I guess Fox deliver what they're paid for. Stupid, inane shit painting the world the way idiots want it to look.
Calling any of what they do reporting is total bs, though.
Calling any of what they do reporting is total bs, though.
People v. (Fox) News Corp.
- Thread starter Thomas Tlusty
- Start date
Oh yes it is legal to advertise falsely. It's called sales puffery. What you are describing is bait and switch and yes that is illegal. But that isn't what Fox News does. Fox's customers are the advertisers who purchase time on Fox programming. Those advertisers know exactly what they are buying and Fox delivers. Fox News viewers don't pay to view Fox News and are not Fox customers, the are Fox viewers. Viewers are only necessary to sell advertising space to Fox's customers. One could also argue Fox delivers exactly what its viewers want, else they wouldn't watch it. Fox News isn't a fraud, and what Fox News does isn't illegal as The Fairness Doctrine is no longer the law of the land. Now that is unfortunate, but it is what it is. The Fairness Doctrine should be restored.
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
I listen to a lot of NPR, news and various programs. Anyone saying that it is a liberally biased network, probably hasn't even bothered to tune in. Or is it because the truth happens to be different than what
they heard on fox?
Agreed. Fox is definitely biased, but it is more than that. The Republican entertainment industry is very skillfully manipulating viewers. It's mind control. I recommend reading this linked article written by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D (a clinical psychologist):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryant-welch/fox-news-is-not-just-bias_b_337961.html
I sometimes listen to Republican entertainment. It's impressive to watch them in action, to see them use mind control techniques. They are pretty slick. I am impressed, but it also makes me very fearful. The consequences could be very dire for the nation. And that is how we get wackos like Palin, Bachman, Perry, and Cruz as viable candidates for public office.
Last edited:
I want to see that argued in public, with Fox providing the proof that it is describing its product accurately.joe said:
And I want to see what that is, in Fox's own words.joe said:
Of course that's not realistic, but I like the idea a lot - what the corporate honchos at Fox think of its programming and audience should be information available to that audience.
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
While I do agree with some of your obsevation, I do not agree that what they do is legal and I do not believe that there is no standard that can hold them to account. It is not legal to sell dehydrated urine, pressed into cubes, wrapped in shiny gold foil as "Bullion Cubes", I don't care if it does taste just like chicken
1,000 signatures won't be much of a statement. 10,000 signatures will say something but nobody will listen. 50,000 signatures may start a national dialogue on propaganda and 100,000 signatures would force the overseers to pay attention. With enough voices we can bend the arc of history and justice to conform to the will of the people.
Please pass, post & share, even if you think it will go nowhere......
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
You hit it right on the head. What they do is obfuscation, mis-direction half-truths and lies. It is patently and blatantly, not news.
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
If the is no question or possibility of accountability in news, please explain to me why Brian Williams has his a$$ in a sling at the moment?!??
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
Yeah, it started as a joke, then a few folks took it seriously as did MoveOn. Please pass, post & share!
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
You are both right to some degree.
Rachel Maddow has a nice piece on Fox News, below is the Youtube link:
Here is another good article. I have witnessed this personally in my family.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/i_l...eneration_was_captured_by_thrashing_hysteria/
Here is another good article. I have witnessed this personally in my family.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/27/i_l...eneration_was_captured_by_thrashing_hysteria/
Last edited:
That's exactly right. FOX News tells a segment of the population (right wing extremists) exactly what they want to hear, and they are paid well for that by advertisers that rely on their ability to attract that audience.
Fortunately, most people know that's what they are and can choose their news sources accordingly.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The what?
It can?
Fox News coverage of breaking news events is actually quite good. Certainly as good as most of the other cable news channels. (My favorite for breaking news is CNN.)
I expect that what you and Moveon object to is Fox's opinion programming that plays when breaking news isn't happening. The reason you and Moveon object to it is because it doesn't reflexively favor the views and agenda of the American Democratic party and of the left more generally.
That's precisely why I like Fox. I think that it's important that the full range of opinion be aired. Fox is the only major American broadcast news outlet that tilts towards the Republicans. (That's why Fox receives so much hatred from those who dream of using the media to steer public opinion leftward.) Republican voters are half of the US population and it's vitally important to the future of democracy that they have a voice and that their views be expressed.
Bottom line: Fox News is no more objectionable than MSNBC, which has positioned itself editorially as the voice of the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic party. It's just that Fox attracts far more viewers.
I agree and think there is value in having several political angles represented in the news media.
However there is an overriding problem with FOX News in that they are considerably less accurate than other news organizations. Their reports are quite consistently erroneous, and several studies have shown that FOX viewers have a higher incidence of misconceptions about current events. If an informed electorate is a goal of a democracy, FOX News is damaging to that goal (or to be accurate, is more damaging than other news organizations.)
That being said, there's nothing wrong with having less-accurate news sources provided people understand the lack of accuracy. The Daily Show, for example, is watched by a great many people - but they generally understand that its purpose is entertainment rather than accurate news reporting.
Last edited:
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
Ironically, the daily show was rated among the highest (in terms of accuracy) of all the news shows. This shows the sorry state of affairs that the media conglomerates have led us to. Six companies and under 300 executives control the entire diet of news (& propaganda) for the entire country. Fox should be dealt with first as they are the most flagrant violators of confusing fact versus opinion.
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
It is blatantly fraudulent to sell half-truths, misconceptions and lies as news.
Thomas Tlusty
Registered Member
They all have problems I won't argue that. Fox is just the most flagrant violator. Comparing them to other media is a false equivalency. Just because you agree & like what you hear, does not make it either factual or news. Even children can tell the difference.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0mzRKyJNkdhmwJZPw&sig2=i6-yQkyD3o4qllTBzZz6Vg
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe that. When breaking news events like the recent Paris unpleasantness occur, I typically click back and forth between Fox and CNN, my two favorite cable news outlets. I've never noticed any significant difference in the facts being presented. Oftentimes they are both showing essentially the same video and reporting on what was said at the same press conferences.
=========
According to the study, which can be reviewed online, in most cases, the more a person watched and read the news, the less likely they were to have been misled about the facts. But “there were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue,” the study’s authors wrote. In particular, they found that regular viewers of the Fox News Channel, which tilts to the right in prime time, were significantly more likely to believe untruths about the Democratic health care overhaul, climate change and other subjects.
The study found other cases where greater exposure to media meant greater misinformation on a subject. Regular viewers of MSNBC, which tilts to the left in prime time, were 34 percentage points more likely than nonviewers to believe “that it was proven that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.” Consumers of public broadcasting were 25 points more likely to believe the same.
But the study found many more instances that involved Fox News.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...ome-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/?_r=0
==========
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.
People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.
Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...s-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/
=====================
That seems unlikely. I doubt "most" people in the US can evaluate, for themselves, any of the major news providers.billvon said:
Illustration: How many times have you seen or heard people draw an equivalency between the news delivery on Fox and MSNBC? They are almost nothing alike, in the nature of their relationship with physical, political, and historical reality. Yet evaluating them as equivalent representatives of their supposed respective ideologies is practically conventional wisdom, a standard and unchallenged and normative basis for discussion in the US.
Illustration: " I typically click back and forth between Fox and CNN, my two favorite cable news outlets. I've never noticed any significant difference in the facts being presented. Oftentimes they are both showing essentially the same video and reporting on what was said at the same press conferences." This poster, and I think most Americans, think of CNN as independent of Fox and Fox's financial backers, its approach somehow the "other side" of an issue. Even more striking, they regard Fox's cable shows as "news" programs - they evaluate Fox as providing the facts from a point of view, in that order.
Illustration: These Americans you present as being able to choose their news sources based on some a priori acquaintance with reality overwhelmingly accept the demarcation of Left and Right, liberal and conservative, socialist and {unnamed, presumably "normal" or "free market"} as asserted by Fox - so that (for example) Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care program as adopted by the US Federal government for the country is never described as the English language applied to its physical reality would indicate (Rightwing authoritarian, corporate based, capitalist, market established, etc) but instead as Fox's propaganda sources recommend (Leftwing authoritarian, government based, socialist, centrally controlled, etc) - by all the news sources this hypothetical American is choosing among.
So I doubt that most Americans, even the ones who think ill of Fox, know what Fox is or what they represent or what the influence of what they represent has become. And so I doubt that most Americans are in any real sense "choosing" whether or not to get their worldview from Fox's frame.
For example: we see above a poster who thinks ill of Fox 1) claiming MSNBC "tilts left in prime time" (it does not) and 2) presenting the belief (more common among MSNBC viewers, although the "prime time" designation is overlooked) that the US Chamber of Commerce has been "proven" to use foreign money to support Republican candidates for office, as established "misinformation" rather than the defensible and reality based belief it could easily be (the USCC has provided only unsupported denials of what would be a Federal crime if admitted, and the evidence so far is very strongly against them - one's level of "proof" in any such matter would be involved. Under the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard the allegation is "proven" in civilian life).
Both of those are examples of what one can reasonably term "Fox framing", although Fox would be of course only the most significant of the representatives of those responsible. So is the overlooked direct implication that MSNBC's commentary and talk show positions are to be compared with Fox's alleged "news" delivery.
Last edited: