perhaps fawning was not the best word to use, but at this point arnt you just arguing semantics? Fox has often given Trump coverage very favorable views, its pretty widely known to do so and could be described in any number of ways.
Wasn't Hannity and so on part of what Bill Shine got paid for at Fox? Why should Hannity be excluded? barfo
Depends on what you mean by coverage. It is a show that runs on NBC, so NBC is responsible for it. Here's what the article you wanted us to look at said re: fawning coverage: Not sure what your objection is. I think Hannity and Fox & Friends (and Judge Jeanine and Tucker Carlson and god knows how many more shows) run rather frequently on that channel, and they are certainly fawning. barfo
So that's not news. Everyone does know that don't they? I don't watch all of Tucker Carlson by any stretch so please show me a clip of him fawning all over Trump.
So I think your objection is that the Fox channel calls itself News, even though 99% of what it shows isn't actually news but mere propaganda. That's my objection to it also. But it's not our fault it's that way. What the author of that article wrote is correct. I'm not digging up any Tucker clips for you, you can do that yourself if you are actually interested. barfo
99% wasn't intended to be taken literally. I don't know what the exact percentage is, I'd have to watch a lot more Fox to find out for sure. I don't know what CNN's percentage is either, I'd have to watch a lot more CNN to find out. I'm not sure what CNN has to do with Bill Shine's severance payments? barfo
More fake news. Maybe it is just yahoo. Now Dershowitz is an "ally" of Trump. Not in the article but who reads that shitm
What percentage of Fox's actual news is wrong then? And how much of that is due to Bill Shine now working for Trump as the article infers?
The article does not infer anything. The article does not imply what you claim it infers. I would say that actual news is by definition not wrong. barfo
What does it imply to you? No implication would have taken a paragraph. Bill Shine used to work for Fox. Got millions in severance pay. Works for Trump. That's the whole story.
So your theory is that news stories should always leave out history and context, and just report the immediate facts. For example, the Papadopolous story today would have said just: "George Papadapolous ordered to start prison sentence tomorrow." It would not report on who PapaG is, why we should care if he's going to jail, what he was convicted for, or how long the sentence is. Just today's new facts with no context. barfo
No. No "why we should care" Yes. Facts are fine. Opinion should be for opinion sections. Hell, even an editors note within a news story wouldn't bother me too much.
