Fox News coverage of the Oath Keepers guilty verdict

[NxNW]

I was going to post a link to the Fox News coverage of the Oath Keepers being found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Unfortunately, Fox News has not covered the verdict. The latest article is from November 22, 2022. You'd think that a "fair and balanced" news source would be interested when followers of Donald Trump are found guilty of such a serious charge. The best I can do is post the 11/22 article, in which the comments are filling up to cover the story that Fox News will not. Have we entered an era in which right-wing "news" sources are going to flat-out refuse to acknowledge certain events?

Jury deliberations begin in sedition trial for Oath Keepers leader, associates​

Jury deliberations begin in sedition trial for Oath Keepers leader, associates

 

[rambot]

That's nothing!
You should see how the election has managed to solve violent crime. It's unbelievable how lucky America was that they had the election or there would just STILL be violence in the streets!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you surprised that a right-wing news outlet would be putting the majority of emphasis on the negatives of the left-wing (while conveniently avoiding the stories that make their own side look bad)?

"Highlight the bad of the other side, avoid talking about the bad on our own side" seems to be the status quo for all media outlets (with a few exceptions)

 

[Arcangl86]

Are you surprised that a right-wing news outlet would be putting the majority of emphasis on the negatives of the left-wing (while conveniently avoiding the stories that make their own side look bad)?

"Highlight the bad of the other side, avoid talking about the bad on our own side" seems to be the status quo for all media outlets (with a few exceptions)

But they aren't right wing! They are fair and balanced. Even their motto says so!

 

[Blade]

Allot of stories going on right now where "some" news outlets are not coving them. Ooh what does this mean? Nothing. And what is this " followers of Donald Trump"? Are we going to do the same thing for those "followers of Biden"? that get locked up? Yeah working for voted for Biden does not mean "followers of Biden" nor "followers of Trump".

Why not reach out to FOX news and ask them instead of running with speculation? Then why not treat CNN ABC CBS MSNBC NBC the same way?

 

[rambot]

Are you surprised that a right-wing news outlet would be putting the majority of emphasis on the negatives of the left-wing (while conveniently avoiding the stories that make their own side look bad)?

"Highlight the bad of the other side, avoid talking about the bad on our own side" seems to be the status quo for all media outlets (with a few exceptions)

Surprised? Why would you think I'm surprised? Simply because of my incredulity? Nah. I just like the data because, instead of insinuation and educated guesses, it provides a CLEAR PICTURE of how unabashedly partisan something is.

It's undeniable.

And I'm SURE it happens on the left. I would LOVE to see data for my side. I'm sure my news sources manipulate, but I want to know how and how bad the problem is with quantified evidence.

That's tastey stuff right there.

 

[NxNW]

Are you surprised that a right-wing news outlet would be putting the majority of emphasis on the negatives of the left-wing (while conveniently avoiding the stories that make their own side look bad)?

"Highlight the bad of the other side, avoid talking about the bad on our own side" seems to be the status quo for all media outlets (with a few exceptions)

I've never seen such an outrageous omission on the part of moderate outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, AP. Maybe they exist, but I'd be interested to see it.

 

[rambot]

I've never seen such an outrageous omission on the part of moderate outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, AP. Maybe they exist, but I'd be interested to see it.

Agreed. It's silly to think the left doesn't do it, but I'm sick with the "your side does it too" when the severity OR number of instances is not the same.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Agreed. It's silly to think the left doesn't do it, but I'm sick with the "your side does it too" when the severity OR number of instances is not the same.

So what's your perfect world scenario with regards to how we review and critique our media institutions?

"All of the other ones are off-limits for discussion until we feel they're as bad as Fox News"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I've never seen such an outrageous omission on the part of moderate outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, AP. Maybe they exist, but I'd be interested to see it.

One example would be the way certain rioting activity was treated with kid gloves or barely mentioned. (like CHAZ/CHOP)

A lot of media outlets barely talked about it, or gave it a softened rosy description like it was a "summer of love" festival, when it fact, it was a large group (many of them armed) taking over multiple blocks of a major US city (including a police precinct building)

 

[rambot]

So what's your perfect world scenario with regards to how we review and critique our media institutions?

"All of the other ones are off-limits for discussion until we feel they're as bad as Fox News"?

I ABSOLUTELY invite and want data on the left leaning sites. But blindingly saying "both sides do it" means nothing to me now since a ratio of "many" to "few" is too often irrelevant.

A real world scenario has media organizations pumping out data and observations (backed by data) like this meme. I don't see it cause I'm a left leaning person; so my camp tends to critique the right.

I'm up for seeing the organizations that critique us but I'm not up for blind bellyaching without solid, quantified evidence.

 

[lismore]

IMHO we need news outlets which are not 'left' or 'right' leaning but rather 'truth' leaning. Kind regards

 

[rjs330]

I ABSOLUTELY invite and want data on the left leaning sites. But blindingly saying "both sides do it" means nothing to me now since a ratio of "many" to "few" is too often irrelevant.

A real world scenario has media organizations pumping out data and observations (backed by data) like this meme. I don't see it cause I'm a left leaning person; so my camp tends to critique the right.

I'm up for seeing the organizations that critique us but I'm not up for blind bellyaching without solid, quantified evidence.

I've been in this forum for a while now. And there has been a myriad of threads on this type of issue with evidence posted. I think you've been on this as long as I have, I can't believe you missed all the information you were provided on how the left wing media operates. There have been links posted and articles posted and after all this time you want to go back revisit them all?

I think you know good and well. I've seen this tactic used quite a bit by the left. If I went back and started posting links again to prove this point I predict within 6 months or so people in the left would be back to "gee I've never seen anything on this. I sure would like to have proof.". Even though they were around when proof was provided already.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I was going to post a link to the Fox News coverage of the Oath Keepers being found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Unfortunately, Fox News has not covered the verdict. The latest article is from November 22, 2022. You'd think that a "fair and balanced" news source would be interested when followers of Donald Trump are found guilty of such a serious charge. The best I can do is post the 11/22 article, in which the comments are filling up to cover the story that Fox News will not. Have we entered an era in which right-wing "news" sources are going to flat-out refuse to acknowledge certain events?

Jury deliberations begin in sedition trial for Oath Keepers leader, associates​

Jury deliberations begin in sedition trial for Oath Keepers leader, associates

At this point does anyone really believe either side is fair and balanced? I definitely don't

 

[NxNW]

One example would be the way certain rioting activity was treated with kid gloves or barely mentioned. (like CHAZ/CHOP)

I saw plenty of coverage.

A lot of media outlets barely talked about it, or gave it a softened rosy description like it was a "summer of love" festival, when it fact, it was a large group (many of them armed) taking over multiple blocks of a major US city (including a police precinct building)

"Barely talked about it" is a lot different from not covering it at all. It's one thing to argue about the amount of coverage, and quite another to have zero coverage at all.

 

[rambot]

I've been in this forum for a while now. And there has been a myriad of threads on this type of issue with evidence posted. I think you've been on this as long as I have, I can't believe you missed all the information you were provided on how the left wing media operates. There have been links posted and articles posted and after all this time you want to go back revisit them all?

I think you know good and well. I've seen this tactic used quite a bit by the left. If I went back and started posting links again to prove this point I predict within 6 months or so people in the left would be back to "gee I've never seen anything on this. I sure would like to have proof.". Even though they were around when proof was provided already.

I made sure to emphasize QUANTITATIVE data. I recall plenty of articles that show bias in certain articles or stories. And this then gets extrapolated to the entire institution of journalism. Not only that but some of the things touted as proof coming from absurdly biased sites or personal interpretation was not necessarily as damning as you felt it was.

You can say you've posted many of those stories, and I recall seeing some, but I CANNOT recall much in the way of quantitative data.

There's no point in complaining about having to post sources; that's literally, juvenile. Frankly there should never ever EVER be bellyaching about having to post sources to support what you say.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

I made sure to emphasize QUANTITATIVE data. I recall plenty of articles that show bias in certain articles or stories. And this then gets extrapolated to the entire institution of journalism. Not only that but some of the things touted as proof coming from absurdly biased sites or personal interpretation was not necessarily as damning as you felt it was.

You can say you've posted many of those stories, and I recall seeing some, but I CANNOT recall much in the way of quantitative data.

There's no point in complaining about having to post sources; that's literally, juvenile. Frankly there should never ever EVER be bellyaching about having to post sources to support what you say.

Who's to say sources like CNN or other media/Government sites aren't biased? There's always going to be bias. Show me something with no bias and i'll show you faith without works.

 

[stevil]

I was going to post a link to the Fox News coverage of the Oath Keepers being found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Unfortunately, Fox News has not covered the verdict.

I've found that typically Fox News do cover stuff but they normally bury the articles rather than give them high profile on the front page.

But in this situation, I have done a couple of searches on their website and found nothing at all.
For something this severe Sedition Conspiracy to overthrow the government of USA and it doesn't feature anywhere at all. What a strange news site.
The plight of the right wing people shouldn't be tied to the Oath Keepers, they have no need to protect these guys or hide the news of this conviction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

IMHO we need news outlets which are not 'left' or 'right' leaning but rather 'truth' leaning. Kind regards

AP and Reuters make a point to stress factual reporting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's nothing!
You should see how the election has managed to solve violent crime. It's unbelievable how lucky America was that they had the election or there would just STILL be violence in the streets!

View attachment 324193

Wow...in two weeks they changed topics? That definitely indicates a topic change in the news.

From there, it's just a hop, skip, and unfounded assumption that they were lying.

If you want to see a wild shift....check out how many stories the NYT and WaPo and CNN ran stories about police shootings of black people before Biden was elected...and how many they ran after. You'd think they stopped happening entirely.