I like Russell Brand. I think he has a certain kind of British whit I enjoy, and he can be very to-the-point with the current events of the world. He took on the rants of a very popular conservative talk show host, and I agree with most of what he had to say: * There is no incentive for the host (or the network) to have a real debate. A real debate would mean that the other side would have ample time to give their point of view, and the network side would have to try to defend it more than just name calling. * There is no incentive for the network to want a peaceful world. If there is no conflict, there is no network. Everything has to be a Fox News Alert, even if its about puppies being rescued by a pretty 15-year-old, gun-toting girl, with the American flag flying in the background. * Anything this host says is based on what the network wants him to say. Chances are most of it the host believes in as well, but if there was a topic that he disagreed with, do you think the network would give him any time to express his point of view? This is worth a listen. Yes, you can say that there are other networks that fall into the same category, but what does that mean about our society as a whole when we answer bad journalism with but the others are just as bad?!?!? https://youtube/watch?v=V_m98GAdqKM
Posted on: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:13:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015