Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Ladybird

A Fox News contributor quit the network, calling it a 'propaganda

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

zurg

I don't know if LB has ever heard of the phrase "take the log out of your own eye first"?

 

She may not be observant enough to realize that it's the magnitude of outrageousness of her claim that is objectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

How do you know he's so very conservative?

 

It's right in the sentence before the one you highlighted. I used to read his articles in the NY Post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I don't know if LB has ever heard of the phrase "take the log out of your own eye first"?

 

She may not be observant enough to realize that it's the magnitude of outrageousness of her claim that is objectionable.

 

Most outrageous of all is that the accusations of "deliberate lies" and "propaganda" and "shills" and so forth are true of 99% of the rest of media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, LAT, WaPo, etc etc etc.) As I've said many times I watch them all every day for at least a few minutes. The brazenness of their dishonesty and anti-Trump bias is incredible to say the least. FoxNews is like an oasis in the desert compared to the rest.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

I don't know if LB has ever heard of the phrase "take the log out of your own eye first"?

 

She may not be observant enough to realize that it's the magnitude of outrageousness of her claim that is objectionable.

 

Backatcha. All of these 'what about those guys' complaints don't address what Ralph Peters observations in his insider role at Fox News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Backatcha. All of these 'what about those guys' complaints don't address what Ralph Peters observations in his insider role at Fox News.

 

But I have addressed his BS accusations directly. First off (as I already pointed out) he makes no secret of the fact that he's an unabashed and outspoken never-Trumper. Therefore any coverage that doesn't bash Trump he automatically interprets as "shilling" for Trump.

 

Second - (As I also already pointed out) - There are LOTS of leftists who are regular contributors at FoxNews. I already posted some of their names, but there are PLENTY more. For example, Bob Woodward. Susan Estrich. Tamara Holder. Marie Harf. Again, PLENTY more. And how about all the libertarians? Howard Kurtz? Kennedy? Greg Gutfeld? Andy Levy. Dagen McDowell. Tom Shillue. (AGAIN plenty more.)

 

And third - (AGAIN as I already said) - You have to actually watch FoxNews occasionally before you can claim to actually know anything about it. Something you openly admit you never do.

 

Sorry, but Ralph Peters' idiotic "observations" about FoxNews being "shills" for Trump are preposterous and completely unfounded.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

It's right in the sentence before the one you highlighted. I used to read his articles in the NY Post.

What is it about his articles that convinced you he's so "very conservative"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

BTW, I limited those long lists of leftists on FoxNews to their regular contributors (Marie Harf, for example, was just on Fox 5 minutes ago as I type this.) They also have plenty of interviews with leftists who aren't necessarily "regulars". Hillary Clinton, for example, has been on more than once. Nancy Pelosi. Elizabeth Warren. Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama. Again, PLENTY more.

 

It's simply a fact, despite any ignorant denials, that FoxNews makes a genuine effort to invite/allow the left to present their positions and policies and arguments. Any assertion to the contrary is either a deliberate lie or at the very least, extraordinarily uninformed.

 

B)

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

What is it about his articles that convinced you he's so "very conservative"?

His foreign policy hawkishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Ladybird, you seem to have missed posts 24, 28, 30 & 32.

 

Will you respond?

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

BTW, I limited those long lists of leftists on FoxNews to their regular contributors (Marie Harf, for example, was just on Fox 5 minutes ago as I type this.) They also have plenty of interviews with leftists who aren't necessarily "regulars". Hillary Clinton, for example, has been on more than once. Nancy Pelosi. Elizabeth Warren. Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama. Again, PLENTY more.

 

It's simply a fact, despite any ignorant denials, that FoxNews makes a genuine effort to invite/allow the left to present their positions and policies and arguments. Any assertion to the contrary is either a deliberate lie or at the very least, extraordinarily uninformed.

 

B)

 

No one has stated that Fox News doesn’t invite left leaning voices or allow left of center contributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

No one has stated that Fox News doesn’t invite left leaning voices or allow left of center contributors.

 

Then why have you fallen for Peters' silly BS that Fox is "assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law"..."making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign"..."become the de facto propaganda wing of the current administration"..."lost any semblance of objectivity"..."become shills for the Trump administration"..."deliberate lies being reported as facts"...and the rest of that horsesh*t?

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Then why have you fallen for Peters' silly BS that Fox is "assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law"..."making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign"..."become the de facto propaganda wing of the current administration"..."lost any semblance of objectivity"..."become shills for the Trump administration"..."deliberate lies being reported as facts"...and the rest of that horsesh*t?

 

B)

One thing (allowing other views) have nothing to do with Peters’ assertions.

 

I don’t watch TV news, but I do read the online version, by the way. The Seth Rich conspiracy story stayed up on their site even after they finally retracted that bit of shamless nonsense, though Hannity was still pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

His foreign policy hawkishness.

Oh -- so that defines "conservative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

As I read through this thread, I see a couple sentiments expressed often on several threads that involve Ladybird:

 

 

 

 

"I knew who posted the thread before clicking on the link"

 

 

 

 

"What was your motivation for posting the thread"

 

 

 

 

Why? Why do people keep making the statement or asking Ladybird this question?

 

 

 

 

If the thread isn't important to you, then don't post in it and it will amount to nothing. It was obviously important enough that you felt the need to make a comment. As to Ladybird's motivation.........who gives a sh#? If you find it interesting, post. If you don't find the topic interesting, then don't post.

 

This happens in most threads that Ladybird starts. Let me give everyone a fact to work with in the future: EVERY SINGLE PERSON (including YOU) that is posting at rightnation has some political motivation......otherwise, they would not be on a political posting board.

 

Instead of making the thread about the individual that started it, why not stick to the story........or ignore the thread entirely?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

One thing (allowing other views) have nothing to do with Peters’ assertions.

 

I don’t watch TV news, but I do read the online version, by the way. The Seth Rich conspiracy story stayed up on their site even after they finally retracted that bit of shamless nonsense, though Hannity was still pushing it.

So, why was Seth Rich murdered? He wasn't robbed, so what's your theory, Sherlock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

One thing (allowing other views) have nothing to do with Peters’ assertions.

 

And how about Peters' unabashed anti-Trumpism? Does that have anything to do with Peters' assertions?

 

Look, I realize you would really love to believe FoxNews is a "shill" for Trump and has "lost all credibility", despite how preposterous such assertions are. So please post ONE SINGLE example of FoxNews "assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law". Please post ONE SINGLE example of FoxNews "making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign" (as OPPOSED to the honest and correct assessment that the accusation Trump colluded with the Russians is completely unfounded.)

 

And in any case, I have to disagree with you. If they really were "the defacto propaganda wing" of the Trump administration, or become their "shills" or whatever, they wouldn't make such an honest and sincere effort every single day to present both sides of every issue, including long lists of regular leftwing employees and contributors.

 

 

I don’t watch TV news, but I do read the online version, by the way. The Seth Rich conspiracy story stayed up on their site even after they finally retracted that bit of shamless nonsense, though Hannity was still pushing it.

 

First I'll echo Noclevermoniker's response: Since it clearly wasn't a robbery, why was he murdered?

 

But even more importantly, I've already openly acknowledged the fact that Hannity is an outspoken Trump supporter. I've named several others too. But Peters' accusation was that FoxNews itself is the "shill", the "propaganda wing" and so forth. Not this individual or that individual. The entire network. That is clearly pure bullsh*t, and despite your denials, that fact is proven beyond all honest refutation by those long lists of regular leftwing employees and contributors.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

So, why was Seth Rich murdered? He wasn't robbed, so what's your theory, Sherlock?

So when there's no clear motive, make something up?

He was walking late at night in DC, and may have fell victim to a botched robbery attempt. It is certainly more believable than some cloak and dagger yarn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

And how about Peters' unabashed anti-Trumpism? Does that have anything to do with Peters' assertions?

 

Look, I realize you would really love to believe FoxNews is a "shill" for Trump and has "lost all credibility", despite how preposterous such assertions are. So please post ONE SINGLE example of FoxNews "assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law". Please post ONE SINGLE example of FoxNews "making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign" (as OPPOSED to the honest and correct assessment that the accusation Trump colluded with the Russians is completely unfounded.)

 

And in any case, I have to disagree with you. If they really were "the defacto propaganda wing" of the Trump administration, or become their "shills" or whatever, they wouldn't make such an honest and sincere effort every single day to present both sides of every issue, including long lists of regular leftwing employees and contributors.

 

 

 

 

First I'll echo Noclevermoniker's response: Since it clearly wasn't a robbery, why was he murdered?

 

But even more importantly, I've already openly acknowledged the fact that Hannity is an outspoken Trump supporter. I've named several others too. But Peters' accusation was that FoxNews itself is the "shill", the "propaganda wing" and so forth. Not this individual or that individual. The entire network. That is clearly pure bullsh*t, and despite your denials, that fact is proven beyond all honest refutation by those long lists of regular leftwing employees and contributors.

 

B)

 

 

Using that same argument, will you argue just as strongly the next time someone at Rightnation accuses NBC or CNN of being itself is the "shill", the "propaganda wing" and so forth? Not this individual or that individual. The entire network.

 

No......and you shouldn't, because those networks clearly do have a bias......despite an individual or two that buck the network's agenda. Just as Fox News has a clear bias towards Donald Trump.

 

 

 

In regards to Seth Rich, I was going to respond to Noclevermoniker's post...but I will combine it with this one. What does it matter what someone's opinion on the Seth Rich story is? Do we even have the right information about the murder? How can we trust Fox on the story, when they have clearly demonstrated an inability to share information in an honest manner?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dutch13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat

Peters is no lefty but he is an hysterical, self righteous <censored>. He has an abrasive personality and is one of those who believes that anyone who disagrees with him abut anything is not only wrong, but evil. It was only a matter of time before he left with stupid accusations like this. Hell, he compared Carlson to a NAZI sympathizer a few months ago for disagreeing with him. I've read Peter's Civil War books but have never liked his personality. I never trust anyone without a sense of humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Using that same argument, will you argue just as strongly the next time someone at Rightnation accuses NBC or CNN of being itself is the "shill", the "propaganda wing" and so forth? Not this individual or that individual. The entire network.

 

No......and you shouldn't, because those networks clearly do have a bias......despite an individual or two that buck the network's agenda. Just as Fox News has a clear bias towards Donald Trump.

 

Sorry Dutch, but that just doesn't hold up. As I've pointed out many times, I watch them all. And it's simply a fact that FoxNews is the only one that makes a sincere effort to present all sides, on all issues. The same simply isn't true of the rest. The worst are definitely CNN and MSNBC (both of which ARE nothing more than shills for Democrats), but the others aren't much better.

 

 

In regards to Seth Rich, I was going to respond to Noclevermoniker's post...but I will combine it with this one. What does it matter what someone's opinion on the Seth Rich story is? Do we even have the right information about the murder? How can we trust Fox on the story, when they have clearly demonstrated an inability to share information in an honest manner?

 

I flat-out disagree that Fox has "clearly demonstrated an inability to share information in an honest manner". Sure, they make mistakes, but that's not the same as being dishonest (like both CNN & MSNBC are.) What's more, I can't begin to count the multitude of times I've seen Fox correct and apologize for mistakes, something I've never seen CNN or MSNBC do.

 

Edited to add: Here's a challenge, if you choose to accept it. I'll make it very simple - I'll just ask you to name ONE SINGLE program at the SINGLE network MSNBC where the anchor, host, or co-host isn't a blatant anti-Trumper and shill for Democrats. Just one.

 

I can name several Fox programs that are anchored/hosted/co-hosted by somebody who cannot possibly be considered a "Trump shill". I'm not just referring to "guests" or "contributors", I'm talking about the actual host or co-host of the program itself.

 

Like Howard Kurtz, host of Fox's "Media Buzz". Or Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday". Or Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five". Or Shepard Smith, host of "Shepard Smith Reporting" (and managing editor of Fox News' breaking news division.) Or Kennedy, host of Fox Business Network's "Kennedy" and co-host of Fox's "Outnumbered".

 

And so forth. Can you name one program on MSNBC whose host/co-host/anchor isn't a Dem shill?

 

B)

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Sorry Dutch, but that just doesn't hold up. As I've pointed out many times, I watch them all. And it's simply a fact that FoxNews is the only one that makes a sincere effort to present all sides, on all issues. The same simply isn't true of the rest. The worst are definitely CNN and MSNBC (both of which ARE nothing more than shills for Democrats), but the others aren't much better.

 

 

 

 

I flat-out disagree that Fox has "clearly demonstrated an inability to share information in an honest manner". Sure, they make mistakes, but that's not the same as being dishonest (like both CNN & MSNBC are.) What's more, I can't begin to count the multitude of times I've seen Fox correct and apologize for mistakes, something I've never seen CNN or MSNBC do.

 

B)

Then you must have missed it.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/cnn-trump-error-journalism-287914

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/07/02/reliable-sources-three-journalists-leave-cnn-after-retraction.cnn

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-apologizes-trump-crew-caught-joking-his-plane-crashing-952232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

 

OK, fair enough - I stand corrected: CNN has indeed apologized on occasion for mistakes.

 

Now let's see if you can be as honest as I am. Can you acknowledge you were wrong about FoxNews, and that Ralph Peters' accusations are pure horsesh*t?

 

:tap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

OK, fair enough - I stand corrected: CNN has indeed apologized on occasion for mistakes.

 

Now let's see if you can be as honest as I am. Can you acknowledge you were wrong about FoxNews, and that Ralph Peters' accusations are pure horsesh*t?

 

:tap:

No. I don’t believe my view of FoxNews are wrong. They are shills for Trump. As for Ralph Peters, that was his experience. I can only present his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

No. I don’t believe my view of FoxNews are wrong. They are shills for Trump. As for Ralph Peters, that was his experience. I can only present his opinion.

 

As I suspected. Shame on you. It really is a shame what's become of you. You used to be an honest and at least reasonably objective poster.

 

Well the fact remains that you're just flat-out wrong about FoxNews, just like all the other leftists with their heads collectively shoved up their collective asses. If you were still an honest or objective person, you'd be able to admit it. It's idiotic to delude yourself FoxNews is a "propaganda" network that "shills" for Trump. I have already PROVEN that's untrue with lists of HOSTS, CO-HOSTS and ANCHORS, as well as constant/regular contributors, who cannot possibly be honestly called "pro" Trump.

 

But by all means keep deluding yourself if that's what makes you happy. I was hoping you'd be redeemable after your plunge into lunacy after the 2016 election, but I give up.

 

I repeat - Shame on you.

 

<_<

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13

I flat-out disagree that Fox has "clearly demonstrated an inability to share information in an honest manner". Sure, they make mistakes, but that's not the same as being dishonest (like both CNN & MSNBC are.) What's more, I can't begin to count the multitude of times I've seen Fox correct and apologize for mistakes, something I've never seen CNN or MSNBC do.

 

Edited to add: Here's a challenge, if you choose to accept it. I'll make it very simple - I'll just ask you to name ONE SINGLE program at the SINGLE network MSNBC where the anchor, host, or co-host isn't a blatant anti-Trumper and shill for Democrats. Just one.

 

I can name several Fox programs that are anchored/hosted/co-hosted by somebody who cannot possibly be considered a "Trump shill". I'm not just referring to "guests" or "contributors", I'm talking about the actual host or co-host of the program itself.

 

Like Howard Kurtz, host of Fox's "Media Buzz". Or Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday". Or Juan Williams, co-host of "The Five". Or Shepard Smith, host of "Shepard Smith Reporting" (and managing editor of Fox News' breaking news division.) Or Kennedy, host of Fox Business Network's "Kennedy" and co-host of Fox's "Outnumbered".

 

And so forth. Can you name one program on MSNBC whose host/co-host/anchor isn't a Dem shill?

 

B)

 

I can't name one single show on MSNBC. Outside of Jake Tapper, I don't watch much CNN, either. Typically, unless I am somewhere that has it on, I don't catch much Fox outside the 5-7ish timeframe.

 

You give a compelling argument, as usual.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...