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

[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?

 

[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?