Why is Fox News so determined to prove that anyone who opposes their views is a socialist?

The same reason MSNBC calls everyone that opposes Obama racist….ratings and market share.

Can you tell me specific anchors that do this? I have Fox News on quite a bit, and I can’t say that that’s all I’ve heard. MSNBC is also very biased. just sayin’

Because the word socialist is often considered equal to being a communist. So if you just utter the word socialist it scares a lot of people who don’t really understand what it means. Fox News has convinced the scared people in this country that socialists are out to “steal” their money and to “force gay marriage down their throats” and to “take away their guns” and to “repeal their liberty.” Socialist means a lot of different things to different people, but the way Fox News uses it, it means something really bad, because they’ve made it bad.

It’s the same thing with the word Feminist. When I was growing up Feminist meant a man or a woman that was interested in equal rights for everybody and that everybody should have access to knowledge and jobs and decent treatment from doctors and the goverment and from their employers. Now it means greedy, man-hating, family-breakers. Thanks in part to Dr. Laura Schlessinger

”..socialist..” is the old adversarial enemy of choice. “Muslim” is the new one.
Please don’t confuse what you find there with actual news.
It is,however, a great example of how the intellectually mediocre can exert a vast influence over the undiscerning masses.

@lloydbird Please don’t confuse what you find there with actual news.

So the information I received from them today concerning tornadoes in the south and the serial killer on Long Island is false? There is a difference between actual news (Megan Kelly) and commentary (Sean Hannity).

Well obviously it’s all George Soros’s fault.

@jonsblond Yep. Fair comment. I’m talking about their ”..commentary..”.
They obviously have to dish out a percentage of accurate news in order to blur the propaganda that they also issue.

@lloydbird That’s just until they figure out a way to call a tornado a socialist.

@incendiary_dan Not to mention the “Islamist” tornadoes.

Because Fox News likes putting labels on things to discourage people from thinking for themselves.

Because of the negative connotations attached to the word, which are due to a long-running propaganda campaign, financed by the Western corporate elite, which aims to convince everyone that letting the government provide services, support the population and actively work to improve quality of life for all is a one-way ticket to authoritarianism and misery, but letting the mega-corporations do whatever they please and leaving the poor and oppressed masses to fend for themselves is somehow going to make everyone better off.

Obviously, we all know this is not true, because the most economically left (that is, socialist) countries in the developed world (e.g. Scandinavia) have the highest standards of living, while the USA lives in a socio-economic apartheid, riddled with violent crime and hopelessness.

But hey, as a media channel, it’s conservative, it’s American, and it’s Murdoch;
considering their intentions and the probable target audience, it’s not like it actually has to make sense

Ratings. Like @Kardamom said, “socialist” means “communist lite” to many, not it’s own separate compromise between the extreme forms of total government and no government, with various forms and shades of grey and whatnot.

@incendiary_dan I thought a Socialist Tornado was a cocktail.

It’s made with liberal amounts of vodka, bleeding heart bloody Mary mix and then it’s stirred vigourously, then it’s served to everybody (still swirling) for free whether they want it or not!

So what if Fox news is leaning to the right? In my humble opinion there are no un biased news generated nowadays. They all report the news with a right or left sided political rhetoric. If you can’t see that then you’re blind.

@gondwanalon But at least the other biased networks can find Egypt on a map.

“News”? Pshaw.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/434/foxnews152b.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAAA! =} It’s funny because I don’t live there!

Because it keeps their ratings up with their particular demographic, which keeps their sponsors happy, which keeps them making money hand over fist.

This is also the exact same equation every single other news network uses.

I hate to burst your bubbles children but News Channels are in the business of making a fucking profit not reporting any fair and unbiased news.

They all laugh together over drinks and cigars rolled in thousand dollar bills while we all argue about which one is more “ignernt”.

aigh

@gondwanalon It’s not that they’re subject to human bias, like all of us, it’s that instead of trying to eliminate that as much as possible, like some news organizations (no, MSNBC isn’t one of them), Fox News seems to actually try to be more biased than they might start out as in an effort to get more viewers, stir the pot, and espouse the personal beliefs of it’s higher-ups – in short, the people try to be propagandists instead of journalists.

All the news is biased. No matter where the news comes from.

You have to know who runs Fox News, Roger Ailes who is a staunch conservative of the nasty kind. To Murdoch it maybe more about money than personal political agenda but to Roger Ailes it’s more political. You may want to Google him.

@WestRiverrat MSNBC does not call anyone who opposes Obama racist. That is exaggeration. I’ve watched all msnbc pundits for 10 years, everyday except sunday and that is simply not true.

@mazingerz88 MSNBC’s love fest with Obama during the election is what drove me away from their news channel. (and I was on “their” side politically. Well, I supported Hillary Clinton.) They are just as biased as Fox.

@mazingerz88 And FOX does not call everyone a socialist. But if you listen to the extremists on both sides that is what you hear. MSNBC did call a black tea party attendee a redneck racist out to get Obama, which is where that label came from.

The hyperbole from both sides gets nauseating when you are stuck in the middle.

@WestRiverrat The question asked why fox news is determined to prove anyone who opposes their views is a socialist, your answers were ratings and market share. Of course. But that is not all, they also have an agenda to push, simply for the reason that they have roger ailes, a republican operative since the time of nixon if not before.
Does msnbc have an agenda to push? yes, but the difference is msnbc started doing it only to respond to fox, primarily to fight for ratings and market share. and msnbc as far as I know does not have an executive counterpart in the heavyweight division as ailes.

@jonsblond msnbc, how can they not be biased? maybe if fox will stop being fox, msnbc will stop following their lead. correct me if im wrong but fox news started the trend of being blatantly partisan.

@mazingerz88 The question in my opinion is flawed. Fox does not try to prove everyone is a socialist if they oppose FOX’s viewpoint any more than MSNBC tries to prove that everyone that opposes Obama is racist.

And it doesn’t really matter who started it, if you don’t like one news broadcast, switch to one you do like.

@WestRiverrat Maybe not that easy when you have a roomate who is on it 24/7.

@mazingerz88 Nobody started it before anyone else. If you support the democrats, you watch MSNBC. That’s what I did when Bush was in office. I voted for Gore and Kerry, and MSNBC was in favor of those two. MSNBC asked the hard questions when it came to President Bush.

If you don’t support Obama, you watch Fox. I don’t support Obama, so I don’t watch MSNBC. All MSNBC wants to do is pat Obama on the back and not ask the tough questions. Chris Matthews is as bad as Hannity, if not worse imo. The only thing good, fair and balanced with MSNBC is Joe Scarborough. At least he represents both sides.

And concerning the roomate, try headphones if it kills you so much. Or realize you are smart enough to know what to believe and what not to believe.

Because Fox is about brainwashing and not ethical journalism. It’s only slightly better than North Korean state television.

I can’t watch Fox for more than 10 minutes.

I’d argue that 90% of all Fox staff probably can’t come up with the correct definition of socialism. And they would also be quite surprised to learn this:

Putting solar panels on your roof is not communism. Driving a fuel-efficient car is not socialism. Offering health care to all citizens (like being done in Germany) is not socialism. Limiting the overuse of our atmosphere is not socialism. Taxing citizens is not communism. Disagreeing with some Republican viewpoints is not communism.

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He is one of a group of billionaires whi for 2 decades or more have been funding think tanks, PR firms and propaganda efforts aimed at converting the US into a fascist corporatocracy. In addition to Murdoch, there is the Koch Brothers, the Walton family (Wal-Mart), The Prince Family (Blackwater), the DeVos family (Amway), and of course, the National Chamber of Commerce and its multinational corporate sponsors.

Most wealthy people are not part of this movement. They recognize that the businesses they own or invest in prosper when we have a strong middle class able to drive the economic engine. But this small collection of billionaires apparently never got the meaning of the children’s story, _The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg._It’s not clear where they finally want to take America and the rest of the world. Do they just want to transfer all the wealth of the world to themselves, or are their aspirations more for power, and is owning all the wealth just a step along the way>

Whatever the case, I certainly hope America and the rest of the world wakes up before it is too late. This drive is not confined to our country. Around the world, financial crises have been deliberately created by idiotic tax policy and government spending, and then used as a pretext to slash spending for the poor, elderly and middle class while simultaneously pushing through huge tax cuts for the very wealthy and for corporations.

@mattbrowne and @ETpro, MUCH luv to you both for your well thought-out answers. You both were above the mud slinging common whenever the all news (or all noise) networks are discussed, and didn’t resort to simple name calling. Much luv to you both!(or at least as much as I can give)

@GracieT Thanks for the kind words and the Lurve. Back at you. :-)