|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
|
Reply With Quote