Would Nixon have resigned had an organization like Fox News existed?

Let's get this out of the way, if you watch and agree with Fox News regularly you're going to hate the premise of this thread.

So Fox News can basically be seen as an arm of the Republican party, an organization designed to spin news stories in a way that helps Republicans in office. I'd give examples, but they do such a good job of providing them every day that if you don't see it for yourself already I'm not going to be able to change your mind. Back when Nixon was in office it got to the point where the public was no longer standing for him to be in office, and Nixon ended up resigning in light of that fact. However, would Nixon have lost the support of the public if he had had an organization with one of the largest audiences in the country, who's sole mission was to do everything it could to spin the news in his favor?

The reason I ask of course is incredibly obvious, but in case you haven't figured it out, will Trump ever lose support if true legal evidence comes out that Trump colluded with Russia and also attempted to obstruct justice with Fox News doing everything it can to put a good spin on it? Will Fox news be the difference between the fate of Trump and Nixon?

The problem now is that although Fox is extremely Pro Trump CNN is extremly pro left. The reason Fox has such a large base is because all the other media orginizations are far left so theres really only one place to go if your on the right. There are no unbiast news sources anymore.

BBC and NPR disagree, but I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about a concerted effort on the part of Fox News to actively help and support the republican party.

@Serraph105: Neither BBC nor NPR are neutral. And CNN is the Fox News equivalent on the left. They exist because they help balance the scales. When Nixon was President the media had a different reputation.

@loganx77: cnn isn’t the left equivalent of fox (that’s MSNBC) and NPR sure as shit isn’t biased. If NPR coverage of trump seems mostly negative it’s because most of the actual news and developments are mostly negative.

I dont know but this presidency is like Nixon 3 times a day

news titles for the day:

'Trump sees memo as way to discredit Russia probe'

'Trump asked Rosenstein if he was 'on my team'

'Corallo will tell special counsel about alleged Hope Hicks vow that emails 'will never get out'

all in LESS than 24 hours

that is the core problem with trump fomenting distrust of the media and immediately dismissing negative news as "fake". how can you really hold elected leaders accountable when they can just point at the news and cry "FAKE!" and right off the bat 1/3 of the country will believe it.

hand to god its a foundation for re-Nazi Germany.

@Serraph105: I think you have your answer after the first handful of posts in this thread.

What an incredibly stupid question. If you knew anything about Watergate and Nixon, you would know that he resigned because it was either that or an impeachment.

But nice try with the spin.

And The Hill. And Reuters.

@PraetorianMan: Nope... NPR is biast, they dont even deny it. And MSNBC isn't far from CNN.

https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

@mattbbpl: yeah, I'd say it's pathetic, but honestly it's just human nature. If you get presented a certain set of information in a specific way and you're told to pick sides humans are just prone to getting into two camps without really considering a middle ground on a matter. We would be arguing whether or not the other half is right to even listen to the other news sources rather than worrying about whether or not the president needs to leave office or not.

Yes to op. Bias can be found from every news corp.

We actually don't need to speculate, we have a control for this example. Bill Clinton.

Clinton was an individual with a history of rape and sexual misconduct allegations who got caught sexually harassing white house staff, instructing white house staff to lie about the sexual harassment, and then lying under oath about the sexual harassment. Without Fox news on his side he not only managed to avoid getting kicked to the curb, his long history of rape allegations and sexual misconduct doesn't prevent democrats from celebrating him. Associating with him is a sure path to power within the party.

In fact, the Monica Lewinsky got more flack from democrats for stepping forward then Bill Clinton ever got from his own party. That is all that really matters. A president only has to worry about the consequences of their actions if their supports hold them accountable. The condemnation of their political rivals doesn't really matter. After all, it is fake news anyway.

you need some serious help you know that right?

you also know (I am sure) that nobody buys about 75% of your logic you try to sell to people.

@tryit: It takes days to explain concepts like GDP to you buddy, no one is troubled by your low opinion.

Nixon would have still resigned then?

LOL roasted

so any random not related or even accurate insult is 'roasted'?

no wonder your a fan of trump.

you're*

lol

and you didant even know what e was referring to!

<3

good to see the nation is in good hands

Glad you agree that it is.

in all seriousness I gave up on humanity ages ago, that should please you

It gave up on you too. We are pleased.

I am humanity? what? your response dont make no sense bra

oh I get it

Me vs society.

lol...well thank you fer giving me such credit

Perhaps the most dangerous achievement of his so far.

This isn't a trump achievement. That is just partisanship. It goes back to antiquity.

LMAO your source lists this as being an example of "liberal bias"

"On the October 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable."

What, exactly, was incorrect or skewed in that excerpt?

Here's another gem

"Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On October 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired."

An NPR reporter thinks that its inappropriate for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to PUBLICLY hold the view that every religion in the world that isn't his is a lie. What, again, is biased about that?

That entire link is just a page of some dipshit from MCR [which itself publicly proclaims has a conservative bias] complaining about completely innoculous things as somehow being proof of "LIBERAL BIAS" at NPR. Its just sad fucking shit if that's seriously all you can come up with.

No, its different now. If Roy Moore was running 4 years ago and his story broke back then he would either have been forced to pull out and/or lost by a solid 10 point landslide. The only reason that election was anywhere close and the state-GOP didn't immediately abandon him was because of how Trump is sewing distrust in the media to his base.

Trump doesn't need to sew distrust. The media is doing that themselves, and most of that has to do with their competition, internet social media. To get those rating they are increasingly having to jump on ever weaker stories with less credibility of less fact checking, while simultaneously injecting viewpoints favorable to their perceived audience. Social media is chipping away very rapidly at Mainstream news and this is the result. And that's not a good thing as social media news is if anything worse as a whole.

This is a very silly claim to make. We elected a president with rape and sexual misconduct allegations. They then went on to be a political rockstar for their party, and folks from around the world donate millions of dollars at a time to his charity. Even after he was forced to admit to even more sexual misconduct due to the fact that a simple DNA test would prove he was ejaculating on his staff.

Heck, the last two democrats to run for the office even brought him along on the campaign trail do to his unwavering popularity. Sexual misconduct allegations are not a deal breaker in America. They are problematic for those who lack the right level of influence, but that is all.

Guilty is guilty.

Yes, but, if you notice people can barely even talk about it. Everyone is too busy discussing whether other news sources are trustworthy or not. Doing a control-F Nixon's name comes up only 13 times thus far, and 10 of those times are from me (my orginal post was quoted a couple of times), and your post is number 37. Guilty is guilty, but who's going to hold you accountable if your name is barely even discussed?

CNN is as much of the problem as Fox News is. The fact that you think otherwise proves that you've been fooled. Lets stop picking between sides that choose to lie to us instead of reporting the news.

I agree. Trump has made it "legit" for many to distrust and completely ignore what are reported in the news.

The news in the US tend to operate with a element within journalism that others don't.

In a nutshell the News is supposed to comprise of the words " What, When, & Where" with personal beliefs and assumptions on the matters being left to the public to draw their own conclusions about the facts presented.

While in the US it tends to contain " What, When, Where & Why" with several different news outlets with different views on a matter weighing in with their own conclusions on the facts and telling them to the public rather then letting the public draw their own.

People have been highly critical and distrusting of the media well before Trump was a candidate.

In his campaign he started the diatribe against the media and discrediting it so I don't see how you comment invalidates his. It actually supports it.

And if it was followed by trying to prove them wrong (in other words, doing your own research) before blatantly calling it false news.. ehm sorry I mean fake news, then that is still miles better than dismissing it right away because you don't like what is being reported.

A person in power so openly distrusting the news as Trump does, so openly lying, is for many the only excuse, or reason if you wish to call it that, needed to dismiss news that goes against what they believe.

Now I am not saying anything against media organisations like CNN or Fox news are angling or using more buzzwords to get more views than before, however distrust towards media organizations should come because media organizations has proven to not be as trustworthy as they once were, not because the president in the United States can't handle criticism.

true, but seldom if ever did we have a president that was so openly hostile to them or downright refer to them as the enemy

apparently not according to geraldo

“Nixon never would have been forced to resign if you existed in your current state back in 1972, ’73, ’74,” Rivera told Hannity on his radio show.

"It’s too bad for Nixon, because nobody like you existed then. I say that because I believe that our prime responsibility now is to unshackle the 45th president of the United States.”

This is silliness. Conservatives ignore liberal sources. Liberals ignore conservative sources. This is not new.

@kittennose: Except it's not ignoring liberal sources, it's ignoring mainstream sources.

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC don't actually report news after 6 PM, when anyone bothers to tune in. They just run editorial shows with talking points. It's the lowest form of entertainment, really, and an alarming number of people tune in and think they are actually getting news. Shows like The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight actually have more journalistic integrity, and I wouldn't call those news either.

From your perspective. Fox news and talk radio have had the numbers to be classified as mainstream since I was born, and the DNC has made an effort to discredit both since their inception.