Fox News Anchors.....

[perplexed]

What happened to the post that had the link to the public record of the court filing?

here is the basic one
Dominion Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23685186/fox-dominion-216-filing.pdf
The one with more complete conversations is the Deposition of Rupert Murdoch

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/dominion-opp-brief/823d0af7d1f7174b/full.pdf

 

[Landon Caeli]

Fox News is just a name. What they do over there is a blend of commentary, opinion, entertainment, and news.

...And the reason why is because humanity is addicted to chatter gathering as a natural survival instinct, and there just isn't enough news to satisfy his everlasting hunger for it. So commentary, and debated opinions are added in to fill the void... And sometimes, even some baloney.

 

[perplexed]

Fox News is just a name. What they do over there is a blend of commentary, opinion, entertainment, and news.

...And the reason why is because humanity is addicted to chatter gathering as a natural survival instinct, and there just isn't enough news to satisfy his everlasting hunger for it. So commentary, and debated opinions are added in to fill the void... And sometimes, even some baloney.

??? So you don't have a problem with how Fox news gave a Platform to Sydney Powell to claim Dominion voting systems switched millions of votes even though before giving Sydney airtime there were many emails between many Fox News hosts and executives stating the obvious fact that Sydney was a complete nutjob

 

[Landon Caeli]

??? So you don't have a problem with how Fox news gave a Platform to Sydney Powell to claim Dominion voting systems switched millions of votes even though before giving Sydney airtime there were many emails between many Fox News hosts and executives stating the obvious fact that Sydney was a complete nutjob

I personally don't like that, no. But I also understand that a very large number of people want those lies included in their news, possibly even more than those of us who don't. So we can't really help those among us who don't want to be helped. Unfortunately.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So now that Fox News anchors admitted in court that they knew what they were saying on the news was a lie but they "didn't want to alienate their audience", we can communally, disavow them as a news network right? Or are we just gonna focus on the SPECIFIC anchors who testified?
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/16/1157558299/fox-news-stars-false-claims-trump-election-2020

Because between them and Tucker "any reasonable person would know you can't trust" Carlson, I would hope to not see news stories featuring these journalistscelebrities.

And yes, I know "CNN DOES IT TOO". Well I "know that". But I don't "they testified under oath and that leads their integrity to come into question" know that.

Communally disavow them as a news network?

What does that mean? Disregard any article or news they publish?

 

[perplexed]

Communally disavow them as a news network?

What does that mean? Disregard an
article or news they publish?

???did you disregard fox news when it aired Sydney Powell claiming dominion switched millions of votes

 

[perplexed]

I personally don't like that, no. But I also understand that a very large number of people want those lies included in their news, possibly even more than those of us who don't. So we can't really help those among us who don't want to be helped. Unfortunately.

So if someone thinks all republicans are racist and does not want to be helped I should not push back against their lunacy?

So if someone surrenders to Hedonism and does not want to be helped I should not point out that sooner or later they will realize their lives are horribly empty ?

I should be totally aware I basically have no chance but I would argue it does not hurt to try, especially you let them know that you are trying because they are worth the effort.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So if someone thinks all republicans are racist and does not want to be helped I should not push back against their lunacy?

So if someone surrenders to Hedonism and does not want to be helped I should not point out that sooner or later they will realize their lives are horribly empty ?

I should be totally aware I basically have no chance but I would argue it does not hurt to try, especially you let them know that you are trying because they are worth the effort.

I think there would be a difference between someone who thinks all Republicans are racist, and someone who *wants* to believe all republicans are racist.

...One is a form of innocence, and the other is malice. IMO.

I'm not sure how to handle malice, honestly. Sometimes it can have a damaging counter-effect on someone with purely good intentions, who is only trying to be helpful. It's hard to know when to stop fighting against it before it consumes you, and then too, malice can spread like wild fire.

...A hard situation.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...With those who would argue that they want lies on the news, I think there's malice in there.

 

[perplexed]

I'm not sure how to handle malice,

Golly, if you are factoring in malice at all you are "above my pay grade"

 

[Ana the Ist]

???did you disregard fox news when it aired Sydney Powell claiming dominion switched millions of votes

I didn't even hear about it until now.

 

[perplexed]

I didn't even hear about it until now.

Exactly what is your problem with the argument people should distrust Fox News because Fox News gave a Platform to Sydney Powell to claim Dominion voting systems switched millions of votes even though before giving Sydney airtime there were many emails between many Fox News hosts and executives stating the obvious fact that Sydney was a complete nutjob

 

[durangodawood]

...With those who would argue that they want lies on the news, I think there's malice in there.

For the most part I think lying pays and Fox et al have found an audience.

But I do think theres a smaller subset of malicious actors who truly want chaos and see themselves as the ones who will swoop into power after we go off the rails.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Exactly what is your problem with the argument people should distrust Fox News because Fox News gave a Platform to Sydney Powell to claim Dominion voting systems switched millions of votes even though before giving Sydney airtime there were many emails between many Fox News hosts and executives stating the obvious fact that Sydney was a complete nutjob

Uhhh...I'm not arguing that people should take Fox News as the God's honest truth. I never have in fact.

I don't see any news sources that are any less tainted. That's the problem.

Take the NYT...they literally wrote and promoted fake history, handed themselves an award for it. We know this because the fact checkers told them so....then went public after the NYT published the fake history anyway. It's not a question of perspective....they lied. We know they know they lied.

They and multiple other outlets openly squashed the Wuhan lab leak theory. Why? Because Dr Slouchy told them so...because he had a research paper he commissioned, and approved, that supposedly exonerated him. I mean how dumb does one have to be to not see through this? It was considered a "Trump talking point" by CNN...so they squashed it. Fox News being biased is nothing new. Have they had wackos and nutjobs on their shows before? Absolutely. Since Tucker Carlson is an example in the OP....here's an example...

Now, would I prefer a similar thing happened to Sydney but nevertheless...these outlets are now giving credence to views in service of party interests. This began years ago....but I would say only really corrupted major leftwing sources past the point of credibility in the past 10 years. They are no better.

So if we're going to denounce FOX let's also denounce CNN, NYT. WaPo, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, Buzzfeed....and every other source we can be certain lies at times.

 

[perplexed]

So if we're going to denounce FOX let's also denounce CNN, NYT. WaPo, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, Buzzfeed....and every other source we can be certain lies at times

I totally agree but I don't understand what this has to do with your previous posts.
I also don't understand why you think the statement above it true and also think it is ridiculous to compare the trump supporters that pressured Fox News into platforming Sydney Powell to Golden Calf worshippers,
Lets start with what I think is common ground.

Would you agree with the following.
"Many of the people that totally trust CNN and think Biden is not mentally compromised are clearly Golden Calf worshippers because CNN offers it audience the chance to worship their own woke ideology and feel good about their ideology without any effort" ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I totally agree but I don't understand what this has to do with your previous posts.
I also don't understand why you think the statement above it true and also think it is ridiculous to compare the trump supporters that pressured Fox News into platforming Sydney Powell to Golden Calf worshippers,
Lets start with what I think is common ground.

Would you agree with the following.
"Many of the people that totally trust CNN and think Biden is not mentally compromised are clearly Golden Calf worshippers because CNN offers it audience the chance to worship their own woke ideology and feel good about their ideology without any effort" ?

I totally agree but I don't understand what this has to do with your previous posts.
I also don't understand why you think the statement above it true and also think it is ridiculous to compare the trump supporters that pressured Fox News into platforming Sydney Powell to Golden Calf worshippers,
Lets start with what I think is common ground.

Would you agree with the following.
"Many of the people that totally trust CNN and think Biden is not mentally compromised are clearly Golden Calf worshippers because CNN offers it audience the chance to worship their own woke ideology and feel good about their ideology without any effort" ?

CNN is the more obvious of corrupted formerly trustworthy outlets.

Slate ran this piece on the NYT years ago...

Here’s the Transcript of the New York Times Town-Hall Meeting

“I’m going to be really honest. I actually don’t think we make a whole lot more mistakes,” said executive editor Dean Baquet.

slate.com

As you can see....they don't really believe in the Trump-Russia collusion story. They know people do though....so they pretended it was real. Then once it fell apart and people were blaming NYT for misinformation....they shifted tone to one of racism and published a fake history.

You see from the transcript that this is no longer even remotely a newspaper but a blatant purveyor of left wing propaganda.

No longer concerned with the facts.

Every other source I listed is a pale shadow of CNN or the NYT.

 

[perplexed]

CNN is the more obvious of corrupted formerly trustworthy outlets.

I already said I agree, I think CNN feeds the destructive myth that America is inherently racist. That does not stop me from being absolutely delighted that Fox no longer gives Trump Live interviews , they play edited recordings to prevent Fox and Trump severely compromising themselves.

 

[wing2000]

So if we're going to denounce FOX let's also denounce CNN, NYT. WaPo, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, Buzzfeed....and every other source we can be certain lies at times.

Rubbish. Cable News are in a league of their own. IMO, Americans were better informed before the age of 24x7 cable news....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For the most part I think lying pays and Fox et al have found an audience.

I think it's a symptom of a broader problem in general, which is that our media institution as a whole has become a collection of private, purely for-profit, companies rather than being viewed as a societal institution that's a check on those in power like it used to be.


It shouldn't be surprising that media outlets lie so much or put tremendous slant on their reporting. Their revenue is directly tied to how many people watch, and the people watching have made it clear that they don't want the objective facts, they want to be told their side is right and want information presented within that ideological framework.

On more than one occasion, "the customers have spoken" and made it clear that "if your echo chamber isn't sufficiently echo'y enough, we'll go find another one"

A prime example of that was on election night, when Fox News told their audience something they didn't want to hear (that their guy had lost), a quarter of a million viewers bailed almost immediately and went to "Newsmax" (who before, was averaging only 50,000 viewers, and suddenly found themselves with an audience of nearly 400,000 almost overnight)

CNN has experienced something similar. While theirs wasn't so much about "lying" per say like the right wing outlets, when they attempted to go more "neutral" with their coverage and announced that plan to the public, their ratings slid to a near 10-year low, and MSNBC (who wears their bias on their sleeve proudly) had a 13% ratings jump.


Unfortunately "the market has spoken" (and in a way that's concerning): "Tell us what we wanna hear, and if you don't, we'll leave and find someone else who will"

 

[durangodawood]

I think it's a symptom of a broader problem in general, which is that our media institution as a whole has become a collection of private, purely for-profit, companies rather than being viewed as a societal institution that's a check on those in power like it used to be.


It shouldn't be surprising that media outlets lie so much or put tremendous slant on their reporting. Their revenue is directly tied to how many people watch, and the people watching have made it clear that they don't want the objective facts, they want to be told their side is right and want information presented within that ideological framework.

On more than one occasion, "the customers have spoken" and made it clear that "if your echo chamber isn't sufficiently echo'y enough, we'll go find another one"

A prime example of that was on election night, when Fox News told their audience something they didn't want to hear (that their guy had lost), a quarter of a million viewers bailed almost immediately and went to "Newsmax" (who before, was averaging only 50,000 viewers, and suddenly found themselves with an audience of nearly 400,000 almost overnight)

CNN has experienced something similar. While theirs wasn't so much about "lying" per say like the right wing outlets, when they attempted to go more "neutral" with their coverage and announced that plan to the public, their ratings slid to a near 10-year low, and MSNBC (who wears their bias on their sleeve proudly) had a 13% ratings jump.


Unfortunately "the market has spoken" (and in a way that's concerning): "Tell us what we wanna hear, and if you don't, we'll leave and find someone else who will"

Im less concerned about biased news outlets than I am about the pure lying and disinfo.

Bias has always been part of the landscape and we generally know whos who and adjust for it. Bias has always manifested in the choice of what news items to highlight. Its typically not been about making stuff up.

Whats new (in my lifetime anyway) is the flat out manufactured unreality emerging from right wing media. And yes, there is no "two sides" about it. Mainstream lefty media had has moments of error and dishonesty, but nothing like the constant stream of mendacity starting with Rush L and friends decades ago.

Ive found the biased media to be really useful in the past. For instance just about the only outlet to really nail the run up to the Iraq war II debacle was the highly left-biased but very honest Democracy Now. (The worst was NYT, not for lying per se, but just for trading relatively unquestioned exposure of the Bush admin position for exclusive admin access.)

So back to election night.... The Fox audience didnt want just a biased take on reality. They wanted to be lied to.