The Truth Is Out There — Fox Viewers Don’t Care

[kdv]

But Tucker told us he lied about not believing there was election fraud sufficient to overturn the election. He stated that in November after the election.

Never mind the link, I see it's only alleged. But that doesn't stop an entire group from reporting on it as if it's fact feeding its masses what they want to hear, as some people often like to tell us.

 

[Ouroboros]

It was headline news for weeks. You couldn't sneeze without running into news about the riots as they were happening. As to the convictions, there were tons of them. Here's a link:

Fact check: Thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested in 2020

Estimates put the cost of protest-related damage in 2020 at about $2 billion. But it's wrong to say protesters didn't face consequences.

www.usatoday.com

But this assertion runs counter to your anti-Fox pronouncements in your last paragraph. You invalidate all of Fox News (even though you say you don't watch the channel) because you claim they slant the news "to own the libs." But we have it from Jay Patriot, who likes some of the news people but not the pundits, that the problem is the pundits doing the news-slanting. I think I would trust the opinion of someone who has watched the channel to that of someone who is going on partial (if any) evidence.

Let's say for sake of argument that there is slanting, and that the pundits are unquestionably guilty of it. Your condemnation makes no fine distinctions, so as far as you're concerned all the storks as guilty as the cranes, to borrow an Aesopian metaphor. Since that's the only standard you offer, then you must apply the standard equally to the Lib Media. If they have any pundits who slant things, then that taints any "straight reporting" on the news shows. You claim that the straight reporters talked about the protesters adequately. Even if that was proven, the Libs had their apologist pundits as well, who would BY YOUR STANDARD taint the whole pool. For instance:

DON LEMON, SEPT. 17, 2020: If you watch a certain state TV and you listen to conservative media, you would think that, you know, entire cities are just embroiled in fights and fires and whatever. We went out, had a great dinner in New York City tonight. People actually walked up to us and said, 'Thank you for -- I watch you every night. I can't believe they didn't do a double take at us actually hanging out and not seeing us on the TV screen. But New York City was not a hellscape, was it?

The protests kept growing as the body count rose. It wasn't about a single death.

Any growing body count in Ferguson would have been the result of the protests, whom Sanchez is treating with kid gloves.

The problem I see with Fox News is that they focus more on spin than on facts in order to 'own the libs'--as that's how they make money. I don't see that other stations are only about making money by smearing republicans with hyperbole and opinion. While there is definitely bias, it tends to be less about inspiring hate and rage in their audiences. Maybe that's why so many groups who support Republican politics are now considered domestic terrorist threats. There aren't many groups who support Democrats plotting to kill Americans. Just sayin'

Answered above.

 

[JRTurner]

Never mind the link, I see it's only alleged. But that doesn't stop an entire group from reporting on it as if it's fact feeding its masses what they want to hear, as some people often like to tell us.

No, it's not alleged. He texted that there was no refuting the results of the election--in November. Those are his own words.

On Nov. 13, Carlson wrote that he wanted Trump to concede the election and that “there wasn’t enough fraud to change the outcome.”

Tucker Carlson’s Dominion Text Messages Are a Thing of Beauty

One said it was “shockingly reckless” to accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which he insisted, “there isn’t.”

slate.com

 

[Jessie C]

So you don't watch Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham, etc.? Who do you watch on Fox? Who's left to watch? I used to like Chris Wallace, but he's gone and I haven't tuned into Fox since then.

Chris Wallace has joined the CNN cast. He has a weekly special called "Who's talking to Chris Wallace?" and interviews a wide variety of people. A leap from fox to CNN says it all.

 

[JRTurner]

But this assertion runs counter to your anti-Fox pronouncements in your last paragraph. You invalidate all of Fox News (even though you say you don't watch the channel) because you claim they slant the news "to own the libs." But we have it from Jay Patriot, who likes some of the news people but not the pundits, that the problem is the pundits doing the news-slanting. I think I would trust the opinion of someone who has watched the channel to that of someone who is going on partial (if any) evidence.

Now you've completely lost me. How is my description of the coverage of the summer riots somehow a blanket statement about Fox News?

Let's say for sake of argument that there is slanting, and that the pundits are unquestionably guilty of it. Your condemnation makes no fine distinctions, so as far as you're concerned all the storks as guilty as the cranes, to borrow an Aesopian metaphor. Since that's the only standard you offer, then you must apply the standard equally to the Lib Media. If they have any pundits who slant things, then that taints any "straight reporting" on the news shows. You claim that the straight reporters talked about the protesters adequately. Even if that was proven, the Libs had their apologist pundits as well, who would BY YOUR STANDARD taint the whole pool. For instance:

Yes, most cable news has slanted bias. Few MSM has as much hateful rhetoric as Fox.

Any growing body count in Ferguson would have been the result of the protests, whom Sanchez is treating with kid gloves.


Answered above.

Are you suggesting I'm wrong because of one guy named Sanchez?

 

[JRTurner]

Chris Wallace has joined the CNN cast. He has a weekly special called "Who's talking to Chris Wallace?" and interviews a wide variety of people. A leap from fox to CNN says it all.

Hey thanks! I didn't know that. I hope his show is just like it used to be. I loved what a great interviewer he was.

 

[Jessie C]

Hey thanks! I didn't know that. I hope his show is just like it used to be. I loved what a great interviewer he was.

It's a good show; comes on Sunday's at 7PM EST.

 

[JRTurner]

It's a good show; comes on Sunday's at 7PM EST.

I'll see if I can find the podcast. I like to listen to Sunday shows/interviews when I'm cleaning house for the week

 

[kdv]

No, it's not alleged. He texted that there was no refuting the results of the election--in November. Those are his own words.

On Nov. 13, Carlson wrote that he wanted Trump to concede the election and that “there wasn’t enough fraud to change the outcome.”

Tucker Carlson’s Dominion Text Messages Are a Thing of Beauty

One said it was “shockingly reckless” to accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which he insisted, “there isn’t.”

slate.com

Show me where I'm wrong. If I'm looking at this correctly in November, he was talking about the national election, the presidential. What he's talking about later is the election in Georgia. Two separate subjects. what am I missing?

 

[JRTurner]

Show me where I'm wrong. If I'm looking at this correctly in November, he was talking about the national election, the presidential. What he's talking about later is the election in Georgia. Two separate subjects. what am I missing?

Privately, in November, he stated there was not enough fraud to affect the outcome in the election.
Publicly, in July, he stated there was enough fraud to affect the outcome in the election.

And that's only one instance. He did it repeatedly over time. The same way he's trying to say Jan. 6th was a tourist visit that went sideways. Seriously, if you want to keep watching Tucker, that's up to you. How much you believe without fact-checking--that's on you.

I would begin by checking with fact-checkers for other instances of him lying. There's plenty.

 

[notquiteright]

All networks do that, either for expository purposes or to do an tu quoque (whataboutism) fallacy.
There is usually a slant in any news report.
In the days of Walter Cronkite, it was pure news - no political slant.
Back in Cronkite's time, people had very few places to go to, so they pretty much believed everything Walter said on the nightly news.

Actually, Walter was accused of being a defeatist after his Feb. 27, 1968, broadcast saying the war in Vietnam can't be won.

People see slant no matter what. Perhaps it wasn't as heated as now, but still news a group didn't like was attacked as biased...

 

[Galactic Spin]

I think you're posting out of anger.
And, your descriptions fit your own side like a glove.

Ah yes, typical pre-prepared right wing whiny nonsense, delivered in proud ignorance of the thread topic or material.

 

[Galactic Spin]

If I'm looking at this correctly in November, he was talking about the national election, the presidential. What he's talking about later is the election in Georgia. Two separate subjects. what am I missing?

That they aren't two separate subjects. Good grief.

 

[kdv]

Privately, in November, he stated there was not enough fraud to affect the outcome in the election.
Publicly, in July, he stated there was enough fraud to affect the outcome in the election.

And that's only one instance. He did it repeatedly over time. The same way he's trying to say Jan. 6th was a tourist visit that went sideways. Seriously, if you want to keep watching Tucker, that's up to you. How much you believe without fact-checking--that's on you.

I would begin by checking with fact-checkers for other instances of him lying. There's plenty.

From what I read in November, he was talking about the presidential election nationally.
In the example in the article you gave in July from what I see he's talking about what happened in Georgia.

And even in your own quote he's not stating anything is fact, he's asking a question. And saying if it was true, that would be enough votes to overturn.


"CARLSON: "How's that possible? I don't know." Every American should want to know because the answer gets to the heart of the integrity of our elections, otherwise known as our democracy. We're not talking about a couple of ballots here. We're talking about a lot of ballots, at least hundreds of ballots involved, enough potentially to affect the outcome of the election."

 

[JRTurner]

From what I read in November, he was talking about the presidential election nationally.
In the example in the article you gave in July from what I see he's talking about what happened in Georgia.

And even in your own quote he's not stating anything is fact, he's asking a question. And saying if it was true, that would be enough votes to overturn.


"CARLSON: "How's that possible? I don't know." Every American should want to know because the answer gets to the heart of the integrity of our elections, otherwise known as our democracy. We're not talking about a couple of ballots here. We're talking about a lot of ballots, at least hundreds of ballots involved, enough potentially to affect the outcome of the election."

Okay. You can believe him. I don't.

 

[kdv]

Okay. You can believe him. I don't.

I don't care what you believe, the evidence you're giving me doesn't support what you're accusing.

 

[kdv]

Okay. You can believe him. I don't.

You said there are other instances. I'm happy to look at them all. I don't have time now to look into this deeper myself, but later I will.

 

[jaypatriot]

Actually, Walter was accused of being a defeatist after his Feb. 27, 1968, broadcast saying the war in Vietnam can't be won.

People see slant no matter what. Perhaps it wasn't as heated as now, but still news a group didn't like was attacked as biased...

The question I would have about Uncle Walter is:
Was he against the war and thought he might influence politics given 1968 was an election year? What is the real truth about the "Cronkite Moment" when Walter suggested the war was unwinnable?

"Conservative pundits and historians have declared that Cronkite, who died in 2009, bungled the biggest story of his life by failing to see that the Viet Cong were clearly defeated in the Tet Offensive. Peter Braestrup, who worked for The Washington Post in Saigon during Tet, wrote in his 1977 book “Big Story” that journalists unfamiliar with combat or military tactics got the story of Tet wrong. Braestrup’s conclusion is embraced in many revisionist retrospectives."

We can speculate all day but definitive answer will be found.

 

[jaypatriot]

If you find out that your source for water is actually sewage, why would you keep drinking it simply because you don't know where else to go?

Interesting but disgusting analogy given where I live the water is delicious and cannot be beat by expensive bottled water.
If you are referring to the hyperbolic FoxNews hosts who Liberals love to bash, you are correct. I don't drink from that polluted water trough. I go to more reliable sources like the Wall St. Journal for my daily news and analysis.

Tell me , BD, now that you've insinuated I am dumb enough to listen to trash news, where do you go to get true, untainted news?

 

[SCrider]

If you ignore those flame throwing hosts (Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham, Lou Dobbs) and listen to John Roberts, Neil Cavuto, and Bret Baier, you will see good reporting. If you're like the other Lefties who simply want to bitch about the eccentric hosts and say it represents the entire FoxNews network, then you being obstinate and only wish to bitch and moan about show hosts you don't even want to watch.

And where do you go to "search" for the truth? NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington POst, DailyCos, Cmedy Central? How would you know when you find "the truth"?

Why should we have to ignore the main faces of the company to get the "truth"? Seems like a bad plan.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Tell me , BD, now that you've insinuated I am dumb enough to listen to trash news, where do you go to get true, untainted news?

Who cares about me? This isn't about where to go for the news, it's about where not to go and why. Admitted liars don't deserve the dignity of your continued viewership. They already fooled you once and admitted it under oath, so why give them more chances? And don't forget, it wasn't just the low-level pundits lying to you, that goes all the way up to Rupert Murdoch himself. "It wasn't red or blue, it was green." The owner of Fox lies to you for money and you're still defending him (just watch Cavuto instead of Carlson).

 

[jaypatriot]

Who cares about me? This isn't about where to go for the news, it's about where not to go and why. Admitted liars don't deserve the dignity of your continued viewership. They already fooled you once and admitted it under oath, so why give them more chances? And don't forget, it wasn't just the low-level pundits lying to you, that goes all the way up to Rupert Murdoch himself. "It wasn't red or blue, it was green." The owner of Fox lies to you for money and you're still defending him (just watch Cavuto instead of Carlson).

I watch Cavuto and I don't watch Carlson.
Just like I watch John Roberts and Bret Baier. I trust them more.

And you are accusing Murdoch of wanting to make money?
FoxNews is not a charity for daily news. You don't like them, then don't watch them. They are a business which CNN and MSNBC will never rival.
And you bombastically avoided answering my question.
Where do you go to find accurate and reliable news?

 

[jaypatriot]

Why should we have to ignore the main faces of the company to get the "truth"? Seems like a bad plan.

Which company are you talking about? FoxNews or all of the other cable wannabes who think they are report unbiased news?

 

[SCrider]

Which company are you talking about? FoxNews or all of the other cable wannabes who think they are report unbiased news?

Fox is the topic.

 

[jaypatriot]

Fox is the topic.

Oh yes, FoxNews, the network with the most popular show hosts in the entire country followed by millions of viewers.
And of course you would not be one of them because you hate the idea of someone Tucker, or Hannity or Ingraham being the attraction for so many right-wingers who don't know they are being poisoned.
Is that right?