Fox News thread of fine journalism

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.

Related

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.

I think this reflects the fact that as a practical matter, there’s no real ‘moderate’ conservatism. No base of voters, no advocates of any note, and no politicians. Not now, anyway.

Edit: And a system that judges that the WSJ is just barely to the right of neutral is deeply flawed.

By that chart, all actual news organizations have a left bias already, because Fox is in the propaganda bucket.

Arguably, Fox is the only thing preventing the center from shifting to the left, so that the current “skews liberal” becomes centrism.

Not really, no. The problem is this:
The entire country has shifted left. The definition of moderate in that chart does not reflect the enormous amount of potential voting base younger than 35, and their mindset on what we call call, “traditional liberal and conservative.”

We’re relying on some method to pick news organizations to be categorized in a bucket. But let’s say a huge number of people now consider abortion a choice, guns to be too unregulated, everyone should have cheap healthcare, global warming is human caused and needs to be addressed, etc. Now looking at those biases, everything skews left, but does it really? (I’m picking these arguments out of a hat, I’m of no certainty any of these are actually becoming more widely accepted, but rather I’m questioning a method to define liberal and conservative when the entire conservative base is shrinking in the first place.)

The difference is that one is partisan from the top down as a business model (for just that purpose? unknown) , while the other is left leaning from the ground up.

topical:

Also that chart doesn’t show that all other tv news is explicitly partisan left. In fact it shows all other news bends over backwards to stay neutral. Shit, CBS and PBS are on the right half of the chart.

So I’m calling BS @Timex. That chart does not show that without Fox all news would be liberal biased. It shows that without Fox all mainstream news would be painfully centrist.

NPR, ABC, CBS are all as centrist as you can get, several skewing slightly right (which for PBS is hilarious given the rights attack on their very existence). Even the ‘far left’ Washington Post and NYT are squarely in the neutral/ centrist bracket, skewing slightly left.

Fox News is the equivalent of Daily Kos. And does anybody take them seriously, and are they the influence makers for the left?

Also CNN being weak on analysis and original reporting is hilarious. Because, yeah, they suck donkey balls.

Consider for a moment that you may be viewing things through your own partisan perspective.

Like, MSNBC is mainstream… They are not centrist. They aren’t bad reporting, but they are partisan in how they choose to report the news.

You said there is no moderate conservative station.

There are plenty. We call them CBS and PBS.

MSNBC is partisan, no arguments. It is as far partisan as Liberal news gets, and it’s a damn sight less partisan than Fox.

My issue is that you regurgitated the ‘all other news is liberal’ meme, when your own chart refuted that very notion.

I think you’re mis-hearing what Craig is saying… and perhaps misrepresenting how the chart is constructed.

You (Timex) seem to think the graph is depicting a bell-curve taking all the data, running it through standard-ish equation and declaring that ABC falls at the exact center of the mean-average. If that were true, then removing Fox News from the data-set would actually shift all the providers that are currently to the left of the chart slightly to the right and the new mean-average would be AP or whatever.

But that’s not how the chart is constructed. According to the site it comes from, they take each organization as a separate entity, find between 35 and 2000 articles from that site, and have a team of four persons with debatably-diverse political views give each one a score. Based on the average of the scores FOR THAT SOURCE, they plop the graphic down in some quadrant somewhere.

So removing one source doesn’t actually have any effect on where the others sit in this distribution. Removing Fox wouldn’t make ABC or CBS any more or less “liberal” because they are scored in isolation.