And your opinion that it "sucks" is wrong. The idiom that I've used has been used for a long time. It's used to describe situations like with what happened with Fox News.
You failed to, in your previous posts, "prove" that the idiom was either "non applicable" or that it "sucked". This is just a reaction that I would expect, from someone in their teens or early twenties, when something goes right over their heads and have to have that something explained to them... And they can't tip toe their way into making that point non relevant.
chewsoap: I suppose you think the Normandy invasion was necessary because France forgot where they came from. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Not even close. Go back and read my previous posts with the intention of understanding what I'm saying. Nothing, in anything that I've posted, provides the reader with anything that they could use to infer what you're erroneously inferring from my argument.
If you pay attention to what I said, you'd see a Fox News from before that is different from the one right now... One that was then what OANN is now... What The Donald is now... What Parler, Gab, etc., are now...
Fox News had a humble beginning compared to CNN and the network news. Where CNN had already drifted away from their own humble beginning and pushed an increasingly biased narrative, Fox News reported on the news that CNN et all did not want to report. They reported news the way mainstream media didn't want to report it.
They cared about the audience, and focused their efforts on giving the audience what it wanted. Like CNN before it, Fox drifted towards pushing an agenda rather than presenting the news... Fair and balanced. What they are doing now is not what they did when they got their start.
It is not going to matter what people argue with regards to what happened in the interim. Old owners got replaced by new ones? Leftists brought in? An increasing number of talking heads bowing down to management where they would've stood up before?
Regardless of what occurred, the fact of the matter is that Fox news is not what it used to be. It forgot where it came from (see description in this post and in the ones above), and they're paying the price for it via loss in ratings.
When I argued that Fox News forgot where they came from, one of the things that I was pointing to was the fact that they got arrogant. That arrogance preceded Fox News's ratings fall. They made the same mistake their competitors made instead of striving to exercise journalistic standards.
This is akin to Biblical passages talking about the mountains, hills, and towers being lowered and the valleys and streets being elevated.
Anybody reading my posts on this topic would not see any comparison, not even remotely, to your Normandy strawman argument.
That fact that you brought that up indicates that you have anger issues, control issues, and excess pride issues. If you don't fix that, you're going to have a rough life ahead of you.
chewsoap: Your idiom sucks is my point.
And your opinion that it "sucks" is wrong. The idiom that I've used has been used for a long time. It's used to describe situations like with what happened with Fox News.
You failed to, in your previous posts, "prove" that the idiom was either "non applicable" or that it "sucked". This is just a reaction that I would expect, from someone in their teens or early twenties, when something goes right over their heads and have to have that something explained to them... And they can't tip toe their way into making that point non relevant.
chewsoap: I suppose you think the Normandy invasion was necessary because France forgot where they came from. [STRAWMAN ARGUMENT]
Not even close. Go back and read my previous posts with the intention of understanding what I'm saying. Nothing, in anything that I've posted, provides the reader with anything that they could use to infer what you're erroneously inferring from my argument.
If you pay attention to what I said, you'd see a Fox News from before that is different from the one right now... One that was then what OANN is now... What The Donald is now... What Parler, Gab, etc., are now...
Fox News had a humble beginning compared to CNN and the network news. Where CNN had already drifted away from their own humble beginning and pushed an increasingly biased narrative, Fox News reported on the news that CNN et all did not want to report. They reported news the way mainstream media didn't want to report it.
They cared about the audience, and focused their efforts on giving the audience what it wanted. Like CNN before it, Fox drifted towards pushing an agenda rather than presenting the news... Fair and balanced. What they are doing now is not what they did when they got their start.
It is not going to matter what people argue with regards to what happened in the interim. Old owners got replaced by new ones? Leftists brought in? An increasing number of talking heads bowing down to management where they would've stood up before?
Regardless of what occurred, the fact of the matter is that Fox news is not what it used to be. It forgot where it came from (see description in this post and in the ones above), and they're paying the price for it via loss in ratings.
When I argued that Fox News forgot where they came from, one of the things that I was pointing to was the fact that they got arrogant. That arrogance preceded Fox News's ratings fall. They made the same mistake their competitors made instead of striving to exercise journalistic standards.
This is akin to Biblical passages talking about the mountains, hills, and towers being lowered and the valleys and streets being elevated.
Anybody reading my posts on this topic would not see any comparison, not even remotely, to your Normandy strawman argument.
That fact that you brought that up indicates that you have anger issues, control issues, and excess pride issues. If you don't fix that, you're going to have a rough life ahead of you.
TLDR
This explains the factual deficiencies in your arguments, your refusal to read if there are too many words and there are no pictures.