Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the conservative media empire that owns Fox News, acknowledged in a deposition that several hosts for his networks promoted the false narrative that the election in 2020 was stolen from former President Donald J. Trump, court documents released on Monday showed.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/dominion-fox-news/54e33f20f7fb6e8d/full.pdf

Fox was the first to call it for Biden despite the delayed results and massive irregularities

They aren't conservative. They make money from conservatives who don't know any better

Someone still didnt read the entire election fraud thread.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Is that weird millennial broad back again?

I read some time back that the majority of Fox watchers were now liberals.

Conservatives dumped them long ago.  I did after O'Blowhard trashed the Swift Boat Vets.  What, 23 years ago?
I gather they are not a lot different than CNN now.  Liberal owner wants money, not honest reporting.

What's important is that Fox admits to telling lies to their audience.

You still haven't posted a response to my question.

Show in the document you linked where Fox admitted to lying.

They just lied that the election was legit.

Anybody that believes an organization that employs Democrats is an idiot.
Democrats follow the Party line regardless of truth.
Republicans are like herding kittens, can't be done.
You want the truth?

You have to make the effort to search it out.
 

You still haven't posted a response to my question.

Show in the document you linked where Fox admitted to lying.

Ask her what Soros/DNC propaganda outlet she pleasures herself to.
Got to be PMSNBC and CNN.

Madcow makes her moist....

What's important is that Fox admits to telling lies to their audience.

Jeanism. Redirect

Anybody that believes an organization that employs Democrats is an idiot.
Democrats follow the Party line regardless of truth.
Republicans are like herding kittens, can't be done.
You want the truth?

You have to make the effort to search it out.
 

Im disappointed that Newsmax hired Fredo. After he admitted he covered for his brother.

Jeanism. Redirect

Or how Biden is now blaming media for the state of the economy, in particularly "fake news".  Then crickets. . .

So you believe that Fox was telling the truth when they said the election was stolen?

So you believe what you hear on the news before reading the ENTIRE election fraud thread.

That's already been posted. Try to keep up.

Maybe he didn't see it. Show where you saw it.

That's already been posted. Try to keep up.

You didn't answer the question.

If anyone here is slow, it's not me.

Let me explain this in such a way that any average-intelligence Liberal will get.

Fox did not lie.

Fox broadcast NEWS which they sourced from the people espousing the stolen election narrative.  Fox did not need to censure those people, including President Trump, just because the Left didn't agree with the premise.

If i am Fox, and I report, "Michael Moore protested in New York today claiming that interstellar aliens are now running the country," it's obviously not true to an objectively rational person.  But by reporting this story, am I guilty of reporting false claims?  Or am I simply reporting the facts?  Unless you're too stupid to breath without reminders, you should be able to decide on your own whether Michael Moore has a credible claim or not.

Moore has a First Amendment right to express his opinion especially as it might pertain to government.  That's why the 1A protections for speech exist.  The press also has a right to tell the public what Moore said if they feel it's newsworthy.  YOU do not have a right to censure ME, a press agency, because you disagree with Michael Moore's opinions -- no matter how crazy they are.

Not once did Fox executives admit they lied.  They stated they reported what others were claiming without censuring them -- because many of the people are high profile individuals.

If Fox is guilty of some wrongdoing, then CNN needs to have a visit from the official hangman.  What they are guilty of far exceeds anything Fox did or does.

if anyone at Fox reported the stolen election as a matter of fact, that's "news to me."  They were allowed to share editorial opinions where they offer evidence of the abnormalities from the election.  As long as the people reporting are part of an opinion-sharing discussion and not one that pushes verifiable lies, they are doing nothing wrong.

If you want to go after someone, go after the networks who pushed the Russian-Collusion Hoax.  That was a known lie from the beginning.  It just took someone besides Clinton in the White House to uncover the truth.

Rhaydar, you may have finally brought up a news story worth talking about. There is more nuance than your simple sentence lets on.

My 2 cents:
We should differentiate between Fox News as a whole and individual journalists/personalities. You have idiots spouting their sensational opinions on things (Carlson for example) and then you have actual journalists doing their job of covering the news. Left leaning news, right leaning news, they all have their responsible journalists and their loud mouth idiots, it is important to find credible journalists rather than focus on an overall lean of the news outlet itself.

I think this story is going to hurt Fox's credibility.

Let me explain this in such a way that any average-intelligence Liberal will get.

Fox did not lie.

Fox broadcast NEWS which they sourced from the people espousing the stolen election narrative.  Fox did not need to censure those people, including President Trump, just because the Left didn't agree with the premise.

Claiming they didn't want to censure anyone is an interesting defense but kind of empty. Free speech protects a lot but individuals / organizations are open to libel claims if they do inadequate journalism. For example, I could not go out and report that you killed Jeff Epstien because someone on the street said you did it. Sometimes the line between reporting something as a story and reporting what an individual claimed can be a little fuzzy but I think Fox personalities crossed that line a few times opening up Fox to libel claims.

Furthermore any organization presenting itself as "fair and balanced" or even just as a real news source should not be giving too much of a voice to someone or some news story they know to be false.

Whataboutism

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Claiming they didn't want to censure anyone is an interesting defense but kind of empty. Free speech protects a lot but individuals / organizations are open to libel claims if they do inadequate journalism. For example, I could not go out and report that you killed Jeff Epstien because someone on the street said you did it. Sometimes the line between reporting something as a story and reporting what an individual claimed can be a little fuzzy but I think Fox personalities crossed that line a few times opening up Fox to libel claims.

Furthermore any organization presenting itself as "fair and balanced" or even just as a real news source should not be giving too much of a voice to someone or some news story they know to be false.

Did you get all of that from a trusted anonymous source?

Because that seems to be the only person needed for the Left's followers to latch onto anything the MSM feeds them.

Since when is a 3rd party accusing someone of murder (your example) different than quoting a public figure making unproven allegations?  Regardless, both are potentially newsworthy statements.  Most people are intelligent enough to see the nuances as long as the statements' sources are explicitly named -- not some "high ranking government official who only spoke on condition of anonymity."  Can't evaluate the voracity of an unknown or unvetted source.

Try again.

Did you get all of that from a trusted anonymous source?

Because that seems to be the only person needed for the Left's followers to latch onto anything the MSM feeds them.

Since when is a 3rd party accusing someone of murder (your example) different than quoting a public figure making unproven allegations?  Regardless, both are potentially newsworthy statements.  Most people are intelligent enough to see the nuances as long as the statements' sources are explicitly named -- not some "high ranking government official who only spoke on condition of anonymity."  Can't evaluate the voracity of an unknown or unvetted source.

Try again.

I typed that myself, I didn't copy it from another source.

Yes, the left leaning media does that too, note my other comment where I pointed out both sides have their idiots spouting crap out.

I am not sure most people are intelligent to see nuances, at least not when strong biases are in play. Do you think the left sees the nuance in this development or do you think they only see the headline of Fox News lying?

There is a difference between reporting that a famous person said something and giving them credibility or becoming a podium for them. So if a famous person claimed the holocaust never happened and the news had a two paragraph story reporting it that is much different than if the news allowed that person go on for an hour saying something the news source knows isn't true. Pretty sure Fox News wouldn't let Kanye ramble on about jews under the guise that "well a famous person said it therefore it is newsworthy".