FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Tucker and FOX Entertainment knew the Big Lie was, in fact, a lie:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/that-cnt-i- ... on-claims/

Will this move the needle for Ajax?

eta: even more damning:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... -rcna77257

eta2: Jesus Christ, “It’s bad for business.”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/this-has- ... -business/

I demand some honesty from Ajax for once. Denounce this now.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Ajax never answers anything that anyone posts. He just rants at clouds and the voices in his head put there by the derp state.
Gunnar
God
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm
Location: California

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Gunnar »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:44 pm
Tucker and FOX Entertainment knew the Big Lie was, in fact, a lie:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/that-cnt-i- ... on-claims/

Will this move the needle for Ajax?

eta: even more damning:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... -rcna77257

eta2: Jesus Christ, “It’s bad for business.”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/this-has- ... -business/

I demand some honesty from Ajax for once. Denounce this now.

- Doc
I don't think that ajax gives a whit about the fact that Fox News or Breitbart is lying to him. I think he understands very well that they are lying to him, but they are telling him what he, for some perverse reason, wishes were true, and that is more important to him than what actually is true.

Rupert Murdoch and Fox News have, in effect, openly and apparently unashamedly admitted that maximizing profits and ratings are far more important to them than telling the truth. I get the impression sometimes that they even think this is somehow morally preferable to telling the truth. They interpret the 1st amendment to include the unassailable right to tell any lie they can get away with, however egregious, with complete impunity.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Some Schmo »

Gunnar wrote:
Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:03 am
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:44 pm
I demand some honesty from Ajax for once. Denounce this now.
I don't think that ajax gives a whit about the fact that Fox News or Breitbart is lying to him.
Oh, he cares, just not the way a person with a working consciousness would normally care.

He cares because those are his primary sources for the lies he get's to tell. Lying is ajax's favorite thing.

I mean, let's face it: if he believes anything he posts here, he's literally a moron, by the word's definition. And frankly, it looks like he's embraced and accepted being a moron. He identifies as a moron.

I think his pronoun should be derp.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

https://www.ksl.com/article/50618095/fo ... on-lawsuit
Fox News said Sunday it has reached a settlement with Venezuelan businessman Majed Khalil, ending a defamation case in which Khalil said he was falsely accused on air of helping to rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election against Donald Trump.

Khalil had filed a defamation suit against the news outlet and former host Lou Dobbs, arguing in filings that they had fabricated claims he and other Venezuelans were involved in "orchestrating a nonexistent scheme to rig or fix the election" against the former Republican president.
This’ll move the needle exactly 0% for the retards on the Right.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Vēritās
God
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Vēritās »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:25 am
https://www.ksl.com/article/50618095/fo ... on-lawsuit
Fox News said Sunday it has reached a settlement with Venezuelan businessman Majed Khalil, ending a defamation case in which Khalil said he was falsely accused on air of helping to rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election against Donald Trump.

Khalil had filed a defamation suit against the news outlet and former host Lou Dobbs, arguing in filings that they had fabricated claims he and other Venezuelans were involved in "orchestrating a nonexistent scheme to rig or fix the election" against the former Republican president.
This’ll move the needle exactly 0% for the retards on the Right.

- Doc
Weird we're only hearing about this story from a local news outlet, makes you wonder just how many such cases FOX has actually settled out of court.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
Vēritās
God
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Vēritās »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:08 am

Kevin, I'm going to painfully honest and blunt. The people that engaged in the online apologetic wars developed some of the most embarrassingly bad techniques of argument I've ever witnessed. And that's you in spades. You're so wrapped up in self-righteous outrage that you don't bother to take the time to read, think about, and understand what I said.
:lol:

Says the guy who obviously didn't read anything posted in the OP and allowed himself to get triggered by a headline because he refuses to think more nuanced beyond "Oh no, you said enemy of the state, you must be like Hitler!" Irony is not lost when a literal Nazi is here cheering you on.

Your perceived "outrage" is nothing more than just me choosing not to lay down every time you decide to go after me publicly, which you do consistently because you think, as you've made clear, that I'm a horrible person. "Techniques of argument"? I didn't think I'd have to argue anything in this thread as everyone but Ajax, and now apparently you, seem to agree with the bullet points that were made in the OP as well as the article I linked to.

Recent revelations about the inner circle of FOX News only reinforces everything I've argued in the OP. Among themselves they don't even pretend to be anything more than a propaganda outlet that is lying for money.

Given that, can someone explain to me why we continue to indulge FOX?

What is it in the Constitution that says Peter Doocey should get a front row seat during press conferences and that his constant, idiotic cultural war questions need to be tolerated over and over again? He sucks up all the oxygen in the room and gets away with it why?

That right doesn't exist, so why do we allow it? Trump literally banned CNN from his press conferences and then refused to take questions from them while giving more time to fake outlets like OAN that didn't even exist a few years ago.

The FOX method is always the same.

1. Lie to the people to get them outraged about XYZ
2. Do a FOX survey to prove how many people are upset about XYZ
3. Use said survey results to justify asking idiotic questions at press conferences and prime time shows, insisting "Americans want to know..."
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9569
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Res Ipsa »

Hi Veritas,

Let's see. How long ago was my post that launched a million butthurts?
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Sep 02, 2022 1:34 am
Isn’t branding the opposition an enemy of the state right out of the fascist handbook? You can say it if you want, but in my book that makes you just another authoritarian, Veritas.
Seven months. That's a long time to nurse butthurt over a two sentence post.

But I'm not surprised that you failed to include it in your new diatribe. It was a simple observation: no triggered, no outrage. And as the thread progressed, it was crystal clear who was triggered: it was you, being referred to as an authoritarian. The extent of your triggered outrage is shown by your inability to let your butthurt go.

But it does give me an opportunity to continue to critique more of your "embarrassingly bad techniques of argument." Let's dive right in.
Veritas wrote:Says the guy who obviously didn't read anything posted in the OP...
Historical revisionism. As anyone who cares to spend the time re-rereading this thread will note, I obviously did read and understand your OP. I say "obvious" because I didn't just make one offhand observation. I argued, in great detail, about why I believe that what you proposed in the OP was both unconstitutional and a bad idea.
allowed himself to get triggered by a headline because he refuses to think more nuanced beyond "Oh no, you said enemy of the state, you must be like Hitler...
Straw man. I layed out my "nuanced" thinking in detail in this very thread. In fact, in the post you quoted only the first paragraph of, one of the criticisms I made of your argument style is that you continually conflated the opinion I expressed about you being an authoritarian with my detailed arguments for why what you proposed in your OP was both unconstitutional and a bad idea. Also, despite several comments whining about me saying you are like Hitler, I've never said any such thing. I said that branding someone an "enemy of the state" was "right out of the fascist handbook" -- which you've never refuted. You also assumed I meant Hitler, even though the world and history is replete with examples of fascism. The only word I used to describe you as "authoritarian." And I explained in the body of my post that you partially quoted why, in my opinion, you display an authoritarian streak. My opinion on that hasn't changed, by the way.
Veritas wrote:Irony is not lost when a literal Nazi is here cheering you on.
Passive aggressive reference to butthurt over a different incident. You simply can't accept the decision of the moderator crew that your calling Ajax18 falls under the category of a "personal attack," so you passive aggressively sneak it in when you get the chance. Your statement is also "literally false" because Ajax18 is not a literal Nazi. On top of that, you add the type of particularly nasty ad hominem attack that is an all too common characteristic in the apologetic wars.
Veritas wrote:Recent revelations about the inner circle of FOX News only reinforces everything I've argued in the OP. Among themselves they don't even pretend to be anything more than a propaganda outlet that is lying for money.

Given that, can someone explain to me why we continue to indulge FOX?

What is it in the Constitution that says Peter Doocey should get a front row seat during press conferences and that his constant, idiotic cultural war questions need to be tolerated over and over again? He sucks up all the oxygen in the room and gets away with it why?

That right doesn't exist, so why do we allow it? Trump literally banned CNN from his press conferences and then refused to take questions from them while giving more time to fake outlets like OAN that didn't even exist a few years ago.

The FOX method is always the same.

1. Lie to the people to get them outraged about XYZ
2. Do a FOX survey to prove how many people are upset about XYZ
3. Use said survey results to justify asking idiotic questions at press conferences and prime time shows, insisting "Americans want to know..."
i'm not sure whether you intended to address this to me, as almost none of it addresses my point of view, which I've described in excruciating detail throughout this thread.

I have no idea who you mean by the "we" that you think is "indulging Fox." Your OP was all about the government taking action, not some undefined "we." The location of Peter Doocey's seat in press conferences is within the discretion of the Biden administration, so you'd have to ask them. I'm not in the Biuden administration, so whoever "we" is, I'm not included.

As for using Trump's treatment of the press as precedent, why that's an atrocious idea should be obvious. He is the authoritarian figure that treated the mainstream press as the "enemy of the state." His rallies always included a two-minute hate in which the attendees were told to verbally attack the press, which was confined to a little pen at his rallies. And you want to use Trump as precedent for how to treat Fox?

But what you are suggesting here is a far cry from what you suggested in the OP. You're correct that the Biden administration doesn't have to sit Fox reporters in the front row or even take questions from them. And they don't have to call on OAN reporters. And the mainstream media doesn't have to amplify Fox's cultural war issues by reporting on them.

But what this post doesn't advocate is government regulation of the press, which is what I objected to in the OP.
Veritas wrote:(B)ring back the fairness doctrine and regulate those stations that want to be considered "News."
What you proposed in the OP -- that the government decide which stations are "news" stations and then force those it decides are not to run a disclaimer saying "this station isn't news" -- is what I argued, in great detail in this thread, was both "unconstitutional" and a bad idea. I also explained, in great detail, how the "fairness doctrine" was an aberration in the history of the constitutional freedom of the press justified only by the limited number of broadcast channels in the public airwaves at the time. Cable has made the constitutional rationale for the "fairness doctrine" obsolete.

Your most recent post says nothing about government regulation of news stations or forcing Fox or other stations to run a disclaimer on the basis of a government determination of what is and what is not "news." It's a huge shifting of the goalposts, as it in no way addresses the actual criticisms I made of the OP. In fact, It's a perfect illustration of the part of my post that you boldfaced: "You're so wrapped up in self-righteous outrage that you don't bother to take the time to read, think about, and understand what I said."

That's still true.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Vēritās
God
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Vēritās »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Apr 10, 2023 2:35 pm
Seven months. That's a long time to nurse butthurt over a two sentence post.
"Butthurt"? This thread was on page three until Doc brought back to page one and I happened to scroll through it again, forgetting much of what was already said. I laughed at your assertion that was clearly false based on what you've posted here. Now you're whining because it took me seven months to come across it and respond? Is there a statute of limitations on posting now that you would like to implement? Maybe you can propose that to Shades if it bothers you so much.
But I'm not surprised that you failed to include it in your new diatribe.
My "diatribe"? Only three sentences of that post were in response to you which merely stated the facts.

What was I supposed to "include"? I'm supposed to preface every response with "I'm responding to this post that was made [enter date]?"
And as the thread progressed, it was crystal clear who was triggered: it was you, being referred to as an authoritarian.


You're the only one to ever call me that and you've done it on more than one occasion. We both know you don't really believe it, but you make it a point to disparage me at every opportunity it seems. I can take solace in the fact that your hatred of me is only shared by ajax.
Historical revisionism. As anyone who cares to spend the time re-rereading this thread will note, I obviously did read and understand your OP.
No, you didn't and you clearly didn't read the link I provided. Your knee jerk response was quick, brief and idiotic. Your longer responses only happened after Honor took you to task and you were forced to start spinning, clearly refusing to call Honor an authoritarian even though he appeared to agree with my premise that FOX presents a clear and present danger to America.
I say "obvious" because I didn't just make one offhand observation. I argued, in great detail, about why I believe that what you proposed in the OP was both unconstitutional and a bad idea.
See above. And disagreeing on those terms isn't problematic for me, but you're shifting your ground now pretending like this somehow supports your "authoritarian" assertion. An organization can be an enemy of the state operating within the rights afforded by the Constitution and that still wouldn't negate the fact that they are an enemy of the state.
Straw man. I layed out my "nuanced" thinking in detail in this very thread.
None of your thinking supports your initial assertion. "Enemy of the State" is a phrase unique to authoritarians, you would have us believe. But that simply isn't true, so your entire argument is based on a faulty premise.
In fact, in the post you quoted only the first paragraph of, one of the criticisms I made of your argument style is that you continually conflated the opinion I expressed about you being an authoritarian with my detailed arguments for why what you proposed in your OP was both unconstitutional and a bad idea.
I didn't "conflate" anything. I'm perfectly willing to address both as separate assertions and deal with them accordingly. I disagree with both, but only take issue really with your blatant ad hominem equating me with Hitler. Now you're flailing about timelines, calling me "butthurt" which only goes to further the point that you're playing the man not the ball.
I said that branding someone an "enemy of the state" was "right out of the fascist handbook" -- which you've never refuted.
There is no need to refute something that hasn't been established. Please show us where you provided this excerpt and page number from the "fascist handbook." I must have missed that. And since you're struggling to fully cite your own comments, you literally called me "just another authoritarian."
You also assumed I meant Hitler, even though the world and history is replete with examples of fascism.
But I'm "just another authoritarian," remember? So does it really matter which one we're talking about? Don't they all follow the same elusive "handbook"?
Veritas wrote:You simply can't accept the decision of the moderator crew that your calling Ajax18 falls under the category of a "personal attack," so you passive aggressively sneak it in when you get the chance.
You're the one derailing about this. But why? It only became a "personal attack," after you became a mod and tweaked the rules to serve your preferred agenda. Sure, I believe the forum was better served during the first 15 years of its existence when posters were not censored for merely citing the credibility and background issues with other posters. Previous mods agreed and were more involved in outing Nazis than I ever was.
Your statement is also "literally false" because Ajax18 is not a literal Nazi.
Anyone familiar with his history knows you're just splitting hairs now.
On top of that, you add the type of particularly nasty ad hominem attack that is an all too common characteristic in the apologetic wars.
Take a look around you Res. This forum was created in that kind of atmosphere and for that reason.
i'm not sure whether you intended to address this to me, as almost none of it addresses my point of view
No Res, it wasn't for you. It was just relating to the topic of the thread.
I have no idea who you mean by the "we" that you think is "indulging Fox." Your OP was all about the government taking action, not some undefined "we." The location of Peter Doocey's seat in press conferences is within the discretion of the Biden administration, so you'd have to ask them. I'm not in the Biden administration, so whoever "we" is, I'm not included.
So you're acting confused as if I literally meant WE. As in you, me, and everyone on this board. Good grief Res.
And you want to use Trump as precedent for how to treat Fox?
FOX is not a legit News outlet. This isn't even debatable anymore as they've already outed themselves as nothing more than a political wing for the Republican party and they are willing to push propaganda from Russia while we are at war with them. They also want to reelect a lawless man who wants to get rid of parts of the Constitution. It doesn't get more clearer than that in terms of being an enemy of the state. It is one thing for Hitler to illicitly call anyone who disagreed with him an enemy of the state as a rhetorical device, but it is another for a country to acknowledge real threats in the country and nothing is clearer to me than a propaganda outlet that pushes Russian talking points during a time of war, and pushes to elect an autocrat while encouraging a civil war within our nation.
But what you are suggesting here is a far cry from what you suggested in the OP. You're correct that the Biden administration doesn't have to sit Fox reporters in the front row or even take questions from them. And they don't have to call on OAN reporters. And the mainstream media doesn't have to amplify Fox's cultural war issues by reporting on them.
But why do they do it? Peter Doocey does nothing but waste everyone's time with these idiotic questions that serve no purpose other than to provide his propaganda outlet with out of context sound bytes. Youtube is flooded with clips like "Doocey Destroys KJP"
But what this post doesn't advocate is government regulation of the press, which is what I objected to in the OP.
No, what this post advocates is government regulating what should be considered legit news outlets. Nobody is saying government should regulate what is said by FOX, and nobody is saying FOX shouldn't be allowed to be on the air. That would be total authoritarian. All I am saying is that we should enforce the same kinds of common sense laws that prevent companies from false advertising. Does anyone with a camera and microphone get to be recognized journalist? I own a company but it has nothing to do with News. Can I just show up at any crime scene and expect press access because I claim to be a reporter? Can I show up at the White House and demand KJP answer questions like Doocey does? Well why not? Because I'm not News. And neither is FOX.

I also believe we should strengthen our libel/slander laws so that organizations like FOX don't get to hide behind the first amendment excuse to willfully lie and defame people. The only reason FOX is going to get killed in court this time is because we got lucky and has private emails and texts providing a smoking gun. That isn't likely to ever happen again and FOX hosts are already moving towards WhatsApp communications because nothing is archived. So they'll take their wrist slap of $2 billion and then its back to the lying business again. In fact they never even paused on that. Tucker Carlson just interviewed the guy he called a "Demonic force" and kissed his ass letting him lie again and again with no pushback.

What you proposed in the OP -- that the government decide which stations are "news" stations and then force those it decides are not to run a disclaimer saying "this station isn't news" -- is what I argued, in great detail in this thread, was both "unconstitutional" and a bad idea.
And we can agree to disagree on that, but the only reason we're still talking is because you called me an authoritarian.
Your most recent post says nothing about government regulation of news stations or forcing Fox or other stations to run a disclaimer on the basis of a government determination of what is and what is not "news." It's a huge shifting of the goalposts, as it in no way addresses the actual criticisms I made of the OP. In fact, It's a perfect illustration of the part of my post that you boldfaced: "You're so wrapped up in self-righteous outrage that you don't bother to take the time to read, think about, and understand what I said."

That's still true.
None of this even makes sense. I never once moved away from my original position that FOX shouldn't be allowed to call itself news, but because I further explain why (in light of your misrepresentations that I want "government to regulate" news), you accuse me of "shifting the goalposts" and then use this as proof that I don't read or understand things?
Last edited by Vēritās on Thu Apr 13, 2023 3:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
Vēritās
God
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 2:51 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Vēritās »

So how do you get FOX news to pay any amount attention to a school shooting? Well, it takes a shooting by someone who is transgender.

With out any evidence, FOX is running with this narrative that the shooter had an ANTI-CHRISTIAN agenda and now they're pushing this conspiracy about the FBI withholding the shooter's "MANIFESTO" which doesn't even exist.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/r ... o-continue
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal ...(there are) mentally challenged people with special needs like myself- Ajax18
Post Reply