4 ms·

You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets.

You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
So there is no truth at all?
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  not in the absolute sense of the word, no.
- misanthropic 6y ago
  there never was
oivey 6y ago
That’s a pretty false equivalence. To cite the most recently example, Fox repeatedly propagating Trump’s lies about the election has no analog on the left.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  What about Trump/Russia collusion?
  - oivey 6y ago
    One of Trump’s children perjured themselves to lie about the purposes of a meeting with a Russian lawyer (later proven to be for Clinton dirt), his campaign manager was convicted for laundering money with Russia connected people, an advisor was convicted for coordinating with WikiLeaks, and some lower level campaign staffers were convicted for more improper connections with Russians. There wasn’t enough proof to say whether Trump personally knew about these things, but the alternative where he is clueless isn’t exactly a good look, either. All of those things were proven in court. Not one of Trump’s barrage of election lawsuits has gained any traction at all. They are very much not the same.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Trump claimed his campaign had zero contacts with Russia and no business deals in Russia. Turns out his campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russia and Trump was planning to build a tower in Moscow with a penthouse gift for Vladimir Putin. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a convicted Russian spy at Trump's house to discuss a trade of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in return to relaxed relations between the two nations in the form of repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Trump lied that this ever happened and tried to create a cover story which was blown apart. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian intelligence officer and exchanged internal Trump campaign data which is presumed to have been transferred to the FSB. Source: Senate Committee on Intelligence of Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.” Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks. Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report The Mueller team was unable to establish a before-the-fact criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Mueller report includes a whole second chapter dealing with obstruction from the President and his allies, which included lying (by the President himself), witness tampering, interfering with principle investigators, and destroying evidence. And what did Democrats do with all of this? Did they storm the capital? Did they even impeach the President for any of this? There was literally no response what. so. ever. Oh, and during all of this the President promised pardons for those who would obstruct the investigation, such as Paul Manafort, who was literally meeting with a Russian Intel Officer and handing him Trump campaign data. If that is not collusion, what is? And then Trump pardoned him. So more obstruction on top of it all.
    - jdkee 6y ago
      Donald J. Trump was impeached. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeached.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeach...
      - 6y ago
  - waldoh 6y ago
    For people who cream themselves over good documentation, why are there so ma y people who refuse to read the mueller report? It's not that long. Who am I kidding, we all know the answer is that you think by ignoring the facts insulates you from realizing the republican party and their leader colluded with a foreign adversary to influence the election
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      I dunno if there was actual collusion, but it was definitely shady as all hell. I do think this was a case where the cover-up was worse than the crime.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      I read it, and it doesn’t say that at all. Why lie?
  - lokar 6y ago
    The fact/news reporting from the NYT and others on that story was in fact all correct. It was really just "process reporting", telling us what was going on (who the FBI was talking to, who said what, what got leaked, etc). They did not draw conclusions. Over in the editorial section there were people trying to stitch that all into a vast conspiracy that was in the end not proven out. But that's what editorial is about.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Do you not understand how what’s going on in the editorial section colors peoples’ views of whether they can trust the paper?
  - sagichmal 6y ago
    > What about Trump/Russia collusion? You mean the thing that several people were tried and found guilty of?
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It's very fair. Fox - and its equivalents - are run in a knowing and cynical way. "No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggests-no-reasonable-viewer-would-think-tucker-carlson-is-news/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest... You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media. This is about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that.
- matthewrobertso 6y ago
  Rachel Maddow is a direct equivalent. https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-network-defamation-1202942022/ https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-...
  - nojito 6y ago
    MSNBC doesn't promote their opinion block as News. How many people know that Fox News's news division only has 2 hours of programming a day?
    - matthewrobertso 6y ago
      I don't watch Maddow regularly nor do I see MSNBC's promotion of her show. The only episode I've watched in the past few years was the one where she claimed she had Trump's tax returns and would be showing them on the show. To me, this seemed like opinion media masquerading as news media.
- throwmehaweh 6y ago
  CNN is so far away from actual journalism the past four years that I'm not sure it could be considered anything other than partisan theater, and it is the flagship progressive media.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
> all the other mass media outlets All? C'mon. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards. Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to work for institutions committed to doing this well. Their words should be treated differently than the words of some idiot with a Twitter account or a personality on an infotainment TV show.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a certain political agenda. The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or CNN.
  - mrguyorama 6y ago
    You don't seem to understand what an "anonymous source" is
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    As far as I know, NYT will not report information from sources where they cannot establish some kind of authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get. I will bet you they come back asking you provide some kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at least that your knowledge is authoritative.
    - matthewrobertso 6y ago
      If the NYT was fabricating their anonymous tips, like parent suggested, why would they publish outside anonymous tips? The fact that they don't publish every anonymous source doesn't mean that all of their anonymous sources have to be real.

You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

So there is no truth at all?

leadingthenet 6y ago
not in the absolute sense of the word, no.
misanthropic 6y ago
there never was

oivey 6y ago

That’s a pretty false equivalence. To cite the most recently example, Fox repeatedly propagating Trump’s lies about the election has no analog on the left.

throwaways885 6y ago
What about Trump/Russia collusion?
- oivey 6y ago
  One of Trump’s children perjured themselves to lie about the purposes of a meeting with a Russian lawyer (later proven to be for Clinton dirt), his campaign manager was convicted for laundering money with Russia connected people, an advisor was convicted for coordinating with WikiLeaks, and some lower level campaign staffers were convicted for more improper connections with Russians. There wasn’t enough proof to say whether Trump personally knew about these things, but the alternative where he is clueless isn’t exactly a good look, either. All of those things were proven in court. Not one of Trump’s barrage of election lawsuits has gained any traction at all. They are very much not the same.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Trump claimed his campaign had zero contacts with Russia and no business deals in Russia. Turns out his campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russia and Trump was planning to build a tower in Moscow with a penthouse gift for Vladimir Putin. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a convicted Russian spy at Trump's house to discuss a trade of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in return to relaxed relations between the two nations in the form of repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Trump lied that this ever happened and tried to create a cover story which was blown apart. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian intelligence officer and exchanged internal Trump campaign data which is presumed to have been transferred to the FSB. Source: Senate Committee on Intelligence of Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.” Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks. Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report The Mueller team was unable to establish a before-the-fact criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Mueller report includes a whole second chapter dealing with obstruction from the President and his allies, which included lying (by the President himself), witness tampering, interfering with principle investigators, and destroying evidence. And what did Democrats do with all of this? Did they storm the capital? Did they even impeach the President for any of this? There was literally no response what. so. ever. Oh, and during all of this the President promised pardons for those who would obstruct the investigation, such as Paul Manafort, who was literally meeting with a Russian Intel Officer and handing him Trump campaign data. If that is not collusion, what is? And then Trump pardoned him. So more obstruction on top of it all.
  - jdkee 6y ago
    Donald J. Trump was impeached. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeached.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeach...
    - 6y ago
- waldoh 6y ago
  For people who cream themselves over good documentation, why are there so ma y people who refuse to read the mueller report? It's not that long. Who am I kidding, we all know the answer is that you think by ignoring the facts insulates you from realizing the republican party and their leader colluded with a foreign adversary to influence the election
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    I dunno if there was actual collusion, but it was definitely shady as all hell. I do think this was a case where the cover-up was worse than the crime.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    I read it, and it doesn’t say that at all. Why lie?
- lokar 6y ago
  The fact/news reporting from the NYT and others on that story was in fact all correct. It was really just "process reporting", telling us what was going on (who the FBI was talking to, who said what, what got leaked, etc). They did not draw conclusions. Over in the editorial section there were people trying to stitch that all into a vast conspiracy that was in the end not proven out. But that's what editorial is about.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Do you not understand how what’s going on in the editorial section colors peoples’ views of whether they can trust the paper?
- sagichmal 6y ago
  > What about Trump/Russia collusion? You mean the thing that several people were tried and found guilty of?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

It's very fair. Fox - and its equivalents - are run in a knowing and cynical way. "No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggests-no-reasonable-viewer-would-think-tucker-carlson-is-news/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest... You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media. This is about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that.

matthewrobertso 6y ago
Rachel Maddow is a direct equivalent. https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-network-defamation-1202942022/ https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-...
- nojito 6y ago
  MSNBC doesn't promote their opinion block as News. How many people know that Fox News's news division only has 2 hours of programming a day?
  - matthewrobertso 6y ago
    I don't watch Maddow regularly nor do I see MSNBC's promotion of her show. The only episode I've watched in the past few years was the one where she claimed she had Trump's tax returns and would be showing them on the show. To me, this seemed like opinion media masquerading as news media.
throwmehaweh 6y ago
CNN is so far away from actual journalism the past four years that I'm not sure it could be considered anything other than partisan theater, and it is the flagship progressive media.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

> all the other mass media outlets All? C'mon. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards. Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to work for institutions committed to doing this well. Their words should be treated differently than the words of some idiot with a Twitter account or a personality on an infotainment TV show.

bra-ket 6y ago
that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a certain political agenda. The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or CNN.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  You don't seem to understand what an "anonymous source" is
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  As far as I know, NYT will not report information from sources where they cannot establish some kind of authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get. I will bet you they come back asking you provide some kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at least that your knowledge is authoritative.
  - matthewrobertso 6y ago
    If the NYT was fabricating their anonymous tips, like parent suggested, why would they publish outside anonymous tips? The fact that they don't publish every anonymous source doesn't mean that all of their anonymous sources have to be real.