FOX LIES internal emails SHOW

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

Context is pretty important here and you clearly missed it. If Trump had said this in a private call to Russian leaders that's a different story. This public comment was clearly made in jest.

It was ONLY "clearly" when Trump made up that excuse several days LATER.

NO ONE was laughing when he said that, LEAST OF ALL Trump.

He confirmed that he REALLY WANTED to SEE Hillary's emails in a FOLLOW UP QUESTION from Katy Tur.

Trump cult members are truly gullible to believe ANYTHING Trump says.

㊙️ publicly admitted crimes are STILL crimes.

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

News organizations push stories that they hope will attract attention and gain viewers or readers. You're crapping all over FOX for this story while ignoring all the other news outlets for falsely pushing Russian collusion even when they knew it wasn't true. One CNN contributor did admit it, to his credit.

How do YOU KNOW "it wasn't true"? Do you know how hard it is to prove a negative?

The Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee Report DETAILED how and when Manafort colluded with Russian agent Kilimnik AND how HE shared that data with the Mueller indicted IRA.

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

CNN's Van Jones Calls Trump-Russia Story 'Nothing Burger,' Newest Project Veritas Video Shows (newsweek.com)

They flogged this story for years. False stories are not rare in the news industry. "Hands up, don't shoot" is another whopper.

Post the evidence; not just idle GOSSIP or OPINION of ONE GUY.

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

As for Dominion, I personally stand with those that had concerns about the security of electronic voting.

Democrats question election results, voting machines - Washington Times

Why do you guys believe it's only acceptable to question election integrity when it suits you?

Suddenly OK To Question Election Integrity After Fake Votes Wrecked NYC Mayor Race (thefederalist.com)

You don't prove fraudulent voting just by citing POSSIBILITIES.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You didn't answer the question. I'll take that as a 'no' you DON'T have objective evidence that Wikipedia has a "huge left wing bias."

After watching this, I felt pretty safe in saying that Wikipedia is biased. Often things that get posted that may paint some conservative person in a more positive light will quickly get edited out. It's a mere 8:27 long. And you freely admit you don't want to open your mind to other links which may shoot down your narrative in flames.

Now you don't believe me when I suggest that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Fair enough. Would you believe Larry Sanger who just happens to be one of the co-founders of Wikipedia? He admits just that in the video above.

Wikipedia "administrators "admit to being fans of socialism .?

[ironstone]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

To help you understand: I read fast. I don’t have the patience to listen to an opinionated right-wing windbag prattle on his YouTube Channel for twenty minutes about conspiracy theories and rumors.  When you post a link to the article, “Van Jones said X”, that is something I can follow and verify. 
 

If it’s objective fact, it’s verifiable. That’s why you’ll almost never get me to watch one of the YouTube links you post. It takes forever and it’s rarely objective fact, it’s just a guy talking. 

What's the big difference between seeing some guy talking or reading what he says? You don't believe your own eyes or you just refuse to listen to any conservative viewpoint?

[Rebound]

31 minutes ago, ironstone said:

After watching this, I felt pretty safe in saying that Wikipedia is biased. Often things that get posted that may paint some conservative person in a more positive light will quickly get edited out. It's a mere 8:27 long. And you freely admit you don't want to open your mind to other links which may shoot down your narrative in flames.

Now you don't believe me when I suggest that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Fair enough. Would you believe Larry Sanger who just happens to be one of the co-founders of Wikipedia? He admits just that in the video above.

Wikipedia "administrators "admit to being fans of socialism .?

What is it with you and “My evidence is a guy talking on YouTube?”

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, ironstone said:

What's the big difference between seeing some guy talking or reading what he says? You don't believe your own eyes or you just refuse to listen to any conservative viewpoint?

Facts don’t have conservative or liberal viewpoints.  They are facts. 
 

Besides that, I can read a LOT faster than I can watch some guy talking. That video is eight and a half minutes long.  

Edited February 20, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

37 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And you freely admit you don't want to open your mind to other links which may shoot down your narrative in flames.

Either post where I "admit" that or apologize. What I don't "open my my mind to" is sources which have a DEMONSTRATED lack of credibility. AKA, right wing propaganda sites which DO NOT adhere to professional journalistic standards of ETHICS.

Are you going to "open your mind" to motherjones.com or moveon.org? How about MSNBC.com?

If something is really true, it WILL BE REPORTED by a CREDIBLE source.

[ironstone]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Either post where I "admit" that or apologize. What I don't "open my my mind to" is sources which have a DEMONSTRATED lack of credibility. AKA, right wing propaganda sites which DO NOT adhere to professional journalistic standards of ETHICS.

Are you going to "open your mind" to motherjones.com or moveon.org? How about MSNBC.com?

If something is really true, it WILL BE REPORTED by a CREDIBLE source.

Thank you for revealing your sources. It turns out we have the same opinions about each others news sources.

 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Thank you for revealing your sources. It turns out we have the same opinions about each others news sources.

 

ALL I "revealed" is my estimation of sources YOU WILL REJECT. Which is WHY I AVOID POSTING THEM HERE.

Of course you didn't answer my question, AGAIN. I'll take that as a 'NO' you have NO quote of me saying what YOU CLAIMED I SAID.

[ironstone]

MoveOn.org

 MoveOn Political Action gathers donations from its members, from entertainment events, and from outside donors like George Soros, which it uses to support left-wing causes and candidates. MoveOn supports almost exclusively the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, most notably U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Geez, no bias there.

Mother Jones and MSNBC? Yikes?

There are left biased sources and conservative biased sources. There may be some more towards the middle. I don't have 100% trust in any one source.

[robosmith]

9 minutes ago, ironstone said:

MoveOn.org

 MoveOn Political Action gathers donations from its members, from entertainment events, and from outside donors like George Soros, which it uses to support left-wing causes and candidates. MoveOn supports almost exclusively the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, most notably U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Geez, no bias there.

Mother Jones and MSNBC? Yikes?

There are left biased sources and conservative biased sources. There may be some more towards the middle. I don't have 100% trust in any one source.

So my estimation of sources you will reject was correct. ?

[ironstone]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

So my estimation of sources you will reject was correct. ?

As I said, we are at an impasse. I can't sway you with logic and common sense. You can't sway me with radical leftist rhetoric and EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS.?

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

MoveOn.org

 MoveOn Political Action gathers donations from its members, from entertainment events, and from outside donors like George Soros, which it uses to support left-wing causes and candidates. MoveOn supports almost exclusively the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, most notably U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Geez, no bias there.

Mother Jones and MSNBC? Yikes?

There are left biased sources and conservative biased sources. There may be some more towards the middle. I don't have 100% trust in any one source.

I don’t consider MoveOn a news source. They are a political action committee who advocates Democratic causes.  

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

As I said, we are at an impasse. I can't sway you with logic and common sense. You can't sway me with radical leftist rhetoric and EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS.?

No need to "sway" me. You've already confirmed my estimation of sources YOU will reject.

[robosmith]

Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers

Quote

The network’s hosts and leaders knew that Trump had lost the election, but feared the consequences of telling their audience the truth.

Fox News lies to its viewers. Its most prominent personalities, among the most influential in the industry, tell their viewers things they know not to be true. This is not accusation, allegation, or supposition. Today, we know it to be fact.

Early in the Trump era, news organizations were torn over whether to refer to Donald Trump’s false statements as lies, because it is difficult to know an individual’s state of mind, to know what they know. In the throes of insecurity, ideological conviction, or carelessness, people can make statements that are false without malicious intent. The argument over what a person knows to be true or false can take on a metaphysical aspect.

Sometimes, though, you have proof that someone knew one thing and said another. With Fox News, examples of the network’s commitment to knowingly misleading its viewers abound. There was the irresponsible hyping of anti-vaccine propaganda even as it imposed a vaccine mandate on its employees. There were the text messages from Fox hosts released by the January 6 committee showing that they saw Trump as responsible for inspiring the mob that sacked the Capitol, even as they defended him on air and downplayed the significance of the event.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

 

 

[robosmith]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/02/17/fox-news-split-screen-spills-into-view-00083407

 

Quote

"Please get her fired. Seriously… What the f''k? It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." -- Text from Carlson to Hannity and Ingraham trying to get Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich fired for fact-checking a Trump tweet about Dominion and noting that there was no evidence of votes being destroyed.

Edited February 24, 2023 by robosmith

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Murdoch Acknowledges Fox News Hosts Endorsed Election Fraud Falsehoods.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/business/media/fox-news-dominion-rupert-murdoch.html

We pretty clearly have hit a crossroads where the press is not fulfilling the goals that were set out for it when democracy was designed.   The Fifth Estate is supposed to challenge power, not selectively support it based on revenue streams.

This is new territory.  And the Canadian version is also concerning: government paying for the press to exist while not supporting independent journalists who publish online.

The world needs to adjust to the new public sphere, and now.   The first step would be for those of us who don't like to be treated like a mass audience to organize... en masse

[reason10]

On 2/17/2023 at 4:36 PM, robosmith said:

Fox's Murdoch called election fraud claims a 'Trump myth'

 

Proof Fox hosts care far more about company PROFITS than reporting the TRUTH. That is WHY they deserve the name: FOX LIES.

Of course this is NOT the first time.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox lawyers are ON RECORD saying Carlson should NOT BE BELIEVED.

When you come up with a legitimate link and not some left wing Hitler Youth site, try again.

You REALLY look like a More On when you link to these liars.

[reason10]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We pretty clearly have hit a crossroads where the press is not fulfilling the goals that were set out for it when democracy was designed.   The Fifth Estate is supposed to challenge power, not selectively support it based on revenue streams.

This is new territory.  And the Canadian version is also concerning: government paying for the press to exist while not supporting independent journalists who publish online.

The world needs to adjust to the new public sphere, and now.   The first step would be for those of us who don't like to be treated like a mass audience to organize... en masse

Try using reliable links, instead of those goose stepping LIE sites.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We pretty clearly have hit a crossroads where the press is not fulfilling the goals that were set out for it when democracy was designed.   The Fifth Estate is supposed to challenge power, not selectively support it based on revenue streams.

This is new territory.  And the Canadian version is also concerning: government paying for the press to exist while not supporting independent journalists who publish online.

The world needs to adjust to the new public sphere, and now.   The first step would be for those of us who don't like to be treated like a mass audience to organize... en masse

I think that Fox News losing $1.6 billion of its $4 billion cash reserve will teach them a lesson about deliberately lying to their viewers and they damage the cause to their targets.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I think that Fox News losing $1.6 billion of its $4 billion cash reserve will teach them a lesson about deliberately lying to their viewers and they damage they cause to their targets.  

Murdoch admitted that the decisions were driven by money.

 

 

 

 

[Rebound]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:45 PM, ironstone said:

After watching this, I felt pretty safe in saying that Wikipedia is biased. Often things that get posted that may paint some conservative person in a more positive light will quickly get edited out. It's a mere 8:27 long. And you freely admit you don't want to open your mind to other links which may shoot down your narrative in flames.

Now you don't believe me when I suggest that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Fair enough. Would you believe Larry Sanger who just happens to be one of the co-founders of Wikipedia? He admits just that in the video above.

Wikipedia "administrators "admit to being fans of socialism .?

Here is your problem:

Wikipedia posts FACT. That’s why you hate it! They won’t pimp stupid conspiracy theories   

If you post something which you cannot backup with a reliable source, it gets deleted.  Sometimes, it will say “citation needed,” if it seems true but there’s no reference.  
 

Maybe the references will be wrong, but at least there’s a citation you can reference.  
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Edited February 28, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

On 2/17/2023 at 2:36 PM, robosmith said:

Fox's Murdoch called election fraud claims a 'Trump myth'

 

Proof Fox hosts care far more about company PROFITS than reporting the TRUTH. That is WHY they deserve the name: FOX LIES.

Of course this is NOT the first time.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

Fox lawyers are ON RECORD saying Carlson should NOT BE BELIEVED.

And Tucker's more believable than anyone else on any other network. How sad is that???

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

When you come up with a legitimate link and not some left wing Hitler Youth site, try again.

You REALLY look like a More On when you link to these liars.

And you always look like an lDIOT with ^these content free posts.

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And Tucker's more believable than anyone else on any other network. How sad is that???

How would YOU know?

[Deluge]

Just now, robosmith said:

How would YOU know?

Because the rest of the major networks swing left, and that instantly makes them worse than Tucker, or Fox, for that matter.