47 thoughts on “Fox News Knows it is spreading lies but does it anyway.

  1. GOPsters should invert the hyper-partisan nature of these investigations and present the Rudy dossier to the FISA court, in order to secure a warrant that allows them to spy on Dems. 😉

    In all seriousness, the fakestream media refuses to investigate Ukraine. On the other hand, Rudy and John Solomon have traveled there to conduct actual interviews with Ukrainians who claim to have knowledge related to corruption.

    Rudy has notched more than 4,000 convictions, so clearly, he knows what he’s doing. Furthermore, he has taken down some of NY City’s most notorious mobsters; thus, he will not be intimidated by the swamp-state.

    Here is a link to his podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-9J07yyuXQTx_uZQchtwsg

    BTW, Fox is more trusted than any of the other cable or network news agencies.

    BBC, Fox News, PBS ranked as TV’s most trusted news brands
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/399701-bbc-fox-news-pbs-ranked-as-tvs-most-trusted-news-brands

    Like

  2. You really need to learn to differentiate between commentary and news.

    Fow News COMMENTATORS are no more biased than those on CNN or MSNBC, the liberal media just never question themselves.

    Like

    1. @Tabor

      You need to think before you post.

      There is no need to differentiate and nearly impossible anyway.
      It is NOT okay for “COMMENTATORS” to spread lies.

      You are welcome to any opinion you want. You don’t get your “alternative facts.”

      Liked by 2 people

  3. What do we learn from the DailyBeast?

    • That John Solomon’s credibility has been questioned in the past.
    • That Rudy Giuliani has spoken with some Ukrainians of doubtful integrity.

    • That Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing didn’t disclose the name of one of their clients.

    From this we’re supposed to conclude that Fox News is a purveyor of lies and disinformation to which no decent, self-respecting human being would expose himself.

    Pretty weak beer. Not one single lie or falsehood is documented in the story. More than that, Fox’s own briefing book warns show developers of possible pitfalls related to the guests at issue — presumably so that show developers can avoid them.

    This story and Forum post are nothing more than a gratuitous smear against Fox News and it’s viewers. The psychology of such a projection is possibly interesting, but the reality is just sick.

    Like

    1. FOX is the enemy of the people, according to Trump.

      “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

      4/5/19 Tweet.

      Is that a gratuitous smear or just the regime flapping its digital lips with the usual drivel?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Is that a gratuitous smear or just the regime flapping its digital lips with the usual drivel?”

        I don’t know. What was the context? Since Trump’s Twitter feed routinely features video clips from Fox , I suspect you are leaving something out.

        Like

        1. “ The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs. They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

          “It was not immediately clear what triggered the president’s tweet, which came as he flew on Air Force One to visit the border in Calexico, Calif.“

          https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people

          Unless FOX has a “get out of jail free card” (which they do as the regime’s propaganda station, but I digress), it seems they got smeared along with the more honest media.

          Apparently the trigger was a mystery.

          Another day, another insult or implied threat to something or someone.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Unless FOX has a “get out of jail free card” (which they do as the regime’s propaganda station, but I digress), it seems they got smeared along with the more honest media.”

          That’s what I thought. You were so eager to say something ugly about Trump that you were willing to lie in order to say it.

          “FOX is the enemy of the people, according to Trump” according to you. But the facts say otherwise.

          Like

          1. Is FOX considered the media or not?

            If the press is the enemy of the people, then it follows that what I wrote is true.

            That’s not a lie.

            Did he say the media, not including FOX?

            I think you are eager to prove me wrong.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Len
            Be fair. The logic that comes easy to you is hard for others so they get flummoxed and start throwing out epithets. I mean, this is very hard to follow . . .

            The news media is an Enemy of the People.
            Fox News is news media.
            Therefore, Fox News is an Enemy of the People

            Liked by 3 people

          3. RE: “The logic that comes easy to you is hard for others so they get flummoxed and start throwing out epithets.”

            You must have flunked logic in school. This is clear because your example syllogism is fallacious. Specifically, the major premise is dubious. Because it cannot be taken as true, neither can your conclusion.

            I never cease to be amazed at your self-referential reasoning.

            Like

          4. RE: “I think you are eager to prove me wrong.”

            I am eager for you to see the error of your ways. According to you, Trump said FOX is the enemy of the people, but in fact Trump didn’t say that. You inferred it — illogically — from an entirely different thing Trump said. Passing off your fallacious inference as though it were a fact is dishonest.

            Like

          5. @Roberts

            Actually, I did not flunk logic in school. In fact, I studied it in college and did very, very well. You, on the other hand . . . well, out of my ingrained human kindness will say no more.

            The simple syllogism that has you confused is entirely sound. Like any sound syllogism the truth of the conclusion is a function of the truth of its premises. If the premises are TRUE and the syllogism is sound then the conclusion has to be TRUE as well. Let’s examine this one. . .

            Premise 1 – “The news media is an Enemy of the People.”
            That is the unqualified statement made by Dear Leader on many, many occasions. That can either be TRUE or it can be FALSE. Your choice is to accept that it is TRUE or admit that Trump is lying when he makes this claim.

            Premise 2 – Fox News is news media.
            Okay, that may be a stretch but, if you believe it to be TRUE then it MUST follow that . . .

            Fox News is an Enemy of the People.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “Let’s examine this one.”

            Yes. Let’s.

            Premise 1 – “The news media is an Enemy of the People.”

            Could be true. Could be false. ONLY IF true is the conclusion of the syllogism true. But the truth of the premise is in doubt. Therefore the truth of the conclusion is in doubt.

            RE: “Your choice is to accept that it is TRUE or admit that Trump is lying when he makes this claim.”

            No, I have a third choice, as stated: I can note that the premise is unproved.

            In other words, your syllogism isn’t a sound one because, as stated, its major premise is dubious.

            This classic syllogistic fallacy is usually covered in high school logic class. You must have been absent that day.

            Like

          7. 1) Did Donald J. Trump call the media the “enemy of the people”? Yes he did. On several occasions.

            2) Is Fox News part of said media? Yes they are. Unless of course they are excluded because of their unofficial status of “state media”. They deny that so….

            Conclusion based on the simplest answers to the simplest questions: Fox News is the enemy of the people, per Donald J. Trump.

            Your analysis is not needed. Mr. Trump is a simple man. The answers to questions concerning him only require simple answers.

            And the premise you say is not proven, is absolutely proven, in the simplest of terms.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. @Roberts

            LOL! You really should not try to claim superiority on things that you are completely and obviously ignorant of. In this case elementary formal logic. For example, you state . . .

            “In other words, your syllogism isn’t a sound one because, as stated, its major premise is dubious.”

            Uh, no. First, the soundness of a syllogism is a formal quality. It only requires that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This for example is a sound syllogism . . .

            Major Premise : All Trump supporters are simpletons.
            Minor Premise : John Roberts is a Trump supporter.
            Conclusion : Therefore, John Roberts is a simpleton.

            Second, in formal logic there is no such attribute as “dubious.” Statements are either TRUE or they are FALSE. You would know that if you actually had any knowledge of formal logic.

            Finally, I clearly stated that the truth of the conclusion of a syllogism depends on the truth of the Premises. Did you not understand that? This seems like an easy sentence . . . “If the premises are TRUE and the syllogism is sound then the conclusion has to be TRUE as well.” Too hard for you?

            Anyway, the bottom line is that IF Trump’s statements are TRUE and Fox News actually is news media then Fox News IS an Enemy of the People.

            If you choose to believe and follow a leader who makes FALSE or “dubious” statements ripped from the pages of Hitler, Stalin and Mao that is up to you.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. RE: “Statements are either TRUE or they are FALSE.”

            No, but if that is the best you can do, then you are beyond help. You should go back to school.

            Like

          10. RE: “And the premise you say is not proven, is absolutely proven, in the simplest of terms.”

            It is not proven for purposes of the syllogism, or do you really mean to take the position that whatever Trump says must be true?

            Like

          11. @Roberts

            I am still LOL! at your pig-headed and apparently willful ignorance.

            Because . . . “Statements ARE either TRUE or they are FALSE.”

            We are talking about formal deductive logic here and in formal deductive logic there is no third choice. As I said earlier, your urging me to go back to school is laughable given your obvious deficiency in this subject.

            Oh, but you say a statement can be “dubious.” But what does that mean? It means that the statement is either True or False but we do not know which. Still only two choices for statements of fact. True or False.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. RE: “It means that the statement is either True or False but we do not know which.”

            Yes, which means that we don’t know whether the conclusion is true or false.

            Your mistake in formal logic is to assume that because a syllogism is valid, the conclusion must be true.

            Like

          13. @Roberts

            “Your mistake in formal logic is to assume that because a syllogism is valid, the conclusion must be true.”

            I made no such mistake in formal logic. Neither did Len. We simply pointed out the logical implications of what Trump goes around telling everybody.

            In fact, Len’s original statement was a kind of reductio ad absurdum because the logical implications of what Trump says is something that Trump would not say – that Fox news is an Enemy of the People.

            This was obvious from the get go to anybody with any sense but that did not stop you from hurling insults at the people trying to educate you a little bit.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. RE: “the logical implications of what Trump says is something that Trump would not say”

            Right. Your fallacious reasoning is “true” because it was meant all along to be understood as fallacious. Humpty Dumpty couldn’t have said it better.

            Like

          15. RE: “Your advice is to ignore whatever Trump says.”

            My advice is to not attribute to Trump — or to anyone else — things they don’t actually say.

            Like

          16. @Roberts

            But, but, but Trump said Fox news is and Enemy of the People.

            No need to respond. We get it. You think it is wrong to take Trump at his word. In this case he did not mean ALL media, just the media that criticizes him. How silly of us to not do what you do – put your own meaning into his actual words.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. RE: “You think it is wrong to take Trump at his word.”

            If you were Trump at his word, you would not be making inferences.

            Like

          18. What exactly was inferred?

            You guys are getting too deep in the weeds. I posted the answer in the simplest of terms, both logically and figuratively.

            Or are you admitting the Trump was lying to us when he referred to the media as “an enemy of the people”?

            Like

          19. RE: “Or are you admitting the Trump was lying to us when he referred to the media as ‘an enemy of the people’?”

            I am asserting that it is a lie to claim that Trump called Fox News an enemy of the people, since the tweet given to prove the claim contains no such statement.

            Like

          20. “ I am asserting that it is a lie to claim that Trump called Fox News an enemy of the people, since the tweet given to prove the claim contains no such statement.”

            Well, maybe you can clear this up for us.

            Who is the enemy of the people according to the tweet I referenced?

            Liked by 2 people

  4. Why is this such a surprise?

    Can anyone name a completely independent national media outlet?

    One which does nothing more than report what happened (briefly and concisely) with no bias?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Craig

      It would be foolish to say that such an organization exists but it is a question of degree. For SOME reason regular viewers of Fox News are measurably misinformed versus regular viewers of other news organizations. And, I would note that – to its credit – the finding that Fox relies too heavily on known sources of “alternative facts” was not a point made by Media Matters or Rachel Maddow but by Fox itself.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. @Craig

          Pot . . . Kettle?

          I don’t follow? Who is the pot? Who is the kettle? Or is it a way of saying that all media organizations are equally bad? If so, I strongly disagree. And the fact that there are measurable differences of misinformation depending on the source of “news” supports my opinion.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. All too often I hear/read blasts regarding FOX news….but rarely have I heard/read equitable treatment towards CNN, MSNBC (ad nausea) from the same folks.

            Again, sir- pot…kettle.

            Like

          2. @Craig

            Could it be that what you perceive as unbalanced treatment is because on the one side we have actual news organizations that don’t spread lies and distortions and on the other we have a propaganda organization that does?

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s