Fox News - most trusted news source or......?

[drjohncarpenter]

That is false. I've heard that said on CNN several times but that's not true. Trump said that if your famous women let you grab them by the pussy. The key work is women let him. He didn't admit to raping or sexually assaulting women.

The accusations those women made were never proven. Those accusations came up but they went away pretty quickly. That is not fact that he did those things. It did look like those women were coming out of the woodwork. I feel if any of that were true and could be proven Donald Trump would've been destroyed. He never would've been elected in the first place. Again he didn't brag or admit to doing anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance



."Access Hollywood" Tape -->

In the video, Trump tells Billy Bush about a failed attempt to seduce Nancy O'Dell, who was Bush's co-host at the time (circa 2005) of the recording:

I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.

I did try and f**k her. She was married.

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture — I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.

.Later, referring to Arianne Zucker (whom they were waiting to meet), Trump says:

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape

.65 Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump -->

Sexual misconduct allegations have been made against Trump by at least 22 women. Trump has denied the allegations, saying he has been the victim of media bias, conspiracies, and a political smear campaign.

In October 2016, Trump publicly vowed to sue all the women who have made allegations of sexual assault (e.g. non-consensual kissing or groping) or sexual harassment against him, as well as The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but he has yet to follow through with any legal action.

In June 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll alleged in New York magazine that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in 1995 or 1996. Two friends of Carroll confirmed to the magazine that Carroll had previously confided in them in regard to the incident. Trump denied ever meeting Carroll, although New York had published a photo of Trump and Carroll together in 1987.

In October 2019, the book All the President's Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, by Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy was published, containing 43 additional allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

.Thursday, January 30, 2020 -->

New York writer who accused Trump of raping her wants a sample of his DNA

E. Jean Carroll.jpg

E. Jean Carroll, shown at her home in Warwick, N.Y., in June.
(Eva Deitch for The Washington Post)


By Michael Brice-Saddler
Jan. 30, 2020 at 3:44 p.m. PST

E. Jean Carroll, a New York-based writer who last summer accused President Trump of raping her in the 1990s, requested Thursday that he submit a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on the black coat dress she said she was wearing during the alleged assault.

Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney on Thursday, asking that Trump provide a sample for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress,” the Associated Press first reported. Carroll’s lawyers requested that Trump provide the DNA sample on March 2 in Washington.

The dress has been tested. We have the results. My attorney @kaplanrobbie has served notice to @realDonaldTrump's attorney to submit a sample of Trump's DNA.https://t.co/iIM6kQZxuX
— E. Jean Carroll (@ejeancarroll) January 30, 2020

Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, described the alleged assault for the first time in June in a memoir excerpt published in New York Magazine. She reiterated the allegations in an interview with The Washington Post, saying Trump — then a well-known real estate developer — attacked her in late 1995 or early 1996 inside a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, an upscale Manhattan department store. She said Trump knocked her head against a wall, pulled down her tights and briefly penetrated her before she pushed him off and ran out.

She said she told two close friends about the incident at the time, and she kept the coat dress she wore during the alleged assault in her closet.

Trump has vehemently denied the allegation and called it fake news, asserting that he had “never met this person in my life” and that Carroll was “not my type.” He also said Carroll had made up the story to promote her book. The request for DNA comes after Carroll sued Trump for defamation in New York state court in November, arguing he had smeared her and damaged her career by calling her a liar.

“After Trump sexually assaulted me, I took the black dress I had been wearing and hung it in my closet. I only wore it once since then and that was at the photoshoot for the New York Magazine article about my book,” Carroll said in a statement Thursday. “Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character.”

Lawrence Rosen, an attorney who is representing Trump in the defamation case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Post. According to the AP, a Manhattan judge this month declined to have the case thrown out, saying the attorney did not sufficiently support his argument that the case did not belong in a New York court.

A lab report served with the legal notice Thursday, reviewed by The Post, said DNA found on the sleeves of Carroll’s dress belonged to at least four people, at least one of whom is male. The lab noted that acid phosphatase activity, a “presumptive indication of the presence of semen,” was not detected.

Several people were tested and have been ruled out as possible matches to the DNA mixture found on the sleeves. Their names were redacted in the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/30/trump-dna-sought/

[BrianTCB]

Thank you, Doc. Great research and info.

[Mike C]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

NBC PLANNED TO USE TRUMP AUDIO TO INFLUENCE DEBATE, ELECTION

NBC execs had a plan to time the release of the Donald Trump audio to have maximum impact on both the 2nd presidential debate and the general election ... sources connected with the network tell TMZ.

Multiple sources connected with NBC tell us ... top network execs knew about the video long before they publicly said they did, but wanted to hold it because it was too early in the election. The sources say many NBC execs have open disdain for Trump and their plan was to roll out the tape 48 hours before the debate so it would dominate the news cycle leading up to the face-off.

As we reported, Billy Bush was bragging about the tape -- in front of NBC execs at the Rio Olympics -- in early August. NBC says it's only known about the tape for a little more than a week.

We're told the plan was to edit the tape to keep the focus on Trump and not Billy. "Access Hollywood" we're told was not going to air the portion where Trump and Billy got off the bus and Billy goaded Trump and the soap star to hug. Our sources say the tape was going to be "sanitized" to protect Billy as much as possible.

Case in point ... after The Washington Post ran the story, 'Access' aired their footage and cut out the parts where Billy looked worse -- saying things like, "Jeez! Your girl's hot as s*** in the purple!"

We've told you the plan got derailed by Hurricane Matthew. Execs decided the wall-to-wall coverage of the storm would mess up the plan to dominate the news with the Trump tape, so they were going to hold it until Monday. It didn't sit well with some staffers who wanted it out pre-debate, so it was leaked to the Washington Post.

As one source put it, "NBC really screwed Billy. They had no problem with him on the tape 'till it got leaked." The source goes on to say there was never a peep about disciplining Billy until the full tape got leaked.

https://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/nbc-trump-tape-billy-bush-plan-election-debate/

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignored the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

[BrianTCB]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignore the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

Explain that contradiction - the majority of people voting for Trump, but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by over 3 million? I'll wait. Your lies are showing. Your assertion IS wrong, by the way. Only conspiracy lunatics detest the mainstream media. REAL Americans - logical people who don't spread conspiracy theory lies about Benghazi and Fusion GPS realize the role the media plays in reporting, along with their legitimacy. Conspiracy lunatics don't.

You can't explain it, because it's wrong.

[brian]

He meant that the video and audio of Trump making those comments to Billy Bush was not a factor in the election. Trump won. That's what he meant. The Democrats win the popular vote because voters in New York and California overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Mike knew that.

[Mike C]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignore the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

Explain that contradiction - the majority of people voting for Trump, but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by over 3 million? I'll wait. Your lies are showing. Your assertion IS wrong, by the way. Only conspiracy lunatics detest the mainstream media. REAL Americans - logical people who don't spread conspiracy theory lies about Benghazi and Fusion GPS realize the role the media plays in reporting, along with their legitimacy. Conspiracy lunatics don't.

You can't explain it, because it's wrong.

There is no contradiction. He won more than enough electoral college votes to win the office. As you know electoral college votes are assigned based on the votes a candidate wins in each state (in the majority of states it is winner take all). The voters simply chose to ignore the Access Hollywood tape when casting their votes.

Did you even read the TMZ article? TMZ is not exactly known for being a conservative outlet. And, how can a media outlet be legitimate if it is trying to release damaging footage on a candidate in the hopes of affecting the President Debate? That is not reporting. It is political advocacy!!! To this day, NBC News has yet to internally investigate or explain who and why the tape was leaked. Wouldn't a news outlet want to know how it lost such a major scoop?

Despite all the reporting the last three years, you still cling to the debunked theory that Russian affected the 2016 election outcome. That sounds like like a conspiracy lunatic to me!

[Mike C]

He meant that the video and audio of Trump making those comments to Billy Bush was not a factor in the election. Trump won. That's what he meant. The Democrats win the popular vote because voters in New York and California vote overwhelming for the Democrats. Mike knew that.

Exactly, Brian! Once again, the national popular vote total is not relevant to determining the election outcome.

[BrianTCB]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignore the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

Explain that contradiction - the majority of people voting for Trump, but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by over 3 million? I'll wait. Your lies are showing. Your assertion IS wrong, by the way. Only conspiracy lunatics detest the mainstream media. REAL Americans - logical people who don't spread conspiracy theory lies about Benghazi and Fusion GPS realize the role the media plays in reporting, along with their legitimacy. Conspiracy lunatics don't.

You can't explain it, because it's wrong.

There is no contradiction. He won more than enough electoral college votes to win the office. As you know electoral college votes are assigned based on the votes a candidate wins in each state (in the majority of states it is winner take all). The voters simply chose to ignore the Access Hollywood tape when casting their votes.

Did you even read the TMZ article? TMZ is not exactly known for being a conservative outlet. And, how can a media outlet be legitimate if it is trying to release damaging footage on a candidate in the hopes of affecting the President Debate? That is not reporting. It is political advocacy!!! To this day, NBC News has yet to internally investigate or explain who and why the tape was leaked. Wouldn't a news outlet want to know how it lost such a major scoop?

Despite all the reporting the last three years, you still cling to the debunked theory that Russian affected the 2016 election outcome. That sounds like like a conspiracy lunatic to me!

I don't read questionable tabloid rags.

[ForeverElvis]

He meant that the video and audio of Trump making those comments to Billy Bush was not a factor in the election. Trump won. That's what he meant. The Democrats win the popular vote because voters in New York and California vote overwhelming for the Democrats. Mike knew that.

Exactly, Brian! Once again, the national popular vote total is not relevant to determining the election outcome.

But it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike C]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignore the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

Explain that contradiction - the majority of people voting for Trump, but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by over 3 million? I'll wait. Your lies are showing. Your assertion IS wrong, by the way. Only conspiracy lunatics detest the mainstream media. REAL Americans - logical people who don't spread conspiracy theory lies about Benghazi and Fusion GPS realize the role the media plays in reporting, along with their legitimacy. Conspiracy lunatics don't.

You can't explain it, because it's wrong.

There is no contradiction. He won more than enough electoral college votes to win the office. As you know electoral college votes are assigned based on the votes a candidate wins in each state (in the majority of states it is winner take all). The voters simply chose to ignore the Access Hollywood tape when casting their votes.

Did you even read the TMZ article? TMZ is not exactly known for being a conservative outlet. And, how can a media outlet be legitimate if it is trying to release damaging footage on a candidate in the hopes of affecting the President Debate? That is not reporting. It is political advocacy!!! To this day, NBC News has yet to internally investigate or explain who and why the tape was leaked. Wouldn't a news outlet want to know how it lost such a major scoop?

Despite all the reporting the last three years, you still cling to the debunked theory that Russian affected the 2016 election outcome. That sounds like like a conspiracy lunatic to me!

I don't read questionable tabloid rags.

So you must not read The New York Times or The Washington Post either!

[BrianTCB]

He meant that the video and audio of Trump making those comments to Billy Bush was not a factor in the election. Trump won. That's what he meant. The Democrats win the popular vote because voters in New York and California vote overwhelming for the Democrats. Mike knew that.

Exactly, Brian! Once again, the national popular vote total is not relevant to determining the election outcome.

But it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

[BrianTCB]

Frankly, the most trusted news source in America should be TMZ because they get their stories right most of the time. Why? Because they do real reporting and confirm with multiple sources (not just a sole source).

Speaking of the Access Hollywood tape, their reporting on how it came out and why it was leaked was dead on.

And, you wonder why a majority of the American people ignore the tape, voted for Trump and detest the mainstream media? See exhibit A above.

Explain that contradiction - the majority of people voting for Trump, but Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by over 3 million? I'll wait. Your lies are showing. Your assertion IS wrong, by the way. Only conspiracy lunatics detest the mainstream media. REAL Americans - logical people who don't spread conspiracy theory lies about Benghazi and Fusion GPS realize the role the media plays in reporting, along with their legitimacy. Conspiracy lunatics don't.

You can't explain it, because it's wrong.

There is no contradiction. He won more than enough electoral college votes to win the office. As you know electoral college votes are assigned based on the votes a candidate wins in each state (in the majority of states it is winner take all). The voters simply chose to ignore the Access Hollywood tape when casting their votes.

Did you even read the TMZ article? TMZ is not exactly known for being a conservative outlet. And, how can a media outlet be legitimate if it is trying to release damaging footage on a candidate in the hopes of affecting the President Debate? That is not reporting. It is political advocacy!!! To this day, NBC News has yet to internally investigate or explain who and why the tape was leaked. Wouldn't a news outlet want to know how it lost such a major scoop?

Despite all the reporting the last three years, you still cling to the debunked theory that Russian affected the 2016 election outcome. That sounds like like a conspiracy lunatic to me!

I don't read questionable tabloid rags.

So you must not read The New York Times or The Washington Post either!

Both are far more relevant and more legit sources than TMZ, buddy.

[Mike C]

He meant that the video and audio of Trump making those comments to Billy Bush was not a factor in the election. Trump won. That's what he meant. The Democrats win the popular vote because voters in New York and California vote overwhelming for the Democrats. Mike knew that.

Exactly, Brian! Once again, the national popular vote total is not relevant to determining the election outcome.

But it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the Constitution is amended to eliminate the electoral college using the procedures set forth therein, I'd live with it. However, it will mean an imbalance of power among the States.

[BrianTCB]

To wrap up - FOX news - not the most trusted news source unless you're a Trump supporter and it's all you watch.

The end.

[BrianTCB]

I rest my case.

===================

John Kelly: People who rely on Fox News ‘are not informed citizens’.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/13/john-kellys-deepest-shiv-people-who-rely-fox-news-are-not-informed-citizens/?utm_campaign=wp_politics&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Perhaps Kelly's most sweeping criticism of Trump, though, came when he took aim at another target.

“The media, in my view, and I feel very strongly about this, is not the enemy of the people,” Kelly said. “We need a free media."

“That said, you have to be careful about what you are watching and reading, because the media has taken sides,” he continued. “So if you only watch Fox News because it's reinforcing what you believe, you are not an informed citizen."

[Mike C]

I rest my case.

===================

John Kelly: People who rely on Fox News ‘are not informed citizens’.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/13/john-kellys-deepest-shiv-people-who-rely-fox-news-are-not-informed-citizens/?utm_campaign=wp_politics&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Perhaps Kelly's most sweeping criticism of Trump, though, came when he took aim at another target.

“The media, in my view, and I feel very strongly about this, is not the enemy of the people,” Kelly said. “We need a free media."

“That said, you have to be careful about what you are watching and reading, because the media has taken sides,” he continued. “So if you only watch Fox News because it's reinforcing what you believe, you are not an informed citizen."

And, conversely, if you only watch CNN and MSNBC or read the New York Times or Washington Post, it reinforces your progressive beliefs as that is the side they have taken. As I have noted before, it was this bias in the media which led to the rise of Fox News.

[latebloomer]

Mike C, I'm not entirely in agreement that any news platform except Fox has taken sides, but I am disturbed at the lack of strict objectivity in what purports to be news, as opposed to clear labels of what is opinion or analysis. The old formula for news reports was, "State who, what, when, where, why, and how," all of which could be established as empirical fact by obtaining verification from three disconnected sources -- and if that triple verification could not be obtained, the story was held until verification had been obtained. Now, many stories are rushed into dissemination based on what "sources say," and those sources seldom are identified.

I grew up on Walter Cronkite's news. This video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkiBRcdH_Pc&frags=pl%2Cwn
illustrates his commitment to accuracy and fact, and makes fascinating watching. It is long, but well worth watching for several reasons.

[I was in Turkey, where my dad was stationed on a NATO assignment, when Kennedy was assassinated. We wondered what on earth was going on at home, and whether the U.S. was under attack by a foreign power, while the entire U.S. military abroad scrambled to the highest alert status. A terrifying time. Our only timely news -- hours old -- was mimeographed reports transcribed from BBC broadcasts by military intelligence personnel in Izmir, in an attempt to keep us apprised of what was happening and to tamp down rumor, which was flying around wildly. Lucky us, Dad spoke and read Turkish fluently, so we also kept up with what the Turks were reading. So, much of the information about that dreadful day was new to me, and I watched the video as if it were happening right before my eyes -- an odd sensation, 58 years after the fact.]

I'm also disturbed by the language used in news reports, beginning with poor grammar, often so poor as to obscure meaning. Also troublesome are ever-present buzz-words. For instance, nothing ever is fatal or lethal any more, only deadly -- yet there are distinct differences among the three words. May have and might have often are incorrectly used; they are not interchangeable.

Language, and lack of first-hand knowledge, also seems to distort some stories. The Atlantic is running a story about John Kelly's recent remarks, which asks, "Why is he doing this now?" First, Kelly has been outspoken for some time, although not often as far as I know. Second, his defense of Vindman shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about the military -- which very few news reporters seem to have done since the end of WWII. Trump has done a great deal to damage both good order and discipline in the armed forces, and to denigrate individual service members. Kelly's remarks are utterly unsurprising to me, but reporters will not explain them to readers/viewers who do not have any familiarity with the military. Indeed, they seldom even get military rank correct!

Much of the reporting on Clinton's use of a private email server was just plain inaccurate, particularly as to classification and the responsibilities of all persons who have any access to classified material, and some of that same inaccuracy arose again in reports of filing the memo of the Trump-Zelinsky call on a server exclusively for storing highly sensitive and properly highly restricted information.

Some of those errors occur because the news business is rushed both by the need to be first and by a growing shortage of experienced and properly-trained reporters, and some by plain carelessness, sloppiness, indifference to the fine points of any issue or subject, and ignorance of what I call depth of background information.

Is there bias? I think so, at times, and on certain subjects. I am no fan of Trump and his ilk, but even he is entitled, as are readers/viewers, to impartial objectivity. We cannot reach an unbiased opinion of anything, even Trump, if all we receive are biased reports.

So, yes, I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of reading/watching as many sources of news as possible, and there are plenty. My sole exclusion is Fox, because I value my health too much to subject my blood pressure to even five minutes of what they broadcast. But I wade through a few other sources that seem to me to be way off base, if only to know what sort of (mis?) information others are consuming.

When everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking. (Variously attributed to Benjamin Franklin, Walter Lippman, George Patton. I suspect it is a much older thought.)

[latebloomer]

AP Fact Check: https://apnews.com/daf73c527dcaf0a3f28ecb8a0c8e56c2

[latebloomer]

Of interest:
https://apnews.com/4628493ebfcd66c41aab9c14ab55c1c6

[FatherJack1980]

The hypocrisy of the Republican propaganda channel:

[FatherJack1980]

Fox "News" is scum:









https://www.newsweek.com/video-fox-news-host-panics-after-broadcasting-graphic-showing-they-are-least-877380



Does Fox News mislead its viewers?

The last time we met here on this Daily Republic page, we talked about how the Republicans use fear and hate to motivate people to vote for them.

I also mentioned that news organizations used the same tools to boost ratings and said: “While many studies have shown that Fox News viewers are the most misled of any major news outlet, Fox also seems to outshine all others when it comes to peddling paranoia and hate."

Well, Bud Stevenson took exception to my “constant, obvious and undocumented” Fox-bashing, so we decided it would be fun for our Daily Republic readers to go head-to-head with dueling, pro-con Fox News columns today.

Obviously, I’m writing the anti-Fox News side and smugly thought I had the easier of the two columns to write, but soon discovered a big problem: There was much too much stuff to put into 600 words.

I write my columns by first downloading pertinent information about my subject, processing it and then extracting pure gold for you, dear reader. As I write, I’m sitting on 137 pages of news stories and studies recounting the evils of Fox News. I didn’t run out of articles, I simply stopped downloading.

As many of you longtime readers know, I have written about Fox News before. Who can ever forget the three-part non-Pulitzer Prize-winning series in January 2013, where I reviewed all the major stories that Fox got wrong the previous year, then answered the pressing, vital public health question: “Is Fox News hazardous to your health?”

Today, let’s firmly and formally document the fact that Fox News misleads its audience.

A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that Fox viewers were much more ill-informed about the Affordable Care Act than those of CNN or MSNBC.

An NBC survey in 2009 found that “72 percent of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the health care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover . . .”

A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Institute found that Fox viewers were more likely to believe that whites are as discriminated against as members of minority groups.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes did a survey in 2010 about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, the survey found that Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely” to believe nine of these falsehoods, than those who watched other networks.

A 2010 Stanford survey found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming.”

A 2003 University of Maryland study found that Fox viewers were the worst informed about the Iraq War of any major network. Fox viewers in a follow-up study in 2010 were found to be more misinformed about domestic issues than those getting their news elsewhere. A 2011 survey found that Fox viewers were consistently more likely to have an incorrect understanding of both domestic and foreign issues than those getting their news from other major media. And, amazingly, a 2012 study found that people who watched only Fox News scored significantly worse on both foreign and domestic questions than those who had watched no media at all.

Finally, Fox News was fined in September in England because: “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” Fox News’ defense was basically that their program was an opinion-based format and not intended to be factual.

I fully realize that Fox watchers will likely reject all of these surveys because, well, they watch Fox.

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/does-fox-news-mislead-its-viewers/

[latebloomer]

Interesting: https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/01/cable-tv-and-covid-19-how-americans-perceive-the-outbreak-and-view-media-coverage-differ-by-main-news-source/?utm_campaign=2020-04-08+Rundown&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Pew

[rickeap]

Fox "News" is scum:









https://www.newsweek.com/video-fox-news-host-panics-after-broadcasting-graphic-showing-they-are-least-877380



Does Fox News mislead its viewers?

The last time we met here on this Daily Republic page, we talked about how the Republicans use fear and hate to motivate people to vote for them.

I also mentioned that news organizations used the same tools to boost ratings and said: “While many studies have shown that Fox News viewers are the most misled of any major news outlet, Fox also seems to outshine all others when it comes to peddling paranoia and hate."

Well, Bud Stevenson took exception to my “constant, obvious and undocumented” Fox-bashing, so we decided it would be fun for our Daily Republic readers to go head-to-head with dueling, pro-con Fox News columns today.

Obviously, I’m writing the anti-Fox News side and smugly thought I had the easier of the two columns to write, but soon discovered a big problem: There was much too much stuff to put into 600 words.

I write my columns by first downloading pertinent information about my subject, processing it and then extracting pure gold for you, dear reader. As I write, I’m sitting on 137 pages of news stories and studies recounting the evils of Fox News. I didn’t run out of articles, I simply stopped downloading.

As many of you longtime readers know, I have written about Fox News before. Who can ever forget the three-part non-Pulitzer Prize-winning series in January 2013, where I reviewed all the major stories that Fox got wrong the previous year, then answered the pressing, vital public health question: “Is Fox News hazardous to your health?”

Today, let’s firmly and formally document the fact that Fox News misleads its audience.

A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that Fox viewers were much more ill-informed about the Affordable Care Act than those of CNN or MSNBC.

An NBC survey in 2009 found that “72 percent of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the health care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover . . .”

A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Institute found that Fox viewers were more likely to believe that whites are as discriminated against as members of minority groups.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes did a survey in 2010 about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, the survey found that Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely” to believe nine of these falsehoods, than those who watched other networks.

A 2010 Stanford survey found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming.”

A 2003 University of Maryland study found that Fox viewers were the worst informed about the Iraq War of any major network. Fox viewers in a follow-up study in 2010 were found to be more misinformed about domestic issues than those getting their news elsewhere. A 2011 survey found that Fox viewers were consistently more likely to have an incorrect understanding of both domestic and foreign issues than those getting their news from other major media. And, amazingly, a 2012 study found that people who watched only Fox News scored significantly worse on both foreign and domestic questions than those who had watched no media at all.

Finally, Fox News was fined in September in England because: “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” Fox News’ defense was basically that their program was an opinion-based format and not intended to be factual.

I fully realize that Fox watchers will likely reject all of these surveys because, well, they watch Fox.

Like Trump, they say something stupid then blatantly lie and deny they said it. Dangerous morons

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/opinion/local-opinion-columnists/does-fox-news-mislead-its-viewers/