Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Fox News Suit

Recommended Posts

On 6/12/2021 at 6:26 PM, FresnoFacts said:

He is probably referring to a 10 year old book written by Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.

The book was based on a research paper that Groseclose first presented in 2003.

Since the book is over 10 years old (using older research) I would prefer to see him do a new bias study. How far right is Fox News now compared to how far left CNN now falls.

OAN and Newsmax, and other media sources on the right didn't even exist in 2011. Breitbart had only been around 3 or 4 years and wasn't very noticed in 2011. How would those score now on the right compared to MSNBC or the NY Times on the left.

Our political behaviors, social behaviors, and polarization have changed dramatically in 10 years. So has the media.

Groseclose left UCLA and is now at George Mason. But he still milks his 10 year old media bias book without, as far as I know, updating the research.

He's supposed to be coming out with a much updated version very soon, and I can't wait. His system is very interesting. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, WAC_FAN said:

They do have a right to cover it, but it really depends on how they covered it.  In any case, reporting outlets get sued (and lose) all the time for defamation/bad practices etc.  This is why we have laws.

(I feel the same way about CNN and other people holding them accountable)

I don't think CNN has pivoted left as Fox has pivoted right in the past 10 years (and then now we have other outlets that are even further right, but I digress that's a different topic altogether)

The last I saw--where they did random fact checking of all the major news outlets--I believe all the news outlets scored in the 90's.  Most of what they report is true--the bias comes from 1. What they choose to report and 2. How they slant the story when they report it.

 

Yeah I agree which is what makes this case interesting.   In this instance it was a lie.  Fox knew it was a lie and the pushed it anyway.   It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

He's supposed to be coming out with a much updated version very soon, and I can't wait. His system is very interesting. 

Groseclose's method had a number of criticisms starting with the original 2003 paper and continuing with the book publication.

Here are links to a couple:

http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/leftturn/groseclose-wp.pdf

https://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

If he is coming out with an updated version we will see if he addresses the criticisms and reworks his method. The period of time he researches will also make a difference, the bias on both sides increased the last few years.

Groseclose also admits that he is a conservative, not a centrist. His own beliefs and bias could also skew his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 9:42 AM, sactowndog said:

So what responsibility does a news organization have to broadcast the truth versus cover the news.....

Fox isn’t arguing the Big Lie was true.   They are arguing they have a right to cover it.   Interesting case in journalistic ethics and the rights of a free press.  
 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-10/fox-wants-blank-check-to-broadcast-lies-dominion-tells-judge

Can a news organization spread fascist propaganda with no consequences? 

There will be consequences for Fox news on the same day there will be consequences to CNN for lying about Russia/Trump Collusion for three years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

There will be consequences for Fox news on the same day there will be consequences to CNN for lying about Russia/Trump Collusion for three years. 

Just curious because you are one of the more reasonable right wingers on the board......

yes Mueller found no proof of collusion (though many stonewalled him)

but given what we saw with Ukraine which was clear attempted collusion what makes you so certain that Russian collusion never occurred?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Just curious because you are one of the more reasonable right wingers on the board......

yes Mueller found no proof of collusion (though many stonewalled him)

but given what we saw with Ukraine which was clear attempted collusion what makes you so certain that Russian collusion never occurred?   

That's incorrect. Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge a criminal conspiracy. That's laid out in the report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sactowndog said:

And what you said is different how? 

You stated "no proof", when that isn't accurate. There's lots of "proof", but not enough of it to charge criminally. It's an important distinction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Just curious because you are one of the more reasonable right wingers on the board......

yes Mueller found no proof of collusion (though many stonewalled him)

but given what we saw with Ukraine which was clear attempted collusion what makes you so certain that Russian collusion never occurred?   

I have no doubt Russia tried to interfere with the election , however there has never been any solid proof presented that Trump actively worked together with the Russians regarding the 2016 election. We were told for months on end that the Mueller investigation would sort it all out. Well we waited, and he presented no damning evidence to prove that Trump colluded with the Russians.  The Democrats were not interested in finding Russian Collusion as much as they were interested in keeping the cloud of scandal over President Trump. Whether the allegations were backed by solid evidence is pretty much irrelevant when you have CNN , and MSNBC repeating their bullshit 24/7. 

The Ukraine phone call was just that, a routine phone call. Trump was not the first president to use foreign aid to exert political pressure on a foreign government, and he won't be the last. The Democrats were just desperate for a scandal, any scandal they could find after their Russia Collusion narrative came crashing to the ground. 

Gotta hand it to @retrofade though, he just keeps believin!! I don't blame him though, he has a lot of time invested here building up the collusion delusion.  He is just Like @Bob in a lot of regards, The narrative that he wants to believe is much more important than the narrative that the evidence says you should believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I have no doubt Russia tried to interfere with the election , however there has never been any solid proof presented that Trump actively worked together with the Russians regarding the 2016 election. We were told for months on end that the Mueller investigation would sort it all out. Well we waited, and he presented no damning evidence to prove that Trump colluded with the Russians.  The Democrats were not interested in finding Russian Collusion as much as they were interested in keeping the cloud of scandal over President Trump. Whether the allegations were backed by solid evidence is pretty much irrelevant when you have CNN , and MSNBC repeating their bullshit 24/7. 

The Ukraine phone call was just that, a routine phone call. Trump was not the first president to use foreign aid to exert political pressure on a foreign government, and he won't be the last. The Democrats were just desperate for a scandal, any scandal they could find after their Russia Collusion narrative came crashing to the ground. 

Gotta hand it to @retrofade though, he just keeps believin!! I don't blame him though, he has a lot of time invested here building up the collusion delusion.  He is just Like @Bob in a lot of regards, The narrative that he wants to believe is much more important than the narrative that the evidence says you should believe. 

I'm just stating facts. They're documented and verifiable. I can't help it if you can't handle the truth, dipshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

There you go! Keep on believing !!!!

I mean, it's not hard to "believe' when there are facts that bear it out. Hell, some of them were even released this year. 

Hint: go look into Konstantin Kilimnik

Your childish sarcasm and mock praise is beyond pathetic though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, he believes that Trump was a good President. That should say everything. 

You fool! Yes I supported Trump and still agreed with many of the things he did. I have publicly stated here in this forum that Trump was a disaster of a president after the way he handled Covid, and especially after the way he handle his election defeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, retrofade said:

You stated "no proof", when that isn't accurate. There's lots of "proof", but not enough of it to charge criminally. It's an important distinction. 

Okay fair point.  Not sure if I would qualify it with lots but I get your point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

You fool! Yes I supported Trump and still agreed with many of the things he did. I have publicly stated here in this forum that Trump was a disaster of a president after the way he handled Covid, and especially after the way he handle his election defeat. 

Trying to make a correlation between Trump and Russia and Fox/OAN and damage to a private business is not logical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...