Michael, Generally speaking, I imagine these people’s perspectives, at least to some degree, would be less foolish and more reasoned were it not for media that continue poisoning the conversation by peddling outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Though I don’t have a ready solution to offer, the situation clearly demands one.
Michael, Generally speaking, I imagine these people’s perspectives, at least to some degree, would be less foolish and more reasoned were it not for media that continue poisoning the conversation by peddling outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Though I don’t have a ready solution to offer, the situation clearly demands one.
Lynn, Another possibility is to work with our providers to remove Fox from our respective packages. Though I imagine the initial response would be something to the effect “that can’t be done,” I’ve been advised, were I to persist, I could get it done.
I tried in Vermont, twice contacting the CEO of GMA Video. He said, of course, that he couldn't remove fox from the bundle because "people want it". I asked him if he really wanted to be giving people disinformation and lies, thus undermining our democracy. Asked him to think of his children. I canceled the package but least I got my protest to him and I did get replies. Maybe Vermonters here could also try, and others nationwide? If enough of us do it, we will show that "people don't want it"!
It is not only the most popular "news" show by all entertainment polling ratings, it is the dominant TV "news" channel on military bases. No wonder the top brass is trying to ascertain the degree of, and eliminate, the large amount of white supremacy among the troops. Sad that their "military intelligence" has not correlated the amount of Fox "News" viewing to the extent of it.
The lack of critical thinking skills throughout most of our population reflects rather badly on our educational system. We are well into another generation (each 25 years or so) of Fox's Food for Fools accompanied by increasing civic irresponsibility.
It is kind of a circular argument. Weaken schools, then blame them for not teaching skills that will increase civic responsibility and critical thinking. It’s going on now, out in the open.
Sally, I imagine you have earned the utmost respect of every subscriber, including yours truly. That said, my understanding is that people are pressing their carriers, with some success, to drop Fox from their individual subscriptions. The thinking is that if enough of us succeed, Fox, over time, will take a substantial financial hit. Of course, if the carrier denies our requests, I imagine the majority will cancel their subscriptions. For now, I think my husband and I will follow your lead and see what we can accomplish by joining up with like-minded folks in our community.
So, I only have wifi on Xfinity now. I am also a Vermonter. For me, the TV spectrum not only included Fox, but also the dearth of meaningful content in their "packages." Now, I am streaming via Apple +. It works for me!
Just get off cable -- then you can tell them to take their "bundle" and...store it in a most unlikely place, far away from you. Of course, you need strong internet access, but now I watch what I want, when I want. The only "ointment fly" I've discovered is that we had to subscribe to YoutubeTV in order to get sports, but Fox is easy to avoid on that platform.
We "cut the cable" years ago, rely on over the air access to local stations, and subscribe to a select number of streaming services PLUS, of course HCR's newsletters.
Never experienced cable except at motels. Our public library offers a couple of streaming services and we get movies on those round plastic thingys, all free with an additional property tax ($50 per year) we voted for. Antenna on our house is one of only few in our entire neighborhood. Seems to dissuade burglars, too. Pardon the self-righteousness.
I cut the cable and switched to You Tube TV where you can select the programs you want to get, “fox news” is not on my list, btw I saved between 50-80 $ a month
Barbara, I sure like knowing you could be able to "Get It Done".. Go Girl. However, as I posted earlier, rather than focusing on the removal of faux, tho done very quietly under the table should be part of it. My thinking is that the effort should be focused on overshadowing their looney toon repub-DUB platform. Making them lost baggage would only be part of slight-entertainment 'this New site' would offer. Because we know 'the faux' will switch every which-way to make ""Us"" to look like we are the fools and libtards trying to undo the country. There is SO MUCH material out there..waiting for The New..tadaa..."Entertainment Today". Again, the "Key" being to not acknowledge their existence. Their guests..? Hahahaa..., those mealy-mouthed POS's.., plenty to "entertain the nation, by "calling out" utter stupidity (U name it).... I call that 'front paging their miserable un-Americn ass. Treat that program (faux) as a non-entity, silence by not addressing that site would drive them ballistic, along with Hannity, Jones, Gewlianni, jerks all.
MadRussian 12A, Though I read your reply with great interest, having devoted a good part of my life to media reform, I mainly care that news media be guided by democratic principles of fairness and accuracy, that it provides open, vibrant, and diverse coverage, and that it fulfills its critical responsibility to expose deception and reveal the truth.
Good idea. Comcast provides Fox free without asking in its basic package. But MSNBC and CNN and other less entertaining news stations cost extra. We pay.
Fox News is openly beyond free speech. Seditious heresy against this nation especially since we have another “undeclared” war on our hands now. I don’t think there is any question that we are for practical purposes at war! We may not be able to hide in the hedgerows until Ukraine bleeds out.
I stopped calling it Fox News years ago, except for Chris Wallace's Sunday program. I call it Fox TV, for that division has been 80% pure propaganda in the classic model set forth by Goebbels since 2007 (apologies to Chris Wallace, Shep Shephard, and Bret Baier). But I do admire the person who coined the term "Faux News."
The 'key' to me is, develop a un-suppressed site that caters to the real facts...like the Guardian does in print, but structured to "entertain" our kind of audience. Give us the "facts" and entertain us with the clear stupidity of repub-DUBS. Call THEM out. Make ZERO ref to faux. Make faux a non-entity. WE DO have million & billion - airs with the wherewithal to do this! Do we have freedom of speech here.., or don't we? Will someone please step up.
Two thou 17 is too long ago. Admire you for noting it. I truly believe that levity is an essential element. Making fun of the repub-DUBs stupidity is the best way to "laugh" together, while being subtle allows a decibel of truth to permeate the thickest of skulls.
I think this is a great strategy. It reinforces their non-legitimacy as a source of hard news, with the benefit of having a court ruling affirm it for anyone
That "ready solution" was available until Reagan took a sledge hammer to fair and honest reporting. Then, the doors were opened wide for the Murdoch sewerage.
Vince, First, an apology for not responding sooner. That said, in my view, though your remark is not entirely inaccurate, it neglects to explain the deregulation pressures that began during the Reagan era and that opened the door to the faux news of Rupert Murdock’s empire. My understanding is that said pressures emerged from a vociferous and relentless right wing campaign buoyed by the Republican National Committee.
Thank you for this clarification. I was unaware of the underpinnings and machinations that set this deregulation in motion. We are the worse off because of it. That is especially true since the arrival of Donald Trump; and, now, a war in Europe. The disinformation being spread is most disturbing.
Vince, Here’s a quote from Thomas Jefferson I imagine you’ll appreciate: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Another Jefferson gem, admittedly before he became President: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Agreed wholeheartedly! The "free" world, such as it is, is the beneficiary of a free press. Yet, one must not idealize the press because often the press creates a problem where there is none (yellow newspapers). On the other hand, there is Putin and his state-controlled media -- print and broadcast.
Vince, Though I know I’m stating the obvious, stupidly I expect that people would want to seek out reporters who view their jobs as trying to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. To the contrary, I sense consumers largely are interested in reporting that validates their belief systems. Hardly a formula for salvaging democracy from the polarizing forces that threaten irreparably to weaken American civic institutions.
Barbara, I believe the larger problem is how "journalism" (tongue-in-cheek) today in certain quarters is more for entertainment and self-adulation. I do believe, or at least want to, that the majority of journalistic outlets -- print and broadcast/electronic -- are genuinely honest. Yet, the lack of integrity and the thirst for hype among the FOX types is disarming and disheartening. Reporters such as FOX's Peter Doocy reflect a somewhat degenerate and disingenuous form of reportage. The Doocy types remind me of the high school class clown who asks certain questions or posits certain theorems simply to get attention. It is contorted entertainment for all the world to see, and it is nauseating (and, for some, embarrassing). Those forces threatening our Republic have been striving to undermine and undercut our nation for decades. The zeal for a sordid sense of theater rather than for a solid sense of truth and fact has had and continues to have a corrosive effect on the "news”.
To me, the term "the media" is just a poorly aimed shotgun blast from the hip which misses the real target, ie "the Purveyors". Huh? Yes! To me and many others, "the media" refers to the reporter. I ask for some kind indulgence here, and entertain your well-founded criticism as good commentary. Unfortunately, the "reporter" is the face of the media. And "reporters" are most often the target...getting kicked, spit on, cameras busted, and "the Target" of our disdain for what appears on the nightly news. No? I vote YES. Yes yes.., call the reporter, trying to raise a family, pay bills, spineless for bowing to the constraints imposed. GMAB. Why? Easy, way way in the foggy background lies the purveyor, receiving payment in kind from advertisers and sponsors alike. The latter of course preferring to have their position purveyed. No? C'mon. The 'advertiser(s)' hahaha..meanwhile, are interested most in 'viewer hits'.., the result of the media (ughhh) reporters, faux, presenting crap whatever outlet/program gets plenty of "hits", which make advertisers very happy.... errr ahhh... and the PURVEYOR'(s) two olympic heated swimming pools warm and comfy up in the hills of Kat man Due (or, U-knam-it). So, may we quit blasting the "media" with 00-buck... and address these "purveyors". No? And why not "call them out"...do they have too much clout? H'mm. Spines or Slinky's? Do we have freedom of speech or don't we?
MadRussian12A, First, my apologies for the delayed response. That said, if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that commercially, profit-driven media enterprises can’t make the sort of money they do and still engage in public service and deliver in-depth investigative journalism. Though your point is valid, I take heart in the increasing number of public interest groups (Common Cause among the earliest) that relentlessly press for media coverage governed by democratic principles aimed at shaping the ability of citizens to think critically about important issues.
Barbara.., thank you very much for your response.It appears you rank among a higher echelon of people where 'ethics' prevail. And I recognize the changes you see. However (hahahha here's the good ole "however"..).., at the Big Rountable you have a seat along with a handful & a half of some "others". I would like to be one of them, or at least be offered a seat in the room. The focus of this group is to 'ensure' President Biden WINS the election. Some of the things decided upon might rub you raw, being "ethical". But right now we need to take hold of THIS situation like never before. Again, and I've said this before: "this ain't no puss game". With your altruistic thoughts, your input is invaluable, but I ask that you refer to my previous sentence.
MadRussian12A, I appreciate your reply and would add that because politics largely is perception I’m not beyond doing what’s necessary to achieve certain ends.
thank you for your understanding. There appears so much more Obama might have done. the demo's allowed that to muddle their thinking and lost. All the stuff KingDUB rode in on!! The DEM'S could have grabbed that material and yanked the mat right out from under the DUBS, but they failed to be clever enough to "front page" the shallowminded repubDUBs to show how they got in the way of progress. The good ole Dem's took the high road..., and paid dearly for doing so. This past election, Biden's ability to stand in the face of pure tyranny carried the day which the Dem's would have lost. This coming election, there is so much to to work with... if we are clever.
MadRussian12A, I agree with your last point, but with one caveat: the absence, presently, of any impactful federal legislation that would supersede state laws slated increasingly to restrict voting and to nullify votes.
Michael, Generally speaking, I imagine these people’s perspectives, at least to some degree, would be less foolish and more reasoned were it not for media that continue poisoning the conversation by peddling outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Though I don’t have a ready solution to offer, the situation clearly demands one.
Call out fox "news" as fox entertainment would be a good place to start. After all, that is their defense of peddling lies and propaganda.
Lynn, Another possibility is to work with our providers to remove Fox from our respective packages. Though I imagine the initial response would be something to the effect “that can’t be done,” I’ve been advised, were I to persist, I could get it done.
I tried in Vermont, twice contacting the CEO of GMA Video. He said, of course, that he couldn't remove fox from the bundle because "people want it". I asked him if he really wanted to be giving people disinformation and lies, thus undermining our democracy. Asked him to think of his children. I canceled the package but least I got my protest to him and I did get replies. Maybe Vermonters here could also try, and others nationwide? If enough of us do it, we will show that "people don't want it"!
It is not only the most popular "news" show by all entertainment polling ratings, it is the dominant TV "news" channel on military bases. No wonder the top brass is trying to ascertain the degree of, and eliminate, the large amount of white supremacy among the troops. Sad that their "military intelligence" has not correlated the amount of Fox "News" viewing to the extent of it.
FOX: So popular that it was/is often in medical and business waiting rooms. I ask to turn it off or do it myself. TFG’s damaging influence continues.
Scary!
Write your congressional representatives and senators about this travesty.
I have, no word yet.
The lack of critical thinking skills throughout most of our population reflects rather badly on our educational system. We are well into another generation (each 25 years or so) of Fox's Food for Fools accompanied by increasing civic irresponsibility.
It is kind of a circular argument. Weaken schools, then blame them for not teaching skills that will increase civic responsibility and critical thinking. It’s going on now, out in the open.
Sally, I imagine you have earned the utmost respect of every subscriber, including yours truly. That said, my understanding is that people are pressing their carriers, with some success, to drop Fox from their individual subscriptions. The thinking is that if enough of us succeed, Fox, over time, will take a substantial financial hit. Of course, if the carrier denies our requests, I imagine the majority will cancel their subscriptions. For now, I think my husband and I will follow your lead and see what we can accomplish by joining up with like-minded folks in our community.
So, I only have wifi on Xfinity now. I am also a Vermonter. For me, the TV spectrum not only included Fox, but also the dearth of meaningful content in their "packages." Now, I am streaming via Apple +. It works for me!
Just get off cable -- then you can tell them to take their "bundle" and...store it in a most unlikely place, far away from you. Of course, you need strong internet access, but now I watch what I want, when I want. The only "ointment fly" I've discovered is that we had to subscribe to YoutubeTV in order to get sports, but Fox is easy to avoid on that platform.
We "cut the cable" years ago, rely on over the air access to local stations, and subscribe to a select number of streaming services PLUS, of course HCR's newsletters.
Me too, cheaper
Never experienced cable except at motels. Our public library offers a couple of streaming services and we get movies on those round plastic thingys, all free with an additional property tax ($50 per year) we voted for. Antenna on our house is one of only few in our entire neighborhood. Seems to dissuade burglars, too. Pardon the self-righteousness.
Easy to avoid on Youtube TV but unfortunately it's still on their list.
We don't have strong internet access in rural Vermont.
Hopefully that will soon change
I have read of people getting that accomplished and I am going to do a little more research and ask them to remove News Max and OAN
I cut the cable and switched to You Tube TV where you can select the programs you want to get, “fox news” is not on my list, btw I saved between 50-80 $ a month
Barbara, I sure like knowing you could be able to "Get It Done".. Go Girl. However, as I posted earlier, rather than focusing on the removal of faux, tho done very quietly under the table should be part of it. My thinking is that the effort should be focused on overshadowing their looney toon repub-DUB platform. Making them lost baggage would only be part of slight-entertainment 'this New site' would offer. Because we know 'the faux' will switch every which-way to make ""Us"" to look like we are the fools and libtards trying to undo the country. There is SO MUCH material out there..waiting for The New..tadaa..."Entertainment Today". Again, the "Key" being to not acknowledge their existence. Their guests..? Hahahaa..., those mealy-mouthed POS's.., plenty to "entertain the nation, by "calling out" utter stupidity (U name it).... I call that 'front paging their miserable un-Americn ass. Treat that program (faux) as a non-entity, silence by not addressing that site would drive them ballistic, along with Hannity, Jones, Gewlianni, jerks all.
Well, I see it this way. Russian warship-Fox News….Go f*ck your self.
MadRussian 12A, Though I read your reply with great interest, having devoted a good part of my life to media reform, I mainly care that news media be guided by democratic principles of fairness and accuracy, that it provides open, vibrant, and diverse coverage, and that it fulfills its critical responsibility to expose deception and reveal the truth.
Good idea. Comcast provides Fox free without asking in its basic package. But MSNBC and CNN and other less entertaining news stations cost extra. We pay.
Fox News is openly beyond free speech. Seditious heresy against this nation especially since we have another “undeclared” war on our hands now. I don’t think there is any question that we are for practical purposes at war! We may not be able to hide in the hedgerows until Ukraine bleeds out.
Well said!
I stopped calling it Fox News years ago, except for Chris Wallace's Sunday program. I call it Fox TV, for that division has been 80% pure propaganda in the classic model set forth by Goebbels since 2007 (apologies to Chris Wallace, Shep Shephard, and Bret Baier). But I do admire the person who coined the term "Faux News."
I refer to it as POX.
He just showed up on CNN — hm-m-m-m
The 'key' to me is, develop a un-suppressed site that caters to the real facts...like the Guardian does in print, but structured to "entertain" our kind of audience. Give us the "facts" and entertain us with the clear stupidity of repub-DUBS. Call THEM out. Make ZERO ref to faux. Make faux a non-entity. WE DO have million & billion - airs with the wherewithal to do this! Do we have freedom of speech here.., or don't we? Will someone please step up.
Bloomberg, Dems are sorry they dissed you. We need you
Um-m-m — that’s been done and it has gradually been part of change.
From “The Week” in 2017:
“How a new generation of left-wing podcasters are dethroning Rush Limbaugh and right-wing talk radio”
Sorry, I was unable to copy the live link.
Could we call it something catchy like “Voice of the Free World”?
Two thou 17 is too long ago. Admire you for noting it. I truly believe that levity is an essential element. Making fun of the repub-DUBs stupidity is the best way to "laugh" together, while being subtle allows a decibel of truth to permeate the thickest of skulls.
I think this is a great strategy. It reinforces their non-legitimacy as a source of hard news, with the benefit of having a court ruling affirm it for anyone
who tries to push back.
That "ready solution" was available until Reagan took a sledge hammer to fair and honest reporting. Then, the doors were opened wide for the Murdoch sewerage.
Vince, First, an apology for not responding sooner. That said, in my view, though your remark is not entirely inaccurate, it neglects to explain the deregulation pressures that began during the Reagan era and that opened the door to the faux news of Rupert Murdock’s empire. My understanding is that said pressures emerged from a vociferous and relentless right wing campaign buoyed by the Republican National Committee.
Thank you for this clarification. I was unaware of the underpinnings and machinations that set this deregulation in motion. We are the worse off because of it. That is especially true since the arrival of Donald Trump; and, now, a war in Europe. The disinformation being spread is most disturbing.
Vince, Here’s a quote from Thomas Jefferson I imagine you’ll appreciate: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil. -- Plato.
Another Jefferson gem, admittedly before he became President: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Agreed wholeheartedly! The "free" world, such as it is, is the beneficiary of a free press. Yet, one must not idealize the press because often the press creates a problem where there is none (yellow newspapers). On the other hand, there is Putin and his state-controlled media -- print and broadcast.
Vince, Though I know I’m stating the obvious, stupidly I expect that people would want to seek out reporters who view their jobs as trying to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. To the contrary, I sense consumers largely are interested in reporting that validates their belief systems. Hardly a formula for salvaging democracy from the polarizing forces that threaten irreparably to weaken American civic institutions.
Barbara, I believe the larger problem is how "journalism" (tongue-in-cheek) today in certain quarters is more for entertainment and self-adulation. I do believe, or at least want to, that the majority of journalistic outlets -- print and broadcast/electronic -- are genuinely honest. Yet, the lack of integrity and the thirst for hype among the FOX types is disarming and disheartening. Reporters such as FOX's Peter Doocy reflect a somewhat degenerate and disingenuous form of reportage. The Doocy types remind me of the high school class clown who asks certain questions or posits certain theorems simply to get attention. It is contorted entertainment for all the world to see, and it is nauseating (and, for some, embarrassing). Those forces threatening our Republic have been striving to undermine and undercut our nation for decades. The zeal for a sordid sense of theater rather than for a solid sense of truth and fact has had and continues to have a corrosive effect on the "news”.
Good memory Vince - a benefit to those of us who didn't recognize the writings on the wall.
Thank you! I intuited Reagan as a shill for evil well before he became president.
as a Californian, so did I..
To me, the term "the media" is just a poorly aimed shotgun blast from the hip which misses the real target, ie "the Purveyors". Huh? Yes! To me and many others, "the media" refers to the reporter. I ask for some kind indulgence here, and entertain your well-founded criticism as good commentary. Unfortunately, the "reporter" is the face of the media. And "reporters" are most often the target...getting kicked, spit on, cameras busted, and "the Target" of our disdain for what appears on the nightly news. No? I vote YES. Yes yes.., call the reporter, trying to raise a family, pay bills, spineless for bowing to the constraints imposed. GMAB. Why? Easy, way way in the foggy background lies the purveyor, receiving payment in kind from advertisers and sponsors alike. The latter of course preferring to have their position purveyed. No? C'mon. The 'advertiser(s)' hahaha..meanwhile, are interested most in 'viewer hits'.., the result of the media (ughhh) reporters, faux, presenting crap whatever outlet/program gets plenty of "hits", which make advertisers very happy.... errr ahhh... and the PURVEYOR'(s) two olympic heated swimming pools warm and comfy up in the hills of Kat man Due (or, U-knam-it). So, may we quit blasting the "media" with 00-buck... and address these "purveyors". No? And why not "call them out"...do they have too much clout? H'mm. Spines or Slinky's? Do we have freedom of speech or don't we?
MadRussian12A, First, my apologies for the delayed response. That said, if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that commercially, profit-driven media enterprises can’t make the sort of money they do and still engage in public service and deliver in-depth investigative journalism. Though your point is valid, I take heart in the increasing number of public interest groups (Common Cause among the earliest) that relentlessly press for media coverage governed by democratic principles aimed at shaping the ability of citizens to think critically about important issues.
Barbara.., thank you very much for your response.It appears you rank among a higher echelon of people where 'ethics' prevail. And I recognize the changes you see. However (hahahha here's the good ole "however"..).., at the Big Rountable you have a seat along with a handful & a half of some "others". I would like to be one of them, or at least be offered a seat in the room. The focus of this group is to 'ensure' President Biden WINS the election. Some of the things decided upon might rub you raw, being "ethical". But right now we need to take hold of THIS situation like never before. Again, and I've said this before: "this ain't no puss game". With your altruistic thoughts, your input is invaluable, but I ask that you refer to my previous sentence.
MadRussian12A, I appreciate your reply and would add that because politics largely is perception I’m not beyond doing what’s necessary to achieve certain ends.
thank you for your understanding. There appears so much more Obama might have done. the demo's allowed that to muddle their thinking and lost. All the stuff KingDUB rode in on!! The DEM'S could have grabbed that material and yanked the mat right out from under the DUBS, but they failed to be clever enough to "front page" the shallowminded repubDUBs to show how they got in the way of progress. The good ole Dem's took the high road..., and paid dearly for doing so. This past election, Biden's ability to stand in the face of pure tyranny carried the day which the Dem's would have lost. This coming election, there is so much to to work with... if we are clever.
MadRussian12A, I agree with your last point, but with one caveat: the absence, presently, of any impactful federal legislation that would supersede state laws slated increasingly to restrict voting and to nullify votes.