roronoa3000
Banned
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/jane-burgess said:
Thats what they want you to think.:elaugh:
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Fox News viewers are the most misinformed
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
Thats what they want you to think.:elaugh:
Everyone has their own political belief, and therefore, political bias. All news networks are made up of individuals with their own bias. Fox News is obviously biased, but you can't deny other stations and programs are equally bias in the other direction.
Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Larry King, Glenn Beck are all full of bullshit, but also truth. But people are going to focus on the parts they agree with, and disregard the rest. If you're only listening to one side (either side), you are being misinformed.
Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Larry King, Glenn Beck are all full of bullshit, but also truth. But people are going to focus on the parts they agree with, and disregard the rest. If you're only listening to one side (either side), you are being misinformed.
TheOrangeCat
AFK..being taken to the vet to get neutered.
of course, this all depends on the story being accurate in the first place, otherwise we are being misinformed about the misinformation feeding the misperceptions of Fox's zombie army.
Sorry, audience.
Sorry, audience.
Edit: Whoops! Don't know what happened there.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Yeah, I think that's typically true. Especially when three or four of them begin agreeing with each other and it sounds like they're all reading from the same script.
We had a discussion/debate about subprime mortgages on here last year. Not that I'd expect most people to be experts on how the mortgage industry works, but identifying the Fox News viewers by the foolishness and myths they were claiming as fact became almost like a sport for me.
Whether it's Bloomberg News, Reuters or the Wall St. Journal, you're right that they all have biases to some degree. But I'd say there's a difference between occasional biases and actual, consistent agendas. IMO both Fox News and MSNBC have agendas... not just biases.
Exactly! :thumbsup: That's what I meant when I said that I think of Fox News (and other like outlets) as being like an "echo chamber". There are people (and yes, Jane is correct in that you can typically pick them out pretty easily) who seek out Fox so that they can hear only that which lines up with their existing beliefs. Those kinds of people absolutely HATE to hear anything that challenges their established beliefs.
There are quite a few people who get their news from Jon Stewart. IMO he is funny and probably on the mark more times than not, but if that is your source of news, you would probably be ill informed.
(Now if you got your news from Cobert...)
(Now if you got your news from Cobert...)
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
A shocking development. I simply refuse to believe it, especially since FOX reported that it was quite the contrary. 400 million Americans trust FOX news. For those who are ignoramuses, that's 75% of the country. You can't make those numbers up.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
IMHO, Fox is the symptom, not the problem... the "mainstream" media lost a lot of credibility over the last couple of decades by slanting stories themselves, usually to the benefit of "liberal" ideology, but all in the guise of REAL news. Fox came along and gave people center to right "news" that they agreed with. Lefties are no different, and it has all lead to people watching opinionated based reporting of their own slant... what's true anymore in the news media? No one can say for sure... True journalism, i.e., finding out facts are reporting them, is all but dead these days and we're all the worse for it. :2 cents:
Not that I even accept the premise of Fox being a symptom vice problem but aren't symptoms problems too?
Would you give a shit about your allergy to pollen but for the running nose, puffy eyes, itching and coughing?:dunno:
But even as such...you're claiming Fox is a symptom of mainstream media's loss of credibility (which is highly debatable) while they counter-produce an even less credible product. That isn't a symptom, that's another problem.
Now what I will say is Fox is an extension of a strategy to perpetuate a 'death of truth' world whereby they can wantonly mislead, misinform and even create 'news' justifiably (in the eyes of their viewers) because their viewers have been convinced other news outlets do just the same. Hence, a you have your news and I have mine world.
This started with the right wing campaign to discredit regular media outlets to the point where the founders of an outfit like Fox can come along and give right wingers what they think they've been missing.
You can go back 20 or so years ago when republicans and they media types would exploit every isolated case and anecdote in order to create the impression there was some liberal media conspiracy.
The fact of the matter is what they were pointing out amounted to little more than rummaging over 10 years worth of the average person's tax returns, finding technical infractions then labeling the person a tax cheat.
We all should know the average journalist is lazy and prone to conventional thinking when they report. Therefore, some of their reporting can come across as liberal (though unintentional) if they include or omit some buzzword a critic is sensitive to. That coupled with some polls of media types and how they're registered or vote then they convince their followers of this grand media conspiracy.
Fox is little more than entertainment with a serious face.
Supafly
Retired Mod
I think the point is: Are you mainly watching Fox for news, or are you having a wider spread of news channels, and among them is Fox?
I have like, 6 main News Bookmarks and some 5 others I check random. And there is Fox among the latter 5. Others are a german jewish newspaper, an ex-GDR-newspaper, and so on.
Not that I even accept the premise of Fox being a symptom vice problem but aren't symptoms problems too?
Would you give a shit about your allergy to pollen but for the running nose, puffy eyes, itching and coughing?:dunno:
But even as such...you're claiming Fox is a symptom of mainstream media's loss of credibility (which is highly debatable) while they counter-produce an even less credible product. That isn't a symptom, that's another problem.
Now what I will say is Fox is an extension of a strategy to perpetuate a 'death of truth' world whereby they can wantonly mislead, misinform and even create 'news' justifiably (in the eyes of their viewers) because their viewers have been convinced other news outlets do just the same. Hence, a you have your news and I have mine world.
This started with the right wing campaign to discredit regular media outlets to the point where the founders of an outfit like Fox can come along and give right wingers what they think they've been missing.
You can go back 20 or so years ago when republicans and they media types would exploit every isolated case and anecdote in order to create the impression there was some liberal media conspiracy.
The fact of the matter is what they were pointing out amounted to little more than rummaging over 10 years worth of the average person's tax returns, finding technical infractions then labeling the person a tax cheat.
We all should know the average journalist is lazy and prone to conventional thinking when they report. Therefore, some of their reporting can come across as liberal (though unintentional) if they include or omit some buzzword a critic is sensitive to. That coupled with some polls of media types and how they're registered or vote then they convince their followers of this grand media conspiracy.
Fox is little more than entertainment with a serious face.
HM, I think you missed my point entirely
The last serious poll I remember last year stated that over 3/4 of the "media" considers themselves "liberal." And the bias is everywhere, and Fox is the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. But at least you KNOW what the slat is when you watch Fox. Other outlets TRY to be neutral but they aren't, and that worries me even more because people can be swayed by what they THINK is unbiased news, but the boas is there, just more subtle.
I miss the days when news orgs just reported the facts with no commentary. Heck, most news anchors can't even keep the inflection of the voice normal or they facial expressions neutral when they are reporting a story and trying to be "fair." :dunno:
HM, I think you missed my point entirely
I did?? I got your point (Fox being a 'symptom' vice problem..They're not, they most certainly are a problem.) and addressed it entirely.Now I did go on to put why I refuted what you claimed in context but I didn't miss anything. In fact, your post was a glowing example of the strategy at work. :2 cents:
^^Case in point.
If anything MSNBC and it's commentators (not reporters) are a reaction to Fox as most of what they deal with is responses to Fox.
Those are NOT examples of news outlets.Really? ALL fake? Is there a news outlet in existence that is ALL true then? Never should one make blanket, sweeping generalizations.
Exactly right.
Not that I even accept the premise of Fox being a symptom vice problem but aren't symptoms problems too?
We all should know the average journalist is lazy and prone to conventional thinking when they report. Therefore, some of their reporting can come across as liberal (though unintentional) if they include or omit some buzzword a critic is sensitive to. That coupled with some polls of media types and how they're registered or vote then they convince their followers of this grand media conspiracy.
Fox is little more than entertainment with a serious face.
No. You're incorrect. A symptom is something that springs from, is in direct response to, a problem. Take care of the PROBLEM, the over-arching ISSUE, and you remove the SYMPTOM.
Secondly, how do you know the average reporter is lazy? Are you a reporter? Do you have experience dealing with large cross sections of them that it would then be acceptable for you to say something so generalizing, demeaning, and ill informed? I happen to know quite a few, and can say that for the most part, you could not be possibly any more incorrect. They have to bust their hump to get where they are. Lazy. Please. If you are going to march around here trying to sound like the smartest guy around, at least have the semblance of appearing to know what it is you're writing about before you spout off with such garbage. :nono:
I'll give you that one HM, they were getting uber pwned in the ratings and decided to sacrifice their journalistic integrity and become the very thing they were complaining about. And it backfired... they are worse than ever, and their rating blow. :dunno:
^^ "'nother 'death of truth' example. As the standard has become the source now. Not whether the report is credible, relevant, fact or fiction.
Now before you prattle off how Fox is derided on the same terms...IT'S TRUE. Most times Fox is derided as a source but what usually accompanies the criticism is the problem with the particular piece Fox is reporting.
:dunno: Okay... First, the analogy by C/S was 'spoilt' to begin with but dealing with it anyway..I'll try it slower with more examples for you Gal...Never mind the fact that Fox isn't a symptom at all but if you buy into the notion there are 'problems', Fox is just another problem. Because if you believe the mainstream media has a liberal bias, the reasonable reaction to that isn't to double down on bias and additionally report with looser credibility. But to report less bias more credible news (hence the reason the analogy was 'spoilt' to begin with).
However, if your response to what you see as biased news is to report with bias and lacking credibility... that is another, separate problem. As they are not reacting to anything now but proactively generating their own 'germs' which produce symptoms/problems. You don't understand that?:o
It's silly to believe as you suggest that if other media outlets changed their so called bias or reporting standards, Fox would simply stop reporting their bias and misleading.
They wouldn't because they believe in how they report..right??Well, I don't know it and this isn't definitive but I do have a sister and a cousin both of whom have worked for major news outlets for the past 30 years. Does what they and their colleagues say count?:o
They along with some of their colleagues say "the average reporter is lazy when it comes to reporting their stories" and it's worse nowadays. Hell, even without their input anyone can see the average story or article you read is poorly written from the standpoint of some of what's unintentionally conveyed either by omission or settling for conventional semantics.
The effect is...nitpickers can run across many articles and charge bias..when it's really nothing nefarious but just 'lazy journalism' (the phrase is coined and the words of actual journalists..not my words).:2 cents:
Your move.:o
Well, pretty tough to argue Fox is reacting to MSNBC when Fox has been around before them.
The Huffington Post? There's an objectvie source. (cough)
Btw - Barack Obama's on tape not knowing how many states there are. But he's not Sarah Palin, so he gets away with it.
Btw - Barack Obama's on tape not knowing how many states there are. But he's not Sarah Palin, so he gets away with it.
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
That's because you can't compare a momentary lapse to a consecutive string of idiotic statements.
I suppose it would be worthing mentioning that Huffington post is not a news agency but a blog and repository for news posts.
The post is about a Univ. of Maryland study...not something Huffpost created.
You can read it now since you didn't bother the first time....
Perfect example of why you so loved around here Mega. Condescension knows no bounds apparently......
It's silly to believe as you suggest that if other media outlets changed their so called bias or reporting standards, Fox would simply stop reporting their bias and misleading.
Can you show me exactly where I suggested that? Caaaauuuse, I looked, and I think I was literally arguing semantics with you. You are wrong about symptom vs. problem.
Well, I don't know it and this isn't definitive but I do have a sister and a cousin both of whom have worked for major news outlets for the past 30 years. Does what they and their colleagues say count?:o
Then you should not say that "we should all know." Period. Blanket statements are never a good idea, and I would think you would know that. Apparently not.
They along with some of their colleagues say "the average reporter is lazy when it comes to reporting their stories" and it's worse nowadays. Hell, even without their input anyone can see the average story or article you read is poorly written from the standpoint of some of what's unintentionally conveyed either by omission or settling for conventional semantics.
A couple people's opinion, and then you "back it up" with rhetoric. Anyone can see? I don't know what you read, but I tend to read very well thought out articles and op eds.....don't always agree with them, but still.......
Your move.:o
I honestly wish we were playing chess, Mega, 'cause I would smoke you son.
Then you post the article from the Huff Post......not the actual study....what are you trying to get across here? Or is this article a good example of what you said.........
"Hell, even without their input anyone can see the average story or article you read is poorly written from the standpoint of some of what's unintentionally conveyed either by omission or settling for conventional semantics."
Similar threads
