So who is telling the truth? CNN/MSNBC or Fox News??

[iamwhatiseem]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

 

[Oddball]

"The walls are closing in!"

 

[Marion Morrison]

"The walls are closing in!"

"A turning point has been reached"

 

[OldLady]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

 

[OldLady]

"The walls are closing in!"

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Fox is the only somewhat legitimate one out of those, but they're all corporate media whores. You can't even call CNN or MSNBC news anymore. They're opinion pieces fabricated to appear like news.

 

[Auld Phart]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

Agree

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS,

Reuters, I agree.

the other 3?

not so much

 

[Oddball]

 

[edthecynic]

Fox is the only somewhat legitimate one out of those, but they're all corporate media whores. You can't even call CNN or MSNBC news anymore. They're opinion pieces fabricated to appear like news.

 

[OldLady]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

Agree

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS,

Reuters, I agree.

the other 3?

not so much

If you want the underlying facts, history, the Times and the Post will have it. It might be three or four paragraphs down but they will get to it. Newspapers are the only way to get details on what is truly going on in this confusing and complicated world. Reuters is great for breaking news, but it doesn't usually play "catch up" for those of us who weren't paying attention last week.

Sure they are liberal papers, but you're smart enough to note that and read through for the facts, aren't you?

 

[Oddball]

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

You won't get facts from any of them....The only places you'll get anything near unbiased coverage is the foreign press.

 

[edthecynic]

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

You won't get facts from any of them....The only places you'll get anything near unbiased coverage is the foreign press.

Do you mean like Tramp's favorite, Russia Today?

 

[Oddball]

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

You won't get facts from any of them....The only places you'll get anything near unbiased coverage is the foreign press.

Do you mean like Tramp's favorite, Russia Today?

 

[Pogo]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

Your three (unlinked) quotes are not mutually exclusive.

Speaking of which, on what basis would "financial experts" be qualified to opine on legal issues?

 

[Pogo]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

What sets PBS apart from the others is that as a noncommercial enterprise they're not selling anything. Therefore there's no incentive to aggregate eyeballs with salacious gossip stories of the next missing white girl (etc).

 

[JLW]

In response to your question.

1. CNN is right. I am sure the number one priority of the new Chief of Staff will be to deal with the aftermath of the Mueller investigation. Duh.

2. Fox News is just spilling out right-wing talking points. It does not contradict CNN in the least.

2. You are wrong in your assessment of MSNBC's statement alludes to the end is near for Trump but they are right as to who would want to be Trump's CoS. Trump has shown himself to be petulant, vindictive, dumb as bricks, childlike and hard to control. Combine that with the stresses of the Mueller investigation, and it would be a thankless job.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

None of the above. They all parrot the AP "approved" news and put their own spin on it.


Why do you think they all report on the same thing at the same time? Not sure if they use any journalists at all anymore.

Nobody "scoops" anybody anymore, the AP controls the narrative.

 

[Slyhunter]

It is an unfortunate form of entertainment to read through the headlines of these three entities.
Today -
CNN - "New Chief of Staff Job 1 will be to try and save the Presidency as Mueller closes in"
Fox News - No new evidence, and financial experts agree that Stormy Daniels payments were unrelated to campaign funds." All Mueller has is people forgetting/lying/misspeaking to panel.
MSNBC - "Why would anyone want to be Trump's chief of staff?" - alluding to the "end is near".

CNN---opinion
Fox--opinion
MSNBC--opinion

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

www.drudgereport.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

You won't get facts from any of them....The only places you'll get anything near unbiased coverage is the foreign press.

There is some truth in that...I have noticed many times over the past years that it is common you get better/more/accurate news from BBC America than any of the three

 

[OldLady]

If you want facts, go to Reuters, or the NYT, or WaPo. Or PBS, although even they have begun having "panels" to "analyze" what Judy Woodruff just told us.

You won't get facts from any of them....The only places you'll get anything near unbiased coverage is the foreign press.

When is the last time you read either of those papers, if ever? I'm not talking about op eds, either.