The Science Is In, Fox News Is A Security Blanket

[Iceweasel]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If Rupert Murdoch thought feeding paranoia to the left would work better than feeding it to the right, you'd see Fox Noise do a 180 so fast it would make your head spin.

I agree with your assertions EXCEPT for this one, Murdoch isn't concerned about whether it works "better" or not (the left is just as susceptible to confirmation bias "journalism" as the right is IMHO), the whole opportunity was that he saw a large niche that was being under-served (conservative bias) and jumped on it, I applaud his entrepreneurial acumen even though I personally think his product is mostly infotainment garbage and don't choose to partake of it.

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

Sure you do. Look a Trump's success.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

 

[Pogo]

If Rupert Murdoch thought feeding paranoia to the left would work better than feeding it to the right, you'd see Fox Noise do a 180 so fast it would make your head spin.

I agree with your assertions EXCEPT for this one, Murdoch isn't concerned about whether it works "better" or not (the left is just as susceptible to confirmation bias "journalism" as the right is IMHO), the whole opportunity was that he saw a large niche that was being under-served (conservative bias) and jumped on it, I applaud his entrepreneurial acumen even though I personally think his product is mostly infotainment garbage and don't choose to partake of it.

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Ummm..I was just pointing out that the market Murdoch targeted was an unsaturated market (versus the left side of the spectrum which was already saturated) as opposed to implying that the right was more susceptible to this kind of "journalism" than the left is (which is what I assumed you meant by "work better")

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

He's servicing his customers by giving them what they want at a price they're willing to pay, nothing unethical in that, he's not a holding a gun to their heads and making them buy what he has to sell nor is he misrepresenting what he's selling, the people that pay him (his advertisers) know EXACTLY what they're getting for their money.

... and last time I checked Fox News isn't the only channel available on television so the Fox viewers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to avail themselves of Fox News offerings even though there is a mountain of documentation available pointing out that the "journalism" there is highly suspect.

Deceit is ALWAYS unethical. Period. There's no way around that. If you got where you are by dishonest means, then you're a crook, whether in legal terms or in spirit. Your "voluntary watching" canard seems to relentlessly fall back on "well he gets away with it, therefore it's OK".

It ain't. Dishonesty is dishonesty, whether you get away with it or not.

 

[Iceweasel]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

I mistrust ALL media. Every one of them has an ax to grind so I take everything with a grain of salt.

 

[NightFox]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

Uh-Huh, along with all the other examples in this thread of people singling out Fox News to denigrate..... works both ways but that's what you get when you have large swaths of the media that are nothing more than infotainment outlets.

 

[NightFox]

If Rupert Murdoch thought feeding paranoia to the left would work better than feeding it to the right, you'd see Fox Noise do a 180 so fast it would make your head spin.

I agree with your assertions EXCEPT for this one, Murdoch isn't concerned about whether it works "better" or not (the left is just as susceptible to confirmation bias "journalism" as the right is IMHO), the whole opportunity was that he saw a large niche that was being under-served (conservative bias) and jumped on it, I applaud his entrepreneurial acumen even though I personally think his product is mostly infotainment garbage and don't choose to partake of it.

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Ummm..I was just pointing out that the market Murdoch targeted was an unsaturated market (versus the left side of the spectrum which was already saturated) as opposed to implying that the right was more susceptible to this kind of "journalism" than the left is (which is what I assumed you meant by "work better")

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

He's servicing his customers by giving them what they want at a price they're willing to pay, nothing unethical in that, he's not a holding a gun to their heads and making them buy what he has to sell nor is he misrepresenting what he's selling, the people that pay him (his advertisers) know EXACTLY what they're getting for their money.

... and last time I checked Fox News isn't the only channel available on television so the Fox viewers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to avail themselves of Fox News offerings even though there is a mountain of documentation available pointing out that the "journalism" there is highly suspect.

Deceit is ALWAYS unethical. Period. There's no way around that.

Uh-Huh, however in this case nobody is being "deceived" (especially not the paying customers), do you call candy stores "unethical" because they sell products that aren't good for people yet don't advertise the negative health effect of their products and instead emphasize how "good" their products taste?

Caveat Emptor

If you don't like what's being offered on Fox News, Rupert Murdoch isn't stopping anybody from changing the channel or taking their advertising dollars elsewhere and he damn sure isn't stopping anybody from becoming educated on the nature of the "journalism" that is being practiced there, all it takes is a little bit of effort and a smidgen of personal responsibility.

 

[Pogo]

If Rupert Murdoch thought feeding paranoia to the left would work better than feeding it to the right, you'd see Fox Noise do a 180 so fast it would make your head spin.

I agree with your assertions EXCEPT for this one, Murdoch isn't concerned about whether it works "better" or not (the left is just as susceptible to confirmation bias "journalism" as the right is IMHO), the whole opportunity was that he saw a large niche that was being under-served (conservative bias) and jumped on it, I applaud his entrepreneurial acumen even though I personally think his product is mostly infotainment garbage and don't choose to partake of it.

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Ummm..I was just pointing out that the market Murdoch targeted was an unsaturated market (versus the left side of the spectrum which was already saturated) as opposed to implying that the right was more susceptible to this kind of "journalism" than the left is (which is what I assumed you meant by "work better")

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

He's servicing his customers by giving them what they want at a price they're willing to pay, nothing unethical in that, he's not a holding a gun to their heads and making them buy what he has to sell nor is he misrepresenting what he's selling, the people that pay him (his advertisers) know EXACTLY what they're getting for their money.

... and last time I checked Fox News isn't the only channel available on television so the Fox viewers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to avail themselves of Fox News offerings even though there is a mountain of documentation available pointing out that the "journalism" there is highly suspect.

Deceit is ALWAYS unethical. Period. There's no way around that.

Uh-Huh, however in this case nobody is being "deceived" (especially not the paying customers), do you call candy stores "unethical" because they sell products that aren't good for people yet don't advertise the negative health effect of their products and instead emphasize how "good" their products taste?

Caveat Emptor

If you don't like what's being offered on Fox News, Rupert Murdoch isn't stopping anybody from changing the channel or taking their advertising dollars elsewhere and he damn sure isn't stopping anybody from becoming educated on the nature of the "journalism" that is being practiced there, all it takes is a little bit of effort and a smidgen of personal responsibility.

Nobody ever claimed Rupert Murdoch is "stopping anybody". That's not even close to the point, which was, once again, dishonest presentation. There's no "force" involved in dishonest presentation. Deceit is not "force".

When you run a logo in the corner that clearly says "Fox NEWS" during a talking head doing a commentary.... when you pepper your "interviews" with "some people say" as a way of making an argument without taking any responsibility for having made it.... when you deliberately play up bullshit stories on the basis that they have a fear element that will sell...... when you run suggestive chyrons disingenuously "asking" "are Democrats out to eat your babies?" .... etc etc etc... you're presenting dishonesty. It's as simple as that. There is NOTHING in that statement that claims anyone is "forced to watch it". That's a complete red herring.

 

[NightFox]

I agree with your assertions EXCEPT for this one, Murdoch isn't concerned about whether it works "better" or not (the left is just as susceptible to confirmation bias "journalism" as the right is IMHO), the whole opportunity was that he saw a large niche that was being under-served (conservative bias) and jumped on it, I applaud his entrepreneurial acumen even though I personally think his product is mostly infotainment garbage and don't choose to partake of it.

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Ummm..I was just pointing out that the market Murdoch targeted was an unsaturated market (versus the left side of the spectrum which was already saturated) as opposed to implying that the right was more susceptible to this kind of "journalism" than the left is (which is what I assumed you meant by "work better")

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

He's servicing his customers by giving them what they want at a price they're willing to pay, nothing unethical in that, he's not a holding a gun to their heads and making them buy what he has to sell nor is he misrepresenting what he's selling, the people that pay him (his advertisers) know EXACTLY what they're getting for their money.

... and last time I checked Fox News isn't the only channel available on television so the Fox viewers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to avail themselves of Fox News offerings even though there is a mountain of documentation available pointing out that the "journalism" there is highly suspect.

Deceit is ALWAYS unethical. Period. There's no way around that.

Uh-Huh, however in this case nobody is being "deceived" (especially not the paying customers), do you call candy stores "unethical" because they sell products that aren't good for people yet don't advertise the negative health effect of their products and instead emphasize how "good" their products taste?

Caveat Emptor

If you don't like what's being offered on Fox News, Rupert Murdoch isn't stopping anybody from changing the channel or taking their advertising dollars elsewhere and he damn sure isn't stopping anybody from becoming educated on the nature of the "journalism" that is being practiced there, all it takes is a little bit of effort and a smidgen of personal responsibility.

Nobody ever claimed Rupert Murdoch is "stopping anybody". That's not even close to the point, which was, once again, dishonest presentation. There's no "force" involved in dishonest presentation. Deceit is not "force".

Deceit IS force when it involves exchange (it's also known as fraud).

When you run a logo in the corner that clearly says "Fox NEWS" during a talking head doing a commentary.... when you pepper your "interviews" with "some people say" as a way of making an argument without taking any responsibility for having made it.... when you deliberately play up bullshit stories on the basis that they have a fear element that will sell...... when you run suggestive chyrons disingenuously "asking" "are Democrats out to eat your babies?" .... etc etc etc... you're presenting dishonesty. It's as simple as that.

Fox News is exactly what it appears to be, an infotainment outlet whose programming is dominated by commentary with a smattering of actual journalism and it gives it's viewers and advertisers EXACTLY what they want (if it didn't they wouldn't be there), there's no deceit involved.

There is NOTHING in that statement that claims anyone is "forced to watch it". That's a complete red herring.

Actually it's not if you'll stop and think about it objectively, viewers CHOOSE to watch it and advertisers CHOOSE to advertise on it even though it's readily apparent (or should be to any adult) that it's a highly subjective and biased infotainment outlet, it's servicing a WILLING market and that is why Murdoch's entrepreneurial acumen is to be admired, he not only saw the market opportunity he managed to figure out a way to beat the snot out of his competition by servicing his customers wants better than his competition.

 

[Pogo]

You basically just said the same thing I did.

Ummm..I was just pointing out that the market Murdoch targeted was an unsaturated market (versus the left side of the spectrum which was already saturated) as opposed to implying that the right was more susceptible to this kind of "journalism" than the left is (which is what I assumed you meant by "work better")

Except for the end part --- there's not a thing to be admired in "entrepreneurial acumen" when it reaps its fruits though unethical or dishonest practices. You don't "admire" a card shark or a snake oil salesman just because he's "successful" at deceit, any more than you "admire" a car thief because he's got a new car.

He's servicing his customers by giving them what they want at a price they're willing to pay, nothing unethical in that, he's not a holding a gun to their heads and making them buy what he has to sell nor is he misrepresenting what he's selling, the people that pay him (his advertisers) know EXACTLY what they're getting for their money.

... and last time I checked Fox News isn't the only channel available on television so the Fox viewers are VOLUNTARILY choosing to avail themselves of Fox News offerings even though there is a mountain of documentation available pointing out that the "journalism" there is highly suspect.

Deceit is ALWAYS unethical. Period. There's no way around that.

Uh-Huh, however in this case nobody is being "deceived" (especially not the paying customers), do you call candy stores "unethical" because they sell products that aren't good for people yet don't advertise the negative health effect of their products and instead emphasize how "good" their products taste?

Caveat Emptor

If you don't like what's being offered on Fox News, Rupert Murdoch isn't stopping anybody from changing the channel or taking their advertising dollars elsewhere and he damn sure isn't stopping anybody from becoming educated on the nature of the "journalism" that is being practiced there, all it takes is a little bit of effort and a smidgen of personal responsibility.

Nobody ever claimed Rupert Murdoch is "stopping anybody". That's not even close to the point, which was, once again, dishonest presentation. There's no "force" involved in dishonest presentation. Deceit is not "force".

Deceit IS force when it involves exchange (it's also known as fraud).

When you run a logo in the corner that clearly says "Fox NEWS" during a talking head doing a commentary.... when you pepper your "interviews" with "some people say" as a way of making an argument without taking any responsibility for having made it.... when you deliberately play up bullshit stories on the basis that they have a fear element that will sell...... when you run suggestive chyrons disingenuously "asking" "are Democrats out to eat your babies?" .... etc etc etc... you're presenting dishonesty. It's as simple as that.

Fox News is exactly what it appears to be, an infotainment outlet whose programming is dominated by commentary with a smattering of actual journalism and it gives it's viewers and advertisers EXACTLY what they want (if it didn't they wouldn't be there), there's no deceit involved.

There is NOTHING in that statement that claims anyone is "forced to watch it". That's a complete red herring.

Actually it's not if you'll stop and think about it objectively, viewers CHOOSE to watch it and advertisers CHOOSE to advertise on it even though it's readily apparent (or should be to any adult) that it's a highly subjective and biased infotainment outlet, it's servicing a WILLING market and that is why Murdoch's entrepreneurial acumen is to be admired, he not only saw the market opportunity he managed to figure out a way to beat the snot out of his competition by servicing his customers wants better than his competition.

And once again, still falling back on "he got away with it, so it's OK". Which in no way addresses the point of deceit.

Dismissed.

 

[JoeNormal]

Conservatism is a fear based ideology.

Liar. That's the other hallmark of the left.

There is physiological evidence showing this to be the case. Do a search on 'amygdala'.

There's no evidence that you are an adult.

You know a lot of kids who have any idea what an amygdala is? Did you do your search?

See above.

You always add such deep insight into all of your posts.

 

[NightFox]

And once again, still falling back on "he got away with it, so it's OK". Which in no way addresses the point of deceit.

Dismissed.

LOL, okay , later ...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

I mistrust ALL media. Every one of them has an ax to grind so I take everything with a grain of salt.

That's fine I guess. How do you ever know what's going on if you don't trust the media?
Do you need to see a story from multiple sources or is it more of a gut feeling for you?
You obviously didn't believe what I posted but what if I gave you the same story from multiple sources? The way I see it, you're mistrust of the media keeps you uninformed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

Uh-Huh, along with all the other examples in this thread of people singling out Fox News to denigrate..... works both ways but that's what you get when you have large swaths of the media that are nothing more than infotainment outlets.

It's true that most news must be scrutinized and corroborated by other sources before I accept something as truth but that doesn't mean that most aren't credible but usually presenting it from their perspective. Over time I see most mainstream media as credible, meaning what they report turns out to be true, while Fox a lot of times is not.
It's OK to mistrust the media but not to the point of dismissing everything.

 

[Nosmo King]

Oh cool... a Daily Kos piece about a book written by a leftwing hack. Yep, definitely, the science is in.

And you wonder why we just laugh at you folks.

Had you read the article and the study linked therein, you would be amazed at how the definition of 'irony' played out in your post.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If you watch Fox News you're an idiot. Every intelligent person knows the only place to get unbiased real news is on the Comedy channel.

 

[MisterBeale]

The source being Daily Kos ended the legitimacy of the story right there.

How so?

Leftwing hack site.

I've seen a lot of articles on there critical of Obama, Clinton and Sanders. Maybe it's not as left wing as you assume.

Well, once in a while they have to throw something out there. That way some people can be fooled into thinking they're neutral. Sorry, but Kos is a hack site.

^A perfect example of the misinformation the article spoke about.

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy
2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy – Decision Data

It's not just in how things are reported, it's the decisions made on what to report at all.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you watch Fox News you're an idiot. Every intelligent person knows the only place to get unbiased real news is on the Comedy channel.

Wow, there's the problem.

Comedy central is about as reliable as Brian Williams and Fox news.

 

[NightFox]

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage

LOL.

And I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

^A perfect example of the mistrust of other media sources covered in the article.

Uh-Huh, along with all the other examples in this thread of people singling out Fox News to denigrate..... works both ways but that's what you get when you have large swaths of the media that are nothing more than infotainment outlets.

It's true that most news must be scrutinized and corroborated by other sources before I accept something as truth but that doesn't mean that most aren't credible but usually presenting it from their perspective. Over time I see most mainstream media as credible, meaning what they report turns out to be true, while Fox a lot of times is not.
It's OK to mistrust the media but not to the point of dismissing everything.

Personally I find that it's pretty much all the same no matter where you get your news (with some exceptions), it's some kernels of truth mixed in with a lot of garbage, you just have to pay close attention so that you can tell the difference between the two, in other words learn to speak Modern "Mediaese" and you'll be fine.

"Trust but verify" -- Russian Proverb

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.

The Science Of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are The Most Misinformed

Oh Look, that Hate Site DailyKOS is attacking Fox views again. Damn near as unusual as the KKK attacking black people.

Not saying that KOS is as credible or fair and the Klan, but there ARE close similarities to the two hate organizations.....