fox news is making trump
this is an example of far right bias right in your face, not only does Hannity, o'reilly, and company manufacture facts, but they are at the point of total absurdidy, example... o'reilly statement, "slaves were well fed" Hannity screaming that Hillary has health problems, that don't exist.
and refusing to disavow far rightists who say "Hillary should be shot for treason" these guys and this network scandals [ ailes
sexual groping } are coming undone, they can't talk sense anymore, I feel they [fox comentators] are really going off the rails.
typical republican reactionaires.
Fox News started as an alternative to the Far Left Democrat reactionaries at MSNBC and the Left-wing CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. So its market were viewers tired of the Left-wing bias at those other networks. Sometime last years CNN and Fox started putting Trump on all the time because he drove up the ratings. When Megyn Kelly challenged and criticized him, her ratings declined. O'Reilly had him on all the time because they were personal friends. I think Hannity was for Cruz originally, but he started having Trump on more and Cruz complained about it and had some sort of falling out.
As for FOX disavowing those who say "Hillary should be shot for treason," are you sure about that? I only watch FOX and CNN when I'm at the gym doing cardio, so can't say I watch all that much, but to me it seems unlikely that the hosts at FOX wouldn't disavow such people. "Hillary for prison" people, that's a different story. Are you sure you don't mean the "Hillary for prison" people? And by the way, I seem to recall Far Leftist Vincent Bugliosi and a few others on CNN promoting George W. Bush being executed, but not sure if any of the networks disavowed him. Before that, I remember a bunch of loony leftist being overjoyed when Reagan was shot.
O'Reilly isn't known for his scholarship, and he uses his show to sell his books co-written by a California high school teacher. I did manage to watch him debate George Will on YouTube after Will criticized his book as bad history. O'Reilly started yelling at Will, "You're a hack!" O'Reilly totally lost his mind. I had to admire Will for having the guts to face that bully. O'Reilly is an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than he really does. That's where that "slaves were well fed" comment comes in. He probably figured they were well-fed since it doesn't make sense that a slave owner would starve his slaves. The reality is that there's a huge gap between starving and well-fed. Often they were given just enough to not starve, but it doesn't mean they weren't hungry.
