Yeah, both sides amiright?

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Can we not use Fox News, please? They legally argued in court they are strictly entertainment and no reasonable person would believe them. In other words, they are literal propaganda.

    But yeah, I hope the smug voters that sat this election out are happy…

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      25 minutes ago

      That’s a misrepresentation of what they said. I hate Fox News too, but they argued them being called Fox News doesn’t make them exclusively a news company. Most of what they provide on their TV network is entertainment. Written Fox News is actually not the worst thing ever, though still conservative and far from my preference. I also think they still have an hour dedicated to news on the TV network, which is probably worse than having none because it gives cover for the rest of the garbage.

    • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      So, do you think that, in this case, the reporting is inaccurate? Or do you just wish they linked a non-Fox version of the same story?

      • Ridgetop18@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 minutes ago

        You should default to assuming anything Fox says is untrue without a second source to verify. Because legally they can just say whatever they want and aren’t beholden to any type of journalistic standards because they aren’t news.

        They have no more credibility than a random social media user.