Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation (gizmodo.com) 357
Michael Nunez, reporting for Gizmodo: The US Senate Commerce Committee -- which has jurisdiction over media issues, consumer protection issues, and internet communication -- has sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg requesting answers to questions it has on its trending topics section. The letter comes after Gizmodo on Monday reported on allegations by one former news curator, who worked for Facebook as a contractor, that the curation team routinely suppressed or blacklisted topics of interest to conservatives. That report also included allegations from several former curators that they used an "injection tool" to add or bump stories onto the trending module. The letter asks that Facebook "arrange for your staff including employees responsible for trending topics to brief committee staff on this issue." The letter was signed by Chairman for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator John Thune (R) from South Dakota.
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it sad that there is really no balanced, and truly investigative news source these days.
24/7 cable news pushed things very far to where it is JUST about getting eyes and money for those 24/7, and the news is just a commodity that is taken and rather than being reported, is analyzed and opinionized (is this a word?)....and nothing but opinion pieces are put out by both sides of the political compass....although I still see the balance as being still more left than right with all the media out there for the most part.
But for the social media giant FB, I'd think it would be much more interesting to see what the populace opinons ARE...rather than try to guide them by injecting the owners' own political slant into the trends.
But hey, these are PRIVATE companies, and I don't feel it is the governments business, nor a constitutionally mandated power to have them even question what "news" or news-like products the private sector is putting out....
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So say Facebook were to add a trending stories feature to it's site. It is implied both directly and indirectly that these trending stories are allowed to naturally propagate and appear on a newsfeed. Facebook attracts business with this feature and users sign up for it under those conditions. Only later is it learned that the stories aren't really trending at all but are actually selected and censored by Facebook employees. You don't think there's a case to be made for false advertising?
Re: (Score:3)
So are you suggesting the government should decide which stories are true and which are false and potentially punish anyone publishing things it decides is false? That sounds way more scary to me than Facebook censoring certain things (which we should all assume all private media companies are doing).
While a agree with your lament at the state of media, I hardly thing it's anything new. The pen (or at least the stump before literacy was wide-spread) has been mightier than the sword and powerful people have
So this (Score:3)
That's exactly what the courts do today. Decide the truth of matters. Do you suggest we should eliminate the court system, and leave the decisions of guilt, innocence, and punishment to private entities?
No doubt the courts are quite corrupt, however, there is some ability for oversight. This is considerably less true for private entities.
I, for one
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's unsubstantiated opinion, worthy of rattling around in your head and nothing else. Gossip. Exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not news in any form or fashion. Entertainment? Sure. If you're a lowlife. Otherwise, no, just purest garbage.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if Facebook is doing this, so what? Have these Senators not heard of the First Amendment? Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
? The allegation is corruption on the part of a business. Are you saying that Congress may not investigate business to ascertain if corruption is part and parcel of their business plan? (Even if they cannot pass a law to rectify the situation?)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have noticed it's an election year, right? This is barely more than political theater.
"How DARE a corporation DO THIS THING!" even though Republicans seem to love letting corporations do pretty much anything and (some) are champions of deregulation....
Re: (Score:3)
False advertisement is not protected speech.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it's true though, it isn't corruption. It's not illegal for a company to decide what to post on their own website, or to manually adjust their algorithms in real time. I'm sure facebook would do that at a minimum to prevent embarassing topics from hitting the top, like openly racist columns or conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3)
We have 1000s of laws (many if not most stupid) regarding commerce and information distribution. Which, if any apply here? I have no idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to proffer a service to the masses with the algorithmically simple concept of showing you the most popular things people are talking about, then that's what it should do, period. If you take it upon yourself to modify that algorithm so that it deviates from what you've marketed it as, you need to disclose th
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The allegation is corruption on the part of a business.
What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
Since businesses are not actually people, but only run by them, then wouldn't it make sense if the biases of those people were reflected in the way the company does business? Is it illegal to have bias, or only show news stories that are of a particular brand? Because, if so, then virtually every news organization is guilty.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
What I do know is that if there is a "credible" allegation of corruption (whatever that means) that Congress can and should investigate it.
Maybe they can start with themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
Bingo!
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind all the free press given to Donald Trump during this election cycle.
1) The MSM tried to ignore Trump, saying he was a "reality TV star" and not a "real politician". You can find those stories in August. That didn't last long, but it existed
2) You your self have just given him "Free Publicity" by mentioning him ...again. Much of the publicity is organic
3) Protesters protesting Trump, create news stories for Trump. Again, the free publicity by protesting Trump.
While I cannot tell if you're Pro or Anti Trump from your post, my guess is that you aren't really in favor. You might want to consider actually standing for someone who is also running. I don't know ANY actual "Pro" Hilary people. Most of the left leaning people I know want Bernie, and the rest will vote for anyone with the (D) after their name.
And while I have addressed Trump here, I am also going to point out, that I will NOT be voting for him, as I don't vote (D) or (R). I'm voting Libertarian. Don't blame me for what happens when people elect the unqualified and the scoundrels to office, I vote, just not for any of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a scoundrel might sound like [youtube.com]
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They may have said he was not a viable candidate or that he was just a reality TV star but thats not ignoring him, it is certainly not ignoring him when you do that for the majority of the time on your news broadcasts. Its not even close to ignoring Trump, its giving him the microphone, at that point it almost doesn't matter what the talking heads have to say.
If you want to see what its like to be ignored by the meida, take a look at what they did with Sanders, thats ignoring a candidate.
http://mediamatter [mediamatters.org]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Buying into the two party system is what ensures that we will stay in this mess forever.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that his attitude is what would get us out of this mess. He looked at the candidates from the two major parties, didn't like any of them, and decided to vote third party. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's the people who say "I'm voting Democrat/Republican because that's how I always vote regardless of who is running" or the people who say "I don't like anyone so I'm protesting by not voting" that I have a problem with. The former allow party affiliation to rule their choice regardless of policy positions. The latter aren't really "protesting" because not voting is essentially invisible to the politicians.
There is "free press" and there is "free press" (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.
The "free press" Trump gets is pretty much all "look at the insane thing Trump is doing now" or "this new person thinks Trump is Hitler, don't you agree".
How is Trump not the victim still? The only different between Trump and other victims of the press is Trump is skilled in New Judo, turning back attacks to ridicule the attacker. It does not excuse the nature and viciousness of the attacks, even though they are "free" and the end result is more people admiring Trump...
Re: (Score:2)
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I hope you're trolling mate, even Trump doesn't think all this free press makes him a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.
That's because Fox News is anti-Trump.
The Madness Spreads (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the reality. Clinton and Trump are both historically disliked.
How can you be so dense as to conflate results with actions?
Clinton and Trump are, yes, both widely disliked.
But the media is mostly soft on Hillary, and very harsh on Trump. The *reality* is disconnected from what the media attempts to MAKE reality.
Now it is true that thanks to Sanders, there have been some more widely reported negatives about Hillary. But it's still been VERY soft compared to Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
That "free press" given to Trump isn't because they favor him. Rather, it's because they are very enthusiastic to publicize any potential flaw they can find. Of course, they are oblivious to the fact that large swaths of the public see the media as part of the establishment, and that their disproportionate pursuit of Trump's every flaw will only confirm his anti-establishment credentials. The press may realize too late, much like the GOP, that the only way they could have brought down Trump was to acknowled
Re: (Score:3)
The price tag for that "free press" is tagged at $2B.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-has-won-nearly-2-billion-worth-of-free-press/article/2585879 [washingtonexaminer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Trump is a democrat right?
You realize that Trump is being nominated by the wrong party?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that Trump is a democrat right?
You really think that Trump has some sort of consistent ideology which matches up with one of the 2 major political parties in the country? His strategy is to say whatever it takes to get him through that minute, hour, interview, debate, etc, even if it's in complete opposition to what he said yesterday. He'll also just outright deny saying that he ever said something which he was recorded saying. He doesn't exactly have a consistent ethos which he uses to guide his opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
It's fun to see Trump try to talk on religion. He knows he needs to have that card in his hand to be successful as a Republican, but he has clearly got no knowledge of the field at all, or of American right-wing religious culture. Every time he tries he manages some form of gaffe - from being unable to cite a single bible verse when asked, to referring to 'two Corinthians' in a speech, to managing to anger both sides when speaking about abortion - twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is Trump. He's neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. He's going to say whatever he feels like saying, and it changes from day to day. And plenty of people are lapping that up, which, for the life of me, I cannot understand.
He's barely been consistent on anything other than racism and xenophobia.
Re: (Score:2)
The Orangutan called Donald is ONLY after money.
Sir, you have besmirched the good name of every member of the only surviving species of the subfamily Ponginae!
I hope you drive a Caddie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkD7UTYrbB0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Republicans probably don't view him as a 'true' Republican, and he isn't exactly a classic conservative.
The voters didn't get that memo.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because if something is being presented as being strictly based on popular interest, but is actually based on private interests, then that is misleading consumers. The other "news" organizations haven't been accused of advertising one methodology for presenting stories but actually using another.
It would be like a polling organization saying it took a random phone survey of 1,000 likely voters to get its results, but then was caught manipulating their definition of the term "likely" to distort their resulting data. They generally like to leave the distortion to the data interpreters, not bake it into the data itself.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if something is being presented as being strictly based on popular interest, but is actually based on private interests, then that is misleading consumers. The other "news" organizations haven't been accused of advertising one methodology for presenting stories but actually using another.
So Fox News is actually "Fair and Balanced"?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me suggest that you are not being "Fair and balanced" here.
Re: (Score:3)
> then that is misleading consumers
So, tell me how much does this Facebook thing cost to use? Oh, nothing? All right then! Damages of Zero Dollars it is!
False advertising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Though all news-sources profess objectivity, we know, they are run by fallible humans, who are bound to act on their own impulses and agendas.
Facebook, however, implied — or, maybe, even explicitly stated — that its "trending" module is driven by an objective computer-algorithm.
These claims appear false now, which may open them to legal charges of false advertising [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:False advertising? (Score:4, Informative)
In denial much? Right bloody here [facebook.com]:
This undeniably implies objectivity. Depending on how (un)charitable you wish to be, it also explicitly promises it...
No it most certainly does not. You purposely ignored this particular line:
The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you've liked and your location.
It DOES not say anything like "objectivity." The "number of factors" gives them all the leeway to put whatever the fuck they want in there.
Nope, no victims. Just more whining.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter? Though lying is not illegal (other than under oath or to a federal employee [wikipedia.org]), a merchant or service-provider lying about his goods and services is committing a crime of false advertising — even if the particular goods/services aren't the main line of his business.
Partisian nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
The facebook contractors were told to block conservative stories (whatever that means these days) and these GOP Senators are making a big deal out of it - to get votes and continue the myth that the media has a Liberal (whatever that means these days) bias.
And of course there is going to be a big chunk of their constituency that will fall for this complete and utter waste of Senate time.
Idiocracy [imdb.com] is a documentary you know.
Re: (Score:2)
The media seems to have proven their bias. But you really come off as a snarky asshole.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why investigate Facebook for keeping with the low standards of everyone else?
Because millions of people don't sign into the websites of those news agencies each day to be fed the agenda of those organizations.
Advertising works. The message being sent to millions of people worldwide is curated by a handful of people under one organization that isn't the gov't. This is them saying "Bullshit! that's our job!"
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it's well understood that the stories reported by Fox News and NBC News are whatever Fox and NBC deem newsworthy. They don't pretend that the stories they've picked are "Trending" or "Shared" amongst regular users.
Basically they're being dishonest. If Facebook wants to push its political viewpoint then they should just come right out and say so. Don't pretend it's all done by an algorithm based on only popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to claim that the news stories presented by Fox are "Fair and balanced"? Because, as you well know, Fox makes that claim for its reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's Congress and they can investigate anything for the sheer hell of it.
Get the popcorn; it's political theater folks!
There is a difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, most news outlets pick and choose what to report on, and all of them have a partisan bent (which is nice to hear you admit since so many on Slashdot claim most news stations are "objective").
However is does seem like there is an important and insidious difference. While news stations choose what they THINK is news, Facebook KNOWS what is news because of links people are sharing and what people are talking about - and knowing what is important to many people, they purposefully exclude any items that are important to lots of conservatives.
On a site that is supposed to represent the curation of your interests and friends, it seems like rather a betrayal to bury something that you and other people like you find important.
I would say the same thing regardless of what was being suppressed. I could see and agree with Facebook injecting at times news it thought was important and should be more widely seen (even if that itself had a partisan bent) but it's quite a lot different to censor the spread of something popular because of ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
If you complain that the refrigerator isn't as good for your tropical saltwater fish as that carboy you've been using for years, don't complain to the refrigerator company, you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Because news stations are content creators, they are supposed to be biased. While FB is a modern day phone or mail system.
Their is a difference between a show designed to put forward a certain philosophy, and a phone system or mail system that eliminates certain viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there was, FoxNews.com should have their picture in the post office, be on the FBI's most wanted list, and have their building surrounded by a SWAT team.
Re: (Score:2)
FB isn't even a news source (Score:5, Funny)
Look out, /. editors; you're next.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look out, /. editors; you're next.
Zuckerberg has stated manyy times that he wants Facebook to be your only news source.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the entire point.
You are allowed to create any sort of content/news you like, and it can lean in any direction you prefer. It is when you start censoring other's content to fit your narrative, while trying to project an aura of an unbiased unfiltered forum, that people and society have a problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look out, /. editors; you're next.
That would require people to read slashdot, for anyone to notice the problems.
Your statement would also require slashdot to have editors, and we all know that to not be true.
What is the alleged crime? (Score:2)
The only accusation I can think of is false advertising [wikipedia.org]. If FB promoted its "trending" module as driven by an objective algorithm, then they may be culpable for these false claims.
Other than that — there is just "no there there". Not from a legal standpoint, anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
A committee hearing isn't a court, and it doesn't press charges. People that come before a committee hearing don't have to play nice, either. Usually these hearings offer the committee members themselves a chance to hash out their own bickering and rivalry, using the guest as a proxy. In this case, arguing among themselves about bias in media.
Re:What is the alleged crime? (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. It's political theater. The classic case of which was the "Parent's Music Resource Council", where Tipper Gore got then-Senator Al Gore to hold a hearing on lyrics in top-40 songs. Testifying were Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider. Fairly epic hearing, as I recall, and I also seem to recall a movie was made of it. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's political theater.
Its public discourse and something sadly lacking in this day and age of finger pointing. This is one of the committees functions and is meant to shed light on a topic of interest to the American public. It's unfortunate people like you are to partisan and biased to see the value of this.
So FB, a private company can't show what they want (Score:2)
If Facebook is a private non-governmental company what does it matter if they decide to do that to the news feed? No body pays for access to the site, so you get what you pay for. If you feel that you are not getting your fullest daily dose of insane right-wing news you can just go to Fox or Brietbart.
Dear The Senate (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Senator John Thune (R) from South Dakota, Chairman for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Fuck off. We're a corporate not government entity and can do whatever we want with our property. Remember, you Republicans are are suppose to be way into that.
Hugs and Kisses,
Facebook
Re: (Score:2)
If money can be free speech, how can speech not be free speech? Though this being politics and government i'm betting the under for the over/under in "consistency and fairness" bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear, facebook
Why we are inclined to agree with you in principle there are still serious moral questions about using your platform to deliberately mislead the public about the popularity of various ideas and opinions.
Remember its you on the left that constantly advocate and pass legislation limiting various kinds of speech and associated. Well the best way to teach you to be remorseful for your ignorant way is probably for you to be hoist by your own petard.
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember its you on the left that constantly advocate and pass legislation limiting various kinds of speech...
By definition, liberals are against any limitation on free speech. Maybe you are thinking of some other group? Democrats and Republicans, for instance?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not actually trying to accomplish anything, so I seriously doubt Thune cares that much. These hearings are just about blowing time and grandstanding a bit while waiting for the next election. This Congress is basically like a lower-table soccer team that is sitting on a tie against a better team, and is just trying to chew up clock. Hearings like these are their equivalent of dribbling the ball into the corner and waiting for someone to come try to poke it out (so they can do it again). Or grabbing the
Typical Republican Bull (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll investigate Facebook for bias but not Fox News.
They'll investigate Clinton for operating an email server, but not Rice or Powell, who also operated their own email server.
Man. Republicans act like spoiled brats, and somehow we accept this as part of our political system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll investigate Facebook for bias but not Fox News.
They're investigating Facebook for what is effectively false advertising. Claiming that their "trending" feature is an actual representation of trending stories amongst users and not a filtered and modified list of stories of personal interest of a select few reviewers. If it was just about bias where are the requests for MSNBC and CNN to appear?
They'll investigate Clinton for operating an email server, but not Rice or Powell, who also operated their own email server.
They're investigating Clinton for storing classified and top secret information outside of legal channels and neither Rice of Powell had their own servers. Rice
What BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox News spews lies morning, noon and night, and no one in Washington raises a peep. Now, this will be become the false scandal of the hour (a new one is needed, as Benghazi is fading, and it looks like the FBI won't deliver the goods on those email servers), so without doubt we'll being hearing about this ad infinitum for months.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking of BS, Hillary has also been on Fox multiple times, and was most recently interviewed by Wallace over Benghazi. So has Pelosi. Obama was interviewed by O'Reilly twice, maybe even a third time. He's been interviewed by other Fox hosts as well, he did one with Chris Wallace just this past month. These interviews are all online and heavily promoted by Fox
So you should probably not make stuff up.
I would tell them they will appear after FOX does (Score:2)
What they do is not illegal. There is no requirement that Facebook or anyone else present a 'fair and balanced' story. Facebook certainly does a better job than Fox news does.
If I were them, I would simply state "You are asking about legal actions that Facebook considers to be proprietary corporate secrets. We will be happy to comply - after you first publicize Fox and MSNBC's own methodology for presenting stories."
Are you serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they not have anything better to do? What's wrong, is Bengazi not getting sufficient attention anymore, so now it's time for a new witchhunt?
Fox has been doing far worse for years, why arn't they being investigated?
Missing the point (Score:3)
Many on this thread are missing the point. Facebook is a private company and they are entitled to promote whatever they consider "news". They are no different in that regard from Fox News and CNN and the New York Times. Each of which produces its own version of the news, designed to push whatever political agenda they happen to have. This should be obvious to anyone that watches or reads content from those outlets. The exact same story will get reported in a different way, sometimes slightly different, sometimes completely different. Other stories are simply not reported.
What makes it different for Facebook is that they claim their new stories appear as a result of "trending". Meaning that they are the most talked about, most "liked", most "shared" stories and that there is some fancy algorithm behind it. When it appears that these stories appear in the trending section based solely upon the opinion of a small group of editors at Facebook. Fox and CNN and the NYT make no such claims. It just so happens that conservative stories were suppressed but it would no less evil had it been liberal stories.
The point is that Facebook has lied and mislead its users. Sadly, Facebook has a long history of this. It is one of the reasons that I don't use Facebook. I simply don't trust them. Not with my data and not to deliver an unbiased news feed.
I'm glad congress has been so productive lately... (Score:2)
Problem is accountability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True Conservatism (Score:3)
Because the GOP is all about keeping Big Government out of the choices of Free Citizens.
Because Trump hasn't made them look stupid enough (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine what laws the GOP thinks Facebook has broken. You wonder how anyone could have made Congress even less popular than it was under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but somehow Republicans have managed to leverage rank stupidity like this to accomplish that feat.
Will the GOP congress propose that there be equal-time rules for websites? Is there a floor beneath which the GOP will not sink? Stay tuned. The convention is still months away.
There used to be a little thing called... (Score:3)
... The Fairness Doctrine.
Ever since the Reagan administration stopped enforcing it the idea of equal time for opposing viewpoints has been a joke. Watch the Sunday morning talking head shows; it's one Republican ideologue after another. The only alternative is a whole panel full of right-wing nut jobs shouting down the lone centrist or liberal panelist. Read the OpEd page of pretty much every newspaper in the U.S. It's the same diet of right-wing talking points. Now that the Republicans find themselves on the other side of that situation, it becomes something that requires Congressional hearings. Facebook needs to loudly and publicly remind them of this thing called the First Amendment and tell them to get stuffed.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a Republican controlled congress any different?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the "fairness doctrine" that required equal time for both sides was promulgated by democrats and eliminated by Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Not any different from a Democrat controlled congress? Yeah, that is true! I never saw that before. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's get something straight. If FB chooses to show, or chooses not to show a news article under their "Trending" section, it's not abridging your freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to look anywhere else for news. They are under no obligation to provide news that you, in particular, are going to find interesting.
In other words, there is a difference between "Trending" and "Interesting".
Furthermore, having FB access is a privilege, not a right, and FB is free to allow access to all or to ban any
Re: (Score:2)
If the news that is "trending" isn't really "trending", and the news that is actually "trending", is missing, then the whole idea of "trending" is false labeling. Which is all this really is. And quite frankly, is typical of left leaning "news" sites.
It does represent a bias, one that ought to be exposed. This is all that is happening. And the left doesn't like getting caught misleading people, because only Faux news can be accused of that!
Re: (Score:3)
You don't understand how false scandals work. No one cares about logic or validity of arguments, the sound of things is the only thing that counts.
Re: (Score:2)
...opinion shows such as O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly or Hannity... are incorrectly included as news reporting by many folks who clearly are out to get Fox [News].
Right. Notably, the programming directors of Fox News.
Re: (Score:2)