-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 108951)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 815 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

PBE Shield Stickers and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!

File 148861505914.jpg - (52.46KB , 640x742 , kzp5hoik.jpg )
108951 No. 108951 ID: 684d37
Why is RT & Breitbart so much more accurate and honest than Fox these days? Fox used to be pretty good, did they get taken over by the liberal media conspiracy?
Expand all images
>> No. 108963 ID: 35a0a7
File 148864565447.png - (0.97MB , 804x1272 , 25ef0qlusj1y.png )
>> No. 108983 ID: 9723b1
During Obama admin Fox was banned from meetings with the president, and because of a lack of influence their ad revenue and stock price tanked.

A bunch of sick fucks (Arabs, Degenerates etc) bought up the stock, they demanded Fox take up gay and wymyn editors, writers, reporters, and anchors.
>> No. 108988 ID: addd7a

nigga u high.

RT is Putin media and Breitbart is questionable though at least they bring stuff to the fore that the MSM wont touch. The US has had some wank network news, that's what you get when it's for profit media.

The BBC has gone down recently. That's because to get on in the beeb you need to be a lefty. It's why Paxman left.
>> No. 108991 ID: 111d07
...I wouldn't exactly put RT into the category of being much better than CNN and the like. Breitbart is also seemingly more accurate and honest because of confirmation bias - they are more selective in their reporting than mainstream news, thus they report on things that they have usually investigated and/or are confident in more often. That said, they're just as susceptible to folly and hackery as other decently large "alternative media" outlets.

As for why they tend to be more accurate and honest than the main stream media news in general? It's basically because their business model requires it. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ect. are all insanely well funded and have a large viewerbase and reputation (what's really puzzling is how CNN still has any of either of those two after the last ~5 years or so) and can shit out what they want with few consequences. If CNN does ill-researched hit pieces on current events or people, drug companies and car companies are still going to pay shitlords of cash to advertise during their programming blocks regardless of how it's received. In fact, the more "clickbaity" that CNN gets and the more people that watch them solely out of anger (a surprising amount of the dwindling and now current TheYoungTurks viewers are actually people that hate-watch them), the better it is for them to sell advertising space. So CNN being shit and controversial means higher ad revenues.

Fox, for much the same reason, can pull the same shit. It's a news media hugbox for some, a hate-watch media outlet for the left, and it's currently leading in the ratings for American news media outlets. Hence they can do what they want with little - if any - repercussions.

TL;DR: it's because the American media is shit.
>> No. 108992 ID: 111d07
>The BBC has gone down recently.

I wouldn't exactly call "Thatcher-era" recent...
It's also operating on the premise that the BBC News wing was ever good to begin with. That's debatable.
>> No. 108998 ID: bd7eb8
File 148892796593.jpg - (3.95KB , 100x100 , gitmo_2.jpg )
FOX: at least 122 former Gitmo detainees have re-engaged in terrorism (real news)

Trump: 122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision! (fake news, 113 were released under the Bush administration, none of the cases in either administration were reviewed by political appointees, they done by the military legal system at gitmo)

Breitbart: Trump says 122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield.(real news)


Fox isn't less accurate, they're just covering the wrong topics
>> No. 109000 ID: ebb4ba
There has been a noticeable increase of clickbaity articles and amateurish writing on BBC in the past few months.
>> No. 109001 ID: 3a0e10
File 148895191679.jpg - (37.14KB , 550x550 , fauxnews.jpg )
Some better journalism is going on at Fox than other broadcast outlets. They aren't entirely running the anti-Trump hysteria tactical talking points. They don't accept and push a lot of the recent obvious gov't non denials denials at face value against Trump. There was some collusion @ Fox indicated in the Podesta emails that got about as little coverage as the others. Fox has fairly well toed the mainstream Republican establishment pro-immigration line and is still as bought and paid for as everyone else.
>> No. 109006 ID: cdc880
  wow such quality reporting, russia sure is the greatest, peace be upon the prophet.
>> No. 109029 ID: 9723b1
It predates that, MSM sucks because they don't talk to people. Fox, CNN, BBC... they all cut the feed the moment a guest says something that counters the narrative.

Over time this makes MSM think that the majority agrees with them, and SO MSM starts shilling for MSM beliefs, thinking that will get them bigger audiences.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post