14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

OMG are you kidding? You're kidding right? The only one that even comes closing to sticking is an apparent "mistake" of showing the wrong straw poll reaction vid. And Ron Paul, let's face it, he's a wacky Nazi troglodyte whom we rational conservatives wish would just GO AWAY. He's a nut and an ideologue. If Fox is trying to torpedeo his campaign, then we ALL should be thankful for them trying to save us from the possbility of Ron Paul as president. YOU FAIL

You asked for examples, I provided them. I have no interest in the motivations or what Fox should or shoud not do.

The first two clips are taken from Sean Hannity, who is an unabashed schill for the right and an opinion guy not a news guy. And any rational conservative ALREADY knows that he distorts the truth. Geez, thanks for telling us what we already know. YOU DOUBLE FAIL.

You asked for fabrications from Fox News and Hannity is one of their leading hosts the last time I checked.

Jon Stewart hates Fox. Has stated so publicly. He did a great job with bait-and-switching the rally footage. Notice in the corner of the screen at the start of the segment: MediaMatters. An organization that is as every bit as dogmatic and biased to the left (funded by lefty media man George Soros) as it claims FoxNews to be. YOU FAIL

First, Hannity actually apolgized to Stewart for his shoddy editing, so not sure what has Stewart's hate got to do with anything. And its a regular talking point but Media Matters is not 'funded' by Soros. And unless you can point out any factual mistake in the MediaMatters report, this is simply attacking the source instead of dealing with the actual criticism.

Mike Tobin did indeed get pushed around a bit by the protestors. The source you cited even admits that an anti-Fox guy was behind the "distortions." I watched a different Tobin report from the same day, but not the same in the vid clip shown in your link, and I thought Tobin was gonna get skinned alive. YOU FAIL.

But that's not what Fox News reported, they said he was 'attacked' and there is no absolutely no evidence of it.

The Palm Tree lie? You didn't even read it did you? It fucking says that Fox DID NOT distort. Go back and read it. Here's an excerpt in case you can't manage to click the link on your own:
They needn’t have tried so hard. While, in the 43-second clip that’s being linked to on YouTube, it does look like Fox News lied, but watching the entire segment for context makes it clear that they did not.
The segment in question occurred during The O’Reilly Factor as Bill O’Reilly was discussing the anger in the union protests. At the top of the piece, he rolled footage of a number of the “union thug” videos that have become so popular on Right Wing news sites in the past few weeks. O’Reilly clearly identified the videos as collectively coming from “all over the country.”
YOU FAIL AGAIN!

They are cleverly switching the footage between the Wisconsin protests and mixing it with old archives to push an agenda, that's pretty deceptive I would say.

You accuse Fox of lying and distortions and you just did it yourself. Hypocrite :facepalm: :thefinger

Here's an example of MSNBC lying:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoikNVzesGc

What exactly did I lie about? I didn't even comment on the links I posted. And whoever asked you about MSNBC?



Dude I opened the link and stopped after the first couple of words: MediaMatters. See my previous post. And for Christ sake, use a credible fucking source, i.e., not an arch-left media outlet. If MM reported that water is wet I wouldn't believe them. :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:


Here's an example of MSNBC lying:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoikNVzesGc

So NewsBusters is credible enough for you to cite them but Mediamatters isn't. :rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
 
And here is their latest fabrication

fnc-ff-20110705-uniondues.jpg


fnc-ff-20110706-teacherscampaigntax.png


But the facts are that the funds generated CANNOT be used to fund campaigns and 'The Chicago Tribune Reported The Increase Was Approved "Specifically To Confront State And Local Efforts To Limit Collective Bargaining Rights." The Chicago Tribune reported that the National Education Association "approved a $10 per-member fee increase for the next five years, specifically to confront state and local efforts to limit collective bargaining rights for many public workers as has happened in Wisconsin and Ohio, [NEA President Dennis] Van Roekel said.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107070003
 
MM is a bit like Pravda comrade.

But MM doesn't generate much content themselves, they act mostly as a fact-checker and provide references/citations for everyone of their reports. If the accusation is of lying and fabrications, they can be easily proved by referring to the original content.

And speaking of Pravda, this is from the President of Fox News.

0629_ailesdoc1.jpg
 
But MM doesn't generate much content themselves, they act mostly as a fact-checker and provide references/citations for everyone of their reports. If the accusation is of lying and fabrications, they can be easily proved by referring to the original content.

And speaking of Pravda, this is from the President of Fox News.

0629_ailesdoc1.jpg

Don't bother, they don't like hearing facts. Him and Will Worm are one in the same, you ask for examples or proof and they just keep on with the same talking points, just dodging the question.
 
I'm nothing like the guy in your internet tough guy pic...Wouldn't be surprised if that's you though.

In other words, you're saying, "I know you are but what am I?" :1orglaugh

Threatening someone over the internet is EXACTLY the point of the picture. And that's what you did. I don't think that's keeping with the rules either. So stop acting like a wannabe mod.

Re: 'Grumpy old man', meh...been called worse. But for the record if you're 28 that would make me considerably older than you (and obviously wiser) but I wouldn't be surprised at all if I looked like a better 28 yo than you.:2 cents:

Again, a lot of talk from a keyboard. You know nothing about me. I could tell you I was mistaken for a high schooler last year (which I was), but you wouldn't believe me anyway. So don't make arguments you can't back up, "wise" guy.

The old man remark was a reference to my first post when I stated that you make the same jokes/puns over and over. Want to be taken seriously? Stop repeating yourself. If you want people to think you're funny, get some new material.

Consider this, while I am older than 28 the likes of Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Haley Berry and quite a few others are older than me.

Have you seen Brad Pitt lately?! He is old. But that's neither here nor there. You are not Brad Pitt.

Faux followers

:facepalm: :horse:

The more you say it, the more I picture you with a grey fauxhawk.
 
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist


While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :pimpdaddy
 
That UCLA study is ancient, lol.
You can find lots of dissenting opinions about it too, if you do a cursory google search. ;)
 
That UCLA study is ancient, lol.
You can find lots of dissenting opinions about it too, if you do a cursory google search. ;)

I don't know if I'd call it ancient. The guy was on a show only the other day, and no Youtube vids were of that segment, so I chose the next best thing. It was a bipartisan study. That's all that matters.
 

Torre82

Moderator \ Jannie
Staff member
O'Reilly himself has said Fox is more "conservative." No one is denying that. The problem I have is with the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN and their pretty clear bias on the left. These organizations are the most upset about Fox's massive ratings the most.

Most intellectuals lean towards the left. That's just known. But somewhere along the line people find the left just about the same and then just disparage the whole system. It's always a lesser of two evils, unless you think "A vote for independent is a wasteed vote" is false. You cant please everyone, but you can get a few things done and not be a total waste of time. ALA Obama. He couldnt possibly bounce the economy back, but he did the healthcare thing, he balanced taxes a little bit.. blah blah, he did okay. He wont be a second term president by any means, I have no disillusions about such things, but eh.... whatever.
 

RichardNailder

Approved Content Owner
I have seen this bumper sticker around quite a lot recently:

"Fox: Bad news for America."

I know all news outlets have bias and lean one direction or another. However, anyone who thinks Fox news is balanced is just plain deluding themselves. Period.

Agreed - but you can say the same for all the rest. That's why I watch them all and make up my own mind - too bad most people, regardless of where they sit politically, don't do that.
 
Most intellectuals lean towards the left. That's just known. But somewhere along the line people find the left just about the same and then just disparage the whole system. It's always a lesser of two evils, unless you think "A vote for independent is a wasteed vote" is false. You cant please everyone, but you can get a few things done and not be a total waste of time. ALA Obama. He couldnt possibly bounce the economy back, but he did the healthcare thing, he balanced taxes a little bit.. blah blah, he did okay. He wont be a second term president by any means, I have no disillusions about such things, but eh.... whatever.

Where the hell have you been? Haven't seen you post in quite some time.
 
That UCLA study is ancient, lol.
You can find lots of dissenting opinions about it too, if you do a cursory google search. ;)

A baloney loaf IMO.
 
Actual_news_headline_gay-300x274.jpg
vs
Fox_nation_headline_gay-300x231.jpg



or

Michele_Bachmann_actual-300x169.jpg
vs
Michele_bachman_Fox-300x270.jpg



calling FOX a idealistic propaganda tool gives it way too much credit. They are just trolling and the latest GOP 'debate' in Iowa proved it. Its not that they want to promote some specific platform, they just want to whore themselves out for attention
 
Top