Maher agrees with Fake News Narrative

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-seth-macfarlane-clash-media-trustworthiness-print-narrative-dont-print-truth

Bill Maher, Seth MacFarlane clash on media trustworthiness: 'They print the narrative. They don't print truth'
'
You seem to trust journalists more than I do," Maher told the 'Family Guy' creator
"Real Time" host Bill Maher had a tense exchange with "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane over media trustworthiness, with MacFarlane being way more trusting of news organizations.

While discussing the toxicity of social media, MacFarlane began by railing against the comments sections on news sites, citing The New York Times as an example where the reader's impression of an article is "radicalized one way or the other."

"It's like this reporter took the time to research this, to fact-check it, oversight from an editor," MacFarlane said. "And if they got it wrong, then they have to print the retraction."
"Or it's just slanted," Maher chimed in. "What if it was just slanted? What if it was not wrong, it's just slanted? That's what somebody's pointing out in the [comments]."

"Then write to the editor!" MacFarlane exclaimed. "Do your research and formulate your argument."



"But that appears a week later," Maher fired back. "By then I would've forgotten it or I don't see it."

[GMDino]

(01-27-2024, 02:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-seth-macfarlane-clash-media-trustworthiness-print-narrative-dont-print-truth

Bill Maher, Seth MacFarlane clash on media trustworthiness: 'They print the narrative. They don't print truth'
'
You seem to trust journalists more than I do," Maher told the 'Family Guy' creator
"Real Time" host Bill Maher had a tense exchange with "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane over media trustworthiness, with MacFarlane being way more trusting of news organizations.

While discussing the toxicity of social media, MacFarlane began by railing against the comments sections on news sites, citing The New York Times as an example where the reader's impression of an article is "radicalized one way or the other."

"It's like this reporter took the time to research this, to fact-check it, oversight from an editor," MacFarlane said. "And if they got it wrong, then they have to print the retraction."
"Or it's just slanted," Maher chimed in. "What if it was just slanted? What if it was not wrong, it's just slanted? That's what somebody's pointing out in the [comments]."

"Then write to the editor!" MacFarlane exclaimed. "Do your research and formulate your argument."



"But that appears a week later," Maher fired back. "By then I would've forgotten it or I don't see it."

So Maher believes the "narrative" that the news is slanted and he's not bright enough to read a retraction if the story was wrong so its the fault of the paper?

Might be people only read what they want to.  Not that you would know anything about that.  

[Luvnit2]

(01-27-2024, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So Maher believes the "narrative" that the news is slanted and he's not bright enough to read a retraction if the story was wrong so its the fault of the paper?

Might be people only read what they want to.  Not that you would know anything about that.  

Funny, I don't recall you being unbiased in seeking the truth. But typical response, no point so attack Mayer's intellect.

Is Mayer not bright all of the time in your mind or just when he says something that offends you? 

[NATI BENGALS]

Fox the #1 most watched news organization attacking main stream media. I always thought that was a funny narrative.


It all depends on the source. Not all news organizations are created equal.

I can’t remember where I saw it but it really struck a cord with me. The theory was something along the lines of the death of the smaller news organizations/newspapers and the lack of local investigative journalists has really hurt us as a country. It has allowed a lot more shit to go on unreported leaving the local community in the dark. Especially politically.

Hell I used to be able to look at all the local police reports in the paper. Now I can’t even find out why the swat team was throwing flash bangs and raiding a house on my street at 4am.

[Dill]

(01-27-2024, 02:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-seth-macfarlane-clash-media-trustworthiness-print-narrative-dont-print-truth

Bill Maher, Seth MacFarlane clash on media trustworthiness: 'They print the narrative. They don't print truth'
'
You seem to trust journalists more than I do," Maher told the 'Family Guy' creator
"Real Time" host Bill Maher had a tense exchange with "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane over media trustworthiness, with MacFarlane being way more trusting of news organizations.

While discussing the toxicity of social media, MacFarlane began by railing against the comments sections on news sites, citing The New York Times as an example where the reader's impression of an article is "radicalized one way or the other."

"It's like this reporter took the time to research this, to fact-check it, oversight from an editor," MacFarlane said. "And if they got it wrong, then they have to print the retraction."
"Or it's just slanted," Maher chimed in. "What if it was just slanted? What if it was not wrong, it's just slanted? That's what somebody's pointing out in the [comments]."

"Then write to the editor!" MacFarlane exclaimed. "Do your research and formulate your argument."

"But that appears a week later," Maher fired back. "By then I would've forgotten it or I don't see it."

Why do you suppose it is important to Fox to keep the "fake news" narrative going?

I continue to wonder what sort of criteria you set forth for news organizations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Typical thread. Luvnit posts about a far left media personality agreeing that the media is more interested in pushing an agenda than informing. Then the usual suspects use it as a chance to attack him and yammer about Fox News rather than address the point. For all the crying about my mean "personal attacks" you guys are top tier bullies. Or maybe it's just because I'm in "lock step" with Luvnit, right?

As to the actual topic, Maher is correct, and anyone with a brain would recognize it. Fox is just more upfront with it.

[bjf123]

(01-27-2024, 02:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: So Maher believes the "narrative" that the news is slanted and he's not bright enough to read a retraction if the story was wrong so its the fault of the paper?

Might be people only read what they want to.  Not that you would know anything about that.  

The story that resulted in a retraction being needed could have been page one above the fold. The retraction, if even printed, is going to be buried somewhere obscure where most people will never see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-27-2024, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Typical thread.  Luvnit posts about a far left media personality agreeing that the media is more interested in pushing an agenda than informing.  Then the usual suspects use it as a chance to attack him and yammer about Fox News rather than address the point.  For all the crying about my mean "personal attacks" you guys are top tier bullies.  Or maybe it's just because I'm in "lock step" with Luvnit, right?

As to the actual topic, Maher is correct, and anyone with a brain would recognize it.  Fox is just more upfront with it.

What do you expect. Universal praise and agreement with a post from the most well known Trump supporter and Fox news fan about a fox news story complaining about fake news?

When the story isn't even about fake news it's about media bias. At least from what I can read. Can no longer read their articles without giving my information apparently.

And fox had to pay hundreds of millions for being actual fake news and the #1 spreader of the political plague that is trump.

Not everything is fake news, political bias, and conspiracy. The growing number that it seems are starting to believe that is probably why friend of Epstein is the leading Republican presidential candidate.

[jmccracky]

(01-27-2024, 06:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Typical thread.  Luvnit posts about a far left media personality agreeing that the media is more interested in pushing an agenda than informing.  Then the usual suspects use it as a chance to attack him and yammer about Fox News rather than address the point.  For all the crying about my mean "personal attacks" you guys are top tier bullies.  Or maybe it's just because I'm in "lock step" with Luvnit, right?

As to the actual topic, Maher is correct, and anyone with a brain would recognize it.  Fox is just more upfront with it.

It's the irony though, that Luvnit uses Bill Maher as an example, but yet makes threads and sings the praises of Fox News. I watch Maher on the regular, and he's been saying this about the media for a while. But I know he'd put Fox News in another category way beneath the rest. Which I find all of that to be incredibly funny and ironic to the OP. 

[GMDino]

(01-27-2024, 11:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What do you expect. Universal praise and agreement with a post from the most well known Trump supporter and Fox news fan about a fox news story complaining about fake news?

When the story isn't even about fake news it's about media bias. At least from what I can read. Can no longer read their articles without giving my information apparently.

And fox had to pay hundreds of millions for being actual fake news and the #1 spreader of the political plague that is trump.

Not everything is fake news, political bias, and conspiracy. The growing number that it seems are starting to believe that is probably why friend of Epstein is the leading Republican presidential candidate.

I'm old enough to remember when "the left" and "the usual suspects" were the ones who never criticized "their own".

Maher runs hot and cold with me and with a lot of people.  He's always be a dbag but sometimes he he's a dbag that says something you agree or disagree with depending on the topic or your political slant.

Like most talking heads he made a general point and then defended it as a truthful fact.  

Yes, there are occasional stories with a slant.  Mostly editorials.  

Yes, there are stories that are wrong and get a correction.

The fact that he can admit the corrections are printed goes against his point so he fluffs it off as "I'll have forgotten about the story" which then means the story wasn't important or "He missed the correction" which is possible but doesn't support his belief that these stories are being run intentionally.

He talks for a living.  Eventually he'll say something stupid and one side or the other will disagree.

That's not even a "left vs right" thing...that's just the world we live in.

[GMDino]

(01-27-2024, 07:35 PM)bjf123 Wrote: The story that resulted in a retraction being needed could have been page one above the fold. The retraction, if even printed, is going to be buried somewhere obscure where most people will never see it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Indeed.  Happens all the time.

But if Maher would have "forgotten" about the story by then was it a huge story?  

He talks just to talk.  That's how he makes his money.  So he'll say things that don't make sense even within his own argument sometimes.

[bjf123]

(01-28-2024, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  Happens all the time.

But if Maher would have "forgotten" about the story by then was it a huge story?  

He talks just to talk.  That's how he makes his money.  So he'll say things that don't make sense even within his own argument sometimes.

He might not have forgotten about the story, but six months later, most people will only remember the bad headline and still accept it as fact in spite of it being wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-27-2024, 11:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What do you expect. Universal praise and agreement with a post from the most well known Trump supporter and Fox news fan about a fox news story complaining about fake news?

How about actually discussing why Maher, a very left leaning person, would hold such views?  As for the link being to Fox, that's rather irrelevant to the topic.  It's hypocritical of them, to be sure, and it would be fair to point that out.  But not at the expense of actually addressing the topic, or just to shit on Luvnit.

Quote:When the story isn't even about fake news it's about media bias. At least from what I can read. Can no longer read their articles without giving my information apparently.

Eh, one could argue that media bias and fake news go hand in glove.  They aren't exactly the same, but they're in the same family.  

Quote:And fox had to pay hundreds of millions for being actual fake news and the #1 spreader of the political plague that is trump.

Also irrelevant to the actual discussion.  Fair to point out re. hypocrisy, but not germane to the actual topic.

Quote:Not everything is fake news, political bias, and conspiracy. The growing number that it seems are starting to believe that is probably why friend of Epstein is the leading Republican presidential candidate.

Here's the real problem here.  Fake news exists, and it exists outside the Fox News walls.  The left underplays the extent to which it exists (except in the case of FOX, as this thread perfectly illustrates), and the right tends to over state its prevalence.  That it exists is beyond dispute, especially if we shift a bit to media bias.  So maybe discuss that instead of using this as an opportunity to rip Luvnit to shreds for having the unmitigated gall to actually start a thread?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-28-2024, 09:36 AM)jmccracky Wrote: It's the irony though, that Luvnit uses Bill Maher as an example, but yet makes threads and sings the praises of Fox News. I watch Maher on the regular, and he's been saying this about the media for a while. But I know he'd put Fox News in another category way beneath the rest. Which I find all of that to be incredibly funny and ironic to the OP. 

It is certainly hypocritical of Fox to bemoan media bias or fake news.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-28-2024, 10:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when "the left" and "the usual suspects" were the ones who never criticized "their own".

You mean you're today days old? 

[Luvnit2]

(01-27-2024, 11:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What do you expect. Universal praise and agreement with a post from the most well known Trump supporter and Fox news fan about a fox news story complaining about fake news?

When the story isn't even about fake news it's about media bias. At least from what I can read. Can no longer read their articles without giving my information apparently.

And fox had to pay hundreds of millions for being actual fake news and the #1 spreader of the political plague that is trump.

Not everything is fake news, political bias, and conspiracy. The growing number that it seems are starting to believe that is probably why friend of Epstein is the leading Republican presidential candidate.

Did Fox report this story correctly? If so, what is your point? Did Maher say this or not?

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-28-2024, 10:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Did Fox report this story correctly? If so, what is your point? Did Maher say this or not?

The hypocrisy.

[bjf123]

(01-28-2024, 10:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Did Fox report this story correctly? If so, what is your point? Did Maher say this or not?

There are people who won’t believe anything if reported by Fox, just like there are people who won’t believe anything by CNN, MSNBC, etc. Personally, I doubt all of them. They’re all biased.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Luvnit2]

(01-28-2024, 11:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The hypocrisy.

Please explain how an accurate news story confirmed by anyone who saw it becomes hypocrisy in this thread.

News stations put out stories all of the time. Maddow has yet to apologize for Trump for 3 years of stories saying Trump colluded with Russia which has been debunked by impartial investigators over and over again. Then, she has the nerve to say MSNBC will only cover the truth using as an excuse to not cover the likely GOP candidate for POTUS and maybe the biggest liar on the planet lying every time her lips move.

I don't recall ever saying Fox News is free of making mistakes, they have and will in the future. I like Fox more than most as they post factual information that is correct more so than false or based on emotions and feelings versus facts.

Would you agree if over 90% of journalists in the US lean liberal to far left there is a very good chance they can create a narrative against conservatives easily and often.

I just thought a known liberal acknowledged the news from left outlets is fake citing the NY Times as an example.

[bjf123]

During one of Obama’s campaigns, an Ivy League school did a study of coverage of both candidates and whether they reported positive or negative stories about the candidates. Fox was the most balanced, running the same ratio of positive vs negative stories about each. CNN was next, but was something like 55% positive for Obama and 55% negative for the other side. MSNBC was by far the worst, with something like 90% negative on McCain or Romney (don’t remember which) and 90% positive on Obama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk