Thread: FOX "news"

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

FOX News' Sean Hannity Can't Be Bothered With the Truth

Kevin Drum


This is hilarious in a pathetic kind of way: last Friday, Sean Hannity invited three "regular families" onto his show to relate their horror stories about premium hikes and business-killing regulations under Obamacare. Eric Stern decided to call all three of them to find out what was really going on.


Answer: nothing. One of them was apparently just lying, and the other two hadn't even checked the exchanges, where they would have found that they could get better coverage for considerably less than they're paying now.


That's just sad. Hannity runs a big-time show with well-paid producers, but they apparently couldn't find even a single true example of someone who got screwed by Obamacare. How hard can that be? Even liberals acknowledge that some people will end up worse off. But Hannity's staff couldn't be bothered. I guess he figures his audience doesn't really deserve any better.

No, he figures his audience are too stupid to know better. I mean come on, Boon Mee is an avid viewer.

^ Exactly, it's already been shown that FOX viewers are dumber than everyone else so it's no surprise that the "quality" of their programming is so terrible.

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

Anyone catch Steven Colbert hilariously mocking that Fox News psychiatrist a few days ago?

“Yes, Obama’s refusal to negotiate with Congress is just him getting back at his parents,” Colbert mockingly said. “ We've seen this sad story too many times: African-American males without role models go onto become president and give everyone healthcare.”

Colbert then psychoanalyzed Ablow. “One must ask, how was he able to yank such an insightful diagnosis so smoothly from his ass,” said Colbert. “He’s in an anal-retentive stage caused by his parents’ shaming him during potty time.”

For all the "family" and Christian values that Fox has pushed over the years, the hypocrisy still reigns. Seems Shepard Smith is gay and here's his boyfriend. No big deal but why does Fox force its newspeople live in the closet and push anti-gay messages in their work?

Gawker Fully Outs Shepard Smith, Profiles His Young Boyfriend

Originally Posted by wjblaney

Can you back that up with any evidence or at least give us some source for that opinion?

It's in the link.

Originally Posted by Retro

Seems Shepard Smith is gay and here's his boyfriend. No big deal but why does Fox force its newspeople live in the closet and push anti-gay messages in their work?

I reckon Obomba has great empathy with him. Empathy, not sympathy.

Originally Posted by Retro

For all the "family" and Christian values that Fox has pushed over the years, the hypocrisy still reigns. Seems Shepard Smith is gay and here's his boyfriend. No big deal but why does Fox force its newspeople live in the closet and push anti-gay messages in their work?

Gawker Fully Outs Shepard Smith, Profiles His Young Boyfriend

Oh man this is too funny! A major foxs news anchor is gay!!!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's in the link.

I wonder if he'll ever have the guts, a la Anderson Cooper of CNN, to publicly out himself and how would Fox News react to that?

Originally Posted by wjblaney

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's in the link.

I wonder if he'll ever have the guts, a la Anderson Cooper of CNN, to publicly out himself and how would Fox News react to that?

They'd probably fire him and claim he left because of death threats.

I wonder why Gawker decided to do this?

Shep Smith is the only decent journalist on FOX news and forcibly outing him is stupid. If he made his living raging against gays then exposing his hypocrisy would be one thing but he doesn't, he presents a good news show on a channel full of mindless dross.

If Smith quits over this then the only thing Gawker will have achieved is lowering FOX even further.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

I wonder why Gawker decided to do this?

Shep Smith is the only decent journalist on FOX news and forcibly outing him is stupid. If he made his living raging against gays then exposing his hypocrisy would be one thing but he doesn't, he presents a good news show on a channel full of mindless dross.

If Smith quits over this then the only thing Gawker will have achieved is lowering FOX even further.

Not possible.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

I wonder why Gawker decided to do this?

Shep Smith is the only decent journalist on FOX news and forcibly outing him is stupid. If he made his living raging against gays then exposing his hypocrisy would be one thing but he doesn't, he presents a good news show on a channel full of mindless dross.

If Smith quits over this then the only thing Gawker will have achieved is lowering FOX even further.

He can't 'quit'.

He's under contract - a new one I believe that's too economically rewarding to consider some foolish move like that.

Re his 'outing' - heh, it's been known for a loooog time that Smith is a Shirt Lifter so what's new?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Re his 'outing' - heh, it's been known for a loooog time that Smith is a Shirt Lifter so what's new?

Actually I agree with that (the delicately styled eyebrows were a bit of a give away) but I don't see the point of Gawker outing him in this way.

It is petty and vindictive and it is up to Smith how and when he decides to come out if ever. His orientation has no bearing on how he does his job, and I think he is a fine reporter. I don't give a shit who he sleeps with as it is irrelevant and has zero bearing on my life and presumably no bearing on the lives of anybody at Gawker.

As I said to my knowledge he has never said anything hypocritical on the subject but prefers to keep his private life out of the spotlight which is his right even though he is a somewhat public figure. It is 2013 FFS, the sexuality of a reporter on FOX shouldn't even be an issue.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

It is 2013 FFS, the sexuality of a reporter on FOX shouldn't even be an issue.

You're right, but their viewers might not share your views....

^^ Whilst I agree with that, I noticed no such reticence when the Brit cur dogs (acting under the US heel) detained Glenn Greenwald's partner at Heathrow, where he was transiting, detained him for nine hours and announced to the world they were a gay couple.

I fail to see how Greenwald & Smith's sexual peccadilloes make them better or worse reporters.

Poor FAUX "news" caught lying again...

Fox News Overestimated HealthCare.gov Cost By $700 Million



October 25, 2013 2:11 PM EDT ››› TYLER HANSEN



Fox News' Bill Hemmer cited an unnamed report to continue the network's dishonest attacks on the Affordable Care Act by claiming that HealthCare.gov may cost taxpayers over $1 billion -- an assertion that overstated the actual cost by more than $700 million.
On the October 25 edition of Fox's America's Newsroom, host Hemmer asked whether HealthCare.gov, the website established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to connect Americans with health insurance exchanges, would be "the first billion-dollar website?" Hemmer then told contributor Katie Pavlich, "Government keeps throwing money after problems which shows you how government gets fat and very, very expensive," before concluding, "These people have lost their minds." The on-screen text read, "Rpt: Final Obamacare Website Costs Could Top $1 Billion."


However, as reported in a Washington Post fact-check, yesterday's congressional hearings regarding the ACA website revealed that government contracts to create the website amounted to a total value of less than $300 million. According to The Washington Post:

In the testimony, a reference was made to the fact that the TCV (total contract value) was $292 million. That is the least important number, as in effect it is like a credit card limit. What is more important is what has been already spent or obligated.
[...]
To sum up: The floor for spending on the Web site to date appears to be at least $170 million, with an upward potential of nearly $300 million.

While neither Hemmer nor Pavlich revealed the source of the report they were using to make their claims, a Media Matters search found only a Newsmax article with a similar contention. That article in turn referenced a report from Bloomberg Government. But according to Bloomberg, their study covered "all health law-related contract awards to the firms since the ACA was enacted in March 2010," not just the those related to the ACA website. That study may also be overstating the costs, considering "it assumed that most recent IT awards by the Department of Health and Human Services are ACA-related because the law's implementation has consumed an increasing share of the department's time and resources."
Fox is doubling down on misleading its viewers about the costs of the ACA -- almost literally. It was previously called out for inflating HealthCare.gov's costs to $634 million.

When it rains it pours. FAUX "news" busted again-

MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber Calls Out Fox's O'Reilly For Cherry-Picking Health Care Facts

When the Boston Marathon bombing occurred, I watched the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) for almost 3 hours. Nothing was ever said about the suspects being Muslim.

I turned to Fox and found out that both brothers were Muslim in about 30 seconds.

If that is what "progressives" call bias (i.e. tell the entire truth not the politically correct version), than I, for one, am all for it.

RickThai

Originally Posted by RickThai

When the Boston Marathon bombing occurred, I watched the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) for almost 3 hours. Nothing was ever said about the suspects being Muslim.

I turned to Fox and found out that both brothers were Muslim in about 30 seconds.

Wow Rick, that's really amazing. The Boston bombing occurred on the 15th April 2013, and the suspects were first named by the FBI 3 days later- 18th April. So you are saying Fox had them pinned just a few hours after the bombing, quite remarkable. Just goes to show what a marvelous network it is, subliminally informing it's viewers the suspects in a case were Muslim brothers three days before the authorities even knew.

The Fox News bashing has reached an hysterically funny level of late. Suppose it's because they are the only source for accurate information aside from CSpan.

Interesting though that CBS has come out with that Benghazi Scandal revelation and NBC is on record with the Obamacare Meltdown info so I suppose there's hope.

Perhaps as a counter to the Fox News Bash a thread on MSNBC could be started but that channel is so lame it's hardly worth the effort!

Originally Posted by RickThai

If that is what "progressives" call bias (i.e. tell the entire truth not the politically correct version), than I, for one, am all for it.

Truth according to FOX:

Megyn Kelly Gets It Right Again.



Megyn Kelly was completely shocked, to say the least, about the news that the White House knew as far back as 2010 that many people would lose their health care plans when Obamacare kicked in, and confronted Democratic guest Mark Hannah when he attempted to defend how the rollout's been going so far.

Kelly asked, "Was he intentionally misleading, or was there some argument that he was grossly mistaken?"

Hannah argued Obama was "absolutely correct," explaining that "these plans don't offer the basic protections that the president has been saying all along are required in any insurance plan unless it has been grandfathered in beforehand."

But Kelly wasn't satisifed. She yelled, "Mark! He said 'period,' he said if you like your plan you can keep it PERIOD!"

Kristen Soltis Anderson piled on that if any part of someone's insurance plan was changed at all, "then the grandfathering gets thrown out the window." When Hannah kept trying to defend the program, Kelly snapped, "No, no come on! Respond to my----I know you can bridge away to a happy place for you."

Hannah argued the media could have been covering this a while ago but "maybe it was underreported." Kelly mockingly shot back, "It was my fault, it was the media's fault, it was the American people's fault, because they should have understood that period did not mean period."

NBC tried to to something similar yesterday but they got a call from ValJar or some other government Apparatchik and the report was squashed...

FAUX "news" isn't the only network guilty of shite reporting when it comes to President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Why is it that no one fact checks anymore?!

CBS News’ Misleading Obamacare Report: Woman’s Plan Paid $50 Per Service, Doesn’t Cover Hospitalization

Not content with a website that performs like a Yugo with sugar in its gas tank, the mainstream media has continued to broadcast misleading, deliberately incomplete, and one-sided reports on the effects of the Affordable Care Act on consumers. The latest champion of the form is CBS News’ Jan Crawford, whose report on 56 year-old Dianne Barrette of Florida has become a North Star for those seeking to undercut the health care law by claiming that her premium increased tenfold under Obamacare, without disclosing that what Ms. Barrette was paying $54 a month for barely qualifies as insurance.

On CBS This Morning, Crawford reported that 56-year-old Dianne Barrette received a letter last month “from Blue Cross Blue Shield, informing her that as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. She pays $54 a month. The new plan she’s being offered would run $591 a month, ten times more than what she currently pays.”

“What I have right now is what I’m happy with,” Barrette says in the report, “and I just want to know why I can’t keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else.”

There are very good answers to her questions, answers which Crawford, either deliberately or through ignorance, failed to report, answers which are available to anyone with a passing familiarity with health insurance.

First of all, the plan that Barrette paid $54 a month for is barely health insurance at all. It’s part of a subset of insurance that Consumer Reports calls “junk health insurance” (and which even the company that sells it recommends that customers not rely solely upon) and it pays only $50 towards most of the services it covers. That’s it. If Dianne went to the doctor every week for a year, her plan would pay, at most, $2600. Meanwhile, based on average office visit charges, Diane would pay about $5,600.00. She probably doesn’t go to the doctor every week, of course, which means her plan pays a lot less, while her premium buys her a lot less. If she goes to the doctor, say, six times in a year, she’s paid a $648 premium for the privilege of spending another $600 on office visits. The plan also pays up to $15 per prescription, which will get you a few milligrams of most prescription drugs. The one decent deal on her plan is that it covers 100% of in-network lab services.
But many people just want the peace of mind to know that if something really bad happens, they won’t have to worry about being billed into the poorhouse. What if the worst happens, and Dianne needs to be hospitalized due to sudden illness or injury? Well, unless Dianne is suffering complications due to pregnancy, her plan covers nothing. If she’s having complications from pregnancy, it covers fifty bucks. It’s entirely possible that now-healthy Dianne is “happy” with this plan, but the whole idea behind the Affordable Care Act is that the rest of us are not happy having to pick up the tab if Dianne gets a disease, has an accident, or otherwise needs to go to the hospital. Frankly, though, Dianne would be better off saving that $648 and negotiating her office visits on her own.

The plan that Crawford compares Dianne’s junk insurance with (even BCBSFL recommends that customers not rely solely on GoBlue plans), on the other hand, is probably not the best deal available for the money if you’re planning fairly regular doctor visits, but it’s just one of many plans the company offers in that price range. It has a $6,250 deductible that applies to most services (the law requires routine care to be covered at 100%) before the plan pays. However, there’s a cheaper plan ($547/mo.) that covers the first 3 office visits per year at 100%, with a $40 copay after that. BCBSFL offers nine other plans cheaper than the one suggested in Dianne’s letter.

Like all Obamacare plans, of course, any plan Dianne chooses will have an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350, versus the current $infinity that her plan offers.
Additionally, Crawford reports that Dianne “is eligible for some subsidies,” but “she has no idea what the subsidies would be because, of course, guess what, she can’t log on the website.”

Of course, Crawfod must know that you don’t have to log in to Healthcare.gov to get an “idea” of what the subsidies would be. If Dianne makes about $17,000 a year, in fact, she’d pay exactly what she did for that junk insurance, but even if she makes Florida’s princely median income, her premium would be a much more reasonable $332.50/mo. If Crawford had wanted to, she could have provided an accurate estimate of Dianne’s actual premium.

But how, you may ask, was Jan Crawford supposed to know the details of the GoBlue plan 91 that Dianne was on before, and the new BlueOptions Essential (HSA) 1419 plan she’s being offered? She could start by watching her own report, and its unredacted copy of Dianne’s letter:


That and Google would have produced valuable information for Crawford’s viewers, information which might not have served the mainstream media narrative of the moment, but which would have cast Dianne’s predicament in a drastically different light. She’s basically complaining that a new car costs more than her old shoes. There’s a decent chance that Dianne Barett doesn’t even know what her current plan does or does not cover, but it’s not her job to inform the public, it’s Crawford’s. Now that her fake nightmare scenario has made the jump to the White House briefing room, it is absolutely essential that CBS News correct this misleading reporting.

Update: As I suspected, Dianne Barrette has no idea what her plan covers, and her actual premium under Obamacare would be about a third what CBS reported. She tells the Erik Wemple Blog that her plan has a “$50 copay,” when in reality, that’s the amount her plan will pay toward an office visit (she’s responsible for the rest), she says it provides “outpatient only” hospital care, but the plan only covers $50 of a very narrow set of outpatient services (mammography, osteoporosis screening, diabetes self-management, and complications from pregnancy).
She also told Wemple that she makes around $30,000 a year, which would put her Obamacare premium at about $209/mo. That’s for a plan that is literally infinitely better than what she had.

Wemple also reports that Dianne will soon be appearing on three Fox News programs.

CBS News’ Misleading Obamacare Report: Woman’s Plan Paid $50 Per Service, Doesn’t Cover Hospitalization | Mediaite

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

NBC tried to to something similar yesterday but they got a call from ValJar or some other government Apparatchik and the report was squashed..

It wasn't squashed, it was thoroughly debunked as being garbage. Go look at the Healthcare passes thread to learn why.