Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Berenstein Timeline
    Posts
    55,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    They are, and they don't care. They'll have a life of fabulous wealth and be long dead before the worst aspects metastasize.

    "I got mine, fuck everyone else."
    This. The people who actually have power to enact immediate change are entirely cognizant of the costs of their actions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Except that's not true that the world is "destabilizing" in any significant way.
    The Gulf of Mexico is literally on fire and the most powerful country in the world elected a reality television star to its highest office.

    If that doesn't scream "mandate of heaven is long gone" I don't know what does, rofl.
    Every heartwarming human interest story in America is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    so ? Teacher is about teaching, not education.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    That was a big chunk of Plato's criticism of democracy.

    Hell, he even nailed the bit with growing wealth gap being the root trigger for the gradual destabilization process.

    The Enlightenment idea that the masses when provided with sufficient education and information (free speech&press) will act akin to the Plato's Philosopher King was the modern innovation which would have suggested that Plato was wrong.

    Unfortunately now we are experiencing that crisis of information /education you spoke of that is proving that under the right conditions... Plato wasn't wrong.

    Now whether the people creating those conditions (like everyone who works at Fox or the Murdochs or whatnot) are aware or not of the monster they are unleashing is a different question.
    The game's not up, yet. Western democracies are ramping up efforts to fight the desinformation battle. And the younger generation will be better equipped to deal with it. The problem is mass availability of information and a lack of a proper filter. This is the modern illiteracy that needs to be dealt with. Children need to learn how to handle virtually unlimited information. Just like people had to learn how to decipher information from a book instead of having someone tell you a story (and alter it unconsciously or consciously to deceive you) back in the 15th century.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Except that's not true that the world is "destabilizing" in any significant way. There's been a slight uptick in violence and crime caused by recent events but violence is still much lower than historical rates, and we've been making rapid progress in terms of Covid and the pandemic. That misperception is caused by selective media coverage, more coverage of bad things, and there's a lot of bored first worlders who overdramatize everything.
    Trump destabilised the world. In a different dimension with a NK leader that was grumpy because his shit that morning felt like rocks, he'd have triggered a nuclear war. A war that NATO would not have joined, because he basically pissed every ally off the US ever had. In that dimension, the US would be smoking ruins right now. The EU is destabilised to some degree because of Brexit, too.

    This is not overdramatisation, this is the real world that you apparently refuse to see.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    I have a pet theory that a lot of the failures of democracy that we've seen in the past few decades are less a result of democracy not being a good model of government, but rather we're in the midst of a crisis of information.

    I don't think it coincidental that in the developed world at least, the most extreme and resurgent examples of fascism that we've seen originate specifically in Anglophone countries with large tabloid "news" sectors who are making it impossible to conduct democratic government by essentially poisoning the well of information with... *sigh*... fake news.
    Eh, the problem is not even fake news as such. I mean, it's there, but even without it, there's just too much information. Most people are not willing (and some would argue not able) to make the effort to assimilate that much information into a coherent and complex picture of the world. This refusal generates demand for simplistic views and this is served by... fake news, I guess.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    That misperception is caused by selective media coverage, more coverage of bad things, and there's a lot of bored first worlders who overdramatize everything.
    Selective media coverage?

    You mean how the media chose to cover a lynch mob raiding Congress seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government and interrupt the peaceful transition of power on which the survival of our democracy depends on instead of covering what exactly?

    Media sensationalism is one thing...



    ...this was something else.

    Reading your stubborn inanities is actually taxing.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    Eh, the problem is not even fake news as such. I mean, it's there, but even without it, there's just too much information. Most people are not willing (and some would argue not able) to make the effort to assimilate that much information into a coherent and complex picture of the world. This refusal generates demand for simplistic views and this is served by... fake news, I guess.
    It hasn't been helped by media outlets, starting with Fox (on the TV at least) who recognise that getting people worked up and playing to their worst fears is very good for ratings, or in the online sphere, good for engagement and clicks. It isn't necessarily fake news in this case, but spin on actual events designed to create a particular emotional response. There seemed to be an acceleration of this during the Trump years, with more left leaning outlets playing the Fox game (before anyone jumps on my back, I am not saying Trump is good or anything, just an observation on reporting) and from what I gather, doing very well out of it. So instead of watching the news and getting a sense of what is going on in the world, you get different tribes getting a different version of reality, with clear incentives to keep pushing in that direction.

    In the UK we have a new "news" channel starting called GB News, very much Fox inspired. The UK TV news has never been as blatantly partisan as the US TV news, this is a response to a problem that didn't exist, the UK has no version of CNN, Channel 4 news has a slight left of centre bias, but it is marginal and has a clear focus on reporting the news as opposed to being activists. They even have a segment called woke watch, not to derail, that term means different things to different people, and I certainly have issues with what some might call woke ideology and its creeping influence on certain cultural institutions, however this is not the answer to it, and makes it seem much worse than it actually is, this is a road that the UK news media didn't and don't need to go down.

    None of this is necessarily "fake", it depends on what you define fake news as (and I think there is a debate to be had about that, blatant lies vs heavy editorialising), often reporting on actual events, but spinning it in such a way as to elicit a particular emotional response, that ends up being deeply divisive.
    Last edited by tehealadin; 2021-07-07 at 07:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    The UK TV news has never been as blatantly partisan as the US TV news, this is a response to a problem that didn't exist.
    The lack of a hard far-right partisan outlet is the problem in their view. The fact that news is remotely neutral means it's liberal by nature, and needs an aggressive response.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The lack of a hard far-right partisan outlet is the problem in their view. The fact that news is remotely neutral means it's liberal by nature, and needs an aggressive response.
    In their eyes it isn't even neutral (sorry if I misinterpreted your post). The BBC, the main target of ire, if you listen to those on the further reaches of the left, it is a right wing organ of the government, if you listen to the further reaches of the right it is a trojan horse for a communist take over and hates Britain. It is an almost McCarthyist response, seeing woke people everywhere, ready to destroy the nation, and they are the vanguard, not recognising that having such partisan, almost activist "news" won't make anything better for anyone and only contributes further to polarisation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  8. #128
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    20,640
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Democracy is directly based on the perpetual consent of the governed or non-violent opposition to current leadership. Non-democracies are not.

    Who's consent? Did more or less people consent to Trump being president?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    I just know that your way does not work and makes them bigger bigot.
    So the KKK lost power because we just ignored them?
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  9. #129
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    In their eyes it isn't even neutral (sorry if I misinterpreted your post). The BBC, the main target of ire, if you listen to those on the further reaches of the left, it is a right wing organ of the government, if you listen to the further reaches of the right it is a trojan horse for a communist take over and hates Britain. It is an almost McCarthyist response, seeing woke people everywhere, ready to destroy the nation, and they are the vanguard, not recognising that having such partisan, almost activist "news" won't make anything better for anyone and only contributes further to polarisation.
    Same goes for CNN in the USA; people pretend it's a far-left bunch of lib-commies, but they're pretty damned centrist. "Liberal" in the sense of "classical liberalism". You don't see CNN talking heads talking about how it's time to tear down the capitalist regime and eliminate private ownership of the means of production. They shy away from the "socialist" label nearly as much as Fox News does. They'll take pains to explain that AOC's not actually scary because she's just a social democrat, not a democratic socialist, and it's only the democratic socialists that are truly scary. This is a factually stupid position, because democratic socialists are people like Tommy Douglas. If you think he or what he stood for politically was "scary", you're pretty darned right-wing.

    CNN's definitely not friendly to Republicans, but if you're pointing to the apparent imbalance in their reporting on partisan grounds, you're making an implicit "both sides are equally bad" argument; you've had to discard the idea that CNN's reporting may be imbalanced because the parties are imbalanced.

    And before you link me one of those media bias analysers, I'll point out that a lot of them are expressing a perspective that is at least somewhat biased by the American Overton window on politics; Media Bias Fact Check is a particular example. Their "center" is the American political "center", which is center-right to right-wing by any objective external metric. This is not a crack at MBFC; they'd be accused of partisanship if they did anything else, it's just an acknowledgement that their ratings are relative to the American framing where democratic socialism is off the table on the left but ethnofascism is not just on the table but has members sitting in Congress on the right.


  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Who's consent? Did more or less people consent to Trump being president?
    Consent with the system of elections. Enough wanted Trump to be president. If you insist on 100% of votes, then you can't have democracy. This is the compromise. And we can't shift standards because some people really don't like the winner (no matter how big of a cunt they are, unless of course they are criminal, that is a whole other topic though), if you insist that they can't be legitimate if you don't like them (I don't mean you personally) then you can't complain if someone you vote for wins and people who don't want that person say, storm the capitol building because they think it is illegitimate, as you have already agreed with them that if they don't like the result then it isn't legitimate. Well, I will roll that back a bit, you can't complain about the resentment and the thinking that led to it, I suppose you could still agree with their motives, if not their actions. Insisting on one set of rules for those you like, and a different set for those you don't like is no way to manage a society, hence the compromise, we consent to the system of elections and the losers abide the results (or at least should), otherwise it ends up boiling down to who is more willing and able to use force.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  11. #131
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Who's consent? Did more or less people consent to Trump being president?
    The citizen's and voter's consent. Democracy isn't perfect and no implementation of a Republic is perfect, but as of 2021 it's the best known system which minimizes coercion and lets voters get rid of bad leaders without violence. Maybe in the future someone will think of a new and better system than liberal democracy, but so far all the competitors are pitiful. It's not even a real competition.
    Last edited by PC2; 2021-07-07 at 07:32 PM.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  12. #132
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    The citizen's and voter's consent. Democracy isn't perfect and no implementation of a Republic is perfect, but as of 2021 it's the best known system which minimizes coercion and lets voters get rid of bad leaders without violence. Maybe in the future someone will think of a new and better system than liberal democracy, but so far all the competitors are pitiful. It's not even a real competition.
    What if I refute democracy? Am I not coerced into being ruled by the system? Those sovereign citizen types sure don't seem to get far with their nonsense.

    And no, I won't accept "you can leave" as a response; that would mean they're coercing me to vacate.

    "Coercion", in this context, is nothing more than "rule of law". It's a constant in every system of government.


  13. #133
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    What if I refute democracy? Am I not coerced into being ruled by the system? Those sovereign citizen types sure don't seem to get far with their nonsense.

    And no, I won't accept "you can leave" as a response; that would mean they're coercing me to vacate.

    "Coercion", in this context, is nothing more than "rule of law". It's a constant in every system of government.
    I don't understand where you're going with any of this. If you don't like democracy and you're not a communist then what kind of non-democracy do you want? I personally don't see the point in exploring the topic very much if nobody has a new proposal for what should replace democracy.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    CNN's definitely not friendly to Republicans, but if you're pointing to the apparent imbalance in their reporting on partisan grounds, you're making an implicit "both sides are equally bad" argument; you've had to discard the idea that CNN's reporting may be imbalanced because the parties are imbalanced.
    No, I am not saying both sides are equally bad, I suspect you went to that conclusion because you implicitly support CNN's partisan take as it matches to your own (apologies if I am wrong here, but I have seen you invoke that a few times in other threads as a way of basically saying that until they are equally bad, then the lesser evil is in no way bad so don't criticise the lesser, only the greater, which is just illogical, and I also don't get how you made that response based on the post you commented on, I was being critical of the new right wing UK news show, I didn't even mention CNN, and in mentioning the BBC I didn't attack them, they were mentioned only to point out that different ends of the spectrum accuse them of being biased against them), but no that isn't what I am doing, there is another obvious interpretation.

    One is clearly worse. I am saying CNN (in an earlier post you didn't quote) took a particular stance, meaning it is playing the same game as Fox in the sense of it being partisan (which is blatantly true and you even acknowledge), that does not mean they are playing it with the same intensity, or simply a mirror image. That comment was purely about the incentives for media outlets to push a particular partisan view and how this pushes division, this is not a controversial, or unfair statement, nor is it a partisan one, I don't get how you took this as an anti left/anti CNN statement, it was clearly being critical of the enterprise of partisan news in general. Different places are playing the outrage game, but it is clear that Fox is the daddy of the game.

    You are basically saying- CNN pushes a partisan view (which you just acknowledged), but the right wingers do it more and to a greater degree (e.g. Fox, which as I said started this ball rolling), so to acknowledge that they (CNN) play that game is the same as saying they are all equally bad and therefore you should shut up. It just doesn't make any sense.
    Last edited by tehealadin; 2021-07-07 at 07:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  15. #135
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,867
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I don't understand where you're going with any of this. If you don't like democracy and you're not a communist then what kind of non-democracy do you want? I personally don't see the point in exploring the topic very much if nobody has a new proposal for what should replace democracy.
    That was a hypothetical, not an expression of my own views.

    You claimed democracy is based on some concept of "consent". I'm debunking that claim. It's predicated on rule of law, like any system of government, and citizens have no capacity to "consent" to that law; it is enforced regardless of that citizen's preferences in that regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    No, I am not saying both sides are equally bad, I suspect you went to that conclusion because you implicitly support CNN's partisan take as it matches to your own (apologies if I am wrong here, but I have seen you invoke that a few times in other threads as a way of basically saying that until they are equally bad, then the lesser evil is in no way bad so don't criticise the lesser, only the greater, which is just illogical, and I also don't get how you made that response based on the post you commented on, I was being critical of the new right wing UK news show, I didn't even mention CNN, and in mentioning the BBC I didn't attack them, they were mentioned only to point out that different ends of the spectrum accuse them of being biased against them), but no that isn't what I am doing, there is another obvious interpretation.
    I am in no way a fan of CNN. I'm the guy who posts that image of Wolf Blitzer's absolute failure on Celebrity Jeopardy whenever he's the subject of a thread, because the man's an idiot. CNN overall is the McDonalds of news. It's fast, cheap, and if you're looking for anything but hot fat and carbs, you're in the wrong place. I'm also not American, so the idea that I have any partisan allegiance to CNN is laughable.

    They're not particularly left-wing about anything. They're a pro-corporate mass-market media conglomerate, who appeal to the masses with relatively shallow takes.

    One is clearly worse. I am saying CNN (in an earlier post you didn't quote) took a particular stance, meaning it is playing the same game as Fox in the sense of it being partisan (which is blatantly true and you even acknowledge),
    What? No I don't. I explicitly spoke against that.

    If a centrist, balanced, neutral position on an issue is deemed mathematically equivalent to "0", and CNN's take is "0", and the Democrats' position is "-1?", and the Republicans position is 58,312, then the proximity of CNN's take to the Democrats' position is not a demonstration of partisanship, but rather than the Democrats are themselves relatively centrist. And that the Republicans are extremist.

    The be "partisan", a media group would have to derive their position from a party's position on the matter. And as the party shifts, so does the media group. Simply arriving to similar conclusions based on similar evidence on a particular issue is not a demonstration of partisanship. In any way whatsoever.

    Random numbers made up to make the point, and not meant to signify any greater meaning.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-07-07 at 07:50 PM.


  16. #136
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    20,640
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    The citizen's and voter's consent. Democracy isn't perfect and no implementation of a Republic is perfect, but as of 2021 it's the best known system which minimizes coercion and lets voters get rid of bad leaders without violence. Maybe in the future someone will think of a new and better system than liberal democracy, but so far all the competitors are pitiful. It's not even a real competition.
    How many consented to Trump vs how many didn't?

    If it's the minority the rules it's not consent.

    America has the worst system of all modern western democracies.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    Consent with the system of elections. Enough wanted Trump to be president. If you insist on 100% of votes, then you can't have democracy. This is the compromise. And we can't shift standards because some people really don't like the winner (no matter how big of a cunt they are, unless of course they are criminal, that is a whole other topic though), if you insist that they can't be legitimate if you don't like them (I don't mean you personally) then you can't complain if someone you vote for wins and people who don't want that person say, storm the capitol building because they think it is illegitimate, as you have already agreed with them that if they don't like the result then it isn't legitimate. Well, I will roll that back a bit, you can't complain about the resentment and the thinking that led to it, I suppose you could still agree with their motives, if not their actions. Insisting on one set of rules for those you like, and a different set for those you don't like is no way to manage a society, hence the compromise, we consent to the system of elections and the losers abide the results (or at least should), otherwise it ends up boiling down to who is more willing and able to use force.
    Don't need 100% I would be happy with whoever got the most votes., nor would I argue that it's based on consent.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    snip
    I shouldn't have picked CNN as an example in that earlier post, I don't really follow US news, I just picked them because they aren't FOX and FOX types don't like them, so my bad, poor example then, my point was about news outlets trying to get a segment of their supporters worked up, replace them with whoever Rachel Maddow works for (and if technically I am misusing the word partisan then I take that back, it was used in the sense of being against a particular party as opposed to being explicitly for one, even the likes of Colbert mocked her for going OTT with her coverage, so just replace it with whatever word best describes that), the point about the way the news media (not just them but certain social media platforms, there has been a ton of work and reporting done on how algorithms favour ragebait and echo chambers) are increasingly approaching news still stands. And no, I am not saying all players are equally bad, I am saying the game is bad. And for the absence of doubt, I blame FOX for all of this.
    Last edited by tehealadin; 2021-07-07 at 08:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    I shouldn't have picked CNN as an example in that earlier post, I don't really follow US news, I just picked them because they aren't FOX and FOX types don't like them, my point was about news outlets trying to get a segment of their supporters worked up, replace them with whoever Rachel Maddow works for (and if technically I am misusing the word partisan then I take that back, it was used in the sense of being against a particular party as opposed to being explicitly for one, even the likes of Colbert mocked her for going OTT with her coverage, so just replace it with whatever word best describes that), the point about the way the news media (not just them but certain social media platforms, there has been a ton of work and reporting done on how algorithms favour ragebait and echo chambers) are increasingly approaching news still stands. And no, I am not saying all players are equally bad, I am saying the game is bad. And for the absence of doubt, I blame FOX for all of this.
    I think you're conflating two different issues with broadcast media -

    MSNBC (Maddow's network), as with all mainstream news networks, rely a lot on hype and the usual kind of TV tactics to try to attract/retain eyeballs. It's not great, but it's hardly "damaging/harmful", and at worst we usually end up with Maddow looking like an idiot for hyping up her show about Trump's taxes that ended up being a boring nothingberder. Mockery from late night hosts is well deserved, but she's not exactly working up a mob.

    Fox, by the contrary...doesn't just hype up their news, they legit sling actual #FAKENEWS regularly. Their behavior is actually harmful in a way that CNN/MSNBC or others have never been shown to be.

    See: That poll a while back about news literacy for folks following various news outlets/channels, with CNN being pretty much in the middle, PBS/NPR near the top, and Fox News below people who didn't even watch the news.

    https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...orst-informed/

    The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly for a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
    They're playing different games here. I know you're not defending Fox, but just pointing this out since it matters in a discussion of the topic.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I think you're conflating two different issues with broadcast media -

    MSNBC (Maddow's network), as with all mainstream news networks, rely a lot on hype and the usual kind of TV tactics to try to attract/retain eyeballs. It's not great, but it's hardly "damaging/harmful", and at worst we usually end up with Maddow looking like an idiot for hyping up her show about Trump's taxes that ended up being a boring nothingberder. Mockery from late night hosts is well deserved, but she's not exactly working up a mob.

    Fox, by the contrary...doesn't just hype up their news, they legit sling actual #FAKENEWS regularly. Their behavior is actually harmful in a way that CNN/MSNBC or others have never been shown to be.

    See: That poll a while back about news literacy for folks following various news outlets/channels, with CNN being pretty much in the middle, PBS/NPR near the top, and Fox News below people who didn't even watch the news.

    https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...orst-informed/



    They're playing different games here. I know you're not defending Fox, but just pointing this out since it matters in a discussion of the topic.
    While I agree that the impact is certainly not the same, as I said, Fox is the daddy in this, and no one is certainly playing it the way that they are, however I disagree that there isn't any harm with other outlets playing the game, even if it isn't to the same extent, or manifests in the same way. Polarisation doesn't have to manifest as mobs storming buildings for it to be worrying, though it is certainly more worrying when it gets to that extent. And I do think polarisation is a problem. It isn't the problem, but I do think it is one.

    I really liked Matt Taibbi's book Hate Inc on this topic. I know many will dismiss this as he hasn't picked a side in the culture war and is critical of crazies from the democrats and left, republicans and right, but it is an interesting read relating to how media outlets, even print media prior to Fox, and how the model of manufacturing outrage can have societal consequences, of varying degrees and harms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  20. #140
    Well, since it's turned in the direction;

    Former Fox executive rips network over 'false' Trump claims

    "In recent years things have gone badly off the tracks at Fox News," Preston Padden, a former executive who left the company more than 20 years ago, in 1997, wrote in an op-ed published Monday in the Daily Beast. "Fox News is no longer a truthful center-right news network."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •