>That's not what you said. You guessed I hadn't reviewed the work of three people you say are serious intellectuals. IMHO "work" is a grandiose term for most of their product, which by necessity is a series of soundbites for an uncritical audience and a biography of Cheney. What you're really saying is that you listen to people who you know agree with you. My preference is to listen to people who disagree so I can make sure that the facts still match the conceptions. As Keynes put it: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" (This was his response when criticized during the previous Great Depression for changing his stance.)
>
Oh, puh-leeeeze.. I don't even know where to begin here. If even half of what you said was true, I'd be a Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin parrot.
Rather interesting you mention all of this. I've provided significant facts on ACA, and you dismissively refer to them as "partisan attacks". It's not unlike someone putting their hands over their ears and shouting "la la la la la la la", and really comes across as an inconsistent display of virtue. Do you really think you hold up to your own standards/preferences here? (of listening to people who disagree).
I shouldn't feel the need to amplify - but I watch all 3 major ones...CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. I probably listen to more of the "enemy" voices than some people listen to their "favorite" voices. I've always had an interest in journalism and how people approach a news story. I even (gasp) read the Huffington Post. So right off the bat, you're wrong on this "what you're really saying is that you listen to people who...". And this "uncritical audience" is really a load of hogwash.
The names I mentioned are ones I have high respect for, because they generally have a good track record and don't come across as snarky. I forgot to mention Juan Williams, whom I like listening to (even when I don't agree with him) because he's generally sincere. Their claims are usually backed by information....i.e., they demonstrate. For instance, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard (along with Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin) can make a cogent and compelling case for why Benghazi was/is such a serious issue - whereas a Bill O'Reilly WILL try to simplify it into sound bites, Sean Hannity will fry his brain cells trying to explain it, and a Rachel Maddow will engage in a magic show approach to try to make it disappear. I can tell the differences. But If I need to explain the differences, then it was a huge mistake for me to even get into this discussion.
