Fox News, Joining The Liberal Fake News...

[BugI02]

uuhh, why did you leave the "H" out, Bug?

Consider who I was talking to

 

[Ingomike]

It was a Trump talking point. For many of his supporters, his words are gospel, and once heard there is no reason to doubt.

"Figures lie and liars figure". In a fine example of the the quote, after prominent conservatives and the President said the 9th was the most overturned court, the enemy media went all out to show them wrong by finagling figures until they got something their followers would buy. They found a date range that suited their preferred narrative and sold it to their audience.

Historically between 1994 and 2015 the 9th has been overturned 82% of the time. The 6th is second at 76%, the 11th data was not in the article. The 9th has been very consistent in its failure rate over 20 years and deserves the scorn it gets, that a couple of other circuits have recently been challenging the 9th for the title and if narrowed to a 4-5 year period, they may exceed them is nothing to celebrate.

i stand by the comment about the 9th.

MM

 

[Ingomike]

Fox "once the most balanced news reporting of any media out there".

I honestly chuckled when I read that.

Do you watch Fox News for news, or are you either listening to your preferred echo chamber, or letting the fact they have conservative guests and opinion on in the evenings affect your opinion of their news?

Many studies have shown Fox to be more balanced in their news reporting. As a for instance, a Harvard study of Trumps first 100 days, Fox was 52% negative, while most of the others were 90% negative. Which one is balanced?

From Forbes: "Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall."

Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.

These are not anomalies, it has been consistent over the years. So chuckle if you want but it is true...

MM

 

[Kutnupe14]

You see things differerently than a lot of folks, my friend. Just sayin'...

That is an understatement.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. I listened to a bit of NPR today, and the interviewer asked his guest about "Trump disputing the CIA's assessment" of who was responsible for the Khashoggi murder

Really? An anonymous source giving what he claims is the CIA's assessment to WaPo just becomes 'the CIA's assessment' as if it was released by a vetted official source on the record?

And the beauty of this s**t for the resistance is anyone who might dispute it cannot do so on the record without it being declassified, and were they to try to dispute it off the record likely they would get no traction due to variance from the approved narrative

quite some time ago, it seemed like NPR actually had some standards

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fox "once the most balanced news reporting of any media out there".



Do you watch Fox News for news, or are you either listening to your preferred echo chamber, or letting the fact they have conservative guests and opinion on in the evenings affect your opinion of their news?

Many studies have shown Fox to be more balanced in their news reporting. As a for instance, a Harvard study of Trumps first 100 days, Fox was 52% negative, while most of the others were 90% negative. Which one is balanced?

From Forbes: "Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall."

Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.

These are not anomalies, it has been consistent over the years. So chuckle if you want but it is true...

MM

I don't think any of the news services from the major outlets come anywhere close to being "fair and balanced."
As far as your 52%/90% negative figure, that doesn't indicate one being more balanced than the other. In fact, if the others were consistent at 90% and Fox was the lone outlier at 52%, that is more indicative avoidance of news than fully reporting on it... in theory, at least.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

If his gospel is anything like what is discussed in the Christianity forum, I think you are dead wrong!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View attachment 72200

 

[Ingomike]

I don't think any of the news services from the major outlets come anywhere close to being "fair and balanced."
As far as your 52%/90% negative figure, that doesn't indicate one being more balanced than the other. In fact, if the others were consistent at 90% and Fox was the lone outlier at 52%, that is more indicative avoidance of news than fully reporting on it... in theory, at least.

And there we have it, that definition of "balance" is far different than mine. That is right in line with the recent meme, paraphrased, that the news used to report what happened and the viewer decided what they thought now they report what to think and the viewer must decide if it happened...

MM

 

[jamil]

A lot of FNC anchors cannot stand the president. Like some of our own INGO nevertrumpers, they push their narative to the point of siding with the enemy.

They want to eliminate the Second Amendment, so there would be no means of America fighting back a tyrannical government. Why would you refer to them as anything else?

So not like INGO nevertrumpers. Well. Actually you might be hard pressed to find more than a handful of nevertrumpers on INGO anymore. But who here wants to eliminate the 2A?

Probably the most vocal Trump critic is Kut, and he's not anti-2A. Not agreeing with the president on many or even most issues is not the same thing as siding with the enemy. It's okay to disagree with Trump. And, that the language you use implies treason is concerning. I think it's fair to say it's going too far. It's like you're saying you're either with Trump 100% or you're against Trump 100%. It's as okay to disagree with Trump on many or most issues as it was to disagree with Obama. People have different priorities. That doesn't rise to the level of treason.

 

[jamil]

The law, properly passed and signed, says that foreign nationals may seek asylum in the United States regardless of their immigration status. Trump has tried to unilaterally change that to prevent anyone from seeking asylum in the United States.
When a foreign leader dictates the law, we tend to call that leader a dictator. Trump tried to dictate a change in the law on amnesty.

We don't want a president who acts like a dictator, no matter how much or little we agree with his policies.

Wait. I thought he's trying to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country pending their case. That's a lot narrower than how you stated it. It's not anything different from how Obama ran things, when he looked for loopholes in the law to use executive orders to effectively make the law what he wanted.

That said, it's ironic that a Trumper is asking you to show where you did not support Obama doing that. It's a fair bet that person wasn't happy when Obama did it but is quite pleased when it's Trump. What that tells me, it's not the overreach of executive orders that's bad, it's relative to the person in charge, whether we like him or not.

 

[jamil]

I honestly chuckled when I read that.

He said their news. And from the news desk, it is...still. But people like to confuse the opinion shows with hard news.

 

[jamil]

Pelosi/Schumer talking points. Hmmm...

It's not who they are that marks the truthfulness of what they say, it's how the things they say lines up with the facts. I'd say Camping Josh got some things right and he got some things wrong.

 

[KG1]

I don't think any of the news services from the major outlets come anywhere close to being "fair and balanced."
As far as your 52%/90% negative figure, that doesn't indicate one being more balanced than the other. In fact, if the others were consistent at 90% and Fox was the lone outlier at 52%, that is more indicative avoidance of news than fully reporting on it... in theory, at least.

One could look at it another way and say the 90% tend to be more indicative of a reticence in reporting more positive news which in theory would support less balance.

 

[jamil]

For the record, I don't believe there's ANY relationship between Christianity and Trump, the man. In fact they are pretty much polar opposites.

But he so fluently speaks the lingo. Two-Corinthians-whatever. I thought he was done after that. No way would evangelicals not spot a pretender. But...forgiveness.

Seriously though, I'm not trying to disrespect Christians. Many Evangelicals voted for Trump, and I think their support is a lot more conditional than you give them credit for. It's just that the bat****-crazier the democrats get, the lower the higher the threshold is for withdrawing that forgiveness. And I can identify with that. I probably agree with Trump much less than the average Evangelical, but right now Democrats have shown they're unsafe to let lead. They haven't figured out how to tell when their fringes go too far. Trump is pretty harmless. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but not all that dangerous either. We can go a couple of terms until sanity takes over again.

 

[jamil]

Fox "once the most balanced news reporting of any media out there".



Do you watch Fox News for news, or are you either listening to your preferred echo chamber, or letting the fact they have conservative guests and opinion on in the evenings affect your opinion of their news?

Many studies have shown Fox to be more balanced in their news reporting. As a for instance, a Harvard study of Trumps first 100 days, Fox was 52% negative, while most of the others were 90% negative. Which one is balanced?

From Forbes: "Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall."

Most TV news will not have anyone that disagrees with their global warming narrative, Fox will, they 60/40 critics vs. supporters.

These are not anomalies, it has been consistent over the years. So chuckle if you want but it is true...

MM

Fox News, the channel, not necessarily their hard news department, is an echo chamber. Just because Hanity and Tucker say it like you want to hear it doesn't make what they say comport with all the facts. I think they both get some things right, but they both get some things wrong too. If you want fair and balanced, you don't really get that from a single source. I think what Fox's hard news presents is pretty well balanced, but they selectively report just like all of them do. So it takes more than just one source to get all of it. And if you're averse to hearing a perspective you can't stand to hear, you're probably in an echo chamber yourself. But most people are, and it's getting worse as we get more polarized.

 

[jamil]

Okay. I'm caught up now. Done post-whoring.

 

[CampingJosh]

Wait. I thought he's trying to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country pending their case. That's a lot narrower than how you stated it.

You can't file for asylum in the United States until you are physically in the United States. https://www.uscis.gov/i-589 There is no "pending their case" while they are in Mexico because they can't start the process. Stopping them from entering is stopping them from seeking asylum.

Let's say Congress passed, and a president signed, shall-issue nationwide LTCH. Later the next president made it impossible to complete the application.
We would immediately recognize that as a violation. That's what Trump is attempting to do re: asylum seekers.

 

[jbombelli]

Damn. It's like I didn't even post this:

Immigration and Naturalization Act, section 212(f) says...

f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.



I guess we'll see if that means what it says.


Also, see Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. Part of that says that if the "refugees" haven't yet set foot on our soil, they aren't protected....

This is all established law already. From what I can see, well within the president's power.

As far as "let's say Congress passed a law blah blah blah... what if Congress specifically included a provision authorizing the President to suspend all those applications if he felt it necessary, for as long as he wanted? Would doing exactly that still be a violation of the law?

 

[bwframe]

Okay. I'm caught up now. Done post-whoring.

It is exhausting trying to keep up with you sir.

 

[KG1]

Damn. It's like I didn't even post this:




This is all established law already. From what I can see, well within the president's power.

As far as "let's say Congress passed a law blah blah blah... what if Congress specifically included a provision authorizing the President to suspend all those applications if he felt it necessary, for as long as he wanted? Would doing exactly that still be a violation of the law?

Let’s say Congress passed a law that says you must ignore jbombell’s posts because it runs counterintuitive to any “Trump is a dictator” meme.