OT Even the AP is fake news

[bodyman5000 and 1]

99% wasn't intended to be taken literally. I don't know what the exact percentage is, I'd have to watch a lot more Fox to find out for sure.
I don't know what CNN's percentage is either, I'd have to watch a lot more CNN to find out.

I'm not sure what CNN has to do with Bill Shine's severance payments?

barfo

What percentage of Fox's actual news is wrong then? And how much of that is due to Bill Shine now working for Trump as the article infers?

 

[barfo]

What percentage of Fox's actual news is wrong then? And how much of that is due to Bill Shine now working for Trump as the article infers?

The article does not infer anything. The article does not imply what you claim it infers.

I would say that actual news is by definition not wrong.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

The article does not infer anything. The article does not imply what you claim it infers.

I would say that actual news is by definition not wrong.

barfo

What does it imply to you?

No implication would have taken a paragraph.

Bill Shine used to work for Fox.
Got millions in severance pay.
Works for Trump.

That's the whole story.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I don't know why I care what the press does. They're just doing their job

 

[barfo]

What does it imply to you?

No implication would have taken a paragraph.

Bill Shine used to work for Fox.
Got millions in severance pay.
Works for Trump.

That's the whole story.

So your theory is that news stories should always leave out history and context, and just report the immediate facts.

For example, the Papadopolous story today would have said just:

"George Papadapolous ordered to start prison sentence tomorrow."

It would not report on who PapaG is, why we should care if he's going to jail, what he was convicted for, or how long the sentence is.
Just today's new facts with no context.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

So your theory is that news stories should always leave out history and context, and just report the immediate facts.

For example, the Papadopolous story today would have said just:

"George Papadapolous ordered to start prison sentence tomorrow."

It would not report on who PapaG is, why we should care if he's going to jail, what he was convicted for, or how long the sentence is.
Just today's new facts with no context.

barfo

No. No "why we should care"

Yes. Facts are fine. Opinion should be for opinion sections.

Hell, even an editors note within a news story wouldn't bother me too much.

 

[barfo]

No. No "why we should care"

Yes. Facts are fine. Opinion should be for opinion sections.

Hell, even an editors note within a news story wouldn't bother me too much.

Not talking opinions here. Talking contextual facts, like the often fawning coverage.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Not talking opinions here. Talking contextual facts, like the often fawning coverage.

barfo

That's not a fact. You haven't proven that at all.

 

[Orion Bailey]

All news is fake

 

[Lanny]

More fake news. Maybe it is just yahoo.

Now Dershowitz is an "ally" of Trump. Not in the article but who reads that shitmView attachment 23483

Where are those gym photos that I have to see to believe? Asking for a friend.

 

[barfo]

That's not a fact. You haven't proven that at all.

I don't really have to prove it. It's obvious to any unbiased observer, except maybe those who are desperately looking to have an argument, not that I'd ever suggest you'd be in that category.

But still.

Do they provide fawning coverage? Clearly. Hannity is exhibit A. Do you want to claim Hannity is not fawning?

Do they 'often' provide fawning coverage?

Often: frequently, many times, many a time, on many/numerous occasions, a lot, as often as not, repeatedly, again and again, time and (time) again

Hannity's show is on repeatedly, isn't it?

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I don't really have to prove it. It's obvious to any unbiased observer, except maybe those who are desperately looking to have an argument, not that I'd ever suggest you'd be in that category.

But still.

Do they provide fawning coverage? Clearly. Hannity is exhibit A. Do you want to claim Hannity is not fawning?

Do they 'often' provide fawning coverage?

Often: frequently, many times, many a time, on many/numerous occasions, a lot, as often as not, repeatedly, again and again, time and (time) again

Hannity's show is on repeatedly, isn't it?

barfo

Again. Saturday Night Live is to "news" as Hannity is to news. If Trump had his own show on Fox would that make Fox's coverage fawning?

 

[barfo]

Again. Saturday Night Live is to "news" as Hannity is to news. If Trump had his own show on Fox would that make Fox's coverage fawning?

You are hung up on the word 'news'. The article was talking about the Fox News Channel, not the news. Hannity is on the Fox News Channel.

I'm not sure that a person can fawn over themselves? If Trump had a show it would probably be better described as delusional egotism rather than fawning.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

You are hung up on the word 'news'. The article was talking about the Fox News Channel, not the news. Hannity is on the Fox News Channel.

I'm not sure that a person can fawn over themselves? If Trump had a show it would probably be better described as delusional egotism rather than fawning.

barfo

Hannity is on an hour a night? That makes 1 out of 24. A far cry from 99 percent.

I don't watch Fox and apparently you don't so why do you assume this is factual?

 

[barfo]

Hannity is on an hour a night? That makes 1 out of 24. A far cry from 99 percent.

I don't watch Fox and apparently you don't so why do you assume this is factual?

Why do I assume what is factual? That Hannity is on Fox News? That he's on for an hour a night?

An hour a night is 'often', even if none of the other coverage on Fox was fawning (which of course, much of it is).

I already said the 99% isn't to be taken literally, and that I don't know the exact percentage. Nor does it matter for this argument, since the benchmark is often, not a specific percentage.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I had to bump this thread I ignored the last few posts of to show another fabulous "news" article I found on yahoo. I'm sure THE RUSSIANS are behind this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nominates-clowns-herman-cain-071507938.html

 

[barfo]

I had to bump this thread I ignored the last few posts of to show another fabulous "news" article I found on yahoo. I'm sure THE RUSSIANS are behind this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nominates-clowns-herman-cain-071507938.html

Except that it is an opinion piece, not news. Nice try.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I had to bump this thread I ignored the last few posts of to show another fabulous "news" article I found on yahoo. I'm sure THE RUSSIANS are behind this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nominates-clowns-herman-cain-071507938.html

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Except that it is an opinion piece, not news. Nice try.

barfo

It was obviously an opinion piece. Maybe on a pc it even says so. On mobile?

Nope and certainly not labeled as such on yahoo.

You do see that little purple part that says "yahoo news" don't ya?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Well. Maybe blue. My phone doesn't have the most accurate colors

 

[barfo]

It was obviously an opinion piece. Maybe on a pc it even says so. On mobile?

Nope and certainly not labeled as such on yahoo. View attachment 25556

You do see that little purple part that says "yahoo news" don't ya?

Well, but I know that most news organizations also publish opinion pieces, so I don't automatically assume that anything on their site is news.

And you know that too.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

Brainwashing for the intellectually lazy.

That's rich.