Fox News thread of fine journalism


I had typed out something far more unkind about the single issue anti-choice brigade but let me moderate myself a bit.

My main issue with a lot of that crowd is the gross hypocrisy. Preventing an abortion is the single most important issue overriding anything else, but the moment that baby is born they’re perfectly sanguine with no medical care, malnutrition, etc. It’s all about “personal responsibility” at that point.


I could try to recreate the far more unkind version of that comment about those pathetic, incurious Resurrection Cult loonies, if you’d like.


None; in fact I was paying down my college loans the whole time.

I either lived with a roommate or in a microscopic bachelor pad, though, and my health insurance premiums were incredibly low compared to what I have to pay now (granted, I now have a wife and daughter on the plan too).

When I first started a Kaiser plan in '97 my premiums were $87 a month.


I don’t see this as inconsistent, though. If you consider abortion to be actual murder, it is possible to want to outlaw murder without then feeling obligated to care for the person whose murder you have prevented. It is a question of how far the protection of the law ought to extend.

I’m not saying I agree with that line of thinking, but I don’t find it absurd or some kind of non sequitur.


Good, I waited tables and bartended my way through UCLA (the latter years, at least). No student loans but I probably had about 15k in credit card debt to work off afterwards. I couldn’t live in LA, but I do still love to visit.


I’m game. Do your worst. :)


It’s fairly unfortunate that the bomb-the-clinic folks have become the face of the movement, because there are a fair number of anti-abortion people that honestly DO want universal health care and favor very liberal approaches to solve American problems. They’re also not in the “keep women in the kitchen” group; most of these people would be fine with free contraceptives provided to teenagers. They just honestly believe that preventing a zygote from developing into a sentient human being is the same as killing a sentient human being.

Unfortunately for them, the people in this group are faced with the realities of our two-party system: Go with the party that wants to provide everyone with healthcare, or go with the party that wants to prevent the killing of babies. It’s a shitty choice for them, but the path forward for them seems pretty clear: Prevent the killing of babies first, then correct the healthcare thing later.


Actually, you go with the party which doesn’t leverage fear and anger to manipulate people (as much) and/or candidates with the character not to do so. Single issue voters are a HUGE part of the problem, not just for this, but in the way that they have become so easily manipulated through propaganda and outright lies.


My oldest daughter went to Cal State Northridge. She later worked as a hostess and waitress for a small chain in the area. I did her taxes and was amazed how much she actually made (per the w-2 anyway). But all it took was losing room mates for her to soon fall behind and in time be forced to move “home”.


I find it inconsistent with the all life is sacred stance, because really it’s “all life is sacred until you talk about taxing me”, then it’s full on personal responsibility lectures and FYGM. If all life is sacred, that should apply to after the child is born as much as before. The baby is still helpless and has no agency.

They care enough and are moralistic enough to deprive women of choice in this matter, but don’t care enough to actually step to and do anything for that sacred life/soul.

And @Tin_Wisdom, you are correct, there are indeed people that want to protect both but every anti-choice single issue voter I’ve ever met and discussed it with has the position I described. I know they’re out there, I just haven’t run into them on my travels. :)


The anti-choice group has a fair amount who support the NRA. I don’t think they’re that concerned about murder so long as the right people, not their color, not their friends and family, are murdered.



One thing I had to be sure of was after every shift I could, go by the bank on the way home and deposit all my tips in the ATM, otherwise the $$ would just slip away.

Couldn’t always do that, as sometimes I was going directly to class, but I got in the habit as best I could when I was that young.


After getting briefly sidetracked (a story about AOC’s pointed questioning of Cohen), Fox has righted the ship:


When are they gonna pull her pigtails? During recess?


Well this is the GOP. So I expect more non-consensual “play doctor” sessions than pigtails and cootie accusations.


Tons o’ press for this new New Yorker piece 👉


NYT coming at us from 2006.



Specifically, by exploiting semi-random variation in Fox viewership driven by changes in the assignment of channel numbers, they find that if Fox News hadn’t existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008. Without Fox, in other words, the GOP’s only popular vote win since the 1980s would have been reversed and the 2008 election would have been an extinction-level landslide.

And Fox is not the only thing out there. The Sinclair Broadcast Group is not a television network in a traditional sense. Instead, it’s a company that owns a disparate bunch of local television stations affiliated with all four major networks. But Sinclair does exert centralized control over the “local” television news broadcasts. And research from Martin and his colleague Josh McCrain found that when Sinclair buys a local station, its local news program begin to cover more national and less local politics, the coverage becomes more conservative, and viewership actually falls — suggesting that the rightward tilt isn’t enacted as a strategy to win more viewers but as part of a persuasion effort.

It would be ridiculous, of course, to argue that absent conservative propaganda broadcasting, Republicans would never win an election. What would happen, instead, is that in order to avoid constantly losing, Republicans would need to do more to bring key aspects of their policy agenda in line with public opinion and display less indifference to the prevalence of scandal-plagued individuals in party leadership. The conclusion, however, remains the same: Fox appears to be a decisive influence in making the Republican Party as currently constituted an electorally viable entity. And these studies are based on Fox’s past — according to Mayer, the network has only become more propagandistic since the 2016 election.


But part of this is that if you remove Fox, then you essentially have a left leaning political bias in ALL major TV news organizations.

Part of the problem is that Fox is exceptionally bad and biased, but there’s no real “moderate” conservative station.

The problem is this:

That upper right hand section of the chart, which is right-wing bias, but still fact-based, is pretty sparsely populated. Other than Fox, cable news is generally all left leaning. So, yeah, if you got rid of the major conservative voice, then it’s kind of a given that they’d lose elections.