Fox News should be banned!

[metis]

I knew it!
The old false false equivalency fallacy has arrived.
While it creates a straw man, it's even worse than the straw man fallacy because it rests
upon the false presumption that there was ever a claim that 2 things were "equivalent"

Tis always invoked to deny any commonality between leftish & rightish groups.
Each side needs to believe they're better than the other, eg, smarter, ethicaller, prettier.
They just can't admit they're both subject to the same human frailties.

Anyone who claims that PBS is the same as Fox except in different directions also would likely be so "logical" so as to believe that a grape is the same as a bowling ball because both happen to be round. PBS is certainly not an arm of the Democratic Party but Fox certainly is an arm of the Republican Party.

Next time you try and eat a grape and it seems very tough, ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyone who claims that PBS is the same as Fox except in different directions.....

Instead of quoting my language, you use "the same".
This introduces opportunity for mischief because one can read this to mean different things.
You also substitute PBS for NPR.
Could this be to avoid a particularly uncomfortable example of NPR's prejudice?

....also would likely be so "logical" so as to believe that a grape is the same as a bowling ball because both happen to be round.

Do you really claim that recognizing common traits of Fox & PBS necessarily leads to saying "a grape is the same as a bowling ball"?

PBS is certainly not an arm of the Democratic Party but Fox certainly is an arm of the Republican Party.
Next time you try and eat a grape and it seems very tough, ...

One might think you're trying to construct an argument to win,
rather than understand my perspective.
Next time, try dealing with my post instead of invented straw men.

 

[esmith]

Stick my $0.02 in here. Seems that PBS does have a political agenda that leans left. More so in the past. Now I expect the sources given will be denigrated because they disagree with the premise that PBS is not "political".
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7354
http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/outlet/pbs/ (however just shows that liberals watch PBS which in itself does not say that PBS is liberal unless one uses the argument that conservatives watch FNC hence FNC is conservative (which it is)
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...g-for-pbs-be-cut/pbs-epitomizes-liberal-elite

 

[Akivah]

Give it about 20 years and their ratings will plummet, given that their majority demograph is older people.

Wishful thinking. According to that link, FOX has been on top for over 13 years. Most likely as the youngsters grow up, they develop brains and move to the Right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

they should not meet those standards considering all the lies and lack of facts and mostly sharing opinions and misinformation.

I don't see much left of those standards on both sides of the table. It's sad I have to look at the BBC and CBC for a more informed and accurate reporting of events happening in my own country.

 

[Underhill]

You say it isn't.
I say that it is.

If NPR can campaign for Dems, why can't Fox do so for Pubs?

Name one incident where NPR literally campaigned for democrats? I just named one where Fox did.

Sure, NPR is biased marginally. But they do not actively and openly work for the democrats.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The thing with that is is that shows like the Daily Show or Last Week Tonight don't try to pretend to anything but comedy shows that bring up current events (I'd say John Oliver is more of a comedian/activist than comedian/news anchor). They don't even have "news" in their names. Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC do masquerade as real news, and to them ratings are more important than accuracy, with Fox proclaiming they are "fair and balanced" even though anyone should be able to tell they aren't.

I think the slogan of "We Report, You Decide" actually everything it needs to say. They're openly telling you that they're just spitting out random information, often with no need for unbiased delivery, because it's up to you (the viewer) to decide if it's good information or not... It's very irresponsible, I think, given their popularity.

 

[Underhill]

Your idea of a "reasoned governing" may in direct opposition to theirs. That is why this is a Constitutional Republic and not single party rule. It seems that the idea is growing among certain group of the population that if someone presents ideas that oppose their beliefs that they do not have the right to be heard or it is considered hate speech; then there are those that have to have a "safe space" so they are free from what they consider ideas that are affront to them. So, tell me this,what side of the political ideology is coming close to demanding "censorship"? I'll give you a couple of guesses and their ideology is a directly opposite of their political moniker.

Governance is, and always has been, about compromise. It is hard to compromise when people view the opposition as the enemy. That is what Fox has done for this country.

People desperately need to be reminded that the other side of the aisle is not evil, or out to destroy America. They simply have different ideas of how things should be run. The founders had in mind a two party system just so that the parties would hopefully come to compromise and thus no single set of ideals would control the landscape. What we have now is obstructionism. And it all boils down to this idea that the opposition has, not just different views, but is the enemy that must be crushed into submission.

 

[Revoltingest]

Name one incident where NPR literally campaigned for democrats? I just named one where Fox did.
Sure, NPR is biased marginally. But they do not actively and openly work for the democrats.

I didn't notice your example of Fox's Pub bias, but then I agree that it has one.
Name one for NPR?
Do you really believe there are no examples?
There've been so many over the years.
It's the singular reason I stopped donating to them.
Here's one even broader than NPR, which was just one of those who sought Clinton's re-election.
The sat on the Lewinsky scandal until after his re-election.

 

[Underhill]

I didn't notice your example of Fox's Pub bias, but then I agree that it has one.
Name one for NPR?
Do you really believe there are no examples?
There've been so many over the years.
It's the singular reason I stopped donating to them.
Here's one even broader than NPR, which was just one of those who sought Clinton's re-election.
The sat on the Lewinsky scandal until after his re-election.

That is not an example of openly campaigning even if true. And it just isn't.

The Lewinsky scandal didn't blow up until a year after he was re-elected. The affair was in 1995, she was moved in April of 1996 to the pentagon. He was elected in November of 1996 (for his second term). Linda Tripp didn't start recording Lewinsky until the fall of 1997. The famous deposition didn't happen until January of 1998.

Here is the timeline. Technically yeah, NPR didn't report it until he was re-elected. But that is because it wasn't a story yet.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

 

[Underhill]

I didn't notice your example of Fox's Pub bias, but then I agree that it has one.
Name one for NPR?
Do you really believe there are no examples?
There've been so many over the years.
It's the singular reason I stopped donating to them.
Here's one even broader than NPR, which was just one of those who sought Clinton's re-election.
The sat on the Lewinsky scandal until after his re-election.

My example was of the Tea Party demonstrations with Fox News essentially running an infomercial for the rallies.

 

[Revoltingest]

My example was of the Tea Party demonstrations with Fox News essentially running an infomercial for the rallies.

Not surprising.
But to single out Fox is illusory.
Virtually all sources have their biases.
And for some to advocate public policy based upon their disdain for them is
would have unexpected unintended consequences of more universal application.

 

[Underhill]

Not surprising.
But to single out Fox is illusory.
Virtually all sources have their biases.
And for some to advocate public policy based upon their disdain for them is
would have unexpected unintended consequences of more universal application.

I don't know of another "News" outlet who has actively campaigned for a political group. Are they all biased? Of course. I've said so repeatedly. It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is human nature. But the difference is monumental. Fox actively goes for the throat of Obama openly every day all day. They don't hide their hate. They often revel in it. NPR would fire any of it's reporters if they did the same. CNBC is probably the worst on the left, but even when Bush was in office, it wasn't so blatantly obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know of another "News" outlet who has actively campaigned for a political group.

What constitutes campaigning is subjective.
People tend to notice it when it annoys, so it's generally the other side who is guilty of it.
Lefties decry Fox, but don't notice it in their own sources.
I also hear righties decry the other media, thinking that only Fox is "fair & balanced".
Thus, there will always be disagreement over this.

Are they all biased? Of course. I've said so repeatedly. It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is human nature. But the difference is monumental. Fox actively goes for the throat of Obama openly every day all day. They don't hide their hate. They often revel in it. NPR would fire any of it's reporters if they did the same. CNBC is probably the worst on the left, but even when Bush was in office, it wasn't so blatantly obvious.

When Bush was prez, the media hounded him at least as much as Obama suffers.
People on the left & right are always trying to convince me that only their side is the moral, intelligent, & objective one.
What do they offer?
They point at faults of the other, blow them out of proportion, & ignore or excuse sins on their own side.
It's not a convincing argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most likely as the youngsters grow up, they develop brains and move to the Right.

That's wishful thinking, and has absolutely no basis in reality. It's simply untrue that "if you're not a liberal/democrat when you're young you don't have a heart, and if you're not a conservative/republican when you're older you don't have a brain." In regards to this thread, the average Fox viewer came from a time when America was much more conservative, but each preceding generation has made America more liberal. And unless the right can completely redo its image from the ground up, fewer people are going to go that way because fewer people are against things like gay marriage and pot while fewer people are supporting corporate control and a global military presence.

According to that link, FOX has been on top for over 13 years.

And its days are numbered. We aren't too far away from the day when cable news just can't draw in ratings, at all, and it will be facing its own demise, much how print journalism is withering away and moving towards digital, which is fundamentally changing that side of journalism, as the internet will fundamentally change news broadcasts once people just aren't paying for TV subscriptions or watching it for news anymore.
As for their ratings, most of their ratings come from old people who aren't using the internet or social media for news (they may use it, but the telly is still the primary source). Everybody else is using websites and apps that, anymore, cater to their interests.
Don't be surprised if in the future we don't even have a "5 o'clock" news anymore because journalists and anchors will be making broadcasts as soon as they get a story together, and they'll be making them throughout the day. Hopefully this will give more leverage to smaller name news companies and aspiring journalists, but it's going to make the job even more demanding.

 

[esmith]

That's wishful thinking, and has absolutely no basis in reality. It's simply untrue that "if you're not a liberal/democrat when you're young you don't have a heart, and if you're not a conservative/republican when you're older you don't have a brain." In regards to this thread, the average Fox viewer came from a time when America was much more conservative, but each preceding generation has made America more liberal. And unless the right can completely redo its image from the ground up, fewer people are going to go that way because fewer people are against things like gay marriage and pot while fewer people are supporting corporate control and a global military presence.

And its days are numbered. We aren't too far away from the day when cable news just can't draw in ratings, at all, and it will be facing its own demise, much how print journalism is withering away and moving towards digital, which is fundamentally changing that side of journalism, as the internet will fundamentally change news broadcasts once people just aren't paying for TV subscriptions or watching it for news anymore.
As for their ratings, most of their ratings come from old people who aren't using the internet or social media for news (they may use it, but the telly is still the primary source). Everybody else is using websites and apps that, anymore, cater to their interests.
Don't be surprised if in the future we don't even have a "5 o'clock" news anymore because journalists and anchors will be making broadcasts as soon as they get a story together, and they'll be making them throughout the day. Hopefully this will give more leverage to smaller name news companies and aspiring journalists, but it's going to make the job even more demanding.

What you fail to realize is that FNC does have online reporting and sends out email to their subscribers about stories. Just as I was reading some information on a certain firearm and had my mail program up I received a email about the San Bernardino shootings, received this at 12:47PM MST

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What you fail to realize is that FNC does have online reporting and sends out email to their subscribers about stories.

I'm very aware of that. But Fox news doesn't dominate online usage like they do cable, and their ratings for the 25 - 54 demograph is declining, and about half of their audience is about 70 years or older. And what will really hurt Fox with the shifting journalism landscape is not only their aging and dying audience, it's the ideology they promote and how it doesn't appeal to Generation X (who are more tolerant of others) or Millennials (who are more liberal).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Author of the report is not employed by Fox News he is CEO of Heritage Action for America and is only presenting facts by the State Department.
see your link:
"A spokesperson for Heritage Action referred us to a State Department report. According to the report, 67 percent of refugees referred for resettlement by the UNHCR were resettled in the United States"

Fact is it's wrong. I'll give you he doesn't work for Fox...just appeared on one of their shows though.

So, if the top 1% were taxed at 100% of their Gross Adjusted Income would that figure be less than the total Medicare payments. Answer is Yes. Note he was using what it cost to fund Medicare. In other words using the cost of Medicare as an example.

But still wrong and it was explained in detail why. You ask for info where they were wrong and didn't retract their misinformation. If you simply wish to be their apologist then I don't have the time for all that.

Well first I did not use Megan Kelly's program as a reference. She sometimes comes across as a female O'Reilly. Anyhow, to be honest this was basically started as protest by black students and eventually encompassed many others.

But you, like Fox, are lacking on the details...again...which was laid out already. It didn't just start with black students...as others close to what was going on said. It started some time before all that.

Guess you didn't read my list of FNC programs that I consider "news" Hannity is definitely not one of them; his is an "opinion"show.

Irrelevant. His views and others like it on the network spill over into the other segments of "news" on that channel...which is why the sheeple who blindly follow can barely tell the difference.

No you have showed your feeble attempt to take some information and spin it to reflect your opinion. Sorry Charlie.

What did I even say that spun anything. I posted a link and ask you to let me know when they issue a retractions.... I didn't ad-lib like you did....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have to admit, I've enjoyed some of the videos I've seen her tear into someone, or some of the glares she gives to some people, typically when someone says something stupid in regards to women's rights, or the competency and abilities of women in general.

That's that lawyer in her coming out. I like that...

 

[Terese]

Actually, it is the most popular Cable News Channel in the United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/cable-news-ratings-q1-2015-cnn-msnbc_n_6984866.html

Damn unfortunate.