Is Fox News really all that bad?

[Defensive_Indifference]

So, Bowe Bergdahl returned to active duty today after spending the past six weeks in rehab. He will apparently be assigned to some desk job while the investigation into his disappearance and capture is conducted. His security clearance has been revoked, so his job will be in the protocol office, assisting soldiers with procedures and etiquette. He has yet to speak to his parents, although he has sent them letters. Bergdahl can leave his base escorted by a “care team”, and he has been seen shopping and eating at a local mall. The investigation is ongoing, and Bergdahl has retained legal counsel.

Per DOD policy, if the investigation concludes that Bergdahl was a POW (i.e., not a deserter), he will be entitled to back pay for his five years in captivity, including a combat pay premium. This works out to about $350,000 for Bergdahl. Per IRS rules, this pay may be tax free.

And, the Fox headline screams… “Bergdahl could get $350G tax-free, if cleared by Army”.

I love this headline. “Army and IRS to follow established policy and laws in Bergdahl case!” Well, yeah, I imagine they would. And I love how the article starts:

@Fox

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could have a tax-free $350,000 dropped into his bank account if the current investigation into his disappearance from his base in Afghanistan was not desertion, and if he is deemed to have been a prisoner of war for the five years he was held by Islamic militants, Fox News has learned.

First of all, I think we’re missing some words there. Otherwise, it’s saying that Bergdahl gets the money if the “investigation…was not desertion.” Anyway, I also just love how this is something “Fox News has learned”, as though it required some kind of dogged investigation to pry that information out of the Army. Fox News has just learned that these tax laws and DOD policies exist! And they apply to Bergdahl!!

Later, Fox informs us:

@Fox

Bergdahl still has not spoken to his parents, although he has sent two letters to them at their home in Idaho. Robert and Jani Bergdahl have yet to visit him in Texas, and there are reports of a rift in the family.

“Reports of a rift in the family”. This is a beautiful bit of insinuation. “Reports” by who? And between which members of the family? Mom and Dad? Dad and Bowe? Dad and Crazy Uncle Fred from Florida, the one no one liked to begin with? Hell, there are lots of “rifts” in my family, for certain values of “family”.

@Fox

“He appears unconcerned about the Army’s investigation,” said one official. “The investigation has to get moving, as he’s out of the Army soon. He lawyered up so we had to scale back the de-briefing.”

Oooh, the investigation has to get moving! Is that the way it works, if you can just slow-walk the investigation until your service is up, you get away with everything? I have no military background, but I would think that’s probably not the way it works. But, Anonymous Military Guy says they have to get the investigation going, so by God they need to jump right to the verdict before he slips away from their grasp! Oh, and he “lawyered up,” the scoundrel. Again, I’m not an expert, but I presume that people subject to military justice have a right of counsel and a right to remain silent, kind of like everyone else does. That might be in the Constitution, but I’m not sure.

So, yeah. A few fairly uncontroversial facts, some innuendo, and presto! Fox Noise!

[Bryan_Ekers]

I gather Fox News wants Bergdahl convicted and the five Taliban released in trade for him to mastermind and execute a dozen terrorist attacks all before November because freedom.

[Strassia]

@Bayard

So, Bowe Bergdahl returned to active duty today after spending the past six weeks in rehab. He will apparently be assigned to some desk job while the investigation into his disappearance and capture is conducted. His security clearance has been revoked, so his job will be in the protocol office, assisting soldiers with procedures and etiquette. He has yet to speak to his parents, although he has sent them letters. Bergdahl can leave his base escorted by a “care team”, and he has been seen shopping and eating at a local mall. The investigation is ongoing, and Bergdahl has retained legal counsel.

Per DOD policy, if the investigation concludes that Bergdahl was a POW (i.e., not a deserter), he will be entitled to back pay for his five years in captivity, including a combat pay premium. This works out to about $350,000 for Bergdahl. Per IRS rules, this pay may be tax free.

And, the Fox headline screams… “Bergdahl could get $350G tax-free, if cleared by Army”.

I love this headline. “Army and IRS to follow established policy and laws in Bergdahl case!” Well, yeah, I imagine they would. And I love how the article starts:

First of all, I think we’re missing some words there. Otherwise, it’s saying that Bergdahl gets the money if the “investigation…was not desertion.” Anyway, I also just love how this is something “Fox News has learned”, as though it required some kind of dogged investigation to pry that information out of the Army. Fox News has just learned that these tax laws and DOD policies exist! And they apply to Bergdahl!!

Later, Fox informs us:

“Reports of a rift in the family”. This is a beautiful bit of insinuation. “Reports” by who? And between which members of the family? Mom and Dad? Dad and Bowe? Dad and Crazy Uncle Fred from Florida, the one no one liked to begin with? Hell, there are lots of “rifts” in my family, for certain values of “family”.

Oooh, the investigation has to get moving! Is that the way it works, if you can just slow-walk the investigation until your service is up, you get away with everything? I have no military background, but I would think that’s probably not the way it works. But, Anonymous Military Guy says they have to get the investigation going, so by God they need to jump right to the verdict before he slips away from their grasp! Oh, and he “lawyered up,” the scoundrel. Again, I’m not an expert, but I presume that people subject to military justice have a right of counsel and a right to remain silent, kind of like everyone else does. That might be in the Constitution, but I’m not sure.

So, yeah. A few fairly uncontroversial facts, some innuendo, and presto! Fox Noise!

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t really apply. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does. In some ways military personnel lose rights (e.g. freedom of speech and association), but in others they are stronger. Article 31 protections are, IME, currently stronger than fifth amendment protections

[Kobal2]

@wolfpup

the WSJ and National Review seem to have greatly declined in quality in recent years.

Rupert Murdoch bought out the WSJ in 2007. So, yeah. Same shit, different sauce.

[standingwave]

Another “fair and balanced” Hannity interview devolves into screaming at the guest:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/can-you-hear-hannity-gets-really-heated-with-palestinian-guest/

[drewtwo99]

I’m actually fine with yelling at someone if they refuse to answer your questions. If the guy doesn’t believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, or if his views are nuanced, he should have just said so.

[standingwave]

@drewtwo99

I’m actually fine with yelling at someone if they refuse to answer your questions. If the guy doesn’t believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, or if his views are nuanced, he should have just said so.

I’m actually not fine with such tactics. I’m more interested in an honest exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Hannity gave the pro-Israel guest free rein and then played “have you stopped beating your wife?” game with the pro-Palestine guest. Fair and balanced my ass.

[wolfpup]

@Kobal2

Rupert Murdoch bought out the WSJ in 2007. So, yeah. Same shit, different sauce.

Murdoch is currently trying to buy Time Warner. TW owns, among other things, CNN and HBO. How this could possibly be allowed is mind boggling. The media consolidation that’s been happening in general, and under Murdoch in particular, is truly frightening. CNN could become a version of another Fox News, and Bill Maher (who hosts Real Time on HBO) wasn’t really joking when he said you could kiss his ass goodbye if that happens.

[andros]

Nah, they would divest CNN. At least, according to CNN they would, FWIW.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

This was on my facebook feed, and that’s kind of difficult to link to using my phone.

But do all of you remember how when gas prices were going up how Fox News was screaming every day about how this was an indictment of Obama?

Well, there’s a screenshot you can find of a more recent broadcast, where the network has decided that cheap gas hurts the economy.

[standingwave]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Well, there’s a screenshot you can find of a more recent broadcast, where the network has decided that cheap gas hurts the economy.

Second link has you screenshot, I believe.

Fox on gas prices last year: “More pain at the pump”
Fox on gas prices today: “Cheap gas hurts economy”

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Yep. That’s it. Once again, it’s not the bias that makes Fox News am that bad. It’s the bullshit.

[JackieLikesVariety]

I recently had a 94 year old nursing home resident say to me “Obamacare is taking over everything!” in real fear. it is CRIMINAL those bastards are scaring old people with lies and distortions. he has no idea what Obamacare even is, he just knows it’s coming to get him and it’s scary bad.

:mad:

[Rune]

@standingwave

Second link has you screenshot, I believe.

Fox on gas prices last year: “More pain at the pump”
Fox on gas prices today: “Cheap gas hurts economy”

What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word “postulates,” the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It’s not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?

[iiandyiiii]

@Rune

What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word “postulates,” the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It’s not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?

It’s that Fox seems to consistently choose the interpration and presentation that portrays one side in as poor a light as possible.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Rune

What’s so bad about that? It appears that it is two pundits coming with their two different views on some situation. The first is accompanied with the word “postulates,” the second with a question mark – so it doesn’t really come off as heavily endorsed by the station itself. It’s not even very controversial. There are plenty of people who subscribe to one or the other points of view, or both I assume. Expensive gas prices could have been damaging US interests two years, while cheap gas prices can be been damaging US interests today. Things change.

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?

They hide behind the question mark ruse quite a bit. Foxnews just happens to be asking the question, and then just happens to book a guest who answers that question the way that they want them to.

Are liberals fueling the war on terror?

Have Democrats forgotten 9/11?

Is the civil war in Iraq a good thing? (asked in 2006 when Bush was president, so the answer was yes. Now, obviously the answer would be no)

(also, then just asking: Is the civil war in Iraq just made up by the media?)

Is Obama disrespecting the oval office?

For all their hypermasculine chest thumping they seem really wimpy when it comes to taking a stand.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

But they’re just asking questions…

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I just caught this…

@Rune

Is it because you are of the opinion that Fox should only employ commentators which toe a particular line, so as to have the station seem to present a single view to the world?

That’s funny because that’s exactly what Fox News does. You’ll notice that the subtext of everything they report - even contradictory things such as gas prices going in opposite directions - is “Obama Bad.”

[john_b_2]

Fair and balanced, not, but I sometimes enjoy Fox News, find them a refreshing change of pace. Of course they tilt to the Right,–but on the radio, PBS tilts very much to the Left, as does, less egregiously, PBS, on television–so what’s the problem?

Fox for the most part influences people who are already converts, preach to the choir, so to speak, as does NPR. To my way of thinking it comes down to which “sermon” one wants to listen to.

Because where I live is very liberal, and I tend to be left of center on most issues, I like a breath of fresh air (and I don’t mean Terry Gross) to shake my brain up a little, and Fox provides that for me now and again.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Because the issue isn’t just that the news has a bias. It’s that it has a constant slant that bends the facts around it. It’s also that, by the only objective metrics on news performance (the informedness of viewers), Fox News loses to virtually everything except talk radio. Spend some time reading the thread. Fox really is that bad.