Fox News or Faux News

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Or on Stewart and Colbert’s shows, because they are basically paid millions to point and laugh at Fox News [/quote]

Speaking of media matters, Stewart, Colbert and controlling the narrative…

[/quote]

If you wanted to tally the factually inaccurate stories produced by Fox News, Stewart would be a good place to look. That’s my point–not that Stewart is fair or that his ideology is “correct.”

And I mean factually-inaccurate as in: indisputably bullshit. There’s quite a lot.

[/quote]

Fox plays it fast and loose, no doubt. Still makes me wonder why people pay so much money to people like Brock (the irony with him is amazing) to destroy a new outlet that is supposed to be this bad.

I mean, if the plow truck only showed up in June and July would someone pay millions to point this out to consumers?[/quote]

Good point. For the record, I found the video I was looking for on MediaMatters via Google. I don’t read that shit.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

…Hannity: "$200 million a day, 3,000 people, he needs the whole Taj Mahal hotel, why?"…[/quote]

Hilarious! I gotta give it to you, smh old buddy old pal, you cited Media Matters as a credible source in a thread that critiques journalism! Ha!

Why didn’t you post this in the PWI Humor thread?[/quote]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

For the record, I found the video I was looking for on MediaMatters via Google. I don’t read that shit.[/quote]

I didn’t cite Mediamatters, I cited a video in which an objectively false easily verifiable falsehood is given prominence on Fox News. Medimatters happened to be the first hit on Google when I searched for that hilarious video of Sean Hannity doing what he does best and being a fucking idiot.

25

?

27

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
?[/quote]

I would say in a couple of different posts, yours with the mediamatters link and mine with the silhouette, that we have some irony going on.[/quote]

Push, you are a smart guy and I absolutely know that you understand what I’m saying when I say that the video in the link was what was apropos of this thread. Mediamatters simply happened to be the only site I found on a quick Google search that hosted the video (I wonder why Fox doesn’t seem to have a record of it?). And I added a post that explicitly stated this and included the line: “I don’t read that shit.”

So no, there is no irony here. I produced a video of Sean Hannity (representing Fox) lying, which was essentially what was asked at the beginning of this thread. Do you have nothing to say of the video in question? No words of condemnation for that bumbling idiot and his atrocious journalism?

I’ll add to the substance of the debate with this:

This is after the $200 million claim was exposed as utter bullshit. And yet Fox somehow managed to begin the story like this:

"A foreign force this size probably hasn’t been in India since the era of British colonization.

But with a security entourage the size of a modest army supposedly buffering President Obama on his visit Friday, the Indian government is welcoming its long-awaited guest for three days of talks aimed at strengthening ties and trade between the world’s two largest democracies.

The logistical details of the trip are mind-boggling and if not for an historic midterm election surely would have dominated the headlines over the past week."

The entire top of the story–which, by the way, students in any undergraduate journalism 101 course know is supposed to be an accurate and inclusive summary of the entire piece–propagates the bullshit narrative without mentioning the fact that it has already been denied by the entire government of the United States.

That (and, more importantly, things like the Hannity video I posted originally), is why people say Fox is not trustworthy. Or, more accurately, is absolutely full of shit, produced by hacks and clowns, and not taken seriously, even by smart conservatives.

29

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I didn’t watch the video. I disagree with some of your other contentions but am not ambitious enough right at the moment to enter this particular fray.

I do understand that you were not being dishonest in any way by posting the MM link.

However, my point still stands that the irony is thick when it comes to inserting Media Matters into a Fox News bashing thread.

Why don’t you start a Media Matters bashing thread and then I’ll know you’re being consistent?[/quote]

Fair enough. For the record, the video is a nice long slice of Sean Hannity indignantly reporting a list of things that aren’t true.

And yes, Mediamatters is bullshit. Absolute bullshit. But the difference is that nobody would argue against that claim, so that thread wouldn’t be any fun.

30

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Media is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.[/quote]

Condensed the quote for you!

31

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Media is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.[/quote]

Condensed the quote for you![/quote]

lol true, but unfortunately I’d speculate that every single of us is at least a little bit addicted to news and media consumption.

32

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Media is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.[/quote]

Condensed the quote for you![/quote]

lol true, but unfortunately I’d speculate that every single of us is at least a little bit addicted to news and media consumption.[/quote]

I would say this is entirely true. I’m a bit of an addict.

What I find interesting about Fox news is how the opinions from the right (including some on this site) have changed.

A few years ago, many folks would cite Fox News as reliable and deny that they were biased in any way. Now we have some admitting that they just might be a little biased after all. (but, of course they are better than the LSM, amiright?)

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. I believe it was because of where people choose to get their information. People want to believe the narrative that suits their view of the world and shut out the rest.

33

[quote]Christine wrote:

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. [/quote]

This was basically a daily routine for me throughout September and October.

34

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. [/quote]

This was basically a daily routine for me throughout September and October. [/quote]

I knew I wasn’t the only one!

The differene in the interpretations of everything was polar opposite.

Humans are interesting creatures.

35

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. [/quote]

This was basically a daily routine for me throughout September and October. [/quote]

I knew I wasn’t the only one!

The differene in the interpretations of everything was polar opposite.

Humans are interesting creatures.

36

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Media is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.[/quote]

Condensed the quote for you![/quote]

lol true, but unfortunately I’d speculate that every single of us is at least a little bit addicted to news and media consumption.[/quote]

I would say this is entirely true. I’m a bit of an addict.

What I find interesting about Fox news is how the opinions from the right (including some on this site) have changed.

A few years ago, many folks would cite Fox News as reliable and deny that they were biased in any way. Now we have some admitting that they just might be a little biased after all. (but, of course they are better than the LSM, amiright?)

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. I believe it was because of where people choose to get their information. People want to believe the narrative that suits their view of the world and shut out the rest. [/quote]

Confirmation bias at its finest. You can find plenty on the moon landing being faked to support that if you truly want to believe the moon landing was faked. Dems and Repubs alike go to sites very far skewed to the direction they WANT to believe is always correct. On these sites they can read the arguments that very pointedly state that the OTHER side causes all the problems and is responsible for everything bad in the country. You won’t see any articles arguing the opposite. That isn’t the point of the website. You can see it in the posts of some people on here as well. And they have no intention of believing anything different. They certainly wouldn’t go looking for it, and when confronted with it would dismiss it immediately.

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Media is bullshit. Absolute bullshit.[/quote]

Condensed the quote for you![/quote]

lol true, but unfortunately I’d speculate that every single of us is at least a little bit addicted to news and media consumption.[/quote]

I would say this is entirely true. I’m a bit of an addict.

What I find interesting about Fox news is how the opinions from the right (including some on this site) have changed.

A few years ago, many folks would cite Fox News as reliable and deny that they were biased in any way. Now we have some admitting that they just might be a little biased after all. (but, of course they are better than the LSM, amiright?)

This last election was fascinating. I would go between the liberal and conservative sites and see two completely different interpretations of what was happening. I believe it was because of where people choose to get their information. People want to believe the narrative that suits their view of the world and shut out the rest. [/quote]

Confirmation bias at its finest. You can find plenty on the moon landing being faked to support that if you truly want to believe the moon landing was faked. Dems and Repubs alike go to sites very far skewed to the direction they WANT to believe is always correct. On these sites they can read the arguments that very pointedly state that the OTHER side causes all the problems and is responsible for everything bad in the country. You won’t see any articles arguing the opposite. That isn’t the point of the website. You can see it in the posts of some people on here as well. And they have no intention of believing anything different. They certainly wouldn’t go looking for it, and when confronted with it would dismiss it immediately.
[/quote]

I have come to realize it’s far more productive to read news from sources whose ideologies I do not generally subscribe to. What Christine and I mentioned above about reading conservative/liberal sites in the run-up to the election was fairly enlightening for me: never before have I witnessed two sets of people draw such diametrically opposite conclusions from the same set of information. The danger of reading in order to confirm bias is obvious. The most valuable thing I get from T-Nation, aside from supplements when I can afford them, is exposure to intelligent conservatives.

38

^
Exactly. And there is a lot less noise here than other conservative forums.

39

I haven’t seen FOX in a couple years but when I was watching them (listening actually) I recognized a distinction between hard news and a talk show host like Hannity. FOX then had people across the board, even on the opinion shows. No doubt they are conservative compared to other outfits, but that doesn’t take much and the leftst lunacy of the other majors made them look far more conservative than they were. I was NEVER a fan of Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly and said so even back then.

On 11-11-2009, at 08:45 PM I said:

40

to the OP, this is the worst places of all to ask that question.