Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.
For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.
According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.
Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.
Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/
Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than necer Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.
For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.
According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.
Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.
Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/
11/8/2016 is closing in on them, so out comes the big guns.
I like Malkin, but she didn't "quit" per se... You sign a year, or 2-year contract to provide commentary. She berated a guest on The Factor in an over-the-top reaction. O'Reilly booted her off, then Ailes just let her out of the contract.
Zealotry isn't an ideal companion... They rush head-long into situations where stealth is called-for. And make you look less fervent to your-own ideology... which can sway you into defending the zealot rather than using your arguments against the adversary.
Malkin says everything I believe in. But she's too firey for warroom-planning. Give me free-market capitalists.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 08:19:26 AM
I like Malkin, but she didn't "quit" per se... You sign a year, or 2-year contract to provide commentary. She berated a guest on The Factor in an over-the-top reaction. O'Reilly booted her off, then Ailes just let her out of the contract.
Zealotry isn't an ideal companion... They rush head-long into situations where stealth is called-for. And make you look less fervent to your-own ideology... which can sway you into defending the zealot rather than using your arguments against the adversary.
Malkin says everything I believe in. But she's too firey for warroom-planning. Give me free-market capitalists.
The story isn't about Malkin, I just used her link to show that people are fed up with Fox, of which has always been an appendage of the Establishment.
Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.
....
Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/
Why I quite the WSJ years ago, all I wanted was NEWS. The morning Radio show (Gordon Deal) is gradually turning leftward... and we're listening less and less. My kids said, "Mark Levin sounds so angry!" ... His thanks to the military, police and fire fighters, kept their attention, he's quickly becoming a "regular".
Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 08:36:20 AM
The story isn't about Malkin, I just used her link to show that people are fed up with Fox, of which has always been an appendage of the Establishment.
The establishment and the conservative-base bleed into each other continuously on a wide range of issues. The fact that
the Blaze,
Newsmax-network, and that new one: PoliticsOne(?) are going strong with ad-revenue speaks volumes about who is fed-up
where.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 08:47:38 AM
The establishment and the conservative-base bleed into each other continuously on a wide range of issues. The fact that the Blaze, Newsmax-network, and that new one: PoliticsOne(?) are going strong with ad-revenue speaks volumes about who is fed-up where.
I'd love to see the real numbers on FOX, and just how much viewership they've lost.
No doubt they can spin the numbers showing growth in certain sectors, but shows like the Kelly file have take a huge hit, while trolls like O'Reily may have picked up a few libs, but overall, I know they have to be off by 20 to 30%, a number that matches the hardcore base Right.
Quote from: Solar on January 16, 2016, 07:20:43 AM
Better late than never Michelle. Just because FOX is to the Right of leftist networks, has never been proof hey are Conservative. No, they have always been an appendage of the GOP'e.
By the way, there is an alternative, one news now network.
For the past two decades, Rupert Murdoch allowed Fox News chief Roger Ailes to occupy one of the most unique — and powerful — perches in American politics and media: running a right-wing political operation under the guise of a 24-hour news network. As long as the profits rolled in, Murdoch virtually never meddled in Ailes's world — even when his own family protested. "He lets me run it, he doesn't bother me much," Ailes boasted of Murdoch as recently as April 2015. But that laissez-faire era seems to be over.
According to four high-placed Fox sources, Murdoch is upping his presence at Fox while Ailes has become less visible to anchors and producers, signaling a shift that marks a new chapter in the network's history. The most visible change is that, since June, Murdoch has been attending Ailes's daily executive meeting held on the second floor of Fox headquarters. The secretive afternoon gathering in Ailes's conference room is attended by about a half-dozen of the network's most senior lieutenants. It's where some of the most sensitive decisions about running the channel are discussed.
Now more than ever Fox needs a firm hand on the wheel. In many ways, the channel faces the same rebellion from the grassroots that's cleaving the GOP. "I can tell you, my base is fed up with Fox," conservative commentator Michelle Malkin told me. Malkin, who quit Fox as a contributor, actually goes after Murdoch for supporting immigration reform in her new book Sold Out (she calls him a "treacherous bedfellow"). Rush Limbaugh, whom Ailes first put on television in the early '90s, has said he "no longer watches cable news." A Limbaugh friend told me the dig was made explicitly about Fox.
Several other prominent conservatives I've spoken with grumble that Murdoch is pushing Fox to be openly hostile to Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
at the same time the channel boosts Establishment candidates, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
. "I've joked to people that they'll be doing a segment about kumquats in China and somehow they'll mention Rubio," one Cruz ally told me. Another conservative activist pointed out that Fox gave Rubio the first interview opportunity following Obama's Oval Office address on ISIS last month. Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, it should also be noted, has been one of the most aggressive Trump and Cruz critics.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/15/michelle-malkin-my-base-is-fed-up-with-fox-news-channel-murdoch-treacherous-bedfellow/
Solar you know something I really just do not understand is this.
How exactly is the "Gop" being split really?
I mean think about it, it's the base that is the party in the first place. The party may have some turncoat, liberal spies in the ranks.
Like Jeb or Marco or Chris. It may have a leadership currently that thinks they can just do with the party as they see fit. The base be damned.
In the end, it is the base who either cast's their vote for or against.
And thus it is the base that really and truly wields the power to start with. The problem is and has been as I see it, getting the base to turn it's gripes and complaints into actual votes.
But I think even that's going to change this election cycle. And it's why the party leadership is throwing such fits about candidates like Cruz or Trump.
They don't like the fact that the gig is up. The base has clearly decided and said, enough is enough.
I think what we are seeing with the popularity of Trump and Cruz is the base telling the RNC leadership this basically.
Ok, that's fine. If you guys running the party, want to lie to us the voters the base. You guys can also count on the fact that you won't be wining any elections anytime soon either.
Quote from: daidalos on January 16, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Solar you know something I really just do not understand is this.
How exactly is the "Gop" being split really?
I mean think about it, it's the base that is the party in the first place. The party may have some turncoat, liberal spies in the ranks.
Like Jeb or Marco or Chris. It may have a leadership currently that thinks they can just do with the party as they see fit. The base be damned.
In the end, it is the base who either cast's their vote for or against.
And thus it is the base that really and truly wields the power to start with. The problem is and has been as I see it, getting the base to turn it's gripes and complaints into actual votes.
But I think even that's going to change this election cycle. And it's why the party leadership is throwing such fits about candidates like Cruz or Trump.
They don't like the fact that the gig is up. The base has clearly decided and said, enough is enough.
I think what we are seeing with the popularity of Trump and Cruz is the base telling the RNC leadership this basically.
Ok, that's fine. If you guys running the party, want to lie to us the voters the base. You guys can also count on the fact that you won't be wining any elections anytime soon either.
You're correct, it's not a split, it's just that 30% of us have always known the GOP'e was nothing but an appendage of the Marxist Dim party, but now that the other 70% finally woke up and said enough is enough, the Leftists spin it as a split.
One more reason to turn off FOX and the TV altogether.
They will never tell you the truth, and for viewers to assume they're actually getting news exposes just what kind of sheep we have in this country.
Why do people get upset at FOX for being something it never was?
Tells me they don't watch it or know who Murdoch is.
As for Michelle saying this, I couldn't find a direct link to the horse's mouth, and it was originally a New York Magazine article.
One more thing on Michelle, I've seen her recently on FOX, pushing her new book, so I guess getting free advertising is okay, no matter how disgusting she thinks the source is? I just don't get people sometimes.
I all but quit Fox News when they ran John Gibson off and hired Glenn Beck.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 16, 2016, 01:15:56 PM
I all but quit Fox News when they ran John Gibson off and hired Glenn Beck.
The ONLY time I watched Fox was when Beck was on. Haven't seen it since.
She's a bit late to the party. Any road I don't see the kerfuffle. Any one with half a brain can see past the chaff and focus on the wheat. Fox does some great reporting and you should be able to look past any of the establishment bias.
As long as we're talking about Fox News,
this seems like a good place to remind everyone that
TED CRUZ will be the featured interview
tomorrow morning on Fox News Sunday,
9am Eastern time on your local Fox station.
FOX's ad-revenue allows them to keep more foreign news-bureau HQ's open while the established networks have had to close theirs. Which means more correspondents can be choppered-into the action quicker.
Viewers get it. Subconsciously over time, as well.
So Malkin is essentially illuminating that her base would prefer not to be universally informed. FOX wouldn't bother funding so many foreign bureaus if they simply wanted to advance a domestic agenda.
They'd save money by doing what the older networks have been doing the last dozen years... cloning Reuters and Associated Press reports.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 11:07:19 PM
FOX's ad-revenue allows them to keep more foreign news-bureau HQ's open while the established networks have had to close theirs. Which means more correspondents can be choppered-into the action quicker.
Viewers get it. Subconsciously over time, as well.
So Malkin is essentially illuminating that her base would prefer not to be universally informed. FOX wouldn't bother funding so many foreign bureaus if they simply wanted to advance a domestic agenda.
They'd save money by doing what the older networks have been doing the last dozen years... cloning Reuters and Associated Press reports.
What difference does it make when in the end, the message is that of the left from FOX?
Quote from: mrclose on January 16, 2016, 05:51:18 PM(This is an old list and should probably be updated)
Yes you should update it. Half those people are gone and the others aren't hosts but occasionally show up as guests, usually pitted against a conservative (which I hate). I really dislike putting two talking heads of opposite views on at the same time. You get a lot of talking over each other, and the time slots are so small they never make a point, which leaves both the guests and the viewers frustrated.
Quote from: carlb on January 16, 2016, 05:55:19 PM
The ONLY time I watched Fox was when Beck was on. Haven't seen it since.
Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools
RUSH in'.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 17, 2016, 09:17:30 AM
Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools RUSH in'.
Beck...? Nooo...... he's never stuck his finger into the political wind and jumped on an a political trend to make a buck, has he?Was the radio talk-show host character in the Omega Man representative of Beck, or was that before his time? The
similarities are striking.
Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 07:31:04 AM
What difference does it make when in the end, the message is that of the left from FOX?
The other 4 networks haven't figured it out. They've lost ad-revenue by injecting leftist-messaging. So they've stopped taking risks.
This doesn't answer your question, but
http://www.poynter.org/2007/globe-closes-foreign-bureaus-to-save-jobs-in-boston-newsroom/80390/
I'm not sure that local papers need to cover global events, says Jack Welch, who wants to own the Globe.Malkin's base needs to link-to a FOX news-story that demonstrates why they're fed-up. -Because it won't be an
international one.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 17, 2016, 09:56:45 AM
The other 4 networks haven't figured it out. They've lost ad-revenue by injecting leftist-messaging. So they've stopped taking risks.
This doesn't answer your question, but
http://www.poynter.org/2007/globe-closes-foreign-bureaus-to-save-jobs-in-boston-newsroom/80390/
I'm not sure that local papers need to cover global events, says Jack Welch, who wants to own the Globe.
Malkin's base needs to link-to a FOX news-story that demonstrates why they're fed-up. -Because it won't be an international one.
Like I said earlier, it's not so much what FOX reports, it's what they don't report that helps the Lib/Establishment with their messaging.
A real Conservative news network would expose the commie agenda behind OWS, BLM etc, instead of treating it like news, because it's not, it's pure leftist propaganda.
Quote from: Shooterman on January 17, 2016, 09:17:30 AM
Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools RUSH in'.
The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.
Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.
Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.
This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.
You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.
The two are wholly incompatible, by design.
Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
One America News!!!
(616 Verizon Fios)
Yeah, and I can't watch it. :cursing:
Quote from: daidalos on January 17, 2016, 12:47:50 PM
The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.
Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.
Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.
This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.
You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.
The two are wholly incompatible, by design.
You are mischaracterizing him completely. He wants the government out of religion as much as anyone. He just advocates for people to find commonality in their Christian values and to form their political views accordingly. That Christianity should have a voice in the public sphere is contradicted nowhere in the Constitution.
One exception that I don't like is that he advocates for bringing in Christian refugees from the middle east in large numbers. He has a right to advocate for it of course, but Christian charity is what you do with your own money and resources -- you have no right to burden the general public with your notion of charity.
Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
One America News!!!
(616 Verizon Fios)
OANN? One America News Network?
There are not many cable systems that carry that channel.
Not to be confused with One News Now,
a news outlet operated by the American Family Association.
They're pretty good, too.
Quote from: daidalos on January 17, 2016, 12:47:50 PM
The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.
Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.
Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.
This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.
You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.
The two are wholly incompatible, by design.
What's bad about a theocracy is that
church and state are combined (effectively, if not actually) into one institution.
The theocrat imagines himself to be in the place of God,
and usually assumes power that should be reserved for God.
The Bible contains many valuable lessons
that should be considered when drafting our laws.
The Bible itself states that the Law that God gave to Moses
was meant to be temporary,
an instructor to prepare the way for Christ.
(That's the main point of the book of Hebrews.)
But the Law still contains many valuable insights on
how to govern carnal minded people
(as opposed to spiritual minded people,
who would have no need for any law.)
Check out almost any FOX opinion program. You're starting to see what you see on all MSM opinion programs. The conservative sits and quietly listens to the point the Libtard is making. Then it comes the turn of conservative to reply - and the Libtard immediately leaps in to interrupt him/her, talk over him/her, or make faces, noises and roll their eyes while the conservative speaks.
Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 02:19:01 PM
Solar
I have Verizon Fios but I wanted to find a way for folks like you who don't have OAN on their cable to watch it.
I found yiptv which streams OAN live.
Just to allay any worries, I signed up for their free account to see if there were any catches or if OAN was really free.
Good news .. It is free and it does work.
I used a throwaway email and a phony cell phone# .. along with a phony member name to sign up.
I have the channel (OAN) streaming now in a separate window.
The basic account is free, has 18 free channels whereas the premium membership (Which I don't need) has a whole lot more.
https://www.yiptv.com/live-tv/index.php/en/
No, I have limited bandwidth, I can't stream anything.
Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 03:33:44 PM
Well Geeze Solar .. come on over to the house!
(I have beer in the fridge) :thumbsup:
Hell, it's an hours drive to the nearest free hotspot, and I highly doubt they want my 40" monitor and PC set up in the library. :biggrin:
It's one of the sacrifices I happily make not having to deal with city dwellers.
Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 03:41:34 PM
Hell, it's an hours drive to the nearest free hotspot, and I highly doubt they want my 40" monitor and PC set up in the library. :biggrin:
It's one of the sacrifices I happily make not having to deal with city dwellers.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Yeah, it's One America. I've only watched a snippet of it, so my memory
put up Politics One when I tried referencing it here.
Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 10:55:09 AM
Like I said earlier, it's not so much what FOX reports, it's what they don't report that helps the Lib/Establishment with their messaging.
A real Conservative news network would expose the commie agenda behind OWS, BLM etc, instead of treating it like news, because it's not, it's pure leftist propaganda.
Nah, it isn't. People are smarter than to be bamboozled by a pure leftist propaganda model, long-term in scope.
More people are better aware of the Soros/MoveOn/American Communist Party backing OWS because of FOX.
As far as BLM, I boycott
outdoor or survivalist shows if a host makes 'mankind caused global-warming' comments. I never hear global-warming messaging in FOX disaster/weather-reporting. Private-property seizures tend not to be National stories. But they do tend to be echo-chambers in the cases of standoffs and court-hearings.
We used to have a show here,
Michigan Outdoors, which always devoted 5-to-10 minutes toward County/State/Federal land-shenanigans. I hope California has a similar model. Exposing the general corrosiveness of the BLM is better suited to local coverage.
Quote from: kit saginaw on January 17, 2016, 07:43:16 PM
Yeah, it's One America. I've only watched a snippet of it, so my memory put up Politics One when I tried referencing it here.
Nah, it isn't. People are smarter than to be bamboozled by a pure leftist propaganda model, long-term in scope.
More people are better aware of the Soros/MoveOn/American Communist Party backing OWS because of FOX.
As far as BLM, I boycott outdoor or survivalist shows if a host makes 'mankind caused global-warming' comments. I never hear global-warming messaging in FOX disaster/weather-reporting. Private-property seizures tend not to be National stories. But they do tend to be echo-chambers in the cases of standoffs and court-hearings.
We used to have a show here, Michigan Outdoors, which always devoted 5-to-10 minutes toward County/State/Federal land-shenanigans. I hope California has a similar model. Exposing the general corrosiveness of the BLM is better suited to local coverage.
I didn't say FOX promoted leftist propaganda, I meant that their reporting it as news plays into the hands of leftists.
Like I said earlier, it's not so much what FOX reports, it's what they don't report that helps the Lib/Establishment with their messaging.
It's all sensationalist BS, a true Conservative network would have exposed the agenda behind these movements of divisiveness. Instead, FOX approaches it as valid news to promote viewership through enraged emotion, playing the other side of division.