Posted the same thing at the same time Doc!
I dont see why people forgive the ones who opened the gates to where we are now. To me it's the momentum, as one does, the others have to do more.
Watch Jennifer Griffith, or Catherine Herrige sometime. The only report, and say "From my sources in the XXX. If the anchor tries to turn things, they say, "No, this is what has been said"
I dont need acting in my news report. I only want the facts.
Yes, wymple, Rather knew he was wrong, and was warned multiple times for his own versions, it was why he was fired. That started before there was a FOX News station. It has been going on, and accelerating since the 70's, when journalism school started, and started pushing change in college.

Wow...just wow.....not much angst against the editorialists on CNN or msnbc......just more liberal hypocrisy....


.

Nothing you claim changes the fact that FOX set the bar way over top in lying flat out, hypocrisy, and around the clock deception. More than all the others combined. It got so bad that their defense is that no right minded person would believe them anyway? Your false equivalencies are staggering.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
People should be aware that some shows are opinion pieces and NOT news reports. The same goes for any media source.
When Dan Rather was interviewed after he was fired. He said it was his duty as an anchor to help lead people to the right conclusion.
No actual news host should ever lead to a conclusion.

You keep bring up Dan Rather although we're trying to ignore you.

That's not the situation we're facing today. So, it's not comparable.

First thing is that there weren't so many fascist fodder then as now.

I think what Dan Rather did was wrong and crossed the line re ethics, for the sake of ratings, or his own sensibilities. What got him cancelled was he messed with Bush.

There is no excuse for what is happening today, particularly with Fox and their audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...s%20abruptly%20fired.

So, where is the problem?

If there was not a very profitable market for unethical reporting, there wouldn't be any.

It's not the school of journalism, or real journalism that's the problem. The unethical will appeal to the unethical, and feed the fascist fodder.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...40baa90c3915c6922916

Sidney Powell cited woman who claimed to be headless, time-traveling entity in email pushing election conspiracy theories
Story by insider@insider.com (Cheryl Teh,Jacob Sh

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...40baa90c3915c6922916

‘Mind Blowingly Nuts’: Fox News Hosts And Execs Repeatedly Denounced 2020 Election Fraud Off-Air—Here Are Their Most Scathing Comments
Story by Alison Durkee, Forbes Staff • 10h ago

Topline (excerpts)

Fox News personalities and executives privately made clear they didn’t believe falsehoods being peddled by former President Donald Trump and his allies about fraud in the 2020 election despite pushing them on-air, a new court filing by Dominion Voting Systems alleges, part of a billion-dollar defamation suit the voting company is waging to hold Fox liable for its on-air claims.

Host Tucker Carlson said in text messages that far-right attorney Sidney Powell “is lying” and called her claims “insane” and “absurd,” saying it was “shockingly reckless” to push the Dominion fraud claims and Powell was “poison,” an “unguided missile” and “dangerous as hell” and he “hope[s] she’s punished.”

Carlson also wrote after the January 6 attack that Trump is “a demonic force, a destroyer,” and told host Laura Ingraham he “had to make” the Trump White House “disavow” Powell’s comments, calling her a “nut.”

Host Sean Hannity testified he “did not believe … for one second” that Powell’s voter fraud claims were true and it was “obvious” Powell’s allegations were false when she appeared on his program, also saying far-right attorney Rudy Giuliani was “acting like an insane person” and calling the lawyers “f’ing lunatics.”

ngraham called Powell a “complete nut” and added “ditto with Rudy [Giuliani],” telling Carlson that “no serious lawyer could believe what they were saying” and calling Giuliani “such an idiot.”

Fox host Lou Dobbs, who repeatedly hosted Powell on his program, agreed under oath that it was “false” to say that Powell revealed evidence of voter fraud on his show, and Dominion alleges that no Fox witness has testified there’s any evidence of voter fraud involving Dominion machines.

So it seems that all of the conservatives are willing to admit that Fox News stretches the truth but zero liberals will admit that any of their media sources do the same. You guys are fucking morons, or perhaps just gullible sheep.

Name one "liberal" media source who is facing Billion $$$ lawsuit?

Go ahead, show us who is the moron.

Your flaw is thus:

"all conservatives are willing to admit that Fox News stretches the truth"

BS. Not all, and stretches is not a synonym for lies in this context, especially a purveyor of lies.

Next:

"zero liberals will admit that any of their media sources do the same".

Also BS. First they don't do the "same". Second, "we" readily admit that liberal sources are bias - favoring truth of course, based in facts and evidence.

Without working at it...
Nick Sandmann, against CNN and NBC.
OK pinheads, deflect from that case.

quote:

Originally posted by pointblank:
So it seems that all of the conservatives are willing to admit that Fox News stretches the truth but zero liberals will admit that any of their media sources do the same. You guys are fucking morons, or perhaps just gullible sheep.

That's very close, damned close, we are more than willing to admit that fox ....hannity, carlson, Ingraham are editorialists, fox "news" has good unbiased news.

The lefties consider maddow, Cooper and Acosta all report news....

The hypocrisy is just astounding!

They are either retarded or just plain liars!


.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Name one "liberal" media source who is facing Billion $$$ lawsuit?

Go ahead, show us who is the moron.

Your flaw is thus:

"all conservatives are willing to admit that Fox News stretches the truth"

BS. Not all, and stretches is not a synonym for lies in this context, especially a purveyor of lies.

Next:

"zero liberals will admit that any of their media sources do the same".

Also BS. First they don't do the "same". Second, "we" readily admit that liberal sources are bias - favoring truth of course, based in facts and evidence.

I’m not saying “All” conservatives, just the ones posting here. Same for the liberals. It’s consistent, you guys are sheep.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d0099bf7ab678535f34

Trump tried to do a call-in on Fox during J6 attack — and they refused to let him on air: report
Story by Matthew Chapman • 1h ago

================================================

I wonder why he chose Fox rather than some other, such as CNN?

When was the last time Biden called a news agency or tweeted to spread BS to the flock?

================================================

Speaking of Sheep - or fascist fodder, something like 2/3 of repugs believed Trump's Big Lie. They believed nutz like Powell, Lindell, Guliani, and other quacks. Many if not most still do.

They also denied that Trump is a pathological liar. Many if not most still do.

It's astonishing that a guy like Trump could lead so many gullible (or willing) people.

Gullible is nicer than willing. At least the gullible have some claim to innocence. But fascist fodder covers both.

Yet these same people have the gall to point fingers at the other side.

Unredeemable Deplorable fascist fodder.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX are all questionable sources and will never let the truth get in the way of their bias. The past couple of years has just made it more obvious. It would be interesting to see what factual, balanced, reporting would look like. Regards, Bill

Nailed it 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
It would be interesting to see what factual, balanced, reporting would look like. Regards, Bill

Easy. Here ya go:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d679eef2189642f42d1

Analysis: Fox News has been exposed as a dishonest organization terrified of its own audience
Story by Oliver Darcy • Yesterday 8:53 PM

Want more balanced and factual reporting?

Here ya go:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...es-they-pushed-on-tv

Lawsuit filing shows Fox hosts didn’t believe election fraud lies they pushed on TV
Feb 17, 2023 6:45 PM EST

================================================

BTW, I don't call what Fox News did bias.

Bias in general means to me that one is presupposed but still open to info, facts and evidence.

I have never defined bias as outright fraud, lying and dishonesty peddlers such as Fox News did for profit. And they were proud of the niche they created and filled.

One could presume that Fox couldn't attract such ratings and audience and be honest. The demand for lies and affirmation wasn't being fulfilled by so-called leftist media, so Fox dove deep, then realized too deep - too late.

Fox News - field of dreams for fascist fodder. Build it and they will come.

Why Republicans accuse Democrats of being Commies and Democrats accusing Republicans of being Nazis?

Nazis and Commies are one and the same in nutshell, same way of thinking, same mantra, same way of dealing with opposition…. Ultimately, no one in US really knows what Nazi or Communist means and what it entails…

First you pose a question - loaded, then answer it with conclusion.

What do you want?

If it's to express your opinions that's dandy.

I'm glad that you have it all figured out.

Please, share more of your wisdom and perspective with us.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
First you pose a question - loaded, then answer it with conclusion.

What do you want?

If it's to express your opinions that's dandy.

I'm glad that you have it all figured out.

Please, share more of your wisdom and perspective with us.

Really?
Just expressed opinion is all
Now you figured you have it all figured out?
And BTW, I don’t want anything as I simply engaged in discussion with I suppose fellow hunters

Hannity & Carlson tried to get an honest reporter, Jackie Heinrich, fired for kicking back against their 2020 fraud claims. Can't have that shit going on at FOX.

It seems a significant number of Americans are not mislead but instead choose to consume news from a source which simply confirms or justifies their existing views and opinions.

All one has to do is review the roll-out of the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, The Russian Collusion Hoax, and see the MSM sans Fox are equally guilty.

Rachael Maddow, Chris Matthews, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper all used to have whole shows on the topic and droll on for hours about total BS.

I have said it before and will say it again. The MSM is the enemy of the American People.

They are simply the left version of Fox. I watch once in awhile to see their version, the same as Fox.
Bottom line, dont like something, dont watch and support.

BS on the last two posts, especially:

quote:

The MSM is the enemy of the American People.

Is the author and publisher of the following article an enemy?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/ente...456693c6b2ce8896b8e8

Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers
Opinion by Adam Serwer • 2h ago

(excerpts)

Fox News lies to its viewers. Its most prominent personalities, among the most influential in the industry, tell their viewers things they know not to be true. This is not accusation, allegation, or supposition. Today, we know it to be fact.

Dominion’s latest filing argues that privately, Fox News hosts admitted that the allegations of election fraud being floated by Trump allies were baseless, but they kept airing them, in part because they feared another right-wing network, Newsmax, was stealing their audience. The filing shows that when Fox News reporters shot down the allegations publicly, the network’s big personalities were livid, complaining internally that telling their viewers the truth was hurting the network’s brand.

But internally, the messages in Dominion’s filing suggest that network officials knew they were exercising editorial judgment that would lead their audience to see the fictitious election-fraud allegations not simply as newsworthy, but legitimate, which they properly understood to be irresponsible.

The Dominion filing drives home a few points. One is that there is a Fox News propaganda feedback loop: The network inflames right-wing conspiracism, but it also bows to it out of partisan commitment and commercial incentive. Another is that despite the long-standing right-wing argument that conservatives distrust mainstream media outlets because they do not tell the truth, Fox News executives and personalities understand that their own network loses traction with its audience when it fails to tell the lies that the audience wishes to hear. There are infinite examples of the mainstream press making errors of omission, fact, or framing. But as the private communications in the Dominion filing show, the mainstream media’s unforgivable sin with this constituency is not lying, but failing to consistently lie the way conservative audiences want them to.

Looking at these internal messages however, the confident, implacable cynicism on the right about how mainstream media outlets work is easier to understand. It is a reflection of how some of their own media institutions function, combined with an assumption that everyone else operates in a similarly amoral way.

There is also a story here about how social media and analytics can compel even powerful media institutions to meet a strong demand for falsehoods. Fox News executives understood the election-fraud allegations were nonsense, and they also understood their audience wanted to hear them. Misinformation and propaganda are not novel problems, but modern technology renders the incentives to lie to an audience particularly clear, and the means to reach that audience particularly easy to access. There will always be a potentially profitable demand for self-flattering lies; ethical people and institutions resist supplying them. The ability of individual hustlers to amass an audience of sycophants by feeding them conspiracies puts pressure on more mainstream outlets to gently appease conspiracism, if not to fully capitulate to it.

The network may ultimately prevail; that’s what all those fancy lawyers get paid for. But if consciously lying to your audience about election fraud in order to keep them watching your network doesn’t meet the standard for actual malice, it’s difficult to imagine what a powerful media company could do that would. And even if Fox News ultimately loses the Dominion lawsuit, I would not expect its audience to abandon it. After all, the network remains willing to tell them what they know to be true—even if it isn’t.

So Kabob,
How do explain the left repeatedly showing the picture and tell of the Border Patrol horseback agents whipping migrants?
The man who took the picture told everyone, there was no whipping. They were misleading people over what the picture actually showed.
The left, and even the whitehouse pushed a false narrative for their own ends, even knowing the truth.
Cry BS all you want, you are only showing your hypocrisy.

I'm sure you have hundreds of examples of look-over-there / what about them. Some may even have merit, but I'm not going to bother with your deflection.

It has practically nothing to do with the current event/topic.

What do you have to say specifically about Fox lying to their audience, knowingly.

How does it feel to be duped, knowing you were fed BS?

quote:

What do you have to say specifically about Fox lying to their audience, knowingly.

How does it feel to be duped, knowing you were fed BS?

Guaranteed he doesn't care, because they told him what he wanted to hear.

Well guys, if you go way back to just after the election when this all started. You will find I said the election was fair and all the hoopla was false, I didnt believe it.
Never changed my mind about it since, so, you two are full of shit.

Well, I'm glad that you cleared that up, and reminded us. I wouldn't have bothered to look for your previous posts. I just go with your current karma.

The question was about how you view the fact of Fox lies specifically.

For the umpteenth time Kabob.
I want a robot telling me the facts for a news anchor. I want zero hype, zero opinions, zero acting.
Not sure why you cant get that through your head, I have repeated it over and over in my posts before.

ME,
When watching news, one must learn to separate the reporting from the opinion shows…which are just that ‘shows.’

I mainly listen to Fox Headline News (different from Fox News)…just facts…no commentary…always accurate. For opinion, mainly on economics and finnancial matters, Fox Business is good. They get good finnancial experts to opine.

All the nighttime BS commentary shows are just that…mostly BS across all networks. The commentary is geared towards the audience left or right. Today…it is so different because the gap between left and right is equivalent to the Grand Canyon.

I sorta like both of the above two posts.

As I recall, Chris Wallace used to work for Fox, and I listened to him.

I agree with you, Lane, that it is important to distinguish between opinion articles/shows and reporting. I often post opinion articles because I want their expression of takeaway from a series of facts and evidence. When I do post opinions, it should be obvious mostly because of the heading of the articles, which clearly say "opinion".

I have noticed that some sources provide little or no backup, (facts, evidence, quotes, etc.) in support of the opinions. I don't consider such opinion articles worthy of credibility if they rely on emotionalism, especially imagery. Their singular purpose is affirmation, not new info or reporting.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
For the umpteenth time Kabob.
I want a robot telling me the facts for a news anchor. I want zero hype, zero opinions, zero acting.
Not sure why you cant get that through your head, I have repeated it over and over in my posts before.

I "hear" ya.

IMO, what you wish for there is nearly impossible. Some say Walter Cronkite was the last one. As I recall, his signoff was "and that's the way it is".

First, they sort out what is newsworthy, then they narrate it, often with imagery, emotional or factual, at the angle of their choosing.

It's what they choose to include and what to leave out, and how they present it.

One would indeed need to consult several "robots" to even get parts of the rest of the story.

I think it's a fact that most people (over 50%) can't sort out fact from fiction. Given facts and evidence, making reality out of it is impossible for such folks. That's why they are so vulnerable to Trump-like monsters and the threesome on Fox.

I'm not saying that I think you are like that.

I've heard my rightists friends say almost exactly what you said. I can't argue with them much, like I can with you, because it's too complicated. I generally just say that you don't know how to make sense of all the facts available to you already.

I prefer perspective, make sense of it, with facts and evidence to back it up. Then I can decide to incorporate it or reject it (the inferences or conclusions) by using corroborating or conflicting evidence. Take the closing arguments of a trial. Both sides are using the same evidence but drawing different conclusions. The jury decides based on the most convincing evidence and law guidance from the judge, not the narration of the attorneys. And emotionalism is generally excluded from evidence.

What you are asking for is like evidence presented at trial, unsorted, lacking perspective, no convincing summary narrative. Have they ever presented a formal debate team, where the contestants just stated the facts?

It would be easyer if you didnt forget what has already been said over and over by folks. You cant remember what YOU have said, than we have to go back over things again and again on your end, what your own posts show you.
I never make up my mind on a story until I see a hell of alot more than what one news cycle reports. It is right less then half the time.
Not sure who the fox threesome is. If it's any of the opinion shows of any station I wont waste my time.

The Fox News threesome are Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham, all three glorified liars.

And you seem to forget that I have offered explanation many times about why I post the opinion links and why I think your dream of raw news is not realistic.

You are the one who keeps bring it up like we haven't covered it before.

Where do you get your news, and stay informed?

Cronkite was not the last one... he was the last one who people popularly believed it of.

He was singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet. He decided to color his reporting to pro insurgent reporting and the support for the war in mainstream circles plummeted.

What do you think it would have been like if we had someone telling us the war in Europe was lost because of the battle of the bulge?

I agree kabob, none of those three are "news" reporters. Grocery store tabloids are as accurate.
No, I mean if you can remember things like, I voted third party last time. I said it was a fair election, and a hundred other things.
You have the worst case of CRS of anyone on here.
I dont know if it's age, or you wish to interpret things your way. You make up a pathway, with nothing to back it up about what I think of issues, when I have already stated my thoughts.
Then you say things like None of the other stations have made shit up, or been sued.
I point out they have, you get all pissy and try to say I'm deflecting. If you want to stay on one point, dont bring up anything else. You open the door, then scream about it.

As for where I get my news.
I have already answered that, in this very thread. And what I think of opinion news programs.
There is a reason old people get put in homes.

I'm done wasting time with you, untill next time.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time researching where you said you got your news in previous posts.

If you don't want to repeat yourself on a simple question, then quit repeating yourself altogether.

Betcha can't do it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Cronkite was not the last one... he was the last one who people popularly believed it of.

He was singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet. He decided to color his reporting to pro insurgent reporting and the support for the war in mainstream circles plummeted.

What do you think it would have been like if we had someone telling us the war in Europe was lost because of the battle of the bulge?

I think that's BS. I wasn't here when Cronkite did that. I was in Viet Nam at the time, so I didn't get the memo.

"singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet"? Did he have that much influence?

What if he was right and assessed/called it all and trajectory correctly?

I wouldn't believe anything CNN, MSNBC, etc. said under any circumstances. Fox traditionally was reliable as it gets, but there are some cracks in the wall. When I'm in Africa, I've found Al Jazeera to be more reliable and neutral than the BBC. Believe it or not.

Don’t take my word for it… take the north Vietnamese on it.

Cronkite’s change was a bellwether event in the US.

The viet cong were essentially wiped out by Tet. The US forces, yourself included, won the day militarily.

I can agree that it was not a good war to get involved in… and that it had some very strong implications in our future wars.

Was Vietnam an existential threat to the US?

No.

Should we have been there?

Different question- but it certainly has its parallels with Ukraine. I do agree that Johnson got us involved in a hot war there for political reasons.

Nixon got us out, just like Biden. Get a minimally acceptable treaty and do nothing when it was violated. In Biden’s case, the minimal treaty was from Trump, but the execution of it and follow through are all on him.

To me the moral of both Vietnam and Afghanistan is that we need to be better at choosing what we get involved in. We left both because we decided we had enough, which if we would have recognized was a choice we were ok with, we could have had a lot fewer men and women killed over little to nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Cronkite was not the last one... he was the last one who people popularly believed it of.

He was singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet. He decided to color his reporting to pro insurgent reporting and the support for the war in mainstream circles plummeted.

What do you think it would have been like if we had someone telling us the war in Europe was lost because of the battle of the bulge?

I think that's BS. I wasn't here when Cronkite did that. I was in Viet Nam at the time, so I didn't get the memo.

"singlehandedly the one responsible for us losing Vietnam after Tet"? Did he have that much influence?

What if he was right and assessed/called it all and trajectory correctly?