The New York Times has a story about how MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are keeping President Obama honest. Naturally, the story gets into the whole "how is MSNBC any different than FAUX" argument.Rachel offers up this argument:
Ms. Maddow, however, contrasts her channel’s advocacy with the activism conducted, she says, by others on cable news. “We’re articulating Liberal viewpoints,” she said at dinner, “but we’re not saying ‘Call your congressman, show up at this rally!’ ”I beg to differ, it is much more than that.
The very fact that Rachel calls her show "Liberal" is far more than FAUX has ever admitted about its network being a bunch of wingnuts.
That's the difference - Rachel and Keith are honest and up front about where they're coming from. FAUX is not.
But it's far more than that.
1. Rachel and Keith don't routinely lie.
2. They're not bat-shit crazy.
3. Rachel's and Keith's Liberal views are not echoed in MSNBC's news coverage. On FAUX, the "news" hosts push the same wingnut talking points as the "opinion" hosts.
4. MSNBC doesn't just have three hours of Liberal programming in the evening.
What the New York Times fails to tells its readers that MSNBC also has three hours of wingnut programming in the morning, with former arch-repugican congressman Joe Scarborough.
Kind of relevant, since it means that MSNBC splits its partisan programming 50-50. FAUX has no Liberal hosts ... period.
When they did have one, for one hour (Alan Colmes), he had to share his show with an outspoken wingnut who wouldn't shut up.
