Today I had an opportunity to listen to an independent news source do an investigation into a private equity group using apartment complexes to launder money. Instead I got to listen to Saagar complain about immigration. Again. With nothing new to add. Why am I paying to listen to the same 3 stories on repeat?
I'm all for political coverage, but this program is turning into noise while I drink coffee fast. There's lots happening that's relevant to the election. Guess that stuff isn't in Crystal and Saager's Twitter feeds. I'll just have to wait for Ryan and Emily's segments.
Thank you for becoming a member at Breaking Points, now on Locals!
You will get access to all the exclusive content, our full length shows, and new Q&A live streams that will be on Locals. Locals adds great features to the show such as the mobile app, higher quality video, and screen casting to your TV!
If you need any help, please contact [email protected].
Thanks for being a part of the next step in our independent media journey,
BP Team
We've heard questions about Spotify access that we would like to make clear.
Spotify's legal team is giving us issues and slowing down the migration.
In the meantime we've created a temporary Spotify video playlist that we are linking in all the show emails and posts.
Spotify Link: https://open.spotify.com/show/2togMvVQ0F4mXQmbwuFs4K?si=wEARUQEoSR2o4KFxn-wR4w
For any other questions please contact [email protected]
Regarding the frequent comments I see about the show being biased left or that Saagar inadequately challenges Krystal's takes. Here's my 0.02. This show has never promised to cover the news in a way that presents "both" right and left wing perspectives as equally legitimate. Sometimes one "side" is completely illegitimate. A large fraction of the conservative population still thinks 2020 was stolen, but Saagar is not obliged to present this argument in a legitimizing light if he thinks it is bogus. Likewise, Krystal is not required to tow the Dem line on more military aid to Ukraine.
When I bought my membership, what I perceived in this show was that its hosts strive to be objective (diff than politically bipartisan, neutral, or "balanced" ). I think they both are committed to this, but since they know people's biases affect what they think is true, they have someone else with different political priors to point out whether they agree or disagree.
I have heard all hosts concede points...
