Fox News Internal Document Bashes Pro-Trump Fox Regulars for Spreading ‘Disinformation’

[tytlyf]

To those here who think John Solomon was a credible "journalist." You were warned long ago about these people. So since Fox has issues with the information their contributors say, does this mean the Fox viewership will also have issues? Doubtful.

Fox News’ own research team has warned colleagues not to trust some of the network’s top commentators’ claims about Ukraine.
An internal Fox News research briefing book obtained by The Daily Beast openly questions Fox News contributor John Solomon’s credibility, accusing him of playing an “indispensable role” in a Ukrainian “disinformation campaign.”
The document also accuses frequent Fox News guest Rudy Giuliani of amplifying disinformation, as part of an effort to oust former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, and blasts Fox News guests Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova—both ardent Trump boosters—for “spreading disinformation.”
The 162-page document, entitled “Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration,” was created by Fox News senior political affairs specialist Bryan S. Murphy, who produces research from what is known as the network’s Brain Room—a newsroom division of researchers who provide information, data, and topic guides for the network’s programming.

Fox Internal Documents: Hannity Regulars Spread ‘Disinformation’
Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on Journo Behind Ukraine Mess

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder how they managed to obtain an internal Fox News research briefing book.

 

[tytlyf]

I wonder how they managed to obtain an internal Fox News research briefing book.

I'd assume a Fox employee sent it to them.

 

[shmogie]

To those here who think John Solomon was a credible "journalist." You were warned long ago about these people. So since Fox has issues with the information their contributors say, does this mean the Fox viewership will also have issues? Doubtful.


Fox Internal Documents: Hannity Regulars Spread ‘Disinformation’
Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on Journo Behind Ukraine Mess

Hannity isn't a news reporter, he is a political entertainer. Anyone who takes what he says as fact, without verifying it, is on thin ice.

It has been years since I have watched him, but I believe he has some kind of disclaimer to this effect at the start of the show.

 

[tytlyf]

Hannity isn't a news reporter, he is a political entertainer. Anyone who takes what he says as fact, without verifying it, is on thin ice.

Correct, Hannity is a gossip reporter. But he wants his viewership to believe he's actually reporting news. The sad part is 10's of millions of people think Hannity is honest and trustworthy. The same people think Shep is 'fake news' and Hannity is gospel.

It has been years since I have watched him, but I believe he has some kind of disclaimer to this effect at the start of the show.

No disclaimer.

 

[Altfish]

I'm shocked .. Fox news spreads lies and propaganda - next you'll be telling me that The Pope is a Catholic.

 

[sun rise]

Hannity isn't a news reporter, he is a political entertainer. Anyone who takes what he says as fact, without verifying it, is on thin ice.

It has been years since I have watched him, but I believe he has some kind of disclaimer to this effect at the start of the show.

True but their management carefully blurs the line between the two and many are taken in. And of course, as long as the profits roll in, who cares about that sort of thing anyway. What's more important after all: a well-informed populace or profits?

 

[shmogie]

True but their management carefully blurs the line between the two and many are taken in. And of course, as long as the profits roll in, who cares about that sort of thing anyway. What's more important after all: a well-informed populace or profits?

Many have been duped into thinking that the media is responsible for reporting truth, for Mom, the flag, and apple pie.

The truth is that all media outlets are businesses that have the sole goal of making money.

There once was a time in my lifetime, where the news media could generally be assumed to tell the truth.

Today, I don't believe any of them without verification. More outlets are chasing, fewer viewers/readers/dollars. Therefore, the most inflammatory, inaccurate, and salacious stories add to the bottom line, and bolster company survival, and company jobs.

Further, the rule of political non bias has been junked, making it acceptable for raw political bias to add to the salacious stories.

To these companies, profit is vastly more important than a well informed populace. They want the money, the want to promote politics that they love, in that order.

As Churchill said, the truth can be hidden by a bodyguard of lies.

 

[sun rise]

Many have been duped into thinking that the media is responsible for reporting truth, for Mom, the flag, and apple pie.

The truth is that all media outlets are businesses that have the sole goal of making money.

There once was a time in my lifetime, where the news media could generally be assumed to tell the truth.

Today, I don't believe any of them without verification. More outlets are chasing, fewer viewers/readers/dollars. Therefore, the most inflammatory, inaccurate, and salacious stories add to the bottom line, and bolster company survival, and company jobs.

Further, the rule of political non bias has been junked, making it acceptable for raw political bias to add to the salacious stories.

To these companies, profit is vastly more important than a well informed populace. They want the money, the want to promote politics that they love, in that order.

As Churchill said, the truth can be hidden by a bodyguard of lies.

I tend to agree but not totally. There are lies and there is shading and bias in reporting. At least once I went looking for how MSNBC and Fox reported an event and found both basically had the facts but displayed bias in choice of words. An easy example: "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" (think American Revolution being reported by the Brits vs American patriots).

 

[metis]

Fox is to the airwaves as National Enquirer is to the print.

I want news, not stories.

 

[Nakosis]

To those here who think John Solomon was a credible "journalist." You were warned long ago about these people. So since Fox has issues with the information their contributors say, does this mean the Fox viewership will also have issues? Doubtful.


Fox Internal Documents: Hannity Regulars Spread ‘Disinformation’
Leaked Memo: Colleagues Unload on Journo Behind Ukraine Mess

John Solomon isn't a journalist. He does commentary on politics. It'd be like using the RF Forums as a news source. Though probably get a little more accuracy here on the forums.

 

[shmogie]

I tend to agree but not totally. There are lies and there is shading and bias in reporting. At least once I went looking for how MSNBC and Fox reported an event and found both basically had the facts but displayed bias in choice of words. An easy example: "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" (think American Revolution being reported by the Brits vs American patriots).

My personal experience with the media, both print, and TV, is that they create false narratives, according to their own biases.

My first experience with this was when at a demonstration turned violent, I arrested the leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. I was a 21 year old rookie, I spent a long time on the witness stand as a result.

When the anti war reporter sent to cover the trial for a city newspaper published the testimony, paragraphs and words were left out, producing a false and degrading narrative.

Throughout my career, as I worked up the ranks, the media never got it right, for whatever reason.

You may be right, and I am just an old cynic, but I don't trust them, any of them.

 

[Stevicus]

My personal experience with the media, both print, and TV, is that they create false narratives, according to their own biases.

My first experience with this was when at a demonstration turned violent, I arrested the leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. I was a 21 year old rookie, I spent a long time on the witness stand as a result.

When the anti war reporter sent to cover the trial for a city newspaper published the testimony, paragraphs and words were left out, producing a false and degrading narrative.

Throughout my career, as I worked up the ranks, the media never got it right, for whatever reason.

You may be right, and I am just an old cynic, but I don't trust them, any of them.

I trust news sources to a certain point, depending on what it is. Most news stories are pretty mundane reportage where there's no real controversy or no particular reason to lie or create "fake news." If a news outlet says there was a traffic accident at 5th and Elm, I would have no reason to disbelieve it.

But when it comes to government or politics, then I look at it differently. If there's some allegation of corruption, then there are legal mechanisms in the government to address that. I'm usually content to wait it out and see the results of whatever investigation takes place.

If the media wishes to speculate, then that's how I look at it. I tend to look at what they're actually saying and not so much on how they're saying it. Trying to sift through the speculation and opinion and reducing it to the bare "facts" (if any) of what is being reported can be a bit of work, but it's possible.

Another other aspect of media which warrants more attention is in how they decide which stories are the most important and receive the most attention, as opposed to those which are deemed less important or less noteworthy.

 

[Heyo]

I tend to agree but not totally. There are lies and there is shading and bias in reporting. At least once I went looking for how MSNBC and Fox reported an event and found both basically had the facts but displayed bias in choice of words. An easy example: "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" (think American Revolution being reported by the Brits vs American patriots).

There is bias in wording and then there is selection bias. You could call it "lying by omission". You can turn the whole meaning of a story around by simply leaving out a few aspects. No falsehoods or even exaggerations necessary.

 

[tytlyf]

There is bias in wording and then there is selection bias. You could call it "lying by omission". You can turn the whole meaning of a story around by simply leaving out a few aspects. No falsehoods or even exaggerations necessary.

A good example of this "lying by omission" is when radical RW media tells it's audience that liberals/progressives founded the KKK with the DemoKKKrat party.
There was even a movie in the theaters called "Death of a Nation" that was a propaganda piece aimed at duping the public.

Republicans love to say the Democrat party founded slavery, the KKK and was extremely racist. It is true that the confederate south in the 1800's were Democrats, what isn't true is that they were liberals/progressives.

They omit the ideology (conservative/liberal) from the entire lie. So the audience just assumes DemoKKKrat = liberal/progressive. Even in the deep confederate south....

Only someone who failed American history would think the Dixie south was liberal. But millions apparently do...