Just because you have good ratings doesn't mean you are a credible news source, aka Fox "fake" News.If CBS restores their reputation as a credible news source,
The funny thing to me is that that was the breaking point for people when CBS tried to rig the outcome of a Presidential election over 20 years ago with OBVIOUSLY manufactured documents. Or when "60 Minutes" ran a story on Benghazi without bothering to check the source. And that was almost 30 years after they nearly destroyed Audi with a "too good to verify our facts" story in 1986.I will never trust CBS again since they decided to bend the knee to the Führer.
It's quite obvious that Fox news panders to a specific audience. The issue has been for years there were certain stories and/or facts that the mainstream media refused to cover because they didn't fit the progressive narrative. The only place you could get this information was Fox. Unfortunately, you had to listen to them drivel on about something stupid in order to get to the real story.The funny thing to me is that that was the breaking point for people when CBS tried to rig the outcome of a Presidential election over 20 years ago with OBVIOUSLY manufactured documents. Or when "60 Minutes" ran a story on Benghazi without bothering to check the source. And that was almost 30 years after they nearly destroyed Audi with a "too good to verify our facts" story in 1986.
CBS sucked for decades as an objective news source. But any of us who pointed out the FACTS in those cases were always dismissed as right-wing ideologues who hate the press. I don't hate the press - we NEED a free press for a free society. But that doesn't mean the referee gets to play for one of the teams, either. It always makes me chuckle how many people can see the obvious tabloid nonsense at Fox and criticize it but can't see it when it's in the other direction.
And FTR, I don't think they should have settled with Emperor Don Dorito, either, but they apparently had something to fear from discovery.
Are you trying to say that FOX News is not MSM? Please review the definition of MSM, FOX News' audience size, and revenue.It's quite obvious that Fox news panders to a specific audience. The issue has been for years there were certain stories and/or facts that the mainstream media refused to cover because they didn't fit the progressive narrative. The only place you could get this information was Fox. Unfortunately, you had to listen to them drivel on about something stupid in order to get to the real story.
I am a little bit enthused that it appears MSM is now "appearing" to be more balanced. They're not lobbing softballs at Dems during interviews and holding them, at least somewhat, accountable like they did to Republicans 24x7. This is a good thing. As an American you should be happy about this.
What kind of stories/facts were the rest of the media refusing to cover? I was much more conservative back in the 80s and don’t recall feeling deprived or misrepresented by the networks or CNN. Was coverage biased? Maybe, but it’s not like it was pure liberal propaganda.It's quite obvious that Fox news panders to a specific audience. The issue has been for years there were certain stories and/or facts that the mainstream media refused to cover because they didn't fit the progressive narrative. The only place you could get this information was Fox. Unfortunately, you had to listen to them drivel on about something stupid in order to get to the real story.
I am a little bit enthused that it appears MSM is now "appearing" to be more balanced. They're not lobbing softballs at Dems during interviews and holding them, at least somewhat, accountable like they did to Republicans 24x7. This is a good thing. As an American you should be happy about this.
Really, you want to argue about the definition of MSM? Who the heck cares. It doesn't change anything about my argument. Let me take this opportunity to apologize and say I meant ABC, CBS and NBC when I said MSM.Are you trying to say that FOX News is not MSM? Please review the definition of MSM, FOX News' audience size, and revenue.
Not sure whether you’ve intended that in your post or not, but I find it ironic when people try to say that they don’t watch MSM, and they watch Fox News instead, the media network with the largest number of viewers. That is just the definition of MSM.Really, you want to argue about the definition of MSM? Who the heck cares. It doesn't change anything about my argument. Let me take this opportunity to apologize and say I meant ABC, CBS and NBC when I said MSM.
That's weird, I've never considered FOX as anything but mainstream and I've never met anyone who doesn't. I think there is a bit of a line between CBS, NBC and ABC and the cable outlets (primarily CNN, MSDNC and FOX) because one is "free" and the other is only available via paid cable. Personally, I think they're all full of crap, but there is a subset of gullible Americans who fancy the networks as more reliable than the cable "news." I couldn't disagree with them more.Not sure whether you’ve intended that in your post or not, but I find it ironic when people try to say that they don’t watch MSM, and they watch Fox News instead, the media network with the largest number of viewers. That is just the definition of MSM.
Fox News has become MSM, but is somehow still managing to convince people that it is not.
You would probably know about this. Back in the 1990s, I think it was either 60 Minutes or NBC's Dateline that ran a story about GM trucks bursting into flames on impact. Except they didn't. What to do when reality won't conform to hatchet journalism? Rig the trucks to explode and do the tests again so you can run with the "big business is bad" theme. GM sued CBS/NBC and collected a big pile of cash. CBS/NBC fired several producers and lost their credibility. If the media will blatantly manufacture this garbage against a pickup truck, to what extent will they go to favor a POV that involves much more juvenile emotions like politics?The funny thing to me is that that was the breaking point for people when CBS tried to rig the outcome of a Presidential election over 20 years ago with OBVIOUSLY manufactured documents. Or when "60 Minutes" ran a story on Benghazi without bothering to check the source. And that was almost 30 years after they nearly destroyed Audi with a "too good to verify our facts" story in 1986.
CBS sucked for decades as an objective news source. But any of us who pointed out the FACTS in those cases were always dismissed as right-wing ideologues who hate the press. I don't hate the press - we NEED a free press for a free society. But that doesn't mean the referee gets to play for one of the teams, either. It always makes me chuckle how many people can see the obvious tabloid nonsense at Fox and criticize it but can't see it when it's in the other direction.
And FTR, I don't think they should have settled with Emperor Don Dorito, either, but they apparently had something to fear from discovery.
It is not weird, it is dataThat's weird, I've never considered FOX as anything but mainstream and I've never met anyone who doesn't. I think there is a bit of a line between CBS, NBC and ABC and the cable outlets (primarily CNN, MSDNC and FOX) because one is "free" and the other is only available via paid cable. Personally, I think they're all full of crap, but there is a subset of gullible Americans who fancy the networks as more reliable than the cable "news." I couldn't disagree with them more.
February 9, 1993You would probably know about this. Back in the 1990s, I think it was either 60 Minutes or NBC's Dateline that ran a story about GM trucks bursting into flames on impact. Except they didn't. What to do when reality won't conform to hatchet journalism? Rig the trucks to explode and do the tests again so you can run with the "big business is bad" theme. GM sued CBS/NBC and collected a big pile of cash. CBS/NBC fired several producers and lost their credibility. If the media will blatantly manufacture this garbage against a pickup truck, to what extent will they go to favor a POV that involves much more juvenile emotions like politics?
FOX News fabricated the story about Dominion voting machines. Got sued, paid nearly $800 mln, yet it is still considered the “best news source” by its audience.You would probably know about this. Back in the 1990s, I think it was either 60 Minutes or NBC's Dateline that ran a story about GM trucks bursting into flames on impact. Except they didn't. What to do when reality won't conform to hatchet journalism? Rig the trucks to explode and do the tests again so you can run with the "big business is bad" theme. GM sued CBS/NBC and collected a big pile of cash. CBS/NBC fired several producers and lost their credibility. If the media will blatantly manufacture this garbage against a pickup truck, to what extent will they go to favor a POV that involves much more juvenile emotions like politics?
Like I said: weird.It is not weird, it is data
View attachment 53678
![]()
Americans’ top sources of political news ahead of the 2024 election
Among those who listed a main source of political news, six-in-ten say that their source is part of the “mainstream media.”www.pewresearch.org
CBS wasn't behind that. Sloppy reporting by Dan Rather was. CBS did the right thing once it was exposed and proven.The funny thing to me is that that was the breaking point for people when CBS tried to rig the outcome of a Presidential election over 20 years ago with OBVIOUSLY manufactured documents. Or when "60 Minutes" ran a story on Benghazi without bothering to check the source. And that was almost 30 years after they nearly destroyed Audi with a "too good to verify our facts" story in 1986.
CBS sucked for decades as an objective news source. But any of us who pointed out the FACTS in those cases were always dismissed as right-wing ideologues who hate the press. I don't hate the press - we NEED a free press for a free society. But that doesn't mean the referee gets to play for one of the teams, either. It always makes me chuckle how many people can see the obvious tabloid nonsense at Fox and criticize it but can't see it when it's in the other direction.
And FTR, I don't think they should have settled with Emperor Don Dorito, either, but they apparently had something to fear from discovery.
Dan Rather didn't investigate this all by himself, though.CBS wasn't behind that. Sloppy reporting by Dan Rather was. CBS did the right thing once it was exposed and proven.
Don't you remember how Fox News was the only one brave enough to cover all the conspiracy theories about COVID as if they were true? Pandered to Trump and reported his nonsense as if it was fact. Supported Trump in his attempt to overturn an election by giving all the fake evidence credibility. Continues to blame Jan 6 on everyone but Trump and his worshipers.What kind of stories/facts were the rest of the media refusing to cover? I was much more conservative back in the 80s and don’t recall feeling deprived or misrepresented by the networks or CNN. Was coverage biased? Maybe, but it’s not like it was pure liberal propaganda.