Fox "News"

[homersapien 11,393]

Some interesting polling statistics regarding Fox viewers.

I hate those bastards.  They have brainwashed my mother and two sisters.  They are a cancer on the country.

 

Biden can’t end GOP denialism, but Fox News might

Opinion by

Jennifer Rubin

Columnist

Dec. 8, 2020

 

When I see polling that 80 percent or more of Republicans do not believe that President-elect Joe Biden won the election (although Gallup found 32 percent of Republican college graduates say Biden won while only 15 percent of non-college graduates did), I assume some Republicans just enjoy tormenting pollsters, whom they associate with liberal elites (“Own the libs — tell ‘em President Trump won!”). But even if many are just putting on a show, it’s clear millions are utterly impervious to evidence and willing to believe anything their cult leader says.

To solve this, many pundits across the ideological spectrum have suggested that Biden supporters try to reach out to their deluded neighbors. Make friends with people who do not think like you do! Ask Biden not to raise “cultural” issues (usually issues of race) so as not to alienate the reality deniers even further. Push social media companies to take down (not just label) falsehoods. Such behavior might be socially desirable, but it is unlikely to lead to an epistemological breakthrough for MAGA-hat wearers.

We might try to contain or minimize polarization (e.g., push policy decisions down to less polarized government at the state and local levels, adopt mechanisms such as ranked-choice voting), but that will not, I strongly suspect, compel Trump followers that he lost fair and square. Their certitude is not the result of logic or reason; cultists will simply deny contrary facts or incorporate them into their conspiracies. (Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, is in on it, too!)

Some have proposed that a Republican truth-teller is needed to disabuse the party of its nihilism and self-delusion. But we have already seen how effective that would be: Former Republican senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as well as current Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, have become pariahs for doing just that. Trump and his Pravda-like media enablers demonize them.

Others have argued that if we alleviate economic stress, these voters’ alienation will abate and they will be more amenable to reason. However, as we saw in the 2016 results, economic anxiety is not the primary motivator for MAGA voters; it is race.

Hence, cynical politicians such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continue to defy reality and attack democracy:

Ted Cruz is calling on the Supreme Court to discount votes from nearly everyone in the state of Pennsylvania who sent a mail-in ballot.

This insane, hopeless petition would be the most antidemocratic action the country has taken in a half century. It should be covered as such. https://t.co/nceveXAFri

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) December 7, 2020

Rebukes from a conservative Supreme Court, such as by shooting down insane efforts to overturn the election, might have some utility. And some conservative pundits (e.g., the Wall Street Journal editorial page) could give up the Trump-induced delusions and thereby convince a segment of the base. But unless right-wing media decides to stop lying to and scaring their audiences, Trump or similar charlatans will continue to sell their conspiracies to a willing base eager to explain away reality.

We should not underestimate Fox News’s responsibility for our current dilemma. (Disclaimer: I am an MSNBC contributor.) The annual values survey from the Public Religion Research Institute highlights the network’s importance and the malignancy:

No other platform has served to support the president as strongly as Fox News. For decades, the network has played a prominent role in structuring American conservatism and Republican partisan politics. Over the last four years, President Trump in particular has used it as his personal platform, appearing on air dozens of times during his presidency. And Fox News is poised to be the cultural force that preserves and transmits the worldview of Trumpism into America’s future.

 

Among television news sources, Fox News holds outsize influence, particularly among Republicans. Currently, 15% of Americans cite Fox News as the television news source they trust the most to provide accurate information about politics and current events, which is roughly equal to the combined influence of broadcast networks like NBC, ABC, and CBS (16%), and larger than that of local television news (12%) and CNN (11%). … The dominance of Fox News among Republicans is also unique: there is no equivalent dominant news source among Democrats or independents.

Fox News helped forge an insulated, radicalized movement of about 40 percent of Republicans that is immune to facts. This constituency almost unanimously approves of Trump (97 percent) and disapproves of President Barack Obama (94 percent). Their views on race are quite different than most Americans:

Nine in ten Fox News Republicans (90%) say that the recent killings of Black Americans by police are isolated incidents, while nine percent say they are part of a broader problem. … More than nine in ten Fox News Republicans (91%) are opposed to the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement, including three in four who are strongly opposed (74%). … Fox News Republicans are more likely to say that Christians and white people, rather than racial and ethnic minorities, face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. More than seven in ten Fox News Republicans (73%) say that there is a lot of discrimination against Christians, and 58% say the same about white people.

Fox Republicans are more upset with the changing demographics of America (hence “Make America Great Again”) than other Republicans or certainly the public at large. They are “much more likely than non–Fox News Republicans and Americans overall to hold negative views of immigrants,” the PRRI survey says. (Fox News highlighted the “caravans” in 2018 and dishes out a constant stream of immigrants-as-criminals stories.) And they are far more likely to dismiss the threat of covid-19, to buy into covid-19 conspiracies and to reject mask-wearing.

Some in the network have tiptoed toward reality, such as by calling the election for Biden. As a result, some of its audience have decamped to more radical outlets. But the greater threat to truth-telling comes from its nighttime lineup that regularly undercuts its daytime shows’ tolerance of reality.

There is a good argument to be made that Fox News (and its junior partners in right-wing talk radio) made Trump, not the other way around. They have sustained his support, promulgated his propaganda and, most importantly, insulated their audiences from reality. They provide an open forum for Trump and his toadies to propound their falsehoods without fear of contradiction.

If you really want to make progress in breaking down the GOP cult of denial, the place to start is Fox News. Unfortunately, for now, its business model depends on keeping its fervent audience angry and misinformed.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/08/biden-cant-end-gop-denialism-fox-might/

[Grumps 3,704]

If CNN and the Washington Post would tell the truth then less people would watch Fox.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

If CNN and the Washington Post would tell the truth then less people would watch Fox.

Ain’t that the truth!! 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Some interesting polling statistics regarding Fox viewers.

I hate these bastards.  They have brainwashed my mother and two sisters.  They are a cancer on the country.

 

Biden can’t end GOP denialism, but Fox News might

Opinion by

Jennifer Rubin

Columnist

Dec. 8, 2020

 

When I see polling that 80 percent or more of Republicans do not believe that President-elect Joe Biden won the election (although Gallup found 32 percent of Republican college graduates say Biden won while only 15 percent of non-college graduates did), I assume some Republicans just enjoy tormenting pollsters, whom they associate with liberal elites (“Own the libs — tell ‘em President Trump won!”). But even if many are just putting on a show, it’s clear millions are utterly impervious to evidence and willing to believe anything their cult leader says.

To solve this, many pundits across the ideological spectrum have suggested that Biden supporters try to reach out to their deluded neighbors. Make friends with people who do not think like you do! Ask Biden not to raise “cultural” issues (usually issues of race) so as not to alienate the reality deniers even further. Push social media companies to take down (not just label) falsehoods. Such behavior might be socially desirable, but it is unlikely to lead to an epistemological breakthrough for MAGA-hat wearers.

We might try to contain or minimize polarization (e.g., push policy decisions down to less polarized government at the state and local levels, adopt mechanisms such as ranked-choice voting), but that will not, I strongly suspect, compel Trump followers that he lost fair and square. Their certitude is not the result of logic or reason; cultists will simply deny contrary facts or incorporate them into their conspiracies. (Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, is in on it, too!)

Some have proposed that a Republican truth-teller is needed to disabuse the party of its nihilism and self-delusion. But we have already seen how effective that would be: Former Republican senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, as well as current Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, have become pariahs for doing just that. Trump and his Pravda-like media enablers demonize them.

Others have argued that if we alleviate economic stress, these voters’ alienation will abate and they will be more amenable to reason. However, as we saw in the 2016 results, economic anxiety is not the primary motivator for MAGA voters; it is race.

Hence, cynical politicians such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continue to defy reality and attack democracy:

Ted Cruz is calling on the Supreme Court to discount votes from nearly everyone in the state of Pennsylvania who sent a mail-in ballot.

This insane, hopeless petition would be the most antidemocratic action the country has taken in a half century. It should be covered as such. https://t.co/nceveXAFri

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) December 7, 2020

Rebukes from a conservative Supreme Court, such as by shooting down insane efforts to overturn the election, might have some utility. And some conservative pundits (e.g., the Wall Street Journal editorial page) could give up the Trump-induced delusions and thereby convince a segment of the base. But unless right-wing media decides to stop lying to and scaring their audiences, Trump or similar charlatans will continue to sell their conspiracies to a willing base eager to explain away reality.

We should not underestimate Fox News’s responsibility for our current dilemma. (Disclaimer: I am an MSNBC contributor.) The annual values survey from the Public Religion Research Institute highlights the network’s importance and the malignancy:

No other platform has served to support the president as strongly as Fox News. For decades, the network has played a prominent role in structuring American conservatism and Republican partisan politics. Over the last four years, President Trump in particular has used it as his personal platform, appearing on air dozens of times during his presidency. And Fox News is poised to be the cultural force that preserves and transmits the worldview of Trumpism into America’s future.

 

Among television news sources, Fox News holds outsize influence, particularly among Republicans. Currently, 15% of Americans cite Fox News as the television news source they trust the most to provide accurate information about politics and current events, which is roughly equal to the combined influence of broadcast networks like NBC, ABC, and CBS (16%), and larger than that of local television news (12%) and CNN (11%). … The dominance of Fox News among Republicans is also unique: there is no equivalent dominant news source among Democrats or independents.

Fox News helped forge an insulated, radicalized movement of about 40 percent of Republicans that is immune to facts. This constituency almost unanimously approves of Trump (97 percent) and disapproves of President Barack Obama (94 percent). Their views on race are quite different than most Americans:

Nine in ten Fox News Republicans (90%) say that the recent killings of Black Americans by police are isolated incidents, while nine percent say they are part of a broader problem. … More than nine in ten Fox News Republicans (91%) are opposed to the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement, including three in four who are strongly opposed (74%). … Fox News Republicans are more likely to say that Christians and white people, rather than racial and ethnic minorities, face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. More than seven in ten Fox News Republicans (73%) say that there is a lot of discrimination against Christians, and 58% say the same about white people.

Fox Republicans are more upset with the changing demographics of America (hence “Make America Great Again”) than other Republicans or certainly the public at large. They are “much more likely than non–Fox News Republicans and Americans overall to hold negative views of immigrants,” the PRRI survey says. (Fox News highlighted the “caravans” in 2018 and dishes out a constant stream of immigrants-as-criminals stories.) And they are far more likely to dismiss the threat of covid-19, to buy into covid-19 conspiracies and to reject mask-wearing.

Some in the network have tiptoed toward reality, such as by calling the election for Biden. As a result, some of its audience have decamped to more radical outlets. But the greater threat to truth-telling comes from its nighttime lineup that regularly undercuts its daytime shows’ tolerance of reality.

There is a good argument to be made that Fox News (and its junior partners in right-wing talk radio) made Trump, not the other way around. They have sustained his support, promulgated his propaganda and, most importantly, insulated their audiences from reality. They provide an open forum for Trump and his toadies to propound their falsehoods without fear of contradiction.

If you really want to make progress in breaking down the GOP cult of denial, the place to start is Fox News. Unfortunately, for now, its business model depends on keeping its fervent audience angry and misinformed.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/08/biden-cant-end-gop-denialism-fox-might/

Look at it this way:  75% of your family is enlightened.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 hours ago, Grumps said:

If CNN and the Washington Post would tell the truth then less people would watch Fox.

Wrong.  Look at what's happening even with the Fox News audience.  So many are now blaming Fox for being "fake" post election and migrating to outright propaganda networks likes OAN.  One person at Trump's rally in Valdosta yelled "We trusted you!" at the Fox reporter covering the event.  Why were these people so mad at Fox you ask?  Because the network had the audacity to call the election based on votes and facts.

Hyper-partisans want echo chambers, not facts.  And I'm sorry to tell you this, but the viewership numbers would suggest that it's folks on the right seeking out those chambers at a much higher rate.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

If CNN and the Washington Post would tell the truth then less people would watch Fox.

If it were about telling the truth, people wouldn't be so angry at Fox for calling the election for Biden and running off to wacko outlets like Newsmax.  These folks don't want the truth.  They don't want to learn or be informed.  They just want what they already believe to be affirmed and reinforced.

[homersapien 11,393]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

If CNN and the Washington Post would tell the truth then less people would watch Fox.

Grammatically speaking, it's "fewer" people, not "less".

Don't know about CNN but to compare the WAPO to Fox when it comes to "telling the truth" is laughable.  I guess you think Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham epitomize truth telling, huh?

But thanks for sharing your worthless opinion - it doesn't surprise me you are a Foxbot.   

[homersapien 11,393]

18 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Ain’t that the truth!! 

Try not to be such a lapdog. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

10 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Hyper-partisans want echo chambers, not facts. 

This is true and both sides of the aisle enjoys their respective chambers. When you have the NYTimes publishing the 1619 project as fact, that many scholars debunked, you loose credibility.  Same with the Russia Hoax that all the left leaning media parroted for years, people are going to seek the truth somewhere else.  Fox was that place.

Remember, the NYTimes Oped Editor was fired for allowing the Arkansas Rep Cotton to write an Oped in their paper and the employees were upset.  Conservatives are seeking news they can trust.  Hopefully that will emerge.  I can’t trust WaPo, CNN and the like.  It’s not that I want to hear what I want to hear, I just want to hear a balanced argument from my sources.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is true and both sides of the aisle enjoys their respective chambers. When you have the NYTimes publishing the 1619 project as fact, that many scholars debunked, you loose credibility.  Same with the Russia Hoax that all the left leaning media parroted for years, people are going to seek the truth somewhere else.  Fox was that place.

Remember, the NYTimes Oped Editor was fired for allowing the Arkansas Rep Cotton to write an Oped in their paper and the employees were upset.  Conservatives are seeking news they can trust.  Hopefully that will emerge.  I can’t trust WaPo, CNN and the like.  It’s not that I want to hear what I want to hear, I just want to hear a balanced augment from my sources.

Your own bias is showing.  The 1619 project was not "debunked".  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/

The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts

A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your own bias is showing.  The 1619 project was not "debunked".  

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/

The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts

A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

 

The Atlantic? Really, talk about an echo chamber; The 1619 Project is

‘So wrong in so many ways” is how Gordon Wood, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, characterized the New York Times’s “1619 Project.” James McPherson, dean of Civil War historians and another Pulitzer winner, said the Times presented an “unbalanced, one-sided account” that “left most of the history out.” 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-gets-schooled-11576540494

When a fact-checker asked Harris to verify some of the project's statements, Harris "vigorously disputed" the claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a major reason the American colonies rebelled against British rule:

Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, a British military strategy designed to unsettle the Southern Colonies by inviting enslaved people to flee to British lines, propelled hundreds of enslaved people off plantations and turned some Southerners to the patriot side. It also led most of the 13 Colonies to arm and employ free and enslaved black people, with the promise of freedom to those who served in their armies. While neither side fully kept its promises, thousands of enslaved people were freed as a result of these policies….

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay. In addition, the paper's characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

Hannah-Jones has tended to be extremely dismissive of the project's critics, who include The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf and the American Institute for Economic Research's Phil Magness. Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.

In any case, these ongoing issues with the project's accuracy are a good argument against school districts' swift mandates that it be taught in seventh-grade history classrooms.

https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/

The left leaning media will no print both sides so Americans can decide for them selves. You have more of a bias than you know.

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

18 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Wrong.  Look at what's happening even with the Fox News audience.  So many are now blaming Fox for being "fake" post election and migrating to outright propaganda networks likes OAN.  One person at Trump's rally in Valdosta yelled "We trusted you!" at the Fox reporter covering the event.  Why were these people so mad at Fox you ask?  Because the network had the audacity to call the election based on votes and facts.

Hyper-partisans want echo chambers, not facts.  And I'm sorry to tell you this, but the viewership numbers would suggest that it's folks on the right seeking out those chambers at a much higher rate.

Fair enough. How about this: If CNN would tell the truth then fewer people who watch Fox News for the truth would watch Fox News. I realize that this is probably laughable to you that I would put truth and Fox News in the same sentence, but to see republicans and democrats discussing issues with each other it is the only game in town. Juan Williams and Donna Brazil are regulars and democrats are interviewed frequently. Absolutely Fox is biased, but at least you can hear two sides, even if they are not equally represented. 

[Grumps 3,704]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Grammatically speaking, it's "fewer" people, not "less".

Don't know about CNN but to compare the WAPO to Fox when it comes to "telling the truth" is laughable.  I guess you think Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham epitomize truth telling, huh?

But thanks for sharing your worthless opinion - it doesn't surprise me you are a Foxbot.   

Thank you for the grammar lesson. You are 100% correct. I apologize for being so unclear. Thanks for raising the bar on this thread!

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

Fair enough. How about this: If CNN would tell the truth then fewer people who watch Fox News for the truth would watch Fox News. I realize that this is probably laughable to you that I would put truth and Fox News in the same sentence, but to see republicans and democrats discussing issues with each other it is the only game in town. Juan Williams and Donna Brazil are regulars and democrats are interviewed frequently. Absolutely Fox is biased, but at least you can hear two sides, even if they are not equally represented. 

Believe it or not, you can hear Republicans on CNN too.  Rick Santorum is a mainstay.  Republican politicians and spokespeople for the Trump administration are on regularly.  And the migration from CNN to Fox isn't new.  Fox has been larger long before Trump and "fake news" came around.  If people only wanted the truth, they'd watch the PBS Newshour.  But the facts show that people don't want just facts and truth.  They want to hear things that comport to their world view, facts be damned.

Where you screw up though is conflating debate with truth.  Having Santorum, Brazil, or anyone of their ilk on doesn't make that a news channel.  They are no more news than PTI is for sports.

What I'm talking about is many on the right's rush to embrace outright false news networks like an OAN because it comforts them.  That's dangerous as hell.

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

What I'm talking about is many on the right's rush to embrace outright false news networks like an OAN because it comforts them.  That's dangerous as hell.

Exactly. Right now, they're the side more susceptible to appeals to fear and anger. Old, scared, angry white people who perceive their control of the country to be slipping and young, scared, angry white people who don't see a future for themselves in this country. Mexicans are stealing your jobs. Democrats are closing your factories. Black people are committing all the crime. Gay people are destroying Christian values. China's trying to murder us with a virus. (It's not so different from religion, really. People need an explanation for the major events and defining conditions in their lives, and randomness and poor personal decisions don't cut it. The Lord and George Soros work in equally mysterious ways.)

Anyway, Fox has been their pot dealer for years. The pain has gotten worse so they're turning to harder stuff.  

[caleb1633 1,418]

Whether they make their ratings by confirming the bias of the right or the left, any Media Outlet that polarizes the public with anecdotes, sensationalism, and being factual but not truthful, should not be exempt from criticism. I don't know how anyone can criticize CNN and MSNBC, but not also hold disdain towards Fox News, and vice versa. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Whether they make their ratings by confirming the bias of the right or the left, any Media Outlet that polarizes the public with anecdotes, sensationalism, and being factual but not truthful, should not be exempt from criticism. I don't know how anyone can criticize CNN and MSNBC, but not also hold disdain towards Fox News, and vice versa. 

I'm a liberal and Biden voter and I don't watch CNN or MSNBC.  While I don't see the focus on fear and rage that I see on Fox, I also don't see a particularly honest approach to newscasting. 

I love @Brad_ATX's comparison to PTI. If you're not familiar, it's a show on ESPN where sports journos just yell at each other. It honestly feels like there's a meeting before the show where opposing viewpoints are developed, discussed, and doled out to the various participants. "Rick, can you take 'LeBron is better than Jordan' today? You're from Chicago so that will really lend it some weight coming from you. Donna, you take Jordan. I know you're just back from vacation and probably haven't even gotten through all your emails yet, and the standard Jordan takes are all we really need for that segment."

[McLoofus 35,182]

Hey @johnnyAU, thanks for bringing your usual substance to the conversation.

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I'm a liberal and Biden voter and I don't watch CNN or MSNBC.  While I don't see the focus on fear and rage that I see on Fox, I also don't see a particularly honest approach to newscasting. 

I love @Brad_ATX's comparison to PTI. If you're not familiar, it's a show on ESPN where sports journos just yell at each other. It honestly feels like there's a meeting before the show where opposing viewpoints are developed, discussed, and doled out to the various participants. "Rick, can you take 'LeBron is better than Jordan' today? You're from Chicago so that will really lend it some weight coming from you. Donna, you take Jordan. I know you're just back from vacation and probably haven't even gotten through all your emails yet, and the standard Jordan takes are all we really need for that segment."

I abhor Fox News, and do what I can to persuade many of my family members away from watching it, because it does insight fear and rage. I don't think the left-leaning equivalents are any better though. For three years, we were bombarded with the Russian collusion nothing-burger, unsubstantiated stories that were found to be false (e.g., Jessie Smollet, Nathan Phillips, Bubba Wallace), and continuous twisting of stories that supported their narrative (the "good people on both sides" statement was taken completely out of context, and it was shown to be taken out of context, but yet the MSM still stuck to that narrative). It was like watching the preceding 8 years under Obama where we had to hear the birth certificate, Muslim antichrist conspiracies from Fox.

If you're interested in gathering information with the intent of finding the truth, rather than confirming your cognitive biases, the MSM, including the likes of Fox News and News Max, aren't platforms that support that endeavor. I like the Ground News App and receiving the New Paper daily emails. One shows both sides to every story, and the other presents only information without any spin.

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

I abhor Fox News, and do what I can to persuade many of my family members away from watching it, because it does insight fear and rage. I don't think the left-leaning equivalents are any better though. For three years, we were bombarded with the Russian collusion nothing-burger, unsubstantiated stories that were found to be false (e.g., Jessie Smollet, Nathan Phillips, Bubba Wallace), and continuous twisting of stories that supported their narrative (the "good people on both sides" statement was taken completely out of context, and it was shown to be taken out of context, but yet the MSM still stuck to that narrative). It was like watching the preceding 8 years under Obama where we had to hear the birth certificate, Muslim antichrist conspiracies from Fox.

If you're interested in gathering information with the intent of finding the truth, rather than confirming your cognitive biases, the MSM, including the likes of Fox News and News Max, aren't platforms that support that endeavor. I like the Ground News App and receiving the New Paper daily emails. One shows both sides to every story, and the other presents only information without any spin.

Suffice it to say I don't see the same equivalency you do. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

23 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Hey @johnnyAU, thanks for bringing your usual substance to the conversation.

 

Your usual gibberish requires nothing more

[caleb1633 1,418]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Suffice it to say I don't see the same equivalency you do. 

That's perfectly fine. You're perfectly entitled to have that opinion. I don't have animosity towards someone just because they don't agree with me. Shunning mostly decent people based on tribal affiliation is very primitive. I leave that type of behavior to @icanthearyou. I'm "politically homeless", so I get grief from both tribes (all three if you include libertarians lol).

[McLoofus 35,182]

17 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Your usual gibberish requires nothing more

Even if true, it's a good thing, because you literally have nothing to offer in these conversations. Later gator. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

That's perfectly fine. You're perfectly entitled to have that opinion. I don't have animosity towards someone just because they don't agree with me. Shunning mostly decent people based on tribal affiliation is very primitive. I leave that type of behavior to @icanthearyou. I'm "politically homeless", so I get grief from both tribes (all three if you include libertarians lol).

I can imagine. I see no reason to give you grief and I hope I've argued in a civil manner. My civility tends to break down easily but there's always a reason, even if flimsy. It's typically when I perceive a lack of empathy or honesty that I get emotional. 

There exists a small group of self-professed (self-fellating?) centrists and party agnostics who claim some sort of high ground, when in reality their entire "viewpoint" is defined by what they don't believe in. Therefore, their contributions to the  conversation are little more than judgment of what others say. 

You would seem to belong to the even smaller group of centrists and/or political agnostics who do have a very thoughtful and informed perspective. I'm even inviting my own facepalm from our friend ICHY by saying so, haha. Anyway, I've enjoyed your recent uptick in participation and I hope to have more exchanges with you.

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

I can imagine. I see no reason to give you grief and I hope I've argued in a civil manner. My civility tends to break down easily but there's always a reason, even if flimsy. It's typically when I perceive a lack of empathy or honesty that I get emotional. 

There exists a small group of self-professed (self-fellating?) centrists and party agnostics who claim some sort of high ground, when in reality their entire "viewpoint" is defined by what they don't believe in. Therefore, their contributions to the  conversation are little more than judgment of what others say. 

You would seem to belong to the even smaller group of centrists and/or political agnostics who do have a very thoughtful and informed perspective. I'm even inviting my own facepalm from our friend ICHY by saying so, haha. Anyway, I've enjoyed your recent uptick in participation and I hope to have more exchanges with you.

Well, thank you. Ultimately, I'm just trying to search for truth. Anyone can be empirical and anyone can be skeptical. It's very difficult to be both. I don't like to form or state an opinion on something unless I've actually done a lot of research, then tested it against alternative points of view. I wouldn't say I'm a centrist or agnostic, because I do have opinions on subjects. They're across the entire political compass, and are often dependant on situation and the scale of governance. You have been civil in your arguments, which I appreciate, and it's what we need to get back to in society. If conservatives and progressives could work together towards a certain goal, rather than just opposing each other, things would look a lot different.