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

[edward]

FOX news is driving the radical right. That is very obvious. Can they set off a loose cannon loner? IMHO I personally think that they can.

The man who shot the three policeman was afraid that his guns would be taken away. FOX and hate radio harps on that prospect daily.

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

FOX news is driving the radical right. That is very obvious. Can they set off a loose cannon loner? IMHO I personally think that they can.

The man who shot the three policeman was afraid that his guns would be taken away. FOX and hate radio harps on that prospect daily.

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

So you think that they created that fear in him? Do you think it would be unreasonable to assume that he already possessed such a fear and that perhaps he watched a news station that supported what he believes? And most importantly, do you see any real connection between a fear of the government banning guns and a decision to shoot at police officers who arrive at a house regarding a domestic dispute?

Personally I think that it would be safe to say that the guys nut was already cracked. So you may argue that Fox is irresponsible in that they could theoretically provoke people who are already nutbags to violent action. But the same could be said, and has been said, of all sorts of media as I have already pointed out. But at what point does this moral obligation become apparent and why? Do you agree with similar assessments made regarding other forms of media?

 

[Woody101]

If Fox News is responsible for 3 police officers being killed by a deranged individual then it naturally follows that Hollywood is responsible for all the street violence portray it in their movies that is acted out on the streets of this country every day. When rappers sing about killing cops, are they responsible too?

 

[LowlyPion]

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

Of course it has a political bias. They at least don't pretend to be fair and balanced.

Neither do they trumpet the polemics of the conservative Libertarians.

I thought the piece interviewing people in the crowd was quite funny.

Just as I thought the comments of the Fox Business reporter with the long hair calling the Obama administration a Fascist regime an interesting example of the kind of amped up rhetoric that Fox has been spewing.

Btw they are currently highlighting last nights show on the main page:
http://www.comedycentral.com/

 

[LowlyPion]

So you think that they created that fear in him? Do you think it would be unreasonable to assume that he already possessed such a fear and that perhaps he watched a news station that supported what he believes? And most importantly, do you see any real connection between a fear of the government banning guns and a decision to shoot at police officers who arrive at a house regarding a domestic dispute?

Personally I think that it would be safe to say that the guys nut was already cracked. So you may argue that Fox is irresponsible in that they could theoretically provoke people who are already nutbags to violent action. But the same could be said, and has been said, of all sorts of media as I have already pointed out. But at what point does this moral obligation become apparent and why? Do you agree with similar assessments made regarding other forms of media?

There is a bit of a distinction to be made between what Fox is doing and what goes on or may be triggered casually by general entertainment. Sure there are the whack jobs like Hinckley who's fantasy world embraced Taxi and thoughts of Jodie Foster in bizarrely morphing that into acting against Reagan. But that must be seen as totally incidental.

On the other hand Fox is pursuing an agenda that by its nature is political dissent, and their representations in the extreme, without regard for the Truth or the balance, looks considerably more consequentially responsible insofar as they would stoke and foment these hate groups and borderline hate groups and individuals.

To lump Fox in with others that are pursuing profit through entertainment, when Fox's real agenda is to promote the Roger Ailes brand of neo-conservatism then isn't in my mind quite the same thing at all.

Now if you can point to the polemics of Michael Moore, and identify some nexus to acts of civil violence, then I would agree that both would be culpable in a similar way. But until recently, like with the advent of Fox News, there really has been no news network that has been so clearly devoted to representing issues in such a partisan and polarizing way.

 

[seycyrus]

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/288961.php
Republican senators Kyle and McCain had no problem when it was liberals being profiled by DHS.

Please provide a link to the DHS report on "left wing extremism".

 

[WhoWee]

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

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.

Here is the link you need:

http://www.da.allegheny.pa.us/criminal_procedure.asp

You should notify the prosecutor that you have information related to a criminal conspiracy in a multiple felony ...homicide case.

 

[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.

Why is it appropriate and acceptable for liberal left persons including media to use the term "tea bagging"...gay sex terminology...to describe peaceful political protesters?

 

[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.

What exactly are the blatant lies...please list and verify...you know the rules.

 

[seycyrus]

Please provide a link to the DHS report on "left wing extremism".

In the interest of fairness and to respond to my own post, I must say that there is such a report.

I do note however, that the Rightwing version seems to apply it's brand in a much broader manner.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-r...apolitano-report-on-right-wing-extremism.html

It was such an application that caused Napolitano to publicly apologize, after all.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is the link you need:

http://www.da.allegheny.pa.us/criminal_procedure.asp

You should notify the prosecutor that you have information related to a criminal conspiracy in a multiple felony ...homicide case.

You're confused if you think that I have at any point suggested that civil or criminal liability would be attached to Fox News consequent to their inciting appeal to the more volatile and extremist groups in the country.

But to the extent that they have been contributing to the climate of social polarization as a tactical means to achieve a return to power to push their conservative fundamentalist positions on others, then certainly they are morally culpable.

To the extent that they have been promoting, sponsoring and hosting protests - becoming the news rather than passively reporting the news - then they have cast aside their status as reporters of the news and become participants in the arena. I'd say in the future that might leave them subject to FEC limitations, if not FCC.

 

[WhoWee]

You're confused if you think that I have at any point suggested that civil or criminal liability would be attached to Fox News consequent to their inciting appeal to the more volatile and extremist groups in the country.

But to the extent that they have been contributing to the climate of social polarization as a tactical means to achieve a return to power to push their conservative fundamentalist positions on others, then certainly they are morally culpable.

To the extent that they have been promoting, sponsoring and hosting protests - becoming the news rather than passively reporting the news - then they have cast aside their status as reporters of the news and become participants in the arena. I'd say in the future that might leave them subject to FEC limitations, if not FCC.

Here is my problem...unlike the CNN hard news reporter that chose to give her opinion rather than interview people, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are not reporters...they are political commentators/entertainers...their job is to give opinions...just like Howard Stern or Don Imus or Dennis Miller or G. Gordon Liddy or John Stewart or Juan Williams or Bill Mahrer or Larry King.

 

[LowlyPion]

Why is it appropriate and acceptable for liberal left persons including media to use the term "tea bagging"...gay sex terminology...to describe peaceful political protesters?

Perhaps the real question is why has this rag tag group of libertarians and conservative fundamentalists chosen a tea bag as their symbol?

Symbolically it's simply stupid. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. Not about taxation per se. If they had read their 8th grade texts, or made it that far, they might recall that England imposed the tea tax, while refusing to grant the colonists representation in the House of Commons. These folks with tea bags festooned from the brims of their hats have representation. In fact it's their representatives that are taxing them after all.

Moreover, they spend their time sloganeering about their love of The Republic, yet now that The Republic, that they pledged their allegiance and their love for, has repudiated what was once theirs to control, now they are whimpering at not being represented? Or is it that they are whimpering because they are no longer in power? In which case all they come off as are sore losers.

They lost the election. Their administration ran the country off a cliff. Their way of doing things has been repudiated. They should get over it, and act like adults and accept the fact that they got their ears boxed for good reason.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is a bit of a distinction to be made between what Fox is doing and what goes on or may be triggered casually by general entertainment. Sure there are the whack jobs like Hinckley who's fantasy world embraced Taxi and thoughts of Jodie Foster in bizarrely morphing that into acting against Reagan. But that must be seen as totally incidental.

On the other hand Fox is pursuing an agenda that by its nature is political dissent, and their representations in the extreme, without regard for the Truth or the balance, looks considerably more consequentially responsible insofar as they would stoke and foment these hate groups and borderline hate groups and individuals.

To lump Fox in with others that are pursuing profit through entertainment, when Fox's real agenda is to promote the Roger Ailes brand of neo-conservatism then isn't in my mind quite the same thing at all.

Now if you can point to the polemics of Michael Moore, and identify some nexus to acts of civil violence, then I would agree that both would be culpable in a similar way. But until recently, like with the advent of Fox News, there really has been no news network that has been so clearly devoted to representing issues in such a partisan and polarizing way.

Please see and answer my questions...

And most importantly, do you see any real connection between a fear of the government banning guns and a decision to shoot at police officers who arrive at a house regarding a domestic dispute?

...Can you show me any examples of rightwing groups targeting police officers?
...
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?

Can you honestly bring it all together?
Man shoots police called out on a domestic dispute. This is because Fox made him believe that Obama wants to take his guns away. Is there a logical connection or is the man just a deranged nutbag spouting rhetoric he heard on TV?
Hitler had a fondness for quoting Nietsche. I suppose Nietsche is responsible for driving him to crimes against humanity?

A cop slaying, some how convolutedly connected with Fox saying that Obama wants to take your guns away, is an indicator of Fox news fomenting hate groups. Is there a real connection between this cop shooting and rightwing hate groups? Are there in fact any instances of rightwing hate group violence that can be traced to Fox or is it just through this convoluted path?

When Fox says that Obama, who is definitely pro gun control and even campaigned on the issue, wants to take this mans guns away it is far more logical than these leaps you are making LP. It makes us look as bad as them.

We're talking about things so coveted as free speech and the right to dissent. Things so voiciferously touted by liberals/progressives only a few short months ago are suddenly the bane of society when excersized by people we don't agree with. These are the sorts of things that make me cringe at the idea of calling myself a liberal.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is my problem...unlike the CNN hard news reporter that chose to give her opinion rather than interview people, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are not reporters...they are political commentators/entertainers...their job is to give opinions...just like Howard Stern or Don Imus or Dennis Miller or G. Gordon Liddy or John Stewart or Juan Williams or Bill Mahrer or Larry King.

I won't argue that the CNN reporter wasn't a little aggressive in pursuing her interest in finding out why these people at the demonstrations were ignorant of the fact that taxes weren't even being raised for most all of them there on the 15th, except maybe the big bucks guys like Hannity and Cavuto and Beck who as it turns out likely will be affected by the Obama repeal of the Bush tax largesse.

But that is quite incidental to Fox's purposeful lineup from top to bottom from The Red Eye and Fox and Friend's Winkin', Blinkin and Nod, conservative crew, through Cavuto and later on Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity and Van Susteren - there simply no denying that their programming is heavily slanted toward promoting Conservative Fundamental Christian motifs.

The issue at point here of course is the extent to which this purposeful agenda of promoting and polarizing the position of the Right Wing Conservatives from the rest of the country has contributed to the air of conflict that might bring someone or encourage them to lash out at civil authority - 3 dead policemen - being a consequence, whether unintended perhaps, but certainly not unforeseeable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

becoming the news rather than passively reporting the news

Ever heard of Hunter S Thompson?

 

[LowlyPion]

Are there in fact any instances of rightwing hate group violence that can be traced to Fox or is it just through this convoluted path?

You are confusing me with someone that is saying there is a civil or criminal nexus with Fox News and the acts of a misguided individual. I don't see it.

What I do say is that their agenda of provocatively trying to exploit the fears of the population in pursuit of their political agenda to raise a chorus of dissent, apparently by any means, can't be seen as having clean hands, because they surely must understand the potential risks and consequences their polemics can bring.

Scaring people with the statement that Obama is going to take away guns when whatever plan is not yet even discussed or enacted in Congress, doesn't exactly sound like a responsible course. It does kind of sound like shouting Fire in a theater, if there is no fire, but not so much that I would say that you could necessarily meet a preponderance standard required for even a civil litigation.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps the real question is why has this rag tag group of libertarians and conservative fundamentalists chosen a tea bag as their symbol?

Symbolically it's simply stupid. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. Not about taxation per se. If they had read their 8th grade texts, or made it that far, they might recall that England imposed the tea tax, while refusing to grant the colonists representation in the House of Commons. These folks with tea bags festooned from the brims of their hats have representation. In fact it's their representatives that are taxing them after all.

Moreover, they spend their time sloganeering about their love of The Republic, yet now that The Republic, that they pledged their allegiance and their love for, has repudiated what was once theirs to control, now they are whimpering at not being represented? Or is it that they are whimpering because they are no longer in power? In which case all they come off as are sore losers.

They lost the election. Their administration ran the country off a cliff. Their way of doing things has been repudiated. They should get over it, and act like adults and accept the fact that they got their ears boxed for good reason.

As far as I can tell...the tea bagging comment started with Anderson Cooper (Gloria Vanderbilt's son and) CNN anchor.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2009/04/anderson-cooper-tea-bagging-is-a-mouthful/

The TEA Party movement - 2 mothers - wanted a symbolic name.

The real concern (on both sides now) is this:

Both the Dems and Repubs are now concerned that this will turn into a real third political party...basically (the Small Business Owners/Managers of America) Tea Party.

This group includes all of the people who own franchise businesses, manage retail stores and banks, work from home selling business services, factory reps, (all commission only salespeople really) real estate, insurance, vehicle/equipment sales, auto repair, maintenance, all types of contractors, farmers, etc.

This group does not align with big labor Dems or big business Repubs(or pro Wall St. Dems). This group pays taxes and is largely ignored by both parties. This group also pays for or contributes to their own health insurance and needs to pay for their own Aflac if they want income protection. This group does not want expanded unionization, increased minimum wage or Wall Street/bank or auto bailouts. This group typically has a 401K that has been shrunk by 40% and (unless they own their business and the land under it) don't have job security (like a government or union worker or welfare recipient).

If this group ever organizes...the $25,000 to $250,000 per year earners...the welfare state mentality will end as well as the big business bailouts. This group would most likely insist on term limits and smaller government/less regulation and a simplified tax code.

This is the real silent majority...this is also the Glen Beck audience.

 

[LowlyPion]

Ever heard of Hunter S Thompson?

Not really. But I did just read his bio on Wikipedia after your post.

Apparently he was into making the news still as his last act, though in his case it was not at all fictional.

 

[LowlyPion]

Both the Dems and Repubs are now concerned that this will turn into a real third political party...basically (the Small Business Owners/Managers of America) Tea Party.

Doesn't concern me. They look to have been an alternate party all along. They have called themselves Libertarians. My suspicion is that the Republican Party, already marginalized, will most likely morph into such a result, as I'd suspect that the corpus of the Red State Republican Parties will be more closely aligned with this ... movement, than the Republican Party of Michael Steele?

Interesting wasn't it that the Chicago "party" denied Steele the opportunity to speak at their humble gathering?

 

[seycyrus]

Perhaps the real question is why has this rag tag group of libertarians and conservative fundamentalists chosen a tea bag as their symbol?

Symbolically it's simply stupid. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. Not about taxation per se.

How amusing! A Regurgitation the liberal blogs.Do you honestly think you are foolling anyone besides yourself?

The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance against a government. That act illustrated the people's dissatisfaction.

*THAT* is why it was chosen.

The question was a great question. Why is it acceptable to redefine lower standards when the target is a conservative rather than a liberal?

Why is it acceptable for liberals to call people "losers", "stupid","idiots" etc. etc. simply because they disagree with them?

Why is it acceptable for conservatives right to free speech to be impinged at universities throughout this nation?

Why is potty humour tolerated, if not outright encouraged, when it is at a conservatives expense?

 

[edward]

So you think that they created that fear in him? Do you think it would be unreasonable to assume that he already possessed such a fear and that perhaps he watched a news station that supported what he believes? And most importantly, do you see any real connection between a fear of the government banning guns and a decision to shoot at police officers who arrive at a house regarding a domestic dispute?

It is my understanding that the domestic dispute call was originated due to the the mans activity in the home involving the guns. Domestic disputes are a dangerous situation for police , but they seldom result in a person intentionally waiting to kill police officers.

Personally I think that it would be safe to say that the guys nut was already cracked. So you may argue that Fox is irresponsible in that they could theoretically provoke people who are already nutbags to violent action. But the same could be said, and has been said, of all sorts of media as I have already pointed out. But at what point does this moral obligation become apparent and why? Do you agree with similar assessments made regarding other forms of media?

They certainly reinforced an irrational mans fears. He didn't get it from sitting at home and watching the comedy channel.

As for other media, hate radio doesn't help with people like this.

Even the other news channels comment on FOX news' hell bent rants on perceived gun control, socialism, communism and fascism coming to us in the near future.

 

[drankin]

So, are we blaming FN for this guy or just saying that they didn't help? If FN didn't exist, would this guy have done this? Maybe, maybe not. It a rediculous stretch to hold them responsible legally or otherwise. Basically, if some nut case does some crime should we hold any media they consume responsible? Of course not. This thread should be locked.

 

[LowlyPion]

How amusing! A Regurgitation the liberal blogs.Do you honestly think you are foolling anyone besides yourself?

The Boston Tea Party was an act of defiance against a government. That act illustrated the people's dissatisfaction.

*THAT* is why it was chosen.

The question was a great question. Why is it acceptable to redefine lower standards when the target is a conservative rather than a liberal?

Why is it acceptable for liberals to call people "losers", "stupid","idiots" etc. etc. simply because they disagree with them?

Why is it acceptable for conservatives right to free speech to be impinged at universities throughout this nation?

Why is potty humour tolerated, if not outright encouraged, when it is at a conservatives expense?

Lots of things express dissatisfaction. The idea of tea bags though is to my mind not particularly well though out given that it relies on historical events and the facts simply don't fit. Now while I certainly don't think all that highly of the intellects on display at these tea party events, or their promoters, I will agree that it is rude to call attention to things that they can't help about themselves, and so I agree that giving voice to such thoughts isn't a polite way to refer to others, even if true.

But as to potty humor, ... this is something that these folks brought on themselves. You think things would go better if they chose say a toilet plunger as their symbol, or a giant condom, or large clown feet? Face it the idea of sending and wearing tea bags is a pretty lame idea. The promoters that chose that iconic metaphor, I'd say really didn't have their CPUs going at full throttle to settle on such a flawed analogy.

 

[Al68]

Anyone else find it interesting that a thread supposedly about purported "hate speech" from the right is so full of hate speech from the left?

 

[LowlyPion]

So, are we blaming FN for this guy or just saying that they didn't help? If FN didn't exist, would this guy have done this? Maybe, maybe not. It a rediculous stretch to hold them responsible legally or otherwise. Basically, if some nut case does some crime should we hold any media they consume responsible? Of course not. This thread should be locked.

Consider the premise. Was the guy reacting to the idea that someone was taking away his guns? Was he watching Fox News? Do they falsely misrepresent themselves as "Fair and Balanced" to the extent that he might not be aware of their Conservative promotional agenda, but actually thinks they are a reliable "town crier". And finally has Fox been representing to these gun nuts in their demographics that Obama was taking their guns away?

I have readily agreed from the beginning that I doubt that there is sufficient evidence for any particular adverse judgment against Fox. I doubt, for instance, that they would have sent a memo about suggesting that they mobilize conservative gun toters and incite them with amplified representations about imminent gun controls to commit peremptory acts of violence. Fox lawyers and management surely know better than to put something like that in writing, even if they would think it. So is there a direct nexus, wherein actions by Fox in which they fully understood the risks of consequences, but recklessly proceeded regardless? I have serious doubts on that score.

But might they have a responsibility? I'd say that they just well may. With power comes responsibility.

 

[edward]

Time for some comic relief with: POTATO DAY

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is my understanding that the domestic dispute call was originated due to the the mans activity in the home involving the guns. Domestic disputes are a dangerous situation for police , but they seldom result in a person intentionally waiting to kill police officers.

So because of Fox News this man must have been impressed with the idea that these police were sent by Obama to take his guns away from him? And that's why he shot them?
Can you seriously connect these two things logically or would you agree that the man was most likely unhinged to begin with?

They certainly reinforced an irrational mans fears. He didn't get it from sitting at home and watching the comedy channel.

As for other media, hate radio doesn't help with people like this.

Anything could theoretically have pushed this mans buttons; websites, movies, books, music, an annoying wife or mother. And he chose to watch Fox News. Just like a suicidal person may chose to listen to music by bands like Marilyn Manson or Slayer. And people who consider murder may listen to violent music or may be attracted to violent video games. If the vast vast majority of people in this world can indulge in these froms of media without snapping and killing themselves or others can you really say that it is at all a foreseeable consequence of the medium and not really just a preexisting condition of the individual?

You are confusing me with someone that is saying there is a civil or criminal nexus with Fox News and the acts of a misguided individual. I don't see it.

You say that these are foreseeable consequences of their actions. That would make them criminally and civily liable. It would also take a string of logic that somehow connects Obama wanting to take away a mans guns to a man shooting police officers for it to be realisticly foreseeable. And that would apply regardless of whether you believe it to be criminal or just moral liability.
I am not going to hold anyone morally/ethically liable for the actions of others simply because there was an off chance that something they said may have been the straw that broke the camels back. Such a vague notion of ethical responsibility is all kinds of slippery. It would also fit into the sort of thinking that these rabid conservative ideologues like to promote.

 

[drankin]

Anyone else find it interesting that a thread supposedly about purported "hate speech" from the right is so full of hate speech from the left?

Absolutely. I hear more "hate speech" on this forum than any AM radio talk show. But the term is so ambigouos and subjective I refuse to use it in my normal vocabulary.

 

[LowlyPion]

Anything could theoretically have pushed this mans buttons; ...

That is rather the point. Buttons getting pushed. And on the pushing side of things you have Fox News repetitiously pushing these kinds of buttons, and apparently any others they can conjure on a range of wedge issues, apparently without regard to the havoc, but to the point of amplifying whatever discontent may be imagined to be exploited. Simply because their apparent disregard for the consequences of their political filablustering may not rise in a specific instance to the standards set by the legal system, doesn't in my mind absolve them of all responsibility, seeing as how such results seem to be in the first instance a part of their strategy.

 

[Proton Soup]

That is rather the point. Buttons getting pushed. And on the pushing side of things you have Fox News repetitiously pushing these kinds of buttons, and apparently any others they can conjure on a range of wedge issues, apparently without regard to the havoc, but to the point of amplifying whatever discontent may be imagined to be exploited. Simply because their apparent disregard for the consequences of their political filablustering may not rise in a specific instance to the standards set by the legal system, doesn't in my mind absolve them of all responsibility, seeing as how such results seem to be in the first instance a part of their strategy.

it's your fault. it's comments like yours that pushed this man's buttons.

 

[LowlyPion]

it's your fault. it's comments like yours that pushed this man's buttons.

Probably not. If he was an avid reader of PF, I'd think he would have absorbed a bounty of insight and knowledge here that would have inoculated him against the kinds of tyrannies he might have imagined from listening only to Fox.

 

[Proton Soup]

Probably not. If he was an avid reader of PF, I'd think he would have absorbed a bounty of insight and knowledge here that would have inoculated him against the kinds of tyrannies he might have imagined from listening only to Fox.

LOL! well, there is plenty of incite, i'll give you that.

 

[edward]

Absolutely. I hear more "hate speech" on this forum than any AM radio talk show. But the term is so ambigouos and subjective I refuse to use it in my normal vocabulary.

The blatant terms of hatred used used on the radio programs are not even allowed on this forum.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/watch.html

 

[WhoWee]

The guy was reported to have stayed up drinking (beer I assume) all night, then argued with his mother. I'm sure alcohol had NOTHING to do with his state of mind. I lived in Pittsburgh, if you haven't...go rent "The Deer Hunter" then feel free to reconsider your entire argument.

 

[drankin]

The blatant terms of hatred used used on the radio programs are not even allowed on this forum.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/watch.html

You are welcome to IM me these "blatant terms" so I know what you are talking about. I watched the Bill Moyers link and it played some clips of various talk show hosts suggesting some pretty violent things towards libs. Yes, it's raw and Beck is an idiot anyway (I don't have cable at home but I watched it this weekend at my dad's. Fox News is mostly, but not totally, a bunch of tabloid clowns). I appreciate listening to people like Savage because he has the cohonas to say how he feels. Whether I agree with it or not (and I often don't) I respect his complete disregard for political correctness or worrying about offending others. The media doesn't create an audience they find it, whether it's porn or the cooking channel. I refuse to hold any media responsible for the acts of an individual. Yes, unbalanced people can use the rhetoric they consume to fuel their lunacy and criminal activity (rape, arson, murder). I don't argue that.

 

[ExactlySolved]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/watch.html

I had been trying to formulate an idea like this to describe the particular tactic that these conservative talking heads use to create their battle slogans:

the American author Oliver Wendell Holmes said that language is sacred, and wrote that its abuse should be as criminal as murder. He called it "...verbicide...violent treatment of a word with fatal results to its legitimate meaning..."

 

[edward]

The guy was reported to have stayed up drinking (beer I assume) all night, then argued with his mother. I'm sure alcohol had NOTHING to do with his state of mind. I lived in Pittsburgh, if you haven't...go rent "The Deer Hunter" then feel free to reconsider your entire argument.

Guess what people on the edge do not need a push from hate radio or anywhere else.

Got a link on the guy staying up all night drinking? I have done that but it never made me take a shotgun into a church.

Live in Pittsburg eh? Big deal. Am I supposed to be impressed because you saw a violent war movie??

The Deer Hunter came out back about 78 or so. SO WHAT?? I saw it in a movie theater at the time and several times since. Guess what, no real people were killed they were all actors.

As long as we are off topic:

I preferred Full Metal Jacket just for the laughs.

 

[edward]

I had been trying to formulate an idea like this to describe the particular tactic that these conservative talking heads use to create their battle slogans:

There is a lot of psychology involved. You will notice that the boys at Fox always have some kind of button pushing gimmick. It may be video running in the background. (Beck loves Nazis), or a controversial guest who just happens to be a Fox employee.

They use key words. Beck says we are heading toward fascism, Hannity sticks with socialism and O'rielly prefers communism.

 

[ExactlySolved]

They use key words. Beck says we are heading toward fascism, Hannity sticks with socialism and O'rielly prefers communism.

Their meaningless applications of these 'isms' is a prime example of verbicide, as is the constant use of 'tyranny' to refer to a basic aspect of democracy. Another victim of right-wing verbicide is the phrase 'theory' as used in the debate over teaching evolution.

In the interest of being balanced towards genuine conservative concerns, I am trying to think of acts of verbicide by the left-wing. The most obvious would be the use of 'marriage' to apply to people who are glbt --- although a forceful change in language is being applied, I think in this case it is part of natural progress, just as the term 'citizen' has evolved in American history to include people of color and people of other groups who have not been included.

Admittedly, that was a bit of a liberal wuss-out on my behalf, but if we look at how much benefit a large group of people will derive in their daily life by the broadening of 'marriage' I think it is incomparably larger than the benefit derived from Beck's broadening of 'fascism' and 'tyranny.'

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Absolutely. I hear more "hate speech" on this forum than any AM radio talk show. But the term is so ambigouos and subjective I refuse to use it in my normal vocabulary.

I used to get my jollies from watching MSNBC, but now I just get on PF and look for Ivan's threads.

 

[humanino]

Have you seen "Outfoxed" ? Media is one essential ingredient of democracies. It would be worthwhile to think seriously how some media can deeply challenge people's ability to sustain the rest of their freedom.

 

[jaap de vries]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09122008/watch.html

Thanks for posting. This pretty much seems to summarize it pretty well.

 

[jaap de vries]

You are welcome to IM me these "blatant terms" so I know what you are talking about.

You just said you watched the video. If you want us to type it down we will but why give us an errand.

I thought the comment about autistic children was pretty inflammatory but I guess you like that because at least Savage "says it how it is" ?!?

Now that admittedly it seems like Moyers has done the work for us I would like to challenge you to find similar remarks coming from the left. I try to remain neutral but I could honestly not think of any.

 

[drankin]

You just said you watched the video. If you want us to type it down we will but why give us an errand.

I thought the comment about autistic children was pretty inflammatory but I guess you like that because at least Savage "says it how it is" ?!?

Now that admittedly it seems like Moyers has done the work for us I would like to challenge you to find similar remarks coming from the left. I try to remain neutral but I could honestly not think of any.

IM me the terms so I know what you are talking about.

Yes, I like how Savage says what he thinks. Even when it's "inflammatory".

Why would I look for similar remarks from the left media? What is your point?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now that admittedly it seems like Moyers has done the work for us I would like to challenge you to find similar remarks coming from the left. I try to remain neutral but I could honestly not think of any.

I don't think I'll be able to find it but I recall reading an article by a left wing media personality that talked of the hope that anti gun control people wind up with their kids blowing their brains out and anti abortion people see their wives and daughters dying in back alley abortion clinics.

Specific to the claims of lies perpetrated by Fox News personalties for a political agenda as discussed in this thread; over the last eight years I have heard all sorts of claims from Bush going to war with Iran to rebublicans wanting to take away women's right to vote.

 

[humanino]

Bush going to war with Iran to rebublicans wanting to take away women's right to vote.

To a democrat, there is no need to demonstrate republican's error potential. To a republican, both proposals sound reasonable anyway
Sorry...
Would anyone happen to know of a decent source of news free on the internet produced by the U.S. ?

 

[rootX]

Would anyone happen to know of a decent source of news free on the internet produced by the U.S. ?

I like BBC. I don't like any of the U.S. sources - personally, I think U.S. doesn't have anything as good as BBC.

 

[Proton Soup]

try google's news search. look at a news item from a couple different sources and make up your own freakin' mind. half the crap is just reprinted from AP or UPI, anyway...

 

[humanino]

I am european. I speak english, french and german. I know France, England, Germany, Belgium, and also others, have each several website where I can daily find (reasonably) short and good quality reports of what significant happens in the world. Free of showbizz useless story, relatively honest, as un-bias as it comes. Where can I find that produced by the U.S. ? If it turns out there is no such thing, I claim the U.S. can not be called a democracy. So I hope there is !