14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

[cindy CD/TV]

You know, I've been trying to help Mega to see the error of his own B.S. He totally missed the point in my previous post about the Reagan/Obama economic numbers. He didn't just miss, but he swung the bat, lost grip on it and let it fly out of his hands into the stands and then he plopped down on his dumb ass in the middle of home plate with a bewildered look on his face.

Unemployment under Reagan, which Mega says peaked out at 10.8%, dropped down to like 7.2% by Nov. 1984. I believe he's the only president to be re-elected with unemployment that high, but that figure was a lot better than it had been just a year or two before. To cut 3.5% off the unemployment rate requires a MASSIVE increase in job creation, ask any economist. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, at least. This had the effect of making people FEEL like things were indeed getting better. They WERE getting better. The difference with Obama today, for the umpteenth time, is that his unemployment/economic numbers are trending either worse -- or are flatlined -- in the middle of year #3 of his presidency. And there's no sign that things are improving and the general mood in the country is that things are NOT getting better -- just about every poll out there agrees on this point. Reagan's unemployment numbers dropped precipitously once his economic programs began to take effect (and when the Democrats finally got out of his fucking way). Yes, the national debt soared during his presidency, but our country became STRONGER overall. Under Reagan's administration our nation regained its pride and confidence in the economy, and the military (which he rebuilt and modernized, provoking an arms race with the Soviet Union that they could not afford -- indeed it bankrupted them.)

 

[Trident1]

Cindy CD trying to convince Meg otherwise is like explaining the world is round to a flatlander.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

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

They covered it, they just didn't cover EVERY freakin' second of it. Fox later replayed the highlights of what was an excruciatingly boring "town hall" with many questions that were spoon-fed and screened in advance. Please dude, seriously. :rant: Besides which, Obama's face is on the air on some channel every 5 minutes. God, just go away Barack! It's like he's stalking the American people He even shows up on SportsCenter all the time! :eek: Gee fucking whiz.

Now, if Fox doesn't cover Obama's State of the Union address in Jan. and instead, for example, airs Glenn Beck re-runs, then you will have made your point. And then I will believe you're right and I'm wrong. If that ever happens I hereby promise to give you a freebie rimmer whenever you want (just wash it first)

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Cindy CD trying to convince Meg otherwise is like explaining the world is round to a flatlander.

I know ... I don't why I just can't let it go. I feel like I'm trying to save a lost soul or something :1orglaugh

 

[Hot Mega]

You know, I've been trying to help Mega to see the error of his own B.S. He totally missed the point in my previous post about the Reagan/Obama economic numbers. He didn't just miss, but he swung the bat, lost grip on it and let it fly out of his hands into the stands and then he plopped down on his dumb ass in the middle of home plate with a bewildered look on his face.

Thanks but no thanks, I'm not the one confused in more ways than one here.

Unemployment under Reagan, which Mega says peaked out at 10.8%, dropped down to like 7.2% by Nov. 1984. I believe he's the only president to be re-elected with unemployment that high, but that figure was a lot better than it had been just a year or two before. To cut 3.5% off the unemployment rate requires a MASSIVE increase in job creation, ask any economist. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, at least. This had the effect of making people FEEL like things were indeed getting better. They WERE getting better. The difference with Obama today, for the umpteenth time, is that his unemployment/economic numbers are trending either worse -- or are flatlined -- in the middle of year #3 of his presidency. And there's no sign that things are improving and the general mood in the country is that things are NOT getting better -- just about every poll out there agrees on this point. Reagan's unemployment numbers dropped precipitously once his economic programs began to take effect (and when the Democrats finally got out of his fucking way). Yes, the national debt soared during his presidency, but our country became STRONGER overall. Under Reagan's administration our nation regained its pride and confidence in the economy, and the military (which he rebuilt and modernized, provoking an arms race with the Soviet Union that they could not afford -- indeed it bankrupted them.)

Uh...*ahem* ... (Really?? Are you really as stumped on the comparators of this example as you come off??? You seriously can't be this lost....)

Class, for the benefit of those stumped on this can anyone else explain why Reagan's numbers in '84 are not comparatively relevant to Obama's numbers in 2012 at this point??

Wha? What's that you say? Because it's not possible to compare a trend that has happened with another trend that hasn't happened yet??? And--all that we can compare right now is where the two were/are during and at the same points in their terms??

DING DING DING DING....Thank you 1st graders!!:bowdown:

Seriously, you couldn't reason that for yourself??? \

AT THE 2.5 YEAR MARK OF REAGAN'S 1ST TERM WHO KNEW WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE GOING TO BE IN 1984??? HOWEVER, SINCE THEY ULTIMATELY TRENDED DOWNWARD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DUMB MISTAKE OR AT MINIMUM PREMATURE TO PROCLAIM REAGAN A FAILURE JUST BECAUSE THE U/E RATE WAS 9.4 AT HIS 2.5 YEAR MARK. NOW REASON SHOULD SUGGEST IT SIMILARLY DUMB OR PREMATURE TO PROCLAIM OBAMA A FAILURE AT HIS 2.5 YEAR MARK BECAUSE THE U/E RATE IS 9.1 ESPECIALLY SINCE THE OVERALL TREND HAS BEEN DOWN FROM A HIGH OF 10.1.

What's more is that it's only the case that u/e was trending down under Reagan at his 2.5 year mark because it was much higher under him than Obama for far longer and topped out much later than it apparently has under Obama. Since it was 10.1 9 months into Obama's presidency and now 9.1 now, we've already have been experiencing the downward TREND under Obama. The downward trend under Reagan didn't even begin until his 2.5 year mark.

That analysis doesn't make simple sense to you?? Never mind....don't answer that...my bad.:o

They covered it, they just didn't cover EVERY freakin' second of it. Fox later replayed the highlights of what was an excruciatingly boring "town hall" with many questions that were spoon-fed and screened in advance.

Now, if Fox doesn't cover Obama's State of the Union address in Jan. and instead, for example, airs Glenn Beck re-runs, then you will have made your point. And then I will believe you're right and I'm wrong.

I have already made my point and your input here only supports it whether you realize that or not. Case in point, in similar circumstances for Bush he was covered by all three with no variance in coverage. Now that it's Obama, Fox decides to air the parts and time frames of it THEY deem worthy of airing and this isn't the only instance of it happening it was just timely and ironic that it happened before you could finish typing your challenge to the notion of their blatant bias. :1orglaugh

The difference between you and I (among many) on this is you and others observe Faux doing this and you desperately flail around trying to make excuses for it. If this was Bush and they made the decision to edit the coverage to what they deemed worthy while other networks covered it in total...I would be criticizing CNN for it and expecting better from them...not coddling the nonsense.

If that ever happens I hereby promise to give you a freebie rimmer whenever you want (just wash it first)

Again, thanks but no thanks. I'm strictly chickly..meaning I only like chicks (the real ones...not the one's with maleonestoo.:2 cents.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Thanks but no thanks, I'm not the one confused in more ways than one here.


Uh...*ahem* ... (Really?? Are you really as stumped on the comparators of this example as you come off??? You seriously can't be this lost....)

Class, for the benefit of those stumped on this can anyone else explain why Reagan's numbers in '84 are not comparatively relevant to Obama's numbers in 2012 at this point??

Wha? What's that you say? Because it's not possible to compare a trend that has happened with another trend that hasn't happened yet??? And--all that we can compare right now is where the two were/are during and at the same points in their terms??

DING DING DING DING....Thank you 1st graders!!:bowdown:

Seriously, you couldn't reason that for yourself??? \

AT THE 2.5 YEAR MARK OF REAGAN'S 1ST TERM WHO KNEW WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE GOING TO BE IN 1984??? HOWEVER, SINCE THEY ULTIMATELY TRENDED DOWNWARD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DUMB MISTAKE OR AT MINIMUM PREMATURE TO PROCLAIM REAGAN A FAILURE JUST BECAUSE THE U/E RATE WAS 9.4 AT HIS 2.5 YEAR MARK. NOW REASON SHOULD SUGGEST IT SIMILARLY DUMB OR PREMATURE TO PROCLAIM OBAMA A FAILURE AT HIS 2.5 YEAR MARK BECAUSE THE U/E RATE IS 9.1 ESPECIALLY SINCE THE OVERALL TREND HAS BEEN DOWN FROM A HIGH OF 10.1.

What's more is that it's only the case that u/e was trending down under Reagan at his 2.5 year mark because it was much higher under him than Obama for far longer and topped out much later than it apparently has under Obama. Since it was 10.1 9 months into Obama's presidency and now 9.1 now, we've already have been experiencing the downward TREND under Obama. The downward trend under Reagan didn't even begin until his 2.5 year mark.

That analysis doesn't make simple sense to you?? Never mind....don't answer that...my bad.:o



I have already made my point and your input here only supports it whether you realize that or not. Case in point, in similar circumstances for Bush he was covered by all three with no variance in coverage. Now that it's Obama, Fox decides to air the parts and time frames of it THEY deem worthy of airing and this isn't the only instance of it happening it was just timely and ironic that it happened before you could finish typing your challenge to the notion of their blatant bias. :1orglaugh

The difference between you and I (among many) on this is you and others observe Faux doing this and you desperately flail around trying to make excuses for it. If this was Bush and they made the decision to edit the coverage to what they deemed worthy while other networks covered it in total...I would be criticizing CNN for it and expecting better from them...not coddling the nonsense.


Again, thanks but no thanks. I'm strictly chickly..meaning I only like chicks (the real ones...not the one's with maleonestoo.:2 cents.

:troll: Ok, I'm done with this nonsense. You clearly don't get it and I'm finished with wasting my time trying to help you. I'm not surrendering to you, I'm just shooting myself (metaphorically speaking) to avoid capture.
You're wrong, it's that simple. But it's your right to believe whatever you want and we can agree to disagree -- even though you're wrong LOL

So let's just go back to talking about porn babes and stuff, that's what FO is for after all -- just stop insulting people for watching Fox as being stupid people.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I, for one, can't believe HM turned down a free rimjob

 

[Hot Mega]

:troll: Ok, I'm done with this nonsense. You clearly don't get it and I'm finished with wasting my time trying to help you.

You were actually done a few posts ago. I warned you to stay down. If you can reason the logic of why it's not relevant to compare a point in Reagan's term to one that hasn't happened in Obama's then sorry, I'm not the one in need of helping.:nono:

You're wrong, it's that simple. But it's right to believe whatever you want.
So let's talk about porn babes and stuff, that's what FO is for -- just stop insulting people for watching Fox. We're not stupid.

I never said you were stupid you've made a much stronger case calling that into question than ANYTHING I've typed here.

It just doesn't seem reasonable that people who watch Faux don't know they are being hoodwinked. If that's the case how else would someone explain people returning to watch their circus for anything serious??

If you think it possible and I don't then that's just a difference of opinion.:dunno:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

It just doesn't seem reasonable that people who watch Faux don't know they are being hoodwinked. If that's the case how else would someone explain people returning to watch their circus for anything serious??

 

[accountantNOT]

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.

Clinton introduces NAFTA?? :rofl2:



Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

[lurkingdirk]

Clinton introduces NAFTA?? :rofl2:



Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Hmmm. It seems Trident got slapped by a n00b.

 

[Trident1]

Clinton introduces NAFTA?? :rofl2:



Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

It began on January 1, 1994. So Clinton was head cheese during it's implementation.

Hmmm. It seems Trident got slapped by a n00b.

You've been waiting for a long time to say that huh.

 

[lurkingdirk]

You've been waiting for a long time to say that huh.

No. it just seemed appropriate at the time. I'm flattered that you think I think of you that often. I hope you masturbate to my posts, too.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

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.

Again, Faux is purely and simply in the entertainment business and their audience is the so called conservative. They're in the entertainment business cloaked in the facade of serious news.

What happens from this? Whenever Faux is caught spinning, ginning or outright misleading...their audience falls back on the criticism of mainstream media...They WANT the debate over 'news' to digress into the your spin versus our spin.

Point being is they (their audience) don't even want Faux in many cases to give them the straight dope...they expect Faux to create a cover or at minimum a spin.

Faux caters to truth be damners... Faux is the only network who's 'followers' trot out panned excuses for their intentional chicanery by persistently and incorrectly trying to paint Faux as the simple opposite to the other outlets.

Faux is not.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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)".

The difference between you and I (among many) on this is you and others observe Faux doing this and you desperately flail around trying to make excuses for it. If this was Bush and they made the decision to edit the coverage to what they deemed worthy while other networks covered it in total...I would be criticizing CNN for it and expecting better from them...not coddling the nonsense.

It just doesn't seem reasonable that people who watch Faux don't know they are being hoodwinked. If that's the case how else would someone explain people returning to watch their circus for anything serious??

I still don't want to take part in this stupid "debate" but I must say that using the term "Faux News" is incredibly idiotic, and in no way clever. Continuous use of it (or should I say exclusive use of it) is like an old man telling a bad pun over and over and over.

It wasn't funny the first time. It's annoying the second time. By the 30th time (22nd, to be exact), I want to take a large rock and bash your face into a clump of red jello. Stop it. It makes you look pathetic.

 

[accountantNOT]

It began on January 1, 1994. So Clinton was head cheese during it's implementation.









You've been waiting for a long time to say that huh.

That's not what you said, you said 'INTRODUCES' and then lay the rest of the blame on Democrats when it was Republicans who wrote it while majority of Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST it. The bill was then put on Clinton's desk with veto override threat. Do look up its legislative history when you get a chance.

 

[pete rose]

Yes, it does. :nono:

whatever you say, dale gribble.

 

[Hot Mega]

I still don't want to take part in this stupid "debate" but I must say that using the term "Faux News" is incredibly idiotic, and in no way clever. Continuous use of it (or should I say exclusive use of it) is like an old man telling a bad pun over and over and over.

It wasn't funny the first time. It's annoying the second time. By the 30th time (22nd, to be exact), I want to take a large rock and bash your face into a clump of red jello. Stop it. It makes you look pathetic.

To be exact, it's Faux (pas) "News?" that I refer to that Micky Mouse outfit as.:hatsoff:

Congratulations! You've just ensured that I will use that I will seek out every opportunity I can to state Faux until Faux is no-mo.

Re:Bashing my face....stick to trying to kill the industry as one way or the other I suspect you'd be the one among the two of us gushing watermelon chunks if it had to go down.:2 cents:

That's not what you said, you said 'INTRODUCES' and then lay the rest of the blame on Democrats when it was Republicans who wrote it while majority of Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST it. The bill was then put on Clinton's desk with veto override threat. Do look up its legislative history when you get a chance.

Rep...good catch. Even you caught onto his double-speak, wordsmith mumbo jumbo...
:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::error::error::error:

The guy is worse than the 'fine' print in a book of 2nd mortgage loan docs.

 

[monicasilver]

whatever you say, dale gribble.

Ron Freakin' Swanson

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Ron Freakin' Swanson

Bacon-wrapped shrimp.

I wasn't offering

 

[KillTheIndustry]

Re:Bashing my face....stick to trying to kill the industry as one way or the other I suspect you'd be the one among the two of us gushing watermelon chunks if it had to go down.:2 cents:

Oh, moving up from grumpy old man to internet tough guy. I was only stating a desire, not actually threatening you. But if you want to go, bring it. I'm not scared.