Fox news viewers are nuts

At least the ones that comment on their Facebook news feed.

I currently follow cnn, msnbc vice and CBC on Facebook for my news. I always enjoy reading comments to see what whacky people are saying. With everyone of them except maybe msnbc the crazy commenters seemed rather un represented and were defiantly a minority.

Enter fox news. Never have I seen so much blind whataboutism and lock her up comments. The entire comment section reads like a caricature of some whacky right wing nutjobs thoughts brought to life. Where can I go for a more balanced right wing news source?


TLDR: follow lots of news agencies on fb. Fox take a the cake for craziest commenters. Where do you find a more sane balanced right wing news source?

You sound like you are awfully left.
 
Didn't they get rid of the comments section on their site because it became nothing but hate speech with little to no actual commentary?

Either way people who comment on Yahoo News articles are the worst. They make me lose my faith in humanity.
 
Al Jazeera is leagues more professional and sophisticated than CNN/FOX. Really, outlets like Al Jazeera just don't exist in the US anymore because it's too dry.

Anyways, I never have thought CNN has much of a traditional partisan bias (and studies have affirmed as much) and instead just has a penchant for fanaticism. MSNBC, at least before its reformation, was the clear counterpoint to FOX and was very biased.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chic...ge-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column,amp.html
 
There are vanishingly few right wing news sources that aren’t fucking cracked.

Wall Street Journal editorials are corporate Republican, but and least not full of conspiracy bullshit.

There’s a few guys on the Blaze network that don’t completely suck ALL the time.

It’s slim pickings for conservative News, though.

I will admit a lot of the media has a liberal bias, but the few conservative outlets there are have just devolved into utter piss. And it’s not the same. You can have a bias and try to balance it, which is what most respectable news outlets try to do. Or you can have a bias and double down on it constantly, which is what Fox does.

Let's not let facts get in the way of our outrage

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chic...ge-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column,amp.html
 

....so?

Of course the media has been largely negative on Trump. He's completely unqualified, ignorant of issues and procedure, and constantly rustled. I absolutely believe the study and would be shocked if someone found otherwise.

Like....the media has lowered the bar of expectations drastically and been flattering literally whenever he acts like an adult--- not a great president, just an adult. They fucking compliment the guy for anything they can. Remember when they drooled all over him being "more presidential" in his acceptance speech or when he made that useless show of strength in launching bombs at empty compounds in Syria, or when he green lighted the MOB?

The idea that the media is "biased" because they are speaking negatively of someone whose actions and abilities are awful is fallacious. If the Democrats ran someone who couldn't form coherent sentences, who was ignorant about very basic policy facts, and who constantly shit posted on Twitter and bragged about how cool they are while woefully mishandling issues, would it be "biased" to you if the media coverage of them was negative? Do you think the media is "biased" against pro athletes that completely suck when they report on how much they suck?


Same thing-- how exactly is this supposed to refute his (pretty obvious) point that conservative media has devolved into reductionist, fear mongering, masturbatory drivel?
 
Last edited:
Stopped reading at "i follow cnn"
Dude that is sooo 2016
 
I sympathize with FOX viewers for i was once one during the majority of the GWB years. The message they put forth is designed to only elevate one specific political party under the symbolic guise of patriotism.
 
....so?

Of course the media has been largely negative on Trump. He's completely unqualified, ignorant of issues and procedure, and constantly rustled. I absolutely believe the study and would be shocked if someone found otherwise.

Like....the media has lowered the bar of expectations drastically and been flattering literally whenever he acts like an adult--- not a great president, just an adult. They fucking compliment the guy for anything they can. Remember when they drooled all over him being "more presidential" in his acceptance speech or when he made that useless show of strength in launching bombs at empty compounds in Syria, or when he green lighted the MOB?

The idea that the media is "biased" because they are speaking negatively of someone whose actions and abilities are awful is fallacious. If the Democrats ran someone who couldn't form coherent sentences, who was ignorant about very basic policy facts, and who constantly shit posted on Twitter and bragged about how cool they are while woefully mishandling issues, would it be "biased" to you if the media coverage of them was negative? Do you think the media is "biased" against pro athletes that completely suck when they report on how much they suck?



Same thing-- how exactly is this supposed to refute his (pretty obvious) point that conservative media has devolved into reductionist, fear mongering, masturbatory drivel?

He gives nothing of credibility, whilst acting like an asshole buffoon, and these chucklefucks say they want balanced assessments on his greatness. I mean...
 
....so?

Of course the media has been largely negative on Trump. He's completely unqualified, ignorant of issues and procedure, and constantly rustled. I absolutely believe the study and would be shocked if someone found otherwise.

Like....the media has lowered the bar of expectations drastically and been flattering literally whenever he acts like an adult--- not a great president, just an adult. They fucking compliment the guy for anything they can. Remember when they drooled all over him being "more presidential" in his acceptance speech or when he made that useless show of strength in launching bombs at empty compounds in Syria, or when he green lighted the MOB?

The idea that the media is "biased" because they are speaking negatively of someone whose actions and abilities are awful is fallacious. If the Democrats ran someone who couldn't form coherent sentences, who was ignorant about very basic policy facts, and who constantly shit posted on Twitter and bragged about how cool they are while woefully mishandling issues, would it be "biased" to you if the media coverage of them was negative? Do you think the media is "biased" against pro athletes that completely suck when they report on how much they suck?



Same thing-- how exactly is this supposed to refute his (pretty obvious) point that conservative media has devolved into reductionist, fear mongering, masturbatory drivel?

It's actual proof that FOX is not biased while many outlets are COMPLETELY biased.

I do like the argument that it's ok to be biased because you hate 1 side.

But don't let actual proof get you all worked up. Continue living in your world where up is down and black is white.
 
He gives nothing of credibility, whilst acting like an asshole buffoon, and these chucklefucks say they want balanced assessments on his greatness. I mean...

If 95% negative is ok with you that's great. But don't pretend that it's unbiased. CNN probably has more positive reporting on ISIS than they do Trump. But some in here probably think he's worse than ISIS.

I look at it this way. Alex Jones and the skinheads thought Obama was worse than ISIS. While CNN and a few in here think Trump is worse. It's the extremes.
 
It's actual proof that FOX is not biased while many outlets are COMPLETELY biased.

I do like the argument that it's ok to be biased because you hate 1 side.

But don't let actual proof get you all worked up. Continue living in your world where up is down and black is white.

That was your takeaway? Were you unable to comprehend, and thereafter rebut, my post, or are you just putting your fingers in your ears and believing what you want?

It's truly impressive how stupid you are. Sometimes I dream about being ignorant and carefree like I was as a child, completely able to minimize the world into what my child mind could grasp. You, kid, are living my dream. And I envy you.
 
If 95% negative is ok with you that's great. But don't pretend that it's unbiased. CNN probably has more positive reporting on ISIS than they do Trump. But some in here probably think he's worse than ISIS.

I look at it this way. Alex Jones and the skinheads thought Obama was worse than ISIS. While CNN and a few in here think Trump is worse. It's the extremes.

Do you view CNN as akin to Alex Jones?
 
....so?

Of course the media has been largely negative on Trump. He's completely unqualified, ignorant of issues and procedure, and constantly rustled. I absolutely believe the study and would be shocked if someone found otherwise.

Like....the media has lowered the bar of expectations drastically and been flattering literally whenever he acts like an adult--- not a great president, just an adult. They fucking compliment the guy for anything they can. Remember when they drooled all over him being "more presidential" in his acceptance speech or when he made that useless show of strength in launching bombs at empty compounds in Syria, or when he green lighted the MOB?

The idea that the media is "biased" because they are speaking negatively of someone whose actions and abilities are awful is fallacious. If the Democrats ran someone who couldn't form coherent sentences, who was ignorant about very basic policy facts, and who constantly shit posted on Twitter and bragged about how cool they are while woefully mishandling issues, would it be "biased" to you if the media coverage of them was negative? Do you think the media is "biased" against pro athletes that completely suck when they report on how much they suck?



Same thing-- how exactly is this supposed to refute his (pretty obvious) point that conservative media has devolved into reductionist, fear mongering, masturbatory drivel?

You're right. Alex Jones and the Alt Right are dribble. While CNN & MSNBC have also.

Weird to see that the ONE media outlet that actually statistically is the least biased(FOX) gets shit on here. Sorry man, numbers do not lie. And if you watch Shep Smith, Chris Wallace or Bret Baier you would see FOX is by FAR the least biased major news outlet
 
That was your takeaway? Were you unable to comprehend, and thereafter rebut, my post, or are you just putting your fingers in your ears and believing what you want?

It's truly impressive how stupid you are. Sometimes I dream about being ignorant and carefree like I was as a child, completely able to minimize the world into what my child mind could grasp. You, kid, are living my dream. And I envy you.

More insults while I provide actual proof to prove you are wrong.

But I expect you to insult when you are proven wrong. It's what you do. It's quite lazy but some in here will eat it up

So continue to say something then when it's refuted with back up. You can call the one who refutes it with data an idiot moron retarded nazi. Whatever it takes to make you think you are right.
 
You're right. Alex Jones and the Alt Right are dribble. While CNN & MSNBC have also.

Weird to see that the ONE media outlet that actually statistically is the least biased(FOX) gets shit on here. Sorry man, numbers do not lie. And if you watch Shep Smith, Chris Wallace or Bret Baier you would see FOX is by FAR the least biased major news outlet

Holy shit. If I were to type of an explanation again, print it out, put in a glass bottle, and throw it out into the ocean, I would have an exponentially greater chance of the explanation being found and understood by someone than I would have just replying to you here.

BRB, seeing if I have any bottled beer in my fridge.
 
For anyone interested:

Third-Edition-Full-Hi-Res.jpg


ioa_cable_topnetworks.jpg



Most of the rest of these graphics are fairly outdated and still have CNN with a slight right bias instead of slight left.
 
Holy shit. If I were to type of an explanation again, print it out, put in a glass bottle, and throw it out into the ocean, I would have an exponentially greater chance of the explanation being found and understood by someone than I would have just replying to you here.

BRB, seeing if I have any bottled beer in my fridge.
Type of an explanation?

You hate data. You hate studies. You hate facts.

You love insults and you obviously really love hearing yourself talk.

If I only had a buck every time you were proven wrong in these threads only to call the person stupid, ignorant or worse. Meanwhile all the person did was provide a correction to your false info without insulting you.

In B4 I'm called a retard or worse.
 
Back
Top