dwp66

According to just-released testimony from Rupert Murdoch yes, they were. Viewers were leaving because some people at Fox told the truth - like their election forecast team that called Arizona for Biden. Blasphemy! According to both Carlson and others, they were losing viewers to outlets like Newsmax that >would< propagate the bullshit that Trump had been swindled. You apparently haven't been paying attention. Amiright?

EmilyD

FOX has never supported Trump. Meghan Kelly outwardly criticized him and so did quite a few other reporters. Murdoch didn't like Trump, and he didn't take kindly to staff who did...

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

BANNED ON FOX NEWS: The Network Prohibits Any Reporting on the $1.6 Billion Dominion Lawsuit

by News Corpse
Community
Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:10:49p EST


Fox News, Censorship

A few years ago Fox News dropped their long-time slogan that falsely declared that they were "Fair & Balanced." Having been founded by an ultra-rightist newspaper baron (Rupert Murdoch) and a Republican media consultant (Roger Ailes), it was never true. It only served to imply that every other news source was unfair and imbalanced.

Click here to Tweet this article

That's the modus operandi of a cult, wherein members are admonished that the cult is the only source of truth and that everyone else is lying. Fox News replaced their slogan with "Real News, Real Honest Opinion." Which was equally false. And the extent of their brazen and deliberate dishonesty was recently revealed in a motion filed by Dominion Voting systems as part of their $1.6 defamation lawsuit against Fox. The motion cited numerous instances of Fox News hosts and executives saying in private that they didn't believe the election fraud lies that they were reporting on air as facts.

RELATED: In Dominion v Fox News, Network Cries ‘We Can’t Make People Think We’ve Turned Against Trump’

The revelations in the Dominion motion were widely reported by virtually every news outlet. Except, of course, for Fox "News". And on Sunday it was revealed why. Howard Kurtz, the network's alleged media analyst, confessed on his program that his bosses had forbidden him to discuss the matter...

“Some of you have been asking why I’m not covering the Dominion Voting Machines lawsuit against Fox involving the unproven claims of election fraud in 2020, and it’s absolutely a fair question. I believe I should be covering it. It’s a major media story, given my role here at Fox. But the company has decided that as part of the organization being sued, I can’t talk about it or write about it, at least for now. I strongly disagree with that decision, but as an employee, I have to abide by it. And if that changes, I’ll let you know."
Fox News won’t cover their Dominion lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/HIZw8PWH50

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) February 26, 2023
It is not uncommon, when a company is the subject of a lawsuit, for it to order its employees to refrain from making any public statement about the case, for fear of them disclosing something detrimental. However, when it is a media company it poses a unique dilemma, because they have a professional and ethical obligation to report the news. In this case, Kurtz could easily have reported on the existence of the lawsuit without prejudicing it in any way. And his statement affirms that it is "a major media story," and that his audience is interested in it.

Nevertheless, Fox News has imposed a total ban on reporting anything about the case. Clearly they are censoring themselves to avoid the embarrassment of having their viewers learn the truth about their purposeful lying. Fox surely doesn't want them to know that their most popular hosts, such as Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity, discussed among themselves that Trump's "Big Lie" about the 2020 presidential election being "rigged and stolen" from him, was a wholly fabricated fiction.

RELATED: Hannity Admits in Fox News Lawsuit that ‘I Did Not Believe [Trump’s Big Lie] for One Second’

Since Fox News banned Kurtz from reporting on the Dominion case, it's fair to assume that they imposed the same blackout on the rest of their hosts, contributors, and guests. That muzzling of their own "reporters" is, in itself, news. However, Kurtz is wrong when he says that "as an employee, I have to abide by it." Actually, he has several other options.

First of all, he could ignore this infringement on free speech and report on the case anyway. Secondly, he could argue with his superiors and organize his peers to get the restraint lifted. Thirdly, he could resign in protest and retain some measure of integrity. He could also offer to anonymously tell what he knows to other media, or even to the Dominion lawyers.

All of those options, however, would require that Kurtz have some dignity and respect for journalistic ethics. So it's no wonder why he chose to simply obey his bosses and shut his mouth. Suppressing real news that Fox finds uncomfortable is their standard operating procedure. It's why they didn't air live a single minute of the hearings by the House Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection that Trump incited, despite the high ratings the hearings received on MSNBC and CNN.

Trump Toady Lies that Fox News ‘Destroyed CNN and MSNBC’ By Not Airing the January 6th Hearings

Finally, in addition to gagging Kurtz, Fox also refused to air an ad by MoveOn that featured the words of their own hosts and executives. So Fox is not only rejecting journalistic ethics, they are even refusing revenue for advertising. And if they are turning down cold, hard, cash, you know they are scared witless

America 1 Loc: South Miami

News Corpse, extreme left.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

microphor Loc: Home is TN

ahaahahahaha "News Corpse"= Dead in the water!!!!!!

EmilyD

What's your point? I said Fox doesn't like Trump and you come up with this? A long, bloviated article about how bad Fox is and how bad the people are that watch it??

So....you claim that Fox has an "Entertainment" license because Roger Ailes sued the Supreme Court....is THIS your response to me about that?? That Fox is "bad" so you must be right? Is that your reasoning behind copying and pasting this long article???

Where are those court documents that you mentioned that would exist when Roger Ailes - according to YOU - sued the Supreme Court in an effort to change their license from a "news" license to an "entertainment" one?

I have asked you this at least five times. You have not answered me at least five times....

Rose42

I’ve asked her too. She keeps avoiding answering because she knows she can’t back it up. This is another one of her diversions.

EmilyD

Divert and twist....and if you screw up, blame the other side for it.

Pretty soon she is going to tell us she made a "mistake" or that it was a "mix-up"...anything but what it really is: lying.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Any ideas on the message ?

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

The Supreme Court, Roger Ailes and the decline of bipartisanship in America
By Mackenzie Karbon - August 31, 2016

skeeze / Pixabay
Involving young people in politics has been a major theme in the 2016 presidential race, likely due to the fact that so many young people are disillusioned with the political process. Their apathy is justified — the presidential debates revealed a brand of shameless debauchery that is worthy of a time slot on TLC. Corruption allegations and irascible Twitter feuds regularly saturate morning headlines and evening talk shows. All the while, resentment for party leadership grows, and fewer people seem inclined to reach across the aisle and compromise for the sake of bettering the country. Things were not always this way.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Supreme Court in 1993 and was confirmed by the Senate in a 96-3 vote. That is to say, one of the most ideologically liberal justices in the history of our country’s highest court had only three votes cast against her – a moment of unthinkable bipartisanship in comparison to the current Senate’s actions toward President Obama and Merrick Garland.

The polarized and politicized atmosphere in which we currently find ourselves is consequential of the way news is presented and consumed. Established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. This rule was eliminated in 1987, just years before Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist, founded Fox News and forever changed the tone of American politics.

What Ailes did was as cunning as it was injurious. He replaced dispassionate news spreads with big, “hot” stories, attractive anchors and colloquial, conservative discourse that viewers adored. But behind all of the pomp and sheen was Ailes’s notorious brutality and willingness to publicly assail individuals who criticized him. Not only did this thwart the standard of fair and balanced journalism, but it also gave way to an atmosphere of highly personal, ideological and vitriolic language that has polluted the news we consume. We tend to think that if someone doesn’t share our own stance on a topic, it’s not because they may know something that we don’t, it’s because they are wrong and probably stupid. This type of discourse sets a dangerous precedent in which objective reporting is secondary to divisive remarks and partisan commentary that undermine, rather than enhance, the public’s ability to make informed decisions about the way its democracy operates.

The creation of Fox News is obviously not the only factor contributing to the transformation of news media. In the last year alone, the Supreme Court has made several rulings on particularly moral issues, such as the legality of same-sex marriage, abortion, immigrants’ rights and free speech. These decisions attempt to answer such difficult questions as: at what point are humans considered alive and how do we balance the authority of the state with the prerogatives of a woman? Who is the federal government responsible for protecting? Does restricting speech for the comfort of a community undermine the sanctity of the first amendment?

When stripped of their polarizing language, these questions clearly do not have simple answers. Yet people are so quick to plant themselves on one side of an issue and never consider the legitimacy of contrasting opinions. This mentality is the reason there are still only eight Supreme Court justices. It is why Donald Trump has essentially offended his way to the top of the Republican ticket. It is why so many Americans have lost faith in a government that alleges to be of the people, for the people and by the people.

Now this all seems pretty hopeless, but it’s not. Read the news. All the news. Don’t just understand what the other side thinks, understand why. Empathize. Question your own opinions. Discuss issues with people who aren’t like you, especially when they are hard to find. Be wrong. Write about it. Vote. It’ll get better.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

The Supreme Court, Roger Ailes and the decline of bipartisanship in America
By Mackenzie Karbon - August 31, 2016

skeeze / Pixabay
Involving young people in politics has been a major theme in the 2016 presidential race, likely due to the fact that so many young people are disillusioned with the political process. Their apathy is justified — the presidential debates revealed a brand of shameless debauchery that is worthy of a time slot on TLC. Corruption allegations and irascible Twitter feuds regularly saturate morning headlines and evening talk shows. All the while, resentment for party leadership grows, and fewer people seem inclined to reach across the aisle and compromise for the sake of bettering the country. Things were not always this way.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Supreme Court in 1993 and was confirmed by the Senate in a 96-3 vote. That is to say, one of the most ideologically liberal justices in the history of our country’s highest court had only three votes cast against her – a moment of unthinkable bipartisanship in comparison to the current Senate’s actions toward President Obama and Merrick Garland.

The polarized and politicized atmosphere in which we currently find ourselves is consequential of the way news is presented and consumed. Established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a fair and balanced manner. This rule was eliminated in 1987, just years before Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist, founded Fox News and forever changed the tone of American politics.

What Ailes did was as cunning as it was injurious. He replaced dispassionate news spreads with big, “hot” stories, attractive anchors and colloquial, conservative discourse that viewers adored. But behind all of the pomp and sheen was Ailes’s notorious brutality and willingness to publicly assail individuals who criticized him. Not only did this thwart the standard of fair and balanced journalism, but it also gave way to an atmosphere of highly personal, ideological and vitriolic language that has polluted the news we consume. We tend to think that if someone doesn’t share our own stance on a topic, it’s not because they may know something that we don’t, it’s because they are wrong and probably stupid. This type of discourse sets a dangerous precedent in which objective reporting is secondary to divisive remarks and partisan commentary that undermine, rather than enhance, the public’s ability to make informed decisions about the way its democracy operates.

The creation of Fox News is obviously not the only factor contributing to the transformation of news media. In the last year alone, the Supreme Court has made several rulings on particularly moral issues, such as the legality of same-sex marriage, abortion, immigrants’ rights and free speech. These decisions attempt to answer such difficult questions as: at what point are humans considered alive and how do we balance the authority of the state with the prerogatives of a woman? Who is the federal government responsible for protecting? Does restricting speech for the comfort of a community undermine the sanctity of the first amendment?

When stripped of their polarizing language, these questions clearly do not have simple answers. Yet people are so quick to plant themselves on one side of an issue and never consider the legitimacy of contrasting opinions. This mentality is the reason there are still only eight Supreme Court justices. It is why Donald Trump has essentially offended his way to the top of the Republican ticket. It is why so many Americans have lost faith in a government that alleges to be of the people, for the people and by the people.

Now this all seems pretty hopeless, but it’s not. Read the news. All the news. Don’t just understand what the other side thinks, understand why. Empathize. Question your own opinions. Discuss issues with people who aren’t like you, especially when they are hard to find. Be wrong. Write about it. Vote. It’ll get better.


Nobody really needs to like trump except youz .
You sweet gullible ewes !!!!!

dwp66

Right! Meghan Kelly criticized him! And how did that go, Emily? (snicker)

My God, it was Fox talking heads who were texting Trump's chief of staff on Jan 6! Trump brought Hannity right up on the stage with him a couple of times, and was always available for a Fox & Friends on-air phone-in. Your statement is utterly ridiculous on it's face. Kind of like something right out of George Orwell's 1984: "WAR IS PEACE", "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" and, finally "FOX NEVER SUPPORTED TRUMP".

HaHaHa! Funniest thing I've read here in weeks! Made me snort my coffee...

dwp66

Absolutely True, Milosia2. No Fox reporters are being allowed to comment, because Fox is likely to lose millions of dollars due to this crap. They're running scared.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Here you are in Roger Ailes’ own words :

Fox News CEO Admits That The Network Is Not In The News Business




Posted by Mark NC on April 9, 2015 at 8:50 pm.
Objective viewers have long ago concluded that Fox News is not, and never has been, a legitimate news network. They began as a project by right-wing propagandist Rupert Murdoch and Republican media strategist Roger Ailes to spread disinformation and promote GOP politicians. And for the past 17 years they have carried out that mission with a roster of rabidly partisan hosts broadcasting provable lies.

Now, with the publication of the “Hollywood Reporter’s 35 Most Powerful People in New York Media 2015,” Roger Ailes, the Fox News chairman and CEO, has confessed that his network, despite its name, is not actually in the news business. Belittling his cable news competitors CNN and MSNBC, he gave the Reporter a statement revealing his true professional aspirations:

“In fact, Ailes, 74, no longer views those networks as rivals. ‘We’re competing with TNT and USA and ESPN,’ he says.”
So according to Ailes, he regards channels that are plainly entertainment and sports as his competition, not other news outlets. That is not really all that surprising if you have examined the Fox programming model with any depth. News Corpse has previously analyzed how Fox incorporates methods that are generally reserved for entertainment programs. As recently as last month we published a description of the hyper-dramatization Fox injects into their presentation:

“Fox News has redefined television journalism by fundamentally transforming it from an information medium to an entertainment medium. They dress up their pseudo-news segments in the same melodramatic packaging that entertainment outlets use: conflict, scandal, mystery, and hyper-charged emotions including hero worship and fear. Fox employs flashy graphics and attention-grabbing audio whooshes and gongs to decorate their reports that are presented as ‘ALERTS’ regardless of the news value. And always there is sex. Fox’s roster of hosts has more former beauty pageant contestants that journalists. And they aren’t shy about putting their ‘talent’ in revealing clothes and camera angles. In fact, Fox CEO Roger Ailes demands it. As for news, Fox’s concentration on tabloid thrill-fiction like Benghazi and Obama’s birth certificate is the news equivalent of porn.”
Ironically, Fox News was labeled as an entertainment channel way back in 2007 by TV Guide, a magazine that was owned at the time by Rupert Murdoch. There was a reason that Murdoch might have deliberately categorized his own “news” channel as entertainment. It mainly centers around the fact that entertainment programming always outperforms news programming. [More on this theory here]


Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.
Also of note in Ailes’ statement to the Hollywood Reporter is his appreciation for a certain program on MSNBC:

“I flip to MSNBC occasionally to make sure their blind pig didn’t find an acorn. But they never have once. I tell you who I do like at MSNBC — I like Joe and Mika.”
Setting aside his childish insults, the fact that Ailes likes Morning Joe is reason enough to cancel the program. After all, Ailes also likes pathological liar Bill O’Reilly, bombastic librul-hater Sean Hannity, rightist tool Neil Cavuto, news floozy Megyn Kelly, clown boy Steve Doocy, and I don’t even have sufficient adjectives for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. If I were Joe Scarborough I’d be thinking “With friends like Ailes, who needs enemas?”

** “Fox News has redefined television journalism by fundamentally transforming it from an information medium to an entertainment medium.**
** “In fact, Ailes, 74, no longer views those networks as rivals. ‘We’re competing with TNT and USA and ESPN,’ he says.”**
Ha ha !