Tim Geithner: The White House Asked Me to Mislead the Public

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not defending anyone. My comments were about YOUR contributions to the discussion. It appears your behavior has descended to, or beyond, the type of conduct you are complain about.

Bullshit. You're lying scum with your quote snipping. There was more to the post than "go fuck yourself." And my post was in response to
5 below telling someone to "STFU". So you can go fuck yourself as well. You don't like my contribution? Ignore me.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Repeating a blogosphere summary of a myth doesn't make the myth true either. Because you've bought the myth, let me see if I can help you a bit here by directing you to the text of the actual appellate court decision.

First, your blogosphere friends may have failed to mention to you that the appellate court decision only dealt with a "whistle-blower" case that Wilson brought against the station regarding her termination of employment. It DID NOT deal with any of the issues relating to Fox's decision to air / not air / modify / whatever the news report about Mansanto because those claims had already been decided and Wilson already LOST on those claims.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-distri...l/1310807.html

I any case, above is the text of the Feb 2003 decision you cited. I challenge you to find any language that bestows on the station the "right to lie". As stated, the language you posted above specifically determined whether or not Aker had standing to pursue a whistle-blower claim. To that end:

"Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT."

Yes, the whistle-blower claim was Akre alleging that the station fired her because she threatened to complain to the FCC "alleging that the station had “illegally” edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news." However, the neither Akre or Wilson filed a claim with the FCC alleging a violation of FCC rules. They have - unsuccessfully - petitioned the FCC to deny WTVT a broadcast license however.

In sum, Fox won the case, because it established that the FCC's policy against news distortion was not enforceable. The jury believed that the plaintiff had been fired because she threatened to complain about the distortion, but because the policy against distortion did not rise to the level of a regulation, she could not prevail. Yes the can can reasonably be said Fox won a case that said that it was legal for it to distort the news and fire someone for complaining about the distortion. Are you going to suggest that "distortion" is not the same a lying?

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Bullshit. You're lying scum with your quote snipping. There was more to the post than "go fuck yourself." And my post was in response to 5 below telling someone to "STFU". So you can go fuck yourself as well. You don't like my contribution? Ignore me.

Well. I'll give you this much. You're consistent.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

One can always trust Ike for most intellectual contributions to any discussion.

??????????????????????????



http://www.ps3attitude.com/new/2011/...es-deathspank/

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

One can always trust Ike for most intellectual contributions to any discussion.

Whell, you're capable of better than this pure personal sniping. Take a time out and get a grip, man.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

So you and your leftist propaganda "Sources" prefer actually doing what you accuses others of.

Technique 3. http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:...wash-americans

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

In sum, Fox won the case, because it established that the FCC's policy against news distortion was not enforceable.

No, that not what was "established". All of the claims that Akre and Wilson made against the TV station regarding "distortion" WERE DISMISSED during the initial trial. The only claim that Akre prevailed on, and the only aspect of the case that was later reviewed on appeal, was whether or not Akre "was a whistle-blower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission."

You also know that neither Akre of Wilson ever did file a claim with the FCC, right?

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The jury believed that the plaintiff had been fired because she threatened to complain about the distortion, but because the policy against distortion did not rise to the level of a regulation, she could not prevail. Yes the can can reasonably be said Fox won a case that said that it was legal for it to distort the news and fire someone for complaining about the distortion. Are you going to suggest that "distortion" is not the same a lying?

Regards,

D-Ray

So, you're claiming that a case in which a plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the defendant lied, and the court decides with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to make their case, if the equivalent of the court declaring that its OK to lie? Really? Sorry counselor, you'll need to do better than that.

Alternatively, if you were counsel for the defendant in such a case, you wouldn't ask the court to closely scrutinize the law in this case to determine whether or not the language of the law / regulations were enforceable?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Technique 3. http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:...wash-americans

One one hand, any post from Fox News should be dismissed out of hand because Fox is "biased". Yes, a post from Truth-Out is presented as an authoritative source??

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

One one hand, any post from Fox News should be dismissed out of hand because Fox is "biased". Yes, a post from Truth-Out is presented as an authoritative source??

Not really a fair summary, old bean. Is it your position that Fox does not use the 14 techniques, as discussed at length in the article?

Did I ever say that "any post from Fox News should be dismissed out of hand?" You are distorting my position, I fear.

Nor did I present my source as "authoritative." I present my source as a logical argument that makes sense. One should accept it for that reason, not because it supposedly carries 'authority.'

And of course, in citing 'Truth-Out" as supposedly questionable, you are ignoring the arguments and attacking the source, a form of ad hominum argument (technique 2).

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Not really a fair summary, old bean. Is it your position that Fox does not use the 14 techniques, as discussed at length in the article?

Did I ever say that "any post from Fox News should be dismissed out of hand?" You are distorting my position, I fear.

I thought I remembered post 63 in this thread coming from you. I looked again and it did not. Needless to say, this forum is full of criticisms of Fox News. I don't watch Fox often enough confirm all of them, but I do watch NBC, ABC, etc enough to know that the criticisms heaped on Fox here seemingly ignore the same behavior from other news sources.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Nor did I present my source as "authoritative."

Good thing.