Fox News Analyst Quits, Calls Network a ‘Propaganda Machine’
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
The problem with his analysis is:
1) it lacked any specifics and was filled with only emotional and personal opinions.
2) Most of the factual reporting Fox has done on the Russia probe and/or "deep State" scandal hasn't been dis-proven, and in fact is turning out to be 100% accurate!
Meanwhile Fox's competition is still chasing a "collusion" narrative against Trump that daily loses credibility, has produced no hard evidence, and becomes less believable as a factual story with each new revelation reported on Fox!
As a consequence where are a majority of viewers going to get accurate information on the story?
Over to Fox!
Where in the linked article did you find the the above highlighted information displayed in Mr. Peters' comments?That's all fine and dandy except Fox's viewers disagree with him and by and large the other networks competing against Fox for their time!
So he's essentially calling the viewers who choose to watch Fox over the others idiots.
Nice.kay:
Your highlighted line is what's called a supposition, based on the OP's assertion from the linked article that Fox simply broadcasts lies and distortions not backed up by facts and that it is essentially 'proagandizing' its viewers.
The OP was asserting that nothing on the network is to be believed and he offered the resignation of the former Fox news contributor who essentially made that exact claim.
excerpt from article:
"Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.”
So I deduced from both the opinion maker quoted in the article, as well as the OP's decision to provide it to the board that he agrees with the opinion of the article. Thus my supposition stated as a rebuttal, which assumes inherently that viewers do indeed have a choice as to which news outlet they choose to access for their daily information.
Surely Fox viewers are independent enough thinkers and rational enough information consumers who can quickly determine if the product offerings on Fox vs the other available networks is indeed "propaganda"? So far, the viewers believe the information they choose to receive on Fox. By an overwheling majority Fox draws more viewers to its product offering than all of its competitors combined according to the latest viewership surveys.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/321629-fox-news-beats-cnn-msnbc-combined-in-feb-ratings
Does the OP or the person quoted in his linked article think the viewers are aware they are being subjected to "propaganda" on Fox vs their other avaialble choices on the competing news services? Doesn't the article suggest they are, and by inference that they are idiots to allow themselves to be sucked into this web of Fox deceit and disinformation?
What do you think the objective of the article and OP was?
And as the collusion investigation has stalled the left has resorted to a smear campaign to stop Trump. Any body but Trump , we were very happy with Bill Clinton...
Stalled? Have you not been following along? Trump's business records were recently subpoenaed. That's why you are seeing the extreme reaction from little hands. LOL!
The desperation the Left has to smear some sort of moral outrage onto Trump is directly proportional to their inability to defeat him on issues.
And of course we will all soon easily see the connection of his business records to the collusion with Ruasians we've already easily seen that helped him steal the election from Hillary which you've already explained to us as promised right country?
(In Russian no less)
Last edited:
First from this answer to my post: I asked a specific question relating where Mr Peters was calling persons who watched Fox over the other networks idiots. You answered that you deduced that fact from the opinion he presented in the interview. So essentially you gave your opinion of his opinion even though the word idiot did not appearin his interview.
Secondly, Mr Peters opined that he had erred in some instances and that he was "ashamed" of his association with Fox News. I think he was merely putting out a statement concerning his association with Fox. More info may come out, but as of March 21, 2017 that is what I know.
And I also asked you after I both quoted the article and explained my characterization of his comments what the OP or the article's author meant by Fox reporting "propaganda"? Who are the consumers of what Fox reports? What was the article or the OP saying about the information they receive from Fox as their choice if it's all "propaganda" as the article suggested?
Who used the term idiots; was that your word or his? I did not find it in his article. Did I overlook it?
That was my choice of word characterizing the essential charge of the article as it related to information available to Fox viewers. Would you say they are well informed or simply duped by pure propaganda from Fox?
If you agree with the article about the information they receive from Fox
what would you call them?
Last edited:
I normally won't call them anything, name calling benefits no one. I very seldom watch Fox; if I do, it is to watch bloviation in political, governmental and religious manners.
Fox viewers as I stated choose that network more than all the others combined. If they believed they were being proagandized or "bloviated" by Fox information presenters there is nothing forcing them to stay or preventing them from moving onto the next channel. They choose Fox and come back in record numbers. That article and the OP did not give them any credit for deciding on the value of the information they receive from Fox on their own. It simply characterized the information as "propaganda".
You claim you did not read where the subject of the article referred to Fox viewers as idiots but I also did not read what exactly he viewed as "propaganda". Maybe I missed it?
It's called confirmation bias. People like to hear things that support their biases. That's not only a problem with the right. MSNBC made that their business model for the left. People who fall ito the trap of confirmation bias aren't necessarily dumb.
I think the "bias" comes from anything that doesn't conform with Leftist orthodoxy. I prefer to give those viewers credit for seeking out and receiving some truthful presentations. Fox isn't the only place they are getting their information. What's "confirmed" to them are the stories being reported in alternative media about the Obama DOJ and Hillary/FBI e-mail scandal that the main media either ignores or refuses to report.
Fox has a strong bias. MSNBC also has a strong bias. CNN is slightly more to the middle, but with a definite left lean on average. Honestly, most of them are generally unwatchable to me. They all play like infotainment, not news, to me.
None of that was my point though. People generally want to hear talking heads who confirm their own biases. I'd rather get dry news. I do listen to some talking heads, but I tend to prefer those who don't shout down people who might disagree with them. I want to hear a debate based on facts. That's getting increasingly hard to find on any cable news outlet, or anywhere else frankly.
Agreed. You do have to seek out a variety of sources to get to some semblence of balance and Truth. I think that's a healthy process actually because Truth doesn't need 10 different versions for information seekers. The real thing only needs to be told one way.
I disagree with you here on this. They are hoplessly planted on the Left and are damn near 100% total anti-Trump.
Does it matter if you struggle as a Black person or a White person or is just being a "racist" enough to struggle with?
You must not have watched CNN the last 2.5 years. They’ve gone off the damn rails.
When people “choose” a form of propaganda because it “feels” better to them, it doesn’t make the propaganda any more truthful, or the person any more intelligent.
Intelligent well informed information seekers with free choice do not "choose" proaganda. By definition in most cases propaganda is either exclusively delivered without any competing sources to validate or invalidate it, or it is forced onto people with no alternatives avaialble.
No one is forced to view Fox & their product faces daily competition which can easily refute whatever false information they offer to their viewers. Fox viewers decide by their overwhelming choice of that news service over its competitors that the information available on that network is preferred to what is offered by Fox's competitors.
Similar threads
