Thread: 18% truthiness, Fox. 18%.

So when does news move from news to Propaganda?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No ignorance is a lack of knowledge. I said omission or not verifying. Remember we're talking about "news" agencies. The ones where research is suppose to be part of the job and not the average person.

Lack of knowledge or information.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

So when does news move from news to Propaganda?

It's always been as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

So when does news move from news to Propaganda?

When there is an adjenda added to it.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

FOX's file: | PunditFact

Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time

No surprise here. Also kinda sad that msnbc is at 31%, while not the staggering 18% it's still shitty.

I think Journalism needs Government Standards, like 24/7 News channels need to have at least 60%+ Truth to be on air, or Fines are levied. That'd solve this.

I don't like the government idea. I think that direct regulation wouldn't work, and couldn't help but be unconstitutional. Direct government regulation of "truth" is everyone's nightmare.

It's possible that an indirect effort might help (maybe a standards-and-practices style thing), but I've never been able to think of anything where the proposed cure isn't worse than the disease.

We do have laws against telling lies in some circumstances. Fox is so overtly a hybrid political/commercial enterprise that there might be opportunities in the existing laws. For example, I've always thought that a lawsuit challenging the merchantability of their product would be an interesting exercise. That'd be civil, not criminal, but that seems more appropriate to me anyway.

The larger issue is that we have this conversation at all. For me, it comes down to this:

It's shit. Their product is shit. You need to recognize up-front that it's shit, and act appropriately.

It is filled with bacteria and viruses whose life-cycle depends on interacting with you. If you taste it, sniff it, or step in it, you have already helped it fulfill its purpose. After that, it doesn't CARE if you recognize it as shit. It doesn't CARE if your interaction is purposeful or inadvertent. If you pick it up and hold it in front of other people to show them what shit looks like, then you have failed and it has won. It's all over you now, and at some point you will touch something else.

Avoid it.
Segregate it.
Isolate it.
Wait for it to decompose.
Never let it near the water supply. Bury it. Deprive it of light and air for generations.
In some cases, incineration may be necessary.

This is the only way to interrupt the life-cycle of the pathogens.

Try reading it this way: "18% of this shit is undigested food."

Does that mean it makes sense to try and separate the 18% so you can have a snack? Who here would go picking through a turd to try and separate the undigested corn and peanuts?

Does the argument change if it's 25%? 50%? What if we cover it in gravy?

Analyzing Fox News to see how much news is in there means they have already won. You have granted their premise - that it's news. Any discussion over what percentage is news or how much is true will only encourage them - now there's an argument that it's better than that, or worse than that. But it isn't that at all.

This has nothing to do with 'conservative' or 'liberal', Dem or Repub - that's a distraction. It's carefully designed, meticulously manufactured, shit.

It used to be that the production of this kind of shit had to be subsidized. But the proprietors have figured out a way to produce shit and present it in such a way that some people will pay for it.

It's a clever thing, and I have a lot of respect for the abilities of the people who produce it.

Cheers,


AetheLove