Judge Pirro removed from Fox News after anti-Semitic comments?

a reply to: Duderino

Well, there goes my TV news...

Not gonna watch a CNN clone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise.

It's good to diversify and see what else is out there. Listening to only one ANYTHING opens one up to having their eyes shut.

What kind of bizarre world are we in? Let’s be clear. Why if they wanted some liberal folks on there would they choose someone who gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton AND admitted in her book that the Clinton campaign had taken over the DNC finances in a corrupt way, under her watch?
a reply to: Duderino

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
What kind of bizarre world are we in? Let’s be clear. Why if they wanted some liberal folks on there would they choose someone who gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton AND admitted in her book that the Clinton campaign had taken over the DNC finances in a corrupt way, under her watch?
a reply to: Duderino

Because it's all made up? And Fox and Trump and the whole fiasco is all part of the same machine?

a reply to: Duderino

Curses are not blessings.

I used to watch CNN almost exclusively. I stopped specifically because I realized their "reporting" was so biased I wasn't able to get the whole story even by trying to search deeper. I switched to Fox because, even though they are biased, there's enough reporting to at least give me a few chances to dig deeper.

What they are doing, if all this is true, is becoming the exact same as the other networks. What were you saying about listening to only one side of an argument?

TheRedneck

I’m like you man. Funnily, I used to get triggered by Fox News when I was a young super lefty college student, and listen to cnn and msnbc.

Those outlets have gone so hysterical over the last two-three years that Fox News seems better relatively. I never thought I’d write that sentence lol. I now watch Fox once in a while.

I already knew from the Bush days that Fox is also biased or partial propaganda though, so it’s not a big leap for me to throw it in the dust bin.
a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Duderino

Curses are not blessings.

I used to watch CNN almost exclusively. I stopped specifically because I realized their "reporting" was so biased I wasn't able to get the whole story even by trying to search deeper. I switched to Fox because, even though they are biased, there's enough reporting to at least give me a few chances to dig deeper.

What they are doing, if all this is true, is becoming the exact same as the other networks. What were you saying about listening to only one side of an argument?

TheRedneck

And you found Fox to be an improvement over CNN? They literally use the same playbook. Their propaganda techniques and their willingness to lie is identical.

And yes, I know it may seem like a curse but that's why the blessing is 'in disguise'. You just don't know it yet, but moving away from one single, monopolistic source of news can only be a good thing.

My opinion. We probably don't share it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, there goes my TV news...

Pirro is/was not news. Anderson Cooper is not news.

They are purveyors of political opinion. I thought you knew that.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It wouldn't be a big leap for me either... if there was some other station that wasn't a CNN clone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Duderino

And you found Fox to be an improvement over CNN?

Yes, I did.

I am somewhat amazed at your lack of realization of what you are suggesting: that removing the side of the argument you disagree with broadens one's view. That's like saying "I like Dodge, so we need to change all Chevys and Fords into Dodges so people can have more choice to buy Dodges."

You make zero common sense.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I was speaking of removing one pundit (not a journalist) who favors the right side of the argument, and hiring a commentator (not a journalist) who is infamous for corruption and robotic allegiance to the left. That indicates a major station-wide shift leftward, which would likely affect the actual "journalists."

I thought you would understand that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It wouldn't be a big leap for me either... if there was some other station that wasn't a CNN clone.

TheRedneck

Well thats an issue for sure. Over the last 2 years I realized that most of the liberal outlets like cnn or msnbc are totally in league with the DNC and whoever they are working for. It’s almost as if it’s one umbrella org in how these political strategies and narratives are developed.

At the same time, when it comes to war or surveillance they alllll come together including Fox for the most part. Chomsky and Greenwald talk a lot about this.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess your use of the word "news" threw me.

Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, there goes my TV news...

Pirro is/was not news. Anderson Cooper is not news.

They are purveyors of political opinion. I thought you knew that.

Sure. We are in agreement there. I’ll take it a step further. The majority of staff and pundits at these media corporations are not journalists, and in fact many violate journalistic principles regularly.

So why then when they are criticized do people screech that it’s “oppressing journalists and the free press?” That in itself is either dishonest or misinformed.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Duderino

And you found Fox to be an improvement over CNN?

Yes, I did.

I am somewhat amazed at your lack of realization of what you are suggesting: that removing the side of the argument you disagree with broadens one's view. That's like saying "I like Dodge, so we need to change all Chevys and Fords into Dodges so people can have more choice to buy Dodges."

You make zero common sense.

TheRedneck

That's because you thought I assumed you would stop watching Fox. I did not assume that despite of what you said. It's crazy that I know you better than that, and I don't even know you.

No, I'm suggesting to acquire additional sources since I am under no delusion you will drop Fox.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So why then when they are criticized do people screech that it’s “oppressing journalists and the free press?”

I think "suppressing" would be a more accurate expression of the sentiment. But "the press" has always included editorial comment. Especially in criticizing the government.

That’s mincing words, you get my point. Sure, criticizing or holding the gov accountable is a duty for journalists. What I am underlining here is a misconception that many of these media companies should be considered the press or composed of journalists.

Most staff members simply are not journalists, by training or behavior. Just because you are given a desk, time slot, and camera doesn’t magically make you a journalist.
a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What I am underlining here is a misconception that many of these media companies should be considered the press or composed of journalists.

Is the National Enquirer "the press?" Rolling Stone? Brietbart?



See, I don't think it's for you (or me) to say who has a right to criticize the government, or praise it. There are, of course, laws against libel, slander too. But that is not suppression. And editorial comment is part of the press.

What all this means is most "Tax Paying" Americans are getting tired of all these obvious special treatment of American Jews. Try to imagine a private bank in a Jewish neighborhood owned and operated by Gentiles. And what if the government forced those in the Jewish Community to use that bank? The board of directors for the Federal Reserve are mostly Jewish and have been since the beginning. Are they evil? Nah just a bit too opportunistic and a little bit too much centralization of power. That's all, nothing MAJOR!

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That's the thing. CNN and the rest of the "news" media are controlled by the DNC. Fox is controlled by the GOP. neither is unbiased, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, but at least now one can get both sides of an issue and try to figure out where the truth lies. It is generally in the middle somewhere.

If Fox goes over to DNC control, then we have no information except what the DNC wants us to have. Somehow, that's supposed to expand our view by controlling it?

TheRedneck