• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox & Friends Review

As one who usually watch a bit of or sometimes quite a bit of Fox & Friends before getting out of bed in the morning, I just shake my head at a piece like that. So little truth or substance there. Based on some of his criticisms, though, it would be interesting to see how the same writer would review "Joe in the Morning" or "Rachael Maddow."
 
As one who usually watch a bit of or sometimes quite a bit of Fox & Friends before getting out of bed in the morning, I just shake my head at a piece like that. So little truth or substance there. Based on some of his criticisms, though, it would be interesting to see how the same writer would review "Joe in the Morning" or "Rachael Maddow."

Against my better judgement, but isn’t that a “whataboutism” argument? I give Rachel Maddow high marks for her double major at Stanford. Whatever her major was and then another major in drama......
 
Against my better judgement, but isn’t that a “whataboutism” argument? I give Rachel Maddow high marks for her double major at Stanford. Whatever her major was and then another major in drama......

Sorry but credentials are not what makes a competent, intellectually honest, and/or honorable journalist, reporter, host, and/or commentator.

But you miss my point. The writer certainly has a low opinion of Fox and Friends. An opinion that I do not share. And as a writer/journalist of sorts myself, my critique of his critique of Fox and Friends does not give him high marks. But I might or might not have a better opinion after he critiqued Morning Joe or Maddow as I am familiar with the content of both shows. I am just curious as to how he would critique them.
 
As one who usually watch a bit of or sometimes quite a bit of Fox & Friends before getting out of bed in the morning, I just shake my head at a piece like that. So little truth or substance there. Based on some of his criticisms, though, it would be interesting to see how the same writer would review "Joe in the Morning" or "Rachael Maddow."

Stories like this, including Maddow, are based on the quality of facts presented. Do you have facts that dispute this OP story?
 
Stories like this, including Maddow, are based on the quality of facts presented. Do you have facts that dispute this OP story?

It may be a partisan piece of **** review but Jet will withhold judgment until you can attempt to approve it and he can dispute those facts until the end of time if need be. Its a review, as such, the interpretation of the facts may be opinion rather than the whole story. Proving or disproving it will be in the purview of each reader and not easily done. Hence, the truly lazy route is to simply say can you prove its partisan ****, instead of actually being critical of both the show and the review.
 
I can only watch a few minutes of either F&F or TRMS. After running in right hand circles, I get dizzy and have to run in a similar number of left hand circles.....
 
It may be a partisan piece of **** review but Jet will withhold judgment until you can attempt to approve it and he can dispute those facts until the end of time if need be. Its a review, as such, the interpretation of the facts may be opinion rather than the whole story. Proving or disproving it will be in the purview of each reader and not easily done. Hence, the truly lazy route is to simply say can you prove its partisan ****, instead of actually being critical of both the show and the review.

Can you disprove the article or not?
 
Can you disprove the article or not?

You haven't been critical of either one, you are just taking the word of the article because its politically convenient. You haven't bothered to prove anything, why should I bother to disprove anything?
 
As one who usually watch a bit of or sometimes quite a bit of Fox & Friends before getting out of bed in the morning, I just shake my head at a piece like that. So little truth or substance there. Based on some of his criticisms, though, it would be interesting to see how the same writer would review "Joe in the Morning" or "Rachael Maddow."

I would bet its a gleaming response, to some of things I have seen him say about FOX in general.

What happened to real journalism?
 
Sorry but credentials are not what makes a competent, intellectually honest, and/or honorable journalist, reporter, host, and/or commentator.

But you miss my point. The writer certainly has a low opinion of Fox and Friends. An opinion that I do not share. And as a writer/journalist of sorts myself, my critique of his critique of Fox and Friends does not give him high marks. But I might or might not have a better opinion after he critiqued Morning Joe or Maddow as I am familiar with the content of both shows. I am just curious as to how he would critique them.

haha...excuse me. Credentials do not matter??? Well why the f*** should they, when one can be so entertained by just changing the channel and hearing news more convenient ... maybe we should label news channels as "Easy Listening" or "Pop"

I am impressed to read of this yet third occupation of yours writer/journalist, along with teacher and also health care professional, I find it almost difficult to disagree with your opinion.
 
Stories like this, including Maddow, are based on the quality of facts presented. Do you have facts that dispute this OP story?

No because there are no facts to counter innuendo, flawed observations, vague analysis.
 
I would bet its a gleaming response, to some of things I have seen him say about FOX in general.

What happened to real journalism?

It went so far left it lost all ability or even attempt at objectivity and/or honesty.
 
haha...excuse me. Credentials do not matter??? Well why the f*** should they, when one can be so entertained by just changing the channel and hearing news more convenient ... maybe we should label news channels as "Easy Listening" or "Pop"

I am impressed to read of this yet third occupation of yours writer/journalist, along with teacher and also health care professional, I find it almost difficult to disagree with your opinion.

Lack of objectivity or substance spouted by a PhD has no more credibility than lack of objectivity or substance spouted by a sanitation worker with a GED.
 
Lack of objectivity or substance spouted by a PhD has no more credibility than lack of objectivity or substance spouted by a sanitation worker with a GED.

Bull Hockey.. Perhaps it is more likely that the PhD might spout substance that you find difficult to comprehend or accept. Substance spouted by a sanitation worker with a GED may have much credibility, but perhaps limited value in terms of newsworthiness. Objectivity of course can only be truly measured by a purely objective mind. Credibility can only be judged on a long range analysis of what has been "spouted." So I am afraid that credentials really do matter and that's all she wrote....
 
Bull Hockey.. Perhaps it is more likely that the PhD might spout substance that you find difficult to comprehend or accept. Substance spouted by a sanitation worker with a GED may have much credibility, but perhaps limited value in terms of newsworthiness. Objectivity of course can only be truly measured by a purely objective mind. Credibility can only be judged on a long range analysis of what has been "spouted." So I am afraid that credentials really do matter and that's all she wrote....

And another point made went sailing right over another head. But do have a good night.
 
And another point made went sailing right over another head. But do have a good night.

Perhaps you think you made a point. I have seen that happen before. Good night to you also.
 
FOX is now our official STATE NEWS.
 
No because there are no facts to counter innuendo, flawed observations, vague analysis.

(chuckle)

Uh - no; the idea is - YOU have to prove that none of it is true...
 
From 15JAN18 issue, near the end is a soccer/football analogy that is spot on:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/how-fox-and-friends-rewrites-trumps-reality

It's a great review. Biased beyond credibility but entertaining. The New Yorker always hires writers with interesting prose and lets them use it. As far as Fox & Friends goes, I can't watch it because I can't stand the mouth breather, the darker-haired men who sits on the right with his mouth permanently agape.
 
Last edited:
It's a great review. The New Yorker always hires writers with interesting prose and lets them use it. As far as Fox & Friends goes, I can't watch it because I can't stand the mouth breather, the darker-haired men who sits on the right with his mouth permanently agape.


Doocy&Son are my favorites, although to be fair if I never knew of his father, Peter might be ok. That guilt by association thing......
 
I would like to let you all in on to a little news and information secret, that appears to be unconscious to most people. I noticed this affect, by watching all the various news stations, from both sides, during the early days of the collusion narrative. It has to do with how the brain works, and how perception inductions can be tweaked, to impact how we will perceive information.

If you are motivated by the emotions of fight/flight, the brain speeds up. The brain waves will increase frequency. This is natural and connected to instinct. With fight/flight, one needs to be aware of the immediate present and real time events, to assure survival. At the other extreme, time will fly the you are having fun. In this case, the brain slows down; brain waves slow down. The mind is less aware of the real time details, since these all seem to blur together, with hours passing. The brain has a range of perception platforms.

This affect is analogous to photography. In photography, if the shutter speed is very fast, even the fastest action in the photo will be in focus; can see fast minutia and details with clarity. If the shutter speed is too slow, you will get motion blur, with all but the slowest motion, appearing blurry. With the slow shutter speed, the details become fuzzy, causing one to look at the larger stationary picture, for the context. With fight/flight your brain is thinking second to second; very fast shut speed. This makes you aware of tiny details since these are in focus. But with fun, you are not aware of the second by second events; blurry, but only with the longer view; slow shutter speed.

The net effect is, based on the speed of the brain, the same data will be interpreted differently. A short term time perception fast brain, looks in terms of an immediate conclusion, based on the clarity of a small immediate data set. Whereas the longer time perception, sees this data as being blurry, and tries to fit that fuzzy dice data, into a longer term criteria.

For example, during the Trump collusion soap opera, over the past year, those induced by fear and hate, on both sides, would react to any tiny bit of gossip, as the new key smoking gun data, since it fit into a short term perception narrative, even if false in the bigger picture. The media was responsible for speeding up the brain, so day to day,garbage, would attract audience. Those who could slow the brain, and see longer term, were less vulnerable, since this would be fuzzy and out of focus. It was not accepted right away, until it came into focus in the longer term.

Next time you watch the news, as an exercise, try to become self aware of the feelings you feel. Focus on the induced feelings. If these feelings involve stress, anxiety, anger, fear, etc., then know they are trying to speed up your brain, so your vision is narrowed to the immediate. The goal of speeding up the brain is so any garbage gossip will be treated as clarity, but ion the context of a very narrow world view; fast shutter speed.

This is true of both sides of the news and is used to maintain audience share. If they tried to slow the brain, like in the days of old, the slow shutter speed makes to much of the new news look fuzzy or unsubstantiated; motion blur. This type of data does not register as well to most people, whose brains are working faster due to their daily stresses.

Trump has been a bonanza for leftist news outlets. Failing newspapers, like the NYT, received new life. The entire turnaround involved using the controversy, that is Trump, to speed up the leftist brain, It also catered to the already speeded up leftist brain, due to years of leftist fear monger propaganda and the negative economy. Once they found that brain speed recipe, they found their pot of money. Personally, this is not good for people, since the continuous fast brain speed, causes brain drain that slowly lowers the brain's set point; one de-evolves.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom