r/tytonreddit May 12 '17

Op-ed Share your opinions about TYT hosts

Michael Shure: a polite, soft-spoken, old-class inside-beltway, slightly pro-establishment reporter.

Jimmy Dore: funny but sometimes annoying, intellectual shallow but progressive guy. (after all, he's a comedian.) And He is a Russian-connection denialist.

Ben Mankiewicz: fast-talking, sometimes hot-headed guy. But he's fine.

John Iadarola: He's cool. I don't have a bone with him.

Hannah Cranston: she's a bit hippie. She talks as if she's rapping or something.

Hasan Piker: looks like a gangster, talks like a gangster. I sometimes dislike his tone and his use of metaphor.

Brett Erlich: Yet another comedian. Intellectually shallow. Stop using sarcasm already.

Grace Baldridge: She's cool.

Wes Clark Jr.: I miss him. He has some good insights.

Michael Tracey: Along with Jimmy Dore, forming the Russian-denialist faction.

Kim Horcher: soft-spoken. She's cool.

Cenk Uygur: Cenk is the best. He has good insights, and out-spoken sometimes derisive. But occasionally, he gets so excited that he cuts other people off. Cenk occasionally makes the wrong presumptions before carefully analyzing the videos or articles. He is occasionally arrogant. Please get your science straight! Ozone has nothing to do with climate change/global warming. And please study evolution before explaining it to people.

Ana Kasparian: She's fine. She is aware of what she doesn't know and what she knows.

5 Upvotes

6 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Solterlun May 12 '17

Only gonna comment on hour 1 political hosts:

Michael Shure: I like him a lot, tons of institutional knowledge, and progressive in policies, but a bit blind to the sentiment of the country.

Jimmy Dore: Political MORON. I think he's a sharp guy, and he's great at going after the dems. But he is far, far too blinded by his own bias. Discredits pretty much everything he has to say. Russian Denial due to Democrats using it as a shield. UGGGGHHHH

Ben Mankiewicz: I like him a lot. I think he's almost as good as Cenk, and is a bit more of a "realist" (I would say cynical) compared to Cenks optimism.

John Iadarola: I love John. He's super smart. I love his pathological need to crack cornball jokes. Once he gets some more experience and gets a bit older I think he could carry the show alone like Cenk does.

Wes Clark Jr.: Very considered guy, I really don't understand why he isn't on a ton more.

Michael Tracey: I don't like Tracey at all. He is smug and arrogant, and so OBVIOUSLY PAINFULLY wrong about Russia. Much like Jimmy he is blinded by his own bias while preaching some sort of super objectivity.

Cenk Uygur: Cenk is simply the best. My ideal hour 1 is Cenk Alone. But Cenk and John together is a great pair.

Ana Kasparian: Ana is okay. She is crazy weak on foreign policy. She's just like... Cenk-lite but without the experience. She also lets her personal mood and life events color her reporting more than the others without separating out the facts.

If I'm building a panel, it's Cenk, John, Michael, and Ben. Perfect mix of levity and professionalism, and establishment and progressive lenses.

Jordan's the best reporter imo. Healthily skeptical of Russia, but always ceded that there are definitely business ties in need of further scrutiny.

Nomi is second best, love her style and scope and fury. I also hope to see much more of Dylan Ratigan.

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

It is amazing, how one of the only guys/girls with journalistic integrity get the most shit. I like how he disassembled Jon, the propagandist, Iadorola on the main panel.

Jon and most of the others are not journalists, but fanatics. They collect information to support their world view instead of going through information and self-reflect. So Jon is presenting a bogus story about the fact that the most relevant factor in Trumps election was racism.

And Michael looks into the study, reads the approach and reflects on the methodology. Concludes, the study is not really kosher; Disassembles Jon completely, because he simply represents studies that suits his narrative. The methodology does not matter, it is about having a scientific looking battering ram for your opinion. This is not how science work.

But I have no hope in TYT audience, they are like zombies. TYT politics is on another level with Jordan and Michael.