Do you still trust Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham

[Luckyforward]

[gregintenn]

To be honest, I’ll watch Fox Business Network sometimes. I don’t put money on anything they say either.

[NoBanStan]

I find myself reading all news networks. There isn't "one you can trust", even with local news. The spin is always there so if it's a topic i feel heavily about, i read as many places as i can to decide.

Now, that's far and few between because i find that my life and happiness improve SIGNIFICANTLY by not turning on the news at all.

[Links2k]

I’m feeling this.
“Republicans lie and democrats leave out key pieces of the truth that would make for a more nuanced discussion.”

-Chris Rock

 

[hipower]

8 hours ago, NoBanStan said:

I find myself reading all news networks. There isn't "one you can trust", even with local news. The spin is always there so if it's a topic i feel heavily about, i read as many places as i can to decide.

Now, that's far and few between because i find that my life and happiness improve SIGNIFICANTLY by not turning on the news at all.

Yep! A little local news and weather. That's about the safest.

[Links2k]

Here’s a little foreshadowing from Tucker concerning protecting the powerful. https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-i-lie-if-im-really-cornered-or-something-i-lie
 

As another commenter stated, “It’s almost as if Tucker was predicting his future.”

 

“I hate him passionately!” - Tucker Carlson text concerning a private Florida citizen in the Dominion defamation lawsuit

 

 

[Darrell]

I miss David Brinkley. I watched him "News Hour" for years and years before I finally discovered that he was a conservative.

CNN and MSNBC don't even try to hide that they're shilling for the left. Fox shills for the right.  I try to read a wide variety of news sources, (though I just can't get through an MSNBC article) but I still have trouble sorting out what's true and not. It's rare these days to read a hard news piece that doesn't have some opinion tossed into it. "Reporters" or more accurately, producers, cherry pick the statistics and quotes that they use to advance their narratives. "Gotcha" politics prevails, and when a politician can't give his honest opinion for fear of having it twisted to fit an opposing agenda then we know that the media doesn't serve us at all.

I spent 24 years as a volunteer firefighter and I never read a story that had all the facts straight on any of the incidents I attended. And that was a small, local news outlet covering local events. I can't imagine how a huge organization based in New York can hope to get it right about anything at all.

[GlockSpock]

9 minutes ago, Darrell said:

I miss David Brinkley. I watched him "News Hour" for years and years before I finally discovered that he was a conservative.

CNN and MSNBC don't even try to hide that they're shilling for the left. Fox shills for the right.  I try to read a wide variety of news sources, (though I just can't get through an MSNBC article) but I still have trouble sorting out what's true and not. It's rare these days to read a hard news piece that doesn't have some opinion tossed into it. "Reporters" or more accurately, producers, cherry pick the statistics and quotes that they use to advance their narratives. "Gotcha" politics prevails, and when a politician can't give his honest opinion for fear of having it twisted to fit an opposing agenda then we know that the media doesn't serve us at all.

I spent 24 years as a volunteer firefighter and I never read a story that had all the facts straight on any of the incidents I attended. And that was a small, local news outlet covering local events. I can't imagine how a huge organization based in New York can hope to get it right about anything at all.

But to what extent do CNN, MSNBC, and Fox truly only shill for themselves? Their main goal is to get you outraged about something, which in turn means you come back for more, same bat time, same bat channel. It's not about red vs blue but rather green, green, green baby.

[aknifemaker]

Was watching Johnny Carson the other he had Walter Cronkite on as a guest he was a good news man also. Loved his timex comercials. Even the local paper is not so local any more most of the stories are AP wire news feeds.

Really don't watch much network news, makes my head want to explode, mostly read news

[7thinning]

How great would it be to have someone like Walter Cronkite on any news network.  Tell us the facts and let us make up our own minds.  Unfortunately don't know that we will be able to see that again.  (I did participate in the poll!)

[DL126]

Smith Mundt Act of 1948

NDAA 2013

[Links2k]

 

[LSMurphy]

We cut the cable 12 years ago. 

If you watch or listen to any MSN you are not only uninformed you are misinformed. 

 

and I'm a news junky. 

 

Boobtube is not tolerated in my home. 

[Links2k]

I watch Fox News just to see how they distract from what’s going on behind the scenes.  Fox may not lose the trial, but they’ve been put on notice to stop the shenanigans. $1.6 billion before punitive damages will hurt. 
 

Dominion’s historic defamation case against Fox News will go to trial, judge rules, in major decision dismantling key Fox defenses

By Marshall Cohen and Oliver Darcy, CNN

Updated 7:16 PM EDT, Fri March 31, 2023

ew YorkCNN — 

Dominion Voting Systems’ historic defamation case against Fox News will proceed to a high-stakes jury trial in mid-April, a Delaware judge ruled Friday, in a major decision that dismantled several of the right-wing network’s key defenses. 

The judge’s decision is a painful setback for Fox News and sets the stage for an agonizing, weekslong trial, where the network’s highest-ranking executives and most prominent hosts could be called to the stand to testify about the 2020 election lies that were promoted on its air.

Both sides had asked Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis for a pretrial ruling in their favor, declaring them the winner. After thousands of pages of filings and exhibits, and a series of courtroom clashes, Davis decided the case should go to trial. But one question jurors won’t need to weigh, he concluded, was whether Fox’s claims about Dominion were true or false.

Ad Feedback

“The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote.

Unless there is an out-of-court settlement — which is always possible — Davis’ ruling means jurors will need to decide whether Fox News defamed Dominion by repeatedly promoting false claims that the voting technology company rigged the 2020 presidential election by flipping millions of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Dominion wants $1.6 billion in damages.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin on April 13 in Wilmington, Delaware.

Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation, deny all wrongdoing. They’ve argued that their conspiracy theory-filled broadcasts after the 2020 election were protected by the First Amendment, because their on-air reporters were merely reporting on “newsworthy allegations.”

“This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news,” a Fox spokesperson said in a statement after the ruling. “Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings.”

Judge blocks key Fox defenses

In his 130-page ruling, Davis dismantled several of Fox News’ potential trial defenses, dealing a significant blow to the network. On the whole, these findings from Davis take away several key arguments that Fox could’ve presented to the jury, making it harder for them to prevail at trial.

Davis ruled that Fox News can’t invoke the “neutral report privilege,” which protects journalists who neutrally pass along newsworthy allegations in an unbiased fashion. Dominion had argued that Fox News hosts essentially took a side while covering the fallout of the 2020 election, by throwing their weight behind the false idea that the results were illegitimate, and Dominion was to blame.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Links2k

[DWARREN123]

I do not trust lawyers, politicians, news folks or much of anything else!

[Links2k]

3 minutes ago, DWARREN123 said:

I do not trust lawyers, politicians, news folks or much of anything else!

Wise man!  Fox just got caught.  If dirt becomes available on other networks intentionally misleading their viewers and causing harm in the public interest, hopefully they’ll also be held accountable. 

[TGO David]

I stopped watching the news, with rare exceptions for major events, nearly 20 years ago.  I'm still an angry individual, but at least I'm angry about things of my own accord now.   

[Grayfox54]

Since the invention of the printing press, journalists quickly learned that its not so much what you say as how you say it. Its easy to manipulate the facts to whatever end you desire without telling a lie. 

[Links2k]

8 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

Since the invention of the printing press, journalists quickly learned that its not so much what you say as how you say it. Its easy to manipulate the facts to whatever end you desire without telling a lie. 

True, but the issue currently going to trial is about a network and its stars knowing and willingly lying while defaming a company. 

[TGO David]

11 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

Since the invention of the printing press, journalists quickly learned that its not so much what you say as how you say it. Its easy to manipulate the facts to whatever end you desire without telling a lie. 

"Juicy headlines, lads.  Juicy headlines!  This printing press isn't going to pay for itself, you know."  --Benjamin Franklin, probably.

[BigK]

I assume anything on TV or the Internet is to some degree fiction nowadays. 

[analog_kidd]

We used to be diehard Fox news consumers. We left Comcast and went with a couple different streaming providers, and the ONE deal breaker was they had to have Fox. We got tired of paying for the streamers too, but couldn't quit them because there was no other way to get Fox. Sadly, that was the ONE and ONLY reason we wouldn't cut them.

Then they just started going off the deep end. Every prime time talking head repeated the same exact stories and events as the one that came on before them. It was mind numbing. Then Hannity, with his drama queen delivery got to be too much, so we stopped watching him. Tucker just seemed to be off the rails, so we stopped watching him. More and more we just stopped watching it.

Now-a-days, if I need to see wall to wall reporting on something of a national scale, I'll watch NewsMax. They have a free app and you don't need a carrier to log into it, like Fox does. All the contributors that left Fox, or got fired, are all working for NewsMax. But NewsMax is also very unappologetically slanted to the right. 

The good thing is, we pretty much stopped watching Fox alltogether, which allowed us to just cut cable and all the streamers. I put up an antenna. I bought an HDHomerun tuner device and connected it to my Plex server, so now I have full DVR capability of anything I can pull in over the air. Our evenings consist of watching some local news, and the wife has to watch wheel of fortune. Our TV is free now, and we are saving a ton of money on subscriptions.

Oh, and life without constant news running in the background is SO MUCH BETTER.

[Links2k]

1 hour ago, BigK said:

I assume anything on TV or the Internet is to some degree fiction nowadays. 

Maybe to some degree, but the benefit of doubt is given when a grand jury determines defamation or a crime may have been committed.

[btq96r]

Two centuries later, we're still spinning around in circles it seems.

Quote

During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation.

Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address

March 4, 1805

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by btq96r

[Hozzie]

4 hours ago, Links2k said:

Maybe to some degree, but the benefit of doubt is given when a grand jury determines defamation or a crime may have been committed.

When that grand jury is from New York City I am not sure this benefit of the doubt applies.  Had it been in a conservative area, maybe, but I suspect it's also very reasonable to expect a NYC grand jury to be just as anti Trump as the DA.