To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Maddow = O’Reilly.
Maddow spouts off as bad, or even worse then all the people Dan Savage complains about. Savage wants freedom of speech for himself, but not for people who rightly think gays are evil!
Thanks for posting this, Dan.
Not really seeing any Maddow/O’Reilly parallels here… From what I have seen, Maddow’s reporting is almost entirely quotes, citations, and provable facts, whereas O’Reilly (from what little I can stomach) uses mostly personal commentary.
Commentary is all well and good (and Maddow provides her fair share as well) but what O’Reilly constantly comes under fire for is that a) he presents his opinions as facts and b) he loosely bases these opinions on “facts” that too often turn out to be patently false, or taken wildly out of context.
The only part of Maddow’s reporting that I can see any O’Reillian (did I just coin this term?) overtones to is her repeated references to the Ugandan bill as the “kill the gays bill,” which I suppose is rather sensationalist, though I doubt she was the first to start using the term.