Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium "scandal," infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought go work for CNN or MSNBC. Smith's critique, which called President Trump's accusations against Clinton "inaccurate," was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton. Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, have been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Them Faux News fans don't like their b.s. stories corrected with truth. Shepherd Smith will do fine if he leaves Fox but those sheep? Where will they be without their shepherd? I believe in freedom of the press but airing lies every day is dangerous to democracy, Fox News is a danger to this country. We should not allow the likes of Rupert Murdoch to pollute the air waves with his vile lies. We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 06:39 AM | Reply

"We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine." - #1 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 06:39 AM

While I thoroughly agree with you about the Fairness Doctrine, Danni, it wouldn't pertain to cable or satellite broadcasters. They don't use the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, which is why the FCC was able to enforce the Fairness Doctrine with radio and television stations who needed an FCC license to use the broadcast spectrum. Cable and satellite broadcasters don't need such a license.

Remember: Howard Stern stopped broadcasting over the airways for satellite radio specifically because the FCC couldn't "bother" him there.

#2 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-15 06:49 AM | Reply

Even if everything fox News says is a lie, no one is forcing idiots to believe it.

On the history channel, I see program after program, disguised as science programs claiming that aliens seeded humanity and then flew off in spaceships. They taught humans how to build pyramids, yet somehow forgot to mention anything about electricity or antibiotics or DNA or gunpowder.

Also, I see thousands of fake teachers, standing in front of hundreds of millions, telling them that a magical man lives in the clouds and is somehow able to conduct the minutia of each of their daily lives. He will send you to eternal damnation for not being a republican.

In all of these cases, being educated is the antidote to the poisonous ideas, not restricting freedom of speech.

#3 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-15 07:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"While I thoroughly agree with you about the Fairness Doctrine, Danni, it wouldn't pertain to cable or satellite broadcasters."

Then we should make it include all forms of media. Even if it takes a Constitutional amendment, our democracy is in jeopardy because of these liars having access to millions of idiots. They should not be allowed to openly lie on any media outlet.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 09:31 AM | Reply

"He will send you to eternal damnation for not being a republican."

Unfortunately they actually do that every day.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 09:32 AM | Reply

"They should not be allowed to openly lie on any media outlet." - #4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 09:31 AM

Be extremely careful with that line of thought.

In order to stop open lies on any media outlet, someone has to determine it is an open lie in the first place.

And there's zero guarantee that that someone will be objective.

Do you want a Trump administration someone in charge of determining open lies in any media outlet?

Or do you want a GOP-controlled Congress appointing someone to be in charge of determining such open lies?

In either case you can kiss the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press goodbye.

#6 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-15 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In either case you can kiss the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press goodbye.

#6 | POSTED BY HANS

exactly!

It is incumbent on people to decide for themselves what is a lie and what is not. I personally think that all religions are lies, but i certainly would not tell someone they were an idiot for believing it. Wait a minute ... yes I would. Nevermind.

#7 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-15 09:47 AM | Reply

Fairness doctrine only required that the other side be given an opportunity to refute the lies made by the network, that's not censorship. It is though, a check and balance for networks like Fox who should have to offer their opposition the opportunity to answer their lies. And it shouldn't be restricted to only the networds on the air waves, the internet was created by government so it should be ruled by government.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 10:24 AM | Reply


It's not the first time Mr Smith has gone against the grain of Fox News.

Hopefully, it will not be the last.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-15 11:40 AM | Reply

Poor little Conservatives need a safe space...

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-15 12:03 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"He will send you to eternal damnation for not being a republican."

Opposite of Catholic God. I was taught subscription to modern republicanism is the fast-track to eternal damnation.


"They should not be allowed to openly lie on any media outlet." - #4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 09:31 AM
Be extremely careful with that line of thought.
#6 | POSTED BY HANS

Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason there can't be punishments for continuous misinformation under the guise of "news".

#11 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-15 12:04 PM | Reply

Even Fox can't fumigate the Uranium Diversion story.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:06 PM | Reply

Among many other ridiculous points this article tries to make, here are the two most concerning:

1. They state Hillary couldn't have done it because it is approved by committee. Well, so is almost every other piece of legislation in our books. So before ANYONE who believes in this ridiculous article, you have to then also remove yourself from EVER blaming Obama, Trump, or anyone else for any laws that are passed that were approved by more than one person (which is pretty much everything outside of an EO). You can't make up conspiracies or anything because in Hillary's case, there couldn't have been a conspiracy because it was approved by committee. It's either that or you be a hypocrite.

2. How does proving Trump wrong infuriate viewers and "wreck" Trump? He's been saying incorrect things since he got office. So, all this article is proof of is that the media loves to sensationalize when they see any unverified evidence that is against the party they are against.

If you stop and critically think, you will see how bad this article really is.

#13 | Posted by humtake at 2017-11-15 12:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's hope fox news viewers boycott by breaking their tvs.

#14 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-15 12:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

1. They state Hillary couldn't have done it because it is approved by committee. Well, so is almost every other piece of legislation in our books. So before ANYONE who believes in this ridiculous article, you have to then also remove yourself from EVER blaming Obama, Trump, or anyone else for any laws that are passed that were approved by more than one person (which is pretty much everything outside of an EO). You can't make up conspiracies or anything because in Hillary's case, there couldn't have been a conspiracy because it was approved by committee. It's either that or you be a hypocrite.

#13 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

What the hell are you talking about?

The fact that its approved by a committee that Clinton wasn't even on is pretty big indicator that she had little to nothing to do with its passage...

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-15 12:20 PM | Reply

The fact that its approved by a committee that Clinton wasn't even on is pretty big indicator that she had little to nothing to do with its passage...
#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Sure, but if you repeat the words "Hillary", "Uranium", "Russia" enough in close sequence then people like Humtake still buy in.

#16 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-15 12:26 PM | Reply

Do any of you actually think that this uranium was any value to our national security? If so, I've got a bridge for sale. I swear, righties will buy into any idiotic conspiracy if Hillary Clinton's name is droppen into it. Simply speaking, only stupid people think this "scandal" is a real scandal. Weren't y'all ridiculed enough over Benghazi, you want to go through another similar embarrassment? Too funny!
But hey, I get it, the morons will spend their time thinking about this nonsense and not the tax cut which the Republicans are planning to screw them with.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It is not about the Uranium deal, it is about the "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation, the 500,000 speaking fee, the hiring of the Podesta Group by the shell company controlled by the Russians and numerous other dabs of grease applied to move the deal along. There are more than 50 sealed indictments in court now awaiting grand juries. Muller has apparently been doing his job. It's just the target wasn't who you hoped for.

#18 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-15 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you stop and critically think, you will see how bad this article really is.

#13 | Posted by humtake

If you were to stop and think critically about this for a moment (that would be different!) you would realize that even if Clinton had opposed the sale it would have still gone through as the other 8 members on the committee approved of the sale. The only person who could have stopped the sale is the President. And since there was no reason to stop the sale (it did not negatively affect our national security) it was approved by President Obama.

So if you want to go after someone the correct person to go after would be President Obama. Why aren't you loonies blaming him? Are you guys suddenly afraid of him?

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 12:49 PM | Reply

"There are more than 50 sealed indictments in court now awaiting grand juries. Muller has apparently been doing his job. It's just the target wasn't who you hoped for."

Brietbart?

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 12:55 PM | Reply

It is not about the Uranium deal, it is about the "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation, the 500,000 speaking fee, the hiring of the Podesta Group by the shell company controlled by the Russians and numerous other dabs of grease applied to move the deal along. There are more than 50 sealed indictments in court now awaiting grand juries. Muller has apparently been doing his job. It's just the target wasn't who you hoped for.

#18 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Oh my god you are adorable.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-15 01:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Adorable deplorable.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:04 PM | Reply

I thought you guys hated corporate news, yet you parrot every word of their narrative.

#23 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-15 01:12 PM | Reply

Docnjo and HummerFake are going to need liver and kidney transplants if the keep drinking the volumes of TraitorAid they're currently subsisting on.

#24 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-11-15 01:49 PM | Reply

I thought you guys hated corporate news, yet you parrot every word of their narrative.

#23 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

No, we parrot FACTS.
You parrot Fox News.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-15 01:57 PM | Reply

You have to be a seriously angry twisted and bitter rightwinger to buy into all the scandals FoxNews has made up about the Clintons. It really is remarkable because there really are rightwingers who actually believe it.

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-15 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Smith did a fine job demolishing the conspiracy theory.

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-15 03:01 PM | Reply

Shep Smith is the last one at that Network that has any credibility left.
I am surprised the Nazi's at Faux News haven't fired him yet.

#28 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-15 04:08 PM | Reply

Shep Smith is the last one at that Network that has any credibility left.
I am surprised the Nazi's at Faux News haven't fired him yet.

Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-15 04:08 PM | Reply

He's the token "fair and balanced"

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-15 04:09 PM | Reply

That's a nice bit of reporting by Shep Smith. Every network should do pieces that debunk conspiracies so patiently and thoroughly.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-15 04:17 PM | Reply

Joy Reid on MSNBC did a pretty good breakdown of the story and debunked it pretty thoroughly already.

But, it is nice to hear FAUX NEWS step out of the disinformation business for a change.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 05:57 PM | Reply

Reid did a good job but she rushed through it while sharing time with a Trump shill. Shep walked through it like a prosecutor laying out an argument.

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-15 07:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort