Heck, listening to the edited tape is strange, because it doesn’t sound like a three-line chant.
NBC fired the editor who did it, which seems appropriate.
GDP growth in the third quarter of 2014 was the best in ten years. It’s currently on a breaking news banner on all legitimate news sites right now. Except one. Guess which?
To be fair, Foxnews.com is reporting it (unlike good jobs numbers under Obama, which never even get reported) in a small headline under their business subheading.
I agreed with you. And btw……………it was Fox that called them out on that. Again as I recall.
However the point is all new outlets shade the news one way or another that reflects the views of those who produce the news. From outright lies, to less offenses.
The news is very subjective by those who produce it, those who analyze and comment on it, and those who consume it.
This thread is filled with Groupthink and confirmation bias, which is why I take all these so called absolute facts with a large grain of salt. Most are not facts at all, but rather subjective opinions.
But real news networks police their own. They correct and apologize when necessary, and fire those that cast doubt on the integrity of the network. Dan Rather can attest to this. Then there’s FOX, where transgressions go uncorrected and nobody ever has to atone for a mistake.
And they keep inviting people like Ann Coulter onto their shows.
The first time you invite Ann Coulter onto your network it’s a travesty. The second time, you’re no longer allowed to call yourself a news network.
Not what I see, if that was the case you would find contradictory evidence to show that FOX behaved properly in the Benghazi issue, by the score **of even a conservative outfit **(not on purpose, but they ended confirming it) FOX dedicated an ungodly amount of time on an issue that did not merit that kind of attention (as confirmed by the Republicans themselves in the latest report) and the information was mostly innuendo and falsehoods.
In science FOX was shown to be actively (by order of the management) dedicated to not report the whole picture of how humans are changing the global climate by doing the worst in the matter of false equivalency by propping up non experts and uninfluencial scientists as a counter to what most the evidence is telling us.
For something to be “so-called”, somebody has to “so-call” it. Let’s see all those quotes using term “absolute fact”, please.
This has got to be the most horse-shit argument there is. It’s lazy and flat out false.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn’t mean their brainwashed or have knee jerk negative reactions to opposing viewpoints.
It’s not groupthink that 1+1 = 2, it’s a fact, and denying it doesn’t make you edgy or an independent thinker, it just makes you an idiot.
Hey davida03801, quick question.
What have other networks done that compare to FOX’s Benghazi coverage?
What evidence can you provide that other networks are as bad as FOX that does anything to match up to the various user surveys performed that all indicate that FOX viewers are somewhere in the range between “Worse than most other networks” and “Worse than not watching news at all”?
What scientific misconduct can you provide that even comes close to FOX’s coverage of Climate Change?
What sort of bias even comes close to FOX harping on the job numbers when they’re bad, but refusing to report them when they’re the best in decades?
C’mon, man. Quit the intellectually lazy shit and give some evidence. We’ve got a massive thread full of examples of FOX twisting the news, lying, hyping up fluff issues and ignoring real news for the purpose of political partisanship, and a whole bunch of similar bullshit. You think everyone else is similarly bad? Well then it should be trivial to go out there and find it. After all, we can find shit FOX fucked up on a damn near daily basis.
…
…Hang on.
…Why was your comparison with NBC from a couple years ago?
We find shit that bad from Fox all the fucking time! You can’t tell me the most recent misdeed by NBC was that long ago, and you still want to compare them!
An overview of how Fox covers right-wing cop killers a bit differently.
It’s not just the stuff they deliberately spin. Sometimes it’s the stuff they choose to pretend doesn’t exist.
Fox Not Interested in GOP Whip Scalise’s Meeting with White Supremacist Group
Yesterday word broke that incoming GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) spoke at an event hosted by European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a white supremacy group founded by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke in 2002. Scalise said he did not know it was a white supremacist group he was addressing, though most wonder how exactly he missed Duke’s connection to the group and the klansman’s outspoken views on blacks, Jews, and more.
The revelation threatens to imperil Scalise’s whip position before he even assumes it, and caused his colleagues to scurry, as fellow GOPers, including Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), had to simultaneously defend one of their congressional leaders while working overtime to distance the party from the politics of the group he addressed. The fallout now even includes Duke threatening to reveal his connections to other lawmakers.
None of that broke through to Fox News, however. The cable network mentioned the Scalise story once since it broke, during the America’s Newsroom 9 a.m. hour, for a brief 20-second segment that included Scalise’s initial response. That’s it so far.
Aw, heck, give him points for at least not having to go back to Dan Rather.
A cite, a cite, gimmee a cite.
As if this is an engineering or math problem that once we all agree on the parameters and then accept the math there is a definitive answer. There are no definitive answers here; otherwise the good folks of the SDMB would place this thread in General Questions.
As for a cite you would accept, that is a Sisyphean task as we won’t agree on the parameters.
As to the parameters we can look at some cites here, or rather where from. All I have to do is read the About page of the websites such as Media Matters or PoliticusUSA plus others and I know where they are coming from. Not groups that are looking to provide analysis from the centerline. They are biased left. I understand you find them a credible unbiased web site, and that is fine for you. Apparently you not understand that others do not share you view on their impartiality.
As said previously stated this is mostly subjective opinions. It is their opinions, accepted by you in your opinion. That does not make it fact. This shows in the litany of abuses you claim. Your assuming your opinion is the settled fact, when each has a counter point.
• You can say this is the best unemployment record in decades and stop harping on that. Others can say the percent of the USA population working in full time job is the lowest in decades and the economy still is awful.
• You wish for Benghazi, and other issues, to be sweep under the rug. Others want them investigated, and no one is doing it.
• Some can say there is an epidemic of police shooting of black youth. Others can say the percentage of shootings by the police is miniscule when compared to black on black killings and that is where the real problem is.
Again these are opinions, not facts
It is my opinion that all broadcast new outlets shade the news to fit their views. I am not saying all news is shaded, but enough news is shaded by all outlets for me to hold that view. That applies to Fox, MSNBC and all the others. Caveat emptor when you’re viewing broadcast news. If your unable to see it for yourself, sorry for you.
What I gather your saying is ONLY Fox shades the news and I disagree with that. MSNBC is just as bad on the other side, and all the rest to some extent. You state of Fox as “twisting the news, lying, hyping up fluff issues and ignoring real news for the purpose of political partisanship, and a whole bunch of similar bullshit.” You exempt MSNBC of that? Laughable if you do.
As for being intellectually lazy well, interesting enough, I feel that about your side of the argument.
Oops, forget this part.
I was struck by the similarity of the 2 events.
Then the call by **bengangmo **for Federal broadcast sanctions. I not recall that from long ago in the NBC case. Not saying it not was called out, saying that I not recall.
As to the time lapse between the events. Actually that never occurred to me, till I see it here. However I do understand as some here need something to insult me with.
No one is investigating Benghazi? I beg to differ. It has been the subject of many congressional investigations, all of which came up with nothing.
What the fuck does black on black violence have to do with anything? Does the existence of black criminals constitute a permission slip for police to murder unarmed black men and children? Yes, crime in the big cities is a problem. It does not justify the police abusing their power.
Yeah, this sure is a real head-scratcher. It is really an impossible task to figure out if Fox is biased.
But there are indeed facts, and based on the facts, you’re factually wrong. For instance, you said that the employment to population ratio is the lowest it has been in decades. This is false. It was 70.9 in 2008 before the crash. In 2009, it was 67.6 and 2011 it reached a low of 66.6. Since then it has increased annually: 67.1 and 67.4 in 2013. This tells the same story as the increasing employment rate. We’re slowly digging out. However, liberals say we should have been increasing employment much more; Krugman et al complain about a jobless recovery. Fox and friends have pushed for a focus on debt reduction instead of job growth, and Obama and the Dems have not been strong enough to tell them to fuck off.
By the way, in the 8 years preceding 2008, the employment to population ratio fell from 74.1 to 70.9.
Why do you think you are ignorant of the facts regarding the actual employment to population ratio? I suspect Fox News.
You also claim that “nobody” is investigating Benghazi. This is not only factually wrong, but spectacularly ignorant of the basics of current events. Benghazi has been investigated ad nauseum.
Here is a link that refers not only to the basics of a major investigation, but also shows that partisanship had a lot to do with being ignorant of the results. Republicans were more likely to conclude that the investigation found wrongdoing, when it in fact vindicated the actions of US governmental officials:
I blame Fox News for this ignorance.
As to your last point, it’s nonsensical. Police shootings of black people and black citizens shooting of black people are not an either or situation. Further, it is illegal for black citizens to shoot other black citizens.
And yet, here you are, spouting obviously incorrect facts without apparently having checked them out. Fox News tells people lies, and then people go out and share their misinformation. That’s the problem.
I wonder - do you care that you were factually and obviously incorrect in just about everything you said?
By the way, davida03801, I do sincerely want to know if you care about being factually incorrect. I’d also be interested to hear your thoughts about why that might have been and whether you might do anything different in the future.
See, I absolutely hate getting facts wrong, and when it happens due to some other source, I am much less likely to stop going to that source.
However, Fox is wrong constantly, but that just does not seen to trouble most Fox viewers.