News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[russ_watters]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising? The one about "puffery" covers this exactly. Puffery is an obviously exagerrated, non-fact-based claim that an intelligent consumer immediately recognizes and ignores.

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

Even if someone holds a contest and finds that I make the worst steaks in town, nothing has changed. Subjective is subjective.

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?

 

[russ_watters]

Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

The two sentences seem to contradict each other. Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??

It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.

So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

 

[WhoWee]

Lol, jack, I'm a moderate to medium conservative Republican. I'm not sure that post you replied to gave any clues to that, but neither do I think it implied I wasn't!

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

 

[byronm]

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.


But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

 

[WhoWee]

A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.But hey, if i was a farmer and i heard they were conserving water for fish i'd be pissed to.. But look at it this way.. if you kill those fish and all the fish that eat those fish just to have short term water supplies that won't meet the water demands of 10 years from now then not only will the farmers continue to suffer but the fisherman, the sport fishing and commercial fishing sectors and wildlife in general that depends on any fish protein that is up the food chain from those little minnows.

Easy to blame environmentalists.. however.. maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using that much water anyway that we have to risk entire species of fish to survive in conditions that obviously aren't sustainable for the farmers and the environment. If we're sucking natural resources dry and willing to kill off the native species of animals in that area to milk our farms for more then something is wrong (and it aint them darned environmentalists hehe)

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

 

[Wax]

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

 

[Cyrus]

That's pretty funny.

In the spirit of the moment, I just put Hannity on - he's doing a special from the San Joaquin Valley. He's doing a story about a man made drought with Paul Rodriguez.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

Apparently thousands of workers have been displaced and the land is turning into a 2009 dust bowl to save a 2" minnow. To add insult to injury, the workers (in America's most fertile valley) are standing in line and being fed with food from China. They are making a plea to Obama to step in and turn the water back on - there's a canal, about 1/2 mile away, channeling the water to the ocean.

I'm not sure what's worse: sean hannity, or the fact that you bothered listening to him...

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

Do believe anything you hear (from Faux News)? Seems so...

 

[WhoWee]

What do you expect from Fox News, especially Hannity...

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

 

[Wax]

Not so fast. We still don't have a link that supports any of this.

"A little research..

A) the area is under a severe drought and conservation plan right now
B) the existing aquifer was built over 50 years ago and not designed to sustain an 80% agriculture demand of the water
C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought
D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD
E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein."

I saw the exact show you were talking about and the environmentalist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.

 

[WhoWee]

I saw the exact show you were talking about and the economist said the same thing. The fish provides jobs up north but Hannity keeps cutting him off before he could finish saying anything.

Well, I guess there are arguments on both sides. I give Hannity credit for a least putting the environmentalist on the show - that's in the spirit of "fair and balanced".

http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_california_reels_savetheminnow/

"Wanger ruled pressure from the massive pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (that move water from Northern California to 25 million Californians and three million acres of farmland) endangers the tiny minnow. He has given the state 60 days to come up with a better biological plan to save the smelt than what has been offered so far. In the meantime, there will be no pumping — as the smelt is in danger of being sucked into the two pumping stations operated by the federal and state governments.

Those who want to preserve the smelt say the minnow is a benchmark for the ecological health of the Delta. It apparently has no other benefit to mankind. No one has said it is the only indicator of Delta ecological health.

The judge's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Natural Resources Defense Council and other so-called environmental organizations which claim the pumps are threatening the endangered species.

Defendants, the State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, farmers and others, agree the smelt is endangered. However, they contend the pumps only account for 5 percent to 15 percent of the causes that are affecting the smelt population. Other factors are having greater impacts on the smelt numbers. Defendants contend loss of food supplies and the introduction of foreign plant and fish species into the Delta have dramatically altered the smelt's environment and put it at risk. Criminal toxic chemical dumping into the Delta has killed fish. Defendants also contend sewage is impacting the health of the Delta. In addition, the lack of fish screens on pumps in the Delta is impacting the smelt.

But Judge Wanger did not buy any of those arguments.

In the past, the pumping has been briefly stopped, and water deliveries have also been reduced to protect fish. But the possibility of a longer shutdown is sending ripples of anxiety throughout the state."

 

[byronm]

So the minnow isn't an endangered species - it's the only food source for salmon and sturgeon? Someone better explain that to Schwarzenegger - and Hannity thought the fish were getting stuck in the pumps?

I think the information regarding the minnow is confusing at best.. there is a WSJ article that focuses on it but most of the other stuff i find is what the farmers are saying and not necessarily the environmental policy itself.

Its easy to blame fish but looking more into the political side there is also the fact the state can't afford an aquifer upgrade big enough to sustain the growth and doesn't seem to be getting any concessions from the farmers in the area to conserve.. so in other words.. its your typical political fiasco with fish put in the middle as if its as simple as choosing between minnows, salmon and sturgeon or people.

won't ever solve anything with that kind of debate.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the information regarding the minnow is confusing at best.. there is a WSJ article that focuses on it but most of the other stuff i find is what the farmers are saying and not necessarily the environmental policy itself.

Its easy to blame fish but looking more into the political side there is also the fact the state can't afford an aquifer upgrade big enough to sustain the growth and doesn't seem to be getting any concessions from the farmers in the area to conserve.. so in other words.. its your typical political fiasco with fish put in the middle as if its as simple as choosing between minnows, salmon and sturgeon or people.

won't ever solve anything with that kind of debate.

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

 

[Wax]

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

No, he talked over the guy and didn't give him a chance to talk.

 

[Cyrus]

Hopefully Hannity's coverage will focus the debate on solving the problem - as he did present both sides and reached out to the President to investigate.

...HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

C) Poverty is an issue in this area regardless of the drought

Hurting the economy even more isn't going to make anything better and the less the farmers can produce the more it will hurt others in and outside of the area that are dependent on their success. The valley is a significant agricultural center for the state.

D) Whoever decided to create a city the size of LA that would suck all the water within 400 miles radius was a RETARD

City's like LA aren't planned. They just happen and the the city 'planners' just try to figure out how to deal with it.

E) Mis management of the 3 inch little fishes could have a devastating impact on the salmon and sturgeon population and from that the devastating impact goes onto anything that relies on fish protein.

http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/Faculty/Joe/treadmill/swanson02a.pdf
Screening looks like a good idea. I'm not really sure why they are not doing it. Or maybe they are working on it and we are just not hearing about it.




By the way,to the rest of the thread, the delta smelt is apparently considered endangered which is why the fish, game, and wild life agency has been able to stop the pumping.

I heard the lawyer for the farmers on the radio earlier today and he didn't not sound like he had a very strong case. He says their case is based on the idea that the federal government, through the fish and game agency, are over stepping their authority as outlined in the constitution. Considering that it was not the agency itself that made the decision but rather the California court to which they appealed that made the decision I don't think that they have any basis for their case there.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?

Of course not, Fox News goes out of its way to make sure that it's *not* fair and balanced. That's how they make their money.

There is bias in any news source, but the tragedy of Fox News is that they began to purposefully package it with their product. As a result, they took the conservative part of the audience from other networks. Since the other networks want to appeal to their remaining audience, they intentionally pander to a liberal customer base. Now conservatives get their news from one source and the liberals get their news from another and now both are getting purposefully slanted information.

It really sucks, I'll tell you. Sometimes I try to get US news from the BBC, but it often isn't detailed enough. I'd read news from both conservative and liberal sources, but really, who has the time to work out all the discrepancies? Although I'd love to see a news source that both markets and genuinely practices unbiased news, I'm sure any such source would be accused of bias and quickly get blacklisted by one side or the other...

... and don't get me started on the Fox News pundits. Those guys would happily start an armed revolution if it got them ratings.

 

[WhoWee]

...HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen.

Good advice for a lot of people that have nothing productive to say.

 

[seycyrus]

You guys are smoking crack. (edit: I of course mean that in a figurative way)

Fox News makes a much greater attempt to put on proponents of the opposing side than any other network. That's the balance.

I watch both Fox and CNN in great amounts. MSNBC for a little. Listen to NPR on the radio during the day.

Alot of peopel get their views of fox from the neat little blogs they watch or the little snippets, that have been mined and put up on various websites.

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

To which I respond with a hearty laughter.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

The last time I stated here that I listen to a Fox News affiliate and have not seen much bias in their news I was challenged to provide transcripts to prove it. :-/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rick Sanchez of CNN, to Fox: You Lie!

Today on his noon broadcast, Rick Sanchez called Fox News out on a dishonest ad.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/rick_sanchez_cnn_fox_news_912.html

 

[Wax]

At 3:15pmET today, CNN's Rick Sanchez delivered an impassioned editorial regarding the Fox News ad we reported on earlier today that claimed ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN "missed" the story of the 9/12 protests.

Sanchez said the ad is "an offense to myself and to my colleagues who risked their lives for our viewers in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to break the news. They're actually telling people that we didn't cover a rally on Washington. Really?" Sanchez then showed a series of clips from CNN's 9/12 reporting. He also showed a clip of Bill O'Reilly discussing CNN's coverage of the even

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-cnns-rick-sanchez-calls-fox-news.html

Summary of video:

Fox places ad in magazine that claims CNN didn't cover 9/12.
Fox uses CNN's own picture for the ad.
Rick shows a clip from O'Reilly Factor saying that CNN did cover the event.

His final words, "We did cover the event. We just didn't PROMOTE the event. That's not what real news organizations do."

Then he gave them two words, "You Lie".

 

[Cyrus]

Good advice for a lot of people that have nothing productive to say.

Yep, namely: Sean Hannity.

 

[WhoWee]

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-cnns-rick-sanchez-calls-fox-news.html

Summary of video:

Fox places ad in magazine that claims CNN didn't cover 9/12.
Fox uses CNN's own picture for the ad.
Rick shows a clip from O'Reilly Factor saying that CNN did cover the event.

His final words, "We did cover the event. We just didn't PROMOTE the event. That's not what real news organizations do."

Then he gave them two words, "You Lie".

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

 

[Cyrus]

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please...

 

[Wax]

Just out of curiosity, was CNN's coverage "fair and balanced"?

It generally is. They give both sides of an issue and have the user decide. They don't have people like Glenn Beck to promote fear and Sean Hannity who cuts off people before they can talk. That's not real news, it's propaganda. The march on Washington was started by Glenn Beck. How much more agenda driven can you get?

 

[mheslep]

It generally is. They [CNN] give both sides of an issue and have the user decide. They don't have people like Glenn Beck to promote fear and Sean Hannity who cuts off people before they can talk. That's not real news, it's propaganda.

We Report, You Decide? Right. Sanchez and many others are way out there. His bias and like self important ilk among the media are the reason the shout meisters on Fox and talk radio exist. If CNN really just reported Fox et al would not exist.

Here's Anderson Cooper 'reporting'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8362435811542029429&ei=Bz60StieG4SSrAKkpY2PAg&q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en

Gergen: "They have not yet come up with a compelling alternative"
Cooper: "Teabagging, they got teabagging"
...
Gergen: "They're searching for their voice"
Cooper: "Its hard to talk when your teabagging"

On this one "I decide" that Cooper is trying to crudely decide for everyone else.

 

[BoomBoom]

Alot of peopel get their views of fox from the neat little blogs they watch or the little snippets, that have been mined and put up on various websites.

The typical response = "Watch if for myself? I already KNOW what's on there..."

To which I respond with a hearty laughter.

If you are making the case that Fox News is not this way...then I shall join you!

I have watched a lot of Fox News (although one can only take so much without destroying their TV), and it is exactly what the "neat little blogs" and the "little (mined) snippets" characterize it as being.

 

[Count Iblis]

The BBC is one of the few news organizations that brings the news in a completely unbiased way. CNN comes next, it is not always unbiased.

Fox News? That's an oxymoron.

 

[Wax]

We Report, You Decide? Right. Sanchez and many others are way out there. His bias and like self important ilk among the media are the reason the shout meisters on Fox and talk radio exist. If CNN really just reported Fox et al would not exist.

Here's Anderson Cooper 'reporting'.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=CNN%20anderson%20cooper%20tea-bagger&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en&emb=0

Gergen: "They have not yet come up with a compelling alternative"
Cooper: "Teabagging, they got teabagging"
...
Gergen: "They're searching for their voice"
Cooper: "Its hard to talk when your teabagging"

On this one "I decide" that Cooper is trying to crudely decide for everyone else.

How is that bias? Anderson cooper used his exact words from his website that called Obama an "Indonesian muslin turned welfare thug". Your claim that CNN is bias compared to Fox News is like day and night. Sean Hannity actually cuts people off before they can finish talking. Glenn Beck actually promoted 9/12 and fear. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity has yet to apologize to the ACORN employee that they got fired because they failed to investigate tape 4. The list is countless...Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

 

[russ_watters]

Today on his noon broadcast, Rick Sanchez called Fox News out on a dishonest ad.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/rick_sanchez_cnn_fox_news_912.html

He seems mad. Is he getting jealous of MSNBC and wanting in?

Anyway, what's your point here, Ivan?

 

[russ_watters]

The march on Washington was started by Glenn Beck.

You really need to stop saying it. It is factually wrong and you know it.

 

[Wax]

You really need to stop saying it. It is factually wrong and you know it.

No, it is not wrong. There were tea parties before 9/12 but Glenn Beck is the sole person who created and promoted that exact date.

 

[Wax]

Watch the first 10 seconds of this video. Glenn Beck in his own words even said, "A while back I laid out a plan called the 9/12 project". Before he laid out this project, the tea parties were scattered and had no real theme behind the protest. Glenn Beck is the person who actually gave those people some type of meaning and an exact date to protest, 9/12. Glenn Beck is not news. He's a commentator who has an agenda who promoted the 9/12 project. Before Glenn Beck, there was no such thing as 9/12. Glenn Beck created 9/12.

 

[WhoWee]

All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please...

This is a collection of your last 3 posts in this thread.

"Yep, namely: Sean Hannity. "

"...HAAHAHah. Thanks for the laugh (Seriously). The best thing Hannity can possibly do is shut his mouth and listen."

"All you do is ask questions. For once, do some research on your own. Please..."

Do you ever make a real contribution to the discussion - or do you only criticize?
(that's a double question by the way)

 

[Wax]

Google "9/12 project" and you'll see that Glenn's name is next to almost all of the links. The date 9/12 is Glenn's project.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l&hs=PYn&q=9/12+project&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1g-s1g8



Edit: This is Glenn Beck's coverage of the 9/12 project. Scroll to 40 seconds and you will see that Judge Andrew Napolitano gives full credit to Glenn Beck for starting the 9/12 project. Glenn does not disagree; not one bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmdNC-E0d_A&feature=related

Edit 2: Scroll to time 3:00 in the same link and a protester thanks Glenn Beck.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The BBC is one of the few news organizations that brings the news in a completely unbiased way. CNN comes next, it is not always unbiased.

Fox News? That's an oxymoron.

All British based news services have to be impatial. When they arent they get hammered by Ofcom.

I remember Murdoch saying that he wanted Sky News to be more like Fox as a counter point to BBC News 24, but couldn't becuase of the impartiality rule. Which goes to show just how balanced it is when its owner basically declares it isnt.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He seems mad. Is he getting jealous of MSNBC and wanting in?

He explained the problem - false advertising [what a shock!]. Didn't you understand?

Is MSNBC also accusing Fox of false advertising?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The only anchor I like on CNN is the Wolf Man. Sanchez is too fluffy, but he has a point on this one.

I hope CNN sues Fox.

 

[mheslep]

Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down.

Sorry fixed the link - direct to video now.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8362435811542029429&ei=Bz60StieG4SSrAKkpY2PAg&q=CNN+anderson+cooper+teabagger&hl=en

Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

It's a crude slur about a political movement - it's ridiculously biased for major network anchor to use it on the air.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

 

[WhoWee]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

I think Sanchez is going to find himself defending CNN coverage (or lack of) quite often in the future.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity has yet to apologize to the ACORN employee that they got fired because they failed to investigate tape 4.

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

 

[Wax]

Blatantly false accusation which I have already pointed out to you in the ACORN thread. Apparently you are unable to even pay attention to the news shows you do watch.

Please let us know when and if you send out an e-mail to Fox apologizing for spreading this lie, thanks.

Link? I haven't been back to that thread yet. Hmmm.. let me go see


Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

 

[WhoWee]

Edit: I see, you're talking about that video 3 clips down. Do you know what teabagging means? It's a joke and no bias there.

If Hannity, Beck, or ANYONE on Fox made a joke like that - there would be pickets marching the sidewalk screaming for their scalps. Cooper should apologize to his audience (as well as mom Gloria).

 

[russ_watters]

No, it is not wrong. There were tea parties before 9/12 but Glenn Beck is the sole person who created and promoted that exact date.

Wax, you started a thread about it a week ago where I linked the organization that organized it: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730

Watch the first 10 seconds of this video. Glenn Beck in his own words even said, "A while back I laid out a plan called the 9/12 project".

That's nice. Nevertheless, he didn't organize the events of 9/12. I linked the organization that did.

Google "9/12 project" and you'll see that Glenn's name is next to almost all of the links. The date 9/12 is Glenn's project.

Yippeee for him, he got a name that got hits on Google. That isn't what spawned the rally, though, Wax.

Try this: link a Glenn Beck site that actually discusses and promotes the rally that happened on 9/12.

[edit] Lemme help you. On Glenn Beck's website is this link: http://912dc.org/agenda/
Note the national sponsor. Note the names of the coordinators. Hint: Glenn Beck isn't one of them.

 

[russ_watters]

He explained the problem - false advertising [what a shock!]. Didn't you understand?

Sure, I understood fine. What I was discussing was why.

I linked a paper about the law when it comes to advertising a couple of pages ago. You said this is false advertising: So tell my why CNN hasn't sued Fox News over this. Why hasn't anyone sued Fox over their advertising?

I'll answer it for you: this is all just mental masturbation. People enjoy taking shots at Fox News and CNN wanted in because they saw it was working for MSNBC. Fox News popularized pointed political news from the right, MSNBC quickly followed to grab the other side, and CNN sees their ratings dropping and wants in.

Heck, that's what this thread is about, isn't it? There isn't any real point here, just a bunch of pot shots, right? Right? If you disagree, make and argue a point! I tried a couple of pages ago with Kyleb when he seemed to be implying that he might have had a point, but he declined to make/argue the point he was implying. If you have a point, go for it, Ivan!

I hope CNN sues Fox.

Me too! But they won't, you know why? Yeah, you know why...

 

[russ_watters]

So, how many Fox fans object to the blatently false claim in the Fox ad cited by Sanchez?

Have we had one objection from the right yet; anywhere?

AFAIK, we don't have any Fox fans on this site. I haven't seen any, at least.

[edit] Then again, in Howard Stern's book, it said that people who hated him listened twice as long as people who liked him (at least in the beginning). Does that make them Howard Stern haters or fans? Do Howard Stern's advertisers care about the distinction? Heck, Ivan, I think you're more of a Fox News fan than I am!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Edit: Nope, you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has not apologized or even mentioned a word of it. It might have been another news caster on the Fox News channel but both Hannity and Glenn Beck has not lifted a single finger after the fact.

SHE WAS NOT FIRED!

You have some seriously selective perception.

Edit: Besides, Hannity and Beck did not make the videos. Someone else made them and hosted them and they just discussed them on their programs. Anything that happened to the people caught in the videos is their own fault for not acting professionally. The woman you have claimed was fired is on suspension with pay while she undergoes retraining due to her lack of professionalism. Had she acted appropriately she likely never would have even wound up on TV.

 

[Proton Soup]

The only anchor I like on CNN is the Wolf Man. Sanchez is too fluffy, but he has a point on this one.

I hope CNN sues Fox.

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.