FOX News Calls White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Anti-Semite a 'Free Speech Activist'

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

What is with the tree hugging hate? Perhaps you've never met a cute and coy sequoia? Of course, some of them are a little wide in the girth for a really good hug, but you gotta love that bark!

Nothing beats getting sappy with a sequoia.

yeah, this thread makes me want to run out and free the trees and hug a whale.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think what we've gotten away from in this country is demanding (and being concerned with) quality journalism. That is quite a different thing than defending and justifying the ideological bent of a corporate brand.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The pamphlet didn't say these trees had bugs on them

[IAMX 3,055]

The pamphlet didn't say these trees had bugs on them

They're all part of the fun too.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The pamphlet didn't say these trees had bugs on them

They're all part of the fun too.

Ow, they're in my nuts!! ow ow ow ow ow!!!!

Edited August 15, 2008 by A.J.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

The pamphlet didn't say these trees had bugs on them

and some have thorns

[alienlovechild 75]

Incidentally our media is already *fettered* by all kinds of constraints - whether it be from editorial guidelines, government influence, corporate higher ups, advertisers or what have you.

No, what the Founding Fathers meant was government censorship i.e. prior restraint to publish. News organizations can publish or air as they see fit when they make editorial decisions. Private entities and public organizations have different standards. That comes from British common law if I'm not mistaken. I'm not too worried about corporation influence on the media. Hearst had an empire of newspapers but it didn't last. There's are so many other ways to communicate now that it's hard to control the news. Look at the National Enquirer nailing John Edwards before the rest of media. Remember Fox grew because of the strangehold of confromity from other netwroks leaving an untapped market. Same for Rush on radio. The guy took an advantage of an open market. National talk radio didn't exist until after deregulation in the late 80s.

Its criminal for instance, that the only tough-talking newsmen are people like Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs. But even there noone is interested in asking really tough questions of elected officials as much as pandering to juvenile outrage and fixating on irrelevancies.

Keith Olbermann isn't tough talking with his "Worst Person in World" awards aired nightly? The guy is fixated on O' Reilly. O'Reilly had a great interview with Hilliary but I don't recall McCain refusing to be interviewed by other media outright. As far as the subject matter goes, that's up to the news organization. There's different niches in the market and some seek mass appeal. Try this. If you think the coverage blows, change the channel. I do it all the time switching between Fox, CNN and MSNBC to get some different angles on a story. I hate Fox and Friends in the morning.

Evidently the Federalist papers never taught you a sense of humor.

Whites are scared and shooting brown people and gays was best punchline? Did you get your jokes from the standup act of that guy that played Kramer on Seinfeld?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Incidentally our media is already *fettered* by all kinds of constraints - whether it be from editorial guidelines, government influence, corporate higher ups, advertisers or what have you.

No, what the Founding Fathers meant was government censorship i.e. prior restraint to publish. News organizations can publish or air as they see fit when they make editorial decisions. Private entities and public organizations have different standards. That comes from British common law if I'm not mistaken. I'm not too worried about corporation influence on the media. Hearst had an empire of newspapers but it didn't last. There's are so many other ways to communicate now that it's hard to control the news. Look at the National Enquirer nailing John Edwards before the rest of media. Remember Fox grew because of the strangehold of confromity from other netwroks leaving an untapped market. Same for Rush on radio. The guy took an advantage of an open market. National talk radio didn't exist until after deregulation in the late 80s.

I get the idea behind freedom of the press. There are however relevant issues pertaining to the quality of the output that go beyond the freedom to print what you like. Self-regulation is a complex business - when all these different, other elements are involved.

Its criminal for instance, that the only tough-talking newsmen are people like Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs. But even there noone is interested in asking really tough questions of elected officials as much as pandering to juvenile outrage and fixating on irrelevancies.

Keith Olbermann isn't tough talking with his "Worst Person in World" awards aired nightly? The guy is fixated on O' Reilly. O'Reilly had a great interview with Hilliary but I don't recall McCain refusing to be interviewed by other media outright. As far as the subject matter goes, that's up to the news organization. There's different niches in the market and some seek mass appeal. Try this. If you think the coverage blows, change the channel. I do it all the time switching between Fox, CNN and MSNBC to get some different angles on a story. I hate Fox and Friends in the morning.

I mentioned Dobbs and O'Reilly as two examples - I am totally aware that there are other commentators out there besides those two. In fact I take it as a given. My point however, is that all ideological differences aside - these guys are more or less the same; and nowhere in the media is the partisan divide established more blatantly (and in such an exaggerated fashion) than in these types of shows.

And yes I do often change the channel

[Peikko 1,575]

Tell me, is there any radio network that gives a rundown on the days events in Washington? I used to like listening to 'Today in Parliament' - listening to the goverment in action somewhat puts the lie to how much they are doing it to be self serving and the 'in committe' segments were sometimes really fascinating too.

Anyway, just wondered if such a thing exists.

Does anyone know?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Tell me, is there any radio network that gives a rundown on the days events in Washington? I used to like listening to 'Today in Parliament' - listening to the goverment in action somewhat puts the lie to how much they are doing it to be self serving and the 'in committe' segments were sometimes really fascinating too.

Anyway, just wondered if such a thing exists.

Does anyone know?

cspan, but that ain't radio

[Peikko 1,575]

I know you can listen to entire debates. This was a summary of the most intersting stuff. Of course, that was according to some bods in the beeb, but still...

[alienlovechild 75]

I mentioned Dobbs and O'Reilly as two examples - I am totally aware that there are other commentators out there besides those two. In fact I take it as a given. My point however, is that all ideological differences aside - these guys are more or less the same; and nowhere in the media is the partisan divide established more blatantly (and in such an exaggerated fashion) than in these types of shows.

Never heard of Olbermann? He was even on a Simpson's episode. There are more out there but sound pretty much alike so you don't notice them or they don't sound outrageous to you so again you won't notice it. I got more bad news for you- O' Reilly has cameo appearance in the new An American Carol where he slaps a Micheal Moore type film maker. That's worth the price of admission alone.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I mentioned Dobbs and O'Reilly as two examples - I am totally aware that there are other commentators out there besides those two. In fact I take it as a given. My point however, is that all ideological differences aside - these guys are more or less the same; and nowhere in the media is the partisan divide established more blatantly (and in such an exaggerated fashion) than in these types of shows.

Never heard of Olbermann? He was even on a Simpson's episode. There are more out there but sound pretty much alike so you don't notice them or they don't sound outrageous to you so again you won't notice it. I got more bad news for you- O' Reilly has cameo appearance in the new An American Carol where he slaps a Micheal Moore type film maker. That's worth the price of admission alone.

Yes I have heard of Olbermann.

[Heracles 417]

Keith Olbermann isn't tough talking with his "Worst Person in World" awards aired nightly? The guy is fixated on O' Reilly. O'Reilly had a great interview with Hilliary but I don't recall McCain refusing to be interviewed by other media outright. As far as the subject matter goes, that's up to the news organization. There's different niches in the market and some seek mass appeal. Try this. If you think the coverage blows, change the channel. I do it all the time switching between Fox, CNN and MSNBC to get some different angles on a story. I hate Fox and Friends in the morning.

Olbermann spends 80% of his show ridiculing others rather than making his own opinion.

This style of argument sounds very familiar.. # 6!!!!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Keith Olbermann isn't tough talking with his "Worst Person in World" awards aired nightly? The guy is fixated on O' Reilly. O'Reilly had a great interview with Hilliary but I don't recall McCain refusing to be interviewed by other media outright. As far as the subject matter goes, that's up to the news organization. There's different niches in the market and some seek mass appeal. Try this. If you think the coverage blows, change the channel. I do it all the time switching between Fox, CNN and MSNBC to get some different angles on a story. I hate Fox and Friends in the morning.

Olbermann spends 80% of his show ridiculing others rather than making his own opinion.

This style of argument sounds very familiar.. # 6!!!!!!!

The irony here being that this is exactly what you have just done.