Enough people here --- if not on the same page as I -- are in the same atmospheric layer.
I first turned my attention to FOX in 2004 -- January I think it was -- when they began announcing a week in advance that "Ted Kennedy would deliver a presentation at the National Press Club [a week thereafter]." [The topic was riveted to Bush's decision to start the Iraq War, mentioning an absence of WMDs and other factors.] They continued this promotion until the day and time arrived. They had suckered their viewers to sit on the edge of their chairs until that moment.
Then, they present about 5 minutes of the Senator, followed by their own 30 minutes to comment.
I've BEEN to the National Press Club --- physically and personally, and nobody goes there to speak a mere 5 minutes. I eventually found the entire delivery on CSPAN -- an hour long.
I discovered other instances of their deception, some very significant but requiring me to write several paragraphs so that you readers must pay attention -- for instance, there was Glenn Beck, with his highly-promoted lecture on "Propaganda", delivered with props once used by Bishop Sheen. He had a blackboard and chalk, you see. I'm not going to belabor that, but it was a significant deception for people with only the layman's understanding of the topic and their naive conception as to the nature of propaganda.
Another case I discovered in either 2021 or 2022, but at the height of the BLM demonstrations and the reactions to them. First, to prepare you and your understanding, here's a hypothetical example:
"1,000 smokers died of cancer last year, while 1,000 non-smokers also died of cancer. Therefore, smoking is not a health problem."
Take a moment and you can discover the absurdity of the remark. On FOX, the news lady stated that 50 black men had been shot and killed by police in thus-and-such year, while 51 white men had suffered a similar fate -- therefore -- no problem.
FOX apparently believed their audience was predominately mentally handicapped, but in any case, a journalism staff of that size would clearly see they were otherwise trading in deception.
MY POINT HERE?! Especially if other media don't report these anomalies, you have discovered that a major news outlet is in the deliberate -- DELIBERATE! -- business of deceiving its audience. The smart person would simply conclude that spending time with FOX was an unproductive waste of time, or otherwise a way to become confused and uninformed.
It's that simple! Traditionally, news media follow either of two strategies and dictums: Objective media attempts to provide all the facts they can fit into a broadcast, without driving their choice of facts by their ideology -- which they probably should not admit having. Advocacy journalism has its best example in the Hearst newspapers with their "Remember the Maine!" news splash, and FOX is the modern offshoot of the same approach.
In the most modern times, I'm sure that other media contrary to FOX/OAN/etc. see this as a fight they must pursue, with the risks that they may come under fire for it. But if MSNBC and CNN regularly examine and review news clips from FOX to dissect the absurdities, how often does FOX do the same?
Not that often -- if at all.
Otherwise, and thinking of historical figures like Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes; the development of symbolic logic, predicate and propositional calculus, we see a standard for something more generally known as "Common Sense". If you want reliable news, determine who is presenting the largest number of cross-verifiable facts, who is censoring or hiding facts, who seems to be deliberately deceiving its audience.
It's sad that such a large number of the electorate are too stupid or ignorant to bother struggling toward the light.
arstechnica.com
Facebook
Twitter