*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I never said they were objective.

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Why would you assume such sinister intentions in the first place? This kind of cynicism is really tinfoil-y.

Ad hominem argument fail.

I think I'm an example of a fair minded person who embraces 'innocent until proven guilty', and is able to look at the entire picture and logically see that there is no motive to lie, and the contrived motive you're providing would contradict all of their other motives such as maintaining journalistic integrity, appeasing their sponsors, and upholding their reputation.

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Sure they could 'get away with one' now and again if they were so inclined. But shitting on Morocco for no reason seems like a lousy way to spend their 'benefit of the doubt'.

Still making my argument for me.

Don't conflate my argument. I'm not saying "well everybody does it too". I'm talking specifically about the specific criticism directed specifically at Fox News. It cites irrelevant and unrelated Trump policies. To me, that strongly suggests that the criticism of Fox News here is disingenuous, and opportunistic. "Hey look, Fox messed up, now let's pile on those right-wing fuckers with everything and the kitchen sink". That's why I cited the letter. That's what I'm seeing here.

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

They reported the information they received from the police. The police changed their story, and Fox didn't fix it fast enough. As far as fuck ups go, I think that's pretty minor.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this. At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

And I don't think Fox is objective. That doesn't mean I also think they're outright nasty liars though.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

[BananaStand]

Good, then we agree on something at least.

Awesome

Ad hominem argument fail.

Ad hominem yes. Argument no. It was a question. Why are you so cynical? Why would you, or anyone, assume nefarious intent?

Pretty much makes my point again that their viewers will look for reasons to excuse them.

Just because a good reason exists, doesn't mean it's 'looked for' or 'made up' by their viewers. And nevermind viewers for a minute, what incentive do their sponsors have to 'look for excuses'? Tiger Woods cheated on his wife and lost sponsors overnight. If Fox is really this dishonest and manipulative as a matter of policy, they'd be out of business.

Still making my argument for me.

How? If they have the ability to lie occasionally and get away with it, why would they choose this?

You can take the opportunity to find fault with how their mistake was pointed out to them. Doesn't have any relevance in terms of whether or why they made the mistake.

Agree to disagree I guess. Trying to strengthen a flimsy argument with irrelevant partisanship kinda makes the argument even more flimsy. Blowing up a conceivable honest mistake and painting it as a dishonest propaganda agenda kind of makes me feel more sympathetic to Fox. And if we're asking people to conclude whether or not this was a mistake, just based on their own perceptions, then efforts to influence those perceptions are totally relevant.

Well no, they didn't. We've been through this. The police reported two suspects, Fox reported the one and ignored the other. No-one else did this.

At the very least it's selective reporting and misleading.

Misleading and selective reporting is where I would invoke the "everybody does it" argument. We agree, they are not objective, and there is some incentive for them to appeal to their viewership by choosing which stories to report, and how. The topic of the week is "Muslim immigrants and terrorist attacks". If I had to guess, I'd say Fox's viewership supports the immigration pause. Reporting the story in a way that feeds into that is biased, but not dishonest. And it's certainly not out of the norm across all mainstream media outlets.

What would be wrong, dishonest, and out of the norm is if Fox was aware that the Muslim suspect was innocent, but reported that he was guilty anyway. And if you're going down that road, you need to provide a motive. Fox doesn't have a dog in this fight. It's not like their ratings will go up if the Muslim guy actually did it. However, they would know that being caught in an outright lie will hurt their credibility, and that affects their ratings for sure. Any reasonable person can see way more downside than upside to lying.

I hear you. And I'm not convinced they're outright nasty liars myself. I'm just saying it's a funny coincidence that they're the only ones who made that mistake.

Why's that a funny coincidence? A few posts back you yourself called attention to the fact that Fox is pretty much alone as the go to source for conservative viewership. Reporting "Muslim immigrant commits crime" during a week whose headlines have been debating this very thing, seems totally expected. It's only 'wrong' if they knew the guy was only a witness at the time of their report. Which seems like a paranoid and cynical accusation to make without any proof.

In fact, evidence to the contrary includes the fact that Fox DID update their story upon learning of the Muslim man's true role. This dust-up is actually in regards to a Tweet that Fox failed to retract. From what I read, it only got shared between some 1000-1500 people. I doubt that's even 1% of Fox's audience. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a massive percentage of Fox's viewership falls among generations that don't really use Twitter.

[OngBonga]

banana is going to send kids to school from 7am to 7pm and tell them to get a job when they're 14? I hope he's going to give these same 14 y/o kids the vote.

[BananaStand]

banana is going to send kids to school from 7am to 7pm and tell them to get a job when they're 14? I hope he's going to give these same 14 y/o kids the vote.

Why? I started working at 15. Couldn't vote until I was 18. There wasn't an election until I was 20.

and "school" isn't 12 hours long. It will be the same amount of classroom time, perhaps a little more. It's just interspersed throughout a 12 hour day rather than crammed into a 7 hour day. And the rest of the time will offer kids plenty to do, like extra gym class so kids stop getting so friggen fat.

I'm open to the idea of a 14 year old voting. If my plan works, they'll be smarter and more informed that most 18 year olds today, by far.

Or maybe we'll do something like give the kid and the parent a civic competency test of some kind. If the kid passes, and the parent doesn't, the kid gets to proxy-vote for his parent.