Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on May 12, 2017 - 6:41am

For a long time I've been saying that the right-wing media is destroying our country. This is what I'm talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...

Republican voters, being human and therefore credulous and gullible, believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda (and Breitbart and the rest of the right-wing media). They support republicans and con man don no matter what they do, because Fox Propaganda tells them republicans and con man don are doing a great job no matter what they do.

As I've said before, I don't think right-wing voters are more credulous than left-wing voters or anybody else. The difference is that there is a massive industry dedicated to right-wing propaganda.

Sure, the left has some propaganda available. But there are big differences between what's available on the left and what's available on the right. Mainly Fox Propaganda, but there is a lot more. Fox Propaganda is propaganda masquerading as real, hard, actual news. And it's the go-to "news" outlet of tens of millions of Americans. The left has nothing like that. Many conservatives will tell you that all of the mainstream media is left-wing propaganda. This is because they believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda, which has been peddling that idea since the day they come on the air. And now, you have Breitbart and a thousand other "news" websites, all of which create an alternate universe where a right winger can find all the sources he needs to validate what he's hearing on Fox Propaganda. Many of them have moved past Fox Propaganda and now have Breitbart and similarly virulent right-wing propaganda sites as their go-to "news" outlet. They never want or see a need to read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Why would they read actual news when they have available to them thousands of places that make them feel great about themselves and their ideas? Somewhere where everyone agrees with them?

So now we have a president with fascist tendencies, and a congress afraid to stand up to him, because it will hurt them with their base, because their base loves con man don, and they can's see con man don for what he is because they're watching Fox Propaganda, which is telling them how great he's doing. He's in the process of eliminating governmental checks on his power. There's a good chance he'll succeed, because nobody wants to stand up to him, because that would be an unpopular move with republican voters, who think he's doing a great job because they watch Fox Propaganda.

What happens when you have a fascist president with greatly reduced checks on his power? Unfortunately, I think we're about to find out. And we have right-wing media to thank.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2017 - 11:04am.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:

You have never handled classified info - that last sentence is incorrect. They were marked, but may have not been marked as per the standard - location on the text, coloring, background. That does NOT make them unclassified.

What makes them unclassified is that the information wasn't classified.

What makes Clinton's assertion accurate is that if they weren't correctly marked classified, then they weren't marked classified.

Last line is lawyer speak, and inaccurate. If they weren't correctly marked classified, they weren't correctly marked classified. If you see partial markings to the effect that it is classified - it is to be considered classified until otherwise identified - see my link below.

It is not the markings that make things classified, it is the content. BTW where is the assertion that they weren't really classified - another false news? From what I remember of the video link sent - Comey confirmed that they were classified.

NOTE:
https://www.archives.gov/isoo/faqs/ident...

Look at end of first bullet under question 3.

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2017 - 11:07am.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:

Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary's Email server - for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don't think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don't think they were the ones that released them - how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

Not a single email from Clinton's server was ever released surreptitiously. Not a single one. There was no evidence that it was ever successfully hacked. Interesting that you think there was. Did fake news help form your impressions of the candidate?


Really? I thought the claim was that Russians were the source for the Wikileaks leak of her Emails. How did they get it.. Wikileaks claims that the source was not the Russians - which I tend to believe because Russia does not give away any leverage which they could have over people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-...

Submitted by ucodegen on July 18, 2017 - 11:14am.

harvey wrote:
All of this nonsense is founded upon the premise that the Russian government and its intelligence apparatus are completely benign toward American national security.

Wrong. they are malevolent but skilled. They don't give away any leverage that they can obtain. Where in anything that I wrote - did I say they were benign? False News. The Russian government prefers blackmail to 'friends' or allies because an ally can turn on you, but someone under blackmail can't without significant damage to themselves. I even wrote that previously, so where do you come up with 'benign'?

harvey wrote:
But it's those "liberals" - the people that sit next to us and cheer along at our kid's soccer games - the neighbor who brings in your trash cans when you are on vacation but then votes for Hillary - they are the real threat!

That is the incredible and sorely disappointing theme of our time: So many Americans are so easily duped by cheap propaganda from likes of Sean Hannity.


Ok, you are really off the reservation now.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 18, 2017 - 11:15am.

SK in CV wrote:
ucodegen wrote:

Sorry neither. That said, it has not been shown that Trump has colluded with Russia. However I do think that Russia was in Hillary's Email server - for a long time, probably set up automated forwarding of all Emails sent and received, going through several proxies. I don't think they did this for the Election, I think it was in place for some time. However I don't think they were the ones that released them - how could Russia profit from that? But it is something that could be subject to blackmail, releasing them and it can no longer be used for blackmail.

Not a single email from Clinton's server was ever released surreptitiously. Not a single one. There was no evidence that it was ever successfully hacked. Interesting that you think there was. Did fake news help form your impressions of the candidate?

SK, there cannot ever be any proof that Hillary's emails were hacked because the Russians did it and they are holding them for blackmail. We just know.

When it comes to Trump all information is benign because if it weren't it would be secret for blackmail. The Russian would never be so careless. So it must be a Chinese attempt, in concert with American left-wingers to undermine the president who would make America Great again.

The Chinese cooked the climate change hoax, but Trump was too smart for them. He'll show them.

Meanwhile the Chinese economy is minting new millionaires everyday. Millionaires who can afford to buy expensive houses in the best schools districts around the world. But don't worry, it's fake money.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 18, 2017 - 2:47pm.

ucodegen wrote:
BTW where is the assertion that they weren't really classified - another false news? From what I remember of the video link sent - Comey confirmed that they were classified.

.

State department said so. Don't believe me? I don't give a shit. Doesn't change anything one bit. They weren't classified. They weren't marked classified.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 18, 2017 - 2:52pm.

ucodegen wrote:
Really? I thought the claim was that Russians were the source for the Wikileaks leak of her Emails. How did they get it.. Wikileaks claims that the source was not the Russians - which I tend to believe because Russia does not give away any leverage which they could have over people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

You thought wrong. You didn't read carefully enough. Not a single one of her emails was hacked. Her campaign manager's were. And they weren't on her server, they were on aol. Her server was shut down when she left state.

Submitted by harvey on July 18, 2017 - 4:14pm.

ucodegen wrote:
Ok, you are really off the reservation now.

Good to see we aren't living under PC tyranny.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 26, 2017 - 3:17pm.

This is for you ZK, you kind hearted liberal who wants to treat everyone with respect.

"Trump and Republicans treat their voters like morons" because they are morons. The right wing press does the same.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...

So Trump tells his base "don't move, don't sell your house" because they jobs are coming back bigly. Meanwhile Republicans are pushing for flexibility in labor markets so people are mobile to where the jobs are.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 31, 2017 - 1:23pm.

I don't think the right wing press is ruining our country as much as uneducated, deplorable parents are.

Imagine the Boy Scouts cheering Trump for the things he said in fronf of them. By all measures Boy Scouts are solidly middle class. Imagine what those scouts are being taught at home.

One thing about Trump is that he's unmasked a very retrograde segment of our population. We really need to look in the mirror and examine our own neighbors, friends and relatives. They are who they are because we enabled them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos...

Submitted by sdduuuude on August 2, 2017 - 11:55am.

While I agree the Fox propaganda machine is awful, I can't imagine how anyone can say that the right wing media (Fox) is any different from the left (all others).

I stopped watching the news about 10 years ago. The only exception was the the presidential election this past November.

I was truly disgusted as I flipped between the gloating heads on Fox and the undeniably depressed talking heads on the other channels.

There wasn't a single unbiased channel to be found that just reported the facts without biased commentary.

As one network was signing off, the whole coverage team made no attempt to hide the fact that they hated Trump and how bummed they were that he had won. It was disgusting - just as disgusting as Fox's gloating.

One guy went so far as to say that the reason Trump won was because of a "whitelash" - that is white voters rebelling against a black president. Was he saying that all the white voters who voted for Obama suddenly turned racist and voted against a woman because the last President was black. Huh ? Stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone ever say on a news show.

Right and left wing media are not destroying this country. The fact that they exist is a sign that the country is being destroyed. The govt has control and influence in too many things. So much so that media has emerged to attempt to sway the gov in their direction. Take away that influence and the lobbyists and media would disappear.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 2, 2017 - 2:26pm.

Whitelash is real. Pretty strong concensus among sociologists. Very similar to Nixon's Southern Strategy where Whites were hanging on to cultural pride.

Many areas that Obama won went Trump exactly because of whitelash. Ignore it if you wish.... but overlooking is exactly very PC and not "saying it like it is." Anyway, history will be the judge.

Submitted by zk on August 3, 2017 - 7:35am.

sdduuuude wrote:
While I agree the Fox propaganda machine is awful, I can't imagine how anyone can say that the right wing media (Fox) is any different from the left (all others).

I stopped watching the news about 10 years ago. The only exception was the the presidential election this past November.

If you stopped watching the news 10 years ago, how can you say that you "can't imagine how anyone can say that the right wing media (Fox) is any different from the left (all others)."?

If you're going by election night, I think you're missing the reality of what's happening. Talking heads on non-fox stations were bummed not because a republican won (which could point to them being left-wing) but because an ignorant, lying, cheating, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, dangerous, irresponsible, petty, vindictive, childish demagogue with unknown and probably conflicting (with his job as president) business interests had been elected. Whether you agree with such a person's policies or not, such a person is not fit for the office of president of the United States.

If you think that "all other" outlets besides fox are left, then you've bought what fox has been selling for decades. And you're a chump. I hate to say that, but there's no other way to put it.

If you think that "all other" outlets are equally left as fox is right (which, granted, you didn't say), then you're even more of a chump.

Compare the New York Times and the Washington Post with fox news. If you see anything remotely similar... well, there's no helping you.

Submitted by harvey on August 3, 2017 - 7:55am.

zk wrote:
If you stopped watching the news 10 years ago, how can you say that you "can't imagine how anyone can say that the right wing media (Fox) is any different from the left (all others)."?

You see the same pattern of reasoning over and over:

"I don't watch Fox news"

A few sentences later they are repeating a Fox talking point, word for word.

Quote:
Compare the New York Times and the Washington Post with fox news. If you see anything remotely similar... well, there's no helping you.

Who is the counterpart of Sean Hannity on the left?

We won't get an answer to that one.

But both sides are the same...

Submitted by sdduuuude on August 3, 2017 - 8:56am.

zk wrote:

If you stopped watching the news 10 years ago, how can you say that you "can't imagine how anyone can say that the right wing media (Fox) is any different from the left (all others)."?

If you're going by election night, I think you're missing the reality of what's happening.

I had a friend who was on the Fox bandwagon. I heard it all from him. I stopped listening to him also.

Also, I channel surf and stop on those stations now and again.

Some of the non-Fox channels were more biased to the liberal side than others. I wasn't composing my piggington response at the time so I didn't track each station and their tendencies. .

Your and Harvey's responses are disturbing. Really you aren't arguing, just calling me out as a liar because I said I don't watch the news but have an opinion on the bias in the media. Kind of annoying.

You are just as blind to the bias of the stations that spew what you want to hear as the Fox watchers, methinks.

Submitted by flu on August 3, 2017 - 9:24am.

I'm sorry, I don't like this administration any more than most people.

But I am finally glad this particular issue is getting a review..Because, personally, I've experienced this. And it is the one big sticking issue with me that I will never be able to digest or accept. And frankly, I'm sick nothing was getting done about it.

Why should my kid have to work twice as hard, to get the same opportunities everyone else that isn't quota limited get? It's about fvcking time. Maybe I won't have to change my kid's last name before high school.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/po...

Asian-Americans’ Complaint Prompted Justice Inquiry of College Admissions

"The New York Times first reported on an internal announcement for employees to be detailed to work on that project, framing it as apparently being about hunting for practices deemed to discriminate against white people. A Washington Post article about the project cited an unnamed official who also described the project in such terms.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, said on Wednesday that news media reports about the investigation were “inaccurate.” The department had refused to provide details about the project on Tuesday. Ms. Flores said the personnel announcement sought volunteers “to investigate one admissions complaint” filed on behalf of Asian-Americans who alleged racial discrimination in “a university’s admission policy and practices.”"

Submitted by zk on August 3, 2017 - 9:32am.

sdduuuude wrote:

Your and Harvey's responses are disturbing. Really you aren't arguing, just calling me out as a liar because I said I don't watch the news but have an opinion on the bias in the media. Kind of annoying.

I believe that you don't watch fox news (anymore). I'm not pointing out that you claim not to watch fox news while simultaneously opining as to fox's bias as it relates to other stations' bias to call you out as a liar. I'm pointing it out to discredit your opinion that fox is no more nor less biased than other stations. If you don't watch it, how can your opinion be valid?

sdduuuude wrote:

You are just as blind to the bias of the stations that spew what you want to hear as the Fox watchers, methinks.

If you don't watch tv news, then how do you know what any stations are "spewing?"

I only very rarely watch tv news, and then only for the specific purpose of monitoring its bias. There is so much emotion thrown at you (even when there's no bias), and I can't stand that. I get virtually all my news online, and most of that from the New York Times and the Washington Post. Peerless reporting that tries to get to the bottom of things without the clear agenda of outlets like fox.

Submitted by livinincali on August 3, 2017 - 9:35am.

Here's a pew research study from 2014 that goes really in depth to the topic of how people consume media.

Seems like Fox News in general is about as far right as as liberal outlets like Huff Post, Washington Post, etc. but some of the individual programs on Fox News are extremely to the right so maybe it's not regular old Fox news that's so extreme in it's bias. It's The Sean Hannity show on Fox News and that being equated to all of Fox news.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content...

According the the study it seemed like The Wall Street Journal is viewed as the least biased.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 9:40am.

zk wrote:

Compare the New York Times and the Washington Post with fox news. If you see anything remotely similar... well, there's no helping you.

I should add that NYT and WP are neither liberal nor leftwing. Any honest observer would agree that they are as establishment as the press comes. I read them simply because they are establishment.

Calling them liberal clearly redefines left vs right. Zk, you didn't do that; I think you simply meant to contrast the journalistic standards.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 9:51am.

Ha, the Economist is liberal? It's so corporate oriented.

The right wing in USA is so weird now. It's more lower education populist than traditional buttoned down, stuffy conservative.

Let us define left wing, right wing, liberal and conservative then we can correspondingly match the press

Submitted by harvey on August 3, 2017 - 9:58am.

sdduuuude wrote:
Your and Harvey's responses are disturbing. Really you aren't arguing, just calling me out as a liar because I said I don't watch the news but have an opinion on the bias in the media. Kind of annoying.

We pointed out that you offer no evidence except your own personal observations and then contradicted your own claims within a few sentences.

And now you are butthurt because you've been called out on the obvious BS.

You've got the pattern down perfectly.

Quote:
You are just as blind to the bias of the stations that spew what you want to hear as the Fox watchers, methinks.

Holy shit, you are still doing it.

Submitted by flu on August 3, 2017 - 10:00am.

Regarding the affirmative action lawsuit..... It's a lawsuit over Harvard admissions process filed by an asian american group....

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University's race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students

Submitted by harvey on August 3, 2017 - 10:22am.

livinincali wrote:
Seems like Fox News in general is about as far right as as liberal outlets like Huff Post, Washington Post, etc. but some of the individual programs on Fox News are extremely to the right so maybe it's not regular old Fox news that's so extreme in it's bias. It's The Sean Hannity show on Fox News and that being equated to all of Fox news.

I've seen these comparisons done before and although they provide some interesting data they seem to neglect the size and influence of the organizations. That graph is outright misleading. It's not the number of news outlets that matter, it's the overall size and influence - the number of consistent viewers.

Fox News and the conservative talk radio set is huge relative to anything on the "left." It's not just the Sean Hannity show on Fox. It's Oreilly, who was the biggest news show in the US for many years, it's "Fox and Friends" which is comically biased, again with nothing equivalent on the left. And while left wing talk radio is virtually nonexistent, we all know a few people who have their car radio constantly on KOGO or the equivalent.

The Daily show and Colbert were news? No, they were comedy shows that would mock anything in the news whenever it was absurdly contradictory. It just so happened that the right-wing media gave them far more material.

Example of the day: Trump is going on a 2+ week golf vacation. Let's pull up the tweets...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 10:37am.

flu wrote:
Regarding the affirmative action lawsuit..... It's a lawsuit over Harvard admissions process filed by an asian american group....

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University's race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students

FLU, that's very ironic because conservatives believe that private organizations should be able to discriminate as they please.

Plus, Harvard's affirmative action in to the benefits of Whites, academically mediocre children of alumni, donors, businessmen and politicians.

Trump's base will regret this because if universities only consider academics, Asians will always have the best grades and test scores. As education is globalized Asian parents who are very tiger will seek out the best schools. Armed with middle class and upper class incomes, they will buy houses near top schools such as the University of Michigan because they are laser focused on education. The California phenomenon will spread across the country.

Submitted by zk on August 3, 2017 - 10:49am.

livinincali wrote:
Here's a pew research study from 2014 that goes really in depth to the topic of how people consume media.

Seems like Fox News in general is about as far right as as liberal outlets like Huff Post, Washington Post, etc. but some of the individual programs on Fox News are extremely to the right so maybe it's not regular old Fox news that's so extreme in it's bias. It's The Sean Hannity show on Fox News and that being equated to all of Fox news.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content...

According the the study it seemed like The Wall Street Journal is viewed as the least biased.

You missed one thing which entirely discredits your claims of bias in the reporting of the Washington Post et. al.

That spectrum indicates the ideological profile of the audience of those outlets. It has exactly zero to do with the reporting on those outlets.

Submitted by flu on August 3, 2017 - 12:03pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
flu wrote:
Regarding the affirmative action lawsuit..... It's a lawsuit over Harvard admissions process filed by an asian american group....

Instead, Flores said the department was looking for lawyers to investigate a 2015 complaint filed with the Department of Education over Harvard University's race-based quota system. The complaint alleges the Ivy-League school requires Asian students to have SAT scores 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than black students

Trump's base will regret this because if universities only consider academics, Asians will always have the best grades and test scores. As education is globalized Asian parents who are very tiger will seek out the best schools. Armed with middle class and upper class incomes, they will buy houses near top schools such as the University of Michigan because they are laser focused on education. The California phenomenon will spread across the country.

Yes, that's exactly how it should be. Completely based on merit. And definitive conclusion that things like SCA5 are illegal and it will never be brought back.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 12:10pm.

zk wrote:

That spectrum indicates the ideological profile of the audience of those outlets. It has exactly zero to do with the reporting on those outlets.

The next logical argument is the press pander to their audience.

Breitbart conservative in which way? You need to want to keep certain traditions and established order in order just be conservative. Populist, yes.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 12:34pm.

flu wrote:

Yes, that's exactly how it should be. Completely based on merit. And definitive conclusion that things like SCA5 are illegal and it will never be brought back.

I'm ok with that.

Just pointing out that's another example of Trump's base voting against their interests. Which means they will lose in the medium to long term. The Trump base is encouraged now but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

flu, you're smart because you know what's good for you. As an educated person, you know that the future is tilted in favor of those who have objective credentials. Trump's base is middle-class because of an accident in history (the post war period when American labor had an advantage). But with their high school education only, they won't hold the high paid new economy job. Even government and corporate jobs are requiring more academic credential. As things are posted online, people will more often ask "why did this C level guy get the job over the A+ guy."

Trump gave you a win... enjoy it and use it to your advantage. However, keep in mind that Trump panders to his base of entitled asses that don't believe in merit. If they did they wouldn't be bitching about coal jobs, they would holding new economy jobs.
There will be a backlash when they realize they've been had.

Submitted by livinincali on August 3, 2017 - 1:29pm.

zk wrote:

You missed one thing which entirely discredits your claims of bias in the reporting of the Washington Post et. al.

That spectrum indicates the ideological profile of the audience of those outlets. It has exactly zero to do with the reporting on those outlets.

If you maybe read the first page of the study you'd understand how it was performed, but instead you didn't. The funny thing is it specific talks about how those on classify themselves as far left/liberal are more likely to block or ban someone with an opposing view point. Pretty much exactly what you are trying to do here. Let's ban fox news because they disagree with my view point.

It talks about how people who describe themselves as liberal get information from more sources while the conservatives tend to get there news from Fox. There's some graphs for people in the middle of the spectrum and they seem to go Fox about as much as MSNBC.

You see Fox as having some sort of oversized impact because all the hard core conservatives/right go there while the hard liberal/left spreads it around the left leaning sites. I agree that there isn't a dominate left leaning new network that the left all gathers around but it is what it is. Just because the left doesn't have a fox news equivalent for their view point doesn't mean Fox is destroying the country. They just seized on an opportunity of people consuming media with a selection bias. Conservatives wanted a news channel that agreed with their view point and Fox came along and gave it too them.

Submitted by harvey on August 3, 2017 - 2:00pm.

livinincali wrote:

If you maybe read the first page of the study you'd understand how it was performed, but instead you didn't.

Maybe nobody read it because the link in your post doesn't go to the study.

Quote:
The funny thing is it specific talks about how those on classify themselves as far left/liberal are more likely to block or ban someone with an opposing view point.

I agree that is probably true, but the reason's aren't always a simple "liberals are closed minded."

First, the Fox news media has become so nonsensical in their arguments that the "opposing viewpoint" is often gibberish. The health care debate is Exhibit A and there's plenty of evidence linked on the other thread. Basically the opposing viewpoint is simply one of spite. There is actually no coherent policy argument to consider.

And then of course there's the constant personal attacks. Our current president's behavior is exhibit B and we've already beaten that one to death with evidence.

I actually hold conservative positions on many of the issues but I still find myself constantly cringing when I hear the "Fox News" side of the story. Because they are often so stupid, childish, or bitter. So, yeah. I can understand why some open-minded people are tuning out the right-wing partisans - the viewpoints have devolved into emotionally-based nonsense.

Quote:
Pretty much exactly what you are trying to do here. Let's ban fox news because they disagree with my view point.

Aaaaand here we go veering into the bizarro world of alternative facts. Nobody here has ever mentioned banning any press. The only meaningful voice you hear these days trying to limit the free press is Trump's.

Quote:
It talks about how people who describe themselves as liberal get information from more sources while the conservatives tend to get there news from Fox. There's some graphs for people in the middle of the spectrum and they seem to go Fox about as much as MSNBC.

It's amazing to me that so many insist on arriving at the conclusion that there is some balance in the media, as if some natural force must must make it true.

There's no law of nature that says "both sides must be the same," yet people seem to be so uncomfortable with the evidence that shows that they are quite different.

Quote:
They [Fox] just seized on an opportunity of people consuming media with a selection bias. Conservatives wanted a news channel that agreed with their view point and Fox came along and gave it too them.

They did in the early days of cable TV, back in the early 90s or so, and it was a brilliant business move. But now they've evolved into a powerful propaganda tool for one political party. That is is an important distinction.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2017 - 2:45pm.

About the right wing media destroying our country..... I think that News Corp has poisoned the minds of the public against the liberal democratic world order that America was the leader of.

Brexit and America First fractured the western alliance and gave Russia and China a tremendous gift. Germany is emerging as an independent European leader. China will soon be the biggest economy and along with Russia they will form a new Eurasian power center. Russia is pushed towards China because of Western sanctions.

Anti-Latino sentiment in the USA is causing Latin American countries to coalesce to a center yet to be found. Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico, either can lead if it breaks free of the middle income trap.

Trump condeced to Putin on Syria so Iran, Iraq and Syria are forming the Shia crescent which will keep us bogged down in the Middle East.

Pakistan is our ally in name, but they are on China's side because China is building their infrastructure without political preconditions. Pakistan will still support the Taliban to keep us busy in Afghanistan. So while we are consumed with military operations, China will press ahead with business and trade. Japan, Korea and Asian countries will fold to China because it is the biggest trading partner.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.