Sounds like the press is spending a lot of time trying to make terrible things happen. If I were a more conspiratorial man, I might mention that they also have a vested interest in terrible things happening, since that drives engagement with their journalism/news media.
I don't think the media matters much. They are fighting over the definition of recession while half the businesses on the avg main street block shut down.
The quality of life for the average non tech Americans is dropping, that usually ends up with a candidate who represents rage.
Someone is coming who will punish the elites and experts for failing to live up to their promises.
The US press needs a new villain every year to get more eyeballs and viewing figures up. Not a hero.
So they need a sequel to the chaos of the last 4 years to be played by the same villain of 2016 - 2020. Then their ad revenue figures will skyrocket again.
Outrage sells. Especially picking a villain of the year to keep writing about for years.
I'm not sure I understand what's being alleged here.
When the National Review writes about DeSantis, aren't they genuinely wanting him to beat Trump?
How does them writing about him help Trump? They get three seperate mentions, including this callback:
> Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.
That seems fairly honest and straightforward.
Should they be going for reverse-psychology and talking about how great Trump is and telling people to vote for him?
Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.
Trump won one election, and got an even larger turnout in the next election. In the second, they could not possibly pretend that they were unaware of his character.
It seems to me that National Review is fooling themselves if they think that there is a "broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP". They are deliberately, consciously voting for what they want.
Maybe it's "honest and straightforward", but also deluded. And the National Review has a very long history of helping create exactly this kind of opposition to the consensus they claim to want. They were instrumental in setting up the Republican party to choose "free-floating populism with strong-man overtones".
> They hate him, but they keep doing him favors, the latest being an attempt to kill off his biggest primary rival.
This is very untrue. The LOVE him. CNN and all of the left wing outfits have waaay more impressions during Trump's presidency. Right now there's nothing to view except fox news because everyone is looking for people hating on Biden right now and the left media is refusing.
I guess my question then becomes two-fold: (1) what makes Fox News less official? And (2) why does there seem to be the implication that truth is determined by amount of authority? I.E. when looking for news, why would "non-official" automatically, without any other analysis or evidence, be considered "more true"?
In the end, who says something only matters like... 1% at best. If you're looking for truth, then critically analyze the claims and the evidence they do or don't have, don't put so much stock in the claimants nor how much you want to agree with the claims.
You're kidding, right? Fox 'News', is "entertainment", not news. Beyond their very obvious bias they don't air anything resembling a news story, only manufacturing outrage through having an opinion. They don't engage in any critical analysis what-so-ever. Their credibility is non existent and quite literally on pair with a tabloid magazine. Fox is officially, not 'News'. Having an opinion about something, is not news. Entitled to that opinion, sure. But passing it off as a claim of 'noteworthy recent events', is absolutely despicable.
Fox News is no more or less "entertainment" than CNN or MSNBC. The actual straight up news content is almost always factually accurate. It's the opinion and analysis shows that are highly biased on all US based channels. Just turn them all off, they're all trash.
Well, yes and no. Accuracy is a spectrum when there are many claims being made per day. Back in high school, for my government civics class, we had a final project where we were asked to watch news from like 5 to 10 different TV channels, describe what the news piece was about, then cross-reference every claim and fact check it, giving each station a grade. Most news pieces were something between 70% and 100% accurate; but when I got to Fox News, the assignment became nearly impossible to even complete. They would describe a thing that happened in about 10 seconds, and then spend the rest of the piece's time just spewing partisan rhetoric and opinions. There wasn't even anything that could be fact checked after the initial description! I ended up just writing that in my report ("could not fact check, it was all opinions").
So, you're right that all news stations have some element of inaccuracy for the sake of ratings, but you're wrong in thinking they're all equivalent in the amount of inaccuracy. Fox is the worst offender on that front.
I agree with everything you've said. The question wasn't "is Fox accurate or reliable news?", it was "what makes Fox less official?" Official doesn't mean accurate. Fox profits from people believing what they tell them, it's just as much an authority as any other organization who benefits from convincing its followers of particular ideas. That's all I was pointing out.
