Kupek wrote:I'm at a coffee shop without headphones (and, apparently, without freaking heat), so I can't watch the clip, but: don't confuse someone who shares your biases with being a "truthsayer." When we are philosophically and politically aligned with someone, we are more likely to forgive logical fallacies and political jabs. Just keep in mind that many people in this country feel the same way about O'Reilly that you do with Maddow.
I am well aware of my biases, and other peoples' biases. I analyze that sort of thing every thing I listen or get into a political discussion.
However, I've come to the realization that people like O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity are people who merely spout out opinions and outright lies without any facts (or a weak soundbite) to back it up. People like Stewart and Maddow and Obermann use evidence to point out hypocrisy and expose lies. It's not a matter of bias, even though the two sides fall cleanly between the two.
Just watch clips from one side and watch clips from the other side. There is a very sharp difference found between cutting investigative journalism and political party rhetoric/name-calling when you look at each.
You should get a chance to watch the clip. Rachel isn't completely biased on the left side, either. She is repeated critical of the govt's denial of the unspoken war on Pakistan (with its constant drone attacks).
I'm very disappointed in the right side of things because I would love to see some actual Republican investigative journalism. I would follow that sort of thing, despite my own biases, because I would love to see how the other side thinks. Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that the other side doesn't "think" beyond a shallow understanding of what they think is the truth. Again, the truth is never shallow. It's a complex entity that many people refuse to dig into.
