I hope you see that's kindoff a bad argument. that the mainstream press sucks in their journalistic task and in produce garbage (as Cenk so often claimed they do) might be a fair point. But it's kind of a wierd defense to say that you can't be held accountable for your content, because you only comment on the news that you get from those same media.
That and the guy has a point, Cenk does see everything too narrowly as right/left (or prog/con) and is not very strong when it concerns foreign affairs. (Which seems a bit strange to me since they have a master in political sciences running around, althought I guess it depends on what you chose to study).
sig:"TYT: no longer rinkydink"
I know that a talking head like Cent is expressing opinions and of course should not be held to the same standard as a journalist
I dont know how anyone would know if Cent is strong on foreign affairs or not since he rarely if ever talks about them
I mean who gives a crap who is having an affair... let it go
my point is: "garbage in, garbage out"
If his sources are bad (something which he says himself is true), his commentary will suffer. You can say he is critical and does not take everything said in the news as gospel. The problem is that if he solely relies on those newssources, being critical often ends up ends up in only believing what you like to believe.
The mainstream media isn't 100% garbage, it's just usually that way. I wonder why he can't stick with the non-garbage and analyze the garbage with the non-garbage. Znet does a great job analyzing the garbage of the New York Times.
The show is enjoyable, and they do a better job than most analyst that are as popular or more popular than them. I just wish it was stronger.
