperfish]

TYT is like FOX News. It's not for people who want to think, it's for people who want to be told what to think.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish wrote:

TYT is like FOX News. It's not for people who want to think, it's for people who want to be told what to think.

I disagree. It certainly is Editorializing and not "News", but where the 2 really depart is in keeping to the Facts of an issue. Fox just make up their own "Facts", while TYT will stick to the Facts as understood.

As for the Echo Chamber effect, sure that's the same for both. One certainly shouldn't get all their "News" from TYT. However, the idea the TYT is just there to prop up the Democratic Party and/or Obama is just nonsense. It is unabashedly "Progressive" and the Dems/Obama are not.

[Zipperfish]

ting to yes

sandorski wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

TYT is like FOX News. It's not for people who want to think, it's for people who want to be told what to think.

I disagree. It certainly is Editorializing and not "News", but where the 2 really depart is in keeping to the Facts of an issue. Fox just make up their own "Facts", while TYT will stick to the Facts as understood.

As for the Echo Chamber effect, sure that's the same for both. One certainly shouldn't get all their "News" from TYT. However, the idea the TYT is just there to prop up the Democratic Party and/or Obama is just nonsense. It is unabashedly "Progressive" and the Dems/Obama are not.

Facts? I recent had rather an epiphany about "facts" courtesy of Roger Fisher and William Ury and their excellent book "Getting to Yes":

Quote:

Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people's heads. Truth is simply one more argument — perhaps a good one, perhaps not — for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking. Fears, even if ill-founded, are real fears and need to be dealt with. Hopes, even if unrealistic, may cause a war. Facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve the problem. Both parties may agree that one lost the watch and the other found it, but still disagree over who should get it. It may finally be established that the auto accident was caused by the blowout of a tire which had been driven 31,402 miles, but the parties may dispute who should pay for the damage. The detailed history and geography of the Western Sahara, no matter how carefully studied and documented, is not the stuff with which one puts to rest that kind of territorial dispute. No study of who developed what nuclear devices when will put to rest the conflict between India and Pakistan.

As useful as looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish wrote:

ting to yes

sandorski wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

TYT is like FOX News. It's not for people who want to think, it's for people who want to be told what to think.

I disagree. It certainly is Editorializing and not "News", but where the 2 really depart is in keeping to the Facts of an issue. Fox just make up their own "Facts", while TYT will stick to the Facts as understood.

As for the Echo Chamber effect, sure that's the same for both. One certainly shouldn't get all their "News" from TYT. However, the idea the TYT is just there to prop up the Democratic Party and/or Obama is just nonsense. It is unabashedly "Progressive" and the Dems/Obama are not.

Facts? I recent had rather an epiphany about "facts" courtesy of Roger Fisher and William Ury and their excellent book "Getting to Yes":

Quote:

Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people's heads. Truth is simply one more argument — perhaps a good one, perhaps not — for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking. Fears, even if ill-founded, are real fears and need to be dealt with. Hopes, even if unrealistic, may cause a war. Facts, even if established, may do nothing to solve the problem. Both parties may agree that one lost the watch and the other found it, but still disagree over who should get it. It may finally be established that the auto accident was caused by the blowout of a tire which had been driven 31,402 miles, but the parties may dispute who should pay for the damage. The detailed history and geography of the Western Sahara, no matter how carefully studied and documented, is not the stuff with which one puts to rest that kind of territorial dispute. No study of who developed what nuclear devices when will put to rest the conflict between India and Pakistan.

As useful as looking for objective reality can be, it is ultimately the reality as each side sees it that constitutes the problem in a negotiation and opens the way to a solution.

So what are you saying? Everything is Subjective?