Jump to content

Analysis: Fox News has been exposed as a dishonest organization terrified of its own audience


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 2/18/2023 at 5:30 AM, Credo said:

They are a little like the people who mixed the Kool-Aid and ushered people into line to drink it for Jim Jones.  They are among the most dishonest of dishonest.  They have betrayed the most sacred trust given to people in the field of journalism.

Only a fool thinks journalists and the media broadcast/publish the truth.

I post this after working 20 years in the business, and only broadcasting what the Brit security forces authorised.

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Only a fool thinks journalists and the media broadcast/publish the truth.

I post this after working 20 years in the business, and only broadcasting what the Brit security forces authorised.

You understand politics, and as well defending your country moral and stands, as well public opinion building. Thats what built a nations individual national feeling. Now it is all click baits, and most people is lost, both for themselves and the Nation. Not even religion is an major factor anymore to brainwash people. 

 

Every sheep needs a shepard, and truth is, most people are sheeps.

Posted

Ted Cruz has pushed for Mark Levin to be a presidential debate moderator.  I think Mitt did also in 2012.  I also recall Mitt say at that time that "we need our own fact checkers."  And that was years before Kellyanne presented her explanation of how facts work.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Sounds like a very rational kind of guy:

 

'Unfreedom Of The Press' Is Full Of Bombast And Bile

On his show, Levin speaks in the unmistakable tenor of a man experiencing road rage or shouting at a customer service representative. In a recent episode, he yelled at an absent Beto O'Rourke ("Nobody likes a weak man, Beto...Nobody likes a weak man like you."), attacked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's looks ("her eyeballs are popping out of her head, like ping pong balls."), called Sen. Mitt Romney an "ass," and Sen. Dick Blumenthal a "pathetic, loathsome liar." The media didn't escape his invective either, from CNN's Brian Stelter ("that little creep") to MSNBC's "whole conga line of freaks working its way right up to Rachel Mad Cow."

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/724983201/unfreedom-of-the-press-is-full-of-bombast-and-bile

He's just Great!!! The truth hurts sometimes, It's nice hearing all the above without referring one word about Trump, Your learning. 

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Fox News is little more than infotainment and a lot of its most popular shows are simply talking heads spouting their opinions, backed up by the usual junior varsity, B team 'experts'.  The fact that so many people find them to be credible is simply confirmation of how gullible most people are, especially when they're told something they want to believe.  It's how conmen have operated and profited throughout human history.

 

Equally dangerous are the virtue-signaling, self-appointed 'guardians' of democracy that inhabit almost all of what is referred to as the mainstream media.  They knowingly and intentionally push information that has been stripped of context in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.  Here's just one of a hundred examples:

 

The 'don't say gay' law in Florida.  This is how most of the media refers to this issue.  It's been repeatedly reported that this law is a threat to democracy, as is the governor of Florida, and the new law is a threat to free speech.

 

Unfortunately, they chose to leave out the context.  Florida had a free and fair election where the governor was elected by a huge margin.  The Florida legislature was also elected freely and fairly.  The law they passed simply says a public school teacher can't talk to children 9 years and younger (Grade 3) about gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

How is a law passed by democratically elected legislature, signed by a democratically elected governor a threat to democracy? 

 

What's more dangerous?  The obvious lies spouted by editorial opinions in a biased TV network, or those spouted by the 'guardians' of democracy who start most of their article with "What you need to know about..."?

Posted
1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

He's just Great!!! The truth hurts sometimes, It's nice hearing all the above without referring one word about Trump, Your learning. 

Clearly, gratuitous insults are your idea of the truth. As for irrelevantly mentioning the name of the ex-President, it's plain to see that you've learnt nothing.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

Fox News is little more than infotainment and a lot of its most popular shows are simply talking heads spouting their opinions, backed up by the usual junior varsity, B team 'experts'.  The fact that so many people find them to be credible is simply confirmation of how gullible most people are, especially when they're told something they want to believe.  It's how conmen have operated and profited throughout human history.

 

Equally dangerous are the virtue-signaling, self-appointed 'guardians' of democracy that inhabit almost all of what is referred to as the mainstream media.  They knowingly and intentionally push information that has been stripped of context in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.  Here's just one of a hundred examples:

 

The 'don't say gay' law in Florida.  This is how most of the media refers to this issue.  It's been repeatedly reported that this law is a threat to democracy, as is the governor of Florida, and the new law is a threat to free speech.

 

Unfortunately, they chose to leave out the context.  Florida had a free and fair election where the governor was elected by a huge margin.  The Florida legislature was also elected freely and fairly.  The law they passed simply says a public school teacher can't talk to children 9 years and younger (Grade 3) about gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

How is a law passed by democratically elected legislature, signed by a democratically elected governor a threat to democracy? 

 

What's more dangerous?  The obvious lies spouted by editorial opinions in a biased TV network, or those spouted by the 'guardians' of democracy who start most of their article with "What you need to know about..."?

What you clearly don't understand is that the USA is a constitutional democracy. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech. So basing your argument on the fact that these restrictions were voted into law by a majority, is not a valid defense. If it were a valid defense, then it would be okay for legislatures to restrict or ban any kind of speech they chose to.

  • Confused 2
Posted
1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

He's just Great!!! The truth hurts sometimes, It's nice hearing all the above without referring one word about Trump, Your learning. 

I guess just like the clown Mark Levin who at first declared himself a never-trumper and then turned around and voted for the guy.

Posted
16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you clearly don't understand is that the USA is a constitutional democracy. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech. So basing your argument on the fact that these restrictions were voted into law by a majority, is not a valid defense. If it were a valid defense, then it would be okay for legislatures to restrict or ban any kind of speech they chose to.

The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic.

 

There is no absolute right to free speech and there are plenty of restrictions placed upon it.

 

The democratically elected government of Florida in well within its rights to place restrictions on what its employees do and say while at work.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

I guess just like the clown Mark Levin who at first declared himself a never-trumper and then turned around and voted for the guy.

Kim from North Korea was a never Trumper until they became friends. It's a shame he doesn't Biden at all. The same with Mr Levin now they are good friends Who knows when he becomes our next President you may even like him.

  • Sad 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly, gratuitous insults are your idea of the truth. As for irrelevantly mentioning the name of the ex-President, it's plain to see that you've learnt nothing.

From the left? I think not!

  • Sad 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic.

 

There is no absolute right to free speech and there are plenty of restrictions placed upon it.

 

The democratically elected government of Florida in well within its rights to place restrictions on what its employees do and say while at work.

As I pointed out, apparently in vain, justifying Florida's restrictions on speech because they were democratically arrived at is not a valid defense. There may be other arguments to support those restrictions, but yours did not.

Posted
19 hours ago, candide said:

Really? So please give us an example of a comparable event at CNN, like Fox News knowingly lying about an important issue such as US presidential elections.

Ok. CNN virtually lead the charge of ongoing lies and omissions which resulted in the Iraq War and (debatably) 500,000+ deaths. 

  • Confused 2
Posted
1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Republican lies caused the Iraq war, not the media.

Political lies DO NOT reach citizens ears without media complicity. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As I pointed out, apparently in vain, justifying Florida's restrictions on speech because they were democratically arrived at is not a valid defense. There may be other arguments to support those restrictions, but yours did not.

You obviously don't understand how my nation's Constitution functions, or basic laws regarding speech that are almost universally applied throughout the country.  The amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech was approved through a democratic process involving the states' legislatures.  Those same state legislatures could theoretically vote to repeal that amendment, through the representative, democratic process that's contained in our Constitution.

 

Basic restrictions on speech (short list there are many others):

- You may not threaten someone

- You may not incite a riot...cry fire in a crowded theater

- You may not libel or defame someone

 

And common sense should tell you, you can't talk to someone else's 9-year old kid about whether they're gay or straight.  You don't have a 'right' to talk to anyone's dependent child.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...