Fox News examples

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread said “the stock market correction.” Bingo. The next time major news outlets are reporting that the stock market is down 10% from a year ago, or something similar and using objective data like that, take screenshots of the first 3 pages of the Fox News website, then the same with NY Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.

Because I did, and at the same time the other major news sites were reporting on this “correction” and hypothesizing it was because of erratic tariff application and withdrawal, Fox was filled with stories instead about Trans people trying to use a bathroom, or making fun of AOC, or something similar. I don’t know how far you would have to scroll down on the Fox site to see the loss huge decrease in stock market value, but it wasn’t there in the first three pages.

This.

This absolutely. OP you can easily do it yourself by checking Fox and other outlet. Recent example: yesterday i opened WSJ.com and first bug news was Musk about to be briefed at the Pentagon on the US’ secret plans on fighting China in a war. Checked CNN.com and nytimes.com and if i remember theguardian.com and the news was there prominently. Checked foxnews.com and could not see it anywhere. That was a pretty big news but fox readers could keep themselves occupied wiht the latest bad photo of AOC or the female teacher in montana accused of molesting a kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you give me examples of stories that aren’t covered by Fox et al.

This week, or going back

Just where Fox chooses not to cover news stories at all. (Keeping viewers in a bubble)

I’m having a conversation with a family member …

The fact that you don't know of any tells me you are going to lose any kind of debate with the family member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread said “the stock market correction.” Bingo. The next time major news outlets are reporting that the stock market is down 10% from a year ago, or something similar and using objective data like that, take screenshots of the first 3 pages of the Fox News website, then the same with NY Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.

Because I did, and at the same time the other major news sites were reporting on this “correction” and hypothesizing it was because of erratic tariff application and withdrawal, Fox was filled with stories instead about Trans people trying to use a bathroom, or making fun of AOC, or something similar. I don’t know how far you would have to scroll down on the Fox site to see the loss huge decrease in stock market value, but it wasn’t there in the first three pages.

This.

This absolutely. OP you can easily do it yourself by checking Fox and other outlet. Recent example: yesterday i opened WSJ.com and first bug news was Musk about to be briefed at the Pentagon on the US’ secret plans on fighting China in a war. Checked CNN.com and nytimes.com and if i remember theguardian.com and the news was there prominently. Checked foxnews.com and could not see it anywhere. That was a pretty big news but fox readers could keep themselves occupied wiht the latest bad photo of AOC or the female teacher in montana accused of molesting a kid

They covered that pretty extensively. That is how I found out about the fake news.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-loses-over-possibility-musk-top-secret-china-briefing-no-business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread said “the stock market correction.” Bingo. The next time major news outlets are reporting that the stock market is down 10% from a year ago, or something similar and using objective data like that, take screenshots of the first 3 pages of the Fox News website, then the same with NY Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.

Because I did, and at the same time the other major news sites were reporting on this “correction” and hypothesizing it was because of erratic tariff application and withdrawal, Fox was filled with stories instead about Trans people trying to use a bathroom, or making fun of AOC, or something similar. I don’t know how far you would have to scroll down on the Fox site to see the loss huge decrease in stock market value, but it wasn’t there in the first three pages.

This.

This absolutely. OP you can easily do it yourself by checking Fox and other outlet. Recent example: yesterday i opened WSJ.com and first bug news was Musk about to be briefed at the Pentagon on the US’ secret plans on fighting China in a war. Checked CNN.com and nytimes.com and if i remember theguardian.com and the news was there prominently. Checked foxnews.com and could not see it anywhere. That was a pretty big news but fox readers could keep themselves occupied wiht the latest bad photo of AOC or the female teacher in montana accused of molesting a kid

They covered that pretty extensively. That is how I found out about the fake news.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-loses-over-possibility-musk-top-secret-china-briefing-no-business

That's not news, it's an opinion piece that puts all focus on the left's reaction as opposed to putting any attention on the actual story.

And by the way, whenever Trump calls something "fake news," history has shown us that more often than not it means it's TRUE news that Trump just didn't want getting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watch both sides because they both omit a ton. Just as many important stories omitted from CNN as there are from Fox. And MSNBC is like an alternate universe.

Can you give specific examples of when you’ve noticed that CNN or MSNBC did not cover something or “omitted a ton”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN, MSNBC viewers and WaPo, LATimes, Politico, NYTimes readers think the summer of BLM riots were "mostly peaceful". What's your point?

Because they were. Here is the actual data.
https://acleddata.com/2021/05/25/a-year-of-racial-justice-protests-key-trends-in-demonstrations-supporting-the-blm-movement/

And that when there were incidents of violence, they almost always ended up having nothing to do with the actual BLM movement and instead were right wing Boogaloo accelerationists who were responsible for many of the arsons, or anarchocommunists, or organized crime and gang members using protests as cover to loot stores. Or, the violence was started by the opposition faction, like police (Lafayette Square) or Proud Boys. That all gets ignored by the right wing despite being factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you give me examples of stories that aren’t covered by Fox et al.

This week, or going back

Just where Fox chooses not to cover news stories at all. (Keeping viewers in a bubble)

I’m having a conversation with a family member …

Fox News is cable entertainment television and not a legitimate news source. Anyone who is still watching Fox News, MSNBC and the likes in 2025 thinking they're getting legitimate news from a trustworthy source is a complete and utter idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watch both sides because they both omit a ton. Just as many important stories omitted from CNN as there are from Fox. And MSNBC is like an alternate universe.

Can you give specific examples of when you’ve noticed that CNN or MSNBC did not cover something or “omitted a ton”?

Good grief.
You only need to go back a few years to the Russian collusion delusion to see how these networks bought the whole narrative hook line and sinker.
Any serious network or publication would have questioned much of the "information" that was being put out there. Instead, they simply went along with the narrative.
And, then there is the Hunter laptop story. These networks pushed the letter by the "51 former intelligence officials" that was false.
Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread said “the stock market correction.” Bingo. The next time major news outlets are reporting that the stock market is down 10% from a year ago, or something similar and using objective data like that, take screenshots of the first 3 pages of the Fox News website, then the same with NY Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.

Because I did, and at the same time the other major news sites were reporting on this “correction” and hypothesizing it was because of erratic tariff application and withdrawal, Fox was filled with stories instead about Trans people trying to use a bathroom, or making fun of AOC, or something similar. I don’t know how far you would have to scroll down on the Fox site to see the loss huge decrease in stock market value, but it wasn’t there in the first three pages.

This.

This absolutely. OP you can easily do it yourself by checking Fox and other outlet. Recent example: yesterday i opened WSJ.com and first bug news was Musk about to be briefed at the Pentagon on the US’ secret plans on fighting China in a war. Checked CNN.com and nytimes.com and if i remember theguardian.com and the news was there prominently. Checked foxnews.com and could not see it anywhere. That was a pretty big news but fox readers could keep themselves occupied wiht the latest bad photo of AOC or the female teacher in montana accused of molesting a kid

They covered that pretty extensively. That is how I found out about the fake news.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-loses-over-possibility-musk-top-secret-china-briefing-no-business

That's not news, it's an opinion piece that puts all focus on the left's reaction as opposed to putting any attention on the actual story.

And by the way, whenever Trump calls something "fake news," history has shown us that more often than not it means it's TRUE news that Trump just didn't want getting out.

Translation: I was wrong that Fox didn't cover the story so I will divert to insults and ignore the fact that every official has denied a story that was thinly sourced by "anonymous" sources.

[Anonymous]

Is it thinly sourced that Musk doesn’t have a security clearance, but he DOES have your social security number and bank account information? Or do you consider that a leap from DOGE having access to these things?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watch both sides because they both omit a ton. Just as many important stories omitted from CNN as there are from Fox. And MSNBC is like an alternate universe.

Can you give specific examples of when you’ve noticed that CNN or MSNBC did not cover something or “omitted a ton”?

Good grief.
You only need to go back a few years to the Russian collusion delusion to see how these networks bought the whole narrative hook line and sinker.
Any serious network or publication would have questioned much of the "information" that was being put out there. Instead, they simply went along with the narrative.
And, then there is the Hunter laptop story. These networks pushed the letter by the "51 former intelligence officials" that was false.
Give me a break.

Recent events kinda proves this was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread said “the stock market correction.” Bingo. The next time major news outlets are reporting that the stock market is down 10% from a year ago, or something similar and using objective data like that, take screenshots of the first 3 pages of the Fox News website, then the same with NY Times, Al Jazeera, CNN, etc.

Because I did, and at the same time the other major news sites were reporting on this “correction” and hypothesizing it was because of erratic tariff application and withdrawal, Fox was filled with stories instead about Trans people trying to use a bathroom, or making fun of AOC, or something similar. I don’t know how far you would have to scroll down on the Fox site to see the loss huge decrease in stock market value, but it wasn’t there in the first three pages.

This.

This absolutely. OP you can easily do it yourself by checking Fox and other outlet. Recent example: yesterday i opened WSJ.com and first bug news was Musk about to be briefed at the Pentagon on the US’ secret plans on fighting China in a war. Checked CNN.com and nytimes.com and if i remember theguardian.com and the news was there prominently. Checked foxnews.com and could not see it anywhere. That was a pretty big news but fox readers could keep themselves occupied wiht the latest bad photo of AOC or the female teacher in montana accused of molesting a kid

They covered that pretty extensively. That is how I found out about the fake news.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-loses-over-possibility-musk-top-secret-china-briefing-no-business

That's not news, it's an opinion piece that puts all focus on the left's reaction as opposed to putting any attention on the actual story.

And by the way, whenever Trump calls something "fake news," history has shown us that more often than not it means it's TRUE news that Trump just didn't want getting out.

Translation: I was wrong that Fox didn't cover the story so I will divert to insults and ignore the fact that every official has denied a story that was thinly sourced by "anonymous" sources.

It wasn’t covered by them. They just criticized the other sources coverage when it became too big to ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watch both sides because they both omit a ton. Just as many important stories omitted from CNN as there are from Fox. And MSNBC is like an alternate universe.

Can you give specific examples of when you’ve noticed that CNN or MSNBC did not cover something or “omitted a ton”?

Good grief.
You only need to go back a few years to the Russian collusion delusion to see how these networks bought the whole narrative hook line and sinker.
Any serious network or publication would have questioned much of the "information" that was being put out there. Instead, they simply went along with the narrative.
And, then there is the Hunter laptop story. These networks pushed the letter by the "51 former intelligence officials" that was false.
Give me a break.

I’m sorry what was false about the intelligence members?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-intelligence-hunter-biden-laptop-9d49578c70e3de03e628d0d0cf6592f0

[Anonymous]

In discussing the intended closure of the Department of Education, Fox did not discuss the potential ramifications of it, such as the fact that block grants to states may mean that states choose to fund vouchers over special needs, etc. In the article I read, they only talked about defeating “woke” policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watch both sides because they both omit a ton. Just as many important stories omitted from CNN as there are from Fox. And MSNBC is like an alternate universe.

Can you give specific examples of when you’ve noticed that CNN or MSNBC did not cover something or “omitted a ton”?

Good grief.
You only need to go back a few years to the Russian collusion delusion to see how these networks bought the whole narrative hook line and sinker.
Any serious network or publication would have questioned much of the "information" that was being put out there. Instead, they simply went along with the narrative.
And, then there is the Hunter laptop story. These networks pushed the letter by the "51 former intelligence officials" that was false.
Give me a break.

For the 100th time, the letter signed by the former intelligence officials did not say Russia was involved. It explicitly said that a) they were not pricy top the details, but b) as described, it looked like a Russian op — which it did (regardless of whether it was or was not).