You are still conflating the pundits with the news anchors. It's no secret to anyone here that Fox pundits push CTs.I had a feeling people would be saying "well that doesn't count"
it's Fox News, and more people watch those guys than the "news", and it's mainstream media as much as pundits on other media outlets are mainstream
-edit-
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-ne...cy-theories-about-election-results-nearly-600
it's the "news" too, i should add, even if they have been less egregiously treasonous
Wayne County has basically abdicated.
This amounts to "here's our number, if you want a different number, count it yourself."
This is beyond disgusting.
Who is ever going to believe that free and fair elections are possible in the US?
It's not that he is involved in a coup, but his actions and words make it unclear whether he might attempt it, something that we've never had cause to consider before in the entire history of the country. That makes one sit up and take notice, and be prepared for the worst. What has Trump done to make one think, "No, this line is something he would never cross?"
And how is it a mistake to call the coup a fail and move on to the rest of the damage Trump can and is doing?I never said it was. But dismissing the seriousness of the sitting POTUS's attempt to do exactly that is...a mistake. ...
You are still conflating the pundits with the news anchors. It's no secret to anyone here that Fox pundits push CTs.
As for audience size, Fox has plenty of people listening to those CTs. But even the news side of Fox is not considered mainstream news.
That sounds suspiciously like "kill all political opponents".
Which sounds neither democratic nor anti-fascist.
No, it actually doesn't "sound" like that all, suspiciously or otherwise.
We know where the "second amendment solutions" originate. Being prepared to respond to that isn't an entirely bad idea.
Nope. It's "Buttery males."
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that he has no plan, short term or long term.
I think his primary motivation is no deeper than, he's a dick.
Generally speaking for broadcast news, msn refers to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and other local news stations; or even DW (German) or NHK (Asian) or CBC (Canadian) and BBC, etc.....
But more to the point, how is it possible for you to claim that the most popular programming on the most popular cable news nework aren't part of the mainstream media? I don't think that makes any sense at all ....
I think people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con.
And how is it a mistake to call the coup a fail and move on to the rest of the damage Trump can and is doing?
Is it a mistake because I don't agree with you?
Is it a mistake because I won't be prepared for said coup?
I'm trying to put some consequences to my failure to fear it is a potential coup.
I think people need to stop giving credence to Trump's con.
Mainstream mediaI don't think whether or not you like their programming is a very good basis on whether or not Fox is a mainstream media source. They have a bigger market share than anything you listed.
So by one definition Fox is not part of the MSM because their content is 'at variance with the prevailing views', but they are a conglomerate and their 'dissenting thought' is held by almost half the country and the (currently) most powerful political party.Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought at variance with the prevailing views of mainstream sources.
The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, that underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints...
Media mergers and concentration in the United States
The "Big five"
Comcast
The Walt Disney Company
News Corp/Fox CorporationWarnerMedia (AT&T)
ViacomCBS
So are they or aren't they? The answer is simple. When they report actual news they are part of the MSM, but when they are 'at variance' with it they aren't. And since they constantly do both, that means they both are and aren't part of the MSM. It all depends on which Fox programming you are talking about.
I don't think whether or not you like their programming is a very good basis on whether or not Fox is a mainstream media source. They have a bigger market share than anything you listed.
The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
Fox is mainstream media, but Fox News is not mainstream news. It never officially changed its primary mission from news to entertainment; that's a myth. But has defended on-air personalities by saying they are essentially entertainers, not journalists.I am not conflating pundits with news anchors, what I'm saying is it doesn't make a difference. And I'm not saying it's a secret that they're pushing CTs either. I said these ridiculous CTs are appearing in the mainstream media, which is exactly what the Fox News network is.
But more to the point, how is it possible for you to claim that the most popular programming on the most popular cable news nework aren't part of the mainstream media? I don't think that makes any sense at all.
I'm with Nate Silver on this one:
"It's hard to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, pointing out how the erosion of democratic norms around accepting election results is highly concerning in the long run, and, on the other hand, pointing out how desperate and pathetic this all is."
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1329255039450443777