[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Regorp

I watch only Fox News, as I know they will be objective with the best informative honest guests rather than the one sided people on those other corrupted networks.

I'll disagree with that, as well... FOX most definitely has it's own bias.

But I'll challenge anyone to find a better current news reporter than Bret Baier...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by lyndia5789@gmail.com

The answer is Fake Fox News

Nice 1st post!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Any day of the week..............

Do you think they are reliable, or are you agreeing with me? Not sure...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

When someone writes "JAB" instead of SHOT or VACCINATION, I immediately KNOW to DISREGARD everything further that is SAID. it's like PROUDLY announcing an affiliation with the strange anti-vaxxers, antisocial types, and the flat-earth screamers.

Some of us have other methods to know when to "disregard" what is said...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

True! An excellent post.

No, it's neither true, nor excellent...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Rush Bimbaugh founded Propaganda USA and Foxy Views ran with the ball.

Calling people insulting names is now okay?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Dlpdo

I presume you have solid facts to back up this statement ?

Fauci’s Net Worth Nearly Doubled during Pandemic | National Review

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

No, it's neither true, nor excellent...

Really?

Of 1 million COVID deaths, how many could have been averted with vaccines? : Shots - Health News : NPR

One tragic fact about the nearly 1 million people who died of COVID-19 in the U.S. is that a huge share of them didn't have to.

In Tennessee, 11,047 of the people who died could have survived if everyone in the state had gotten vaccinated. In Ohio, that number is 15,875. Nationally it's nearly 319,000, according a new estimate.


https://globalepidemics.org/vaccinations/

... between January 2021 and April 2022, vaccines could have prevented at least 318,000 Covid-19 deaths. This means that at least every second person who died from Covid-19 since vaccines became available might have been saved by getting the shot.

[Lindaws]

Why did Fauci get royalties from them?

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

Disclosure, I have held Pfizer stock for years, actually sold it, and all my pharma stocks BEFORE Covid. In my opinion it is not that Fox, or any other source gives opinions one way or the other (BIG distinction between and among "news reporters", and "commentators", so make sure you are not mixing up the two.) But more important, I think the various excesses of ALL the pharma companies ( if you think back you can probably bring them to mind, price increases as much at 2000% in some cases) has caused a CUMULATIVE effect on everyone, not just the "news commentators". Drug companies exist to make money, for those of us who invest in their company. As many positives as the capitalist system has, there still must be an element of "conscience". I'm sure you also remember the many past incidents of big pharma companies "dumping" ineffective treatments and medications on third world countries. It's not pretty, it's not "fair", but in the end, it all goes to the depth of integrity of the individuals involved. Most USA coal mine tragedies were eventually traced to human GREED. That might turn out to be the "root" of this latest rail tragedy too ? Be it brakes, or bearings, it may end up just another calculated money saving "risk" ! ? All this tends to "cause" the "bad mouthing" of companies like Pfizer. Also, right or wrong, the CEO is not a well liked personality, should not make a difference, but it does.

Well said. Big Pharma (and medical equipment companies) make huge profits, unconscionable profits, but they provide products that keep us alive, so we benefit. Meanwhile, all those profits get paid out to investors, and I’m an investor, through mutual funds. So I rail against prices that put money in my pocket. It’s corporate greed, yes, but I don’t feel at all greedy. It’s weird. However, a lot of the greed works because of lobbyists who get in to see our legislators, both blue and red, who receive “donations” in exchange for votes. The legislators do what is good for the company profits rather than what is good for the people. Oh, wait! I’m the company! And I’m also the people! Legislation to rein in the drug companies helps me the people and hurts me the company. But if I sold my shares in greedy companies, I would pay the same to them but not get part of my money back through profits. What are we to do? Invest in companies that price their products to make a maximum of 10% profit on every item?

[Andyb]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I watch Fox News a lot and generally respect the views of some of the hosts like Tucker Carlson or Jesse Watters. They rail against the ‘fake news’, yet almost daily condemn Pfizer as a money grubbing big bad pharmaceutical company making record profits on the back of the COVID emergency. A fake narrative!

I’ve been a Pfizer shareholder for many years. The company’s net profit in 2021, 2 years into COVID, was about the same as it was in 2017, 2 years before COVID! Their stock price today is about what it was at the end of 2018, a year before any thought of a COVID vaccine.

So where does this impression of ‘record profits’ come from? And why does the media keep portraying Pfizer as the ‘enemy’? A lot of people would be dead if all the drug companies disappeared!

Sorry, I can not reply due to being censored and banned from this site. One fact about Pfizer stock, is that it is the number one stock held by our current politicians. I would hold it?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

No merit?

Sandman settled in his defamation suits against CNN and the WaPo (who didn't want to go to court)...

Contrary to what you hear on Judge Judy, the reality is that it is sometimes more prudent to settle a lawsuit than to defend yourself against one. Sandman had my sympathy right up to the point he decided to profit off his 15 minutes.

The difference I see between Sandman and Fox News is there was no accusation that CNN, WaPo, or others knew and discussed the inaccuracy in their reporting then chose to air it anyway. You can (Sandman did) accuse them of not fully researching the story. You can accuse them of jumping to conclusions and airing the story as quickly as possible to get as much attention as possible. But I've not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic. On the other hand, it turns out that is what Fox News was doing.

I can understand a company making a mistake; too many mistakes and they will lose credibility. When a company is caught spreading information they know is not true, when their internal discussions show they knew it was not true but broadcast it anyway, they have lost credibility as a "News" source.

[mikemalloy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Contrary to what you hear on Judge Judy, the reality is that it is sometimes more prudent to settle a lawsuit than to defend yourself against one. Sandman had my sympathy right up to the point he decided to profit off his 15 minutes.

The difference I see between Sandman and Fox News is there was no accusation that CNN, WaPo, or others knew and discussed the inaccuracy in their reporting then chose to air it anyway. You can (Sandman did) accuse them of not fully researching the story. You can accuse them of jumping to conclusions and airing the story as quickly as possible to get as much attention as possible. But I've not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic. On the other hand, it turns out that is what Fox News was doing.

I can understand a company making a mistake; too many mistakes and they will lose credibility. When a company is caught spreading information they know is not true, when their internal discussions show they knew it was not true but broadcast it anyway, they have lost credibility as a "News" source.

Another reason to settle quickly is to avoid discovery where under oath you have to disclose what you actually knew and what your objectives were. And that's why you've " not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic."
And he more than profited with the suit, he showed what biased, nasty liars they were and hopefully taught them a lesson.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Some of us have other methods to know when to "disregard" what is said...

Bazinga!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by mikemalloy

Another reason to settle quickly is to avoid discovery where under oath you have to disclose what you actually knew and what your objectives were. And that's why you've " not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic."
And he more than profited with the suit, he showed what biased, nasty liars they were and hopefully taught them a lesson.

He didn't show that at all; all he showed was that they didn't want to go through the lawsuit.

As it turns out, they drew the wrong conclusion in their initial reporting. So did most of the people who viewed the video. They should have done better, they should have waited for more of the fact. So should most of the people who viewed the video.

Did they say something that was not true? Yes. Does that make them a liar? Technically, yes. Is jumping to a false conclusion the same as intentionally reporting something you know to be untrue? Not in my book. I have made many mistakes but thankfully I don't have anyone around me to shout, "liar," every time.