Fallacy: Fox News is the most trusted

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 56 total)
  • Author
  • #8228

    Deane said>>>
    I can LP. When you hang out on this forum too much, you get to believing the whole country is also dumb and liberal. Just doesn’t happen to be true.

    I guess same is true when I’m on all the extremists right wing messageboards. You’d think that Reagan is still alive and ready for term 3 and PAINlin is a GOP brain trust in American politics. Oh, and the DICKster is God!


    Broadway sez: “can’t get more lefty extreme than mediamatters…”

    Which one of these chapped your hide?




    I think it was the latter. A study found that media quoted or referred to bat shit crazy religious leaders 3 to 4 times more often than progressive religious leaders.


    Back in the ’60s, so much of Christianity was “Jesus Freaks” and couldn’t have been more left.

    Now, so much of Christianity is Fox “news” watchers, and couldn’t be more right.

    Why the shift?

    And secondly…aren’t they the same people?


    Rise of the authoritarians:


    No, they aren’t the same people. Not at all.


    Here goes it, another post of “epic” length:

    Thanks for posting the link to that .pdf file, MK, I have converted it (in a clumsy way) to .mobi format for Kindle and will be reading it on my trip to Redding this weekend. This led me to another book by the same author on Amazon which I will also read as well, as presentations like this may be able to give me a broadened perspective on certain details of societal behaviour and beliefs.(This is helpful to me as a ministeral student.)

    Edselehr said:

    “Back in the ’60s, so much of Christianity was “Jesus Freaks” and couldn’t have been more left.

    Now, so much of Christianity is Fox “news” watchers, and couldn’t be more right.

    Why the shift?

    And secondly…aren’t they the same people?”

    Many are the same people, but we do have to remember that in the 60’s(before my time) and 70’s, these “Jesus Freaks” were in their formative years. As they matured and were brought up in the church, many fell into the “Moral Majority” political philosophy. Some even fell into the idea of “Dominion Theology,” i.e; the idea that the Christian church is supposed to progressively take over the governments of the Earth and usher in the 1000 year kingdom for Christ. (I do not subscribe to that particular doctrine, as I see no evidence for it in the Bible.) Many Christian sects throughout history have gone sideways when the fruit of this doctrine is made manifest in its followers. (Some examples: the Holy Roman Empire, Geneva under John Calvin, England under Bloody Mary and then later Cromwell, The Plymouth Colony under the Pilgrims, etc) Some of the above were well meaning, sincere people, some were despots, which goes to show that even the good intentions of well meaning persons can result in less than ideal results. As a Christian, I am called to be theocratic (that is Christ is to have dominion) in my own personal behaviour and life. I am not called to force that on others through political or any other means.

    The biggest issue I have with the idea of Dominion Theology (or any religious doctrine that manifests itself in absolute political rule, ISIL, Islamic Republics or even the old emperor worship of Rome for that matter) is that when it finally comes full circle, even though it may purport to be Christian it always leads to less freedom of religious practice rather than more. It also leads to a syncretism of widely divergent beliefs for the advancement of a temporal, political cause, even when belief systems of the individual sects are not compatible with each other. Again, all of this is done simply for temporary, political gain. In my opinion, this has muddied up the true Gospel of Christ, blending it with political ambition and cultic theology.

    Now to my issues with Fox (Faux) News. As I present this, I would like you to know that this comes from an Evangelical, politically social conservative. My problem with this “News” outlet isn’t so much a political issue. In the history of media (especially print media) there have been outlets with certain political leanings. I do not have an problem with an outlet presenting a certain political view, as long as they are honest about where they are coming from. “Fair and Balanced,” when referring to Fox is an out-and-out lie.

    That being said, my issues with Fox are thus:

    1. They treat their viewers like they are morons. This is evident by their presentation style, which is usually sensational, inflammatory and falls just short of those wretched “TMZ” type programmes. They rarely truly dig deep into an issue, rather they will simply present a panel of policy wonks and politicos to spout off and call it good. (Unfortunately, most other US news outlets do this as well.) I know that we live in a “sound byte” world, that few have the patience to sit through even a few minutes of a documentary type news story, that seems to be the product of our electronic media.

    2. They tend to dishonour many of the God ordained leaders of this nation (those they don’t agree with), promoting a truly unchristian idea, of a practically rebellious nature.(Other news outlets do this as well, not to the extent that Fox has. I hold Fox to a higher standard since they seem to be the de facto political voice of Evangelical Christianity in the US.) This distubs me because as a Christian, I am called to pay my taxes, to follow the laws of the land and respect those that are in charge, even if I don’t agree with their viewpoint or their morality.

    If you are getting your news from only one news outlet, you are getting a “lopsided” view of the world. I do not consider myself a well informed person, since I have very little time to catch up on all that is happening in the world, but when I watch news, I tend to lean towards an international perspective.(Roku has been a great resource for watching international media. Many international outlets broadcast in English. To get the big picture, I believe that we have to get away from the dominant US media.)


    In my opinion, this has muddied up the true Gospel of Christ, blending it with political ambition and cultic theology.

    I think you’re seeing this backwards. Christians should feel called to be politically involved to reverse the injustices in society.

    As a Catholic, I have no choice but to join in the fray and support those politics which best support justice for all, which means aligning with those of differing religious beliefs, but that in no way affects the doctrine of my faith.

    On the other hand, it is problematic that the other Christian sects have no authority, and become splintered and reshape themselves based on individual interpretation and political influence.

    So I suppose I can agree in part, that you could be correct as it relates to some Protestant sects, but not the Catholic Church, whose dogma is not politically influenced by the right or the left.


    “To get the big picture, I believe that we have to get away from the dominant US media.”

    That is SO true. One of the best and most authentic looks at American politics and culture was “Democracy in America” by de Toqueville back in the 1840’s. Like all media consumption, one cannot take everything one reads at face value. But a healthy mix of foreign perspective makes for a healthy media diet.


    QPatrickEdwards, you can speak at length all you want. That is a great way to look at it, from both a religious/theological aspect, and a practical aspect.

    Thank you, sir.


    I think you’re seeing this backwards. Christians should feel called to be politically involved to reverse the injustices in society.

    Which is why the First Amendment is such brilliant legalese. Christians have no monopoly on knowing what is an “injustice,” and they have no business in imposing their belief system as our legal system.

    but not the Catholic Church, whose dogma is not politically influenced by the right or the left.

    100% pure and unadulterated bullshit. Statements like that are the reason for things like the First Amendment. People like us need to have protection from people like you.


    QPatrick: You have been posting more and longer posts.

    Know those are appreciated and welcome.

    I look forward to reading your thoughts after that PDF. Yes, dominionism is at the core of the change. At least, I see it that way, and it is also the source of my walk away from religion. I found the conflict between it’s negative potentials and my own innate sense of what is just and true unresolvable.

    As a kid, I saw myself and a lot of my peers taken to events where the core ideas behind dominion were pitched to us, and framed in very appealing ways. Singular ideas, mixed in a rather Orwellian fashion had broad appeal.

    “The world is what you make it.” –Take this one. It’s a good idea! I subscribe to that idea.

    Where are the boundaries?

    That’s where dominion gets out of hand. “They know not what they do” and “blind to the truth in you” get mixed in there, and suddenly, people feel some ownership of other people’s choices. Gets worse from there.

    Totally agree on FOX. I write “Stupid Party” because I see that assumption play out all over the place.

    Agreed too on foreign media. Been on that path for years. Worth it.

    One thing I like to look for is corrections. Are they done, and how are they presented? Media that does do corrections and where they are notable, prominent enough in other words, still has bias…

    because they all have bias. Takes a lot of us, working together over a sustained amount of time to moderate bias, be objective –reasonably objective, if that makes sense.

    …but that bias is likely presented honestly enough to be seen and where that’s true, the color of the information provided is part of the story, which enables people to make meaningful use of the information.

    That is also a check on manipulation, though not an entirely effective one.

    The other thing I look for is simply a number of biases, and whether or not they are citing common facts when producing editorial content.

    When those are in play, one gets a sense of what the world actually thinks! Labor, wealth, poverty, middle class, religious, old world, new world, etc…

    And then one can see their place in it clearly enough to self-identify politics and possess perspective sufficient to render meaningful advocacy, opinion.

    US Media is no longer sufficient for this dynamic to play out and happen as we need it to.

    Differences in policy vision preferences are one thing. Happens. The polarization of nearly everything, and I would argue, everything of significance today, is in part an artifact of the artificial resonance created by the narrow body of bias and opinion available today in most media.

    New media is a help too. Though you really gotta watch that, because a lot of it isn’t competent nor centered on the basic idea of actually enlightening somebody.


    Re: That great call to “fix” the world…

    Yeah, bullshit.

    I’ll add a remark on the First Amendment. Nobody needs anybody speaking for God. Seriously. It just isn’t necessary.

    What this does is force those who do profess to speak for God to add value and demonstrate the worth of their words by living by them, and when this is resonant, just, true, compelling, others see and become open to advocacy, enlightenment, and may step onto and follow a similar path.

    This is good when it happens. And IMHO, is the only form of witness that actually matters and won’t be corrupt. Quakers are known for this style in the extreme, and I like them. A lot. How they live, why they live, what they do, how they do it is very compelling, and rarely an issue. A policy discussion with one is generally enlightening, and worth your time.

    They are by no means the only ones. They are notable in that basic humility is a code of the highest order within the organization. Refusal to follow it will see a person shunned, until they once again find sufficient humility within themselves to participate, or not. If not, the hope is they walk a path that gets them there anyway.

    In my life experience so far, I have met tons of humble people of faith who do live by it, and who will share eagerly when others find something in their life missing from theirs. Again, this is a good thing.

    The idea that a given Church has standing to correct injustice is the idea behind ISIL just as much as it is Catholics, for example.

    And a look at history should tell you all you need to know about why going down that road is a very bad idea.

    Our Founders knew this, lived it too. That’s why the First Amendment is the first, and not buried somewhere in the thing.

    Maximizing religious freedom means maximizing individual freedom, and it was that goal behind our nation. And it is necessary for religion to be entirely optional if we are to see that goal actualized in our lives today.


    My point to qpe was that political positions can and sometimes should proceed from a church, but they do not necessarily have to go the other direction and corrupt the Gospel or doctrine, though it unfortunately can and has happened because of a lack of authority, as well as a desire to fit in and be politically correct.


    That’s the textbook definition of an incomprehensible run-on sentence.


    I thought it was kind of funny. Conflicting thoughts there for sure, all mashed together.


    Let’s sort it out:

    The Church can supply political direction.

    The Church sometimes should supply political direction.

    Politics should not supply political direction to the church.

    (implied) Politics does supply political direction to the church, through law and norms.

    There is both Gospel and Doctrine.

    (implied) Let’s make sure we include other churches.

    (implied) Gospel lacks authority doctrine has.

    (implied) Doctrine is pure and can be corrupted by politics.

    Politics has supplied political direction to (some) churches and that has happened due to a lack of authority within.

    There is a desire to “fit in” and be “politically correct”

    (implied) This desire is a pressure that should be checked by a stronger authority so as to limit the influence of political direction to churches.

    That is what I think was said.


Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 56 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.