FOX News is America's Shame

[K Graham]

However - to put it another way - I’d note that although both involve water, a flood is not the same as tipping over a glass.

An apt analogy, but for someone only capable of thinking in binary, I think you may have made his brain explode.

Fox has promoted ‘stolen election’ and anti-vax positions, both of which would seem to have more deleterious effects on the social cohesiveness of this country than the propaganda dished out by CNN.

Mueller exonerated Trump, Russia Hoax, COVID is a Hoax, Vaccines are killing more than COVID, Obama is not a US citizen, Texas' power grid collapsed because of windmills, etc. I'd take even the least of these examples and ask for an equivalent example from CNN or even MSNBC.

I’ll hold for your examples of the like from other major media players.

I've been holding for literally years.

[Res Ipsa]

Equating Fox's propaganda with the NYT or Washington Post is the epitome of false equivalence. That you can't tell the difference is a sign that you are among the duped.

Stay in it, Res. I like the way we talk about this sort of stuff. Stay right there if you can. If believing I am duped helps, go for it.

This is what I said:

If you have a problem with FOX, but you do not have a problem with CNN, Washington Post, The NYT, NPR, The Atlantic, PBS, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Jen Psaki, Jack Dorsey, The View and that [deleted language exceeding PG-13 rating -- RI] Stephanopolous, then your problem is not what you think. It really really is that super duper simple.

I did not equate propaganda.

I said, if you have a problem with FOX, but none of these other sources, then your problem is not what you think. Meaning, if you have a problem with FOX, but not these other sources, the problem may not be that these sources have equal but opposite propaganda.

I agree. The problem is not one of equal and opposite propaganda. The NYT, WP, Wall St. Journal etc. have normal and expected editorial bias, but they don’t have an express agenda to promote a political agenda in each and every story. Fox intentionally promotes a conservative agenda at the expense of accurate reporting. There is a reason that surveys show Fox viewers to be relatively uninformed when compared with people who get their news from mainstream sources. Fox doesn’t care about informing voters. It wants to frighten and enrage its viewers.

Go ahead and show me anything in the NYT that’s as bad as Fox’s reporting on Durham’s motion. Sarah Palin sued the NYT over use of a single word, even though the NYT corrected the story. By that standard, Fox should be sued dozens of times everyday. I mean, has it corrected its BS story on the Durham motion?

How does Fox defend a slander suit? When was the last time a NYT reporter defend a story by saying that no reasonable person would take the story seriously?

I don’t claim that mainstream media is perfect. Every media organization gets facts wrong from time to time. And reporters are people with biases, even when they try to be balanced and objective. But Fox doesn’t aspire to be fair or balanced. They have an express, intentional bias that is more important to the organization than being factually accurate. Fox is everything it accuses the mainstream media of being.

[Binger]

Stay in it, Res. I like the way we talk about this sort of stuff. Stay right there if you can. If believing I am duped helps, go for it.

This is what I said:


I did not equate propaganda.

I said, if you have a problem with FOX, but none of these other sources, then your problem is not what you think. Meaning, if you have a problem with FOX, but not these other sources, the problem may not be that these sources have equal but opposite propaganda.

I agree. The problem is not one of equal and opposite propaganda. The NYT, WP, Wall St. Journal etc. have normal and expected editorial bias, but they don’t have an express agenda to promote a political agenda in each and every story. Fox intentionally promotes a conservative agenda at the expense of accurate reporting. There is a reason that surveys show Fox viewers to be relatively uninformed when compared with people who get their news from mainstream sources. Fox doesn’t care about informing voters. It wants to frighten and enrage its viewers.

Go ahead and show me anything in the NYT that’s as bad as Fox’s reporting on Durham’s motion. Sarah Palin sued the NYT over use of a single word, even though the NYT corrected the story. By that standard, Fox should be sued dozens of times everyday. I mean, has it corrected its BS story on the Durham motion?

How does Fox defend a slander suit? When was the last time a NYT reporter defend a story by saying that no reasonable person would take the story seriously?

I don’t claim that mainstream media is perfect. Every media organization gets facts wrong from time to time. And reporters are people with biases, even when they try to be balanced and objective. But Fox doesn’t aspire to be fair or balanced. They have an express, intentional bias that is more important to the organization than being factually accurate. Fox is everything it accuses the mainstream media of being.

Okay.

I can work with this. So you see bias as fine. If the NYT and Washington Post have an editorial bias, that is cool with you. It sounds like you see that bias, on a scale of 1-10, as a 1. Fox, you would say is an 11. Correct?

[Binger]

Res,

Before you call it a night, go to CNN and look at the headlines. Do you see more about the Ukraine, or about Canada? And the ONE story you see about Canada, what does it say? Some BS propaganda about protestors attacking the police?

This is just an exercise. I am not arguing against anything you are saying. This is just an exercise.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree. The problem is not one of equal and opposite propaganda. The NYT, WP, Wall St. Journal etc. have normal and expected editorial bias, but they don’t have an express agenda to promote a political agenda in each and every story. Fox intentionally promotes a conservative agenda at the expense of accurate reporting. There is a reason that surveys show Fox viewers to be relatively uninformed when compared with people who get their news from mainstream sources. Fox doesn’t care about informing voters. It wants to frighten and enrage its viewers.

Go ahead and show me anything in the NYT that’s as bad as Fox’s reporting on Durham’s motion. Sarah Palin sued the NYT over use of a single word, even though the NYT corrected the story. By that standard, Fox should be sued dozens of times everyday. I mean, has it corrected its BS story on the Durham motion?

How does Fox defend a slander suit? When was the last time a NYT reporter defend a story by saying that no reasonable person would take the story seriously?

I don’t claim that mainstream media is perfect. Every media organization gets facts wrong from time to time. And reporters are people with biases, even when they try to be balanced and objective. But Fox doesn’t aspire to be fair or balanced. They have an express, intentional bias that is more important to the organization than being factually accurate. Fox is everything it accuses the mainstream media of being.

Okay.

I can work with this. So you see bias as fine. If the NYT and Washington Post have an editorial bias, that is cool with you. It sounds like you see that bias, on a scale of 1-10, as a 1. Fox, you would say is an 11. Correct?

No. The difference is not points on a ten point scale. Ordinary, and likely unavoidable, bias in a new organization is one thing. Deliberate dissemination of political propaganda is orders of magnitude different than general media bias. If the NYT is a 1, Fox is 10,000.

I don’t have an NYT subscription, but if you think it is a left-wing equivalent of Fox, then you can’t explain its treatment of Clinton in the 2016 election. It beat the crap out of her over the e-mail server for months during the run up to the election. I’m not talking about editorials and opinion pieces - I’m talking about the news reporting. It the news side went after her in a way that Fox News would never go after a far right politician.

If the traditional media has a bias, it’s against the party that is in power. The NYT and WP regularly run news stories that are critical of Biden and congressional democrats in a way that Fox would ever criticize Trump when he was President. Or Mark Meadows. Or Jim Jordan.

I subscribe to the WP for national news. The official editorials are left of center, but not that far. The rest of the page includes authors from all across the political spectrum. When have you ever seen Fox allow a liberal voice to speak his or her mind without being verbally mugged?

[Res Ipsa]

Res,

Before you call it a night, go to CNN and look at the headlines. Do you see more about the Ukraine, or about Canada? And the ONE story you see about Canada, what does it say? Some B.S. propaganda about protestors attacking the police?

This is just an exercise. I am not arguing against anything you are saying. This is just an exercise.

You may have noticed that I haven’t said anything about CNN. I used to watch CNN, but I haven’t for several years now. I don’t even watch their election returns anymore. I’ll look, but I don’t get my news from Cable TV. When I heard about the arrests in Ottawa, I looked at article from the local papers. More in depth coverage.

ETA: Did you actually read the CNN story or just the headline? On the mobile site, the headline links to this story, which is as comprehensive as what I read today in the local papers. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/18/americas ... index.html

I don’t understand why you think the attention given the Ukraine situation isn’t newsworthy enough to merit several stories. When the border crossings were reopened, the impact of the protest on the US went to zero. That reduces its newsworthiness in the US. The situation with Ukraine is a BFD — when was the last time a major world power stacked kind of military firepower on a neighbor’s border? Especially after conducting low-intensity warfare for a prolonged period?

I don’t see political bias in the relative treatment of the two stories. From the perspective of impact on Americans, it’s an unsurprising choice for an American news station.

[Binger]

All good, Res. Thanks.

I think that CNN is a better comp to FOX than the NYT and Washington Post. FOX is, after all, a cable network.

I do not read the old gray lady or Washington Post because of the paywall. I watch election returns from independent geeks online. When I say geeks, I mean over the top geeks. Way, way, way over the top geeks. I am sure these guys solve Rubik's Cubes blindfolded and crap like that.

What do we have in common? We both avoid the main, or mainstream, cable media including the media that caters to our political bend. For you, that is ignoring CNN. I am a populist, as you know, I like Tulsi and people like her, and I avoid FOX like you avoid CNN. We have something in common. WOOO HOOOOOOOO!

My parents read the Epoch Times, I have seen some of their stuff, but I am not a subscriber or consumer. I do like Richard Baris's math and polling, he is good and has been very accurate in many cycles. However, I am not a consumer of their news, just Richard's numbers.

The point of looking at CNN's online coverage of the Truckers is simple. CNN's coverage is for crap. The comparison to the independent coverage, including guys like Viva Frei (a lawyer) is comical. So the simple point is this - if people want to know something, they will go find the information. Avoiding stories, or a bias selection, can have as much of an effect as bias reporting.

[K Graham]

I don’t have an NYT subscription, but if you think it is a left-wing equivalent of Fox, then you can’t explain its treatment of Clinton in the 2016 election. It beat the crap out of her over the e-mail server for months during the run up to the election. I’m not talking about editorials and opinion pieces - I’m talking about the news reporting. It the news side went after her in a way that Fox News would never go after a far right politician.

Res, the same is true of CNN though. They completely hammered Clinton over the bogus email scandal for a year, and then leading up to the final weeks of the election they dropped the story that would have politically destroyed even George Washington if he were the GOP candidate. I'm talking about the Access Hollywood recording showing Trump all but admitting to being a frequent rapist. This recording became public just one month prior to the election, but then James Comey killed Clinton's bid for presidency by submitting a letter to Congress suggesting it was possible Hillary would be investigated for mysterious crimes. CNN felt like they had to cover it in order to appear fair and balanced. That's an odd strategy for an outlet that is supposedly "in the tank" for Democrats.

This was something EAllusion used to talk about a lot.

[K Graham]

Before you call it a night, go to CNN and look at the headlines. Do you see more about the Ukraine, or about Canada? And the ONE story you see about Canada, what does it say? Some B.S. propaganda about protestors attacking the police?

This is just an exercise. I am not arguing against anything you are saying. This is just an exercise.

Challenge accepted. Some of the headlines from FOX today:

1.jpg (35.44 KiB) Viewed 536 times

2.jpg (118.5 KiB) Viewed 536 times

3.jpg (17.68 KiB) Viewed 536 times

[K Graham]

4.jpg (19.97 KiB) Viewed 519 times

5.jpg (18.96 KiB) Viewed 519 times

6.jpg (25.72 KiB) Viewed 519 times