Walk away from ALL Opinion based news!

[DFab420]

Ladies and Gentleman of DU,

I think today should be a new day, I think we should make an effort here to no longer regurgitate Cable News/Mainstream Op/Ed points on this board.

I love Keith, and Rachel, and maybe even Cenk (if I'm in the mood), Hell most of MSNBC's night line-up is a excellent place to go to pick up progressive points on the news of the day.

However, I think it is still damaging US as free thinkers. We have stopped trying to make up our own minds about the political fallouts and upticks of the world. We simply wait to see what the next days papers puts out, then we either agree or disagree with what they are saying, yet somehow that narrative becomes the narrative. It all feeds itself, and we need to stop it!.

We link articles here all the time that are Op/Ed pieces and take them as political fact, rather then political thought. When someone writes in a NYT or a WSJ column their opinion of the the political landscape we need to remember it is just an opinion. Not fact.

Just because some columnist writes that Obama is failing, or that Palin is going to win the presidency doesn't make it TRUE! Just because someone claims to be an "analyst" or a "season political writer" or whatever, doesn't give them anymore political insight than any other educated informed voter.

Facts vs Feelings is becoming far to large of the debate around the governing of the country, and we are feeding into that cycle by taking Op/Ed pieces and holding them up as pillars of political thought.

So (if you've stuck with me throughout this little rant) I think a new idea for us to try would be to stop posting Op/Ed links here, GDP and LBN, if you want to discuss policy, or political theater, do it with your own words, and use inferences you've picked up by following the politics of the matter yourself. Enough of the "Frank Rick said this " or the "Glenn Greenwald says this" or the "David Frum claims". If you have a theory about how something is going to play out PLEASE PLEASE post it, and support it with NEWS articles about the policy and how you think it will play out.

OUR opinions are just as VALID as some paid opinonator for any organization. Let's start using our own, not theirs, to write this countries story.

Stop feeding the beast!

(an aside, I realize some of you will take umbrage with me and claim you only use your own ideas and opinions, and how dare I accuse you of parroting talking points etc. Please, spare the defensive remarks, you know what I am trying to say here and it's not a shot at anyone, just some constructive criticism I believe will help elevate our own discussions.)

[Ozymanithrax]

1. There is no non-opinion based news...

I mean, do you really think ABC, NBC, and CBS have no editorial policy and hire only people with no opinions?

I oppose embracing willful ignorance.

People who watch should be aware enough to recognize the opinion that come with all news and discard it as necessary.

[DFab420]

6. There is plenty of Non-Opinion based news.

ABC, CBS, NBC are not the only other places to get news. And yes they might have an opinion on it, but the DO have editorial policies and unless it is an editorial they tend to maintain a sense of objectivity.

Also if you actually read what I said, there was no , None, ZIP reference to embracing willful ignorance. In fact what I was hoping for was WILLFUL ATTENTION PAYING.

We need to stop letting Op/Ed writers think for us and tell us what the fallouts and and gains will be, That is something we should decide for ourselves

WE need to take the narrative back. Stop letting the news tell us how to feel.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Editorial policy

whether that is BBC, NBC, or the right (or left) handed widget. Everything you read is influenced by it. So your only choice would be to completely walk away... that is willful ignorance. I know the bent from AP, I also realize that Al Jazeera has a bent, so does MSNBC, and of course Fox...

Well intended, but impossible.

[DFab420]

23. I see the issue

I understand that all news organizations maintain some lean, one way or the other.

But I think to much focus has been put their opinions, it's become a farce, where Op/ED writers opinions are used to re-enforce whatever the overarching narrative is set to be. Just because it's written in a newspaper by one person, doesn't make it canonical fact. But these days its becoming that way. I am just asking for us to step back and look at what and why these people are saying what they are, and why we should hold their opinions on it higher then our own.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I know what they are saying

and these days a few (read Krugman for example) are NOW reaching the same conclussions I reached a while ago.

It is far better to teach people how to get to biases, and how to analyze news. This used to be done.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. I disagree. All news, all information is spun.

One of my favorite newsman of all times was Walter Cronkite. At the time, they attempted to achieve objectivity, but opinion was still there. And Murrow had his opinions, and they were good ones.

There is no unbiased, unopinionated, unspun news. Some sources are better than others, that is all.

[DFab420]

35. Funny

I remember Keith Obermann using that exact same examples to defend his opinion views on the news. see: http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/11/16/keith-olbermann-walter-cronkite-edward-r-murrow-not-neutral-video/

[woo me with science]

12. Nonsense.

This is a cynical argument to give up even on the attempt at objectivity.

People should be outraged at the slow disappearance of news outlets that even try.

[DFab420]

13. EDIT

I reread your post and I understood it.

I agree that there should be outrage of news outlets. But there are defiantly those out there that still try, we just need to look for them harder.

[Ozymanithrax]

34. It is not a cynical argument. It is a realist argument.

Fox News, both their "Opinionators" and their "Newsinators" follow Fox editorial policy on how information is spun. So does Olberman. Look at the same story as covered by both sides some time. Then look at that story in another source ABC, or BBC. Each has their spin. Each makes choices of what they cover.

Nobody in media in the U.S. was objective when it came to the Iraq War. They all waved the flag like good little patriots. This was true of news in the earlier phase of Vietnam. It was the opinions of people like Cronkite, not his objectivity, that helped changed that popular war into an unpopular war.

Nowhere in the media did we get that kind of unobjectivity to look at the Iraq War, because each news division made decisions in accordance with editorial policy, or opinion, for what we should know.

[DFab420]

43. Well sort of.

If you think about it in a different light. It was Cronkite's objectivity that helped make the war unpopular...

In the lead up the the Vietnam war Walter Cronkite was actually a supporter of the war saying ""the courageous decision that Communism's advance must be stopped in Asia and that guerilla warfare as a means to a political end must be finally discouraged."

But after viewing how the war was going, and being tired of being spoon-fed the claims of Washington, he proclaimed the war an unwinnable stalemate.

If he wasn't objective, wouldn't he have kept cheerleading the war his opinion was in favor of??


(interesting Obit. about Cronkite here : http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/20-1)

[Ozymanithrax]

51. Objectivity is judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal

prejudices. When Cronkite became emotional and let the world know his deep sadness at the failure of the Vietnam adventure did it turn. Only when Edward R. Murrow became unobjective did he bring what was really happening.

Sociologist and Anthropologist realized a long time ago that it was impossible to observe a culture from the outside, the simple act of observing it left traces and change the people they wanted to learn about.

In quantum physics the observer is everything, and the final form of reality only comes into existance because of an obeserver, an opinon if you will.

No one can tell the news completely without their own opinions and their own bias. At one time, people tried. But those days ended long ago. There is no neutral news source. All of them display on they information they think will get them eyes on screen and advertisers.

We are not going to agree on this.

[DFab420]

54. Well not entirely no

...but I defiantly agree that there is a lack of unbiased news, and that no matter how we will ever produce it, news media will always have a slant.

I just think it would be nice that the serious hardcore opinions of the writers and producers of such media would take a back seat again. Murrow and Cronkite may have spoken the truth to power in a form unseen before, but that doesn't mean they did it every night, only when it was truly important a matter to speak of. LIke KO and his old school special comments on Iraq etc.

I guess the sensationalism of it all is what I am hoping we can try to avoid.

But anywho, even though we had differing views, I really appreciated the conversation as well as your well thought out and written points.

[jancantor]

36. Merely by deciding which stories to cover, how to cover them, who to interview, etc.

opinion/bias is introduced. While there are certainly gradations, the reality is that no news can ever be non-biased.

[DFab420]

38. This is true

but now it's a race to see HOW biased it can be.

Opinion news is now just a way to make sure your viewership comes back the next day. The stories they cover in the "news" directly relates to the opinion columns in the editorial page.

I think the reason is used to work better was the separation of news outlets and production companies and media outlets. Now the same people who write about the news, also produce the shows about it, as well as the distribution rights and book sales. They are happier then pigs in stink..

I think in an overarching way, we need to find a way to separate the hogs from the shit pile

[defendandprotect]

40. ... just as there are no non-opinion based OP's here at DU ....

[NightWatcher]

2. If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

Mark Twain was right a hundred years ago, but today it goes even more for the tv M$M "news"

[MineralMan]

3. I doubt that will ever stop here. However, you make a very good

point. We seem to be losing sight of the fact that much of what is posted here as original posts is opinion, not news. And that opinion is not always written by people who are really qualified to write informed opinion on the subject matter they discuss.

Sometimes, we seem to give equal weight to the opinions of some celebrity blogger as we do someone with long experience in a particular area of political reporting. That's a mistake.

I have no idea how we might differentiate the two things, though. It all just gets posted here and is all too often taken as truth, no matter what the source.

[JuniperLea]

5. Some post actual Op-Ed pieces here...

And try to pass them off as fact. To think they can recognize an unlabeled opinion is asking a lot, methinks.

[MineralMan]

9. That's true enough. How many times have you read an OP

title that says something like "NYT says Obama has failed," only to find out it was an op-ed piece, a NYT blogger, or some such thing? Then, we're constantly reading some post from some random blogger that believes something, but is merely parroting something said on some other random blog.

I even remember a couple of OPs that took a comment posted about a NYT article and claimed that the NTY said what the commenter said.

It's easy enough for most of us to see the problem with such posts, but not everyone does, I'm afraid.

Another source is from sites like HuffPo. Now, there are some informed and professional people writing on that site. There are also some people who write nonsense, like their alternative medicine section writers. But, it all comes from HuffPo, so it is often posted here as proven fact, instead of the ramblings of some advocate of something.

There are DUers who are good about posting when such things show up, debunking them, but even those get argued with by people who want to believe what was posted.

It can get frustrating at times.

[JuniperLea]

10. Well said...

That sums up my experience perfectly. What I don't understand is, why it's allowed here on DU. We have an Opinion section, right? :shrug:

[MineralMan]

14. Well, GD is pretty much wide open for posting.

That's been the case as long as I've been here. Anything goes, more or less.

[DFab420]

15. Which it a great thing

And I don't think there should be any rules changing that.

But I think as a community we should try to rise above certain things. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it should be done...

[MineralMan]

16. Well, good luck with that.

I don't see anything changing along the lines you suggest. It's just not going to happen.

[DFab420]

21. Goonies never say die.

But I will take your good luck in the belief it was given honestly.

I doubt much will change, but if one person has read this and maybe, just maybe walked away thinking," next time I read a Op/ed piece I will go find out for myself what they were talking about, and why they were saying what they were saying, then perhaps, something good has happened.

[DFab420]

11. Amen to that

And while debunking them is helpful. Alot of the debunking happens down stream in the comments, and unfortunately that seem to lessen the impact of it. Which is why I feel it may be necessary to avoid them all together.
the HuffPo is an excellent example of Opinion, pretending to be News. I've actually stopped going there simply because I got tired of being told how to react to the stories of the day.

[Pathwalker]

4. How about this? You do what you want, I do what I want, everyone else

does what they want. That way, we'll all be happy-ish.

[Skidmore]

7. Because it's your opinon?

Get real.

[DFab420]

8. No, because it's a good idea

Did you post here just to be snarky? Was something not right this morning in your life that you had to, HAD TO, come here and post this not constructive pissy comment?

If you really enjoy having people tell you what to think then please by all means continue on uninhibited by my thought that perhaps we could do something more constructive here then repost opinions and narratives from other places. But I guess it's just easier to post some snappy comeback and some off color comment then to actually try to discuss why you think this idea wouldn't work...

but yea, I guess that's just my opinion. (and on a quick edit, at least my opinion is my own, and not one that is someone's who got paid to write it)

[Skidmore]

18. I listen to all opinions...

don't always agree with them, but I'll listen. That's a grand assumption you've made there in your last parenthetical remark.

[DFab420]

24. I wasn't assuming you get paid. I am sorry if that is how it read.

I was saying that Op/Ed writers get paid.

Paid for writing opinions that their readership will enjoy reading.

Then people use their opinions as their own. Often parroting them and forgetting where they actually picked up that belief in the first place.

This isn't something special to DU, but something I feel that we could make a effort to stand against.

[jancantor]

37. I think it is good to get news from the left, from the right, and from the libertarian side

Imo, you cannot avoid bias in news, so it is preferable to get news from a # of biased sources.

[DFab420]

39. A good point.

And if you take it from a number of places with differing view points, you'll be able to more clearly stake your own claim on an opinion, as opposed to just having one train of thought to ride.

[jancantor]

52. Yes. I am well aware certain sites are verboten here to cite

and that's fine, but I stand by my decision to read rightwing and libertarian stuff in addition to mainstream stuff, and of course leftwing stuff (Mother Jones and The Nation).

And I have had my viewpoint changed to some extent by that stuff on the right on some issues. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's much easier to maintain an unexamined opinion if you only surround yourself with supporting documents.

[shraby]

22. Something you're missing..I bring in information that I agree

with and post it for discussion. Sometimes posting an original thought, but someone usually disses it, but that's up to them. I bring in stuff from outside because some people are much better than others at expressing an idea or opinion much better than I am able to. I don't bring in stuff I disagree with, why promote something I find offensive?
Just remember, not everybody has the ability to write with real clarity.

[DFab420]

28. True enough.

And I'm not saying not to bring in other articles to help make a point you a discussing. But the use of Opinion pieces, as back up for your own opinion is a cyclical argument. "You have your opinion, this opinion article agrees with you, therefore you opinion is right" what it should be is "You have this opinion, here are some news articles that make you think this, here is another opinion piece that views it similarly"

And I know it leaves a bad taste in our mouths to bring in things we disagree with. But disagreeing points of view should be seen as a way to counter-point and improve your opinion of the political playing field, not ignored. If you bring in disagreements within your own argument, then you can use them to clarify and enhance what you believe and why you believe to be so.

Ex.

a) Jane Doe is going to win in 2012, I know this because Op/Ed Writer A has said so, I agree with him therefore it is true.

b) John Doe is going to win in 2012, here are some links to news events that support why I think this way, here are also some op/ed pieces that say it better then I could, here also are one or two points against what I think, and my responses to those points.

[sally cat]

17. I get my news here. Is that walking away from opinion based news?

[DFab420]

19. Depends

I try to get most of my news here as well. LBN is a great source of news from all around the world. But again, sometimes even in LBN you'll find links to articles that are more opinion then fact. With people having large debates more about what the opinion write wrote, rather then the actual policy/news event and its effects on the greater arc.

[sally cat]

27. So what possible way is there to walk away from all opinion based news?

[DFab420]

31. Stop reading daily polls.

For one.

Step away from writers who tell you how THEY think it is, rather then how it actually is.

Don't let places like NYT, HuffPo or even the dailykos tell you whats up.

Even though you might agree with they array of progressive comments, come to those conclusions on your own.

Read just the facts of the story

The who, where,when and then YOU put together the why, don't let some paid newspaper advocate who also happens to be a cable news contributor tell you what the narrative is.

I am sure you do this already, and I am not trying to imply the You in this example is actually you sallycat. Just trying to flesh out the idea.

[sally cat]

29. So what possible way is there to walk away from all opinion based news?

[MilesColtrane]

26. "We have stopped trying to make up our own minds"

Speak for yourself.

[pacalo]

30. I am a free thinker; have been all my life, & I'm not insecure about being the

one in ten people who have a certain belief. I can handle myself well at Thanksgiving dinners when my opinion stands alone at times because I study the facts every day.

The "opinion news" I watch on MSNBC every evening only confirms my beliefs. The truth is the truth & it's indeed on the side of the liberals.

The "news" on the networks not only holds back the information we need to know but focuses on entertainment too much. They were major water carriers for the boy king at a time when he could have been stopped by good journalism -- & I'm referring to the news outlets on tv & in newspapers, the media to which those without Internet pay attention.

MSNBC only confirms what I already know, & it makes me feel not so alone to see/hear them say it. Hell no, I won't turn them off -- especially while Fixed News remains on the air. Your OP would have served a better cause by encouraging more people to watch MSNBC.

[DFab420]

32. But that's just trading

one group of people telling you one side for another telling you the other.

"MSNBC only confirms what I know" Trust me I know that feeling as well. Rachel Maddow makes my intellectual spirit sing aloud. Keith Obermann makes me laugh out loud sometimes because he's so dead on.

However! I cannot advocate that people should watch something because it's the way they should think. I agree more people should watch Keith and Rachel, but I disagree that people should watch more MSNBC as a whole. They are owned by a larger network who is trying to produce a narrative that will drive viewership, just like other major cable outlets.

[pacalo]

46. "Trading one side for another" -- do you mean selecting MSNBC over Fixed News?

There are only two sides: the truth & made-up facts. I have no problem with watching a network that pushes for optimum viewership as long as it presents factual news. Why in the world would I want MSNBC's afternoon/evening programming to fail when they represent the antithesis of Fixed News?

[DFab420]

47. Jesus.. really?

what I am saying is stop watching both!

This isn't a black vs. white fight here. They are all part of the same big media machine. YES MSNBC doesn't lie like Fox does, YES MSNBC does use heightened rhetoric to make points. BUT just because I say not to watch MSNBC doesn't mean turn on Fox.

If you really believe everything they say on MSNBC then you are doing yourself just as much injustice as those people who drool every-time Glenn Beck rings his socialist bell. I don't want it to fail either. I just don't want it to be the only thing telling me whats going on either.

Just because you watch MSNBC doesn't mean you are getting the "truth". You are just getting the other side of the spin.

YES Keith and Rachel try to maintain FACTS in the things they discuss, but they choose which stories to talk about just as much as Beck and O'Reilly do. Don't come back with that "false equivalence " argument either, because just cause a few anchors don't play the game doesn't mean the station itself, or the large corporation that owns it, aren't playing into the same pot as FOX and CNN and all the others are as well.

[pacalo]

49. I have to agree about the networks choosing which stories to run.

I do remember times when I was hoping a particular story would get some exposure but didn't, but it hasn't been often or recently enough to remember the topics.

However, as long as Fixed News is around to brainwash in the most profoundly anti-American way I never thought possible, MSNBC's coverage is absolutely vital.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Free thought is well informed thought. End of discussion.

NGU.

[defendandprotect]

42. Are you subject to the silliness you're outlining ...

or is it just other DU'ers you think suffer from it?

Unfortunately, I think your main concern is expressed here ...

Just because some columnist writes that Obama is failing, or that Palin is going to win the presidency doesn't make it TRUE!

Unfortunately, these days it doesn't take anything but actual news/facts to develop a

poor opinion of Obama and this administration.

Again -- I don't see any "regurgitating" of cable news here --

I do see reporting, questioning and analyzing by DU'ers.


However, I think it is still damaging US as free thinkers. We have stopped trying to make up our own minds about the political fallouts and upticks of the world. We simply wait to see what the next days papers puts out, then we either agree or disagree with what they are saying, yet somehow that narrative becomes the narrative. It all feeds itself, and we need to stop it!.

As they say -- "include me out!" --

Especially in regard to trying to BAN Glen Greenwald here at DU -- !!

[DFab420]

45. You sure do like the word unfortunately..

And yes, the silliness is something we are all subject to. It's just something most of don't even pay attention to.

Also, where did I say BAN anyone? All I said was stop reading them as fact. Again you are more then welcome to read them, and analyze them, but don't let them speak for you.

Stop taking what these people say as the only truth out there.

And I am sorry you have a poor opinion of President Obama and his administration ( is there specifics or is it just the "feel" of this administration you dislike?)

I would of thought that SOMETHING here @ http://obamaachievements.org/list would have maybe done something that impressed you, but if not then I am sorry, hopefully when President Kal'El is elected and he spins the world backwards to change time and space, then maybe it will be a good enough administration.


Ps Kal'El is Supermans real name incase someone is out of the loop.

[defendandprotect]

50. When you want DU'ers to "stop" posting articles by Glen Greenwald ....

that's pretty much the conclusion that can be drawn -- i.e., a ban.

Again -- if you are describing yourself, I think that's fine -- disappointing to see

that anyone on DU thinks that way -- but it's your right to do so.

Unless you haven't been reading DU much lately, I think it would be clear to you the

immense dissatisfaction with Obama's back room deals with Big Pharma to prevent Medicare

negotiation -- and with the private Health Care Industry to assure that single-payer

would not be on the table.

You might have also noticed not on Election Day -- where disappointed voters didn't

come out to vote support Democrats -- perhaps as many as 28 million non-voters --

but also the day after Election Day, the added shock and awe when Obama pronounced that

he was willing to "compromise" even further with GOP!



I presume the "Superman" reference is now to supercede the "pony" and the "chess game" ...

:eyes:

[DFab420]

53. Well a ban would mean

enforcement of a kind that I would not be willing to endorse.

What i had been asking for is for people to stop taking opinion polls as fact, and to stop using them as a way to defend claims about "Obama Folding" or "Palin is going to win it!" simply because someone in some newspaper or blog wrote and opinion piece about it.

And him willing to compromise is honestly the only thing for a real leader of the entire country to do. He isn't President of the Progressives, or President of the Democrats. He's President of the United States. And while the republicans refuse to lead, someone has to continue trying to pass legislation, no matter how bitter the taste.

[defendandprotect]

59. However disguised, the drive by a few here to try to limit liberal criticism is

pretty much out in the open -- including in your OP --

As well, you specifically named Glen Greenwald -- that's nothing new here --

the feeling among a few here is highly resentful of any criticism of Obama and

they continue to try to make it stop and go away.

What we're trying to explain is that these issues and this criticism has to be faced.

No website is going to protect you from the this criticism -- it isn't only DU --

it's widespread. And I would suggest that the direction that Obama has been headed in

seems destined to create an even greater loss of support and more criticism.


I notice that you're re-explaining to me what you said - -

I read it, I know what you said --

What you need to do is read your post -- between the lines and understand yourself

a little better, perhaps.


And him willing to compromise is honestly the only thing for a real leader of the entire country to do. He isn't President of the Progressives, or President of the Democrats. He's President of the United States. And while the republicans refuse to lead, someone has to continue trying to pass legislation, no matter how bitter the taste.

Obama was "president" enough to make back room deals with Big Pharma to prevent Medicare

negotiation on drug prices --

Obama was also "president" enough to make back room deals with the private health care

industry to keep single-payer "off the table."

All of that was shameful --

76% and more of the public supported government run health care for all --

Shameful!

[H2O Man]

44. No, thank you.

Only the feeble-minded could have their ability to be a "free thinker" be reduced by another person's opinion.

[DFab420]

48. *Face Palm*

Yes, all of those people who lived in Communist China or North Korea are feeble minded! They think the way they do not because they are a fed a constant stream of media propaganda. But because the don't have the will power to think freely!

Did this make you feel empowered to post? Did it make you feel like you have a superior intellect because you would never fold to the thoughts of someone else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_persuasion : Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial changes in behavior, attitude, and ideology through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.

Don't kid yourself. "Free thinkers" can be over taken so quickly and quietly they don't even realize they've stopped thinking for themselves. . Only the feeble minded wouldn't mind being told by other people what to think and why.

All I was saying im my OP is to look closer at opinion stories, and ignore media narratives. If someone claims they are in the know about something, try finding out how, and why. And where their analysis comes from, who signs their paychecks.

[H2O Man]

56. *ice cream sunday palm*

How silly. Matches the OP.

I'm sure that those poor people in "Communist China and North Korea" are forced to watch MSNBC.

Back to reality, if you don't mind the intrusion. In the United States, people have all types of sources of information. There is network news and cable news. Frightening, I know. There are also books and magazines. And even the internet. More, intelligent people can actually not only engage in conversations with other intelligent people, but they can also actually be an active participant in the world around them.

Again, this may indeed be overwhelming for some. They may become victims of Keith Olbermann, who may have plans to hypnotize a generation of Americans, much like the Beatles did. I understand that these fears are very real to some folks. Still others believe that "The Edge of Night" was a documentary about real life characters. There are all types of feeble-minded people.

[DFab420]

57. You do realize your arguing with me about my own point right?

That there are people out there who are incredibly intelligent and thoughtful, but they aren't heard due to the overwhelming amount of regurgitation of the same group of columnists.

I WANT people to actively engage in the discussion. I WANT people to do their own research and come up with their OWN opinions.

I am worried you missed my point.

[Ganja Ninja]

55. I hope you enjoy CNN.

"We'll have to leave it there."

[DFab420]

58. Haha

CNN is just a ridiculous as any other 24/7 news network.

I partake occasionally in their broadcasting day but rarely for more then a few minutes of Anderson Cooper.

[HEyHEY]

60. Don't make your argument here

These people don't care, they want to read something that agrees with their opinion, lest they read something that debunks that opinion.

[Iggo]

61. If you know the difference between news and opinion, why walk away from either?