Fox Files

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Irresponsible crack-addled loser leaves laptop behind with compromising information. That’s some disinfo op. Was it the Russians pulling the strings on that one? Meanwhile the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 Minutes were running with this as part of their “vetting” of the story:

 

It’s a very important issue to find out whether a man’s corrupt who’s running for president, who’s accepted money from China, and Ukraine, and from Russia,” Trump responds. “Take a look at what’s going on, Leslie, and you say that shouldn’t be discussed?…I think it’s one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen, and you don’t cover it.”

“Well because it can’t be verified,” Stahl says. “I’m telling you—”

“Of course it can be verified,” Trump interjects. “Excuse me, Leslie, they found a laptop—”

“It can’t be verified,” Stahl repeats.

 

At least NPR was on the job with their “vetting”:

 

There was no censorship (maybe Twitter suspending the account of the NY Post would qualify as censorship but lets not quibble over the 6th largest newspaper in America) and I’m sure all the non-censorship had absolutely nothing to do with loathing of Donald Trump. All we have to do to make it so is redefine the word censorship and make it mean capitalism. Right?

The fact that the laptop was Hunter’s was verified. What hasn’t been verified is that everything on the laptop was his. In fact, analysis found that people other than Biden had accessed and created files on the laptop after it was in the possession of the repair guy. 
 

If you’re a journalist and care about the truth, then at the time of the Post story, you could honestly say that there was a laptop that appeared to be Hunter Biden’s but beyond that most of the facts were in dispute or not verified. 
 

You’re basically complaining that every outlet didn’t do what BuzzFeed did with the Steele Dossier: publicize a story before they could vet it. 

[JDHillFan]

21 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The fact that the laptop was Hunter’s was verified. What hasn’t been verified is that everything on the laptop was his. In fact, analysis found that people other than Biden had accessed and created files on the laptop after it was in the possession of the repair guy. 
 

If you’re a journalist and care about the truth, then at the time of the Post story, you could honestly say that there was a laptop that appeared to be Hunter Biden’s but beyond that most of the facts were in dispute or not verified. 
 

You’re basically complaining that every outlet didn’t do what BuzzFeed did with the Steele Dossier: publicize a story before they could vet it. 

Unsurprisingly not remotely correct. My issue is with censorship. You deny it was in play and I see Twitter suspending the account of the 6th largest newspaper in America over reporting that passed muster. I see NPR declaring the matter of no interest and not worthy of considering. I see the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 minutes declare nothing to see here. Rather than debate and report more, you and your side approve of stifling discussion. I find that disgusting. You find it to be “capitalism”.

[BillStime]

20 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Unsurprisingly not remotely correct. My issue is with censorship. You deny it was in play and I see Twitter suspending the account of the 6th largest newspaper in America over reporting that passed muster. I see NPR declaring the matter of no interest and not worthy of considering. I see the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 minutes declare nothing to see here. Rather than debate and report more, you and your side approve of stifling discussion. I find that disgusting. You find it to be “capitalism”.

Was the laptop story covered prior to the election?

 

[ChiGoose]

36 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Unsurprisingly not remotely correct. My issue is with censorship. You deny it was in play and I see Twitter suspending the account of the 6th largest newspaper in America over reporting that passed muster. I see NPR declaring the matter of no interest and not worthy of considering. I see the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 minutes declare nothing to see here. Rather than debate and report more, you and your side approve of stifling discussion. I find that disgusting. You find it to be “capitalism”.

What you’re seeing (aside from the twitter part which I’ll get to later), is actually what is called journalistic standards. 
 

Let’s look at the Steele Dossier, a document full of rumors and raw intelligence, none of which have been proven and much of which has been debunked. 
 

BuzzFeed wasn’t the only outlet to get it. At the time they made it public, other outlets had had it for weeks or longer. But they didn’t publish it. I don’t think they even ran stories from it.

 

That would be weird if, as you imply, all of the news outlets were out to get Trump. What a gift the dossier would be! Pee tapes! Secret meetings in Prague. If your theory is correct, they would have published it immediately.

 

But they didn’t. Because they were trying to determine what in the document was actually true before making it public. 
 

There was no secret cabal of media outlets sitting on a story because it would make Trump look bad. It was each outlet applying their standards to an unverified story. Turns out that one outlet, BuzzFeed, had much looser standards than the others and released the story unvetted because it was “newsworthy”. They’ve been rightly criticized for this.

 

Similar here, while other outlets (including Fox News) did not run with the laptop story because it didn’t meet  their standards, the Post felt it was newsworthy and ran it before vetting the details. 
 

Now, you can really fall into two camps here:

1. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were correct to run the unverified Steele Dossier and Hunter laptop stories because they were newsworthy. 
2. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were wrong to run the stories without vetting the details for accuracy

 

I am squarely in the second camp but you seem to be in the first. That’s fine, difference of opinion. 
 

As to Twitter, after all of the misinfo ops that it allowed on its site in the lead up to 2016, it put into place a truly stupid policy of blocking the link to anything that might be misinfo until Twitter can verify it. 
 

This then lead to the Streisand Effect of giving the NY Post story more views than it had been getting because Twitter had unwittingly created a controversy that predictably did the opposite of what it intended. 
 

Not everything has to be a grand conspiracy. Sometimes it’s just people doing what they think is best, even if it turns out to be dumb. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by ChiGoose

[BillStime]

44 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Unsurprisingly not remotely correct. My issue is with censorship. You deny it was in play and I see Twitter suspending the account of the 6th largest newspaper in America over reporting that passed muster. I see NPR declaring the matter of no interest and not worthy of considering. I see the hard hitting investigative journalists at 60 minutes declare nothing to see here. Rather than debate and report more, you and your side approve of stifling discussion. I find that disgusting. You find it to be “capitalism”.

How many days prior to the 2016 election did the Hunter Biden laptop break?

 

How many days?

 

@BillsFanNC - we know you know - c’mon - how many days?

[JDHillFan]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

What you’re seeing (aside from the twitter part which I’ll get to later), is actually what is called journalistic standards. 
 

Let’s look at the Steele Dossier, a document full of rumors and raw intelligence, none of which have been proven and much of which has been debunked. 
 

BuzzFeed wasn’t the only outlet to get it. At the time they made it public, other outlets had had it for weeks or longer. But they didn’t publish it. I don’t think they even ran stories from it.

 

That would be weird if, as you imply, all of the news outlets were out to get Trump. What a gift the dossier would be! Pee tapes! Secret meetings in Prague. If your theory is correct, they would have published it immediately.

 

But they didn’t. Because they were trying to determine what in the document was actually true before making it public. 
 

There was no secret cabal of media outlets sitting on a story because it would make Trump look bad. It was each outlet applying their standards to an unverified story. Turns out that one outlet, BuzzFeed, had much looser standards than the others and released the story unvetted because it was “newsworthy”. They’ve been rightly criticized for this.

 

Similar here, while other outlets (including Fox News) did not run with the laptop story because it didn’t meet  their standards, the Post felt it was newsworthy and ran it before vetting the details. 
 

Now, you can really fall into two camps here:

1. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were correct to run the unverified Steele Dossier and Hunter laptop stories because they were newsworthy. 
2. BuzzFeed and the NY Post were wrong to run the stories without vetting the details for accuracy

 

I am squarely in the second camp but you seem to be in the first. That’s fine, difference of opinion. 
 

As to Twitter, after all of the misinfo ops that it allowed on its site in the lead up to 2016, it put into place a truly stupid policy of blocking the link to anything that might be misinfo until Twitter can verify it. 
 

This then lead to the Streisand Effect of giving the NY Post story more views than it had been getting because Twitter had unwittingly created a controversy that predictably did the opposite of what it intended. 
 

Not everything has to be a grand conspiracy. Sometimes it’s just people doing what they think is best, even if it turns out to be dumb. 

Not surprised that you would type that much only to again miss my point entirely. I have not implied all the news outlets were out to get Trump. I stated outright that most media entities loathed him and that may have played into the shutting down of a story that might be harmful to their preferred candidate. This is common sense. ( I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 
 

I also have no theory. You are painting that picture yourself. 
 

I have an issue with censorship. You are fine with it. Twitter, while now in downfall, was the leading platform by which information was shared at the time. They shut down cold the account of the 6th largest newspaper in the country. Despite what you want to call it, that’s censorship. Pure common sense (I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 

[BillStime]

@JDHillFan - can’t hear you - when did the HUNTER BIDEN story break?

 

How many days prior to the election did it break?
 

Where did you tough guy? 

 

1 minute ago, JDHillFan said:

Not surprised that you would type that much only to again miss my point entirely. I have not implied all the news outlets were out to get Trump. I stated outright that most media entities loathed him and that may have played into the shutting down of a story that might be harmful to their preferred candidate. This is common sense. ( I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 
 

I also have no theory. You are painting that picture yourself. 
 

I have an issue with censorship. You are fine with it. Twitter, while now in downfall, was the leading platform by which information was shared at the time. They shut down cold the account of the 6th largest newspaper in the country. Despite what you want to call it, that’s censorship. Pure common sense (I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 

JD has problem with censorship - IN THE FOX FILES THREAD REGARDING CENSORSHIP.

 

No wonder cult leaders depend on idiots like you 

 

[BillStime]

@JDHillFan - still afraid to tell us when the Hunter Biden laptop story broke… why?

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Not surprised that you would type that much only to again miss my point entirely. I have not implied all the news outlets were out to get Trump. I stated outright that most media entities loathed him and that may have played into the shutting down of a story that might be harmful to their preferred candidate. This is common sense. ( I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 
 

I also have no theory. You are painting that picture yourself. 
 

I have an issue with censorship. You are fine with it. Twitter, while now in downfall, was the leading platform by which information was shared at the time. They shut down cold the account of the 6th largest newspaper in the country. Despite what you want to call it, that’s censorship. Pure common sense (I know you see yourself as an authority in the field). 

Twitter determined that the NY Post violated its TOS and took action. It later updated its policy and reinstated the account. 
 

Im not going to defend Twitter’s dumb policies but I fail to see how suspending an account that it found had violated those policies is some big deal.
 

Twitter is dumb and did a dumb thing that it ended up undoing.

[Gene Frenkle]

What does Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with the intentional likes about election fraud being perpetuated by Fox News?

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

What does Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with the intentional likes about election fraud being perpetuated by Fox News?

Nothing, but whataboutism is just about all they’ve got. 

[T master]

On 2/17/2023 at 4:41 PM, BillStime said:

 

From the top down, Fox News is nothing more than a right-wing, disinformation peddling propaganda machine.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing at all like CNN though we have all the trust in the world in the likes of Don Lemon, Rachel Meadow & Wolf all true reporters of nothing but the truth so help their pay check ...

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Nothing at all like CNN though we have all the trust in the world in the likes of Don Lemon, Rachel Meadow & Wolf all true reporters of nothing but the truth so help their pay check ...

Absolutely love that absolutely nobody on the MAGA side here will engage in the actual topic of the thread. Just straight whataboutism to deflect from the fact that they love being lied to because it makes them feel good. 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Absolutely love that absolutely nobody on the MAGA side here will engage in the actual topic of the thread. Just straight whataboutism to deflect from the fact that they love being lied to because it makes them feel good. 

 

It's REALLY hard to admit when you've been duped. It destroys so many of their narratives.

[Gene Frenkle]

Nothing like intentionally deceiving your viewers and having them remain loyal regardless. What a world!

 

Keep treating it as something you need to defend though, MAGA, instead of being insulted like you probably should be. That assumes that you have any integrity or independence left, which is dubious at best.

[BillStime]

 

[Gene Frenkle]

Jesus Christ...

[Gene Frenkle]

So...any of you guys still watching Tucker?

 

He thinks ya'll are idiots! 😂