Why does Fox News hate poor people?

[simonlang]

why does fox news hate poor people? i dont know. maybe for the very same reason obama hates successful people...

[blerk]

Ive been on both sides of the economic scale - poverty made me a better person, money made me an ass -- so I was told.  :)

So I guess that means you'll turn out ...normal? :)

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

Which in this case coincides with the majority view. Obfuscation doesn't change that. Waving the MSNBC flag doesn't change it either. This law and those who forced it on an unwilling populace are circling the drain my friend.

 

I'm not convinced Fox represents a majority view. In addition, I don't trust fox news as a "primary" resource for several reasons.

For starters, if you believed fox news, Mitt Romney would of won, had more then 50% of the popular vote.

Obama didn't win either with a clear majority either.

 

As to there credibility, 

Intentionally lying on the air, and when the anchor quit / went to court, fox's argument it's the free speech right.

Trying to change Canadian law, because it's illegal to lie on broadcast news and it wanted to expand their market.

Intentionally lying, example mis-identifying republican's as democrats when a senate / congressman get in to trouble on the information ticker on the bottom.

 

As for other news sources.

 

CNN tends to be all over the map, I'm not sure what's going on with them.

 

NPR is left leaning, I've have seen them attack Democrats, and have good interview with Replication's that can articulate their view point. I've also seen what I like to call the one two punch. In a story (not interview) they state the left view, then the right view, then a stronger counter left view. 

 

Al Jazeera America - The american bureau, at least, "News", not "opinion" seems to be sticking just to the facts albeit making it dry and short at the same time. There "opinion" reminds me of a lot of american "news" story at times.

 

BBC I find interesting because it gives a foreign slant that's different from both points of view at times, and cover's news stories that don't hit prime time. 

 

The AP Raw source news feed, not after it's been altered to fit each news sources particularly view and or format (example making story shorty for non-front page newspaper). 

 

That's not all the news source I tend to view, just a view off the top of my head.

 

Local news is sticking to their formula of not delivering real news, not talking about some bigger stories dealing with there larger corporations that own them, and in more recent years interjecting talking points out from the larger right / left that own them.

 

When it comes to state and local election issues, I do like the women league of voters. On the issues they tell you both arguments, let you know what they view is, and more importantly why they view that. A good example was ohio a few years ago when it legalize gambling in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, they, in general were for gambling in ohio, however they opposed the state issue because it was to modify the ohio constitution, and legalization should of been handled legislator, not constitution amendment. 

 

I'm an independent voter and have voted republican and democrat. I take it upon myself to find what issues matter to me during an election, then find the candidates views (or best as I can) and make a decision. 

 

I'm going to in fact make a revelation about my personal views I rarely do in publicly. Myself, I'm pro choice, and pro gun. I've thrown off some political survey's with that one. I'm a guy, and don't I could ever have the right to choose about having a kid, or not having a kid. I'm a strong believer in the 2nd amendment and the right for non-convicted felon's and people currently diagnosed with a mental condition (not all) that could pose a serious danger to bear arms as well.

 

I have not trouble debating an issue, as long as it's more fact driving, not "talking" points. I'm also perfectly fine getting along with people that I come to an conclusion that we agree to disagree.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Why does Fox news hate poor people? Because its idiot audience does and it sells.

[PGHammer]

I agree with you, but here's a thought.  How much better off would we be financially if we would stop fighting wars in every cesspool country on the face of the planet and meddling in foreign political affairs?  How many trillions of dollars have we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan alone that would have been better spent minding our own business and just going after Osama bin Laden using Rangers, Special Forces, SEALs, and other "in and out" special operations groups?  We went into those countries, blew entire cities all to hell, executed Saddam when, bad as he might have been, kept people like the Taliban and Al Qaeda from taking over, and then all of a sudden there we were/are, stuck in two endless wars against a faceless enemy who does not wear a uniform with no clearly defined objectives to define "victory".  We're just fighting "terror", an open ended term used to keep us fighting for nothing for as long as the American people will put up with it, because the military industrial complex has taken over.  Our entire economy "depends" on us being at war.  If we're not giving freedom to somebody, we're losing money.

Gerowen - do you really think that the Democrats (most of the time) are any more *peaceful* than the GOP?  Even recent history makes a mockery of that - why was Iraq any more crazy than Afghanistan?  (By the way, we DID get bin Laden using the SEALs - specifically, SIX - yet even that became a political football because Pakistan - a supposed ally - was caught hiding him.)  The very CASE of bin Laden - and how SIX was used to take him out - illustrates the quagmire into which realpolitik has become.  The Pakistani government knew that bin Laden was bad political news - yet apparently some within the government thought he was useful to them in terms of domestic security and "national interest".  (Note that I did NOT accuse the entire government; however, it is painfully obvious that there WAS governmental complicity.)

 

Counterterrorism/antiterrorism - Yes; the terror groups pledge no allegiance to a nation; however, they mostly HAVE (with only some limited exceptions) flatly declared that the United States, and what it stands for, is anathema to them - and they have done so publicly.  Even more telling, some nations (Iran especially) HAVE seen fit to use these groups as proxies to advance THEIR agenda - which is inimical to the economic and political interest of the United States, the allies of the United States, and even the UN (Iran's use of the QUDS Force - which IS part of their government - in Iraq is telling).  THE military action that defined what the United States - as a nation - stood for was the earliest of the modern cases of dealing wiht proxies by any nation - the Barbary Pirates Incident.  If a nation (or group) declares war against another nation, the aggreived nation CERTAINLY has the right to make war back - or does national defense suddenly NOT apply when it's the United States?

[Gaara sama]

Come on Fox News are for the Riches Only and Love Republican wish mean they Hate the Poor PEOPLE AS WELL 

[PGHammer]

Question is Why does Neowin hate fox news? lol

Neowinians skew liberal on social issues - they also largely skew isolationist when it comes to foreign policy (especially the foreign policy of the United States).

 

Both skews have different reasons for being, depending on the individual Neowinian.  (Look at the surprisingly large following Ron Paul has on Neowin - how much of that is driven by his isolationist foreign-policy views, and how much is driven by his practically anti-tax views?)

 

Ron Paul has more in common with - of all people - Ralph Nader - than Paul Ryan.

 

However, I have something that I want the social liberals and progressives to consider - their insistence on "soaking the rich" harkens back to two rather supposedly-despised (by your ideologues) principles; noblesse oblige (the Noble Obligation - taxation, in other words) and "let them eat cake" - both postulates led to revolution; rather bloody in the case of the latter.  (The first led to the Cromwell Government via the Rump Parliament in the UK; the second led to hte French Revolution and the Bonapartes.)  Have you become what you most despise?

[Argi]

They laid into a family on food stamps ones because they were living the life of luxury of having a fridge.  What a ######ing joke.  Their ideals are fine but their presentation is intentionally sensationalist.  Their primary audience, older folks, lap this up because of the nostalgia of the "good old days."

 

They're not a news channel, they're entertainment. 

[macoman]

Fox News does not hate poor people, they are just like any other news station... they represent an ideology.

[Argi]

If you want proper, fact-based news then the only company I'm aware of is Al Jazeera America.  Stories are purely based on facts, both sides are accurately presented, and you get a healthy balance between the US and the rest of the world.  Not a celebrity story in sight. :-)

 

Show me a stations in the US that does that?

[Stoffel]

I see Fox News for what they are, an entertainment channel, O'Reilly, Hannity, ... they are just as funny as Colbert or Stewart, just slightly different :)

 

What I find disturbing on Fox lately is that they openly support Armed Militias to stand up against the government. Random people doing this is one thing, a news channel is completely different.

 

Fox News probably hates poor people because they use op to much oxygen that should be reserved for the rich elite

[T3X4S]

So I guess that means you'll turn out ...normal? :)

LOL - I hope so.  I guess life is all about taking little things from certain situations and learning from it.  I was in my 20s when I was "being groomed to take over the family company" - my fiance who I am still with, said I changed - and wasnt the nice, pleasant person I normally am.  When I walked away from all of that to do what made me happy as opposed to what made me money - I changed back to being a happy, relatively easy going person.  I think it helps because I know what it is like being the 1% and the 99%.

 

Of course this is all introspect.  For all I know - I could be an incorrigible @sshole.  :D

 

[compl3x]

why does fox news hate poor people? i dont know. maybe for the very same reason obama hates successful people...

Did we learn that from Fox News?

[thomastmc]

Because Fox News is defined by conservative values, as well as conservative psychology.
 

Psychologist Felicia Pratto and her colleagues have found evidence to support the idea that a high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is strongly correlated with conservative political views, and opposition to social engineering to promote equality. Pratto and her colleagues found that high SDO scores were highly correlated with measures of prejudice.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Psychology

Social Dominance Orientation

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait which predicts social and political attitudes, and is a widely used social psychological scale. SDO is conceptualised as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination of lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups. The concept of SDO as a measurable individual difference is a product of Social Dominance Theory.

Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and relatively uncaring seekers of power. People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world. It has also been found that men are higher than women in SDO measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation

  
It has nothing to do with economics, the many reasons for poverty, or government spending. Although many conservatives will say that it does, and probably even believe that it does.