Maddow on the FOX News Lie Machine


Well regarding the This American Life episode, you can't very well expect the Democrats not to be afraid to appear anti-business when they're just as much shills for Wall Street as the Republicans are. I thank them everyday for their historically hollow healthcare and financial reforms.
from Yahoo News:

"Fox News did well Tuesday.
Fox News, the top-rated cable network, brought in more prime-time election night viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. The Rupert Murdoch-owned network averaged 6.96 million viewers from 8 to 11 p.m., including 2.43 million in the 25-to-54 age demo, according to early Nielsen Media data.
Since Fox News beats the other cable network soundly each night, the fight is often over who gets second place.
CNN, which had an endless supply of political commentators filling its New York studio, came in second with 2.42 million total viewers and just above 1 million in the 25-to-54 demo. MSNBC, with a solidly liberal lineup in prime time, drew 1.96 million total viewers and 669,000 in the demo.
The New York Times reports that Fox News' audience has grown dramatically since the 2006 midterms, when the network averaged a little more than 3 million viewers. CNN has dropped from 2.97 million viewers in 2006; MSNBC has stayed roughly the same."
More substantiation that the net is a whirling cesspool of circulating dis- and mis-information:…

That's one awesome vampire! Hope she lives forever
You mean if you just repeat something over and over it becomes ingrained in the discussion. Well that's a load of Santorum!
@5 You mean Santorum. I think there is a rule you can't invoke the name Santorum without including a hyperlink.
Next dumFux Nooz will release Bammerz's minute-by-minute travel itinerary, along with a list of convenient sniper locations. You know, for freedumb.
...and this is where I think Jon Stewart really falsifies his equivalence. His whole Crossfire-style "debate" is hurting America thing has some grounding, but MSNBC tracks in facts and analysis, you know, a journalistic organization not the left-wing "equivalent to Fox.

It's not hard to imagine a a right wing montage of the liberal (evening) MSNBC hosts and commentators saying things they find disagreeable, and Chris Wallace's assertion that there analysis is wrong is at least debatable, but it's not like MSNBC is presenting items that are not grounded in the reality-based community's ways of knowing things.

Thanks for catching my mistake. I will always include the link in the future!
rachael is pretty buttsore over fact that fox draws 4X the viewers she does....
I know how Fox News got its name!

Kanga-ROO-pert went to The Heart of Darkness, all the way up the Denial River to the SARAH-geti-palin Plain.

When he got there and realized he had forgotten to bring his ROO-pert-gals with him, he decided to try having a little fun with the wildlife. He's not prejudiced!

Thus was born his "news" network's name: Fucks Gnus.
It's a Fox News exclusive!…
Why does the anonymous troll think being popular is better than being right?
@13 "Why does the anonymous troll think being popular is better than being right?"

Because once the whole "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" meme stopped applying to just opinion, popularity became the correct metric of something's truthiness. Further, once entities are entitled to their own "facts", there is no "right" or "correct" outside of the construct in question, which renders your question moot.

I'm starting to realize that people watch fox news don't really give a fuck if it's wrong. In fact, they kinda want it. It just reinforces an ideology that they are the oppressed, that people who don't look like them are stealing from them and out to get them.
The people who watch fox news don't want to know the truth. They're okay with that. And that really is the scary thing.
The #1 trusted brand among liberals is Google. The #1 trusted brand among conservatives is Fox News. One group is for the open dissemination of information, the other is anti-information. How can the first group ever make a rational appeal to the second?
I saw someone mentioning this supposed "fact" in one of the gutter comments sections I occasionally visit. I actually spent a few seconds wondering if the person was employing satire or was a total fucking moron. I had my suspicion, and now I know!
@16: they think they're gnostics - they have secret knowledge that libtards are too scared to learn. they really do believe that they're getting facts the 'lamestream' media is hiding from them. i don't think the heads of the network, like ailes and murdoch, do, but the on-air disseminators, like hannity and beck and blondes #1 - 5, truly believe the shit they're putting out there. there really is no hope for understanding and dialogue with people using an entirely different set of facts.
It the same way they go about confirming the Bible.

"The Bible is true, because it's the perfect word of God, and thus, since it's the perfect word of God, that proves it to be true."
I think it's funny that they can simultaneous bitch about the "lamestream media" while also bragging that they're #1. How is that possible?

Only in their magical fantasy land where one should govern our post-industrial bicoastal country of 300 million in the exact same way that we did our tiny, weak agrarian one of 13 million.

Conformation bias is a magical tool to avoid possible psychological trauma due to the presence of contravening facts. We humans are not immune to self-delusion and are really adept at maintaining psychological defense mechanisms in the face of, in the long run, unsustainable beliefs. No-one wants to consider that they may be suffering from a cranial-rectal inversion and considering it makes them throw a wobbly.
Right fucking on Rachel. I'm really curious about how a right wing FOX conservative would react to this. As Bill Maher says, we nowadays have people arguing from one of 2 different realities, one of them grounded upon BS, not facts.

By the way, Jon Stewart what the hell is wrong with you, going after someone like Maddow for fighting these lies head on?
The Republicans are basically saying, without saying outright, that they are authentically American and that Democrats are foreign. When the Democrat in question is white, they seek to imply that he is European; when the Democrat is not white, he is associated with whatever region of the world best corresponds to his skin tone, whether that be Africa, the Middle East (Secret Muslim! Sharia! Terrorist!), Asia (China! Commie!) or Latin America (Illegal Immigrant!)

If the Democrats are foreign, it naturally follows that they don't belong in government, that their places in office are not legitimate, that they should submit to the will of "Real Americans" (by which they mean conservative Republicans) or else go back where they came from. All of this is a stinking pile of the worst kind of bullshit, of course: we were born here, our ancestors go back to the Mayflower in plenty of cases, and respect for other countries and cultures doesn't make you a member of those countries and cultures. It's all about power and money, which follow one another: enriching the few at the expense of the many, and to keep the many voting against their own interests they need to be lied to and told that their friends are actually their enemies.

As things get worse and worse, as the right wing becomes ever more impervious to facts and ever more contemptuous of the political legitimacy of the left, I find it harder and harder to see how this can end in anything but bloodshed. Talk of "Second Amendment Solutions" may be just talk this year, but next time there's a Democratic wave I expect it'll be 1860 all over again.