Why Such Hate For Fox News Specifically?

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think it's more than just a disagreement on politics. FOX News attracts the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, religious extremists, and anti-science crowd. There is so much ridiculousness there. This is why it's so popular. It appeals to the lowest level, and sadly, we have a lot of that here in this country. For FOX News to be successful, means a turn for the worse in humanity, and that's why people hate it. Not to mention they fought for their right to lie... Basically a HORRIBLE news station.

wow, how tolerant of you lefty msnbc peoples.

why do you hate all those you mentioned?

sounds like jealousy. yeah, jealousy.

how many lefty broadcasters have been fired or quit the lefty stations?
seems like 1 a month. they are so bad that the stations don't even want them.

Actually, them getting fired blows the right-wing myth about liberals can say what ever they want and not get fired, While conservatives say anything and are racists ,out of the water.

originally posted by: charles1952
It is good to hear it directly from the source. I'm not sure that those videos show "the source," however. These are the two people who filed the law suit against the station. It might be similar to considering Bill Clinton "the source" for the truth about Monica Lewinski.

Your analogy is a bit backwards. Clinton was "the accused", not "the accuser". Wilson and Akre were the plaintiffs, not the defendants.

Hearing Wilson and Akre's side of the story would be more akin to considering Lewinski as "the source" for the truth about Clinton, not the other way around.

As far as the court's findings go. Fox won the appeal based on a loophole/technicality. The court didn't find Fox "innocent" of falsehood. The Court ruled that FCC "guidelines, rules, and regulations" are not "laws"; so no actual "law" was broken by their untruth and distortions. Since no "law" was broken, fox was not found to be liable. That was the heart of Fox's lawyers' argument, and with that loophole they won the case in appeals.

The court simply washed its hands of the case leaving it up to the FCC to decide if any action would be taken for its rules and regulations being broken. The side effect was that, by ruling no "laws" were broken, no whistle-blower status or claims were valid.

Before this ruling news organizations pretty much treated FCC guidelines, rules, and regulations as gospel. After Fox defended their right to lie and distort, news organizations basically went off the deep end throwing the rules and regulations to the wind in the name of infotainment and increased profit from commercial sponsors.

originally posted by: thesaneone
If fox is a joke then why are they number 1 ?

originally posted by: thesaneone
I would imagine it's because people like what they sell.

You have a vivid imagination.

Personally, I think the more likely scenario is the "Howard Stern Effect".

Fox is just as polar of a "love it or hate it" as Stern ever was.

a reply to: redmage

Dear redmage,

You are quite correct that my analogy isn't on all fours with Clinton, but then I didn't intend it to be. I am merely pointing out that Akre and Wilson are telling their side of the story. Very few people admit to being wrong, especially in a case they feel as passionate about.

I mentioned that to encourage people to go to the actual source, which is the court filings, orders, and decisions.

Your analogy is a bit backwards. Clinton was "the accused", not "the accuser". Wilson and Akre were the plaintiffs, not the defendants.

As far as the court's findings go. Fox won the appeal based on a loophole/technicality. The court didn't find Fox "innocent" of falsehood.

(American courts don't find people "innocent." Not guilty or not liable, but Fox wasn't found innocent, because no court ever does. Please note that they didn't find them guilty of falsehood either. The question wasn't addressed and didn't have to be.)

The Court ruled that FCC "guidelines, rules, and regulations" are not "laws"; so no actual "law" was broken by their untruth and distortions.

(No, actually, they did not. There was never a finding that Fox distorted or lied about anything, and Fox never said they did.)

Since no "law" was broken, fox was not found to be liable. That was the heart of Fox's lawyers' argument, and with that loophole they won the case in appeals.

(Close. The ruling was that Akre couldn't have the protection of a whistle blower, because to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law or regulation.)

Before this ruling news organizations pretty much treated FCC guidelines, rules, and regulations as gospel.

(Really? Oh, I see the "pretty much." Up until 2003 the media didn't distort things?)

After Fox defended their right to lie and distort, news organizations basically went off the deep end throwing the rules and regulations to the wind in the name of infotainment and increased profit from commercial sponsors.

(Sorry, false. You do remember that nothing on that subject was aired, the idea of "infotainment" was never raised at court, and Fox never tried to defend or assert a right to lie.)

With respect,
Charles1952

I LOVE HOW THE RIGHT WING AND LEFT WING REFER TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY AS IF THEY ARE SOME EVIL MALEVOLENT RACE HELLBENT ON DESTROYING AMERICA. U ALL FOCUS ON TRYING TO "WIN". I GOT NEWS FOR U, NO ONE WINS BECAUSE NO ONE LEARNS JACK#, BECAUSE ALL U GUYS DO IS FIGHT AND BLAME.

originally posted by: charles1952
Please note that they didn't find them guilty of falsehood either. The question wasn't addressed and didn't have to be.

Amazing with all the nitpicking you seem to agree with my main point while missing that fact entirely.

The question wasn't addressed. Fox's lawyers' won the appeal by a loophole technicality, skirting the issue of their distortions/lies, and simply arguing that the rules/regulations of the FCC were not laws.

originally posted by: charles1952
Close. The ruling was that Akre couldn't have the protection of a whistle blower, because to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law or regulation.

Close, but to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law. Breaking regulations isn't considered, thus in appeals Fox was no longer liable for the 425k monetary judgement against them. Thus, they were found "not liable".

originally posted by: charles1952
Really? Oh, I see the "pretty much." Up until 2003 the media didn't distort things?

Come on. Really? No one is claiming distortions didn't exist, but they were no where NEAR the rampant mess they are today. Once upon a time news agencies actually were considered to have quite a bit of credibility. Now people are fleeing in droves to alternative/independent sources because the spin and distortions have become so transparent in the MSM. With a name like Charles1952 I would assume you remember such times. Do you not see a distinctive difference between then and now? Where once there were investigative reporters and real issues brought up, now it's Miley Cyrus "twerking", and blatant political spin.

originally posted by: charles1952
Sorry, false. You do remember that nothing on that subject was aired, the idea of "infotainment" was never raised at court, and Fox never tried to defend or assert a right to lie.

I never claimed the idea of "infotainment" was raised in court, and your straw man argument implying such is silly. In my opinion Fox certainly did defend their "right to lie" by moving the goal post and skirting the issue. By making it a regulations issue (not law), they were able to get the initial ruling overturned, and set legal precedent against court challenges to their false/distorted method of "reporting". The precedent is set, you can not bring a case because being unethical is not against the law when it comes to distortions and spin. This opened the floodgates for trash like MSNBC, Fox, and CNN to "go wild". There is no journalistic obligation to integrity with these corporations. The only obligation they have is to make money for shareholders, and "infotainment" is the method they've concluded to be the most profitable.

a reply to: TheJourney

I have seem Fox News take words of someone out of context many, many times to warp it to their preconceived preaching of their version of the news rather than an unbiased approach that allows viewers to make up their own minds. Too many times so I no longer watch it at all. It has turned into a propaganda reality show from a neutral newscast.

If you look up the FOX effect, you'll see that news agencies were getting very disturbed by the growing popularity of FOX News back in 2002, 2003 and beyond... They watched as practically overnight the show became hard core red, white and blue, American flags all over. Strong strong nationality. Strong strong blame and hatred for the terrorists. Where CNN and other news agencies would focus on deep tragedy of 9/11, FOX would focus anger on the attack and the 'thugs' who carried it out. And people ate that anger up. They ate it up... and ratings soared.

People feared what the FOX effect would mean for future journalism... Would we see an increase in propaganda news? News geared toward emotional response rather than informative? They pointed out that CNN was still mostly remaining neutral and was fading. MSNBC was seen to respond by starting to push from center to more left... The FOX effect.

For everyone who thinks FOX fights the establishment. They were the salesman for the Iraq War. They stepped right in for Bush and Cheney, with their frequent neocon talking heads, fueling anger, and fear, and calling everyone who would speak against war Anti-American.

So, why hate FOX specifically... Let's just say they take a special place in the historical timeline of American journalism.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
If you look up the FOX effect, you'll see that news agencies were getting very disturbed by the growing popularity of FOX News back in 2002, 2003 and beyond... They watched as practically overnight the show became hard core red, white and blue, American flags all over. Strong strong nationality. Strong strong blame and hatred for the terrorists. Where CNN and other news agencies would focus on deep tragedy of 9/11, FOX would focus anger on the attack and the 'thugs' who carried it out. And people ate that anger up. They ate it up... and ratings soared.

People feared what the FOX effect would mean for future journalism... Would we see an increase in propaganda news? News geared toward emotional response rather than informative? They pointed out that CNN was still mostly remaining neutral and was fading. MSNBC was seen to respond by starting to push from center to more left... The FOX effect.

For everyone who thinks FOX fights the establishment. They were the salesman for the Iraq War. They stepped right in for Bush and Cheney, with their frequent neocon talking heads, fueling anger, and fear, and calling everyone who would speak against war Anti-American.

So, why hate FOX specifically... Let's just say they take a special place in the historical timeline of American journalism.

They only want fox attacking the establishment when president blackeinstien is in office lol.

a reply to: redmage

Dear redmage,

I sometimes find that my style makes communication difficult. That may be what is happening here.

It seems that your main point is that:

Fox's lawyers' won the appeal by a loophole technicality, skirting the issue of their distortions/lies, and simply arguing that the rules/regulations of the FCC were not laws.

to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law. Breaking regulations isn't considered,

In my opinion Fox certainly did defend their "right to lie" by moving the goal post and skirting the issue. By making it a regulations issue (not law), they were able to get the initial ruling overturned

Dear redmage, please read the opinion of the Appeals Court.
www.2dca.org...

It says, in pertinent part:

The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.

The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. (Cites removed)(Emphasis added)

So you see, Fox wasn't splitting hairs about laws, rules, and regulations.

and set legal precedent against court challenges to their false/distorted method of "reporting".

Redmage, I will give you $1000 for each distortion, lie, or spin found in the version of Akre's story aired on Fox. I will sign any legal document you want to make that wager binding. There was no challenge in this case to "their false/distorted" (as you put it) method of reporting. No one even claimed they showed a false story.

The precedent is set,

What precedent? You realize this case only affected the State of Florida, and only under the whistle blower statutes of nearly 20 years ago? If the legislators changed the statutes, there'd be a different result. Maybe they have, I don't know.

you can not bring a case because being unethical is not against the law when it comes to distortions and spin. This opened the floodgates for trash like MSNBC, Fox, and CNN to "go wild".

Here, I think you demonstrate a little misreading of the Court's decision. If we can get past those misunderstandings mentioned above, we can proceed to this one.

Come on. Really? No one is claiming distortions didn't exist, but they were no where NEAR the rampant mess they are today. Once upon a time news agencies actually were considered to have quite a bit of credibility. Now people are fleeing in droves to alternative/independent sources because the spin and distortions have become so transparent in the MSM. With a name like Charles1952 I would assume you remember such times. Do you not see a distinctive difference between then and now? Where once there were investigative reporters and real issues brought up, now it's Miley Cyrus "twerking", and blatant political spin.

This deserves a separate post in itself.

You may not believe this, but I admire your persistence and passion. I think you have a good future, but just as a bit of honest and well-intended advice, the Akre story isn't the one you should be using to prove anything about Fox. There must be other cases, try one of those.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: redmage and, apparently, others

YES, THIS IS LONG, BUT IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FALSE NEWS, PLEASE READ IT.

Dear redmage,

I mentioned that the idea that reporting wasn't the mess that it is now, after Fox, deserved a post of it's own. Remember?

No one is claiming distortions didn't exist, but they were no where NEAR the rampant mess they are today. Once upon a time news agencies actually were considered to have quite a bit of credibility. Now people are fleeing in droves to alternative/independent sources because the spin and distortions have become so transparent in the MSM. With a name like Charles1952 I would assume you remember such times. Do you not see a distinctive difference between then and now? Where once there were investigative reporters and real issues brought up, now it's Miley Cyrus "twerking", and blatant political spin.

Let's look at one case. I suppose more are available, but this one jumps to mind. Back in 1994, CBS broadcast an episode of 60 Minutes, which raised some eyebrows nationally. Complaints were filed with the FCC which resulted in the complaints being dismissed, It was appealed to the Circuit Court (Ginsburg was on it then, and filed the opinion) which released a very interesting decision in this case of Serafyn v. FCC (in the case of CBS). Allow me to quote from it at length.

In 1994 CBS produced and broadcast a controversial segment of "60 Minutes" entitled "The Ugly Face of Freedom," about modern Ukraine. The broadcast angered some viewers who believed that many elements of the program had been designed to give the impression that all Ukrainians harbor a strongly negative attitude toward Jews.

For example, interviewer Morley Safer suggested that Ukrainians were "genetically anti-Semitic" and "uneducated peasants, deeply superstitious." Also, soundbites from an interview with the Chief Rabbi of Lviv, Yaakov Bleich, gave viewers the impression that he believes all Ukrainians are anti-Semites who want all Jews to leave Ukraine. In addition, CBS overlaid the sound of marching boots on a film clip of Ukrainian Boy Scouts walking to church and introduced it in such a way as to give viewers the impression that they were seeing "a neo-Nazi, Hitler Youth-like movement."

The narrator also stated that the Ukrainian Galicia Division had helped in the roundup and execution of Jews from Lviv in 1941, though this Division was not in fact even formed until 1943 and therefore could not possibly have participated in the deed. Perhaps most egregiously, when Ukrainian speakers used the term "zhyd," which means simply "Jew," they were translated as having said "kike," which is a derogatory term."

Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no policy against news distortion and indeed that management considered some distortion acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You don't like to baldly lie, but I have." Colman McCarthy, The TV Whisper, Wash. Post, Jan. 7, 1995, at A21.

Don Hewitt, the executive producer of "60 Minutes," is quoted in the same article as saying that some deception is permissible because "it's the small crime vs. the greater good," and elsewhere as saying that "I wouldn't make Hitler look bad on the air if I could get a good story." Richard Jerome, Don Hewitt, People, Apr. 24, 1995, at 85, 90.

CBS, taking the position that any official investigation into its news broadcasting "offends the protections of a free press," did not submit any evidence. Nonetheless, the Commission denied the petition without a hearing.(Emphasis added)

After the broadcast interviewees and members of the Ukrainian-American community deluged CBS with letters. In his letter Rabbi Bleich stated "unequivocally" that his "words were quoted out of the context that they were said" and that "the CBS broadcast was unbalanced" and "did not convey the true state of affairs in Ukraine."

Cardinal Lubachivsky, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who had also been interviewed, both sent a letter to CBS and released a statement to the press. In the latter he stated, "[M]y office was misled as to the actual thrust of the report. Mr. Fager [the producer] presented the piece as one about 'post-communist Ukraine.' ... I can only deduce that the goal of the report was to present all Western Ukrainians as rabid anti-semites."

Many other viewers pointed out historical inaccuracies and offensive statements or characterizations in the show.

Notwithstanding the requirement in 47 C.F.R. 73.1202 that a licensee keep and make available all letters received from viewers, WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C., forwarded the letters it received to CBS's main office in New York. When a representative of the Ukrainian-American Community Network asked to see the letters, WUSA contacted CBS in New York and was told by Raymond Faiola that the letters were in storage and that a response had been sent to each viewer who wrote in; Faiola attached what he said was a copy of that response.

After failing to locate any viewer who had received such a reply, the UACN representative questioned this story. A CBS attorney in turn questioned Faiola, who then explained that the response letter had been sent to only about a quarter of the viewers who had written in about the program. When an intensive advertising campaign, however, failed to turn up even one person in the Ukrainian-American community who had received a response, the UACN representative complained to the Commission and sent a copy of the complaint to counsel for CBS.

When CBS's counsel asked Faiola for an affidavit confirming his story, Faiola admitted that the letter he had sent WUSA had been merely a draft and that he had forgotten to have any actual response letters sent out.

transition.fcc.gov...

Note that it took four years for the issue to reach this stage.

And you thought the Akre story looked bad?

With respect,
Charles1952

Its a bad news net work.

originally posted by: neo96
Why Such Hate For Fox News Specifically?

Because the left can't stand the thought of any ideas competing with theirs.

That is why Fox News is constantly demagogued.

Basically they hate it, so everyone should.

Even though most don't ever watch it.

People need to be glad Fox News is on the air.

Because if it wasn't ?

The current administration would have no idea ISIS is taking over Iraq.

The Current administration would have no idea about the IRS.

The current administration would have no Idea about the veterans dying on waiting lists at the VA.

Apparently the current administration has 'no' idea of what it does.

And if that ain't proof of a government that has become 'too big to fail' ?

I don't know what is.

Fox News haters ?

All hat no cattle.

your all sizzle, no steak cowboy

a reply to: kevinp2300

Please explain this to me. You quoted a long post simply to say

your all sizzle, no steak cowboy

Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?

I enjoy hearing fresh, new, ideas. What were you trying to say?

originally posted by: charles1952
Dear redmage, please read the opinion of the Appeals Court.
www.2dca.org...

It says, in pertinent part:
The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.

The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. (Cites removed)(Emphasis added)
So you see, Fox wasn't splitting hairs about laws, rules, and regulations.

It's been years, but I've read it, and yes they were splitting hairs. I may have misspoke using "rules and regulations" instead of "policy" (largely understood to be a guideline, rule, or regulation). but it was right there in your own provided quote. "We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.".

They split hairs, and fought for the right to intentionally falsify news on the basis that it doesn't qualify as breaking any law, rule, or regulation, it merely breaks "policy".

You can keep your money, and I'm sure you have a good future ahead of yourself as well.

Best Wishes,
redmage

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300

Please explain this to me. You quoted a long post simply to say

your all sizzle, no steak cowboy

Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?

I enjoy hearing fresh, new, ideas. What were you trying to say?

I'm guessing here but I'm going "all talk and no action" lol.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300

Please explain this to me. You quoted a long post simply to say

your all sizzle, no steak cowboy

Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?

I enjoy hearing fresh, new, ideas. What were you trying to say?

Sorry charles for being vague with my post. What i meant is that I believe your opinion of foxnews to be just as biased as their journalism. Like most far right wingers, im sure you will bring up each biased opinion of a story(its true in your mind because an omnipotent foxnews jounalist wrote it) with the egotistical goal of proving what u/foxnews BELIEVE to be true information and that info has no place to be challenged. I am tired of trying to convince ppl how bad foxnews is, therefore I try to not state opinions and delve levels deep into each article because I dont need to. I see from the surface, the macro concepts fox is trying to get across to its viewers: democats can do no good, republicans are never wrong. U can hit me with this and that article from this and that year stating this and that, but i visit cnn foxnews and various alternative news sources everyday and have seen enough with my own eyse. I am a libertarian and do not agree with MSNBC's biased opinions(although not to the degree of foxnews). Also, they dont use the slogan FAIR AND BALANCED. Even though I try to respect my elders, I am not going to sit here and try to convince a 62 year old that foxnews is biased and manipulative by using long paragraphs of stories. Hopefully this opens your eyes.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I think it's more than just a disagreement on politics. FOX News attracts the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, religious extremists, and anti-science crowd. There is so much ridiculousness there. This is why it's so popular. It appeals to the lowest level, and sadly, we have a lot of that here in this country. For FOX News to be successful, means a turn for the worse in humanity, and that's why people hate it. Not to mention they fought for their right to lie... Basically a HORRIBLE news station.

wow, how tolerant of you lefty msnbc peoples.

why do you hate all those you mentioned?

sounds like jealousy. yeah, jealousy.

how many lefty broadcasters have been fired or quit the lefty stations?
seems like 1 a month. they are so bad that the stations don't even want them.

Actually, them getting fired blows the right-wing myth about liberals can say what ever they want and not get fired, While conservatives say anything and are racists ,out of the water.

Actually, I think this particular aspect of it just goes to show how liberals are smarter about it than conservatives. Fox keeps people like Bill O'Reilly around for years and years. Long after he's so dirty that he's more trouble than he's worth for Fox.

Liberals, on the other hand, will get rid of someone who's gotten to be more trouble than they're worth. I call it the clean slate tactic. They do it in politics as well. The Obama administration, especially, has used the hell out of this technique. When a member of his cabinet or whatever gets to the point to where they've accumulated so much dirt that it's more work defending them than it's worth, they just get rid of them and bring in someone new for a clean slate in that position. The dirt goes with the old guy.

Anyway, the conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, while he's certainly good at what he does, are basically useless to them at this point. Anyone who wants to argue anything against O'Reilly can simply keep bringing up dirt from his past.

Sorry double.

a reply to: kevinp2300

Dear kevinp2300,

I think we can reach some understanding here, but that will be easier if we don't get into personal attacks. Let me try to explain my thinking (or, lack of it, if you prefer).

Fox news is widely hated on ATS. It seemed fitting for the OP to ask why that is the case. The answers seemed to be that Fox only attracts us old geezers or racists. (If it matters, I don't watch Fox.) Alternatively, that they lie a lot. Or, finally, unless I've forgotten some, that Fox is incredibly unbalanced and biased, much more than the other cable shows that don't get the same hate here.

I don't know if i was defending Fox so much as looking at these claims and trying to determine if they were true. That's why I posted the results of studies and polls earlier in the thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It also seemed that when people talked about Fox's willingness to lie and claimed they fought for the right to do it, they kept referring to the Akre case. But the Akre case said nothing of the sort, as I pointed out here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and in several posts following that.

Basically, what I've been doing is looking at the charges against Fox and seeing if they are true.

"EPA spends $1.6 million on hotel for environmental justice conference"
"Pelosi says surge of immigrant children an "opportunity" not a "crisis"
"Top Republican alleges Obama "trampling" on authority of Congress, backs lawsuit"

Are just a few of the items you've circled. I don't see lies or distortion there, I'm surprised you do.

Many of the items you've circled are opinion pieces. You've circled ads, and sometimes the same story in two different frames. Again, I just don't see the lies.

I'm sorry that you see me, personally, in such a bad light. (Just a friendly tip, Mods don't care much for personal attacks on this site) So, why not discuss the facts with me, I'd be willing.

With respect,
Charles1952