Connect with us

Media

If you’re relying on Fox News to bring you ‘conservative’ news, try harder

Published

on

If youre relying on Fox News to bring you conservative news try harder

Mainstream media will do as mainstream media has always done. The creep to the left that started in the 70s has been inching the narratives to a progressive lean with notable lurches during the Reagan and Bush 43 years. But it was with the last two presidents that any facade of neutrality was wiped away. They loved President Obama and hate President Trump.

Fox News has been the only major network to not embrace leftist tenets, but here’s the thing. They’re not conservative. Sure, they have some conservatives as commentators and a few conservative show hosts, but generally they’ve been moderate for years. We saw this in the early days of the 2016 GOP nomination race when first Jeb Bush, then Marco Rubio were their anointed picks. Sean Hannity was the only one who jumped on the Trump Train early. Eventually, the channel eased itself on board, but not without keeping an anchor firmly attached to neoconservatism and barely right-of-center moderation.

Most viewers don’t realize this. They watch Fox & Friends, The Five, and other shows and they get the feeling that this is what conservative media looks like. But it’s not. This is what pro-Trump moderates look like (again, with a handful of exceptions).

They made an odd move yesterday by bringing on former DNC Chair Donna Brazile. In an effort to stay “fair and balanced,” it’s a good move for the network to want to expand their repertoire of leftists, but picking someone who lied on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton to somehow be appropriate in delivering “truth” is the part that should make conservatives and leftists scratch their heads. Wasn’t she supposed to promote her book and then fade off into obscurity in a lobbyist role or something?

Today brought us another indicator of the left-of-center mentality Fox holds. They brought former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the person arguably most responsible for holding back the President from demanding the border wall while Republicans held control of the House, Senate, and White House, onto the board of their new Fox News parent company.

But it’s not necessarily the people they hire that reveals their ideology. It’s the absence of topics. One of the biggest reasons we push so hard to raise money for this site is because we know the need for conservatism and Christianity as being necessary driving forces in American life. We do not bow down to party, popularity, or ideological notions that seem conservative or Christian but are not.

Fox News, on the other hand, plays for Republicans rather than conservatives. We can see this in the topics they promote but also in the topics they avoid. Like all the other news channels, they are quick to talk about any types of terrorism or murder as long as the victims aren’t Judeo-Christian. They push the buzzing stories based on what’s trending on Twitter but they don’t dig deeper to the core of the matter. There are occasional moments of lucidity, especially with some of the conservative hosts, but for the most part they’re just a pro-Trump version of the other networks.

What America needs from the media is an inflexible dedication to what works. Some will argue that it’s not media’s job to guide the process, but commentary is specifically designed to do just that. President Trump has been guided in this way. We saw him considering is immigration stance “softening” in 2016 with Sean Hannity right there beside him. But it was the conservatives in his base who were telling him to stop the nonsense, and thankfully it worked. He didn’t soften and as a result he won the election.

Fox News is only conservative in relations to their competitors. They’re unwillingness to be bold in their philosophies prevents them from being the real counter to CNN, MSNBC, and others who have no qualms being hardcore leftists. Fox News isn’t the answer.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Amy Kinser

    March 19, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    I agree totally. We need a conservative network and fast. FOX will find out soon..especially now what they did to Judge Jeanine..outrageous. FOX always was Leftie leaning..only watched certain shows. President Trump is an amazing President..build the wall..and save America. We now have radical Islam and Communists working in Congress..wake up America🙏😮🇺🇸

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

Published

on

CNN does 67 updates for Sri Lanka story with ZERO mentions blaming Islamic terrorists

The narrative has already been set by American mainstream media on how they’re supposed to handle the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday. There are certain things that can be said and others that must be avoided at all costs. With reporting that has spanned nearly 24 hours and included 67 updates to the story, guess how many times CNN blamed Islamic terrorists for the attack.

If you guessed anything higher than zero, you gave CNN way too much credit.

I scanned the entire series of live updates they’ve been doing since the news broke. It’s all within one long story, making it easy to search for individual words, so I did. The results were depressing but expected. Even at this late hour, they still have not acknowledged the possibility that the act was committed by Islamic terrorists.

The closest they came to blaming radical Islamic terrorists in their primary coverage story was a mention in a quote by Diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in which he notes the obvious – that it has the “hallmarks” of Islamic terrorism – but then quickly notes that there are no known radical Islamic terrorist groups in the area.

“It is a very confused picture in terms of who may or may not be responsible. The Sri Lankan civil war ended 10 years ago, a 25 year long civil war, and the Tamil separatists there were a secular group. It would be very, very unlike them and their tactics ever to attack churches and particularly on such a holy day.”

“It has the hallmarks — or is intended to have the hallmarks — of Islamic extremists. But, again, these kinds of groups are unknown in Sri Lanka.”

This last notion is absolutely untrue, of course, as we now know the Chief of Police in Sri Lanka issued a warning about the Nations Thawahid Jaman (NTJ), an Islamist group led by Mohomad Saharan.

The CNN report mentioned the word “Muslim” four times: twice to note the percentage of the population of Sri Lanka that is Muslim, once to warn against reprisals against Muslims, and another to note there have been attacks against Muslims by Buddhist groups. Not once was it even speculated the attacks were carried out by Muslims.

The leftist narrative must be maintained and CNN will not break their allegiances. This was just some people that did something. It may look like an apple, but CNN will scream “banana, banana, banana” for as long as they can.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Since leftist media won’t say it: Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Published

on

Since leftist media wont say it Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Update: CNN still hasn’t acknowledge the possibility it was Islamic terrorism after 67 updates over the last 24 hours.

Original Story:

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

WSJ Editorial Board

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Continue Reading

Media

Is blocking social media to prevent ‘fake news’ the right approach following events like Sri Lanka?

Published

on

Is blocking social media to prevent fake news the right approach following events like Sri Lanka

Following the terrorist attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, the government blocked access to social media sites from within the nation. This was done to stop the spread of “fake news’ both to the people of Sri Lanka as well as to outsiders from within the country.

The government has decided to temporarily block social media sites including Facebook and Instagram.Presidential Secretariat said in a statement that the decision to block social media was taken as false news reports were spreading through social media.The statement added that security forces were conducting comprehensive investigations into the incidents of explosions and that the blockage would be effective until investigations were concluded.

Is this really the right approach? The socialist nation is known for holding a tight rein over information in and out. At times like these, is stifling one of the best forms of communication to keep the people and world apprised of the developing situation one that helps or hurts?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately trends in technological policing have leaned away from the proper answer. Communication and sharing of information are integral to keeping situations properly handled. When the flow of information is suppressed, the negative effects greatly outweigh any perceived benefits of fighting “fake news.”

One of the reasons false reports get wings following media or social media blackouts is because the worst elements are able to go unchecked. At some point the governments of the world, even the socialist ones, should give the people more credit than to think any information that is false will instantly be believed indefinitely. We’ve learned plenty over the years about the ways of the internet and the spread of fake news. We don’t need to be protected.

The reality is this: when socialist governments (or any governments for that matter) block the media in any way, it isn’t for the protection of the people. It’s for control of the narrative. Sri Lanka is no exception.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report