It's not so much that as 'everything he says is a confession'...He's pointing out fake news, because he's one of the biggest sources. He can't be wrong if he's to blame.
The actual news on Fox News, i.e. not Tucker and the rest of the talk shows, is not fake news, even remotely. Absolutely has a conservative bias, but not to the extent it would qualify as fake news. It's even listed on Wikipedia a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
Wikipedia reliable sources list is basically implicit whitelist, and there is implicit blacklist, news sources from countries with hundreds of millions of people banned from Wikipedia. All this is contradicting its core content policies. Reliable sources based solely on being Western, such as being located in the Western world, having a Western worldview, being owned by Western entities, or aligning with Western national interests or security policies.
Fox News is the clearest example of mainstream propaganda that I've ever seen. I take a pass through there periodically just to see what the aren't covering. Which isn't to say places like CNN don't sometimes pull that same stunt, but it's much more prevalent on Fox News -- they'll completely omit even really big stories that aren't what they think their audience wants to see.
Ground News is a great site to help you understand which networks are covering which stories and ignoring others. It's honestly eye opening the number of big stories omitted by the other large non-Fox networks.
When the shows that draw the most eyeballs and are aired at the times most people are watching news at all, the morning shows and prime time, are almost entirely made up of half-truths and outright lies, I think it's fair to say Fox is an unreliable source.
Fox and Friends and Tucker Carlson are lying to viewers every day.
There's no way to distinguish between the fake news Fox broadcasts and the non-fake news. It's not like Fox puts a disclaimer up on the screen saying which stories are for entertainment purposes only.
Actually, he did call Fox News fake news at one point, although yes it was due to them running a story about polls that were unflattering to him.
However, he is still fundamentally correct about the issue that the media deliberately misleads or outright lies consistently enough to not deserve our trust, be it Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or even NPR.
He was his own anonymous source to news media. Though I don't know whether the Enquirer should count as news media, per se. Given news was not its focus.
> However, he is still fundamentally correct about the issue that the media deliberately misleads or outright lies consistently enough to not deserve our trust, be it Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or even NPR.
That doesn't make him, or any other source of information, more trustworthy than the corporate news media.
Nowadays "fake news" is just a derogatory term against the news media in general, but the term used to mean something. If you remember, back to the 2016 election, there were literal fake online newspapers that sprang up and published essentially election clickbait. These sites had news-y sounding names, real-looking content, and were designed to look surface-level like legitimate news sites, until you dug a little deeper and looked around. People started calling these sites out as "fake news" but Trump quickly adopted the term, and nullified it by using it as a simple insult against actual mainstream news sites. But it originally meant "actual phony news sites".
> The term “fake news” became mainstream during the US election campaign, when hundreds of websites that published falsified or heavily biased stories sprung up to capitalise on Facebook advertising revenue.[1]
> Mr Trump and his supporters then adopted the term to describe media coverage critical of the President, especially that of The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN.
I know broken clocks and all, but just because you disagree with someone most of the time it doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything.