A couple things first: PLEASE DO NOT approach this from a "well actually CNN liberal/left-leaning news entertainment channels are similar and/or worse" because:
This Dominion case (First of all, good for them; it's the quintessentially modern American dream to become rich in the course of suing someone/something else) has led to the disclosure of the private communication of Fox New's leadership/talent. Frankly, I think this should happen regularly (to all media sources) so it can be abundantly obvious that these people are full of shit. But that's what I want to talk about. You guys know now beyond a reasonable doubt that Fox News is just another bull-shit source, right? Like, at least that much is clear?
I said this above but I don't think it can be emphasized enough: private texts are God's nectar in an evidentiary sense. Any private (or, at least, thought to be private at the time) communication is. There are LOTS of relevant texts/emails and I think the whole gamut is pretty fun to look through, but I'm going to isolate two to demonstrate that, while believing that Fox News is a free-thinking source of information with integrity and honesty as motives above force-feeding their audience a 24-7 cycle of whatever they need to say to make the most money has always been a moronic opinion (and, again because I'd love to avoid triggered responses, the same could be said about CNN), but it is DEMONSTRABLY moronic now.
Here are some things that happened in the real world (and I'm not going to spend my time citing and linking because this post has already taken far too long, but legitimate resources outlining the following is easy to find with almost no effort beyond a couple google searches):
And then, like, if you've been believing this dumb shit for this long, is there not a part of you that can lend credibility to the concept that you may have been duped in other areas, by other similar concepts? Like, if this were me, I'd be re-thinking my entire approach to my process of critical thinking (or lack thereof).
Or is it just better not to talk about it or look at it and tune in to Tucker tonight to see what the news is?
- Know your audience. Feel free to skip this whole next part but in case you want explanation/proof to be able to accept the previous statement, I have provided relevant details. I split my intake between both sides (NYT and WSJ; NYMag & NY Post; far-leaning sources like Vox & OAN are modern-day National Enquirer journalism from a quality/integrity standpoint and I suppose can be entertaining from time to time but anyone who is taking those sources regularly seriously has the critical-thinking prowess of a marshmallow). If I have to watch something (ie in the case of real-time events) I'll split between some CNN and some Fox News (for example, Fox News had a MUCH more rational take on Trump's indictment) and even when they are good I think it is dumb to give either of them too much credit because neither are free-thinking resources, they only report what they will thematically report according to their obvious bias; and
- This (ie that they are both biased and morally bankrupt entertainment tv channels aimed for revenue more than anything else) should be obvious.
- Private communication is a high-quality source of evidence; and
- Fox News is a conservative resource. This is relevant to both their own reporting as well as to their intended (and actual) audience; and
- "Fake News" was a primarily conservative phenomenon that was effectively stating that right-wing sources were "News" (ie fact-based, credible, honest, journalism, etc.) and left-wing sources were "Fake" (ie dishonest, intentionally disingenuous, not credible, etc.); and
- There have been many arguments made, and most importantly outside of those those where "Fake News" was the subject of the argument, over the past 5 years in substantiating the intent/theory adjacent to that saying; AND
- Last, but certainly not least important, there is a functional/foundational difference between proof/evidence that is belief-based and that which is fact-based (ie demonstrably happened in the real world, is not theoretical or home-cooked).
This Dominion case (First of all, good for them; it's the quintessentially modern American dream to become rich in the course of suing someone/something else) has led to the disclosure of the private communication of Fox New's leadership/talent. Frankly, I think this should happen regularly (to all media sources) so it can be abundantly obvious that these people are full of shit. But that's what I want to talk about. You guys know now beyond a reasonable doubt that Fox News is just another bull-shit source, right? Like, at least that much is clear?
I said this above but I don't think it can be emphasized enough: private texts are God's nectar in an evidentiary sense. Any private (or, at least, thought to be private at the time) communication is. There are LOTS of relevant texts/emails and I think the whole gamut is pretty fun to look through, but I'm going to isolate two to demonstrate that, while believing that Fox News is a free-thinking source of information with integrity and honesty as motives above force-feeding their audience a 24-7 cycle of whatever they need to say to make the most money has always been a moronic opinion (and, again because I'd love to avoid triggered responses, the same could be said about CNN), but it is DEMONSTRABLY moronic now.
Here are some things that happened in the real world (and I'm not going to spend my time citing and linking because this post has already taken far too long, but legitimate resources outlining the following is easy to find with almost no effort beyond a couple google searches):
- Rupert Murdoch asks in an email to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Jan. 21, 2021 if “maybe Sean [Hannity] and Laura [Ingraham] went too far” and if it was “unarguable that high profile Fox voices fed the story that the election was stolen and that January 6th an important chance to have the result overturned.” Scott then forwards the question to a set of other executives requesting them "please send specifics" of how that argument could be made. Six hours later, Irena Briganti, Fox's executive in charge of communications, responds with more than 15 pages of transcripts of examples substantiating the argument that they had. Following this communication, there is no discernible change in tone, content, etc. in the reporting of this story.
- Tucker Carlson texted a Fox News colleague the following on January 4, 2023: “I hate him passionately … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong... We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.” However, on April 11, 2023 (which for those of you keeping score at home if after the previous text) he interviews the former president, presenting him to his audience with the following premise: “For a man who is caricatured as an extremist, we think you’ll find what he has to say moderate, sensible and wise.”
And then, like, if you've been believing this dumb shit for this long, is there not a part of you that can lend credibility to the concept that you may have been duped in other areas, by other similar concepts? Like, if this were me, I'd be re-thinking my entire approach to my process of critical thinking (or lack thereof).
Or is it just better not to talk about it or look at it and tune in to Tucker tonight to see what the news is?
Last edited:
