Fox News - Rupert Murdoch - Public Enemy #1?

[SMM]

When Fox News first began broadcasting, it was obvious they had a hard right-wing bias in their reporting. They were soon relegated to one of my random stops while channel surfing. The next time I actually spend viewing time there, I was shocked by how slanted their broadcasting had become. It had for all intents and purposes, ceased to be news. It had evolved into 24 hours of neo-conservative spin. My stops there became even less frequent. I would occasionally go there to see how they were reporting a major news story. Sadly, I knew that many Americans got their news from Fox.

I pretty much dismissed Fox as an extremist outlet for the conservative agenda. However, my attitude changed after reading Al Franken's book, "Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell". I began to see a much more sinister aspect of Fox. I had witnessed them taking liberties with the truth, even embellishing the facts. Al Franken's book exposes a network which totally fabricates stories. They are flat-out lying. With these fictional facts, they go beyond falsely reporting the news, they are creating it.

I had been led to believe, part of the FCC licensing requirements, for a news franchise, was to uphold journalistic standards. I must be mistaken. There is no conceivable way Fox could pass even cursory review. That is unless their WH cohorts, ordered their FCC appointee to perform a 'dog and pony show' during their certification process. regardless of how they have managed to keep ejaculating their filth, there was no question in my mind that they were clearly deceiving many conservatives and moderates. A recent documentary has awakened me to how detrimental to America Fox has become.

I do not know how many of you have watched the Bill Moyer's documentary, "The Buying of the War (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html)". It is exceptionally well done, and very disturbing. It chronicles how the Administration and the Media almost became inseparable, promoting the case for war. What Fox was doing however, goes far beyond making the neo-conservative case.

The term used in the program was 'Patriot Police', and 'Slime Patrol'. Anyone who disagreed with the Administration was labeled "a bad American" (Bill O'Reilly). He is shown saying, "If you disagree with this President in times of national emergency, and this is a time of national emergency, well let's just say we are going to spotlight you!". Even the news icon, Dan Rather felt the intimidation, "Everyone was intimidated, and scared....no one had to send you a memo, you just knew". Donahue found out the hard way. MSNBC was coerced into canceling his show a few weeks before the invasion. A leaked memo (NY Times), said, "Donahue presents a difficult face in a time of war (and needs to be cancelled)".

Every media outlet must have free reign to present the news as they see it. When Fox uses fear, influence, retaliation and coercion, to prevent others from fairly reporting, they have crossed over the line. They have then made themselves the sole source of information. Fox is way over that line. How can Americans make informed decisions, if they only get to hear one side of the story?

I recently called and spoke with one of the individuals in Bill Moyer's documentary. He said he was speaking as an individual, and asked me not to quote him directly. He told me that a lot of people in the media and in government would "sleep easier" if Fox could be "taken down a couple notches". I asked him why no one is doing it, and he said, "you might loose and there would be a heavy thud". It would be better for the public to do this. They are the only ones outside of Fox's reach. But, we in the media do not see a great deal of effort, and certainly not follow through on the publics part".

To those of you who were aware in the 60's and 70's, do you think this would have been tolerated back then? No way. Fox would be sucking on a pipe bomb. I am not advocating violence, just pointing out how much we have given up over the past 30-40 years. People used to be informed, aware of the world they lived in. Now, we have 401K's and reality TV. I have not been assimilated. I am still part of 'the struggle'. How about you?

I cannot think of a more important thing (other than stopping the war) than to get the truth back in front of our citizen's eyes. Defanging Fox would go a long way toward that end.

[kalisphoenix]

There's no law saying that news programs have a duty to report the truth.

The law says that... not me.

[Motley]

There's no law saying that news programs have a duty to report the truth.

The law says that... not me.

In fact, didn't Fox win a lawsuit saying just that? (I know they did, I'm just too lazy to look it up)

[ham_man]

I cannot think of a more important thing (other than stopping the war) than to get the truth back in front of our citizen's eyes. Defanging Fox would go a long way toward that end.
Who defines what exactly qualifies as news, though?

[SMM]

There's no law saying that news programs have a duty to report the truth.

The law says that... not me.

I did not suggest they did. I do not think they have the right to silence others from reporting their version of the truth. Thanks.

[kalisphoenix]

In fact, didn't Fox win a lawsuit saying just that? (I know they did, I'm just too lazy to look it up)

Yep. Over the carcinogenic cow hormones and blood and **** in the milk in Florida. A couple of their investigative journalists were fired and blacklisted, if I remember correctly, because they wanted to report on the story. They sued and lost.

Apparently my bitterness escaped the original poster, so I'll restate my opinion instead of implying it. I think it's ****ing abominable that news organizations can choose to ignore a given story or report it incorrectly. Either is inexcusable.

I haven't watched TV news in a long time. Then we bought an HDTV. I hooked it up and turned it on, wired the antenna, etc. We pulled in Akron's ABC news. They were (I **** thee not) talking about a local man who had a problem with his gate latch, so they sent a reporter and some sort of handyman or something out to fix it. I wish I were kidding.

I know this is Akron, not South Central or Baghdad, but... seriously. This city has 1/3 of a million people in it.

[SMM]

Who defines what exactly qualifies as news, though?

That itself could spawn a new thread. The primary relevance I can see, in this context, is when information is simply withheld from the public. As such, omission is just another form of 'filtering'. For example:

Colin Powell went to the UN and made a 90 minute speech, outlining the case for war. On the front page of virtually every newspaper, and the lead story on all of the networks, stated, "..a compelling case...", "...an airtight case..", "...indisputable proof...", etc.

But, the facts he presented began, to unravel within hours. He simply flat-out lied at many junctures. There were stories written, which pointed out these 'inconsistencies'. But, they were put on the back pages of the paper, and were largely ignored by the networks.

It is known in journalism, the reader assumes the 'important' stories are in the front. Stories in the back, are assumed to be of lesser value. So, simply by how the stories were presented made the case for war, when the more compelling argument was not to go to war.

[SMM]

Yep. Over the carcinogenic cow hormones and blood and **** in the milk in Florida. A couple of their investigative journalists were fired and blacklisted, if I remember correctly, because they wanted to report on the story. They sued and lost.

Apparently my bitterness escaped the original poster, so I'll restate my opinion instead of implying it. I think it's ****ing abominable that news organizations can choose to ignore a given story or report it incorrectly. Either is inexcusable.

I haven't watched TV news in a long time. Then we bought an HDTV. I hooked it up and turned it on, wired the antenna, etc. We pulled in Akron's ABC news. They were (I **** thee not) talking about a local man who had a problem with his gate latch, so they sent a reporter and some sort of handyman or something out to fix it. I wish I were kidding.

I know this is Akron, not South Central or Baghdad, but... seriously. This city has 1/3 of a million people in it.

Sorry for missing the bitterness. Allow me to make amends by absolutely siding with your sentiment ".....abominable that news organizations can choose to ignore a given story or report it incorrectly". I do not mind if they do not always get it right, as long as they are trying to.

Interestingly, there were people who DID get the Iraq story right, and reported it as such. They were the reporters from Knight Ridder. They have a Washington DC bureau. It provides copy for dozens of newspapers around the country. Their bureau chief is John Walcott. He said, "Our readers are the people who get sent to war and we felt an obligation to scrutinize everything". His two top reporters, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, did the research, spoke with the CIA and Military Intel Analysts. They actually got the story right. Meanwhile, the NY Times, Washington Post and all of the networks were flooding the public with opinion pieces supporting the war. What is really disheartening, they did have reporters writing stories which challenged the WH claims. One notable one was Walter Pincus of the Post. But, their stories were always put on the back pages. This definitely supports your point.

Senator Kennedy, the leading democrat in the nation, gave an impassioned speech, challenging the WH claims of WMD and Iraqi ties to terrorism. It was lengthy. The Washington post gave it one sentence. Prior to the war, over 100,000 Americans marched on Washington to show disapproval of the impending war. The Post gave it one picture on the Metro Page.

[kalisphoenix]

The reason this frustrates me so much is that it seems that the only alternative is legally forcing the media to act as a check and balance to the government, which doesn't even make sense :p

I disbelieve in any sort of government interference with the media -- it scares the hell out of me, really -- and this is one case where giving the media a free rein doesn't do a damn bit of good. If business is actually the primary power in the country, and it orchestrates business to a large extent, then having a free media is meaningless because it's going to support the puppet government's judgements.

It's amusing to consider the idea of a small opposition government composed entirely of ragged individualists that fights to protect the people from the large media's depredations, deceit, and injustice.

People have to get a lot smarter... in a hurry.

[SMM]

The reason this frustrates me so much is that it seems that the only alternative is legally forcing the media to act as a check and balance to the government, which doesn't even make sense :p

I disbelieve in any sort of government interference with the media -- it scares the hell out of me, really -- and this is one case where giving the media a free rein doesn't do a damn bit of good. If business is actually the primary power in the country, and it orchestrates business to a large extent, then having a free media is meaningless because it's going to support the puppet government's judgements.

It's amusing to consider the idea of a small opposition government composed entirely of ragged individualists that fights to protect the people from the large media's depredations, deceit, and injustice.

People have to get a lot smarter... in a hurry.

Once again, I agree wholeheartedly. But, how will they get any smarter when they put forth so little effort to do so? People would rather watch American Idol, Survivor or Lost, instead of shows like "The Buying of the War". The good journalism is not what is playing on most networks, and certainly not during prime time. People actually have to make an effort to watch it. But, there is a wildcard in this, the Internet.

When I find good stories, like many people have shared on this board, I have a distribution list of (currently) 24 friends who will have it in the email immediately. When there were only a dozen people, we were hitting over two hundred total (that we were sure of). I do not know what the count is now. The point is, there is a new way for the good journalism to reach people, that was not available through normal distribution channels. I also know I can send articles to 'fringe' people at work. There is more of a chance they will read it on their employers time, rather than their own (sorry to say).

[solvs]

In fact, didn't Fox win a lawsuit saying just that?

Yes, they've in fact won several lawsuits like that. One where they actually, I kid you not, won the right to outright lie and call it news. There were some memos floating around where the higher ups were telling everyone what to talk about and how to spin it. Watch the movie Outfoxed and you'll see even more. Fair and Balanced my @$$. Reagan did away with the fair reporting acts, and they're cable anyway, so they can get away with it.

Kinda surprised there aren't more defenders here telling us how liberal everyone else is (even though they aren't), how they're just balancing out the rest.

[SMM]

Yes, they've in fact won several lawsuits like that. One where they actually, I kid you not, won the right to outright lie and call it news. There were some memos floating around where the higher ups were telling everyone what to talk about and how to spin it. Watch the movie Outfoxed and you'll see even more. Fair and Balanced my @$$. Reagan did away with the fair reporting acts, and they're cable anyway, so they can get away with it.

Kinda surprised there aren't more defenders here telling us how liberal everyone else is (even though they aren't), how they're just balancing out the rest.

Again, I see the larger issue as their extortion of other reporting agencies. I would not support that behavior from a liberal channel either. There is only one actual set of facts. There are usually many ways to interpret them (spin). That is what can set one source apart from another. But, nothing should prevent us from having the 'facts' reported. I do not take the liberal position on every issue. I like to judge the facts on their own merit. I like to discuss issues, with others who have different opinions. But that does not happen if we are looking at a different version of the facts. Where Fox completely crosses the line is when they refuse to present the true facts, and then try to ensure no one else can either.

I too am surprised the thread did not generate more interest and counterpoint.

[geese]

I too am surprised the thread did not generate more interest and counterpoint.

Perhaps even the 'usual suspects' here cant defend the indefensable.

[Motley]

Perhaps even the 'usual suspects' here cant defend the indefensable.

Never stopped them from trying before.

[Swarmlord]

Rupert Murdoch wouldn't be as successful as he is if a lot of people weren't watching his stations on a daily basis.

[obeygiant]

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/9815/1180032787007mr7.gif

Am I really a usual suspect? :)

[solvs]

Rupert Murdoch wouldn't be as successful as he is if a lot of people weren't watching his stations on a daily basis.

Actually, Fox News hemorrhaged money for quite awhile before becoming popular. A popularity that is once again slipping. The NY Post had the same problem.

Some people like to be lied to, but that doesn't make it right. And that's my problem with Fox. Not the slant, but the outright lying. I don't understand why everyone doesn't have a problem with that.

[Swarmlord]

Actually, Fox News hemorrhaged money for quite awhile before becoming popular. A popularity that is once again slipping. The NY Post had the same problem.

Some people like to be lied to, but that doesn't make it right. And that's my problem with Fox. Not the slant, but the outright lying. I don't understand why everyone doesn't have a problem with that.

Every startup hemorages cash until it establishes an audience and I don't think that the ratings show it falling out of the top in several key time slots and demographics.

Perhaps the millions of us that watch Fox don't feel we're being lied to.

[kalisphoenix]

"Pet me! Pet me! Now give me someone to hate! Hate hate hate! Barbecue! Used cars! Hate!"

[geese]

Every startup hemorages cash until it establishes an audience and I don't think that the ratings show it falling out of the top in several key time slots and demographics.

Perhaps the millions of us that watch Fox don't feel we're being lied to.

Well you are, despite what you feel.

[Mgkwho]

I love fox news.

-=|Mgkwho

[Ugg]

Every startup hemorages cash until it establishes an audience and I don't think that the ratings show it falling out of the top in several key time slots and demographics.

Perhaps the millions of us that watch Fox don't feel we're being lied to.

hmmmm, I thought FAUX News was losing viewers.

Perhaps you're simply lying to yourself.

[Swarmlord]

hmmmm, I thought FAUX News was losing viewers.

Perhaps you're simply lying to yourself.

Still at the top. Numbers are deceiving because overall TV viewership of news is proportional to what's going on in the world.

Perhaps you could use the numbers for the likes of CBS for comparison.

[nbs2]

Could you cite a lie from me? And I would prefer independent verification from Franken's book. I wouldn't trust an assertion from Coulter, and I won't trust one from him. Your only reference is to Bill. I don't have an issue with citing to him as an example of Fox's slant, but that isn't going to fly when it comes to lying. The guy is a TV opinion columnist. He'll throw out his opinion, spin his facts, whatever - I don't really care. I wouldn't rely on him as my only source for news, just like I wouldn't rely on his liberal equivalent.

Aside from providing a rightist spin (which they seem to be pretty honest about) and working rather aggressively increase their market share, I'm not seeing anything to really tack onto them. You seem to argue that the WH has promoted Fox to the detriment of others. I don't remember which Amendment required any politician to favor all outlets equally. The announced Dem candidates have no problem ignoring Fox with as much fervor as the POTUS deals with them.

So, please, show me a specific lie by FNC. I have seen grass that looked blue and skies with a hint of green, so please, show me something that isn't spin (especially if you see it from a commentator instead of a reporter).

And as for the ratings (as of four days ago), Ugg, solvs, and Swarmlord are all right. If the BoSox lost 4 straight to the Yanks, they would be losing ground, but they would still have a significant lead in the AL East. FNC is no longer close to doubling up the combined viewership of MSNBC and CNN (making Ugg and solvs right), but they still have the top spot by more than the combination (Swarmlord is right).

[Swarmlord]

Could you cite a lie from me? And I would prefer independent verification from Franken's book. I wouldn't trust an assertion from Coulter, and I won't trust one from him. Your only reference is to Bill. I don't have an issue with citing to him as an example of Fox's slant, but that isn't going to fly when it comes to lying. The guy is a TV opinion columnist. He'll throw out his opinion, spin his facts, whatever - I don't really care. I wouldn't rely on him as my only source for news, just like I wouldn't rely on his liberal equivalent.

Aside from providing a rightist spin (which they seem to be pretty honest about) and working rather aggressively increase their market share, I'm not seeing anything to really tack onto them. You seem to argue that the WH has promoted Fox to the detriment of others. I don't remember which Amendment required any politician to favor all outlets equally. The announced Dem candidates have no problem ignoring Fox with as much fervor as the POTUS deals with them.

So, please, show me a specific lie by FNC. I have seen grass that looked blue and skies with a hint of green, so please, show me something that isn't spin (especially if you see it from a commentator instead of a reporter).

And as for the ratings (as of four days ago), Ugg, solvs, and Swarmlord are all right. If the BoSox lost 4 straight to the Yanks, they would be losing ground, but they would still have a significant lead in the AL East. FNC is no longer close to doubling up the combined viewership of MSNBC and CNN (making Ugg and solvs right), but they still have the top spot by more than the combination (Swarmlord is right).

I think some of the posters have trouble distinguishing between opinions of commentators and news reported by reporters. If they disagree with the opinion of a commentator - and let's be fair, they're referring to the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly - then it's by definition a lie.

But it's not a "lie" when liberals use the words "free" and "healthcare" in the same sentence though. They should be forced to use the term Cost Transferred Healthcare as far as I'm concerned. See, it's all about perspective.

[leekohler]

I'm proud to say I've never watched Fox News. Some things should be ignored.

[SMM]

Every startup hemorages cash until it establishes an audience and I don't think that the ratings show it falling out of the top in several key time slots and demographics.

Perhaps the millions of us that watch Fox don't feel we're being lied to.

We are making progress. You see, it is possible to verify the facts in many of their stories, comments, etc. They are either true, or false. That is easy to understand. If you elect to ignore the truth, that is your choice. But, your credibility takes a major hit. It is pretty hard to respect a person, and their ability to reason, if they are not interested in the truth. This is one of the main differences between liberals and conservative.

Liberals want all of the facts on the table, so they can be evaluated and conclusions drawn from them. Conservatives just take a position on an issue, and hope to find something to support it. If push comes to shove, their is always 'faith' to use as a last resort.

[SMM]

Could you cite a lie from me? And I would prefer independent verification from Franken's book. I wouldn't trust an assertion from Coulter, and I won't trust one from him. Your only reference is to Bill. I don't have an issue with citing to him as an example of Fox's slant, but that isn't going to fly when it comes to lying. The guy is a TV opinion columnist. He'll throw out his opinion, spin his facts, whatever - I don't really care. I wouldn't rely on him as my only source for news, just like I wouldn't rely on his liberal equivalent.

Aside from providing a rightist spin (which they seem to be pretty honest about) and working rather aggressively increase their market share, I'm not seeing anything to really tack onto them. You seem to argue that the WH has promoted Fox to the detriment of others. I don't remember which Amendment required any politician to favor all outlets equally. The announced Dem candidates have no problem ignoring Fox with as much fervor as the POTUS deals with them.

So, please, show me a specific lie by FNC. I have seen grass that looked blue and skies with a hint of green, so please, show me something that isn't spin (especially if you see it from a commentator instead of a reporter).

And as for the ratings (as of four days ago), Ugg, solvs, and Swarmlord are all right. If the BoSox lost 4 straight to the Yanks, they would be losing ground, but they would still have a significant lead in the AL East. FNC is no longer close to doubling up the combined viewership of MSNBC and CNN (making Ugg and solvs right), but they still have the top spot by more than the combination (Swarmlord is right).

Spoken like someone from SLC! it is not possible to write this at work. Look for a response later this evening. I can provide you with enough reading to make your sholders slump.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Liberals want all of the facts on the table, so they can be evaluated and conclusions drawn from them. Conservatives just take a position on an issue, and hope to find something to support it. If push comes to shove, their is always 'faith' to use as a last resort.

You just go ahead and continue to believe that... Despite volumes of proof that tax cuts increase tax revenues, liberals still can't reach the correct conclusion.

[leekohler]

You just go ahead and continue to believe that... Despite volumes of proof that tax cuts increase tax revenues, liberals still can't reach the correct conclusion.

Doesn't matter if you can't keep your hands off the credit card, now does it?

[nbs2]

Spoken like someone from SLC! it is not possible to write this at work. Look for a response later this evening. I can provide you with enough reading to make your sholders slump.

I'm ready to slump. Be forewarned, I'm only looking to find info. I don't watch the news on TV because of the left and right spin. I prefer to read the news online. I can read eight different takes on the same story and develop my own opinion in less time than it would take [fill in name] to tell me what to think.

But, I'm not sure how I feel about being told I'm from SLC. I've been there. I have family there. Never lived there. We move to the area when I was 10 - I've spent almost 2/3 of my life within spitting distance of the Beltway.

[Swarmlord]

Doesn't matter if you can't keep your hands off the credit card, now does it?

I've never applauded either side for spending it faster than it comes in.

[aquajet]

I'm proud to say I've never watched Fox News. Some things should be ignored.

You haven't lived until you watch Fox News.

I recommend Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity is the most maddening person in the whole world. Ever.

[leekohler]

You haven't lived until you watch Fox News.

I recommend Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity is the most maddening person in the whole world. Ever.

Swarmlord and obeygiant fill the "maddening" role for me quite nicely thanks. ;) I don't think I need more than that. :)

[Swarmlord]

Swarmlord and obeygiant fill the "maddening" role for me quite nicely thanks. ;) I don't think I need more than that. :)

You just need to be Hannitized. :)

To be honest, I find Sean to be obnoxious to watch even though we agree on most conservative issues. He needs to learn to moderate a discussion, not dominate it, talk over the speaker and make obnoxious jabs about a person's degree of liberalness.

Of the personalities that dominate Fox through the prime time, I only watch O'Reilly. My back ground is frighteningly similar to his as is my stature and appearance. My wife thinks that we're practically clones of each other. But, I don't agree with his position on everything either as evidenced in other threads.

[aquajet]

To be honest, I find Sean to be obnoxious to watch even though we agree on most conservative issues. He needs to learn to moderate a discussion, not dominate it, talk over the speaker and make obnoxious jabs about a person's degree of liberalness.

I'm surprised to see you actually wrote that. :eek:

Of the personalities that dominate Fox through the prime time, I only watch O'Reilly. My back ground is frighteningly similar to his as is my stature and appearance. My wife thinks that we're practically clones of each other. But, I don't agree with his position on everything either as evidenced in other threads.

I came across some study that examined how some long-time married couples often begin to resemble their partners after several years. It was interesting -- put a bunch of married couples in a room and people were able to correctly guess who was with who. Maybe something similar is happening between you and Bill.

[Swarmlord]

I'm surprised to see you actually wrote that. :eek:



I came across some study that examined how some long-time married couples often begin to resemble their partners after several years. It was interesting -- put a bunch of married couples in a room and people were able to correctly guess who was with who. Maybe something similar is happening between you and Bill.

I actually studied the difference between debate and argument though and I don't think that Sean did. :)

I have no doubt that if Bill and I were together in the same room that some people would wonder if we were brothers or a least related.:cool:

[yojitani]

While I agree with your outrage, SMM, I get the feeling that you think there is a way to reset the clock by taking faux news down a peg or twenty. The news in America was conservative enough before the 21st century nazis were given a public platform.The problem as I see it is the effect faux news and murdoch's slimy empire has had on the rest of the media. All of the news channels in the US seem to be produced in toontown; they all have their ridiculous pundits and are full of plasticine hacks. Abroad, even the BBC is gaudy these days - I'd blame a lot of this on Murdoch who seems to specialize in peddling mindless crap. Unfortunately, it seems all the other news agencies are headed in the same direction.

I actually studied the difference between debate and argument though and I don't think that Sean did. :)

I have no doubt that if Bill and I were together in the same room that some people would wonder if we were brothers or a least related.:cool:

:eek: yikes! does that mean you'd shout at me and call me a 'left-wing liberal extremist'?

[Swarmlord]

While I agree with your outrage, SMM, I get the feeling that you think there is a way to reset the clock by taking faux news down a peg or twenty. The news in America was conservative enough before the 21st century nazis were given a public platform.The problem as I see it is the effect faux news and murdoch's slimy empire has had on the rest of the media. All of the news channels in the US seem to be produced in toontown; they all have their ridiculous pundits and are full of plasticine hacks. Abroad, even the BBC is gaudy these days - I'd blame a lot of this on Murdoch who seems to specialize in peddling mindless crap. Unfortunately, it seems all the other news agencies are headed in the same direction.



:eek: yikes! does that mean you'd shout at me and call me a 'left-wing liberal extremist'?

And, if they were so out of touch, they'd be broadcasting it in outerspace with not a soul tuning in.

I don't know whether you're a left-wing extremist, a secular progressive or what. I suspect you're not a conservative though. :)

[yojitani]

And, if they were so out of touch, they'd be broadcasting it in outerspace with not a soul tuning in.

I don't know whether you're a left-wing extremist, a secular progressive or what. I suspect you're not a conservative though. :)

The whole 'in touch/ out of touch' thing is a bit iffy. Murdoch produces entertainment. That is what fox news is and that is what many news agencies/ channels in the English speaking world are or are becoming.

I chose the phrase deliberately because it is something O'Reilly throws out there from time to time. Personally, I find left-wing and liberal to be two different things. I am left-wing, not liberal. :) Depends how you would define extremism. To me fox news is a mouthpiece for right wing extremism (not far-right wing, mind) and CNN is right on its tails...

YT

[solvs]

Perhaps the millions of us that watch Fox don't feel we're being lied to.
You feel? You can make up your own opinions, but not your own facts. I hesitated to align you with Fox, and especially O'Reilly, but that explains so much.

Yes, they are liars. They lie. Not just slant. Lies. If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.

So, please, show me a specific lie by FNC.
Besides the obvious of still touting WMDs in Iraq, links to 9/11, Mark Foley being a Dem, or misquoting Ron Paul? Where do I start. Here are some links.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/fox_news/index.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/19/fox_news_should_issue_a_retraction_for_this_big_lie_of_a_segment_re_valerie_plame.php
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/01/fox_news_isnt_above_lying_about_its_lies.php
http://www.neilturner.me.uk/2004/Jun/16/fox_news_lies_about_lying.html
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/260407Rosie.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/steinreich1.html
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest.html
http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=31814
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2004/05/an_example_of_f.html
http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2006/09/17/florida-appeals-court-ruling-fox-news-lies-are-not-illegal/
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/05/fox-makes-up-news.html

Those were just after a quick Google search. If they won't do and you want more, I'm sure we can oblige. Not going to defend the other networks, they suck too, but Fox is notorious for actually lying. They even won the right in court to lie and call it news. Several times. Not just spin, not just slant by a commentator (although they make up a large percentage of Fox' "news" and portray themselves as newsmen, so I do think they should count) Roger Ailes (and others in charge, like John Moody (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002)) actually will decide what the news is going to be and will tell their "reporters" not only what to report on, but how to report it.

Go watch Outfoxed.

If they disagree with the opinion of a commentator - and let's be fair, they're referring to the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly - then it's by definition a lie.
No, it's a lie if it's a lie. If they know something is false, and report it anyway, while presenting themselves as an authority or newsman, it's a lie. Whether I agree with it or not. And then people like you report it as fact, even when we present you with the proof it isn't. Then you go right back to spewing the same things. Sure, some things are opinions. But facts are not opinions. Neither is ignoring the obvious.

Maybe it's just inaccuracy when you parrot it, but that doesn't make it any more true now does it?

But it's not a "lie" when liberals use the words "free" and "healthcare" in the same sentence though.
That would be spin. Most of us aren't buying the free healthcare line though anyway. We know it's going to cost, which is why I for one continue to criticize Edwards and Obama for their lack of details of how they're going to pay for their programs. Or mentioning, despite appreciating the effort, Clinton's bureaucratic nightmare.

Nice try though. Still not the same as being told to call Mark Foley a Dem. Then doing it. Repeatedly. Then refusing to retract it. And still having the nerve to call yourself an authority.

My back ground is frighteningly similar to his
So you call yourself an Independent despite being a registered Republican, and criticize Clinton for his cheating, while defending Newt and DeLays, while doing pretty much the same thing yourself, harassing a co-worker with talk of loofahs, threatening to beat up and sue people who disagree with you, calling them unpatriotic terrorist sympathizing secular progressives or just not letting them talk?

Now I really never want to meet you in person.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

So you call yourself an Independent despite being a registered Republican, and criticize Clinton for his cheating, while defending Newt and DeLays, while doing pretty much the same thing yourself, harassing a co-worker with talk of loofahs, threatening to beat up and sue people who disagree with you, calling them unpatriotic terrorist sympathizing secular progressives or just not letting them talk?

Now I really never want to meet you in person.

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm a registered Libertarian?

You may never want to meet me or the millions of Americans like me, but we're your neighbors and we vote.:)

[leekohler]

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm a registered Libertarian?

You may never want to meet me or the millions of Americans like me, but we're your neighbors and we vote.:)

Is that the best you can do? You just got slammed, my friend. Admit it, you were wrong. I know, I know- that's not the neocon way.

[skunk]

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm a registered Libertarian?You are no more a Libertarian than I am. If you were, you couldn't possibly be so uncritical of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

[Swarmlord]

You are no more a Libertarian than I am. If you were, you couldn't possibly be so uncritical of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

That's funny. I didn't realize that was the litmus test for being a libertarian. I criticize the current administration plenty, but there's not as many threads on subjects of that nature.

I'm definitely not in lockstep with the Libertarian platform either. It's just the closest to a party that I identify with.

[skunk]

It's just the closest to a party that I identify with.You obviously haven't read the manifesto of the "***** you, I'm All Right" Party, then. Looks like a perfect match.

[Peterkro]

If you going to call yourself a Libertarian fine just don't use libertarian when you mean Libertarian the two terms refer to diametrically opposed political philosophies.:mad:

[kalisphoenix]

Someone should start a thread about this.

1. Do you consider yourself a Libertarian?
2. If so, which party do you align yourself with?

I'm an anarchist, but I usually say "libertarian" (not "Libertarian," but people can't hear capitalization) in polite company because people assume that an anarchist supports sustained mercantile slaughter in the streets, legalized child prostitution, and so forth. It's amusing because Libertarians are viewed as being deeply selfish, while anarchists are viewed as being either insane, primitivist, or both -- even by the Libertarians, who most collectivist anarchists usually view as being disturbingly ultra-capitalist and most individualist anarchists view as being pussies ;)

I choose to think of myself as a person with a deeply collectivist, utilitarian set of ethics -- but tends to believe the free market and lack of government existence the best solution for society as a whole :)

[kalisphoenix]

If you going to call yourself a Libertarian fine just don't use libertarian when you mean Libertarian the two terms refer to diametrically opposed political philosophies.:mad:

Just like communism and the Communist Party :(

[Peterkro]

As I've posted before in "polite" company I'm a libertarian socialist which in fact means I'm a Anarchist.Your right of course about communism and the Communist party.It really annoys me that the raving eejits in the US who espouse the "***** you I'm alright" line dare label themselves libertarians.

[LethalWolfe]

On one hand I'll say nothing in defense of murky world of "infotainment" but on the other Swarmlord is right that lots of people want what Murdoch is selling. As long as people are lazy they'll always fall prey to snake oil.

Liberals want all of the facts on the table, so they can be evaluated and conclusions drawn from them. Conservatives just take a position on an issue, and hope to find something to support it. If push comes to shove, their is always 'faith' to use as a last resort.

Many people on both sides of the isle make up their minds and then contract tunnel vision so that they only see things that support their opinion. It's not something exclusive to one specific political party.


Lethal

[SMM]

On one hand I'll say nothing in defense of murky world of "infotainment" but on the other Swarmlord is right that lots of people want what Murdoch is selling. As long as people are lazy they'll always fall prey to snake oil.

Many people on both sides of the isle make up their minds and then contract tunnel vision so that they only see things that support their opinion. It's not something exclusive to one specific political party.


Lethal

The statement was not intended to be absolute, but was certainly worded that way. I will be more careful going forward. With that being said, I stand by the spirit of that statement. I also reemphasis my original points.

Fox, or any other media outlet, has the right to spins the news to their targeted audience. And, those people have the right to get the news from any source they choose. The courts have even ruled that Fox can knowingly lie about what they broadcast. But, I think it must stop there. They do not have the right to coerce how others prevent the news. And they have, and do. It is not an opinion.

[yojitani]

:confused:

First you say:

I'm an anarchist, but I usually say "libertarian" (not "Libertarian," but people can't hear capitalization) in polite company because people assume that an anarchist supports sustained mercantile slaughter in the streets

Then you say:

I choose to think of myself as a person with a deeply collectivist, utilitarian set of ethics -- but tends to believe the free market and lack of government existence the best solution for society as a whole :)

You sound more akin to a libertarian than an anarchist.

[solvs]

Is that the best you can do? You just got slammed, my friend. Admit it, you were wrong. I know, I know- that's not the neocon way.

Doubt he even read my post. Too busy getting spoon fed what he wants to hear by a known hypocrite and liar he admits to being similar to to actually get what I was trying to say. Normally I don't even get responded to or og rushes in with a "no one cares what you think", so I guess completely missing the point is a step up. Oh, and just to make them feel more at home... 9/11.