Is Fox News really all that bad?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@davida03801

tomndeb

Concerning Watergate the point being the WaPo pushed and pushed and they kept finding things that not add up, and worked more. When it reached a critical mass everyone else did jump on the bandwagon, and your point to that is correct.

Here is what did not happen. They did not rely on the Congressional investigations, and say, “Oh well there is no more to see here, guess we will move along” Can you honestly say that is the modus operandi of the media now ?

In Watergate, there was no congressional investigation before the media had broken the story. In Benghazi, it immediately became a political football, and investigations were held immediately. And also worth noting, the congressional investigation got it right on Watergate. This wasn’t some great example of Congress trying to cover up misdeeds and the press revealing that something had gone wrong.

Is there more to Benghazi, or any thing else ? Hell if I know, but what I can tell you for sure it is not being pursued in the media.

I’ll tell you this much - if there was, and the republicans in congress didn’t find it, it’s almost certainly gone down the memory hole. Again, the news media was all over this story. The most obvious example I can name is this one; if you want any others, I encourage you to look for yourself, because it is blatantly obvious that you never have. What do you expect them to do? Sent reporters to sift through the rubble two years after the fact, after countless investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing?

All I see here is bitching and moaning about Fox said this, and FOX said that and oh my what an error that is.

Speaking of things you didn’t spend much time looking at… No. The bitching and moaning involves:

• hundreds of examples of incredibly egregious lies
• statistical evidence pointing out that FOX viewers are among the least-informed on a great many political and scientific issues (including many issues where they are less informed than people who get no news at all)
• Demonstrations of a persistent partisan slant that is mirrored in virtually every lie they tell
• Citations of fact-checking organization profiles of the network, which while not perfect, provide a fairly decent metric on how the network fares when it comes to statements worth fact-checking - in other words, statements of factual dissent.

All of which you hand-wave away.

Meanwhile the entire rest of the media is taking a leave of absence from their job and no one gives a crap about that.

Because they’re not going to spend more time investigating an issue that has been investigated multiple times by an incredibly hostile opposition party, and, oh, themselves?

Look, I’m sorry, but sooner or later, after the answer you want fails to come up for the 100th time, it’s time to accept that you’re wrong. Eventually, you can’t just blame it on the investigation not being thorough enough. To me, it seems like you are at no point willing to admit that there was no scandal in Benghazi. Just like FOX News, which I’m willing to bet is not exactly a coincidence.

One side can say the economy is improving and look at the unemployment numbers that show that point. That is a correct statement.

The other side can say well the unemployment numbers do not include all who have given up looking for work. Perhaps in the current times a better indicator is to % employed and that is the lowest in decades, and that is also correct.

They are not mutually exclusive. To say that the 1st is the only correct fact and the other is a deliberate lie is being more than a bit disingenuous

Yes, but the point that you continue to miss is that FOX only ever tells one side of that story. When they’re bad (or even just not stellar) they make it out to be the worst thing ever, as if Obama is personally responsible for each unemployed person. And when the numbers are legitimately, undeniably good, they bury the story and ignore it completely. When something is front page news on almost every network, but one network ignores it, it might be worth asking what’s going on.

[rock_party]

It’s way more than just bad “reporting.”

Take Benghazi. Not only did they report dishonestly, they had literally thousands of hours of panel shows about it, about WHY Obama would let this happen, discussing WHY he let those innocent people die, where was he at the time, and of course calling for his impeachment.

That’s not “reporting.”

And the no go zones. They spent HOURS talking about WHY there are no go zones in Europe (Socialism, the nanny state, weak and progressive) And of course Obama. And it’s just a matter of time before there are no go zones over here, too. They didn’t just “report” on the no go zones, they used it as propaganda.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@davida03801

**Hentor the barbariar **

What I said on the economy is correct, you’re getting way to specific for the general point I am making.

I’m evaluating your evolving claims by referring to the actual data.

One side can say the economy is improving and look at the unemployment numbers that show that point. That is a correct statement.

The other side can say well the unemployment numbers do not include all who have given up looking for work. Perhaps in the current times a better indicator is to % employed and that is the lowest in decades, and that is also correct.

No. That is patently false. Three years ago, it was the lowest. According to the metric you offered, and to the data you provided.

I’ll also note that you are on your third argument. First, you asserted that the current employment to population ratio is the lowest in decades. It is not. It is up a full percentage point over its lowest point, which was 3 years ago. This is consistent with the improving economy.

Your second variation was to claim you originally meant that the employment to population ratio of 2011 was lower than that of 1984 (well, actually 1985, but you just got confused about which row of the data you were looking at).

Now you’re on your third iteration: arguing that a different metric is better to gauge the current economy.

When your argument fails in light of actual data, it’s best to acknowledge that and move on. Unlike Fox.

I’m still curious if you ever feel like your source of info is letting you down.

[tomndebb]

@davida03801

tomndeb

Concerning Watergate the point being the WaPo pushed and pushed and they kept finding things that not add up, and worked more. When it reached a critical mass everyone else did jump on the bandwagon, and your point to that is correct.

Here is what did not happen. They did not rely on the Congressional investigations, and say, “Oh well there is no more to see here, guess we will move along” Can you honestly say that is the modus operandi of the media now ?

Is there more to Benghazi, or any thing else ? Hell if I know, but what I can tell you for sure it is not being pursued in the media.

I understand full well it is budgets, etc driving the demise of that. Again that is a huge problem in my opinion. Personally I want a healthy 4th estate to keep the government on its toes, and I want them to be an equal investigator of all malfeasance left and right. To me the decision of what is NOT investigated, or covered, is just as egregious as all you complain about.

All I see here is bitching and moaning about Fox said this, and FOX said that and oh my what an error that is. Meanwhile the entire rest of the media is taking a leave of absence from their job and no one gives a crap about that.

Pretty much entirely wrong.

The Congressional investigation simply confirmed what the genuine news media had already investigated and reported. There were a number of surprises and mistakes made by various individuals and groups, but there was no conspiracy leading up to the event or in reporting it. That is what responsible news organizations reported after investigating the situation and their investigations are what the Congressional inquiry confirmed. In contrast, Fox continued to make misleading suggestions–without doing ten minutes of investigation–even after Congress established that the reports of the genuine news departments were correct. (There is a parallel in the Fox News continued “linking” of Saddam Hussein/Iraq to the WTC/Pentagon attacks for years after President Bush conceded that there was no connection.,)

[Velocity]

People sometimes roll their eyes in fatigue at truth, even though it’s true.

[jasg]

Well, the Guardian just reported that Fox has joined the media arm of ISIS by posting the latest barbarism video.

Facebook and YouTube have deleted and banned the video but ISIS supporters are sharing the Fox link instead.

This seems pretty bad to me.

[TonySinclair]

@jasg

Well, the Guardian just reported that Fox has joined the media arm of ISIS by posting the latest barbarism video.

Facebook and YouTube have deleted and banned the video but ISIS supporters are sharing the Fox link instead.

This seems pretty bad to me.

It’s worse than you think. When they said unedited video, I (and probably every other sane person) assumed that meant that they showed the actual burning. I was wrong.

They did show the actual burning, but that’s not what “unedited” meant. It meant that they showed the complete ISIS video, which was essentially an infomercial consisting of about 20 minutes of ISIS propaganda, and a minute of the guy burning.

So they’ve given ISIS millions of dollars worth of free advertising, and probably helped its recruiting efforts, especially in the West, immeasurably. Just unbelievable. I can only imagine what the right wingnuts would say if MSNBC showed this. It will be interesting to see what they’ll say to Fox doing it.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Velocity

People sometimes roll their eyes in fatigue at truth, even though it’s true.

What, exactly, are you talking about here?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Velocity

People sometimes roll their eyes in fatigue at truth, even though it’s true.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

What, exactly, are you talking about here?

Something about the exception proving the rule, I guess.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

This is hilarious:

John Stamos’ Left Ear. No need to berate me on the congressional investigations.

I’m not debating issues things here off topic. I simply made the point that not all agree with the points being made here. There are others viewpoints besides yours.

You were berated but not because you said something off-topic, you were berated because you were ignorant of the FACT (not an opinion) that there have been numerous Benghazi investigations that you seem ignorant about.

Frankly I don’t believe you that you felt there was a meaningful distinction between congressional investigations and media investigations, but even if I am going to be charitable and believe that you were not ignorant of the many, many Congressional investigations from both sides of the aisle, you are then admitting ignorance of the fact that Benghazi was a topic on almost every news outlet.

Hell, 60 Minutes did a huge story on it and, despite the problems that show has had in recent years (including on that story itself), they are the epitome of investigative journalism.

That’s ultimately why I don’t believe you. Fox News is not exactly known for investigative journalism, are they? Can you name anything investigative that they did? Are you aware that there is a big difference between investigative journalism and simply covering the news?

Of course there are other viewpoints besides mine but I like that I can back mine up with facts when possible. Such as with regard to Benghazi in particular and, more broadly, Fox News. A viewpoint that is not based in facts and in fact runs counter to the facts at hand is not one I would proudly and dogmatically hold.

[Trinopus]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

. . . you were berated because you were ignorant of the FACT (not an opinion) that there have been numerous Benghazi investigations that you seem ignorant about. . . .

It would be difficult to be ignorant of investigations that he was not ignorant of…

(NM, just a minor grammar snark.)

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Are you saying that I was redundant? That I said the same thing twice? That I was repetitive? That I reiterated something? That I repeated myself?

[tomndebb]

It was like déjà vu all over again.

[dropzone]

Are Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young touring again?

[Johnny_L.A]

@dropzone

Are Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young touring again?

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Old?

[BigAppleBucky]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I found this interesting. I was driving to work and I passed the area with several gas stations where the gas is cheapest on my route and noticed that the price went up past $2 a gallon.

I was curious so I googled it on my phone when I got to work. Here’s the screenshot:

https://fbcdn-photos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-0/10471569_10155177853330597_7408373952660997212_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=ee5d7ae2059d4878edcc7b12a6f6eeaf&oe=554F708A&__gda__=1432784623_cb143b203cbf2a574499c14d6fb0764a

Notice anything?

But that’s a good thing, right? Back this past fall Faux was saying falling gas prices were hurting the economy. Remember?

With regard to Faux, I think good common sense would just get people to view it as the propaganda arm of the Republican party and to know that whatever they’re showing you today is what the Republicans have decided on pushing currently.

[BigAppleBucky]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Fox News taken to task for poor ethics by [del]Liberal[/del] [del]watchdog[/del] [del]thinktank[/del] [del]lobbyist organization[/del] Vermont High School journalism students.

Awesome Linky

That was hilarious. Not surprising, but very funny.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Johnny_L.A

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Old?

Crusty, Still, Naps and Old.

[GIGObuster]

Even Cracked knows the score:

4 Terrible Lessons the Brian Williams Scandal Taught Us

Being trusted is a network newsperson’s whole gig, Fox News excluded.

Not so with Internet news providers! When it comes to the Internet, it’s better to be fast than right, and retractions rarely happen. We got an apology from Williams because the expectations are a mile high, like his eyebrows.

Meanwhile, Page Six, The Blaze, Gawker, and Fox News latched on to the Williams story by reporting that veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw wanted Williams’ head on a platter. It was cool because they cited an “inside source.” The “outside source,” named “Tom Brokaw,” went through the trouble of issuing a statement essentially saying, “Nope! I never asked for Williams’ dismissal!” a day after the headlines. So, obviously, Page Six, The Blaze, Gawker, and Fox News backed up and retracted inflammatory and unsubstantiated rumors, right?

As of six days later, no they did not. It doesn’t matter anymore. Fast beats right, and retractions are imaginary monsters that exist only on TV.

[Truman_Burbank]

My right-wing cousin reposted this on Facebook:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/12/radical-brownies-new-politicized-girls-troop-focuses-social-justice

Radical brown girlscouts, being taught to hate!

The comments are, of course, rabid. So I fact-checked it, and the FIRST hit on Google is this:
Radical Brownies: Black Panther Twist On Girl Scouts Sparks Backlash

Literally the first sentence is that these are not girlscouts “Radical Brownies are young girls in a new, non-Girl Scout troop in Oakland, California.”
Yes, Fox is that bad. Still. Again. Ever and ever, may truthiness prevail, amen.