Fox News - Reliable Source? (1 Viewer)

[NauticalGent]

Elected Republicans are feckless pieces of dog doo doo for the most part.

Almost as bad as their democratic counterparts.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Almost as bad as their democratic counterparts.

They are worse in my opinion. The Democrats run on their bad ideas. The Republicans run on their good ideas and then fold when the Democrats call them names and they scurry into the corner and hide. Or, the RINOS run on their lies and just vote with the Democrats after they get elected. DITCH MITCH is my motto.

 

[Isaac]

I think this discussion would be better served by starting out with some definitions.
What does Reliable mean? Heck, even Stelter has a show called Reliable Sources (ignore that most are anonymous and disappear when retracted months later, LOL)
But no, seriously....

Are we talking about a "slant" or the mere fact that they choose areas to emphasize? Well everyone does that, you have x-number of headlines or minutes in the day, obviously you're going to make choices about what to cover.

CNN will choose theirs, Fox will choose theirs.

An organization can be 100% Reliable while still choosing what to cover and what not to cover.

I will say that Fox has a slant, and I love their slant. Their slant is my slant. Their slant is the right slant most of the time (IMO).
They focus on the same things I would focus on (in large part). They are strategic about their focus and the ends justify the slant.

Again, EVERYONE has a slant, it would be impossible not to unless you have an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of resources to write content for the infinite space.

The only question is, do YOU think that an organization's particular slant (what they choose to focus or not focus on) is useful, valuable, reasonable, serves good purposes, lets you know more about what you want to know about compared to the other guy's slant, etc?

Totally subjective, but fun reading. To me, unreliability would be actually reporting falsehoods as if they were facts. That is the only behavior that (to me) qualifies someone to be called "Not Reliable". So how do we do that, Fact checkers? I think we already know how the whole Face Checking industry goes. What ends up happening is predictable, always: The definition of truth is more relative and subjective and contextual than anyone cares to admit, and so one guy's Fact is another guy's Falsehood, and on and on it goes.

Useless to compare objectively. Might as well watch whoever you think gives you the information most valuable to YOU.

For me, it's Fox...hands down. And Tucker's monologues are genius, that's why the left has come after him so hard...................he's effective.

 

[Mike Krailo]

The word narrative is a nice way of saying propaganda. It used to be there would be news and it would get reported on in a boring matter of fact kind of way and what ever happened didn't get in the way of citizens starting a business or otherwise pursuing happiness. Now key parts are left out and false cover up stories are propagated to create the picture they want you to see and it is highly politically charged to the nth degree. Fox is not 100%, but they at least don't blatantly lie to your face as does the other networks. Yes, there were some times where they used some misleading images to support their narrative, but that's not near as bad as what is going on over at the other blatantly left wacko networks. I like the Bongino Report myself or just listen to his podcast. Mark Levin is my constitution guy, I love when he talks about anything relating to that and it is usually from liberals either trashing it or simply ignoring it when it gets in the way of their ultimate plan for our countries demise. By demise, I mean your liberty goes into a history book that you are no longer able to read or utter in public. I just never understood liberals trying to destroy the very foundations of our liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is not allowed anymore.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'll try to summarize a story I remember from a few years ago and how different "news" outlets chose to present it. In the morning on the way to work on the radio (local station) the story went something like:
There is a toxic waste spill somewhere in upstate New York. The site was created in the 70's and certified by the EPA based on the technology of the time (I.e. not illegally dumped). The company that created the site was actively involved in helping the EPA resolve the problem even though the company was no longer responsible for the site.

On the evening news (CBS or NBC), the story went like this:
There is a toxic waste spill somewhere in upstate New York. The site was created in the 70's. The governor of NY is determining whether to pursue legal action against the company that created the site.

The name of the company was mentioned in both accounts but I don't remember it.

What would your opinion be of the company if you only saw/heard account #2? It didn't tell any lies unless the Governor didn't actually say he was pursuing legal action. If the company was helping, I'm not sure why the state would want to go after them but that part of the second story wasn't verifiable.

I was flabbergasted when I heard the second account. I had never before seen such an egregious misrepresentation of a story.

It is the subtle lies of omission as evidenced here that are the problem with hard bias in news. I listen to other outlets than Fox just to be sure that I'm hearing all facts of an issue if there are differences. But what happens is one side continuously and deliberately omits actual facts like - the site was certified by the EPA when it was created. the company was no longer responsible for it. The company was actively trying to help the EPA resolve the mess even though they didn't have to. The second account made the company out to be criminal in its actions by omitting the facts I just stated because that was the narrative they wanted to push. So, when you manipulate the actual facts in this manner, it is no wonder the opinions of the talking heads are so divergent.

I can't remember the last time I recognized that Fox omitted a salient fact from a hard news story. So you anti-Fox people out there, please bring evidence.

 

[Steve R.]

I can't remember the last time I recognized that Fox omitted a salient fact from a hard news story.

It's not that Fox omits salient facts, it's that Fox also promotes a focused narrative to spin. So the focus is placed on aggrandizing that narrative. One could say, that this is vaguely similar to lying by omission. The Fox pundits sometimes wax eloquently ("word salad") over topics where they lack a "true" understating of the topic they are discussing. Several years ago (and less today) "The Five", as one program example, has discussed copyright and encryption. On copyright, failing to discuss that industry lobbyists over the years have successfully made copyright more favorable to industries, such as Disney, and have dimished the concept of the public domain. Frankly, they have shown (at best) only the most superficial understanding of these issues. To make matters worse, have taken to unilaterally "supporting" those promoting copyright/encryption schemes as if it where a defined "right" not subject to contradiction.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't think that above average intelligence is a requirement for the job of talking head. You have to look good, have a pleasant voice, and be able to read a teleprompter.

Cable news never lived up to its promise. It was supposed to educate us and with the exception of Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, and now Tucker with his long interviews, no one bothers.

They could have researchers read proposed legislation so we would have something other than talking points on which to form opinions. Can you imagine what an informed public or even Congress could do?

 

[JonXL]

No matter the source, whenever I come across news of even moderate significance to my life, I always check for several other sources for comparison.

And, where possible, I prefer to go straight to the source (for example, a report on a WH statement or the outcome of a court case - I'll go to the WH site or read the court opinion itself after reviewing the reports).

 

[JonXL]

Can you imagine what an informed public or even Congress could do?

A lot of damage to the powers that be...

 

[Mike Krailo]

No matter the source, whenever I come across news of even moderate significance to my life, I always check for several other sources for comparison.

That is common sense there and applies to non political things well enough, but what if that source (the WH) is obfuscating the whole issue to begin with for political reasons. This is especially true when they make claims about what is in a bill or not in a bill. They always leave critical details out of their own talking points so they pull the wool over the eyes of those gullible enough to take their word for it. You have to dig much deeper with political things to get the truth.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Something you don't hear from the so-called reliable sources;

By The Associated Press
PARIS (AP) — French voters in Sunday's presidential election will use the same system that's been used for generations: paper ballots that are cast in person and counted by hand. Despite periodic calls for more flexibility or modernization, France doesn’t do mail-in voting, early voting or use voting machines en masse like the United States. President Emmanuel Macron is the clear front-runner, though an unprecedented proportion of people say they are unsure who they will vote for or whether they will vote at all.

Voters must be at least 18 years old. About 48.7 million French are registered on the electoral rolls of the place where they live.
Voters make their choices in a booth, with the curtains closed, then place their ballot in an envelope that is then put into a transparent ballot box. They must show photo identification and sign a document, next to their name, to complete the process.

France actually cares about the integrity of their vote, for now.

Fully story.

 

[Pat Hartman]

They always leave critical details out of their own talking points so they pull the wool over the eyes of those gullible enough to take their word for it

"If you like your plan, you can keep it". "If you like your doctor, you can keep him". Right from the horse's mouth and he knew they were lies when he said them because his advisors told him the real impact of Obamacare. And let's not leave out the lie about the average family "saving" $2500 per year. That one was a dozy. And the Democrats turned purple with apoplexy if they thought Trump overestimated the size of a crowd. I wonder who that hurt?

 

[Steve R.]

France actually cares about the integrity of their vote, for now.

Apparently Denmark also believes in voting integrity.

Another major difference.

We have a central registry for all persons living in denmark andd thus we know who is allowed to vote.

Basically it means we have a unique id for each person that follows you from birth to grave and beyond.

Many reasearchers, especially of the medical kind, loves to dig into the different registers we have because they alle reference this id.

 

[Pat Hartman]

We have avoided a national voter ID because technically states are in charge of elections and they maintain their own voter registration lists. At least this way, some of the states do this correctly and keep their lists clean and require voter ID to cast a ballot. If we had a federal ID, there would be NO part of the list that was clean.

 

[Steve R.]

We have avoided a national voter ID because technically states are in charge of elections and they maintain their own voter registration lists. At least this way, some of the states do this correctly and keep their lists clean and require voter ID to cast a ballot. If we had a federal ID, there would be NO part of the list that was clean.

Sort of an apples to oranges comparison. The US is an amalgamation of "independent" states. As an acknowledgement to that, we have the 10th Amendment, which grants states a high degree of autonomy (that has been under attack by the progressive left). As such, voter registration and integrity monitoring is a state responsibility. Additionally, European countries such as Denmark and France have different political structures than the US does.

Another significant factor, the population of Denmark in 2021 was estimated at around 5,830,038. The estimate population for France was around 65,548,354. The US state of North Carolina in 2922 has an estimated population of 10,807,49 and that is just on state out of 50. Total US population for 2021 was estimated at 334,391,575. Basically, just because of scale (in terms of population size) implementing a national voter ID system in the US would be a nightmare, not to also mention stymied by incompetence. This is also being exacerbated, in the US, as the progressive left is attempting to eliminate the concept of "citizenship" along with (false) claims that voter identification is unconstitutional. The progressive left even claims that "cleaning-up" the voter roles is a transgression of the voters rights. Basically, you show-up, you get to vote (unchallenged).

 

[Steve R.]

Well here is a Fox News "failure" concerning illegal immigration into the US. This video is of the program "The Five" and concerns the Democratic sponsored fake narrative of a border patrol agent "attacking" Haitian migrants. This Democratic story, like many others, has proven to be fraudulent, but the Biden administration refuses to acknowledge its dishonesty and refuses to apologize.

White House arrogance won't allow them to apologize: Pirro | Fox News Video

'The Five' reacts to Biden refusing to apologize to border agents for 'whipping' smear.

video.foxnews.com

What makes this video a Fox News "failure"?
You have all the usual Democratic tropes, which the conservatives on the panel never seem to get around to vigorously refuting in this episode.
1. Democrats dishonestly claim that the immigration laws need to be "fixed". While Judge Pirro acknowledges that the laws are not actually "broken", she could have expounded that Trump was able to use Executive authority to suppress illegal immigration. Furthermore, there was no mention that Reagan was able to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, over the years this law has been essentially ignored. A President could attempt to re-implement it. Moreover, neglected in this discussion is the simple fact that the Biden administration has opened the border, so Democrats can't really say that the system is "broken" since they are not making any attempt to adhere to immigration law.
2. Democrats claim they want the illegal immigrants to have path to citizenship. Again a totally misleading argument as there is a legal path to citizenship based on following the law. You don't get to break the law to enter the US and then claim that you have a right to eventual citizenship.
3. Duffy, the guy in the center, made the unimaginable remarks that he does not understand why the Biden administration is letting the illegal immigrants enter the US. Where has he been? Obama promised to "transform" the US. Biden is carrying out that promise. The Biden administration is flooding the US with a new underclass that will be dependent on the government welfare. Furthermore, the actions of the Biden administration by purposely encouraging illegal immigration is racist in nature.
4. Tarlov, the token liberal on the panel, made the usual leftist touchy feely statement that we must have more empathy. Surprisingly, none of the conservative members jumped on that statement since the Biden administration needs to apologize for creating a false story of the border patrol agents committing (racist) assaults on Haitians illegally entering the US.
5. Tarlov, spoke of unstated vague "solutions". This is an Orwellian style distraction that the Democrats like to use since they never really define what it means. For example, the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants wherever they are in the US? The only real "solutions" that the Democrats would seemingly agree with, the the illegal immigrants get to remain in the US. "Solutions" exist, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 could be resurrected and Trump's remain in Mexico policies could be re-implemented. To say that we need "solutions" is dishonest.

 

[Pat Hartman]

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, intelligence and a firm grounding in history isn't a pre-requisite to being a talking-head. So, it is quite possible that the "five" have no clue that the interpretation of the horseback video was deliberately misrepresented. Many Republications still believe the "Charlottesville" lie despite the fact that the actual video is available for viewing. Maybe someone should make a list of the most egregious lies of the left (and the right) with links to the videos. Going back at least to "if you like your plan, you can keep it".

Cable news has not lived up to its promise. They promised us in depth news. What we got was talking heads trading talking points and most of us still don't understand basic issues. It's like the joke about comedians telling jokes to each other by number. Someone says a number and they all laugh and then someone said "89" and no one laughed so he asked why and the answer was "you didn't tell it right".

I care about bills that are going to impact my life. I want to know what to recommend to my representatives but I don't have the bandwidth to study the thousands of pages of each proposed bill. Allowing bills to exceed 50 pages is a crime in itself. Allowing unelected bureaucrats to write law to implement the bills themselves is a larger crime. Not requiring every bill that spends money to include oversight and justification to continue funding is a travesty.

 

[Steve R.]

Many Republications still believe the "Charlottesville" lie despite the fact that the actual video is available for viewing.

Charlottesville was a "false flag" operation by the Democrats that regretfully worked.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I happened to be watching that speech live and knew immediately that it was going to be used against Trump. All they had to do was to truncate the clip so he said what they wanted him to say.

 

[Steve R.]

While not exactly on topic, Charlottesville, came-up in this thread. Breaking on Fox News today; Prosecutor withdraws from Whitmer kidnap plot case after jury acquits two defendants, deadlocks on others. In the background of this story and other events, such as, the January 6th rally; is the apparent, yet to be proven, prevalence of FBI informants instigating civil unrest, a red flag indicating a false flag operation. The Obama administration has also been implicated in using the power-of-the-state for selective prosecutions persecutions, the Michael Flynn case being one.The there is the Muller Witch-Hunt which was a politically motivated that collapsed do to an inability to manufacture criminal wrongdoing. Given the apparent clandestine involvement of the Democrats in using the power-of-the-state for political gain, on can easily deduce that Charlottesville was a false flag operation instigated by the Democrats. After all, Biden declared "war" on so-called White supremacy.