# Is it ok to dismiss someone for watching FOX? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593 "2010-07-13T21:21:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/141 "2010-07-15T02:21:01Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I can take a news channel somewhat seriously if it makes a mistake regarding a story about a Power Ranger. A say somewhat because I would think a news channel has better things to talk about, right or wrong. But there’s no way I can take a news channel seriously when it asks me to take Ted Nugent’s declarations on the constitutionality of Obama’s policies seriously. Ted Nugent! Your confirming my point. You haven’t told me anything about the accuracy of Fox News, but you’ve told me what you think of Ted Nugent. CNN has had PETA and Al Sharpton on. I don’t like them, but I recognize my bias. I don’t let the fact that I’m being exposed to viewpoints I find ludicrous and stupid color my perceptions negatively against CNN. CNN is valuable because it shows those to me, just as Fox News should be valuable by showing you Ted Nugent. What’s wrong with Ted Nugent? He has been wildly successful in a number of varied venues. A rock singer, gun advocate, conservation advocate, hunting advocate, political advocate, his own brand of food, etc etc. I’m sure he has been more successful and effective than you have been. I’m sure he’s accomplished more (no offense intended. Al Sharpton has me beat, too.) Why would you be dismissive of Ted Nugent? Why would you be dismissive of a show that aired his viewpoints? Is it not the role of the news to inform you of things that you do not know? It’s not particularly valuable for me, because I know and understand Ted Nugent’s viewpoints. For you, it should be pretty cool. I’m always seeing Bono, or George Clooney, or Oprah, or any one of 10,000 other celebrities showing up on the mainstream media espousing liberal viewpoints, and it doesn’t bother me. Probably you see that too, and it doesn’t even register. But God forbid they put up Ted Nugent… on Fox News. I mean, there are live five conservative celebrities that aren’t afraid to admit it, and 10,000 liberals (I hyperbolize,) and you get pissed off at Ted Nugent? C’mon man. You need more Ted Nugent. You need to expose yourself to dissenting contrarian viewpoints. Challenge your worldview. It’s symptomatic of dogmatism when you view a a dissenting viewpoint, a challenge to your worldview as an insult rather than an opportunity. Don’t hate the playah, hate the game. > [@](#): > > Fox News is drivel. Republican wank material. Its propaganda merchants openly support torture, thus they are scumbags. I can’t believe anyone can sit through an entire show by one of their quote-entertainers-unquote. I read that as “I am dismissive and intolerant of those who do not share my views.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/142 "2010-07-15T02:28:13Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I read that as “I am dismissive and intolerant of those who do not share my views.” Of course, because you are unwilling to think critically about this. Look, I appreciate the effort you throw into rambling posts that have a lot of words but no content. You wanna actually make insightful contributions to this thread or do you want to repeat your thesis over and over again? FOX News reports lies. They aren’t journalists. This is a fact and you are blindly ignoring it because it does not fit your silly world view. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/143 "2010-07-15T02:30:43Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Viewpoints contrary to your own are valuable and should be sought. That is right, view points, unfortunately Fox news claims on many occasions that they are facts. > [@Scylla](#): > > A liberal that is dismissive of of Fox News because of its bias is revealing his or herself to be foolish and unreliable. That works only if one assumes FOX news was born yesterday 🙂 Unfortunately there are many examples on record (Besides their mendacity on the CRU Climategate “scandal”) why in most cases one should dismiss FOX. > **[NewsHounds](https://www.newshounds.us/)** This very recent example show how even the news part of FOX is becoming like the opinion part. [http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/13/megyn\_kelly\_advances\_fox\_franken\_illegal\_victory\_meme\_uses\_it\_to\_further\_smear\_doj.php](http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/13/megyn_kelly_advances_fox_franken_illegal_victory_meme_uses_it_to_further_smear_doj.php) > [@Scylla](#): > > Most of the very smart and successful and effective people that I know are surprisingly open to ideas antagonistic to their viewpoints. That reality check is what makes their viewpoints accurate. > > I think that being open to viewpoints and sources antagonistic to one’s beliefs or to those that one has a bias against is one of the strongest indicators of intelligence, intellectual honesty, and effectiveness… because it takes all three of those to do it. Once again, you are talking about view points, if only FOX news would clarify that. [http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/13/megyn\_kelly\_advances\_fox\_franken\_illegal\_victory\_meme\_uses\_it\_to\_further\_smear\_doj.php](http://www.newshounds.us/2010/07/13/megyn_kelly_advances_fox_franken_illegal_victory_meme_uses_it_to_further_smear_doj.php) > [@](#): > > As I have previously noted, Fox reinforces its propaganda messages throughout the day. This new narrative about evil, librul voter chicanery was advanced by Fox “News” anchor, Megyn Kelly who never misses an opportunity to report on the newest outrage by evil libruls. Looking very intense, Megyn stared into the camera and spoke of the Fox News “exclusive” about “stunning accusations that could shake things up in the Senate.” She described how a conservative Minnesota group claims that convicted felons placed “illegal votes” in the “Al Franken/Norm Coleman Senate standoff.” Her “fair & balanced” guest was conservative John Fund, who “did a lot of work” on this case, from the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal. > Fund articulated the points made by this conservative group. He claimed that the Minnesota Secretary of State didn’t flag the illegal votes and engaged in a “dereliction of duty.” Fund continued to malign the Secretary of State by claiming that he was an “ACORN supported candidate.” (Oh, snap – scary black ACORN people). For good measure, he threw in George Soros’ name with ACORN. (Oh, double snap!). Fund continued his unsubstantiated character assassination with the comment that “there are accusations that he has not been particularly playing it on the level.” (And who is making these “accusations,” John? Looks like you’re not exactly “playing it on the level.” > > Megyn then used “accusations” as a segue back into the Black Panther case. She referenced her discussion with Kirsten Powers about “allegations” made by J Christian Adams and said that “another allegation that that he has made about the DOJ is that there has been a mandate issued by Julie Fernandez not to enforce that section of the law that requires the purging of ineligible voters from the voter roles saying ‘we don’t want to worry about that because it doesn’t increase turnout’.” Fund caught the scripted ball and ran with it, saying that this explained why “when the conservative group took their complaint to the Justice Department, they never heard back.” Kelly did note that this group initially made the complaint during the Bush administration. Fund said that the problem is that DOJ employees are “very ideological” and that “there are certain kinds of cases they like to bring and certain cases that they don’t like to bring." To Kelly’s question of where this is going, he replied that “every state has felons who are ineligible to vote; but there’s very little enforcement.” He alleged that “nobody has been prosecuted.” Kelly said “if they’re not pursuing any cases, to force the purging of ineligible voters from the roles, we’ll probably see more cases like that.” When Fund claimed that “they won’t comment on this,” she repeated, “they won’t comment on that specific allegation other than they denied the earlier allegation by J Christian Adams.” > > Comment: Can we talk hit piece on the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Department of Justice? But what was really clever about this propaganda piece was that Kelly was able to cleverly weave, into the narrative, an allegation and right wing meme based on hearsay. (J Christian Adams’ commentary on right wing “Pajamas Media” rather than personal knowledge.) And if Megyn Kelly were a “fair & balanced” “news” person, “she might have mentioned, regarding the Minnesota election, that "Initial reviews by state and local officials, however, indicate that the problem may be far smaller than the group found in a recent study being championed by the Minnesota Republican Party.” It appeared that she made no effort to contact anybody who would challenge her and Fund’s narrative as Kelly accepted everything Fund said. And despite the Cavuto marked title of the Fox video “Al Franken Elected By Felons,” the actual report does not make the claim. In fact, neither Coleman nor Franken were mentioned. And “shaking things up in the Senate” - Wishful thinking, Megyn? I think the real Cavuto marked “question” should be “Megyn Kelly Fair & Balanced?” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/144 "2010-07-15T02:44:13Z")
Gigobuster: Newshounds is antagonistic to Foxnews. Normally, that would make it valuable as a dissenting view, just as Foxnews is valuable because it is antagonistic to mainstream media. However, I find it less so. Fox news is valuable in that presents an alternate dissenting viewpoint. Newshounds really presents no new viewpoint at all. It’s stated purpose is not to bring something new to the table, but to dismiss a dissenting viewpoint from the corpus of mainstream news. “we watch Fox New so you don’t have to.” My argument is that a categorically dismissive viewpoint is unworthy is hardly discredited by a cite to categorically dismissive viewpoint. If they were presenting something new or different that would be interesting or useful, but as simple naked bias without content I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get out of it that I’m not already seeing from the mainstream media. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/145 "2010-07-15T02:58:51Z")
Gigobuster: Similarly, I don’t see a lot of value in this cite: [http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/](http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/) It doesn’t offer anything but a dismissal. This is quite a bit more egregious than your cite, but nonetheless similar. If I don’t like CNN that will tell me what I want to hear. If I do, or am undecided and rational about it, than I would realize that all it does is provide confirmation bias. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/146 "2010-07-15T02:59:00Z")
Fox News goes beyond presenting “viewpoints,” and actually falsifies the news. It intentionally reports falshoods, falsifies video and weaves crackpot (and more and more frequently outright racist) conspiracy narratives out of nothing, and it does those things in what is ostensibly supposed to be it’s hard news segments. There is no liberal counterpart to Fox (no, MSNBC is not equivalent. It leans left editorially, but not 100%. It still offers strong conservative dissenters and it doesn’t falsify the news or oresent faked video like Fox routinely does, and does on purpose), There is absolutely nothing close to it on the networks. It is not possible to maintain intellectual credibility while trying to deny that Fox News is uniquely pernicious and dishonest among major news outlets. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/147 "2010-07-15T03:00:05Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Gigobuster: > > Newshounds is antagonistic to Foxnews. Normally, that would make it valuable as a dissenting view, just as Foxnews is valuable because it is antagonistic to mainstream media. However, I find it less so. > > Fox news is valuable in that presents an alternate dissenting viewpoint. Newshounds really presents no new viewpoint at all. It’s stated purpose is not to bring something new to the table, but to dismiss a dissenting viewpoint from the corpus of mainstream news. “we watch Fox New so you don’t have to.” My argument is that a categorically dismissive viewpoint is unworthy is hardly discredited by a cite to categorically dismissive viewpoint. > > If they were presenting something new or different that would be interesting or useful, but as simple naked bias without content I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get out of it that I’m not already seeing from the mainstream media. Wait a second, was that a whoosh? So Foxnews is good because it is a dissenting voice. Newshounds is bad because it is a dissenting voice. Foxnews can say and do what ever they want, because they are antagonistic to the mainstream media. But Newshounds can’t, because by criticizing an organization that is criticizing the mainstream media, they become the main stream media. The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At what point does Foxnews become mainstream media? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/148 "2010-07-15T03:01:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Fox news is valuable in that presents an alternate dissenting viewpoint. Newshounds really presents no new viewpoint at all. It’s stated purpose is not to bring something new to the table, but to dismiss a dissenting viewpoint from the corpus of mainstream news. “we watch Fox New so you don’t have to.” My argument is that a categorically dismissive viewpoint is unworthy is hardly discredited by a cite to categorically dismissive viewpoint. That would be valid if they claimed that fox should be dismissed just because they say so, in this case they also point at good reasons why FOX should be dismissed. > [@Scylla](#): > > If they were presenting something new or different that would be interesting or useful, but as simple naked bias without content I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get out of it that I’m not already seeing from the mainstream media. Well, I thought that you would follow your standards and accept a dissenting viewpoint, so never-mind that. 🙂 You are missing where I’m coming from though, opinions are OK, however when a news channel attempts to pass opinion as facts… That is where me an many others notice that your points here are not on the money. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/149 "2010-07-15T03:03:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It doesn’t offer anything but a dismissal. That is not accurate as the quote (coming from the same link) shows that they did bother to check with other sources in Minnesota if the news bit did hold. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/150 "2010-07-15T03:07:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That would be valid if they claimed that fox should be dismissed just because they say so, in this case they also point at good reason why FOX should be dismissed. > Well, I thought that you would follow your standards and accept a dissenting viewpoint, so never-mind that. 🙂 > > You are missing where I’m coming from though, opinions are OK, however when a news channel attempts to pass opinion as facts… That is where me an many others notice that your points here are not on the money. Actually, the real problem here is not Fox, but it’s followers. FNC is candy for gullible conservatives. A smart conservative recognizes this and calls bullshit, it’s fine that they watch it, but they know they are being spoon fed pure, uncut Republican crack. A gullible one plays the sad conservative victim, reinforced nightly on FNC. No no, it’s not that FNC is blatantly biased, it’s that the MSM is out to get them, and that all the other news agencies are biased. That is an ignorant viewpoint that should be dismissed. btw the link to cnnlies.blog didn’t have any lies, it was just one guys rant against cnn. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/151 "2010-07-15T03:07:46Z")
The Franken story is based on some highly suspect conclusions by a right wing group which has some very flawed methodology and some provable mistakes in it. For one thing, many of the names they say are felons were not, in fact, felons. They tried to match names with years of birth, but not with the exact birth date. This resulted in a number of “false positive” hits and hundreds of simply unconfirmed hits, but all were counted as positive, regardless. They also have no way to verify whether the voting rights status of any of these alleged felons remains restricted or whether they have changed. They just assume that all of them had no right to vote in the '08 election. Another gaping hole in the their methodology is that they automatically assume that any felon who voted fraudulently (and let’s be clear, they can’t actually prove that any did. They are working from a number of tendentious extropolations) must have voted for Franken. The reality, obviously, is that they have no idea who any of these people voted for, and no basis whatsoever for asserting that they were more likely to vote for Franken. They (and fucking Fox News) just expect that everyone will agree that of COURSE all felons vote Democrat. The story is garbage, and the slimeball attempts to tie it in with their grand, racist, Protocols of ACORN narrative just make it all that more repugnant. There is no liberal analog to this kind of thing among major news media organizations. None. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/152 "2010-07-15T03:09:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course, because you are unwilling to think critically about this. > > Look, I appreciate the effort you throw into rambling posts that have a lot of words but no content. You wanna actually make insightful contributions to this thread or do you want to repeat your thesis over and over again? > > FOX News reports lies. They aren’t journalists. This is a fact and you are blindly ignoring it because it does not fit your silly world view. Indeed, but that doesn’t answer the OP’s question. Is it OK to dismiss someone for watching FOX? People I love, watch FOX. I still love them. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/153 "2010-07-15T03:12:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That would be valid if they claimed that fox should be dismissed just because they say so, in this case they also point at good reason why FOX should be dismissed. That’s an arguable proposition. Their argument is that Fox News has a bias that distorts, that they are sometimes innacurate, and sometimes misrepresentative and sometimes deliberately so. If that were not true of all other news sources than I suppose they might have something worth considering. If, as I’ve already discussed bias and distortion were not the defining hallmark or human thought than they might be telling me something that I didn’t already know. That they seem to think it is especially unique to Foxnews tells me a lot about them, but not much about Fox. > [@](#): > > Well, I thought that you would follow your standards and accept a dissenting viewpoint, so never-mind that. 🙂 I am. They are not offering a viewpoint. They are trying to dismiss one. > [@](#): > > You are missing where I’m coming from though, opinions are OK, however when a news channel attempts to pass opinion as facts… That is where me an many others notice that your points here are not on the money. If passing opinions as facts were unique to Fox news than I suppose you’d have a point. As has already been pointed out by Bricker in this thread and others, studies or attempts to prove that such things are unique or special to Foxnews fail to demonstrate this thesis. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/154 "2010-07-15T03:14:00Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Your confirming my point. You haven’t told me anything about the accuracy of Fox News, but you’ve told me what you think of Ted Nugent. I kind of like Wango Tango. Now I’ve told you more of what I think of Ted Nugent. > [@](#): > > CNN has had PETA and Al Sharpton on. Were they speaking as constitutional scholars as per Dr. Nuge? What is a supposed news channel doing presenting Nugent as someone who’s qualifed to discuss the constitutionality of anything? I didn’t think much of Charlton Heston, but I recognized his position of president of the NRA and his qualifications to speak on behalf of it. But who the hell’s Ted Nugent? Next I’ll be expected to listen to Chuck Norris wail about health care reform. > [@](#): > > I don’t let the fact that I’m being exposed to viewpoints I find ludicrous and stupid color my perceptions negatively against CNN. I didn’t want to bring up the fact that Fox News went to court to fight for the right to lie in their news stories if it benefitted their sponsors (Monsanto, if memory serves) because picking on Ted Nugent and his keen legal mind is more fun. But now you’ve forced me. > [@](#): > > CNN is valuable because it shows those to me, just as Fox News should be valuable by showing you Ted Nugent. I don’t care what Ted Nugent thinks. I don’t care what Victoria Jackson has to say about string theory, I don’t care what Charlie Daniels has to say about quantum teleportation, and I don’t care what Ted Nugent thinks about constitutional law. And I won’t let you disingenuously turn this into a conversation about how important his opinion is when I used it as but one example of Fox News’ blatant Republican bias. If picking on Ted Nugent upsets you, think back to O’Reilly’s whining about extreeeeeeme leftists, or the constant nattering about flag pins, or Hannity’s insistence that the US’s torture techiques aren’t really torture, or the support Fox gives those Tea Baggie lunatics, or Rupert Murdoch admitting in Davos that he supported Bush policy with his papers and television and on, and on. I can’t believe you tried to convince me that Fox News is doing people a service by having Ted Nugent come on and whine about Obama. They poison the public discourse with right-wing lies because they are a right-wing propaganda outlet. This has nothing to do with me, they’d be doing the same thing regardless of my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/155 "2010-07-15T03:23:43Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I am. They are not offering a viewpoint. They are trying to dismiss one. Uh no, they are reporting also that "Initial reviews by state and local officials, however, indicate that the problem may be far smaller than the group found in a recent study being championed by the Minnesota Republican Party.” The point of view is clear. That you do not like it is also clear. > [@Scylla](#): > > If passing opinions as facts were unique to Fox news than I suppose you’d have a point. > > As has already been pointed out by Bricker in this thread and others, studies or attempts to prove that such things are unique or special to Foxnews fail to demonstrate this thesis. And I already pointed out that he really failed to demonstrate that. It was really weak evidence. And for this thread we are focusing on people that ignore what you are mentioning here. When someone says that he or she are relying on one source for their information, be that FOX or MSNBC or bartcop and on top of that they tell you that that source has no bias, that person deserves to be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/156 "2010-07-15T03:25:24Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Indeed, but that doesn’t answer the OP’s question. Is it OK to dismiss someone for watching FOX? > > People I love, watch FOX. I still love them. Loving them is one thing, taking seriously their opinions on public affairs is quite another. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/157 "2010-07-15T03:36:25Z")
For the record, the OP didn’t ask whether someone who claims that Fox is not biased should be completely dismissed in all aspects of their humanity, but said he will “give little or no credence to whatever they say on certain issues,” and he’s asking whether that’s bigoted. The answer for everyone should be of course not. If someone claims to be a Young Earth Creationist, would it be bigoted to conclude they are unlikely to have any opinion _on evolution_ worth listening to? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/158 "2010-07-15T03:47:20Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > I > > I don’t care what Ted Nugent thinks. I don’t care what Victoria Jackson has to say about string theory, I don’t care what Charlie Daniels has to say about quantum teleportation, and I don’t care what Ted Nugent thinks about constitutional law. And I won’t let you disingenuously turn this into a conversation about how important his opinion is when I used it as but one example of Fox News’ blatant Republican bias. If you don’t care what Ted Nugent thinks, you can change the channel you know. Why does it piss you off that somebody else does? > [@](#): > > If picking on Ted Nugent upsets you, Not really. It’s more that you found it offensive that he was on. > [@](#): > > think back to O’Reilly’s whining about extreeeeeeme leftists, I don’t like extreme leftists. They are the most intolerant, and dismissive group I know of. > [@](#): > > or the constant nattering about flag pins, Missed that. I have nothing really for or against flag pins. > [@](#): > > or Hannity’s insistence that the US’s torture techiques aren’t really torture, I think what constitutes torture is a valid topic of debate. > [@](#): > > or the support Fox gives those Tea Baggie lunatics, I think the left and the mainstream media is incredibly dismissive and intolerant of the Tea Party. I think the left attacks and attempts to dismiss its antagonists rather than engage them, as they do with Fox News, the Tea party, Rush Limbaugh and what have you. Why is eveybody that is not mainstream lockstep liberal a bad guy, or a racist? > [@](#): > > or Rupert Murdoch admitting in Davos that he supported Bush policy with his papers and television and on, and on. Why is that a problem? > [@](#): > > I can’t believe you tried to convince me that Fox News is doing people a service by having Ted Nugent come on and whine about Obama. They poison the public discourse with right-wing lies because they are a right-wing propaganda outlet. This has nothing to do with me, they’d be doing the same thing regardless of my opinion. Ok. Try this. If you are a knee-jerk liberal than liberal politicians tell the truth, liberal news sources report the news, and George Soros provides a public service and is an example of a wealthy man standing up for what’s right and putting his money where his mouth is. Chances are you also believe that Conservative politicians lie, conservative news sources and pundits spew propaganda and Rupert Murdoch is a rich rotten sonovabitch using his money to further the cause of his own evil self interest. If you are a knee-jerk conservative you believe the exact opposite. Right? All these things are debatable propositions, matters of degree, opinions and viewpoints. Tell me something about your viewpoint that makes it superior to mine. I think it’s inherently flawed in that it cannot accomodate dissent. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/159 "2010-07-15T03:52:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When someone says that he or she are relying on one source for their information, be that FOX or MSNBC or bartcop and on top of that they tell you that that source has no bias, that person deserves to be dismissed. I disagree that there is a criteria whereby you can dismiss someone without considering the merits of their content. I’ll go further and say the merits of the argument are really the only criteria that should be considered. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593/160 "2010-07-15T04:02:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I disagree that there is a criteria whereby you can dismiss someone without considering the merits of their content. > > I’ll go further and say the merits of the argument are really the only criteria that should be considered. But this is not happening in a vacuum, you are really insisting that this is the case. Besides their mendacity regarding the CRU Climategate “scandal” there are many other examples of FOX’s malpractice in reporting. They are the reason why someone can be dismissed when he or she **still insist** that all those examples of chicanery do not exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ok-to-dismiss-someone-for-watching-fox/546593.md?page=9)