'Fox News Is Now a Threat to National Security' (wired.com) 772
The network's furthering of lies from foreign adversaries and flagrant disregard for the truth have gotten downright dangerous. Garrett M. Graff, writing for Wired earlier this month: Monday's split-screen drama, as the House Judiciary Committee weighed impeachment charges against President Trump and as the Justice Department's inspector general released a 476-page report on the FBI's handling of its 2016 investigation into Trump's campaign, made one truth of the modern world inescapable: The lies and obfuscations forwarded ad infinitum on Fox News pose a dangerous threat to the national security of the United States. The facts of both dramas were clear to objective viewers: In the one instance, there's conclusive and surprisingly consistent evidence that President Trump pushed Ukraine to concoct dirt on a domestic political rival to affect the 2020 presidential election, and in the other, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that the FBI was proper to investigate Trump's dealings with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.
But that set of facts is not what anyone who was watching Fox News heard. Instead, Fox spent the night describing an upside-down world where the president's enemies had spun a web of lies about Trump and Ukraine, even as Horowitz blew open the base corruption that has driven every attack on the president since 2016. Sean Hannity, who had long trumpeted the forthcoming inspector general report and expected a thorough indictment of the behavior of former FBI director James Comey and other members of the "deep state," had a simple message for his viewers during Fox's Monday night prime time: "Everything we said, everything we reported, everything we told you was dead-on-center accurate," he said. "It is all there in black and white, it's all there." Except they weren't right and it wasn't there. But Fox News' viewers evidently were not to be told those hard truths -- they were to be kept thinking that everything in their self-selected filter bubble was just peachy keen.
Over on Fox Business, Lou Dobbs said the mere fact that the IG found no political bias in the FBI's investigation of Trump and Russia in 2016 was de facto proof of the power of the deep state. John Harwood, long one of Washington's most respected conservative voices in journalism, summed up Fox's approach Monday night simply: "Lunacy." It's worse than lunacy, though. Fox's bubble reality creates a situation where it's impossible to have the conversations and debate necessary to function as a democracy. Facts that are inconvenient to President Trump simply disappear down Fox News' "memory hole," as thoroughly as George Orwell could have imagined in 1984. The idea that Fox News represents a literal threat to our national security, on par with Russia's Internet Research Agency or China's Ministry of State Security, may seem like a dramatic overstatement of its own but this week has made clear that, as we get deeper into the impeachment process and as the 2020 election approaches, Fox News is prepared to destroy America's democratic traditions if it will help its most important and most dedicated daily viewer. The threat posed to our democracy by Fox News is multifaceted: First and most simply, it's clearly advancing and giving voice to narratives and smears backed and imagined by our foreign adversaries. Second, its overheated and bombastic rhetoric is undermining America's foundational ideals and the sense of fair play in politics. Third, its unique combination of lies and half-truths has built a virtual reality so complete that it leaves its viewers too misinformed to fulfill their most basic responsibilities as citizens to make informed choices about the direction of the country.
But that set of facts is not what anyone who was watching Fox News heard. Instead, Fox spent the night describing an upside-down world where the president's enemies had spun a web of lies about Trump and Ukraine, even as Horowitz blew open the base corruption that has driven every attack on the president since 2016. Sean Hannity, who had long trumpeted the forthcoming inspector general report and expected a thorough indictment of the behavior of former FBI director James Comey and other members of the "deep state," had a simple message for his viewers during Fox's Monday night prime time: "Everything we said, everything we reported, everything we told you was dead-on-center accurate," he said. "It is all there in black and white, it's all there." Except they weren't right and it wasn't there. But Fox News' viewers evidently were not to be told those hard truths -- they were to be kept thinking that everything in their self-selected filter bubble was just peachy keen.
Over on Fox Business, Lou Dobbs said the mere fact that the IG found no political bias in the FBI's investigation of Trump and Russia in 2016 was de facto proof of the power of the deep state. John Harwood, long one of Washington's most respected conservative voices in journalism, summed up Fox's approach Monday night simply: "Lunacy." It's worse than lunacy, though. Fox's bubble reality creates a situation where it's impossible to have the conversations and debate necessary to function as a democracy. Facts that are inconvenient to President Trump simply disappear down Fox News' "memory hole," as thoroughly as George Orwell could have imagined in 1984. The idea that Fox News represents a literal threat to our national security, on par with Russia's Internet Research Agency or China's Ministry of State Security, may seem like a dramatic overstatement of its own but this week has made clear that, as we get deeper into the impeachment process and as the 2020 election approaches, Fox News is prepared to destroy America's democratic traditions if it will help its most important and most dedicated daily viewer. The threat posed to our democracy by Fox News is multifaceted: First and most simply, it's clearly advancing and giving voice to narratives and smears backed and imagined by our foreign adversaries. Second, its overheated and bombastic rhetoric is undermining America's foundational ideals and the sense of fair play in politics. Third, its unique combination of lies and half-truths has built a virtual reality so complete that it leaves its viewers too misinformed to fulfill their most basic responsibilities as citizens to make informed choices about the direction of the country.
Graff is still at it (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
He went on to edit or write for mainly Left Wing news sites, as he writes in his biography:
"He taught at Georgetown University for seven years, including courses on journalism and technology, and his writing and commentary has appeared in publications like the Wa
Re:Graff is still at it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you not see the Chris Wallace interview with James Comey?
That was one of the better journalistic interviews Ive seen on TV in a long while.
No softball questions.
Calling out lies when told by the person interviewed.
As the article, you need to make a difference between Fox News desk and the opinion shows like Hannity.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc... are all just as guilty of highly partisan lies on their opinion shows.
And all these organisations, including fox news are attacking independent news sources or comment
Re:Graff is still at it (Score:5, Informative)
FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news.
Source:Fox's own Youtube channel [youtube.com]
Fox themselves describe their service as entirely news, so the author isn't the only one not making that distinction. From their description, Hannity must fall under news, political news, or business news. It's easy to be confused when you've been lied to.
Re:Graff is still at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like promoting conspiracy theories and gaslighting the entire country is kind of a problem.
Yes, he is. And he is gaslighting the country. The very nature of any flame war is that both sides believe that the information they know is more important than the information they don't know. Calling what Trump asked for "dirt on political opponent" is gaslighting. A prosecutor asking cops to investigate his political rival for a potential crime is not digging for dirt. He is asking for evidence of a crime. A President asking for evidence of a crime by his political rival is serving dual purpose. Yes, it benefits his campaign. But it also falls within his area of responsibility to the country. He has to make sure that the person who has a high chance of becoming the next President is not corrupt. He has to investigate for the benefit of the country. This is how the adversarial political system benefits the voters. The opposing parties are supposed to keep each other honest.
Re: (Score:3)
He has to make sure that the person who has a high chance of becoming the next President is not corrupt.
Absolutely. Which is why, with the well-documented incumbent advantage that Trump is enjoying, he's also pressured Ukraine to investigate Trump's own dealings for any evidence of criminally. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
He is asking for evidence of a crime.
That's not what he did, the whole point was for Zelensky to go on an American TV network (ironically they picked CNN) and to announce an investigation into the Bidens. The interview was already scheduled and only cancelled at the last minute.
I presume you know this and are just concern trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
News and politics should not mix (Score:2)
This only leads to the credibility being completely ruined for the general population, and giving anyone the power to make up "truths" on spot.
This got to a point where the timecube website is as trustworthy as CNN or Fox News.
Enemies of the People (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, this takes me back!..
Not only are Fox wrong — they are a dangerous enemy of the (Glorious) People!
Quality/Reputation mismatch is the threat (Score:3, Informative)
The real problem is that they've largely abandoned journalistic standards, but their reputation is taking extra time to decay. Fox is bleeding reputable editors and reporters because the good ones can't stand what's going on inside the organization. What's left over probably doesn't meet the bar for high-quality journalistic news anymore. But, they still have the good reputation that they earned from years of doing a good job.
So a large chunk of the US population still trusts them to provide good-quality info, but in reality they've degraded into a place that's fine if you want to listen to right-wing opinion pieces, but truth and facts are not required.
This will fix itself over the long haul. In a decade or so, Fox will have burned off the residual good reputation and it'll be recognized as the mouthpiece of the republican party, which is really what it's become. At that point, even conservatives won't really trust them to be a news source. They will be the news equivalent of the NRA. Even right-wing gun owners mostly understand that the NRA doesn't represent their interests anymore. It's a dinosaur that hasn't figured out it's dead yet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying conservatism is going away. It's just that conservatives need a high quality source of news, just like anyone else, but they haven't figured out that Fox has morphed into the equivalent of an Ann Coulter rant disguised as a news agency.
Re:Quality/Reputation mismatch is the threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I say "Steve Bannon" and you try to claim that I'm referring to everyone left of Stalin.
Which of us is it that makes ridiculous claims?
wth happened to slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess after all these years it may be time to leave. /. back!!!
On what planet is some idiots partisan rant news for nerds or stuff that matters?
I want the old
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even Jon Katz would be better than this garbage.
Re:wth happened to slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess after all these years it may be time to leave. /. back!!!
On what planet is some idiots partisan rant news for nerds or stuff that matters?
I want the old
Slashdot has been on the decline since the rise of the new post 2000 generation of kids, going from anti-drm, software freedom days, to sucking steam and valves dick, the theft of PC games and the rise of authoritarian spyware and drm in the operating system where the OS is taken hostage in windows 10 requiring a permanent connection monitoring you, and many slashdotters these days are convinced these are good things, not a sign that America is a lawless out of control oligarchy stealing human culture and hacking our machines and software via games, apps and the OS. And everyone bends over and licks the nuts of the corporate CEO's can't wait for that authoritarian capitalism with keyboard jockeys commanded by rich CEO's to brick our machins by re-writing the rules of our software against our interests and nobody bats and eye, and just rolls over, joyous in their "MMO's" (stolen rpg's that kicked off steam).
The modern slashdot population is too stupid and irrational to know information from disinformation.
Re:wth happened to slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the modern Slashdot population is a fan of Fox News?
It's true that /. has been declining - which is why I rarely ever post anymore and only visit every few days, as opposed to quasi permanently like I used to.
I also absolutely agree that this particular article has no reason whatsoever for being on this forum. And I think and will state on record that calling Fox a threat to national security is overblown. A few decades ago, the concept of national security actually involved "security of the nation". Nowadays, it just means "anything that the author does not like, but does not know how to defeat with logic so let's make it sound big, threatening, and preferably secret and far too complex for Jane Doe to understand anyway". You know, like that time when Trump took economic measures against Canada claiming "national security" reasons.
However, all that doesn't change the fact that Fox "reporting" is utter crap. All news agencies are somehow biased, but Fox is the absolute champion of fake news & disinformation. They are a galactic disgrace to the intelligence of people they try to defend.
Trump attacking science & truth (Score:3)
Who cares? (Score:3)
It's become obvious that the signal to noise ratio is so bad that even a smart guy like me can't decode a semblance of the truth no matter the source.
Maybe that's what they want. We've already stopped talking to each other. There's no empathy for others. It's like a dry pile of wood soaked with gasoline.
But I can promise you that, when the neighbor on neighbor shooting starts, smart folks will just get out of the way. Better to let morons self-select out of the populace.
Picking up a gun against an invader is understandable. Picking up a gun against your fellow countrymen is karma level stupidity.
The BS Level of this story is intolerable (Score:3)
Not the only source of disinformation. (Score:3)
There are actually several "news" outlets that are sources of disinformation.
Instead of targeting the particular source of your ire, we should instead be agreeing to making it illegal for people and/or corporations to paid to promote information they know is misleading or incorrect. This way, you can still promote anything but if you profit from it (directly or indirectly) then those involved in the production of your message have to agree it's not misleading and is accurate. Wack-ados can still publish their crazy stuff (so long as everyone involved in the production is onboard with the crazy) and if you/the corporation cannot agree then you can't publish it (which would radically reduce the number of bullshit sources of information).
With these restrictions there is not legal body is required to determine what the truth is but it does mean that corporations are then permanently branded with the message they push. Should they self-contradict or flip-flop then that could land them in court and people under oath explaining what then mean and what caused them to change.
Democracy is a peaceful way to remove a government (Score:5, Interesting)
Two last points about Trump. He gets two things that the mainstream media doesn't want to admit.
1) Americans are anti immigration / fearful that the amount of immigration has changed the "look" of their country.
2) Americans have become sticky in where they live. As a result opportunities for Americans particularly white males who don't want to move are very limited. The American Dream for them is only a dream. Trump might be incorrectly blaming China for taking away the manufacturing jobs but he is the only candidate speaking directly to this group about their fears. Right now these people don't care if they are lied to they just care that someone is listening to them.
Re: (Score:3)
If the United States were a true democracy, it never would have formed in the first place. Nobody outside of Virginia and New York would have agreed to such a system of government back in the 1780s.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no open border and no one is calling for an open border. It's a myth, fake news, designed to scare you. It works too.
Same with illegal immigrants. Claiming asylum is not illegal. Also what is illegal is arbitrary, not based on good faith actions. People applying for family visas from Mexico currently face a 20 year processing time, so it's not like there is even a legal route open to them anyway.
It's the classic misdirection. Billionaires are robbing you blind while telling you that the illegal imm
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any idea how hard it is to legally immigrate?
They are currently processing family applications from the late 90s.
Give people a legal route and they will use it.
a few problems with this article... (Score:3)
I mean, he's not *wrong*. There is a problem in this country both with journalistic standards, and with the quality of political debate, and Fox News has contributed to this problem. But there are several problems with what he has written:
1) There is an implicit assumption that Fox is the *only* news outlet that ignores journalistic standards and engages in "overheated and bombastic rhetoric". I disagree, and I think some of the left wing news outlets are just as guilty of these offenses.
2) The major question about the news industry is not "Is it doing a good job?" We already know it's not. We already know that there are deep, deep problems with the state of the news industry. (Ask any journalist.) The major question is-- what can we do to change the situation?
And the author's answer to *that* one is-- let's get Fox News officially designated as a "threat to national security!" I don't know what the author has in mind exactly, but I do know what generally happens to "threats to national security", in this country or any other-- they are shut down by guys carrying rifles, and the perpetrators are put in jail. So, congratulations on your proposed solution, there. The cure you propose is a thousand times worse than the disease.
Democracy in the USA is f*^ked (Score:3)
Both the Democrat & Republican parties & their corresponding supporting media organisations are doing a pretty good job of allowing a tiny minority of people get extremely rich, powerful, & unaccountable. What we're seeing in all the main media outlets is the result of this: completely polarised rhetoric over mostly non-issues. The investigation into the Trump administration's relationship with the Kremlin is a good example of this. The focus was entirely on finding evidence of collusion & even though it found many instances of impropriety & misconduct, they were ignored. Collusion of this kind is close to impossible to find conviction-worthy evidence for, whether it happened or not. Plus, the Kremlin had no need to collude with members of the Trump administration & doing so would've been more of a liability since Trump seems to be incapable of being discreet, i.e. colluding.
That US politics is so polarised & divisive, & the accompanying disregard for factual truths, is cause for concern in itself for both the Democrats & Republicans. Disregarding, misrepresenting, & actively undermining factual information leaves US politics extremely vulnerable, not to just the billionaire oligarchs seeking commercial & political advantages, but also to competitive & hostile foreign powers.
Reading between the lines, what I'm saying is the power that the US oligarchs are being allowed to wield can also be wielded by foreign oligarchs & governments. If US democratic institutions can't reign this in, the status of the union & the US empire will decline rapidly. At the moment, it looks like successive US administrations & political parties & their corresponding media organisations are handing over commercial & political strategic advantages to China & other foreign powers on a silver platter.
Re: (Score:3)
You sir are delusional. If you come out of the last 3 years of news media thinking there is no left wing media conspiracy, you have been completely hoodwinked.
You have no objectivity.
Look at everywhere that News Corp is popular (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump, Brexit, etc, etc, etc... all these things were far-right fringe subjects a short time ago, and unthinkable a decade or more ago.
Rupert Murdock has done more damage to Western Civilization than any other enemy could even dream of.
News for Nerds? (Score:3)
This may interest the nerds in the US to some degree, but I doubt enough for it to be posted here.
For the rest of us...
It's a "THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry liberals, contrarian points of view are, at best, a threat to your _propaganda_ not "our democracy". Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly. Our democracy is failing, it's not that FOX cause it or is a threat to it. It's a symptom of our failure. We live in a world where people accept garbage into their brains, and no amount of rational discussion can get people to change their mind.
Our culture has survived huge technological and social changes over the centuries. There is no guarantee that we can survive every future change with our democracy and liberty intact. Widely available internet, and micro publishing (often called social m
I think my DNS is broken. (Score:4, Funny)
Reason for the season (Score:3)
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
"They're not accepting our propaganda as gospel. This is dangerous."
Re: (Score:3)
Oregon transplant? How does that even work?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't completely disagree with the idea that Fox News isn't spewing lies, but I woudn't go so far as to call them lies. They are opinions disguised as facts and outrage. The problem here is, so is CNN. Had they called out the entire system and chided the partizan politics as a threat to National Security (it is), I could have been on boar
Re: Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
A news organization generally splits into three areas - the presentation of the "news" which are generally treated as facts as best as are known at the time, the "analysis" which is a discussion of the news and the possible implications of it, and the presentation of "editorials" which are subjective, biased, political, etc.
Some news organziations do blur the line between analysis and editorializing of course, it's only natural. However the problem with Fox News every time I see it is that they are completely unable to keep their editorializing out of the "news". That's how you actually can tell you're watching Fox even if you don't recognize any of the people behind the desk, because their presentation of the facts is colored with an overtly political view in just about every item being presented. And you will not see that in out news outlets in the US; yes of course you will see bias, such as bias about what stories to present, but nowhere else is it so amazingly blatant as on Fox.
Re: (Score:3)
Most in the West have no idea (Score:4, Insightful)
It is almost certain that anyone in the West expressing support for socialism has never actually lived in a socialist state.
Further, they are convinced that if only they were in charge, they could implement socialism the right way.
Re: (Score:3)
Most Eastern Europeans I've met are quite fine with universal healthcare and "free" public university education. You seem to be conflating socialism with communism. While they are in the same spectrum most socialism doesn't come with authoritarianism that came with your examples. The "socialist" concepts that are being proposed by the likes of Bernie still very much support democracy and capitalism.
You're not going to see Bernie tell you to shut up if you argue with him, that was the whole reason he went o
Re: Translation (Score:3)
They are ALL the same, you have read between the lines to get the news now, MSNBC,CNN,FOX are all as bad as RT News for propaganda.
Fox is what it is, a right wing answer to all the other left wing media outlets.
I miss old school news where a crusty old guy read the news from copy in his hands, with no bias either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be honest: MSNBC is still more-biased than CNN. CNN always seems to piss off somebody. Back in the 90s, people started calling them "Combat News Network" thanks to their coverage of the first Gulf War. They loved showing videos of those Tomahawk missiles launching off the decks of Navy vessels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your facts here are a off.
1) Trump may not have personally told Zelenski the reason for withholding miltiary aid, however people who worked for Trump most certainly were being told to put the pressure on Ukraine according to the testimony that was given. You can certainly disagree with the testimony, but the idea that if Trump doesn't say certain words then he must not be guilty is a big stretch.
2) The government already investigate Ukraine and found that it was NOT corrupt, that Zelenski was the real deal
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) Trump may not have personally told Zelenski the reason for withholding miltiary aid, however people who worked for Trump most certainly were being told to put the pressure on Ukraine according to the testimony that was given. You can certainly disagree with the testimony, but the idea that if Trump doesn't say certain words then he must not be guilty is a big stretch.
You lost me when you said "most certainly". Trump was accused of putting pressure on Zelinski during a particular phone call. Hence the whistle blower, the flagged call, etc.. If he didn't say the words in the phone call, then that's that. No more bullshit. Please.
2) The government already investigate Ukraine and found that it was NOT corrupt, that Zelenski was the real deal and was trying to clean things up The law was followed. Only Trump seems to believe otherwise.
Trump wasn't asking the US to re-investigate Ukraine, Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son's dealings within the country.
3) There's no evidence of Biden doing anything wrong here. He is not above the law but there's nothing to investigate him about. His sone was on a board of a company but there's no evidence that his sone was involved in corrupt actions. Biden did get a corrupt prosector fired, the prosecutor who was NOT investigating the company that Biden's son was on. Only when the prosecutor fired did he claim that it was because he was ready to investigate Burisma, but that was clearly a smokescreen that everyone recognized. There's no reason to do an investigation because there's no evidence of any wrong doing - you may as well claim to investigate anyone, just because we need to get to the bottom of every random person out there.
You can not possible know that without an investigation. No one is asking for every person to be ra
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's not what the documents showed. That is what CNN claimed the documents showed. The "document" was a single email at the end of a weeks long string of emails.
Re: (Score:3)
This is seriously underrated. I'd like to add some points.
1. The evidence that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and to look for the DNC e-mail server is a matter of record, per the July 25 call-transcript. The evidence that Trump pressured Zalenski to announce an investigation of the Bidens in exchange for a White House meeting is also a matter of record: Abassador Sondland testified to that, under oath. The evidence that Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine is also a matter of record: recent
Re: (Score:3)
How is this tripe insightful? It is a right wing talking point that refuses to die. You understand that Hillary Clinton absolutely did not pay to commission the report that was ultimately used as one of many pieces of evidence providing probable cause. That was John McCain. Hillary paid for a copy of it after it was already made.
You are right, the whole thing is ridiculous and foreign graft and corruption is absolutely a problem and mostly a Republican problem as Democrats actually hold their own accountab
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. just because he didn;t say "quid pro quo" does not mean it wasn't exactly that.
2. on the implied threat of no money unless you investigate.
3. true, but the president shouldn;t throw stones in his own glass house of corruption.
4. it more or less was - they just needed a quote from Ukraine to say they are investigating, they didn;t actually have to do the investigation.
5. Biden was supported by IMF, EU etc to do what he d
Re: Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
The other media objective?
I am sure thereâ(TM)s a 12 step process for coming out of that.
I dunno, but I know for sure which political direction is the one most likely to sending the country down the shitter.
HInt: It's the "Two Santa Claus" direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Quote: In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector." Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."
(nb. That was written in 1976 and 100% describes Trump's current politics despite the Laffer Curve being well and truly debunked since then)
Re: (Score:3)
In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction.
And, also in the 1970s, it was noted that, as class warfare was becoming more and more a loser at the polls, the left was shifting to "the ecology" as justification to voters to give them the same power to clobber business that class warfare rhetoric did.
What's your point?
Rich white guys love Trump (Score:3, Insightful)
Working class guys, OTOH, don't love Trump. At least not the Trump running the country. The Trump who shows up at the rallies and promises them jobs and healthcare they love. Funny how there seems to be two Trumps that are at odds with each other in that regard...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rich white guys love ALL these guys. They are raking it in while you fight over which rich asshole will rule you next. You fuckers are so stupid. All these people have parties together. Trump used to be a Democrat. Hillary used to be a Republican. The Obamas, Clintons and Trumps live within 4 blocks of each other in DC. The douche who wrote this article is just another one.
Re:Rich white guys love Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Rich white guys love ALL these guys.
As a Silicon Valley engineer married to another Silicon Valley engineer, I likely qualify as a RWG. I benefit biggly from Trump's tax cut. But guess what? I benefitted even more from Obama's tax policies, especially the ability to fully expense capital investments. My spouse was starting her business during the Obama years, and that made it much more affordable for her to bootstrap.
Both parties take care of the RWGs because we pay the taxes that make the system work.
Re: (Score:3)
Rich white guys love ALL these guys.
As a Silicon Valley engineer married to another Silicon Valley engineer, I likely qualify as a RWG....Both parties take care of the RWGs because we pay the taxes that make the system work.
If you're actually paying taxes, then you really aren't a RWG.
Re:Rich white guys love Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rich white guys love Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Trump doubled the standard deduction AND capped the so-called SALT deduction... Boo-Hoo
The "average working class person" doesn't live in New York, California, New Jersey and a few other high-tax states - some do, but not most, or even half.
Re: Rich white guys love Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
You are arguing that 50% of the population has some obligation to subsidize the inflated housing costs of the other 50% who you describe as more well off, smarter, etc. Why? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Re: (Score:3)
Ok. Some facts for the electorally challenged among us - that mostly live in big metro areas it seems.
Yes, the electoral college gives some of us flyover states a bit more say in the Presidency proportional to our population due to Senators. But guess what - Presidents don't actually do much that is relevant to most of the country - including the big metro areas. They sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. They're Commander in Chief (which is supposed to be reigned in by Congress not that that has m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your state taxes have nothing to do with Trump, take that up with your legislators.
Trump is another rich white guy who has never (Score:5, Interesting)
worked a day in his life. This is even more apparent when you see his pathetic pantomimes of real people who actually do.
I fail to see your point.
Posting this article surely was just to spike /. Christmas Day page views because conflict generates traffic - that is the entire business model of Fox, it seems /. intends to adopt it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My point is this particular asshole and Trump have a lot in common. And CNN and Fox News are EXACTLY the same. They are all just trying to make money and get power. The rest of us actually have to make money and do actual work to survive. None of these people are your friends or are on "your side".
Re: Trump is another rich white guy who has never (Score:4, Insightful)
They peddled them all.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. At the moment Fox News feels like State TV. That is, it gives the official orthodox view presented by the government with almost non-existent questioning of the facts they're being fed. Yes, there are some occasions where Fox does seem to push back, but these seem very rare.
Compare for example with other presidents were in office; the news media was never 100% parotting what the presidents said. Maybe some news organizations were leaning one way or the other, or were outright biased, but they were never government mouthpieces. I know someone will point to liberal lamestream media fawning over Obama, but the reality if you watched the liberal news was that they were plenty of criticisms of the president. However these days, despite Trump not being very conservative and certainly not having traditional Republican stances, Fox will go along with the president. I don't even think this is necessarily out of love for Trump but because they're too scared of the Trump base to dare criticize him (same with most Republican politicians).
Now certainly Fox is not acting as bad as state TV in places like North Korea or Russia, but they do seem to be following that sort of pattern.
Re: (Score:3)
That made me chuckle.
Re: Translation (Score:3)
So through the side then.
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the information warfare blitz is in full steam. We have billionaires against billionaires, psyops operations versus psyops operations, nations trying to get one set of people elected that will be favorable to them and unfavorable to their rivals.
I don't bother with FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or other crap. They are either doing a Trump hugbox, or are vilifing him 24/7, and living in completely separate universes.
This whole thing are just the modern concept of bread and circuses. The impeachment is all theater because once it gets tossed in the Senate, it will be ripped apart like a chunk of steak in front of a pack of dogs. Not to say Trump is any better, because people are used to him saying anything, no matter how fictitious, when in the past, a single lie would bring down a candidate for good.
How about a pox on both their houses, and get some people in, who are not millionaires? Everyone in Congress is a millionaire, and just that fact alone shows that they have pretty much zero in common with the average American in a heartland city barely hanging on.
Want to know how to fight back? Delete your social media accounts. Shitcan twitter, trash Facebook, punt Instagram. Got groups of friends? Move to Signal, Telegram, Wickr, or some secure messaging system with encryption built in. If you desparately have to have social media, move to platforms like Discord or MeWe which respect your privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't bother with FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or other crap. They are either doing a Trump hugbox, or are vilifing him 24/7, and living in completely separate universes.
Actually, they have one use: They demonstrate a nation in the process of breaking up, because there is not enough common ground among its citizens anymore. Sure, this is a slow process, but ignore it now or eventually suffer the consequences.
Cable/TV News is all bad (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that most news is targeted towards people with an 8th grade education, and people with a pre-teen level of attention. Then we made these 24 hour news all the time stations. Leaving a paradox of bad.
Not having enough news to cover every 24 hours, and not having enough time to really cover the news that is happening.
I stopped watching Fox news back in 2003 during the Iraq war where they had a debate with a Sr. Bush official and some college kid who organized an anti-war protest in DC. Needless to say the debate was one sided, with the Sr. Bush Official seeming like responsible adult in the room. Realizing how one sided this was, I dropped all Fox news as just propaganda.
But what is really needed is news giving a full context on the issues. While I am not a fan of Trump and think he is the worst president we had. He his administration wasn't all blunders and screw-ups and his unorthodox methods did in fact do some good things too. But it is difficult to get a clear picture especially with TV and Radio because their are either praising him like a God, or demonize him as a bumbling idiot. As every article on what he did is out of context. To make it worse, trump isn't a fan of the news anyways, so they have to rely on his tweets for context which are short blurbs which have little contexts as well.
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this highly partisan
Since when does calling out Fox News for their incredible bullshit make someone highly partisan?
The article is blatant flamebait and only the most partisan of of people could read this and think that it has any factual basis.
We live in the information age, therefore it should be relatively simple for you to point to an example of Hannity back tracking on his previous statements now that the report is out right? Please show us all how the summary is factually incorrect.
This has nothing to do with science or technology
Fortunately this isn't news for science or technology, but rather news for nerds, and political nerd is a kind of nerd.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because people like you pretend the other news outlets AREN'T partisan, even though you DAMN WELL know they are. You cannot claim CNN is non-partisan after Zucker literally told everyone in the newsroom that getting Trump was going to be the #1 focus of the network.
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
All news outlets have their biases. But mostly it is limited to what they choose to cover, or not cover. Fox News goes way beyond that into outright lies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, CNN is non partisan. It is the free press job to be NON PARTISAN. You are being manipulated.
The only person being manipulated is the person believing that CNN is non-partisan, it's highly partisan. Just like the people who believe that the Chuck Todd interview with Rolling Stone wasn't full of actual lies. What bothers me more is just how far Wired has fallen in 30 years, from being a great magazine to engaging in clickbait and flamebait in order to drive traffic views because it knows that there's an entire group of people that are so hell bent on partisanship that they'll suck the tit dry on i
Re: (Score:3)
Donna Brazille giving debate questions to Hillary.
Reporters sending their news stories over to the Obama Whitehouse for markup before publishing.
It's not just CNN, though.
ABC has a former Clinton operative at the head of its news organization. Stephanopolous. That's the same organization that buried the Epstein story in 2016, because it had ties to the Clintons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, CNN is non partisan.
That, right there, is hilarious.
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, CNN is non partisan.
B.S. If you don't see it then you are contributing to the problem. CNN has articles that do exactly what Fox did here.
For example, just like how Fox ignores the parts of the IG report that say that the Russia investigation was justified, CNN minimizes the parts that say the FBI's warrants to investigate Page were misleading and inaccurate.
Another example: Almost every week for the last 2 years, CNN has had one or more headlines that made it sound like Trump was done for good that were based on wishful thinking. They have had clickbait headlines telling me that Republicans were secretly planning a mutiny and going to back impeachment of Trump when in fact no such thing was happening. The headlines claimed that got it from Republican congressman, when they really interviewed a former congressman's aide, and the congressman gave no assurance that matched the headline.
CNN would report that a Trump executive order is about to be overturned when it was merely stayed until the trial. They would make it sound like Republicans are outraged at Trump when really they were outraged at the courts.
CNN is bad enough that I try to avoid them because I kept getting a rosier picture of things (from my viewpoint at least) and I was tired of being mislead. It told me what I wanted to hear. I recommend looking at some of the various media bias charts [google.com] to get a bit of perspective. If you posted that CNN was "less biased than Fox" that would be fine. But "non-partisan" they are most definitely not!
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually an amazing example of precisely what the article talked about. Fox posts a lot of blatantly political, one sided "news". This article, which clearly was also highly political, attacked them for it and claimed much of their reporting is lies. You responded with yet another super political post filled with more assertions that are, at best, highly questionable.
But surely we can find some objective reality in here? Facts are facts whether you like them or not. We should be able to make some unambiguous determinations about whether certain people lied or not?
Hannity did or did not claim the report had concluded the FBI was wrong in opening the investigation? Not that be believed/hoped/assumed some followup investigation would do that, but that this investigation's report did? Did he in fact say, "It is all there in black and white?" If so, what did he mean by "it", and is it, in fact, there in black and white?
These aren't political question. They're simple questions of fact. And the answers are easy to find, because the relevant documents are all available online. Here's the full report [justice.gov], available for all of us to read.
Did the report state, as you assert, that "the entire Meuller report was entirely dependent on the Steele dossiere?" Not just that it was one factor inspiring them to open the investigation, but that it was the sole basis of the entire report? If so, you should be able to point to exactly where in the report it says that.
Unfortunately, you've also created a strong bias by selecting and discarding "facts". You put lots of weight on the inspector general's report, since you presumably like what it says, or what you've been led to believe it says. But you dismiss the Mueller report as a "political hit job". Can you provide objective facts that would convince an unbiased person of those views? Or is this simply a matter of confirmation bias, focusing on whatever supports your beliefs and rejecting anything that contradicts them? What evidence can you present that the Mueller report is a "political hit job" and the inspector general's report is not?
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
Mueller made a dozen arrests in the Trump cabinet and proved they worked with Russia without a reasonable doubt
You claim this despite Muller testifying in Congress (and in his report) that he found zero evidence that any American "worked with" the Russians?
From Mueller's opening statement this ast summer:
Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I accuse you of being a rapist, and yet they cannot find any evidence beyond me saying that, then you would be found innocent due to insufficient evidence.
So, would you still be a rapist? Just wondering...
After all, there would not be *zero* evidence - there would be one person who claims you are a rapist!
See how that works? No? Thought not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CNN and MSNBC simple report facts.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha! You wish.
Here's an example where CNN goes to great lengths to suggest Trump is against sanctions on Russia [cnn.com], with lines such as:
Russia sanctions have been an ongoing source of contention between the Trump White House and Congress
The President, however, has consistently urged better relations with Russia and displayed an affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Trump administration has long faced criticism for its soft-handed approach to Russia.
And this humdinger:
Re: (Score:3)
Wow!, just wow. How this silly and inconsistent comment got a 5 rating is beyond me. It cites a statement by CNN that President Obama personally ordered the tapping of candidate Donald Trump's phones and then lists two CNN stories that are claimed to show that to be untrue. Both refer to taps obtained by the FBI of people associated with the Trump campaign which MAY have involved conversations with Trump.(Probably did.) Neither provides any indication that Obama personally was in any way associated with eit
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin is winning the battle. If the UK and US continue with Trump and Johnson wanting to ditch Nato means Ukraine is theres. With bribery equaling free speech and the NRA getting money from Russia the corruption will continue. Disgusting.
Re:Article is -1 flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin is not the root cause. Sure, he may have added some logs to the fire, but he did not light the fire of dissent and unwillingness to compromise. That is the fault of the "populists" like Trump, Johnson, Orban, Bolsanero, etc. These people thrive on conflict and create it wherever possible. Long-term, that is utterly destructive to any society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can always scroll on to the next story.
This is important for everyone, nerds included.
Re:Oh man this is so funny. (Score:5, Informative)
Even Fox has posted polls showing the majority of their own viewers favor impeachment. [foxnews.com]
I'm inclined to believe this is a troll since I do not understand how someone can become so completely and obstinately out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox polls also showed Hillary winning in a landslide. Why would you trust any polls about Trump?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll see in about 10 months. THAT'S going to be a landslide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Approve? This article wasn't submitted by any user, MsMash posted it on her own. Trump Derangement even on Christmas day.
Re: (Score:2)
Approved by who? This site is literally run by three part time guys probably making $30k and probably only has 100 or so active people that actually visit regularly.
Re:*Waaahhh* (Score:4, Informative)
Stupidity and conspiracy both spread like a disease. Claiming this is just whining is grossly misunderstanding how communication works:
a) It's important to know and see what other people see. Ignoring a problem will just make it worse.
b) It's important to call out bullshit for what it is. Ignoring a problem will just make it worse.
Re:*Waaahhh* (Score:4, Insightful)
While the actual journalists such as Chris Wallace do a fairly decent job of presenting facts and challenging claims of the Trump admin, they hold lesser power over their viewers than do the Hannity's and the Carlson's and the Dobbs' of the emotion-driven commentary shows. Every time I've tried to watch a few min of Tucker Carlson just to see how others see the world, I come away amazed at how paranoid his viewers have to be that they think danger lurks behind every. single. corner.
So no, this isn't a "your team versus my team" scenario. The facts are either totally ignored or manipulated very deliberately by the pundits and commentators on that channel. Why do you think Shep left? Is he so on the "other team" that he left? Or could he simply not stand being undercut by b.s.?
Re:*Waaahhh* (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I read this as excellent sarcasm. Am I wrong?
Re:Teams who don't play defense lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is there no site dedicated to debunking them line for line 24/7? Aren't there any progressive billionaires out there who want to punch Fox in the nuts using details, logic, and truth?
What's the point? Fox viewers will never see it.
Fox will just point to it yell Fake News, and get more sympathy from their viewers because the big bad MSM is attacking them.
Truth doesn't work on these people. Unfortunately.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)