Former Fox anchor admits it’s a straight up propaganda outlet.
This is pretty funny: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/974450928714747906
Fox lambasting Obama for reaching out to dictators and trump being hailed for … reaching out to dictators.
I really cannot tell the difference between fox and Colbert’s Real News Tonight, anymore.
Fox News is hard at work protecting us from the growing scandal of female teacher abuse of men
30% of their sex abuse stories are of this category. Actually 9% of teacher abuse cases involve women.
In a similar vein, there is outrage over NY Mag’s cover depicting a fat, naked president bulging out around a slender podium. Body shaming, it is! Unacceptable!
From his email to colleagues:
The same retired Army officer who called Obama a “pussy” on the network before has now concluded that Fox News has gone too far.
Wow, you rocked my world.
Before Bush II was elected, I often wondered whether the commentators on Fox News were idiots, or just so unprincipled that they would be paid to spout bullshit.
After Bush II was elected, it was pretty clear that nobody could be that dumb, they had to know they were on a propaganda network rather than a news network.
But now it appears that this Peters character really was an idiot. He would have to be, to have been proud of his association with Fox before now.
Awesome — my favorite line from the letter “ Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the nothingburger has been covered with Russian dressing all along.”
Then he goes on to talk about how he feels, as an intelligence professional, that the Steele dossier rings true.
Ralph Peters is a blood thirsty war monger in the same vein as Bill Kristol. Trump doesn’t play the neocon game and Peters can’t stand it.
I wasn’t aware Trump ran FoxNews. Indeed, sometimes it seems to be the other way around.
Lol, that was something of a slip, eh?
Why would anyone associate fair and balanced fox news with the president?
In an effort to distract viewers from Trump’s hooker lawsuits and White House chaos, Fox News has spent the last week devoting tons of coverage to the Austin bomber. You know they were hoping he would turn out to be non-white and/or Muslim. But it turns out he’s a white Christian who posted rants against abortion and gay marriage.
Virtually every other news outlet has reported this. I can find nothing on Fox about his anti-abortion stance, and only one article that mentions he posted about gay marriage, without saying that he was against it.
I caught a bit of Fox News on satellite radio during my morning drive. The host was having a minor fit over Mount Holyoke College apparently banning use of the word "women"as being gender-fascist or some such. She kept pronouncing the school’s name as Mount Ho-lee-oh-kee (instead of Ho-lee-oak).
If the college is now insisting on that pronunciation, I can see being a mite pissed.
Trump just appointed a rabid neocon as his national security advisor. Trump plays whatever game is good for Trump.
The Fox News angle has been that they are reporting real news while the rest of the media obsesses over the Russia non-story.
While I would like to see Mueller indict Trump yesterday, I have to admit that CNN and MSNBC really don’t talk about anything else.
Yeah, that was a big disappointment. John Bolton is just as bad as Peters. Let’s see how long he lasts. For all of Trump’s faults, he has been very tempered in his action military actions.
At least he’s honest. Peters may be a hawk, but consider how different he is from today’s Republicans, who, ideologically, are nothing. They have only one interest; personal gain. They’ll sell their own constituents to China as scrap.
It has nothing to do with the topic, but back in the 80s Peters wrote novels, Tom Clancy type novels. I read two; “Red Army,” a fictional Warsaw Pact-NATO war from the perspective of Soviet soldiers; and “The War in 2020,” a fictional war in, well, 2020. (His future war was a bit off the reality of today’s warfare.)
Peters’s novels were WAY, way better than Tom Clancy’s. With the exception of “the Hunt for Red October,” Clancy couldn’t hold a candle to him. The Peters novels are much better edited, crisp, move along, and have believable, human characters who aren’t Supermen or ethnic stereotypes.
Holy crap, I never realized that he was THAT Peters. I love that book!
A college that only admits women is worried about calling women “women” because some may be gender fluid or something?
Sometimes it is hard to be a liberal.
Personally I don’t see the appeal of outrage over “Political correctness gone mad!” stories.
They’re almost always exaggerated or outright false, and even when they’re true, why should I care?
If some college somewhere decides not to use the word “women” any more in its official correspondance and instead go with something harmless, I dunno, “snuggluffs” or something, why should I give a shit?