Can we agree to stop saying Fox News

[Le Jacquelope]

I fully intended my opening to be hyperbole and at least you're one who recognizes it when you see it.

I don't quite understand your second paragraph. Let me see if can tell you what I think you said. Fox News is filtered by it management so as to voice and instill its opinion into News Casts. In your opinon, this means what? This is a convoluted bit a verbiage LIAR. Let me know PM

If I'm correct in my assessment then we agree. Management filters the presentation and this is true at all networks (ABC,CBS, NBC, FOX,CNN, CNBC). Corporate management would be remiss if this weren't true.

Fox has been more successful at penetrating other networks supposed market and as a Libertarian I say "GO FOX' . ABC has been the most egregious violater of fair play. It has moved an entire operating system inside the White House. Hows that for cajones? GO ABC

What do you have to say about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox-owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle-blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not apply.[1]

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[2]

If you believe that story is untrue solely because it's on wikipedia, then here is some court documentation to back it up:

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdf

 

[jacks4u]

I fully intended my opening to be hyperbole and at least you're one who recognizes it when you see it.

I don't quite understand your second paragraph. Let me see if can tell you what I think you said. Fox News is filtered by it management so as to voice and instill its opinion into News Casts. In your opinon, this means what? This is a convoluted bit a verbiage LIAR. Let me know PM

If I'm correct in my assessment then we agree. Management filters the presentation and this is true at all networks (ABC,CBS, NBC, FOX,CNN, CNBC). Corporate management would be remiss if this weren't true.

Fox has been more successful at penetrating other networks supposed market and as a Libertarian I say "GO FOX' . ABC has been the most egregious violater of fair play. It has moved an entire operating system inside the White House. Hows that for cajones? GO ABC

I don't see PBS in there, at all. I listen to them, mostly on the radio, when they're not doing begathons. I get the impression they at least try to give fair and balanced news. Having no advertisers means they shouldn't be particularly influenced by any particular company, market or sector.

slanted/biased you say? Sure. but then aren't ALL the "news" channels? I mean, each reporter, each editor, each "news agency" adds a slant. It can't be helped. You see "Mauv" but I see "Ugly purple". I'm just saying there is no such thing as totally neutral news.

Of course, I could be a "Brain washed zombie clone from the right-left wing liberal conservative camp" or even the "brain-dead clone of a conservative liberal, anxiously flipping channels between CNN and Faux News".

 

[DG Hear]

How stupid can people get? You don't like Fox news then change the fucking station to one you agree with. How hard is that to do. Some people like Fox, others don't, learn to live with it.

If everyone hated it, it wouldn't be so popular. Your rants aren't going to change anyones opinion either way.
Geez!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I tuned in FOX this AM for a few minutes. The moderator had 2 guests, one Democrat, one Republican. They discussed ObamaCare. They called each other liars, and that was about it.

What do the Usual Suspects want? No Republicans on FOX?

 

[SAILOR954]

The problem with FOX News is that they're RIGHT!!

In more ways than one.

Which explains their ratings.

 

[Belegon]

How stupid can people get? You don't like Fox news then change the fucking station to one you agree with. How hard is that to do. Some people like Fox, others don't, learn to live with it.

If everyone hated it, it wouldn't be so popular. Your rants aren't going to change anyones opinion either way.
Geez!

First: Deliberately increasing your font size to 'scream' is just as impolite as all caps would be. Funny, how those that so often want to lay claim to how proper and correct they are also are the first to resort to incivility.

Second: Those who don't learn from history are indeed doomed to repeat it. One thing we all should be able to learn from the history of media in the 20th century is that the deliberate misrepresentation of items as being fair, balanced and factually accurate is dangerous.

I won't invoke the Nazi's. I don't need to go that far back.

Go to China, DG. Ask a person of 18 or younger to describe Tienanmen Square and it's historical significance. One of the things I found interesting about the "extra" coverage during the Olympics was a piece that was done on how the Chinese government has all but erased this watershed human rights event from living memory in their population.

And we are talking about an extensively documented and very "provable" event.

Third: When someone says something wrong, silence is often interpreted as agreement. Therefore, it is not useless for us to voice our opinion, if only to keep people like you from saying later that "no one was upset about it at the time."

Fourth: Popular does not mean anything other than showing how dangerous this is. Is Lady GaGa a better musician than Wynton Marsalis? I'll bet Lady GaGa sold more records in 2009. Oh, and for the public record, I have no issue with Lady GaGa, I am just illustrating a point.

And finally, on the subject of popularity again. I would say that Fox's popularity is a PERFECT example of "How stupid can people get?"

 

[cloudy]

First: Deliberately increasing your font size to 'scream' is just as impolite as all caps would be. Funny, how those that so often want to lay claim to how proper and correct they are also are the first to resort to incivility.

Second: Those who don't learn from history are indeed doomed to repeat it. One thing we all should be able to learn from the history of media in the 20th century is that the deliberate misrepresentation of items as being fair, balanced and factually accurate is dangerous.

I won't invoke the Nazi's. I don't need to go that far back.

Go to China, DG. Ask a person of 18 or younger to describe Tienanmen Square and it's historical significance. One of the things I found interesting about the "extra" coverage during the Olympics was a piece that was done on how the Chinese government has all but erased this watershed human rights event from living memory in their population.

And we are talking about an extensively documented and very "provable" event.

Third: When someone says something wrong, silence is often interpreted as agreement. Therefore, it is not useless for us to voice our opinion, if only to keep people like you from saying later that "no one was upset about it at the time."

Fourth: Popular does not mean anything other than showing how dangerous this is. Is Lady GaGa a better musician than Wynton Marsalis? I'll bet Lady GaGa sold more records in 2009. Oh, and for the public record, I have no issue with Lady GaGa, I am just illustrating a point.

And finally, on the subject of popularity again. I would say that Fox's popularity is a PERFECT example of "How stupid can people get?"

Amen, brother.

Remember that study that showed that people that watch Faux News are more ill-informed of current events than those who watch other news shows?. Many of the die-hard Faux fans polled still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.

'nuff said.

The problem with FOX News is that they're RIGHT!!

In more ways than one.

Which explains their ratings.

Oh, look...there's one now.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The problem with FOX News is that they're RIGHT!!

In more ways than one.

Which explains their ratings.

But they include Democrats in their discussions of issues. None of the others include Republicans.

My problem with FOX is the screaming and bickering that goes on. But the inforbabes are hot. CNN and MSNBC has Aunt Bea and Granny Clampett doing the news.

 

[DG Hear]

Second: Those who don't learn from history are indeed doomed to repeat it. One thing we all should be able to learn from the history of media in the 20th century is that the deliberate misrepresentation of items as being fair, balanced and factually accurate is dangerous.

Go to China, DG. Ask a person of 18 or younger to describe Tienanmen Square and it's historical significance. One of the things I found interesting about the "extra" coverage during the Olympics was a piece that was done on how the Chinese government has all but erased this watershed human rights event from living memory in their population.

Third: When someone says something wrong, silence is often interpreted as agreement. Therefore, it is not useless for us to voice our opinion, if only to keep people like you from saying later that "no one was upset about it at the time."

Fourth: Popular does not mean anything other than showing how dangerous this is. Is Lady GaGa a better musician than Wynton Marsalis? I'll bet Lady GaGa sold more records in 2009. Oh, and for the public record, I have no issue with Lady GaGa, I am just illustrating a point.

And finally, on the subject of popularity again. I would say that Fox's popularity is a PERFECT example of "How stupid can people get?"

Pardon me but what makes what you watch so right and what others watch so wrong? You can watch all the right wing, or left wing programs all you want. You can base tyour decisisons on what you believe.

Whether you are right or wrong doesn't make you any more special than anyone else. Again you are entitled to your opinions. I respect that. Others are entitled to theirs whether you believe they are crazy if of no consequence.

I have never found that telling people how wrong they are has ever really changed their opinion. It just makes everyone more opinionated.

You are from the left and that will never change. Anyone trying to change that opinion is pissing in the wind. The same goes for anyone on the right.

I don't watch much news but when I do, I will watch fox other than cnn or msnbc. If it makes me one of the millions of horrible unintelligent people because you disagree with it, so be it.

On the China debate at Tienanmen Square and it's historical significance. I sat with a young lady where I was working at the time and she was on the square during the massacare. She told me the story through her eyes and I hugged her while she cried. She lost many friends.

I believe people have a percieved idea both the right and the left. They both watch programs that agree with their perception. The A/H is divided much the same way.

I read your posts and I do believe you are sincere when you explain your opinions. Does it change a lot of minds of those that think differently? I doubt it but you will always get kudo's from them that agree with you.

Lastly, I don't think Fox is the only network that says things wrong. They are just the ones that those on the left will not overlook.
With respect
DG

 

[Dragonlipz]

But they include Democrats in their discussions of issues. None of the others include Republicans.

My problem with FOX is the screaming and bickering that goes on. But the inforbabes are hot. CNN and MSNBC has Aunt Bea and Granny Clampett doing the news.

MSNBC as well as CNN includes true Republicans; often Reps and Sens as point-counterpoint during their discussion of the issues, if you watched anything else you'd know that. And since you claim to actually watch some of the programming on the others, that makes you a liar, right?
As for hotties: I'd put Tamaron Hall up against any of the blonde-bubbleheads on FAUX - come to think of it, I'd like to myself up against her!
You are too easy, but that's what I love about you......

 

[Dragonlipz]

I don't watch much news but when I do, I will watch fox other than cnn or msnbc. If it makes me one of the millions of horrible unintelligent people because you disagree with it, so be it.

DG

So be it......

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MSNBC as well as CNN includes true Republicans; often Reps and Sens as point-counterpoint during their discussion of the issues, if you watched anything else you'd know that. And since you claim to actually watch some of the programming on the others, that makes you a liar, right?
As for hotties: I'd put Tamaron Hall up against any of the blonde-bubbleheads on FAUX - come to think of it, I'd like to myself up against her!
You are too easy, but that's what I love about you......

When I want to know what sort of hocus-pocus the jungle bunnies, spics, wogs, and fairies are into I watch CNN. If I wanna know what mainstream Democrats are up to I turn to FOX. Cuz Barney Frank and Jessie Jackson aint on FOX, and Hillary & Obama are!

 

[DeeZire]

Pardon me but what makes what you watch so right and what others watch so wrong? You can watch all the right wing, or left wing programs all you want. You can base tyour decisisons on what you believe.

A perfect example of "basing your decisions on what you believe" is Bush pushing the Iraq war. This war was based on lies, lies that were reinforced by Fox News, and to a lesser degree by the rest of the media. The point is, we can't make sound decisions based on false information. And we can't expect our democracy to remain viable if the voters are basing their decisions on false information. This is the danger of Fox News.

 

[cloudy]

A perfect example of "basing your decisions on what you believe" is Bush pushing the Iraq war. This war was based on lies, lies that were reinforced by Fox News, and to a lesser degree by the rest of the media. The point is, we can't make sound decisions based on false information. And we can't expect our democracy to remain viable if the voters are basing their decisions on false information. This is the danger of Fox News.

Don't confuse him with logic and reason. He'll have another hissy-fit.

 

[DeeZire]

But they include Democrats in their discussions of issues. None of the others include Republicans.

Excuse me JBJ, but if you spent any time at all listening to NPR or watching PBS, you would see and hear both sides represented in a civil discussion. There is no yelling on NPR or PBS. There is in depth coverage of the issues, with respected voices representing both sides of every story. Where CNN will do a 30 second sound bite-athon, NPR will do a 7 minute, in depth piece, with verifiable facts to bolster the sound bites. It can be quite enlightening.

 

[DG Hear]

A perfect example of "basing your decisions on what you believe" is Bush pushing the Iraq war. This war was based on lies, lies that were reinforced by Fox News, and to a lesser degree by the rest of the media. The point is, we can't make sound decisions based on false information. And we can't expect our democracy to remain viable if the voters are basing their decisions on false information. This is the danger of Fox News.

Yes I get it. Fox is trash, everything you watch is perfect and honest. We can totally trust it. Yeah, I get it. As I said either left or right, the minds are closed to opposite view.
Sad. Good thing we have you and your friends here to guide the untold millions into the light. Hell, Being a no all truth leader, you should have your own cult.

As for me, I don't believe either side. Can't put trust in any of them. Might as well listen to fox. I can get all the opposing views right here.

 

[lance gt]

All this over a lousy news channel? Two pages of bantering back and forth over something as uninteresting and futile as Fox itself. You people need to stop watching TV and do something else, seriously.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Pardon me but what makes what you watch so right and what others watch so wrong?

The answer to that is easy.

Fox News fought in court for the right to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox-owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle-blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not apply.[1]

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[2]

Court documents that back this story up: http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdf

 

[DG Hear]

The answer to that is easy.

Fox News fought in court for the right to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

I'm curious, to what stations do you feel gives you the truth. I'm being serious here. You hate Fox so who do you believe is telling us nothing but the truth. You see, I believe that when you hear lies from people, news or anywhere else, you never know when you're hearing the truth.

Apparently you have a sorce that gives you the truth and nothing but the truth. I'm interested in knowing who or where it comes from.

 

[JackLuis]

I don't think that you can take as gospel any one of the News outlets at face value. To get the "Whole" story, you need to diversify your sources.

I tend to check Aljazeera, the Jerusalem Post, The BBC and the English Papers, to see what our news sources are distorting. Even Pravada is better for some stories, like the news of the Caucases.

None of them are "unbiased", you have to accept that and gain a perspective based upon the position of the Source.

As for Fux News, they are perhaps more slanted than, say the Christian Science Monitor.

Flog "Fux Knows" all you want though. I used to watch O'Reilly, but even he was too revolting, and Beck! Ha! He should take a part time Job as a target for the police pistol range.

 

[DeeZire]

Apparently you have a sorce that gives you the truth and nothing but the truth. I'm interested in knowing who or where it comes from.

Factcheck.org is pretty good. The problem with that site is that they can be days or weeks behind the news cycle. The genius of Fox News is the power of the first impression. When Gov Sanford got popped for flying to Argentina to screw his mistress, Fox reported the story with a D next to Sanford's name, even though he's a R. So all the Fox News viewer's impression of D's as amoral scumbags was reinforced by the D after Sanford's name, even though it was a lie.

Studies have shown that once a myth has been established, trying to debunk the myth only reinforces it in the minds of those who believe in it, because seeing the myth discussed in the media gives it credibility. There was a book out a few years ago about framing issues, something the Right Wing perfected long before the Left was even aware of the tactic. A current example: People hear about Death Panels, and from then on, health care reform is all about death panels, when in reality, health care reform is all about saving the lives of those who have no access to health care.

Back to your question: Out of all the news outlets, Fox viewers score the lowest when tested for comprehension of actual facts relating to current events, NPR listeners score the highest. If you still insist on getting your news from Fox, I'd suggest your desire to reinforce your preconceived notions is stronger than your desire for the truth, but that's understandable. Being a conservative is all about resistance to change and maintaining a closed-minded view of the world, so in that respect, you're right on track, dude.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The answer to that is easy.

Fox News fought in court for the right to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

I'm curious, to what stations do you feel gives you the truth. I'm being serious here. You hate Fox so who do you believe is telling us nothing but the truth. You see, I believe that when you hear lies from people, news or anywhere else, you never know when you're hearing the truth.

Apparently you have a sorce that gives you the truth and nothing but the truth. I'm interested in knowing who or where it comes from.

You're deflecting. How many media companies do you know fought in court for the right to lie? How many of these same media companies do you know use the slogan "Fair and Balanced"?

(No, folks, I'm not expecting DG Hear to admit there's a disconnect between Fox calling itself 'fair and balanced' and arguing in court for the right to lie.)

Now I will answer your questions directly. I get my news from multiple sources: Worldnet Daily, Associated Press, Factcheck.org, Huffington Post, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, moveon.org, to name a few. Know your enemy and your allies.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

Let me explain it to you using the STAR KIST TUNA jingle.

Advertisers dont want viewers with good taste, they want viewers who taste good. Knuckle draggers make up 67% of Americans and watch FOX, 16% drool and wear Depends, and 16% are perfessers teaching Marxist economic philosophy and diddling barely legal coeds and watching CNN at Starbucks.

 

[Loring2]

You said it

How stupid can people get? You don't like Fox news then change the fucking station to one you agree with. How hard is that to do. Some people like Fox, others don't, learn to live with it.

If everyone hated it, it wouldn't be so popular. Your rants aren't going to change anyones opinion either way.
Geez!

You make my point succinctly and well but I think we're not talking about just Fox here DG.

The real problem is that some people here at LIT do not want the Fox point of view available to anyone anywhere at anytime in the misguided belief that this would make their own cramped lives better.

Such people usually consider themselves to be of superior intellect. Many are on the left side of the bell curve which represents the capability for intelligence however. Most do not posit a point of view except that of a group with which they identify. Even this identification is usually temporary.

God, Allah (name your own) be with them. They need it.

Loring

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You make my point succinctly and well but I think we're not talking about just Fox here DG.

The real problem is that some people here at LIT do not want the Fox point of view available to anyone anywhere at anytime in the misguided belief that this would make their own cramped lives better.

Such people usually consider themselves to be of superior intellect. Many are on the left side of the bell curve which represents the capability for intelligence however. Most do not posit a point of view except that of a group with which they identify. Even this identification is usually temporary.

God, Allah (name your own) be with them. They need it.

Loring

Oh, you don't think we're smart?

Dude, the liberal states are net producers of wealth. The right wing part of the country uses more welfare dollars than they contribute. The scientists on the right end of the bell curve, the ones who make things happen, certainly aren't Republican.

Please, do not get into a pissing contest on which side is more intelligent or successful.

Stick with the fact that you have been avoiding so far:
Fox "Fair and Balanced" News fought in court for the right to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox-owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle-blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not apply.[1]

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[2]

Court documents that back this story up: http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdf