Fox News website disabling comments for all stories?

[MisterBeale]

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.

I know, it is a propaganda outlet.

 

[iceberg]

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.

article comments are a strange animal. you're not an "organized" forum as you're simply commenting, or should be, on the article in question. but like most online conversational places, it degrades quickly to someone saying something positive or negative in relation to how someone else feels, so stereotypes are slapped down, mass additional assumptions are made and suddenly the comment quickly degrade to just another place to tell the other side they're idiots.

i can see why many sites turn them off. simply not worth the headaches.

 

[Erinwltr]

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.

Not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that any news organization that shuts down the comments section is automatically untrustworthy. There would be any number of reasons that they would close the comments section. Lack of manpower to monitor comments. Lack of funding, bandwidth, interest. Troll farms and incessant negative comments. Heck just look here on USMB and the daily barrage of snarky, partisan comments. I can only imagine what it was like on Fox news.

 

[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.

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?

Here's the thing: 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes into 3 buildings on 9/11. Any other analysis of the events of that day are pure garbage as is the website that hosts them.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Fox news has been compromised. Control of the company has fallen into the far left hands of Murdoch's lefty sons, so start finding alternative news sources. The lefty Murdoch sons hired the commie Paul Ryan to be on their board, so the company is out of control. It is not surprising to see that Jeanine Pirro was censored, or that Donna Braz was hired, or to see censorship like what you describe in your opening post.

 

[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.

Not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that any news organization that shuts down the comments section is automatically untrustworthy. There would be any number of reasons that they would close the comments section. Lack of manpower to monitor comments. Lack of funding, bandwidth, interest. Troll farms and incessant negative comments. Heck just look here on USMB and the daily barrage of snarky, partisan comments. I can only imagine what it was like on Fox news.

That's a fair point, but it is one consideration among many.

I also take into consideration their ownership and their membership in The Council on Foreign Relations. Any media that is a corporate partner is part of the fascist paradigm that works hand in glove with our politicians on both side of the aisle to influence the way folks in the nation think. It is why folks largely don't have any ideas of their own, (look at Candy,) and why third parties never get a footing, why there will never be any issues but what the corporate media tell people are going to be the issues.

If people don't have a voice, the fascist media will tell them what to think.
http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media

https://cfrmedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/cfr-media-hd.png



Interlocking directorate - Wikipedia
Regulatory capture - Wikipedia
Revolving door (politics) - Wikipedia

 

[Disir]

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.

Fox news is being spun off into a new company. So, I expect a whole lot of things to change and I think that's why Donna Brazile was agreeable anyway.

NPR did that shit awhile ago and that's when I was totally finished with them.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

Here's the thing: 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes into 3 buildings on 9/11. Any other analysis of the events of that day are pure garbage as is the website that hosts them.

Because THAT is what you were told, even though there is no proof of that based on any evidence at all. It is just based on FAITH.

Anyone that says otherwise is crazy, any one associated with another explanation based on evidence is garbage. Got it.

 

[DOTR]

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.

This was the very first part of the crackdown I noticed after Trump won. All across the internet comments on stories were disabled. As they wrote their 533,000 articles claiming Trump was illegitimate they had to disable articles. They got a taste for it.
They are determined that they will never lose an election again by losing control of the narrative.

 

[Erinwltr]

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.

Not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that any news organization that shuts down the comments section is automatically untrustworthy. There would be any number of reasons that they would close the comments section. Lack of manpower to monitor comments. Lack of funding, bandwidth, interest. Troll farms and incessant negative comments. Heck just look here on USMB and the daily barrage of snarky, partisan comments. I can only imagine what it was like on Fox news.

That's a fair point, but it is one consideration among many.

I also take into consideration their ownership and their membership in The Council on Foreign Relations. Any media that is a corporate partner is part of the fascist paradigm that works hand in glove with our politicians on both side of the aisle to influence the way folks in the nation think. It is why folks largely don't have any ideas of their own, (look at Candy,) and why third parties never get a footing, why there will never be any issues but what the corporate media tell people are going to be the issues.

If people don't have a voice, the fascist media will tell them what to think.
http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ruling Class Journalists.pdf
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media

https://cfrmedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/cfr-media-hd.png



Interlocking directorate - Wikipedia
Regulatory capture - Wikipedia
Revolving door (politics) - Wikipedia

Interesting, thank you but I'm not buying it. "and why third parties never get a footing, why there will never be any issues but what the corporate media tell people are going to be the issues." A third party, or any other number of parties in this country is due largely to funding folks exerting their right of association. And to say never, that there are only corporations dictating the issues just isn't true. I see in my own home town, and from travel, communities driving the issues daily.

 

[Fang]

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 see the comments. But I do believe they reserve the right to disable comments on some articles as they should.

 

[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.

Fox news has been compromised. Control of the company has fallen into the far left hands of Murdoch's lefty sons, so start finding alternative news sources. The lefty Murdoch sons hired the commie Paul Ryan to be on their board, so the company is out of control. It is not surprising to see that Jeanine Pirro was censored, or that Donna Braz was hired, or to see censorship like what you describe in your opening post.

"Contrary to what some think, James is no flaming liberal.”The Hidden Succession News in Rupert Murdoch’s Sale of Fox Entertainment to Disney

 

[bodecea]

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.

It seems that FOX has had to do that on several occasions based on their followers embarrassing them by showing EXACTLY what they are like with their comments.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And how long did they laugh?

 

[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.

article comments are a strange animal. you're not an "organized" forum as you're simply commenting, or should be, on the article in question. but like most online conversational places, it degrades quickly to someone saying something positive or negative in relation to how someone else feels, so stereotypes are slapped down, mass additional assumptions are made and suddenly the comment quickly degrade to just another place to tell the other side they're idiots.

i can see why many sites turn them off. simply not worth the headaches.

I'm just old school. Newspapers invite and print op eds, but they screen them and choose the ones to publish. If I want to chat and comment on the articles of the day, I'll come here. That is not a news site's job.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

The Left has troll farms that spam Fox News with negative comments. Some of the same people working for them post here. I'll let you use your imagination who the Libtards are.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

Fox news has been compromised. Control of the company has fallen into the far left hands of Murdoch's lefty sons, so start finding alternative news sources. The lefty Murdoch sons hired the commie Paul Ryan to be on their board, so the company is out of control. It is not surprising to see that Jeanine Pirro was censored, or that Donna Braz was hired, or to see censorship like what you describe in your opening post.

"Contrary to what some think, James is no flaming liberal.”The Hidden Succession News in Rupert Murdoch’s Sale of Fox Entertainment to Disney

Both Murdoch sons are as commie as Paul Ryan. Fox is now a lefty run company.

 

[Crixus]

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?

Lol.

 

[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.

Fox news has been compromised. Control of the company has fallen into the far left hands of Murdoch's lefty sons, so start finding alternative news sources. The lefty Murdoch sons hired the commie Paul Ryan to be on their board, so the company is out of control. It is not surprising to see that Jeanine Pirro was censored, or that Donna Braz was hired, or to see censorship like what you describe in your opening post.

"Contrary to what some think, James is no flaming liberal.”The Hidden Succession News in Rupert Murdoch’s Sale of Fox Entertainment to Disney

Both Murdoch sons are as commie as Paul Ryan. Fox is now a lefty run company.

That you Hannity?

 

[blackhawk]

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 just checked the site I could see them maybe your not scrolling down far enough.