Fox News tweets a plate of hot shit

Let's play a game: can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

image

Fox News can't!

Yeah, I saw the news reports about their doing that. Apparently social media was tearing them up over it.

Pure BS, of course. Massive piles of BS.

Standard issue, in other words, for Faux News.

bastardofmelbourne:
Let's play a game: can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

image

Fox News can't!

Well, yeah. It's a group of meaningless measurements. The unemployment rate after 3 months of a President's term is more related to the state of the economy before he took office than anything he did.

There are good reasons to shit on Obama's handling of the economy, the unemployment rate in April or May 2009 isn't one of them (and neither, frankly, is the unemployment rate throughout his term.)

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Let's play a game: can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

image

Fox News can't!

Well, yeah. It's a group of meaningless measurements. The unemployment rate after 3 months of a President's term is more related to the state of the economy before he took office than anything he did.

There are good reasons to shit on Obama's handling of the economy, the unemployment rate in April or May 2009 isn't one of them (and neither, frankly, is the unemployment rate throughout his term.)

The graphic is actually showing that unemployment under Clinton and Obama were much better than under both Bush's. Under both Bush's they were horrific. We haven't seen Trump's numbers yet.. That will be under the next president. Fox just counts on people being too ignorant to know what it is they are looking at. That has been their entire angle all along is to prey upon the ignorant.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
Let's play a game: can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

image

Fox News can't!

Well, yeah. It's a group of meaningless measurements. The unemployment rate after 3 months of a President's term is more related to the state of the economy before he took office than anything he did.

There are good reasons to shit on Obama's handling of the economy, the unemployment rate in April or May 2009 isn't one of them (and neither, frankly, is the unemployment rate throughout his term.)

The graphic is actually showing that unemployment under Clinton and Obama were much better than under both Bush's. Under both Bush's they were horrific. We haven't seen Trump's numbers yet.. That will be under the next president. Fox just counts on people being too ignorant to know what it is they are looking at. That has been their entire angle all along is to prey upon the ignorant.

I don't know how many people will take those numbers as meaning what Fox intends. I do know that what Fox intends is an extraordinarily weak argument to make against Democratic presidents, and humans in general have a cognitive bias for remembering weaker arguments against their position and stronger arguments for. The upshot of this is that Democrats see this and think "What a crock of shit. Democrats handle the economy well". Republicans look at this and either have their beliefs confirmed or think it's dumb and don't remember it.

My god, can Trump take one picture of him smiling and not looking like he is taking a shit while trying to explode your head?


Oh dear. Fox News do treat their viewers like a bunch of brain dead fucking idiots who will believe this at first glance and never question it.

Eh, isn't it technically true? Which is the funnest form of true, after all. Just not true-true.

Am trying to understand how these people can sleep comfortably in the knowledge that their career is entirely dependent on profiting off of stirring hatred and distrust in cognitively​ challenged people.

So they ran a reflection of the previous president in reverse order in an attempt to trick the viewers into momentarily thinking the opposite is true? Do they think audiences are that gullible?

After the first 3 months is a great measurement of the previous person in power as the current administration hasn't been able to affect the country that strongly yet. So really what I got from that graphic is the Democrats have run the country better in terms of employment while it gets worse under Republican leadership. Apparently Bush almost doubled the unemployment rate while Obama halved it, getting it back to Clinton-era rates.

I should clarify that I don't believe anything about this graphic. It's from a source with a really bad reputation for reliability.

Xsjadoblayde:
Am trying to understand how these people can sleep comfortably in the knowledge that their career is entirely dependent on profiting off of stirring hatred and distrust in cognitively​ challenged people.

Given how that's pretty much the media as a whole these days, it seems rather easy. Though given how most seem to think they're doing the right thing, that might help.

PainInTheAssInternet:

I should clarify that I don't believe anything about this graphic.

Well the numbers are true but they kind of ignore a lot of things. First is that for Clinton it ignores the early 90's recession, for Bush it ignores that that was the norm between the late 90s and great recession, for Obama it ignores that the great recession was hitting, and for Trump it ignores that things have finally stabilised since late 2016.

Xsjadoblayde:
Am trying to understand how these people can sleep comfortably in the knowledge that their career is entirely dependent on profiting off of stirring hatred and distrust in cognitively​ challenged people.

When you believe yourself to be better than everyone else it's really easy to justify all kinds of unethical or immoral behavior. After all, you know what's best for the masses. They should be grateful for your leadership. I've known people like this personally and they are the most overbearing motherfuckers to have ever fucked a mother.

BeetleManiac:

Xsjadoblayde:
Am trying to understand how these people can sleep comfortably in the knowledge that their career is entirely dependent on profiting off of stirring hatred and distrust in cognitively​ challenged people.

When you believe yourself to be better than everyone else it's really easy to justify all kinds of unethical or immoral behavior. After all, you know what's best for the masses. They should be grateful for your leadership. I've known people like this personally and they are the most overbearing motherfuckers to have ever fucked a mother.

Man, that's a bipartisan burn right there.

Everyone from both end of the political spectrum should unite against the threat that is overbearing motherfuckers and their Motherfucker-in-Chief.

Saelune:
My god, can Trump take one picture of him smiling and not looking like he is taking a shit while trying to explode your head?

...and now I can't unsee that. Thanks, now I have to think about Trump shitting every time I see him.

Also, some intrepid artist with a strong stomach needs to make this a thing.

More ontopic: Yay, yet more examples of why you can't trust the media at all. Any of it.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
My god, can Trump take one picture of him smiling and not looking like he is taking a shit while trying to explode your head?

...and now I can't unsee that. Thanks, now I have to think about Trump shitting every time I see him.

Also, some intrepid artist with a strong stomach needs to make this a thing.

More ontopic: Yay, yet more examples of why you can't trust the media at all. Any of it.

Hmm. Very biased right wing news network posts misleading stats therefore can't trust any media. I don't think the logic checks out exactly

Thaluikhain:
Eh, isn't it technically true? Which is the funnest form of true, after all. Just not true-true.

Thaluikhain, you are technically correct: the best kind of correct!

A very cynical read of it is that it is such a weak argument against Democrats that it is meant to frame Clinton's and Obama's economic policy in a better light than they actually deserve. Why would it do that? Because it utilizes statistics which really did improve markedly under both those Presidents, especially compared to Republicans. It is other measurements which show the flaws in Clinton/Obama economic policy-- increasing income inequality and stagnant real wages despite huge increases in productivity.

Because of the propensity for people to remember bad arguments against their beliefs and forget weak arguments for their beliefs, Republicans will tend to forget about it and Democrats will be reassured that Democratic presidents are great for the economy. That is the predictable effect, intentional or otherwise. (What are we seeing in this thread, after all?) The truth of the matter is that Democrats are bad for everyone but the top ~10% and Republicans are bad for everyone but the top ~1%. (Dubious improvements like Obamacare are outweighed by increasing income inequality and the like.)

Fox News tends to blatantly (and often very stupidly) support Republicans, but their strategy seems to be to drag the whole country in a wealthy-friendly direction. Their apparent allegiance to the Republican party may be a matter of falsely presenting the Democratic establishment as a reasonable alternative to those who oppose their stupidity.

That's what I would do if I were a billionaire who owned a television network, anyway: spout propaganda for the side that is kind of dumb (hyper-Christian, vaguely racist) and buy both sides (thanks bipartisanship for deregulating telecommunications so I can own more of the television spectrum!) The voters shouldn't have a choice to oppose what I care about. Debates should only be about stupid crap like "the War on Christmas" or what flags are flying above statehouses-- defend the Confederate flag until the end, exhaust every argument possible in its favor not despite it being horrible that it's still around but because it's horrible that it's still around: it needs to be an issue as long as possible so that Conservatives and Liberals have something other than my issues (economic issues) with which to distinguish themselves from each other. And when it comes to my issues, make the two extremes a matter of whether I get more of a smaller pie (supply side economics) or more of a modestly larger pie (Clinton/Obama style economics): it's all relative anyway. We can have policies which give me a huge tax cut, cut services, and blow up the deficit or policies which give me a modest tax cut, are somewhat closer to revenue neutrality, and keep services more or less at their same shitty level.

Is it intentional? Who knows. But that's how the Fox News Channel seems to function.

Wow, Trump did all that for unemployment within 3 months? What a guy.

The Decapitated Centaur:
Hmm. Very biased right wing news network posts misleading stats therefore can't trust any media. I don't think the logic checks out exactly

More like: yet another example that the media can't be trusted, this one right-wing flavored which makes it slightly less surprising than if it had been left-wing flavored. How slightly is actually pretty depressing.

Lisker84:
Wow, Trump did all that for unemployment within 3 months? What a guy.

And to think he was golfing for half of that

It takes about a year, if not more for new economic policies to start having a measurable effect after new administration takes over. You have to be really dumb to look at that graphic and go "YEAH MAGA!" Furthermore, the unemployment rate was about 5% during Obama's last couple of months in office. Those were the numbers that Trump didn't believe in. He said that it's fake and that the unemployment rate is something like 42% IIRC. Until he won and then he said he thinks the numbers are true. Yeah, that happened. What a fuckin' idiot.

Seems to be secretly trumpeting Democrat achievements...

9% employment down to 4.5%?

What sort of idiot would it take to read it any other way? Does Fox think its viewers are just that intellectually impaired they can show even pro-Democrat data sets that work against them and they'll still swallow it up? You literally just have to move the group of numbers across to see how each president has affected employment over the entirety of their presidency. Look... these numbers are ridiculous and parties play with how unemployment is determined and measured, but come on.

At this point I think Fox (and Conservative idiots to a provable extent) is more The Colbert Report than the old Colbert Report. Given the sheer level of stupidity (assumed by Fox or otherwise) I'm not sure they realise it themselves.

I'll take 'Real Fake News' for 200, Alex.

FOX gives a bad name to the animal it got its name from.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Does Fox think its viewers are just that intellectually impaired they can show even pro-Democrat data sets that work against them and they'll still swallow it up?

A more important question would be if they are correct. I'd imagine their viewers might well decide to believe them.

Thaluikhain:

A more important question would be if they are correct. I'd imagine their viewers might well decide to believe them.

I did add it to my post that both parties play silly buggers with employment and underemployment figures. Like I would still be registered 'unemployed' in Australian statistics even though I earn money off my investments. But in the U.S. after a certain amount of time has been passed you're no longer counted, for instance.

From the shock and horror stories I heard of a 2007-08 about the number of people not merely being unemployed but having fallen off the grid entirely (living in their cars and on the street who can't get even benefits) ... 9% might seem right, but 4.5% probably doesn't adequately paint the picture of a stronger economy. Not all those people that lost their home and the shirt off their back in the credit crunch would have gotten into stable housing or employment, but neither would all of them have been registered for welfare if they could even get it. So...

Thaluikhain:
Eh, isn't it technically true? Which is the funnest form of true, after all. Just not true-true.

Half-truths adorned with facts are more misleading than fat lies.

PainInTheAssInternet:
So they ran a reflection of the previous president in reverse order in an attempt to trick the viewers into momentarily thinking the opposite is true? Do they think audiences are that gullible?

Should I remind you who the President currently is? Fox News does.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here