Shepherd Smith takes on...Fox News?

[withwonderingawe]

Thanks. Interesting. I've not been keeping track of it, so I've no clue how accurate his claims are.

I think what I see missing here in his version of the story is that these arrangements can take years and years to take place. The one owner says he got out in 2007, well that's when the planning would have begun. At what point did this guy actually get his pay out, we're talking billions of dollars. 145 million is barely a drop in the bucket and when did he donate the money before or after she was made secretary of state. Shep does not say. There is also the $500,000 Bill got for one speech, Shep doesn't mention that.

There is also another question which might help put some minds at ease, was this the first time Uranium One petition for the sale? They had been working on this since 2007, did the Bush white house and 9 member panel turn it down?

 

[withwonderingawe]

He has a strong anti-Trump bias. So he's not "just reporting the news." If he were just reporting the news he would acknowledge the good and the bad. But with everything Trump does Shepard finds a way to report it in a negative way just as the anti-Trump pundits do daily at the liberal media outlets.

I noticed that right away. Before Trump I couldn't really tell what his political leanings were. Sometimes he'd roll his eyes an say 'imagine that' but be did it at everyone. Now he reports everything as a negative on Trump.

 

[withwonderingawe]

One more point, there are reports that uranium has been exported out of the country using a secondary trucking company.

 

[evoeth]

I've not been keeping track of it, so I've no clue how accurate his claims are

You've subtly shifted the burden of proof to Smith.

Smith addressed the claims of Trumpists and refuted them. He did so through his own claims. Basic descriptions of how our bureaucracy works (public information, not a hard claim to back up), and demonstrated that the timing of the claimed Clinton donations is wrong (again, not hard to back up).

If there is any doubt about Smith's claims, they are within your reach.

 

[evoeth]

Shepard Smith has been against Trump since Trump became the GOP nominee in 2016.

It seems like he wishes that HRC would have won the 2016 election.

Not all Fox News reporters are conservative.

My primary fear is that Trumpists cannot be lead to truth any more. If anything negative about Trump is reported on: FAKE NEWS! DEMOCRATS DID IT! NOT A REAL CONSERVATIVE!

And voila, crisis of faith averted.

 

[Rion]

You've subtly shifted the burden of proof to Smith.

Smith addressed the claims of Trumpists and refuted them. He did so through his own claims. Basic descriptions of how our bureaucracy works (public information, not a hard claim to back up), and demonstrated that the timing of the claimed Clinton donations is wrong (again, not hard to back up).

If there is any doubt about Smith's claims, they are within your reach.

No, I am saying that I am not going to assume that he is right or wrong because I have not been following the story. I don't care for deciding anything until I get a chance to really look into it. So far, I don't think that anything is going to come of it, so I haven't been paying too much attention to the story. My personal rule is to double check anything that is said, and triple check if it seems to confirm my biases (i.e. HRC is extremely crooked).

 

[withwonderingawe]

Ah the plot thinkins, what's the saying about weaving a lie?

WATCH: Shep Smith 'Destroys' The Uranium One Scandal. Except There's More To The Story.

 

[wing2000]

I haven't seen any indication that he's even remotely conservative.

...and I have never seen any indication by you to ever address the content of what he stated. Conservatives can and do challenge stated facts.

 

[Vylo]

He has a strong anti-Trump bias. So he's not "just reporting the news." If he were just reporting the news he would acknowledge the good and the bad. But with everything President Trump does, Shepard finds a way to report it in a negative way just as the anti-Trump pundits do daily at the liberal media outlets.

When everything you look into points to someone being a monster, maybe they are simply a monster.

 

[Spiritlight]

Submit yourselves to FOX, embrace the Murdoch and intelligence will flee from you..

 

[withwonderingawe]

Submit yourselves to FOX, embrace the Murdoch and intelligence will flee from you..

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And that's why I watch Fox news, they will show both sides.

The same Fox News that just released a huge social media post this morning that was intentionally trying to deceive people into thinking Obama owned a 17 million dollar vacation home?
(and it worked btw)

Out of the thousands who commented about how "he probably got the money from Islamic terror organizations" and things of the sort, a handful actually read it and realized "oh wait, he doesn't actually own this house, it was just a house that he and his entire extended family all pitched in and rented for a week for vacation"...of course, they were quickly labelled as "libt**ds" and "oh yeah, well CNN said XYZ!!!"


Seriously...even the remote notion that Fox is in anyway "fair & balanced" or "shows both sides" is laughable. They're by far the biggest offender of bias reporting of the major news outlets (not counting the flat out nonsensical ones like InfoWars and Breitbart)

 

[withwonderingawe]

The same Fox News that just released a huge social media post this morning that was intentionally trying to deceive people into thinking Obama owned a 17 million dollar vacation home?
(and it worked btw)

Out of the thousands who commented about how "he probably got the money from Islamic terror organizations" and things of the sort, a handful actually read it and realized "oh wait, he doesn't actually own this house, it was just a house that he and his entire extended family all pitched in and rented for a week for vacation"...of course, they were quickly labelled as "libt**ds" and "oh yeah, well CNN said XYZ!!!"


Seriously...even the remote notion that Fox is in anyway "fair & balanced" or "shows both sides" is laughable. They're by far the biggest offender of bias reporting of the major news outlets (not counting the flat out nonsensical ones like InfoWars and Breitbart)

I saw that, I knew it was Martha Stewart's house. If others didn't pay attention to the article it's not Fox's fault.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I saw that, I knew it was Martha Stewart's house. If others didn't pay attention to the article it's not Fox's fault.

They are partially responsible...because if they're going to claim to be a "Fair and Balanced" news station, then the first step of being a good news outlet is to provide meaningful and non-misleading headlines. If they intentionally provide misleading headlines simply because they know 75% of their audience won't bother to read past the first two sentences, then they're no better than a tabloid at that point.

If readers have to read 10 mins in to an article to find out that the headline was intentionally misleading, then that's not good journalism, that's pandering to partisans.


If auto repair manuals were written the way Fox writes their articles, you'd have to read all the way to page 5 to realize that the chapter titled "how to change oil" had nothing to do with oil changes.

 

[Hammster]

They are partially responsible...because if they're going to claim to be a "Fair and Balanced" news station, then the first step of being a good news outlet is to provide meaningful and non-misleading headlines. If they intentionally provide misleading headlines simply because they know 75% of their audience won't bother to read past the first two sentences, then they're no better than a tabloid at that point

To be “balanced”, just this week a member posted a CNN article which had a misleading headline. I challenged them to support the headline with anything said in the article. They were unable.

So everyone is guilty of clickbait headlines.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To be “balanced”, just this week a member posted a CNN article which had a misleading headline. I challenged them to support the headline with anything said in the article. They were unable.

So everyone is guilty of clickbait headlines.

I would agree that both sides do it...but both sides do not do it equally.

People on the far-conservative side seem to always went to perpetuate this idea of equivalency between Fox and CNN in terms of unethical media practices. The reality is, for every one instance where CNN does it, I could easily find a dozen from Fox.
(any unbiased fact checking site will confirm what I'm saying here)

 

[Hammster]

I would agree that both sides do it...but both sides do not do it equally.

People on the far-conservative side seem to always went to perpetuate this idea of equivalency between Fox and CNN in terms of unethical media practices. The reality is, for every one instance where CNN does it, I could easily find a dozen from Fox.
(any unbiased fact checking site will confirm what I'm saying here)

I’m not defending Fox, but almost every CNN article I’ve seen posted on here has some sort of misleading info. So I would doubt your claim purely on personal experience.

 

[bhsmte]

I haven't seen any indication that he's even remotely conservative.

Reporting news as objectively as possible, has zero to do with ideology. It has everything to do with, acknowledging well evidenced reality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Reporting news as objectively as possible, has zero to do with ideology. It has everything to do with, acknowledging well evidenced reality.

You're forgetting that many people have redefined "conservative" to mean "finding a way to bash democrats and their policies".

So, if he just reports the news, good or bad, then he's a phony...however, if he takes that information, and adds on an extra sentence at the end that makes some sort of generic platitude about how "... and that's why this is evidence of how Obama's policies failed", or bring up some fake perceived issue with Chicago, then they'd say he was a "real conservative"

 

[cow451]

And that's why I watch Fox news, they will show both sides.

Yes, they show both the Right and the Far Right.