Fox News hypocrisy supercut

Originally published at:

Started to watch what is probably a great compilation of assholery, but then, nah, I don’t need any more evidence of it…or more outrage about it.


Watching as much of it as I could, I came to the realization I would actually rather watch televangelists. I actually have more respect for televangelists as villains. Televangelists actually make bank in service of themselves.

Fox News hosts are just toadies for second rate televangelists. Pundits are a step below them. Watching them hold court with Trump made me think of the toadies in Time Bandits.


This is completely by design. They don’t exist to be a credible news source; they exist to get high ratings from right wing viewers, and catering to that audience means opposing the left, period.


“The uploader has not made this video available in your country.”

Yeah, keep that Fox News garbage inside the US borders.


Why would you do that to your lips?

1 Like

Would it be a first amendment issue to make it illegal for them to represent themselves as a “news” source?

I.e. they can’t use any words or imply in any way that what they’re disseminating is news.

Full day’s profits as a minimum penalty for breaching.

Complete fantasy, I know, but…

Do you suppose any of these tools ever looks at these clips? Do they then say to themselves, “Oh, no! I should do better.”? Or, “It’s ok if I do it”? Or, “Worth it for the $$$.”?

It’s maddening to contemplate.

Well, they had actual hearings over professional wrestling calling itself a sport. One would think the Fourth Estate would beat least as important, even if they are shockingly similar these days.


Isn’t their defence always that it’s not news, it’s entertainment?

I suppose I’m asking at what point does it turn from freedom of the press into constant fraud?

1 Like

It’s only stated in defense of individual shows. Only Tucker Carlson so far that I am aware of. Which is like the WWE saying it is only ‘wrestling entertainment’ one match in the evening.

1 Like

I know it’s never going to happen, but it would be good if there were a fine on a day’s profits for reporting stories that could be proven to be false at the time of reporting. Not in an opinion way, like if you can google hydroxychloroquine hasn’t been proven to work on COVID, and still report that it does you’re fined a day’s revenue.


I imagine one could do hours of supercuts just on the deficit.


It’s fucking absurd how Fox calls out “main stream media” when they’ve been the number one rated news show for 20 years. They’re the definition of main stream.


Number one in viewership, close to last in credibility.

1 Like

That’s where the toxin truly kicks in. Compare the political power of the far right and the Know-Nothings in Western countries where Murdoch outlets are major players in the MSM versus what’s happening in countries where Rupert has a smaller presence.

1 Like

The opposite of mainstream is “fringe,” which describes Fox pretty well. Of course, now they are getting lumped in with the mainstream media by even fringier news organizations. Meanwhile, as Fox gets lumped in with the mainstream, sane, fact-based news outlets are increasingly branded as radical left.

1 Like

There is no hypocrisy when one truly believes the rules were never meant to apply to you. I return, again and again, to William S. Burroughs, who argued that these people are infected with what he called the “right virus”: they simply believe they are right, all the time, despite the facts in evidence, despite opinions to the contrary, despite everything. And they might not be able to see it any other way. Rules only apply to people who are wrong – and that’s all the rest of us.

1 Like

Fox News personalities have an extraordinarily short memory and also think you do too.

No, they think my grandma does.

And they’re right.

@apalatn The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media (over-the-air TV and radio, not cable, satellite, Internet, etc.). While most basic cable stations tend to comply with FCC broadcast standards, that’s voluntary; it’s not legally required. Implementing FCC requirements on cable TV has some First Amendment concerns; the FCC can limit legally-protected speech as a condition of using the public airwaves, but I’m not sure it could impose similar restrictions on privately-owned transmissions.

And even if the fairness doctrine were still in effect, it’s trivial to game. Remember when Sean Hannity’s show was Hannity and Colmes? It’s easy to bring on a milquetoast “liberal” for “balance” and rig the game to look like the conservative side is always right.