*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[wufwugy]

That says a lot about them.

Oh sorry, I mean you. It says a lot about you.

If the model works.

To be completely honest, the vast majority are generally considerate. Crybullies make up a small minority.

[wufwugy]

So how many people went to celebrate Trump's grand inauguration? I heard it was the lowest turnout for quite a while.

Of course it was. Trump only got 4% of the vote in DC. Trump voters tend to have jobs too. Even then, relative to vote percentage, it was the highest turnout for a Republican inauguration. Too much winning.

How about those super low approval ratings? Rigged?

By the same people who got the election wrong. Can't take much more of this winning.

[Poopadoop]

Of course it was. Trump only got 4% of the vote in DC. Trump voters tend to have jobs too. Even then, relative to vote percentage, it was the highest turnout for a Republican inauguration. Too much winning.



By the same people who got the election wrong. Can't take much more of this winning.

Hmmm... well played Kellyanne.

[wufwugy]

Did she say that?

She's great btw. You love her. Believe me.

[Poopadoop]

Possibly, i just turn the sound off when she comes on now.

[wufwugy]

It's a smart move to keep from winning overload.

[Poopadoop]

More like a bullshit overload, but ya it's a smart move I agree.

[wufwugy]

Let's play a game! It's called "Find the Irony."

[Savy]

What has Trump done to cause all these marches? Seems a bit odd to me. I get the sexist comments and the abortion comments (he's pretty lax on that in comparison to other GOP candidates though) but what is the point of it all?

[wufwugy]

What has Trump done to cause all these marches? Seems a bit odd to me. I get the sexist comments and the abortion comments (he's pretty lax on that in comparison to other GOP candidates though) but what is the point of it all?

Being a man who beat a woman. That's most of it. The second largest portion is being a person whom the left's preferred media has designated as believing women are inferior. The third reason is that he is a Republican.

[OngBonga]

I don't remember this much crying when Bush stole the election off Gore.

[wufwugy]

More like a bullshit overload, but ya it's a smart move I agree.

Very smart. You are a very smart person. So smart that one day you will think to yourself "you know what, Trump did a smart thing here."

[wufwugy]

I don't remember this much crying when Bush stole the election off Gore.

It certainly is not the same.

The Snowflake generation was too young to vote then.

[CoccoBill]

[BananaStand]

It certainly is not the same.

The Snowflake generation was too young to vote then.

It was also pre-islamic terror, and the economy was doing pretty well. Fewer people gave a shit.

[wufwugy]

Love it. See, y'all watch this and think it's making fun of Trump. It ain't (except for the pieces it gets factually incorrect, yet a laugh is a laugh).

The video makes me wanna go to the Netherlands. Sounds pretty great.

[wufwugy]

holy hilarity. watch your audio.

[OngBonga]

The video makes me wanna go to the Netherlands. Sounds pretty great.

It's alright. Great beer, weed is legal, mental people, but it's flat as fuck. I mean they have zero hills. It's weird, and slightly depressing. Still, it's way better than Belgium, which basically looks the same but doesn't have the awesome culture.

[wufwugy]

Savage Uncle Nige already told me everything I need to know about Belgium: "Perhaps that's because you come from Belgium, which is pretty much a non-country."

[OngBonga]

haha I almost forgot about that gem!

[CoccoBill]

Belgium's only redeeming factor is the beer.

[OngBonga]

Belgium's only redeeming factor is the beer.

Even then it's inferior to Holland, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Poland. Though, their beer is fucking great compared to ours, it must be said.

[a500lbgorilla]

[wufwugy]

Can't Bruise the Cruz

[CoccoBill]

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000005059902.html

[wufwugy]

I'd to go Finland fifty times before Sweden once.

[wufwugy]

[bigred]

I'd to go Finland fifty times before Sweden once.

Why's that? Malmo alone looks worth the trip.

[wufwugy]

Why's that? Malmo alone looks worth the trip.

It's probably okay if you're not a woman. For now.

[OngBonga]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Wall construction announced. Cucks upset. Had to call their wives' boyfriends to come console them

[wufwugy]

[JKDS]

Splatoon is a fun game

[wufwugy]

I love how Lord Saint Jesus Musk turned into Satan Beelzebub Musk the moment he began saying reasonable things about Trump.

[CoccoBill]

I love how Lord Saint Jesus Musk turned into Satan Beelzebub Musk the moment he began saying reasonable things about Trump.

No comment about that, but in general I don't object to judging people by their words and actions.

[bigred]

It's probably okay if you're not a woman. For now.

Explain

[wufwugy]

Explain

Sweden: rape capital of Europe. Swedes aren't allowed to talk about it without being labeled bigots even if it is the victim herself. The rapes are committed by a protected class, one that is steadily undermining the country itself.

On a practical note, Sweden is probably fine to visit as long as you avoid key areas (and if you keep an eye out). But make no mistake, the Dangerous Faggot had to cancel his march in one of those areas because, well, they were going to kill him for, you know, being a dangerous faggot.

[wufwugy]

No comment about that, but in general I don't object to judging people by their words and actions.

Trump: "Food tastes good."

Anti-Trumper: "WTF I hate food now."

[CoccoBill]

Trump: "Food tastes good."

Anti-Trumper: "WTF I hate food now."

Not the same thing.

In the Musk example a deplorable word/action makes the person saying/doing it look bad. Correct.
In the Trump example a deplorable person makes the word/action look bad. Incorrect.

[wufwugy]

In theory. Musk is simply getting closer to Trump and the left is beginning to hate him because Trump is Literal Hitler therefore anything that doesn't go against Trump is bad. It's hilarious.

[CoccoBill]

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/tr...1d5#.p9jmniujh

[wufwugy]

^^Puts infowars tinfoiling to shame.

[wufwugy]

I have peered into my crystal ball and have seen the future. Date: 1/31/2017. Time: 8:00 PM EST.

Trump: "I nominate Barack H. Obama to the Supreme Court."

Shitlibs: "wtf Obama sucks now!"

[wufwugy]

On a serious note, Trump should nominate Savage Uncle Nige' to the court. I would die from ecstasy heart attack.

[Poopadoop]

Nah he'll probably nominate one of his yuge donors.

Either that or one of his relatives.

[wufwugy]

Why not a yuge donor relative?

[wufwugy]

NO WAIT

He'll nominate himself!

[Poopadoop]

He'll just nominate whoever Bannon tells him to. Alt-right ftw!

[wufwugy]

The cucks will never see it coming!

[wufwugy]

I wonder how many nicknames Trump will dish out during his presidency.

#1: Fake Tears Chuck Schumer

He'll run roughshod over the opposition just because they're frightened dickless of getting a nickname. If Crooked was never branded Crooked, we'd have President Crooked today.

[wufwugy]

He just took crying off the table as a weapon Democrats can use against him. Now any time a politician cries, most people will instinctively think "fake tears."

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...60143825666051

Wordsmith, lord of twitter, master of manipulation.

[BananaStand]

http://www.learnprogress.org/trump-f...mass-shooting/

Fake fuckin' news right there.

On his Facebook page (since taken down), Bissonet had “likes” for several far-right organizations and politicians, such as Donald Trump’s page and the page of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. These “likes” suggest that Bissonet might have allegedly carried out the attack in honor of far-right Islamophobia.

"suggestions" are news now.

A former classmate is claiming that Bissonet had “right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump … He was obviously pro-Trump.”

Damning evidence!!!

If these allegations are true, then this attack is beyond a complete outrage. Trump’s dangerous actions can fuel dangerous consequences, and now lives have been lost consequently.

Heads up boys and girls, being pro-israel, and clicking an upward thumb on Trump's facebook page means that you're an extremist killer.

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...60143825666051

Wordsmith, lord of twitter, master of manipulation.

Don't worry, I got ya, fam

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...00675039592448

[CoccoBill]

https://www.facebook.com/MediaSurviv...2172470746683/

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...re-muslim.html

Caught trying a little too hard to paint the travel ban as a muslim ban

[BananaStand]

So I think that unless he has a heart attack, Trump is gonna go 8 years. After that I couldn't possibly presume to compete with the popularity of Kanye, so I'm eyeing a run in 2032.

My platform has one plank. I plan on being president for about 15 minutes, and then resigning once I've finished signing an executive order to shut down American's high schools

When kids turn 14, they get jobs. Prior to that though, we're gonna take the money we save by not running high schools and put it back in to K through 8, which now runs 7am to 7pm. Obviously that takes more manpower and overhead, so we can re-employ all of the employees from the high school. $0 tax burden, 0 impact to unemployment.

I don't intend for kids to spend all that time in classrooms though. There will be adequate leisure time, physical education, etc. There may be some marginally increased classroom time, however, with so many staff, class sizes will be much smaller and kids will be much more engaged. We're gonna teach them in 8 years, what we used to teach in 12. And because they're there all day, they aren't on the street joining gangs, and they're not watching cartoons on the couch getting fat.

Then we're gonna allow these super-educated 14 years olds to get entry level jobs. Now that there are Americans who actually want those jobs, there will be no reason to support an underground economy of illegal workers. And since these kids are still living as their parents' dependent, we can pay them shit. So farmers and such won't be able to complain at the increased costs of hiring Americans over illegals. No wall, no travel bans, just the cold reality that there is nothing here for anyone who doesn't come correct.

While working, these kids will obviously have some independent study, or online coursework. Very little. Just enough to keep their minds learning and growing. And I'm not talking about having them work full time hours either. Just enough to grow a little 'work ethic'

Imagine that, an 18 year old with an education, a work ethic, and some money in the bank. Boom! College solved.

The reason college is so expensive, is because in the 90's, under Clinton, it was decided that higher education was a "right". Hence you had this outpouring of government spending in the form of student loans. This system was brutally raped by academic institutions. The board at Roody-Poo State University would sit around and try to figure out what to charge for tuition. Instead of calculating their cost and adding a profit margin like any other business, they simply asked "how much is the gov't giving each kid.....ok, that's what tuition costs". Then of course, Hoity-Toity Private College goes and charges 5x more. Now the whole system has been hyper-inflated. No more!!

If people have to pay for their own college, the market will determine the price. And kids will have money to spend on it, so the market will get things in order pretty quickly. The government can stop pouring money into over-burdensome student loans, and divert that money towards the existing national debt.

To review:
1) By extending school hours, I've eliminated the need for daytime childcare. That's up to five-figures of cash I'm putting back into American households
2) By consolidating school staff into 2/3 of the grade levels, I'm giving kids a better quality education
3) Less street violence, because kids are in school all day
4) Less childhood obesity because kids are kept active, and their access to junk food is controlled
5) Illegal Immigration - SOLVED
6) College tuition prices become manageable
7) Gov't student loan spending plummets
8) National debt is relieved
9) Because recent graduates are not burdened by debt, they are able to participate more in the economy, buy their first homes sooner, upgrade their car more often, etc etc etc. All that creates jobs
10) The unused high school buildings can become shelters for the homeless.

And I can accomplish all that with one simple order, shut down high schools.

I hope I can count on your vote

[Poopadoop]

Great idea. Now all you need is a plan to breed a generation of superkids who can do grade 12 studies when they're 13 years old.

[BananaStand]

Great idea. Now all you need is a plan to breed a generation of superkids who can do grade 12 studies when they're 13 years old.

Not really. The goal is to make a citizen who can handle entry level work. Someone who can be taught to function like a human being and earn money without needing his hand held until he's 26. That doesn't mean they need to pass 12th grade physics. I'm just trying to make good, useful citizens here. If they wanna learn shit, then they can save their money and go to college.

I heard a statistic once that said 30% of America's community college curriculums are remedial coursework anyway. We're teaching shit twice nowadays. I'd rather raise a kid who can learn, and then teach him something once.

[Poopadoop]

Nice try Fox News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38821804

[BananaStand]

Nice try Fox News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38821804

It seems to me the sequence of events here goes like this > Fox ran a story and a tweet consistent with reports they received about a Moroccan attacker > The reports were corrected to state the man was just a witness > Fox corrected their story, and tweeted a correction, both in a very timely manner.

They forgot to go back and delete the original tweet. Someone saw it, asked it to be fixed, and it was. That hardly seems like an intentional agenda to scapegoat a race of people.

Seems like evidence of bias when Fox's clerical error becomes a news, yet CNN can say Betsy DeVos "Lifted" her answers to senate inquiries. They don't even have the decency to use the word "allegedly", and they get to slide.

[Poopadoop]

It seems to me the sequence of events here goes like this > Fox ran a story and a tweet consistent with reports they received about a Moroccan attacker > The reports were corrected to state the man was just a witness > Fox corrected their story, and tweeted a correction, both in a very timely manner.

They forgot to go back and delete the original tweet. Someone saw it, asked it to be fixed, and it was. That hardly seems like an intentional agenda to scapegoat a race of people.

Seems like evidence of bias when Fox's clerical error becomes a news, yet CNN can say Betsy DeVos "Lifted" her answers to senate inquiries. They don't even have the decency to use the word "allegedly", and they get to slide.

Nope, CNN sucks too.

Fox ran with the info that one 'suspect' was Moroccan, said nothing about the other (who was white). Just an honest mistake, sure. Just happens that Fox is the only news network to do this. Coincidence, sure.

[BananaStand]

Nope, CNN sucks too.

Fox ran with the info that one 'suspect' was Moroccan, said nothing about the other (who was white). Just an honest mistake, sure. Just happens that Fox is the only news network to do this. Coincidence, sure.

I agree it doesn't *look* all that good. The timing of it is odd since it came after the clarification but I'm not about to jump to the conclusion of a racist conspiracy. I mean, when you shoe-horn a mosque shooting into an already extra-busy news week, it's not unreasonable for things to get missed.

In an era of fake news, and fierce competition in television markets, it would be monumentally stupid for the nation's number 1 cable news station to do this on purpose. Fox's fuck-up is headling CNN.com, MSN.com, and others right now. That's bad optics for Fox. Why would they risk that on purpose just to shit on moroccans a little bit?

They say Fox's tweet came after the police clarified the story. If they did it on purpose, wouldn't they expect to get caught? Why would they purposely report something contrary to the already-known basic facts of a story?

In any event, the backlash seems far overblown. From the letter sent to Fox....

“If we allow individuals and organizations to succeed by scaring people, we do not actually end up any safer,” she added. “Fear does not make us safer. It makes us weaker. Ramping up fear and closing our borders is not a solution.”

Nevermind the presumptive and accusatory remarks about scaring people on purpose.....what the fuck does this have to do with 'closing borders'?? Was Morocco even one of the 7 countries on the list?

Seems to me that someone here is interested in a little more than simply correcting the record.

[Poopadoop]

Because the initial reports were two suspects, nothing was said about their race until it was said one was white the other Moroccan. So Fox's reporting is selective. Of course they don't care about pissing off liberals since that's not their audience.

[BananaStand]

Because the initial reports were two suspects, nothing was said about their race until it was said one was white the other Moroccan. So Fox's reporting is selective. Of course they don't care about pissing off liberals since that's not their audience.

What about pissing off conservatives? You're talking as if all of Fox's viewers are Kool aid sipping zombies who will believe anything they're told. If they reported that the suspect was Moroccan, and every other news report in the world, along with teh actual facts, say that the suspect was Canadian.....well then Fox will look pretty foolish to liberals and conservatives alike.

I can buy the 'selective' angle. The topic of the week has been 'foreign nationals committing terror attacks'. Now there is an actual attack, with a foreign national as a suspect. That seems like a fact that is pertinent enough to stand alone, and could reasonably be reported that way. Not saying that's the best way, or that it's totally free of 'spin', but it's only offsides if they KNEW that the guy was just a witness and reported a moroccan suspect anyway.

As a news organization, they have an incentive to remain credible. I can't believe they'd fuck that up on purpose just to cut down Morocco.

[BananaStand]

If you want "selective" reporting, try this on for size

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/ab...d-like-attack/

In Fox's case, it's plausible, if not very likely, that they simply fell behind the timeline and reported old information incorrectly. In other words, a mistake. In this case, someone had to physically edit a video in a way that obviously changed it's tone and meaning.

How come this isn't front page news on all other mainstream media outlets?

[Poopadoop]

If you want "selective" reporting, try this on for size

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/ab...d-like-attack/

In Fox's case, it's plausible, if not very likely, that they simply fell behind the timeline and reported old information incorrectly. In other words, a mistake. In this case, someone had to physically edit a video in a way that obviously changed it's tone and meaning.

How come this isn't front page news on all other mainstream media outlets?

1. I'm not arguing it's ok for the other side to do it either. So if they do it, yes it's bad too. And yes, I'm aware it goes on.

2. Saying biased reporting that confirms their views would piss conservatives off or harm their credibility with conservatives is lol. It's not like a conservative is sitting there 'OMG fucking Fox I'll never go to them for my right-wing news again. They just told me what I wanted to hear!'

2a. Fox's viewers don't have to be kool-aid drinkers, they just have to be willing to explain away any bias and/or bad reporting on their part, intentional or not.

[wufwugy]

google image search "side of beef".

fucking amazing.

[BananaStand]

2. Saying biased reporting that confirms their views would piss conservatives off or harm their credibility with conservatives is lol. It's not like a conservative is sitting there 'OMG fucking Fox I'll never go to them for my right-wing news again. They just told me what I wanted to hear!'

You're killing me here dude. Think about the assumptions you have to make in order for your statement above to be valid.

What views did Fox 'confirm' in this case? You're assuming that conservatives, gathered in the form of the largest cable news audience, have some kind of opinion that this crime was perpetrated by a Moroccan Muslim. Why would they WANT to hear that instead of the actual truth?

Let's say hypothetically that the Moroccan guy was in on it. And in the context of week-long national headlines about Muslim immigrants committing crimes, I would expect fox to devote a little more airtime to the Muslim man than they do the French man. I would also expect CNN and MSNBC to play up the French connection. This would be an example of what you're talking about where viewers thrive on confirmation bias and being told what they want to hear. It happens on both sides, which is why anyone who gets their info from just one news source, no matter how good it may be, is pretty much hopelessly uninformed.

However, what actually happened is not the same. Fox reported a complete falsehood. Doing so on purpose, would be silly. So it seems infinitely more plausible that it was merely an honest mistake.

If you want bias, how about the fact that the letter to Fox ranted about Trump's immigration order. How are the two stories connected if the only criminal is a Canadian in Canada?

Fox's viewers don't have to be kool-aid drinkers, they just have to be willing to explain away any bias and/or bad reporting on their part, intentional or not

I don't think that believing in the plausibility of an honest mistake makes anyone a Fox apologist. Frankly, if Fox were out to dupe people, I think they are smart enough to do it better than this.

[Poopadoop]

You're killing me here dude. Think about the assumptions you have to make in order for your statement above to be valid.

What views did Fox 'confirm' in this case? You're assuming that conservatives, gathered in the form of the largest cable news audience, have some kind of opinion that this crime was perpetrated by a Moroccan Muslim. Why would they WANT to hear that instead of the actual truth?

Cognitive dissonance. People prefer to hear things that confirm their previously held beliefs than things that don't.

Also, you keep harping on how they have the biggest audience, like that's somehow automatic proof they're objective. That's not how it works mate. Maybe they have the largest audience because the liberal audience is split among a number of other networks and Fox is the only MSM that caters to the right-wingers - ever think of that?

Let's say hypothetically that the Moroccan guy was in on it. And in the context of week-long national headlines about Muslim immigrants committing crimes, I would expect fox to devote a little more airtime to the Muslim man than they do the French man. I would also expect CNN and MSNBC to play up the French connection. This would be an example of what you're talking about where viewers thrive on confirmation bias and being told what they want to hear. It happens on both sides, which is why anyone who gets their info from just one news source, no matter how good it may be, is pretty much hopelessly uninformed.

However, what actually happened is not the same. Fox reported a complete falsehood. Doing so on purpose, would be silly. So it seems infinitely more plausible that it was merely an honest mistake.

How about the idea that it was done on purpose even though it seems silly, because they knew their viewers would find it easy to explain away such a thing as an 'honest mistake'. You're a good example of that happening right here and now.

If you want bias, how about the fact that the letter to Fox ranted about Trump's immigration order. How are the two stories connected if the only criminal is a Canadian in Canada?

The fact that other people are biased doesn't change the fact that Fox is biased, or make it somehow ok. Not sure why you keep bringing those things up. I'm talking about Fox News here, which you say is really good and objective. I'm saying it's not good or objective if they fuck up on things like this.

I don't think that believing in the plausibility of an honest mistake makes anyone a Fox apologist. Frankly, if Fox were out to dupe people, I think they are smart enough to do it better than this.

They only have to be smart enough to understand that their viewers are going to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter what they do.

In the end, it may have been an honest mistake. At the very least, it was a dumb mistake, and it's not to their credit that Fox News was the only one to make it.

My point, however, has still been nicely illustrated by your reaction to the argument. If they were to commit the dishonest action on purpose a great majority of their viewers wouldn't see it as such, and defend them the way you're defending them here.

[BananaStand]

you keep harping on how they have the biggest audience, like that's somehow automatic proof they're objective.

I don't think it's irrelevant that they have the most to lose by lying, or that more eyeballs means more scrutiny. I never said they were objective. Look at their page now, there are at least half a dozen links related to the riots at UC Berkely. Most other site's front page have one. Subjectively choosing which news stories appeal to your viewers most doesn't impugn their integrity as a news source. Reporting erroneous facts, does. That riot really happened. A Moroccan shooting a mosque didn't.

How about the idea that it was done on purpose even though it seems silly, because they knew their viewers would find it easy to explain away such a thing as an 'honest mistake'. You're a good example of that happening right here and now.

Why would you assume such sinister intentions in the first place? This kind of cynicism is really tinfoil-y. I think I'm an example of a fair minded person who embraces 'innocent until proven guilty', and is able to look at the entire picture and logically see that there is no motive to lie, and the contrived motive you're providing would contradict all of their other motives such as maintaining journalistic integrity, appeasing their sponsors, and upholding their reputation.

Sure they could 'get away with one' now and again if they were so inclined. But shitting on Morocco for no reason seems like a lousy way to spend their 'benefit of the doubt' capital.

The fact that other people are biased doesn't change the fact that Fox is biased, or make it somehow ok.

Don't conflate my argument. I'm not saying "well everybody does it too". I'm talking specifically, about the specific criticism, directed specifically at Fox News, in a specific piece of communication. It cites irrelevant and unrelated Trump policies. To me, that strongly suggests that the criticism of Fox News here is disingenuous, and opportunistic. "Hey look, Fox messed up, now let's pile on those right-wing fuckers with everything and the kitchen sink". That's why I cited the letter. That's what I'm seeing here.

Not sure why you keep bringing those things up. I'm talking about Fox News here, which you say is really good and objective. I'm saying it's not good or objective if they fuck up on things like this.

They reported the information they received from the police. The police changed their story, and Fox didn't fix it fast enough. As far as fuck ups go, I think that's pretty minor. And I don't think Fox is objective. That doesn't mean I also think they're outright nasty liars though.

If they were to commit the dishonest action on purpose a great majority of their viewers wouldn't see it as such.

Even if I were to stipulate this as true, wouldn't it wear out after a while? In this situation, we're not talking about bias, spin, or slant. The options here are honest mistake, or outright lie. If Fox made a habit of outright lying, they wouldn't be in this position they are in (#1), for as long as they have (20+ years). A pattern of blatant partisan dishonesty wouldn't fly for that long. People aren't that stupid.

So if Fox did do this on purpose, the question is "why". And "cause they can" just doesn't hold up as an explanation.

[Poopadoop]

I never said they were objective.

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Why would you assume such sinister intentions in the first place? This kind of cynicism is really tinfoil-y.

Ad hominem argument fail.

I think I'm an example of a fair minded person who embraces 'innocent until proven guilty', and is able to look at the entire picture and logically see that there is no motive to lie, and the contrived motive you're providing would contradict all of their other motives such as maintaining journalistic integrity, appeasing their sponsors, and upholding their reputation.

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Sure they could 'get away with one' now and again if they were so inclined. But shitting on Morocco for no reason seems like a lousy way to spend their 'benefit of the doubt'.

Still making my argument for me.

Don't conflate my argument. I'm not saying "well everybody does it too". I'm talking specifically about the specific criticism directed specifically at Fox News. It cites irrelevant and unrelated Trump policies. To me, that strongly suggests that the criticism of Fox News here is disingenuous, and opportunistic. "Hey look, Fox messed up, now let's pile on those right-wing fuckers with everything and the kitchen sink". That's why I cited the letter. That's what I'm seeing here.

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

They reported the information they received from the police. The police changed their story, and Fox didn't fix it fast enough. As far as fuck ups go, I think that's pretty minor.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this. At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

And I don't think Fox is objective. That doesn't mean I also think they're outright nasty liars though.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

[BananaStand]

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Awesome

Ad hominem argument fail.

Ad hominem yes. Argument no. It was a question. Why are you so cynical? Why would you, or anyone, assume nefarious intent?

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Just because a good reason exists, doesn't mean it's 'looked for' or 'made up' by their viewers. And nevermind viewers for a minute, what incentive do their sponsors have to 'look for excuses'? Tiger Woods cheated on his wife and lost sponsors overnight. If Fox is really this dishonest and manipulative as a matter of policy, they'd be out of business.

Still making my argument for me.

How? If they have the ability to lie occasionally and get away with it, why would they choose this?

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

Agree to disagree I guess. Trying to strengthen a flimsy argument with irrelevant partisanship kinda makes the argument even more flimsy. Blowing up a conceivable honest mistake and painting it as a dishonest propaganda agenda kind of makes me feel more sympathetic to Fox. And if we're asking people to conclude whether or not this was a mistake, just based on their own perceptions, then efforts to influence those perceptions are totally relevant.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this.

At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

Misleading and selective reporting is where I would invoke the "everybody does it" argument. We agree, they are not objective, and there is some incentive for them to appeal to their viewership by choosing which stories to report, and how. The topic of the week is "Muslim immigrants and terrorist attacks". If I had to guess, I'd say Fox's viewership supports the immigration pause. Reporting the story in a way that feeds into that is biased, but not dishonest. And it's certainly not out of the norm across all mainstream media outlets.

What would be wrong, dishonest, and out of the norm is if Fox was aware that the Muslim suspect was innocent, but reported that he was guilty anyway. And if you're going down that road, you need to provide a motive. Fox doesn't have a dog in this fight. It's not like their ratings will go up if the Muslim guy actually did it. However, they would know that being caught in an outright lie will hurt their credibility, and that affects their ratings for sure. Any reasonable person can see way more downside than upside to lying.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

Why's that a funny coincidence? A few posts back you yourself called attention to the fact that Fox is pretty much alone as the go to source for conservative viewership. Reporting "Muslim immigrant commits crime" during a week whose headlines have been debating this very thing, seems totally expected. It's only 'wrong' if they knew the guy was only a witness at the time of their report. Which seems like a paranoid and cynical accusation to make without any proof.

In fact, evidence to the contrary includes the fact that Fox DID update their story upon learning of the Muslim man's true role. This dust-up is actually in regards to a Tweet that Fox failed to retract. From what I read, it only got shared between some 1000-1500 people. I doubt that's even 1% of Fox's audience. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a massive percentage of Fox's viewership falls among generations that don't really use Twitter.