• 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 News: 60% of "facts" on air are false

Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,726
Reaction score
24,100
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies

Analysis of Fox News suggests that the TV news network is a leader in lying to the American public, beating out CNN and MSNBC for the amount of falsehoods broadcasted.
Click to expand...

Beating out CNN and MSNBC

The analysis comes from Punditfact, a partnership between the Tampa Bay Times and Politifact.com, which maintains scorecards on the accuracy of major TV news networks. As of January, about 60 percent of facts reported by Fox News were false.
Click to expand...

Trump loves fake news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Only 60%? Trump will be pissed. They need to hit Trump's ratio, about 90%.
 
Winston said:
‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies



Beating out CNN and MSNBC



Trump loves fake news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hmm...I guess you have to trust the sources of these analyses. I went to the citation, saw the "fact checkers" and personally don't trust them.

In fact, I've learned not to trust so-called "factcheck" sites in general, since they all seem to have their own "leans" on how to interpret what is "True/False/In between" or however they rate.

Seems to all depend on the lean of the particular fact checker assigned to "check facts" IMHO.

Of course I recognize that almost all of us (including myself) are at least periodically guilty of confirmation bias. I'm not surprised that "fact checkers" are too. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
fox is infotainment for cultists. msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultists. if you enjoy it, cool, but it's best to know what you're eating.
 
Just noticed the article is outdated. My bad guys.

If Fox has been doing their job right in the intervening years they could've hit 90% :lamo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Helix said:
fox is infotainment for cultists. msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultists. if you enjoy it, cool, but it's best to know what you're eating.
Click to expand...

Here, let me fix that for you:

...msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultist cultists...

Now that's better.

You're welcome.:2bow:
 
Helix said:
fox is infotainment for cultists. msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultists. if you enjoy it, cool, but it's best to know what you're eating.
Click to expand...

Small family Farmers and Veterans are not the cultists GOPutins think they are.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Here, let me fix that for you:

...msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultist cultists...

Now that's better.

You're welcome.:2bow:
Click to expand...

like i said, it's best to know what you're eating. i won't be having a side of deflection, but thanks, and good night.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Here, let me fix that for you:

...msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultist cultists...

Now that's better.

You're welcome.:2bow:
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, my bad I thought it was more current an article, because someone reposted it today. I bet when you factor Russiagate hysteria in the disparity between honesty shrinks a bit.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I guess you have to trust the sources of these analyses. I went to the citation, saw the "fact checkers" and personally don't trust them.

In fact, I've learned not to trust so-called "factcheck" sites in general, since they all seem to have their own "leans" on how to interpret what is "True/False/In between" or however they rate.

Seems to all depend on the lean of the particular fact checker assigned to "check facts" IMHO.

Of course I recognize that almost all of us (including myself) are at least periodically guilty of confirmation bias. I'm not surprised that "fact checkers" are too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

That suggests that the fact checkers themselves are liars.

I think that by now it is self-evident that nobody 'owns' the facts and that the various think tanks and organizations truly dedicated to the truth are careful in their hiring and self-policing processes. When people take issue with the fact checkers it's often because the truth hurts. It's then we have to examine our own biases.

I've been guilty of looking at politifact or factcheck.org and saying. 'Damn Trump was right on that?' But I have been willing to accept that I was wrong when demonstrably proven so. The lesson is that the facts can be unkind, and though Trump is often an easy target for fact checkers it is because he makes himself so.

Just because we don't like the results, doesn't make the fact checker dishonest.
 
Last edited:
It's too bad they used punditfact. It's not like there is any reliable fact check services, but they are more suspect than most.
 
 
Helix said:
fox is infotainment for cultists. msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultists. if you enjoy it, cool, but it's best to know what you're eating.
Click to expand...

If you read the ingredient/calorie information at all times and followed your head, you’d be a stick figure!
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I guess you have to trust the sources of these analyses. I went to the citation, saw the "fact checkers" and personally don't trust them.

In fact, I've learned not to trust so-called "factcheck" sites in general, since they all seem to have their own "leans" on how to interpret what is "True/False/In between" or however they rate.

Seems to all depend on the lean of the particular fact checker assigned to "check facts" IMHO.

Of course I recognize that almost all of us (including myself) are at least periodically guilty of confirmation bias. I'm not surprised that "fact checkers" are too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

So since you are guilty of confirmation bias so are the fact checkers. Nice. Let's face it, trump lies and most of his lies we don't need a fact checker to tell us they are lies.
 
CNN and MSNBC and FN, if we really dig we might just realize that all of them have to fill the hours, mostly with opinions and whatever they can dig up that pleases their viewers. Not one of them isn't concerned about ratings. So to say that one is biased over the other makes no sense.
Facts, that all depends now, doesn't it.
Moral of the story, and free advice for today. Check for yourself. Don't get your news from only one or the other.
Think.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Here, let me fix that for you:

...msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultist cultists...

Now that's better.

You're welcome.:2bow:
Click to expand...

Which doesn't actually rebut anything about Fox. Just because the pot calls the kettle black, that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black.
 
Jay59 said:
It's too bad they used punditfact. It's not like there is any reliable fact check services, but they are more suspect than most.
Click to expand...

Most of you saying the source is bad woukd only believe it if Fox themselves said it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...I guess you have to trust the sources of these analyses. I went to the citation, saw the "fact checkers" and personally don't trust them.

In fact, I've learned not to trust so-called "factcheck" sites in general, since they all seem to have their own "leans" on how to interpret what is "True/False/In between" or however they rate.

Seems to all depend on the lean of the particular fact checker assigned to "check facts" IMHO.

Of course I recognize that almost all of us (including myself) are at least periodically guilty of confirmation bias. I'm not surprised that "fact checkers" are too. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

We know. :roll:
 
Helix said:
fox is infotainment for cultists. msnbc is infotainment for anti-cultists. if you enjoy it, cool, but it's best to know what you're eating.
Click to expand...

I think it's cultists for both. Anyone who worships at the altar of Fox or MSNBC is part of a brainwashed hive.
 
When I was younger, most of what is presented as news today; which is based on gossip and innuendo, was found in the super market tabloids. In the tabloids, instead of Trump had a secret alliance with Russia, the tabloid big news would be Big Foot had a secret love child. Or instead of Trump has an affair with a porn star, it would say Trump has secret affair with a young starlet.

These tabloids were mostly read by women, since women did most of the grocery shopping, and the grocery stores were the primary places these were displayed and sold. My guess is fake news has become more geared toward the perceived needs of the female demographics, with the providers of news, assuming women would prefer news with a gossipy flavor, like the tabloids.

This could explain why the left falls for fake news easier; collusion delusion. They are more feminized, so a tabloids would be where t hey would prefer get their news for social gossip. The men, historically preferred more in the way of cold hard facts; sports scores and the stock market. The men are starting to push back and rags like CNN are having a difficulty time adjusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom