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

[Proton Soup]

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 !

that's a silly thought. everything has a bias. especially if it's some government-approved politically-"neutral" site.

for example... some people here might say NPR (National Public Radio) is as "fair and balanced" as it comes. but someone else would say NPR is full of granola-eating elitist hippy tripe. it's all point of view, you see, whose cows are getting holed and all that. but that's the great thing about a demo^H^H^H^H republic. we don't vote on what's reasonable to say here. we think it's much more reasonable that everyone has his say.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

I watch it a lot myself. I think you are right that their perspective is a lot freer of American hang-ups with political and religious ideologies and sexual references. Plus I appreciate their drier approach.

 

[humanino]

that's a silly thought.

No it's not. I repeat. If you don't have a (at least) 15 or 20 minutes daily report on what happening out there, you are inapt to vote, you are clueless about politics, and if everybody is in this state of ignorance, your nation is not a democracy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

http://www.ap.org/
I think AP is as close as you can get for a mainstream news organization. There are apparently bias in their reports. It is a collective of multiple agencies and reporters so the likelihood of bias leaking in from various affiliates can not be denied.

http://www.npr.org/
There's also NPR. On my local NPR affiliate they often syndicate BBC news casts. Apparently NPR produces their own news reports aswell. They have articles on their site.
HA! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4712584
They even have an article treating the topic of their own alleged bias!

These are the only ones I know of personally. I'm sure there are several organizations in the US that are dedicated to unbiased news reporting. I personally don't have a preference for where I get my news, I just look at what ever articles I find through google. I listen to a conservative talk radio station and trust that the basic facts of their news is accurate. Then if anything I hear on the radio peaks my interest I look up articles online. I don't necessarily trust any single source. Even if they try to be unbiased they may well get something wrong or miss certain bits of information.

 

[mheslep]

No it's not. I repeat. If you don't have a (at least) 15 or 20 minutes daily report on what happening out there, you are inapt to vote, you are clueless about politics, and if everybody is in this state of ignorance, your nation is not a democracy.

Meanwhile, after listening the the news everyday, can you inform us as to why Sarkozy a) offers to take one and only one of the remaining Guantanamo prisoners, and b) why he refuses any additional support whatsoever for Afghanistan? (assuming you hail from France)

 

[mheslep]

... we don't vote on what's reasonable to say here. we think it's much more reasonable that everyone has his say.

Good point. US is the only Western nation I'm aware of that completely protects free speech rights.

 

[misgfool]

Good point. US is the only Western nation I'm aware of that completely protects free speech rights.

How are the other Western nations prohibiting them?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Are you suggesting that intoxicated people make good choices when armed with high powered rifles? Here's your link:
"Police have said they believed Mr. Poplawski was drinking at a party into the early morning hours before the shooting. He also spent time on Stormfront, a white supremacist Web site in the hours before the shootings."

The shooter once tried to start his own internet talk program...according to a friend
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4143111.php?

 

[Proton Soup]

No it's not. I repeat. If you don't have a (at least) 15 or 20 minutes daily report on what happening out there, you are inapt to vote, you are clueless about politics, and if everybody is in this state of ignorance, your nation is not a democracy.

way to take things out of context. i never suggested that you stay uninformed, only that unbiased sources do not exist. honestly though, my opinion is that if you need everything spoon-fed to you, then you are uninformed. or at least misinformed, which can be worse.

 

[mheslep]

How are the other Western nations prohibiting them?

Some examples:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/853

The Italian judiciary is investigating whether Roberto Calderoli, who resigned from his post as government minister last week, is guilty of “contempt of religion.” Mr Calderoli wore a T-shirt with a cartoon of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. If he is found guilty the former minister can be fined a penalty of €1,000 to €5,000.

Author Oriana Fallaci's (deceased) trial in Itally. Was also charged by a Swiss judge.
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecodibergamo.it%2Fstories%2FCronaca%2F25_fallaci%2F&sl=it&tl=en

It was finalized on December 18 to the writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci, charged with contempt of the religion of Islam for 18 phrases in his best seller "The force of reason."

Canada has its Human Rights Act, which makes it a crime to

communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/H-6///en
The HRC has, e.g., a case against journalist Mark Steyn for his writings on Islamic fanatics. For what it is worth, Steyn reports the HRC goes online trolling the internet with inflammatory posts in order manufacturer cases.
http://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-steyn-on-hrcs.html

 

[humanino]

Meanwhile, after listening the the news everyday, can you inform us as to why Sarkozy a) offers to take one and only one of the remaining Guantanamo prisoners, and b) why he refuses any additional support whatsoever for Afghanistan? (assuming you hail from France)

Is your argument "France is not a good democracy, therefore it's ok that the US is not a good democracy" ? That's a fantastic argument, congratulation, I don't feel like answering. I also notice that this kind of argument "the other candidate is more ugly than me" is usually used by people I don't feel like voting for. I have been shouting as loud as possible that Sarkozy has persistently challenged the fundamental principles of democracy over the years. Who wants to discuss this is welcome to open a thread, I can feed you with references I have gathered over the years. But I don't think many people care on this board.

 

[mheslep]

There's also NPR. ...
They even have an article treating the topic of their own alleged bias!...

Which is substantial IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Is your argument "France is not a good democracy, therefore it's ok that the US is not a good democracy" ? That's a fantastic argument, congratulation, I don't feel like answering.

Well that's good since that is not my argument, nor is your assumption even remotely connected to my post.

 

[humanino]

Some examples:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/853

What's the point !? I know better than you whenever European countries fail to respect freedom of speech and/or of journalism. What are you saying !? Is it "We're better than China on the human rights compartment, therefore we're good." ? Do you realize that this is unacceptable ? Why do I read your posts !?

In the context of this thread, in particular "Fox is poor journalism" I'd like to be pointed to a decent U.S. source of political information, on the national and international levels. Fortunately, TheStatutoryApe positively provided two possible answers. I would not classify "Associated Press" as just U.S. since it is international, but I think it is a good source. As for NPR, I do read and listen from it as well. Thank you TheStatutoryApe. If anybody is willing to add other sources of their own, I would appreciate as well.

 

[mheslep]

What's the point !?

In the first instance to reply to misgfool's query...

I know better than you whenever European countries fail to respect freedom of speech and/or of journalism. What are you saying !? Is it "We're better than China on the human rights compartment, therefore we're good." ?

Again, no.

Do you realize that this is unacceptable ?

Do you realize you are not the arbiter of what is / is not acceptable?

 

[humanino]

Again, no.

So maybe you would like to re-phrase your point so that my little brain can understand it ? Please ? What's the use of quoting other countries in this context ? Please note the causality in #155 and #157. misgfool answered your own message

US is the only Western nation I'm aware of that completely protects free speech rights.

How are the other Western nations prohibiting them?

both happening after

No it's not. I repeat. If you don't have a (at least) 15 or 20 minutes daily report on what happening out there, you are inapt to vote, you are clueless about politics, and if everybody is in this state of ignorance, your nation is not a democracy.

Meanwhile, after listening the the news everyday, can you inform us as to why Sarkozy a) offers to take one and only one of the remaining Guantanamo prisoners, and b) why he refuses any additional support whatsoever for Afghanistan? (assuming you hail from France)

I certainly do not "hail for France". I have no reason to do that. Incidently, when I hear "proud to be american" for me it sounds like "proud to be monday". You just happen to be american, you don't deserve it.

 

[misgfool]

You said

Good point. US is the only Western nation I'm aware of that completely protects free speech rights.

I think that there are more Western nations than Italy and Canada. I'm still waiting for the full list.

 

[edward]

Lets get back to FOX news and their tactics.

Below is a typical Fox fair and balanced smear in guise of an interview with ACORN.



All of the hoopla about voter fraud had me wondering about ACORN until I saw this interview. There was no voter fraud only accusations. A few workers did not register people properly, but none of those people ever voted.

I took an older vet to the VA hospital a few weeks ago. As he was checking out and making his next appointment I noticed something interesting on the counter. It was an announcement that vets could get free help preparing their income taxes from ....ACORN.

 

[WhoWee]

Lets get back to FOX news and their tactics.

Below is a typical Fox fair and balanced smear in guise of an interview with ACORN.



All of the hoopla about voter fraud had me wondering about ACORN until I saw this interview. There was no voter fraud only accusations. A few workers did not register people properly, but none of those people ever voted.

I took an older vet to the VA hospital a few weeks ago. As he was checking out and making his next appointment I noticed something interesting on the counter. It was an announcement that vets could get free help preparing their income taxes from ....ACORN.

I guess THIS "right wing nutcase organization" (?) tried to smear ACORN?
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6049549

I couldn't agree more...let's get back to the topic...Fox News and the Pittsburgh shooter...(this is a re-post in response to yopur previous post Edward)
Are you suggesting that intoxicated people make good choices when armed with high powered rifles? Here's your link:
"Police have said they believed Mr. Poplawski was drinking at a party into the early morning hours before the shooting. He also spent time on Stormfront, a white supremacist Web site in the hours before the shootings."

The shooter once tried to start his own internet talk program...according to a friend
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4143111.php?

The idea that Fox News is somehow responsible is over-reaching.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By falsely representing themselves as a news agency and then reporting false and inflammatory information that supports the allegations of radical organizations, Fox "News" could easily lend credence to the claims of those organizations.

In fact, the degree to which Fox is willing to misrepresent the facts suggests that they are knowingly and willfully creating an environment of malice that could easily foster violence.

 

[Proton Soup]

it's no different that other "news agencies" saying GWB stole the election in florida. get a freaking grip you goofballs. the same crap goes on on MSNBC, only someone else's ox is getting gored. good grief at all the stupid crap that gets spewed on this forum.

 

[LowlyPion]

Are you suggesting that intoxicated people make good choices when armed with high powered rifles? Here's your link:
"Police have said they believed Mr. Poplawski was drinking at a party into the early morning hours before the shooting. He also spent time on Stormfront, a white supremacist Web site in the hours before the shootings."

Are you saying they don't make good decisions? Or is it that the decision was already made which occasioned his drinking for what he was determined to do?

For instance when the Minutemen were alerted about the British coming, and mobilized in Lexington Town, they stayed up the rest of the night drinking ale at the taverns waiting for the vastly superior force of arms that was surely coming their way. Was it the ale that was the cause of that decision to stand and defend regardless?

Without knowing the timeline of when Mr. Cold Lifeless Hand Around his Gun made his decision, just as surely as the Minutemen themselves had pondered and decided long before drinking ale to stand against the British at the birth of the Nation, saying he was drinking then says nothing about the nexus of his decision to act and Fox's broadcasts merely because he was determined to been drinking alcohol before firing the first shot.

 

[edward]

it's no different that other "news agencies" saying GWB stole the election in florida. get a freaking grip you goofballs. the same crap goes on on MSNBC, only someone else's ox is getting gored. good grief at all the stupid crap that gets spewed on this forum.

We have a grip and a good one, better check you own.

Show me an example of MSNBC pulling off an interview ambush like this:



There are plenty more examples on youtube. Just search Fox News Bias

 

[LowlyPion]

We have a grip and a good one, better check you own.

Show me an example of MSNBC pulling off an interview ambush like this:



There are plenty more examples on youtube. Just search Fox News Bias

Good link. Thanks.

So no News Emmy for Megan this year I'm thinking. I hope she doesn't think that what she does is in any way journalism. To any real news organization she would likely be a complete embarrassment.

But to Roger Ailes, that's the kind of thoughtless red meat I think he likes to serve to his viewing demographic. That piece alone shows a total disregard for the facts of what happened with the voter registration drive last year, and a complete disregard for the apparent de minimis participation of Acorn in the coming Census of 2010. I'd say that represents not news, but rather propaganda.

(Of course Fox's real problem with voter registration I'd say wasn't Acorn at all. It was all the non-Fox demographic voters that did get registered, and were mad as hell, and helped to sweep the conservative ideologues from office.)

 

[humanino]

Horrible and hilarious ?
How obvious is it to you that an ethical journalist should never use "some people say"
NYA9ufivbDw[/youtube] On this chann...apon. Control information and you have power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you TheStatutoryApe.

You're welcome.


By the way, I'm not sure if you are fimiliar with the idiom but "hail from" generally is synonymous with "come from". It doesn't necessarily mean anything else.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Fox News is in the business of entertainment. Although "News" appears in their name ( OH NO!), the network's pundits and entertainers can really say whatever they want. Is this right? It's free speech. Do we need to sue Fox News- as someone suggested earlier- for "misleading" viewers or for "extreme" things said? There is no spectrum scarcity. If you don't like what they are showing, change the channel instead of adding to their ratings. Troll the internet searching Fox News Bias? Your time would be put to better use honing your own political ideology. Fox News is biased, as are other stations- get over it.

 

[WhoWee]

By falsely representing themselves as a news agency and then reporting false and inflammatory information that supports the allegations of radical organizations, Fox "News" could easily lend credence to the claims of those organizations.

In fact, the degree to which Fox is willing to misrepresent the facts suggests that they are knowingly and willfully creating an environment of malice that could easily foster violence.

Don't you EVER support your statements Ivan?

This is my third challenge of your statements in (about) as many days...across multiple (at least 2) threads.

You do know the rules, don't you?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Don't you EVER support your statements Ivan?

This is my third challenge of your statements in (about) as many days...across multiple (at least 2) threads.

You do know the rules, don't you?

Censorship has always been a big deal for me so I may have been rather a bit obnoxious in some of my posts here but I have to say that Ivan is a fairly rational human being and polite discourse is more likely to elicite meaningful discussion than your blatant attacks.

Please propose logical arguements against his or simply report him if you truly feel he is violating guidelines. Otherwise you are just killing the thread. Personally I prefer to engage persons I disagree with rather than taunt or accuse them.

 

[Proton Soup]

We have a grip and a good one, better check you own.

Show me an example of MSNBC pulling off an interview ambush like this:



There are plenty more examples on youtube. Just search Fox News Bias

just pick anything olbermann. he's on 5 days a week.

 

[LowlyPion]

just pick anything olbermann. he's on 5 days a week.

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

 

[Proton Soup]

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

i'll give you the rest, but Van Susteren? really?! i haven't watch her in a long time, but she always seemed a very level-headed interviewer to me. kind of Larry King-ish, actually.

 

[mheslep]

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

 

[LowlyPion]

i'll give you the rest, but Van Susteren? really?! i haven't watch her in a long time, but she always seemed a very level-headed interviewer to me. kind of Larry King-ish, actually.

Her husband is consulting for Palin.

Read her Gretawire site. It look's to me like straight rebranding of the standard Fox fare served up on Hannity, et al..

 

[LowlyPion]

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

Which one?

 

[mheslep]

Which one?

Shelby

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

My local talk radio personalities John & Ken, with a conservative libertarian bent, have called just about every single republican in office in California traitors. They even have "heads on pikes" on their website. As much as I enjoy them and their rants it doesn't make them any less biased.

 

[LowlyPion]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

 

[WhoWee]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

Maybe he read it on Twitter?

Did you read the transcript...he jokes about too much whiskey. Did he actually do anything...or just makes threats?

 

[T.S.Morgan]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events? That's crazy , they were all over the internet for months beforehand.

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe he read it on Twitter?

Did you read the transcript...he jokes about too much whiskey. Did he actually do anything...or just makes threats?

The FBI have charged him, so yes I guess his stupid incendiary comments were considered as something.

Funny too how the bozo that shot the 3 policemen in Pittsburgh was also getting his courage from a bottle ... and his news from Fox?

Maybe look at his myspace page and find out what kind of quirky looney tunes things he was into besides being an armed pro gun, anti-abortionist.

Maybe there is more truth to the DHS Risk Assessment of Right Wing Groups after all?

 

[LowlyPion]

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events? That's crazy , they were all over the internet for months beforehand.

Without Fox personalities headlining at the events on stage and promoting heavily over the air during the weeks before, no one would have noticed that anything was really going on. It was Fox that made it an event. That was no grass roots.

 

[NeoDevin]

That was no grass roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing"

 

[WhoWee]

The FBI have charged him, so yes I guess his stupid incendiary comments were considered as something.

Funny too how the bozo that shot the 3 policemen in Pittsburgh was also getting his courage from a bottle ... and his news from Fox?

Maybe look at his myspace page and find out what kind of quirky looney tunes things he was into besides being an armed pro gun, anti-abortionist.

Maybe there is more truth to the DHS Risk Assessment of Right Wing Groups after all?

Do you honestly believe (I'll make an unfair racist profiling comment to make a point) "Drunkin Rednecks" watch FOX news at the bar during happy hour?

 

[LowlyPion]

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?

Now what of O'Reilly's frequent screeds on, and in this case most specifically against this Dr. Tiller? Has his characterizations of this man as a mass murderer or as "Tiller the baby killer" represented "Fair and Balanced" exposition? (MSNBC puts O'Reilly's mentioning Dr. Tiller at 28 times.) Has his failure in the afterglow of Dr. Tiller's murder now to accept even the slightest amount of responsibility in labeling and condemning this Dr. Tiller's legal, let me say it again, legal activities, using highly charged inflammatory polemical language ... at what point are you willing to say there is no accountability, that there is no connection between the environment that these nut-balls live in and their actions?

"When I heard about Tiller's murder, I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime and that is exactly what has happened, ... everything we said about Tiller was true ... no back-pedaling here."

As a side note I'd say the threat assessment DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism was apparently a little more prescient in identifying this very kind of threat, than the Right Wing Ideologues that were decrying its publication may want to admit.

How many more incidents will it take before Fox begins to take responsibility for the polarizing atmosphere that they are apparently feeding?

 

[drankin]

Now what of O'Reilly's frequent screeds on, and in this case most specifically against this Dr. Tiller? Has his characterizations of this man as a mass murderer or as "Tiller the baby killer" represented "Fair and Balanced" exposition? (MSNBC puts O'Reilly's mentioning Dr. Tiller at 28 times.) Has his failure in the afterglow of Dr. Tiller's murder now to accept even the slightest amount of responsibility in labeling and condemning this Dr. Tiller's legal, let me say it again, legal activities, using highly charged inflammatory polemical language ... at what point are you willing to say there is no accountability, that there is no connection between the environment that these nut-balls live in and their actions?


As a side note I'd say the threat assessment DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism was apparently a little more prescient in identifying this very kind of threat, than the Right Wing Ideologues that were decrying its publication may want to admit.

How many more incidents will it take before Fox begins to take responsibility for the polarizing atmosphere that they are apparently feeding?

For one, this murderer does not qualify as a Homeland Security threat.

And for a media personality to describe abortion as "baby-killing" does not equate to condoning a wackjob to kill another human being. That would be a contradiction to their point. The point being murdering a human being is wrong, regardless of age or development.

 

[LowlyPion]

For one, this murderer does not qualify as a Homeland Security threat.

And for a media personality to describe abortion as "baby-killing" does not equate to condoning a wackjob to kill another human being. That would be a contradiction to their point. The point being murdering a human being is wrong, regardless of age or development.

I see. Targeted killing in a church is not to be taken as terrorism because ... it was not indiscriminate? Of course those in the church, his family, they were not terrorized. Right Wing Individuals that express themselves in acts of targeted senseless violence, even though they would apparently be deranged, can be trusted not to act indiscriminately, and hence could never be terrorists because ...?

As to the condoning ... that isn't the issue. The responsibility is the thing. The filling of the air waves with hate-mongering polemics that this Doctor was a mass murderer, even though he was doing NOTHING illegal, there is no consequence for that because O'Reilly thinks that what he was saying was "truthful"? The failure to take responsibility for his words and his rhetoric, contributing to a climate that only serves to encourage a deadly outcome, a murder that is clearly illegal, this then is OK?

Words have consequences as Fox well knows, else they wouldn't be engaging in perpetually painting the news with their palette of right wing pigments.

 

[drankin]

I see. Targeted killing in a church is not to be taken as terrorism because ... it was not indiscriminate? Of course those in the church, his family, they were not terrorized. Right Wing Individuals that express themselves in acts of targeted senseless violence, even though they would apparently be deranged, can be trusted not to act indiscriminately, and hence could never be terrorists because ...?

As to the condoning ... that isn't the issue. The responsibility is the thing. The filling of the air waves with hate-mongering polemics that this Doctor was a mass murderer, even though he was doing NOTHING illegal, there is no consequence for that because O'Reilly thinks that what he was saying was "truthful"? The failure to take responsibility for his words and his rhetoric, contributing to a climate that only serves to encourage a deadly outcome, a murder that is clearly illegal, this then is OK?

Words have consequences as Fox well knows, else they wouldn't be engaging in perpetually painting the news with their palette of right wing pigments.

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

 

[LowlyPion]

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

Who cares when he was first shot at? That has nothing to do with anything. He was shot at on Sunday. He was killed on Sunday. Fox has not once but 28 times at a minimum prior to Sunday characterized him on air - incorrectly I must point out - as a murderer, a mass murderer - even though his activities were permitted by the Laws of the US.

It's shocking to think that they would say that they have no responsibility in raising the temperature of a public colloquy that has led now to the unjustifiable death of a man.

You might want to look up Frank Shaeffer on line. You might find this:

And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there's a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder. And so people like me are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds. And so when O'Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against Fox or against him or trying to muzzle debate, he's telling a lie.

... But I also think that pretending that you can call abortion murder and Tiller the baby killer, etc., etc., etc. and that these words don't have an impact is crazy. So this is what helps unhinge a society, talking like that. And I apologize and I will apologize again. I am sorry for what I did.

No sorrow apparently clouds Fox's brow for the polarity of their words and their part in the cavalcade of events.

 

[BoomBoom]

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

He was shot the first time, and his clinic was bombed due to the same type of rhetoric being spread (probably by church groups), and now Fox news is spreading that same rhetoric to millions. Nice try though.