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

[LowlyPion]

It sounds like you watch his shows...pretty ENTERTAINING... isn't he?

I see snippets on occasion. But I am careful not to watch too long, because I have a personal theory that stupidity may have secondary contact effects, and I prefer not to get infected, just immunized.

 

[edward]

He's on a cable news channel in the afternoon. Who does he compete with...Oprah and Dr. Phil?

I'm more concerned about my kids watching the Simpsons and Family Guy in Prime Time.

LOL I'd rather have a tooth pulled rather than watch Oprah or Dr Phil. You are definitely right about kids watching the Simpson's and Family Guy.

 

[Proton Soup]

Of course not ... so long as it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

Here's the logo from their website for Heaven's sake.

From what I can see, that seems to go beyond deception and looks like plain fraud.

i think you are confused about the first amendment. it wasn't reporting of cold facts that the founders chose to protect, but inflammatory rhetoric. the federalist papers were not shipping manifests.

 

[Al68]

I appreciate that you hold that opinion (which I certainly don't share), but I don't see how that is relevant to whether a fringe-pot would seemingly entrap police officers and murder them, because he was laboring under some desperate thought that he might no longer be allowed to arm himself, or that communists were taking over, or whatever fantastic illusion he had latched onto, when these are apparently the kind of rhetorical flourishes that Fox News has been shoveling in their attempt to whip up dissent with the current administration.

I didn't say it was relevant to all that. It's relevant to

...it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

I have no interest in claiming that any news show is "unbiased", Fox or otherwise. But the purpose of the first amendment is necessarily to protect inflammatory and outrageous speech. And especially even the kind of speech that could lead to revolt. This isn't the extreme of what is protected, it's the primary purpose.

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre or saying "gimme your wallet or die" is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

 

[isabelle]

He's on a cable news channel in the afternoon. Who does he compete with...Oprah and Dr. Phil?

I'm more concerned about my kids watching the Simpsons and Family Guy in Prime Time.

Glenn Beck is an idiot who doesn't have a clue what fascism is, watching that horrible clip it's obvious that he is trying to use the association between Nazis and the word 'facism' to advance his own political dogma while enriching himself.

On the other hand, Homer Simpson is an animated idiot whose purpose is to deliver lighthearted entertainment to teenagers and immature adults, with the ultimate goal of enriching his creators.

How ironic that Beck, who appears on an electronic screen to spew hate speech in the form of fake news about fake enemies, gives a 'warning' that we are becoming a 1984 society. In fact, I'm sure that if this were 1984, or Germany in 1935 for that matter, Beck would be kissing-up to the administration rather then opposing it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre ... is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

And it's a crime, because (among other things) it endangers people's lives...

 

[G01]

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.

I agree. I personally do not agree with FOX or their politics, but what they are doing is not illegal.

 

[Al68]

And it's a crime, because (among other things) it endangers people's lives...

So did the Federalist papers, speeches by Lincoln, and many other examples.

I think the key words are "among other things".

 

[LowlyPion]

This isn't the extreme of what is protected, it's the primary purpose.

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre or saying "gimme your wallet or die" is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

I tend to agree with your point, and certainly I have no difficulty with viewing seditious speech as protected.

But there is also public responsibility insofar as Fox - "Fair and Balanced" they call themselves - might encourage acts that maybe aren't against the organization of government, but do result in unlawful behavior as a result of scare content that while dramatic and theatrical as far as its presentation, might tend to mislead weaker minds. While I don't see a sufficient nexus between Fox's antics and the Pittsburgh case, absent some direct connection, I do see Fox as choosing a lesser god of profit and polemics over being more socially responsible than misdirecting those weaker minds that they are knowingly catering to with their content.

Here is an example of their content, which arguably does not rise to any level of responsible analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDEM2X4UZU

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Compare that to a quality news program, like This Week, with George Stephanopoulos - what idiots like Beck and other right-wing zealots refer to as "the liberal media".
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7033169

If the link is having trouble, go here
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

and see the Best of This Week; WATCH: 'This Week' Debate: Economic
about half way down the page.

Compare that to the nonsense that Fox is airing. To call it "Fox News" is fraud. For starters, Fox should be sued for false advertising.

 

[WhoWee]

Glenn Beck is an idiot who doesn't have a clue what fascism is, watching that horrible clip it's obvious that he is trying to use the association between Nazis and the word 'facism' to advance his own political dogma while enriching himself.

On the other hand, Homer Simpson is an animated idiot whose purpose is to deliver lighthearted entertainment to teenagers and immature adults, with the ultimate goal of enriching his creators.

How ironic that Beck, who appears on an electronic screen to spew hate speech in the form of fake news about fake enemies, gives a 'warning' that we are becoming a 1984 society. In fact, I'm sure that if this were 1984, or Germany in 1935 for that matter, Beck would be kissing-up to the administration rather then opposing it.

Given your description, what's the difference between the animated feature and Beck...both spewing trash for profit?

Have you seen the violence in cartoons lately...at least Beck denounces violence.

 

[Al68]

I tend to agree with your point, and certainly I have no difficulty with viewing seditious speech as protected.

But there is also public responsibility insofar as Fox - "Fair and Balanced" they call themselves - might encourage acts that maybe aren't against the organization of government, but do result in unlawful behavior as a result of scare content that while dramatic and theatrical as far as its presentation, might tend to mislead weaker minds. While I don't see a sufficient nexus between Fox's antics and the Pittsburgh case, absent some direct connection, I do see Fox as choosing a lesser god of profit and polemics over being more socially responsible than misdirecting those weaker minds that they are knowingly catering to with their content.

Here is an example of their content, which arguably does not rise to any level of responsible analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDEM2X4UZU

Well, anyone with a mind so weak they could possibly get the impression that that is the content that is being referred to as objective journalism is having enough trouble just finding someone to tie their shoes for them.

That being said, it sounds like we agree on the free speech issue in general.

 

[edward]

Given your description, what's the difference between the animated feature and Beck...both spewing trash for profit?

Have you seen the violence in cartoons lately...at least Beck denounces violence.

The news content of Beck's performances is about the same as that in the cartoons.

He denounces violence out one side of his mouth while a clever choice of words incites violence out of the other.

While Nazi Video plays behind him the real news scrolls by at the bottom of the screen.

 

[Al68]

Compare that to a quality news program, like This Week, with George Stephanopoulos - what idiots like Beck and other right-wing zealots refer to as "the liberal media".

I thought in general it was the straight news that was referred to as the "liberal media", ie 6 o'clock news with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, AP, etc., where they're pretending to just report the news objectively, not political news programs where they are obviously presenting points of view, even if it's different and opposing points of view.

But I could be wrong, I haven't heard it every time anyone has used the phrase.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought in general it was the straight news that was referred to as the "liberal media", ie 6 o'clock news with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, AP, etc., where they're pretending to just report the news objectively, not political news programs where they are obviously presenting points of view, even if it's different and opposing points of view.

But I could be wrong, I haven't heard it every time anyone has used the phrase.

Just another lie perpetuated by the Fox-like nuts. Sure, any news source can be biased. In fact the first rule of journalism is that there is no completely unbiased report, but nothing on ABC, CBS, NBC, or certainly on PBS news has ever stooped to the base levels of Fox.

Note that Rather was forced to resign because one story that he reported wasn't accurate. And that only happened because he was tricked!

When Tim Russert died, [Russert ran the NBC news department], anyone who is anyone in Washington DC attended the funeral or memorial service. Why? Because Russert was considered to be the gold standard of journalism by Washington insiders.

When the Presidential candidates wanted unbiased moderators for their debates, they turned to PBS and CNN.

When you see Beck pretending to pour gasoline on someone, or a Fox guest suggesting that someone should kill Obama, is it any wonder that Foxheads find the real networks biased? "Biased" in that case means "not a fanatical right-wing zealot".

Take note also that the once respectable WSJ - a paper that I read daily for years - is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Another one bites the dust!

 

[NBAJam100]

For starters, Fox should be sued for false advertising.

What is with you and absurd lawsuits?

I have a sort of random side comment to throw in here that I'm sure many of you won't agree with or will declare a non-issue.

You have shows out there like the daily show, while although admittedly don't claim to be a legitimate news source, that influence probably more people than any of the actual news shows/companies combined. I am in my early/mid 20's and its amazing to me how many people jumped on the Obama train solely due to the daily show alone. I wasn't for or against either candidate in this election but as the election went on I started to question the motives of many of the Obama voters.

You would have kids running around campus rallying for Obama who knew NOTHING about his policies or plans of action. You would ask why they feel Obama is the best choice and about 80% of the time the only response I received was "We want change!" This is saying nothing about Obama himself, I am just commenting on the age demographic that I'm in and what I noticed. I am sure many kids in my age demographic had a strong knowledge of politics, but to me, it seemed as if the vast majority did not.

With that being said, I actually have more of a beef with these comedic news shows which apparently have a very strong impact on what you could call... weak minded (politically) individuals who could clearly be swayed to one side without knowing a damn thing about the candidate they are claiming to be the savior of our country.

Its great that people legitimately did want a positive change, but its kind of scary to see people being swayed in such a way with very little knowledge of what they are jumping into. That could lead to VERY BAD things.

 

[russ_watters]

Ivan, I'd like a quick clarification: Do you believe that what you are suggesting is how the 1st Amendment works/was intended to work or are you suggesting a new way for freedom of speech to work? If the former, you really need to provide evidence to support your claim, in the form of legal/historical/philosophical precedent.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, anyone with a mind so weak they could possibly get the impression that that is the content that is being referred to as objective journalism is having enough trouble just finding someone to tie their shoes for them.

The corollary to this is in my mind is that since Fox cultivates this kind of demographic they also have a responsibility not to take advantage of the less capable minds to whip up anti-social behavior. If Glen Beck is any indication of the kind of viewers they hope to attract to their network programming, then I'd say they surely must be reasonably expected to anticipate that antisocial behavior is an entirely possible result of such infantile but inflammatory polemical prattle.

That being said, it sounds like we agree on the free speech issue in general.

I enjoy mine. I see no reason to deny others theirs. Even Glen Beck if he thinks he can make a buck acting retarded on the air. But to the extent that his nonsense provokes similarly retarded thinking in those acting out on his incendiary rants, I can't see how he escapes total responsibility for any consequential helter skelter. It may not rise to a sufficient preponderance to sustain an adverse civil judgment, but the blame must still be his for advantaging himself without regard for the power that his words may have on these weaker minds that need help tying their shoes.

 

[Al68]

Just another lie perpetuated by the Fox-like nuts. Sure, any news source can be biased. In fact the first rule of journalism is that there is no completely unbiased report, but nothing on ABC, CBS, NBC, or certainly on PBS news has ever stooped to the base levels of Fox.

Note that Rather was forced to resign because one story that he reported wasn't accurate. And that only happened because he was tricked!

When Tim Russert died, [Russert ran the NBC news department], anyone who is anyone in Washington DC attended the funeral or memorial service. Why? Because Russert was considered to be the gold standard of journalism by Washington insiders.

When the Presidential candidates wanted unbiased moderators for their debates, they turned to PBS and CNN.

When you see Beck pretending to pour gasoline on someone, or a Fox guest suggesting that someone should kill Obama, is it any wonder that Foxheads find the real networks biased? "Biased" in that case means "not a fanatical right-wing zealot".

Take note also that the once respectable WSJ - a paper that I read daily for years - is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Another one bites the dust!

I can only assume that you're just pretending to miss my point.

 

[edward]

A bit of comic relief from John Stewart. BARAKNOPHOBIA

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey

 

[OmCheeto]

A bit of comic relief from John Stewart. BARAKNOPHOBIA

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey

Thank you ed. Even though I have cable, I only turn on the TV about once a month to make sure it still works, so I know I'm not wasting my money.

That clip was worth the $60 I pay a month.

Btw, does anyone know how to unsubscribe from Fox? Or do I have to cancel my cable altogether, in order to not support them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Btw, does anyone know how to unsubscribe from Fox? Or do I have to cancel my cable altogether, in order to not support them?

It depends on your cable package. I don't think Fox receives dividends from cable subscribers, but simply not watching counts. Ratings matter.

 

[WhoWee]

Compare that to a quality news program, like This Week, with George Stephanopoulos - what idiots like Beck and other right-wing zealots refer to as "the liberal media".
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7033169

Can anyone recall what job George used to have...other than being a Dem fund raiser for Dukakis and that other guy that lost...I think he might have worked for Clinton...was on TV a lot...something to do with news...can ANYONE remember?

I wonder if FOX was behind this story?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n2_v45/ai_13518566/

...or maybe this one
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940404,00.html

George is most certainly the MOST UNBIASED news man of ALL TIME...Beck could learn a lot about responsibility from George.

 

[LowlyPion]

George is most certainly the MOST UNBIASED news man of ALL TIME...Beck could learn a lot about responsibility from George.

Actually given his background Stephanopoulos is pretty fair handed in his treatments. While the previous administration was trying to hide the true costs in American lives of the Bush-Cheney adventure in Iraq, you have had Stephanopoulos stepping up to at least honor by name each week those that gave their lives - something that Bush-Cheney censored in not permitting the filming of bodies returning or of military funerals for those fallen.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to suggest that Beck in any way resembles a journalist, other than that he pretends to play one on TV.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually given his background Stephanopoulos is pretty fair handed in his treatments. While the previous administration was trying to hide the true costs in American lives of the Bush-Cheney adventure in Iraq, you have had Stephanopoulos stepping up to at least honor by name each week those that gave their lives - something that Bush-Cheney censored in not permitting the filming of bodies returning or of military funerals for those fallen.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to suggest that Beck in any way resembles a journalist, other than that he pretends to play one on TV.

Indeed, George's background is certainly not unbiased. He is a VERY talented spin-meister. I was really touched when he cried during Obama's inauguration.

I'm glad you brought up body counts...I haven't seen any daily body count reports since Obama took over...can anyone find a link?

I guess I'm not used to all of this transparency...I can't seem to find all of the info in clear site?

Beck is not a journalist...he is a political commentator...just like George.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm glad you brought up body counts...I haven't seen any daily body count reports since Obama took over...can anyone find a link?

I guess I'm not used to all of this transparency...I can't seem to find all of the info in clear site?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

The Department of Defense has other useful resources on casualties too:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/

I can't see that anything is being hidden ... now.

You may have missed this:

New media policy starts Monday at DAFB
By BETH MILLER • The News Journal • April 4, 2009
...Starting Monday, families of fallen U.S. military members may grant permission for news organizations to cover the return of their loved one’s remains to the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090404/NEWS/90404019

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

The Department of Defense has other useful resources on casualties too:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/

I can't see that anything is being hidden ... now.

You may have missed this:

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090404/NEWS/90404019

Just for the record...I personally know a number of people currently in harms way...I don't need to look at photos of coffins.

I looked through your links and still can't decipher the cumulative body count since Obama took office.

 

[LowlyPion]

Just for the record...I personally know a number of people currently in harms way...I don't need to look at photos of coffins.

I looked through your links and still can't decipher the cumulative body count since Obama took office.

Well, you're the one that chose to make it an excursion from the point that Fox is for the most part apparently presenting news commentary rather than news, ironically mislabeling it under the cloak of Fair and Balanced, and that somehow, inexplicably, George Stephanopolous, from an unrelated network, should be dirtied to the level of this clownish Glen Beck that spews his Roger Ailes inspired polemics.

As far as George S goes this of course is not the case. His treatment of a number of issues has to my mind been thorough and fair in laying out both sides of a question, unlike the overly theatrical Beck, who seemingly prizes smirks over insightful or apparently even thoughtful observation.

As to the current administration I completely miss your point that casualties are being hidden, as opposed to the prior administration that engaged in active censorship of most anything to do with casualties.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, you're the one that chose to make it an excursion from the point that Fox is for the most part apparently presenting news commentary rather than news, ironically mislabeling it under the cloak of Fair and Balanced, and that somehow, inexplicably, George Stephanopolous, from an unrelated network, should be dirtied to the level of this clownish Glen Beck that spews his Roger Ailes inspired polemics.

As far as George S goes this of course is not the case. His treatment of a number of issues has to my mind been thorough and fair in laying out both sides of a question, unlike the overly theatrical Beck, who seemingly prizes smirks over insightful or apparently even thoughtful observation.

As to the current administration I completely miss your point that casualties are being hidden, as opposed to the prior administration that engaged in active censorship of most anything to do with casualties.

i've never paid Stephi much mind since he became a newsman, except noticing how bad he was in the very beginning.

if you want a Dem talking head to pick on, tho, i suggest Lanny Davis. he is quite possibly the most dishonest spin shyster I've ever witnessed. but he's all whitebread boring compared to Beck. i even saw something a couple days ago that left me wondering if Lanny has switched allegiances to corporates now.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, you're the one that chose to make it an excursion from the point that Fox is for the most part apparently presenting news commentary rather than news, ironically mislabeling it under the cloak of Fair and Balanced, and that somehow, inexplicably, George Stephanopolous, from an unrelated network, should be dirtied to the level of this clownish Glen Beck that spews his Roger Ailes inspired polemics.

As far as George S goes this of course is not the case. His treatment of a number of issues has to my mind been thorough and fair in laying out both sides of a question, unlike the overly theatrical Beck, who seemingly prizes smirks over insightful or apparently even thoughtful observation.

As to the current administration I completely miss your point that casualties are being hidden, as opposed to the prior administration that engaged in active censorship of most anything to do with casualties.

Actually, Ivan made the comparison regarding George...and I reminded everyone that he's not a "newsman" per se.

For the record, I LIKE and RESPECT George Stephanopolous...but he's no Walter Cronkite when it comes to fair reporting. He tries...but he's a pure Democrat.

As for the Obama administration "hiding" casualties (NEVER SAID THAT)...my point is I just can't figure out how many people have actually been injured or died serving under Obama. When he said "transparent"...I expected easy to understand information...not something that needs extrapolated to be understood.

Under Bush, we got (from the media) a daily count plus a cumulative total...that's not exactly censorship.

As for Beck, he doesn't pretend to be a journalist.

 

[WhoWee]

i've never paid Stephi much mind since he became a newsman, except noticing how bad he was in the very beginning.

if you want a Dem talking head to pick on, tho, i suggest Lanny Davis. he is quite possibly the most dishonest spin shyster I've ever witnessed. but he's all whitebread boring compared to Beck. i even saw something a couple days ago that left me wondering if Lanny has switched allegiances to corporates now.

If I recall, Lanny is an attorney. He's clearly pro-Dem, but I wouldn't call him dishonest. His mild demeanor and soft approach is warming and often helps him make his point...he's non-threatening and a welcome change to all of the loudness on some of the shows.

I caught an episode recently where he made some pro-business comments as well. I don't remember the context, but think his concern was the possibility of government infringing upon private enterprise and contract law.

 

[Proton Soup]

If I recall, Lanny is an attorney. He's clearly pro-Dem, but I wouldn't call him dishonest. His mild demeanor and soft approach is warming and often helps him make his point...he's non-threatening and a welcome change to all of the loudness on some of the shows.

I caught an episode recently where he made some pro-business comments as well. I don't remember the context, but think his concern was the possibility of government infringing upon private enterprise and contract law.

i think he represents whatever cause will give him the most billable hours.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't see that anything is being hidden ... now.

One of the things that Obama criticized Bush for (correctly) was his off-the-books accounting of the war funding. But Obama's very first war funding request is exactly that:

President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-09-war-funding_N.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

You'd think that the Homeland Security report on Right wing hate groups posing a greater than external terrorist activities would sober up Fox a bit in their orgy of frothy rhetoric that they seem to sling pretty much throughout the day and evening under their "Fair and Balanced" flag.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

Now tomorrow comes the Fox promoted Tea Bagging Rallies. I'm guessing these rallies will be in dark auditoriums like the McCain Palin rallies so you can't see how empty the place is, how small the crowds.

So much for top down organized pseudo grass roots events.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

DHS warns of 'right-wing extremists'

...A new Department of Homeland Security report is warning law enforcement officials of a growing threat of “right-wing extremist groups.”

“The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn — including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit — could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities,” the report warns.

The report explains that threats so far have been “largely rhetorical,” but points to the April 4 shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh as a “recent example of potential violence associated with right-wing extremism...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21243.html

While Fox is stoking the fires with blatent lies that help to foster right-wing delusions, the DHS warns of a building threat.

Fox is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

[WhoWee]

You'd think that the Homeland Security report on Right wing hate groups posing a greater than external terrorist activities would sober up Fox a bit in their orgy of frothy rhetoric that they seem to sling pretty much throughout the day and evening under their "Fair and Balanced" flag.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

Now tomorrow comes the Fox promoted Tea Bagging Rallies. I'm guessing these rallies will be in dark auditoriums like the McCain Palin rallies so you can't see how empty the place is, how small the crowds.

So much for top down organized pseudo grass roots events.

As you predicted? NO!

There were hundreds of events with strong turnout. The TEA parties are what you make them. For the most part, the protests are about runaway spending of money we don't have...Democrat AND Republican.

Today, Obama said he was unaware of the whole thing...LOL!

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21243.html

While Fox is stoking the fires with blatent lies that help to foster right-wing delusions, the DHS warns of a building threat.

Fox is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Where is the report on Left Wing radicals...(former Weather Underground types) that MAY BE trying to influence students or (gasp) government officials?

 

[LowlyPion]

As you predicted? NO!

There were hundreds of events with strong turnout. The TEA parties are what you make them. For the most part, the protests are about runaway spending of money we don't have...Democrat AND Republican.

Today, Obama said he was unaware of the whole thing...LOL!

Turnout was pathetic at those tea bag events despite the nearly continuous promotion of them on Fox these past couple of weeks. The comical thing was Fox's claims that they were just there covering them because they were big news events, and then you had Fox's own on air reporters on the scene talking about the fascist government of the Obama administration, you had Fox's on air personalities not reporting the news, but headleading the demonstrations from the stages - Niel Cavuto in Sacremento caught lying on air about the size of the crowd, Glen Beck displaying his pitiful grasp of history in San Antonio, Sean Hannity regurgitating his rhetoric in Atlanta.

As to the size of the crowds ... some of these hundreds of spontaneous outpourings consisted of just a few individuals that were undoubtedly left wondering why they were there. But to put things in scale not even the total claimed nationwide is as large as any of a number of Obama campaign events, like the sea of people in St. Louis, or Kansas City or in Chicago on election evening, or at the inauguration. I saw no enthusiasm at any of the rallies that was, as Neil Cavuto was happily chirping, "palpable".

As to Fox News - it was neither fair nor balanced reporting. It was partisan anti-Obama advocacy - an event heavily promoted by them apparently as some desperate hope to make it seem like there really is some giant grassroots out there. As to the point of this thread, yesterday only served to demonstrate what a charade Fox News is as regards to being a fair and balanced news source, and the extent to which they are seeking to make the news, and not just report it, by fomenting with their rhetoric the kind of hostility that may have in fact led to an environment that nurtures the kind of thinking involved in the pre-meditated deaths of those officers in Pittsburgh.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I hadn't heard of the TEA parties until today (I've seen Fox News exactly once in my life, in a barber shop 5 years ago). But my local newspaper -- formerly left-wing, now centrist* -- did a big piece on them. I didn't realize they were promoted by anyone.

* I don't think they've ever endorsed a major Republican candidate for the presidency. But their articles lack the obvious bias they once had, and they've created a new position to respond to reader concerns on fairness.

 

[seycyrus]

Here we see once again, the blatant attempt to use this forum to promote a political agenda.

The cowardly refusal to obtain an unbiased comparative accounting of the material on FN versus other news sources is hilarious.

Talking about cherry picking your data, ehh comrades!

 

[seycyrus]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21243.html

... the DHS warns of a building threat.

Which Napolitano has already had to apologize for...

 

[WhoWee]

Turnout was pathetic at those tea bag events despite the nearly continuous promotion of them on Fox these past couple of weeks. The comical thing was Fox's claims that they were just there covering them because they were big news events, and then you had Fox's own on air reporters on the scene talking about the fascist government of the Obama administration, you had Fox's on air personalities not reporting the news, but headleading the demonstrations from the stages - Niel Cavuto in Sacremento caught lying on air about the size of the crowd, Glen Beck displaying his pitiful grasp of history in San Antonio, Sean Hannity regurgitating his rhetoric in Atlanta.

As to the size of the crowds ... some of these hundreds of spontaneous outpourings consisted of just a few individuals that were undoubtedly left wondering why they were there. But to put things in scale not even the total claimed nationwide is as large as any of a number of Obama campaign events, like the sea of people in St. Louis, or Kansas City or in Chicago on election evening, or at the inauguration. I saw no enthusiasm at any of the rallies that was, as Neil Cavuto was happily chirping, "palpable".

As to Fox News - it was neither fair nor balanced reporting. It was partisan anti-Obama advocacy - an event heavily promoted by them apparently as some desperate hope to make it seem like there really is some giant grassroots out there. As to the point of this thread, yesterday only served to demonstrate what a charade Fox News is as regards to being a fair and balanced news source, and the extent to which they are seeking to make the news, and not just report it, by fomenting with their rhetoric the kind of hostility that may have in fact led to an environment that nurtures the kind of thinking involved in the pre-meditated deaths of those officers in Pittsburgh.

Here's some "fair and balanced" reporting from CNN

 

[drankin]

Here's some "fair and balanced" reporting from CNN

The reporter totally ignores why those people are there and tries to debate them on "taxes". As if that is all they are there about. Sure, FN isn't really "fair & balanced" as they advertise, but CNN shows that they aren't either.

 

[LowlyPion]

The reporter totally ignores why those people are there and tries to debate them on "taxes". As if that is all they are there about. Sure, FN isn't really "fair & balanced" as they advertise, but CNN shows that they aren't either.

Perhaps the reporter was confused then, along with the rest of the country, because the sponsors have been calling it a Tax Equality Association T E A Party? They were gathering symbolically on Taxes due day.

Perhaps it needs to be rebranded then into something intelligible that actually makes sense and affects those people's taxes that showed up at some of these events. (Calling it a Libertarian Rally would have gotten bupkus apparently.) Otherwise, it was apparently just a gathering of the disgruntled in difficult economic times, whipped to a froth from incessant promotion on Fox, desperately seeking some wedge issue that they can use to create an identity, any identity that can get traction for their socially conservative causes.

As it stands now though their brand of ideology was pretty thoroughly repudiated at the polls in November. The Nation sees where the highway the Conservatives want to build goes. It looks to be a bee line straight to the bridge to nowhere.

Thanks. But no thanks.

 

[LowlyPion]

As a measure of how Fox has crossed the line from reporting the news to becoming the news and driving events - a definite journalistic no-no - here is a survey of the extent of their promotion leading up to these tea bag events:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200904150033?f=h_latest

From April 6 to April 13, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests scheduled to take place on April 15 and aired at least 73 in-show and commercial promotions for their upcoming April 15 coverage of the events, a Media Matters for America study has found. As Media Matters has documented, Fox News has aggressively promoted the events in recent weeks, encouraging viewers to get involved with tea-party protests across the country. Indeed, Fox News has repeatedly described them as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." On April 15, four of the network's hosts will be broadcasting live from various tea parties.

To the extent that they are working to exploit divisiveness in a difficult economy, to amplify the polarities, then it certainly seems to me that they must also shoulder some of the burden for when 3 policemen are killed by any whack nuts that would misguidedly buy into their rhetoric.

 

[LowlyPion]

Tonight's The Daily Show, does a very excellent job of highlighting the issues for yesterday's Tea Parties.

When the episode is available , I'll get a link, but it is worth catching if available on cable.

 

[NBAJam100]

Tonight's The Daily Show, does a very excellent job of highlighting the issues for yesterday's Tea Parties.

When the episode is available , I'll get a link, but it is worth catching if available on cable.

Yeah, that's a reliable source... Its not like the daily show has any clear political bias...

 

[edward]

SCOTTSDALE — Arizona's two U.S. senators lashed out Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security for what they said amounts to profiling people as terror risks based on their political beliefs.
Sen. Jon Kyl said he understands the need for the agency charged with helping to protect the country from terrorists to understand where the threats may be coming from. And he acknowledged that Homeland Security has done various similar reports.
But Kyl said a 10-page memo on right-wing extremists, prepared earlier this month, goes over the line. "It's rather odd to be so specifically oriented toward . . . a political point of view," he said. "If it's a real assessment of threats, I would think there are a whole lot of things you'd look at in addition to these kinds of political beliefs."
The memo warns of how economic problems, as well as the election of the first black president, have provided fertile recruiting conditions for some extremist organizations.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/288961.php

Republican senators Kyle and McCain had no problem when it was liberals being profiled by DHS.

Hmm I wonder who may be stirring up the radical right to the point that DHS has perceived them as a threat?

 

[edward]

Yeah, that's a reliable source... Its not like the daily show has any clear political bias...

No more so than Beck, and Orielly the fair and balanced guys.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You'd think that the Homeland Security report on Right wing hate groups posing a greater than external terrorist activities would sober up Fox a bit in their orgy of frothy rhetoric that they seem to sling pretty much throughout the day and evening under their "Fair and Balanced" flag.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/dhs-report-right-wing/

Now tomorrow comes the Fox promoted Tea Bagging Rallies. I'm guessing these rallies will be in dark auditoriums like the McCain Palin rallies so you can't see how empty the place is, how small the crowds.

So much for top down organized pseudo grass roots events.

I may be mistaken but I am fairly certain that most rightwing orgs are pro-local law enforcement. Can you show me any examples of rightwing groups targeting police officers? Otherwise this doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not Fox is liable for someone who shot three cops.

Do you maybe have examples of Fox making people blow up abortion clinics or burn crosses on people lawns? Maybe even just a neo-nazi giving someone a skinhead smile?