It goes deeper than just a website IMO but it is what it is.

 

It's a non story . Making a mountain out of mole hill. I stand by the fact the author who got offended by the comment section needs to grow up.

It's a non story . Making a mountain out of mole hill. I stand by the fact the author who got offended by the comment section needs to grow up.

 

This whole thread has been very interesting.

This whole thread has been very interesting.

 

What is interesting is it seems you feel a comment section represents an entire website who does not employ or promote any of the commenters.

 

Do individual posters on BGP represent the entire website ?

 

No one is approving the comments. Just confused how you can make a direct line from the comment section to fox.

 

Do we blame twitter itself for everything that is tweeted. Just seems silly.

What is interesting is it seems you feel a comment section represents an entire website who does not employ or promote any of the commenters.

 

Do individual posters on BGP represent the entire website ?

 

No one is approving the comments. Just confused how you can make a direct line from the comment section to fox.

 

Do we blame twitter itself for everything that is tweeted. Just seems silly.

 

Revisionist history is happening.

 

In the last couple of years I've been accused of defending rioters when I explained why they rioted even though I was condemning rioters at the same time. I've been accused of hating the police because of defending BLM. I've been accused of being against the military because I questioned a veteran's recollection of a story when he was assaulted by thugs even though I condemned his attack. Hell, just today I was told I was giving 50 Cent a pass because I said he has been a jerk his whole life even though I said his recent action against the kid with autism at the airport was deplorable.

 

Now, why is it when I do those things I am a made out to be a representative for a cause that I am saying I am against. It is fine by BGP standards for me to rep those causes when I am saying I am not but these fine folks in the comment section aren't a representative for Fox News? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

 

That's why this thread is interesting to me. It is what it is. What that is I don't know. It's just whatever I guess.

Revisionist history is happening.

 

In the last couple of years I've been accused of defending rioters when I explained why they rioted even though I was condemning rioters at the same time. I've been accused of hating the police because of defending BLM. I've been accused of being against the military because I questioned a veteran's recollection of a story when he was assaulted by thugs even though I condemned his attack. Hell, just today I was told I was giving 50 Cent a pass because I said he has been a jerk his whole life even though I said his recent action against the kid with autism at the airport was deplorable.

 

Now, why is it when I do those things I am a made out to be a representative for a cause that I am saying I am against. It is fine by BGP standards for me to rep those causes when I am saying I am not but these fine folks in the comment section aren't a representative for Fox News? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

 

That's why this thread is interesting to me. It is what it is. What that is I don't know. It's just whatever I guess.

 

I don't think I've accused you of any of the above.

I don't think I've accused you of any of the above.

 

I'm not saying you have. Others have and I don't see how the scenarios are different. When people come to my defense or take my side or agree with me then the "liberal agenda" is at play and the lefties are ruining America becomes the conversation piece. It always ends up left vs right and the lefties end up representatives of whoever did wrong. The same rules aren't applied in this scenario though.

 

That's my point.

I'm still confused, do the comments from the most vile (often suspended) BGP members represent this site or not? That's what you're getting with any of these comment sections. If it's true for Fox it must be true for Huffington, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Therefore their comment sections are the reason people hate them, correct?

I'm still confused, do the comments from the most vile (often suspended) BGP members represent this site or not? That's what you're getting with any of these comment sections. If it's true for Fox it must be true for Huffington, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Therefore their comment sections are the reason people hate them, correct?

 

To some, yes, the comments from the most vile BGP members represent this site.

 

Yes, IMO the same is true for HuffPost, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Why wouldn't it be?

To some, yes, the comments from the most vile BGP members represent this site.

 

Yes, IMO the same is true for HuffPost, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Why wouldn't it be?

 

Assuming that your twitter is not set to private, and you tweet out something that gets a bunch of random, hateful responses, are you responsible for those responses?

 

You see it on facebook all the time where commenters get caught up in secondary conversations between each other, that have nothing to do with the original article posted. Is the person that posted the original article or tweet responsible for everything that everyone says regarding what they posted?

 

I am all for expecting our news agencies being held accountable for their own content. However, i don't think they should be held responsible for a public comment feed.

I'm still confused, do the comments from the most vile (often suspended) BGP members represent this site or not? That's what you're getting with any of these comment sections. If it's true for Fox it must be true for Huffington, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Therefore their comment sections are the reason people hate them, correct?

 

I would posit that the comments/posts of any site represent its constituency. Vile or not.

Assuming that your twitter is not set to private, and you tweet out something that gets a bunch of random, hateful responses, are you responsible for those responses?

 

You see it on facebook all the time where commenters get caught up in secondary conversations between each other, that have nothing to do with the original article posted. Is the person that posted the original article or tweet responsible for everything that everyone says regarding what they posted?

 

I am all for expecting our news agencies being held accountable for their own content. However, i don't think they should be held responsible for a public comment feed.

 

I'm not saying they are to be held responsible. I'm saying that the commenters more often than not represent their constituents.

 

If Rolling Stone magazine posts an article slamming Trump and the commenters are slamming Trump and praising the article is that not an example of an article representing its constituents?

I'm not saying they are to be held responsible. I'm saying that the commenters more often than not represent their constituents.

 

If Rolling Stone magazine posts an article slamming Trump and the commenters are slamming Trump and praising the article is that not an example of an article representing its constituents?

 

I don't know if your example really portrays the situation though. If Rolling Stone wrote a biographical article about Trump with no bias or anything, just a clear cut informative article, and people got on the comment section and starting trashing Trump, would you say that the commenters represented the views of Rolling Stone.

 

Its not like Fox published an article leaning one way or another about Malia going to Harvard. It was actually a pretty minuscule article reporting that Malia had decided to go to Harvard.

 

if Fox had published an article claiming that she only got accepted to Harvard because of her dad or any other reason, with the intentions of slighting her accomplishment, then I might agree with you. However, in a somewhat uncommon occurrence, Fox published what a reasonable person would consider a neutral article. The article wasn't intended to fan racial flames, or even influence any sort of response, but rather than just to report news.

I don't know if your example really portrays the situation though. If Rolling Stone wrote a biographical article about Trump with no bias or anything, just a clear cut informative article, and people got on the comment section and starting trashing Trump, would you say that the commenters represented the views of Rolling Stone.

 

Its not like Fox published an article leaning one way or another about Malia going to Harvard. It was actually a pretty minuscule article reporting that Malia had decided to go to Harvard.

 

if Fox had published an article claiming that she only got accepted to Harvard because of her dad or any other reason, with the intentions of slighting her accomplishment, then I might agree with you. However, in a somewhat uncommon occurrence, Fox published what a reasonable person would consider a neutral article. The article wasn't intended to fan racial flames, or even influence any sort of response, but rather than just to report news.

 

I wouldn't say the commenters represent Rolling Stone's views. I would say the commenters are the type of mindset that reads Rolling Stone and gets their information from Rolling Stone.

 

That is the one thing that caught my attention. It was as bland as an article Fox News could post but yet the folks went in on it. Knowing the past history with controversial incidents from Fox News that have happened the question becomes is it fair to say that the commenters on that bland article the type of people who get their information from Fox News? Do they represent Fox News' views? I hope not but fair or not people will see those comments and label Fox News as racist just like people would see the comments about Trump in a Rolling Stone magazine and label Rolling Stone a magazine of liberal bias.

She is going to Harvard based on who she is. As does any rich spoiled kid in America

 

You've seen her transcripts? SAT scores?

That people are so incredible stupid that we accuse others (Fox) for actions which they are not responsible for? The only people that blame Fox for these comments are people that never liked Fox News' date=' and are just looking for a reason to accuse the organization of racism. If anyone with half a brain actually read the article, and not just the title, they would know that Fox is in no way responsible for the comments. Instead, people are to lazy/ dumb to read, so they just take the easy route and blame Fox for being racist.[/quote']

 

 

I don't think PP said Fox News was racist.