Is Fox anti-American?

Post Reply New Topic

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/19/ra ... plays-tune
Fox “news” consistently favors international corporations over American interests. Now, they want Obama to play into the hands of ISIS. They want Obama to attack Islam rather than ISIS. If Obama falls for such a stupid plan, we will lose Muslim support against ISIS.
I realize that fox “news” is pure propaganda and little actual news *, but this is truly anti-American behavior!! !
*
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20110622

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/0 ... ews/180787

I dislike the prefix anti-(countries name) because it is using nationalism to whack people over the head who disagree.

And yet, it's Fox and their teacher's pets like Nugent, Huckabee, and Gulliani who have been most guilty of casting anyone disagreeing with their political and economic stance as Anti-American.

So those that voted "no" are not saying that fox is not anti-american, they are saying that they do not like anyone accusing someone of being anti-american. That was not the question ( is nationalism ok).
Fox is anti-american in that its stories ( lies) have injured America. They helped subvert democracy by calling the Bush/Gore election too early. They continue to lie about global warming thereby harming our national security. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ate-change
Now, because of their agenda they are willing to risk our Soldier's lives by reducing opposition to ISIS.

I agree! That is why my OP revealed hypocrisy on fox's part. However, unlike fox's silly attempts ( which unfortunately work with the uninformed) to paint their opposition as unpatriotic , the evidence that fox acts contrary to America's interests is overwhelming.

It's a neocon counterpart to the socialist-liberal CNN/MSNBC

Meaning, they all suck and are anti-American (if we are to say American = early liberal philosophy, which the founders were fans of)

CNN, socialist? I think it would be hazardous to even stamp MSNBC with that label. What evidence do you have for that statement?

You just need to read the stories over time to get their bent. Social spending, social reforms, specific social restrictions (ironically), and similar social liberal policies.

CNN constantly pumped the anti-gun hysteria in news articles and opinion pieces after Sandy Hook with little counterpoint (anti-gun being a specific social liberal policy). A perfect example. I bet MSNBC did too.

And for Fox on the same, they pumped the anti-video game and mental illness aspects (which are conservative policies).

That's hardly socialistic.

Social-liberal. Look it up.

It's bits of socialism combined with liberalism, and it's what most left-wing parties follow (that are voted for in large enough numbers anyway).

And anti-gun is socialist. It's limiting individual freedom for [the perceived] safety of the state. Social liberals do it for [the perceived] safety of the community.

And yet Ronald Reagan as governor of California had pushed for a gun control law when it was found that black civil rights workers were arming themselves for protection. Don't believe me? Look it up.

There's nothing saying people have to agree with all of their parties' policies. They'd just have to agree with more from theirs than they do the others'.

Anti-gun can also be an extreme right wing policy, under fascism, but the reasons for that are protection of the state too, like socialism. Which may just have been what Reagan was feeling above (evil black people attacking the state).

Nowadays, it'll fall under socialism or liberal socialism though, meaning protection for the community at the expense of the individual.

What's wrong with keeping the public safe? Keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, or those with criminal convictions violates the rights of certain individuals, but there is a definite justification for it.

That's more along the lines of classic liberalism. Do something bad, or you're incompetent, then your freedom is taken away for the safety of the public.

Social liberalism is: you don't need this type of firearm (even though you haven't done anything wrong and aren't incompetent), so you can't have it. This is anti-gun.

CNN was doing the latter 24/7. Which is my point (and I bet MSNBC was too). And Fox was doing their usual.

I think there are probably some firearms that shouldn't be in anyone's hands, though I freely concede on this issue I am hardly an expert, as guns don't particularly interest me.

American media in general represents the interests of corporations and the government(who is in bed with the corporations and follows its own ideological interests as well), it does not represent the best interests of the America people.