So apparently - folks at Fox News were not being honest with their viewers
- Thread starter PorterhouseMusic
- Start date
famous beagle
Well-known member
Also, full disclosure, I didn't know much at all about the Biden laptop scandal. It's not a right vs left thing; I don't follow most scandals on either side. (I don't know much about the Russian-Trump collusion thing either, for example, except that there were plenty of arrests/convictions, but no evidence of collusion was found.)
Anyway, out of curiosity, I just read a summary of the laptop scandal on Wiki. This sentence seems to sum up what I gleaned:
In April 2022, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post wrote:
"The investigation adds new details and confirms old ones about the ways in which Joe Biden's family has profited from trading overseas on his name — something for which the president deserves criticism for tacitly condoning. What it does not do, despite some conservatives' insistence otherwise, is prove that President Biden acted corruptly."
Is there other, more damning information coming from sources other than Rudy dildo-shop-a-lani or the New York Post that you know of?
Both NPR and BBC are government funded ( to whatever degree) which makes them untrustworthy in my eyes and shills for the government’s agenda.
The corporate owned networks are beholden to their advertisers, shareholders, and to some degree the government as well. They’re untrustworthy
I cant really honestly say which are worst.
It’s kind of like a city of leper’s and you’re trying to find the leper who has the most fingers.
The corporate owned networks are beholden to their advertisers, shareholders, and to some degree the government as well. They’re untrustworthy
I cant really honestly say which are worst.
It’s kind of like a city of leper’s and you’re trying to find the leper who has the most fingers.
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
I believe that NPR, BBC, CBC, CNN, etc., have at least the same level of dis-integrity.
Hey, anybody out there heard of the Trudeau Foundation being funded by China?
Mick Doobie
Maderator
What was the one thing you would have me agree on? You said a lot there in your post. Was there nothing we could agree on in my post? Maybe we could agree on one thing? Agreement is or should not be a prerequisite for involvement in a discussion, should it? Personally I'm not a fan of we could all get along famously if you would just agree with me.
But you knew about Trump trading cards? Which trusted news source informed you of that, and do you think it more relevant news to the state of the nation to report on Trump silly trading cards, or the possibility for Biden to be involved in his crackhead son's international business dealings? Dealings it should be mentioned the crackhead son has no resume to justify the huge sums of money being received, and disbursed, "10% for the big guy". Compensated, for what?
No need for there to be an argument, no need for anyone to get there ass on their shoulders, and we don't have to agree. It's simply discussion.
This is my opinion and mine alone......
You ever as a kid go fishing?
You need some bait. There’s no bait or tackle shop nearby, nor do you have the money to buy some worms or grubs.
So you go into the garage and get an old window screen (the metal kind).
You get a shovel and start digging some dirt.
You sift the dirt through the window screen and collect up a bunch of earthworms, put them into a container and off to the fishing hole you go.
What’s the point you may ask??
You have to sift through a lot of dirt (media) to find some worms (truth)
It takes some work, it takes some time, but you can find truth if you’re willing to sift through a lot of dirt.
So many people don’t do that. They rely on their ‘favorite’ news outlet, They rely on sound bytes, headlines, and many don’t even read. And if they do, they won’t get past the first few paragraphs.
It’s easy to deceive people through the art of wordsmithing, censorship, withholding data, twisting things, etc.
I recently saw a short clip on CNN where Jake Tapper reported on Robert F Kennedy JR’s running for office. In the first words out of his mouth he referred to RFK as an Anti-Vaxxer, conspiracy theorist.
Boom! like a shotgun blast, that kills it.
There are so many people that will now instantly be turned off to RFKjr as a potential viable candidate.
Yet his platform is on many levels quite sound. I’m not in 100% agreement with him but he brings up a lot of good issues.
The immediate slurs on him are media manipulation. Fully designed to turn the viewer against him and hopefully block him from office.
That IS 100% Media Election Interference!
The media is here not to inform and educate but to shape and manipulate people’s thinking..... propaganda!
Again..... my disclaimer.
These are just my opinions, don’t get your dick all tied up in a knot.
You ever as a kid go fishing?
You need some bait. There’s no bait or tackle shop nearby, nor do you have the money to buy some worms or grubs.
So you go into the garage and get an old window screen (the metal kind).
You get a shovel and start digging some dirt.
You sift the dirt through the window screen and collect up a bunch of earthworms, put them into a container and off to the fishing hole you go.
What’s the point you may ask??
You have to sift through a lot of dirt (media) to find some worms (truth)
It takes some work, it takes some time, but you can find truth if you’re willing to sift through a lot of dirt.
So many people don’t do that. They rely on their ‘favorite’ news outlet, They rely on sound bytes, headlines, and many don’t even read. And if they do, they won’t get past the first few paragraphs.
It’s easy to deceive people through the art of wordsmithing, censorship, withholding data, twisting things, etc.
I recently saw a short clip on CNN where Jake Tapper reported on Robert F Kennedy JR’s running for office. In the first words out of his mouth he referred to RFK as an Anti-Vaxxer, conspiracy theorist.
Boom! like a shotgun blast, that kills it.
There are so many people that will now instantly be turned off to RFKjr as a potential viable candidate.
Yet his platform is on many levels quite sound. I’m not in 100% agreement with him but he brings up a lot of good issues.
The immediate slurs on him are media manipulation. Fully designed to turn the viewer against him and hopefully block him from office.
That IS 100% Media Election Interference!
The media is here not to inform and educate but to shape and manipulate people’s thinking..... propaganda!
Again..... my disclaimer.
These are just my opinions, don’t get your dick all tied up in a knot.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I thought it was pretty clear in my post what I was asking if we could agree on, especially with this summary at the end:
"Anyway, I hope we can at least agree that there are different levels of biased. Can we?"
I guess it wasn't clear. But that (sentence above) was what I was talking about.
I saw the Trump trading cards on YT - not on a news channel. The Biden laptop thing was newsworthy, if the allegations were true. It's not clear to me that they are. (Forgive me for not taking Guiliani's word on anything.) As I mentioned above, I didn't know much about it at all until today. After reading the summary, it sure seems that Biden acted shadily and should be called out for it. And if he broke the law, he should be charged with a crime. It's not clear to me that he did at this point.
You asked if I could agree on anything in your response. Let me look:
"Personally, I think I'd rather have bias on full display rather than bias disguised as neutrality. It is deceitful, particularly for the gullible low information listener, and/or those who say I'm going to tune out all those other liars and only listen to NPR. In short, NPR is more dangerous."
I disagree with just about all of this.
""We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions", NPR."
I looked up this quote, and it seems to be a valid quote. So I'll agree that NPR said this. In hindsight, it seems it was a rash decision and the story did have some some legitimacy to it (though, not to the extent that Rudy claimed, of course).
"The above in reference to the Hunter Biden laptop story/"information" during the 2020 election. A story now verified as factual, a "real story" deserving of coverage. I can't say for sure, did they report on the Trump trading cards? My guess, yes."
I don't know if NPR reported on the NFT cards. As I said, I only saw mention of it on YouTube; I didn't see/hear about it on any news outlets.
"Call it bull hockey if you want, NPR was in cahoots with the deep state to squash the laptop story, to skew the election. To top it all off, they're (partially) funded by the government. Before anyone poo poos the govt funding, minimizes it, they only get 15% of their funding from the government, take a look at their website. Mission statement or whatever, they say government funding is vital to serving public need."
I do call bull hockey about NPR being "in cahoots with the deep state" to skew the election. What seems more likely to me is that, after the steady stream of horsecrap claims from Trump and his team over the past several years, it was assumed that the laptop story was more of the same. Of course, after they realized their mistake, they did own up to it at least:
NPR issues major correction after falsely claiming Hunter Biden laptop story was 'discredited' by intelligence
NPR issued a correction on Thursday after falsely reporting Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop was "discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations."
www.foxnews.com
"To top it all off, they're (partially) funded by the government. Before anyone poo poos the govt funding, minimizes it, they only get 15% of their funding from the government, take a look at their website. Mission statement or whatever, they say government funding is vital to serving public need."
I'm not sure how this is a damning claim. Lots of things are partially (or fully) funded by the government, including the military and the police (which republicans normally fully support). "Funded by the government" is a pretty broad statement. Why does this make something more or less legitimate? Those same things are funded by both sides of the government, aren't they (barring programs that are slashed or cut)? Since NPR has been around for a long time, that means it's been funded by Republican administrations as well as democrat ones. Did I miss the memo? Does the whole government lean left or something?
"As far as they don't exhibit bias, only their guests bad mouth Trump, how convenient. Minions. The left loves them some minions. minions burn city blocks to the ground, set fire to DC, show up at the doorstep of sitting supreme court justices in violation of federal law? "Hey, the people have a right to mostly peaceful protest. We offer our support. Stuff happens, you know, people just want to be heard."
To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If you're implying that only liberals violently protest, then I don't even know what to say to that. If you're saying something else, then I'm missing your point.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I can agree to pretty much all of this. Lots of people will be turned off of Kennedy once they hear that.This is my opinion and mine alone......
You ever as a kid go fishing?
You need some bait. There’s no bait or tackle shop nearby, nor do you have the money to buy some worms or grubs.
So you go into the garage and get an old window screen (the metal kind).
You get a shovel and start digging some dirt.
You sift the dirt through the window screen and collect up a bunch of earthworms, put them into a container and off to the fishing hole you go.
What’s the point you may ask??
You have to sift through a lot of dirt (media) to find some worms (truth)
It takes some work, it takes some time, but you can find truth if you’re willing to sift through a lot of dirt.
So many people don’t do that. They rely on their ‘favorite’ news outlet, They rely on sound bytes, headlines, and many don’t even read. And if they do, they won’t get past the first few paragraphs.
It’s easy to deceive people through the art of wordsmithing, censorship, withholding data, twisting things, etc.
I recently saw a short clip on CNN where Jake Tapper reported on Robert F Kennedy JR’s running for office. In the first words out of his mouth he referred to RFK as an Anti-Vaxxer, conspiracy theorist.
Boom! like a shotgun blast, that kills it.
There are so many people that will now instantly be turned off to RFKjr as a potential viable candidate.
Yet his platform is on many levels quite sound. I’m not in 100% agreement with him but he brings up a lot of good issues.
The immediate slurs on him are media manipulation. Fully designed to turn the viewer against him and hopefully block him from office.
That IS 100% Media Election Interference!
The media is here not to inform and educate but to shape and manipulate people’s thinking..... propaganda!
Again..... my disclaimer.
These are just my opinions, don’t get your dick all tied up in a knot.
However .... it is true, at least, right? He has made his stance on that very clear.
What Fox did (and what Trump and his minions continue to do) is intentionally spread lies that they knew were lies, simply to please their viewers. We're not talking about avoiding stories here (which, of course, Fox does as well, as do many others) or only reporting one side of a story, etc. These were bald-faced lies, and they knew it!
I have to believe (in order to maintain a shred of sanity) that not all news outlets would do the same. And if they do - whether it's NPR, CNN, MSN, whatever - they deserve to be called out and held legally accountable for their actions.
The one thing that would give me the slightest bit of respect for Fox would be if they issued a formal apology for their behavior. Of course, I'm not holding my breath for that.
PorterhouseMusic
Mitakuye Oyasin
National Public Radio (NPR) - InfluenceWatch
National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its...
www.influencewatch.org
famous beagle
Well-known member
Thanks for the info.National Public Radio (NPR) - InfluenceWatch
National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its...
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
National Public Radio (NPR) - InfluenceWatch
National Public Radio (NPR) is a national nonprofit media outlet created and funded by the federal government. Though the organization claims to strive for objectivity, many media watchdogs consider NPR to have a left-of-center bias. NPR’s funding has been a point of controversy since its...
NPR (National Public Radio) - Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
mediabiasfactcheck.com
PorterhouseMusic
Mitakuye Oyasin
NPR (National Public Radio) - Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
NPR (Online News) Media Bias Rating
Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of NPR (Online News). AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.
www.allsides.com
Serendipity Records
Well-known member
Just wondering..."Call it bull hockey if you want, NPR was in cahoots with the deep state to squash the laptop story, to skew the election. To top it all off, they're (partially) funded by the government. Before anyone poo poos the govt funding, minimizes it, they only get 15% of their funding from the government, take a look at their website. Mission statement or whatever, they say government funding is vital to serving public need."
I do call bull hockey about NPR being "in cahoots with the deep state" to skew the election. What seems more likely to me is that, after the steady stream of horsecrap claims from Trump and his team over the past several years, it was assumed that the laptop story was more of the same. Of course, after they realized their mistake, they did own up to it at least:
NPR issues major correction after falsely claiming Hunter Biden laptop story was 'discredited' by intelligence
NPR issued a correction on Thursday after falsely reporting Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop was "discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations."
Can you share the link from NPR's own "major correction", or is Fox the only outlet to report on said correction?
famous beagle
Well-known member
I can't find the specific statement from NPR, but it's certainly not only Fox that mentions it. If you search "NPR Biden laptop correction," you'll see tons of results.
famous beagle
Well-known member
Oh! Well, there you go. Thanks! Your Googling skills are obviously better than mine.
But you’ve written cool books ( I have one)Oh! Well, there you go. Thanks! Your Googling skills are obviously better than mine.
Not to mention good tunes
famous beagle
Well-known member
One’s worth as a human being far exceeds political leanings.Ha! Thank you kindly, good sir.