• 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!

John Kelly Calls Out Fox

I fully agree that electing to feast on a steady diet of confirmation bias is bad news, but I do not agree that this is not also true among the MSM which had assured the public for years that Trump (and his campaign staff) had criminally colluded with Putin (and his government officials) to do harm to the Hillary campaign based on nothing provable (verifiable?) at all. Mueller stated that was simply not so long after he knew that to be the case, yet continued to allow his staff to keep on "investigating" in order to try to generate obstruction and/or perjury charges which he knew could not be brought by the DOJ on Trump.

Could you provide a link to support your assertion?
 
Yes, MSNBC is better than Fox. The collective IQ of those watching Fox is probably 1/4 that of a single Maddow viewer.

Yep, and they are centrists, too, on MSNBS and CNN
 
Is Fox News not part of the free media? Does Kelly actually believe that MSNBC is better or did he do what he accused Fox News of doing?

Probably. Who wouldnt? Breitbart readers? lol
 
Last edited:
Yep, and they are centrists, too, on MSNBS and CNN

They aren't propagandists like those on Fox News.

Fox News spins these outrageous narratives that viewers swallow whole-heartedly and then when reality intrudes they are left wailing about the Deep state, which their own leader is in charge of.

There has to be more to life than this sort of crazy, fantasy feedback loop.
 
They aren't propagandists like those on Fox News.

Fox News spins these outrageous narratives that viewers swallow whole-heartedly and then when reality intrudes they are left wailing about the Deep state, which their own leader is in charge of.

There has to be more to life than this sort of crazy, fantasy feedback loop.

I doubt anyone at any other network sells snakeoil to imbeciles like Dobbs, Hannity and Tucker.
 
I fully agree that electing to feast on a steady diet of confirmation bias is bad news, but I do not agree that this is not also true among the MSM which had assured the public for years that Trump (and his campaign staff) had criminally colluded with Putin (and his government officials) to do harm to the Hillary campaign based on nothing provable (verifiable?) at all. Mueller stated that was simply not so long after he knew that to be the case, yet continued to allow his staff to keep on "investigating" in order to try to generate obstruction and/or perjury charges which he knew could not be brought by the DOJ on Trump.

Actually, at the very beginning, I stated that evidence for "collusion" would include providing internal polling to the Russians. The kind of thing that would help them focus their disinformation campaigns.

I didn't find out until much later that Manafort did indeed provide internal polling data to someone with pretty direct ties to the IRA. Further, the trump tower attendees were given a pass, not because what they wers doing wasn't illegal, but because Mueller didn't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing was against the law. And interestingly it was Manafort that left the meeting immediately.

And he would have known, due to his work over there for pro-putin clients.

So I do think there was some "collusion", just that it was more "peripheral" and I stated before the Report came out that trump may have just been a useful idiot who didn't "collude" directly, but was quite happy to take the help.

But to the overall point, the primary difference between the MSM conservatives cry out against and conservative media is active coordination. Conservativ have a distinct recent history from the rest of the world.

But it's the same, uniform recent history. The rest of the MSM is more in line with the consensus reality of the rest of the world. While at the same time providing confirmation bias to sell commercial time.
 
Actually, at the very beginning, I stated that evidence for "collusion" would include providing internal polling to the Russians. The kind of thing that would help them focus their disinformation campaigns.

I didn't find out until much later that Manafort did indeed provide internal polling data to someone with pretty direct ties to the IRA. Further, the trump tower attendees were given a pass, not because what they wers doing wasn't illegal, but because Mueller didn't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing was against the law. And interestingly it was Manafort that left the meeting immediately.

And he would have known, due to his work over there for pro-putin clients.

So I do think there was some "collusion", just that it was more "peripheral" and I stated before the Report came out that trump may have just been a useful idiot who didn't "collude" directly, but was quite happy to take the help.

But to the overall point, the primary difference between the MSM conservatives cry out against and conservative media is active coordination. Conservativ have a distinct recent history from the rest of the world.

But it's the same, uniform recent history. The rest of the MSM is more in line with the consensus reality of the rest of the world. While at the same time providing confirmation bias to sell commercial time.

Why did Fox discontinue coverage of the impeachment after about 1.5 days? I'd say for two reasons. Greed for income and not wanting to show their viewers the truthful parts of the information.

The so-called MSM, IE MSNBC and CNN covered every minute of every day, not worrying about income or any bias they might be showing. While NBC was covering the impeachment, all the morons on Fox were doing was pointing out the right wing talking points. I rest my case.
 
Why did Fox discontinue coverage of the impeachment after about 1.5 days? I'd say for two reasons. Greed for income and not wanting to show their viewers the truthful parts of the information.

The so-called MSM, IE MSNBC and CNN covered every minute of every day, not worrying about income or any bias they might be showing. While NBC was covering the impeachment, all the morons on Fox were doing was pointing out the right wing talking points. I rest my case.

This is true. All those visual aids behind Jordan a d much of their commentary made no sense.

Unless you watched fox.

Then it became clear that it was just to provide visuals for their narrative managers.
 
The Kelly complaint mentioned in the OP was that (only?) Fox News served up a generous dose of confirmation bias, implying (by simple omission) that the rest of the MSM did not do so. It should be obvious to all that most media bias is accomplished by simple omission - presenting part (one side?) or none of a news event (story or issue) makes that very easy to do.

I fully agree that Fox News is biased, but there are few (if any) news sources which are not serving up generous helpings of confirmation bias based largely on what they do not choose to present, cover or discuss. As the NYT puts it "All the news that's fit to print" - that certainly places an emphasis on their ability (mission?) to decide what in their editorial opinion is fit to present.

I take your point in general. Cable television news, and its internet counterparts have taken on the same confirmation based rivalries as big city daily newspapers once did. When I was a kid, we took the Baltimore Sun in the morning, and the News Post in the afternoon. The Sun, at the time, was one of the nation’s best liberal newspapers. The afternoon paper was the Hearst paper, which had quite a different point of view! We took them both.

I still do that. I read the Times every day. And I read the Post and the Wall Street Journal. It has been my experience that these are the ones that generally got the facts right when the history gets written. Of course, the Times is the liberal paper. the Post tended to be a bit more cautious, as it is the voice of the nation’s governing city, and the WSJ can be rabidly right wing (as it was this morning).

I suspect that Gen Kelly singled out Fox for two reasons.

One, being inside the Trump White House, he had firsthand experience with the extraordinary degree that Fox bends over to function as a Ministry of Propoganda for this Administration (they did it for the Bush administration as well). He also has first hand experience with how dangerous and incompetent Trump is.

The other is that Rupert Murdoch made no bones about his intention to make his cable news network into right wing AM talk radio with pictures. No fairness doctrine. No real pretense of anything but hyper partisan political spin (dishonestly and repeatedly misrepresented as “Fair and Balanced”). It would be nearly a decade before Keith Olberman demanded George W Bush apologize to the nation for his presidency, and ignited MSNBC as the anti-Fox.

Today, they are very much two sides of the same coin. (indeed, they can see one another out their office windows!) Each markets to a constituency. MSNBC doesn’t openly lie the way that Fox does on an almost constant basis. But confirmation bias, errors of ommission and commission do rule the day.
 
Back
Top Bottom