It is one of the main issues of this thread that you refuse to address.
[quote=“callander, post:738, topic:636625”]
I say the words that I post. If I posted anything that sounded like that show it to me, please.
I am not interested in giving rebuke, those are not your words rather the tone, in which I hear you.
Have a nice day.
Be well
Callander
I’d say it matters quite a lot, because most of the people who watch FOX and are aware of their misdeeds tend to excuse it with “Oh, the rest of the liberal media is just as bad” or “It’s not more biased than MSNBC or CNN”. Two statements which are blatantly false.
Or, to put it another way, picture it like this. CNN is your politically-informed teenage nephew. He’s politically active, up to date on the news, and while he occasionally gets a story or two wrong, it rarely amounts to much and he’s quick to correct himself when called on it. FOX is your racist uncle. He’s not really interested in politics - just furthering an agenda. The stories he tells are all pointed in one direction and usually wrong.
When talking about where to get your news, you probably wouldn’t want to rely on either. But if you had to call someone out on doing something wrong, you probably wouldn’t call out your nephew about mislabeling a terror attack when your uncle is in the room talking about how blacks have lower IQs.
But here’s the important thing to note. No news organization is perfect. None of them. The BBC, the Guardian, and the NYT are great, and NPR (while having a slightly odd scope) is definitely on the right track, but none of them are perfect. They all have their bad apples, and they all have made mistakes. But when talking about where to get your news, judging news organizations by the standard of “perfect or not perfect” leaves you with nowhere to turn. The point of this thread is to point out that when going to news sources, you’re better off in every situation turning to virtually any other mainstream source other than FOX. Their actions are completely indefensible, and consistently and considerably worse than any other network. Which makes your defense of them… Bizarre, to say the least. The claim that CNN in particular is as bad… I wish you’d come back and defend that, because I’m pretty sure you’re wrong, and I’d like for you to understand that.
This kind of defense of FOX is part of the reason it’s so hard to make political progress. This political centrism, this reactionary “oh, both sides do it, so everyone’s equally bad”.
No.
Stop.
Back up.
You’re wrong.
They don’t.
They’re not.
FOX News is the only noteworthy mainstream news network that aims at a republican audience, and they are consistently and considerably worse than anything else on the air (unless you get Russia Today… Christ these guys are awful). I wonder if that has anything to say about the state of the modern American political divide.
[quote=“callander, post:738, topic:636625”]
The fact that you say it would take an hour of research to compose a response is a tacit admission that you don’t have any idea if what you are saying is true. If you knew it to be true, you’d know of examples that back up your assertion.
I don’t know if that’s completely fair, he might half remember it, and need time to look into where to find the citations.
I don’t think that’s the case, but if I’m gonna try to refute something, I spend some time looking into it.
You make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. Them’s the rules.
Have you read much of this thread?
It’s been pointed out several times in this thread that ‘Both sides do it!’ is not a valid argument. It’s been pointed out that FOX News lies 49% of the time – seven times more than CNN. So you can’t use that argument if you want anyone to take you seriously. It’s like saying, ‘Mr. X stole $20 from a tip jar, so he should get the same punishment as Mr. Y, who robbed a bank of $50,000 at gunpoint.’
If he thinks he might have heard something once, then he doesn’t know that every media outlet does the same thing Fox does. If he knew, he’d know. “I thought I heard something once” is not knowledge.
It’s close enough for FOX News. 
This is the debate forum, not the opinion forum.
If you have nothing to bring to the discussion but your unsubstantiated opinion, then I am telling you to refrain from posting in this thread. Your constant repetition of your claim with no supporting evidence is not appropriate. Your deliberate refusal to support your claim while continuing to repeat it is beginning to look like trolling.
You do not have to spend an entire hour seeking a citation to support your claim. You also have the option of not repeating your opinion when you are unwilling to back it up.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, to be fair, I did call him/her out.
Hello
Just saw this now. Valid point and noted that this is a debate forum and I have only repeated an opinion. Won’t happen again.
Even better would be to have an opinion you can back up with facts. You know, like the rest of us.
Sincere apology wasn’t good enough for you?
Yeah, that was harsh. Almost, intriguingly enough, worthy of FOXNews.
FYI, as of posting time, CBS, NBS, ABC, and CNN all have the CIA torture report as the lead story.
Fox news has a video asking “CIA report another attempt by the democrats to attach Bush?” as the lead of their “Watch Now” section. The actual report, headlined “Dems release CIA report as GOP questions motives,” is in tiny font underneath the four lead stories.
On a forum devoted to eradicating ignorance, a heartfelt apology for continued willful ignorance should be met with scorn.
The guy’s new. He didn’t have the lay of the land and apologized.
Give 'em a break.
An apology for inappropriate behavior is not a confession of willful ignorance.
Regardless of the purpose of the forum, it is not appropriate to react rudely to an apology.
If you feel that strongly, take it to The BBQ Pit.
In this thread, drop it, now.
[ /Moderating ]
Is IT that bad? Cause and effect…it’s at least half as much the viewers (not meant as a criticism) as the Fox Republican Network itself. Put another way, without the viewership, FRN wouldn’t exist. So what’s driving the viewership (and I’m not going to discredit Fox viewers by assuming that they don’t, on some level at least, very well know they’re watching a Republican-slanted broadcast; so driving them knowingly, consciously) to watch information at such a level of slant and spin?
Answer--political party polarizaion, and something deeper, and very (in the words of David Foster Wallace, whose essay ["The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys and the Shrub"](http://longform.org/posts/the-weasel-twelve-monkeys-and-the-shrub) may be worth reading, though a bit long (*), prescient as it was written of the McCain campaign in 2000 and very telling of how the media "scrum", as he puts it, surrounding these political parties has such a deep role in shaping their image, and expanding--if the media scrum does its job well--the party's power; anyway, in the words of him--) ICKY to this whole bipartisan political agit-prop media feedback loop, that these two parties, in one of the most powerful nations on earth, and by extension able to channel some of that power themselves, can be viewed as autonomous, dominance-seeking entities with very deeply vested interests engaged in their self-perpetuation, and whenever possible, growth and expansion--so much, as a matter fact, to, ironically, the exclusion of productive solution- and idea-generating debate (that for my money is one of the main reasons parties are granted existence in the first place, to air and discuss these ideas in a forum like the US houses of Congress; another important reason IS for the parties to be critical of one another, in a constructive sense, but FRN has taken this beyond healthy checks-and-balances and into the world of self-servingness, control-grabbing, etc.).
(*) One of the main points Wallace suggests (but can't really rigorously prove) is how either political party can scare off independent voters simply by turning the campaign dirty, ie employing various forms of negative campaigning, so as soon as one party starts gaining a greater share of the independent vote, the other party just has to start yelling, shouting, name calling, etc. (which by at least half the folks at Fox "News" are proven pros at), thereby turning off independents, and thereby canceling the first party's advantage in the independent voter demographic. Taken to the natural end, independents are being continually sidelined (strong word, but I'll use it--disenfranchised), because as soon as one party gets an advantage in that demographic, the other can knock the independents out by turning them off with this general ickiness, returning the fight safely to their base.