what a shocker! Faux news = lying sacks of dung

[coolm]

http://aattp.org/politifact-study-fox-news-lies-more-than-any-other-news-network/

According to Politifact, Fox ‘News’ lies.

Okay, so that’s not news. That’s like reporting on the sun rising in the East. But a recent Politifact study shows that of the TV news outlets, Fox promotes the most false information on the air, and the problem is only getting worse — and it’s pretty bad already.

Let’s start with Politifact’s analysis of the “liberal” (read: they disagree with Fox) networks first, since it’s almost certainly that the trolls are going to bring it up, and I’m pretty sure that they at least read to the third paragraph. According to the Politifact scorecard, 44% of the claims made on MSNBC and NBC were false or worse, which is actually an improvement by 1% from the previous score.

CNN somehow remains the most accurate news network, with 80% of the claims rated as half true or better.
Now, what about Fox?

Fox, it turns out, scores marginally higher than MSNBC and NBC news networks. While those two were at 44% of their claims at mostly false or worse, Fox is only at 58%. See, both politically-oriented networks do it. Fox just does it more, since that’s their business model.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

 

[MsProudSooner]

http://aattp.org/politifact-study-fox-news-lies-more-than-any-other-news-network/

According to Politifact, Fox ‘News’ lies.

Okay, so that’s not news. That’s like reporting on the sun rising in the East. But a recent Politifact study shows that of the TV news outlets, Fox promotes the most false information on the air, and the problem is only getting worse — and it’s pretty bad already.

Let’s start with Politifact’s analysis of the “liberal” (read: they disagree with Fox) networks first, since it’s almost certainly that the trolls are going to bring it up, and I’m pretty sure that they at least read to the third paragraph. According to the Politifact scorecard, 44% of the claims made on MSNBC and NBC were false or worse, which is actually an improvement by 1% from the previous score.

CNN somehow remains the most accurate news network, with 80% of the claims rated as half true or better.
Now, what about Fox?

Fox, it turns out, scores marginally higher than MSNBC and NBC news networks. While those two were at 44% of their claims at mostly false or worse, Fox is only at 58%. See, both politically-oriented networks do it. Fox just does it more, since that’s their business model.

Politifact found that 39% of the claims made on the network had some basis in fact, but only 10% could be proven as true, 11% rated as ‘mostly true’ and 18% as half true. So Fox does know some truth. Just not a lot.

An almost equal amount, though — 39% — were demonstrably false. These aren’t just opinions fudging the lines. These are a Fox anchor claiming the sky is purple because Obama said he likes blue skies on Sunday. A full 26% were mostly false, and 11% were tagged with the “pants on fire” moniker, which is anything that comes out of Sean Hannity’s face and resembles words.

Politifact didn’t include all of the statements made, just some, and didn’t include statements made by candidates, government officials, or their representatives, thus explaining how the statistics were skewed to make Fox look more honest.

We need a Like button.

 

[stormspencer]

I went to the "about us" section of the website and this is all I need to know about the agenda of your posted article:

"AATTP opposes the Tea Party/GOP ideology and politics, and we fight to expose them and defeat them at ballot boxes everywhere, and in the market-place of ideas".

And this gem from their mission statement:

"The hatred, division, virulent, unpredictable anger, violent threats and posturing by the Tea-Baggers present a real danger to the lives of President Obama, his family, his administration, Congressional Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes".

What is ironic about this site is that the author(s) speak of divisiveness and anger espoused by republicans/tea party/conservatives...and yet they cant go a full paragraph into their "mission statement" without participating in the divisiveness and hatred towards a group of people (tea baggers) that they disagree with politically.....talk about unity and civil discourse....these clowns have actually contradict their own mission. It's comic gold.

This might have a shred of credibility if it wasn't a bunch of left-wing hacks. Their message and themes are out of the same old playbook...i.e. if you disagree with our worldview on policy, then you're a racist, sexist, bigoted, greedy fascist who wants to throw the disabled and elderly out in the street. You would think that they could come with some new material.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Lol

 

[DenverSooner]

I went to the "about us" section of the website and this is all I need to know about the agenda of your posted article:

"AATTP opposes the Tea Party/GOP ideology and politics, and we fight to expose them and defeat them at ballot boxes everywhere, and in the market-place of ideas".

And this gem from their mission statement:

"The hatred, division, virulent, unpredictable anger, violent threats and posturing by the Tea-Baggers present a real danger to the lives of President Obama, his family, his administration, Congressional Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes".

What is ironic about this site is that the author(s) speak of divisiveness and anger espoused by republicans/tea party/conservatives...and yet they cant go a full paragraph into their "mission statement" without participating in the divisiveness and hatred towards a group of people (tea baggers) that they disagree with politically.....talk about unity and civil discourse....these clowns have actually contradict their own mission. It's comic gold.

This might have a shred of credibility if it wasn't a bunch of left-wing hacks. Their message and themes are out of the same old playbook...i.e. if you disagree with our worldview on policy, then you're a racist, sexist, bigoted, greedy fascist who wants to throw the disabled and elderly out in the street. You would think that they could come with some new material.

Well that sure makes Coolm look silly. I think he should double down on Fox News being banned in Canada for lying again. It never happened but why should that stop a liberal from making a claim.

 

[sybarite]

I went to the "about us" section of the website and this is all I need to know about the agenda of your posted article:

"AATTP opposes the Tea Party/GOP ideology and politics, and we fight to expose them and defeat them at ballot boxes everywhere, and in the market-place of ideas".

And this gem from their mission statement:

"The hatred, division, virulent, unpredictable anger, violent threats and posturing by the Tea-Baggers present a real danger to the lives of President Obama, his family, his administration, Congressional Democrats and liberals and progressives of all stripes".

What is ironic about this site is that the author(s) speak of divisiveness and anger espoused by republicans/tea party/conservatives...and yet they cant go a full paragraph into their "mission statement" without participating in the divisiveness and hatred towards a group of people (tea baggers) that they disagree with politically.....talk about unity and civil discourse....these clowns have actually contradict their own mission. It's comic gold.

This might have a shred of credibility if it wasn't a bunch of left-wing hacks. Their message and themes are out of the same old playbook...i.e. if you disagree with our worldview on policy, then you're a racist, sexist, bigoted, greedy fascist who wants to throw the disabled and elderly out in the street. You would think that they could come with some new material.

It's nice that you are able to attack the aattp. But, they are simply reporting what Politicfact and Farleigh-Dickinson University found in an ongoing study of news media sources. Most of the statements arose from the Farleigh-Dickinson report. PEW has also does some studies:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

Now, you can continue your attack upon liberals, and I do freely admit, as do most informed historical figures, to being liberal. Of course, what exactly, is the alternative to progress? Oh. That's right. You may not believe in evolution either.

 

[coolm]

LOL if you morons wanna stand behind the veracity of claims made by Fox news then I will more than happily never read another word you say. pathetic.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

LOL if you morons wanna stand behind the veracity of claims made by Fox news then I will more than happily never read another word you say. pathetic.

You know that isn't the point of criticism of the article.

And are you really on a high horse that a biased article says your news source only lies 45% of the time compared to 65%?

For the record, I don't want any of the national news channels regularly. But when I do, I don't despise the "liberal" media b/c of the mistruths they have, it's b/c I don't agree with their opinions and commentaries.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

LOL if you morons wanna stand behind the veracity of claims made by Fox news then I will more than happily never read another word you say. pathetic.

Why do you have to resort to name calling?

Do you really think the site you posted is nonbiased?

That is really ironic based on what this thread is about lol

 

[stormspencer]

It's nice that you are able to attack the aattp. But, they are simply reporting what Politicfact and Farleigh-Dickinson University found in an ongoing study of news media sources. Most of the statements arose from the Farleigh-Dickinson report. PEW has also does some studies:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

Now, you can continue your attack upon liberals, and I do freely admit, as do most informed historical figures, to being liberal. Of course, what exactly, is the alternative to progress? Oh. That's right. You may not believe in evolution either.

I was pointing out the agenda of the website and the hypocrisy of their mission statement.....both of which are not debatable.

I haven't watched Fox News in a while because virtually all of the format has turned into debate/opinion analysis....it's really no longer news. The same can be said for MSNBC.....and CNN to a degree. You have to dig deep online to find news that isn't heavily slanted one way or another. For Libertarians like myself, there really isn't a credible television news media outlet available. People watch what they want to watch and hear/believe what they want to believe.

 

[DenverSooner]

Why do you have to resort to name calling?

Do you really think the site you posted is nonbiased?

That is really ironic based on what this thread is about lol

It is what liberals do.

 

[sheepdogs1]

It's nice that you are able to attack the aattp. But, they are simply reporting what Politicfact and Farleigh-Dickinson University found in an ongoing study of news media sources. Most of the statements arose from the Farleigh-Dickinson report. PEW has also does some studies:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

Now, you can continue your attack upon liberals, and I do freely admit, as do most informed historical figures, to being liberal. Of course, what exactly, is the alternative to progress? Oh. That's right. You may not believe in evolution either.

Why does disagreeing with someone or plainly not seeing eye to eye always translate into using the 'attacking' verbage as opposed to someone simply being questioned? Are you or were you at any point in time a drama queen?

 

[bocabull]

No serious person gets their information from propaganda opinion TV networks. Just like no intelligent person uses the word "liberal" as if it's a relevant talking point. The use of the word "liberal" 99.99% of the time is simply a tell that a person has insufficient knowledge of details.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

...

Now, you can continue your attack upon liberals, and I do freely admit, as do most informed historical figures, to being liberal. Of course, what exactly, is the alternative to progress? Oh. That's right. You may not believe in evolution either.

Progress?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Increasing the power of the state appears to be what progressives favor.
The natural evolution of ever-growing government is totalitarianism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/417155/print

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

 

[DenverSooner]

Look at the language from Sybarite, Boca and Coolm. They all say things like anyone that disagrees is not as smart as they are. morons, historically informed and no serious person. This is right out of their play book.

I will bet all three of you clowns that none of you have scored in a higher percentile on a standardized test than. I will put up my multi state bar score or LSAT score against any test you have ever taken. If any of the three of out performed me, you all win

Basically I call on your claims that those that disagree are not as smart. We will publicly pst sores

Everyone watching can rest assured two things. First they won't bet and second even if they did I will win. In fact I can probably give these three clowns 10% points but I am not giving that line, that is just my prediction.

 

[sybarite]

Look at the language from Sybarite, Boca and Coolm. They all say things like anyone that disagrees is not as smart as they are. morons, historically informed and no serious person. This is right out of their play book.

I will bet all three of you clowns that none of you have scored in a higher percentile on a standardized test than. I will put up my multi state bar score or LSAT score against any test you have ever taken. If any of the three of out performed me, you all win

Basically I call on your claims that those that disagree are not as smart. We will publicly pst sores

Everyone watching can rest assured two things. First they won't bet and second even if they did I will win. In fact I can probably give these three clowns 10% points but I am not giving that line, that is just my prediction.

Silly challenge, and you would lose.

 

[DenverSooner]

If it is silly Mr. smart Liberal let's put up real money, escrow it with someone and then document our scores.

If you don't want to wager money lets wager an IP ban on all OU sports message boards. Basically I will remove you from my life and the life of all other OU fans.

Funny how I call your bluff and now it is silly. For a year or more you have claimed to be intellectually superior. Let's put up or shut up.

 

[sybarite]

If it is silly Mr. smart Liberal let's put up real money, escrow it with someone and then document our scores.

If you don't want to wager money lets wager an IP ban on all OU sports message boards. Basically I will remove you from my life and the life of all other OU fans.

Funny how I call your bluff and now it is silly. For a year or more you have claimed to be intellectually superior. Let's put up or shut up.

I'm glad you are showing irritation. But, you would probably finish no better than about fourth among those on this thread.

 

[DenverSooner]

If you believe I will finish fourth, then bet. It is much more likely I beat all three of you clowns by 10% points than I lose.

You have been called, show your cards.

The reality is you have nothing to back up your claims of intellectual superiority. This is what liberals do. They make false claims and then deflect when they get called. It is all straight out of your play book.

 

[sybarite]

If you believe I will finish fourth, then bet. It is much more likely I beat all three of you clowns by 10% points than I lose.

You have been called, show your cards.

The reality is you have nothing to back up your claims of intellectual superiority. This is what liberals do. They make false claims and then deflect when they get called. It is all straight out of your play book.

Denver, you have an exaggerated idea of your own intellect, either that or a very strong inferiority complex. You seem to need to prove something to yourself or others. You don't even know which three I thought were more intelligent than I did you. You just assumed that they were liberals. One wasn't, but his writing has instilled more respect.

You claim to be a lawyer. I thought a lawyer knew better than to ask a question for which he didn't know the answer. I think you erred strongly, and I have seen your writing on this and other boards.

I don't have to prove myself to you. I am who I am, and I know of my accomplishments. I think I have a reasonable grasp of how basically intelligent most people on any board are based upon their writing and their use of information. I'm rather satisfied. You seem to be threatened by the conservative position that liberals look down upon them. Well, it might help if so many didn't reject science. But, it's basically a rejection of ideological extremism.