What would you say about the media...

[Fast_Eddie]

Wow, Chas, we're just chatting buddy. Don't need to get so worked up. Teabaggers thing is a joke. You should lighten up a bit there tiger.

[Fast_Eddie]

Wait, so he only apologized because Stewart called him out?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...logizes-to-jon

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

).

and you don't think deliberately lying to the masses is endangerment???

all blurry lines can be un blurred

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Wow, Chas, we're just chatting buddy. Don't need to get so worked up. Teabaggers thing is a joke. You should lighten up a bit there tiger.

It's Friday night. Chas is likely feelin "liberal" by now.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

My initial statement was that Hannity corrected himself.

This is, of course, only my opinion but I believe it was Fox's intention to deceive when they ran that footage of the September rally. The footage was tagged in the upper left "EARLIER" so as to give themselves an out but Hannity blew that when he remarked that the crowd in the September video was "very big for a Thursday".

Let's just forget about my statement that an out of context video clip shown in the background of a story is not the same as a manufactured document that WAS the story.

The video was very much "in context" if you think about it. It just distorted the truth.

And your response starts out with the term "teabaggers", which, in case you don't realize it, is a personal insult. To some people.

But, Chas, the Tea Party goers referred to themselves as "Teabaggers", even doing stuff like decorating themselves with teabags, even after they discovered the other definition for the term. Clearly, though, the term causes you offense so is there another term you'd prefer us to use?

And as far as imagining how the right would respond if the left were to pull the same stunt...well, they have. And I've seen the call for boycotts also coming from the left.

Yes, boycotts can be a useful tool for either side. No argument there but I don't think that was the point. It wasn't a comparison of what the Right would do versus what the Left would do. Rather it was a question of the Right's tendency to cry out for blood when one of their political oponents is caught in some transgression or other but turn a blind eye, deaf ear and mute tongue when it's one of their own.

Of course, both sides can be guilty of that but I believe the Right is much worse than the Left in that regard. Compare the Democrat's response to William Jefferson's troubles (stripped of all committee assignments) to the Republicans response to David Vitter (standing ovation from his fellow Democratic senators.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

This is, of course, only my opinion but I believe it was Fox's intention to deceive when they ran that footage of the September rally. The footage was tagged in the upper left "EARLIER" so as to give themselves an out but Hannity blew that when he remarked that the crowd in the September video was "very big for a Thursday".

It's difficult to imagine any other way archive footage would have wound up in the story. I mean, what scenario leads to footage from several months ago "accidentally" being edited into a story from today? And, okay, if there is a mistake, it just so happened to work out that it was footage that looked as if it belonged in that story? Come on.

[BlueStreak]

My opinion of Hanitty, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, is this;

They all claim to be doing what they do out of "Love of Country".

Really?

Okay, let's cut off the multi-million dollar paychecks. Then we'll see just how fast the faux patriotism runs out.

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

My opinion of Hanitty, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, is this;

They all claim to be doing what they do out of "Love of Country".

Really?

Okay, let's cut off the multi-million dollar paychecks. Then we'll see just how fast the faux patriotism runs out.

Dave

I thought that they were advancing their viewpoints and making a buck doing so.

The only problem you libs have with them is that they're not advancing YOUR viewpoints.

If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

Fox has a history of touching on stories that the other newscasters ignore. And Fox, IMHO, tends to grate on my nerves. Just like the rest of them.

Now this is just my opinion.

You libs like to think of yourselves as as enlightened and open minded, but you become almost rabid when you encounter an opposing viewpoint. It's not that you can't see an opposing viewpoint, it's more like you REFUSE to see an opposing viewpoint. You're no different than the far right wing when it comes to being narrow minded.

This is the only reason that I defend Faux News. They have as much of a right to advance their position as anyone.

Instead of trying to pick apart another's argument, why not try to see what they are saying.

And allow me to apologize for referring to you fine folks as libs. It truly is a meaningless term...no one is that simplistic.

Random thoughts.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

Chas

Chas, it sounds like you are agreeing with one of the primary criticisms of Fox. To pretend to be neutral and instead advance an agenda - in a means-spirited way, I might add - is flat dishonest. The confrontational style that Fox misidentifies as fair and balanced almost appears to be designed to provoke the type of reaction that you see here.

Here is an example of their confrontational style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9gXD0wSRo

Just because I believe that it would be a dangerous policy to criminalize the type of conduct in which Fox engages does not mean I believe that they are ethical or honest.

I don't mind being called a lib or a lefty, just don't call me Johnson. I do have serious issues with the values espoused by the Right. I believe that they value money over human beings, that they look down on those who have not been as fortunate as they. They act as if it is the fault of the poor for being poor, but advocate policies that make it harder for workers to get their fair share. They also show tremendous arrogance in claiming to have a stranglehold on the truth. It does become difficult to seriously consider such views, because it appears that the only way to come to an understanding is to see it their way.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

You keep telling me that the media can't be trusted. Why, I never would have believed it unless I had seen it with my own two eyes.

]

It's 6am and I stumbled upon Fox News. It's unbelievable. I can see no distinction between their broadcast and what I have read about the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. These people place corporate values ahead of US vales and distort essentially everything they show. If I did not know what lies they were I would be up in arms and scared about the future also.
You folks that embarrass Fox really need to step back and reevaluate why you watch it. Sorry, that is my heartfelt observation.

You do realize rupert murdoch is not American and that he allows or disallows everything you see on his networks? Do you really think this is acceptable to gather your facts from? Honestly, I have to question how patriotic his viewers are for this reason alone. Read about the mass psychology of fascism. The similarities are stunning.