Be careful what you wish for.

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Bret Baier's show is unbiased news.
2. The dem always has the last word. Compare that to the MSM propaganda networks who NEVER have a Republican on.
3. The FNC opinion shows are better because they present BOTH sides, unlike the DNC one-sided propaganda network shows
4. I can brag about ratings and fairness. You can't brag about anything.

1. Truly sad that you think this is the case, shows how far gone you are.

4. The fact you are proud that your side is more loyal to their propaganda is all I need

 

[kyzr]

I'm not talking about winning a lawsuit. This is a non sequitur if not an outright red herring. I'm talking about the fact that dominion used information gotten from both testimony of Fox people as well as documents obtained through discovery that clearly state that Fox was willing to outright lie to their viewers to preserve their ratings. Whether or not they'll get away with it is completely irrelevant to those things. Unless of course you are willing to state dominion is lying in court filings? Something that would both be easily uncovered and probably would result in early dismissal.

I've seen plenty of shows on any of those networks that show Republicans. In fact, The View has a Republican host. Bias is not determined by having a person representing the other side. It is determined by how seriously you take what the other side is saying. None of the networks you are mentioning seems to be very good at that.

1. Democrat propaganda networks lie all the time. If FNC lied its less frequent than the DNC networks. We'll see who wins in court.

2. The "Republican" on the View never pushes back on the democrat liars. I would demolish the democrat bimbos.
Just imagine Ann Coulter, or ANY of the FNC women on The View. They would shame those low-IQ bimbos.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Democrat propaganda networks lie all the time. If FNC lied its less frequent than the DNC networks. We'll see who wins in court.

2. The "Republican" on the View never pushes back on the democrat liars. I would demolish the democrat bimbos.
Just imagine Ann Coulter, or ANY of the FNC women on The View. They would shame those low-IQ bimbos.

Ann who? They got rid of her a while ago I thought.

 

[kyzr]

1. Truly sad that you think this is the case, shows how far gone you are.
2. The fact you are proud that your side is more loyal to their propaganda is all I need

You can feel sad because you can't prove your strongly held opinion.
Yes I'm proud that FNC presents both sides and the DNC shows are just one-sided propaganda

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thats not my experience. Let's see if it's true for you. https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...inion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

Do you accept that this is an accurate description of the thinking of Fox in regard to approaching their viewers?

I don't know because I have better things to do with my time than read your 200 page posts.

 

[kyzr]

Ann who? They got rid of her a while ago I thought.

Yep, Ann has command of FACTS and the View's bimbos just lie their asses off.

 

[forkup]

1. Democrat propaganda networks lie all the time. If FNC lied its less frequent than the DNC networks. We'll see who wins in court.

2. The "Republican" on the View never pushes back on the democrat liars. I would demolish the democrat bimbos.
Just imagine Ann Coulter, or ANY of the FNC women on The View. They would shame those low-IQ bimbos.

1. Is an appeal to hypocrisy. AKA a fallacious argument.

2. Simply confirming my post. You are saying that even if you get somebody representing an opposite side. If that opposite side is bad at representing the positions, it doesn't really matter. Listen to this information from someone routinely put on Fox news. At the 28.54 mark. The North Koreans Do a More Nuanced Show

By the way. All these people would have been considered Republicans prior Trump.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You can feel sad because you can't prove your strongly held opinion.
Yes I'm proud that FNC presents both sides and the DNC shows are just one-sided propaganda

It is so very nice of you to prove my point for me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ann who? They got rid of her a while ago I thought.

They sure did, she would not toe the party line and was booted.

 

[konradv]

If talking in riddles is what you like to do you can post with yourself.

If you think that's a riddle, then you're the sort I'm talking about!

 

[forkup]

I don't know because I have better things to do with my time than read your 200 page posts.

You don't need to read 200 pages. These things have indexes. Not to mention they are riddled with direct quotes. Page 119, 123,124,131, etc. etc. I'm sorry to tell you but "I'm unwilling to actually read something" is telling me that you aren't willing to actually considering correct information. So try again. I gave you specific pages.

Is this a correct representation of Fox's attitude towards their viewers?

 

[kyzr]

1. Is an appeal to hypocrisy. AKA a fallacious argument.
2. I simply confirming my post. You are saying that even if you get somebody representing an opposite side. If that opposite side is bad ad representing the positions, it doesn't really matter. Listen to this information from someone routinely put on Fox news. At the 28.54 mark. The North Koreans Do a More Nuanced Show
By the way. All these people would have been considered Republicans prior Trump.

1. You seem overly animated by the Dominion lawsuit. I'm not seeing any major paradigm shift in news or opinion programming, nor on viewership. Hunter's laptop has much more important criminal activity described than the Dominion lawsuit. Even if FNC loses the Dominion lawsuit they would still be the least biased network, by a mile.

2. My point being that The View only has one point of view even though there is a "republican" on the panel. She does NOT present the Republican positions at all. She rarely says anything. Not a true debate. If Ann Coulter or any real republican was on the panel the debate would be better. Then again, women probably prefer bullshit to a debate. Just imagine Kari Lake on the View....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They sure did, she would not toe the party line and was booted.

No, I think it was she bashed Trump and Gingrich. People on the right just didn't care for her anymore after that.

 

[forkup]

1. You seem overly animated by the Dominion lawsuit. I'm not seeing any major paradigm shift in news or opinion programming, nor on viewership. Hunter's laptop has much more important criminal activity described than the Dominion lawsuit. Even if FNC loses the Dominion lawsuit they would still be the least biased network, by a mile.

2. My point being that The View only has one point of view even though there is a "republican" on the panel. She does NOT present the Republican positions at all. She rarely says anything. Not a true debate. If Ann Coulter or any real republican was on the panel the debate would be better. Then again, women probably prefer bullshit to a debate. Just imagine Kari Lake on the View....

1. I'm overly animated by the Dominion lawsuit because that lawsuit is the first time, I've ever seen a major network being caught, saying they are willing to outright lie to their viewers for ratings. This has never happened to ANY other network. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

2. I gave you a link of someone outright stating that Fox scheduled her against a weak Democratic opponent. Remember I'm not claiming that MSNBC isn't partisan. My whole point is that Fox isn't better. In fact, purely going by evidence (as in statements actually presented in a court of law) they are worse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, I think it was she bashed Trump and Gingrich. People on the right just didn't care for her anymore after that.

Yeah, that is just what I said

 

[kyzr]

1. I'm overly animated by the Dominion lawsuit because that lawsuit is the first time, I've ever seen a major network being caught, saying they are willing to outright lie to their viewers for ratings. This has never happened to ANY other network. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

2. I gave you a link of someone outright stating that Fox scheduled her against a weak Democratic opponent. Remember I'm not claiming that MSNBC isn't partisan. My whole point is that Fox isn't better. In fact, purely going by evidence (as in statements actually presented in a court of law) they are worse.

1. I'm sure it happens all the time on CNN & MSDNC, but especially online, except Section 230 protects the Leftist companies from Lawsuits.

2. You type words with no real proof. My "proof" is that on FNC they always have democrats on panels. "Better" to me is having a lively debate between opposition parties, not a propaganda "show trial" with no one for the defense.

 

[Batcat]

if not dead, damaged & maybe beyond repair?

It would seem that if just one unbiased news source dedicated to good journalism and finding the truth emerges, it will do well once people decide it was trustworthy.

The problem is good journalism takes time and there is no time in today’s 24/7 news media.

 

[forkup]

1. I'm sure it happens all the time on CNN & MSDNC, but especially online, except Section 230 protects the Leftist companies from Lawsuits.

2. You type words with no real proof. My "proof" is that on FNC they always have democrats on panels. "Better" to me is having a lively debate between opposition parties, not a propaganda "show trial" with no one for the defense.

1. I'm sure it happens all the time on CNN & MSDNC, but especially online, except Section 230 protects the Leftist companies from Lawsuits.

Oh really? I gave you the court filing by someone wronged by Fox. Citing testimony by its executives and internal communications obtained through discovery. I eagerly await you showing me anything similar on the left. Or if you wish you can now state you think Dominion is lying in those court listings?

2. You type words with no real proof. My "proof" is that on FNC they always have democrats on panels. "Better" to me is having a lively debate between opposition parties, not a propaganda "show trial" with no one for the defense.

No proof? You consider statements from people contracted to FOX on the Republican side stating that they were purposefully pitted against "weak link" Democrats as no proof? You consider court filings stating unequivocally that Fox purposefully lied to their viewers as no proof? I don't mind the claim. I mind that you make the claim and aren't willing to give any argument to dispute besides simply claiming I have " no proof."

Just out of curiosity what to you is proof?

 

[forkup]

It would seem that if just one unbiased news source dedicated to good journalism and finding the truth emerges, it will do well once people decide it was trustworthy.

The problem is good journalism takes time and there is no time in today’s 24/7 news media.

I don't know because I have better things to do with my time than read your 200 page posts.

You don't need to read 200 pages. These things have indexes. Not to mention they are riddled with direct quotes. Page 119, 123,124,131, etc. etc. I'm sorry to tell you but "I'm unwilling to actually read something" is telling me that you aren't willing to actually considering correct information. So try again. I gave you specific pages.

Time is not the problem. Being unwilling is. It isn't that you can't come to an informed opinion. It's that an informed opinion that doesn't fit your own bias will be ignored by most people. Coming up with the flimsiest of excuses.

 

[Care4all]

It would be a terrible idea because then government would be dictating how news organizations be allowed to operate. It's not what DeSantis is promoting here.

Its not about making mistakes either. It's about intentionally lying to the public to promote the party or candidates you support. Trump is not and never was a Russian agent. Hunter's laptop was always real and not Russian disinformation. The Republicans are not trying to end Social Security and Medicare. The MSM knows or knew all this when they made the claims.

Most of the time when the NYT reports a story against Republicans, they claim anonymous sources. Seems like that's all they have at the NYT are anonymous sources. The problem with an anonymous source is there doesn't have to be proof such source exists. They can make it up out of thin air.

The fairness doctrine would work, to dispell lies, as it has in broadcasting for decades.