The unhealthy obsession with FOX news.

118 posts / 0 new

Conservatives do not like the left wing slant of the NY times, NBC news and many other media news outlets. So what do we do? We complain about them from time to time, but more importantly we choose to get our news from other sources. It's called freedom of the press. The obsession with FOX from the left seems a bit over the top. It seems like a little more than simple disaproval. I get the feeling that most are not satisfied with choosing an option other than FOX. What is the end game here? Why is the left obsessed with FOX and what do they want done?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Comments

Providing supporting facts and data in line with a given ideology can rightfully be called bias, but purposely leaving out facts and data in support of a given ideology is just called lying.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

We're not obsessed with FOX, but we all suffer because of the distortions it promotes ya dumb ass. You're an idiot because the response to your post will produce lots of information revealing the evils of FOX. You're doing a dis-service to the right. Keep up the good work.

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"John Ellis is not unlike any other American journalist in wanting to be first with big news. At the helm of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network's election night decision team, he achieved the now dubious distinction of being the first to call Florida - and the presidential election - for George W. Bush. The numbers he was working from were not official, but the viewers did not know that. Nor did they know that Ellis was very chummy with Bush - he's his first cousin.

No one might have given Ellis much notice if the election was not still hanging by a chad almost two weeks later - or if he had not bragged to the New Yorker magazine that throughout what's come to be known as 'Indecision 2000' he was constantly on the phone with his cousins George and Florida's Governor 'Jebbie', tipping them off with the latest internal projections on the voting.

The revelation has caused disquiet within the more high-minded of media circles, not least because his decision to call it for 'Dubya' on Fox at 2:16am forced the hand of competing networks. CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS followed the Ellis lead within four minutes, only to be forced into embarrassing retractions less than two hours later. But the fateful decision has proved convenient for Republicans in the ongoing PR war, say media watchers, creating a lasting impression that Bush 'won' the White House - and all the legal wrangling down in Florida is just a case of Democratic 'snippiness'."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/19/uselections2000.usa2

bamboo's picture
bamboo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Did you ever wonder why so much is made of Fox news bias? The whole point of the news media is to try not to pick sides and to stay neutral. That's what most media news stations do. Fox news is the only news you can watch and never get a neutral view. It is always leaning hard right and represented by hard right commentary from it's talking heads.

They should not be slanted to the left or the right. They should report the news and let the public decide for themselves what that news means. Instead they report edited news and then tell the viewer what that means. The power of the pen ( now the media ) is mightier than the sword. It is the most unAmerican media outlet on the planet. If there were a hard left leaning media outlet force feeding me biased and edited news every minute of the day then I would give them the same F grade.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote MEJ:

We're not obsessed with FOX, but we all suffer because of the distortions it promotes ya dumb ass. You're an idiot because the response to your post will produce lots of information revealing the evils of FOX. You're doing a dis-service to the right. Keep up the good work.

All I did was ask a question. Remember what your teachers taught you? There is no such thing as a dumb question.

Did you know that they really do offer anger management classes? If your insurance will pay, you may want to take one. On second thought, you should probably take one even if you must pay out of pocket.

Stay thirsty my friend.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Did you ever wonder why so much is made of Fox news bias? The whole point of the news media is to try not to pick sides and to stay neutral. That's what most media news stations do. Fox news is the only news you can watch and never get a neutral view. It is always leaning hard right and represented by hard right commentary from it's talking heads.

They should not be slanted to the left or the right. They should report the news and let the public decide for themselves what that news means. Instead they report edited news and then tell the viewer what that means. The power of the pen ( now the media ) is mightier than the sword. It is the most unAmerican media outlet on the planet. If there were a hard left leaning media outlet force feeding me biased and edited news every minute of the day then I would give them the same F grade.

Well I definitely see a left wing slant from the other media outlets. It goes in this order from left to right. Left being the worst. MSNBC, NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN.

Also, the left controls most of the print media, schools and colleges. Yet they still won't be happy until talk radio and FOX are driven out. (Even then, they won't be happy. Because they are never happy)

You see, when all news comes from the same angle it is bad, very bad. The Soviets called this Tass.

I'll ask again because no one seems willing to fess up. If you don't like FOX, then why don't you simply get your news from another source? It's a free country you know?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Laborisgood:

Providing supporting facts and data in line with a given ideology can rightfully be called bias, but purposely leaving out facts and data in support of a given ideology is just called lying.

So? If that is your opinion, then why not watch a different Channel? Politicians lie, Chris Matthews lies, the NY times lies. HLN Lied about Bill O'Reilly. It happens all the time. Who decides who is lying and what do you do about it?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote Laborisgood:

Providing supporting facts and data in line with a given ideology can rightfully be called bias, but purposely leaving out facts and data in support of a given ideology is just called lying.

So? If that is your opinion, then why not watch a different Channel? Politicians lie, Chris Matthews lies, the NY times lies. HLN Lied about Bill O'Reilly. It happens all the time. Who decides who is lying and what do you do about it?

Media Matters and Politifact do a good job of pointing out the lies. It's up to us to "turn the channel" in our elections.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote MEJ:

We're not obsessed with FOX, but we all suffer because of the distortions it promotes ya dumb ass. You're an idiot because the response to your post will produce lots of information revealing the evils of FOX. You're doing a dis-service to the right. Keep up the good work.

I often feel that Rigel, Calperson, etc are really closeted liberals who are trying to out themselves while they expose their evil overlords who have been keeping them down all these years. They often say things that no true believer would dare let slip out in mixed company.

Come on out of the closet Rigel and Cal. There's no shame in being a liberal. It's just the way God made you.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote MEJ:

We're not obsessed with FOX, but we all suffer because of the distortions it promotes ya dumb ass. You're an idiot because the response to your post will produce lots of information revealing the evils of FOX. You're doing a dis-service to the right. Keep up the good work.

I often feel that Rigel, Calperson, etc are really closeted liberals who are trying to out themselves while they expose their evil overlords who have been keeping them down all these years. They often say things that no true believer would dare let slip out in mixed company.

Come on out of the closet Rigel and Cal. There's no shame in being a liberal. It's just the way God made you.

Ha Ha. Very good :) Who says libs have no sense of humor!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Rigel 1 is a paid Faux news segment producer. And, he's really good at tweeking Hartmann followers in order to increase the Faux Buzz. He's particularly adroit at sending traffic to particular Faux content. But he's paid to increase the Faux mention, hence "Faux". My guess is he's got a hundred internet handles and spends his salaried day placing similar controversial comments in all the liberal/progressive/left places he can find. This is certainly a particularly good watering hole for him/her/it.

eseltzy's picture
eseltzy
Joined:
Aug. 8, 2010 9:49 am
Quote eseltzy:

Rigel 1 is a paid Faux news segment producer. And, he's really good at tweeking Hartmann followers in order to increase the Faux Buzz. He's particularly adroit at sending traffic to particular Faux content. But he's paid to increase the Faux mention, hence "Faux". My guess is he's got a hundred internet handles and spends his salaried day placing similar controversial comments in all the liberal/progressive/left places he can find. This is certainly a particularly good watering hole for him/her/it.

You are right on some, wrong on others. I don't waste my time with just any progressive web site. But Thom strikes me as genuine and sincere. I don't agree with much of what he says, but I find him very likeable and intelligent. I do agree with Thom's stand regarding alternative fuel.

I'd love to work for FOX, but I don't. But I do like to "tweak" the progressives from time to time.

I do have several internet handles for various sites.

Why am I here? Because discussing issues only with people who agree with me gets boring as hell. And I DO mean discussing. Which is why you will never see an unprovoked personal insult from me.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

You are certainly more practiced at these types of communications than I. I've yet to see you discussing though. You do have a more soft spoken style of agitating than many of your political persuasion, but lobbing conservative or right-wing mimes is still your "conversational" style. I didn't think that calling you out as a Faux traffic enhancer was name-calling, rather a transparency device to help some of the unsuspecting readers. Did you perceive a personal insult? A bit thin skinned for a Faux-Guy eh? Nah, just Faux Feigning? Anyway, no insults meant or sent, just raising the curtain a bit for your Tweaked readers.

eseltzy's picture
eseltzy
Joined:
Aug. 8, 2010 9:49 am
Quote eseltzy:

You are certainly more practiced at these types of communications than I. I've yet to see you discussing though. You do have a more soft spoken style of agitating than many of your political persuasion, but lobbing conservative or right-wing mimes is still your "conversational" style. I didn't think that calling you out as a Faux traffic enhancer was name-calling, rather a transparency device to help some of the unsuspecting readers. Did you perceive a personal insult? A bit thin skinned for a Faux-Guy eh? Nah, just Faux Feigning? Anyway, no insults meant or sent, just raising the curtain a bit for your Tweaked readers.

No, I have not been insulted by anything you have said. I don't get offended easily. I was refering more to my own personal style. Not the feedback that I get from others. Sorry about the confusion.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Laborisgood:

I often feel that Rigel, Calperson, etc are really closeted liberals who are trying to out themselves while they expose their evil overlords who have been keeping them down all these years. They often say things that no true believer would dare let slip out in mixed company.

Come on out of the closet Rigel and Cal. There's no shame in being a liberal. It's just the way God made you.

Ok, I'll admit it, here is the truth, In short, there are no conservatives. They are only liberals, liberals who come in two varieties: good ones, who want to help people (Democrats), and evil ones, who sit around thinking up new ways of harming people (Republicans).

You see, it is not even possible for someone to hold conservative values and believe that those values are the best the whole of society. It just doesn't exist, there is no such thing. These people can only expose these views by being paid.

Don't worry your ego can go to sleep tonight and rest well. Your liberal assumptions and ideals ARE correct. There is NO opposing view, we do not have to debate conservative views because we do not have to even admit they exist.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Debating Conservative views would be fine, maybe stimulating and even possibly illuminating. Promoting Faux is something else. Maybe it's just your posts I've noticed. They seem to have a Faux Promotional quality to them. Why not leave the GOP TV out of it, and just post your conservative views? Or challenge ones you find faulty and not of the conservative persuasion? Just a thought. You sleep tight too Rigel3names

eseltzy's picture
eseltzy
Joined:
Aug. 8, 2010 9:49 am
Quote rigel1:

You see, when all news comes from the same angle it is bad, very bad. The Soviets called this Tass.

I miss the 1980's, too, dude.

Gorbachev left 20 years ago.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Has anybody pointed out that rigel's premise —"... the left wing slant of the NY times, NBC news and many other media news outlets"— is wrong in the first place? I realize conservatives like to think the mainstream media is left leaning, but it isn't. Its bias is corporate and conservative, especially if you consider all the facts they reflexively leave out of stories, a habit which maintains the discussion within a strict, narrow frame, one that will not challenge the powers that be, i.e., their corporate owners. Consider the NY Times' coverage leading up to the Iraq invasion. Need I say more?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Zenzoe...I didn't bother to address the "left-wing press" canard because it so obviously wrong and has been so thoroughly debunked. But mainly I didn't because Rigel1's premise isn't actually that the press is left wing or left leaning. His premise and the point of most, if not all of his commentaries is that Faux is the source of news and opinion that we should watch, listen to and pay attention to. He claims not to be an employee of them, but I still have may doubts.

eseltzy's picture
eseltzy
Joined:
Aug. 8, 2010 9:49 am

As a presenting system of social pathology, FAUX is a fine case study. Were it the only thing wrong with the Corporate media, it would be of little importance even if it were still a great source for comedy. As an opinion former and pr outlet in the centers of power, it has corrupted journalism in general and given Power the license to lie to Truth with the approval of the flacks and hacks we call "reporters."

The two critical factors are the end of news being separate from the entertainment budget of the networks and the elevation of access over exposure of facts as the asset in a media talking head career.

The criticism of the media and its corporate captivity goes back far before FAUX showed up. As a particularly virulent presentation of the pathology, Ailes and Murdoch have also demonstrated the art of Propaganda for the 21st Century making Goebbels drool in envy. BTW, the stat about FAUX making its viewers stupider than if they had not watched is wrong. They are not made more stupid, they just ARE more stupid which is why they watch FAUX and believe it. FAUX targets these drones.

What has bothered me is the reluctance of other "journalists" and "reporters" on less branded channels to call out FAUX as an insult to their profession. But that would require more than the neutral observer or middle of the two sides culture of modern journalism. You are not right if both sides think you are wrong. It has little to do with accuracy to offend both sides. You are not closer to the truth if you stand in the middle between errors. If one side has facts and the other has dogma, a mix of fact and dogma is not the truth journalists are responsible for uncovering.

It is silly to describe the Corporate Media as either Left or Liberal. It is Corporate, and to the extent that Corporate is part of the larger Enlightenment Liberalism metaphysics, it would be possible to make a case for CNBC as a "liberal" economics channel. It would be in the classic sense, not in the current rhetoric of liberal v. conservative.

To a Libertarian, all the Empire is "liberal" because it posits a State with a moral mission. To a modern Liberal, the Empire is the Deathstar Enemy of Liberty and Justice for All. Calling the media Liberal because it supports the economic and political establishment misses the crititicism of this establishment from Liberals who do not need to be very far Left to see democracy being screwed by Corporate.

The idea that Liberals and the Left suffer from groupthink and the self-assurance that we are right about everything is nonsense. We can see what is wrong with the Right easier than what is wrong with the Left, but we do not have the ideological certainty of the Right in defense of so much that is
Wrong. I listen to critics because some of my conservative friends do have rational and cogent critiques to make about liberal and progressive thinking. Rigel has not contributed to this because his sweeping generalities tend to inspire laughter and incredulity.

If you want to converse, try doing better than ridiculous hyperbole in describing our positions. If you want to know what we think about FAUX, do not confuse it with close minded ideological cult behavior typical of the FAUX viewers. They really do not care about facts or fairness. They have their stories and they are sticking to it.

Concentration of media ownership and the merger of news and entertainment budgets has done a lot of damage to journalism. What it has not done is move it to the Left. Even if Libertarianss don't agree with the Corporate Media Mush, to call it Left or Liberal is inaccurate. It is a polemical point, not an invitation to converse.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Both the left-wing and right-wing media get their talking points from Globalists at the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

Most people know this already !!!!

The problem is smart conservatives and progressives who don't have internet access are still outside the know.

elgiabo's picture
elgiabo
Joined:
Oct. 8, 2011 12:29 pm

The problem with Faux News is not whether anybody should or shouldn't watch it. The problem with it is that, by and large, the same people who watch professional wrestling and think that it's real are the same people who watch Faux News and think that it's news. The problem with that is that those same humanoids are allowed to vote and procreate, and when they exercise their franchise wrongly, as they mostly do, based on the bullshit they hear on Faux News, they can and do drag the rest of us along for the resulting social, economic, and political bad ride.

Faux News is to journalism as professional wrestling is to athletics. Anybody who really wants to understand it should go to their local video rental stores and rent and watch the documentary, Faux News. It's outstanding.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

It is silly to describe the Corporate Media as either Left or Liberal. It is Corporate,

To a Libertarian, all the Empire is "liberal" because it posits a State with a moral mission. To a modern Liberal, the Empire is the Deathstar Enemy of Liberty and Justice for All. Calling the media Liberal because it supports the economic and political establishment misses the crititicism of this establishment from Liberals who do not need to be very far Left to see democracy being screwed by Corporate.

Concentration of media ownership and the merger of news and entertainment budgets has done a lot of damage to journalism. What it has not done is move it to the Left. Even if Libertarianss don't agree with the Corporate Media Mush, to call it Left or Liberal is inaccurate. It is a polemical point, not an invitation to converse.

Yes. Studies have been done on the politics of the corporate structures of newspapers. They found that reporters, copy editors, and editors up through city editor or equivalent positions are mostly liberal, in the true sense of the definition, because they have to deal with the human condition and real people every day, so they see firsthand the damage caused and done by conservative economics and social Darwinism.

Beginning at about the level of managing editor and going all the way up through publisher, newspaper staffs become quite conservative, because they're the ones who run the newspapers as corporate enterprises, presiding over the business side of the papers. And, as everybody knows, almost all business is conservative in attitude, outlook, and performance. One example of the unwritten conservative code of newspapers, which goes back decades, is the unwritten law which tells reporters to never criticize the local billionaire. As proof, go to any back copy section of any American newspaper and try to find non-business criticism of billionaires or multi-millionaires, and you'll find that it's basically non-existent.

Recommended reading for anybody really interested in this subject: What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. Alterman debunks most of the "liberal media bias" crap churned out by con mouthbreathers with nothing else to do.

Rigel mostly pops up like a Whack-A-Mole (or the hackneyed bad penny) to throw stuff against the wall, see if it sticks, and, if/when it does, to revel in the attention Rigel receives per the resulting firestorm of outrage; I think that's what Rigel feeds upon for energy rushes or how Rigel satisfies a need for attention.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

@Ulysses

The problem with Faux News is not whether anybody should or shouldn't watch it. The problem with it is that, by and large, the same people who watch professional wrestling and think that it's real are the same people who watch Faux News and think that it's news. The problem with that is that those same humanoids are allowed to vote and procreate, and when they exercise their franchise wrongly, as they mostly do, based on the bullshit they hear on Faux News, they can and do drag the rest of us along for the resulting social, economic, and political bad ride.

This is a great comment. The scary thing to add to this view is the George Carlin quote, "There will always be more stupid people than smart people in any given situation". He said this before FAUX came into existence. FAUX News only serves to keep the masses ignorant and misinformed.

liberaltalkingpoints's picture
liberaltalkingpoints
Joined:
Nov. 9, 2011 8:56 pm

The lights are on but...

MSNBC, NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN.

I can name a conservative host or anchor on every one of these news outlets. Can you name a liberal anchor or host on FAUX?

Also, the left controls most of the print media, schools and colleges. Yet they still won't be happy until talk radio and FOX are driven out. (Even then, they won't be happy. Because they are never happy)

Ok, because you are thinking challenged and need to memorize the talking points, please cite some examples of the left controlling your print, your school or college. Don't have any? 'Some people' say try the heritage website. Talk about some paranoid bad vibes man. I'm very happy that I have alternatives to FAUX to tune in. I don't care whether or not FAUX is driven out completely, I do care if most of America tunes into them to get their 'news'.

You see, when all news comes from the same angle it is bad, very bad. The Soviets called this Tass.

Did you read this before you wrote it? Because this is verbatim my initial answer to your original question.

I'll ask again because no one seems willing to fess up. If you don't like FOX, then why don't you simply get your news from another source? It's a free country you know?

Unlike yourself apparently, I care if my fellow citizens are willfully and woefully misinformed.

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Thomas Jefferson

liberaltalkingpoints's picture
liberaltalkingpoints
Joined:
Nov. 9, 2011 8:56 pm

I love how "accurate information" has turned into "left wing slant."

Look the fact of the matter is rigel, people don't watch Fox because they don't like "left wing slant." They watch it because they dislike the feeling they get when factual information conflicts with their world view. It's called cognitive dissonance and what it forces you to do is reevaluate your personal perspectives because they simply don't reflect or work with factual information.

So, what they do instead is watch a "News" station that makes you dumber than if you didn't watch any news at all. Rather than confronting these facts, Fox News simply lies to their viewers and confirms their worldview despite the fact that it is completely unhinged from reality. It feels really good so a lot of people watch it.

So, what function should News Media play in a democratic society? Should it make people feel really great about their bigotry and bias? Or should it try to present accurate information so people can make informed democratic decisions? For my part, it is the latter. And in my opinion, the former is actually harmful and dangerous to democratic governance.

Personally, I don't care what Fox plays on their station. I just think it should be illegal for them to call themselves "news." Just like the FDA puts restrictions on the labels "organic," "light," "low-fat", etc. so consumers can make informed decisions about the food they buy, I think there should be restrictions on what can legally be called "news" given that it is the "4th estate" of democratic governance. I realize that comes extremely close to federal regulation or censorship of the press but as others have pointed out, there is a difference between providing opinions on the facts at hand and just lying to your viewers. I am concerned about the latter and not the former.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote liberaltalkingpoints:

... I care if my fellow citizens are willfully and woefully misinformed.

I care too about this sad reality. However, I don't hang out with the willfully and woefully misinformed; my clan is made up of the generously and abundantly educated, those with a mostly "moderate," liberal world view, and so I have a different problem. That is to say, my people refuse to watch or seek online alternative news media, such as Democracy Now!, because those are "biased," according to them. I say, "You think your mainstream media aren't biased?!" But to no avail. We aren't going to have this discussion.

It has to be a sign of just how far to the right our society has slipped, when news media which represents the values of justice, truth, real facts, and investigative journalism, i.e., mainstream, democratic values, becomes, in the minds of "centrists," the radical, liberal, "nut case" equivalent of radical, nut-case right-wing "news." Obviously, Democracy Now! does not qualify as a Marxist-style communist broadcast, which would be the proper left-wing equivalent of FAUX, but that's how it looks to my people, who probably aren't much different from a lot of liberals in this country, and who also don't want anything to put them in conflict with their rosy view of Obama and the Democratic Party.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Against all my preconceived notions of what effects are caused by a Rigel1 (Faux Promoter) post, an intelligent conversation has broken out. My optimism is renewed again. Rigel1 should consider brandishing his conservative views in this environment, and leave aside his interest in driving traffic to Faux.

Well said Ah2 and Zenzoe.

eseltzy's picture
eseltzy
Joined:
Aug. 8, 2010 9:49 am

The idea that there are "two sides" and that they balance each other is a convenient myth for those in the duopoly. Those who see nothing more than two cheeks of the same butt also find the blurring of differences and ambiguity into slogan clarity more attractive than thinking. As others note, the difference between news and ideology framing is significant. There really is nothing on the Left to balance the pure propaganda of FAUX. There is also little to challenge the DC Consensus as it gets spread by the "lamestream." Sarah's only hip comment.

In the DC Consensus, "independents" are in some middle between the extreme Right and Left. Check out the Smiling Tom Brokaw doll for this crap. Really Tom, where is the extreme Left other than in the Left Out or Remainder Discount shelf? Being in the middle of the duopoly is being deep in the shit.

In that sense, the Lamestream Muddle is as much an ideological escape from reality as the FAUX cult. It just attracts Liberals who have fallen for the illusion of democracy Hedges describes. Words of comfort for those who think preserving the entropy of empire is necessary.

I do not have any cons left in my family; and my Liberals are beginning to ask the serious questions they have avoided. There is hope because the system cannot be redeemed. We are going to have to face the facts of life, and when we do we will be surprised and wonder why we preferred the lies.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote eseltzy:

Debating Conservative views would be fine, maybe stimulating and even possibly illuminating. Promoting Faux is something else. Maybe it's just your posts I've noticed. They seem to have a Faux Promotional quality to them. Why not leave the GOP TV out of it, and just post your conservative views? Or challenge ones you find faulty and not of the conservative persuasion? Just a thought. You sleep tight too Rigel3names

I will sleep tight. My teepee is comfy. And one more thing: That's Chief Rigel-three-names to you.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote Ulysses:

The problem with Faux News is not whether anybody should or shouldn't watch it. The problem with it is that, by and large, the same people who watch professional wrestling and think that it's real are the same people who watch Faux News and think that it's news. The problem with that is that those same humanoids are allowed to vote and procreate, and when they exercise their franchise wrongly, as they mostly do, based on the bullshit they hear on Faux News, they can and do drag the rest of us along for the resulting social, economic, and political bad ride.

Faux News is to journalism as professional wrestling is to athletics. Anybody who really wants to understand it should go to their local video rental stores and rent and watch the documentary, Faux News. It's outstanding.

It appears that you are not happy with merely getting your news elsewhere. It appears that want to prevent me and my friends from watching Fox. Do you want to censor or shut down Fox? If so, then how? Who decides what is legitimate news an what isn't?

As I asked in my original statement: What is the end game?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote DRC:

...Those who see nothing more than two cheeks of the same butt also find the blurring of differences and ambiguity into slogan clarity more attractive than thinking...

God I wish I'd written that. Yuk yuk yuk..."two cheeks of the same butt..." Oh my. How perfect.

I still have cons in my family, technically. But, as I said, I don't hang out with those, ever since I suffered a splashing of "holy" water by one of them, who had the appallingly futile wish to cure me of my devils. Little did she know, I love my devils. Anyway, the cure didn't take. Obviously.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:

I get the feeling that most are not satisfied with choosing an option other than FOX. What is the end game here? Why is the left obsessed with FOX and what do they want done?

If you yell Fire! in a crowded theatre and there really is a fire then you receive a medal. If you yell Fire! in a crowded theatre and there is no fire, and you know it, then you go to jail. That is why the left is obsessed with FOX and what they want done. Fox is a political propoganda machine disguised as a news channel. Most of the others are main stream media that dabble in politics. Fox is obsessed with politics and because of that they are forcing the others to jump into that arena more and more. It's bad now but it's going to get a whole lot worse.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Rigel1, if FOX properly seperated news from opinion then perhaps your point would be valid but FOX has so blurred the lines between the two that it clearly behaves as a propoganda outlet and ought to be treated by the government not as a news organization but as the advertising platform for the Republican party that it is (GOP TV). FOX really should be held to account for deliberately and systematically misleading the public in factual matters; for instance its broadcast license ought to be revoked. At the very least the other mainstream news organizations should marginalize FOX just as a display of integrity on their own part.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

If there were any journalistic integrity in the Corporate Lamestream they would long ago have disassociated their profession from the FAUX propaganda show. That they have not is the problem and why making an issue of FAUX matters.

If you are arguing for freedom of opinion in media, FAUX should be categoried with the 700 Club and Pat Robertson in terms of "journalism." If you want to be part of a religious cult and send money to Blood Diamond Criminal Chisters, Robertson is your guy. If all you want is to Wall St. Hustle, go to FAUX when you can get away from Cramer on CNBC.

Blaming Obama in new and creative lies provides a lot of material for Comedy Central and Rachel.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:

Who decides what is legitimate news and what isn't?

What is the end game?

This is a legitimate question and one for which I do not have an answer.

Certainly what is presented as "news" today is not what was presented as "news" in earlier generations. Propaganda is nothing new.

I think the first step for any reputable "information program" would be to intentionally omit the word "news" from any of its marketing. To distinguish themselves from the disreputable "information programs."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote Ulysses:

The problem with Faux News is not whether anybody should or shouldn't watch it. The problem with it is that, by and large, the same people who watch professional wrestling and think that it's real are the same people who watch Faux News and think that it's news. The problem with that is that those same humanoids are allowed to vote and procreate, and when they exercise their franchise wrongly, as they mostly do, based on the bullshit they hear on Faux News, they can and do drag the rest of us along for the resulting social, economic, and political bad ride.

Faux News is to journalism as professional wrestling is to athletics. Anybody who really wants to understand it should go to their local video rental stores and rent and watch the documentary, Faux News. It's outstanding.

It appears that you are not happy with merely getting your news elsewhere. It appears that want to prevent me and my friends from watching Fox. Do you want to censor or shut down Fox? If so, then how? Who decides what is legitimate news an what isn't?

As I asked in my original statement: What is the end game?

I don't care what you watch. But Fox News isn't news. Just know that. As long as you are aware that you are watching a show that presents false information over 50% of the time, then have a blast. Just don't pretend that you are well informed as a result of doing so.

Here is a real easy way to figure out what is news: When a TV station says something is X but it is actually Y. That is not news. When a TV station says X is X but this is how they feel about X. That is news with commentary. When a TV station says X is X. That is news.

Example: When Fox "News" covers the Wisconsin protest but plays video clips of a student protest in California, that is not news. Fox "News" is not news.

When Fox reports continuously the Obama is a Muslim, that is not news.

When Fox News reports continuously DOES NOT report about the fact that their parent company had engaged in illegal wire taps and phone hacks in the UK, THAT IS NOT NEWS.

When the ratio of bullshit starts piling higher than actual real information, it is safe to say that what you are watching is bullshit... NOT NEWS.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote eseltzy:

His premise and the point of most, if not all of his commentaries is that Faux is the source of news and opinion that we should watch, listen to and pay attention to. He claims not to be an employee of them, but I still have may doubts.

Great news!!!!! I am fully capable of speaking for myself. I don't have a "premise" and I don't really care where you get your news.If you have any questions, you need not guess. I'm right here. Ask away.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote eseltzy:

Against all my preconceived notions of what effects are caused by a Rigel1 (Faux Promoter)post,

Show me one, just one quote where I promote Fox news. Give me the quote and I will donate 100 bucks to OWS.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote mdhess:

Rigel1, if FOX properly seperated news from opinion then perhaps your point would be valid but FOX has so blurred the lines between the two that it clearly behaves as a propoganda outlet and ought to be treated by the government not as a news organization but as the advertising platform for the Republican party that it is (GOP TV). FOX really should be held to account for deliberately and systematically misleading the public in factual matters; for instance its broadcast license ought to be revoked. At the very least the other mainstream news organizations should marginalize FOX just as a display of integrity on their own part.

Nobody is forcing anybody to watch it. So don't

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote liberaltalkingpoints:

The lights are on but...

MSNBC, NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN.

I can name a conservative host or anchor on every one of these news outlets. Can you name a liberal anchor or host on FAUX?

Also, the left controls most of the print media, schools and colleges. Yet they still won't be happy until talk radio and FOX are driven out. (Even then, they won't be happy. Because they are never happy)

Ok, because you are thinking challenged and need to memorize the talking points, please cite some examples of the left controlling your print, your school or college. Don't have any? 'Some people' say try the heritage website. Talk about some paranoid bad vibes man. I'm very happy that I have alternatives to FAUX to tune in. I don't care whether or not FAUX is driven out completely, I do care if most of America tunes into them to get their 'news'.

You see, when all news comes from the same angle it is bad, very bad. The Soviets called this Tass.

Did you read this before you wrote it? Because this is verbatim my initial answer to your original question.

I'll ask again because no one seems willing to fess up. If you don't like FOX, then why don't you simply get your news from another source? It's a free country you know?

Unlike yourself apparently, I care if my fellow citizens are willfully and woefully misinformed.

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Thomas Jefferson

So you not only don't want to watch Fox, you don't want me to watch it either. So who should decide what we get to watch? A news csar? Not a big fan of free speech eh? What should be done with FOX?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Clear Channel has apparently done it again. In San Francisco the Green 960 (KKGN) radio station is going HD and they are replacing the AM content with FAUX News with the exception of Randi Rhodes, but they will remove Thom from the line-up. Nothing against Randi, but I see her as the weakest link... now she'll be an Alan Coombs to the Glen Beck and friends lineup. Sad day. Could it have something to do with the 2012 elections? Nah! I must be a conspiracy theorist or anti-capitalist, or sumtin.

jeffmaz's picture
jeffmaz
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mdhess:

FOX really should be held to account for deliberately and systematically misleading the public in factual matters; for instance its broadcast license ought to be revoked.

For violating what law? Who gets to decide?Their ratings crush all competitors because most people like them. So if you can't beat them, shut them down? You can't revoke a license simply because you want to. You need some real violations. I'm not aure what all of these "lies" are. Give me four or five example of Fox lies. Where they reported something that they knew was false.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote jeffmaz:

Clear Channel has apparently done it again. In San Francisco the Green 960 (KKGN) radio station is going HD and they are replacing the AM content with FAUX News with the exception of Randi Rhodes, but they will remove Thom from the line-up. Nothing against Randi, but I see her as the weakest link... now she'll be an Alan Coombs to the Glen Beck and friends lineup. Sad day. Could it have something to do with the 2012 elections? Nah! I must be a conspiracy theorist or anti-capitalist, or sumtin.

Their job is to attract and keep the audience. To do that, you must provide the people with what they want. It's economics not politics. If they thought that Fidel Castro would bring in high ratings, they would hire him

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

[quote=jeffmaz]

Clear Channel has apparently done it again. In San Francisco the Green 960 (KKGN) radio station is going HD and they are replacing the AM content with FAUX News with the exception of Randi Rhodes, but they will remove Thom from the line-up. Nothing against Randi, but I see her as the weakest link... now she'll be an Alan Coombs to the Glen Beck and friends lineup. Sad day. Could it have something to do with the 2012 elections? Nah! I must be a conspiracy theorist or anti-capitalist, or sumtin.

Their job is to attract and keep the audience. To do that, you must provide the people with what they want. It's economics not politics. If they thought that Fidel Castro would bring in high ratings, they would hire him

Castro would fit right in at fixed news since he is also a master at propaganda. Can't deny that.....HuH?

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Most people like burning witches too. Doesn't make it moral though. same with lynch mobs. same with faux

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote mdhess:

FOX really should be held to account for deliberately and systematically misleading the public in factual matters; for instance its broadcast license ought to be revoked.

For violating what law? Who gets to decide?Their ratings crush all competitors because most people like them. So if you can't beat them, shut them down? You can't revoke a license simply because you want to. You need some real violations. I'm not aure what all of these "lies" are. Give me four or five example of Fox lies. Where they reported something that they knew was false.

Research BGH (bovine growth hormone). You'll discover how it is that FOX came to have its current business model and why FOX is not just annoying but actually dangerous. Admittedly the problem is larger than just FOX news, it is systemic. That's why the "occupy" movement formed and why it is so critical. FOX operates on the principle that news need not be factual and it can do that because that's what the court decided. FOX is only one slice of the systemic problem which is that corporations run rampant and exploit their wealth and power to dictate the terms of our existence. They have so infiltrated our democratic system that it no longer works for us because its too busy working for them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AL4yml3bw

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

If anyone hasn't figured it out yet, this is a thread where rigel1 thought he would find clever way of baiting liberals in to admitting that they promote censorship.

He will deflect or ignore any other comments that don't take his bait. This thread is a waste of time.

Rigel is asking the wrong question: Do stations or shows that call themselves "news" have a higher responsibility to democracy than to simply make a profit?

That is the real question rigel is too dumb to ask.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Ulysses:

The problem with Faux News is not whether anybody should or shouldn't watch it. The problem with it is that, by and large, the same people who watch professional wrestling and think that it's real are the same people who watch Faux News and think that it's news. The problem with that is that those same humanoids are allowed to vote and procreate, and when they exercise their franchise wrongly, as they mostly do, based on the bullshit they hear on Faux News, they can and do drag the rest of us along for the resulting social, economic, and political bad ride.

Faux News is to journalism as professional wrestling is to athletics. Anybody who really wants to understand it should go to their local video rental stores and rent and watch the documentary, Faux News. It's outstanding.

It appears that you are not happy with merely getting your news elsewhere. It appears that want to prevent me and my friends from watching Fox. Do you want to censor or shut down Fox? If so, then how? Who decides what is legitimate news an what isn't?

As I asked in my original statement: What is the end game?

When Fox reports continuously the Obama is a Muslim, that is not news.

Name a few of the reporters who claim that Obama is a Muslim. Did not happen. It's up to you to prove this.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote ah2:

This thread is a waste of time.

Then why are you commenting? Maybe you should let people decide for themselves what is or isn't a waste of their time.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system