2019 State of the Union (1 Viewer)

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
21,033
Reaction score
33,238
Location
Lebronto
Offline
For the far left outlets, I would assume that they don't want the bill in NY to have anything that would give it a black eye, like this story.
okay. So that might the case for a few. But not all. And even in the case for a few, they might not be covering it for the same reasons that the rest aren't. Maybe there's a conspiracy to cover this up or mitigate the damage, but that seems to be a pretty big stretch at this point.

I don't visit those sites, so I won't speak to them.
if you're visiting Blaze, Fox News, and New York Post, I would submit that mixing these (or those like these) into your news rotation would be time well invested if you're interested in news. Well, the first 3, I mean.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,758
Reaction score
12,503
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Online
My grandmother had a heart condition as well. Open heart surgery twice. Was told she wouldn’t live past 40 and having children would kill her. 4 kids later here I am surrounded with a bunch of cousins and a grandmother that lived to 71. Life is unpredictable. You really don’t know how anything will turn out until you actually do it.
Which is exactly the point. We don't know. We can't know. So in a free society we let the woman choose.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
I've seen those charts before. And they always seem to put conservative news into the hyperpartisan category. Sorry if that doesn't seem like an unbiased chart to me. And to have NBC news in that minimal partisan category is hogwash.
Wait let me get this straight, so in your mind for the chart to be credible it should categorize outlets that express as their written purpose to push a right-wing ideology to a right-wing audience(per their own founders and editor's in chief, referring to the Blaze, Fox News, Daily Caller, and BreitBart respectively) as it's primary mission into the centrist designation?

I'm sorry, but what the fork lol?
 
Last edited:

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
21,033
Reaction score
33,238
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Wait let me get this straight, so in your mind for the chart to be credible it should categorize outlets that express as their written purpose to push a right-wing ideology to a right-wing audience(per their own founders and editor's in chief, referring to the Blaze, Fox News, Daily Caller, and BreitBart respectively) as it's primary mission into the centrist designation?

I'm sorry, but what the fork lol?
I should add that I changed my post to include the image from the 4th version of the chart, which I think is the most recently updated
 

farfromsilent

Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
454
Online
Wait let me get this straight, so in your mind for the chart to be credible it should categorize outlets that express as their written purpose to push a right-wing ideology to a right-wing audience(per their own founders and editor's in chief, referring to the Blaze, Fox News, Daily Caller, and BreitBart respectively) as it's primary mission into the centrist designation?

I'm sorry, but what the fork lol?
There's already been a discussion on that topic. Not getting into it again.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
Nah, I read it.

Malia Zimmerman says you are as wrong on the legitimacy of Fox News as you are on the legitimacy of modern medicine.
 
Last edited:

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
No but seriously, name the Fox News stories - most that circulated throughout their programming schedule - that you want to defend Silent?

Seth Rich, Birtherism, Madrassa-gate, Uranium One, Vince Foster, Pizzagate, Terrorist fist jab, selectively editing Jake Tapper to say Allahu Akbar, Swift Boat, The Kavanaugh doppelgänger, Soros caravans, Cesar Sayoc was a false flag, climate change denial, death panels, and/or Charlottesville actors?

Once we get through that we can look at what research says about how informed viewers of Fox are compared to other outlets....That should be REALLY fun!
 
OP
OP
Saint_Ward

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,278
Reaction score
33,868
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
No, it's not purposeful deflection. I can understand how people would label the Blaze in hyperpartisan. Fox News however, I would put them in the "Skews Conservative, but still reliable" category. Not because of their opinion shows, but because of their actual news coverage team which is excellent. I'm talking about pundits like Bret Bayer, Brit Hume, and such.

As to the those on the center right and center left, they may be looking for more sources. I don't know.
Their actual news segments, you'd be correct. The problem is they are so embedded with opinion articles, and opinion 'news' programs, that causes their overall grade to skew both heavy conservative, and questionable sources.

The actual news hour stuff is good, just with a conservative slant on what they report and how.

For example. Actual news. Good stuff here.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/as-border-wall-funding-divides-washington-new-multimillion-dollar-barrier-will-soon-break-ground-in-texas

Bad examples.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/kimberley-strassel-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-secret-republican-weapon-for-2020

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-is-a-fraud-her-lies-about-being-native-american-disqualify-her-from-presidency-senate

The problem is, that it's kind of easy to avoid the opinions on their website, if you ignore the top links. But on TV, it's almost all you get, outside a few actual news shows.
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
3,082
Age
51
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Offline
"Queens District Attorney Richard Brown sent out a press release saying Anthony Hobson, 48, would be charged with second-degree abortion as well as murder in Sunday’s fatal stabbing of Jennifer Irigoyen, 35.

But a DA spokeswoman later told The Post that the abortion charge “was repealed by the Legislature, and this is the law as it exists today.”"
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up playing out. She says that the abortion charge was repealed by the legislature, but as I posted earlier in this thread, the text of the law very clearly says that a medical professional is allowed to perform an abortion while practicing medicine. This is not what happened in this particular case, so the law wouldn't seem to preclude an abortion charge against this man.
 

farfromsilent

Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
454
Online
Nah, I read it.

Malia Zimmerman says you are as wrong on the legitimacy of Fox News as you are on the legitimacy of modern medicine.
I never said modern medicine has no legitimacy. I said I personally don’t participate in it. When you stop twisting my words, i’ll Have dialogue with you.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
Their actual news segments, you'd be correct. The problem is they are so embedded with opinion articles, and opinion 'news' programs, that causes their overall grade to skew both heavy conservative, and questionable sources.

The actual news hour stuff is good, just with a conservative slant on what they report and how.

For example. Actual news. Good stuff here.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/as-border-wall-funding-divides-washington-new-multimillion-dollar-barrier-will-soon-break-ground-in-texas

Bad examples.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/kimberley-strassel-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-secret-republican-weapon-for-2020

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-is-a-fraud-her-lies-about-being-native-american-disqualify-her-from-presidency-senate

The problem is, that it's kind of easy to avoid the opinions on their website, if you ignore the top links. But on TV, it's almost all you get, outside a few actual news shows.
And I would like to impress that it goes much deeper than that. Take again Malia Zimmerman and Seth Rich. That didn’t just run on Hannity or Ingraham.

For a refresher, the story I am referring to is a story that ran about a supposed source within the FBI that said to Rod Wheeler(a paid Fox News contributor at the time) that they had obtained a laptop of Seth Rich’s that indicated it had stolen DNC emails on it. Bombshell if true right? Since it would clear the Russians of interference and thus make it impossible for Trump’s campaign to be colluding with them...Or so that was the angle, there was some obvious problems with that from the get.

This story was literally the front page story on Foxnews.com for nearly 48 hours. The story didn’t break on Hannity, it was routed through a local DC Fox affiliate by the group at FoxNews that manufactured this piece. Which then allowed every regular Fox News program to treat it like breaking news. Which they did, for over a week

I think it is a salaint example because it gets to the heart of the issues Fox has all at once. Because not only did it get dispersed as actual news, it served a more cynical purpose. As court documents showed, the authors of the story worked in coordination with members of the White House to facilitate its release at the most opportune time. Which just so happened to be less than an hour after Trump admitted on NBC to firing Comey due to the Russia investigation and thus admitting to basically trying to obstruct justice. And unless you happened to turn into Shep Smith or dig deep into Fox’s website, you probably weren’t going to even know about Trump’s NBC slip up because it was wall to wall Seth Rich “bombshell” coverage.

Of course about a week and a half later after the damage was done Rod Wheeler had a temporary(though likely just opportunistic) change of conscience and admitted he, Malia, and fellow Fox News paid contributor(that helped the coordination with the White House as a long time friend and supporter) Ed Butowski made it all up. Did Fox try and run a retraction? Nope. They simply deleted the original story and replaced it with a one paragraph note about the piece not being up to standards and several of Fox’s biggest shows kept peddling the story for up to another week.

What happened to Malia and Ed? Well Malia went on to....keep working at Fox, segueing right into coverage on Uranium One(I shirt you not). Ed is STILL a Fox News paid contributor for both Fox proper and Fox Business. NPR in their coverage uncovered what was even shocking to them, that unlike every other major news organization Fox doesn’t actually have a stand alone standards and practices division to internally audit and check for the factual veracity of its coverage. And we know from leaked memos that their coverage, language, and framing is all done from the top down with an explicit partisan goal in mind that everyone is supposed to tow the broad outline for the day. So it's really no wonder that watching Fox primarily makes you less informed than not even watching the news. That conservatives most trusted news outlet will routinely reflect in surveys that a large chunk of the Republican base believes outright untrue stories. Stories that just so happened to be pushed heavily by Fox through this structured mechanism that is concerned primarily about achieving partisan outcomes with it's audience, not delivering the news.
 
Last edited:

farfromsilent

Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
454
Online
And my point would be is that it goes much deeper than that. Take again Malia Zimmerman and Seth Rich. That didn’t just run on Hannity or Ingraham.

For a refresher, the story I am referring to is a story that ran about a supposed source within the FBI that said to Rod Wheeler(a paid Fox News contributor at the time) that they had obtained a laptop of Seth Rich’s that indicated it had stolen DNC emails on it. Bombshell if true right? Since it would clear the Russians of interference and thus make it impossible for Trump’s campaign to be colluding with them...Or so that was the angle, there was some obvious problems with that from the get.

This story was literally the front page story on Foxnews.com for nearly 48 hours. The story didn’t break on Hannity, it was routed through a local DC Fox affiliate by the group at FoxNews that manufactured this piece. Which then allowed every regular Fox News program to treat it like breaking news. Which they did, for over a week

I think it is a salaint example because it gets to the heart of the issues Fox has all at once. Because not only did it get dispersed as actual news, it served a more cynical purpose. As court documents showed, the authors of the story worked in coordination with members of the White House to facilitate its release at the most opportune time. Which just so happened to be less than an hour after Trump admitted on NBC to firing Comey due to the Russia investigation and thus admitting to basically trying to obstruct justice. And unless you happened to turn into Shep Smith or dig deep into Fox’s website, you probably weren’t going to even know about Trump’s NBC slip up because it was wall to wall Seth Rich “bombshell” coverage.

Of course about a week and a half later after the damage was done Rod Wheeler had a temporary(though likely just opportunistic) change of conscience and admitted he, Malia, and fellow Fox News paid contributor(that helped the coordination with the White House as a long time friend and supporter) Ed Butowski made it all up. Did Fox try and run a retraction? Nope. They simply deleted the original story and replaced it with a one paragraph note about the piece not being up to standards and several of Fox’s biggest shows kept peddling the story for up to another week.

What happened to Malia and Ed? Well Malia went on to....keep working at Fox, segueing right into coverage on Uranium One(I shirt you not). Ed is STILL a Fox News paid contributor for both Fox proper and Fox Business. NPR in their coverage uncovered what was even shocking to them, that unlike every other major news organization Fox doesn’t actually have a stand alone standards and practices division to internally audit and check for the factual veracity of its coverage. And we know from leaked memos that their coverage, language, and framing is all done from the top down with an explicit partisan goal in mind that everyone is supposed to tow the broad outline for the day. So it's really no wonder that watching Fox primarily makes you less informed than not even watching the news. That conservatives most trusted news outlet will routinely reflect in surveys that a large chunk of the Republican base believes outright untrue stories. Stories that just so happened to be pushed heavily by Fox through this perverse amplification and dispersement mechanism that is concerned primarily about achieving partisan outcomes with it's audience, not delivering the news.
You act as though CNN doesn’t do the same thing. Look at the Covington Kids. Those boys were standing up against bigotry that was being used against the Natives by Black Israelites. There is clear video out on this. CNN just ran with it being that the Covington boys were the ones being bigoted when what really happened is they got sandbagged by an activist from the left that knew it would be bad optics. Even when the multitude of videos came out showing what really happened, CNN refused to issue a retraction. Now they (and other left wing news organizations) are getting sued for libel. I hope that Sandmann never has to work again with the settlement he gets from that case.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
You act as though CNN doesn’t do the same thing. Look at the Covington Kids. Those boys were standing up against bigotry that was being used against the Natives by Black Israelites. There is clear video out on this. CNN just ran with it being that the Covington boys were the ones being bigoted when what really happened is they got sandbagged by an activist from the left that knew it would be bad optics. Even when the multitude of videos came out showing what really happened, CNN refused to issue a retraction. Now they (and other left wing news organizations) are getting sued for libel. I hope they Sandmann never has to work again with the settlement he gets from that case.
No, not even a little bit Silent. CNN has it's problems, but they are not anywhere as perverse or structurally problematic as the explicitly operational partisan effort at Fox that Roger Aisles cooked up as a propaganda tool while working for Nixon during Watergate.

And this difference of approach is aptly illustrated with another valiant example.

Because right around this same timeline as the Seth Rich fiasco CNN was faced with a similar situation around a source and a report they were looking to release.

The difference in approach actually helps highlight just how out of bounds and problematic Fox is as an organization. How uniquely bankrupt they are as a supposed "news" network.

CNN was poised to release a story on air from a new investigative unit in their organization citing a source that said the Senate was investigating a Russian investment fund that had ties to people in the Trump administration. Within an hour of release on the website, the standards and practices department caught wind and recognized it had not gone through proper editorial channels and been properly reviewed. The unit had bypassed mandatory editorial processes and the story was retracted. This was an internal process violation, CNN could of kept this silent. Instead they ran articles about the process failure and the only thing that made it on air was the story about this internal fork up. As a result CNN fired the reporters in question, the head of the new investigative team, and closed down the newly opened division for the time being to get it restaffed and in line with the standards and practices of the network. They even made it clear that they weren't necessarily disputing the content of the report, but that violations of editorial processes on the journalism side need to be treated with the utmost seriousness because it risks the internal integrity of their journalism process.

Now you tell me that this is equivalent to how Fox handled the multiple Malia Zimmerman fiascos?

I certainly have my issues with CNN and their overall approach to presenting the news, especially their rush to being first to market on breaking news, but they are not the moral or ethical equivalent of Fox, no matter how much you want it to be true so you can keep justifying to yourself it's ok to consume a propaganda outlet.
 
Last edited:

farfromsilent

Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
454
Online
No, not even a little bit Silent. CNN has it's problems, but they are not anywhere as perverse or structurally problematic as the explicitly operational partisan effort at Fox that Roger Aisles cooked up as a propaganda tool while working for Nixon during Watergate.

And this difference of approach is aptly illustrated with another valiant example.

Because right around this same timeline as the Seth Rich fiasco CNN was faced with a similar situation around a source and a report they were looking to release.

The difference in approach actually helps highlight just how out of bounds and problematic Fox is as an organization. How uniquely bankrupt they are as a supposed "news" network.

CNN was poised to release a story on air from a new investigative unit in their organization citing a source that said the Senate was investigating a Russian investment fund that had ties to people in the Trump administration. Within an hour of release on the website, the standards and practices department caught wind and recognized it had not gone through proper editorial channels and been properly reviewed. The unit had bypassed mandatory editorial processes and the story was retracted. This was an internal process violation, CNN could of kept this silent. Instead they ran articles about the process failure and the only thing that made it on air was the story about this internal fork up. As a result CNN fired the reporters in question, the head of the new investigative team, and closed down the newly opened division for the time being to get it restaffed and in line with the standards and practices of the network.

Now you tell me that this is equivalent to how Fox handled the multiple Malia Zimmerman fiascos?

I certainly have my issues with CNN and their overall approach to presenting the news, but they are not the moral or ethical equivalent of Fox, no matter how much you want it to be true so you can keep justifying to yourself it's ok to consume.
A refusal to issue a retraction in the face of overwhelming evidence is not as egregious? Is that what you’re saying? They ruined that boys life. They attacked an innocent kid and refuse to walk it back, and you are saying that’s not as bad? Sorry you just lost a lot of credibility with me. I’m not having this conversation with you anymore.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,739
Offline
A refusal to issue a retraction in the face of overwhelming evidence is not as egregious? Is that what you’re saying? They ruined that boys life. They attacked an innocent kid and refuse to walk it back, and you are saying that’s not as bad? Sorry you just lost a lot of credibility with me. I’m not having this conversation with you anymore.
Setting aside your gross misstatement of the Covington situation or CNN's coverage....

So if in your mind CNN is this awful organization, literally the ethical equivalent of the picture I presented to you about Fox News(which you haven't disputed mind you), why are you also still indirectly defending your consumption of Fox News?

This is where you lose me.

There seems to be this reflexive response to criticism of Fox and other propaganda outlets that amounts to "well X or Y is just as bad," well ok, so why are you still consuming Fox if they are as bad as these places you claim are so egregiously unethical you can barely speak anymore to people that defend them?

Reuters is out there, so is PBS NewsHour, so is McClatchy, Propublica, NPR, BBC, the AP, The Wall Street Journal(excluding the editorial side), NY Times, and The Boston Globe. If CNN is Fox's moral equivalence in your mind, why are you still consuming it?

I'm open to the possibility that maybe you weren't aware of Fox's problems 24 hours ago when you defended them, so I recognize giving you space to process what has been presented, but so far you don't seem to be adjusting to that, acknowledging any shift in your thinking on Fox's credibility, so it begs that question?
 
Last edited:

farfromsilent

Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
891
Reaction score
454
Online
Setting aside your gross misstatement of the Covington situation or CNN's coverage....

So if in your mind CNN is this awful organization, literally the ethical equivalent of the picture I presented to you about Fox News(which you haven't disputed mind you), why are you also still indirectly defending your consumption of Fox News?

This is where you lose me.

There seems to be this reflexive response to criticism of Fox and other propaganda outlets that amounts to "well X or Y is just as bad," well ok, so why are you still consuming Fox if they are as bad as these places you claim are so egregiously unethical you can barely speak anymore to people that defend them?

Reuters is out there, so is PBS NewsHour, so is McClatchy, Propublica, NPR, the AP, The Wall Street Journal(excluding the editorial side), NY Times, and The Boston Globe. If CNN is Fox's moral equivalence in your mind, why are you still consuming it?

I'm open to the possibility that maybe you weren't aware of Fox's problems 24 hours ago when you defended them, so I recognize giving you space to process what has been presented, but so far you don't seem to be adjusting to that, so it begs that question?
I did not grossly misstate the Covington situation. I’ve seen the collection of videos myself and it’s very clear.

I actually don’t watch any cable news anymore because I don’t have cable. It’s been 4 years since I’ve watched them on a regular basis, so I will grant you that they may be more partisan than I remember. They did lose me when they really started pushing Trump hard as a candidate in the 2015 primaries.

But you seriously need to go watch more videos on the Covington situation. You have been outright lied to on that situation.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom