I watched Fox News every day for 44 months – here's what I learned

[ZiprHead]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/25/fox-news-watching-what-i-learned

It was 9 February 2016, when I began my career as a critic of Fox News at Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit progressive research center dedicated to monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the US media.

Most people, eventually including Donald Trump, assumed Hillary Clinton would be elected the 45th president of the United States that November. Most people were wrong about a lot of things.

Nearly four years later, the US political world revolves around the tweets of an erratic Fox News-watching grandpa who just so happens to run the most powerful country on Earth. Like any avid TV viewer, Trump has his favorite stories, and few rival the morning show Fox & Friends, where he spent years making frequent appearances before diving into politics.

Since July 2018, I’ve been one among a lucky few live-tweeting the show along with the president. And after consuming thousands of hours of Rupert Murdoch’s finest drivel, I’ve learned a few things about how America’s No 1 news network is dragging the United States into ruin.

 

[TSwizzle]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

 

[ZiprHead]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

OH NOES!!! IT'S TEH GRAUNIAD! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

 

[funinspace]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

OH NOES!!! IT'S TEH GRAUNIAD! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

Nah, it is just a fake mess, just clean it up with Formula 401.

 

[Rhea]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

?? Not catching the reference.

 

[Toni]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

?? Not catching the reference.

Misspelling of The Guardian. Not sure of the meaning, tho.

 

[Patooka]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

?? Not catching the reference.

Misspelling of The Guardian. Not sure of the meaning, tho.

Because during the 1960's the Guardian was notorious for spelling mistakes. It was rife with them and they slipped passed editing due to the hot metal typesetting process and the fact the paper was printed in Manchester instead of London. So it stuck. It is also guilty of the unforgivable crime of not being a far right newspaper in a Murdoch dominated industry so it must be castigated for eternity.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is horrific:

My colleagues Sharon Kann and Julie Tulbert examined an entire year of evening news abortion coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and found that Fox aired 94% of all three networks’ statements about abortion, and Fox was wrong 85% of the time.

This means that when CNN and MSNBC discuss abortion, they are often just responding to Fox News misinformation (while still managing to be wrong 67% and 40% of the time, respectively).

And this bit on white supremacy:

Fox prime time has rightly earned a reputation as a cable TV haven for white supremacy, but, as with all things Fox News, Fox & Friends also plays a prominent role.

In October 2018, Fox News became a wailing siren on immigration, claiming that the US was under “invasion” by undocumented immigrants – specifically, a group of Central American migrants traveling (mostly walking) over 1,000 miles to the US-Mexico border.

In one week, Fox ran nearly eight hours of content on the then distant caravan. Fox & Friends started nearly every morning with anti-immigrant hysteria, eventually suggesting the US take military action to “protect our sovereignty” from families fleeing gang violence and endemic poverty.

The very day after that comment aired on Fox & Friends, a white supremacist murdered 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, because he blamed Jews for helping the “invaders” in the caravan.

Caravan hysteria eventually passed, but Fox News’ dangerous and false melodrama about an immigrant “invasion” continued.

Some months later, yet another mass shooter struck – this time murdering 20 in El Paso, to stop the “Hispanic invasion of Texas”. Kilmeade passionately defended using the dangerously hyperbolic term “invasion” just three days later.

Did Fox News inspire two white supremacist mass shootings? Probably not directly. Is it disturbing that America’s number one news network discusses immigration like bloodthirsty white supremacists? Yes.

 

[Half-Life]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

 

[laughing dog]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Everyone has a bias to some degree. I suppose that means what anyone says is biased. Which means why should any reader take your responses (or mine) as nothing but bias-driven conclusions?

 

[Patooka]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Everyone has a bias to some degree. I suppose that means what anyone says is biased. Which means why should any reader take your responses (or mine) as nothing but bias-driven conclusions?

You can't. Especially because reality has a well known left wing bias.

 

[Half-Life]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Everyone has a bias to some degree. I suppose that means what anyone says is biased. Which means why should any reader take your responses (or mine) as nothing but bias-driven conclusions?

How do we solve this conundrum?

Same thing happens with religious sites:

Atheists: Can't trust that, it's a Christian site.

Christians: Can't trust that, it's an atheist site.

 

[Elixir]

... reality has a well known left wing bias.

That's why The Orange Judas is such a hero. It not because he has a very big brain, not because he singlehandedly prevent cancer deaths, not because he's a very stable genius or the least racist person you ever met, not because he knows more about ISIS than The Generals® or that he knows more about Uranium and Cyber than anyone - it's not even because he knows all about flippers and rats.

It's because he invented a reality that is totally counter to actual reality, but contains all the things that teh stoopids wish were true.
Did you know that Hillary is locked up in jail?

 

[laughing dog]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Everyone has a bias to some degree. I suppose that means what anyone says is biased. Which means why should any reader take your responses (or mine) as nothing but bias-driven conclusions?

How do we solve this conundrum?

By separating fact (which is unbiased) from opinion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Well, if it IS a 'right-wing' think tank, isn't that bias by definition? Right there in the label?

So, not only leftists, but anyone witha 3rd grade reading level should call it biased....

 

[Patooka]

"We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually."

Matt Labash on conservative media. As true 17 years ago as it is today. Right wing "journalists" won't compete unless some sort of fix is in.

 

[Half-Life]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Well, if it IS a 'right-wing' think tank, isn't that bias by definition? Right there in the label?

So, not only leftists, but anyone witha 3rd grade reading level should call it biased....

Keith,

Progressive is synonymous with left-wing.

So a progressive think tank would indeed be biased towards progressiveness.

 

[Angry Floof]

It’s Teh Grauniad.

?? Not catching the reference.

The Guardian got the nickname because of printing so many typos. It's actually one of the more fact based and honest journalism sources you will find these days.

IF ONLY the problem with Fox Newstainment was typos and not bigotry, propaganda, and outright lies. If only.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A progressive think tank would obviously be biased. Just like how leftists say that right-wing think tanks are biased.

Well, if it IS a 'right-wing' think tank, isn't that bias by definition? Right there in the label?

So, not only leftists, but anyone witha 3rd grade reading level should call it biased....

Keith,

Progressive is synonymous with left-wing.

So a progressive think tank would indeed be biased towards progressiveness.

Yes, but if you HAVE a obp"right-wing think tank[/b] then it would be stupid NOT to call it biased, no matter your politics. So, you're not making much of a point in your comparison.

 

[Half-Life]

Keith,

Progressive is synonymous with left-wing.

So a progressive think tank would indeed be biased towards progressiveness.

Yes, but if you HAVE a obp"right-wing think tank[/b] then it would be stupid NOT to call it biased, no matter your politics. So, you're not making much of a point in your comparison.

So you agree the progressive think tank is biased towards leftists?