Can "Fox" Be Followed By "News"?

M

Mike

Verified User
When I think about traditional journalism - pure established facts, presentation of cause and effect, sequence of events and cohesive conclusion-making come to mind.

Granted, we are not living in the past. But at the very least some semblance of integrity should be drawn out of a "News" channel.

Now, I've long lost hope of people lifting their Trump tinted glasses, trying to critically think for themselves, basing their thought-processes on undisputed facts on the ground (i.e. "We did see him on stage prior to the Jan 6 riots, saying what he was saying", "He did stipulate he would not be accepting the results, if he were ever to lose the elections" just to name a few), but - post-Dominion-Voting-Systems debacle, a sane, rational human being, with a chunk of brain between their ears would surely come to realize they've been regurgitating on unprecedented manure-for-truth hyperbole, that's had nothing to do with empirical facts on the ground.

So, as a bystander, what do I make of it - emotion blinds, needing to feel a part of a social group blinds, being protected by like-minded peers blinds.

Is it not the case? Am I the blind man here?
 
Mike said:
When I think about traditional journalism - pure established facts, presentation of cause and effect, sequence of events and cohesive conclusion-making come to mind.

Granted, we are not living in the past. But at the very least some semblance of integrity should be drawn out of a "News" channel.

Now, I've long lost hope of people lifting their Trump tinted glasses, trying to critically think for themselves, basing their thought-processes on undisputed facts on the ground (i.e. "We did see him on stage prior to the Jan 6 riots, saying what he was saying", "He did stipulate he would not be accepting the results, if he were ever to lose the elections" just to name a few), but - post-Dominion-Voting-Systems debacle, a sane, rational human being, with a chunk of brain between their ears would surely come to realize they've been regurgitating on unprecedented manure-for-truth hyperbole, that's had nothing to do with empirical facts on the ground.

So, as a bystander, what do I make of it - emotion blinds, needing to feel a part of a social group blinds, being protected by like-minded peers blinds.

Is it not the case? Am I the blind man here?
Click to expand...

Yes, Mikey, you are the blind man here.

You voted for a career criminal, the head of the Biden Crime Family.
 
Mike said:
When I think about traditional journalism - pure established facts, presentation of cause and effect, sequence of events and cohesive conclusion-making come to mind.

Granted, we are not living in the past. But at the very least some semblance of integrity should be drawn out of a "News" channel.

Now, I've long lost hope of people lifting their Trump tinted glasses, trying to critically think for themselves, basing their thought-processes on undisputed facts on the ground (i.e. "We did see him on stage prior to the Jan 6 riots, saying what he was saying", "He did stipulate he would not be accepting the results, if he were ever to lose the elections" just to name a few), but - post-Dominion-Voting-Systems debacle, a sane, rational human being, with a chunk of brain between their ears would surely come to realize they've been regurgitating on unprecedented manure-for-truth hyperbole, that's had nothing to do with empirical facts on the ground.

So, as a bystander, what do I make of it - emotion blinds, needing to feel a part of a social group blinds, being protected by like-minded peers blinds.

Is it not the case? Am I the blind man here?
Click to expand...

The post below yours from Stone is an example of someone who is blind here, a link to a National Review article attacking the newsworthy-ness of MSNBC. The post is meant as a whataboutism. It's confirmation of your argument instead.
MSNBC is an opinion channel. Doesn't present itself as "News". Does not have half hour segments advertised as news.
 
martin said:
The post below yours from Stone is an example of someone who is blind here, a link to a National Review article attacking the newsworthy-ness of MSNBC. The post is meant as a whataboutism. It's confirmation of your argument instead.
MSNBC is an opinion channel. Doesn't present itself as "News". Does not have half hour segments advertised as news.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Marty.

MSNBC is a news and political commentary organization that has been the focus of several controversies. It has been accused by academics, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups of having various biases in their news coverage as well as more general views of a liberal bias.

It is a propaganda channel posing as a news channel.

Poor Marty.
 
Hey, Mikey.


Fox News Channel finished August as cable television's most-watched network among both primetime and total day viewership, marking 30 straight months of crushing both CNN and MSNBC in both categories.

MSNBC and CNN are both advocacies for the far left loons.

FOX News is the most watched and the most trusted cable news source in America.
 
Last edited:
Trumpet said:
Fox News is a right wing propaganda and dis-information site
Click to expand...

No, Trumper.


FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service and has been the number one network in basic cable for the last seven years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 50% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media ...Aug 1, 2023

More people watch and trust FOX News than any other cable news in America.

How are the HF bands?
 
Earl said:
No, Trumper.


FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service and has been the number one network in basic cable for the last seven years and the most-watched television news channel for more than 21 consecutive years, currently attracting nearly 50% of the cable news viewing audience according to Nielsen Media ...Aug 1, 2023

More people watch and trust FOX News than any other cable news in America.

How are the HF bands?
Click to expand...

HF has not been that good lately.
 
FOX News is a political channel disguised as a news channel. It's claim as the number one news channel is misleading since its nightly news competition is comprised of three, not one, mainstream news channels: CBS, ABC and NBC. The claim is misleading also in that many viewers tune in for the network's political slant as well as, or instead of, news coverage.
 
martin said:
FOX News is a political channel disguised as a news channel. It's claim as the number one news channel is misleading since its nightly news competition is comprised of three, not one, mainstream news channels: CBS, ABC and NBC. The claim is misleading also in that many viewers tune in for the network's political slant as well as, or instead of, news coverage.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, Marty.

Fox News Channel finished August as cable television's most-watched network among both primetime and total day viewership, marking 30 straight months of crushing both CNN and MSNBC in both categories.


FOX Business Network Marks Full Year Outpacing CNBC ...

Business Wire
https://www.businesswire.com › news › home › FOX-...
May 2, 2023 — (weekdays, 9-12 PM/ET) placed first in the business news ranker, trouncing CNBC's Squawk on the Street with 287,000 total viewers (a 49% ...

More viewers watch FOX News because more viewers trust FOX News.

It’s as simple as that, Marty.

The figures are for cable news.
 
Earl said:
Hey, Mikey.


Fox News Channel finished August as cable television's most-watched network among both primetime and total day viewership, marking 30 straight months of crushing both CNN and MSNBC in both categories.

MSNBC and CNN are both advocacies for the far left loons.

FOX News is the most watched and the most trusted cable news source in America.
Click to expand...

to be fair, lib'ruls have a dozen news sources to choose from when seeking out their propoganda.......we only have Fox......if you add all the others together they have almost as much support as Fox does.....of course, they STILL won't have as much truth......
 
I have not followed the Dominion-Voting-Systems case but I assume that FOX aired something that they could not prove in court.

That does not mean that it wasn’t true…they just could not prove it in court.
 
Mike said:
When I think about traditional journalism - pure established facts, presentation of cause and effect, sequence of events and cohesive conclusion-making come to mind.

Granted, we are not living in the past. But at the very least some semblance of integrity should be drawn out of a "News" channel.

Now, I've long lost hope of people lifting their Trump tinted glasses, trying to critically think for themselves, basing their thought-processes on undisputed facts on the ground (i.e. "We did see him on stage prior to the Jan 6 riots, saying what he was saying", "He did stipulate he would not be accepting the results, if he were ever to lose the elections" just to name a few), but - post-Dominion-Voting-Systems debacle, a sane, rational human being, with a chunk of brain between their ears would surely come to realize they've been regurgitating on unprecedented manure-for-truth hyperbole, that's had nothing to do with empirical facts on the ground.

So, as a bystander, what do I make of it - emotion blinds, needing to feel a part of a social group blinds, being protected by like-minded peers blinds.

Is it not the case? Am I the blind man here?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old song. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." -- Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer.

We all have have confirmation bias to one degree or another. Fox and other Reichwing media prey upon this with a lot of success. LW media like HuffPo and MSNBC do as well, but to a lesser degree IMO. RW voters seem almost at birth to be able to suspend questioning authority and willingly accept as truth whatever their chosen leaders tell them. #TRE45ON's great success is knowing this and capitalizing on it. He was a Democrat until he decided to get into politics. He knew very well which side would be the most gullible and likely to swallow his white nationalist schtick the easiest.

Example: Post #2.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
to be fair, lib'ruls have a dozen news sources to choose from when seeking out their propoganda.......we only have Fox......if you add all the others together they have almost as much support as Fox does.....of course, they STILL won't have as much truth......
Click to expand...

Indeed…I was only comparing cable news outlets.

I have no idea how the non-cable news outlets rank.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to be fair, lib'ruls have a dozen news sources to choose from when seeking out their propoganda.......we only have Fox......if you add all the others together they have almost as much support as Fox does.....of course, they STILL won't have as much truth......
Click to expand...

By "all the others," do you mean Newsmax, OANN, Breitbart, Daily Stormer, Gateway Pundit, Infowars, et al? BTW, it is spelled "propaganda." lol
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
By "all the others," do you mean Newsmax, OANN, Breitbart, Daily Stormer, Gateway Pundit, Infowars, et al? BTW, it is spelled "propaganda." lol
Click to expand...

I can't get any of those on my cable.......you must have a really huuuge provider.......but no, I was referring to MSNBC, CNN, NPR, all your favorite flavors of menudo......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can't get any of those on my cable.......you must have a really huuuge provider.......but no, I was referring to MSNBC, CNN, NPR, all your favorite flavors of menudo......
Click to expand...

Yes, it makes perfect sense to ignore all the *other* Reichwing sources, some of which are far worse than Fox. If you don't bring them up, you can pretend that "libtards" have access to far more "liberal media" sources than Reichwingers. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top