Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,199 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

tjdonegan

 

Blog Traffic: 16556

Posts: 249

My Comments: 963

User Comments: 1557

Photos: 3

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 5

Points: 4759

Last Online: 20 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

MisterCox
 

Why doesn't Fox News report the non-reporting of news, as News

Added: Tuesday, September 15th 2020 at 7:45pm by tjdonegan
Category: News & Issues
 
 
 

I record a number of commentary shows on Fox News viz: Special Report, Fox News Sunday, Tucker Carlson, Sunday Morning with Maria Bartiromo and a few others; generally do not have the time to watch them, but will use 5 minute skips to see what is being discussed; if the topic is interesting I reverse and watch... And I glance at headlines from a number of conservative (i.e., Media sources interested in truth...) on-line publications e.g., Liberty Daily, Breitbart.com, WND.com, and others; from these I am able to discern that the mainstream Press (which I do not watch, at all...) - generally - doesn't cover issues that reflect badly upon Democrat Politicians and/or social-political Leftists e.g., why Nancy Pelosi wants a 3 trillion dollar stimulus Bill (she wants to make Blue States solvent, and fund programs and activities which will make it easier for Democrats to obtain power via skullduggery...), or theviolence,  riots, burning of neighborhoods, shootings of innocents by members of BLM et al. Isn't CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC  not reporting such things, News? One would think it newsworthy to report - every time - that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC et al do not report upon things - because the report would cast Democrats (e.g., Mario Cuomo decision to place people with corona-virus in Nursing-homes leading to thousands of deaths; the Press is allowing Cuomo to control that narrative and shift the blame to POTUS Trump...), Leftists and their advocacies in a bad-light... That such things - are ignored by the mainstream Press - is News! To report such News is not ‘playing politics,’ it is fulfilling the duties as an agent of the Press.

Now since there are people on/at Fox News that take note of such things e.g., Brett Baier, Brit Hume and others have made mention of such things on their various shows and appearances, it is clear that Fox News is aware of the obvious political decision on the part of these ostensible News outlets to not report those things that reflect badly upon Leftists and Democrats... Shouldn't that be reported as News? It seems that only the political commentary people at Fox make mention of the non-reporting of the mainstream Press... If Fox News is a News agency interested in reporting the News, then “every hour, on the hour” – like they are reporting the latest News on a Hurricane (or other natural disaster), or political kafuffle (e.g., Brett Kavanaugh hearings, or the Mueller hearings/report et al) they should report the News eventsignored or misreproted by the mainstream 'News' outlets. It would likely anger the mainstream  outlets to an extreme! The question: “Why doesn’t Fox News make reporting upon the mainstream Press’ actions which are minimally negligent, but may actually constitute treason [The Press – by not informing the American Public regarding things which imperil, or may imperil, Constitutional Liberties may lead, or contribute to the USA suffering catastrophe; if such catastrophe resulted from the Press choosing to mis-inform the electorate, such actions – by the Press – are clearly treasonous...]?” Fox - like every other News agency - has a 1st Amendment obligation to the Governed regarding things that may place at risk Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and the Constitutional Republic by which such rights are made secure!

Thomas J. Donegan

guildma@msn.com

User Comments

With the kind of insight you can provide TJ, I sure hope you're sharing some place where it can make a difference.

Hi, Metal!

This is the only place I post; most people seem to either find what I write boring, or intimate in various ways that I am arrogant - or as greatmartin indicated - "...it is silly to continue this conversation just so you can show off your vocabulary. You certainly could use an editior who can tell you that using 1,000 words when 10 will do only makes you lose your audience..." 

Cordially, tjd

I would love to hear your thoughts on what just happened on Fox with Gingrich yesterday. Why are you not permitted to talk about Soros? If you haven't seen the exchange, here it is....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5MGCS-HhO4

btw, I don't find anything u say arrogant or boring. My problem is I don't have the attention span I need to take in all you're offering atm... which is why I either cherry pick a detail or just say nothing...

But boring? No!

Hi again, Metal!

Thank you for the link! I hadn't heard that exchange. Gingrich seems to be a bit surprised that he should be rebuked…? First by Melissa Francis (Don’t know her well; know she is on the Fox business Network; so I do not know where she is coming from…? I’d have liked to hear why she thought George Soros was irrelevant and liked to have heard Gingrich go at her and see what kind of defense she could make…) and the dull, but ever irritatingly partisan Marie Harf (I can’t stand to listen to her!). Harf seems to be at Fox so that Fox to demonstrate that it is 'fair-and-balanced' (Marie seems to represent both the social-political Left and those that are inveterately vapid – I’d have thought that Juan Williams had that covered…?). Since Harf claimed that “I agree with Melissa, George Soros doesn’t need to be part of this conversation!” The show is: “Outnumbered” isn’t? My guess is that Gingrich was the individual said to be outnumbered, but he could have been more insistent that the topic of Soros – and his malefic influence – which has been reported by Fox (several years ago) has done irreparable harm around the globe. Gingrich should have said: “So ladies, why is the topic of George Soros off the table? and Marie, “How, or what, is it that you know by which you claim that George Soros hasn’t financed the election of District Attorney’s that coddle criminals and treat Law-abiding citizens as ne’er-do-well nuisances? My thought is that many people at Fox are scrutinized by management and are not allowed-to-piss-on-the-electric-fence (i.e., certain people, organizations and movements are as Gingrich described the topic of Soros: ‘verboten.” I think – too – that guests, like Gingrich are made aware – in some manner – that Fox will only allow limited latitude on sundry topics. If Gingrich were to denounce POTUS Trump – in a rant – they would likely let him speak till exhausted, but if he goes to forcibly after a ‘star-of-the-social-political Left’ they will go to commercial and Gingrich will not be back on the Network for a long enough period of time fro him to get the message… It is clear that Fox is a Leftist Media outlet, but one that has adorned itself with quasi-conservative commentators to project the image of being “right-leaning.” It also seems that they script many of their commentary programs; because they run guest on off, sometimes cutting the individual off in mid-thought/sentence… Ultimately, my view is that for the truth to be told it requires people ordered in moral virtue [such virtue as expressed and lived in the words: “…with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”], but moral virtue has become something of an anachronism; nearly nobody speaks of, or understands, the necessity moral virtue plays in the sustaining of self-governance. Those that do understand do not devote the time – necessary – to whet the appetitional desire of others so that they themselves may seek to study moral virtue. A number of the 56 signers actually signed their own death-warrant – and each of them knew that was a distinct possibility; some also were wealthy men e.g., George Mason, that lost their fortunes in the endeavor for Independence, but not a single individual recanted his signature; moral giants! People such as they are what the USA needs – in baskets and bushels…

Cordially, tjd  

 

I'm with you TJ. I wish Newt would have came back strong and said... wait a minute, it's been widely reported and verified that Soros is funding BLM and various political races across the USA... so YES WE DO need to talk about him.

Who do these people think they are?

Thanks for the background on the lady. I didn't know her.

Hi again, Metal!

Like Gingrich, but he likely likes being asked to comment on Fox and isn't going to to brace three women who may intimate he - as a white male - is talking down to women and perhaps 'people-of-color' (although I don't think Harris Faulkner would make such a claim; Harf undoubtedly would. Not sure about Melissa Francis...). Maybe News Max will grow and become the new Fox in a 2nd Trump term...?

Cordially, tjd

How understand the media is that it is pretty Liberal and the advertisers that support them pour a lot of money into them. Even FOX news with their conservative slant depend on these advertisers so they try to avoid stories that put their finances at risk. Numerous times advertisers have pulled their ads from Tucker Carlson who is one of the few who don't let the media influence his talking points.

Hello, Writer!

Although the advertising would be a concern, advertisers would want to utilize those platforms which make their products most visible! If Fox - or any Network/Media outlet - spent part of its headline-reporting time reporting upon the negligence - and/or Constitutional malice - of the other Networks, one would think it would tend to increase that outlets market/Media share – while decreasing the market/Media share of those that do not report salient facts and events to the public; this would seem to make them more attractive to advertisers. But of course the other Networks would at first increase their criticism of Fox (or whichever Media outlet was holding them to an account), but then the other Networks may delve into the private lives of the Fox persons, and the individual person may have a closet-full-of-skeletons. If such is the case then Fox – or whatever Network/Media outlet [and it would need to be a large Media outlet; the aim should be to gain Market share while cudgeling competitor agents-of-the-Press into fulfilling their 1st Amendment obligation…] was going after Press negligence would need to find people to report the News that have no closet skeletons, or skeletons that may be made publicly acceptable… In any case, the Press is given the same deference - by the Founding Fathers – given religion and for the same reason viz: the Founders were concerned with sustaining the relation established between the Governed and Government of the United States through the ratification of the United States Constitution, and both religion and the Press have implicit Constitutional obligations from whence their 1st Amendment Rights are derived. Thus, although we acknowledge the Press is subject to free-market economics, we think Fox [A Left-of-Center Media outlet] has demonstrated the appeal of semi-fair and semi-balanced News reporting and we think that the appeal of actual fair-and balanced reporting would have even greater appeal. Humans are made for the truth, and nothing but the truth sates the human soul…

Cordially, tjd  

Your last statement that humans are made for the truth is an eye opener. So many humans have lived with lies and even when the truth gets clearer in their eyes, they reject it. I don't think a lot of humans care about truth. It's all about picking a team and sticking with it till the end. I believe Democrats and Republicans are basically the same team giving the illusion that we have choices. We don't. 

Hi, Writer!

Although you do not believe Jesus Christ ever lived, he points to those that reject truth - in a number of ways e.g.,  '...they will look, but will not see, and although they listen intently they do not hear...'  Additionally, while many Biblical literalists believe the "mark-of-the-beast' - which is affixed to the head, and/or hand - should be understood as a disposition ordered in opposition to the truth; those with marks upon their head are intellectually/emotionally opposed to truth, while those with hands marked are attached financially to a denial of the truth... Those of the rank-and-file Democrat Party are almost all consisting of those opposed emotionally/intellectually to the truth while the Leadership is also influenced by financial gain. Most Republicans are - likely - financial sell-outs, since principally they are more concerned with objective truths (such is why they gravitate to the social-political Right). 

Most humans care about truth, but they - unfortunately - don't possess the dispostion necessary to grasp thruth. The Church's Constitutional role (1st Amendment; Church's have come to neglect this obligation - seemingly - in favor of fondling children, generally male children...). Humans - as moral beings - need to be taught what is morally right and what is morally wrong [not a rote process, but rahter a rational process], but Churches have bowed to the behavioral 'sciences' and their teaching is 1.) There is no such thing as moral right, or moral wrong! 2.) If you have an urge, and desire to act upon that urge, their is nothing wrong with doing so! Unless it involves heterosexuality i.e., sodomy is a fine and wonderful thing - even when the sodomy takes place as a matter of rape, but heterosexuality is to be understood as rather perverse. At least such is how the behavioral sciences understand things... As consequence - since the Church teaches sociology, and behavioral sciences do as well - truth is reduce to William James understanding, viz: "Whatever makes one happy!"

Cordially, tjd 


I don't believe in Jesus anymore. Recently some one who studied in Ethipian theology tried to introduce me to a Black Jesus. It don't matter the color, it is all a fairy tale story to me. I love living without belief and being able to form my own opinion of God as I live. 

Hi again, Writer!

I'm not purveying Jesus as God incarnate - although that is who He Is - rather I would point to him - for non-believers - as an amazingly insightful philosopher. As an example, when he says: "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 16: 25. As a matter of mental health, any individual fixated by/with the self generally suffers mental illness, while those involved in the world forget themselves and their worries raptured by the world and the needy of the world...  Although, I view the behavioral science disciplines as fonts of moral decay and dystopia, even they generally promote involvement in-the-world as promoting mental health.  So even though you may not believe Jesus is Divine, I'd think it would be difficult - for anyone - to deny his wisdom.

Cordially, tjd

 

Why doesn't FOX report it? Because Rupert Murdoch's liberal sons took over the reigns at FOX NEWS. It's changed... they're flirting with the dark side. 

Hi, Nate!

That may have accelerated the Leftward pitch, but the Network has been moving Left since Hume was replaced by Wallace; Wallace may not have as much antipathy for the social-political Right as his dad, but he has little regard for POTUS Trump and Republican advocacies... I think Fox - in part - has been worn down because it has never been grounded in principles presupposed by the Founding Fathers (i.e., it may have had some conservative personages, and some conservative leanings, but when an individual, group or organization is not principally grounded it is moved by burgeoning social-political currents...) as the penned and ratified the Founding documents. 

I was actually making a point - that Fox doesn't report the negligence and even treasonous behavior of the mainstream Press because they support the activities of the mainstream Press, but not explicity; they neither want to alert, alarm or lose their audience. Remove the semi-conservative commentary Hosts viz: Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham et al, and you hear News reports, and reporters, making the same claims as the mainstream Networks. If the Demonic-rats steal the Presidency and the other branches of Government expecT Fox to come all the way out of the closet. Looks like News Max is growing dramatically; if Trump wins News Max may become what Fox once was, or seemed to be...?

Take care, Nate!

Cordially, tjd  

The network has been moving left since Roger Ailes, Fox's grounded principles, was forced out over sexual harassment claims. Then... Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck were forced out. Decisions are made from the top down.

I've noticed for a while now that Fox News online cites MANY news reports from leftwing outlets. It's as though they've cut their own investigative staffs and are now relying more on leftists to supply them with content. 

Hi again, Nate!

Forgot about Ailes, but I think the Leftward drift began as I said - by placing Wallace as the "hub" of the reporting staff. O'Reilly I always viewed as milk toast - and in need of side baring anything Limbaugh said as quasi-lunacy; Beck seems to have recovered what sanity he had and embraced Trump (his diatribes aimed at Trump would not have been well received by the Fox audiences...)... What I view as the ground for principles of conservatism, I related in a post titled: "Conservatism", but in essence any advocacy which - even obloquy - is at odds with the principles necessary to protect inalienable Rights, and sustain Constitutional Liberties cannot be reconciled with conservative principles. Fundamentally the principle of objective reality and its attendant objective morality (i.e., natural law) are the ground of conservatism and the very thing to which Jefferson was pointing when he wrote 'the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.' If Fox - ever - was conservative in its principles, it would have - years ago - articulated a defense the unborn and heterosexuality. This would not preclude a diversity of opinion among employees @ Fox (allowing many on-air discussions regarding related topic and advocacies...), but those principles would be considered indelible bench-marks which anchor one's understanding of the United States Constitution and the sacred obligations the Founders bestowed upon the Press. As a consequence, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham would be understood as representatives of the more Left leaning pundits at Fox...

Cordially, tjd

But you're dismissing the decision makers who placed Wallace where he is. 

What the media today calls conservatism is not true Conservatism... it's the new version... just like liberals are not really Liberals. Redefining the meaning of old terms, the left has mastered that. 

Fox News is a business, and as a business, they're not going to slit their own throat. Thereby, they're not going to have their regulars openly advocating for or against hot-button topics (abortion & homosexuality) to any great degree... though they will give support to those politicians who do. 

Hi, Nate!

Do not wish to be argumentative regarding when Fox began its meandering march Left - particularly since our disagreement is over things of slight consequence... But, although I didn't mention the 'decision makers', they are mentioned implicitly; this because nobody - to my knowledge - can appoint themselves 'emperor' (or to a position in an organization, or agency, unless they possess dictatorial power...?)...

And I agree that what is referred to as conservativism and 'liberalism' are not what they formerly meant; change of worldviews (as the University inversion necessarily precipitated...) leads necessarily to changed meaning of terminology downstream... I define conservatism with an eye on preserving conflict resolution via dialogue and the logical necessary presuppositions. "Liberalism" I define as I do all ideologies viz: a view-of-the-world reflecting the sentimental predilections of an individual soul which has - severed its rational bonds with objective reality - been universalized and imposed/ascribed, as a Procrustean bed, as a subjective expression of reality flattering to the prescriptionist...  

Regarding the reality of the Press is a business: Yes!, but no other business has been given a Constitutional protection from Governmental coercion; only the Church (religion - which is not a business) shares the same shelter from the Government force. European Nations - formerly Christian in their roots - support the Church with tax dollars as a legacy acknowledgment of the role the Church formerly played in mitigating lawlessness, while promoting both social-cohesion and law-abiding conduct among its citizens. Like the Church, the Press has a Constitutional obligation undergirding its "right". Thus, the Press has come to understood as a "business," but formerly the Press was something of a vocation - to be likened Constitutionally - to a member of the clergy. That we have come to understand the Press as a business is indicative of how far our understanding of Civics has fallen... If Americans had an appreciation that the United States Constitution philosophically presupposes an objective worldview and objective morality (Note that objective reality and its attendant principle objective morality is the 1st principle of philosophical realism...) - and the that "Living Constitution' reflects its separation from those philosophical principles, then Americans would be quite comfortable with a Network formally stating: We @ FOX News (or any News outlet), as a Press organization - understand our existence as vocational, and are thus, committed to preservation of Constitutional Liberties whose circumscription rest upon the principles ofobjective reality  and  objective morality  (a.k.a. Laws of Nature and Nature's God i.e., the rational God of Judeo-Christianity and the natural law...); moreover, we - as a matter of principle (i.e., vocational obligation) - rationally oppose (i.e., philosophically oppose) any number of advocacies which are insidiously and/or explicitly  inimical to inalienable-Rights and Constitutional Liberties. Nothing needs be uttered regarding specifics advocacies and/or activities (e.g., regarding abortion and sodomy), but when such advocacies arise the Network would allow open discussion whereby antipodal principles may be discussed at length - an example of what was denied to Newt Gingrich. If Gingrich had been allowed to make an argument - regarding Soros funding of District Attorneys that refuse to prosecute dystopian icons - Gingrich - likely would have cited implicit - perhaps explicit - obligations which attend to the job description of officers-of-the-Court, and if Gingrich were to be pushed to render a defense of the Law, and the State and/or United States Constitution, he would ultimately be required to defend reason! Reason cannot be defended apart from the principle of  objective reality!  Cordially, tjd

OK... I wish you'd try to condense your responses, I'm exhausted. I'll leave it at that. 

Sorry, Nate! 

Take care!

Cordially. tjd

It is not the job of any News channel to bitch about other news channels. It is their job to report the news and do so objectively. What other news channels say IS NOT THE NEWS.

Its a shame that the standards of reportage in the United States are so woefully low that so called journalists left or right can get away with half hour programmes with no news in them whatsoever. Just propaganda and personal opinion. Lame.

Post A Comment