Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2011, 10:32:25 PM
-
No surprise here.
Poll: Fox News Best TV News Network
Monday, 19 Sep 2011
By Newsmax Wires
A national poll has found that Americans prefer Fox News as the best television news network.
Poll Position, a new company set up by former CNN exec Eason Jordan, a 23-year veteran of the cable network, polled 1,180 people with 36 percent picking Fox News as best, 28 percent saying CNN and 17 percent choosing MSNBC.
Americans picked on partisan lines too: 62 percent of Republicans picked Fox News, while 72 percent of Democrats chose CNN and MSNBC.
Fox is consistently one of the top five shows in all of cable while its rivals usually sit somewhere outside the top 20.
This latest poll also confirms many widely held notions about the three networks' fan bases.
Fox' viewership skews Republican, white and older. Sixty-two percent of respondents who identified themselves as Republican chose Fox as the best, as did 42 percent of whites and 46 percent of those past the age of 65. Fox was tops in every age group except those under the age of 30.
Meanwhile, both CNN and MSNBC skew Democrat, young and ethnically diverse.
Among those identifying themselves as Democrats, 40.8 percent chose CNN as the best and 31 percent chose MSNBC. CNN was also the preferred choice of 35.6 percent of blacks, 45.4 percent of Hispanics and 39.4 percent of respondents between 18 and 29 years of age.
MSNBC was not voted the best by any particular category, but it registered north of 20 percent among Blacks, Latinos, "Other" and females (not to mention Democrats).
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/poll-foxnews-best-newsnetwork/2011/09/19/id/411558
-
when the majority of americans want to pull out of a war, elect a man named obama, or doubt the 911 story,
they are gullible sheep and completely clueless.
but when the majority choose 1 network over another, it's gospel, baby!
-
One thousand, one hundred seems like a small sampling...
-
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
-
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
:D :D :D
-
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
And when did Fox say this, again (please don't pull up what I think you're going to pull up)?
-
CSPAN is the most honest TV news, but boring as fuck. Fox is definitely the most entertaining though, no question.
-
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
Uh. Chris Matthews from MSNBC? You don't remember that? Why aren't you talking about that too?
-
more people watch american idol than vote for pres, what does that tell you about this country.
-
more people watch american idol than vote for pres, what does that tell you about this country.
We have obama as POTUS. Thats' what it tells me.
Morons, dupes, shills, lemmings, lackeys, hacks, fools, and cult members like yourself voted for this shit show.
-
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
When did Fox News say this? Link?
-
We have obama as POTUS. Thats' what it tells me.
Morons, dupes, shills, lemmings, lackeys, hacks, fools, and cult members like yourself voted for this shit show.
why do you always go to name calling, shorty,just asking :D
-
When did Fox News say this? Link?
WOAH.
-
WOAH.
You have a link? And I mean other than a comedian arguing with video clips?
-
Uh. Chris Matthews from MSNBC? You don't remember that? Why aren't you talking about that too?
Why aren't I talking about that? Perhaps because the thread title and topic is referring to FAUX. Duh!!
-
And when did Fox say this, again (please don't pull up what I think you're going to pull up)?
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
-
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Not quite, Lurker. That's the typical line liberals used to bash FOX.
The Florida Court of Appeals did no such thing. First, Fox News Channel wasn’t the subject of the suit. It was a local TV station, WTVT in the Tampa Bay area, where I grew up. They run Fox programming. When I was a kid, WTVT (Channel 13) used to be CBS.
The plaintiffs claimed that WTVT, NOT Fox News Channel, fired them for refusing to falsify a news story. That claim got THROWN OUT in a lower court. In fact, nearly all of the case got chucked, except for a whistleblower claim for which the plaintiff got over $400,000.
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
However, WTVT appealed that to the Florida Court of Appeals and that ruling got overturned.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
-
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
To add to McWay's post, there is this write-up.
FOX, Lies & Videotape: debunking an internet myth
Published on November 3, 2009
Sean Parnell
Much ado is being made about the supposed "war" between the Obama White House and FOX News. As the New York Times reports:
Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.
"We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent," said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. "As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network...
While some appear concerned that the White House feud with FOX News raises First Amendment concerns, we at the Center for Competitive Politics are not among them. Frosty relationships between administrations and the media are nothing new, as Thomas Jefferson's quote that "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" attests. And who can forget ex-Vice President Spiro Agnew and his comment about the "nattering nabobs of negativism?"
What is of interest to CCP, however, is that the controversy has seemingly given new life, or at least a fresh story to attach itself to, to the claim that FOX News successfully went to court in order to get a ruling explicitly protecting a First Amendment right to "lie" in its programming. The story is often used to support demands for censorship of the airwaves under the guise of the so-called "fairness doctrine," along with calls to extend it to cable among those who understand that FOX News is a cable news outlet.
Variations of the story abound on the internet. Here are excerpts from one that is fairly representative of the general charge:
The Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by [FOX affiliate and owned station]... WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation...
According to Akre and Wilson, the station... wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story..." Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement [but]... Steve Wilson... was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. ...the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX... argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the"right to lie"or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
Other sites report the tale with similar outrage. A sample:
Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public - Seriously
Six years ago, Fox News successfully argued in court that it had a constitutional right to report lies
Fox News Has a First Amendment"right to lie"- Updated
Needless to say, those who are not fans of FOX have quickly seized upon this story to bolster the idea that FOX is somehow less than a "legitimate" news organization. After all, what kind of news organization would go to court to protect the"right to lie"to their audience?
For example, reader comments on a recent article at the Huffington Post on the Obama/FOX controversy include multiple references to the story:
"FOX News went to Court, to Sue for the"right to lie"to their viewers."
"A court in Florida... ruled that Fox was allowed to spread false propaganda on their Fox channels."
"Fox news is on record in court stating that they lie in their content. Their chief counsel admits this and says so what. It doesn't matter that we lie and obfuscate as a matter of course in our fake news company. The judge in Florida of course agreed this was fine..."
Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to "lie" in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel's detractors. There's only one problem - the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.
There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
The St. Petersburg Times reported on the jury verdict and similarly reported on the failure of Akre and Wilson to win most of their claims:
The jury of three men and three women deliberated nearly six hours before finding that Fox affiliate Channel 13 had retaliated against Jane Akre for a story about a controversial hormone manufactured by the Monsanto Corp.
However, jurors refused to give any money to Akre's husband, Steve Wilson, an Emmy-winning reporter who also worked on the story.
And the jury did not believe the couple's claim that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter the news report.
Despite the limited victory, Akre and Wilson found vindication in the verdict...
It is also not correct to claim, as the Gaddy story quoted above states, that the jury ruled that the FOX affiliate had, in fact, found that the station had attempted to force Akre and Wilson to air "a false, distorted or slanted story..."
Juries do not write opinions, instead they answer specific questions contained in jury instructions. According to a web site maintained by Akre, the jury question on which she prevailed was:
"Do you find that the Plaintiff Jane Akre has proven, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the Defendant, through its employees or agents, terminated her employment or took other retaliatory personnel action against her, because she threatened to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission under oath, in writing, the broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report which she reasonably believed would violate the prohibition against intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television, if it were aired?"
A careful reading of the jury instruction reveals that the jury was only answering whether they believed Akre had been fired for threatening to lodge a complaint with the FCC alleging broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report, not whether the news report was in fact false, distorted, or slanted.
Akre disputes this interpretation on her own web site, claiming that "The jurors in my case said YES to the fact that Fox was guilty of pressuring me to falsify the news... When you look at the actual jury verdict form, the jury determined it was actually false, distorted, or slanted. In fact, if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor..."
But the FCC does not share Akre's interpretation of the jury verdict. In a 2007 decision by the FCC denying a petition by Akre and Wilson demanding that WTVT's broadcast license not be renewed, the FCC includes the following footnote:
Although there has been much back-and-forth among the parties about whether the jury in the employment lawsuit found that Station WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, the verdict form did not ask the jury to determine whether WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, but rather to determine whether Station WTVT(TV) fired either employee for threatening to disclose what the Petitioners reasonably believed would be a violation of the news distortion policy.
In addition, Akre's claim that "...if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor..." is undermined by her own filing with the 2nd District Court of Appeal in response to the appeal filed by WTVT. Akre's brief states that "Akre had to prove three elements to establish her claim under the Whistle-Blower Act: (1) that WTVT retaliated against her (2) because she threatened to disclose to the FCC (3) conduct she reasonably and in good faith believed was a violation of the FCC's News Distortion Policy."
The same brief later devotes several pages to support this contention, stating in part that "WTVT argues that the Act does not prohibit employer retaliation unless the employee proves an "actual" violation of a law, rule, or regulation... [but the] term "violation" as used in the Act has no obvious meaning, and could encompass both perceived violations or proven ones..."
So the trial jury never reached a conclusion on whether the FOX affiliate had violated the news distortion policy, nor did they have to in order to determine she had been fired in response to the threat by Akre and Wilson to file a complaint with the FCC.
More importantly, and more relevant to the examination of whether WTVT actually asserted a"right to lie"in its newscasts, is that there is nothing on record to show that this argument was ever advanced in court.
In the initial response to the suit by Akre and Wilson, WTVT explicitly rejects that the edits they proposed and ultimately required for the report on BGH to air were "false, distorted, or slanted," in multiple places. In fact, they allege that it was the story as prepared by Akre and Wilson that was biased and unbalanced.
For example, in WTVT's response to the initial Akre and Wilson complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that "...Defendant's news managers realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces themselves..." and "...Defendant's news managers had begun to suspect... that Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report on BGH."
In the "Affirmative Defenses" section of WTVT's initial filing, the station alleges that "...[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation" and "...The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant's news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion..."
And contrary to the claim in Gaddy's story, it is simply not true that "Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story..." They did, in all of their filings.
Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the"right to lie"in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment - editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.
Further evidence that WTVT did not assert at the trial court level any "right to lie"or distort the news is that neither Akre's response to WTVT's initial appeal brief nor the petition she and Wilson filed with the FCC make any reference at all to such a claim. Surely, had a claim for a First Amendment "right to lie" in news broadcasts been made at the trial court level, some mention of it would have found its way into either of these two documents (Akre's brief to the appellate court runs 57 pages, and the FCC petition runs over 90 pages including appendices).
A review of both the initial brief and the reply brief of WTVT for the appeal also reveals no mention whatsoever of a "right to lie" defense. Not surprisingly, the station's brief does contain multiple references to the First Amendment supporting the contention that editorial decisions and disputes are beyond the purview of the government.
Akre's own answer brief to the appellate court also suggests that no such First Amendment "right to lie" argument was made by the FOX affiliate. Addressing the issues raised by WTVT's brief, Akre's brief states that "WTVT also suggests its conduct was somehow protected by the First Amendment, although it asserts no First Amendment defense in its brief."
The absence of any reference to a First Amendment "right to lie" defense offered by the station in any of the court filings reviewed, or the petition filed by Akre and Wilson with the FCC, or the FCC's dismissal of the Akre/Wilson petition, or any contemporary media accounts of either the initial trial or the appeals court proceedings, all very strongly indicate that no such argument was advanced by the Fox affiliate.
It is also worth noting that of all the web sites, blog postings, and online commentary on the subject of the FOX "right to lie" argument, not a single one that I've seen links to anything that would substantiate the claim. Very few even bother to link to the actual 2nd District opinion overturning Akre's whistleblower verdict, or anything else related to the case itself.
Finally on this point, and perhaps most convincingly, the web site maintained by Akre and Wilson also make no reference to a First Amendment "right to lie" argument advanced by WTVT. The two very obviously believe that the station attempted to force them to produce a false and distorted news article, and have gone to great lengths to promote and advance that belief.
Yet in all the claims and charges leveled directly by Akre and Wilson against the FOX affiliate across multiple venues and platforms, there is not a single mention of any "right to lie" argument allegedly offered by WTVT. They seemingly accuse the station of nearly every other sin imaginable in the world of journalism, but are completely silent on this charge. If there is one place one would expect to find mention and substantiation of the claim that the FOX affiliate had claimed a "right to lie," it is in the filings and writings of Akre and Wilson. Yet there is nothing.
Sherlock Holmes was once able to crack a case based on a dog that didn't bark, and the failure of Akre and Wilson to even once mention the allegation that WTVT had asserted a "right to lie" should be the final piece of evidence that no such claim was ever made by the FOX affiliate.
So, having determined that no First Amendment "right to lie" defense was offered by the station, what about the actual ruling by the 2nd District appeals court? Did it rule, as part of its decision to overturn Akre's whistleblower victory, that there is no barrier to lying in a news broadcast, that media outlets can freely falsify and distort the news because of First Amendment protections?
No. The court's overturning of the lower court's verdict rested on a technical issue, whether the policy of the FCC against "false, distorted, or slanted" news reports was covered under Florida's whistleblower statute. As the court explains in its ruling:
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have "[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a "law, rule or regulation" as "includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business." § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news - which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" - does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses...
In other words, the FCC's policy against news distortion is simply not covered under Florida's whistleblower statute. The court never addressed the First Amendment defenses raised by the FOX affiliate, and in fact the term "First Amendment" appears nowhere in the six-page decision.
While the FCC's policy against news distortion is not covered by Florida's whistleblower statute, it remains in effect and continues to prohibit the airing of "false, distorted, or slanted" news stories. The fact that Akre and Wilson filed their own petition with the FCC urging that WTVT not have its broadcast license renewed is ample proof that the Florida court ruling had no impact on the FCC's policy against news distortion, and that it stands today.
If, as claimed by some detractors of FOX News, the court had ruled that there was a "right to lie" held by broadcasters, Akre and Wilson certainly would have been aware of it, and would certainly not have filed a petition urging WTVT's license renewal be denied based on an FCC policy they would have known to be invalid as a result of their own lawsuit.
Tellingly, in rejecting the petition by Akre and Wilson, the FCC also makes no reference whatsoever to the imagined "right to lie" allegedly argued for by FOX and accepted by the 2nd District appeals court. The FCC's silence on this issue is yet more evidence that no such decision was made by the Florida court.
It is clear from the evidence presented here that FOX did not argue, as claimed by several of its critics, that it had a First Amendment to lie in its news reports. It's also plain that the Florida courts did not rule that FOX and other broadcasters had such a right.
It would be nice to hope that this analysis will finally put to rest the myth of a First Amendment "right to lie" case involving FOX News. Nice, but probably unrealistic. At the very least, it should give ammunition to those intent on countering this particular wild internet rumor.
With thanks to KingOneEye of the web site DailyKos, who suggested I write this up.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
-
this statement says differently
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
-
this statement says differently
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
That claim by Gaddy is specifically addressed in the link I cited, Lurker. Gaddy's article is FALSE. Beach Bum printed it, along with the rebuttal; yet, you still make this inaccurate charge.
Akre's charge the WTVT tried to force her to falsify the story was THROWN OUT of court. "The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC."
-
No surprise here.
Poll: Fox News Best TV News Network
Monday, 19 Sep 2011
By Newsmax Wires
A national poll has found that Americans prefer Fox News as the best television news network.
Poll Position, a new company set up by former CNN exec Eason Jordan, a 23-year veteran of the cable network, polled 1,180 people with 36 percent picking Fox News as best, 28 percent saying CNN and 17 percent choosing MSNBC.
Americans picked on partisan lines too: 62 percent of Republicans picked Fox News, while 72 percent of Democrats chose CNN and MSNBC.
Fox is consistently one of the top five shows in all of cable while its rivals usually sit somewhere outside the top 20.
This latest poll also confirms many widely held notions about the three networks' fan bases.
Fox' viewership skews Republican, white and older. Sixty-two percent of respondents who identified themselves as Republican chose Fox as the best, as did 42 percent of whites and 46 percent of those past the age of 65. Fox was tops in every age group except those under the age of 30.
Meanwhile, both CNN and MSNBC skew Democrat, young and ethnically diverse.
Among those identifying themselves as Democrats, 40.8 percent chose CNN as the best and 31 percent chose MSNBC. CNN was also the preferred choice of 35.6 percent of blacks, 45.4 percent of Hispanics and 39.4 percent of respondents between 18 and 29 years of age.
MSNBC was not voted the best by any particular category, but it registered north of 20 percent among Blacks, Latinos, "Other" and females (not to mention Democrats).
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/poll-foxnews-best-newsnetwork/2011/09/19/id/411558
you'r right..I hear the martians love FOX News
-
you'r right..I hear the martians love FOX News
Dennis Kucinich approves of your comment.
-
I watch Morning Joe for prob 30 min in the am while getting ready for work and maybe 30 min of BOR from 11 to 12 at night.
both are a joke.
If you want the truth - look to schiff or celente
-
Fox News is always good for forcing that traffic cone 180 and all his other liberal buddies sit on just a little farther on up there.
this statement says differently
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
So you refute their sourced material with a small paragraph written by some noname that is also lacking a source. Fail.
Stick to swinging from 333's nuts.
-
OP was from Newsmax.
'nough said.
-
OP was from Newsmax.
'nough said.
Here's the link to the Poll Position article.
http://pollposition.com/2011/09/19/best-tv-news-network/
Read above and you'll find out that Poll Position was started by former CNN execs. Swing and a miss, crybaby.
Tingles is probably on suicide watch.
-
You have a link? And I mean other than a comedian arguing with video clips?
With all due respect.. those are real clips.. not like he doctored them up...just regular old clips of the foolery that is fox "news" (oh brother) ... so if you are asking if he is "arguing" with actual footage and proof.. um.. i would go with yeah...
-
With all due respect.. those are real clips.. not like he doctored them up...just regular old clips of the foolery that is fox "news" (oh brother) ... so if you are asking if he is "arguing" with actual footage and proof.. um.. i would go with yeah...
He (John Stewart) is no different than Rush Limbaugh or any other tool who argues with video clips. Taking an unedited clip and arguing with it is still not putting things in their proper context.
In any event, I asked for a link in support of Lurker's claim:
Considering how FAUX has already blatantly stated that they will lie and distort the news, can one even believe this "poll" to be accurate.
What do 4 out of 5 dentists say?
Turns out this his statement is false, as the info McWay and I posted shows.
-
I guess these blatant lies must be false too
http://foxnewslies.net/
or maybe the little oversight of putting a "D" after a Congressman's name when caught in a scandal. Like Foley and Sanford.
Or maybe a little mix up like the increased crowd gathering based on old footage.
Yeah... one can easily see that Fox does lie and deliberately twist the news.
-
I guess these blatant lies must be false too
http://foxnewslies.net/
or maybe the little oversight of putting a "D" after a Congressman's name when caught in a scandal. Like Foley and Sanford.
Or maybe a little mix up like the increased crowd gathering based on old footage.
Yeah... one can easily see that Fox does lie and deliberately twist the news.
And that happens on CNN and MSNBC.
The point is your claim that Fox fought for the right to lie about the news is bogus.
You sound like a mad liberal, who's upset because the left doesn't monopolize the media anymore.
Explain why, when it comes to election coverage, Fox is #1, even over the network broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC) and MSNBC is dog-dead LAST!!!
-
And that happens on CNN and MSNBC.
The point is your claim that Fox fought for the right to lie about the news is bogus.
You sound like a mad liberal, who's upset because the left doesn't monopolize the media anymore.
Explain why, when it comes to election coverage, Fox is #1, even over the network broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC) and MSNBC is dog-dead LAST!!!
just because more people eat at McDonalds doesn't make Le Cirque inferior.
-
MSNBC is unwatchable 95% of the time.
-
just because more people eat at McDonalds doesn't make Le Cirque inferior.
MSNBC would be the equivalent of a roach coach. Of course, responses like yours are typical speak to try and excuse why MSNBC and CNN are so sorry.
-
He (John Stewart) is no different than Rush Limbaugh or any other tool who argues with video clips. Taking an unedited clip and arguing with it is still not putting things in their proper context.
In any event, I asked for a link in support of Lurker's claim:
Turns out this his statement is false, as the info McWay and I posted shows.
Ok.. Lib guest on Fox news says Nazi.
Girl host says "thats inflammatory"
Guy says "you say it all the time"
Girl says... "i watch fox news all the time and we dont use that language"
Jon Stewart puts together a montage of clips of fox news regulars and hosts... using Nazi...
So like... wheres the disconnect?
You either do it or you dont.. and if there is video evidence.. than you did it.
-
what would jesus watch
-
what would jesus watch
Definayely not a network that advocates endlessly for gay marriage, abortion, theft, and corruption.
-
Ok.. Lib guest on Fox news says Nazi.
Girl host says "thats inflammatory"
Guy says "you say it all the time"
Girl says... "i watch fox news all the time and we dont use that language"
Jon Stewart puts together a montage of clips of fox news regulars and hosts... using Nazi...
So like... wheres the disconnect?
You either do it or you dont.. and if there is video evidence.. than you did it.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. In what context was the word "Nazi" being used in each clip? I doubt his montage put all of those references in context.
If someone is trying to make a point based on something someone else has said, why not get the person or the person's representative and ask them about it? I'd find that much more convincing than someone arguing with a tape.
Also, he's a comedian. Not exactly the kind of person I'd rely on for information.
-
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. In what context was the word "Nazi" being used in each clip? I doubt his montage put all of those references in context.
If someone is trying to make a point based on something someone else has said, why not get the person or the person's representative and ask them about it? I'd find that much more convincing than someone arguing with a tape.
Also, he's a comedian. Not exactly the kind of person I'd rely on for information.
They voted for obama - what do you expect?
-
I guess these blatant lies must be false too
http://foxnewslies.net/
or maybe the little oversight of putting a "D" after a Congressman's name when caught in a scandal. Like Foley and Sanford.
Or maybe a little mix up like the increased crowd gathering based on old footage.
Yeah... one can easily see that Fox does lie and deliberately twist the news.
of course
-
And that happens on CNN and MSNBC.
The point is your claim that Fox fought for the right to lie about the news is bogus.
You sound like a mad liberal, who's upset because the left doesn't monopolize the media anymore.
Explain why, when it comes to election coverage, Fox is #1, even over the network broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC) and MSNBC is dog-dead LAST!!!
you may be right about MSNBC but I have never seen CNN intentionally twist the news..they have made mistakes yes, but FOX is blatant in its partisanship
I think you might be adding liquor to that cell-tech of yours
-
you may be right about MSNBC but I have never seen CNN intentionally twist the news..they have made mistakes yes, but FOX is blatant in its partisanship
I think you might be adding liquor to that cell-tech of yours
CNN absolutely has a liberal bias.
-
CNN absolutely has a liberal bias.
why do you think that?
-
why do you think that?
Because it's true. I see it in the headlines, their Palin and now Bachmann obsession, the stories they chose to cover and highlight and the ones they ignore, the conduct of their anchors and reporters, etc. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's blatant.
-
Wait, wait, wait. Did someone just post that CNN does not have a liberal bias? HEHEHEHEHE!
They are no better than MSNBC.
-
this statement says differently
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
YOU are a damn retard. Seriously. You have surpassed Blacken as the stupidest person on this forum. Congratulations.
-
What an ignorant thread... This is like arguing over which is worse.
The chicken you ate wasn't chicken... or the place you ate wasn't a restaurant.
-
YOU are a damn retard. Seriously. You have surpassed Blacken as the stupidest person on this forum. Congratulations.
this coming from a guy that follows 333386 around on the board and agrees with everything he says, i think you want to be his but buddy :D :D :D
-
this coming from a guy that follows 333386 around on the board and agrees with everything he says, i think you want to be his but buddy :D :D :D
-
They voted for obama - what do you expect?
Pipe down noob.. you get your news from a no name blogger in India..
-
Pipe down noob.. you get your news from a no name blogger in India..
:D :D :D
-
Pipe down noob.. you get your news from a no name blogger in India..
Far more credible that your messiah bro.
-
Far more credible that your messiah bro.
yeah, how did that turn out :D :D :D :D 200 million a day :D
-
yeah, how did that turn out :D :D :D :D 200 million a day :D
Don't know exact figures as maobama wont release the $$$$ cost
-
Don't know exact figures as maobama wont release the $$$$ cost
hahahaa won't admit your wrong,keep living the dream :D :D
-
hahahaa won't admit your wrong,keep living the dream :D :D
So far best estimate comes from India, so if its them or Damien Thorn POTUS, I'll go with the curry monsters.
-
So far best estimate comes from India, so if its them or Damien Thorn POTUS, I'll go with the curry monsters.
keep living the dream :D
-
keep living the dream :D
More like the ObaNightmare
-
so blacks are apes now.i see why you hate obama so much .it's not his policies it's because he's a neeegro
-
so blacks are apes now.i see why you hate obama so much .it's not his policies it's because he's a neeegro
No - his wife is a being from parts unknown.
-
YOU are a damn retard. Seriously. You have surpassed Blacken as the stupidest person on this forum. Congratulations.
Coming from someone that :
A) Believes people can be half a religion
B) Claims Jesus created the universe
C) Claims there are factual evidence of the ark and Noah gathering all those animals
Well.. I will take your little insult as a compliment. Because obviously you are not even as smart as a so called retard. "Congratulations".
-
Coming from someone that :
A) Believes people can be half a religion
B) Claims Jesus created the universe
C) Claims there are factual evidence of the ark and Noah gathering all those animals
Well.. I will take your little insult as a compliment. Because obviously you are not even as smart as a so called retard. "Congratulations".
two finger snaps there! you have put him in his place. Butt, He'll just move around again.
-
lol @ cavemen riding around on T-rex's.
-
two finger snaps there! you have put him in his place. Butt, He'll just move around again.
When you kick his little teeth in, he just disappears for a while only to turn again like dog shit on the bottom of your shoe.
No surprise with mental midgets like him.
-
When you kick his little teeth in, he just disappears for a while only to turn again like dog shit on the bottom of your shoe.
No surprise with mental midgets like him.
but he sure is fun to tease.