FOX News... Is their information reliable?

Fox new's lies are well documented. They were actually sued and won the right to lie. In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

 

I prefer the BBC and Al Jazeera. FOX is considered - if thought about at all - overseas as a GOP mouthpiece masquerading as entertainment.

 

Actually, you see every one of those things you claim not to see.

Fox News is right talk radio with pictures, not much more.

How do you expain the fact that Fox News viewers routinely rank at the bottom as the least informed voters in every single survey done of news audiences in the last decade?

 

Which is why I rarely watch it anymore.

I don't care what the usual cast of talking heads have to say.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I've seen segments of Fox news aired in Europe for laughs. It's "look at how parochial and silly the Ameicans are".

 

All sources of information must be filtered through the lens of critical thinking. I have found that all sources of news have some source of bias within them. One American news outlet is no that's accurate than the other.

 

The rational complaint about FOX news centers on it's coordination of talking points and editorial comments.
for example.

On one day, every FOX news reader began using the term "Flip-Flop" when reporting a John Kerry story, they even added a little graphic of a pair of yellow flip flops to his image...
FOX reported the Swift Boat Veterans story, as if the Swift Boat Veterans were a legitimate grass roots collection of people and not an astro turf propaganda front funded by a few Texas millionaires, and they broadcast the lies of this organization as if they were legitimate stories...

 

Is their information reliable? Often, yes, because cable news outlets rarely "break" news anymore. They merely discuss news already broken by hard-working AP and regional journalists.

It doesn't take much of a formal education to realize that FNC isn't objective, but subjective in their reporting, tone, guest selection and discussion. MSNBC is a democratic partisan funhouse mirror version of this model, and almost as deleterious to the national discourse. The only real difference is that MSNBC has more journalistic rigor, i.e. they report false news less, but even that is slipping.

We need media who's business model isn't "preach to the choir". Although unfortunately, that news doesn't sell, because most of the people who are interested in politics are in it for the sport.

 

Fox was the only network winning a lawsuit to have the right to lie.

 

uniformed by design.

 

Most networks, no matter how netrual they claim they are, are alligned towards the left or right, and slate stories to those wings. Networks claim to be "fair and balanced" exactly what Fox claims, in order to gain reputability and standing. Reuters is pretty exactly even though, to be fair. Fox tends to be right-leaning. CNN left. If something happens, such as shooting, they'll report it like it obviously happnened, but they'll throw in data or experts against gun control, while CNN would be more inclined for the opposite.

 

Yes, we can.

Fox "reported" on sub prime lending in a particularly slanted way. It was not interested in calling their viewer's attention to the rapaciousness of Wall Street (after all, Fox works for Wall Street). Fox used it to pander to their base by portraying minorities as the responsible parties.

The list of fake stories that Fox has hyped is long indeed. Just a few have been mentioned on this thread.

Predictably, you credit Fox for being out front reporting on "stories" that there is no real substance to at all.

Of course, these stories are all right wing hobby horses, and the audience will enthusiastically embrace "reporting" that validates their prejudices.

And since Fox isn't in the news business, that's fine with them.

 

FOX NEWS should be banned, because they do not report news, only GOP propaganda. This is a GOP channel.

 

You will never hear the Left give credit to Fox for anything. They try and say they lie, but very seldom point the lies out. You also never hear a word on the lies and doctored tapes that MSNBC does. They have been caught so many times and they only put out 15% of their broadcast as news. Can you imagine how many more lies they would put out if they put out as much news as Fox does. So when it comes to the Left giving their opinion on Fox, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

Fox is reliable enough. If there's any question about reliability it's going to be in the watcher or listener.

 

"You will never hear the Left give credit to Fox for anything. They try and say they lie, but very seldom point the lies out. "

Fox lies so often that there is an entire cottage industry feeding off of documenting them.

Here are just a few from the last week or so:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/22/foxs-revisionist-history-on-the-state-departmen/199442

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/16/fox-facts-on-the-irs-arent-facts-at-all/199350

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/14/fox-runs-defense-for-roves-brain-damage-smear-w/199311

(Oh, and since Media Matters not only does its research, but lets you see it, don't even bother to dismiss these links unless you can refute their content).


"You also never hear a word on the lies and doctored tapes that MSNBC does."

Document them, if you're making that claim. How many doctored tapes are there. List the lies.

 

How far gone or out of touch do you have to be to even put that challenge out there?

Let's start with just one single MSNBC host, Maddow:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/jul/09/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-ohio-budget-includes-requiremen/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/rachel-maddow/president-bush-new-york-times-interviews/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/09/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/10/rachel-maddow/maddow-claims-palin-got-zero-support-her-idea-only/

MSNBC is no better than Fox and Fox is no better than MSNBC. The only people who think that one is reliable while the other isn't are partisan hacks of the worst sort.

 

GOP propaganda? Fair enough.

They should be banned? What the hell is wrong with you?

 

Lets take that first one. While she might have called them a terrorist group, she refused to put them on the list as a terrorist group until Nov. of last year.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...efused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html

 

"You don't see the Right (usually) calling people childish names and lying about the Left, but the Left, well, you know, that is their agenda"


Bill O'Rielly calls people names constantly. But non the less you are only hearing about Fox news because of the hate spewing Bill O'Rielly does and the fact that Rupert Murdoch and his monopoly clear channel own 75% of the news and information piped into your home and car. Fox also claims to be fair and balanced which is obviously not true. Rupert Murdoch is big supporter of the Republican party and will not have to many left thinking people work for him.

 

"Fox Facts" On The IRS Aren't Facts At All

This one is being investigated. So lets wait and see what they find, OK?

Lets look at this last one.

Did Fox go back and bring it up from 6 years ago? No, they quoted what Carl Rove said just recently. They didn't make it up. They only reported what the man said, as those on the Left report everything the Right says. So Fox didn't lie and they didn't dig up a six year old story.

 

Well done!

- - - Updated - - -

No, Carl Rove (who is on Fox's payroll) made it up.

Of course, he wouldn't have had Roger Ailes not approved of the talking point.

 

Republican strategist Karl Rove has denied a report that he said Hillary Clinton may have suffered brain damage, claiming he “never used that phrase.”

“I didn’t say she had brain damage; she had a serious health episode,” he said Tuesday on FOX News.

 

Fox is a hell of a lot better than MSNBC. How many edited tapes has MSNBC been caught putting out that tries to make things look exactly the opposite of what they are?

 

Would it surprise you that several of the other news stations also aired Rove's words? Fox didn't lie. They didn't bring back a 6 year old story. Rove was a guest on Fox, and yes, he could be on Fox's payroll. That doesn't mean they told him what to say. There are several from the Left that are constant guest on Fox and are probably on their payroll too, and the have no problem arguing the administration's side.