• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

They Lied Repeatedly and Intentionally

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
They say in the article that they haven't reviewed the report.
Right, their four sources summarized it to them.

Comeback when the lawsuit finds legs. The debunk is as easy as googling Tucker Carlson, then reading and watching what he actually reported (leaving the "safety" of the left-wing information bubble).
That makes no sense. The internal communications among Faux News staff is a matter of record. It's simply a documented fact that Carlson, Hannity, Ingram, and Murdoch all expressed that they didn't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative, yet continued to promote it on air.

The trial is about whether their actions constitute defamation. But even if Dominion is unsuccessful in proving defamation, the above will forever remain true.

That's the allegation, but the report itself is not that black and white.
The report concludes that there was no truth behind the claims of widespread fraud that affected the outcome of the election.

It demonstrates that the actions leading to her censure were part of a politically motivated attack.
So? That doesn't change the facts of the matter (she knowingly spread false claims about the election). How she got caught or who caught her is irrelevant to that.

Don't conflate court records with the question of what is left-wing reporting. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of the right and left wing bubbles.
Then show where I've posted anything that's not true. If you can't do that, then you're just engaging in empty arm waving.

The AP is known to lean left politically - all the news sources you looked at are part of the left-wing information bubble. If you wanted to look at the right-wing information bubble, then you should've looked at news sources that are part of the right-wing information bubble.

The AP leans left. For example: AllSides has determined by Independent Review, Editorial Review, and Community Feedback that, with medium confidence, the AP leans left. The opinion you espoused in the OP is a product of the left-wing information bubble. I leave you to it.
Again, if you have info showing where anything I've posted is false, then share it. Otherwise....just empty arm waving.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
does any of that even matter to the average Republican voter and/or Fox News viewer? Do they care at all?
What the left continually fails to appreciate is how far from them psychologically MAGA are. I read this this morning, which resonated with me:
If people expected that the fact that Tucker Carlson was exposed as secretly hating Trump was going to change any Maga minds, I’ve got bad news for them. Most Maga that I have seen now love him even more.
There are a lot of pundits who appear puzzled by this. They just can’t believe it. WHY they muse. This is PROOF. This is proof tucker was lying. Indeed it is. But I think many pundits are missing the point here. Maga — some members anyway — know Tucker lied to them. Of course, they do.
This will not change any minds. I mean — perhaps a few will be shocked, but by and large, most Maga minds won’t be changed because Maga doesn’t care. Owning the libs — winning — getting the last word — has replaced many other hobbies for these Maga people with children’s brains. Instead of doing whatever they did before — they can win on Twitter and other social media.
And their way of winning is to stand behind their team every time — for better or worse, forsaking all others till prison do they part. And right now, their team is Trump — and Tucker — and Fox. And it doesn’t matter what Tucker says or does. Clips could come out with Tucker laughing at Maga, calling them names, but it won’t matter to them.
They are in it to win it, and their twisted idea of winning means insulting the libs, proclaiming themselves truth-tellers, and insulting anyone with Ukrainian flags. These people will never care what Fox does as long as Fox and others craft their news to cater to Maga’s heart and minds.

There's a fascinating cognitive bias called false consensus, which is based in the assumption that while we may have different memories, tastes, opinions, etc., that we are still basically mostly the same as one another, and that what ones finds shocking or offensive is experienced that way by most people, but they are wrong and keep being wrong this same way. These are the people who ask such people how they can sleep at night, people who don't understand why the question was asked. From Wiki:

"In psychology, the false consensus effect, also known as consensus bias, is a pervasive cognitive bias that causes people to “see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances.” In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions are relatively widespread through the general population."

They sleep just fine. And they consider people with consciences suckers or faking it. They're not like the rest of us. They're only the same shape.
I'm not the one with chronic TDS.
Trump Disintegration Schadenfreude? I have it bad. Stage IV. The chief symptoms are paroxysms of giddy laughter and a permanent smirk. I also saw this today on the same site, The Palmer Report:
Earlier this evening, the news broke that the Manhattan District Attorney has informed Donald Trump that he’s being criminally indicted as soon as next week. As I’ve already explained, even though the word “likely” is in the New York Times headline, that’s a formality involving the grand jury, and you can safely remove the word “likely” from the discussion. The story is that Trump is being indicted. And let’s just say that Trump isn’t taking it well.
Trump has now released a statement through his “spokesperson” to the media, and it’s unhinged. It claims that the indictment is “insane” and that this indictment is somehow a “clear exoneration” of Trump. It also claims that Trump is somehow the “victim of extortion” – an indicator of the defense he plans to try to use at trial, though it won’t help him because campaign finance fraud is the same crime even if you’re using it to pay someone off. And of course the statement is blaming this all on “Democrat prosecutors” – whatever that’s supposed to mean.
In other word, Donald Trump knows he has no way out of this. He’s being criminally indicted on the kind of campaign finance fraud charge that’s straightforward to prove, easy to get a conviction on, and always comes with a prison sentence. Notably, Trump isn’t even asserting in his statement that he’s going to beat the charges. It almost feels like he’s accepting the reality that he’ll be convicted.

He seems worried and maybe a bit frightened. Maybe this will cheer him up:

 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
What the left continually fails to appreciate is how far from them psychologically MAGA are. I read this this morning, which resonated with me:
If people expected that the fact that Tucker Carlson was exposed as secretly hating Trump was going to change any Maga minds, I’ve got bad news for them. Most Maga that I have seen now love him even more.
There are a lot of pundits who appear puzzled by this. They just can’t believe it. WHY they muse. This is PROOF. This is proof tucker was lying. Indeed it is. But I think many pundits are missing the point here. Maga — some members anyway — know Tucker lied to them. Of course, they do.
This will not change any minds. I mean — perhaps a few will be shocked, but by and large, most Maga minds won’t be changed because Maga doesn’t care. Owning the libs — winning — getting the last word — has replaced many other hobbies for these Maga people with children’s brains. Instead of doing whatever they did before — they can win on Twitter and other social media.
And their way of winning is to stand behind their team every time — for better or worse, forsaking all others till prison do they part. And right now, their team is Trump — and Tucker — and Fox. And it doesn’t matter what Tucker says or does. Clips could come out with Tucker laughing at Maga, calling them names, but it won’t matter to them.
They are in it to win it, and their twisted idea of winning means insulting the libs, proclaiming themselves truth-tellers, and insulting anyone with Ukrainian flags. These people will never care what Fox does as long as Fox and others craft their news to cater to Maga’s heart and minds.

There's a fascinating cognitive bias called false consensus, which is based in the assumption that while we may have different memories, tastes, opinions, etc., that we are still basically mostly the same as one another, and that what ones finds shocking or offensive is experienced that way by most people, but they are wrong and keep being wrong this same way. These are the people who ask such people how they can sleep at night, people who don't understand why the question was asked. From Wiki:

"In psychology, the false consensus effect, also known as consensus bias, is a pervasive cognitive bias that causes people to “see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances.” In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions are relatively widespread through the general population."

They sleep just fine. And they consider people with consciences suckers or faking it. They're not like the rest of us. They're only the same shape.
I know I've harped on this like crazy, but it's exactly like creationists. In fact, I'd say there's likely quite a bit of overlap between Christian creationists and maga Trumpers. Going back even further, this all very much reminds me of what baffled me as I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I simply could not grasp their way of "thinking" at all...it made absolutely no sense to me.

It wasn't until later that I grew to appreciate how some folks don't value accuracy and objectivity, nearly as much as they value loyalty (especially team loyalty). So for them, if the "other team" is caught in a lie, well that proves how inherently dishonest they are! But if one of their own is caught in a lie....meh, everyone stretches the truth now and then.

It really is a "my team always good, your team always bad" simplistic way of thinking.

Great post. Winner frubal!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
They say in the article that they haven't reviewed the report.

Comeback when the lawsuit finds legs. The debunk is as easy as googling Tucker Carlson, then reading and watching what he actually reported (leaving the "safety" of the left-wing information bubble).

That's the allegation, but the report itself is not that black and white.

Quite.

It demonstrates that the actions leading to her censure were part of a politically motivated attack.

Don't conflate court records with the question of what is left-wing reporting. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of the right and left wing bubbles.

The AP is known to lean left politically - all the news sources you looked at are part of the left-wing information bubble. If you wanted to look at the right-wing information bubble, then you should've looked at news sources that are part of the right-wing information bubble.

The AP leans left. For example: AllSides has determined by Independent Review, Editorial Review, and Community Feedback that, with medium confidence, the AP leans left. The opinion you espoused in the OP is a product of the left-wing information bubble. I leave you to it.
I was listening to Jon Stewart's podcast the other day and they were discussing this story with a libel lawyer. The lawyer said that libel and defamation cases are notoriously difficult to litigate because it's often difficult to prove that people intentionally lied about something, but in this case, she said it's the most open and shut case she's ever seen. Given that the emails clearly lay out the fact that everyone at Fox was knowingly lying about what they reported on air.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Again, if you have info showing where anything I've posted is false, then share it. Otherwise....just empty arm waving.
That makes no sense. The internal communications among Faux News staff is a matter of record. It's simply a documented fact that Carlson, Hannity, Ingram, and Murdoch all expressed that they didn't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative, yet continued to promote it on air.

The trial is about whether their actions constitute defamation. But even if Dominion is unsuccessful in proving defamation, the above will forever remain true.
This one right here is the easiest to debunk because all you would have to do is watch Fox News to see what they actually reported.
For example,
On November 19, 2020,
Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing
That's a long way of saying we took Sidney Powell seriously, with no intention of fighting with her. We've always respected her work and we simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.

But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of polite requests. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they also told us Powell had never given them any evidence to prove anything she claimed at the press conference.

Powell did say that electronic voting is dangerous, and she's right, but she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.
It's Fox News literally reporting that they don't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative.
Again, if you have info showing where anything I've posted is false, then share it. Otherwise....just empty arm waving.
I have shown that you posted something provably false. The proof is as easy as collecting news from more than one information bubble.

I was listening to Jon Stewart's podcast the other day and they were discussing this story with a libel lawyer. The lawyer said that libel and defamation cases are notoriously difficult to litigate because it's often difficult to prove that people intentionally lied about something, but in this case, she said it's the most open and shut case she's ever seen. Given that the emails clearly lay out the fact that everyone at Fox was knowingly lying about what they reported on air.
You should be aware that Jon Stewart is "an openly liberal Democrat". I would be curious to know who the libel lawyer was and how she substantiated her claims. You have to understand that if you actually watched Fox News, then you would know that they reported the lack of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. They reported this fact repeatedly over time. So how did the libel lawyer come to her conclusion? Did she only read the brief provided by Dominion accusing Fox News? If so, then she was acting under low information. You might argue that the brief is a court record, but you would still be misled if you based your assessment solely on the contents of that court record.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's Fox News literally reporting that they don't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative.
But they decided not to be honest after a couple of weeks when they lost about half of their viewing audience.




etc, etc.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
This one right here is the easiest to debunk because all you would have to do is watch Fox News to see what they actually reported.
For example,
On November 19, 2020,
Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence


It's Fox News literally reporting that they don't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative.
Um, no it's not. It's Carlson saying that he asked Powell for evidence and she didn't provide any. Nowhere did he say anything like "therefore the claims that the 2020 election was stolen are false". I'm curious...would you like to go over the internal communications among Faux News folks that were revealed in the Dominion lawsuit?

Also, I find it hilarious how you chastise me for citing "left wing sources" such as the AP and NPR, while you cite Faux News and Tucker Carlson, an outlet and host that have been shown to deliberately and intentionally lie to their viewers. Double standards much?

Also, regarding the Berkeley Research Group report that the WaPo reported on is now in the hands of federal prosecutors and has been reviewed by the WaPo. They provide quotes from it in an article today.


"A copy was reviewed by The Washington Post, and it shows that Trump’s own campaign paid more than $600,000 for research that undercut many of his most explosive claims. The research was never made public."
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
But they decided not to be honest after a couple of weeks when they lost about half of their viewing audience.




etc, etc.
Quoting more left wing news sources to describe right wing political positions, again and again. It's like I'm talking to a wall.

Um, no it's not. It's Carlson saying that he asked Powell for evidence and she didn't provide any. Nowhere did he say anything like "therefore the claims that the 2020 election was stolen are false". I'm curious...would you like to go over the internal communications among Faux News folks that were revealed in the Dominion lawsuit?

Also, I find it hilarious how you chastise me for citing "left wing sources" such as the AP and NPR, while you cite Faux News and Tucker Carlson, an outlet and host that have been shown to deliberately and intentionally lie to their viewers. Double standards much?

Also, regarding the Berkeley Research Group report that the WaPo reported on is now in the hands of federal prosecutors and has been reviewed by the WaPo. They provide quotes from it in an article today.


"A copy was reviewed by The Washington Post, and it shows that Trump’s own campaign paid more than $600,000 for research that undercut many of his most explosive claims. The research was never made public."
Citing Washington Post again, after I already informed you it's left wing?

And accuse of double standard (?!?) when the Dominion lawsuit is literally about the reporting of Fow News, which can be observed directly by looking at their reporting directly, which was the reason I included the Fox News article in my response! Fox News continued reporting about the election. Here is an article from July 14, 2022 where Prominent conservatives say election was lost, not stolen, by Fox News. It is not a "double standard" for me to cite this article because Fox News is the news network inquestion - not the Washington Post - not the Atlantic - not ABC - not Yahoo - etc. (left wing news sources). You can observe directly how Fox News reported about the election by looking at Fox News articles reporting on the election. Instead, you want to look at how left wing news media reported about Fox News reporting in order to draw conclusions about how Fox News reported! Indeed, you want to look at left wing reporting in order to draw conclusions about Republican (right wing) political positions. Even when I include an article (from a right wing news source) describing how conservatives say the election was lost and not stolen, will you admit you were wrong or will you continue to use left wing news media to describe right wing political positions?

Your moniker for Fox News really betrays your profound bias against Fox News. I doubt that reviewing the internal communications revealed in the Dominion lawsuit will be examined by you in an objective manner. Do you deny that the use of the moniker Faux News reveals an explicit bias against Fox News?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Quoting more left wing news sources to describe right wing political positions, again and again. It's like I'm talking to a wall.
It is so utterly and exercise in dishonesty to excuse a source simply because you want to call it "left wing" to try and justify your support of a man who tried to overthrow an election; has been married three times and cheated on all of them; hired a prostitute and then had her paid off; appeared in a porn movie, etc. And now Fox is repeatedly defending Trump while we know they in reality they know what the truth really is. Which form of Christianity supports such depravity, PT?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This one right here is the easiest to debunk because all you would have to do is watch Fox News to see what they actually reported.
For example,
On November 19, 2020,
Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence


It's Fox News literally reporting that they don't believe the 2020 stolen election narrative.

I have shown that you posted something provably false. The proof is as easy as collecting news from more than one information bubble.

You should be aware that Jon Stewart is "an openly liberal Democrat".
So? He does better reporting than half the journalists out there.
I would be curious to know who the libel lawyer was and how she substantiated her claims. You have to understand that if you actually watched Fox News, then you would know that they reported the lack of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. They reported this fact repeatedly over time. So how did the libel lawyer come to her conclusion? Did she only read the brief provided by Dominion accusing Fox News? If so, then she was acting under low information. You might argue that the brief is a court record, but you would still be misled if you based your assessment solely on the contents of that court record.
She read up on everything pertaining to the case, like a responsible person.

I've actually watched Fox News many times. They pushed the Dominion "story" hard.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Quoting more left wing news sources to describe right wing political positions, again and again. It's like I'm talking to a wall.


Citing Washington Post again, after I already informed you it's left wing?

And accuse of double standard (?!?) when the Dominion lawsuit is literally about the reporting of Fow News, which can be observed directly by looking at their reporting directly, which was the reason I included the Fox News article in my response! Fox News continued reporting about the election. Here is an article from July 14, 2022 where Prominent conservatives say election was lost, not stolen, by Fox News. It is not a "double standard" for me to cite this article because Fox News is the news network inquestion - not the Washington Post - not the Atlantic - not ABC - not Yahoo - etc. (left wing news sources). You can observe directly how Fox News reported about the election by looking at Fox News articles reporting on the election. Instead, you want to look at how left wing news media reported about Fox News reporting in order to draw conclusions about how Fox News reported! Indeed, you want to look at left wing reporting in order to draw conclusions about Republican (right wing) political positions. Even when I include an article (from a right wing news source) describing how conservatives say the election was lost and not stolen, will you admit you were wrong or will you continue to use left wing news media to describe right wing political positions?

Your moniker for Fox News really betrays your profound bias against Fox News. I doubt that reviewing the internal communications revealed in the Dominion lawsuit will be examined by you in an objective manner. Do you deny that the use of the moniker Faux News reveals an explicit bias against Fox News?
Fox News isn't news. It's a propaganda arm for the right-wing. Their own emails demonstrate this.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Fox News isn't news. It's a propaganda arm for the right-wing. Their own emails demonstrate this.
But some of them are not likely to ever know that as they may only watch Fox, and I personally know a couple of them that I associate with that's I've been friends with for a few decades who do that. They don't want the objective news-- they want "confirmation bias".
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Citing Washington Post again, after I already informed you it's left wing?
Again, if anything I've posted is wrong, then show it.

And accuse of double standard (?!?) when the Dominion lawsuit is literally about the reporting of Fow News, which can be observed directly by looking at their reporting directly, which was the reason I included the Fox News article in my response! Fox News continued reporting about the election. Here is an article from July 14, 2022 where Prominent conservatives say election was lost, not stolen, by Fox News. It is not a "double standard" for me to cite this article because Fox News is the news network inquestion - not the Washington Post - not the Atlantic - not ABC - not Yahoo - etc. (left wing news sources). You can observe directly how Fox News reported about the election by looking at Fox News articles reporting on the election. Instead, you want to look at how left wing news media reported about Fox News reporting in order to draw conclusions about how Fox News reported! Indeed, you want to look at left wing reporting in order to draw conclusions about Republican (right wing) political positions. Even when I include an article (from a right wing news source) describing how conservatives say the election was lost and not stolen, will you admit you were wrong or will you continue to use left wing news media to describe right wing political positions?

Your moniker for Fox News really betrays your profound bias against Fox News. I doubt that reviewing the internal communications revealed in the Dominion lawsuit will be examined by you in an objective manner. Do you deny that the use of the moniker Faux News reveals an explicit bias against Fox News?
So I take it that you don't want to go over the internal communications that were revealed in the Dominion case, and all you're going to do is complain about "left wing sources" while you continue to exclusively cite the defendants in the case.

It's simply a matter of record now that in private and behind the scenes, Faux News hosts showed that they knew the "stolen election" narrative was a lie and the people pushing weren't credible, yet they continued to push that narrative and bring the people pushing it on their shows. Stamping your feet and yelling about "left wing sources" won't change that basic fact, no matter how many times you do it (nor does citing an article from a year after Dominion filed their suit).
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
So? He does better reporting than half the journalists out there.

She read up on everything pertaining to the case, like a responsible person.

I've actually watched Fox News many times. They pushed the Dominion "story" hard.
52:14 of video with an expert lawyer in which not one example of the alleged activity was given! Are you serious? What a waste of time for me to have watched that video! They talked on and on about how serious the alleged activity was and didn't give even one example of it! Disgusting.

You still claim to have watched Fox News personally confirm the allegations... What do you make of the links to Fox News I gave (one from November 2020 and one from July 2022)? Do you still claim you can confirm the allegations on the basis of Fox News reporting you viewed since Nov 2020 until now?

Again, if anything I've posted is wrong, then show it.
I did but you ignored it and you failed to post any evidence to the contrary.

So I take it that you don't want to go over the internal communications that were revealed in the Dominion case, and all you're going to do is complain about "left wing sources" while you continue to exclusively cite the defendants in the case.

It's simply a matter of record now that in private and behind the scenes, Faux News hosts showed that they knew the "stolen election" narrative was a lie and the people pushing weren't credible, yet they continued to push that narrative and bring the people pushing it on their shows. Stamping your feet and yelling about "left wing sources" won't change that basic fact, no matter how many times you do it (nor does citing an article from a year after Dominion filed their suit).
I have not read the defendants case. I have no idea what they claim their defense is. I simply made direct observations of Fox News reporting from the time of Nov 2020 until now. You've had plenty of chances to post meaningful evidence. You didn't. I regard your effort to draw some sort of pre-concession from me as sketchy. Therefore, you can Have a Nice Day! I don't think it will be useful for me to waste another 52:14 on word talk.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I did but you ignored it and you failed to post any evidence to the contrary.
Where?

I have not read the defendants case. I have no idea what they claim their defense is. I simply made direct observations of Fox News reporting from the time of Nov 2020 until now.
You're unaware that Faux News are the defendants in the Dominion case?

You've had plenty of chances to post meaningful evidence. You didn't. I regard your effort to draw some sort of pre-concession from me as sketchy. Therefore, you can Have a Nice Day! I don't think it will be useful for me to waste another 52:14 on word talk.
WTH are you talking about? The OP alone contains "meaningful evidence" and the fact that you've refused my offer to discuss some of it (Faux News' internal communications) is a good indication of your approach here, i.e., deny, duck, dodge, and avoid.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men

"A judge ruled on Friday that Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News will go to trial next month, despite motions from both parties requesting that he decide the case in their favor before a jury weighs in...

...In his ruling, Davis determined that the conservative cable-news network had undeniably broadcast falsehoods when it allowed allies of Donald Trump to float baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion supposedly rigging voting machines to boost Joe Biden.

However, Davis said he will leave it to a jury to decide whether Fox knew the statements were false when they aired them or acted recklessly when doing so — the “actual malice” standard required to prove a case of defamation...

...For example, Davis’s ruling asserts that the false statements — such as the bogus claim that Dominion was created in Venezuela to rig elections for the late socialist leader Hugo Chavez — harmed the company’s reputation, meaning that the impact on Dominion will not have to be debated at trial...

...The ruling also knocks down a key pillar of Fox’s defense — that it was simply reporting on newsworthy statements from public figures, in this case a sitting president and his advisers. Davis wrote that Fox undermined this line of defense by failing to also report statements from government officials and the company debunking claims of fraud.
"
 
Top