quote:

look at the Governments that silenced or controlled their media throughout history recent and tell me what they have in common.

Germany WW2
Soviet Russia
China
Cambodia Khmer rouge
Honduras
Zimbabwe
Morocco
Venezuela
Iran

United States?????

The governments? a pretty selective list, if you ask me. I'd be more interested in seing a list of governments that didn't attempt to control the media. They certainly do this in the UK, and are you suggesting that there are no laws regulating the media in the US? Of course some governments try to control more than others, and some are more successful in trying to control the media than others.

In any case, in case you hadn't noticed I wasn't advocating 'controlling' Fox, I was suggesting that people watch it to see what they are broadcasting, and 'reveal their falsehoods' through critical analysis: do you have a problem with that? Why the heck shouldn't the White House criticise Fox for that matter, too? Fox does little but criticise them.

As usual, you and your fellow conspiracy-theorists cannot see what is plain in front of you, or if you see it, you insist that it is a cover-up for something else, and then resort to ridiculous 'guilt by alleged association' when you can't put up a rational argument to back this all up.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
The governments? a pretty selective list, if you ask me. I'd be more interested in seing a list of governments that didn't attempt to control the media. They certainly do this in the UK, and are you suggesting that there are no laws regulating the media in the US? Of course some governments try to control more than others, and some are more successful in trying to control the media than others.

the selective list was off the top of my head.

quote:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion", prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press

quote:

Freedom of the press consists of constitutional or statutory protections pertaining to the media and published materials.

With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest.

here's a map of the level of freedom the press has from their respective governments. tell me which countries would you want to live in right now, any of those in the Orange and Red???

quote:

In any case, in case you hadn't noticed I wasn't advocating 'controlling' Fox,

But the White House was. while they have yet to pass any law that is Directly addressing FOX news, they tried to Omit FOX from a press briefing recently, and have tried to strong arm other news org into a boycott of FOX. it was just because of the backbone and refusal of the of ALL the other News Orgs that the White House allowed FOX to participate. so it has started
but our Government IS trying to legislate and control the Media with the RE-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine

quote:

that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

the KEY part is "in the Commissions View" or in the "Governments" view

quote:

I was suggesting that people watch it to see what they are broadcasting, and 'reveal their falsehoods' through critical analysis: do you have a problem with that? Why the heck shouldn't the White House criticise Fox for that matter, too? Fox does little but criticise them.

that's my point exactly People ARE watching FOX news and their numbers are growing rapidly. so the question must now be asked why?

quote:

As usual, you and your fellow conspiracy-theorists cannot see what is plain in front of you, or if you see it, you insist that it is a cover-up for something else, and then resort to ridiculous 'guilt by alleged association' when you can't put up a rational argument to back this all up.

and as usual you missed the POINT. this is not about HOW FOX reports the news this is about HOW the Government is trying to control what is being broadcast.. the Government can Criticize FOX all they want. that's what the first amendment is about. is that wise for the Gov to do?? time will tell. but they cross the line when they try to strong arm other Org's in to falling in step with their way of thinking or they will get the Boot. that is in direct violation of our system of Laws.

That is an interesting map BSS_CUDA, any chance of a link to where you got it? At face value it looks reasonable enough, but I'd like to see how it was compiled. As for where I'd like to live, I'm happy enough where I am. I'm fairly sure my politics wouldn't go down well in any of the countries coloured red on the map, though.

Personally, I think the White House made a mistake in trying to exclude Fox from press briefings, but that is not the same thing as censorship or control. As for the 'Fairness Doctrine', I don't know enough about the details to comment, though on the face of it, I'd have thought that the only people who will gain from it will be lawyers, as arguments about what is 'fair' get dragged through the courts. As I said before, I think that the only constraints that should be put on media reporting is that it is truthful, and have my doubts whether Fox is always achieving this, though no doubt that sort of argument would keep the lawyers busy too.

quote:

...as usual you missed the POINT. this is not about HOW FOX reports the news this is about HOW the Government is trying to control what is being broadcast...

I think both issues have been discussed in the thread: In fact don't they come down to the same thing? You are saying that the government is trying to control how Fox reports the news: clearly, for this to be debated, we also need to know how they in fact do it, as well as what the government is doing.

In any case, you are still resorting to 'guilt by presumed association' with your map. Rather than arguing about what the government is doing on its own merits, you make dubious comparisons with other countries, thus insinuating that the Obama administration is trying to move towards their systems of government.

Fox is definitely on the dark side - "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" kind of dark side.
The people who watch Fox, however, have chosen to be lied to, so you can't really blame Fox for that. Their choice of authority on matters is badly flawed, but its still their choice.

The problem is that they don't seem affected by the consequences of their choice. You might think that two costly wars and a stock-market crash might make them think they've chosen poorly, but, apparently not.
Even if all Fox-watchers got gathered in the South and left to their own devices to run their own country, as they see fit, they would still blame their epic fail on something else, like "enemy agents" as Iran does.
Once you loose the ability to think and a basic sense of moral decency you are sucked dry by psychos for eternity. Entirely deserved, if you ask me.
It's the same philosophical question as with Afghanistan: what do you do with people who can't take care of themselves, each other?

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
That is an interesting map BSS_CUDA, any chance of a link to where you got it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...ters_Without_Borders

quote:

In any case, you are still resorting to 'guilt by presumed association' with your map. Rather than arguing about what the government is doing on its own merits, you make dubious comparisons with other countries, thus insinuating that the Obama administration is trying to move towards their systems of government.

actually what I'm saying is that it is starting down the wrong path and whether it is this administration or the next or somewhere in the future, this is a dangerous path to be on. it is a form of censorship on the Governments part. that is why ALL of the Washington news bureau chiefs threatened a Boycott of the press conference. because they KNEW it was such and that they could be the next target

quote:

Originally posted by SterlingX:
Fox is definitely on the dark side - "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" kind of dark side.
The people who watch Fox, however, have chosen to be lied to, so you can't really blame Fox for that. Their choice of authority on matters is badly flawed, but its still their choice.

The problem is that they don't seem affected by the consequences of their choice. You might think that two costly wars and a stock-market crash might make them think they've chosen poorly, but, apparently not.
Even if all Fox-watchers got gathered in the South and left to their own devices to run their own country, as they see fit, they would still blame their epic fail on something else, like "enemy agents" as Iran does.
Once you loose the ability to think and a basic sense of moral decency you are sucked dry by psychos for eternity. Entirely deserved, if you ask me.
It's the same philosophical question as with Afghanistan: what do you do with people who can't take care of themselves, each other?

AH YES as you so willingly point out it is ONLY FOX news that Lies, MSNBC,CBS,CNN all the others are truth incarnate.

quote:

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” Albert Einstein

quote:

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” Ben Franklin

quote:

“Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows.”

there is NOTHING wrong with an opposing view point. listen research and make your own conclusions. attempting to silence or discredit that viewpoint because you disagree is shameful.

The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 and now, there are those who want it reinstated, mainly to "shut down" right wing talk radio show hosts. Funnily enough, mainstream talking head shows would not be able to elect a President with their shows like they had this past election. Go figure.

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 and now, there are those who want it reinstated, mainly to "shut down" right wing talk radio show hosts. Funnily enough, mainstream talking head shows would not be able to elect a President with their shows like they had this past election. Go figure.

I must have misunderstood how the US electoral system works. Don't the people vote on who gets to be president?

quote:

Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
there is NOTHING wrong with an opposing view point. listen research and make your own conclusions. attempting to silence or discredit that viewpoint because you disagree is shameful.

No, there is nothing wrong with an opposing point of view - the kind of situation where I know 80% of the facts, you know 80% of the facts and we disagree what they mean.
What's wrong with FOX is presenting the 5% of facts that support specific views and conclusions, such as
"People would be better off if everyone could do as they please and take what they want. Anyone who disagrees with that is a member of Beelzebub's legions".
Or, might I say, presenting any 5% of facts, followed by 95% of the above views and conclusions, whether it really follows or not.

The underlying assumption is that the free-market would give everyone everything according to his or hers ability, but the truth is that this would merely entrench those who already have money with absolute power over those who don't. The difference between that and communism is that commies advocated the overthrowing of capitalists, so that they could take their place and do the exact same to the poor (plus free health-care).
There is very little difference, which is why I'm still referring to Orwell in the case of FOX and Murdock.

quote:

Originally posted by SterlingX:

quote:

Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
there is NOTHING wrong with an opposing view point. listen research and make your own conclusions. attempting to silence or discredit that viewpoint because you disagree is shameful.

No, there is nothing wrong with an opposing point of view - the kind of situation where I know 80% of the facts, you know 80% of the facts and we disagree what they mean.
What's wrong with FOX is presenting the 5% of facts that support specific views and conclusions, such as
"People would be better off if everyone could do as they please and take what they want. Anyone who disagrees with that is a member of Beelzebub's legions".
Or, might I say, presenting any 5% of facts, followed by 95% of the above views and conclusions, whether it really follows or not.

The underlying assumption is that the free-market would give everyone everything according to his or hers ability, but the truth is that this would merely entrench those who already have money with absolute power over those who don't. The difference between that and communism is that commies advocated the overthrowing of capitalists, so that they could take their place and do the exact same to the poor (plus free health-care).
There is very little difference, which is why I'm still referring to Orwell in the case of FOX and Murdock.

LOL your just not getting it are you? the thread topic about the White house trying to stop FOX from being involved in reporting the news about them. it makes NO difference whether you agree with what FOX reports or not. and personally I don't care

quote:

The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

this is about the White house's attempt to Violate the 1st amendment and yet it seems that it's OK with many of you to do as long as you don't agree with the Content of FOX.

let me make it PERFECTLY clear to you.

The White house's attempt to marginalize FOX or even as they did in the recent introduction of the "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg try to silence FOX is a DIRECT Violation of the first amendment and the Law. it doesn't matter if you like FOX news or not. they have legitimate news reporters, some of the better in the Business. and their Coverage in the last election was proven to be the most balanced in the last election as I pointed out by the PEW research facts on the first page of this thread. unfortunately the Ignorant among you have not figured out how to separate the COMMENTARY portion of their show from the actual news reporting. Beck and Hannity are ENTERTAINMENT!!!! and to think of them any other way is pure Ignorance on your part.

quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


Joseph Goebbels

BSS_CUDA, you'd maybe get more people to see your point of view if you didn't keep insisting that anyone who doesn't is stupid or ignorant. And anyone can quote Goebbels, unless you can prove some genuine parallels with Nazi Germany, this just looks like another example of your 'guilt by alleged association' tactics. Oh, and by the way the dissenters that Goebbels was most concerned with silencing were often Socialists, Communists, Trade Unionists and others on the left - those who were first to oppose the rise of the Nazis, while mainstream political parties worldwide were treating them as just a bunch of eccentrics, or sucking up to them. Your attempts to compare the left with nazis is not only either ignorant or dishonest, it is grossly offensive to those who opposed them: how's that for truth.

quote:

Just how long are you going to use that doctored image? Maybe you should get your pics from something other than a joke/humor site. Angry Blue Guy

http://www.cato.org/mediahighl....php?highlight_id=36

@ 2:10 ^

http://www.davidmays.com/blog/?postid=30

That would be pretty funny if it was a doctored image but I'd need some other sources other than Cato and a conservative's blog. Got any? The problem is that Fox is so bad that if someone makes a fake image it wouldn't really raise any eyebrows. It's sort of like how Sarah Palin said so much stupid stuff during the campaign that people believed that she said that Africa was a country.

If it is a fake then I apologize and won't post it again but again it's pretty typical of what Fox does.

quote:

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
... [And if you know of anything this bad shown on any of the other networks that are "apparently just as bad as Fox" (not really a great defense btw) then let us know.]...

September 8, 2004
60 Minutes on CBS
Dan Rather, and the obviously FORGED "Killian Documents".


Any other questions?

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 and now, there are those who want it reinstated, mainly to "shut down" right wing talk radio show hosts. Funnily enough, mainstream talking head shows would not be able to elect a President with their shows like they had this past election. Go figure.

I must have misunderstood how the US electoral system works. Don't the people vote on who gets to be president?

Technically, yes the public votes for who they want, but the press has a nasty habit of endorsing a particular candidate of their liking. The funny thing is, the press is supposed to keep the government in check, yet, by endorsing said candidate, is pushing their own agenda on the public. All you have to do is watch coverage of an election to see it happen and it has been happening for years.

You could see it in the way CNN covered Bush and how Fox covers Obama. CNN had Obama as President even before the primary. Not once did they ever ask him what kind of change he was talking about, CNN just knew that they wanted change, period. Same goes for MSNBC.

To get an understanding on how far it goes back, one has to look only to the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline of the early edition of the Chicago Tribune who had endorsed the Republican candidate for President (one of the few papers who may still be right leaning though I can't say as I do not live there). Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution made no secret of her disdain for Bush and endorsed Obama this go round.

quote:

Technically, yes the public votes for who they want, but the press has a nasty habit of endorsing a particular candidate of their liking.

So the American voters are incapable of deciding for themselves who to support, but have to be told by the media? If that is true, then clearly the US is not a democracy at all.

And how do you propose stopping the press from endorsing candidates? I thought that supporters of Fox claim to want a free press.