How Fox News is covering the impeachment hearings

May 2013
21,994
23,676
N Oregon Coast
This is just as I predicted. Fox is presenting alternative facts to their viewers. Therefore those who get all their news from Fox will get Trumpy news and the actual testimony won't change anyone's mind.

The network that helped put Donald Trump into power is now showing how insistently it will work to keep him there.
When Bill Taylor, the United States’ acting ambassador to Ukraine, began his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee yesterday morning, MSNBC did what news networks will often do to educate viewers about the events unfolding on-screen: It offered a graphic providing contextual information. “Top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine since June,” one bullet point noted, explaining Taylor’s most direct relevance to President Donald Trump’s impeachment hearings. “Testified he had ‘clear understanding’ aid tied to probes,” another bullet went, referencing the military support the United States withheld from, and then gave to, Ukraine. “Texted it would be ‘crazy’ to withhold Ukraine military aid,” went another.​
The Fox News Channel offered a similar selection of information about Taylor. Fox, however—rendering its bullet points in an all-caps font—made different assumptions about which facts about the ambassador were most urgent for its viewers to know. “Oct. 23: PRESIDENT TRUMP DISMISSED TAYLOR AS A ‘NEVER TRUMPER.’” And: “WH CALLED TAYLOR’S CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY ‘TRIPLE HEARSAY.’” And: “GOP SAYS TAYLOR HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE AID.”
Danielle Misiak, who tweeted back-to-back images comparing MSNBC’s coverage with Fox’s, noted of the differences, “You already know how this is gonna play out.” She was correct. There is an inevitability to Fox’s very Foxiness at this point—and this makes it easy to forget how profoundly undemocratic it is that a major media outlet, as it covers a history-making happening, would insist that the most pertinent facts of the event are the president’s opinions about it. MSNBC, too, had a bias in its coverage (“IMPEACHMENT: WHITE HOUSE IN CRISIS” went its chyron as Taylor delivered his testimony to Congress). But Fox had much more than a slant; in Trump, effectively, it had an author. It had a purpose and a person, and it long ago decided that both were, in every sense, unimpeachable.

Continued:

 
May 2013
21,994
23,676
N Oregon Coast
Fox is doing for Trump what MSNBC does against him.

We all know it.

This is not a new revelation...
Nay

MSNBC, too, had a bias in its coverage (“IMPEACHMENT: WHITE HOUSE IN CRISIS” went its chyron as Taylor delivered his testimony to Congress). But Fox had much more than a slant; in Trump, effectively, it had an author. It had a purpose and a person, and it long ago decided that both were, in every sense, unimpeachable.
 
Dec 2018
9,198
7,125
the Heart of America
How do we decide which version is accurate?
Pretty easy for smart, educated and "stable" Americans, especially those with good critical thinking skills.

Example:
Think of something that someone has recently told you. Then ask yourself the following questions:
Who said it?

Someone you know? Someone in a position of authority or power? Does it matter who told you this?

What did they say?

Did they give facts or opinions? Did they provide all the facts? Did they leave anything out?

Where did they say it?

Was it in public or in private? Did other people have a chance to respond an provide an alternative account?

When did they say it?

Was it before, during or after an important event? Is timing important?

Why did they say it?

Did they explain the reasoning behind their opinion? Were they trying to make someone look good or bad?

How did they say it?

Were they happy or sad, angry or indifferent? Did they write it or say it? Could you understand what was said?
 
Jul 2014
41,549
11,495
midwest
Nay

MSNBC, too, had a bias in its coverage (“IMPEACHMENT: WHITE HOUSE IN CRISIS” went its chyron as Taylor delivered his testimony to Congress). But Fox had much more than a slant; in Trump, effectively, it had an author. It had a purpose and a person, and it long ago decided that both were, in every sense, unimpeachable.
Just as some MSNBC talking heads decided that he MUST be impeached.

Watch Lawrence O'Donnell sometime...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Izzshemovin
Oct 2019
1,798
610
Earth
Pretty easy for smart, educated and "stable" Americans, especially those with good critical thinking skills.

Example:

Who said it?

Someone you know? Someone in a position of authority or power? Does it matter who told you this?

What did they say?

Did they give facts or opinions? Did they provide all the facts? Did they leave anything out?

Where did they say it?

Was it in public or in private? Did other people have a chance to respond an provide an alternative account?

When did they say it?

Was it before, during or after an important event? Is timing important?

Why did they say it?

Did they explain the reasoning behind their opinion? Were they trying to make someone look good or bad?

How did they say it?

Were they happy or sad, angry or indifferent? Did they write it or say it? Could you understand what was said?
If it was so easy, why did you dodge explaining?

Point is, this is a 'he said - she said' situation, where your insinuation is that one is inherently false. I don't believe that to be necessarily the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Izzshemovin