RealGM

they're so dumb they're doing it for free.

pancakes3 wrote:they're so dumb they're doing it for free.

I sincerely doubt it. They are incredibly well paid, and when caught in rare moments of candor you can hear that it is clear they know they are playing a role as entertainers, and don' t necessarily believe what they say. The uniformity of message has to come from a source, there is no dissent or quibbling about the details. No Shep Smith on this. It seems clearly that the messaging is scripted. The same way you commonly see a supercut of news anchors editorializing on the exact same words and exact same story. Maybe they are stupid, but they are stupid towards a cause. This seems to be an editorial direction.

But to what end, for what purpose? Power, or profit. I find it hard to believe that advertisers are paying for a "Russia: yeah!!!" direction, unless corporations are nervous about business regulations. But Biden has long been a pro business centrist and so far nothing has been proposed that would rein in their power or profits. Maybe the $15 an hour minimum wage? But they know that will easily be recouped by increased buying power in their customer base, and an uptick in pricing.

Cui bono? Who benefits? FOX, sure, to continue an Us or Them narrative. Pundits who went all in on Trump and don't want to look stupid, knowing it likely that yeah he was accepting resources and assistance from a foreign party. Billionaires who own media companies who might be anxious about a Wealth tax. Even the Koch brothers tried to pretend they developed a conscience under Trump. But otherwise, the only motive I can think of is profit. The Media, even conservative, has no stake in the Power game. Russia benefits, but why would FOX choose to support them. It can't be shame or embarrassment at being caught on the wrong side of things. They have been quick to flip on any principles they hold when Democrats are in office supporting a cause.

Maybe that is all it is. They make money by being oppositional, and that is the only game they have. If Biden reached out to Putin and shook hands with him, suddenly he'd be weak, etc, they same way they exploded when Obama was seen as weak on Russia.

I'm just saying I would not be surprised if there were serious $ that somehow was being filtered into the pockets of those up the decision chain of the FOX cormporation. Dunno.

my 0.02 on media bias for a long time has been they are biased in favor
of things that get them ratings. They are a business first and foremost.

dobrojim wrote:my 0.02 on media bias for a long time has been they are biased in favor
of things that get them ratings. They are a business first and foremost.

Oh absolutely not. There is a small group of billionaires who benefit from having a horde of brainwashees willing to vote and believe whatever they want and they drive that agenda. Putin is one of the wealthiest people in the world and I'm sure he has a stake in what gets said at Fox News.

If all they wanted was viewers it would just be a porn channel.

IDK. They can't just be a porn channel since there is already so much competition
in that genre. I think their biggest issue might be how much lying they can get away
with long term before people figure out they are being lied to and change channels.
It's also true that we seek out the shows that make us feel good by confirming what
we already believe.

Zonkerbl wrote:

dobrojim wrote:my 0.02 on media bias for a long time has been they are biased in favor
of things that get them ratings. They are a business first and foremost.

Oh absolutely not. There is a small group of billionaires who benefit from having a horde of brainwashees willing to vote and believe whatever they want and they drive that agenda. Putin is one of the wealthiest people in the world and I'm sure he has a stake in what gets said at Fox News.

If all they wanted was viewers it would just be a porn channel.

What I believe. Yes. Putin consolidated his wealth after glasnost and perestroika and the splintering of the Soviet Union enabled russian crime and corruption to run rampant. Putin tapped this rich vein by essentially nationalizing and weaponizing Russian organized crime. He sanctioned them, allowed them to operate unchecked, so long as they give back to him. Effectively he is a crime boss with nukes. I don't know that it has been tried elsewhere on that scale, but it has made him impossibly rich. Somewhere between $70-$200 billion.

"Everything that belongs to the territory of the Russian Federation Putin considers to be his," exiled Russian banker Sergei Pugachev told the Guardian (Pugachev once earned the nickname "Putin's banker.") He said that "any attempt to calculate [Putin's net worth] won’t succeed. He’s the richest person in the world until he leaves power."

?s=19

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

How pathetic is this when the only real reason Republicans are against this is because it'd add 2 Democratic Senators and a few Dem members of the HoR? Oh, I'm sorry Republicans... for not including your racism as a motivation. Pardons.

i remember rolling my eyes in 7th grade learning about the missouri compromise of 1820 and 201 years later, we're still at it.

?s=19


?s=19

?s=19

?s=19


?s=19

doclinkin wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:they're so dumb they're doing it for free.

I sincerely doubt it. They are incredibly well paid, and when caught in rare moments of candor you can hear that it is clear they know they are playing a role as entertainers, and don' t necessarily believe what they say. The uniformity of message has to come from a source, there is no dissent or quibbling about the details. No Shep Smith on this. It seems clearly that the messaging is scripted. The same way you commonly see a supercut of news anchors editorializing on the exact same words and exact same story. Maybe they are stupid, but they are stupid towards a cause. This seems to be an editorial direction.

But to what end, for what purpose? Power, or profit. I find it hard to believe that advertisers are paying for a "Russia: yeah!!!" direction, unless corporations are nervous about business regulations. But Biden has long been a pro business centrist and so far nothing has been proposed that would rein in their power or profits. Maybe the $15 an hour minimum wage? But they know that will easily be recouped by increased buying power in their customer base, and an uptick in pricing.

Cui bono? Who benefits? FOX, sure, to continue an Us or Them narrative. Pundits who went all in on Trump and don't want to look stupid, knowing it likely that yeah he was accepting resources and assistance from a foreign party. Billionaires who own media companies who might be anxious about a Wealth tax. Even the Koch brothers tried to pretend they developed a conscience under Trump. But otherwise, the only motive I can think of is profit. The Media, even conservative, has no stake in the Power game. Russia benefits, but why would FOX choose to support them. It can't be shame or embarrassment at being caught on the wrong side of things. They have been quick to flip on any principles they hold when Democrats are in office supporting a cause.

Maybe that is all it is. They make money by being oppositional, and that is the only game they have. If Biden reached out to Putin and shook hands with him, suddenly he'd be weak, etc, they same way they exploded when Obama was seen as weak on Russia.

I'm just saying I would not be surprised if there were serious $ that somehow was being filtered into the pockets of those up the decision chain of the FOX cormporation. Dunno.

Putin simply has no incentive to pay them money when Fox News appears to already do it for free. The message is absolutely scripted, and is an editorial direction. But like you said, they carved out a niche for being oppositional, and is the only card in their deck. It's occam's razor.

doclinkin wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:

dobrojim wrote:my 0.02 on media bias for a long time has been they are biased in favor
of things that get them ratings. They are a business first and foremost.

Oh absolutely not. There is a small group of billionaires who benefit from having a horde of brainwashees willing to vote and believe whatever they want and they drive that agenda. Putin is one of the wealthiest people in the world and I'm sure he has a stake in what gets said at Fox News.

If all they wanted was viewers it would just be a porn channel.

What I believe. Yes. Putin consolidated his wealth after glasnost and perestroika and the splintering of the Soviet Union enabled russian crime and corruption to run rampant. Putin tapped this rich vein by essentially nationalizing and weaponizing Russian organized crime. He sanctioned them, allowed them to operate unchecked, so long as they give back to him. Effectively he is a crime boss with nukes. I don't know that it has been tried elsewhere on that scale, but it has made him impossibly rich. Somewhere between $70-$200 billion.

"Everything that belongs to the territory of the Russian Federation Putin considers to be his," exiled Russian banker Sergei Pugachev told the Guardian (Pugachev once earned the nickname "Putin's banker.") He said that "any attempt to calculate [Putin's net worth] won’t succeed. He’s the richest person in the world until he leaves power."

Slightly different subject, but did you see Operation Odessa? A truish documentary where Russians mobsters in the US try to buy a Russian military submarine for the Cali cartel, and Russia after the breakup is so corrupt, it really is feasible.

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Also we tried this already. Virginia/Maryland don't want us.

Zonkerbl wrote:

Wizardspride wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Also we tried this already. Virginia/Maryland don't want us.

Virginia did take back their part of DC- Maryland would take back DC but I'm pretty sure DC wants to be its own thing anyways.

pancakes3 wrote:
Putin simply has no incentive to pay them money when Fox News appears to already do it for free. The message is absolutely scripted, and is an editorial direction. But like you said, they carved out a niche for being oppositional, and is the only card in their deck. It's occam's razor.

Yet the Intelligence community reports that Russia actively interferes in our political process. Other Intel reports have stated that the NRA was a "Foreign Asset" for Russia. The NRA contributes to American political campaigns. GOP Senators fall all over themselves trying to protect Russia. Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin funnel cash to GOP candidates and PACs. Putin has worked overtime lobbying to overturn the Maginitsky act. It's worth billions to him if sanctions can be lifted.

I also think suborning the integrity of an american news network would seem a neat bit of judo for the CIA's attempt on his own mouthpiece:

Roldugin has told Russian media that the money was donations from Russian businessmen which he used to purchase expensive musical instruments. Russian officials, however, seemed to acknowledge that the state had in fact knowingly used the criminal networks, including possibly Roldugin’s offshores.

Earlier this month on Vesti Nedeli, a Russian television program, in an interview with Roldugin, the program revealed a claim allegedly by officials in the Russian government that the network of offshores might have been used to foil a 2008 plot by the CIA to buy Russia’s cable television network.

According to a Moscow Times report on the program, “Russia’s security services asked Russian companies and banks to transfer US$ 1.5 billion offshore to ward off the US threat and keep the assets in local hands. Though not stated outright, the program implied that Roldugin’s companies had been used.”

https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/russia-the-cellist-and-the-lawyer/

Why wouldn't Russian criminal gains be used to prime the pump of various figures at Fox News. If someone approached them with serious money, why wouldn't Hannity take it to shade his stories one way or the other. Highlight or bury certain stories. This is the guy who was seriously sweating when the FBI raided the offices of the lawyer he shared with Chump. There is no chance he has skeletons in his closet?

Occam's razor. Sure. Consider also Motive, Means, and Opportunity. Is there any reason why Putin wouldn't use any leverage he had to influence American opinions? Facebook took his money, what scruples would stop him from 'buying advertising' that never saw the air. (The same way that Russian crime was known to be laundering money through New York real estate in the 90's and 00's by buying (Trump) properties that they never inhabited). Seems too credulous to me to believe the idea that 'well, all Fox news personalities are simply stupid" and not also complicit, corrupt, venal, greedy, or vulnerable to blackmail. Or that their bosses or someone higher up the chain is.

pancakes3 wrote:facially i'm unimpressed bc her acolytes could just be wonks or true believers and there's no way to tell until they do (or don't) do anything.

I mean, they could be, but I'm not so sure we'll see a lot of them "do" anything as generally credit doesn't get spread around like that. It's more about what ultimately gets achieved more broadly from my view. As it stands, if this next rumored $3 trillion infrastructure+stuff comes to pass and actually makes it through in reasonable shape, I'd suggest the direction is pretty damn clear.

Sent from my SM-G970W using RealGM mobile app

doclinkin wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:
Putin simply has no incentive to pay them money when Fox News appears to already do it for free. The message is absolutely scripted, and is an editorial direction. But like you said, they carved out a niche for being oppositional, and is the only card in their deck. It's occam's razor.

Yet the Intelligence community reports that Russia actively interferes in our political process. Other Intel reports have stated that the NRA was a "Foreign Asset" for Russia. The NRA contributes to American political campaigns. GOP Senators fall all over themselves trying to protect Russia. Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin funnel cash to GOP candidates and PACs. Putin has worked overtime lobbying to overturn the Maginitsky act. It's worth billions to him if sanctions can be lifted.

I also think suborning the integrity of an american news network would seem a neat bit of judo for the CIA's attempt on his own mouthpiece:

Roldugin has told Russian media that the money was donations from Russian businessmen which he used to purchase expensive musical instruments. Russian officials, however, seemed to acknowledge that the state had in fact knowingly used the criminal networks, including possibly Roldugin’s offshores.

Earlier this month on Vesti Nedeli, a Russian television program, in an interview with Roldugin, the program revealed a claim allegedly by officials in the Russian government that the network of offshores might have been used to foil a 2008 plot by the CIA to buy Russia’s cable television network.

According to a Moscow Times report on the program, “Russia’s security services asked Russian companies and banks to transfer US$ 1.5 billion offshore to ward off the US threat and keep the assets in local hands. Though not stated outright, the program implied that Roldugin’s companies had been used.”

https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/russia-the-cellist-and-the-lawyer/

Why wouldn't Russian criminal gains be used to prime the pump of various figures at Fox News. If someone approached them with serious money, why wouldn't Hannity take it to shade his stories one way or the other. Highlight or bury certain stories. This is the guy who was seriously sweating when the FBI raided the offices of the lawyer he shared with Chump. There is no chance he has skeletons in his closet?

Occam's razor. Sure. Consider also Motive, Means, and Opportunity. Is there any reason why Putin wouldn't use any leverage he had to influence American opinions? Facebook took his money, what scruples would stop him from 'buying advertising' that never saw the air. (The same way that Russian crime was known to be laundering money through New York real estate in the 90's and 00's by buying (Trump) properties that they never inhabited). Seems too credulous to me to believe the idea that 'well, all Fox news personalities are simply stupid" and not also complicit, corrupt, venal, greedy, or vulnerable to blackmail. Or that their bosses or someone higher up the chain is.

I'm not denying that Russia has tons to gain from Fox spewing propoganda. I'm disputing that Putin has to pay for it. Fox seems willing enough to play his fool for free the same as Trump.

Facebook has to be bought. Lobbyists too. Fox News doesn't, though. That's what i'm pushing back on. Fox is willing to do it for free because any bit of "reporting" that frames Biden/Dems as the bad guy is going to get eyeballs. It's a gift for Putin. A windfall.

pancakes3 wrote:
I'm not denying that Russia has tons to gain from Fox spewing propoganda. I'm disputing that Putin has to pay for it. Fox seems willing enough to play his fool for free the same as Trump.

Facebook has to be bought. Lobbyists too. Fox News doesn't, though. That's what i'm pushing back on. Fox is willing to do it for free because any bit of "reporting" that frames Biden/Dems as the bad guy is going to get eyeballs. It's a gift for Putin. A windfall.

The question for me has less to do with Biden and more to do with: When did Fox's coverage become pro-Russia? And: Since when has the American GOP become Russian sympathizers? Why is FOX willing to support Russia? Because in the past Russia was a buzzword used to taint the Left as unamerican. OR to slam Obama for being weak on foreign policy. Somehow in short order Russia became the good guys. During Putin's regime.

As near as I can figure the active campaign of FOX's disinformation campaign on Russia ties to the Trump tower meeting (where Russian assistance was offered to the Trump campaign in hopes of overturning the Magnitsky act).

In the case of FOX news, It may simply be that Hannity's close ties with Trump was the vector of infection. And once their lead opinionater was on board, everyone had to follow. Still, given Hannity's fever sweat over Cohen's office being raided, I do wonder what dirt Trump's fixer knows about him, and if there is blackmatter Russia can use to leverage better coverage. Nobody hires a guy like Mochael Cohen because of his impeccable ethics and stellar record in court.

Okay maybe, if I want to pretend that all is on the up and up, it could be that Trump gave good drama, and was good for ratings. Then his own debt issues and vulnerabilities to blackmail meant that Russian puppetry of him had an ancillary benefit of corrupting American media. I personally doubt it. Putin's job in the KGB lay in foreign intelligence, compromising westerners, recruiting assets to the KBG, with a focus on technology and communications. I don't see any reason why, with billions at his disposal, he would eschew bribery and blackmail to corrupt the American 4th estate if he could. FOX just happens to be the easiest target. A willing victim.

Fox was always obnoxious, and it worsened under Obama. But there was always a Shep Smith or conservative analyst displaying ethics or attempting journalism. Now there is a uniformity of message that seems deliberate. Especially on the issue of Russia. That was an incredibly quick turnaround on the topic. Why.