How much of Fox News Channel, as part of their daily schedule, is hard news? I’m not familiar with all of their programs so I can’t know for sure myself. Can someone familiar with the channel point out on the daily schedule what is news and what isn’t?
What if they’re mixed? For instance, fox and friends will cover news stories as they pop up and talk about the day’s news - but they are all ridiculous republican party cheerleaders. They’re covering news story but blatantly spouting propoganda - do they get off the hook because their show is entertainment? What about the actual news content that’s part of the show?
The counterargument seems to be “From 7:31 till 7:37am, they have a hard news segment which is not horrible, therefore they are a legitimate news channel”. What are the actual ratios here of news to propoganda, and how much overlap is there?
Palled around with terrorist. Nice spin Sarah. The terrorist activities were 30 years earlier Obama had nothing to do with any of that. They were on the same educational committees. I suppose every meeting you attend can be twisted to "palling around’.
Are you responsible for all the priests in your church? I guess you support pedophiles then.
Bush used his heavy connections to get out of harms way in Nam. Then stayed in Texas doing blow and boozing around. He skipped physicals and doing his duty. That is just a minor miscue I suppose.
According to the programing list in Wikipedia, Special Report is considered hard news, but even that has an “opinion from DC” section.
About 4 to 5 hours could be called a legitimate news channel, but as long as they do not correct their egregious and misleading reporting I would not call them legitimate, they are more into the infotainmentcamp.
I never said civil rights shouldn’t apply equally to everyone. I do find it very interesting that you talk about “both sides” here though, as if blacks and whites are inherently on different sides.
What is relevant in these situations is the effects. The effects of an isolated incidence of New Black Panthers acting as they did, which was rapidly dealt with by the authorities, is incomparably small to the effects of white racists, backed by the state, repeatedly acting to prevent people of color from exercising the franchise.
I’m not trying to get a rise out of you. I’m just telling you the impression your utterly inappropriate comparison creates. And when you talk about more Republicans than Democrats pushing it, I have to smile. There’s nothing more of a misrepresentation of history than to suggest that because in the past Republicans defended civil rights advances and Democrats opposed them the current political situation is the same.