Fox news makes you stupid
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Of course all media is biased. Some though are more honest about it than Fox is. It is the dishonesty and hypocrisy about this that offends me most about Fox, in addition to their spreading lies and inciting hatred. Fair and balanced? Fox is neither.
All of the major media have presented themselves as unbiased observers; when have any of the traditional media ever admitted that they're less than honest? I'm sure that Fair and Balanced was itself chosen as a slogan because of it's not so subtle dig at the perceived (liberal) bias of the existing media, a longtime complaint of conservative Americans. Just think of how it would make you feel if every news station was Fox and you had no alternative for your news; that was the situation for US conservatives pretty much up till the founding of Fox and it goes a long way to explaining the network's success. It's simple marketing, Rupert Murdoch noticed a gaping hole in the news market and created a product to fill it.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Of course all media is biased. Some though are more honest about it than Fox is. It is the dishonesty and hypocrisy about this that offends me most about Fox, in addition to their spreading lies and inciting hatred. Fair and balanced? Fox is neither.
All of the major media have presented themselves as unbiased observers; when have any of the traditional media ever admitted that they're less than honest? I'm sure that Fair and Balanced was itself chosen as a slogan because of it's not so subtle dig at the perceived (liberal) bias of the existing media, a longtime complaint of conservative Americans. Just think of how it would make you feel if every news station was Fox and you had no alternative for your news; that was the situation for US conservatives pretty much up till the founding of Fox and it goes a long way to explaining the network's success. It's simple marketing, Rupert Murdoch noticed a gaping hole in the news market and created a product to fill it.
Truly unbiased objective news would be as interesting as watching paint dry.
ruveyn
Dox47 wrote:
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Of course all media is biased. Some though are more honest about it than Fox is. It is the dishonesty and hypocrisy about this that offends me most about Fox, in addition to their spreading lies and inciting hatred. Fair and balanced? Fox is neither.
All of the major media have presented themselves as unbiased observers; when have any of the traditional media ever admitted that they're less than honest? I'm sure that Fair and Balanced was itself chosen as a slogan because of it's not so subtle dig at the perceived (liberal) bias of the existing media, a longtime complaint of conservative Americans. Just think of how it would make you feel if every news station was Fox and you had no alternative for your news; that was the situation for US conservatives pretty much up till the founding of Fox and it goes a long way to explaining the network's success. It's simple marketing, Rupert Murdoch noticed a gaping hole in the news market and created a product to fill it.
Well, I would argue that the rest of the media is not as bad as Fox in letting their bias through, and that CNN and MSNBC are completely reasonable at providing the plain facts during their regular reporting, an area where Fox allows distortions and propaganda to slip in. In their commentary and editorial sections, I have no objection to any slant they want to have. That's what editorials are for. But they are being dishonest in reporting the news, and that's where I feel journalistic standards are not being met.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
My problem is that they promote an agenda that is essentially class warfare against me both in terms of being a libertine and also in terms of being on the low end of the income scale.
So you're saying it's not the slanting you object to per se but rather the direction of the slant?
I'd rather no slanting.
/except that life has a liberal bias...it's why we're always learning something new and learning something we used to think was correct is actually wrong.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Orwell wrote:
Well, I would argue that the rest of the media is not as bad as Fox in letting their bias through, and that CNN and MSNBC are completely reasonable at providing the plain facts during their regular reporting, an area where Fox allows distortions and propaganda to slip in. In their commentary and editorial sections, I have no objection to any slant they want to have. That's what editorials are for. But they are being dishonest in reporting the news, and that's where I feel journalistic standards are not being met.
I would say that it depends on the topic, bias changes from outlet to outlet and I'd say that on some subjects Fox is the most accurate of the mainstream sources, not so much on others. I also can't think of another major news provider that is subjected to the level of scrutiny that Fox is, and that in and of itself could skew perception. I would also float the idea that who Fox pisses off matters a lot in the perception game, the demographic opposed to Fox is far more likely to protest and engage in activism against what they see as an ideological enemy, while the Fox audience is more likely to simply change the channel (to Fox) if they don't like the slant of their news.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
skafather84 wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
My problem is that they promote an agenda that is essentially class warfare against me both in terms of being a libertine and also in terms of being on the low end of the income scale.
So you're saying it's not the slanting you object to per se but rather the direction of the slant?
I'd rather no slanting.
/except that life has a liberal bias...it's why we're always learning something new and learning something we used to think was correct is actually wrong.
No slant news is boring news. A totally objective source would be as thrilling to watch (or hear) as paint drying on the wall.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
My problem is that they promote an agenda that is essentially class warfare against me both in terms of being a libertine and also in terms of being on the low end of the income scale.
So you're saying it's not the slanting you object to per se but rather the direction of the slant?
I'd rather no slanting.
/except that life has a liberal bias...it's why we're always learning something new and learning something we used to think was correct is actually wrong.
No slant news is boring news. A totally objective source would be as thrilling to watch (or hear) as paint drying on the wall.
ruveyn
Only to those too stupid to realize the implications of news without the commentary. But then again, those who are that stupid probably don't need to be too involved with knowing the news.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Orwell wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Of course all media is biased. Some though are more honest about it than Fox is. It is the dishonesty and hypocrisy about this that offends me most about Fox, in addition to their spreading lies and inciting hatred. Fair and balanced? Fox is neither.
All of the major media have presented themselves as unbiased observers; when have any of the traditional media ever admitted that they're less than honest? I'm sure that Fair and Balanced was itself chosen as a slogan because of it's not so subtle dig at the perceived (liberal) bias of the existing media, a longtime complaint of conservative Americans. Just think of how it would make you feel if every news station was Fox and you had no alternative for your news; that was the situation for US conservatives pretty much up till the founding of Fox and it goes a long way to explaining the network's success. It's simple marketing, Rupert Murdoch noticed a gaping hole in the news market and created a product to fill it.
Well, I would argue that the rest of the media is not as bad as Fox in letting their bias through, and that CNN and MSNBC are completely reasonable at providing the plain facts during their regular reporting, an area where Fox allows distortions and propaganda to slip in. In their commentary and editorial sections, I have no objection to any slant they want to have. That's what editorials are for. But they are being dishonest in reporting the news, and that's where I feel journalistic standards are not being met.
Yea. I think the only way to demonstrate a left bias network on par with the right bias of Fox would be for some billionaire to give Michael Moor a huge sum of money to start a network that pretends hard to be non-biased. I admire the guy for his convictions but I'll admit that he is a bit of a propagandist.
xenon13 wrote:
Fox News promotes economic ideas that are the equivalent of bloodletting and leeches. It's like telling your audience not to see a doctor, to see the local quack instead. It's malpractice.
Quacks like von Mises, Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Sound money is positively medieval where as chronic inflation and destruction of savings is hip and modern.
I am all for credit as an integral part of a growing capitalist economy. What I am not in favor of is lending to people who cannot pay back.
ruveyn
Raptor wrote:
They're not necessarily slanted to the right
Yes, they are.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Fox News promotes economic ideas that are the equivalent of bloodletting and leeches. It's like telling your audience not to see a doctor, to see the local quack instead. It's malpractice.
Quacks like von Mises, Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Actually, Fox tends to promote the views of supply-siders like Laffer, who is a quack. I don't think I've ever heard of Austrian thought being promoted on Fox.
Incidentally, Mises and Hayek would have been ideological enemies of Milton Friedman. Friedman nearly started America on the path to a Guaranteed Minimum Income.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Fox News promotes economic ideas that are the equivalent of bloodletting and leeches. It's like telling your audience not to see a doctor, to see the local quack instead. It's malpractice.
Quacks like von Mises, Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Actually, Fox tends to promote the views of supply-siders like Laffer, who is a quack. I don't think I've ever heard of Austrian thought being promoted on Fox.
Incidentally, Mises and Hayek would have been ideological enemies of Milton Friedman. Friedman nearly started America on the path to a Guaranteed Minimum Income.
According to Milton Friedman, Von Mises screamed "Socialist!" and raved hysterically at any economist who supported progressive income taxation. Like most social darwinists who are born into privilege, he was a bit of an as*hole in real life. Milton Friedman was of the view that Austrian economics was more political ideology than science.
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Fox News promotes economic ideas that are the equivalent of bloodletting and leeches. It's like telling your audience not to see a doctor, to see the local quack instead. It's malpractice.
Quacks like von Mises, Hayek and Milton Friedman.
Actually, Fox tends to promote the views of supply-siders like Laffer, who is a quack. I don't think I've ever heard of Austrian thought being promoted on Fox.
Incidentally, Mises and Hayek would have been ideological enemies of Milton Friedman. Friedman nearly started America on the path to a Guaranteed Minimum Income.
Friedman was being realistic. Rather than having some agency or complicated means testing, just cut a check to people making less than a certain amount of income. It is cheaper, cleaner and less prone to corruption. And it has the virtue of making sure everyone has something to eat and wear. This will make the less prosperous folk less prone to despair and less vulnerable to extremists.
ruveyn
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Stupid Songs |
24 Feb 2025, 6:22 pm |
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
26 Jan 2025, 6:49 pm |
What makes autistics happy and living good lives? |
14 Dec 2024, 5:50 am |
Why is The Stupid Cupid 1944 the Worst LT Short? |
21 Feb 2025, 2:38 pm |