the circle of fake news

What does that tell you?
Who cares?
It tells Americans that fox knows trumpys don't care about the truth and that the more they lie, the more trumpys will cheer their deception.

Yea!!
Fox fucked over the audience and you couldn't be more proud!!!

Now fox can keep lying to even more people!!

I can see how a disloyal illegal immigrant such as yourself would wallow in that realization.
Thanks for buying those subs.
... And lemme also mention that the whole stupid
narrative that "Fox lied to their audience"
surely aint hurt them in the ratings.

Just as POPULAR as before!

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
VitaMan's Avatar
... And lemme also mention that the whole stupid
narrative that "Fox lied to their audience"
surely aint hurt them in the ratings.

Just as POPULAR as before!

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
FOX know what its audience wants...lies and bs.

The FOX news ceo said so, and told her employees they need to keep feeding it to them.

You must be a proud viewer.
Precious_b's Avatar
All news outlets are putting out fake news. Fox was at least being honest. All other news outlets should step up to the plate and do the same. Originally Posted by Levianon17
Fox didn't admit it until they were caught
For 2 years, you believed them and repeated their bull while they were lying.
Your claim every network shows you still believe fox now.

I say you can't prove anything you say. Your common knowledge is not true and you won't even try to prove your lies. You'll just keep lying.

Doesn't it bother you what people think about you and your lies?
Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

If put out in black and white, yes. All outlets put out "fake news." Except ethical outlets "fake news" are another way of saying a mistake was made. They will put out a retraction when discovered. Also, they do employ fact checkers. News organizations that do their job don't intentionally put out such.

Kinda hard for foxy to say they ain't fake news when they never admitted what they constantly barraged on their viewers was a known lie. Don't strike me as being ethical.

But when people associate nielson numbers as being a metric for non-fake, that makes me laugh.

I've said it before: any extremist is dangerous. Especially one that lies. Alot of people on this site refuse to see that foxy is leans to a far right bearing and is on the bottom side of Factual Reporting. Doesn't matter how many viewers they have. Or we can call them sheeple.

Always remember Dan Rather when someone handed him a news article he read on air that was found to be fake. Though he didn't do the leg work of investigating it, only presenting it, he stepped down from his anchor chair. That was because he possessed something that the current crop of people on air don't have.


Let's be clear, news anchors looking into camera and reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, a script meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it, isn't journalism. It's propaganda. It's Orwellian. And it is on a slippery slope towards some of history's most destructive forces. These are the means by which despots wrest power, silence dissent, and oppress the masses.
To those who say this rhetoric is hyperbolic, I submit that attacking the press as honest brokers of information has been one of the constants of this Administration and all those who normalize it. But this is not normal. This is not how the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, that beloved First Amendment, is supposed to operate.
Many of you by now have seen the video mashup of news employees on Sinclair-owned TV stations delivering the same talking points to their viewers. For those who haven't, I have included the link in the comments section below. And a big tip of the Stetson to Timothy Burke, the video director at Deadspin, who edited the string of video clips into a powerful sequence that puts the dangers of our time into visceral relief.
The faces of the men and women you see delivering this chilling message are befitting those of a hostage video. Maybe some of these local anchors took to it with gusto, but I believe that number is few. That's not why people are drawn to journalism. And maybe you will say that they should have refused or even resigned in protest, but I know that one can grasp in desperation for rationalizations and compromise when one feels their livelihood is at risk. That is the bet that Sinclair and its allies in media and government are betting on - that they can chip away, with small strikes of the chisel, at the bedrock of American democracy. I suspect that the vast majority of the journalists you see in this video want to be in an environment where they can do their jobs, reporting the news fairly, without favor or bias. They need our support.
That is why it is incumbent for Americans of all political persuasions to say this is intolerable. Congress should hold hearings and call the executives of Sinclair to account, but one suspects that is highly unlikely in the current political environment. Will this spur citizens to elect representatives who recognize that this is a clear and present danger? Will enough people be outraged to bombard stations, and advertisors, with letters, phone calls, and tweets to suggest this is unacceptable?
For now, Sinclair is trying to explain away the controversy, and they have a powerful ally in the President. But as we saw with the advertisers bailing en masse from Laura Ingraham's Fox News show after she attacked a Parkland High School student activist in a Tweet, the voice of the people still matters. If enough people speak, they cannot be ignored.
A free and independent press must be part of #WhatUnitesUs
Dan Rather.
... HEE HEE!... ... Ye Christ!

... YOU surely must be joking there, mate. Almost spilled-over
me beer from laughing!

... Dan Rather was FORCED off the air by CBS-News.
He didn't "decide to step-down" - They told him to.

The "Bush Military" piece was BULLSHIT - and a sad attempt
to sway voters... The liberal media surely does that a lot.

It's the Circle of FAKE News...

##### Salty
Precious_b's Avatar
Could you supply me with source that he fought to keep the anchor chair?

Yes, he was fired. Not at the same time he left the anchor position.

That piece definitely should have been vetted better to be caught so easily.
... "He fought to keep the anchor chair"??

There was NO fighting - they cut him loose.
Lost his job - out on his arse...

... And WHERE was his apology to Bush??

CBS - surely a willing participant in the "Circle o' Fake News"...

#### Salty
And while we're on the subject... There's MSNBC and ABC-News
censuring the Trump speech from their-own viewers.

After the indictment - Trump flew home and later gave a speech
from beautiful Mar-a-lago.

MSNBC "boycotted" the speech... Too afraid that their
viewers just might listen to what President Trump had to say.

And ABC aired the speech briefly - then cut-away... They were
surely also scared that some from their liberal voting base
just might be swayed.

... Reckon when you're the "Circle of Fake News" you're too
afraid to show your viewers the truth. ... They won't let
the people watch the speech and make up their-own minds.

#### Salyu
VitaMan's Avatar
Possibly the speech was not covered is because it was not news worthy...or no good for ratings ?

Trump's shelf life expired a long time ago.

How did you come up with the word "censuring" to describe this ? That is shocking.

It sounds like you want to create a "News Board" and require everything that comes out of Trump's mouth deemed "newsworthy" and broadcast 24 hours a day.

Move to Russia if you want that.
Precious_b's Avatar
... "He fought to keep the anchor chair"??

There was NO fighting - they cut him loose.
Lost his job - out on his arse...

... And WHERE was his apology to Bush??

CBS - surely a willing participant in the "Circle o' Fake News"...

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Where is the link that supports your claim that he did not want to relinquish the anchor chair that I ask for.

They did not cut him lose after he stopped broadcasting the evening news. He still worked for CBS off camera. But he was fired after that.

I really would love to see proof that he refused to give up the anchor chair and had to be forced out of it.

And back than, it wasn't circle of fake. CBS heads were referred to as the Ivory Tower.
... So what you're claiming is that after Dan Rather read
the LIE of a news-piece on the air - he then knew it was
fake so he surely decided to no longer be on the air??

Is THAT what you want us to believe??
That it was RATHER'S idea to walk-away and NOT CBS Newses idea?

They told him HE WAS DONE! ... No longer gonna be on the air.

And what was that? ... CBS heads were "the Ivory Tower"??

If THAT is the case - then WHAT HAPPENED? ...

#### Salty
Precious_b's Avatar
Come on salty, don't do the childish tactic of diversion that your buddies do not to answer a question.

I just stated Dan stepped down on his own.
You claim his removal was because he was fired.
I asked for proof that he fought not to leave anchoring the evening news.
*AND* that is where you started to dance around to keep from supplying proof.

Your statement that his removal was by firing is wrong since he was still at CBS working but not on the evening news. He was fired later on.

Stay on point. Got a source he fought to stay anchor of the news and did not want to give up chair?
lustylad's Avatar
Precious_b obviously doesn't understand how high-level corporate politics works. Dan Rather was given the standard ultimatum - either resign or be fired.

One option allows you to save a little face by claiming you're "voluntarily" stepping down in order to "spend more time with my family"... "pursue other promising career options"... "make room for our talented younger executives"... (insert your favorite euphemism here)...
Precious_b's Avatar
Precious_b obviously doesn't understand how high-level corporate politics works. Dan Rather was given the standard ultimatum - either resign or be fired.

... Originally Posted by lustylad
lusty obviously doesn't understand how a request for proof means supporting a counterstatement. And i'm still waiting.

I'm not denying that what people are refusing a request for proof could be true. But it sure as hell is alot easier to show such proof and shut the person up than to shrug off a persons post and leave the smoking gun hidden.
Precious_b obviously doesn't understand how high-level corporate politics works. Dan Rather was given the standard ultimatum - either resign or be fired.

One option allows you to save a little face by claiming you're "voluntarily" stepping down in order to "spend more time with my family"... "pursue other promising career options"... "make room for our talented younger executives"... (insert your favorite euphemism here)... Originally Posted by lustylad
... See?


..... There is NO "smoking gun" here.
Dan Rather was taken off the air.

No longer a "evening news" voice each night.
Far as THAT goes - he was out on his arse!

... And ya know something? ... I'm surely wonderin'
if ol' Dan was ever bitter and blue about being
pushed-out like that.... Dan might even STILL BELIEVE
that the Bush "news story" is really true.

What do you lads think??

#### Salty
Precious_b's Avatar
And there is no direct answer to my question.

We both agree he stopped anchoring. That is not in question.
So, you can mull that over with others.

Get back to me when you can prove that he didn't voluntarily leave the anchor position.