It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Understanding The History and Purpose of FOX News

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by ILikeStars

That all seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

I felt he was admitting that the Obama Administration had legitimate complaints about the previous administration, and the current state of affairs. The question was not about FOX's credibility, but about Wallace's opinion of Mr. Obama's "whining".

I hope you have a good evening (or had one) too.

Was in reference to this exchange:

Originally posted by ILikeStars

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by ILikeStars

I watched it, and did as you said, so I'll bite:
What's your point?

See ya,

In reference to Wallace calling the Obama administration the biggest bunch of cry babies he's ever dealt with in Washington in 30 years and the right wing narrative presented by FOX "News"....

"Well, I don't think they are whining over nothing. I think they have .. look, there are legitimate complaints that they can have." - Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel

edit on 30-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: remove bb code that did not work.

I believe the following is an example (if not the source) what the president of FOX news was being asked about:

So, I don't think they were refering to the Obama administration's rhetoric towards or about the previous administration's failed policies, or specific handling of any specific issues. I think the conversation was more centered around how FOX broadcasts tend to be anti-Obama/anti-left/anti-liberal to a degree that some information presented is actually detrimental to their own integrity and reputation, which is why the president of Fox said some of their (Obama administrations) complaints (concerning Fox broadcasting biased and false information) were legitimate, and that they were not being "cry babies" for no reason. They were justified/legitimate complaints/concerns with Fox News, according to the president of Fox News.

That is, in my own words, what I (in part) think they were discussing and talking about.

pleasantries & I'm off to play some Skyrim,

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by ILikeStars

I was fairly sure you weren't above luring me into a game of "Bait and Switch", but decided to give you the benefit of doubt anyway so I could gain some insight to your character. Thank you for the confirmation.

The question Ailes answered was:
Do you subscribe to the statement of your news host Chris Wallace that: The Obama Administration is the biggest bunch of cry babies that he has ever dealt with in his 30 years in Washington?

Ailes answer:
Well... I don't think they're whining over nothing... I think there are legitimate complaints that they may have.

Wallace's statement was based on his experiences over a period of 30 yrs. Considering FOX News hasn't been around that long, and the fact that Nixon was part of the prelude, I feel that FOX's credibility had little (if anything) to do with with Aile's answer. Also, the Obama Administration's whining about FOX is very minor in comparison to their complaints about the Bush Administration and the Republicans in general.

While I do agree with Ailes assesment, Mr. Obama does, indeed, whine and complain more than any President I have ever seen occupy the White House. Hell, look at the way the media persisted in trying to rip Mr. Bush apart. At least he took it like I would expect a leader to.

Now that you finally provided the context your answer was based on, I do understand why you came to your conclusion, but I feel you are blinded by your obvious bias.

Why are you so obsessed with watching FOX if you feel they lie so much? You certainly watch them a hell of a lot more than I do... and I lean pretty well to the right.

I hope you have (had) a very good evening.

See ya,

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
If you recognize that they both lie why are you trying to take the thread off topic with the others rather than just saying "yeah they do lie, so do others."

Sorry, being unable to resist pointing out hypocrisy is a personal failing of mine. I continued to post because it was stated that the other networks don't badger their guests when they do, and then proof of that was ignored with responses of "Yeah, well... Fox LIES!" That's the only thing any of you have to say in response. I haven't defended Fox, I've pointed out the hypocrisy in only complaining about the channel that doesn't share your point of view. If you don't want to read posts pointing out your hypocrisy, don't be hypocritical about what you hand-wave and what you complain about.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

MSNBC lies about Limbaugh quote, no retraction.

MSNBC doesn't bother mentioning protester with gun is black but certainly implies he's white with their talk of racial overtones.

The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms. And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones.

From the above link.

Or maybe you'd prefer PolitiFact links?
Here is Ed Shultz.
Here Is a big one from Rachel Maddow.

And just for giggles, here's Politifact's article on Jon Stewart's claim that Fox viewers are less informed than other network viewers.

From a 2007 poll:

However, Fox’s 35 percent score places it exactly at the national average. This seems paradoxical -- Fox ranks near the bottom of a long list of media outlets, yet it sits right at the national average. But there’s an explanation. Lots of respondents reported following none of the media outlets they were asked about, and those respondents did quite poorly on the knowledge quiz -- not surprisingly. That meant that the non-media-using respondents brought down the national average, but they didn’t constitute a separate category that ranked lower than Fox on Pew’s chart.

Since Stewart was referring to "media viewers," this doesn’t undercut his point. However, the data includes an important counterpoint to Stewart’s claim: Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well -- The O’Reilly Factor, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio -- a longtime target of conservative complaints about liberal media bias -- and only three percentage points behind Stewart’s own show, at 54 percent.

Emphasis mine.

From a 2010 poll:

Once again, Fox News as a whole ranked fairly low among regularly used media outlets -- 20 percent answered all four correctly and 18 percent answered three correctly. Still, those numbers beat the national average of 14 percent and 20 percent, respectively. (The best-scoring outlet, the Wall Street Journal, posted scores of 51 percent and 23 percent, respectively.)

Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals -- MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.

And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th -- slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.

And from the bottom of the page:

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False

edit on 12/2/2011 by Jenna because: Fixed messed up link

edit on 12/2/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
They are doing NOTHING worse than anyone else...they just do it from the other end of the political spectrum.

All the cool kids hate Fox.

Seriously though, I don't get it either. People generally point to news commentators as proof that Fox is evil incarnate while ignoring that O'Reilly and the like have their own shows in order to comment on the news and aren't part of an actual news broadcast.

They are part of the machine that propagate the lies that are solidified by the news broadcast.
I happen to know that all of those shows are subject to network input, Fox has a weekly, locked
PDF that plots the focus and course of the entire entity.

I mean do you think reality shows are real too???

The distinction between the two is often ignored and when you show that the other side of the coin is just as bad it turns into name-calling hour on the playground because obviously you're an idiot if you don't buy everything MSNBC and CNN say while hating on Fox at every turn. It's ridiculous really.

What is really rediculous is that people who watch fox claim that they hated BUSH and the neocon
candidates that constitute the entire field. Yet, FOX viewers cannot understand that FOX is key
to picking the candidates for conservative America. FOX is conservatisms worst enemy, when
in the hell you you guys going to wake up? Unless you think the way that FOX selling Bush's policies
everyday, worked for ya??? Koolaide is cheap, but don't complain when it is neon and starring you
in the face

edit on 2-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
Just thought I'd point out this post here; How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street (ATS thread from David9176), it shows how Frank Luntz, who is also a part of the FOX 'News' media manipulators, carefully craft their messages to appeal to raw emotion rather than the intellect.

33 internal FOX editorial memos reviewed by MMFA reveal FOX News Channel's inner workings

The burden of proof is overwhelming - FOX 'News' is not about the news at all, it about crouching the GOP message and slipping it into the media at a subconscious level.

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by mastahunta

You assume that I qualify as a conservative and that I watch Fox, as others in this thread have done. Neither is true. It would also be helpful to read the entirety of the thread prior to commenting on something from the first page as my position was made clear in my next few posts.

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by mastahunta

I happen to know that all of those shows are subject to network input, Fox has a weekly, locked PDF that plots the focus and course of the entire entity.

Are you referring to a programming schedule? If so, I would imagine that ALL broadcast and cable networks (and stations) use those. If not, can you provide a source? I'd like to check it out.

What is really rediculous is that people who watch fox claim that they hated BUSH and the neocon candidates that constitute the entire field.

No, no, no! It's your comment that is REALLY ridiculous! I never had an orgasm over Mr. Bush like most of the media outlets had over Mr. Obama, but I MOST CERTAINLY do not hate him. And I never did. I'll bet that's because I don't focus on the Fox Network near as much as you do though.

Also, it seems you don't know what a neocon is. That's probably because you like to use it as an insult. It might behoove you to look it up in a dictionary of your choice. You know... the whole "deny ignorance" "thing"...

FOX is conservatisms worst enemy

I don't know... Fox seems to be your worst enemy! Are you a "neocon"?

Thanks! You made me laugh!

See ya buddy,

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:24 PM
Made a mistake! I meant to post this elsewhere, sorry!

edit on 2-12-2011 by BenReclused because: Responded to the wrong person.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Jenna

And just for giggles, here's Politifact's article on Jon Stewart's claim that Fox viewers are less informed than other network viewers.

I've posted video's & links in this thread to Jon Stewart's response to that article from Politifact.
Politifact, the same source that awarded FOX News with 2010 Lie of the year and 2009 lie of the year.

(Fox News broadcasts) The claim that the Democratic health care law is a "government takeover of health care" is our 2010 Lie of the Year.


(Fox News broadcasts) Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
-Sarah Palin, Friday, August 7th, 2009.


edit on 3-12-2011 by ILikeStars because: add some bb codes

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:25 AM
reply to post by ILikeStars

They should be considered rather reputable then, don't you think? Can't be a right-wing conspiracy if they're calling out Fox as well as Jon Stewart and those from MSNBC.
Or is Stewart's response somehow supposed to negate the fact that Politifact checked the surveys and found his claim to be false? It's not as though him apologizing has prevented threads like this or others wherein ATS posters go to great pains to try to claim anyone who watches Fox instead of their chosen network is uninformed and an idiot.
edit on 12/3/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by ILikeStars

Wow! I'm almost at a loss for words over your last post... but not quite...

Though you have already demonstrated your fascination with the art of deception, I was quite surprised, and just as disappointed, to see you post an outright lie!

Politifact, the same source that awarded FOX News with 2010 Lie of the year and 2009 lie of the year.

Directly from your two sources:

1) PolitiFact's 2009 "Lie of the Year" award went to Sarah Palin who posted it on her Facebook page. Also note that "the statement wasn't made in an interview or a television ad".

2) PolitiFact's 2010 "Lie of the Year" award went to the Repulican party. PolitiFact analyzed five claims of a "government takeover of health care." Three were rated Pants on Fire, two were rated False. Also note that "few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry". The claims analyzed were made by Rebecca Kleefisch, Bill Young, the Florida Republican Party, Robert Hurt, and Ron Johnson.

FOX News isn't mentioned in any of the sources above!

Though I find your repeated use of hokums rather amusing, your insertion of "(Fox News broadcasts)" within your quoted text only demonstrates your intent to deceive. I feel this goes against the policy of denying ignorance, and only serves to encourage it.

Also, you seem to confirm one of my lifelong observations:
Those who complain the most about liars, are often the biggest liars of all.

Are you by any chance a politician? Though I feel you would make a "good" one, I'd never be foolish enough to vote for you.

See ya buddy,
edit on 3-12-2011 by BenReclused because: Add a note

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by BenReclused

FOX News is where I heard both of those lies/claims made before I heard them anywhere else. Both the terms "government takeover of health care" and "death panels" were televised by Fox before I heard them discussed anywhere else on any other network, or dispersed for public consumption by any other media, save Sarah Palin's tweets.

No worried Milt, I'm not buying for your vote any time soon.

I wouldn't go as far as to call me a liar, since both politifact's 2009 and 2010 lies of the year found cable tv air time on Fox News prior to any other cable news source. If I am wrong about this, please let me know.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:45 PM
Palin's a commentator on FOX 'News'. She repeats her lies there as on her FB page. All part of the dis-info campaign.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by ILikeStars

Aw hell... I don't really feel you are a liar... though I will admit that my post made it appear that way.

Just because a person says something that IS a lie, it doesn't necessarily mean they are telling one intentionally. I have absolutely no doubt that you believed everything you said to be true. At the same time, though, I feel you were enhancing evidence in a effort to support your argument. That's human nature, and is what all people tend to do. This is what I feel Sarah Palin, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and etc. are all truly guilty of. Isn't that what pundits and political advisors are paid to do? In the end it's always up the individual to make their own distinctions between what they feel to be true, and what they feel to be false.

I don't believe I've ever seen a more sincere and honest post than your last one. If you ever decide to run for office let me know... you may have just earned my vote.

See ya buddy,

I have added you to my friends list. I sincerely hope you feel as honored as I did when you added me to your respected foes list. Oh yeah... one of the stars on your last post was from me.

Fortunately my IQ is closer to 50 than it is 100, so I had an excuse to watch FOX earlier.

edit on 3-12-2011 by BenReclused because: Add a PSPS

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I like this picture.

Do you see anything wrong with it? Hint 120%

Unless there version of multiple choice means you can give multiple answers like Romney!

edit on 28-11-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

I remember when this one happened, Fox took the Rasmussen poll and altered it to suit their taste, inadvertently making the graph read higher than 100%. I was sitting in a restaurant with some other people and we were looking at this graph thinking, "only on Fox News".

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:52 PM
When you realise that viewers of other networks will never have heard of ................Cloward & Piven, Saul Alynski, Antonnio Grammsci - they don't know who Valerie Jarret is, or Vann Jones, Andy Stearn.

They won't know that Obama was raised a muslim, his parents were Communists, who Frank Marshal Davis was, his relationship to Bill Ayres etc etc etc.

You can see why the left is desperate to discredit Fox News, despite having all the other channels and networks - they still have to shut this one down if they can - because it only takes a single voice to point out that the emperor has no clothes!

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:37 AM
Right now MSNBC is as bad or worse than Fox was during the Bush years. It's basically the Obama channel. And no. I'm not a Republican. I'm proud to say I've sworn off parties.

The problem isn't Fox. The problem isn't MSNBC or CNN. The problem is that we have too many willfully ignorant people in this country who can't/won't see through all this BS and realize that these people are all scumbags who serve only the politicians and the puppeteers.

They hardly even bother to disguise it as anything other than bread and circuses and propaganda. Only the dumbest SOBs and the newest newbies have any excuse at all for mistaking it for reality.

If we had a single real news outlet, 9/11 would have been exposed 10 years ago. Or better yet, it would have probably never happened because Bush's "election" would have been exposed as the fraud we all know it was.
edit on 4-12-2011 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by BenReclused

It was the FOX "News" network that offered the biggest platform and most wide spread distribution of both lies that Politifact had as 2009 & 2010 lies of the years. It was because of FOX "News" that both of these lies made it main stream via cable tv. And it was FOX "News" pundits who were permitted to provide this piece of misinformation to hundreds of millions of people.

Take the Death panel lie, Politifact's 2009 lie of the year, for example. Glenn Beck said he believed the death panels were real right after Sarah Palin said it ... and Even into late December of 2010 FOX News was still broadcasting that they were a real part of the legislation.

Concerning the "Obama Care Death Panels"....

FOX News's Glenn Beck saying he believed the death panels were true:

FOX News's Glenn Beck Show more than a year later still saying, and strongly inferring that the death panels were true:

FOX News Jugde Napolitano & Betsy McCaughey discussing death panels, and end of life counseling sessions:

Betsy McCaughey gets called out and proven wrong on Comedy Central:

FOX News Sean Hannity's show and Sarah Palin on Obama Care's death panels:

FOX News Sean Hannity show saying death panels exist:

FOX News Sean Hannity & Michele Bachmann discussing the death panels:

FOX News Sean Hannity still inferring death panels exist, even after it was awarded Politifact's 2009 lie of the year:

FOX News revives "death panels" Lie of the Year (2009)... (December 27th, 2010 Fox & Friends broadcast):

FOX News Fox & Friends talking about death panels in Obama Care legislation...

FOX News death panels ... July 2010:

FOX News. ... Glenn Beck show on death panels:

I don't think I lied. FOX News provided the largest platform for distribution of the Politifact's 2009 lie of the year, aka the death panel lie.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by BenReclused
At the same time, though, I feel you were enhancing evidence in a effort to support your argument.

I must concede I should not have put those "(Fox News broadcasts)" inside the [ ex] external source quote, I did not do it intentionally. Nor did I notice I did that until reading your last post.

It wasn't my intention to mislead or misrepresent, and for that I apologize.

I would just like to clarify that I personally believe neither of those lies would have gotten lie of the year awards from Politifact if those lies had not had the air time provided by FOX News. But, perhaps this is debate-able.
debatable? .... how the hell do you spell that word...??? debatable ... i hate it when i have to look up a word

I'll talk with ya later Milt,

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by ILikeStars

Hey buddy,

I hope you don't think I've been ignoring you. I haven't been. I wanted to sit back and enjoy your videos before I responded, and haven't had the chance yet.

Glenn Beck's a little extreme, and that's why I don't normally watch him. But I will... I find it interesting that he's hated so much on here ATS. Hell, most people here love conspiracy theorists! Oh well, another point to ponder...

Don't worry about the "enhancements". I'm not very tactful, and tend to be quite blunt. I don't mean to be, but that's just way I am. It's gotten my into a lot of trouble with past bosses, but I do normally succeed in getting my point across.

I hate it when I've mispelt (
) a word too! And I'm a very lousy speller.

I'll post back when I get finished with the videos. It may be tomorrow though.

Take care... talk to you soon.

See ya,

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in