President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.
Can we not use Fox News, please? They legally argued in court they are strictly entertainment and no reasonable person would believe them. In other words, they are literal propaganda.
But yeah, I hope the smug voters that sat this election out are happy…
You should default to assuming anything Fox says is untrue without a second source to verify. Because legally they can just say whatever they want and aren’t beholden to any type of journalistic standards because they aren’t news.
They have no more credibility than a random social media user.
Sure, okay, look at the source with skepticism - I certainly do. It just doesn’t make sense to not engage critically with the source. And, in this case, this story seems to be completely factual. Trump does intend to expand arms supply to Israel and ease restrictions. So, disbelieving the story in this case would not have brought you to the correct conclusion.
That’s a misrepresentation of what they said. I hate Fox News too, but they argued them being called Fox News doesn’t make them exclusively a news company. Most of what they provide on their TV network is entertainment. Written Fox News is actually not the worst thing ever, though still conservative and far from my preference. I also think they still have an hour dedicated to news on the TV network, which is probably worse than having none because it gives cover for the rest of the garbage.
Can we not use Fox News, please? They legally argued in court they are strictly entertainment and no reasonable person would believe them. In other words, they are literal propaganda.
But yeah, I hope the smug voters that sat this election out are happy…
So, do you think that, in this case, the reporting is inaccurate? Or do you just wish they linked a non-Fox version of the same story?
You should default to assuming anything Fox says is untrue without a second source to verify. Because legally they can just say whatever they want and aren’t beholden to any type of journalistic standards because they aren’t news.
They have no more credibility than a random social media user.
Sure, okay, look at the source with skepticism - I certainly do. It just doesn’t make sense to not engage critically with the source. And, in this case, this story seems to be completely factual. Trump does intend to expand arms supply to Israel and ease restrictions. So, disbelieving the story in this case would not have brought you to the correct conclusion.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-hezbollah-mideast-latest-12-november-2024-16e57642f460d28e6a5e4f5fe7088a41
https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/us-news/trump-will-speed-up-military-supply-deliveries-to-israel-as-soon-as-he-takes-office-reports/
I guess “default to assuming it’s untrue” wasn’t how I should’ve put it.
If they told me the sky was blue, I wouldn’t say they’re wrong but I’d probably still look up just to be sure.
For sure. I totally agree!
Great going with seeing the point yet completely missing it
Nope. I don’t think you understand my argument insofar as it was implied by those 2 questions.
That’s a misrepresentation of what they said. I hate Fox News too, but they argued them being called Fox News doesn’t make them exclusively a news company. Most of what they provide on their TV network is entertainment. Written Fox News is actually not the worst thing ever, though still conservative and far from my preference. I also think they still have an hour dedicated to news on the TV network, which is probably worse than having none because it gives cover for the rest of the garbage.