Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?

  1. Apr 8, 2009 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200904070009

    On the CNN noon broadcast today, Rick Sanchez, who IMO is not a serious journalist, is quoting a friend of Poplawski, who allegedly directly links Poplawski's killing spree to recent right-wing conspiracy rhetoric. He mentioned both Fox and hate radio. So far I don't see anything else about this, but this only ran thirty minutes ago.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 8, 2009 #2
    http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html [Broken]

    If it is true that he has been stockpiling wepoins for a couple of years now, then his paranoia would have started before Obama took office.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  4. Apr 8, 2009 #3

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    True statement, but I'm not sure what your point is. I certainly don't think Poplawski's actions in any way suggest that Glenn Beck is going to go on a shooting spree in two years. I think the overwhelming majority of mentally unstable people just say crazy things; not actually do crazy things.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  5. Apr 8, 2009 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, and Fox and hate radio have been spreading every lie conceivable, no matter how absurd, and stoking the fires as fast as they can. They should be sued out of existence.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Apr 8, 2009 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From your link, Ivan:
    This thread isn't just about a conspiracy theory, it is forwarding a conspiracy theory in the title.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2009
  7. Apr 8, 2009 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could that statement be any more uselessly broad/obviously impossible?
    Dang, that 1st amendment is really annoying if people aren't saying what you want them to say, isn't it? If you get rid of Fox and conservative talk radio, you also have to get rid of their admittedly less popular counterparts. Liberals have a forum that conservatives don't, though: movies. There is a case before the USSC right now that could seriously hinder guys like Michael Moore (it isn't about accuracy, but political campaigning).

    You're a big fan of Coast to Coast, right? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzpt - gone.
     
  8. Apr 8, 2009 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Which probably also means he's been listening to Alex Jones for longer too...
     
  9. Apr 8, 2009 #8
    Responding to the OP: No, I've never heard Fox condone or "motivate" the killing of cops. If you have anything written, an audio clip, or video to even support the idea, that would make this thread more interesting.
     
  10. Apr 8, 2009 #9
    I dont quite think this can be pawned off on fox news... he clearly had mental problems and if it wasnt this that tipped him over the edge, it would have been something else.

    This reminds me of people blaming certain music artists for acts of teen suicide.
     
  11. Apr 8, 2009 #10

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Not exactly true. You're forgetting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Carol" [Broken]. Not that anyone would blame you. I figure the producers could forget the beating they got on it. But as a case in point it included a parody of Michael Moore that was well ... apparently not that funny.

    Then there's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071821/" [Broken]. Apparently another clunker. (Rated 2.7/10 at IMDB )

    The point is that the outlet of movies is available to conservatives - and the reflexive fundamentalists - it's just that its apparently not commercially viable. Undoubtedly a bitter pill.

    As to Hilary: The Movie that looks to me like a silly waste of effort that is apparently a response to the artistically acclaimed Fahrenheit 9/11. Apparently the only thing The Hilary movie won was public derision. Given that it was clearly an anti-candidate motivated expression, specifically targeted for release within the McCain-Feingold windows, as opposed to a balanced depiction of the Bush election and subsequently stumbling White House years a la Fahrenheit 9/11 - a movie that achieved artistic acclaim as well as commercial profitability grossing $120 million - suggests that the Supreme Court will likely not affirm what Citizens United intends.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Apr 8, 2009 #11

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure a clear nexus can be established between the acts of the gunman and the lopsided partisan journalism practiced by Fox News. It is a bit akin to the suits blaming consequential violence on violence in general on TV. There needs to be some personal responsibility along the line.

    But that said, I would think that Fox should feel no vindication, and in fact should feel some amount of shame, for their practices and the potential consequences that they are feeding into in their pursuit to profit in promoting Roger Ailes right wing polemics.
     
  13. Apr 9, 2009 #12
    I remember when D&D was evil and dangerous and responsible for teenagers going on killing sprees and getting involved in satanism. I wasn't born yet but I have certainly read about the congressional committee called in regards to the correlation of comic book reading and violent crime. Oh and Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine, I almost forgot.
     
  14. Apr 9, 2009 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can I blame Dan Fogelberg for turning me into a soft-hearted wuss?
     
  15. Apr 9, 2009 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A conspiracy! What conspiracy?

    noun: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
    noun: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
    noun: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

    Show me how what you cited that has anything to do with a conspiracy.
     
  16. Apr 9, 2009 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That remains to be seen. According to yesterdays CNN report, one person close to the gunman did assign responsibility to Fox.

    That same can be said for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, which is what Fox has been doing.

    Just as we have personal responsibility, the media has professional responsibilities. Note also that we have a legal system to make determinations wrt resposibility. That's one reason why we have civil courts.

    - a lesson learned by Sally Jessy Raphael.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2009
  17. Apr 9, 2009 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So you are equating inflammatory deceptions perpetrated on a bone-headed public with comic books?

    Marilyn perpetuated the myth that kids at Columbine are evil fascists who threaten their way of life? I'll need a source on that one.
     
  18. Apr 9, 2009 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How many labels have been applied to Obama? Should we make a list and have you defend it?

    There is a line that can't be crossed. You know that. We are not free to incite people to commit murder by lying about imaginary threats. There are first ammendment rights, but there is also a right to file law suits and assign responsiblity. Are you saying that we should abolish civil liability in order to protect Fox Noise and hate radio?

    No, I haven't even listened to more than a few episodes in something like five years, and only then when people like Brian Greene were on. Beyond that, Coast to Coast doesn't incite people to violence. But it was a nice try.

    Or. maybe you see Brian Greene as some kind of threat? Of course I'm sure you see him as some kind of crackpot.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2009
  19. Apr 9, 2009 #18
    yeah, ivan, you're dipping into kooksville here. mediamatters is about as obvious a fringe liberal activist site as one could find.

    as for motivation, first of all, the guy was a nut to begin with. he even got kicked out of the military i hear.

    also, a lot of non-nutty people who simply believe in the 2nd amendment are spooked by Obama. and it didn't help that he chose a guy that doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment for AG, and then that AG goes on to make some inflammatory statements on his first day.
     
  20. Apr 9, 2009 #19

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm less certain that Fox has been yelling fire, though people like Glen Beck and Dick Morris, the Fox and Friends hosts, et al. are pretty clearly in the business of stoking whatever dissent against the current administration with hyperbolic rhetoric, for what must be presumed as partisan reasons, or at best in order to profit off of playing to a partisan audience, but not out of any regard for presenting a balanced view that I can see.

    I will grant that with the economy brought down about our ears by the last administration's oversight and enforcement negligence there has undoubtedly been an increase in stress in general to the fabric of tolerance. And with rising home defaults and job losses, one can reasonably expect that there are some out there that are under pretty extreme stress.

    Now do the families of these Police officers have a case against Fox? I'd say not. Surely Fox has not been specifically urging nutcases to explode in civil violence against all authority. But should Fox seriously think about throttling back their more extreme moments of campaign like rhetoric, if only as a matter of being sensitive to the potential they have to create havoc, and promote increased social discord ...? I should hope that they would. But as it is today, after the tragic events in Pittsburgh, I see little sign that they are likely to change their partisan ways.

    With the multiplication of information outlets over cable TV and the Internet, the belt seems to have been loosened considerably on fair and balanced, as a result the scarcity argument that once sustained the FCC limitations for equal time seems less compelling, and looking into the future, one must suppose that there will be more, and not fewer, media outlets devoted to specific ideologies across the spectrum.
     
  21. Apr 9, 2009 #20
    I'd call that a good thing if true. I grew up with virtually all the media devoted to the same ideology, and it going unnoticed and denied by those that didn't recognize it because they assumed that they wouldn't be allowed to say it if it wasn't true. Even then, anyone who bothered doing any research would find that the news media put out lies and propaganda. Of course, there are still many who are completely ignorant of any opposing viewpoint because they listen exclusively to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.

    I can't even count the number of times that someone has told me they were on one side of an issue, while admitting they had no idea what the other side's point of view even was, except for a twisted version of it put out by their opponents.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?
  1. Hahaha (on Fox News) (Replies: 14)

  2. Fox News? President? Duh (Replies: 57)

  3. Should Fox News be banned (Replies: 325)

  4. Fox News Alert (Replies: 26)

Loading...