WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote: The Mexican drug cartels have no nuclear capabilities either, so that makes Mexico a safer place.

Neither did Omar Mateen. He had no nuclear capability.

So, how did the drug cartels or Omar Mateen get in a discussion of international diplomatic policy?

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I prefer his type of diplomacy to that of sending billions of dollars in cash to a rogue regime in return for nothing. .

In the case of Iran, nothing was the goal. As in, the Iranians would do nothing to further their nuclear capabilities, and that worked out rather well until Trump stepped in.

The Mexican drug cartels have no nuclear capabilities either, so that makes Mexico a safer place.

Neither did Omar Mateen. He had no nuclear capability.

So I guess we can all sleep well now.

Goodnight.

Trump is making changes in American foreign policy.

Instead of sending billions to foreign countries so they won't nuke us, now foreign countries send millions to Trump companies so he can help them.

Got it.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Why the hell aren't you the supreme leader of the universe by now since you claim to know everything about everything?

I am not the expert on these matters. I do, unlike many on the right, including the President, listen to what the actual experts do have to say about these matters. And the reason I mention Fox a lot is because the President seems to use them as a reference quite a lot (as do a lot of other right wingers).

Yes, and we all know that Fox news ONLY reports lies and damned lies. They get nothing right and are nothing but propaganda from the right. Their 'experts' are all actors, well paid to recite words written for them by the Koch Brothers. And it's our duty to trash the entire network, marginalize anything they report on that doesn't agree with our view of things, and try and make sure anyone who does watch them is branded as a dumb 'trump lover'.

C'mon, get real. I'm not going to go with that shit anymore. Fox news is as valid a news organization as any that are out there. The difference is that they give weight to the conservative viewpoint, where most of the other news outlets view conservatives as the 'others'. And their opinion shows are headed by conservatives, not liberals. Name one MSM political talk or interview show hosted by someone who is not a liberal democrat. I can't think of any. So when you try to deflect with 'Faux' News, I will not go for it anymore. Get a real argument.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
In the case of Iran, nothing was the goal. As in, the Iranians would do nothing to further their nuclear capabilities, and that worked out rather well until Trump stepped in.

The Mexican drug cartels have no nuclear capabilities either, so that makes Mexico a safer place.

Neither did Omar Mateen. He had no nuclear capability.

So I guess we can all sleep well now.

Goodnight.

Trump is making changes in American foreign policy.

Instead of sending billions to foreign countries so they won't nuke us, now foreign countries send millions to Trump companies so he can help them.

Got it.

More sloganeering. No proof, but it sounds good. Got it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yes, and we all know that Fox news ONLY reports lies and damned lies. They get nothing right and are nothing but propaganda from the right. Their 'experts' are all actors, well paid to recite words written for them by the Koch Brothers. And it's our duty to trash the entire network, marginalize anything they report on that doesn't agree with our view of things, and try and make sure anyone who does watch them is branded as a dumb 'trump lover'.

I thought you had finally gotten it right.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yes, and we all know that Fox news ONLY reports lies and damned lies. They get nothing right and are nothing but propaganda from the right. Their 'experts' are all actors, well paid to recite words written for them by the Koch Brothers. And it's our duty to trash the entire network, marginalize anything they report on that doesn't agree with our view of things, and try and make sure anyone who does watch them is branded as a dumb 'trump lover'.

I thought you had finally gotten it right.

Housefly.

Moon is determined to keep the peace process alive.

Leaders of North and South Korea Hold Surprise Second Summit

If there is a Trump-Kim summit, expectations have been lowered. The best we can hope for is the start of diplomacy that will lead to, as Trump put it, North Korea joining the real world.

Don't want this thread to get lost. We might need it.

I can't believe I'm in this thread, but are we saying that Fox News is not part of the mainstream media?

What does "mainstream" mean, then?

Basic cable Nielsen ratings for 2017 (news channels bolded)

1. Fox News Channel 2.46M
2. ESPN 2.06M
3. MSNBC 1.66M
4. USA Network 1.62M
5. HGTV 1.51M
6. TBS 1.45M
7. Nickelodeon 1.36M
8. Discovery 1.32M
9. History 1.31M
10. TNT 1.28M
11. Hallmark Channel 1.22M
12. Investigation Discovery 1.10M
13. CNN 1.07M

I thought "mainstream media" meant traditional things like TV, radio and newspapers, rather than internet sources.

Ritterskoop wrote:I can't believe I'm in this thread, but are we saying that Fox News is not part of the mainstream media?

What does "mainstream" mean, then?

Basic cable Nielsen ratings for 2017 (news channels bolded)

1. Fox News Channel 2.46M
2. ESPN 2.06M
3. MSNBC 1.66M
4. USA Network 1.62M
5. HGTV 1.51M
6. TBS 1.45M
7. Nickelodeon 1.36M
8. Discovery 1.32M
9. History 1.31M
10. TNT 1.28M
11. Hallmark Channel 1.22M
12. Investigation Discovery 1.10M
13. CNN 1.07M

I think it should mean some fidelity to journalistic standards like accuracy. Fox News flunks that test far too often -- the most recent example I can easily think of is using a picture of Philadelphia Eagles praying to illustrate players kneeling during the national anthem to make a political point, when in fact none of the Eagles' players actually did so. That's probably why a survey a while ago discovered that people who watch Fox News are less well informed about the world than are people who watch no news at all.

Shepard Smith seems to care about accuracy. Not so sure about the rest of the Fox News cast. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:Don't want this thread to get lost. We might need it.

Whatever comes from this meeting, it's certainly historic. And if it's successful, the left can be sure Trump will continue to provide sound bites they can clutch their pearls over, and failing that, they can overcome their disappointment over a successful Singapore meeting by joining Bill Maher in hoping for a recession!

Bob78164 wrote: Shepard Smith seems to care about accuracy. Not so sure about the rest of the Fox News cast. --Bob

Dan Rather? fail
Brian Williams? fail

All networks have their embarrassments.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Shepard Smith seems to care about accuracy. Not so sure about the rest of the Fox News cast. --Bob

Dan Rather? fail
Brian Williams? fail

All networks have their embarrassments.

False equivalence. All networks make mistakes. CBS and NBC demonstrably care about their mistakes. Can't think of any cast members at Fox News who have paid a professional price there for spouting the party line. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Shepard Smith seems to care about accuracy. Not so sure about the rest of the Fox News cast. --Bob

Dan Rather? fail
Brian Williams? fail

All networks have their embarrassments.

False equivalence. All networks make mistakes. CBS and NBC demonstrably care about their mistakes. Can't think of any cast members at Fox News who have paid a professional price there for spouting the party line. --Bob

You are hilarious. Truly.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Dan Rather? fail
Brian Williams? fail

All networks have their embarrassments.

False equivalence. All networks make mistakes. CBS and NBC demonstrably care about their mistakes. Can't think of any cast members at Fox News who have paid a professional price there for spouting the party line. --Bob

You are hilarious. Truly.

There's a difference between "spouting the party line" and "making shit up". I will acknowledge that.

BackInTex wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:False equivalence. All networks make mistakes. CBS and NBC demonstrably care about their mistakes. Can't think of any cast members at Fox News who have paid a professional price there for spouting the party line. --Bob

You are hilarious. Truly.

There's a difference between "spouting the party line" and "making shit up". I will acknowledge that.

And Fox News makes shit up, but as long as its consistent with the party line, none of its cast members pay a price for doing so. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
You are hilarious. Truly.

There's a difference between "spouting the party line" and "making shit up". I will acknowledge that.

And Fox News makes shit up, but as long as its consistent with the party line, none of its cast members pay a price for doing so. --Bob

They spin stuff (like others do) but they don't make it up. You on the other hand....

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
There's a difference between "spouting the party line" and "making shit up". I will acknowledge that.

And Fox News makes shit up, but as long as its consistent with the party line, none of its cast members pay a price for doing so. --Bob

They spin stuff (like others do) but they don't make it up. You on the other hand....

You mean like your claim (in the other thread, which I refuted with a link) that Donny's 41% approval rating is higher than President Obama's at this point in his term, when in fact President Obama's approval rating was nearly 6% higher than Donny's is?

The Eagles stuff was flat-out made up. And so is a lot of their other stuff. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And Fox News makes shit up, but as long as its consistent with the party line, none of its cast members pay a price for doing so. --Bob

They spin stuff (like others do) but they don't make it up. You on the other hand....

You mean like your claim (in the other thread, which I refuted with a link) that Donny's 41% approval rating is higher than President Obama's at this point in his term, when in fact President Obama's approval rating was nearly 6% higher than Donny's is?

The Eagles stuff was flat-out made up. And so is a lot of their other stuff. --Bob

Only a complete dumbass would think they don't ALL make crap up to fit the party narrative.

Bob78164 wrote:You mean like your claim (in the other thread, which I refuted with a link) that Donny's 41% approval rating is higher than President Obama's at this point in his term, when in fact President Obama's approval rating was nearly 6% higher than Donny's is?

No, I mean Trumps 47% beat Barry's 46% in a better poll.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You mean like your claim (in the other thread, which I refuted with a link) that Donny's 41% approval rating is higher than President Obama's at this point in his term, when in fact President Obama's approval rating was nearly 6% higher than Donny's is?

No, I mean Trumps 47% beat Barry's 46% in a better poll.

That's funny. You've gotten pissed at me in the past for pointing out that you referred to President Obama disrespectfully, which much less cause than I have for my disrespect for Donny. --Bob

Flock said this earlier in the thread

"Name one MSM political talk or interview show hosted by someone who is not a liberal democrat. I can't think of any."

is what I was asking about the mainstream media definition. All it turned into is name-calling.

So, for reals, why is Fox News Channel not part of the mainstream media by any definition?

Thanks for helping me understand and not calling me names.

Ritterskoop wrote:Flock said this earlier in the thread

"Name one MSM political talk or interview show hosted by someone who is not a liberal democrat. I can't think of any."

is what I was asking about the mainstream media definition. All it turned into is name-calling.

So, for reals, why is Fox News Channel not part of the mainstream media by any definition?

Thanks for helping me understand and not calling me names.

In my view, with too-rare exceptions, they don't adequately adhere to journalistic standards of accuracy. It's not so much their rate of inaccuracy (although I think it's unacceptably high) as that I've seen little or no evidence that they care about accuracy at a corporate level. That, to me, is disqualifying. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:they don't adequately adhere to journalistic standards of accuracy.

Here's one case where they got it right: