News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[SOS2008]

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

Aside from the many publications on how U.S. military strikes against Iraq do not meet the criteria of “just war theory” as commonly understood – e.g.:

Preemption and Just War:
Considering the Case of Iraq
by FRANKLIN ERIC WESTER
From Parameters, Winter 2004-05, pp. 20-39. –

“This article demonstrates that the use of military force by the Bush Administration against the regime of Saddam Hussein does not meet the ethical criteria for “preemptive war” set forth in the classical Just War tradition.”

Here are excerpts under the title “War on terrorism” from Wikipedia: First, in regard to the use of the term “axis of evil” -- not only is "evil" offensive but "axis" is inconsistent as “the three countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea had no political links” and is more indicative of a “unilateralist war waged against certain foreign states." And to my point that the U.S. supports or is against states for other reasons, i.e., whether these states are pro-American. Second, and more specifically -

…Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in war on drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.”

With regard to "source," it is not my job to provide this for your school of thought.

...Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general? Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"?

Also under the title “War on terrorism” by Wikipedia -

Noam Chomsky has brought to light that the "terrorism" this war claims to combat does not obey the official definitions of terrorism, such as the one outlined in the US Code: "[An] Act of terrorism means any activity that [a] involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if commited within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerse a civilian population, [ii] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion, or [iii] to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, Vol. 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707. Indeed, by following this definition, many of the actions undertaken in the name of "the war on terror" could be seen as terrorism themselves. Instead, Chomsky concludes, this war combats only "terrorism by others aimed at ourselves and our allies".

And in this section it goes on to say:

The CIA, as a clandestine state actor, has occasionally been engaged in actions directly targetting non-combatants outside of war, e.g. Operation Ajax; under most definitions, this would constitute an organization that carries out acts of terror. Needless to say, declaring a "War on Terror" while supporting terrorism at the same time is hypocrisy, and this seriously undermines the "War on Terrorism" as seen by an ethical standpoint. See List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

Because I address more than one source of view, it does not make it unrelated, or more to the point irrelevant.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters.

I referred to those who reported this, and that no one lost their job for reporting something that was not true.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. ?

The documents presented by Rather could not be proven invalid any more than valid. That Bush's failure to fulfill his entire term of service in the Guard was documented by other agencies is a very legitimate point, in that at least Rather's story was based on truth.

The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

Really? It seem to work really well for Bush.

 

[SOS2008]

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"?

Reply above.

And once again as stated in an earlier thread, the idea of "reverse" domino theory (spreading democracy as opposed to containing communism), based on history of over-extension of super powers, the U.S. cannot sustain such a foreign policy. For example, let's start listing the "rogue nations" beginning with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and then Syria, Lebanon, and add to this Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia, Libya... Is our foreign policy to preemptively attack all these countries that we perceive as a threat to our interests (harboring terrorists)? And add to that the new twist, to then attempt to instill democracy and engage in nation-building all around the world?

Even if this could stop terrorism, it would cause the U.S. to collapse. And even if this isn't just a guise (which I believe it is), it is unrealistic.

 

[SOS2008]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

...it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

I tend to assume that the bias at Fox is institutional. Thats really the only way to have a bias that goes against the grain of typical media. And it makes sense that reporters sharing the ideology would gravitate toward it.

 

[russ_watters]

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Different words with different definitions, and only one is relevant here. Its the word used in the quote in the OP. I'm not going to play word games.

 

[SOS2008]

My bad -- I misread what Bystander wrote -- for some reason I thought it was the other way around. Some of the people in the media today should be “institutionalized.” As for the term "freedom fighter" -- that's how they refer to themselves. It's not a word game that I'm trying to play.

 

[Burnsys]

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

 

[russ_watters]

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

 

[Burnsys]

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us... and becouse all our resources are in the hands of multinational corporations, who's only objectives are more profits..
We have a country who can feed 4 times its population, but we have 25% of it starving... we have plenty of natural resources but we can't use them, one of them is oil controlled in 90% by 3 foreing corporations from USA, Spain and england

 

[russ_watters]

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us...

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

 

[misskitty]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

 

[Bystander]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

From "suppression of dissent" to "false advertising" --- what's Fox's line? "Fair and balanced news?" Something like that --- NOT fair and balanced commentary, editorials, analyses, panel discussions. Didn't really look too closely at your links --- they DO of course include the complaints to FCC regarding CBS's advertisements of Dan Rather as a newscaster rather than as an opinion caster?

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

You have figured out that you managed to read this inside out and backwards --- my point was that CNN's lost two or three to Fox, and I haven't noticed Foxers jumping ship the other direction (there may be an equal number of Fox to CNN transitions). By "institutional" is meant that newsies in general are pointed to the left in school, and not too inclined to stray from that "institutional lean" once employed in the field, no matter what their personal inclinations are --- bad career move to fight the traditions of 70 years or so since Roosevelt, and Fox does present an opportunity to do news in a less "institutionalized atmosphere."

Rather presents fiction as fact, he gets the axe. Simple as it can be --- should have happened 35 years ago. Gibson presents an opinion as opinion. So what? "Swifties vs. Kerry?" Kinda missed the initial fuss --- medals over the fence, lip-lock on Jane's butt, Winter Soldier crap, and running as a war hero pretty well put the boy in the trash with the used kitty litter long before the "Swift boat brouhaha." Russ gave you the box score --- JK hasn't (newswise) stirred the fire under the people involved --- suggests more substance to the matter than your version, but he ain't a particularly interesting personality disorder to try chasing down exactly what did or did not happen.

 

[Burnsys]

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

In the 90' we foloowed the rules exactly as they said.. we even where an example for the reggion acording to us and the imf.. we opened our markets, we privatized everything, we become a free market economy, now here we are, even the imf admits his responsability, but of course. it was another "Mistake" those who cost thousens of lives.. and i can tell you hundreds of countrys "Playing the game" who are now so so poor you can't even think about it...

i reccomend you a movie russ: Life and Debt : http://www.lifeanddebt.org/

"Utilizing excerpts from the award-winning non-fiction text "A Small Place" by Jamaica Kincaid, Life & Debt is a woven tapestry of sequences focusing on the stories of individual Jamaicans whose strategies for survival and parameters of day-to-day existence are determined by the U.S. and other foreign economic agendas. By combining traditional documentary telling with a stylized narrative framework, the complexity of international lending, structural adjustment policies and free trade will be understood in the context of the day-to-day realities of the people whose lives they impact. "

 

[Burnsys]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

The one who changes the rules all the time are the imf, they are always and i mean ALWAYS suggesting some new policy to be a little more a "free market economy". and our government of course always do what they say... But all this rule only benefits the most rich businesman.. just for example we had an antimonopoly law, but the imf make us eliminate it in the 2001.
And remember this. all the "Aid" the imf and the wb gives goes ALWAYS to the hand of corrupt politicians...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-99.html

"lack of money has not been Africa's problem. Rather, it's that foreign aid agencies have subsidized regimes whose policies have destroyed their national economies-a conclusion that even the World Bank itself admitted in a recent study "

"It is not a new insight to say that continued aid under such circumstances merely makes matters worse. The World Bank has recognized as much since at least the early 1980s when it began "structural adjustment lending" --aid conditioned on a recipient country's fixing its macroeconomic policies. The IMF has always conditioned its aid on policy change. But with few exceptions, it has produced no serious reform in the region"

 

[misskitty]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

 

[Burnsys]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

Of course the country works better without monopolys, but some corporations (especialy foreing) can get a LOT more of profits being an oligopopy... for example SHELL-EXXON-RESPOL , TELEFONICA-TELECOM, etc..
Do you remember when the fcc had that reform that alowed the media to merge even more? that's another oligopoly, the media in your country...


Acording to the WB: in 2003 of the 100 biggest economics in the world, 51 are corporations, 49 countrys...

POne of the ocupation´s primary goal is to shape the ocuped country economy so they can open it´s market to those corporations...

 

[misskitty]

Yes I do remember that...I was surprised.
Everybody is in it to make a quick buck. Even the occupiers. Its frightening what people will do for money.

 

[Anttech]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

 

[Smurf]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

 

[loseyourname]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue. I have to admit I almost never watch TV news, so I'm not well qualified to comment on this, but the problem with most news channels that I can see is that they don't have enough news programs and they have way too many commentary programs. These commentary programs are simply men expressing opinions, however, and regardless of how off-base you might feel they are, they are free to express it, and if there exists a market of people who agree with them and want to see them, they should be on TV.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government. They should neither seek to scrutinize nor partner with the government or with any other entity. They should seek to report the news with no further ends in mind. They should report all stories of significance from every possible angle they can get. I should note, however, that I don't mean they should have those stupid roundtable of men arguing with each other. What I mean is that they should tell the stories of each party involved in a given story, without bias or ideological filtering. Nothing but the facts, to rip off Jack Webb.

 

[Townsend]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

I think the problem with this idea is transparent...

What about Michael Moore's crap? That was suppose to be a documentary which would make it subject to the same regulation as news.

The more government you have the less freedoms you have...the fewer the freedoms the smaller your voice becomes until you cannot be heard at all...

 

[Anttech]

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

Actually I thought of a system like the BBC, For the People by the people ;-) The BBC is funded with a TV license and has a mandate (and thus is free from corporate presures). The BBC is regulated by an independent body and has to conform to its mandate. If it doesn't its upper management is dissmantled.

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government.

By scrutinise I mean eerrrrmm scrutinise :-) They should alert the viewers when the government or the opposition is Lieing and make them accountable for there decsisions... Who else will?

 

[Townsend]

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I cannot stand TV because I feel like commercials are a complete waste of time. I do enjoy a movie but that's totally besides the point...

The point is, yes some people want watch Fox news because of its right leaning views. If you were to put American people in charge you would only risk seeing even more of this than there currently is.

 

[BobG]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

I don't have a problem with partisan news commentary shows, as long as there is a mix available between one or various channels.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice, though (similar to colleges obtaining accreditation from various professional organizations, for example). The two people Fox puts on around lunch time (Mountain time) would qualify as 'mindless drivel' for sure.

Considering Fox's ratings, the key to good news channel ratings seems to be the same as for network TV. Reduce the intelligence level of the shows to a level where people can relax and be entertained at the end of a hard day's work - not stress them out by forcing them to think about complex isssues.

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

 

[Townsend]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

That is a perfect example of why Fox news is so great, especially for the liberals. If there were no Fox there would be one less thing for all of you to sit around and complain about...how unfortunate that would be..

 

[chup]

Of course not, Just move it to Comedy central where it belongs.

 

[Yonoz]

Is this another one of those threads where everyone is joking, like the one about that bathroom note?
Don't want to be accused of "stomping heads" again...

 

[2CentsWorth]

Freedom of Speech cannot and should not be regulated, and people have the right to consume what they choose. However, the suit that was lodged against Fox News for the tag line of "fair and balanced news" is right on, because it has to do with false advertisement--everyone knows Fox News is basically state sponsored. Fox News has made incorrect and false reports, and heads should roll as happened with Dan Rather. There needs to be accountability in this way.

 

[TRCSF]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

 

[faust9]

Fox NEWS is fairly accurate. Fox OPINION programming(aka low brow entertainment ) is a different story. In either case we should not censor these because they are cable programming AND they should be allowed to have an opinion if they wish. I hate Fox programming but I would never advocate censoring them because I don't like it.

 

[Burnsys]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

 

[faust9]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

You need to read your link. The discussion within it is about Fox's opinion programming not its news content.

 

[russ_watters]

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

 

[Informal Logic]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Of course you would come away with this interpretation, though no one has advocated this or believes this.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice.

Good suggestion. My concern is the affect Fox has on Americans who cannot make these differentiations.

 

[Burnsys]

Russ do you remember when we was talking about the Memo in fox news?

well i found who write it, the memos are issued by FOX News Senior Vice President and News Editorial John Moody


Here you can see the memos scanned:

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_040404.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_042204.pdf

I like this one:
The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_032304.pdf

Other memos:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

 

[ron damon]

Yeah, just ban points of view you disagree with.

 

[Art]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Nobody is advocating a Democrat version of Fox news. I think you will find most people would simply like impartial news.

It would not be too difficult to establish an independent body to assess a program's news worthiness and then publish this in the form of ratings so at least when people are watching propaganda, right or left, they are aware of it.

I personally believe this would pull programs such as Fox News back to the centre ground as the majority of ordinary people are impartial and given the choice and information about these choices they would choose the unbiased media sources.

 

[ron damon]

you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Leftists. Every measure to fight terrorism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved civil liberties in particular.

fixed ...

 

[Anttech]

foxed ...

fixed ...

 

[ron damon]

fixed ...

4/5. very clever.

 

[loseyourname]

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

Like I said, I don't actually watch much television news, so it's entirely possible that I have no clue what I'm talking about, but the impression I get is that they selectively report things; they don't intentionally make factually inaccurate reports. No doubt the pundits they have on flat out lie from time to time, but that isn't news, it's commentary.

 

[loseyourname]

Ha ha. Okay, I just turned on Fox News to see what all the fuss is about, and the first thing that comes on is an advertisement for a show they have that is hosted by Oliver North. I have to admit that isn't making them look all that good.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

I just discovered with the arrival of my cable TV service that there's an actually Fox News channel, so when folks are talking about Fox news, are you talking about the news on the Fox network channel, or the Fox News (cable) channel? The Fox News channel seems to be reporting pretty much identical stories to what's on CNN, at least in the limited time I've been flipping back and forth watching the two. There's always a bias (or slant) in reporting, even when it's just facts (for example, the facts will usually be presented for the side the reporter is favoring first). Afterall, the news is put out by reporters who are people and have their likes and dislikes and follow whatever stories they prefer to follow; it isn't some computer generated, random selection process. One channel will spin that Bush's visits to hurricane stricken areas are a good thing and another will spin it as a bad thing, but the fact is he was there, you're free to draw a different conclusion from the reporter if you so choose. So, if you don't like a particular type of journalism or a particular news outlet, you have the choice to change the channel or turn off the TV, or not buy the paper, or not go to a particular internet site.

 

[SOS2008]

Currently the majority of broadcast news is about hurricanes so there probably isn't much difference between agencies. Some time ago I posted stats on the number of reports on the missing girl in Aruba. CNN had around 70, MSNBC a little more than 100, and FOX had 400+. This is an example of rating how newsworthy the media is. I'm all for consumer reports that inform the public of what they are buying (or in this case, buying into).

 

[Art]

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

Yes it does. Which is why nobody has responded to say it would be a good thing.

My post was simply expressing my impatience with this comment

Great thread.
Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Why, yet again, try to turn a thread with potential for useful dialogue into the usual democrat vs GOP pissing contest?

IMO The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion rather than throw-away one liners preceded by lots of little rollies.

Or then again perhaps it is just me who is out of step.

 

[ron damon]

The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion

one human's propaganda is another human's creed; the idea of having an entitity with authority deciding what's true really exemplifies everything that's rotten about the Left.

 

[Informal Logic]

one human's propaganda is another human's creed; the idea of having an entitity with authority deciding what's true really exemplifies everything that's rotten about the Left.

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

 

[ron damon]

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

Then start a http://lyinginponds.com/ that does such things, and wait for people to voluntarily check it out; what scares me is the notion of having some agency determining what's true (and the colossal arrogance of those who simply dismiss others as vehicles of propaganda, a word that if it is to have any meaning whatsoever, should be used in extreme scarcity).

 

[Manchot]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

What about all of those times when they reported that WMDs have possibly been found in Iraq, only to retract the statement later on? Though the retractions may have been mentioned once, this does not change the fact that the big words on the front of the screen said "WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ?" for long periods of time. I believe that they are responsible for many peoples' deluded belief that there were WMDs in Iraq, or that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda.