‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies

[Half-Life]

Do you actually read the things you respond to? "Shapiro did the exact same thing to Jews who voted for Obama." I said nothing about Jews who are not religious.

I'm sorry. Please elaborate. I'm not understanding your point.

 

[Elixir]

So, not a 'bot, maybe more of a See 'N Say?

Pretty much correct. It can analyze syntax and has pat responses when certain keywords trigger them. The algorithms provoking the responses are far more sophisticated than the responses themselves. For instance it spits out stuff like: "Say what you want, but Fox News actually has anti-Trumpers and leftists on for interviews. Can't say the same for the other networks. "
Apparently its programmers are unaware that NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and virtually all other news outlets give air to anti-Trumpers and leftists with much greater frequency than does FOX. Its program of course contains no mention of the republitards, nazis and outright racists that even MSNBC coddles on occasion.

And you can bet that its programmers are unaware that FOX News isn't even registered as a News organization, but rather as entertainment - which is required because that lets them present fiction as fact without repercussion. (And morons DO eat it up!)

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you actually read the things you respond to? "Shapiro did the exact same thing to Jews who voted for Obama." I said nothing about Jews who are not religious.

I'm sorry. Please elaborate. I'm not understanding your point.

It was in the video. He said Jews who voted for Obama are Jews in name only and should turn in their Jew cards. That's exactly the same as calling a black person an Uncle Tom.

 

[Half-Life]

Do you actually read the things you respond to? "Shapiro did the exact same thing to Jews who voted for Obama." I said nothing about Jews who are not religious.

I'm sorry. Please elaborate. I'm not understanding your point.

It was in the video. He said Jews who voted for Obama are Jews in name only and should turn in their Jew cards. That's exactly the same as calling a black person an Uncle Tom.

Yes, and I responded why he's right. But, it is not the same as calling a black person an Uncle Tom.

He's right though. If you call yourself a Jew, but you are not religious, why the hell do you call yourself a Jew?

Do people call themselves "Christian" if they are not religious? No, they don't.

 

[ZiprHead]

It was in the video. He said Jews who voted for Obama are Jews in name only and should turn in their Jew cards. That's exactly the same as calling a black person an Uncle Tom.

Yes, and I responded why he's right. But, it is not the same as calling a black person an Uncle Tom.

He's right though. If you call yourself a Jew, but you are not religious, why the hell do you call yourself a Jew?

Do people call themselves "Christian" if they are not religious? No, they don't.

Now you're just repeating yourself and still not addressing my point.

Why are Jews that voted for Obama no longer Jews?

 

[Half-Life]

Now you're just repeating yourself and still not addressing my point.

Why are Jews that voted for Obama no longer Jews?

He addressed this. Jews in the U.S. are largely irreligious. This means they are not Jewish. This means they just call themselves Jewish.

It would be equivalent to an atheist calling themselves a Christian because "my parents were Christian." It's dishonest and foolish.

 

[ZiprHead]

He specifically said "Jews that voted for Obama".

Oh, fuck it. You're going to continue to dodge the point, probably because you can't answer it without looking like a total fuck-stick like Ben Shapiro.

 

[steve_bank]

Now you're just repeating yourself and still not addressing my point.

Why are Jews that voted for Obama no longer Jews?

He addressed this. Jews in the U.S. are largely irreligious. This means they are not Jewish. This means they just call themselves Jewish.

It would be equivalent to an atheist calling themselves a Christian because "my parents were Christian." It's dishonest and foolish.

Hate crimes do not discriminate between secular and observant Jews. It is the culture racists attack.

Being Jewish is usually determined by the matriarchal line.

 

[steve_bank]

FOX was created as a conservative platform. However it is obvious the vast majority of the media was and is liberal.

No, that's not obvious at all. All major media outlet are owned and controlled by a small handful of large corporations who also control most other major industries from energy to agriculture to the war industry. They are run by millionaires and billionaires and largely reflect that bias, along with a bias of profit motive, which means generating click-bait stories involving minimal fact checking and reasoned investigation which cost money. However, to secure a large audience, they generally cannot tell blatant lies most of the time. So, they tend to stick to the truth on basic facts, and since objective reality is the opposite of most conservative beliefs, this can give the impression of a "liberal bias", in the same way that most of science appears to have a "liberal bias", whether on the subject of religion, climate change, homosexuality, the causes of wealth disparities, the causal impact of slavery and historical racism on modern racial issues from crime to educational attainment, etc. IOW, being objective and rational inherently leads to being "liberal" on most issues.

In contrast, Fox's viewership has no regard for reason and objective truth and only wants to hear ideas that advance a far right ideological agenda. Sadly, there are enough such people that Fox can appeal exclusively to them and make a hefty profit. Since that right wing ideology is at odds with most facts, science, and reason, it requires that Fox lie most of the time.

While there certainly are some leftists who prefer blind ideology over reason and objectivity, none of the major media outlets are vying for that sector as hard as Fox is vying for right wing dogmatists. At most, the other major outlets will have a show or two that rivals the dishonest dogma of almost everything on Fox. Those type of outlets that even come close to being a mirror image of Fox News in terms of overall ddishonest dogmatism are limited to smaller online only outlets.

FOX has been adding liberal voices, CNN has been adding trump supporters. Civil rights, social prigrams, affirmative action in the past and oter social issues in the time of Reagan were not supported by conservative print media which was in the minority.

Watch CNN. They doggedly maintained there was no crisi at the border , and that is was all conservative fabrication. Begrudedly over months they could not ignore the obvious and admitted yes there is a crisis. It took longer still to begin acknowledge that the intent of the immigration law was for political refugees not for hundreds of thousands of migrants at once. There are still no hard views on CNN that first and foremost the border has to be secured.

CNN is a liberal outlet. MSNBC is progressive. FOX is conservative. I have been in rehab for a while, I watch news while I am working out during the day. It is hard to really distinguish between the three.

CNN has been reduced to mostly mocking Trump. Not that I like Trump, but CNN has no more sense of decorum than Trump.

 

[steve_bank]

FOX was created as a conservative platform. However it is obvious the vast majority of the media was and is liberal.

When Sharpton started on MSNBC he said on air he would never say anything bad about Obama. It was years before MSNBC and CNN began to look at Obama objectively, and then with gloves on.

TV news uswed to be a sevice. I belive there is wording in FCC licensing that requires netwrrks to provide public service.

News was supported from profits of the networks.

Now MSNBC, FOX, and CNN are for profit businesses.

They have to develop followings for on air personalities and sell advertising. Rachael Modox is goofy. At the end of a segment she will go on about some juicy titillating piece of news that will follow after the commercials. Don't touch that dial folks, stay tuned! She is laughable.

On CNN Cuomo tries so hard to be dramatic. When the recording came out of Cohen and Trump he played it over and over and overs saying 'Did you hear that!! Did you hear that!!'.

It is all about self promotion. Anchors promoting their books. Groups of people shouting over each other.

Yes, in right-wing circles Rachel Maddow is referred to as Rachel Mad-Cow.

People I know do not have a specific name for Trump. We general refer to him as an ignorant, morally repugnant, fat, incompetent asshole. I refer to Hannity as Sean Vanity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, not a 'bot, maybe more of a See 'N Say?

Pretty much correct. It can analyze syntax and has pat responses when certain keywords trigger them. The algorithms provoking the responses are far more sophisticated than the responses themselves. For instance it spits out stuff like: "Say what you want, but Fox News actually has anti-Trumpers and leftists on for interviews. Can't say the same for the other networks. "

yeah, the only way this response is linked to the OP is if the 40% of the time FOX isn't lying is because 40% of the time it's hosting or quoting liberals...

 

[Patooka]

OK, so you found 3 examples in all of the the past 30 years or so.

It's all I need to prove you wrong. If you think these are the only times conservatives have been on what you, and only you, define as leftist networks then you are a moron. Before Tucker Carlson was on FOX, he had his own TV show on CNN - he only ran away because he's arguments are so piss weak, he couldn't even handle a debate with an obscure stand up comedian. Conservatives get interviewed all the time, they are reluctant to do so because they are pussies who can't handle tough questions.

And that interview with Shapiro was a smear campaign. He kept attacking Ben's character instead of the arguments. OMG Ben said Palestinians are rotten people! What a bigot!

It's not like any atheists have said that Christians are rotten people.

So your idea of a smear campaign is holding people accountable to what they have said. I'm...actually I'm not surprised at all.

 

[Half-Life]

OK, so you found 3 examples in all of the the past 30 years or so.

It's all I need to prove you wrong. If you think these are the only times conservatives have been on what you, and only you, define as leftist networks then you are a moron. Before Tucker Carlson was on FOX, he had his own TV show on CNN - he only ran away because he's arguments are so piss weak, he couldn't even handle a debate with an obscure stand up comedian. Conservatives get interviewed all the time, they are reluctant to do so because they are pussies who can't handle tough questions.

And that interview with Shapiro was a smear campaign. He kept attacking Ben's character instead of the arguments. OMG Ben said Palestinians are rotten people! What a bigot!

It's not like any atheists have said that Christians are rotten people.

So your idea of a smear campaign is holding people accountable to what they have said. I'm...actually I'm not surprised at all.

Did you miss this?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIAyudtNicY&t=3060s[/YOUTUBE]

Shapiro wiped the floor with Cenk!

 

[steve_bank]

Glam Beck was on CNN until he got too bizarre. He started calling everybody Nazis.

FOX hired Juan Williams as a token quasi-liberal after he was fired from PBS.

 

[Patooka]

Did you miss this?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIAyudtNicY&t=3060s[/YOUTUBE]

Shapiro wiped the floor with Cenk!

You posted the wrong link. This clip shows Shapiro doing his usual schtick leaning heavily on whataboutisms and rhetorical hyperbole. Also, you need to stop what you are doing. Right now. You need to go to the shops, by yourself a dictionary, look up the words "debate" and "interview" and comprehend the difference. And keep the dictionary nearby, I suspect you are going to need it in the future.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You posted the wrong link. This clip shows Shapiro doing his usual schtick leaning heavily on whataboutisms and rhetorical hyperbole. Also, you need to stop what you are doing. Right now. You need to go to the shops, by yourself a dictionary, look up the words "debate" and "interview" and comprehend the difference. And keep the dictionary nearby, I suspect you are going to need it in the future.

But I like to watch my team win. My team is the best. The game is rigged unless my team wins. I don't care about facts, facts are silly things.

 

[steve_bank]

Today on CNN I watched a profound and insightful discussion on the meaning of musical choices by the democratic candidates. \\Apparently the choice by one candidate of the Rolling Stones You can't Always Get What you Want has some deep symbolic meaning meant for the voters.

According to the CNN commentary politicians are supposed to give a message of hope, everybody gets what they want.

 

[ronburgundy]

Today on CNN I watched a profound and insightful discussion on the meaning of musical choices by the democratic candidates. \\Apparently the choice by one candidate of the Rolling Stones You can't Always Get What you Want has some deep symbolic meaning meant for the voters.

According to the CNN commentary politicians are supposed to give a message of hope, everybody gets what they want.

How is that at all relevant to the fact that Fox tells outright lies most of the time? Do you think that a person giving their subjective opinion about some inconsequential fluff piece is the same as deliberately giving people objectively false information about consequential matters of fact?

 

[ZiprHead]

Today on CNN I watched a profound and insightful discussion on the meaning of musical choices by the democratic candidates. \\Apparently the choice by one candidate of the Rolling Stones You can't Always Get What you Want has some deep symbolic meaning meant for the voters.

According to the CNN commentary politicians are supposed to give a message of hope, everybody gets what they want.

How is that at all relevant to the fact that Fox tells outright lies most of the time? Do you think that a person giving their subjective opinion about some inconsequential fluff piece is the same as deliberately giving people objectively false information about consequential matters of fact?

Nommed.

 

[steve_bank]

Today on CNN I watched a profound and insightful discussion on the meaning of musical choices by the democratic candidates. \\Apparently the choice by one candidate of the Rolling Stones You can't Always Get What you Want has some deep symbolic meaning meant for the voters.

According to the CNN commentary politicians are supposed to give a message of hope, everybody gets what they want.

How is that at all relevant to the fact that Fox tells outright lies most of the time? Do you think that a person giving their subjective opinion about some inconsequential fluff piece is the same as deliberately giving people objectively false information about consequential matters of fact?

It is ammter of degree and balatancy.

CNN on shows typically has liberal and progressive guests who are asked leading questions, they are thrown softballs. It is a continuing narrative on CNN that the border problems are all due to our govt and nothing to do with belief that once you get across tye border you are home free. On immigration it is a progressive agenda. Not an outright lie, but a one sided view.

There are several shows on FOX I actualy prfer over CNN. No drama, objective debate on all aspects. Granted a [art of FOX is propaganda. I don't know if FOX actually intentionalmsraes lies, except maybe Hannity and Carlson. FOX is obviously in general is an apologist for Trump.

I prefer CBS morning news and the PBS News Hour. I do not watch CNN much anymore for useful news. It is mostly opinioating.

CNN does do what I see as fake news. An unnamed WH person allegedly makes a statement on Trump. For an hour on CNN endless speculation painting Trump in a bad light. Creating a story from nothing. Fake news.