12/7 - Terrorist attack

[*Nately120*]

(12-17-2021, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, you literally made my point for me.  If you claim to be a news organization then facts are all you should care about.  I'm not talking about op-ed punditry, that can skew any way you like, but an obvious effort should be made to distinguish these pundits from your actual hard news.  Having said pundit on a hard news segment inextricably blurs the line.

If you're a "news organization" you don't have a narrative, you have facts.  Otherwise you're not a news organization but a propaganda organ, and yes I include Fox in that.

I wasn't aware I was attempting to disagree with you, rather than just pointing out that for-profit news has an agenda, and Fox having the luxury of being able to lean on facts in the Rittenhouse case while they make up a bunch of bs for the insurrection stuff, shows it.  

But doesn't this all go back to the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine in the Reagan era?  I view this the same way as I view a lot of things, where people will say they want one thing, but then act in a manner which opposes what they JUST said they want as soon as it benefits them.

People say they want fair true reporting and that they believe facts.  The issue is that it is easier to convince yourself that what you want to believe is true and fair and factual rather than evaluate your views and reality.  It reminds me of when a flag is on the field in an NFL game and fans wait on the edge of their seat to see which team it is against before they decide if it is a bad call or not.

This goes back to Fox News using "fair and balanced" as a marketing term.  It always had that sort of pathetic stink around it, like someone who is constantly trying to start a nickname for himself, or something.