The Obama administration has completely disregarded the First Amendment recently and made itself judge, jury, and attempted executioner of FOX News. Why?
FOX isn’t real news.
At least if you listen to White House spokesmen Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod. Gibbs personally lambasted FOX for the “type” and “fairness” of coverage, complaining specifically about the programming in the 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. slots. Notice how he went about that, though.
Glenn Beck is on at 5 p.m. EST. Bill O’Reilly is on at 9 p.m. EST. Gibbs was specifically referring to OPINION shows, but he excused himself from having to answer questions about the WH decision to castigate FOX by simply giving the time slots that they referenced.
Just this past Sunday, David Axelrod went on George Stephanopoulos’s show and declared FOX was “not a news organization,” saying further, “Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. We’re not going to treat them that way.” Rahm Emmanuel went further by saying that the Obama administration doesn’t want “the CNNs and the others in the world (to) basically be led in following Fox.” (I’d have to ask Mr. Emmanuel when was the last time he ever saw any of the other networks following FOX’s lead–they’re usually deriding FOX anyway!)
What the Obama administration is doing is reprehensible. Forget the First Amendment; they don’t like the hard questions being asked by the opinion shows at FOX because they’re asking the questions no other network will ask. O’Reilly, at least, was as hard on Bush as he’s being now on Obama, so it can be rightly argued that Obama just has his hidden G-string in a twist because he doesn’t like being questioned.
It gets better, though: White House aide Anita Dunn was captured on video at a Q&A session in the Dominican Republic back in January that the Obama campaign “controlled” the press coverage. I’ll have to post the actual clip when I get home–I can’t access streaming video where I am right now–but it’s becoming more and more clear that the current administration is dead-set on making sure nobody is allowed to show the truth.
Now there’s word of Democrats opening up an “inquisition” into reports of so-called “hate speech” in the media. There were anti-media protests in more than 100 cities this weekend, and I’m having a hard time finding facts about them (three guesses why, and the first two don’t count).
The current administration scares me more and more every day. And if anybody who regularly argues that FOX makes up its own version of the news, lies, or twists the facts, feel free to post evidence–links to FOX news reports and a link to support the claim that it’s a lie–in the comments section.
If Bush and his spokesmen had waged such a campaign against a single major network, he’d have been immediately impeached.
UPDATE: Here’s the video I promised. First, David Axelrod:
Next, Robert Gibbs:
And Rahm Emmanuel (the consummate liar):
Not to be outdone, here’s the dim-witted windbag who started it all, Anita “We Control the Press” Dunn (beware, she likes the sound of her own voice):
Next up: the media’s outrageous war on Rush.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Me to white house. Obama is not a ‘real’ president!
LOL
Every once in a while, I’ll go over to foxhounds or newshounds or whatever that site is (you know, the one where they watch Fox News ALL day and night and blog about the LIES!!!!) just to see what they are claiming to be a lie. (MediaMatters even has their own FOX section…) Both of these websites just bombard me with stupidity as soon as the page is finished loading to the point where I’m punchdrunk and I don’t know where to look first. Seriously, one day I’ll be able to go through it and digest what they’re claiming but kudos to any of you who’ve already done it. I mean, WOW.
This is another case of Obama not acting presidential. He’s good at campaigning but nothing else. If I was him the last thing I would do is draw attention to Fox. It just makes more people watch them so I don’t know why he would want that. I watch Fox but I watch the other news stations and read the NYT too among others. It’s too bad more people can’t recognize how childish Obama and his WH are acting. They ought to show more class. They can still think what they want of Fox and others who don’t agree with them but saying it is another thing.
“It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Too late for Gibbs (and probably me on many occasions).
AndyB, NH.
PS I googled that and came up with this page: http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150
“What the Obama administration is doing is reprehensible”
Why? This topic irks me so much, because it just shows conservatives and republicans to be the most hypocritical people on God’s green earth. They’re crybabies too. What’s wrong with a President choosing not to give interviews to a network that is notorious for slanting everything, along with outright lying? Where was the cry and hue when, according to Dana Perino, George Bush effectively shut out MSNBC during his last term? Did we hear this much bitching and whining from liberals when this happened? No, we didn’t hear one peep from the left. I work weekends as a courier to pick up extra cash for the holidays, and some whiny little bitch ass conservative called up the company I work for and complained about my Obama/Biden bumper sticker. The branch manager didn’t have a problem with it, so this guy, who according to her “sounded crazy” is shit out of luck. But this is what the cons do when they don’t agree with something; they throw a fit. If anything is reprehensible, it’s the right’s total hypocrisy on this (and every other) issue. Wah, Obama won’t come on FOX “News” (and if you think FOX is a real news organization, you’re delusional) and give us the opportunity to chop up his words to make it seem like he admitted to being a communist. Get over yourselves…
“they don’t like the hard questions being asked by the opinion shows at FOX because they’re asking the questions no other network will ask.”
I like your careful wording: “opinion”. But, what hard questions? Is Obama a socialist? That’s rhetorical garbage. Projecting your racism onto the president of the United States does not make for hard questions. Calling him every ism you can think of does not make for hard questions, and neither does implying that he’s not a citizen of this country. People need to really ask themselves why it is that this network is being shut out. If anyone takes an honest look at the reasons, they’ll soon realize that it’s a thinly veiled right wing propaganda machine.
“I’ll have to post the actual clip when I get home”
Please, make sure you post the whole clip, not just the part you want everyone to hear. I’ve heard it in its entirety, and you people are once again way off the mark. I hope I’m premature in pointing out that Karl Rove gave Mao’s book to W. to read. I’m sure that you being so “fair and balanced”, you would have pointed that out when referencing Dunn’s comments…
“There were anti-media protests in more than 100 cities this weekend, and I’m having a hard time finding facts about them (three guesses why, and the first two don’t count).”
Kind of how this same media refused to send even one camera crew to D.C. to cover the recent gay rights march, but send not only multiple camera crews to cover phony tea parties, but to purposefully overestimate crowd size and ask said crowd to act more fired up for cameras. And the gay rights march had exponentially more demonstrators than did the tea parties. Where was the media on this, the so called liberal media? Haven’t you ever wondered why only your side, with all the screaming wackos and racists, is enjoying any media coverage in the health care debate? And for what, the media doesn’t care that a majority of the country wants real reform, including a robust public option, but they consciously choose to cover the small sliver of fanatics that make up the republican party. You people have just hit a new low today, with only 20% of the nation identifying themselves as republicans. Also, less than one in five voters (19%) expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decisions for America’s future while a whopping 79% lacked that confidence. Do you know what that means? That means that 1% of republicans don’t have confidence in republicans! That’s astonishing! So, complain and whine about Obama “bullying” FOX News if you must, but your message keeps reaching fewer and fewer people…
That last post was mine. I just got a new hard drive in my computer, so your site didn’t remember me…
“And if anybody who regularly argues that FOX makes up its own version of the news, lies, or twists the facts, feel free to post evidence–links to FOX news reports and a link to support the claim that it’s a lie–in the comments section.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/15/glenn-beck/beck-says-45-percent-physicians-would-quit-if-heal/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/07/budget-deficit-hit-record-billion/
Here’s the truth:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf#page=19
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news/fox-news-falsehood-about-pelosi-calling-protesters-nazis/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906190004
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news/myfoxorlando-spreads-lie-about-obama/
Shall I keep going?
Also, in regards to FOX News being a real news organization:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910200005
“Projecting your racism onto the president of the United States does not make for hard questions.”
First and foremost, Robert, if you drop that word in accusation towards anyone here one more time, that’s it. You’re banned. Knock that crap off. Now, onward…
“This topic irks me so much, because it just shows conservatives and republicans to be the most hypocritical people on God’s green earth.”
Kinda like Obama promising more transparency in his administration than we’d ever seen in government, right?
“They’re crybabies too.”
Ow. That hurt. I mean it, buddy, I’m stung. Let’s talk about political crybabies…why is it every single time a known politically conservative speaker is invited to heavily liberal universities, those speakers are heckled, drowned out and threatened off the stage (such as with Geert Wilders today), yet you never hear the mainstream media picking up a single story about conservatives pitching that kind of crying, screaming fit when cruel despots such as, oh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are invited?
“Where was the cry and hue when, according to Dana Perino, George Bush effectively shut out MSNBC during his last term?”
Yes, he did–but he did so without waging a personal, intense campaign to smear them as an organization that doesn’t report real news. Big difference.
“But this is what the cons do when they don’t agree with something; they throw a fit.”
Both sides do that, so quit yer whinin’, Robert. I refused just a few weeks ago to accept liberal literature from protesters while on duty with my fire department. They called and complained that we were “rude.” All I said was “no thank you” and kept on walking.
“That’s rhetorical garbage.”
Your argument is little more than rhetoric itself. Prove that it’s rhetorical garbage. Since Obama is pushing legislation that may effectively take over healthcare, he’s deciding what’s news and what’s not, he’s refusing to offer entire bills before they’re voted on, he’s trying to force cap-and-trade on us, and a litany of other complaints, I have a few good reasons to fear he’s a socialist. His friends don’t help, either.
“Calling him every ism you can think of does not make for hard questions, and neither does implying that he’s not a citizen of this country.”
We don’t simply call him every name we can think of, Robert, nor does FOX. We have real gripes and real fears about his plans. Denouncing it as ‘not news’ doesn’t make you–or him–right. Oh, and I’ve laid to rest once and for all that we know he’s a citizen, so drop that one, too. You’re beating a dead horse.
“I hope I’m premature in pointing out that Karl Rove gave Mao’s book to W. to read.”
I read Mein Kampf. Does that make me a Nazi? I’ve also read the Qur’an, but I’m not a Muslim. Hugo Chavez gave Obama a book praising socialism, and we didn’t harp on that. Reading material doesn’t denote a person’s views.
“Kind of how this same media refused to send even one camera crew to D.C. to cover the recent gay rights march…”
So what? The march was technically a dud and had little to no purpose.
“…but send not only multiple camera crews to cover phony tea parties…”
‘Phony?’ What exactly was phony about them?
“And the gay rights march had exponentially more demonstrators than did the tea parties.”
Really? Where did you get your numbers? All of the Tea Party protests combined drew more than the single gay rights march, trust me. As for the Tea Parties, I only saw a handful of MSM reports on them. They mostly tried to downplay the turnouts. I saw the one in Phoenix, and it drew a hell of a lot more people than I expected.
“Where was the media on this, the so called liberal media?”
The same place Barney “Mr. Liberal” Frank was: snoring.
“That means that 1% of republicans don’t have confidence in republicans!”
Robert, I don’t have much confidence in the Republican party right now. That’s not saying much.
“So, complain and whine about Obama “bullying” FOX News if you must, but your message keeps reaching fewer and fewer people…”
Okay. That’s why FOX is consistently the #1 cable-news station in America. That’s according to the Nielsen ratings, BTW.
I have to point out that for all your wheedling, you still haven’t managed to provide one iota of evidence that FOX lies or makes up their own news. All you’ve done is insult people and whine.
Oh, right. I keep forgetting that facts are meaningless to people like you. It must be why you watch FOX.
And it’s curious that you accuse me of whining when you’re the one who posted this screed which is tantamount to a temper tantrum when a grown up is ignoring a small child…
Facts? WHAT facts? You’ve provided us with none! Zip! Zero! NADA! You have not given one shred of evidence to support your claim that FOX News lies. NOT ONE. You’re looking more and more foolish every time you do this, Robert.
Actually, I don’t get to watch FOX often because I won’t pay for cable. When I do, however, there’s a marked difference in the news. I notice that shows passing themselves as just news give me ALL of the facts, not just the ones they want me to hear. And they report EVERYTHING. All of the other major networks that I get on the antenna? Practically useless. The latest attack on Rush Limbaugh is proof positive.
And I’m pretty sure the videos I posted prove that the WH is not merely ignoring FOX. They’re making it a personal vendetta. Try again.
“First and foremost, Robert, if you drop that word in accusation towards anyone here one more time, that’s it. You’re banned”
Why do you always take offense at words that aren’t aimed at you? It’s kind of telling. If you read what I wrote, it’s obvious that I was referring to FOX News.
“Kinda like Obama promising more transparency in his administration than we’d ever seen in government, right?”
And we have that, whether you like to admit it or not. When was the last time a republican did something like this?:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
“why is it every single time a known politically conservative speaker is invited to heavily liberal universities, those speakers are heckled, drowned out and threatened off the stage”
You should probably make up your mind. Are you for first amendment rights or not? And please don’t try to hold me or any political party responsible for college students exercising said rights…
“Yes, he did–but he did so without waging a personal, intense campaign to smear them as an organization that doesn’t report real news. Big difference.”
Perhaps that’s because MSNBC isn’t brazen enough to label themselves news, knowing full well that they aren’t.
“Since Obama is pushing legislation that may effectively take over healthcare”
You do know that the public option won’t be available to those who can get insurance through their companies, right? It’s simply an opportunity to insure those who currently are not. How your side manages to twist that to be a government takeover of health care is absurd; so much so, that even Shepard Smith of FOX News had to correct Senator Barrasso and defend it!
“he’s trying to force cap-and-trade on us”
I don’t think he is. Here’s something you and I can agree on. I think cap and trade is a scam, but probably not for the same reasons you do. If it passes in its current incarnation, that’s just one more pseudo commodity that Wall St. can over inflate.
“I have a few good reasons to fear he’s a socialist.”
Why don’t you go ahead and list them?
“Denouncing it as ‘not news’ doesn’t make you–or him–right”
And calling yourself news doesn’t make it so either.
“Oh, and I’ve laid to rest once and for all that we know he’s a citizen, so drop that one, too. You’re beating a dead horse.”
Again, these were all complaints lodged at FOX. I know you’re not one of those crazies.
“Reading material doesn’t denote a person’s views.”
But compare and contrast of a saint and, for all intents and purposes, a devil, does? Providing an example that we all choose our paths in life, whether they be ones of good works or ones of murder, does not denote a person’s view either. I would hope that as an owner and reader of Hitler, you would understand that.
“So what? The march was technically a dud and had little to no purpose.”
That’s nice coming from a gay person. So were the tea parties, but your precious “news” network were all over that like dead on Elvis…
“‘Phony?’ What exactly was phony about them?”
There’s something inherently wrong with protesting tax increases when you’re getting a tax cut…
“Really? Where did you get your numbers? All of the Tea Party protests combined drew more than the single gay rights march, trust me”
http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?page_id=19
And it’s less impressive to have 311,000 show in 346 cities than it is to have over 200,000 in one.
“Okay. That’s why FOX is consistently the #1 cable-news station in America. That’s according to the Nielsen ratings, BTW.”
in the grand scheme of things, that’s not very impressive. Out of 18 million homes, only 1.2 million are watching. I don’t know about you, but I’m impressed. Please don’t bother to post MSNBC’s ratings, because unlike the posters here, I don’t need to turn everything into a pissing contest…
“Facts? WHAT facts? You’ve provided us with none! Zip! Zero! NADA! You have not given one shred of evidence to support your claim that FOX News lies. NOT ONE. You’re looking more and more foolish every time you do this, Robert.”
And you’re looking more and more in denial. How you can look at what FOX has reported and then the facts and say there is no evidence of misrepresentation is mind boggling. Just to pick out one, when FOX reports that Obama tripled the deficit, and the CBO says that $1.2T of the $1.8T was from Bush, I’d call that a lie on FOX’s part. Apparently, you’re not willing to call a spade a spade.
“And I’m pretty sure the videos I posted prove that the WH is not merely ignoring FOX. They’re making it a personal vendetta. Try again”
They are ignoring FOX. And when they cried about it, they got their explanation, which, incidentally enough, resulted in more crying…
Robert, I see you’re a Media Matters reader, they love to “mince words” to create a controversy. If you actually READ the article, it does not attribute the deficit to Obama, it clearly lists all components of the deficit.
The article’s title states, “U.S. Budget Deficit Hits Record $1.4 trillion in 2009″ HOWEVER, even if the title did read, “Obama triples deficit”, I still don’t see where the lie is, here. If a $1.2 trillion deficit was already in place before Obama was inaugurated, HE, as a senator, voted to spend that money and then, once in office, demanded that MORE be spent. How is that NOT tripling the deficit?
(Also, WH is doing everything BUT ignoring Fox. FOUR White House officials in the last week have all whined about Fox to whoever will listen.) **Notice that I typed ALL of the above without one reference to your intelligence or personal attack of any kind.
Robert is off…. way off…. as for the post
This is a fight the Obama administration cannot afford to fight or win. If they win, it will be at such a cost to presidential prestige that it will be a Pyrrhic victory, and a short lived one at that. More likely they will lose. In fact they lose by even raising the issue. It is unseemly for the president of the most economically and militarily powerful country on Earth to spend time and political capital complaining about the coverage they receive. Moreover, the folks who watch Fox News (which is far more than watch CNN) are quite able to distinguish news programming from opinion programming and Obama’s assault on the network will not go over well as it implies that the people who watch it are, as Robert says, “delusional.”
I have no dog in the fight, but have watched Fox News from time to time (as well as other networks) and found their news coverage as opposed to their opinion coverage to be rather good, though admittedly more to the right (really the center) than other networks.
“This is another case of Obama not acting presidential. He’s good at campaigning but nothing else. If I was him the last thing I would do is draw attention to Fox. It just makes more people watch them so I don’t know why he would want that. ”
You beat me to the punch AndyB. That is how I feel too. In this country when you tell people they can’t do something or have something then you make then want that forbidden fruit even more.
I do not have cable TV. I have never watched FOX News or the FOX channel or whatever it is on cable. Conservatives don’t need FOX to be conservative. Conservatism won’t go away.
“That last post was mine. I just got a new hard drive in my computer, so your site didn’t remember me…”
I totally figured out it was you Robert. Your writing style on this forum is very familiar to me.
I thought you were an architect Robert. You schlep packages on the weekends for cash too?
“Me to white house. Obama is not a ‘real’ president!”
Awesome! I so agree.
Quickly, because I have to get back to my real work, the job that pays my bills…
-The FOX News article you linked didn’t attribute the whole thing to Obama. In fact, they specifically say at the end that most people attribute most of the deficit to Bush, so it’s obvious you never even read the article you linked. Sad.
-The CBO Estimate was a projection, one that was outdone by the actual crash and the realities that followed.
-You can’t link MediaMatters, gay-rights blogs or any other OPINION material and claim it as fact. The CBO thing was good; go find more information like that. Find something more scientific, something tangible.
-Beck, as we all know, is opinion. He bills himself as such. Only Bill O’Reilly calls himself balanced news, and I agree that he is balanced–especially when pitted against Keith “Potty Mouth” Olbermann.
I’ll have to post more later.
First, Fox reports news all day and allows both viewpoints in discussing whatever topic there is. As I have said a million times, Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow would never have a dissenting opinion on their show.
Second, it would not have been effective for Bush to speak on MSNBC because NOBODY WOULD HAVE SEEN IT. Nobody but crazy liberals who like to exist in their own bubble and call that “the norm” watches it or regards it for anything more that what it is – boring satire. It’s not even FUN satire.
Even if Bush declined interviews to people like Rachel Maddow, he did not make it a point to have his staff single out MSNBC as a network that doesn’t report real news.
This is the first time a presidential administration – WHO HAS DONE NOTHING that he promised his base in the first year of his presidency has spent more time fighting his critics and singling out Rush Limbaugh and Fox News than he has at actually trying to accomplish the crazy things he promised.
And the fact that Robert spends more time on gayconservative.org fighting with Mel about Fox News rather than standing outside of the White House screaming at his elected Messiah for making a direct fool out of him and the rest of his fellow-insane liberals shows how far up his ass his head remains.
“If you actually READ the article, it does not attribute the deficit to Obama, it clearly lists all components of the deficit”
Sorry, I linked the wrong page. Fox Nation’s website is actually the one who posted this headline:
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-nation/foxnation-posts-fy09-budget-deficit-falsehood/
And I guess you have a way to weasel out of this, because apparently, Fox Nation, although owned and operated by Fox News, calls itself an “opinion AND news site”, so I suppose you could make the argument that that particular story was one of opinion (although you’d have a hard time making that argument, seeing as how they used actual numbers and the real deficit; they merely attributed said deficit to the wrong person).
” I still don’t see where the lie is, here. If a $1.2 trillion deficit was already in place before Obama was inaugurated, HE, as a senator, voted to spend that money and then, once in office, demanded that MORE be spent. How is that NOT tripling the deficit?”
That is quite a stretch and I’m fairly certain you know that. That’s like saying that the US is somehow responsible for the holocaust because it didn’t stop Hitler sooner. It’s spurious thinking to try to prove a point, and it’s not appreciated.
“Notice that I typed ALL of the above without one reference to your intelligence or personal attack of any kind.”
That’s odd, I don’t remember attacking you, but if you can bring to my attention any instance in which I did, I’d be more than willing to apologize to you.
“I totally figured out it was you Robert. Your writing style on this forum is very familiar to me.”
I don’t know if that’s good or bad…
“I thought you were an architect Robert. You schlep packages on the weekends for cash too?”
I’m not an architect (although I’d like to be someday), in this firm I’m a project manager. And yeah, I work for a courier on the weekends (I’m on call today because it’s kind of slow). My family has a trip to Big Bear planned for Christmas, so I could use the extra cash.
“That’s like saying that the US is somehow responsible for the holocaust because it didn’t stop Hitler sooner.”
In my opinion, Robert, everyone in Europe and the US bears some responsibility for the Holocaust. We are not entirely at fault, because obviously, we didn’t carry out the acts. But by refusing to stop Hitler before he could do what he did, we bear a little of the responsibility. I think Europe bears more because they actively tried to appease him and in so doing gave him all the room he needed to create the power to take over most of Europe and kill six million Jews and five million ethnic minorities, however, my take on that is we’re not 100% innocent. Everyone was still pissed off about helping our allies during WWI and didn’t want to get involved again.
That said…
“It’s spurious thinking to try to prove a point, and it’s not appreciated.”
Actually, he made a good point. If you know that the deficit is high and you come into office and spend hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached, then yes, it’s your fault that it gets worse. Don’t give me that song and dance about the cost of the tow truck again…there was no reason to keep doling out bailout money (Bush was in the wrong for starting it), and the stimulus was, and still is, a joke.
Stimulus money is going to projects that don’t give anything back to the community. Recovery.gov isn’t really tracking all of it. There was one “art” project given stimulus money that supported a nudist gathering. Not cool.
“You can’t link MediaMatters, gay-rights blogs or any other OPINION material and claim it as fact.”
Why not? They provide links to their sources, and play video quoting people caught in lies. Besides, you take Fox News, which is absolutely opinion and claim that it’s fact…
I also forgot to mention Fox’s disgusting “reporting” of Kevin Jenning’s alleged cover up of statutory rape. They claimed this even AFTER facts of the situation made clear that this then 16 (not 15 as Hannity claimed) year old high school student known only as Brewster, came to Jennings (who was then a guidance counselor at his Massachusetts school) and told him that he was having homosexual feelings. FOX twisted this to mean that the student confessed a sexual relationship with an older man and that Jennings had committed a crime by not only not reporting it to the authorities, but by advising the student to use a condom (that devious bastard!). There are so many misstated “facts” made by numerous FOX news hosts, including those who host the so called news segments. First of all, this kid was sixteen years old at the time, and was not having sex with anyone, as was reported by FOX news. Second, even if this student were having sex with an older man, there would have been nothing illegal about it, what with the legal age of consent being sixteen. FOX intentionally misrepresented this story with the intent to (in my belief) smear the administration. The person who was thought by FOX to have been raped as a child has come forward and told his side of the story, which is what I just summarized. He is now in his thirties, and is thankful that Jennings was there for him to talk to. He views himself as a well adjusted person who happens to be gay. He also said that he doesn’t think his life would have turned out the same if people like Jennings weren’t there to support him and guide him through the murky waters of adolescence.
It should be apparent to anyone that FOX News sees its job to be to undermine the president. And after years of hearing from this very same network that anyone who criticizes or questions the President during a time of war should be considered unpatriotic and treasonous, I find it highly hypocritical that their revised mission statement seems to be to do what they had preached against for so long.
And if there is any lingering doubt from conservatives that FOX News is indeed not real news, consider the fact that a FOX News affiliate in Florida was sued several years ago for forcing two of its reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, to lie and pass it off as journalism for the sake of Monsanto. I had nearly forgotten about this story, as it is almost ten years old. Greg Palast (a real investigative journalist) reported on this several years ago. Apparently, these two journalists working for FOX had discovered that Monsanto was manufacturing and selling to farmers a growth hormone called RBsT. This hormone was used to get the cows to produce more milk. The hormone worked, but it also made the cows produce more pus, which, apparently in spite of pasteurization, was still making its way into publicly available milk. Well, these two journalists saw it as their duty (and rightly so) to inform the public about this disgusting practice, and the network heads kept asking them to revise the story, because it cast a negative light on Monsanto. After 183 revisions (yeah, that’s right), it apparently still wasn’t good enough for FOX, because they killed the story altogether. Akre and Wilson threatened to go to the FCC with it, and they were fired as a result of this. The two fought back, and sued FOX for firing them after they refused to lie. In a jury of her peers, Akre won her lawsuit against FOX, and FOX was ordered to pay Akre almost half a million dollars. FOX News was convicted in court of law of intentionally distorting the news. A court of appeals (meaning no jury was involved) overturned the conviction and forced Akre to pay FOX’s legal bills, which were fronted by Rupert Murdoch. The reason for the appellate court’s decision? There is, according to them, no law against fixing the news. FOX’s lawyers argued that just because the FCC has “rules” against this unethical practice, it had no basis in law. This court basically issued a ruling saying that no law exists to prevent lying to the public over the publicly owned airwaves by a news organization.
FOX has been on this path ever since. And for conservatives to come out of the woodwork and claim that the White House is engaging in a war with FOX news in laughable. This is not a war, this is pushback, the operative word being back. And let me just remind everyone that the White House is not trying to silence these liars dressed up in news attire, they’re not trying to remove anyone from the air; hell, they’ve never even said they would never give interviews to FOX. All they did was state a fact: FOX is not a legitimate news organization. Why conservatives get so up in arms over a mere observation of fact is beyond me. I’ve also heard conservatives say that FOX News is being targeted. This is absurd. When the president of the United States refuses to take questions from Helen Thomas and banishes her to the back of the room for asking tough questions, then you can say he’s targeting someone. When his VP outs a CIA covert operative for political revenge, then you can say people are being made targets. When he lets gay male prostitutes with phony press credentials into press conferences to lob softball questions at him, then you can say he only wants to talk to people who agree with him or will go easy on him. Until any of those things actually happen, I’d cool the ignorant rhetoric and put away your fangs for the choice being made to point out what any rational person can see for themselves…
“They provide links to their sources, and play video quoting people caught in lies. Besides, you take Fox News, which is absolutely opinion and claim that it’s fact…”
Many of them don’t. And in many cases, they’re twisting something to say something completely different. I find it hilarious that you quote Hannity to prove that FOX lies, but Hannity is opinion and bills himself as such. At least Hannity has real liberals on regularly. O’Reilly isn’t conservative, either.
As for the Kevin Jennings thing…while I will agree that some bloggers and opinion show hosts (like Hannity) haven’t gotten their facts straight all the time, the age of consent in most states is eighteen, not sixteen. Even if the state the incident occurred in was sixteen, one thing that conservatives have an issue with is sex ed in schools and giving kids unfettered access to condoms and abortions. A teacher can’t give a kid an aspirin without signed parental consent, but they can direct a kid to an abortion clinic without needing the parent to know? How screwed up is this? I’m not willing to call Jennings a child molester, but I don’t have any respect for the guy, either. He holds an actual child molester named Harry Hay in very high regard.
“And if there is any lingering doubt from conservatives that FOX News is indeed not real news, consider the fact that a FOX News affiliate in Florida was sued several years ago for forcing two of its reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, to lie and pass it off as journalism for the sake of Monsanto.”
Oh, Robert…is that the only real example you’ve got? I can post an entire series of blogs on deliberate lies, blatant stupidity and spectacular hypocrisies peddled as truth and news by all of the other networks. In fact, I think I’ll do just that.
And as for FOX winning on appeal, they were right–it had no basis in law and the judge in the original case wasn’t permitted to award any money based on the fact that FOX wanted to “cover up” the news. I’ve heard of other networks doing far worse than that story. Were they wrong? Sure. But any network reserves the right to kill a story, even if killing it will result in people later asking, “why did you do that?”
Actually it was JENNINGS who said the kid was 15, not Hannity!
“Actually it was JENNINGS who said the kid was 15, not Hannity!”
I heard Hannity say it with my own ears.
“Oh, Robert…is that the only real example you’ve got? I can post an entire series of blogs on deliberate lies, blatant stupidity and spectacular hypocrisies peddled as truth and news by all of the other networks. In fact, I think I’ll do just that”
Please do. And don’t forget to include which of them were convicted by a court of law for doing so. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re defending this, but I am. It’s nice to know that you think it should be perfectly legal that an organization trying to pass itself off as news can lie to the public and get away with it. This should deflate your arguments here and now, seeing as how you’ve just basically admitted that FOX does indeed lie to its viewers. You’ve just made it a legal issue, rather than a factually based one.
“Were they wrong? Sure. But any network reserves the right to kill a story, even if killing it will result in people later asking, “why did you do that?””
FOX was not convicted of killing a story, they were convicted of trying to force journalists to deliberately distort a news story, and for firing them when they refused to do so based on ethical grounds. You’re right to assert that FOX had the right to kill the story, but they did not have the right to lie to the public and call it news.
You know, this country had a long standing trust in news organizations, and it’s because television and radio stations used to have to adhere to much stricter standards than they do today. And FOX knows that by adding “News” to the end of their name, they’ll automatically enjoy some public trust (granted, by largely ignorant people). And this is one of the major beefs I have with Clinton. When he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, he basically kicked in the doors on media ownership and made it a free for all, where people like Rupert Murdoch can own a disproportionate share of media outlets. I listen to these old radio guys, and they often speak of the times where program directors would literally be fired for even being seen talking to a sales person. Now, at many of the major networks, their news division falls under the umbrella of entertainment. It’s ludicrous. And it’s not just FOX, it’s just that they’re the most blatant about it.
And then you have people like Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi being that country’s version of Murdoch, by buying a newspaper, then a radio station, then a TV station, then another newspaper, then another radio station, then a TV network, and before you know it, this one person owns 95% of all television, radio, and print media in the country. And what do you do when you have that much of the media reporting whatever you want them to? Why, you run for office, of course. And it should surprise no one when the guy wins. Of course, now that he is Prime Minister, he’s sold many of his media outlets (conflict of interest of course), and his media empire has dwindled to almost 50% of media ownership. But this kind of stuff is dangerous to democracy, because it inevitably kills smaller voices and promotes monopoly. Monopoly in any industry is a terrible thing, but especially in media, because that is how people get their information.
“Brewster, came to Jennings … and told him that he was having homosexual feelings. FOX twisted this to mean that the student confessed a sexual relationship with an older man and that Jennings had committed a crime by not only not reporting it to the authorities, but by advising the student to use a condom (that devious bastard!)”
I’ve been arguing/discussing the Jennings case for the past few weeks over at Zombietime, the blog that started pushing the Hay/NAMBLA side of the story after the Brewster controversy was already in the news.
And one of the points I’ve made the whole time is that although the “Brewster incident” happened when Jennings was a 24-year-old rookie teacher, most of what we know about the event is based on how Jennings recounted it SIX YEARS LATER, in a 1994 book about being a gay teacher.
And I thought this was significant because after six more years’ worth of life experience, Jennings still seemed to think that his “use a condom” advice was essentially a good idea — rather than expressing regret and embarrassment that, as a naive 24-year-old, he’d given the gay teenager some pretty dubious guidance. And of course, we know that Jennings continued to re-tell the story over the years without much self-criticism, and only in the past few weeks, when called on it, has Jennings publicly recanted the advice he gave to Brewster way back when.
It’s funny to me when you think on the simplest terms with liberals…
Yeah, Barney Frank lived with an escort….BUT HE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT.
Yeah, Jennings was the original one who said the kid was 15, BUT he was really 16, AND THAT is old enough! Hey, some 35 year olds apparently agree – as did Jennings, LOL.
Yeah, Gerry Studds – on taxpayer time and money – screwed a male page in Portugal. BUT DAMMIT, THE KID WAS 17!
There isn’t rationalization required in the world of the normal, but watching them clutch onto what they believe makes it okay is really the best treat. It’s quite self-elevating.
“Please do. And don’t forget to include which of them were convicted by a court of law for doing so.”
Great! Since liberals are back to playing THIS game, let’s demand the same of the following:
1.) Bush started a phony war and is guilty of genocide.
2.) Please state which court of law handed Al Gore the election in 2000.
3.) Please let us know which court of law found Mark Foley to be guilty of sending e-mails.
4.) Please let us know which court of law convicted Sarah Palin of abusing her power, banning books, and charging women for rape kits.
5.) Please let us know which court of law convicted Tom DeLay of a 90,000.00 transaction.
6.) Please let us know which court of law convicted the Bush administration of illegally wiretapping. Also, let us know which court of law has yet to determine that anything in the Patriot Act was criminal.
7.) Please tell us which court of law convicted George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or Condoleezza Rice for outing the identity of Valerie Plame. (no, an appeasing-to-liberals perjury conviction against Scooter Libby does not count!)
If we could get liberals to shut up about anything that was logically and fairly brought before a court, there would be no “basis” for half of your arguments!
Now, without convictions – you can selectively skim through the above list, Robert – and make any damned moral judgment you want without being hauled off to Gitmo (as Dennis Kucinich liberals believe will eventually happen to them) – but when conservatives make better arguments about the sick-and-deranged (not to mention the compulsive tax cheats) members of Obama’s cabinet, shut the hell up and stop complaining.
The fact is, Fox has put this information out there for the American people to make their own choices on….it seems to me it didn’t change your mind one way or another did it? So, what is your position? That the rest of the country is ignorant?
MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ALL are just as guilty of any political leanings you think Fox has. The only difference is that you guys are such a bunch of cry babies (along with your Messiah) that the entire country – even liberals like Helen Thomas – are laughing at you.
“I heard Hannity say it with my own ears.”
Wait, you actually watch FOX? Or did you just see a YouTube clip? I heard it, too, but Steve is right–Jennings was the first to claim that “Brewster” was only 15.
“And don’t forget to include which of them were convicted by a court of law for doing so.”
Oh, Christ, Robert…please show me where in the law it is illegal for a press agent to lie to the public. If it were, a good number of reporters would have spent time in jail now. All that incident you listed proves is that a FOX affiliate–a small one at that–asked their reporters to give a story that didn’t adhere to what the reporters wanted. I’m still searching for actual news related to that, news that WAS NOT posted on a blog without links to the actual reports.
There are times when I wish media lies were illegal, but it would fly in the face of the First Amendment. Lying while under oath or to a police officer is illegal. Lying anywhere else isn’t. You and I would both be in prison if it were. Every person in America tells a lie here and there, even if only to avoid hurting someone’s feelings.
A group does not have to be convicted of lying to the public for the lie to be exposed. Read my latest blog. A lie is a lie, even if the law doesn’t recognize it as such. Grow the hell up.
“but when conservatives make better arguments about the sick-and-deranged (not to mention the compulsive tax cheats) members of Obama’s cabinet, shut the hell up and stop complaining.”
Is this what the cons do when they’re force fed facts, change the subject altogether? You know what I found conspicuously missing from your rant? A denial. Seeing as how you cannot refute the facts that I put forward, perhaps you should shut the hell up, buddy.
“The only difference is that you guys are such a bunch of cry babies”
It’s funny that you can accuse anyone of being a crybaby after jumping on the increasingly small bandwagon commandeered by crybaby extraordinaire Chris Wallace by taking the position that FOX is being targeted for anything other than an observation of fact. So not only are you the only crybaby to speak of, you’re also a hypocrite. Typical con…
“Wait, you actually watch FOX?”
I do, regularly. I usually always end up correcting the television set. Goofy habit.
“please show me where in the law it is illegal for a press agent to lie to the public.”
Why are you acting as if it’s too much to ask that a media organization that brands itself news report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly? Whether you think it’s a good thing or not, people put their trust into what is reported as news in this country. I think that stems from what I mentioned yesterday, about these kinds of organizations being held to higher standards in older times. I’m sure that future generations will not hold the news in high regard for just these kinds of reasons, and I think that’s a terrible thing. But to answer your question, I don’t know what law specifically bans the practice of lying over the public airwaves. I would think that contractually, any news organization is legally bound to uphold FCC standards (of which lying is banned). But, according to this court of appeals, such a law does not exist, and that clearly has set a terrible precedent.
“Read my latest blog. A lie is a lie, even if the law doesn’t recognize it as such. Grow the hell up.”
This argument is hackneyed already. You’re defending an organization’s (that brands itself news) despicable and dangerous decisions to willfully misinform the public in regards to a health issue, and yet I’m the one who needs to grow up because I pointed it out. Have you lost your mind? You need to start taking your own advice, big time…
“It’s funny that you can accuse anyone of being a crybaby after jumping on the increasingly small bandwagon commandeered by crybaby extraordinaire Chris Wallace by taking the position that FOX is being targeted for anything other than an observation of fact.”
No, I am not. I merely think it is funny that we have a President right now who has written two books (total sales together still won’t match the sales of Palin’s ) – and attached Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in both of them, THEN after becoming elected, singling out ONE NEWS NETWORK (and Rush Limbaugh).
The point, Robert – is that if Obama could refute his opposition in an intellectually honest way, there would be no problem here.
Once again, even GWB did not single out Dan Rather and CBS after running phony documents on a sitting President’s national service while we were in war time.
“I merely think it is funny that we have a President right now who has written two books (total sales together still won’t match the sales of Palin’s )”
Here’s what I find funny: you think life is one big popularity contest to see who can sell more of what. But never once have you stumbled upon the extreme likelihood that books like Palin’s are bought in bulk by organizations like the Weekly Standard, then given away for free to new and existing subscribers. Do you honestly think that people are genuinely interested in any writing that she attaches her name to? Of course you do. You’re also a true believer that her book sales are from average Americans hungry for some of that famous Palin pontificating.
“Once again, even GWB did not single out Dan Rather and CBS after running phony documents on a sitting President’s national service while we were in war time.”
And who exactly did Obama single out at FOX? And there’s a glaring difference here Steve; CBS did not knowingly air a story using fraudulent documents, which is why CBS initially defended the story. And when signs pointed to them being fraudulent, CBS and Rather issued a retraction. I have yet to witness FOX retract any of their numerous lies, let alone apologize for them.
“But never once have you stumbled upon the extreme likelihood that books like Palin’s are bought in bulk by organizations like the Weekly Standard”
No, Robert. That’s been refuted long ago. Book clubs and conservative book clubs do not count toward the sale of a book. Crown Publishing defended that years ago when you guys were saying that about Ann Coulter’s books. Then miraculously one book came out that sold about 100,000 less copies than her previous and suddenly that conspiracy died and Keith Olbermann forgot all about it when he reported it.
If you guys could get away with it, you’d be saying that conservative warehouses across the land set up thousands of radios and turned them on daily to falsely lead Americans to believe that 20 million people really listen to Rush. (Lord, what kind of monster did I just create?)
“You’re also a true believer that her book sales are from average Americans hungry for some of that famous Palin pontificating.”
Pontification from Palin? We’ve been over her numerous successes many times and the only part you remember is that she quit (of course having nothing to do with crazy liberals filing multiple ethics charges against her and wasting the state’s money). To the contrary -
First: I can easily tell that it’s you who’s annoyed at the fact that Palin is not going away, that her book is so successful, that she’s going on Oprah, and that her endorsement of Doug Hoffman knocked him into the number one spot among his Rep and Dem opponents in one week short and scored him record amounts of political contributions in one day. Yes, I know you’re annoyed – get over it.
With regard to pontification, let’s see:
1.) Closing Guantanamo, crazy liberals happy, still not done.
2.) Ending the war in Iraq, crazy liberals happy, still not done.
3.) Improving conditions on Afghanistan, some crazy liberals happy, some kind of mad, still not done – in fact it is worse.
4.) Improving unemployment, crazy liberals happy, still increasing every month since he’s been elected.
5.) Increasing tax revenue, crazy liberals happy because they think the rich are finally going to get what’s coming to them, but tax revenue has decreased because nobody’s making money and the others just aren’t working.
To his credit, he did get the White House daughters a dog as he promised. Oh yes, and he finally completed the family portrait!
To all of you out there wondering why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I do believe I just answered it….
Not only are liberals braindead when it comes to choosing their battles, they’re also braindead at selling out to politicians who collect massive taxpayer-funded paychecks and spend their life pontificating.
“And who exactly did Obama single out at FOX? And there’s a glaring difference here Steve; CBS did not knowingly air a story using fraudulent documents, which is why CBS initially defended the story. And when signs pointed to them being fraudulent, CBS and Rather issued a retraction. I have yet to witness FOX retract any of their numerous lies, let alone apologize for them.”
You, like Al Franken, have been unable to properly define what a lie is. If Fox made a mistake occasionally, that is fine. I am certain MSNBC (like introducing Jessie Jackson as Al Sharpton – can you imagine what would have happened if that were Fox, I can imagine the media matters link now) and CNN have had their share as well.
No other administration in history has done this. Only one conclusion makes sense. They cannot argue back adequately and they are (as Ann Coulter put) “thin-skinned cry babies.”
By the way Robert, my hat IS off to you.
Unlike Obama and the administration, you do have the balls to show up and fight for what you believe in.
And moreover; while I think you are so mis-guided, you’re ten times smarter than anybody working in his cabinet.
There’s your annual compliment. Enjoy.
“And there’s a glaring difference here Steve; CBS did not knowingly air a story using fraudulent documents, which is why CBS initially defended the story.”
They didn’t knowingly air a story using fraudulent docutments? How can you say they didn’t know when they didn’t even do any fact-checking? Rather got these phony documents, read them, and never questioned their veracity. They were quickly and easily debunked by the very typeface that was used to create them by a blog that I don’t even agree with all the time – Little Green Footballs first broke the story.
There was no excuse for that. Nor is there any excuse for assigning the title of “racist” to Rush for quotes that he never spoke. Hannity only said Brewster was 15 because he was quoting Jennings. FOX pointed out ALL of the points of the budget deficit. And one small affiliate does not mean that the entire news organization is corrupt.
If you want true proof of liberal bias, talk to Tim Russert and Chris Matthews–both of whom worked for Democrat presidents as speech writers.
Speaking of Chris Matthews, I remember the call Elizabeth Edwards made to Ann Coulter while Coulter was on his show. Simultaneously, we know John was out working on a campaign while covering up a more-than-likely illegit baby.
That was a total setup of Matthews way before Coulter even came on. Can you imagine Fox having Laura Bush call up Geraldo Rivera during one of his late night Bush rants?
“Why are you acting as if it’s too much to ask that a media organization that brands itself news report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly?”
That’s not my point, Robert, and you fully know it. My point is that it is not illegal for a news organization to lie. Nor should it be. Unethical? Absolutely, and if that affiliate did it they should be fined by the FCC. Which is all that can happen, because FCC regulations are NOT LAW. Which network was it that did a supposed expose on Ford trucks blowing up during wrecks and putting charges in the gas tanks of said trucks to provide false evidence? Oh, yeah, that was NBC. And that WASN’T just an affiliate. It was on Dateline.
The major networks do and say things all the time at the national level that demean entire companies, affect people’s opinions and tear down people’s reputations, and they’re rarely held accountable for it.
“But, according to this court of appeals, such a law does not exist, and that clearly has set a terrible precedent.”
No, it hasn’t. You can’t have First Amendment freedom of speech right next to laws that ban lying to the public. A lie is a lie, pure and simple. Since FOX never allowed any lies to be aired, the claim that they tried to force the reporters to actually lie is, to me, mere speculation. The original trial court flagrantly disregarded the law by making an award based on nonexistent law. Creating one would be truly Unconstitutional.
“Can you imagine Fox having Laura Bush call up Geraldo Rivera during one of his late night Bush rants?”
God, Steve, the roar would have been absolutely deafening. We never would have heard the end of it. ‘Course, Bush hasn’t lived down mucking up an old Southern saying (“fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice shame on…uh…”), yet Hillary gets a pass for giving her Russian counterpart a “reset” button that really said “overcharge” in Russian. Sarah Palin will never be forgiven for referring to Africa as a country, but Urkel can refer to the “Austrian laungage” and the media yawns.
I might just have to post about that, too…
“That’s not my point, Robert, and you fully know it. My point is that it is not illegal for a news organization to lie”
Funny how your point went from ‘FOX doesn’t lie’ to ‘it’s not illegal to pass a lie off as news’…
“Which network was it that did a supposed expose on Ford trucks blowing up during wrecks and putting charges in the gas tanks of said trucks to provide false evidence? Oh, yeah, that was NBC. And that WASN’T just an affiliate. It was on Dateline.”
Show me the proof, and I’ll jump right over to your side. And you keep saying “just an affiliate” in a sad attempt to alleviate any wrongdoing on the part of the network. It’s owned and operated by News Corporation, just like the rest of FOX News. If it was “just an affiliate”, and an anomaly, then why did Rupert Murdoch pay all of their legal fees?
“The original trial court flagrantly disregarded the law by making an award based on nonexistent law. Creating one would be truly Unconstitutional.”
This is so despicable that it’s getting a little tough to stomach. I suppose you also think it should be legal to fire someone as retaliation for threatening to expose FCC violations? News organizations, when applying for broadcasting licenses, agree to uphold broadcasting standards, the major one of which is to act in good faith and to serve the public good (literally if meets the public interest, convenience, or necessity). That good cannot be served if news stories are being deliberately distorted to protect the reputation of a corporation, or to gratuitously slander someone. And as I stated before, I’m positive that news organizations are contractually obligated to abide by FCC regulations. The FCC is a government agency, therefore any violation of its regulations should constitute a violation of law. Hiding behind the first amendment (which is a totally false argument) just shows how low you’re willing to go to try to protect your flimsy position.
“Funny how your point went from ‘FOX doesn’t lie’ to ‘it’s not illegal to pass a lie off as news’…”
Actually, my point was that FOX is a legitimate news organization and they don’t always lie and malign people the way liberals swear they do (which we both know is the truth…I’ve not met a single liberal who’s willing to regard FOX as news in the least).
“Show me the proof, and I’ll jump right over to your side.”
Here’s from a press conference back in 1993, just after the story aired:
And an online copy of a Washington Post column about false reporting in the news, including the 1993 scandal where Dateline did a story on GM trucks that exploded in side-impact wrecks and didn’t get desired results initially–so they strapped toy rockets to the gas tanks to make them blow up:
http://walterolson.com/articles/wpexperts.html
The scandal happened. I remember seeing it endlessly on the news; my family was living in Houston and my parents were considering a GM vehicle at the time.
“…then why did Rupert Murdoch pay all of their legal fees?”
How do you know he personally paid the fees with full knowledge of what was going on? And where’s the source of your information, while you’re asking for evidence from me?
“I suppose you also think it should be legal to fire someone as retaliation for threatening to expose FCC violations?”
You’re really an ass sometimes, you know that? Just because I disagree with your argument that it should be illegal for the press to lie doesn’t mean I agree with their actions. This kind of shit is getting annoying.
“The FCC is a government agency, therefore any violation of its regulations should constitute a violation of law.”
Then I guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake should go to jail, right? So should every reporter in history who has ever lied or failed to do proper fact-checking on their stories. As I said, if it’s true that FOX pressured their reporters to lie, they should be fined appropriately. But they had every right under the law to be protected from prosecution on the basis of nonexistent law. If you start trying to legislate telling the truth, we’ll all be in trouble, and YES, like it or not, it would be a complete violation of the First Amendment. When anybody in the press lies it’s usually picked up by the public and exposed, and rightly so.
“Hiding behind the first amendment (which is a totally false argument) just shows how low you’re willing to go to try to protect your flimsy position.”
I don’t think so. Again, go read my latest blog. The MSM has committed the sin of lying, whether deliberately or not, so many times it’s despicable. You are willing to call an entire news organization a cadre of liars and claim that all they do is make up their own facts when it’s not true just because you can’t stand their refusal to show the same BS liberal bias that we all know is in the news. Talk about low.
“Actually, my point was that FOX is a legitimate news organization and they don’t always lie and malign people the way liberals swear they do”
So, it’s okay to lie, but only sometimes?
“I’ve not met a single liberal who’s willing to regard FOX as news in the least”
Me neither. Weird.
“And an online copy of a Washington Post column about false reporting in the news, including the 1993 scandal where Dateline did a story on GM trucks that exploded in side-impact wrecks and didn’t get desired results initially–so they strapped toy rockets to the gas tanks to make them blow up:”
I’d just like to point out that I am willing to take your online article (that is NOT from the paper’s website) at face value, and not bitch about it not being an accurate representation of what was printed in the paper. Apropos of that, NBC should have been dragged into court for that stunt. I’m not a big fan of NBC, having first recognized their (along with every other network’s) willingness to join the Bush Administration in the march to war. GE’s ownership of NBC was an eyebrow raiser from the outset, and firing Phil Donahue was an outright hostile act to those who dared question the, as Smedley Butler put it, racket of war. I have a particular distaste for Chuck Todd, who, before his current position as White House correspondent, served as NBC’s political director. He made what can only be considered an undemocratic decision last year to disinvite Dennis Kucinich from a Democratic debate in Las Vegas, NBC having invited him a few days prior (FOX pulled a similar stunt with Ron Paul). Kucinich fought the decision in a Nevada court of law and won, but at the last moments, NBC was allowed to bar a presidential candidate from a debate by an appeals court. So, NBC’s underhanded tactics are not news to me, but staging an accident with the intent to scare the hell out of viewers is. Like I said, NBC (or Dateline’s producers at the very least) should have been hauled into court. I have no idea why they weren’t.
“How do you know he personally paid the fees with full knowledge of what was going on?”
Because the affiliate was owned and operated by FOX News. And since its parent company is News Corp., and that’s owned by Murdoch, that kind of makes it his business. If you want to split hairs, you can say News Corp. footed the bill. It’s six of one, half a dozen of the other…
“And where’s the source of your information, while you’re asking for evidence from me?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtvt
“You’re really an ass sometimes, you know that?”
So I’ve heard. Tell a friend.
“Just because I disagree with your argument that it should be illegal for the press to lie doesn’t mean I agree with their actions.”
Then why defend only part of their actions? In for a penny, in for a pound, I say…
“Then I guess Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake should go to jail, right? ”
Jail’s a bit excessive. A fine would have been sufficient, and I believe one or both of them were fined.
“If you start trying to legislate telling the truth, we’ll all be in trouble, and YES, like it or not, it would be a complete violation of the First Amendment”
Since when it is constitutionally protected to lie to the public using publicly owned airwaves? I suppose lying at some sort of symposium, while still despicable, would not rise to this level of putridity. When you’re broadcasting over publicly owned airwaves, there’s both an implied and explicit duty to inform the public truthfully and with their best interests being served. Knowingly violating that is no more protected speech than is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
“When anybody in the press lies it’s usually picked up by the public and exposed, and rightly so.”
The public never got a chance to see the story, and thanks to two whistle blowers, the public did become aware of it. And the actual basis of the law suit was the wrongful termination, but it was on the grounds that they were fired for refusing to report “a false, distorted or slanted story”. I suppose if FOX had not fired the two, there would be no reason to file suit, but it just brought to light the sleazy tactics that FOX has come to be known for (apparently only by liberals, never mind the fact that over 90% of people don’t pay any mind to the network).
“The MSM has committed the sin of lying, whether deliberately or not, so many times it’s despicable”
That does not absolve the wrongdoing in this particular case! Saying everyone else does it was not a viable excuse in the fourth grade, and it’s not now.
“You are willing to call an entire news organization a cadre of liars and claim that all they do is make up their own facts when it’s not true just because you can’t stand their refusal to show the same BS liberal bias that we all know is in the news.”
It’s been shown time and time again that that’s exactly what they do. And some people still have the gall to say that the network isn’t biased. Compare them to MSNBC all you want, but MSNBC doesn’t call themselves news. CNN should have put Lou Dobbs on Headline News a long time ago. He would have been able to keep Glenn Beck company before his show tanked. And what liberal bias are we talking about here? The only media company that I can think of off the top of my head (besides FOX News) that went down that bad road of media bias was the New York Times, and it ended badly, because they pushed harder than just about anyone I know for war in Iraq. Most “media” bias is kept in op-eds, as it should be. The Wall Street Journal is a perfect example of this. Despite being a part of Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate, it manages to do real reporting; its opinion page, on the other hand, is rife with right wing leanings.
Here’s a great summary of Fox’s opinion shows blurred with “news”:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910290044
Don’t worry, it’s only Jon Stewart
You may enjoy my blog, The Glenn Beck Review, at http://sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com
Why isn’t anyone getting angry with PBS News? Maybe because it really is news… Stop watching the Cable News and get the Real News… PBS!
Trackbacks
One Trackback