General Discussion

rsexaminer

(321 posts) Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:59 AM Aug 2015

Politifact just named Fox News the most least trustworthy cable news channel

It looks like Fox News is full of lies, according the newest report by Politifact. It's actually not even close when compared to the other networks.

http://www.examiner.com/article/politifact-rates-fox-news-as-most-untrustworthy-cable-news-channel

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Politifact just named Fox News the most least trustworthy cable news channel (Original Post) rsexaminer Aug 2015 OP

Would you mind responding to any of your OPs? Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #1

As my neice instructed me, "Auntie, you have to be careful what you wish for because the wish fairy merrily Aug 2015 #2

Lol - DU is just a click farm for this guy jberryhill Aug 2015 #5

MIRT not concerned apparently. Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #6

It strikes me as rude as hell jberryhill Aug 2015 #7

Who knows? But we should make DU one less for them. Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #9

Ah, I hadn't thought of that jberryhill Aug 2015 #10

It sure would and that makes it all the more ban worthy in my opinion. nt. Juicy_Bellows Aug 2015 #12

It could be debated imo based on wording. Rex Aug 2015 #15

I'll do some experiments with phrases from the journal... jberryhill Aug 2015 #16

58 percent of the claims on Faux are false. But we knew that. Surprised it was not higher. Raster Aug 2015 #3

The OP can't hear you jberryhill Aug 2015 #8

This explains the status of media in America... LakeVermilion Aug 2015 #4

And in other news...water still maintains a strange wetness to it. Rex Aug 2015 #11

ummmm... wildbilln864 Aug 2015 #13

I think the OP Rex Aug 2015 #14

Juicy_Bellows

(2,427 posts)

1. Would you mind responding to any of your OPs?

Reply to rsexaminer (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 02:46 AM

Aug 2015

As far as I can tell you never have. That's not cool. Posting for click cash is apparently not against the rules but would you mind engaging once in awhile?

Cheers!

merrily

(45,251 posts)

2. As my neice instructed me, "Auntie, you have to be careful what you wish for because the wish fairy

Reply to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:36 AM

Aug 2015

has no returns window."

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

5. Lol - DU is just a click farm for this guy

Reply to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 05:31 PM

Aug 2015

Getting paid for posting a link to a "story" on one blog about what's being said on another blog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examiner.com

"Examiners are paid based on a black box system, which quantifies page views and other metrics, or the "Gawker-model" made famous by the blog Gawker.com. Examiner.com offered a variety of pay scale options to its writers. Examiner.com now bases compensation on variables such as subscriptions, page view traffic and session length."

So, please, make sure you click on the link in the OP.

Juicy_Bellows

(2,427 posts)

6. MIRT not concerned apparently.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 05:55 PM

Aug 2015

I know this poster has been alerted on. I guess I'll toss them on ignore.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

7. It strikes me as rude as hell

Reply to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:06 PM

Aug 2015

All he posts is pure tripe - in this instance "Oh, someone said something at Politico" - farts out a couple of poorly-written short paragraphs, posts it here, ignores any discussion, and gets paid for clicks.

That's really insulting.

How many other forums is he doing this to?

Juicy_Bellows

(2,427 posts)

9. Who knows? But we should make DU one less for them.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:17 PM

Aug 2015

It is rude and as I mentioned in another thread of theirs, I am not sure it's not a bot. In fact, it probably is a bot.

Cheers!

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

10. Ah, I hadn't thought of that

Reply to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:18 PM

Aug 2015

Of course that would make it a lot easier to pump out the links to a lot of forums.

Juicy_Bellows

(2,427 posts)

12. It sure would and that makes it all the more ban worthy in my opinion. nt.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:20 PM

Aug 2015

Rex

(65,616 posts)

15. It could be debated imo based on wording.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:26 PM

Aug 2015

Otherwise the writer doesn't know basics and I find that hard to believe.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

16. I'll do some experiments with phrases from the journal...

Reply to Rex (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:33 PM

Aug 2015

Like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22taught+a+Sunday+school+class+to+hundreds+of+churchgoers+in+attendance%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

But using older ones which are more fully indexed.

Raster

(20,998 posts)

3. 58 percent of the claims on Faux are false. But we knew that. Surprised it was not higher.

Reply to rsexaminer (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:02 AM

Aug 2015

"After gathering and fact checking statements for over a year, Politifact found that 58 percent of the claims made on Fox News were rated mostly false, false, or "Pants on Fire" false. When rating the claims made by rival MSNBC, 43 percent of the claims were rated at least mostly false, with 57 percent being labeled as at least partly true. CNN did the best on the "Truth-O-Meter" with only 23 percent of their claims being rated as mostly false or worse."

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

8. The OP can't hear you

Reply to Raster (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:06 PM

Aug 2015

LakeVermilion

(1,041 posts)

4. This explains the status of media in America...

Reply to rsexaminer (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:41 AM

Aug 2015

Not only is FOX bad, but MSNBC generates 57% accuracy and CNN is at 77% truth. Why can't we have media sources without bias? Of course, this rates cable news, I'd like to think that network news is better.