33 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Mike Hammer's avatar

Great news, but do we still call it Fox “news” when it’s pure propaganda?

Expand full comment
KatVersc's avatar

No, let's rename it to The Fox Propaganda Network. After all, it is state-sponsored by the GOP and the Trump band of fools. Let's get real and call a spade, a spade!

Expand full comment
Thomas Palmersheim's avatar

FOX SKEWS for short ; )

Expand full comment
Ermila Garza's avatar

Love that FPN! Fox Propaganda Network

Expand full comment
Kristie's avatar

Foxaganda

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

It's best to call it what they called themselves in court (lawsuit they lost, for selling propaganda as "news"): FOX ENTERTAINMENT.

They're surely amusing their viewers to death...

Expand full comment
Thomas Palmersheim's avatar

Let’s start calling the shameless propagandists “FOX SKEWS.”

Expand full comment
Disguy Ovahea's avatar

You misspelled Faux News

Expand full comment
JOHN SMITH's avatar

It is a another way of saying fake/faux Like a phony item sold as real on EBAY or other websites that sell things as real items of value and they say that they are FAUX and most people are not aware of the disclaimer.

Expand full comment
Dr Cannie Stark's avatar

DatGuy Ovuhdare knows how to spell FOX and how to spell FAUX. Furthermore, it seemed perfectly evident that HE UNDERSTOOD the MEANINGS. He was making a JOKE--a play on words, a linguistic joke, if you will.

Expand full comment
Santos Chavez's avatar

I propose we call it what Ben does in his videos, 'the state run propaganda network known as Fox'

Wordy, sure, but it's hella accurate lmao.

Let's make it catch on haha

Expand full comment
Kristie's avatar

Foxaganda

Expand full comment
Sylvia Arrowood's avatar

I thought they had agreed to be called an entertainment network.

Expand full comment
James Cruce's avatar

Didn’t their own lawyers claim they were an entertainment network and couldn’t be taken seriously as a new source?

Expand full comment
Ed Garland's avatar

Yeah, that's like claiming Elon Muskrat isn't in charge of DOGE aka Doggie Poop.

Expand full comment
Katrina Billings's avatar

Faux News is more appropriate.

Expand full comment
Thomas Palmersheim's avatar

It is but it’s not “catchy” and it is as close to “fake news” as it gets and that’s Trump’s saying. So FOX SKEWS is NEW and accurate. Now to make it go viral.

Expand full comment
Somewhere, Somehow's avatar

The term as used during the Dominion trial was fox opinion media (or something like that).

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Want to marginalize them? The strategy to overcome Trimp/Musk/Fox is laid out in Feathers of Hope -- Jerry Weiss.

https://jerryweiss.substack.com/

Expand full comment
David Holst-Grubbe's avatar

Eviscerate FOX. Deny them ad revenue by denying their ad buying company CEO and executives his annual bonuses. For example Wayfair. Boycott them for a full fiscal quarter. Get all the on line influencers to remind everyone every day for the entire quarter. See how fast CEO’s stop buying ads - do only ONE brand - do it implacably for an entire quarter. See how quickly you become the new sheriff in town and how fast other CEO’s quit buying ads.

See how fast FOX changes content. All they care about is money. That’s it. All of it. Money. Oh - and next generation FOX CEO will be a decent human being if you do this.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Better -- sue them when they defame you. Extremely vulnerable. $787.5M in largest ever defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems. Must face Smartmatic $2.7 billion defamation claim.

When you sue them, you get millions in free publicity.

Meanwhile Fox shareholder derivitive suit: Plaintiffs the New York City Funds and the State of Oregon in this shareholder derivative action against certain directors and officers of Fox Corporation. In connection with Fox News’ propagation of unfounded, defamatory conspiracy theories concerning the U.S. presidential election of 2020, the action alleges breach of fiduciary duties for: (1) the adoption of an illegal business model by which Fox News pursues profits by committing actionable defamation; (2) the lack of good faith efforts to establish systems or practices for minimizing, mitigating, or monitoring defamation risk; and (3) inaction in the face of red flags of defamation risk.

BTW Newsmax had to pay $40 million to. Smartmatic

Expand full comment
olderwoman's avatar

Daniel, excellent comment.

I had never thought of the points you made, so thanks.

Expand full comment
GoldberryDE's avatar

How is it that this is so little known to the outside world? There should be an ongoing discussion on how the Reps tried to spread impertinent lies to intimidate and infuriate voters.

If there ever is another election, this must be firm knowledge in the country or Trumpsky will claim election fraud again.

Expand full comment
Ed Garland's avatar

Good one!

Expand full comment
link swansong's avatar

Fox has over 100 advertisers. We need to boycott them all. Call and email them til they listen. NY Post also. Anything rupert needs to feel the burn!

Expand full comment
David Holst-Grubbe's avatar

That’s a problem. The general public will lose focus and the boycott would be unsuccessful. Have no fear - ruin the bonus’ for one company and the rest will melt like a MAGA snowflake. All we want is to get FOX to modify content.

Expand full comment
Ed Garland's avatar

I'd prefer spontaneous combustion.

Expand full comment
David Holst-Grubbe's avatar

That’s a good option!!

Expand full comment
Ed Garland's avatar

😋 Yup!

Expand full comment
Ed Garland's avatar

We call it garbage.

Expand full comment
Leah Baum's avatar

I have always called them faux noise.

Expand full comment
Valerie Murnau's avatar

How about Fox Spews.

Expand full comment
Denise Dumont's avatar

Fox has admitted that it is an entertainment network and not a news network.

Expand full comment