Fox News - For Entertainment Purposes Only

Oh great. Another thread of memes.

Carry on!

Lurker, it isn’t just Fox News that spouts bullshit.

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?

Murdoch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?

Advertisers.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?

Advertisers.

And which advertisers are they? Why would they invest in such a shite TV media company?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?

Advertisers.

And which advertisers are they? Why would they invest in such a shite TV media company?

Well, shit TV of all kinds has proven to draw a large audience. And that's the goal.

People tend to underplay the fact that every media outlet that isn't funded by a government or a non-profit has as its goal attracting as many viewers or readers as it can get. The more people they can tell advertisers watch or read them, the more they can charge for advertising.

In the case of news media, exciting, simple lies, or distortions of the truth bring more people in than the boring old complicated truth. There's a clear money incentive to skew toward exciting half-truths and away from any story that is nuanced, or that takes longer to report, or more effort from the viewer to understand.

It's just like entertainment TV, really. You can get a far bigger audience showing ordinary people eating bugs, etc. than crafting an intricate story featuring characters you're not sure if you like or not. Most people choose brain candy over brain vegetables

Makes sense. Also makes me wonder why people would watch such trash TV news. People need to wake up.

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Faux News

The best "news" that 'Uncle' Rupert's money can buy  !

Who funds Fox news? Anyone know?
.

Their advertisers...

Like all commercial TV networks..

eddie wrote:Makes sense. Also makes me wonder why people would watch such trash TV news. People need to wake up.
.

Faux News's target audience are those dimwitted redneck right-wing extremists and braindead evangelicals who generally hate or despise the rest of the world, and believe that destroying the world is some kind of "God given" birthright...


Those people who prefer ligjtweight "reality" trash shows ahead of more quality programming are generally the dimwitted and lazy hoi polloi of society, more turned on by watching other peoples suffering, or seeing equally undeserving nongs winning large amounts with little effort, or being fed unrealistic notions of "love" and "romance" --  rather than watching shows where they might have to actually engage their brains..

TV networks like trashy "reality" programmes because they only cost a fraction of what quality dramas and documentaries would cost them.

Bet your a "hoot" at parties !

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Advertisers.

And which advertisers are they? Why would they invest in such a shite TV media company?

Because people watch it. Fox is usually #1 in terms of viewers in cable news.

nicko wrote:Bet your a "hoot" at parties !

What makes you think he gets invited?

These people are always quick to believe a lie over truth any day. They are easily controlled by right-wing bullshit.

'Wolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:Makes sense. Also makes me wonder why people would watch such trash TV news. People need to wake up.
.

Faux News's target audience are those dimwitted redneck right-wing extremists and braindead evangelicals who generally hate or despise the rest of the world, and believe that destroying the world is some kind of "God given" birthright...


Those people who prefer ligjtweight "reality" trash shows ahead of more quality programming are generally the dimwitted and lazy hoi polloi of society, more turned on by watching other peoples suffering, or seeing equally undeserving nongs winning large amounts with little effort, or being fed unrealistic notions of "love" and "romance" --  rather than watching shows where they might have to actually engage their brains..

TV networks like trashy "reality" programmes because they only cost a fraction of what quality dramas and documentaries would cost them.

The best networks offer a mix both "trash shows" (sic) and programmes that are more intellectually challenging on the not unreasonable grounds that they need to appeal to all in the commercial and competitive world of the mass media.

I like watching programmes on history, art, literature, philosophy, etc., etc., and I venture suggest that this would be your preference too.

I, however, am not so arrogant as to condemn those who would prefer East Enders and Coronation Street over a Bettany Hughes hosted programme on classical history.

Let's face it, Wolfie.....you are just an intellectual snob.

+1

nicko wrote:+1

Black Adder and Allo! Allo! were fuckin' awesome, though, old chap!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jasus, I really had the hots for "Bob" in the Black Adder series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


Faux News's target audience are those dimwitted redneck right-wing extremists and braindead evangelicals who generally hate or despise the rest of the world, and believe that destroying the world is some kind of "God given" birthright...


Those people who prefer ligjtweight "reality" trash shows ahead of more quality programming are generally the dimwitted and lazy hoi polloi of society, more turned on by watching other peoples suffering, or seeing equally undeserving nongs winning large amounts with little effort, or being fed unrealistic notions of "love" and "romance" --  rather than watching shows where they might have to actually engage their brains..

TV networks like trashy "reality" programmes because they only cost a fraction of what quality dramas and documentaries would cost them.

The best networks offer a mix both "trash shows" (sic) and programmes that are more intellectually challenging on the not unreasonable grounds that they need to appeal to all in the commercial and competitive world of the mass media.

I like watching programmes on history, art, literature, philosophy, etc., etc., and I venture suggest that this would be your preference too.

I, however, am not so arrogant as to condemn those who would prefer East Enders and Coronation Street over a Bettany Hughes hosted programme on classical history.

Let's face it, Wolfie.....you are just an intellectual snob.

I prefer the term "pedantic"...

"Fox News" is the perfect example of an 'Oxymoron'..

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/oxymoron


So, what's your excuse for not bothering with Faux News, Freddie  ?   Your inimitable good taste, no doubt ?

Fox was founded to provide what was billed as an alternative to the liberal bias of other news outlets at the time.

The only problem is, studies at the time showed that their competitors were normally quite fair, and even right-wing politicians at the time it was launched admitted that they generally only accused the media of liberal bias as a way to guilt reporters into writing nicer stories about them.

I don’t really take much of what any “big” media outlet says as “the truth”.

It depends upon who owns it, what is said and how biased they are.

I guess I’m alone in that.

eddie wrote:Lurker, it isn’t just Fox News that spouts bullshit.

Yeah, but Fox is the propaganda bureau for the Republican Party...

'Wolfie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The best networks offer a mix both "trash shows" (sic) and programmes that are more intellectually challenging on the not unreasonable grounds that they need to appeal to all in the commercial and competitive world of the mass media.

I like watching programmes on history, art, literature, philosophy, etc., etc., and I venture suggest that this would be your preference too.

I, however, am not so arrogant as to condemn those who would prefer East Enders and Coronation Street over a Bettany Hughes hosted programme on classical history.

Let's face it, Wolfie.....you are just an intellectual snob.

I prefer the term "pedantic"...

"Fox News" is the perfect example of an 'Oxymoron'..

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/oxymoron


So, what's your excuse for not bothering with Faux News, Freddie  ?   Your inimitable good taste, no doubt ?

Good God - have you been hibernating? I made that post on September 30th.

Thanks for so kindly telling me where I could find the meaning of the word oxymoron (no need for quotation marks and italics - it is hardly an obscure term) - I was probably using it before you could say the word "dada."

And in any case, I prefer the SOED...both volumes of which are in pride of place among the small library of English language reference books in my study.

"Faux news"? It's largely a creation of, and one of the downsides of, social media.

I don't watch Fox News very much, but if its coverage is slanted towards the Republican cause it has a perfect right to be...and viewers have a perfect right to choose whether or not to believe it and, more importantly, watch it. I suspect there are US - and possibly Australian - radio stations and TV channels that are equally supportive of the democrats and that you consider every utterance to be the truth. Many might, however, disagree with you.

Our own BBC is somewhat different in that it has a Royal Charter containing its various legal commitments as "the voice of the United Kingdom" and is paid for through a form of compulsory poll tax, failure to pay which can -and is - punishable by fine or even imprisonment. And that is why the issue is so politically contentious here.

And yes, I will (proudly) admit to having good taste. I'm also pretty well equipped for spotting "faux news", and like any good journalist know both when and how it should be checked before accepting its accuracy or otherwise.

Lurker wrote:

eddie wrote:Lurker, it isn’t just Fox News that spouts bullshit.

Yeah, but Fox is the propaganda bureau for the Republican Party...

Why not, so long as the channel makes its political allegiance clear?

No-one forces you to watch it.

^^ We used to have the Fairness Doctrine in the U.S., until Reagan did away with it. That stipulated that any network broadcasting news over the public's airwaves (and later its cables and satellite beams) had to give equal time to both sides.

"^^ We used to have the Fairness Doctrine in the U.S., until Reagan did away with it. That stipulated that any network broadcasting news over the public's airwaves (and later its cables and satellite beams) had to give equal time to both sides."

Yep, now it's the wild west of lies, propaganda and utter bullshit...

Wolf wrote:Faux News's target audience are those dimwitted redneck right-wing extremists and braindead evangelicals who generally hate or despise the rest of the world, and believe that destroying the world is some kind of "God given" birthright...


Those people who prefer ligjtweight "reality" trash shows ahead of more quality programming are generally the dimwitted and lazy hoi polloi of society, more turned on by watching other peoples suffering, or seeing equally undeserving nongs winning large amounts with little effort, or being fed unrealistic notions of "love" and "romance" -- rather than watching shows where they might have to actually engage their brains..

In a word...southerners.

Ben Reilly wrote:^^ We used to have the Fairness Doctrine in the U.S., until Reagan did away with it. That stipulated that any network broadcasting news over the public's airwaves (and later its cables and satellite beams) had to give equal time to both sides.

That was in an established, two-party system.  There are no longer "both sides", but many, many sides.

Fox caters to what was once known as the kook-world. It has now become normalized, and resides within the Republican Party.

Lurker wrote:

I am curious about why RW media prefers blond floosies, instead of responsible reporters.  There is something about the RW--interested only in wealth--and hiring only bedroom buddies, with big boobs and hemlines above their thighs.

With all of the peroxide that has been through those faux blonde bimbos' hair...

Imagine what their hair might be like in another 20 or 30 years..