The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2025 20:28
VIEWED: 2501
PAGE 2 of 5
Dunno but Mediamatters, but Arianna makes it pretty damn clear right up front (or at least used to) that she's not even pretending to be neutral.
Contrast Fox News pretensions to supposed neutrality, in light of even more outrageous slant than you've considered.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
You gotta remember, I've been aware of this game a lot longer than most folk, having grown up in the shadow of Fox's predecessor and mentor, the Sinclair Broadcast Group - who's constant lies, distortions and gamesmanship were a fact of life in my childhood, and being a major factor in how I view mainstream media to begin with.
Of course, I do have the last laugh, don't I now, what with Sinclair sucking on a quarter billion dollar loss and impending bankruptcy as folks turn away from the bullshit shovelled at them by television and print media after too many bald faced lies and the availability of the internet and the powerful lure of being able to investigate that which matters to you personally instead of accepting some media engines backwash.
Long gone are the days when assholes like Hearst, the father of yellow journalism, completely controlled the average americans access to information outside their community, and with them goes the ability to shape public opinion regardless of the facts.
Fox is a dinosaur, an aging, tottering relic of a bygone era which might survive one, maybe two more generations, but in the end is a goner.
The ONLY hope they have to even remain relevant at all given how fully discredited they are by anyone with even half a brain is to push the Gov into strangling the internet, which they'll get more desperate about once it becomes clear even to the ivory tower crowd that they're really only circling the drain, awaiting the inevitable.
And really, that's the only concern whatever I have about em - but because the fools running the place are true-believer fanatics who mostly convince themselves of the shit they're shovelling, that realization is gonna come unto them far too late...
And I'll have the last laugh then, too.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Back up there, son.
Originally posted by Geezer:
They all bias their coverage to appeal to their audience.
A) Bush was an idiot who probably couldn't tie his shoes correctly.
B) Bush was trying to destroy America.
A is bias, B is lying. When peeps falsify numbers, or change facts, that's not slanting or spinning, it's lying.
Am I wrong here? Is your definition of "bias" more Librul than mine?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Don't be disingenuous, Anthony."
Hello,
I am actually not familiar with the Huffington Post or Mediamatters. Though I did guess that since I wasn't familiar with them, that they probably were not actually comperable to Fox News.
And if that's the case, referring to them in comparison or contrast to Fox seems...
Well, you know. Shall we compare an AM conservative radio station to CNN next?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And of course since Huffingtonpost and Mediamatters are completely, absolutely, totally unbiased...
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Telling that you can't argue with the actual substance, and then must attack the source - who didn't make the videos, btw, just collected them to show the bias.
But nah, it'd be expecting to much to think you might respond to the actual content.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
From the response here, Huffington Post fans tend to un-critically believe Huffington Post.
Really? I don't see anyone really defending them, or saying they're right. Obviously they're biased, but in this case, showing outright lies, while biased, isn't inaccurate.
Yet you seem to be excusing Fox, just because it's a site you don't like that compiled the lies.
Seems maybe you are projecting a bit.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can hover with that take on it!
Originally posted by Storymark:
in this case, showing outright lies, while biased, isn't inaccurate.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wonderful; the minute I read Geezer's post, I had the same thought as most here, and there you all went saying it FOR me.
Bias is one thing...and I agree with the perfect dilenation between the two:Quote:
There's a difference between bias, which can include choosing which stories to present, using slurs, maybe even shading, omitting, etc., when commenting, and so forth. out-and-out LYING is different; it requires actual bending of the facts or totally lying about a story, which is what Faux News does quite blatantly.
In this case, "biased" means "takes the time to find 10 egregious examples of Fox News distorting the facts to promote their right-wing political agenda in their so-called straight reporting." But "bias," Geezer, is not the issue. A purported "news" agency habitually and quite consistently lying to promote a political agenda, never even making a retraction to cover their ass, is.
I never said either source was unbaised. It's their bias that causes them to hunt UP the examples and put them out there, which in no way changes the facts.
One of the major things that's been so absurd about what's been happening is that I see even such biased sources as MSNBC digging up facts, following the money, putting forward arguments to make their cases, whereas Faux News MAKES UP "facts" and "figures" to promote their agenda. Biiiig difference. I happen to think Rachel Maddow, called a "sick puppy" by G.W., does an excellent job of following the money--she doesn't NEED to lie, all she needs to do is point things out.
Biased? Yes, never said they weren't. Lying? No.
Someone posted somewhere that liberals and dems must watch Faux News because of it's numbers. I repeat: If there are numerous sources from which to get one's news, the population spreads out between same. If there is only ONE source from which to get a viewpoint (and only news if it's slanted the way you want), all those who want same will go there. Given the number of sources available that are less agenda-promoting than Faux News, libs and dems don't have to watch it for it's numbers to soar.
Now, if you take the ratings of ALL the liberal-leaning media and compare THEM to Faux News' numbers, There would be a valid argument. Otherwise: Not so much. Me, I wouldn't be caught dead watching Faux News; the clips I see on other station say it all, and are more than I can stomach as it is.
By the way, personally I don't take what I hear on CNN or MSNBC (or anywhere else, actually) as undisputed fact, or even ALL the facts; I use them as starting point to research on my own. Can the same be said of Faux News viewers? Somehow I doubt it.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fox News is an extreme left-wing and extrme right-wing propaganda machine owned by Communist Chinese and Australians of the British Empire.
It is impossible to be more anti-American than Fox "News". Glenn Beck is paid $50-million/year to infiltrate the Ron Paul "Tea Party" Patriot Movement that seeks overthrow of the Kosher British "Federal" Reserve Bank and its unconstitutional IRS collection agency.
The goal of Fox is overthrow of USA, which has been the goal of the British Empire for over 200 years.
The other networks are also owned by those who seek overthrow of USA for the global New World Odor dictatorship, even though they're US citizens.
Independent Media, you're our only hope.
www.piratenews.org/fox-news-owned-by-communist-china.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
-Honore de Balzac
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-Famous Dead Guy
"On Earth-That-Was, the two ruling powers were once known as America and China. These two powers, still working in harmony, grew at once into the most populous and advanced civilizations in the new galaxy. The idea was to say that people can make a difference, they can show the wrongs that are being done. Sometimes they can topple governments."
-Joss Whedon, Serenity: The Official Visual Companion
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
When peeps falsify numbers, or change facts, that's not slanting or spinning, it's lying.
Am I wrong here? Is your definition of "bias" more Librul than mine?
Like I said, google "(Choose your media outlet) lies". Huffington says Fox lies. Other folks say Huffington lies. I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear. If that includes bending, spinning, or sometimes completely ignoring the truth, they'll do it.
I also figure that folks go to Fox News or Huffington Post for the same reasons they go to church. The sermons reenforce their worldview. They tell them they're right and the heathens are wrong. Everybody there agrees with them. It's comforting. Also, neither side likes atheists; those who say the Fox or Huffington belief system (or both) might all be hooey.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Like I said, google "(Choose your media outlet) lies". Huffington says Fox lies. Other folks say Huffington lies. I figure they're both partisan operations and will say what their audience wants to hear.
You keep missing the point - sure, they say the others lie. But here is a collection of PROOF of those lies, and you are trying to dismiss it just because you don't like the site that assembled the evidence.
I can, and have, googled "Olberman lies", and generally come up with a lot of sites that disagree with what he says - but have little to no proof of actual falsehood - just difference of opinion.
However, you google "Fox News lies" and you get a pretty decent list of verifiable falsehoods.
One is not equal to the other - no matter how pissy you get over the HuffPo.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME