Shepard Smith leaves Fox News

[tstorm823]

snip

snip

Would you two mind continue this in your own thread, please? Or at least explain how Shepard Smith is related to your arguments.

The premise of this thread is not only that Shep Smith is leaving Fox News, but also that his departure might diminish Fox's factual news programming in favor of even more opinion programming. Some users here, beginning with the OP, have made the libelous suggestion that Fox's audience does not care about facts anyway and just want to believe what the opinion pieces tell them, so his departure will make no difference to them. Right in the OP, it poses this poorly informed suggestion about Fox's audience, and if I put an incredible amount of effort in, I might convince 1-2 people here that they've been misunderstanding the people who watch conservative news. It's very on-topic.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

snip

Would you two mind continue this in your own thread, please? Or at least explain how Shepard Smith is related to your arguments.

The premise of this thread is not only that Shep Smith is leaving Fox News, but also that his departure might diminish Fox's factual news programming in favor of even more opinion programming. Some users here, beginning with the OP, have made the libelous suggestion that Fox's audience does not care about facts anyway and just want to believe what the opinion pieces tell them, so his departure will make no difference to them. Right in the OP, it poses this poorly informed suggestion about Fox's audience, and if I put an incredible amount of effort in, I might convince 1-2 people here that they've been misunderstanding the people who watch conservative news. It's very on-topic.

Understood. By the way. Was Shepard Smith factual or moderate? In either case his departure makes Fox News worst.

 

[Kwak]

snip

snip

Would you two mind continue this in your own thread, please? Or at least explain how Shepard Smith is related to your arguments.

The premise of this thread is not only that Shep Smith is leaving Fox News, but also that his departure might diminish Fox's factual news programming in favor of even more opinion programming. Some users here, beginning with the OP, have made the libelous suggestion that Fox's audience does not care about facts anyway and just want to believe what the opinion pieces tell them, so his departure will make no difference to them. Right in the OP, it poses this poorly informed suggestion about Fox's audience, and if I put an incredible amount of effort in, I might convince 1-2 people here that they've been misunderstanding the people who watch conservative news. It's very on-topic.

Well wouldn't it be better to examine how often fox news is actually truthful compared to the so-called 'liberal-preferred' news sources, which would also explain why those liberals prefer to avoid the other 'conservative' sources?

 

[tstorm823]

Understood. By the way. Was Shepard Smith factual or moderate? In either case his departure makes Fox News worst.

I'd argue both. He was on the news side of things rather than opinion, but there were times (probably including now), where Smith's professionalism put him at odds with Fox's Prime Time programs. Sticking to facts can be enough to make you a moderate when compared to Sean Hannity.

 

[tstorm823]

Well wouldn't it be better to examine how often fox news is actually truthful compared to the so-called 'liberal-preferred' news sources, which would also explain why those liberals prefer to avoid the other 'conservative' sources?

Perhaps, but I'm not interested in defending Fox News' rate on truth and lies. What I don't appreciate is the suggestion that the people watching are brain-washed and don't care about facts, because the truth is that most people who watch Fox also get news from liberal sources, and go to Fox because it's the only place on TV that will counterbalance those lies.

 

[Kwak]

Well wouldn't it be better to examine how often fox news is actually truthful compared to the so-called 'liberal-preferred' news sources, which would also explain why those liberals prefer to avoid the other 'conservative' sources?

Perhaps, but I'm not interested in defending Fox News' rate on truth and lies. What I don't appreciate is the suggestion that the people watching are brain-washed and don't care about facts, because the truth is that most people who watch Fox also get news from liberal sources, and go to Fox because it's the only place on TV that will counterbalance those lies.

'those lies'.
What?


The Daily Show clearly watch fox.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjD8-lr6pe0

eta... And if fox news has a truth/lie track record, that clearly goes to the suggestion that its viewers don't care about truth, over vitriol.

 

[tstorm823]

eta... And if fox news has a truth/lie track record, that clearly goes to the suggestion that its viewers don't care about truth, over vitriol.

If real objective journalism was available (or even possible, for that matter), I'm sure that fewer people would be watching Fox (or CNN or MSNBC). But that's not an option that exists, if you think there's any source you can trust not to lie (or regurgitate someone else's lie) I don't think that's a wise position to take.

If caring about truth means you can't watch a lie, then the only option left is to choose ignorance.

 

[Seanchaidh]

(as well as a news media that cynically embraces the idea that the only way for them to be more 'fair' is to be more bigoted or anti-science.)

I have a certain sympathy for that, the media is supposed to be fair, impartial and balanced, and it really doesn't look like it's doing that when it's saying that one side of a debate is totally wrong, which is of course a problem when one side is totally wrong. Similarly, you're not supposed to say that the PotUS is a complete disaster, because the PotUS isn't supposed to be a complete disaster.

Sure. But you'll notice that they're far more likely to sympathetically profile random Trump voters or even outright Neo-Nazis than hear from Richard Wolff or Noam Chomsky. The 'fairness' only goes in one direction because they embrace the ludicrous myth that 'liberal' is 'the far left'.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Snip

Yeah, all I'm seeing is a lot of words continuing to demonstrate you either genuinely don't understand data or are wilfully misinterpreting it to try and suit your own purposes. Come back when you're not operating on Opposite Land logic

 

[Kyrian007]

And people refuse to even consider it might be their fault... chalking that up to being "absurd." That's why people deserve that style of news their complaints lead to.

Certainly my complaints about how the national newsmedia-- and increasingly so much local news media, thanks Sinclair Broadcasting-- is an expression of ever more concentrated wealth and power and which cause the programming to demonize targets of Pentagon hostility, ignore poverty, cynically try to secretly manipulate primary elections, treat climate change as an open question, and various other things is itself caused by my complaint. Or generalized partisan complaining.

Somehow partisan complaining by the audience has caused national news media to follow the Pentagon line and act like the public relations arm of the ruling class of the United States. Funny how that works, isn't it?

It had nothing to do with the 1996 Telecommunications deregulation or other failures of anti-trust; nothing to do with the fact that every goddamned person you see reporting the news on CNN et al. is a millionaire. Nothing so straightforward as who owns what and how they prefer the news to be read (and by whom). It was me! Somehow.

That's about the size of it, yes. See, I don't work for Sinclair, they don't even own a station in my market. My "evil corporation" has stations that run Rush, Hannity, and that lot in the same office with rebel rock and urban rhythmic contemporary. They've also never once mandated coverage or the removal of news coverage. Concentrated wealth and power is a problem in the world, not just this industry. I've never taken an order from the Pentagon, never really heard from them actually. And the "millionaires" at CNN and at the national level... yeah that's the .1%, never met any of those dudes either. The overwhelming majority of "the evil journalists" are just doing a job to get by, just like the rest of y'all. And just like me, they don't get invited to the 'gigantic conspiracy' planning meetings and are just doing our jobs. Trying to inform people.

So yeah, none of the things you mention are driving me and others like me out of the industry making it more like the nightmare you are increasingly getting. When you lump all of us together and scream that we are the "enemy of the people" you are putting the .1% CNN and Fox talking heads in the same basket with the 99.9% of the local reporters standing in front of a failing animal shelter or driving around in a storm keeping an eye out for tornado rotation. That's us... the enemy of the people, for god's sake don't trust us. We might tell you where a tornado is or who is playing who in high school football tonight, the horror! After all, someone knowing that an alternate route might get them around a traffic jam is serving the corporate agenda... somehow right? Reminding people that this is the final day to register to vote in an upcoming election is serving the ri... no left... somehow? But don't feel singled out Seanchaidh, because it isn't just you. Its every media consumer that I now despise. The audience is so self-centered and arrogant I no longer have any desire to warn them about the terrible things happening around them... they simply deserve it even if it kills them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

(as well as a news media that cynically embraces the idea that the only way for them to be more 'fair' is to be more bigoted or anti-science.)

I have a certain sympathy for that, the media is supposed to be fair, impartial and balanced, and it really doesn't look like it's doing that when it's saying that one side of a debate is totally wrong, which is of course a problem when one side is totally wrong. Similarly, you're not supposed to say that the PotUS is a complete disaster, because the PotUS isn't supposed to be a complete disaster.

Sure. But you'll notice that they're far more likely to sympathetically profile random Trump voters or even outright Neo-Nazis than hear from Richard Wolff or Noam Chomsky. The 'fairness' only goes in one direction because they embrace the ludicrous myth that 'liberal' is 'the far left'.

Oh, absolutely, there's a lot of that as well, apparently the BBC keeps talking to Brexiters rather than Remainers for some reason as well.

 

[Agema]

If real objective journalism was available (or even possible, for that matter), I'm sure that fewer people would be watching Fox (or CNN or MSNBC).

Perfect objective journalism isn't possible. But journalism that attains high standards of objectivity is.

The problem with journalism is in large part the consumers of journalism. It is in some respects a service industry where the customer is king. People don't watch Fox or MSNBC because journalism is flawed, they watch them because they want a nice, comforting vision of the world that tells them the world is a simple place and how right they are about everything, because they enjoy that more than the being told that they are wrong and that it's all hellishly complicated.

 

[tstorm823]

Perfect objective journalism isn't possible. But journalism that attains high standards of objectivity is.

The problem with journalism is in large part the consumers of journalism. It is in some respects a service industry where the customer is king. People don't watch Fox or MSNBC because journalism is flawed, they watch them because they want a nice, comforting vision of the world that tells them the world is a simple place and how right they are about everything, because they enjoy that more than the being told that they are wrong and that it's all hellishly complicated.

I think you overstate it a little. I think people just don't want to be urinated on while watching the news. As much as I enjoy NPR in my life, even public radio is biased jerks sometimes who piss me off. But I obviously enjoy some conflict in my day, I don't fault others for avoiding that when they can. The fault is in the companies who offer people a safe place and then propagandize in it. But like, I think people can handle "it's all complicated" just fine, and are mostly avoiding the "and it's all your fault!" Like, "it's complicated" would be a vast improvement in tone for Christians in America over the current, simple biannual reminders that anyone who eats the homophobic fried chicken is a bigot.

 

[Kyrian007]

I think people just don't want to be urinated on while watching the news. As much as I enjoy NPR in my life, even public radio is biased jerks sometimes who piss me off. But I obviously enjoy some conflict in my day, I don't fault others for avoiding that when they can. The fault is in the companies who offer people a safe place and then propagandize in it. But like, I think people can handle "it's all complicated" just fine, and are mostly avoiding the "and it's all your fault!" Like, "it's complicated" would be a vast improvement in tone for Christians in America over the current, simple biannual reminders that anyone who eats the homophobic fried chicken is a bigot.

I understand that I'm on the other side of this argument. But I'll put it this way. It isn't the job of a journalist to urinate on the audience while watching the news... but sometimes the message is piss and it IS our job to distribute it to you. To further your chicken reference, I'll spell it out. It certainly is not our job to say someone is homophobic for liking Chick-Fil-a. However; if Chick-Fil-a gives money to a foundation, that gives money to another foundation, that opposes LGBT rights in a country that is contemplating making homosexuality illegal and punishable by death... some people might want to know about that before making their fast food chicken choice. Or in other words, sorry if the story makes someone feel like a homophobe, if that is the effect the facts have on someone maybe they should do some thinking about that.

Now, when we move from journalism to commentary... it is the privilege of some very few of us to express their own opinions about certain subjects. Generally when it is determined that they have built an audience that wants to hear those opinions. And that is commentary (or editorial,) separate and completely different than news. But to my dismay and shock sometimes... the audience has lost the ability to tell the difference. In my observation it started happening widely around the time social media erupted catering to everyone's desire to exist within their own echo chamber of like-minded opinions. In my opinion those two things are correlated. See, news... then commentary.

A recent example. Several weeks ago I got a call from a guy screaming about my report of the state Republican party canceling our presidential primary election. He said I was trying to make Republicans sound anti-democracy... and its the liberals that are anti-democracy. I told him I'm sorry that he felt that way, but the story wasn't just a fabrication... it had indeed actually happened. I also reminded him that in the story I said their stated reason for doing so was to save money by not holding an expensive election. And I finished by saying if that meant he felt that was anti-democracy, I never said or implied in my report that it was... that was something that he thought about that action.

So yes, sometime news has the consequence of making the audience feel bad about an opinion they have. Often times commentary is overly antagonistic. But sometimes... the chicken is just homophobic (or at least gives money to people who fund homophobes.) If it makes people feel any better, my opinion is that workers at Chick-Fil-a can't help who their CEO gives money to and are just making chicken. People shouldn't feel bad about eating it for that reason. They should feel bad about liking Chick-Fil-a because it is overpriced and the worst tasting fast food chicken on the market. How they can make something so salty taste so bland I'll never understand.

 

[tstorm823]

I understand that I'm on the other side of this argument. But I'll put it this way. It isn't the job of a journalist to urinate on the audience while watching the news... but sometimes the message is piss and it IS our job to distribute it to you. To further your chicken reference, I'll spell it out. It certainly is not our job to say someone is homophobic for liking Chick-Fil-a. However; if Chick-Fil-a gives money to a foundation, that gives money to another foundation, that opposes LGBT rights in a country that is contemplating making homosexuality illegal and punishable by death... some people might want to know about that before making their fast food chicken choice. Or in other words, sorry if the story makes someone feel like a homophobe, if that is the effect the facts have on someone maybe they should do some thinking about that.

No, that isn't news. The family that owns Chick-Fil-a running a charity fund that disburses money to Christian groups who fund other Christian groups who have preachers who happened to speak at the same events as more controversial preachers (who aren;t funded by Chick-Fil-a in any way) who also worked in Uganda where a politician suggested the death penalty for homosexuals isn't news.

Just a daily reminder that Snopes is a joke sometimes: they call this a mixture [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uganda-murder-gay-chick-fil-a/]. But the most direct connection between Chick-Fil-a and this guy in Uganda is, I kid you not:

1) Chick-Fil-a funds WinShape through its ownership.
2) WinShape gave <1% of it's funds to the 8th largest non-profit in America for a few years.
3) Said non-profit, the National Christian Foundation, helps fund the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group designed as Christian legal support to mirror and oppose the ACLU.
4) The ADF was has connections to a loosely organized group called "The Fellowship"
5) A member of the Fellowship presented extreme anti-LGBT legislation in Uganda in the past.
6) A Ugandan MP brought up similar legislation this year.

Nevermind that the current event bill isn't by the guy from The Fellowship. Nevermind that it's like 4 degrees of separation. Nevermind that connecting groups through a legal defense fund is like accusing everyone who gives to the ACLU of funding literal Nazis. Ultimately, it's not news because WinShape doesn't donate to the NCF anymore.

No, the current news being reported on there is that somebody decided to use a culture war to farm fake internet popularity on twitter. That isn't news. It's shameful reporting it as news.

A recent example. Several weeks ago I got a call from a guy screaming about my report of the state Republican party canceling our presidential primary election. He said I was trying to make Republicans sound anti-democracy... and its the liberals that are anti-democracy. I told him I'm sorry that he felt that way, but the story wasn't just a fabrication... it had indeed actually happened. I also reminded him that in the story I said their stated reason for doing so was to save money by not holding an expensive election. And I finished by saying if that meant he felt that was anti-democracy, I never said or implied in my report that it was... that was something that he thought about that action.

I don't know that you weren't making the Republican Party sound anti-democracy. I know a couple months ago there were many news organizations reporting on cancelled primaries as though the Republican Party was instituting Trump as dictator of America. Did your report mention that not holding primaries when incumbents lack a popular challenger is not abnormal for either party? Cause if you made it sound like this was unique to this year or unique to Republicans, you might deserve to have people taking the wrong message from your story. Did you perchance phrase the truth with BS lead-ins? There is a wide difference between "Republicans cancel state's presidential primary to save on costs" and "Republicans cancel their presidential primary. They claim it's to cut costs." Like, the other day I was staring suspiciously into my neighbors back yard, and then told them my frisbee went over their fence. If you report that as "Man searches neighbor's back yard to find lost frisbee", it's very different from "Man searches naighbor's back yard, claims to be looking for lost frisbee." By specifying that it's just the claim of the person or group you're reporting on, you are actively signaling to the audience that it's reasonable to doubt the stated reason and suspect more malicious intent. If you say "Republicans claim they cancelled the election to cut costs", both sides of the political spectrum will hear "Republicans are liars protecting Trump". And that may not be fair that your words are taken to mean something more than face value, but there's no other reason to phrase it that way. Don't be a jerk.

 

[Agema]

Just a daily reminder that Snopes is a joke sometimes: they call this a mixture [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uganda-murder-gay-chick-fil-a/]. But the most direct connection between Chick-Fil-a and this guy in Uganda is, I kid you not:

By the categories Snopes has to determine accuracy, "mixture" is a not unreasonable assessment.

The other potential best fit rating would be "mostly untrue": "this rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate".

In the sense Chick-a-Fil has a charity which has funded a charity that promotes anti-LGBT policies in a country where politicians are militating towards the death penalty for homosexuality (reports as recent as this week), then there is a not insignificant case that Chick-a-Fil is indirectly promoting that.

Thus I could see a case for either "mostly untrue" or "mixed" - it's pretty borderline. I'd prefer a context of how Snopes has tackled lots of similar cases for consistency before I criticised them that harshly.

 

[tstorm823]

By the categories Snopes has to determine accuracy, "mixture" is a not unreasonable assessment.

The other potential best fit rating would be "mostly untrue": "this rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false, but some of the ancillary details surrounding the claim may be accurate".

In the sense Chick-a-Fil has a charity which has funded a charity that promotes anti-LGBT policies in a country where politicians are militating towards the death penalty for homosexuality (reports as recent as this week), then there is a not insignificant case that Chick-a-Fil is indirectly promoting that.

Thus I could see a case for either "mostly untrue" or "mixed" - it's pretty borderline. I'd prefer a context of how Snopes has tackled lots of similar cases for consistency before I criticised them that harshly.

My praise of Snopes is that they nearly always give very easily traced sources for all their claims, so that if they happen to be vague in their writing as a consequence of brevity, it's easy to find the whole picture. It's a respectable source if you really want to inform yourself.

My criticism of Snopes is that they take advantage of people who don't read past the judgment.

Like, the specific claim "Today Uganda announced a bill to legalize murdering gay people. National Christian Organization paid a preacher to go to Uganda and help their lawmakers with the bill. Chick-fil-a funds National Christian Org. If you eat at Chick-fil-a, this is what your money goes to." Is just false. Ignoring they got the name wrong for National Christian Foundation, Chick-Fil-a does not currently fund the National Christian Foundation. Ignoring the NCF didn't pay a pastor directly to help with Ugandan homosexuality bills, but a legal organization they help fund worked with the Pastor that did that a decade ago, the 2019 bill isn't by any of these people. So the original tweet saying where "your money goes to" runs into complete breaks in money flow twice currently. And also, Uganda didn't announce it, one guy did, and the official spokespeople were like "no, we're not doing that". And it was a bill about criminal penalties, not legalizing murder... It's just wrong, no maybes here.

Snopes doesn't fact check that claim. Instead they fact check "In October 2019, Chick-fil-A's charitable donations were contributing to efforts to introduce the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda." And if you interpret that phrasing to mean Chick-fil-a's charitable donations in the past, rather than the current ones, and think of it as a sort of butterfly effect that previous money given helped people who influenced the future generation of proposed legislation sort of. There is a way to read that statement as "mixed", but that's because they deliberately rephrased what they were fact-checking to avoid the heart of the issue while appearing to address it. If you buy Chick-fil-a now, you aren't in any way contributing to efforts to kill gay people in Uganda. But they can call their phrasing mixed without technically saying that. They editorialized the claim they were fact-checking before fact-checking it because they don't want to acquit Chick-fil-a of being homophobes.

And then, to their credit, they give a good summary of the whole situation with sources linked. I guess I should be less harsh, because this is probably just the same problem every other site has: editors. Someone writes an excellent summary with good information, and then their higher-ups put clickbait headlines on top.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Fox News departure: Catherine Herridge joins CBS News, saying 'facts matter' [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/media/catherine-herridge-fox-news-cbs/index.html]

In another major defection from the newsroom of Fox News, Catherine Herridge is joining CBS News as a senior investigative correspondent.

Herridge, Fox's chief intelligence correspondent, was a founding employee of Fox News in 1996 and a leader in the network's Washington bureau. She was in talks to join CBS before Shep Smith, also a founding Fox employee, resigned on October 11 in the middle of a multi-year contract, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

Herridge's Fox contract expired over the summer. Fox wanted her to renew, but knew her exit was a possibility, one of the sources said. Friday will be her last day.

In a statement released through Fox, Herridge thanked Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch "for the opportunity to cover the most impactful stories of the last 23 years, most recently the Special Counsel report and impeachment inquiry. I have received great personal satisfaction from mentoring the next generation of reporters and producers and sharing my journalistic values - that facts matter and enterprise reporting will always win the day."

In a statement released through CBS, Herridge also invoked the importance of facts, but in a way that could be interpreted as a criticism of Fox: "CBS News has always placed a premium on enterprise journalism and powerful investigations," she said. "I feel privileged to join a team where facts and storytelling will always matter."

I don't want people to just stay there if things are bad for them. I don't. But sadly, Fox News is the most watched news network in the country. If the climate there is so stifling to the actual Journalists that they are all going to start an exodus, is it just going to be propaganda?