So do I have this straight? In order to protect people from cold weather in El Paso, Abbott would bus them 2000 miles to Washington Dc, where it was colder. Instead of, let's say, Phoenix, which is only 400 miles away and warmer.

@NateEldredge yes, with the claim that they have places to house them in DC.

I'm not sure Fox should be used as a source on this site, as it's not a reliable source (mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias), but I understand that American Conservatives will more likely believe it coming from there than most other media, especially the CNN article linked to in tim's answer.

@computercarguy Claims of the form "X is unreliable because Y says so" seem silly to me, since you'd get the same claim if that were true as you would if X were reliable and Y weren't.

@computercarguy Just because parts of Fox News has issues doesn't mean everything from Fox News is bad. And I am confused as to what about the quoted article is bad when it is confirming that Greg Abbot (A Republican) sent migrants to the VP's residence (A Democrat).

@JosephSible-ReinstateMonica, I did research on MBFC a couple years ago showing how they are reliable. skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4589/… You can do the same kind of research on Fox to show that it isn't reliable (which I have but haven't posted online). That's the difference. Also, your logic is off. If Y is unreliable and says X is reliable, you still don't know if X is reliable or not. With Y being reliable, you know that X is unreliable.

@JoeW, if someone is a known liar, would you explicitly trust them? I hope not. Would you check, double check, and maybe triple check what they said? I sure would. Fox "News" has a long history of not telling the truth, or only a half truth which they use to speculate or state the opposite of what the full truth shows. Why would you base an answer on this site on anything Fox says because of this? Search the Meta for this site and it will say that Answer are only supposed to use reliable sources and that Fox isn't a reliable source.

@computercarguy lol but CNN is ok? There are zero news sources without overt bias these days... Fox News is not unusual.

@SnakeDoc, it's not about bias, it's about reliability. A source can be biased and yet still state the facts. An unreliable source can't be believed without checking their statements to see if they are facts, opinions, or fiction. MBFC shows CNN isn't very credible, either, but they do show Reuters to be reliable, and that's what's being questioned. Fox is unusual in the fact that it openly pushes conspiracy theories, even debunked ones, and almost never produces a retraction.

@computercarguy again, there's nothing unusual about Fox News when compared to any other news media company these days. Conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods are peddled by the lines of CNN, Reuters, AP, NBC, Fox and others. Insisting Fox is unusual and should be singled out is so far outside reality that it's kinda funny.

@SnakeDoc, the fact that you throw Reuters & AP (some of the most reliable and unbiased news sources in the world) with Fox and CNN shows that you aren't able to detect the difference between fact and fiction. Also, I don't watch Family Guy or Jimmy Kimmel.

@computercarguy All of which peddled outright fantasies put forth by the previous administration and now the current administration as-if they were actual facts. The point you seem to be willfully missing is all of these once-highly regarded institutions have all become click-bait farms and propaganda arms - none are credible or reliable - in any way you can use those definitions. Fox News is not unusual once bit... and I'd assert never was. The others just got more smoke cover for their BS because you agreed with their opinion.

@SnakeDoc, that's not even remotely true. You are the one accusing Reuters & AP, and evidently others, because you disagree with them. The rest of the world still knows them to be reliable.

@JoeW, I was stating facts about Fox not being a reliable source, simply saying that this site probably shouldn't use an unreliable source in an answer. it was other people throwing in their opinions about Fox and other sites. And, again, why would we want to have a known liar as a source? Skeptics is all about debunking or supporting claims with reliable sources, not muddying the waters with using an unreliable site known for mis- and dis-information.

If it wasn't for other, actually reliable, sources confirming this story, I'd be skeptical of Fox saying it. I'm skeptical of anything Fox says because they aren't reliable.