correct me if i'm mistaken, but haven't those been the same thing for the past few years?

They aired Trump rallies constantly in 2015 during slower times and are a major reason he retained support. So it depends how far back you take the time frame

Fox is also hosting liberal pundits from time to time. And one could just as well argue that Fox's conservative bias is more about attracting viewers than presenting propaganda. For viewers who are looking for a channel offering a consistently conservative viewpoint, there was no alternative, and without Fox, no such channel would have existed at all. (Nowadays, there's also OANN.) So in this sense and using your own arguments, it could be conceivable that Fox was simply a reaction to the forces of supply and demand.

I still believe that both CNN's and Fox's mission statement includes disseminating a partisan viewpoint on top of creating profits, but it's difficult to argue against the "they're just catering to a partisan audience for ratings"-argument.
Either way, they're both trash. It's a waste of time to argue about which turd is larger or more steamy.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 19 2020 09:34am

I agree that it's a waste of time to argue, because it's really really obvious to anybody who is actually familiar with the content of the channels.

Exactly. When I see stories reported by Fox or CNN, I put an asterisk next to them in my mind and expect twisted facts. Fox is usually a bit easier to handle because they're so blunt and shameless about their lies.

The conversation from people saying they are both the same seems to constantly come back to "Well, I don't actually watch either, and Fox is totally brazen and obvious about it, but I know they're the same!", i.e. exactly what IceMage was criticizing those people for yesterday.



You keep going back to me somehow defending CNN, or holding them in high esteem. This is pretty typical though, since you don't have an argument to make for them both being equally bad. I haven't made any absolute defenses of CNN in this thread, I've only made defenses of their content relative to Fox.

This isn't a matter of how many toes an anchor has, it's a matter of one side hiring anchors who are fine with explicitly being a propaganda arm for one party, and one side telling not-quite-full truths but overwhelmingly factual stories.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 19 2020 09:40am

I'm not arguing that they're the same. I'm arguing that they're both untrustworthy sources from which one has to expect twisted facts instead of clean, neutral reporting. For this very reason, I try to stay away from both as much as possible.
If you want to hear it, I'll say it: yes, Fox News is slightly more biased and untrustworthy than CNN. My point is just that this difference isnt really relevant since both are "beyond the pale".

Yeah, right...

Really? I would disagree with that. CNN flat out lies in regards to stories pretty commonly. Fox may embelish some stories. Thougn i find the raw speaking point is in a lot of cases the truth (not saying Fox may not have lied on some news stories).
But CNN will flat out distort things completely without acknowledging another perspective.

Fox does have things like the Five, where the Democrat at the table is just a pushover scapegoat. Lol.

But I think they actually have some moderate people that appear. I also think Tucker Carlson is pretty good.
Not denying Fox is a conversative news source, because it is.

I'm not saying Fox is the best source, and as any other source, a person should use multiple sources. I mostly use Tim Pool personally, who is a moderate left.

To be fair. Most New Sources are trash. You see plenty of News Sources like Buzzfeed, Washington Post, Politico even, sharing some false and bad information. It's become a hassle to sort through it all.

Others can feel free to disagree with me .

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Jan 19 2020 10:05am

That's the modus operandi of Fox News as well, lol.