Fox News sued for spreading misinformation to the public

[fskimospy]

This is you claiming that the mainstream media does not have a bias toward the left or the right.

Mind blowing.

Maybe you can explain what you think the mainstream media's bias is and provide evidence for this assertion. After all, my post specifically said that while mainstream news organizations do have their opinions, they are far secondary to their other objectives. This is not the case with Fox News where ideological propaganda is the primary goal.

It seems likely to me that you believe the NYT is a liberally biased organization so I'm interested to see why they were such big fans of Bush's war and why they spent do many column inches trying to torpedo Clinton's campaign.

You seem to have come here very prepared for name calling and preening, but not very well prepared to defend your opinions. I hope you do better going forward!

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Maybe you can explain what you think the mainstream media's bias is and provide evidence for this assertion. After all, my post specifically said that while mainstream news organizations do have their opinions, they are far secondary to their other objectives. This is not the case with Fox News where ideological propaganda is the primary goal.

It seems likely to me that you believe the NYT is a liberally biased organization so I'm interested to see why they were such big fans of Bush's war and why they spent do many column inches trying to torpedo Clinton's campaign.

You seem to have come here very prepared for name calling and preening, but not very well prepared to defend your opinions. I hope you do better going forward!

Wow, stunning. There are websites dedicated to tracking how partisan every major news outlet is and here you are with your fingers in your ears going NUH UH! NUH UH!

 

[Vic]

You made ridiculous assertions, mischaracterizing my post. I, in no way, excused Fox for anything. In fact, I quite plainly stated that Fox should be held legally accountable if they broke the law.

This doesn't seem to stick, or you conveniently ignore it. I haven't changed my opinion or contradicted myself at all. There has been no story changing. Fox should be held accountable and so should everyone else. Just because no one has brought them to account yet doesn't mean they aren't deserving of it.

You continue to mischaracterize my posts, misrepresent my opinions, and continue to twist what I'm saying into some red herring argument. If that's the game you want to play, have at it. You're only fooling those like you who read what they want to interpret instead of read the words someone took the time to type out.

If you're not apologizing for Fox, then what is the point of all your "everyone else is just as bad" nonsense? Can you provide a specific example of another mainstream media organization similarly putting their political agenda ahead of public safety? And even if you did, wouldn't that be a separate discussion? What purpose could that possibly serve here except as an attempt to divert the attention away from Fox?
Anyway, I'm not trying to fool anyone here. You're just upset because you can't fool me.

 

[Vic]

How is expecting equal treatment under the law somehow "fatalistic" in nature? The definition of fatalism involves inevitability or predetermined outcomes. I'd love to hear how you're twisting that definition to fit yet another mischaracterization of my posts. 😀

And now you're mischaracterizing your own posts.

BTW the 'equal treatment' you appear to be proposing would be grossly un-Constitutional. You are literally the only one here saying that media outlets should be punished for having a journalistic opinion.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

If you're not apologizing for Fox, then what is the point of all your "everyone else is just as bad" nonsense? Can you provide a specific example of another mainstream media organization similarly putting their political agenda ahead of public safety? And even if you did, wouldn't that be a separate discussion? What purpose could that possibly serve here except as an attempt to divert the attention away from Fox?
Anyway, I'm not trying to fool anyone here. You're just upset because you can't fool me.

Yet another attempt to misrepresent my opinion. What part of asserting, repeatedly, that Fox should be held accountable somehow equates in your eyes to diverting attention away from Fox?

What's your real motivation for continuing this pointless pedantic argument?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

And now you're mischaracterizing your own posts.

I accept your surrender.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, stunning. There are websites dedicated to tracking how partisan every major news outlet is and here you are with your fingers in your ears going NUH UH! NUH UH!

There's also a great deal of peer-reviewed academic research discussing all sorts of bias from explicit bias to gatekeeping bias, and all sorts of other things! If you're interested we can discuss those as media bias is something I've spent a lot of time reading about. If you want to discuss your website we can do that too.

What I notice you're not doing is actually defending your point, you're just name calling and preening as I previously described. You aren't going to make me mad by talking shit to me so if that's your goal you're wasting your time. I do find your preening kind of funny though so if your goal is to not discuss this but just have me make fun of you we can switch to that. I'd rather talk about your actual idea and the empirical support for it though so your call.

 

[pcgeek11]

This isn't difficult to follow. I don't see what your objection is unless you're trying to play some pointless pedantic argument.

Would you like to clarify your question?

That is exactly what They are doing....

Don't play their dishonest game.

 

[Vic]

I accept your surrender.

Yes, you have successfully argued that the only way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying in such a way that endangers public health and safety is by stripping all news organizations of their 1a rights to journalistic opinion...

 

[fskimospy]

That is exactly what They are doing....

Don't play their dishonest game.

He should just tell him his position is A SECRET.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

There's also a great deal of peer-reviewed academic research discussing all sorts of bias from explicit bias to gatekeeping bias, and all sorts of other things! If you're interested we can discuss those as media bias is something I've spent a lot of time reading about. If you want to discuss your website we can do that too.

What I notice you're not doing is actually defending your point, you're just name calling and preening as I previously described. You aren't going to make me mad by talking shit to me so if that's your goal you're wasting your time. I do find your preening kind of funny though so if your goal is to not discuss this but just have me make fun of you we can switch to that. I'd rather talk about your actual idea and the empirical support for it though so your call.

Right, my goal is not to talk about this, which is why I continue to click the reply button to defend my position against people like you who continue to twist the point I make, argue points I didn't make, etc etc. 🙂

So which is it? Is there no left/right bias in the media like you claimed earlier? Or is there a great deal of peer-reviewed academic research discussing all sorts of bias?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Yes, you have successfully argued that the only way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying in such a way that endangers public health and safety is by stripping all news organizations of their 1a rights to journalistic opinion...

I've not argued for or against any way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying beyond asserting that they and everyone else should be held to the spirit of the law.

 

[Vic]

That is exactly what They are doing....

Don't play their dishonest game.

The dishonest game of pointing out that your partisan "2 wrongs make a right" arguments are immoral? Or the dishonest game of exposing that the argument that the only way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying in a such a way that it endangers public safety is by taking away the 1a rights from all news agencies is childish and disingenuous?

No. What I am doing here is pointing that obvious partisan arguments are obviously partisan. There's nothing dishonest about that.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

The dishonest game of pointing out that your partisan "2 wrongs make a right" arguments are immoral? Or the dishonest game of exposing that the argument that the only way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying in a such a way that it endangers public safety is by taking away the 1a rights from all news agencies is childish and disingenuous?

No. What I am doing here is pointing that obvious partisan arguments are obviously partisan. There's nothing dishonest about that.

Please quote where I've made any sort of argument that 2 wrongs make a right.

I'll wait.

Expecting everyone to be treated equally under the law is not partisan. Ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, my goal is not to talk about this, which is why I continue to click the reply button to defend my position against people like you who continue to twist the point I make, argue points I didn't make, etc etc. 🙂

I think your goal here is to have an argument, insult people, and make yourself feel smart and enlightened. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that you're actually interested in discussion.

So which is it? Is there no left/right bias in the media like you claimed earlier? Or is there a great deal of peer-reviewed academic research discussing all sorts of bias?

I don't think you understood what I wrote - the research examines whether or not bias exists and if it does how much. There is a large quantity of this research. Generally speaking it shows little left/right ideological bias among mainstream news sources. Does that make sense?

 

[pcgeek11]

He should just tell him his position is A SECRET.

No just laughing at your BS post and basically saying " My opinion is X and anything else is false. It's a joke when you say you want to discuss it when all you want is to hammer someone into submission.

 

[Vic]

I've not argued for or against any way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying beyond asserting that they and everyone else should be held to the spirit of the law.

Why is "everyone else" relevant in a discussion about Fox news except as a red herring. Why is it required that in order to hold Fox news accountable for lying that other news organizations have to give up their 1a rights to journalistic opinion? How is that enforcing the spirit of the law?

 

[Vic]

No just laughing at your BS post and basically saying " My opinion is X and anything else is false. It's a joke when you say you want to discuss it when all you want is to hammer someone into submission.

Ah poor baby..

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

I think your goal here is to have an argument, insult people, and make yourself feel smart and enlightened. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that you're actually interested in discussion.

I've been doing basically nothing but defending my position from repeated misrepresentations

I don't think you understood what I wrote - the research examines whether or not bias exists and if it does how much. There is a large quantity of this research. Generally speaking it shows little left/right ideological bias among mainstream news sources. Does that make sense?

I'd love to read your mountains of evidence that argues that most of the mainstream media does not have a conservative or liberal bias.

Got any links I can read online?

 

[fskimospy]

No just laughing at your BS post and basically saying " My opinion is X and anything else is false. It's a joke when you say you want to discuss it when all you want is to hammer someone into submission.

This is the sort of babyish pouting that you always do.

Because you're both incapable of defending your positions and unwilling to change your mind you view people pointing that out as some sort of misbehavior on their part.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Why is "everyone else" relevant in a discussion about Fox news except as a red herring. Why is it required that in order to hold Fox news accountable for lying that other news organizations have to give up their 1a rights to journalistic opinion? How is that enforcing the spirit of the law?

It's relevant because this is a discussion board, where the free exchange of ideas is the entire purpose of the board. I acknowledge that you disagree. It's okay to disagree, Vic.

Yet another intentionally intellectually dishonest assertion from you, that I claimed that in order to hold Fox accountable, someone else must give up their 1a rights to journalistic opinion.

At least you're consistent.

 

[pcgeek11]

The dishonest game of pointing out that your partisan "2 wrongs make a right" arguments are immoral? Or the dishonest game of exposing that the argument that the only way to stop Fox news from intentionally lying in a such a way that it endangers public safety is by taking away the 1a rights from all news agencies is childish and disingenuous?

No. What I am doing here is pointing that obvious partisan arguments are obviously partisan. There's nothing dishonest about that.

Where did I say to take away first amendment rights of anyone?

Point it out and be specific.

The disclaimer as suggested should be applied to all opinion shows regardless of what channel or organization they are affiliated with.

 

[Vic]

Please quote where I've made any sort of argument that 2 wrongs make a right.

I'll wait.

Expecting everyone to be treated equally under the law is not partisan. Ridiculous.

Except for the part where you argued that the only way to treat news media equally under the law was to deny all of them their right to journalistic opinion.
So we can't hold Fox accountable for its propaganda, even when it jeopardizes public safety, until all journalistic opinions that conflict with yours have been silenced. This is what you are portraying as equal treatment.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Because you're both incapable of defending your positions and unwilling to change your mind you view people pointing that out as some sort of misbehavior on their part.

Just because you post a reply doesn't mean everyone automatically agrees with you. It's possible to disagree.

I have yet to see any new evidence against which I can add to the existing pool of evidence to re-evaluate the conclusion.

Would you like to add some? I've asked for links to the stuff you read regarding some magical lack of partisan bias in the media. Would love to read those.

 

[pcgeek11]

This is the sort of babyish pouting that you always do.

Because you're both incapable of defending your positions and unwilling to change your mind you view people pointing that out as some sort of misbehavior on their part.

Right, like the only media bias is Fox...