Of course not. After all the evidence presented in this thread, you’re going to go with that line. Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess.
This is factually inaccurate.
Or, what he said.
Then surely, you can find examples where other news channels have flubbed the reporting of a case in such a serious and clearly parisan manner?
Cardboard, just read the thread. The “other people do it too” argument is vapid and baseless at this point. By any objective measure, FOX fails harder.
That seems to happen a lot this thread. It gets revived and suddenly some new Fox News Fanboy barges in and decrees that both sides are equally bad, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there are several hundred posts of evidence in the thread itself that make such a statement demonstratively false.
tomndebb said it best: “Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess.”
Fox News fanboy barging in. When I say im a fanboy that’s only half true. I don’t get Fox News and I dont watch it. I have not read the thread so dont know if this has been covered. I think stories such as Jonathan Gruber are exactly why Fox News is needed, as are other news outlets that dont necessarily toe the centrist politician line. This goes for MSNBC and RT, though RT is stretching credibility imo. Most news outlets didn’t touch the Gruber story. Only later was it occasionally brought up by other networks. Fox on the other hand did run with it from early on. I believe it was a legitimate story that would have went unheard had Fox not been around to report on it(and at times exaggerate it).
If you haven’t read the thread and don’t watch Fox News, how can you offer an opinion about this discussion?
If you don’t watch Fox News, how do you know how they covered the Gruber discussion?
Really, you’re making your own gravy here.
They had AIDS denialist Liam Scheff on for an interview. This sentence only works if “stretching” means “completely without even the slightest modicum of”.
Sorry if I’m reiterating a point made earlier, but this is what Fox (and the GOP) do quite well. The idea is that others do it and we are reporting the other side, so really “it’s just a wash”.
-“So some scientists claim there is human cause for climate change. But others say differently. I guess it’s just a wash, and we’ll never really know.”
Absolutely spot on. When anybody says “I just hate it when both sides distort the news” that’s a win for the Republicans. Both sides don’t do it.
I do read political blogs. I know roughly the proportion of times Gruber was mentioned on US news shows. Fox discussed him far more often than the others did. CNN mentioned the story a few times, NBC and ABC very little. In fact I believe either NBC or ABC have all but ignored the story.
I also tried to watch clip coverage on the internet. Fox News clips showed up far more often than any other newtork.
You really will need to try harder before thinking you have “skewered” me, or, at least think before posting.
So, in other words, CNN, NBC and ABC did discuss the issue an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it ad nauseum.
Whereas, the current Benghazi report showing there was absolutely no conspiracy was discussed on CNN, NBC and ABC an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it not at all.
Aye, I can’t see that davida03801’s post shows any signs of reading comprehension or the ability to draw valid conclusions from existing evidence. In fact, his post comes across as having no real relation to what he claims to have read and appears to almost revel in it’s ignorance.
Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is not specific to Grubergate. Many such stories emerge this way. Still, if you are suggesting Fox discussed the story ad nauseum then thats a fair enough criticism. However, this does not mean all other networks subsequently covered it enough.
This diversion into Gruber’s comments (or Benghazi, for that matter) is silly. The relative appropriateness of Fox’s level of coverage of /a given story/ vs other networks is irrelevant to whether /on average/ it tends to promote more misinformation than other outlets. Obviously, every network is going to get it wrong at least some of the time. Suppose the MSM got Gruber wrong. So what?
If you dispute the validity of the studies cited up thread, that would be a fair argument.
FTR, I believe Fox have Gruber’s comments more attention than they deserved, but that’s neither here nor there.
Grubergate?
Nah, you don’t follow Fox News.
This is what Fox News apologists like to say about things. However, the things that they say it about almost always wind up, in hindsight, to be non-stories.
It’s not like Fox News is Woodward & Bernstein here. The kinds of stories that Fox News covered to the point that other mainstream media outlets were “forced” to report?
Benghazi. The Birth Certificate. Total non-stories that they not only kept alive past their expiration dates, but whose reporting on said non-stories has led a decent number of people maintaining that Obama was not born here.
Oh, yeah? Well the rules were different when Hawaii was made a state, and the current ones can’t be applied retroactively! And Hawaii was illegally annexed, so it’s not a state anyway. And Hawaiian courts display U.S. flags with gold fringe on them! And Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii anyway. He was born in Kenya, and there’s original HD video of the birth! And everyone who claims to have seen the original birth certificate is lying! And…
head explodes
Of course the Panama Canal Zone is fine, why do you ask?
Had you made those same graphs about “Benghazi Conspiracy” it would have looked exactly the same as this; 10000 fold more discussion on Fox than CNN, NBC, ABC. And, now, as we know with certainty, CNN, NBC and ABC gave it the appropriate dismissal as a non-story from the beginning.
No, it isn’t. The appropriate level of coverage, what is covered, how it’s covered, and the accuracy with which it’s presented can all be objectively judged by the resulting knowledge and beliefs of the viewership about demonstrably objective facts. And in those terms Fox News viewers fare the worst of any network viewers. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, they got more answers wrong on factual questions than people who watched no news at all – Fox News is mendaciously worse than useless, because they were constantly fed distortions and manufactured pseudo-news (like the famous question-mark headlines, or the equally famous “people are now saying that …” when the only people who actually said it were Fox News pundits the previous night, etc.). Hey, when your sworn mission and sole responsibility is to be the ruthlessly unscrupulous public relations arm of the Republican Party, truth and accuracy are the first casualties. “Truth – we hardly knew ye!” would be a fine motto for Fox News. The fact that this abomination even exists in a modern democracy is a fascinating case study in media.