FOX viewers like being lied to, like being told what and how to think, and don't like hearing the truth, such as pointing this kind of thing out to them
The faux newsi audience has become some of the most ill informed and stupid people on this planet. Due to the overwhelming amount of bullshit they spew even people who may just not know about something are better off than faux viewers. They have been lied to for so long and they do not confirm the information because it comes from such pretty white ladies, and those charming men who could not possibly be lying to them because they look nice. Really faux does cater to the white trash of the country by giving them an excuse for why their lives did not work out like they planned. It is not their fault, thbe dirty liberals got Obama to steal their american dream. Just because you are dumb as shit, spoiled, and lazy doesn't have anything to do with it. Just because a mexican can outwork you, an asian can outthink you, blacks can con you, and women control you with their pussy doesn't mean you are losing control of the very last bastion of white supremist hope. Perhaps not the last, there is still russia. They are almost WASPy over there. Only their P happens to be a C and they are not really sure if they want to continue to listen to the pope because he went hippie.
Meanwhile, no studies have been conducted on the intellectual prowess of those who use phrases like "faux news" and "white supremist" (sic). Apparently, there are some foregone conclusions even scientists laugh off as wastes of funding.
Honestly, John, calling FOX News 'Faux News' is calling a spade a spade That said, the other stations don't help themselves these days.
Something, something, MSNBC, something, we don't watch it, laugh at you liberals for obsessing over propaganda....
I'm a liberal, eh? I want to do this liberal thing right, so could you direct me on where to go and who to talk to? What positions to adopt? Tell me, I'm dying to know. Give me my opinion, please! After all, you, being a defender for FOX, clearly know all of this, having been spoonfed your talking points and singlehandedly giving credence to my original post. Seriously, I feel my criticism of your messianic source of propaganda is lacking. Should I hug some trees? Denounce eating meat? Demand expansion of social programs? I'm honestly unsure, because I don't think I can earn my liberal cred without guidance from someone who knows what liberalism's all about; that is, a conservative FOX viewer. Help me out. I want to escape the Fantasy World I clearly live in and join you in yours!
I will always take the truth over a comforting lie. This means that I'm rather disenchanted with most media outlets. I can count on one hand the number of politicians I would trust farther than I could throw them, and I don't like making generalities about whole groups of people, because every person is different, and one does not always mean all.
Now I have a legitimate question for @Archangel and @Federal Farmer and any other of similar leaning views. Is it appropriate for an injured party of slander or libel to sue their defamer for libel/slander and defamation? What if it's a news outlet? Say, FOX News? You're probably wondering where I'm going with this, and as you hitch your wagons up to begin the circling, I'll remind you that FOX's 'Fair and Balanced' reporting is anything but, and it's 'We Report, You Decide' motto amounts to 'Here is your opinion on this subject.' I'll also remind you that defending FOX reinforces the point of the thread, "FOX viewers like being lied to, like being told what and how to think, and don't like hearing the truth, such as pointing this kind of thing out to them." While I certainly can't force you to think for yourselves and engage in critical thinking, and I'll point out that everyone, and I mean everyone, including me, could stand and should to do a better job of that, I can certainly encourage you to do so. So I shall repeat and rephrase my question: If FOX News slanders a party, is that injured party within its rights to sue FOX for slander and defamation? To answer 'No' speaks a great deal to your respective characters and attitudes. Yes, FOX has the right to put out its 'news' as it will; the First Amendment guarantees that, and as much as I despise FOX, even I would be upset if their right to do so were infringed. This includes the right to slander/libel; this does not, however, absolve them of the consequences of slander/libel. To answer 'Yes' begs the question then, why would you support and defend an organization that not only engages in libel/slander, but in doing so deceives and misinforms its viewers? Now to the point: The City of Paris, France, is going to sue FOX News for its claims of 'Muslim no-go zones'. http://www.mediaite.com/online/paris-mayor-announces-plans-to-sue-fox-news/ A video of Mayor Anne Hildalgo corresponding with CNN's Christine Amanpour is included.
^Brace yourself for the whining. Bet me they'll include terms like "surrender monkeys" and "Freedom Fries."
That's going to be tough to prove. False statements, certainly, but malicious intent? FOX will deny it. Substantial harm? Maybe to American tourism, but the defense could plausibly argue that the kind of Americans who might be considering a trip to Paris are unlikely to be swayed by a FOX News report.
That's easy. Hyperfocus on intentions to the exclusion of results. Use weasel words to rebrand empirically invalidated policies and positions. After you get the hang of those two simple practices, everything else will fall easily into place.
What will also hurt their case is that other news organizations had been reporting similar stories, and Fox News wouldn't have reason to doubt their veracity until they investigated whether what was being written elsewhere in the press was in fact true. These stories include The irony, and the farce, go much further. Fox drew Hidalgo’s ire for saying that France in general and Paris in particular have numerous Muslim-run “no-go zones” that the police fear to enter. Fox did say that, but why would Hidalgo limit her suit to Fox? She could also sue Valeurs Actuelles, a major weekly newsmagazine, that warned against venturing into the Paris suburb of Trappes. “You will be spotted … and be stripped and smashed,” it quoted Mohammed Duhan, a local police official in a story about Islamic fundamentalists imposing an alternative society. Or she could have sued TF1, France’s most popular TV channel, for its 90-minute documentary on the Muslim gangs in Paris’s no-go zones. Or France’s TV3, for its documentary on no-go zones. Or Hidalgo could have sued the blue chip think tank, L’Institute Montaigne, for publishing Suburbs of the Republic, a 2,200-page report that stated Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” increasingly ruled by Sharia law and inclined toward radical Islam. If TF1 and TV3 have done documentaries on Paris no-go zones, they almost certainly exist despite the mayor's fantasies of a happy little city - where journalists are slaughtered with AK-47's.
See the first rule. "Hyperfocus on intentions to the exclusion of results." There ya go, Bick. Let garamet be your object lesson.
So you intended to describe Dayton, but would like us to focus instead on a result by which you inadvertently described something else? Or you're just not making sense at all?
I described liberalism. And that's always going to have been what I described, no matter how often liberals live up to my description trying to make it sound otherwise. Seriously, what kind of dimwit liberals have we got on this board? "His description of how liberals behave is wrong, everyone! Here, let us prove it to you all by exemplifying exactly the behaviors he described!" Remember: Liberals don't care about results; not only does that make them useful idiots in the beginning; it makes them useless idiots when they try to con others as they were conned.
No, my intention to disclose the truth of liberalism outweighs your intention to inveigle regarding it.
Nope. You were -- very clearly, I might add -- with embarrassing clarity, even -- attempting to use weasel words, just like I described, to distance liberalism from its empirically known characteristics -- from its results. And it won't work. Maybe back in the '60s and '70s, people were that gullible. Not anymore. That shit doesn't work anymore, and the more you try to use it, the more you break the mechanism. Here's an alternative idea: Cop to it. Instead of saying, "That isn't liberalism!" -- when everybody knows it is -- say this, instead: "Okay, this is liberalism. We want control of everything, all over the world. We know best -- even though the results of our ideology prove, empirically, that we don't know shit." Because, fella, that's the endgame, anyway. The more your ideology gets its own way, the more visibly it proves that it's totally fucking disconnected from reality and utterly useless. Just save us all time.
And then we go onto all the things that are being successful in the quasi socialist nations in Scandinavia and Western Europe that have born quantifiable advantages over our 'free market' society and we hear 'they don't count because they don't have black people there.' Yes, these converations do save time.
