Be careful what you wish for.

[Care4all]

Again, we have a choice today like we didn't have 30 or 40 years ago. If you want left-wing news media there is a host to choose from like CNN and MSNBC. If you want to hear from the right you have Fox, OAN and Newsmax. So there is no longer a need for a fairness doctrine. And even if you don't like those cable choices, there are a hundred more news outlets on both sides from the internet.

You want fairness? Then let's start with social media and work our way from there. No more censoring on Facebook, Instagram or YouTube. And while we're at it, let's bring the fairness doctrine to Hollywood as well.

I don't want Left Wing News, I don't want Right Wing News.

I want the FACTS, all of them. The NEWS should be the NEWS....and factually reported on.... I don't want to spend my life going to one news channel after another in search of the actual NEWS....

THE SPIN, or media influence that you love, can take place later....but in the least, us citizens would get the NEWS so WE CAN DETERMINE or DISCERN fact from fiction, when we hear the media's spin....or decide to join it.

DON'T be afraid.... the truth and full reporting will NOT hurt you or me! It will only make us smarter instead of the media outlets controlling us through the News they decide they want us to hear. News is news, spin is spin... Spin, minipulates us.

Social media means nothing to me. It is not and never should be, considered a proper NEWS SOURCE.....

I don't think social media or Hollywood has anything at all to do with the fairness doctrine and NEWS sources.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What about him?

He is a Conservative that is on CNN. He is far more to the right than anyone you listed on Fox is to the left

 

[Care4all]

A lawsuit is NOT news, duh.
The result is news.

Come on kyzr....

This lawsuit is big big big news! It was accepted! Against a news organization....which is a rarity due to their freedom of the Press protection......

Fox and ALL RIGHT WING MEDIA, covers ALL LAWSUITS against liberals in the NEWS silly one!

Trump lawsuits.

Kari Lake lawsuits

CNN /Sandman lawsuit

Yet covers none on themselves or any co media allies in depth or at all.

The Smartmatic suit is for another $1.6 billion.... $3 plus billion combined, will sting if Murdoch loses...we'll see!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't want Left Wing News, I don't want Right Wing News.

I want the FACTS, all of them. The NEWS should be the NEWS....and factually reported on.... I don't want to spend my life going to one news channel after another in search of the actual NEWS....

THE SPIN, or media influence that you love, can take place later....but in the least, us citizens would get the NEWS so WE CAN DETERMINE or DISCERN fact from fiction, when we hear the media's spin....or decide to join it.

DON'T be afraid.... the truth and full reporting will NOT hurt you or me! It will only make us smarter instead of the media outlets controlling us through the News they decide they want us to hear. News is news, spin is spin... Spin, minipulates us.

Social media means nothing to me. It is not and never should be, considered a proper NEWS SOURCE.....

I don't think social media or Hollywood has anything at all to do with the fairness doctrine and NEWS sources.

Then you're not reading much news, are you? Believe it or not, most Americans do get their news from social media. And most social media is left to far left. It doesn't matter what you think is news or is not news, it's about facts of where most of us get our news from.

Entertainment is a driving force of our politics. It's in our television shows, our movies, it's in our music, and now it's even in our sports. Americans that don't follow news get their political views from these people of entertainment. If you think nobody is listening to LaBoob James, you have another thing coming.

So if we want to talk about fairness, why stop at the news? It's disingenuous to say that news is the only influence when it comes to politics.

 

[Foolardi]

DeSantis wants to roll back press freedoms — with an eye toward overturning Supreme Court ruling

Florida Republicans are seeking to weaken laws protecting journalists.

www.politico.com

So this is a new stunt by Desantis. Drinking liberal tears being a good way to rile up your base. Having said that, I doubt that any of his supporters have really thought it true. Or actually care beyond the tears I was talking about. So I thought it would be interesting to do so.

First, let me say it's probably unconstitutional. The reason the actual malice standard exists is because without it, the press wouldn't be able to do their job. If any mistake in reporting even inadvertent onces, would make the press liable, reporting anything that you are not absolutely certain about is an unacceptable risk. In theory this is fine I have my doubts it wouldn't kill all reporting in practice though.

Practically speaking though it would be hilarious. I won't claim that the dreaded MSM wouldn't be affected.They sometimes make mistakes. But for those on the right the effects would be nothing less than devestating. Fox, OAN, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, all will have a choice. Fact check or be sued into oblivion.

So my inner demons would say bring it on Desantis. Let's see who's the "fake news" when giving fake news has actual consequences.

Protecting Journalists! ... what are you completely Out of your gourd.
Never before in Modern America has Journalism been So manifestly
" corrupted ". To the point it's not even remotely Journalism.
Keep in mind most University with schools of Journalism are havens
for yesterdays Liberal.Today's Liberals are not that of yesteryear.
They no longer ascribe the once proud tenets of Journalism.
Like not running with a story w/o at least 2 credible { Named sources }.
Not some new invention like { Anonymous source or sources }.
Plus writing pieces Reporting the News.Not commenting as if
running for office or in Campaign Mode.Or heaven forbid doing the
bidding for One Political Party.
This ain't Mussolini from 1912
He was a Journalist then
" Journalism is not a profession but a mission.Our
newspaper is our party,our ideal,our soul,and our
banner which will lead us to victory. "
-- Editorial,Avanti!,Socialist Party organ 1912

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Entertainment is a driving force of our politics. It's in our television shows, our movies, it's in our music, and now it's even in our sports. Americans that don't follow news get their political views from these people of entertainment. If you think nobody is listening to LaBoob James, you have another thing coming.

Which explains why we elected a reality TV star as POTUS

 

[Foolardi]

Which explains why we elected a reality TV star as POTUS

Thanks for admitting you and yer friends voted for Trump.
Because nowhere { not even in space } was Joe Biden ever
a TV star.Not even during the Nominations of Clarence Thomas.
Which made for powerful TV.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which explains why we elected a reality TV star as POTUS

No, it was his tough on border stance that brought him across the finish line.

 

[kyzr]

Come on kyzr....
This lawsuit is big big big news! It was accepted! Against a news organization....which is a rarity due to their freedom of the Press protection......
Fox and ALL RIGHT WING MEDIA, covers ALL LAWSUITS against liberals in the NEWS silly one!
Trump lawsuits.
Kari Lake lawsuits
CNN /Sandman lawsuit
Yet covers none on themselves or any co media allies in depth or at all.
The Smartmatic suit is for another $1.6 billion.... $3 plus billion combined, will sting if Murdoch loses...we'll see!

Okay C4. You win. Take your scalp.
If these lawsuits trip your trigger I'm happy for you.
I hope you see all the coverage you can handle on CNN & MSDNC!!

I plan on waiting to see who wins the lawsuits. Either way, win or lose, Rupert's empire is still fine.
Don't forget that the appeals process takes forever.

Rupert Murdoch & family

#100 Rupert Murdoch & family on the 2024 Billionaires - Rupert Murdoch built a media empire that includes cable channel Fox News, The Times of London and

www.forbes.com

 

[Care4all]

Okay C4. You win. Take your scalp.
If these lawsuits trip your trigger I'm happy for you.
I hope you see all the coverage you can handle on CNN & MSDNC!!

I plan on waiting to see who wins the lawsuits. Either way, win or lose, Rupert's empire is still fine.
Don't forget that the appeals process takes forever.

Rupert Murdoch & family

#100 Rupert Murdoch & family on the 2024 Billionaires - Rupert Murdoch built a media empire that includes cable channel Fox News, The Times of London and

www.forbes.com

If Dominion and Smartmatic lets Murdoch settle out of court, which I don't think they'll do, but if they do, it'll end much sooner....

It will be a hard case to win, the press has a lot of freedom, but they do not have the freedom to intentionally lie and defame.. So, we will see...

 

[Foolardi]

If Dominion and Smartmatic lets Murdoch settle out of court, which I don't think they'll do, but if they do, it'll end much sooner....

It will be a hard case to win, the press has a lot of freedom, but they do not have the freedom to intentionally lie and defame.. So, we will see...

Yuz Best make that case to the Uppity Leftists' who decide
who gets a Pultizer ... Bubba.Because the highly Liberal bunch
who decide upon a Pulitzer made the rotten decision to award
Pultizer for both the New York Times and The Washington Post.
This rotten bunch at the Pulitzer Board Rejected Donald Trumps
pleas that the Pultizer Board strip these two Newspapers of
record of their Pulitzer.Claiming that their award-winning reporting
on Russian meddling by Trump as determined by two seperate
and independent reviews Stood up to scrutiny.Yeah Right Bugs.
Or Daffy.And you too ... Elmer.
" No passages or headlines,contentions or assertions in any
of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged
subsequent to the conferral of the prizes. "
Well how Kitschy gitchy goomy you pack of unamerican
muthafuckers.Run along now to your favorite watering holes
and feel content.That you abused like a serial killer whatever
humanity could be found in the near vicinity of yer lost souls.

 

[forkup]

1. Finding one potential "lie" and trying to paint FNC as 100% lies is moronic. The Harvard study already established that FNC is/was in-fact the most fair and balanced network. Leftist networks lie all the time. One example is calling J6 an "insurrection". J6 was not an "insurrection" it was a protest about a potentially fraudulent election. Leftist networks lie about Trump all the time. Leftist networks lie about Biden all the time, especially the laptop, calling it "Russian disinformation". The Leftist networks always criticize and lie about Republicans in congress.
Before you label FNC as "willing to lie" you need to wait for the lawsuit to playout.

2. Nick Sandman

CNN settles suit from MAGA hat-wearing Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann after March for Life video controversy

CNN has reportedly agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann, the MAGA hat-wearing teenager who stared down a Native American war hero. The news network settled with the Covington Catholic …

www.thesun.co.uk

3. Showing Republicans on the MSM isn't the issue. Not having Republicans on discussion panels is the issue. That is called "propaganda"

1. Finding one potential "lie" and trying to paint FNC as 100% lies is moronic.

It wasn't 1 potential lie. It was a whole bunch of lies trying to paint the election of Biden as illegitimate.

J6 was not an "insurrection" it was a protest about a potentially fraudulent election.

You can NOT make this up. A "protest" doesn't have 140 wounded police officers to show for it. That is called at best a riot. If it's done to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, it is an insurrection. And how do you determine if an election is illegitimate? You present you proof in court and judges rule on your grievances that's how.

Why did they think the election was fraudulent? Because Fox among others told you guys so. Bringing the entire argument into a neat circle

Before you label FNC as "willing to lie" you need to wait for the lawsuit to playout.

That's complete and other BS. AS I SAID the moment Maddow says she didn't due her due diligence and cannot be expected to do so because "I'm not reporting", the outcome of the lawsuit becomes irrelevant because she admitted that she didn't speak the truth and did so because she was lazy at best.

If I have a court filing by Dominion that states that they considered what they were saying as BS. That they went on doing so because of financial reasons, that they actually actively went after those on the network that didn't want to further the narrative, and that they did so as a group, I can say they were "willing to lie" unless of course you aren't convinced of the claims made in the filing?

2. Nick Sandman

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...78f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html Jan 22
Letters: ‘We All Need to Take Responsibility for Their Actions’ the atlantic Jan 25
How the story of a clash between a boy in a MAGA hat and a Native American elder unfolded Vox Jan 22
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/19/us/teens-mock-native-elder-trnd/index.html CNN Jan 22
Here's the missing context behind the video of students surrounding a Native American drummer ABC jan 21

See a theme here? This is news providers correcting themselves.

3. Showing Republicans on the MSM isn't the issue. Not having Republicans on discussion panels is the issue.

Oh? See you moved the goalposts a bit here. So now it's not that they don't shedule Republicans but that they don't shedule Republicans in their opinion shows?
Morning Joe

The view

Sixty minutes

CNN again


Just tell me how many more I need to give you?

 

[forkup]

So you found several items on a list of 51 that are questionable. I also agree that collusion is a term without legal meaning.

Good work. I’lll accept your opinion.

Now while we are talking about collusion which is not a crime, let’s look at wet hem Hillary colluding with the Russians.

Durham report proves Hillary Clinton — not Trump — was Putin’s puppet

Since 2016, Hillary Clinton has been trolling Donald Trump on social media over his alleged ties to Russia, calling him “Putin’s Puppet.” But Special Counsel John Durham’s probe has uncovered the t…

nypost.com

So you found several items on a list of 51 that are questionable.

Correction. I read your list, saw several items that were outright wrong, going by the primary sources I had available (meaning I could illustrate it clearly with the available information). I could have more than likely done it with all 51 "lies" in fact there were more I could have pointed out, but that would have been too time consuming. I also don't think it is necessary to do. If I can demonstrate that an article trying to call out "lies", demonstrably lies about "the lying" on multiple points.

I don't think it's a good idea to cite anything that Durham produced. I also don't think it's a good idea the cite an article that just going by its language is so partisan.

spy agency chiefs and their corrupt minions
Soviet-style disinformation campaign
irrelevant questions like, “What do the Russians have on Trump?” (glad the writer doesn't think it relevant wether or not a candidate for president of one of 2 major parties is compromised.)
Various “Deep State” operatives
Obama’s rogue spy chief

That is not how you report news. You avoid loaded language instead of going out of your way to use it.

As for Durham.
The thing this article is alluding to is referring to a lawsuit Durham prosecuted, that he lost within hours of the jury adjourning. A lawsuit that was considered so out of normal prosecutorial conduct that his deputy quit in protest.

 

[kyzr]

It wasn't 1 potential lie. It was a whole bunch of lies trying to paint the election of Biden as illegitimate.

You can NOT make this up. A "protest" doesn't have 140 wounded police officers to show for it. That is called at best a riot. If it's done to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, it is an insurrection. And how do you determine if an election is illegitimate? You present you proof in court and judges rule on your grievances that's how.

Why did they think the election was fraudulent? Because Fox among others told you guys so. Bringing the entire argument into a neat circle

That's complete and utter BS. AS I SAID the moment Maddow says she didn't do her due diligence and cannot be expected to do so because "I'm not reporting", the outcome of the lawsuit becomes irrelevant because she admitted that she didn't speak the truth and did so because she was lazy at best.

If I have a court filing by Dominion that states that they considered what they were saying as BS. That they went on doing so because of financial reasons, that they actually actively went after those on the network that didn't want to further the narrative, and that they did so as a group, I can say they were "willing to lie" unless of course you aren't convinced of the claims made in the filing?

Nick Sandman: See a theme here? This is news providers correcting themselves.

Oh? See you moved the goalposts a bit here. So now it's not that they don't schedule Republicans but that they don't schedule Republicans in their opinion shows?
Morning Joe
The view
CNN again

Just tell me how many more I need to give you?

1. FNC was reporting on the various claims that there was significant voter fraud in 2020. That doesn't prove that FNC created the claims.
The Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate due to Russian collusion, remember? So don't play the innocent victim here.
There were suspicious "vote dumps" and other irregularities, like the PA Supreme Court illegally extending the election period.

2. OK, J6 was a "riot". If it was an "insurrection" there would have been an armed takeover of the Capitol. So where was the DC National Guard? Where was the DC police? J6 was an FBI setup. They knew what the plans were because they planned it. Why wasn't there better protection as Trump and Capitol Police Chief Sund requested?

3. You asked for an example of the MSM lying about someone, proving BIAS. I gave you Nick Sandman. QED

4. FNC ALWAYS has at least one democrat on every discussion panel, such as "The Five" or "Outnumbered". CNN and MSDNC do not. Its that simple.
CNN used to have Rick Santorum on, but they dropped him, why? He wouldn't toe the line? CNN prefers spewing DNC talking points?
It really doesn't matter, no one watches CNN or MSDNC anyway.

 

[forkup]

1. FNC was reporting on the various claims that there was significant voter fraud in 2020. That doesn't prove that FNC created the claims.
The Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate due to Russian collusion, remember? So don't play the innocent victim here.
There were suspicious "vote dumps" and other irregularities, like the PA Supreme Court illegally extending the election period.
View attachment 760977

2. OK, J6 was a "riot". If it was an "insurrection" there would have been an armed takeover of the Capitol. So where was the DC National Guard? Where was the DC police? J6 was an FBI setup. They knew what the plans were because they planned it. Why wasn't there better protection as Trump and Capitol Police Chief Sund requested?
View attachment 760975

3. You asked for an example of the MSM lying about someone, proving BIAS. I gave you Nick Sandman. QED

4. FNC ALWAYS has at least one democrat on every discussion panel, such as "The Five" or "Outnumbered". CNN and MSDNC do not. Its that simple.
CNN used to have Rick Santorum on, but they dropped him, why? He wouldn't toe the line? CNN prefers spewing DNC talking points?
It really doesn't matter, no one watches CNN or MSDNC anyway.

1. FNC was reporting on the various claims that there was significant voter fraud in 2020. That doesn't prove that FNC created the claims.

I never claimed they created the claims. That is a strawman. (I see more and more you are arguing fallacious arguments.)
I claimed, they furthered the narrative even if they knew it was complete and other BS. As is shown by both testimony and internal communications.

The Democrats claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate due to Russian collusion, remember?

Lol unfair is not the same as illegitimate. He won the electoral college NOBODY now or then disputed that. He was inaugurated, Hillary conceded, Obama was there. All the trimmings of a peaceful transfer of power were followed. Did Democrats moan about how he won, sure. But you will not find anyone serious on the left claiming Trump didn't win the election.

There were suspicious "vote dumps" and other irregularities, like the PA Supreme Court illegally extending the election period.

All had been adjudicated in court. Most were dismissed. And if a SUPREME COURT extends an election period, how is it illegal? Is it your reading of the law that makes it so? Do you think I have a point when I would say the Dobbs decision was illegal because I think they were inconsistent in their ruling? (At least I would have some legal argument). The whole point of a judiciary is that they determine legality.

have been an armed takeover of the Capitol.

They used bear spray and flagpoles to gain access. I've seen the footage.

J6 was an FBI setup.

Yup, this is I'm sure a considered opinion come too by diligently scrutinizing the available evidence. Kyzr you're quickly showing yourself to be nothing more than a hack, I'm sorry to say. I was having fun to a certain extent, but these kinds of things don't help.

3. You asked for an example of the MSM lying about someone, proving BIAS.

No, I was asking for something similar to what Fox has been shown to do in this filing. I already conceded multiple times that there is a bias. The MSM, once they figured out they messed up went out of their way to acknowledge their mistake, and actually reported on what they did wrong. Fox didn't just not correct they actively suppressed what they knew to be the truth.

4. FNC ALWAYS has at least one democrat on every discussion panel, such as "The Five" or "Outnumbered".

Fox and friends always has one Democrat?

 

[kyzr]

I never claimed they created the claims. That is a strawman. (I see more and more you are arguing fallacious arguments.)
I claimed, they furthered the narrative even if they knew it was complete and other BS. As is shown by both testimony and internal communications.

Lol unfair is not the same as illegitimate. He won the electoral college NOBODY now or then disputed that. He was inaugurated, Hillary conceded, Obama was there. All the trimmings of a peaceful transfer of power were followed. Did Democrats moan about how he won, sure. But you will not find anyone serious on the left claiming Trump didn't win the election.

All had been adjudicated in court. Most were dismissed. And if a SUPREME COURT extends an election period, how is it illegal? Is it your reading of the law that makes it so? Do you think I have a point when I would say the Dobbs decision was illegal because I think they were inconsistent in their ruling? (At least I would have some legal argument). The whole point of a judiciary is that they determine legality.

They used bear spray and flagpoles to gain access. I've seen the footage.

Yup, this is I'm sure a considered opinion come too by diligently scrutinizing the available evidence. Kyzr you're quickly showing yourself to be nothing more than a hack, I'm sorry to say. I was having fun to a certain extent, but these kinds of things don't help.

No, I was asking for something similar to what Fox has been shown to do in this filing. I already conceded multiple times that there is a bias. The MSM, once they figured out they messed up went out of their way to acknowledge their mistake, and actually reported on what they did wrong. Fox didn't just not correct they actively suppressed what they knew to be the truth.

Fox and friends always has one Democrat?

1. Yeah, okay, whatever, like C4 said, we'll see how the lawsuit does in court.

2. Just an FYI, Hillary later recanted her concession and said that Biden should NEVER concede.

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

The former Democratic presidential nominee predicted Republicans could try to “mess up absentee balloting” for a narrow advantage in the Electoral College.

www.nbcnews.com

3. Bear spray isn't a firearm, is it? No it is not. As soon as armed police showed up the riot was over. So why wasn't the DC police, or the National Guard there as requested? That would have prevented the J6 "riot". Apparently someone (the FBI) wanted that J6 riot to happen, huh?

4. The ratings show which programs are better. FNC typically wins the ratings war. QED. Hint: no one wants to hear DNC talking points 24/7.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not sure what you mean by MAGA press.

FNC was proven the least biased by Harvard.

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

View attachment 760053

First off, the Harvard Study you're posting is showing the number of negative/positive stories about Donald Trump and only Donald Trump, not the level of right/left bias in the media.

The media would have written more positive stuff about Trump if there had been anything positive to write. Even F0X News had trouble finding positive things to write about Trump.

 

[forkup]

1. Yeah, okay, whatever, like C4 said, we'll see how the lawsuit does in court.

2. Just an FYI, Hillary later recanted her concession and said that Biden should NEVER concede.

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

The former Democratic presidential nominee predicted Republicans could try to “mess up absentee balloting” for a narrow advantage in the Electoral College.

www.nbcnews.com

3. Bear spray isn't a firearm, is it? No it is not. As soon as armed police showed up the riot was over. So why wasn't the DC police, or the National Guard there as requested? That would have prevented the J6 "riot". Apparently someone (the FBI) wanted that J6 riot to happen, huh?

4. The ratings show which programs are better. FNC typically wins the ratings war. QED. Hint: no one wants to hear DNC talking points 24/7.

1. Yeah, okay, whatever, like C4 said, we'll see how the lawsuit does in court.

2. Just an FYI, Hillary later recanted her concession and said that Biden should NEVER concede.

Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'

The former Democratic presidential nominee predicted Republicans could try to “mess up absentee balloting” for a narrow advantage in the Electoral College.

www.nbcnews.com

3. Bear spray isn't a firearm, is it? No it is not. As soon as armed police showed up the riot was over. So why wasn't the DC police, or the National Guard there as requested? That would have prevented the J6 "riot". Apparently someone (the FBI) wanted that J6 riot to happen, huh?

4. The ratings show which programs are better. FNC typically wins the ratings war. QED. Hint: no one wants to hear DNC talking points 24/7.

1. Yeah, okay, whatever, like C4 said, we'll see how the lawsuit does in court.

Again, how the lawsuit does in court is irrelevant to whether or not a reasonable person should trust Fox. They admitted they are willing to lie for ratings. You don't care I get that. Something that just proves a point I've made in this OP. That you WANT to be lied to, as long as the lie is conforming to your own bias.

2. Just an FYI, Hillary later recanted her concession and said that Biden should NEVER concede.

The link shows the latter. (Although it ended up Trump doing exactly what Hillary said he would do.) I didn't see her recant her previous concession though. Can you show me where she recanted? Not saying it didn't happen, but the link doesn't provide what you said it would.

3. Bear spray isn't a firearm, is it? No it is not. As soon as armed police showed up the riot was over.

Nope, neither is it a knife, a tank, or a bazooka. One can still be armed with other things than a gun.

4. The ratings show which programs are better.

Lol and here you go again moving the goalposts. You claimed all fox opinion shows always have a Democrat scheduled. ratings do nothing for you in order to prove that statement. It is called a red herring. You can't defend your position, so you change the subject.

Anyway Kyzr. I hope you have a nice day. I think I'm done talking to you about this considering you now are just spewing fallacies in order to avoid having to argue substance.

 

[j-mac]

First off, the Harvard Study you're posting is showing the number of negative/positive stories about Donald Trump and only Donald Trump, not the level of right/left bias in the media.

The media would have written more positive stuff about Trump if there had been anything positive to write. Even F0X News had trouble finding positive things to write about Trump.

If that were true, the you progressive liberals wouldn’t have such a problem with FNC…

 

[kyzr]

Again, how the lawsuit does in court is irrelevant to whether or not a reasonable person should trust Fox. They admitted they are willing to lie for ratings. You don't care I get that. Something that just proves a point I've made in this OP. That you WANT to be lied to, as long as the lie is conforming to your own bias.

The link shows the latter. (Although it ended up Trump doing exactly what Hillary said he would do.) I didn't see her recant her previous concession though. Can you show me where she recanted? Not saying it didn't happen, but the link doesn't provide what you said it would.
Nope, neither is it a knife, a tank, or a bazooka. One can still be armed with other things than a gun.

Lol and here you go again moving the goalposts. You claimed all fox opinion shows always have a Democrat scheduled. ratings do nothing for you in order to prove that statement. It is called a red herring. You can't defend your position, so you change the subject.

Anyway Kyzr. I hope you have a nice day. I think I'm done talking to you about this considering you now are just spewing fallacies in order to avoid having to argue substance.