*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[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.