It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Such Hate For Fox News Specifically?

page: 14
27
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
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


Forgive me again for my vagueness. This issue of Foxnews, I tend to be very passionate about. The reason for this is, I believe as a country we have a huge problem. The problem is that we think we are right every single time and we end up arguing over erroneous subtleties rather than focusing on the others perspective and possibly learning. I was not personally attacking you, what I mean is you being 62(me being 26) leaves me feeling awkward to try and project my beliefs and reasoning onto u. However, I do have a few ?'s. Why do you feel the need to defend Foxnews point for point in each post? Its a news company, not the president. I understand liberals unjustly criticize Foxnews from time to time. I understand a lot of what I circled MIGHT have some validity to Foxnews perspective. What bugs me though Charles, is that a news company that uses "fair and balanced" as their slogan does not print one negative republican story out of every page I looked at. That is not right and should open anyone's eyes up to the intent of this company. That is specifically what I hate about Foxnews.




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: kevinp2300

originally posted by: charles1952
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


Forgive me again for my vagueness. This issue of Foxnews, I tend to be very passionate about. The reason for this is, I believe as a country we have a huge problem. The problem is that we think we are right every single time and we end up arguing over erroneous subtleties rather than focusing on the others perspective and possibly learning. I was not personally attacking you, what I mean is you being 62(me being 26) leaves me feeling awkward to try and project my beliefs and reasoning onto u. However, I do have a few ?'s. Why do you feel the need to defend Foxnews point for point in each post? Its a news company, not the president. I understand liberals unjustly criticize Foxnews from time to time. I understand a lot of what I circled MIGHT have some validity to Foxnews perspective. What bugs me though Charles, is that a news company that uses "fair and balanced" as their slogan does not print one negative republican story out of every page I looked at. That is not right and should open anyone's eyes up to the intent of this company. That is specifically what I hate about Foxnews.


I don't think liberals need to make up stuff about fox. They provide PLENTY of legitimate things to criticize.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
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.


How is firing someone for perceived or real infractions and replacing them a tactic?

Are liberals supposed to reward alleged or real bad behavior or are they supposed to do something else? I'm not following.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frith

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
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.


How is firing someone for perceived or real infractions and replacing them a tactic?

Are liberals supposed to reward alleged or real bad behavior or are they supposed to do something else? I'm not following.


Firing someone that needs to be fired is called...wait for it...Good Management!



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kevinp2300

Dear kevinp2300,

Great response! Thanks. I don't think we'll have much trouble agreeing. I already agree with much of your post.

You're worried about being vague? You should see some of the responses to my writing. Oh, and age doesn't matter here. It is good to be polite to elders, but you don't have any obligation to be polite about their ideas. If I throw up a stinker of a thought, shoot it down. That's how I learn.

Speaking about vagueness, you can see that I haven't communicated well in our exchange. Let me pass over, for a moment, the problem with our country, and try to answer your questions.


Why do you feel the need to defend Foxnews point for point in each post? Its a news company, not the president.
Maybe I'm too academic. When someone makes a statement I like to see support for it, either in evidence or reason. If someone were to say MSNBC was in the pay of the Venezuelan government, I'd ask for evidence of that, too. Generally, the stranger the statement, the more I like to look into it. Here, the statement I gather from the posters is "Fox is the worst news network in America, they're heavily unbalanced, lie all the time, and fire people who won't lie. Any reasonable person will refuse to watch them."

That's a pretty "out there" kind of claim. Even the OP noticed the hatred, that's why he started the thread. So, as is my wont, I started looking for evidence that dealt with the issue. I tried several places and found more and more evidence indicating that the hate for Fox, certainly more hatred than other networks, seemed to be unjustified.

From there, I presented what I found and answered questions about it. I really do believe that the more errors in our thinking which we can correct, the better off we are. I like others to correct my thinking, I assume the reverse is true.

As hard as it might be to believe, I have no trouble with anybody who shows that Fox is a KGB (or whatever they're called now) operation set to destroy the country and force us all to eat Spam. If that's true, I want to know it. I'll even spread the word.

Sometimes Fox is criticized unjustly, sometimes MSNBC is criticized unjustly. That's too bad and should be eliminated, but it's going to happen. I can accept that. But I'm confused by the level of disgust that the mere mention of Fox causes here. I don't see the reason for it.

I'm perfectly willing to say that Fox slants right. Just as I'm willing to say that MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, and CNN slant left to varying degrees, some more than others. If the objection is that Fox has a slant, I can't get too excited about it. The rest have slants, too. I just try to take it into account.


I believe as a country we have a huge problem. The problem is that we think we are right every single time and we end up arguing over erroneous subtleties rather than focusing on the others perspective and possibly learning.
You're absolutely right that being closed minded is a serious problem. We also have a problem with so many people and groups proving to be untrustworthy. A greed for money and power is another problem. I'm glad that you are able to spot problems, that's an essential first step.

If our country survives long enough, people like you will have a big role in fixing it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300

Dear kevinp2300,

Great response! Thanks. I don't think we'll have much trouble agreeing. I already agree with much of your post.

You're worried about being vague? You should see some of the responses to my writing. Oh, and age doesn't matter here. It is good to be polite to elders, but you don't have any obligation to be polite about their ideas. If I throw up a stinker of a thought, shoot it down. That's how I learn.

Speaking about vagueness, you can see that I haven't communicated well in our exchange. Let me pass over, for a moment, the problem with our country, and try to answer your questions.


Why do you feel the need to defend Foxnews point for point in each post? Its a news company, not the president.
Maybe I'm too academic. When someone makes a statement I like to see support for it, either in evidence or reason. If someone were to say MSNBC was in the pay of the Venezuelan government, I'd ask for evidence of that, too. Generally, the stranger the statement, the more I like to look into it. Here, the statement I gather from the posters is "Fox is the worst news network in America, they're heavily unbalanced, lie all the time, and fire people who won't lie. Any reasonable person will refuse to watch them."

That's a pretty "out there" kind of claim. Even the OP noticed the hatred, that's why he started the thread. So, as is my wont, I started looking for evidence that dealt with the issue. I tried several places and found more and more evidence indicating that the hate for Fox, certainly more hatred than other networks, seemed to be unjustified.

From there, I presented what I found and answered questions about it. I really do believe that the more errors in our thinking which we can correct, the better off we are. I like others to correct my thinking, I assume the reverse is true.

As hard as it might be to believe, I have no trouble with anybody who shows that Fox is a KGB (or whatever they're called now) operation set to destroy the country and force us all to eat Spam. If that's true, I want to know it. I'll even spread the word.

Sometimes Fox is criticized unjustly, sometimes MSNBC is criticized unjustly. That's too bad and should be eliminated, but it's going to happen. I can accept that. But I'm confused by the level of disgust that the mere mention of Fox causes here. I don't see the reason for it.

I'm perfectly willing to say that Fox slants right. Just as I'm willing to say that MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, and CNN slant left to varying degrees, some more than others. If the objection is that Fox has a slant, I can't get too excited about it. The rest have slants, too. I just try to take it into account.


I believe as a country we have a huge problem. The problem is that we think we are right every single time and we end up arguing over erroneous subtleties rather than focusing on the others perspective and possibly learning.
You're absolutely right that being closed minded is a serious problem. We also have a problem with so many people and groups proving to be untrustworthy. A greed for money and power is another problem. I'm glad that you are able to spot problems, that's an essential first step.

If our country survives long enough, people like you will have a big role in fixing it.

With respect,
Charles1952


Ya, I am new to "blogging" so I am trying to learn how to effectively communicate through this medium as I go along. It is nice to have a breath of fresh air in someone who reads the posts and responds accordingly without attacking. During this discussion, I have come to the realization that Foxnews is not as bad as I probably thought. Maybe this can be broken down to a psychological level of trust. TPTB have varying viewpoints just as you and I do about govt's role in America's future(the gun debates, gay marriage debate, economic debates, healthcare reform, immigration, etc). Simply what we are caught up in is TPTB throwing $ at these companies and using the media as a way to project their beliefs and what we are seeing is the trickling down of the democrats and republicans differences to a personal level. This gets mistaken for foxnews or msnbc trying to "brainwash" us, when in reality, they are just trying to win. When foxnews saw cnbc msnbc and other news companies develop a bias against republicans as a whole party, because of Bush, they probably threw more $ at fox to try and counter this. Things make u less upset when you think them through lol. My dad's side of the family is very staunch in their political views and I try to open their minds to certain things, usually with no success. I think our problems are now moving away from country and we have to start thinking more of a world aspect. As much as I would like to worry about domestic problems only, these issues such as global warming/terrorism/food and water shortages/lack of grid backup systems will affect us in the coming decades. A new way of thinking is required. I grew up in rural indiana shooting guns and living a pretty free life. I now live in a populated area and I see both sides of the gun debate. I understand ppl want to be left alone by the govt and they use their guns to hunt and protect themselves. I understand parents in the city who dont want their child being gunned down by a uzi. Do I agree with the city parent that all guns should be banned? no. Do I agree with the "country folk" who thinks assault rifles should be allowed because of the 2nd amendment? no. Do i understand why they feel that way? yes. Gay marriage? That has no bearing on my life whatsoever and based on freedom of church and state, any bible reference opposing gay marriage should not matter in deciding the legality of this. Who the hell are we to project our beliefs onto other ppl? These are examples of the issues that ppl get way too upset over. Im thankful I have lived in both places because it offered a unique perspective on these issues. I love posting on here and learning new ideas/beliefs. Knowledge is power.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frith

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
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.


How is firing someone for perceived or real infractions and replacing them a tactic?


I have already explained that. They do it repeatedly for certain positions. They generally allow underlings (Like CIA directors and so forth) to take the majority of the blame for whatever happens and when they're good and dirty, they go away and take the dirt with them. In fact, this is also done for president. It's why they have no problem with term limits. By the time Obama's last term is up, people will be fed up with him just like they were Bush. Sending the old people away and bringing in someone new allows them to keep all the bad stuff that's been done incrementally by all sorts of different people but each time they replace someone, they can wash their hands of the blame for it. At that point, there's no one to blame for bad policy. You can't blame the guy who's only been in office a year for stuff that was done ten years ago by someone else. Even though it's the same agenda, who's gonna prove it?
edit on 2-7-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kevinp2300

Dear kevinp2300,

If you were female, I'd try to date you. You can easily become a model ATS poster.

Of course, we're going to disagree. I love disagreement. It means that all sides are being represented. If the people discussing the question are half way fair about how they treat each other, and how they use reason, we'll at least get understanding.

I usually find that if someone is willing to work at it, a lot of the disagreement disappears and we can focus on what is really the core difference. Don't tell anybody, this is our secret, but a lot of the time I get frustrated trying to talk with anybody. As you say, the personal attacks and illogic make conversation impossible.

And as I said, keep it up. You've got a great future here as a voice of reason.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Why don't you call in to our show tonight? The instructions are a few posts up in this thread. The callers always have a good time, and I'll get to talk to you in person (which may or not be a plus for you). We start in a little over three hours. - C -



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
I have already explained that. They do it repeatedly for certain positions. They generally allow underlings (Like CIA directors and so forth) to take the majority of the blame for whatever happens and when they're good and dirty, they go away and take the dirt with them. In fact, this is also done for president. It's why they have no problem with term limits. By the time Obama's last term is up, people will be fed up with him just like they were Bush. Sending the old people away and bringing in someone new allows them to keep all the bad stuff that's been done incrementally by all sorts of different people but each time they replace someone, they can wash their hands of the blame for it. At that point, there's no one to blame for bad policy. You can't blame the guy who's only been in office a year for stuff that was done ten years ago by someone else. Even though it's the same agenda, who's gonna prove it?


Not a very sound theory. Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford pardoned him. Bush 41 pardoned the Iran Contra scandal people. We had Obama publicly proclaim he would not seek prosecution on the Bush admin over Iraq or other war crimes like torture.

It all seems pretty open when politicians have scandals and we let them get away with it quite visibly.

The only President who didn't allow an underling to get away with his wrongdoing was Bush 43 with Scooter Libby, but only because Bush didn't want his name any more tarnished than it already was.

I don't know how it relates to non-politicians like liberals in the media either. They don't have direct influence over our lives. So there shouldn't be any big deal or conspiracy when they fire and hire employees.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frith


Not a very sound theory. Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford pardoned him. Bush 41 pardoned the Iran Contra scandal people. We had Obama publicly proclaim he would not seek prosecution on the Bush admin over Iraq or other war crimes like torture.


I did not fail to notice. This is all part of the plan and it is factored into the political budget. They pretty much know what and how much of what they can get away with. This is what I mean. They start to accumulate political dirt the instant they begin. But it generally takes a while before they're absolutely filthy. People still aren't (generally) smart enough to realize the new guy is on the same team as the old guy.

Again, it's part of the plan. Each new guy WILL eventually get so dirty ha has to be replaced. Not because they are generally in any legal danger. Because it allows an administration (for example) to rid themselves of a certain amount of blame long enough. Everyone knows this going in. Including the person who is basically just there to be the next scapegoat.


It all seems pretty open when politicians have scandals and we let them get away with it quite visibly.


Do we? How many terms do you think GWB would have been good for had he not been limited to two terms?


I don't know how it relates to non-politicians like liberals in the media either. They don't have direct influence over our lives.


You can't be serious?


So there shouldn't be any big deal or conspiracy when they fire and hire employees.


I always assume something is up when this kind of thing happens. If I'm wrong, oh well. It costs nothing to be wrong about something like this. But I'm probably right. Figure. The MSM is THE place where everything happens. You/we don't hear anything that doesn't come through them. If there is/was/ will be conspiracy and corruption, the media will be right in the middle of it. You can count on it.

Finally, who is blaming Obama for Iraq? No one. Bush started it, remember? Where is Bush? Obama will be blamed only for the things that occurred on his watch. And the next president will not be blamed for anything Obama did.
edit on 2-7-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
You can't be serious?


I'm very serious.

The media doesn't set policy so they don't have direct control of our lives like politicians do. Some people allow their opinions to influence them. That's indirect influence.
edit on 2-7-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frith

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
You can't be serious?


I'm very serious.

The media doesn't set policy so they don't have direct control of our lives like politicians do. Some people allow their opinions to influence them. That's indirect influence.


Well, propaganda sure seems to work well enough. I think the people who run the media know how to craft effective propaganda. At the very least, they know exactly what they're trying to accomplish. I believe if they think taking certain actions will make them more effective, they certainly will try. This is just common sense. Anyone who is trying to accomplish a given thing will be highly likely to take actions that they believe will work for them.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Fox is more concerned about entertainment value that reporting credibility. If you tell a story well, people will believe it.

I have a lot more respect for one of the Fox News chief talking heads now, after he asked Karl Rove some difficult questions.
edit on 2-7-2014 by jrod because: do's and don'ts



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300

Dear kevinp2300,

If you were female, I'd try to date you. You can easily become a model ATS poster.

Of course, we're going to disagree. I love disagreement. It means that all sides are being represented. If the people discussing the question are half way fair about how they treat each other, and how they use reason, we'll at least get understanding.

I usually find that if someone is willing to work at it, a lot of the disagreement disappears and we can focus on what is really the core difference. Don't tell anybody, this is our secret, but a lot of the time I get frustrated trying to talk with anybody. As you say, the personal attacks and illogic make conversation impossible.

And as I said, keep it up. You've got a great future here as a voice of reason.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Why don't you call in to our show tonight? The instructions are a few posts up in this thread. The callers always have a good time, and I'll get to talk to you in person (which may or not be a plus for you). We start in a little over three hours. - C -


Thank you for the kind words sir. I am trying to learn as much as I can and agree that usually when disagreement arises, it is an opportunity for one or more ppl to learn. Ya I will try to call in tonight, when speaking I can convey a lot more meaning so should beneficial. Look forward to hearing the show! Thanks again.

ps. tried calling in but you guys switched the subject ratherly quick! its alright though. Im listening into the fringed.
edit on 2-7-2014 by kevinp2300 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
As to thread question, I do not hate Fox News. Hatred is the wrong word.

But the organization has ZERO credibility in my opinion. It seems oriented towards mindlessness.

Megyn Kelly was certainly the exception in her pointed and relevant question of Cheney last week.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Fox is more concerned about entertainment value that reporting credibility.


Somehow, I get the feeling that "entertainment value" isn't very high up on the agenda list for TPTB...


Mass media is the most powerful tool used by the ruling class to manipulate the masses. It shapes and molds opinions and attitudes and defines what is normal and acceptable.

Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media

The mainstream media appears to serve multiple functions. First, to distribute information that the controlling cabal wants you to believe is real news. Secondly, to assist in the cover-up of information that has leaked out through other sources. In other words, Damage Control. Thirdly, as a weapon to assassinate the characters of those who expose the practices of the Establishment. Also, to act as a firewall to prevent information detrimental to the elite's control from reaching the public. Finally, to continue to reinforce mainstream accounts of current and historical events. The mainstream news essentially serves as a primary tool for social conditioning or mind-control.

Centralized Control of History, Media, and Academia



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
As to thread question, I do not hate Fox News. Hatred is the wrong word.

But the organization has ZERO credibility in my opinion. It seems oriented towards mindlessness.

Megyn Kelly was certainly the exception in her pointed and relevant question of Cheney last week.


Regarding that, I have noticed FOX throwing the old neocons under the bus lately... Cheney and Rove... Is this a rebranding? The new republican party that sees the Iraq War as a failed idea....?

Or are Kelly and others just looking out for their own careers, willing to toss old FOX News guests under the bus to escape the cesspool and advance themselves...



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Entertainment value is good for ratings. The better the ratings, the more their commercial time is worth....

Only nut job conspiracy theorist would believe that main stream media engages in a propaganda campaign. That is un-American to think that way. Are you on the terrorists side?
edit on 3-7-2014 by jrod because: Fe eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee




top topics



 
27
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join