Does Cenk Uygur really have any moral credibility?

[tehealadin]

From what I've seen of him he's dishonest and extremely biased (though not as bad as his usual co host, whatever her name is), which usually ruins his credibility in my eyes.

Take what he says about an issue on what he actually says about it though, not what he's said about something totally unrelated. He's not any more or less knowledgeable, and his arguments are not any more or less reasonable, depending on his stance on an unrelated historical event.

Ana Kasparian? Can't stand her. Both are dishonest and lacking in intellectual integrity. Not always, all of the time, but enough of the time for their character to be questionable, for me at least. And it isn't simply a case of me disagreeing with them (I agree with them on some issues), it is the way they act with people with whom they disagree (people who simply disagree, and haven't acted in an enormously shitty manner).

[RickJamesLich]

Are they Bias, sure they are, do they want the help and favor the actual progressive in the race? Yes there too. John Stewart was bias, but I still liked his show. People are complex and you'd have a hard time finding a talkshow you agree with 100% of the time if you truly are an independent thinker who researches themselves and comes to their own conclusion, but still open to other people's perspectives.

No doubt Stewart was bias but Cenk takes it to another level lol. Nobody can fault the guy if he says stuff that his viewers may disagree with. That being said they have their own agenda when reporting the news, one that favors one side, yet their own show is very critical of the media..... which implies that they are part of the problem yet do not realize it.

[Deleted]

Well then I fully expect the Turks to shut their face about Israeli's and Arabs.

What was good in 1920 isn't going to work in 2020.
Hopefully.

[May90]

Because there is so much to gain from politics of memory. No country wants to be remembered as monsters. Memory can be used as a tool for future genocide. It can be used as a tool for regime change. It can be used as a tool for peace. It can be used a tool at any point for untold gain because of the emotion attached by people to certain events. You also have to consider the gain the people that have emotions involved can gain. You can gain benefits in society, sympathy, money, etc.

But does it take much to just admit your mistakes in the future and make it clear that they won't be repeated ever again? For example, Americans do not deny the atrocities committed against native Americans; I don't see how anyone could use it to their advantage now, that so much time has passed. I can understand benefiting from recent history, say, from something that happened 30 years ago, when many people affected are still alive - but 100 years seems like a very long period to me, and even 71 years passed after WW2 seems extensively long to me to reap political benefits off that.

[Powerogue]

For what it's worth I've never seen this even brought up on TYT, so it seems like his past positions aren't negatively impacting his current news show.

I'm curious what so many posters here have against that show and him in general. There's a lot of harshness thrown around but not much specifics.

basically a leftist version of Faux News

Like that. It'd take some really extreme examples to believe that considering what I've seen of Fox News.