14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

[knowone]

I had this text book in college in the mid 70s. It should be required reading in all high schools. If it was, political discussions in this county would be entirely different, and ad support TV might not exist.
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Contemporary-Rhetoric-Reason-Everyday/dp/0534626041/ref=pd_cp_b_1

 

[Hot Mega]

Wrong. Living in your bubble a bit too long Meg.......get out for fresh air.

I suppose the weight of ragin's posts were too much and some asshat here hacked it up with malware but ragin pointed out quite nicely everything I stated about Faux's intentionally bias reporting.

You're pretty much just trolling at this point.:troll:

 

[enndaley]

I saw Bill Cooper-"Behold a Pale Horse", indeed. People with money always have-and always will-get what they want. If we actually had a strict Constitutionalist government, only land-owning white males would be able to vote. Actually, going back to having state legislatures choose US senators would be a good thing-we'd be spared the idiotic campaign commercials, and instead of the idiots in California who spent over $100,000,000 failing to get elected wasting money, they could use it to...pay for internet porn.

 

[Facetious]

One needs to look no further than the insurance industry to see how greedy and corrupt big business can be.

You must be referring to the skyrocketing healthcare insurance rates that have taken effect over the last ten years, well, ten years ago I was paying about a thousand bucks a year out of pocket for full coverage Blue Cross Medical Insurance, today it's probably a thousand bucks a month give or take a hundred or two. Question for you... Why are medical insurance rates as high as the are today? Answer very carefully please.

At least The government should take it over and have it be non-profit.

Screw that, we should be able to choose the medical plan that best suits our needs as individuals... not all of this one size fits all rationed health care of the social democrats.

What difference does it make if individuals can buy stock in heath care... how could that hurt the quality of services?

Furthermore, nobody has to suffer through an ailment because it is against the law for health care facilities to turn away patients, legal citizen or otherwise. (that's why so many have gone belly up)

 

[Trident1]

I suppose the weight of ragin's posts were too much and some asshat here hacked it up with malware but ragin pointed out quite nicely everything I stated about Faux's intentionally bias reporting.

You're pretty much just trolling at this point.:troll:

No you're so wrapped up with hate for Fox that you've gone over from "rational" to irrational.

You've stayed in your bubble far too long and it shows.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

I read it the first time and there was nothing to respond to because it was tripe. What salient point did you make worthy of addressing...Presuming that I watch MSNBC??

It was mindless ranting....and nothing worth talking about..We all know what Faux's poll numbers are and anyone with a shred of common sense ought to know why.

If you think it's simply because Faux is "most trusted" or that it has anything remotely to do with quality...oh well, keep living in a dream world. They are a carnival act...R/C illustrated that profoundly with his screen grabs and attachments.

Keep deluding yourself....far be it from me to stand in your way. :hatsoff:

WE ALLLLLLLL KNOW EACH OF THESE CABLE NEWS CHANNELS HAS BIAS COMMENTATORS!!! HOWEVER, FAUX IS THE ONLY ONE AMONG THEM WHICH MAKES A POINT OF INTENTIONAL BIAS IN THEIR NEWS COVERAGE....TO GO ALONG WITH THEIR LOPSIDED BIAS IN COMMENTARY.



Uh....another mindless and this time flat out fucking stupid rant.

The relevance of me citing Reagan's numbers is because they were the numbers PRECISELY at the same point in his presidency that Obama is at now. FUCKING DUHHHHHHHHHHH.....(I needed to spell that out for you???)

Point being, with very similar numbers at the exact same points...in fact, Reagan's could be considered worse...no one but no one was looking to call Reagan and economic disaster, failure or whatever GOPer description du jour being hurled Obama's way right now.

Additionally, me citing those numbers shows precisely what you point out...that by the time the election came around the numbers had improved DESPITE what they were at the 2.5 year mark of his first term.

You couldn't figure that out on your own?

Presuming that I watch MSNBC??
A reasonable presumption since you recite their fucking talking points. You do watch it, admit it. You talk about bias in the news, what about your favorite channel? MSNBC is the poster child for it.

WE ALLLLLLLL KNOW EACH OF THESE CABLE NEWS CHANNELS HAS BIAS COMMENTATORS!!! HOWEVER, FAUX IS THE ONLY ONE AMONG THEM WHICH MAKES A POINT OF INTENTIONAL BIAS IN THEIR NEWS COVERAGE....TO GO ALONG WITH THEIR LOPSIDED BIAS IN COMMENTARY

:wtf: You are delusional and ignorant beyond all belief. How can you make accusations about something you've never seen? What intentional bias in the NEWS? Who? When? Hannity doesn't count because he's an opinion guy. Oh yes, you must be right. Fox is indeed using evil mind control to turn us, their viewers, into zombie minions who will cannablize all you peaceful supersmart liberal types. :rofl2: There is no bias in their news coverage. Again, if you watched the fucking channel for just hour in the afternoon You Might realize that, so please stop citing what MediaMatters is telling you what to think. Tripe? Do you even know what the word means, bro?

Uh....another mindless and this time flat out fucking stupid rant.

Ah hah. There's the standard liberal response when confronted by reality and the truth. :error: They start calling people stupid. Don't forget racist. Everyone knows that people who watch Fox are racists.:sarcasm:

Point being, with very similar numbers at the exact same points...in fact, Reagan's could be considered worse...no one but no one was looking to call Reagan and economic disaster, failure or whatever GOPer description du jour being hurled Obama's way right now.

The point you fail to grasp is that while the numbers you quote are indeed similar at the same point into their presidencies (and now PLEASE pay attention because I'm not repeating myself to fucking 'tards anymore), the numbers are trending in opposite directions. Obama's policies are sinking us further into oblivion. Regan's numbers from 1983 (which you cite) and 1984 (which you don't) show improvement. How else do you explain his landslide victory in 1984 -- despite America's chance to elect the first female vice president? And remember, there was no FoxNews back then to "brainwash" the masses.

 

[Facetious]

the Nation doesn't own it, though.

Yet, the fabian socialists are working on it... gradually as they do. .

There is no 'government' health care

How about my local county hospital, that's obviously a local tax payer paid entity... and what about the Veterans Affairs services for veterans? :dunno:

You have government subsidizing BIG BUSINESS...but not the citizen (so how is that 'socialist'?)

We have the government subsidizing both citizens as well as big business, what are food stamps, general assistance checks and section 8 housing?! :dunno:

This is as good as a time as ever for me to emphasize that I don't object to the government subsidizing those in need... at all! I do, however, object to otherwise healthy and able bodied individuals opting to milk the system because A) they can, B) they refuse to work in the eeevil grrreeedy private sector and C) because they're just too damned lazy to go out and care for themselves.
Sorry if that's too radical of a position to take, but....oh well.

at least you're grounded in facts

Wut? is this a parting shot to the groin? :1orglaugh

I don't have any idea what you're referencing as I haven't posted anything about income in this thread.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Yet,
This is as good as a time as ever for me to emphasize that I don't object to the government subsidizing those in need... at all! I do, however, object to otherwise healthy and able bodied individuals opting to milk the system because they object to work in the eeevil grrreeedy private sector or because they're just too damned lazy to go out and care for themselves. .

They should have their tubes tied (the women, that is, the men are another subject altogether) . Every last one. Hell, WORKING people do this, because they can't afford to have another. My parents did it and as a result I am short 1 more brother I could have had to back me up in the neighborhoods growing up.

*shakes fists in rage*

Meanwhile, some bitch has three and one in the oven down my street mouthing to me. Sorry, rant over.


Carry on...

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Yet, the fabian socialists are working on it... gradually as they do. .

How about my local county hospital, that's obviously a local tax payer paid entity... and what about the Veterans Affairs services for veterans? :dunno:
We have the government subsidizing both citizens as well as big business, what are food stamps, general assistance checks and section 8 housing?! :dunno:

This is as good as a time as ever for me to emphasize that I don't object to the government subsidizing those in need... at all! I do, however, object to otherwise healthy and able bodied individuals opting to milk the system because A) they can, B) they refuse to work in the eeevil grrreeedy private sector and C) because they're just too damned lazy to go out and care for themselves.
Sorry if that's too radical of a position to take, but....oh well.

Wut? is this a parting shot to the groin? :1orglaugh

I don't have any idea what you're referencing as I haven't posted anything about income in this thread.

I can't give you more rep just yet, but you just kicked some serious ass with this post. :clap: I agree totally about helping those who are in need, but not the ones who are abusing the system -- and there are a lot of those. Liberals are so passionate about defending big governement because they are only to eager to start receiving those checks made payable by greedy evil rich people via the U.S. Treasury. :yesyes:

 

[Facetious]

They should have their tubes tied (the women, that is, the men are another subject altogether) . Every last one. Hell, WORKING people do this, because they can't afford to have another. My parents did it and as a result I am short 1 more brother I could have had to back me up in the neighborhoods growing up.

The proletariat social democrats are more than happy to spread the wealth of the private sector working class, you know, make the middle class and self made millionaires pay down the costs associated with housing and feeding the next generation of loyal democrat party constituents, the more the merrier.... it don't cost them a thing!
In fact, let's naturalize every needy third world person on the planet.... we democrats will feed 'em, warehouse 'em... put some good ol fashioned greenbacks in their pockets and remind them which political party made it all possible 2 weeks prior to voting time.

Just WIN BABY!!!!!!

Was that being too cynical?

 

[Hot Mega]

What intentional bias in the NEWS? Who? When? Hannity doesn't count because he's an opinion guy.

Sighhh....I don't need to go any further than today's Obama town hall tweet discussion.

If it were Bush or any other GOPer President CNN, MSNBC and Faux would have covered every minute of it.

Because it was Obama, guess who covered it? CNN (check), MSNBC (check), Faux (No Show).

That's what most people would call, left jab, left jab, right cross and you're down.

(You should stay down.:2 cents

 

[Hot Mega]

The point you fail to grasp is that while the numbers you quote are indeed similar at the same point into their presidencies (and now PLEASE pay attention because I'm not repeating myself to fucking 'tards anymore), the numbers are trending in opposite directions. Obama's policies are sinking us further into oblivion. Regan's numbers from 1983 (which you cite) and 1984 (which you don't) show improvement. How else do you explain his landslide victory in 1984 -- despite America's chance to elect the first female vice president? And remember, there was no FoxNews back then to "brainwash" the masses.

Sheeesh... Regarding your obsession with my siggy....

Seems like you're just typing just to keep from not responding now...:1orglaugh.
:nono:

The unemployment numbers under Reagan did virtually the same things as they are doing now. They didn't go consistently up or consistently down monthly under either president. Some months they ticked up by tenths of a point and some months they ticked down by tenths of a point. Overall, they trended upwardly for both presidents over the exact same span of time (2.5 years). Actually I lied. The numbers trended upwardly for Reagan for over 2 years but only did so under Obama for about his first year and are trending down overall now.

Reagan's were frankly worse. Before Reagan's u/e numbers ultimately topped out at 10.80 pct. in Nov and Dec of '82 there were months where it went down by 1 or 2 tenths of a point even though the overall trend was up. So to look at an increase in by a tenth or 2 now from one month to the next and conclude it's getting worse when the overall trend is down now is quite naive (IMO:tongue.:2 cents:

Cases in point the u/e rate was 9.4 in Dec ('10) it's 9.1 now....but it was 10.00 in Dec. of 2009. And in either case it looks like overall it topped out at 10.10 in Oct. 2009.

Similarly under Reagan even though the rate trended upward over his first 2.5 years it didn't go up consistently each month. Some months it went up by a tenth or 2...some months it went down by a tenth or 2. It's the same thing we have now. It's gone up by a few tenths but it's nowhere near the 10.1 it was over a year ago.

Never mind the fact that Obama inherited a worse situation by most reasonable accounts.

But you know...FOs doesn't have a way to embed picture books right now so this is the best I can do for you;

This is all in the context of the GOPer ad criticizing Obama as a failure on the economy. So again, let's actually look at the unemployment numbers for both;

Obama: Inherited - Jan 2009, 7.8 pct
Reagan: Inherited - Jan 1981 7.5 pct

Obama: highest u/e rate - Oct 2009 10.10 (9 month mark in his 1st term)
Reagan: highest u/e rate - Nov & Dec 1982 10.80 (1 year, 11 and 12 month mark in his 1st term)

Obama: total months u/e over 10 pct. - 3, Oct, Nov, Dec 2009
Reagan: total months u/e over 10 pct. -10, Sept 1982 - Jun 1983

Obama: 2.5 year mark u/e rate - 9.1
Reagan: 2.5 year mark u/e rate - 9.4

With numbers like that again I ask, where was the outrage??:1orglaugh

I know I know Cind....it's down under Obama from 10.1 to 9.1 but people are pissed because it's gone up a tenth since last month.:1orglaugh (Never mind the fact that it's down 3 tenths of a point overall since Dec.)

 

[Trident1]

The proletariat social democrats are more than happy to spread the wealth of the private sector working class, you know, make the middle class and self made millionaires pay down the costs associated with housing and feeding the next generation of loyal democrat party constituents, the more the merrier.... it don't cost them a thing!


Was that being too cynical?

Bullseye.


The Dems have done nothing to keep capital from leaving the country. During the Reagan years we invested in our growth. Clinton introduces NAFTA, and we watch capital slowly trickle out to become a flood. Now we're investing in some other country's growth not ours. Thanks to the Dumbcrats this country has entered the 3rd world zone. Investors are no longer looking to invest in the next Google, they're buying gov't bonds and securities instead so that you need a big gov't. The Douchecrats want you to be a slave to their policies/economics which invariably leads to bankruptcy/debt.
Vote Democrat..............Be poor.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Sighhh....I don't need to go any further than today's Obama town hall tweet discussion.

If it were Bush or any other GOPer President CNN, MSNBC and Faux would have covered every minute of it.

Because it was Obama, guess who covered it? CNN (check), MSNBC (check), Faux (No Show).

That's what most people would call, left jab, left jab, right cross and you're down.

(You should stay down.:2 cents

I'm just curious (and I'm not looking to argue with you about this, just inquiring), why don't you support Fox if this is your stance on some very important issues today:

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=5595863&postcount=24

Further, why do you support Obama who is so entirely opposite?

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm just curious (and I'm not looking to argue with you about this, just inquiring), why don't you support Fox if this is your stance on some very important issues today:

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=5595863&postcount=24

What..is this your admission that Faux is bias and I should favor their bias if I believe as I say?

First of all, like I said a thousand and one times if any of you ever cared to listen (read). I am a liberal and extremely proud of it. That is, a liberal in the correct, traditional sense of the ideology and not what Rush, Hannity and the rest of the echo chamber has tried to redefine it to mean in their war to label and vilify.

I'm a liberal but I'm not given over to fundamentalism on it as I don't see fundamentalism on liberalism, conservatism or progressivism practical in the real world.

That said, the issues you inquire about and I made reference to in that post ...as important as they are, they aren't the only issues and I'm not into blind, litmus tests.

Further, I simply believe that GOPers/GOPerism is worse for America because of what (IMO) it stands for.

Further, why do you support Obama who is so entirely opposite?

How so??...err...never mind. Word of advice, if you EVER hope to reasonably discuss something with someone it would certainly help your cause to know the facts before you draw conclusions.

Obama is entirely opposite on the 2nd amendment? 1. Obama supports the right to keep and bear arms. That's a the reality sans the litmus test hyperbole and mischaracterizations of fact by his opponents.

Obama is entirely opposite on the military? 2. Obama has redoubled efforts GWB had forsaken. And while he could do more things I personally would like to see, suggesting that he and I are entirely opposite on military/defense is another case where you're seeing something at odds with the facts. I wanted the effort in Afghanistan redoubled and refocused. He campaigned on that and that's what he did when he got into office. He believed the war in Iraq was a mistake as did I. He called for, campaigned on and would have effected something extremely close to the draw down policy in Iraq that happened had GWB not eventually came around to signing it a month before Obama took over.

Obama is entirely opposite on the death penalty? 3. I don't know what his position is on the death penalty per se. I don't care because I don't think it's practically relevant for his job. I don't fear him appointing activists on the federal benches nor the SCOTUS because I bought into his overall judgement when I voted for him. He's come out and is attempting to have this latest execution on schedule be stayed. I disagree with him on that and have stated so on this very message board. Although I disagree with what he's calling for it doesn't seem to make him anti death penalty because he's calling for the stay on the same grounds he chose not to release OBLs death pics. But when it comes to what he believes fundamentally on it...OBL's demise and the fact that he's issued an order on al-Awlaki seems to be consistent with someone who believes in the death penalty where applicable.

Obama is entirely opposite on redefining of marriage? Obama has said, he believes it's between a man and a woman, doesn't believe in a constitutional amendment defining as such though and that states ought to decide. That is exactly how I feel about it.:dunno:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

What..is this your admission that Faux is bias and I should favor their bias if I believe as I say?

First of all, like I said a thousand and one times if any of you ever cared to listen (read). I am a liberal and extremely proud of it. That is, a liberal in the correct, traditional sense of the ideology and not what Rush, Hannity and the rest of the echo chamber has tried to redefine it to mean in their war to label and vilify.

I'm a liberal but I'm not given over to fundamentalism on it as I don't see fundamentalism on liberalism, conservatism or progressivism practical in the real world.

That said, the issues you inquire about and I made reference to in that post ...as important as they are, they aren't the only issues and I'm not into blind, litmus tests.

Further, I simply believe that GOPers/GOPerism is worse for America because of what (IMO) it stands for.


How so??...err...never mind. Word of advice, if you EVER hope to reasonably discuss something with someone it would certainly help your cause to know the facts before you draw conclusions.

Obama is entirely opposite on the 2nd amendment? 1. Obama supports the right to keep and bear arms. That's a the reality sans the litmus test hyperbole and mischaracterizations of fact by his opponents.

Obama is entirely opposite on the military? 2. Obama has redoubled efforts GWB had forsaken. And while he could do more things I personally would like to see, suggesting that he and I are entirely opposite on military/defense is another case where you're seeing something at odds with the facts. I wanted the effort in Afghanistan redoubled and refocused. He campaigned on that and that's what he did when he got into office. He believed the war in Iraq was a mistake as did I. He called for, campaigned on and would have effected something extremely close to the draw down policy in Iraq that happened had GWB not eventually came around to signing it a month before Obama took over.

Obama is entirely opposite on the death penalty? 3. I don't know what his position is on the death penalty per se. I don't care because I don't think it's practically relevant for his job. I don't fear him appointing activists on the federal benches nor the SCOTUS because I bought into his overall judgement when I voted for him. He's come out and is attempting to have this latest execution on schedule be stayed. I disagree with him on that and have stated so on this very message board. Although I disagree with what he's calling for it doesn't seem to make him anti death penalty because he's calling for the stay on the same grounds he chose not to release OBLs death pics. But when it comes to what he believes fundamentally on it...OBL's demise and the fact that he's issued an order on al-Awlaki seems to be consistent with someone who believes in the death penalty where applicable.

Obama is entirely opposite on redefining of marriage? Obama has said, he believes it's between a man and a woman, doesn't believe in a constitutional amendment defining as such though and that states ought to decide. That is exactly how I feel about it.:dunno:

When has anyone here said Fox was otherwise (than biased)? I am pretty sure in one of my first posts here I stated that clearly; even O'Reilly himself has said they lean to the right.

Also, Obama's appointing Sotomayor and Kagan helps the Second Amendment and "traditional" marriage how?

It doesn't take a genius to see the Savior is vehemently against both institutions and should he have his way he will do away with both institutions' traditional history. Not that those things matter, because, as you stated above, they are not the entirety of the reason you would/will support him.

Like I said, I was just wondering, particularly why you take such a strong voice against Fox, because, seriously, who really gives a shit if 'mindless' people want to support Fox. They're mindless (incompetent, phony, worthless) anyway, so who cares.

 

[Hot Mega]

When has anyone here said Fox was otherwise (than biased)? I am pretty sure in one of my first posts here I stated that clearly; even O'Reilly himself has said they lean to the right.

Also, Obama's appointing Sotomayor and Kagan helps the Second Amendment and "traditional" marriage how?

It doesn't take a genius to see the Savior is vehemently against both institutions and should he have his way he will do away with both institutions' traditional history. Not that those things matter, because, as you stated above, they are not the entirety of the reason you would/will support him.

You could hold your breath until Sotomayor, Kagan, Obama or all three do away with them. :dunno:

Like I said, I was just wondering, particularly why you take such a strong voice against Fox, because, seriously, who really gives a shit if 'mindless' people want to support Fox. They're mindless (incompetent, phony, worthless) anyway, so who cares.

My original post on this....

Funnier still is people who already recognize their chicanery only watch Faux (Pas) "News?" for the laughs.

Anyone who watches Faux for serious enlightenment has to have a skull as numb as scar tissue.

As I said, I watch Faux periodically but never for anything serious. Mainly just to see what if any silliness they're concocting or spinning.

The reality is, you and I both probably watch Faux for entertainment. However, where we probably part ways is you watch Faux to laugh with them I watch to laugh at them. Nor would I sit around taking them seriously when every other link on the whole world wide web is "Fox caught (fill in the blank)".

 

[Trident1]

Like I said, I was just wondering, particularly why you take such a strong voice against Fox,

Meg is this forum's Paul Begala on steroids. He believes that the Dems are this country's saviors(nay the world) and can never do any wrong(after all Meg believes the Democrats won the Cold War). Reading Meg's posts one finds they're complete spin and usually filled with vague nebulous figures that takes the reader on fantastic tangents leading nowhere.
Meg doesn't like anyone or any group to criticize the Dems/Left...perish the thought, therefore one news channel that checks leftist baloney (because if they didn't it would go unreported) is his favorite target. I guess Meg wants the public to get only one side of the story.

 

[Facetious]

Kudos to fox for reporting those sensitive :shy: stories of which the msm would rather not report (relative to the actions and inactions of this is ....ummm.... regime)

Now that's the kind of media bias I like!

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Kudos to fox for reporting those sensitive :shy: stories of which the msm would rather not report (relative to the actions and inactions of this is ....ummm.... regime)

Now that's the kind of media bias I like!

Partly the reason I like watching them versus the "other guys." The illegal immigration stuff alone (an issue near to my heart) is utterly above anything you will find elsewhere. If not for them...