GB News

So are you agreeing that all of the networks are bad but asserting that Fox is worse?

You may be right.

Fair enough if you are but that still means that they're all bad.

I don't understand your being triggered by my posts so much.

It's just an Internet forum. Go out for a walk, mate 😭

I'm saying give us an example of what msnbc and cnn do that you consider to be equally as bad as Fox News' "wokeness and diversity are to blame for the Wuhan flu" and "climate change is a hoax invented by China" but you deflected and insisted I was triggered. Ironically in a typically Fox News way.

Irony indeed.

I still think you need to go out for a walk.

I went for one and it's done me the world of good.

A touch patronising. From what I can tell you were just asked for a specific example?

JCB - you can't force an answer so need to drop it now, otherwise this conversation will go round in circles.

Except it doesn't, not to anywhere near the same degree. In fact, Rachel Maddow tends to be very careful with her use of facts and logic. When she tries to analyse beyond that, sometimes she can go wrong, but nowhere as badly or as often as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity & Laura Ingraham. In fact in the case of the Fox hosts, it's not whether they are right or wrong, they are so often wrong that it's more notable when they actually get something right. MSNBC's hosts by comparison, will also often be wrong, but again nowhere near as badly, because the analysis will be based on actual facts, rather than propaganda. Chris Hayes is most often guilty of this. Lawrence O'Donnell has significant experience in US politics, so is the most qualified and often ends up being closest in his analysis, he's really good.



Not so much. Right wing bias has become ridiculously easy to spot, simply because since 1994, the right has been moving further and further away from reality, and as such, right wing outlets now tend to be spreading so much disinformation, that anyone who is grounded in the real world can spot it a million miles off. It's ridiculously easy. By contrast, left wing bias is much more grounded in the actual facts of the story, and so generally doesn't tend towards the extremities, like the right wing has gone to. Exceptions exist, such as The Morning Star and Democracy Now, both of which are definitely hard left, and The Morning Star is so extreme in some of their stuff, that I put it in the same camp as old US tabloid publications The National Enquirer and The Weekly World News, they're just too unbelievable to take seriously.



Objectivity. So often it actually isn't truly objective at all. You have two basic definitions of objectivity in the news media, neither of which actually hold water on close inspection. Definition one, is basically countering a pound of official propaganda, with an ounce of counterspin. That's not really being objective. The other definition that often applies is one person says the moon is a planetary body orbiting the Earth, the other person says it's a pie in the sky. One has facts, and the other doesn't, and they're given equal weight and time, that's not objective either. True objectivity, would be one person saying it's sunny, and another saying it's raining, and the media looks out the window and reports what is actually happening. That would be objective.

Seem to be reading a lot of what sounds like “x side isn’t biased because it’s the side I agree with” here...

I wonder how many hours per day GB News will have live programming? I guess they will air repeats from say 1.00am to 6.00am, I wonder if they will have a Fox News Channel 17-18 hour a day live programming?

Okay, that's about the worst example there has been on MSNBC of them embellishing a story. However, they didn't actually create a link between OAN and Sputnik. That link existed, it was the reporter, they just embellished what that meant. On a scale of 0-10, where a 0 is totally accurate, and a 10 is a pants on fire lie, that's a 3. It's taking something that exists and embellishing it. Most of what Fox airs, starts at a 7 on that scale, and goes all the way to the full 10. Again, I would say that, as egregious as that was, it still doesn't compare to what Fox does, or even what OAN themselves do. In a way, MSNBC gave them a small taste of their own medicine, and they didn't care for it.



Well, no, it isn't equivalent. MSNBC don't make up stuff out of thin air. There's always some kind of factual basis for what they say, even if it is embellished. Fox News on the other hand, not only make up stuff out of thin air, they have done so numerous times over the years. The Media Bias/Fact Check website lists 5 actual Pants On Fire ratings given to Fox News hosts, as well as one False, all from Politifact. By contrast MSNBC's Pants On Fire ratings have come from political pundits guesting on the network, rather than the actual hosts themselves. It's a big disparity between what MSNBC does, and what Fox News and others of their ilk do. It's a false equivalency to say that both are as bad as each other, because the hard evidence plainly shows that is not the case.



I don't have your confidence on that count. All I need to do there is point to how often the Daily Mail and the Sun have published wildly inaccurate stories, and comparitively how little they've been taken to court. For every court appearance, there's at least 1000 stories on both sites equally as wrong and equally as egregious as the ones they've been taken to court for. Yet they still contrinue to print wildly inaccurate and false stories. It's as though the court cases never happened.

This just aired a minutes ago FNC.

On Fox News, @johnrobertsFox is visibly angry that @PressSec won't offer a clear denunciation of white supremacy: "Stop deflecting. Stop blaming the media. I'm tired of it. " pic.twitter.com/GcPcOsAHqJ

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 1, 2020

Fox News has been and will always be a complete unprofessional mess IMO. They started the whole MSM thing, attacking other news organizations and other media groups. Demonizing them so that they can gain eyeballs and viewers to distrust everyone else. It clearly worked. Because for +20 years if you keep saying, screaming and shouting that you are being lied to by every other news organization ON EARTH, the precious BBC included, unfortunately the low hanging fruit tends to believe you.

But!..... when the same lens is turned at them they get angry. I squarely blame Faux for almost everything that has happened to tone in modern news business. Everything you are seeing from CNN and MSNBC, is as a reaction to FNC's meteoric rise in ratings and this channel masquerading as a legitimate news channel, which it is not. Had FNC not been as popular, I firmly believe that MSNBC and CNN would not have these news/talk formats and squarely politics focused. FNC is not news, it was created with the sole purpose of righting or correcting perceived liberal/leftist wrongs and has retreated further and further into the bowels of insanity. It is simply an echo-chamber for those that want to hear their feelings/ideals regurgitated to them with a veneer of respectability (and i use that word loosely).

Now that their primetime audiences are massive and the hosts, NOT JOURNALISTS, run the show, the channel bosses have lost all control of the asylum. It's a mess. They just recently fired a white nationalist head writer on the most popular programme on the network. No one bats an eyelid. Its insane.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

They even attack their OWN JOURNALISTS, if it doesnt fit their skewed narrative. Laura Ingrahm, a person who should be nowhere within 50 miles of a broadcast facility, tweeted this about one FNC's few respected journalists.
https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2020/10/1/fox-news-talent-attack-chris-wallace


I wouldnt have a problem with FNC existing if it didnt carry the "label" NEWS. Because its not. I feel the same way about GB News. Fine if people need/want to hear or stand in their own echo chamber, but it shouldnt be labeled as news. My 2 pence. [Burns soapbox and throws the ashes in the river]

I wouldn’t be surprised if in some ways Fox want Trump to lose. Surely they have more to rally against if the Dems are in charge?

Fox News is basically a tv version of the conservative talk radio format, which has been commercially successful for decades. It may go down well with 50+ male viewers, but it loses credibility when they construct untruths to pad out their output.

I'd agree with Jon that Fox would get their mojo back if Trump loses the election and goes back to bashing Biden instead of being centered around their cultish dictoricial 'Republican' President.

Didn't Fox News have a very frosty relationship with Trump during the 2016 election? The infamous Megyn Kelly feud with Trump which started at the 2015 Republic Presidential Debate caused the frosty feel, and it was not a certainty that Fox News would always side with Trump during the 2016 election.