Fox News coverage of the Oath Keepers guilty verdict

[wing2000]

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.

The assertion is Fox News did not cover the story....at all. That isn't Channing topics.

 

[KCfromNC]

Who's to say sources like CNN or other media/Government sites aren't biased?

The data about them would, assuming we ever see it rather than just random assertions that the bias must exist, trust us.

 

[Brihaha]

I have noticed foxnews. com website hasn't covered the story either. There must not be room on the site with their three or four daily stories about the pretty white people killed up in Idaho. Breitbart hid the Rhodes conviction too. It was there but one had to use the search mode to find it. Of course very few people found it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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 guess it would depend on which metrics you'd want to look at, but there are a few sources that delve into trying to give more granular overviews

Interactive Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media

The Interactive Media Bias Chart offers the ability to search from among the thousands of rated web/print, TV and podcast sources.

adfontesmedia.com

...and they provide an overview of their methodology

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"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.

I would suggest that "barely talked about it" combined with "inaccurate depiction of the situation" is just as bad as not covering it at all.

And in some ways, worse...as "misinformed" often comes with certain kinds of baggage that "uninformed" does not.

 

[NxNW]

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.

It's almost not really a news site!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

In this case, they buried it a tad deeper (in a streaming affiliate)

 

[NxNW]

I would suggest that "barely talked about it" combined with "inaccurate depiction of the situation" is just as bad as not covering it at all.

You've not convinced me that this actually happened.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You've not convinced that this actually happened.

Convinced that what happened?

That with regards to Chaz/Chop, they barely talked about it, and on the instances they did, gave a much more rosy picture than what was actually the case?

Protesters have occupied part of Seattle's Capitol Hill for a week. Here's what it's like inside | CNN

Barricades and street graffiti mark the entrance to what's known as Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, which protesters have occupied since last Monday.

www.cnn.com

"this weekend the six-block zone in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood resembled more festival than protest."
"Some meditated or painted. Others listened to speakers."
"“This is the most beautiful thing. It’s so hopeful. I’ve been to a lot of festivals around the world and what I see is just something very similar,” artist Adam One said. “Love and giving in a self-organized policing and just a lot of good vibes, rainbows.”"

If you search for the topic on either CNN or MSNBC, it's barely mentioned...(CNN mentions it a little more), but in all cases, it's done with a positive spin to make it sound "not so bad"

 

[rjs330]

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.

Here's the point you missed. The sources have already been posted. No one whining about having to support their point. But to require them to keep doing it over and over again is in you. It's already been done. Now it's up to you to find it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Evidence? Oof....

How long exactly would Fox News need to continue covering the crime problems of major cities before doing it less frequently would indicate to you that they're aren't biased?

I don't understand why you think this is "evidence".

That's tastey stuff right there.

Media Matters is an openly biased group. I'm not saying they're lying....but it's a bit funny that you rely upon openly biased groups to expose the bias of other groups.

 

[rambot]

Here's the point you missed. The sources have already been posted. No one whining about having to support their point. But to require them to keep doing it over and over again is in you. It's already been done. Now it's up to you to find it.

OR, and hear me out here....you could find NEW examples and NEW data. Like what I just shared.


Otherwise, all we can definitively say it USED to be a problem.

 

[rambot]

Evidence? Oof....

How long exactly would Fox News need to continue covering the crime problems of major cities before doing it less frequently would indicate to you that they're aren't biased?

Irrelevant...unless you're looking to excuse the behaviour.

I don't understand what you think this is "evidence".

Sorry about that.

Media Matters is an openly biased group. I'm not saying they're lying....but it's a bit funny that you rely upon openly biased groups to expose the bias of other groups.

Bias groups tend to present data that exposes people they disagree with. So long as the data is representation of reality, this isn't much more than ad hominem. And if you think that's funny, do you chortle away folks use americanthinker as a source for anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

This is the funniest sentence in the thread.

Media Matters is openly biased. They've made it openly clear their goal involves discrediting conservative media. They've admitted they don't go after liberal media.

Secondly what about this data do you consider evidence of bias? Stories about the state of crime tend to pop up around elections and disappear....it doesn't matter who is running, it doesn't matter if crime is up or down, it's a very common issue for voters.

When you say that there's something that clearly indicates bias about that data....what is it?

Because from here, it looks like Media Matters takes advantage of their audience.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Irrelevant...unless you're looking to excuse the behaviour.

Excuse the behavior....it's a news source covering news.

Why would I need to excuse that?

Sorry about that.


Bias groups tend to present data that exposes people they disagree with.

Are we talking about Media Matters here, Fox News, or both?

So long as the data is representation of reality, this isn't much more than ad hominem.

Right...unless you're a news source....in which case your credibility is diminished by bias. Or I suppose one of those fact checking groups would suffer the same reputation damage.

And if you think that's funny, do you chortle away folks use americanthinker as a source for anything.

I've never seen it....but if I do, I'll let you know.

 

[rambot]

Excuse the behavior....it's a news source covering news.

Why would I need to excuse that?



Are we talking about Media Matters here, Fox News, or both?

Both. And when Fox News provides quantifiable data and not opinion It's worthy of a look in for sure. I have no problem admitting that.

Right...unless you're a news source....in which case your credibility is diminished by bias.

Prove the numbers wrong then; that's all i'd say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Really?

AP and Reuters make a point to stress factual reporting.

Usually.

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.

Oath Keepers leader found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers group, was found guilty Tuesday of seditious conspiracy over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, a win for the Justice Department as it purs…

www.google.com

Found this in exactly one search....apparently, it's 2 days old. When did this conviction happen?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both. And when Fox News provides quantifiable data and not opinion It's worthy of a look in for sure. I have no problem admitting that.

Well I'm not going to argue that they don't deliberately dress up opinion and commentary as news....but so does everyone now. Don Lemon is as much of a "reporter" as Greg Gutfeld.

View attachment 324241


Prove the numbers wrong then; that's all i'd say.

I can 100% agree with the numbers posted by Media Matters....

I'm asking why you think it's evidence and what you think it's evidence of?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oath Keepers leader found guilty of seditious conspiracy

Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers group, was found guilty Tuesday of seditious conspiracy over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, a win for the Justice Department as it purs…

www.google.com

Found this in exactly one search....apparently, it's 2 days old. When did this conviction happen?

Local Fox network broadcasters are not the same as Fox News.

 

[rambot]

Well I'm not going to argue that they don't deliberately dress up opinion and commentary as news....but so does everyone now. Don Lemon is as much of a "reporter" as Greg Gutfeld.

100% . I NEVER listen to CNN for opinion anyways. Their news is questionable enough as far as I'm concerned.

I can 100% agree with the numbers posted by Media Matters....

I'm asking why you think it's evidence and what you think it's evidence of?

I believe it's evidence that they attempted to focus on a specific issue to influence and "manage" their voters as opposed to giving voice to the news items of the day.

I am NOT arguing CNN doesn't do that, by the way. But again, it's nice and quantifiable. Frankly, I am SURE that a quantified analysis of CNN during Trump's tenure would be quite damning.