Fox News website disabling comments for all stories?

[shockedcanadian]

Anyone else unable to see comments section there? I cannot for any articles. Coincides with the hiring of Donna Brazile.

I recall they have had to disable comments for some stories that become excessively negative. Appears they have changed their policy permanently.

 

[strollingbones]

upset you cant call her a ****** **** in comments

 

[MisterBeale]

When ever a news organization disables comments, it means they are no longer trust worthy at all.

 

[The Breeze]

upset you cant call her a ****** **** in comments

Always classy.

 

[shockedcanadian]

upset you cant call her a ****** **** in comments

I wouldn't call her names, I question her agenda. This wasn't a critique of her in particular in regards to an article, it was a general observation that the comments have gone away, as she is hired.

I noticed people were always raising her hiring in comments of other stories, even unrelated. It's clear they have a credibility issue with their audience, which is dangerous as they have a loyalty other networks envy.

 

[candycorn]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

 

[shockedcanadian]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

Not all comments are of little value, some type serious comments and provide insight. Furthermore, it's important to have free discussion, not just one sided articles as one might get in a newspaper.

Why would ANY media network minimize the ease and functionality of the internet? Interaction is a huge element of this invention.

 

[candycorn]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

Not all comments are of little value, some type serious comments and provide insight. Furthermore, it's important to have free discussion, not just one sided articles as one might get in a newspaper.

Why would ANY media network minimize the ease and functionality of the internet? Interaction is a huge element of this invention.

Decent point.

I take the view, however, that if you log on to XYZnews.com or whatever, you do so for the reporting that you enjoy/admire/trust or whatever you want to call it. Finding valuable commentary from Bill in Grand Rapids is pretty much finding a needle in the haystack.

Different strokes for different folks....

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

That is generally the ONLY reason I look into something.

When I view a video on something, I look at the comments first.

Have you ever been to a news studio to SEE how news is made?

Have you ever been to a college or university to learn how investigative journalism is done, edited and published? The best check on this process is grass roots people confirming the authenticty of any story.

Otherwise? It is JUST PROPAGANDA.

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/chomskyhermanpropmodel.pdf

 

[Erinwltr]

When ever a news organization disables comments, it means they are no longer trust worthy at all.

Why?

 

[candycorn]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

That is generally the ONLY reason I look into something.

When I view a video on something, I look at the comments first.

Have you ever been to a news studio to SEE how news is made?

Have you ever been to a college or university to learn how investigative journalism is done, edited and published? The best check on this process is grass roots people confirming the authenticty of any story.

Otherwise? It is JUST PROPAGANDA.

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/chomskyhermanpropmodel.pdf

ok....

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

Not all comments are of little value, some type serious comments and provide insight. Furthermore, it's important to have free discussion, not just one sided articles as one might get in a newspaper.

Why would ANY media network minimize the ease and functionality of the internet? Interaction is a huge element of this invention.

Decent point.

I take the view, however, that if you log on to XYZnews.com or whatever, you do so for the reporting that you enjoy/admire/trust or whatever you want to call it. Finding valuable commentary from Bill in Grand Rapids is pretty much finding a needle in the haystack.

Different strokes for different folks....

One news site that KNOWS what I say about comments on News is the truth. The Guardian still allows comments, but CENSORS it's comments heavily.

In response, some of the journalists of that source, and it's body of main commenters rebelled, setting up an alternative news source that is now considered more reliable and a check on a once trusted news source. It still tends to be liberal, yet it has some conservative content. IT got it right on the Russia collusion narrative. WHY? Because of grass roots commenting. DUH.

Thus, OffGuardian regularly posts which comments were censored and writes stories that the Guardian got wrong.

Read it's about page.

about

 

[Erinwltr]

Anyone else unable to see comments section there? I cannot for any articles. Coincides with the hiring of Donna Brazile.

I recall they have had to disable comments for some stories that become excessively negative. Appears they have changed their policy permanently.

Interesting. I honestly have been to Fox News maybe a half dozen times and didn't even know they have comment sections. A few years back, CNN stopped their comment sections and left the political section open. Then that stopped as well. What I did notice leading up to this was a deluge of negative, nasty name calling instead of discussion, give and take. Much like here on USMB.

 

[iceberg]

Anyone else unable to see comments section there? I cannot for any articles. Coincides with the hiring of Donna Brazile.

I recall they have had to disable comments for some stories that become excessively negative. Appears they have changed their policy permanently.

sites are hit and miss on it. some love it cause - interaction. get a few people bitching at each other and your page views skyrocket. make money. some won't do it cause the constant bitching is a turn off to their intended goal, giving the news. not to say this is what FOX is doing but my guess is they simply don't want the overhead of managing a bunch of internet tough guys on social wars.

 

[iceberg]

Anyone else unable to see comments section there? I cannot for any articles. Coincides with the hiring of Donna Brazile.

I recall they have had to disable comments for some stories that become excessively negative. Appears they have changed their policy permanently.

Interesting. I honestly have been to Fox News maybe a half dozen times and didn't even know they have comment sections. A few years back, CNN stopped their comment sections and left the political section open. Then that stopped as well. What I did notice leading up to this was a deluge of negative, nasty name calling instead of discussion, give and take. Much like here on USMB.

i ignore most of those who do nothing BUT call people names. we all get frustrated and vent sure. but there are some where every single post is an insult to someone else. i just don't get being that angry or what someone is trying to prove at that point.

i don't really post on articles anymore cause of what you say - instant attack. i gotta admit back in my younger/drinking days i loved that shit. was one of the best at it. while i don't anymore, i do see why people do it cause i did. maybe it's something people can grow out of or i just got bored shining up virtual internet trophies. but i do believe comments on articles are a lot worse than in here quite often.

 

[candycorn]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

Not all comments are of little value, some type serious comments and provide insight. Furthermore, it's important to have free discussion, not just one sided articles as one might get in a newspaper.

Why would ANY media network minimize the ease and functionality of the internet? Interaction is a huge element of this invention.

Decent point.

I take the view, however, that if you log on to XYZnews.com or whatever, you do so for the reporting that you enjoy/admire/trust or whatever you want to call it. Finding valuable commentary from Bill in Grand Rapids is pretty much finding a needle in the haystack.

Different strokes for different folks....

One news site that KNOWS what I say about comments on News is the truth. The Guardian still allows comments, but CENSORS it's comments heavily.

In response, some of the journalists of that source, and it's body of main commenters rebelled, setting up an alternative news source that is now considered more reliable and a check on a once trusted news source. It still tends to be liberal, yet it has some conservative content. IT got it right on the Russia collusion narrative. WHY? Because of grass roots commenting. DUH.

Thus, OffGuardian regularly posts which comments were censored and writes stories that the Guardian got wrong.

Read it's about page.

about

I looked at your link.

David Ray Griffin (griffith) is a featured commentator.

Yup; this boob:



If this is your example of what crowd sourcing produces...it's a pretty shitty example.

 

[MisterBeale]

When ever a news organization disables comments, it means they are no longer trust worthy at all.

Why?

Because they don't want a critique of the journalists facts to be known.

If there are indeed outright false narratives being propagated in a story, they can be put in a comment section.

I can't tell you how many time I have found this in comment sections. Do I take I poster's word over the original journalist? Of course not. BUT, in the age of the internet, a simple Google search is usually all it takes to find out if a journalist is telling you a lie, or trying to make you believe a paradigm shift.

A good example of this was that confrontation between those high school kids and those Native Americans at the Lincoln Memorial. Someone fact-checked that story with the Black Israelite's OWN Video, rather than the video of one of the school kids. BOOM, it blew up in the face of the MSM.

Journalist's HATE being fact checked and being caught with sloppy story telling. They work hard telling their story, I have some journalist friends, I'm telling you, they despise comment sections. OTH, they now papers with out them have no journalistic integrity. And, the fact is, they do it all the time. Sometimes by mistake, but, more often than not, the journalists at the big organizations, they have an agenda.

We KNOW THIS. Their editors and publishers pay them to have a spin to whatever they are doing. They don't like to have their spin revealed.

 

[Jackson]

Anyone else unable to see comments section there? I cannot for any articles. Coincides with the hiring of Donna Brazile.

I recall they have had to disable comments for some stories that become excessively negative. Appears they have changed their policy permanently.

I called the station and told them the next time I see Donna Brazile on their station would be the last time I tuned in.

 

[OldLady]

When ever a news organization disables comments, it means they are no longer trust worthy at all.

Who needs your comments on a news article? Fox isn't a message board.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm always curious about why there would be a need for comments from the peanut gallery. Does anyone log onto a website to read what some pinhead thinks of the story?

Not all comments are of little value, some type serious comments and provide insight. Furthermore, it's important to have free discussion, not just one sided articles as one might get in a newspaper.

Why would ANY media network minimize the ease and functionality of the internet? Interaction is a huge element of this invention.

Decent point.

I take the view, however, that if you log on to XYZnews.com or whatever, you do so for the reporting that you enjoy/admire/trust or whatever you want to call it. Finding valuable commentary from Bill in Grand Rapids is pretty much finding a needle in the haystack.

Different strokes for different folks....

One news site that KNOWS what I say about comments on News is the truth. The Guardian still allows comments, but CENSORS it's comments heavily.

In response, some of the journalists of that source, and it's body of main commenters rebelled, setting up an alternative news source that is now considered more reliable and a check on a once trusted news source. It still tends to be liberal, yet it has some conservative content. IT got it right on the Russia collusion narrative. WHY? Because of grass roots commenting. DUH.

Thus, OffGuardian regularly posts which comments were censored and writes stories that the Guardian got wrong.

Read it's about page.

about

I looked at your link.

David Ray Griffin (griffith) is a featured commentator.

Yup; this boob:



If this is your example of what crowd sourcing produces...it's a pretty shitty example.

You are hopeless. Video seems reasonable to me. Thank you.

That video got 26 likes, two dislikes. DO YOU HAVE A POINT OR A PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH?

Three comments on your video, all in support. I'm not sure what your problem is, other than maybe cognitive dissonance?

Explain to me why his POV is any less reasonable than that of the CFR or the police state's conspiracy theory?

Explain to me why your Ad Hominem is legitimate, or why it is reasonable to de-legitimize an entire source over one person?