Better yet the BBC has an excellent online website with search facilities so it should be no problem for you to provide links to articles you believe to be anti-semitic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stmRon_Damon said:
I pretty much agree with Moonbear and Russ's comments (plus a couple others, I think) about a mix of different points of view being available.russ_watters said:
TSA I genuinely get irritated by the fact that every thread practically without exception ends up getting hijacked down the democrat - GOP side road.TheStatutoryApe said:
There are already plenty of threads devoted specifically to that subject.I would like to learn more about the independent monitoring board, and requirements such as having two substantive sources.Art said:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280004
)Art said:
From which I take it you couldn't find a single link throughout their extensive archives to justify your statement. That's ok.Ron_Damon said:BBC WORLD TV is what I was talking about. But if you so insist: I remember seeing extremely sympathetic reports of militant's burials, with crying women and children, highlightings of the suffering of the whole band of terrorists waiving their rifles and RPGs, in 10 minute-long footage of the funeral procession with an Arab or Leftist commentator giving a thousand reasons for why suicide bombers are not that reprehensible.
After such platitudes they'd very coldly inform that a bus full of Jewish children was blown up, give the number of dead, and then quickly move on to sports and weather, or more poor grieving Palestinians.
It's like the then Israel Justice minister commented in an interview: "for some people, what is done to us never is that wrong".
But those are my impressions; I could be wrong
Speaking of which, I often post transcripts from MSNBC, CNN, or PBS. The last time I tried to obtain such information from the FOX News site, I could not even see an internal search engine. I haven't gone back since, but it smacks of having something to hide.Art said:
Manchot said:
Under the law, you cannot have whatever slogan you feel like. If Coca-Cola wanted their product's slogan to be "Coca-Cola: Healthy drink for you and me," they would not be allowed to.Townsend said:
I'm not saying that they are liberal (though they are in your mind, which is all that matters), but the difference there is that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, et al. do not have slogans which attempt to encapsulate their product in three words.
We're not talking about Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 911. We're talking about Fox News.Tell me, was Fahrenheit 911 a documentary or a liberal nut job trying to sell it like he was giving an unbiased look at the US government...
I just don't get it...you want to ban Fox from using a slogan but you will let someone call muck racking a documentary and praise them for it.
I get the feeling you people are either the pot or the kettle...
Burnsys said:
Manchot said:
Manchot said:
Ron_Damon said:
Yes, there is a difference between a documentary/movie at the theatres (or on video for rent) and news that is promoted as news (a factual presentation of newsworthy events or happenings for purposes of keeping the public informed).Manchot said:
SOS2008 said:
SOS2008 said:
I choose not to pay to see propaganda, and that goes for The Passion of the Christ too. But when I tune into watch what is promoted as the news, I expect to obtain factual information.Ron_Damon said:
As stated above, it also is a matter of choosing to go out of your home and paying to see something in an entertainment venue, versus information that is blasted into every American's home under the auspices of being truthful.Townsend said:
If it isn't fair and balanced it is still false advertising, and obviously so if reports are not the truth.Townsend said:
SOS2008 said:
Townsend said:
The differences between entertainment in the movie theatres or video stores versus news broadcasts via public airwaves is similar to the the do-not-call provisions of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule in the interest of consumers and having some power over the inflow to their homes (and versus passive advertisement) with "public" being a key word. Telling people to change the channel or turn the TV set off does not suffice.Townsend said:
F911 was not suppose to be entertainment but was suppose to be an educational documentary about the US government. You know, like those National Geographic shows about lions and stuff...SOS2008 said:
Other films are movies that are there for entertainment or educational purposes not to lie to the general public!
The FTC Act and the Lanham Act. In fact, the former states that if you don't have a good faith belief in a fact that you are advertising, you are committing false advertising (i.e., fraud), regardless of that fact's truthfulness. Therefore, if Rupert Murdoch does not truly believe that his network is "Fair and Balanced," he is committing fraud under the law. Obviously, this is impossible to prove in court, but ask yourself this: do you think that Rupert Murdoch believes his network to be fair and balanced?Townsend said:
First of all, I'm not liberal, as you assumed in your initial post. (I'm moderate.) In fact, I agree with you: Fahrenheit 9/11 shouldn't have been billed in the way that it was. I'm just tired of people diverting blame by pretending that two wrongs make a right. The essence of your argument was that we should be complaining about the MSM and Fahrenheit 9/11 instead of Fox News, as if they somehow cancel each other out. The main difference is that F9/11 was a movie released over a year ago with little actual advertising, and the rest of the MSM does not overtly bill themselves as "fair and balanced."
I never said to take away FOX News. I'm saying that since it is broadcast into American homes it is not passive so should meet certain promotional and content standards. People want control of what comes into their homes, and why there are regulations on violence, sex, etc. in TV programming. It has to do with public protections, such as false advertising being illegal.Townsend said:
...yes, exactly. At the least present your ideas in a complete, coherent form.Ron_Damon said:
SOS2008 said:
Smurf said:
Oh that thing. Well I guess you could interpret that as being able to say whatever they want, whenever they want... I mean, you don't let individuals have do that but I can see that's not the same as letting a giant corporation which proclaims everything they say as being true and "fair and balanced". We have to protect the companies too you know!loseyourname said:
What? What do you mean corporations are legally considered people? That doesn't matter! You have to be an incorporated person to have true freedom of speech. If you're not incorporated you only get the limited civil rights version.GOP said: