Why Fox News Lied
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/opinion/fox-news-lies-dominion.html
There are some stories that are important enough to pause the news cycle and linger on them, to explore not just what happened, but why. And so it is with Fox News’s role in the events leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. Thanks to a recent filing by Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox, there is now compelling evidence that America’s most-watched cable news network presented information it knew to be false as part of an effort to placate an angry audience. It knowingly sacrificed its integrity to maintain its market share.
Why? There are the obvious reasons: Money. Power. Fame. These are universal human temptations. But the answer goes deeper. Fox News became a juggernaut not simply by being “Republican,” or “conservative,” but by offering its audience something it craved even more deeply: representation. And journalism centered on representation ultimately isn’t journalism at all.
To understand the Fox News phenomenon, one has to understand the place it occupies in Red America. It’s no mere source of news. It’s the place where Red America goes to feel seen and heard. If there’s an important good news story in Red America, the first call is to Fox. If conservative Christians face a threat to their civil liberties, the first call is to Fox. If you’re a conservative celebrity and you need to sell a book, the first call is to Fox.
So you can start to understand the shock when, on Election Day in 2020, Fox News accurately, if arguably prematurely, called Arizona for Joe Biden. It broke the social compact. By presuming the fairness of the election and by declaring Joe Biden the winner of a previously red state, Fox sent a message to its own audience — an audience that had been primed to mistrust election results by Trump and by reports on Fox News — that it did not hear them. It did not see them.
In the emails and texts highlighted in the Dominion filing, you see Fox News figures, including Sean Hannity and Suzanne Scott and Lachlan Murdoch, referring to the need to “respect” the audience. To be clear, by “respect” they didn’t mean “tell the truth” — an act of genuine respect. Instead they meant “represent.”
Representation can have its place. Fox’s deep connection with its conservative audience means that it can be ahead of the rest of the media on stories that affect red states and red culture.
But there is a difference between coming from a community and speaking for a community. In journalism, the former can be valuable, but the latter can be corrupt. It can result in audience capture (writing to please your audience, not challenge it) and in fear and timidity in reporting facts that contradict popular narratives. And in extreme instances — such as what we witnessed from Fox News after the 2020 presidential election — it can result in almost cartoonish villainy. -
I'm trying to imagine the echo chamber tribalist reading that, to whom it resonates as insightful or fascinating. It's like a kindergarten level analysis of the media and how it works. But I suppose some progressives, who feel all their truths, actually think those are insightful new discoveries about how the world works. Trust them to be incapable of shining even that dim light on themselves or their own tribe.
-
This from the "Paper of Record" that sat on the Hunter Laptop story before an election.
-
@Jolly said in Why Fox News Lied:
This from the "Paper of Record" that sat on the Hunter Laptop story before an election.
I was thinking more about their Russiagate Pulitzers.
-
@Jolly said in Why Fox News Lied:
This from the "Paper of Record" that sat on the Hunter Laptop story before an election.
I was thinking more about their Russiagate Pulitzers.
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I was thinking more about their Russiagate Pulitzers.
There are some stories that are important enough to pause the news cycle and linger on them, to explore not just what happened, but why. And so it is with The New York Times role in the events leading up to Nov 8, 2020. Thanks to a recent evidence , there is now compelling evidence that America’s "paper of record" presented information it knew to be false as part of an effort to placate an angry audience. It knowingly sacrificed its integrity to maintain its market share.
Why? There are the obvious reasons: Money. Power. Fame. These are universal human temptations. But the answer goes deeper. The Times became a juggernaut not simply by being “Democrat,” or “liberal ,” but by offering its audience something it craved even more deeply: representation. And journalism centered on supporting falsehoods ultimately isn’t journalism at all.
To understand the Times, one has to understand the place it occupies in Blue America. It’s no mere source of news. It’s the place where Blue America goes to feel seen and heard. If there’s an important good news story in Blue America, the first call is to the Times. If liberals face a threat to their civil liberties, the first call is to the Times. If you’re a lberal celebrity and you need to sell a book, the first call is to the Times.
The first three paragraphs, with suitable alterations made. Substantially the same argument, right?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I was thinking more about their Russiagate Pulitzers.
There are some stories that are important enough to pause the news cycle and linger on them, to explore not just what happened, but why. And so it is with The New York Times role in the events leading up to Nov 8, 2020. Thanks to a recent evidence , there is now compelling evidence that America’s "paper of record" presented information it knew to be false as part of an effort to placate an angry audience. It knowingly sacrificed its integrity to maintain its market share.
Why? There are the obvious reasons: Money. Power. Fame. These are universal human temptations. But the answer goes deeper. The Times became a juggernaut not simply by being “Democrat,” or “liberal ,” but by offering its audience something it craved even more deeply: representation. And journalism centered on supporting falsehoods ultimately isn’t journalism at all.
To understand the Times, one has to understand the place it occupies in Blue America. It’s no mere source of news. It’s the place where Blue America goes to feel seen and heard. If there’s an important good news story in Blue America, the first call is to the Times. If liberals face a threat to their civil liberties, the first call is to the Times. If you’re a lberal celebrity and you need to sell a book, the first call is to the Times.
The first three paragraphs, with suitable alterations made. Substantially the same argument, right?
@George-K said in Why Fox News Lied:
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I was thinking more about their Russiagate Pulitzers.
There are some stories that are important enough to pause the news cycle and linger on them, to explore not just what happened, but why. And so it is with The New York Times role in the events leading up to Nov 8, 2020. Thanks to a recent evidence , there is now compelling evidence that America’s "paper of record" presented information it knew to be false as part of an effort to placate an angry audience. It knowingly sacrificed its integrity to maintain its market share.
Why? There are the obvious reasons: Money. Power. Fame. These are universal human temptations. But the answer goes deeper. The Times became a juggernaut not simply by being “Democrat,” or “liberal ,” but by offering its audience something it craved even more deeply: representation. And journalism centered on supporting falsehoods ultimately isn’t journalism at all.
To understand the Times, one has to understand the place it occupies in Blue America. It’s no mere source of news. It’s the place where Blue America goes to feel seen and heard. If there’s an important good news story in Blue America, the first call is to the Times. If liberals face a threat to their civil liberties, the first call is to the Times. If you’re a lberal celebrity and you need to sell a book, the first call is to the Times.
The first three paragraphs, with suitable alterations made. Substantially the same argument, right?
I was thinking of doing EXACTLY the same thing…
-
Beyond that. My recollection at the time was that Fox News was very deliberate in their reporting… “Trump claims”, “Giuliani stated”, “Trump’s legal team addressed….”
I recall 2 talking head shows. One asked “If true, then what does that mean?” Another actually debunked the claims by the Trump team.
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
Now I’m sure there will be a clip of Ingraham saying “Dominion stole our election”. I’m also sure that if the clip was extended, the clip would show her saying “If true, this would mean that Dominion stole our election”…
Whether the talking heads believed Trump’s claims is irrelevant whether they reported the claims as factually correct or if they just reported the fact that Trump made the claims…
The Brad
-
Here's public intellectual Jon Stewart and friends having an I-told-you-so-gasm about this proof of what he's always suspected. That Fox News crafts their news to cater to a certain political viewpoint.
The Tucker haters on this board might find one line amusing. That if date rape drugs had a face, it would be Tucker's.
Link to video -
Beyond that. My recollection at the time was that Fox News was very deliberate in their reporting… “Trump claims”, “Giuliani stated”, “Trump’s legal team addressed….”
I recall 2 talking head shows. One asked “If true, then what does that mean?” Another actually debunked the claims by the Trump team.
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
Now I’m sure there will be a clip of Ingraham saying “Dominion stole our election”. I’m also sure that if the clip was extended, the clip would show her saying “If true, this would mean that Dominion stole our election”…
Whether the talking heads believed Trump’s claims is irrelevant whether they reported the claims as factually correct or if they just reported the fact that Trump made the claims…
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
@Axtremus said in Why Fox News Lied:
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
That would require them returning the Pulitzer.
Oh, wait...you're talking about Fox. Sorry 'bout that.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
@Axtremus said in Why Fox News Lied:
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
Verification?
Maybe they could start passing stuff by fifty or so intel officials for verification. That's who WaPo and the NYT trust.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
@Axtremus said in Why Fox News Lied:
@LuFins-Dad said in Why Fox News Lied:
I watch maybe 90 minutes of news broadcasts a week, so there may be things out there I’m missing, but I have yet to see any indication that Fox did anything other than report that Trump’s team was making these claims. I fail to see the problem with that. The fact they were making the claims was newsworthy in itself. The veracity of the claims was not confirmed nor denied.
-
It would be better for society if Fox also gave it an honest try at verifying the claims.
-
It would also be better if Fox stopped repeating claims that have been shown to be false by other journalists.
-
There job is to report the news that Trump and team are making these claims. It was the responsibility of Trump’s team to prove them. They failed in that.
-
NYT is still repeating claims that have shown to be false by the US Government and Intelligence Agencies, let alone other journalists…
-
