12
12
0
Responses: 2
6
6
0
That exchange between Nance and me was symbolic of a choice the network faced. They could either keep doing what reporters had done since the beginning of time, confining themselves to saying things they could prove. Or, they could adopt a new approach, in which you can say anything is true or confirmed, so long as a politician or intelligence official told you it was.
We know how that worked out. I was never invited back, nor for a long time was any other traditionally skeptical reporter, while Nance — one of the most careless spewers of provable errors ever to appear on a major American news network — became one of the Peacock’s most familiar faces
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC is in it for the headlines...and those viewers still remaining...fewer each month, don't care about veracity, they just want to hear bashing of those they don't agree with.
We know how that worked out. I was never invited back, nor for a long time was any other traditionally skeptical reporter, while Nance — one of the most careless spewers of provable errors ever to appear on a major American news network — became one of the Peacock’s most familiar faces
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC is in it for the headlines...and those viewers still remaining...fewer each month, don't care about veracity, they just want to hear bashing of those they don't agree with.
(6)
(0)
Lt Col Charlie Brown
And you can read it here: https://www.racket.news/p/msnbc-sucks?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Reviewing the last six years at the network that claims now to be concerned with integrity and accuracy:
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google