Ah yes, good old unbiased Krystal and Saagar will get to the truth of things, in their clip named "Russel Brand ANNIHILATES MSNBC Ghoul On Bill Maher". LO****ingL.

Here's the main part of the exchange (leaving out some of the comedy Brand weaved in about Morning Joe):

Brand: "It's disingenuous to claim that the biases exhibited on Fox news are any different than the biases exhibited on MSNBC."

Heilemann: "I'd like to hear a genuine example of an MSNBC correspondent or anchor being on television saying something they knew was false and were saying behind the scenes to his people this is I'm about to go out and we know that the election wasn't stolen...I will go out on television and say the opposite. It's not about bias, it's a false conversation."

Hard to know exactly how the conversation went since this was just selected clips that I guess Saagar thinks show Heilemann being "smug", but it sounds like just more unfortunate whataboutism of the sort you love so much. Whether all MSM is biased or not doesn't change the fact that what Fox News pulled is ****ing reprehensible, and as soon as we start with the "yeah, but they're all biased" response to that, we're letting Fox News off the hook for this. Their most popular talking head wanted someone fired for telling the truth on-air because it would hurt their ratings. I just don't get how it's not possible for you and others of your ilk to simply call that out for being what it is and leave it at that.

I feel this kind of lazy thinking is the biggest problem with many people's political thinking these days. 'I don't vote because they're all a bunch of crooks', 'Yeah , Politician X did this sleazy thing, but Politician Y did this thing'. No, no, a thousand times no. Call bullshit out for being bullshit. Every time we dismiss the latest thing as the same as what everyone else is doing, we enable the norms to be shifted all the more. It's precisely how so much of the stuff Trump did has become normalized. So many things that would have outraged people 10 years ago, just get a 'meh, they all do it' response now.

The Truth Hurts

....and we now have confirmation that the heads knew it was the truth.......

I think your very dead on. One thing that's missing from the clip is Bill saying what Fox did and what CNN and MSNBC did are not equal in comparison

I watched the whole Bill Maher show and it was a good discussion.

When Heilemann teased Brand about his use of the word "sputum", Brand didn't seem to take it too well and just went on a tear for the rest of the program that was rather entertaining.

Russell Brand should have just mentioned MSNBC/CNN ivermectin. The lies are amazing.

He discussed that with Joe Rogan recently. The part where they edited Joe's video to make him look yellow and sick was pretty damning.

It probably wont be musk but it's coming and it will be awesome

Was there actually a video of that, or just stills? I saw the stills someone posted to here of before and after, and I saw a slight difference, but he did not look more sick in either.

Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

George Orwell, 1984


---Seems to be this is basically the stage we are at now as it pertains to the Jan 6th evidence. We are being commanded to ignore whatever our eyes see or our ears hear, and any deviation from The Party will is paramount to an attack on democracy itself.

Absolutely shocked to learn that January 6th wasn't some organic event

Do you mean ignore whatever cherry-picked evidence Kevin McCarthy and Tucker Carlson decide to show us?

I love this whole argument about evidence being "cherry picked"-- not necessarily about this but in general.

Who gives a crap if evidence is cherry-picked?

Why not cherry pick evidence? You think if someone is prosecuting a criminal case that they aren't going to use the best evidence available?

It's like there is some idea that all evidence is equal.

It's not.

Sure, the prosecution can cherry pick, but the defense cannot. I think if there was an alleged bank robbery, the video evidence of the other 23:45 of the day would not prove the accused innocent.

I mentioned Tucker Carlson being given the video when the news came out, but no one commented on it. Still wondering how it is legal for the speaker to choose a favorable "news" source to get what lots of others were asking for.

I like that one. "Yes, while the video evidence does show the defendant at the bank with a gun walking out with the money, what the prosecution is not showing you is all of the times that the defendant was not there, and instead they are cherry picking the security footage from just the time that my client happened to be there robbing the bank".

It's just such a ridiculous argument that gets made here sometimes. And it's not even disputing the value of the cherry-picked evidence-- there is actually the implicit argument that it is actually good evidence-- otherwise why cherry-pick it? Instead the argument is merely that it has been cherry-picked.

Why is this important? The issue is that dipshit is showing clips of "good behaviour" to try and make some ridiculous point that because he could find those, it somehow means everything was cool, or something.

No. The issue is poor thinking about the nature of evidence.

That's certainly what you're trying to make into the issue, yes.

He is guilty of something the question may did he deserve 4 years in prison .
No questions there were lots of bad actors but there are also lots of curious folks wandering around at best that are guilty of trespassing

There is a huge difference between cherry picking because of relevance and as a concession to the shortness of life, and cherry-picking to mislead. Tucker almost certainly is doing the latter.

If you were prosecuting an assault case, and the defendant's main argument was that he acted in self-defense after the complainant swung at him, you would be a fool to show the jury a cherry picked video that included only the beating and omitted the initial provocation. I'm not even sure if a judge would allow it, but even if the judge did allow, defense counsel would skewer the prosecution.

Jurors absolutely hate it if they think the lawyers on one side or the other are hiding stuff. In fact, it is not unusual for the prosecution to get some of the bad facts on the table during the state's case to bolster credibility and take the sting out of the cross -examination.

I have no idea what Tucker is doing fwiw and don't really care about January 6th.

But the whole "you're cherry picking evidence" has become a pet peeve of mine. If instead of saying you're cherry picking evidence people said "hey it's not fair for you to use your best evidence", that would be better.

FWIW the establishment isn't even really spending much energy accusing him of cherry picking evidence (or really addressing the video at all). They are mostly skipping that whole part, and going straight to "This is an assault on democracy" type rhetoric.

What does the video show? The police walking the shaman to house or Senate floor? Is that the one we're talking about?

I thought everyone already knew that guy was some sort of plant who was there for photo ops.