Hahahahaha!
Emphasis mine. Where do you get your news, exactly?
I’m not even asking for “definitive proof”. I’m asking for things that other networks do that compare to FOX. I’m not even looking for equivalency - just something. The best example you provided was from several years back, and while it was indeed bad, NBC apologized for it and fired the person responsible. What else do you have? What do these other networks do that’s comparable? In fact, I gave you specific examples of things you could look for! You even quoted me doing so!
I don’t claim that they’re unbiased. I merely claim that they are credible. I base this on their track record of accurate coverage. You don’t have to be unbiased to be an accurate news source. If FOX was merely biased, but honest, this would be a completely different discussion altogether! Is Media Matters wrong in any of the cited articles? Then show us! But don’t just claim “it’s biased, therefore untrustworthy”. Simply because a news organization has a bend one way or the other shouldn’t proclude it from having accurate, trustworthy coverage. Exception: FOX, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc…
Except that here’s the thing. FOX harped and harped on the U6 measure for unemployment… Until it stopped being bad. And then it complained that it wasn’t a “real” measure for unemployment. You can’t have it both ways.
This is absolutely, unequivocally false, as John Stamos pointed out. We’ve gone through 7 investigations of this non-controversy, and all of them came up with the same simple result: there’s nothing here. There’s no hay to be made, no scandal to be unraveled. The administration acted to the best of its ability, they did not intentionally lie to us, and there was no “stand down” order. At this point, the only “scandal” is the refusal of outlets like FOX to give it up. The fact that, on the day where every other news network was touting some of the best job numbers in decades, FOX decided its headline was going to be “BENGHAZI!!!” again, is just icing on the cake.
And you know what? I don’t want Benghazi swept under the rug. If there was a scandal, the American people had a right to know about it. But here’s the thing, the ever-crucial detail that FOX apparently missed the first 7 times it was investigated (our tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen!): there was no scandal. No stand-down order, no platoon in Tripoli that could have saved them, no scandalous lie about the cause. Literally none of the claims hold water. At this point, FOX’s ludicrous interview with Lindsey Graham was the equivalent of MSNBC bringing on Richard Gage to talk about how we “should demand further independent investigations” of the 9/11 attacks.
Except that you’re actually wrong here. Whether or not anyone is investigating Benghazi is a factual statement. Whether or not the employment record is a good thing is a factual statement. They aren’t just opinions. It’s like if I said, “It’s my opinion that the earth is 6000 years old” or “It’s my opinion that Tarmogoyf is a mediocre card” (shoutouts to IhsanTheCursed and Clem) - calling it an opinion doesn’t make me not wrong!
And FOX has an obligation to get it right.
And they don’t.
MSNBC has a leftward tilt. FOX has a rightward tilt and a penchant for dishonest manipulation.
You are wrong. Read my previous paragraph.
Well, how 'bout those citations, then? I’ll repeat myself:
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?
Really? What’s lazy about it? I noticed a pattern of FOX news dishonestly distorting the news, and found a massive pile of evidence to support that claim - even going so far as to find the most objective metric possible (information level of audience) and examining that. I have not noticed the same degree of failure coming from the other cable networks, although I am absolutely open to being shown evidence.
Meanwhile, what have you done? You’ve given pathetic, factually incorrect excuses for FOX’s behavior, and complained about not being able to provide solid evidence. Well, fun fact: we’ve got tons. From individual reports of FOX lying about events, fudging graphs, “accidentally” writing the wrong letter after a representative’s name (each “error” seeming to benefit one political party, mind you), to large-scale survey of audience information levels. Who’s being intellectually lazy here, again?
This forum needs a like button.
I’m starting to worry that davida03801 might not return. It is too bad, because I’m intrigued by the incongruity of someone who both references Sisyphus and makes a claim that nobody has investigated Benghazi.
I also realized that I neglected to take on his claim about the economy, and I noted, in my quote from BPC, that I messed up and left “stop” in where I meant to change it to “keep.”
So be it. I think the issue of the economy and employment is very fertile ground for examining conservative hypocrisy. It probably should get a separate thread, but Obama should be a Republican poster child on that issue. Job growth under his watch has been 6.7 million in the private sector, but NEGATIVE 600,000 in the public sector.
Compare this to his predecessor: At the same point in Bush’s tenure, he had added 3.1 million private sector and 1.2 million public sector jobs.
see The Obama Bounce - The New York Times
I would be interested to see how many Fox viewers would know anything about those trends at all.
Fact-Checking site finds Fox News tells the truth 18% of the time
Even MSNBC, which I think everyone agrees is as close to a left-wing equivalent of Fox, told the truth 31% of the time – more than half-again as often as Fox.
Well, what he said was that no one “is doing it,” not that no one “has done it.”
Of course, even there, he’s wrong: there are lots of people investigating Benghazi right now: independent researchers, historians, journalists, documentary writers, etc.
Fox news says you can tell who the bad guys are by their skin color.
While that conclusion matches my impression of FOX, to be fair to them that is not at all a useful metric. It has as much to do with which “facts” they choose to investigate as it does how honest the network is. I am sure FOX makes hundreds of statements a day as mundane as, “This is my guest, XXX,” that are correct. To make the ratios at all comparable you would have define a threshold for statements to be investigated, and I can’t see how you could come up with an objective way to do that.
Two for the price of one, actually, although the other one is less brainfart and more insidious lie :
Yeaaah, about that. France has had militarized actual military personnel patrolling Paris and the major cities since 1996, following a major terrorist incident. Loaded assault rifles at the ready and everything.
So, y’know.
And on a personal note I gotta say, it’s always *weird *to get home from uni or some party and run into a handful of Fantassins de Marines in woodland combat gear (and it’s always woodland, too, for some reason - inconfuckingspicuous in the subway, right ?), slowly strolling up the quay. It’s been what, 20 years they’ve been doing this ? Still doesn’t feel right or normal.
Fox News’ latest: Apparently Birmingham in the UK is a no-go area for Muslims and in parts of London religious Muslim police go round enforcing sharia!
How do you explain these guys? They ‘participated in online chat discussions… that were monitored by the FBI,’ ‘discussed using guerilla war tactics and planned to launch attacks against a metro Atlanta police station and several government agencies…’ and ‘attempted to recruit other individuals to join them and to carry out similar operations…’
Just look at their skin tone!
Gotta watch out for those dusky terrorist types, like Anders Breivik, or the Tsarnaev brothers.
As someone that spent five years in Birmingham studying (as well as being from only twenty miles away), that went around my friends like wildfire. My favourite Tweet about it was “As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang.”
I would not classify Fox News as a news organization, it’s more like the National Enquirer on steroids with only one side of the story given.
My favourite was “All the refuse collectors in Birmingham are Bin Laden.”
I saw another story that the network apologized 4 different times, with 4 different news anchors, throughout the day.
Now I wonder if this particular bullshit will stop. It wasn’t just this one guy saying it the one time. The whole “no go zone” is a meme they’ve been harping on for months.
Well, hell is cooling a little today. It seems though that only public world wide shame does works against FOX, the real test would be if other sources of information for the right wing come clean also. But as this thread shows, this is just one item, they would need to apologize many times for what they are doing with many other issues.
They have to walk this fine line, where they have to hyperventilate to work up their viewers, but not be overtly lampoonable in such a way that they may appear laughable to their own viewership. They crossed that line this time in such a way that the international community was able to point and laugh so hard because of such an obvious job of trolling, that they had to walk it back.
The sad part is that their viewership will see this as evidence of their even handedness, so this is really a win/win decision to apologize.
This is absolutely correct. The essential schitck and the business model for Fox News is basically serving up a constant sack of lies, half-truths and distortions to reinforce the delusions of their far-right viewership. What I would argue is that this event is not in any way particularly unusual or extreme for them. It’s not – they do it all the time, as the many examples in this thread illustrate so well. Their miscalculation with this Muslim thing was just that it garnered so much international attention, and from senior levels of leadership in major countries, that they couldn’t just ignore the backlash like they usually do, or attribute it to a lib’rul conspiracy.
Most of their lies and distortions pertain to domestic politics, so that evidence of their mendacity comes from domestic news sources and the likes of Media Matters, FAIR, and major journalism institutions like the Columbia School of Journalism – and of course the rubes that make up their viewership are already convinced that all these institutions are comprised of whiny liberals who just can’t tolerate opposing points of view!
Very well put. You can’t have an intelligent debate with a right wingnut, because as soon as you mention anything that can be sourced to the NYT or CBS, let alone Media Matters, he assumes that (at best) you’re being duped by the “lamestream media,” and (at worst) that everything you say is a lie.