• Fox News Is Brainwashing Viewers And Hurting The Republican Party

    Ploiticsusa has released this article which reinforces what I have said before (in the thread).

    New Study Finds That Fox News Is Brainwashing Viewers And Hurting The Republican Party

    A new study has found that Fox News is hurting the Republican Party by brainwashing millions of angry conservatives with misinformation.

    In a new study of the Fox News effect by Bruce Bartlett, research was collected that demonstrated the negative impact of Fox News on media and politics.

    Bartlett described what the founding of Fox News first meant to conservatives, and how it shifted into an act of self-brain washing, “Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant -and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth.”

    Mr. Bartlett documented Fox News’ extreme rightward shift after 9/11 and how the network went from tilting conservative to flat out misinformation and propaganda. The study also sums of years of research that points to Fox News viewers as being the least informed media consumers.

    The dominance of Fox News has led to some extremely negative consequences that are harming the Republican Party:

    Although this arrangement unquestionably aids Republicans in winning elections and votes in Congress, it is not without its downsides. One is that Fox now exercises such powerful control over the GOP that it has become the party’s kingmaker in presidential primaries.56 Indeed, during the 2012 election cycle, a number of aspirants for the Republican nomination had been paid Fox commentators, including Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. And woe to the Republican who runs afoul of Fox’s top brass or ignores their advice, as Mitt Romney did on one occasion in 2012. Fox is now so important in GOP primaries that candidates must put aside pressing campaign concerns when summoned to a Fox interview, where any error is magnified within the Republican bubble.


    Another problem is that Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting
    outside the narrow party base.

    Bartlett’s conclusion is that the same attributes that make Fox a strong cable network are harming the Republican Party.

    There is little doubt that the Republican Party is influenced by two interests. The corporations and conservative billionaires who fund their campaigns and Fox News. A Republican candidate can be made or broken by Fox News, but the network also pushes Republicans to an unelectable right-wing position in presidential elections.

    Viewers have been brainwashed by a combination of misinformation and constant confirmation of their own biases. Fox News doesn’t “report” reality. The result is that millions of Fox News Republicans expect their candidates to carry out what they see on television, which has led to a party of non-reality based voters supporting delusional candidates.

    The impact is felt on a broken legislative process where for one party there is no middle and opposing the President at all costs has become a path to political victory.

    The conclusion is unmistakable. Fox News has not only broken journalism. The conservative news network is also destroying the Republican Party.

    Category: PoliticsThe News


    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    • SmilodonsRetreat


      I remember when Romney lost, he was actually surprised. The Fox News polls had him ahead by huge margin. No one could believe that Fox could be so wrong.

    • Geoff Benson

      One of the forums I frequent is heavily American conservative and one of the other sources regularly to be quoted (they are all Fox obsessed, of course) is Infowars. That Alex Jones is a complete and utter nutcase.

    • D Rieder

      I would say that Fox news is merely showing the already existing problem with the Republican party. The problem is that so many of the members are knee jerk conservatives who have no other agenda than to be negative. We can easily see what they are against, but they don’t seem to be “for” anything except perhaps the right that anyone, no matter how troubled or incompetent, should be allowed to own and carry an uzi.

      That mindset seems to work well on the local level where whole communities or even states can unite behind such things as:

      “What? you’re not going to fly the confederate symbol of intolerance, hatred and slavery anymore?…I protest and here’s my own confederate flag to prove it!” I look around here and see all the yayhoos sporting confederate
      flags…sometimes several large ones from the back of their pickup or
      speed boat and just wag my head. THESE are Republicans and they

      “What? A woman wants to the right to decide what is happening in her body? I don’t really care that much about the fetus personally because I’m sure the hell not going to care for an unwanted baby, but I protest that she can makes decisions without my permission.”

      “What? Two male lovers want to get married? My Bible tells me that’s wrong for no apparent reason so I need to be consulted on that and my opinions need to be the law of the land.”

      But I predict that on the national level, it’ll have a negative effect on them ever running a winning presidential candidate.

      I see them as having no positive, proactive agenda, just knee jerk reactions to things they don’t like. THIS is why Fox News can be successful doing what they do. But, No! Fox News is not the problem. The Sheepublicans are the problem. Perhaps the party leaders can see that, but they are burdened by an unthinking fan club. Unless the voters can be brought out from under their respective rocks and shown the sun, they won’t learn a thing.

    • John Grove

      Fox news is really a cult and their followers are more devoted to it than most Jehovah’s Witnesses are to knocking on your door on a Saturday.

    • Jeff Pinner

      Anyone who spent 60 seconds reading fivethirtyeight.com in the last two weeks of the 2012 election could have predicted the outcome at dawn on election day, but that seems to be far too technical for either the Fixed Noise Network staff or their consumers.

      It’s funny, but every time one of my friends here about 25 miles from the buckle of the Bible belt (outside Akron, OH, home of so many of our friendly, local neighborhood televangelists) spouts off something so obviously sourced at Fox, I try to tell them about BBC and PBS news, the most unbiased reporting available on TV. They consider them both completely left wing. Not good when the folks who are truly in the middle are totally ignored by one side.

    • Otto Greif

      What “unelectable right-wing positions” did Fox News push Romney into?

    • Geoff_Roberts

      I believe Fox News is right-leaning just as the mainstream media news sources are left-leaning. I also believe it is important to get news from several different sources and points of view to be well-informed. If one only reads the NY Times and watches network news then he will be receiving biased coverage and reporting that is skewed to the left.

      The vitriol and hatred the left has for Fox seems to almost border on obsession. One reason why is the left had total dominance of the MSM for decades until Fox News came on the scene. In my opinion, the belief that “Fox New doesn’t report reality” is the result of being badly misinformed by the left-leaning media and biased studies. One should also separate commentary shows like Hannity and Kelly from more down-the-middle hard news shows like Brett Baier.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        The problem is that reality has a liberal bias.

        If Fox didn’t lie so much, then there would be no need to criticize.

        • Geoff_Roberts

          Please do explain how reality has a liberal bias!

          It’s very easy to claim those who have opposing views are liars. Fox news does not lie (certainly not more than other mainstream news sources) .The report cited has a clear bias. I’ve watched Fox news and other news sources (like MSNBC) and the news is vastly different. As I said, one should get their news from many different news sources.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Yes, ones that aren’t purposefully lying to you.

            Conservatives think austerity measures work. They don’t.
            Conservatives think that fewer taxes encourages growth. The opposite is true.
            Conservatives want more war and more nukes. We already have more military power than the next 10 highest ranked countries combined.
            Conservatives want to protect human rights, except for gays, Hispanics, African Americans, the poor, women, etc. Actual equality is a liberal trait… and one that is true.
            Conservatives want to encourage disruptive environmental practices and harmful energy and production practices. That doesn’t work.

            Liberals may not be the best at making rational decisions, but they much less often make decisions that are directly opposite of rational.

            As far as news, the most reliable source of news I’ve ever found is Comedy Central’s The Daily Show.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              That really says a lot that you believe The Daily Show is a reliable, unbiased news source. It is no wonder you have the beliefs you do about Fox News after listening to the esteemed journalist, John Stewart, mock Fox News over and over. It should be asked why Liberals like Stewart are so obsessed with trying to demonize a right-leaning news source. It seems many Liberals forget conservative values existed before the advent of Fox News.

              I’ll just respond to a couple of things as we will never agree on most subjects.

              You said, “equality is a Liberal trait.” It was the Republican party that fought to end slavery and led the way for the Civil Rights movement decades ago against the entrenched, racist, southern Democrats.

              Under Obama’s leadership, the plight of most urban Blacks have substantially worsened as that constituency is routinely ignored and, yet, almost universally continue to vote for Democrats. Obama and the Democrats use identity politics to try to divide and conquer under the guise of “equality.” The left needs a permanent underclass that is dependent on the government to maintain it’s power base.

              The country has never been so divided since the self-proclaimed “uniter” became president.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So you believe that the Republican party of 150 years ago is the same as today?

              Too delusional to talk to.

              You seem to be pk listening to lies as long as they say what you want to hear. Again too delusional to continue with.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Not just the Republican party of 150 years ago, but also the party that led the civil rights movement just a few decades ago. The way contemporary Democrats ignore and, yet, exploit the Black community for votes and power hardly resembles a real concern for “equality” in the Black community.

              Also, please explain how the Democratic policy of unfettered illegal immigration, which take many jobs, especially lower-skilled jobs, help legal citizens in minority communities get employment and improve the “equality” in these communities? Instead of pandering to minority communities, true Republicans want those who live on a substinence level and are dependent on the government to rise out of poverty. Unfortunately, it is enough for many Liberals to merely claim equality is on their side rather than be concerned with the actual consequences of their feel-good policies.

              It also always convenient (and a bit lazy) to claim opposing views to yours are delusional and full of lies.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Again, if you think all that is true, then there’s not much I can do to help you. But you might want to actually do what you preach.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Of course, I’m not needing to be “helped” by you. And your side might want to be more concerned with the actual outcomes of the policies you advocate.

            • And this is why the kkk and other white supremacist organizations and representatives are all Republican. That is why most racist violence is perpetrated by Republicans.

              It is why the man who attacked the mosque the other week said he only believes what he watches on Fox.

              This is why Fox news watchers are continually rated as least informed?

          • Actually, Reublicans do lie more often than Democrats, according to this study:


            And since FOX is made up of Republicans and Republican supporters, that study would be reflected in their work.

            The same rating is also applied to FOX News pundits here:


            where only 23% of claims are mostly true or true.

            Yes, that’s 23%.


          • If you want to see how FOX compare to others, they come out worst, with CNN being the most accurate:



            Evidence, not assertion.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              We’ve had this discussion before, Jonathan. A big problem in getting to the truth regarding how news is reported is there is a significant left-leaning bias in the mainstream news media. I have also stated there is a right-leaning bias on Fox. I believe to be truly informed one should monitor both liberal and conservative news sources.

              Fox News has taken huge amount of viewership away from the major networks which had a monopoly on the news for decades. Of course, the liberal media is not happy about that and go out of their way to attack Fox. Left-leaning “factcheckers” as you linked to are also biased. See this analysis of the report you cited from down-the-middle US News:


              Here is an excerpt from the article you cited:

              “Punditfact warns that these scorecards are based only on analysis of selected claims, not a statistically accurate survey: “We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly.”

              Hardly a rigorous “study” and subject to a lot opinion – not necessarily facts.

              Also, here is a Pew study which found Fox News less biased than MSNBC and close with CNN in terms of opinion vs. straight news:


            • That Forbes/Pew link is of a different category: that says that MSNBC carries far more opinion and commentary than straight news; not whether what they say is lies or not.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Perhaps, but it would be more difficult to “brainwash” viewers if a higher percentage of straight news vs. commentary is aired.

              Might I ask if you’ve personally watched Fox News on any kind of a substantive basis for your own analysis? Do you think it’s possible your sources of information coming from the mainstream media regarding Fox could be biased?

              I ask because I monitor several sources of news and I find it fascinating how differently various topics are reported on but also even what topics get reported on. What is considered a big story on Fox might receive little or no attention on the MSM news and vice-versa. I believe it’s a good example of how strongly biases affect even so-called “straight” news. If one network barely covers a story and another offers extensive coverage then you’ll receive much different “news” depending on which network you watch.

              For me, a red flag gets raised when so much effort is made to discredit a news source. Do you see a similar, vicious effort by conservative sources to discredit major network news which has been shown to have a liberal bias? It makes me more curious at what the actual truth is which is why I make the effort to make comparisons myself. While both sides in the political spectrum have blind spots in their ideology I wonder how less partisan liberals can’t see the organized agenda against Fox News? Do they think they are getting unbiased news from the major networks, the NY Times or John Stewart?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So, what you are saying is that when a lot of people try to discredit something, that thing is actually more likely to be correct?

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Of course I’m not saying that but it does make me more curious to find out the truth myself. I don’t want to just take one source of information as the “truth.” Instead, I will try to get information from various sources and make up my own mind. Wouldn’t you agree that is better than only receiving news from one side of the political spectrum – like John Stewart?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I guess it depends on how much time you have and how much of an expert you already are.

              Personally, I don’t have all day to do as I please. I have reviewed several things in great detail and found those that said things that were true and those that said things that were false. From now I am ignore the people who were caught saying false things over and over again.

              What you seem to be doing is saying that true things and false things should be given equal representation and that when one makes a decision based on some true things and some false things, it’s still a valid decision. I guess if you accept the false things, that’s true enough, but I don’t accept the false things.

              That’s one reason I didn’t finish a page by page review of Darwin’s Doubt. I caught the author in so many lies, so many misquotes and so much ignoring the evidence that ANYTHING that author says is automatically suspect. Same thing with news. If someone on Fox news says it, then I am much, much more likely to dismiss it than if someone on the Daily Show said it. Having researched many of these topics myself, Fox News is significantly more likely to say false things than the Daily Show.

              I will continue to act accordingly until Fox News cleans up their act.

              If you think that is a liberal bias, then I repeat my claim. Reality seems to have a liberal bias.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Please see my post written at the same time as yours regarding John Stewart and getting news from multiple sources. One more thing, Smilodon, do you think it’s possible some of the information you receive and trust could be biased?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Of course it’s possible. Which is why A) I don’t watch any network news show and B) why I research news that is important to me personally.

              I’m a SKEPTIC. However, there are presently no conditions under which I would use Fox news as a reliable source of anything.

              And again, you seem to think that all viewpoints should be equally represented. Do you agree that someone who claims that the germ theory of disease should be given equal airtime on a news program with a member of the CDC?

            • Geoff_Roberts

              You are already stated you get much of your news from John Stewart. He’s certainly one of the most biased people you could get your daily news from. There’s a great example of confirmation bias at work.

              I think one should research what are mainstream ideas and beliefs on either side of the political spectrum. I don’t think one needs to spend a lot of time understanding the fringe on either side, though, there are different interpretations of what is “fringe.”

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              For opinions on the other side of the political spectrum, I don’t watch the news. When I say “the majority” of my news from John Stewart, that means that is the only news show that I watch.

              If I want the political opinion of Republicans then I will go to the Republican Party Platform or the political opinion of the GOP leaders. Why would I need a “News” show to tell me that stuff?

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Are you familiar with Camille Paglia? She’s a prominent left-wing, syndicated cultural critic and gave an extensive interview with Salon. She gave a scorching review of John Stewart:

              “I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark. … I’m sorry, but Jon Stewart is not a major figure. He’s certainly a highly successful T.V. personality, but I think he has debased political discourse. I find nothing incisive in his work. As for his influence, if he helped produce the hackneyed polarization of moral liberals versus evil conservatives, then he’s partly at fault for the political stalemate in the United States.”

              She also said, “it is everyone’s obligation, whatever your political views, to look at both liberal and conservative news sources every single day. You need a full range of viewpoints to understand what is going on in the world.”

              I’m in total agreement with these statements of hers.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You know what I didn’t see in that statement of yours…

              that he lied about anything.

              If conservatives have problems with what he says… maybe they should stop saying stupid things.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Just as in another recent thread with Jonathan and another poster, you mix up opinions with facts. Of course, you believe your opinion is a fact and it’s the other guy’s opinion that is just opinion or even a lie. You don’t have an appreciation for the bias you have been personally receiving on a daily basis. You really should take the time to cut back on your constant dose of liberal news and listen to other sources. Try the Brett Baier report on Fox which is a more down-the-middle straight news show. No one will ever have to know!

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Sorry, I can form my own opinions thank you. I don’t need to have the determined for me.

              But I need to have true facts to determine them.

              As I said, if you are OK with basing your opinions on statements that are more likely to be lies… I guess that’s OK with you. But that highlights the biggest problem with the US. People believing that all opinions are somehow valid, even when based on lies.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Ok. I’ll lay out a softball to you. Please state some of the “lies” on Fox News. With so many lies they tell you should be able to list many from say this month (August). To avoid wasting time, please stick to facts and not opinions. Also, please understand the definition of a lie to be not only factually incorrect but with the intent to purposefully deceive. One more thing, please don’t quote from biased sources or biased fact checkers like Politifact.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So you want me to list something, you’ll just take my word for it.

              Sorry I can’t. I determined longer ago than August of this month that there were more lies on Fox than news. I don’t watch it.

              Again, and you don’t seem to be listening to me. I don’t watch them. I have no intention of watching. I get my facts from people I trust. I don’t trust Fox (or you for that matter).

              If that’s a problem for you, then you’re free to explore elsewhere.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              That’s fine. We don’t have to continue this discussion. I understand no minds will be changed here. However, you must trust John Stewart to get informed which you’re perfectly entitled to do. It’s just my opinion but I wouldn’t too much credence in getting facts from him – certainly not without getting views from some right-leaning sources as well. Finally, since the liberal mantra is “Fox lies” I thought you might have some recent examples to back-up your point. Perhaps you more comfortable taking John Stewart’s word for it. I’m not…

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You’ve been given the sources. I know you have… because you explicitly excluded them.

              So to you, a source that I have found to be very trustworthy is not to be included (because LIBERAL!!!!!) and a source that has been documented to say more than 50% lies is OK (presumably because conservative).

              Again, I’m perfectly capable of finding out facts and making my own opinion from them. I don’t need pundits who contribute nothing to society to do it for me.

              Your own source never said that Stewart led about anything, just that he was sarcastic. Considering some of the things the conservatives in power attempt, I’d say that was very restrained of him.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Again, if you make the charge that a news source is full of lies it seems to me you should be prepared to back it up. Jonathan’s Pundifact source admitted they pick and choose which claims to analyze and it is not a statistically accurate survey. Would that happen to be one of the sources that have convinced you that Fox repeatedly lies? ( other than John Stewart, of course).

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Geoff, I made a specific claim… Fox News lies. It doesn’t matter if things are statistically significant when compared to other news sources or not. That’s a red herring to try to get out of a situation.

              Statement of fact are either true or not true. Statements of opinions can either be based on true facts (hereafter called facts) or untrue facts (hereafter called lies… and no, intention to lie or not does not matter if a fact is demonstrably untrue).








              If this is the kind of crap you think is valid, then more power to you. But I’m not interested.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              The actual “crap” is the biased nature of the reporting you cited. Wonkette? Please. This is what passes for responsible commentary from the extreme left? I’m still going to respond to some of these claims but I only have so much time to debunk such biased, snarky claims.

              Here is the left-leaning Politifact reporting on the supposed Bill O’Reilly “lies” mentioned in the dailydot:

              The bottom line is Politifact said these O’Reilly statements were accurate but omitted context so it rated them as half-true. Wow. That’s really shocking. A biased fact-checking site said his statements were true but omitted context. Hardly a lie.
              To be cont…

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Out of more than 3 dozen examples you can debunk 1 as a “half-truth”.

              And you’re OK with that?


            • Geoff_Roberts

              More “crap” I’ll respond to is the esteemed ifyouonlynews site. “Lie” #1 on the site is regarding death panels.

              Here is an article from Forbes discussing the “death panels” and rationing issue with Obamacare:


              Here is an excerpt from the article:

              “The second pro-rationing piece was by Obama administration advisor Steve Rattner, “Beyond ObamaCare” (9/16/2012). Rattner stated up front, “We need death panels.”

              Here is another excerpt from the article:

              “One of the co-authors of this NEJM article, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, has already laid the intellectual groundwork for overt rationing in a 2009 Lancet article, “Principles For Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” Dr. Emanuel is a former White House health care advisor and the brother of Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff.

              Dr. Emanuel proposes rationing based on a combination of factors including patient age, expected “quality adjusted life years,” and the patient’s “instrumental value” to “society.” Given that the government would be making (and paying for) these rationing decisions, value to “society” will become “value as determined by the government.”
              So, actually rationing (and the end result of “rationing care” – death panels) are actually discussed within Obamacare. It is not a lie and we will continue to find out more about the full implantation of Obamacare in the future. All nationalized health plans like Obamacare will need to ration care at some point since there is virtually no other reasonable, effective mechanism to control costs in the plan.
              Again, this was not a lie that was discussed on Fox but is instead a lie by this irresponsible site.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Supposed lie #2 on ifyouonlynews is an easy one.

              Here is an article refuting the supposed lie said on Fox News:


              Here is an excerpt from the article:

              “According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, between 2006 and 2010 a total of 303 children under age 5 years old drown in just bathtubs (see page 8). If you include bathtubs used in conjunction with other products (infant bath seats placed in bathtubs), there is a total of 346 children under age 5 years old who drown. Since these deaths wouldn’t have occurred without a full-size bathtub, it seems as if they should also be included in the total.

              By contrast, over that same period, the Centers for Disease Control finds that there were 291 children under age 15 and 94 children under 5 who died from accidental gun shots. Unfortunately, the CPSC doesn’t break down deaths by age for those 5 and above.”
              So, according the US consumer product safety commission, more children (especially under five – just as you would expect) die from bathtub related deaths than from accidental gun deaths. Another Fox “lie” debunked.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              That’s really fascinating, because that’s not what the CDC reports actually say.

              Because the total number of firearm related deaths from 2006 to 2010 ages 1 to 16 is 4,183.

              Actually, you can get a report of any form of death or injury in any age range in any year.

              So it looks like you’ve bought into the lie and are using faulty sources to support your own biases.

              Sorry about that. I would encourage you to actually do the damned research yourself instead of trusting ANY news organization, especially one that lies to you.

              Although, i guess you’ll want to argue about “accidental”… but that’s a whatever. I’m sure that the families of those children will feel much better when they are told that their childrens’ deaths weren’t accidental.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              You’re right it is fascinating because you’re changing the parameters of the report to purposely inflate the gun deaths. The report I cited (nothing to do with Fox News I might add) had to do with children under 5 years of age and accidental deaths. You changed the parameters to include children up to 16 years of age AND then also included gun deaths of all kinds instead of just accidental. Gee, do you think that might change the numbers a little bit?

              Another disingenuous gem! I think we need to get a fact-checker for you!

              For the record, the numbers are just as I stated and what Tucker Carlson was referring to: 346 deaths due to bathtub related drownings and 94 due to accidental gun deaths. Do you understand comparing accidental bathtub drownings to accidental gun deaths? I’d say “nice try” but you didn’t even meet that low standard.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Supposed lie #3 is a bit more obtuse as it relates to a personal story that Ann Coulter talked about. I have a very good friend who had her insurance cancelled and the cheapest plan she could get on with Obamacare was $600 per month (double her previous premium), with a ridiculously high deductible, and her expensive medication was no longer covered.
              So, it is entirely possible if one lost their current, affordable insurance and couldn’t afford the higher priced, higher deductible, and some medications not covered anyway then it is feasible someone could die in the sudden transition of trying to find an affordable plan.
              Of course, the real lie here (in fact, the lie of the year) was Obama’s lie you could keep your current health plan.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You could keep your current health plan IF IT MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS UNDER ACA.

              But I guess you’re happy with a crappy healthcare plan that can dump you as soon as you file a claim.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              That is disingenuous. Obama never said anything about meeting minimum requirements while he was trying to sell his plan. Your favorite fact checker site even named his lie the “lie of the year.”


              This lie has nothing to do with plan quality and everything to do with purposefully misrepresenting his plan in order to sell it. It really takes a commuted ideologue such as yourself to not be able to admit this lie.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Supposed Fox lie #4 has to do with morning after pills. The hairsplitting here is absurd and it is not a lie. Steve Doocey referred to Hobby Lobby not wanting to cover “morning after” pills which would end lives. The actual pills referred to may not fit the actual medical definition of an abortion-inducing drug.
              Wow. Another false whopper claim here. This is what the left is reduced to? And you actually believe this kind of reporting? Do you ever follow-up and do your own research or do you just take these extremely biased sites as “gospel?”

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Supposed Fox lie #5. Another easy one to refute.
              This was a guest (Guiliani) that made a claim. Politifact couldn’t find the statistic that Guilani referred to. And that makes Guiliani’s statement a lie? Give me a break.

            • If it’s worth anything, this segment contained 7 lies in 100 secs:


              “Yesterday, I warned you about the conservative attempts to pervert—that’s a right-wing radio host’s wording, not mine—a recent conservative think-tank’s study in order to subvert Seattle’s increased minimum wage. (As a refresher, the study is based on bad data; it conflates Seattle’s population—roughly 650,000—with greater Seattle’s population—3.6 million—and it doesn’t take into account that the vast majority of those 3.6 million people don’t have an increased minimum wage.) I told you that the best way to fight this bullshit study is by exposing it to the truth; most arguments built on the study will crumble like a sand castle made out of kitty litter.

              Today, Invictus over at the Big Picture blog demonstrates how to call out bullshit when you see it by raking over the transcript of a 100-second Fox Business clip and singling out all the misinformation. There are seven total untruths in roughly 100 seconds, averaging an astounding one untruth per 14 seconds of video.”

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Hey, Jonathan. I’m trying to find the Big Picture blog and/or information to checkup on this. Do you have a link? The video was just a 5 min. Segment on Fox Business channel.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Just 7? I passed on one that was 50 in 6 seconds… just because I couldn’t scroll through all the images and verify them.

              Of course, he’s failed to debunk one lie and done 5… that honestly, I don’t have the time or interest to verify one way or another.

              But, what’s really telling is look at him scream.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Are you going to respond to my debunking of several of the “lies” you listed? You think I’m screaming? Hardly…

              I find it fascinating to see the typical charge liberals often make when they have an opposing view to a right-leaning policy they then claim that policy is either some form of hate (racist, homophobia, sexist, don’t care about the poor, etc.) or they dismiss it as a lie. Neither response is a productive one and merely ensures the conflict of ideas will continue.

              That’s why the “Fox lies” mantra is so juvenile and irresponsible. You allow a biased, often fringe source of information to spoon-feed you the information you already believe. No need to check up on it, right? You do the very thing you accuse Fox viewers of doing. BTW, I’m not beholden to Fox and they make mistakes, too. I just get tired of liberals not truly engaging in policy debates because Republicans are “haters” and “lie.”

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Your interpretations of a few points does not invalidate the central claim.

              You are nothing more than a Fox News apologist, despite what you claim to do.

              “I just get tired of liberals not truly engaging in policy debates because Republicans are “haters” and “lie.””

              You truly do live in your own little world don’t you? There’s no policy discussion here. Just people pointing out that the OP is correct and you can’t stomach it.

              We’ve talked about a single policy before. You really didn’t understand it. I explained my position, in detail. You rejected it. I explained to you, using logical and reason, what your own policies would result in. You rejected that as well.

              There’s no sense in talking policies with someone who is so ill informed an incapable of rational thought.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              Ahh, yes. I forgot to mention the other liberal deflection often employed is that conservatives (even atheist ones) are stupid and “incapable of rational thought.” Anybody who can think rationally would need to come to the same conclusion as you, right Smilodon? Arrogance…table for one!

              Apparently, you’re prepared to admit defeat regarding several of the “lies” you listed regarding Fox. I already showed how disingenuous and wrong you were about defending the bathtub drowning vs. accidental gun deaths for young children “lie.” The supposed Steve Doocy lie regarding the “morning-after” pill I demonstrated was also falsely claimed to be a lie. I could go on but, apparently, you’re content with your left-wing, “responsible” sites like Wonkette and ifyouonlynews to get your news and information from.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              When one tries to defend an organization that has promoted lies… one is not thinking rationally. That has nothing to do with me, but with your actions.

              If you want to be considered to be thinking rationally, I would suggest stopping apologist work for liars. I would also start thinking carefully about your own thoughts and the consequences of your own ideas.

              For example, I’ve told you how I get my news and form my opinions. I’ve told you that several times in this very thread, yet you continue to think that I follow some specific news source as the gospel truth. To continue with the delusion that I am somehow beholden to any news source is false and further example of your inability to think rationally about this particular topic.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              You’re a broken record, Smilodon, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Speaking of defending, apparently, you’re unable to “defend” the “lies” I debunked. Do you think it’s possible considering the already debunked lies there could be other lies that won’t stand up to scrutiny either? I could go on with debunking more but what’s the point when you’re stuck in a mindset no matter what. It’s so much more convenient just to claim the other side is full of liars.

              However, John Stewart would never lie, would he? He’s so fair and balanced. Using the phony criteria of the list of Fox lies you sent me he would be lying every time his lips moved. But no conservative would obsessively take the time and effort to try to portray him as a liar night after night like the left does with Fox or conservatives.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Thank you for proving my point.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              As Jonathan has said in another context but is applicable to this exchange with you – assertion…not evidence.

            • Geoff_Roberts

              I found the link. Thanks.

              I’ve been reviewing the AEI study, the arguments against it, and the video of the Fox Business segment. Confirmation bias is strongly in play here That’s why I advocate getting news from both liberal and conservative sources.

              After looking at the evidence in this situation I believe it is a gross over-statement to claim Fox lied 7 times in 100 seconds. The main point of contention is that the larger Seattle metropolitan area lost 1,300 jobs but the minimum wage increased only in Seattle proper.

              The author of the AEI study (Mark Perry) clearly explains this fact:

              “MP: Along with Adam, I’ll add my reservations about the
              restaurant job losses in the Seattle area that have been well
              documented (see chart above) – they are preliminary, and based on the
              loss of 1,300 restaurant jobs for the greater Seattle area between
              January and June of this year (even though only the city’s minimum wage
              increased to $11 an hour in April, which logically would suggest that
              the job losses in the Seattle area were more likely to be concentrated in the city rather than in the suburbs).”

              He interprets that the data suggests the job losses would be more likely to be concentrated in the city as Fox also interpreted.

              Here is another excerpt from the author that explains it is early to tell the entire effects of the wage increase:

              “In June of last year, the Seattle city council passed a $15 minimum wage
              law to be phased in over time, with the first increase to $11 an hour
              taking effect on April 1, 2015. What effect will the eventual 58%
              increase in labor costs have on small businesses, including area
              restaurants? It’s too soon to tell for sure, but there is already some
              evidence that the recent minimum wage hike to $11 an hour, along with
              the pending increase of an additional $4 an hour by 2017 for some
              businesses, has started having a negative effect on restaurant jobs in
              the Seattle area.”

              There is clearly two different perspectives of the same study depending on one’s ideology. If one believes steep minimum wage hikes hurts businesses and the actual employees as well then you will see that phenomena from this study.

              If, on the other hand, you believe minimum wage increases are good for jobs and good for businesses then you are going to find fault with the preliminary results of this study.

              I don’t see “lies” here from either side but a strong advocacy for one’s preconceived beliefs.

              In fairness, I do have a couple of issues with the Fox video. One is that Tamara Holder should have been more prepared to defend her liberal point of view. Fox employs many effective liberals but I don’t think Tamara is one of them. But at least they DID have a liberal on the show rather than just present the report without anybody from the other side to refute it.

              I wouldn’t call it a “lie” that Tamara stated “in a city of millions of people.” She was obviously referring to the greater Seattle area. Over a thousand jobs were lost in the restaurant industry in the greater Seattle area which doesn’t mirror what is going on in other areas of the country.

              Secondly, I do think Varney should have mentioned the study included the metropolitan Seattle area instead of just Seattle. However, interpretations of studies can vary depending on perspective. As the author stated, “the job losses in the Seattle
              area were more likely to be concentrated in the city rather than in the suburbs).