All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 3, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
42:43
Episode 284 Scott Adams: How the Country is Divided by its Common Hatred of Hitler, Punchy Baldwin
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Joanne, you are always so quick on the button.
I can always count on you to be in the top one.
I feel like I have a sneeze coming on.
I thought I'd broadcast that in advance.
Hello! Oh my god.
I'm sure you enjoyed that.
You know, you come here for the quality entertainment, the sneezing, the ideas, the coffee.
And you know what it's time for now?
Yes, you do. You do know.
You know it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Raise your stein, your glass, your mug, your cup, your glass, your container.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Ah. So I hope I... Let's talk about Q. So I mentioned the other day that Q seemed to have disappeared.
And then Q came back and said something like, hey, go vote.
And then people said, ha ha, I told you Q is still around.
Never mind that Q's predictions have been thoroughly debunked.
We don't care about that.
But he's still tweeting important messages such as, go vote.
So, I guess you showed me.
Alright. The news is getting funnier and funnier.
So let's... Sorry, one of your comments made me laugh.
So let's talk about Punchy Baldwin.
We already had Punchy Biden.
Joe Biden wanted to punch the president behind the bleachers.
And we've got Punchy De Niro.
De Niro wants to punch the president.
And now we've got Punchy Baldwin, who hates the president and did not say he wanted to punch him.
As far as I know, he probably did privately.
But he got arrested for punching somebody who took his parking space.
Now, because it's so close to midterms, everything has a different meaning.
There's a bigger frame on everything.
And when I saw that, I thought to myself, did somebody frame him?
Was there somebody who tried to get in a fight with Alec Baldwin a few days before the midterm?
Because if there were no dark operatives on the Republican side who thought of that, I'm disappointed because as a dirty trick, it would have been tremendous.
It would be terrible to do to him.
I'm not recommending it.
But I'm saying that if it had been a dirty trick and somebody just sort of, you know, goaded Alec Baldwin into punching him, that would be one of the most diabolical.
I'm not approving it.
I'm not approving that kind of behavior.
But if somebody did that, It would be really clever and evil at the same time.
So I'm not going to ignore the evil part, but it would be awfully clever if they did that.
Because it seems to me that the timing is insanely positive for the president to watch somebody who's literally an icon for being an anti-Trumper.
And what's the main thing that they're complaining about Trump?
That he's sort of too violent.
He's too dangerous sounding.
And then his main critic gets arrested for punching a guy in the street.
It couldn't be better timing.
It couldn't be a more perfectly packaged message about the hypocrisy of the other side.
So, I do not, I genuinely do not, do not enjoy that anything bad happen to anybody.
I don't like to see anybody get punched.
I don't like to see anybody go to jail.
Or get arrested.
So I'm not happy about any of it.
But it's hard to miss the entertainment value.
At the same time, if I'm being honest, if I'm being honest, There's a high entertainment factor, even though we don't wish anybody bad.
Now, I tweeted an article from CNN this morning that was perhaps one of the funniest things you will ever see.
And I don't know if it's just because the midterms are close.
Again, everything's taking on a new meaning lately.
But the article was written by a woman who has a book out, something about sexual politics.
But she recommended, and I'm not making this up.
It's going to sound like I made this up, but check my timeline.
You'll see I just tweeted it this morning.
So it was a female author who suggests that perhaps women should boycott sex until the midterms with the idea that they'll influence men to vote their way.
And I'm thinking to myself, How out of ammunition do you need to be before you run an article suggesting that the blue wave should turn into a blue balls wave?
So, I don't know exactly How many people there are who are Democrats, who are women, who have boyfriends or husbands who are Republicans, and that they might be able to flip them Democrat by not having sex with them?
Now, I don't know how typical I am as a male.
I really don't know.
But if I had to propose a candidate for worst idea I've ever heard, it might be that one.
It might be that one.
So on the Republican side, you've got strong border security, high economic results, maybe some good stuff happening with North Korea, although they're always giving us some concern over there.
But on the Democrat side, what they've got is everybody's Hitler and let's stop having sex with each other.
Just on the Democrat side, because there aren't that many Democrats who are living with Republicans, are there?
It feels like that's sort of something their own team is worried about.
So that is pretty much out of ammo.
Now, the other thing that's curious and funny about the midterms approaching is have you noticed that all arguments have devolved into who hates Hitler the most?
Have you noticed that?
And as I wrote in the title to this periscope, that the thing that's dividing the country is our common hatred for Hitler.
Right? Our common hatred for Hitler is what's dividing us.
Because if you talk to anybody on the Democratic side, they'll say, hey, all you Republicans are a bunch of Nazis, you're all Hitler.
If you talk to somebody on the Republican side, they'll say, everything you do is controlled by Soros, who collaborated with the Nazis.
Which, by the way, I believe has been fact-checked to not be true.
So I'm not saying that any of this is true.
I'm not saying that the Democrats' point is valid that Republicans are Nazis.
But I'm also not saying that people calling Soros a Nazi have the facts right.
That's just a fact-checking problem.
But I'm just saying that all of the nuance in the world, every bit of nuance in the world has been removed from the conversation, and it's boiled down to different ways to hate Hitler.
So our common hatred of Hitler is what is dividing us right now.
Take the case of Israel.
The Republicans have unusually strong support of Israel, moving the embassy, for example.
And how does that fit into anybody's narrative?
I don't know. So correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think I am, but the entire argument has boiled down to, I hate you because you agree with me that Hitler is bad, and we should avoid being like that.
So it's kind of come down to that.
Is Soros still alive?
My understanding from his critics is that he died a long time ago and is now just a vampire who exists to walk the earth and suck all the goodness from it.
I say that tongue-in-cheek because...
Oh, let me...
Let me tell you a technique I've been testing online.
So some of you, if you've been monitoring my Twitter activity, you may have noticed I've been testing a persuasion technique.
And what I'm doing is I'm trying to figure out if there's some way to respond to the laundry list technique of persuasion.
The laundry list persuasion looks like this.
I'll say, well, I'm not saying that you eat babies, but you do have a baby in the house.
And then the person says, I'm a father.
We just had a baby. That's why we have a baby in the house.
Lots of people have babies in the house.
And then the person says, oh well, I'm not saying that you eat babies just because you have a baby in the house.
But it raises an eyebrow.
It makes me suspicious.
Because you also eat food.
And I noticed that a lot of the food you eat is meat, and babies are basically meat.
And then you say, but everybody, not everybody, but lots of people eat meat.
I'm not eating a baby.
I'm eating a cow.
And then your critic says, oh, yeah, I know.
It's not just about the fact that you eat meat and babies are made out of meat, but you have a baby in the house.
Do you also keep your hamburger in the freezer that's in your house?
So, in other words, you put the baby in the same container, the house, where you keep the things you're going to eat.
Is that true? And you say, yes, that's true, but it's because it's my house.
I keep everything in my house.
You say, huh, nice try, Hiller, but...
It's starting to come together because even though any individual piece of evidence that you eat babies is not that strong, you have to look at the whole context.
Now, have you ever sent a tweet about Jeffrey Dahmer, who is literally a cannibal?
And the guy will say, yeah, I sent a joke about him once when, you know, 15 years ago, whenever he was eating people, I did tweet a joke about that.
Oh, okay, okay.
So let me put this all together.
You say you don't eat babies, but there's a baby in your house, The house is where you keep your food.
You eat meat.
Babies are made out of meat.
You see where I'm going on this, right?
So the laundry list persuasion is based on the math.
Are you ready for this equation?
The list persuasion math goes like this.
Ten times zero equals banana.
Individually, all of these pieces of evidence that you eat babies, maybe individually, is weak.
But you have to put it all together.
You've tweeted something from Jeffrey Dahmer.
You say it's a joke.
Ha ha! What's funny about cannibalism?
You have a baby in your house.
You keep food in your house.
So the baby's in the same container as the food, and you admit you eat cows, which are mammals.
Babies are mammals.
I rest my case. You're a baby eater.
All right. So you've seen this list persuasion against Trump.
You're seeing it against Steve King right now.
You're seeing it against Soros.
And you saw it against Hillary Clinton as well, you know, Crooked Hillary.
So all of this persuasion has the same quality to it, which is if you look at any one thing, it's kind of a zero.
It only has meaning because of the other context.
It wouldn't mean anything otherwise.
But the other context is zeros too.
It's the same with Soros, it's the same with Trump, it's the same with Steve King, it's the same with a lot of people who are in the news lately.
So I was thinking to myself, if you were the victim, and I am the victim of this often, so people People will say to me, you, Scott, must be a right-wing Nazi apologist because of these three things you said.
And then I say, but you have to look at all the things I've said.
You have to see why I said it.
You have to understand it in context.
And it all goes away.
And then people say, ho, ho, ho, Scott, I don't think you understand that if it was just one thing that didn't mean anything, we wouldn't be concerned.
But you have ten things that don't mean anything.
10 things that don't mean anything equals banana.
So here's my attempt to thwart what I call...
Yeah, Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh's a good example. So Kavanaugh was the 10 times zero equals banana equation.
Individually, any one of those things wouldn't look very persuasive.
But there were so many of them that also were worthless.
10 times zero must equal banana.
So I've been challenging people, and you've seen it with my sorrow stuff, and you're seeing it on another topic lately.
I've been challenging people who have that mode of thinking to tell me what was their one best piece of evidence.
Because you can't really argue with somebody who has 10 bits of zero evidence, because as soon as you debunk one...
They just move to the other one, and they say, yeah, yeah, yeah, that one is weak, but what about all these others?
So if the list persuasion is very defensible, because they'll just keep popping like a whack-a-mole, they'll say, yeah, yeah, you debunked that one, but this one.
Okay, debunked that one, but this one.
And then by the time you've debunked all ten, and I know you've seen this, you've seen it yourself, you can debunk all ten points, and when you get to the tenth one, what do they do?
They mention the first one again.
Like you didn't just debunk it.
You've all been there, right?
You debunk all of the points and then they just circle back to the first one that you already debunked.
And you go, what is happening here?
I just debunked that one.
Do you not remember? 15 minutes ago, we talked about point one.
I debunked it. And when I did, you move to point two.
After I debunked 10 things in a row, you jump back to one like we had had no conversation for the last half hour.
What the hell is wrong with you?
And then your opponent will say, ha ha ha, you apologist.
Don't you know the math?
10 times zero equals banana.
So here's my defense, and I'm only testing this out.
Okay? Just testing it out.
And it goes like this.
I say, can you give me your one best evidence?
Just the best one.
And when they give you three, because so far everybody I've challenged to give me one best evidence gives me more than one.
The reason they do that is that they can feel the trap closing.
And the trap is, they're all zero.
So if they give you one, and you've proclaimed it's your best bit of evidence, and then your critic says, okay, that's your best evidence, watch me show you how this is actually zero.
And then do not engage on the second point.
I'm just testing this out to see if it works.
But once you get your one best one, and good luck if you can get them to limit it to one, because I don't think you will.
They'll keep trying to keep their list intact.
If you can get their one best, debunk it, and then say, I already debunked your best point.
I don't really need to listen to the rest.
And it doesn't matter what the best point is.
Now, if their best point you cannot debunk, well then they have a point.
They won the debate.
If the best point is solid, and it stands alone, and it doesn't require all the other zeros to have meaning, that's it.
They won the debate.
And then you say, good point.
Thank you for informing me.
I was not aware of that one good point you have.
And that does make your other points more valid.
See, the laundry list is valid if you have at least one strong point that stands alone.
But if none of them stand alone, it's 10 times 0 equals banana.
Yeah, what you usually get is...
You usually get somebody pointing you to someone else's article in which the article lists 10 things that are zero.
Watch how often that happens.
Well, I can't tell you why this is true, but I read an article which was very convincing.
Here's a link to it. And then it's 10 times zero equals banana articles.
The best argument I've seen about Soros, because I've challenged people with the following...
What would I say?
It's not quite a rule.
It's a good rule of thumb, but it's not a 100% rule.
I've said this.
If you can't describe in a succinct way...
What the problem is, you don't understand it.
In other words, you don't actually have an opinion if you can't succinctly describe it.
Something that cannot be succinctly described is probably just your imagination.
So, I've been challenging people to succinctly tell me what is the problem with Soros.
And one person actually, in my opinion, succeeded.
Now, just because I say the reason is succinct, that doesn't mean you don't need supporting information.
And that's fair, right?
You can say, here's the summary.
Does the summary make sense?
Is it simple? Can I understand it?
If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to get into the detail and find out if you have supporting information.
And here was the summary.
That somebody gave me on Twitter about Soros, that for the first time, for the first time, I said, oh, that actually is a valid summary, even if it isn't supported by the information, which would be the next thing you look into.
And here's the summary. Somebody said that Soros money is like fertilizer, For groups that promote identity politics.
It's pretty good, isn't it?
Now remember, I've been saying that I'm not telling you I like Soros.
I've never said I'm defending Soros because I think he's a great person and I love his politics or anything like that.
I've never said that. I just said why can't anybody succinctly Tell me the problem.
And after great searching and questioning and pushing people, one person on Twitter solved the test.
And I'm gonna say, and by the way, I was skeptical that anybody could do that.
And again, I'm not saying I agree with the characterization.
I'm saying it is a simple Checkable, rational statement of a problem that you can look into the details now and see if it's supported.
And the details I know Absolutely do support it.
But I haven't looked at all the details, so it's a preliminary opinion at this point.
So again, if your problem with Soros is that his funding is like fertilizer for groups that support identity politics, and you think identity politics is destructive, that is a completely coherent point of view.
It may be right or it might be wrong.
The facts may support it or not.
Don't know yet. I don't know if all the facts support it or just the ones I know about.
But it's coherent.
Here's the one that's not coherent.
He was a Nazi when he was 14.
Even if he was.
Even if he was.
He's not 14 now.
What's he doing today? How much do I care what a 14-year-old did?
I don't judge anybody by what they did when they were 14, even if they were Nazis, which he wasn't, by the way.
The fact-checkers have debunked that.
So here's the other one that is irrational about Soros, that he wants open borders.
Now, it's irrational because open borders means different things to different people.
It's one of those things you hear and you just interpret it your own little way.
I'm pretty sure he does not want no borders, as in just take the borders down.
I don't believe there's any evidence of that.
I do believe he's pro-immigrant even if it's not good for the country that's receiving.
That's true, right?
And I believe he said that directly.
That if it was a balance between what's good for these immigrants who were in a bad situation, if you have to choose between what's good for this group and what's good for the country they're entering, Soros would prefer Let the country they're entering take a little pain for the good of the immigrants.
Now, you could certainly disagree with that.
But I think that's an accurate statement of his position.
If you try to characterize that as open borders, I think you've just lost all credibility.
Because he's not talking about getting rid of border borders, as far as I can tell.
Now, if I'm wrong about that, somebody will tell me.
So I wouldn't accuse him of open borders.
That's trying to win with a word that you've defined your own way and doesn't pass the fact-checking.
I wouldn't try to beat him on he's too much of a Nazi because he was 14 and the fact-checkers say he wasn't a Nazi.
And I wouldn't try to beat him.
What's the other thing people say about him?
Oh, that he's trying to destroy countries.
Oh, they also say that he made a lot of money with currency speculation that was very bad for the countries that were the subject of his speculation, and therefore the things he funds are bad too.
And that doesn't make sense.
It seems like he could be totally bad in one field, and that doesn't inform you what he's doing in the other field.
The example I like to use is Bill Gates.
Those of you who are young do not remember the young Bill Gates when Microsoft was new and was considered an evil monopoly.
So Bill Gates was considered basically the devil because he did things that people thought were anti-competitive, anti-capitalist.
But what is Bill Gates today?
In 2018, is Bill Gates the devil who's destroying companies and competing unfairly?
Or is he the guy who runs the Gates Foundation, one of the most positive things the world has ever seen?
He's Bill Gates 2018.
That's who he is. He's not Bill Gates 19 years old.
You don't judge him by his 19-year-old self.
All right. Bill Gates never collaborated with Nazis, as is also true of George Soros.
Thank you very much.
All right, that Yoko comment was funny, but I'm not going to repeat it.
The people who say I better quit while in my head are the people who don't have any argument.
different.
So the way that I claim victory whenever I see any of the following things.
Scott, quit while you're ahead.
Scott, you don't know what you're talking about.
Scott, you should do your own research.
Scott, here's this link to somebody else who can explain what I can't explain.
Scott, you're an apologist.
Any one of those words, I declare victory.
Because those are the things you say when you don't have any reasons.
If you had reasons... People who have reasons start with the reasons.
Because the best way to win an argument is with a reason.
So nobody starts with an insult if they have a reason.
First you want to win and then you want to insult.
You don't insult first and say, I'll leave out the reasons.
I don't need that.
All right.
Doesn't Bill Gates eat babies?
Somebody asked. Alright, so what else is happening?
It looks like the news is slowing down, but it feels like the luckiest month ever for President Trump, doesn't it?
Doesn't it seem like, and I think it's luck, or maybe it's not luck, maybe there's some skill involved here, but How lucky is it for the president that Alec Baldwin punches somebody right before the midterm?
It's kind of lucky, right?
It's not lucky for the guy who got punched.
It's not lucky for Alec Baldwin.
But politically, it's pretty lucky.
How lucky is it that the economy hit the best point it's ever hit?
And here's the cool part, that wages went up.
Because everybody had been complaining.
It's like, oh yeah, the stock market's up.
So the stock market flattens out and wages go up.
What was the only thing, the only thing the Democrats had as a complaint about the Trump economy?
The only thing is that, well, the stock market going up doesn't help the average person.
So the stock market flattens and wages go up.
Exactly what should happen at this phase Of the recovery.
It's exactly what should happen.
It takes a while. It takes a while for the wages to move up because you have to get a really tight workforce, really tight employment before wages can go up.
And then they did. Right on schedule.
Yeah, his approval hit 51%.
Who knows what polls are dependable at this point.
He's sucking up all the airtime.
He's got the caravan that looks like bad persuasion.
Oh my God, it's like everything is happening positive for Trump.
It wasn't long ago that he got the trade deals with Canada and Mexico.
We see China.
China went from this, you know, this great country that we were trying to deal with, you know, and how hard do we want to push them?
And then suddenly China turned into fentanyl China, who was stealing all our IP, and And at the moment, our economy is so strong that it's hard to come up with a reason why we should be flexible with them.
Because China needs to fix some stuff.
At the very least, they should fix the shame which is their brand, which is fentanyl China.
Michael Cohen. So Michael Cohen has made some allegations that the president said some racial things that only he heard.
Coincidentally, only Michael Cohen heard these things.
Now, who is the least credible person in the world who is not named Roger Stone?
Name the other least credible.
Well, there's Avenatti.
So Avenatti would be one of the least credible people in the world, and he's running for president, criticizing the current president.
So that's good for President Trump, because Avenatti's not a good look for the other side.
And then Michael Cohen, who would be the other least, least credible person, has made some accusations.
And I think people just look at him and they go, ah, come on, Michael Cohen.
You need something better than that.
All right.
Oh, and then it seems to me that Don Lemon has, what's the best way to say this?
I'm tempted to diagnose him as having a mental problem, but I'm also conscious that people like me should not be doing stuff like that.
So I'll put it in layperson's terms, and I'll stay away from the medical, which I have no capability to diagnose.
I'll just tell how I'm receiving it.
When I watched Don Lemon talk lately, it feels like he went from A well-meaning critic of the president to having actually something closer to a mental problem.
And again, I'll be as careful as I can about saying this.
I'm not making a mental diagnosis.
I'm not making a health diagnosis.
I'm not qualified for that.
And people should not do that.
What I'm saying is, as a layperson, as a person who watches TV, that people register on you in a certain way.
So I'm not giving you any kind of medical diagnosis.
I'm saying that the way he registers with me lately, which he did not register even a month ago, a month ago he looked like a mainstream critic of the president who had largely the same complaints as everybody else.
But at the moment, he looks like he's lost it.
Just the way I'm receiving it.
Again, it's not a medical diagnosis.
I'm not qualified to do that.
I won't pretend that I am.
Alright. Same with Bill Maher, somebody says.
Perhaps. I've got to catch up with my Bill Maher shows.
You know, I like to step back and do this once in a while because objectivity is kind of rare.
Oh, by the way, Perez, did you see Perez Hilton?
He got in trouble from, I guess, his own team for saying that he, too, would like stronger immigration.
And apparently, culturally, he's got some Hispanic blood in him or all of it.
I don't know exactly what his percentage is, but...
And so I retweeted him, and I said, free thinker, because it's rare.
So I'm happy to promote, you know, the part of him that I agree with without needing to endorse every part that I might disagree with, and I don't even know what that is.
Somebody says, I'm naive.
Can you give me an example of that?
Because you're leaving out the reasons.
So when you call me naive, you may have missed the part where I declare victory when people do that.
Because if you had a reason...
He'd probably give it to me.
I made the mistake of watching MSNBC the other day.
Now I've told you before that my technique for watching both sides of the news is that I have the two channels, CNN and Fox News, that are sort of the polar opposites in terms of how they approach the news.
And if you're only watching one, you're getting a very...
Distorted opinion. But if you watch both of them, you'll get two distorted opinions, but at least it'll be more comprehensive.
At least it's closer to completeness.
So my technique is that whenever one of those two networks runs a pharmaceutical commercial, which is all the time, I switch to the other one.
So that's my automatic process.
As soon as any kind of disease Or malady is mentioned on a commercial on one of the networks I switched to the other.
Partly because you should not subject yourself to listening about medical problems you don't have.
You should not not listen to medical problems that you don't have in the form of a commercial.
It does affect you.
It does make you less healthy.
So let me say this as clearly as possible.
Listening to pharmaceutical commercials should, given everything we know about how humans are wired, make you less healthy.
Now the exception would be if it happened to be exactly your condition and they were suggesting exactly the right solution and you hadn't heard of it before.
It's kind of a rare situation.
But if you're listening to one complaint after another, If you listen to either of the network news, within five minutes you're going to hear, and then my arm fell off and my kidneys shrunk and my skin was peeling and I had rashes, my gallbladder was inflamed, my gout acted up, but I could take this pill and that would all be better.
And if you subject yourself To all of that imagery, all of that negativity, all that talk about disease, your body will respond with whatever you're focusing on.
In other words, you can actually talk yourself into sickness simply by subjecting yourself to the pharmaceutical commercials.
I want to emphasize that I am not kidding one bit.
Listening to the pharmaceutical commercials, I'm going to say it as clearly as I can, is bad for your health.
Don't do it. Change the channel, walk away, mute it.
Do not listen to a pharmaceutical commercial.
It's literally bad for your health.
So anyway, I made the mistake of turning on MSNBC because there was this point where both Fox News and CNN were showing pharmaceutical commercials at the same time.
So I'm like, ah, damn it.
Usually they don't line up that neatly, so I can switch from one to the other.
But I was like, all right, I've got to go to choice three.
So I hit MSNBC.
Here is me turning on MSNBC and watching it for 10 seconds.
Would you like to see that again?
Here it is again.
My impression of accidentally turning on MSNBC and watching it for 10 seconds.
It was jaw-dropping.
Because, you know, I know that they're, you know, lefter than CNN, as weird as that sounds, but it's almost entirely a mind-reading article I don't even know what you would call it.
It's not news. They live in a completely manufactured world in which they can imagine they can see what other people are thinking and that that's a reality.
It's like, yeah, he doesn't say he's a bad person, but I can tell.
Why can I tell?
Because of the laundry list of reasons.
Let me list the laundry list.
Here's this thing that has zero credibility.
This thing was zero credibility.
There are 10 of them, and everybody knows 10 times zero equals banana.
It was shocking how irrational the folks are on MSNBC. And here, I'm not comparing MSNBC to Trump-supporting outlets like Fox News or National Review, anything who's more conservative.
I'm not comparing them to them.
I'm comparing MSNBC to CNN. By any objective measure, CNN is far more fair and balanced, and at least there seems to be legitimate attempts to cover something like news.
But MSNBC just stopped pretending.
It's really shocking to watch.
Now, people on the left, of course, will say, but you just described Fox News.
It's just the other way.
The thing that people don't understand about Fox News, if you don't watch it, you wouldn't understand this.
And see if this rings true to you.
Fox News seems to clearly label their news...
So, Bret Baier is just the news, right?
So they've got people who cover the news, and then they very clearly label the opinion people.
So if you turn on The Five, or Hannity, or Laura Ingraham, or even Tucker, these are clearly labeled opinion pieces, and so the news actually will disagree with the opinions.
So you do see that on Fox News.
But on CNN, And maybe it's just me, but I feel like there's this less clear division between the news and the opinion.
They seem overlapped.
So let me give this to you again.
Fox News clearly labels, this is just my opinion, seems to clearly label what is news, and they play that pretty straight, with what is opinion, which of course is just opinion, Whereas CNN has both opinion and news, but they feel a little bit more overlapped.
They're a little less clearly labeled, if you will.
Just the way I receive them.
I'm just giving a personal opinion.
But MSNBC doesn't seem to have anything like news.
Or maybe I've missed it.
But it feels like it's complete opinion that they're trying to sell as news.
Now, which one gets the best ratings?
Well, MSNBC apparently has greater ratings than CNN, so that should tell you something.
Yeah, and Shepard Smith is another example of someone who's clearly labeled as the news, and his opinion doesn't match Hannity's or what else you'd see there.
Alright, I'm going to stop here while I'm behind.
▲
Export Selection