Jump to content

How Fox News works

retread

By retread
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10710

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hugo, Rachel Maddow can't even contain her contempt of this administration. Which is completely understandable and I fucking agree with her slant 99.9%. 

But she should be unbiased, imo, not entertainment. I feel more honest about wTching my news from comedy central, Bill Maher and John Oliver. I know I'm being entertained and the facts matter second, if that makes sense. I'm not sure with Rachel and the gang. They really aren't trying to be unbiased. I nod at what they say and feel uncomfortable about that because they could just be feeding me what I want to hear the way Fox does and that is bullshit.

Edited by burntorangebongos
Fuck typing on this POS phone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

I know you’re joking about the military and “wokeness” but let me tell y’all a little story. My son has been in the Marines around 18 months. COVID absolutely destroyed his path at Troy - he’s ADHD

The Royal We
The Royal We

1. No one from the Trump campaign ever had any contact with Russia. 2. Well, someone may have had contact with Russia, but the campaign/Trump didn't know about it. 3. Actually, there was con

TexArcher
TexArcher

I'm saying I'd like to get in my car and ram it into Sean Hannity at high speed.

Posted Images

'stache

'stache 21802

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Hugo, Rachel Maddow can't even contain her contempt of this administration. Which is completely understandable and I fucking agree with her slant 99.9%. 

But she should be unbiased, imo, not entertainment. I feel more honest about wTching my news from comedy central, Bill Maher and John Oliver. I know I'm being entertained and the facts matter second, if that makes sense. I'm not sure with Rachel and the gang. They really aren't trying to be unbiased. I nod at what they say and feel uncomfortable about that because they could just be feeding me what I want to hear the way Fox does and that is bullshit.

She's fine because she doesn't present herself as an unbiased newscaster.  Her show is about the liberal perspective.  The entire network brands itself as "Lean Forward."  The danger of Fox News is that they present themselves as "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" news, because everything else is just "the librul media."  They not only promote outright lies from Trump and his press lady, they are starting to invent their own lies, and present them as fact.  MSNBC at least discusses facts and then opines on them from the liberal perspective.  Fox pretends that their lies as truth and pretends that they are just reporting the news.  Their sheep believe them and believe that everything else (i.e., the truth) is just "the librul media."  It's dangerous as fuck and nobody can do anything about it.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Hugo, Rachel Maddow can't even contain her contempt of this administration. Which is completely understandable and I fucking agree with her slant 99.9%. 

She strives to report factually accurate information and if she makes a mistake then she's quick to admit it, correct it, and apologize. She has never once accused Trump of murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You are right. I was just saying the defense of Maddow as being factual isn’t really the point. 

Compared to Fox it's a very important point. Of course she "leans left." She's a liberal doing a news show about subjects of interest to liberal viewers. She's not a propaganda outlet for the Democratic Party. Fox knowingly tells lies. They also like to point their cameras at other people and let them tell lies. that's a huge difference. The two aren't remotely the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Compared to Fox it's a very important point. Of course she "leans left." She's a liberal doing a news show about subjects of interest to liberal viewers. She's not a propaganda outlet for the Democratic Party. Fox knowingly tells lies. They also like to point their cameras at other people and let them tell lies. that's a huge difference. The two aren't remotely the same. 

Look, I don't watch Maddow, I don't watch Hannity.  I've seen both, but I don't watch them.  Hannity is a complete lying nutbar.  Maddow is clearly quite smart, and digs down deep into actual facts -- but Jesus Christ she can drag shit out for an hour to make a 5 minute point, which often isn't nearly as big a deal as she wants to make it out to be.

But the real problem is the text I bolded above.  Whether or not they are based on facts, neither what she nor Hannity does are "NEWS SHOWS."  They are analysis and opinion shows.  Which mis-labeling is a big part of our problem as a country.

NEWS: Today, the DOJ revealed documents about the Trump campaign that represent X and Y, and were signed by Trump.  President Trump responded "wasn't me, I didn't sign anything, Hillary sold uranium, you're a poopyhead."

ANALYSIS: Let's talk for 4 hours about what these documents mean and either (1) how fucking nuts Trump is for saying that word salad [Maddow] or (2) why all news media except me is indeed poopyheads [Hannity].

News provides facts, and just the necessary context.  As for cable news....about 5% of that they provide is news.  The remaining 95% is talking head analysis and opinion bullshit, which dumb viewers TREAT like news.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

 I’d like to replace the word “News” with the phrase “valuable and accurate information”

The media outlets that provide the most valuable and accurate information regarding our elected officials should be rewarded by consumers.

Unfortunately, they’re not.

Also, our elected officials should provide their voters with valuable and accurate information.

Unfortunately, they don’t.

In short, we suck at making political and media decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
On May 4, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Brisketexan said:

Look, I don't watch Maddow, I don't watch Hannity.  I've seen both, but I don't watch them.  Hannity is a complete lying nutbar.  Maddow is clearly quite smart, and digs down deep into actual facts -- but Jesus Christ she can drag shit out for an hour to make a 5 minute point, which often isn't nearly as big a deal as she wants to make it out to be.

But the real problem is the text I bolded above.  Whether or not they are based on facts, neither what she nor Hannity does are "NEWS SHOWS."  They are analysis and opinion shows.  Which mis-labeling is a big part of our problem as a country.

NEWS: Today, the DOJ revealed documents about the Trump campaign that represent X and Y, and were signed by Trump.  President Trump responded "wasn't me, I didn't sign anything, Hillary sold uranium, you're a poopyhead."

ANALYSIS: Let's talk for 4 hours about what these documents mean and either (1) how fucking nuts Trump is for saying that word salad [Maddow] or (2) why all news media except me is indeed poopyheads [Hannity].

News provides facts, and just the necessary context.  As for cable news....about 5% of that they provide is news.  The remaining 95% is talking head analysis and opinion bullshit, which dumb viewers TREAT like news.

Maddow isn't a panel show. It's not an opinion show. If you had watched it Friday you would have seen video of a speech given that day by Rod Rosenstein that you probably didn't see anywhere else. That was news to me.

You said you don't watch the show then went on to critique the show. It's not the nightly news covering the top stories of the day. It sounds like your screed is against  all cable news programs in general. Okay, fine. That makes Maddow more of a news show than any of the panel discussions. 

I don't watch it all the time but I often check in to see if she's got a good topic. When she has a good story they do a great job. It's well researched and they provide excellent context. 

Sometimes they they do original reporting. More often they aggregate from other news outlets and weave them together to tell the larger story. Sometimes they cover events live and in real time. It all depends. But you don't watch so you wouldn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaucyJack

SaucyJack 3488

Posted
Posted
On 5/4/2018 at 10:28 AM, theaveragejon said:

The "left winged" media is now far to concerned with trying and appearing to be "balance". Which is so stupid. When you have Fox on the other side which is now just a propaganda arm from the republican base and Trump. The media should be worried about reporting facts and news. Not trying to be balanced. The media needs to be providing oversight when the legislative doesn't. Now in their attempt to be balanced they let Trump and Fox get away with creating distrust in the media. It's all so fucked and stupid. 

America does not understand the difference between "news" and "talk shows".

All networks are complicit in mudding the waters.  Fox goes to the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaucyJack

SaucyJack 3488

Posted
Posted
On 5/4/2018 at 11:10 AM, burntorangebongos said:

Hugo, Rachel Maddow can't even contain her contempt of this administration. Which is completely understandable and I fucking agree with her slant 99.9%. 

But she should be unbiased, imo, not entertainment. I feel more honest about wTching my news from comedy central, Bill Maher and John Oliver. I know I'm being entertained and the facts matter second, if that makes sense. I'm not sure with Rachel and the gang. They really aren't trying to be unbiased. I nod at what they say and feel uncomfortable about that because they could just be feeding me what I want to hear the way Fox does and that is bullshit.

Maddow is not news. She hosts a talk show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
Maddow isn't a panel show. It's not an opinion show. If you had watched it Friday you would have seen video of a speech given that day by Rod Rosenstein that you probably didn't see anywhere else. That was news to me.
You said you don't watch the show then went on to critique the show. It's not the nightly news covering the top stories of the day. It sounds like your screed is against  all cable news programs in general. Okay, fine. That makes Maddow more of a news show than any of the panel discussions. 
I don't watch it all the time but I often check in to see if she's got a good topic. When she has a good story they do a great job. It's well researched and they provide excellent context. 
Sometimes they they do original reporting. More often they aggregate from other news outlets and weave them together to tell the larger story. Sometimes they cover events live and in real time. It all depends. But you don't watch so you wouldn't know that.

I don’t WATCH her show (I don’t watch much of any cable news), but I’ve seen it from time to time. Enough to know her style - which I complained about (she often takes forever to get to the point).

And you are a bit defensive - I opened by observing that hers is a fact-heavy program. But it still comes around to analysis and opinion. Which is fine, but it’s not an objective NEWS show. It’s an analysis show. And should be treated as such. Look, I WISH Fox and Friends spent 1/10the time on facts that Maddow does. But that comparison still doesn’t make her program a straight news program.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I don’t WATCH her show (I don’t watch much of any cable news), but I’ve seen it from time to time. Enough to know her style - which I complained about (she often takes forever to get to the point).

And you are a bit defensive - I opened by observing that hers is a fact-heavy program. But it still comes around to analysis and opinion. Which is fine, but it’s not an objective NEWS show. It’s an analysis show. And should be treated as such. Look, I WISH Fox and Friends spent 1/10the time on facts that Maddow does. But that comparison still doesn’t make her program a straight news program.

Based on your previous post I would think you didn't believe that there was such a thing as a straight news program on cable TV.

I debated calling it a "news magazine" but didn't feel that was exactly correct. I figured someone was going to jump on "news show" because I know how this community delights in the excruciating obsession over minutiae. I was disappointed that it came from someone who professes not to watch the show. But yeah, let's debate the label. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what terrorist attack was prevented because of information we got through torture. When our servicemen have been tortured it was to get them to make false confessions and to condemn the war effort. Remember that one guy who blinked "torture" in Morse code as he read his statement condemning the war in Vietnam? 

People will say anything to make the torture stop. That's why what they say isn't reliable. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

People will say anything to make the torture stop. That's why what they say isn't reliable. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Because we have a bloodthirsty diseased element in our population that loves the idea of torturing the “bad people”.

They don’t give a fuck what information they might have.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25944

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because we have a bloodthirsty diseased element in our population that loves the idea of torturing the “bad BROWN people”.

They don’t give a fuck what information they might have.

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5633

Posted
Posted
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what terrorist attack was prevented because of information we got through torture. When our servicemen have been tortured it was to get them to make false confessions and to condemn the war effort. Remember that one guy who blinked "torture" in Morse code as he read his statement condemning the war in Vietnam? 
People will say anything to make the torture stop. That's why what they say isn't reliable. Why is that so hard to grasp?


Its not hard to grasp. FBI had interrogators with much more experience getting information legally. They were benched in favor of CIA’s enhanced interrogators by people that wanted to make a name.

But, unless we had sick fucks experimenting in torture, these CIA operatives were all new to this. Probably learned theory by studying Argentine fascists, who learned their trade from the NAZI’s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28776

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:

 


Its not hard to grasp. FBI had interrogators with much more experience getting information legally. They were benched in favor of CIA’s enhanced interrogators by people that wanted to make a name.

But, unless we had sick fucks experimenting in torture, these CIA operatives were all new to this. Probably learned theory by studying Argentine fascists, who learned their trade from the NAZI’s.

 

We learned how to torture from the SERE program (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) which we created after the Korean to train soldiers how to, among other things, resist the sort of torture, like waterboarding, used on our soldiers by the Chinese. But you're right, we didn't have anyone skilled at interrogation through torture because we already knew that torture isn't useful for getting reliable information. The Chinese used it to get false confessions for use in propaganda. 

And that douchebag who went on Fox and claimed that torture worked on John McCain neglected to mention that the way it worked on McCain was to get him to sign a false confession! He didn't turn over secret codes or troop numbers and locations or operational strategies or anything of military use. His will was broken to the point where he gave false info for use in propaganda. That's all that torture is good for. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orca of Peace

Orca of Peace 109

Posted
Posted
On 5/17/2018 at 7:43 AM, trauma babe said:

It is shocking how similar their skin tones are. Like, almost exactly the same shade of salmon.

over the years I've noticed the FOX studio lighting is much more intense than other networks and the men wear a ton of studio makeup. The women are basically strippers who love their race and American might. FOX is news pornography for dolts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1814

Posted
Posted
On 5/4/2018 at 2:05 PM, Brisketexan said:

Look, I don't watch Maddow, I don't watch Hannity.  I've seen both, but I don't watch them.  Hannity is a complete lying nutbar.  Maddow is clearly quite smart, and digs down deep into actual facts -- but Jesus Christ she can drag shit out for an hour to make a 5 minute point, which often isn't nearly as big a deal as she wants to make it out to be.

But the real problem is the text I bolded above.  Whether or not they are based on facts, neither what she nor Hannity does are "NEWS SHOWS."  They are analysis and opinion shows.  Which mis-labeling is a big part of our problem as a country.

NEWS: Today, the DOJ revealed documents about the Trump campaign that represent X and Y, and were signed by Trump.  President Trump responded "wasn't me, I didn't sign anything, Hillary sold uranium, you're a poopyhead."

ANALYSIS: Let's talk for 4 hours about what these documents mean and either (1) how fucking nuts Trump is for saying that word salad [Maddow] or (2) why all news media except me is indeed poopyheads [Hannity].

News provides facts, and just the necessary context.  As for cable news....about 5% of that they provide is news.  The remaining 95% is talking head analysis and opinion bullshit, which dumb viewers TREAT like news.

Physician, heal thyself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem48

hookem48 4687

Posted
Posted
On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:55 PM, XR4ticlone said:

Ask Target, the NFL, & ESPN about that...

Or ask the NRA & Chick-Fil-a 

They seem to be suffering different fates.  :)  

Is there a Chick-Fil-a that isn't busy as fuck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30211

Posted
Posted
On 5/21/2018 at 8:47 AM, Orca of Peace said:

over the years I've noticed the FOX studio lighting is much more intense than other networks and the men wear a ton of studio makeup. The women are basically strippers who love their race and American might. FOX is news pornography for dolts. 

tumblr_o9o0n61i8q1qz9pzzo1_400.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, SKJ said:

How the fuck does Shep still have a job?

He signed a renewal deal in March.  And it's 3PM ET slot.

Quote

Smith has maintained he has different duties than his primetime counterparts on Fox. “Everybody’s got a job to do. Hannity is trying to get conservatives elected. And he wants you to listen to him and believe what he believes,” Smith told The Huffington Post in 2016. “And I’m disseminating facts. It’s really apples and teaspoons. What we do is so different. He’s an entertaining guy who has an audience that he serves, and I deliver the news.”

Before taking the helm of the breaking news division with his “Shepard Smith Reporting,” Smith anchored two programs, “The Fox Report” and “Studio B.” Among the events he has anchored are: the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 and its aftermath; the financial crisis of 2008; the 2003 war in Iraq; and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. “I am incredibly proud to be part of a group of journalists who helped build the Fox news division from scratch 22 years ago and extremely thankful for the opportunity to continue to lead our breaking news coverage for years to come,” Smith said in a statement.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/fox-news-renews-shepard-smith-1202727796/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Number 3 story on Fox News  website is a lady in Georgia being fined by the government for paint chips in her house. Number 5 story is about a guy who stunk so much on a plane that he caused people to vomit.

That my friends, is what your parents are getting their news about. Trump trade wars don’t seem to matter so much. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...