The “problem” is that people don’t want to watch the news all day long. So they get entertainment. Changing the name of the entertainment entity will not solve the “problem”. It might make you, and some other folks here, feel better, but it won’t change a thing.
Is there a reasonable dispute about which political party Mark Sanford belongs to?
“Lie” implies intent. Prove that it wasn’t accidental.
Give us a reasonable explanation why the mislabeling mistakes always go in one direction?
edited to add: And to forstall the auto “They do it toooo!” response, show me a suposedly liberal network that has a habit of making this same mistake on the other side of the equation.
That was a mistake not a lie.
What this is about is the arrogance of liberals. Liberals think so much of their own intelligence that they start to conflate their own opinions with facts. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is lying about facts. This makes a difference of opinion into a public problem needed to be solved. Therefore anyone who has a different opinion than the liberal one needs to be labeled and censored. You don’t have to scratch a liberal very hard to find a totalitarian.
While it is true that people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who watch most other news channels, that does not mean watching Fox News makes them uninformed. Here http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/ is a study of public knowledge and news consuming habits. It found that consumers of Fox News had a lower level of knowledge about public issues than most other forms of news consumption. This is not suprising to people who have been conditioned to hate Fox Nes. But it also found some other information which would be suprising such as the fact the viewers of the O’Reilly Factor were better informed than listeners to NPR. Also that listeners to Rush Limbaugh were much better informed than watchers of CNN or network newscasts. Does this mean than O’Reilly and Rush do a better job of informing their fans than do NPR or CNN? No, if you look at the demographic for each type show, it is just that people who are more likely to be knowledgable are fans of O’Reillys or Rush.
In other words instead of the news shows making some people smart and some dumb, smart people like to certain types of news more than others. Political junkies listen to Rush and watch O’Reilly so they are more likely to have informed audiences. Viewers of Fox News are more likely to have only a high school education than most other new outlets. Less educated people have less knowledge about current events, because they are less educated and not because of the new they watch.
This is absolute nonsense unless you have studies that show that show that Fox News viewers become more knowledgable the longer they tune into that network.
BTW, what does this have to do with the lies told by that station?
That’s not proof of a lie.
No…but if you took this to bookies in Las Vegas, what kind of odds do you think they would give you for that many “accidents” happening in the same direction? What the hell would it take to convince you that lying was taking place-an announcement from Fox stating that they had just lied? How many times does it have to happen before the words “It was just another accident” gets stuck in your throat?
You do not understand the study, whether or not they become more knowledgable has nothing to do with it. Smart people listen to opera music, the opera music does not make them smart.
The only list of lies I could find is from Politicfact and it is mostly just differences in interpretation they have with pundits on Fox News. Everyone news organization occasionally makes errors but if you want people to respond to lies, you should be specific.
And you should read the threads you participate in.
I have read the entire thread and the only lie mentioned is that Mark Sanford was a democrat. That is much more likely to be an error than a lie.
How about these? I didn’t have to go very far to find them, as you’ll doubtless note on reading the URLs.
Yeah right..
Just last year Gerardo on FOX was still making a “fair and balanced” panel with scientists and moon hoaxers. :rolleyes: and then we have the more serious misrepresentations of what the science of global warming is actually saying.
After so many years of going even against basic science facts one has to conclude that lies are not a problem for them, the other option is that then they are the definition of incompetency. Either way, as a close relative showed me, if you are just relying on a source like FOX news I don’t care how smart you are, your world view is affected negatively in the long run.
Those are very weak sauce.
The first is Rove saying that Obama approved a loan to Brazil’s oil company. The fact is that the Import Export bank did approve a loan to Brazil’s oil company. That site claims Rove was lying because the loan was approved a week before the guy Obama appointed took over. This does not change the fact that there was a loan and if Obama had disapproved he could have stopped it and the guy he approved had plenty of time to stop it after it was approved.
The second is that Dana Periono said Diane Sawyer asked Romney about his dog as the first question when it was actually later in the interview. A small factual error which makes no difference to anything.
The third is that Steve Doocy did not make clear he was paraphrasing Obama instead of quoting him. In his quote Obama was making an implicit comparison with Romney so Doocy indicated that instead of reading him the entire quote. This was sloppy but it was not deceitful.
I believe what the ravenously impartial Mr. Mace is requesting is some sort of documentary proof, say a memo or leaked video of someone in Fox News’s upper management copping to the fact that it’s being done intentionally. Pending that, I think it’s fair to assume that all of these mistakes that result in Democrats looking worse are sheer accidents.
That is like declaring that unless there is a correction by the next one in charge that then there is no lie.
So what can we tell about FOX when they do not point out or correct the whoopers made by the Daily Mail even after faced with all the evidence after more than 10 years?
Specially when those whoppers benefit the polluters that are supporting an specific political party?
WOW! OMG! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I’m going to start watching Fox News tonight!
If you won’t accept anything as proof, there’s not much point in engaging you is there?