60% of FOX news false?

[Straw Man]

I admit I really am a self loathing closet case

Go back to bed loser.

[whork]

this is disturbing.  basically it's a coin toss with ANY channel that what you're seeing is bullshit.

I guess we can all stop telling young people to "watch the news so you know what's going on in the world"

this is reason #654,765,986,654,543 why i'm never voting again.

CNN did very well.

[Soul Crusher]

Go back to bed loser.

[Straw Man]

go back to bed loser

[Soul Crusher]

go back to bed loser

funny - im going to lift and be and stay in great shape.  You =- fat liberal Michael mooreesqe retard pansie libfag. 

[Straw Man]

funny - im going to lift and be and stay in great shape.  You =- fat liberal Michael mooreesqe retard pansie libfag. 

go back to bed loser

[240 is Back]

wen it comes to PUNDITS - yes, FOX's and MSBNC's are very animated, angry - they throw red meat to the bases.

Am I surprised that FOX is a little more 'over the top'?  Nah.   I mean, Meagyn isn't even a pundit... and she just "supposed" it was a terror fist-bump.  They do that "some people say..." to introduce all sorts of hateful, animated theories into things.  You can invent news with "some people say..." then make any accusation you want.

Not that I'm defending msnbc, they're dog shit stupid too.  But from watching years of both, not much lately, I can tell you that MSNBC plays way more "gotcha" and over-reacts every little time they smell hypocrisy... While FOX plays way more "suppose..." and introduces scary, fake, hateful theories into the matter.  They both suck, and it's touogh to say one sucks more or less, cause suckage is such a subjective thing, ya know?

[OzmO]

I wonder how many FOX supporters or MSNBC supporters think their news network is 100% true?  or 90%? Or 70%? etc.

[240 is Back]

I wonder how many FOX supporters or MSNBC supporters think their news network is 100% true?  or 90%? Or 70%? etc.

I like to LOL at those who refuse to watch the other - but can say with certainty that the network does more of this or that.

For years, I watched each of the big 3, about 1/3 of the day.  Lou Dobbs when he flirted with 911, Bill-O when he admitted FOX isn't balanced, but they provide the balance, olbermann when he totally nailed bush on the nexus of terror, announcing terror plots when politically convenient...

You have getbiggers that can't remember arguments from 2 weeks ago... lol... telling us why FOX doesn't do this, or MSN they don't watch always does that... lol.   

[Dos Equis]

I wonder how many FOX supporters or MSNBC supporters think their news network is 100% true?  or 90%? Or 70%? etc.

I watch Fox and their hard news is "true," because they simply report the news.  They don't get on the air every day and invent hard news stories.  The opinion shows are just that, so I don't think you can reliably give their opinions some kind of arbitrary "truth" percentage.  

Would be interested to see the breakdown of the hard news vs. opinion shows and the actual statements those folks rated.  

[OzmO]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

In this case Fox reports hard news 40% of time, the rest of the time they feed the parrots.

[Dos Equis]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

In this case Fox reports hard news 40% of time, the rest of the time they feed the parrots.

Depends on the show.  Megyn and Greta are excellent.  O'Reilly is a blowhard, and I cannot really stomach him, but he has been leading his time slot for a very long time.  Must be more than just "parrots" in his audience. 

Also, all of their opinion shows have opposing viewpoints.  Except for maybe Outnumbered, because the "one lucky guy" isn't always a liberal. 

[Straw Man]

Depends on the show.  Megyn and Greta are excellent.  O'Reilly is a blowhard, and I cannot really stomach him, but he has been leading his time slot for a very long time.  Must be more than just "parrots" in his audience. 

Also, all of their opinion shows have opposing viewpoints.  Except for maybe Outnumbered, because the "one lucky guy" isn't always a liberal. 

why would you draw that conclusion

being a fundie, aren't you familiar with the term "preaching to the choir"

his viewers tune in because they already agree with him and they like getting angry with him about whatever he has decided to be pissed about that day

they also could (almost certainly are) just as stupid as he is which is another reason they probably like him.

[OzmO]

Depends on the show.  Megyn and Greta are excellent.  O'Reilly is a blowhard, and I cannot really stomach him, but he has been leading his time slot for a very long time.  Must be more than just "parrots" in his audience. 

Also, all of their opinion shows have opposing viewpoints.  Except for maybe Outnumbered, because the "one lucky guy" isn't always a liberal. 

I doubt it.  People watch FOX and other networks like that to reinforce their preexisting beliefs (preaching to the choir) .  Parrots come in all shapes and IQs. Mix in a little hard news, opposing view points that don't participate equally during the entire broadcast and you have great propaganda that speaks to the heart of a particular political spectrum.

O'Reilly is a blow hard, but i have to give some props for not writing in an extreme right tone in "Killing Patton"  

[blacken700]

so i guess if you want the most factual news CNN it is

[Dos Equis]

I doubt it.  People watch FOX and other networks like that to reinforce their preexisting beliefs (preaching to the choir) .  Parrots come in all shapes and IQs. Mix in a little hard news, opposing view points that don't participate equally during the entire broadcast and you have great propaganda that speaks to the heart of a particular political spectrum.

O'Reilly is a blow hard, but i have to give some props for not writing in an extreme right tone in "Killing Patton"  

That is part of it.  People do tend to watch and read things that reinforce what they already believe.

But that's not the whole story with Fox.  They're simply better at both their news and opinion shows than anyone else.  The hard news is factual.  The opinions shows overall are solid.  They don't coddle liberals like the MSM.  The hosts and guests are more entertaining and funnier. 

Importantly, they always have opposing viewpoints, so their programming isn't just about parroting whatever the conservative line might be. 

[Straw Man]

That is part of it.  People do tend to watch and read things that reinforce what they already believe.

But that's not the whole story with Fox.  They're simply better at both their news and opinion shows than anyone else.  The hard news is factual.  The opinions shows overall are solid.  They don't coddle liberals like the MSM.  The hosts and guests are more entertaining and funnier. 

Importantly, they always have opposing viewpoints, so their programming isn't just about parroting whatever the conservative line might be. 

LOL - the only claim you can objectively make is that they are better at drawing an audience.

period

[blacken700]

fox 60% false lol. we report you comply

[Straw Man]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/cable-news-coverage-climate-change-science.html#.VNlGRPnF_HU

To gauge how accurately these networks inform their audiences about climate change, UCS analyzed the networks' climate science coverage in 2013 and found that each network treated climate science very differently.

Fox News was the least accurate; 72 percent of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was the most accurate, with only eight percent of segments containing misleading statements.

[OzmO]

That is part of it.  People do tend to watch and read things that reinforce what they already believe.

But that's not the whole story with Fox.  They're simply better at both their news and opinion shows than anyone else.  The hard news is factual.  The opinions shows overall are solid.  They don't coddle liberals like the MSM.  The hosts and guests are more entertaining and funnier. 

Importantly, they always have opposing viewpoints, so their programming isn't just about parroting whatever the conservative line might be. 

They are better at spewing BS that their parrots want to hear that's all.  

Having opposing views points only gives the illusion of fair and balanced news.  When those opposing view points are over with, the rest of the new cast is influenced by false news, content and the opinion of the casters.  Also there is the premise of the discussion that can influence the impact of the opposition combined with the debating skills, image and charisma of the opposing view.  

 

  

[Dos Equis]

They are better at spewing BS that their parrots want to hear that's all.  

Having opposing views points only gives the illusion of fair and balanced news.  When those opposing view points are over with, the rest of the new cast is influenced by false news, content and the opinion of the casters.  Also there is the premise of the discussion that can influence the impact of the opposition combined with the debating skills, image and charisma of the opposing view.  
  

Who specifically is spewing BS?  The hard news anchors reporting the news?  Opinion hosts like Megyn Kelly?  Which shows do you watch? 

Having opposing viewpoints helps make them fair and balanced. 

[blacken700]

Who specifically is spewing BS?  The hard news anchors reporting the news?  Opinion hosts like Megyn Kelly?  Which shows do you watch? 

Having opposing viewpoints helps make them fair and balanced. 

lol telling lies makes them fair and balance, i've heard it all hahaha

[Dos Equis]

lol telling lies makes them fair and balance, i've heard it all hahaha

Are you saying they invent hard news stories? 

[blacken700]

i'm saying they put their own spin on them

[Skip8282]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

In this case Fox reports hard news 40% of time, the rest of the time they feed the parrots.

Really?  Cause you sound like a parrot to me.

We have one news site accusing other news sites of lying and you have no fucking clue as to methodology, deviations, criteria, etc.  You're just parroting a story.

Hmmm...gotta wonder.