"Faux" News?

[bdee]

It has long been rumored that Roger Ailes uses the station to push Republican talking points. Before this turns into some silly pointless name calling troll fest, MSNBC is obviously slanted towards a hyper liberal stand, perhaps only topped by Huff Post Live.

But when a news channel doesn't even bother to vet their guests in order to get their narrative straight, it calls into question their credibility.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/15/uk-usa-virginia-cia-idUSKCN0S92K320151015

The guy was making statements such as having 19 terror training camps operating inside the US, and nobody even bothered to check up on his credentials or that he even knew what the ^%$%& he was talking about. It was all about sensationalism, this is as long as it fit their narrative.

 

[Chirpy]

CNN = Communist News Network

MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap

 

[Savage805]

rumored .... Now that's a good one.

 

[bdee]

The thread is about whether Faux News has credibility when they don't bother to vet contributors in order to stay on message. It isn't about any other networks.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

IMO they all have credibility issues, and you should analyze many sources before drawing your own conclusions.

This thread lacks credibility.

 

[texas skeeter]

I don't watch Fox, Cnn or MSLSD. That said I do find it funny the majority of your posts pick on either Republicans, Fox news or the GOP in General. lol Out of curiosity why are you on a predominantly Conservative forum?

 

[grumper]

What about See BS?

The liars who brought us the fake TX ANG documents and ran with it without vetting any of it. Good riddance dan rather.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

The thread is about whether Faux News has credibility when they don't bother to vet contributors in order to stay on message. It isn't about any other networks.

LMAO

Let me know how that goes for you.

 

[BG1960]

If it involves money, the motivation is suspect.

 

[bdee]

What about See BS?

The liars who brought us the fake TX ANG documents and ran with it without vetting any of it. Good riddance dan rather.

Very true. And Rather was forced to resign over it. I wonder if heads will roll at Fox like CBS did in order to maintain credibility. I mean CBS kicked out their biggest talent as a result. Will Fox drop the axe on the person ultimately responsible for not vetting this guy.

 

[texas skeeter]

Notice it isn't a thread titled CNN or Msnbc whom are worse at reporting the truth! lol on a scale from worse to best as they all are not 100% truthful, Msnbc, Cnn and Fox...

 

[Chirpy]

IMO they all have credibility issues, and you should analyze many sources before drawing your own conclusions.

This thread lacks credibility.

+infinite

 

[ed308]

The thread is about whether Faux News has credibility when they don't bother to vet contributors in order to stay on message. It isn't about any other networks.

How do you know they didn't vet him? Probably scammed like other people and organizations he was dealing with. Hasn't most of the other networks had similar problems? I don't believe Fox has been found to have manipulated information like some other news organizations. Not that it matters to you and your apparent agenda.

 

[bdee]

How do you know they didn't vet him? Probably scammed like other people and organizations he was dealing with. Hasn't most of the other networks had similar problems? I don't believe Fox has been found to have manipulated information like some other news organizations. Not that it matters to you and your apparent agenda.

The CIA, who he claimed to have been an operative for, says that no one ever verified that he ever worked for them. Not that they refused to confirm it, but that no one from Fox ever called.

 

[Younggun]

This thread after calling him out for a "Faux News" jab in another thread in which only Fox gave two sides of a story without slanting either way.


Probably not a coincidence.





Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[bdee]

..... without slanting either way.

You're kidding right?

 

[Younggun]

You're kidding right?

I can point out the slant in the other articles, can you point out how Fox slanted their story?

Because they gave both sides?


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Charlie]

bdee, exactly what point are you trying to make. I think I know which side of center politically you are on.

 

[V-Tach]

I'm sure one (media or anyone else) just calls the CIA to confirm if someone has worked for them........

 

[bdee]

bdee, exactly what point are you trying to make. I think I know which side of center politically you are on.

I just don't trust any of the major news networks, Fox is the target today. As for where I stand, I find both major parties to be quite distasteful.

But I believe in gun rights, I am pro-life, I believe in a flat tax with no deductions, I am opposed to the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, I believe that all drugs should be legalized. I am an environmentalist, I am opposed to both socialism and corporatism. I believe the ACLU should defend the 2nd Amendment as well. I am for free trade. I believe that our border stations should be acting far more like Ellis Island than concentration camps. I believe that we should we should end all foreign aid and foreign occupations. But where I differ from the libertarians is that I would not be opposed to Medicare for all citizens.