Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:59 AM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,289
Did Fox News kill this man's mother?

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/si...my-mother.html
Mr. Knauss originally posted this on his FaceBook page but I don't think you can permalink a FB post. The link above should be less fleeting.

The FB post will probably be easily visible, along with comments, on FB for a day or two: https://www.facebook.com/photodoctor
Quote:
This is not my normal political satire. This is the truth. For real. FOX NEWS KILLED MY MOTHER — For about 20% of Americans, many of them older and/or uneducated, Fox News is the main source of information. But rest assured Fox is not about news any more than it's fair and balanced. FOX is the main propaganda arm for the Republican Party and America's plutocrats. It is THE worst of the corporate owned media. FOX's founder, Roger Ailes, was the top media consultant to the last four Republican presidents. No way was he going to create a fair or balanced news media. FOX News is killing America one lie at a time, one life at a time. I know this personally. FOX News killed my precious mother, Hallie. She watched FOX religiously. And when she fell ten days before she died, she refused to go to the doctor because, "I don't want Obamacare to get all of my information! she declared, recalling the warnings from FOX News "anchors." She was emphatic. She was not going to consort with the muslim enemy. As she made out her will she told her lawyer, "I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!" And her last protestation dealt with "Obama's death panels." Mother died just days later. I hold FOX News responsible for my mother's death.
Okay, I don't even know if this is true. I have several questions, the first of which we probably can't answer.
  1. Is this true?
  2. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold at least some moral responsibility for this?
  3. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold some legal responsibility for this?

For the sake of debate, even if this story turns out to be not true; what if it, or something like it, were?

I'm guessing that they wouldn't hold any criminal responsibility because of free speech protections, but could this woman's family successfully sue them?

I know anyone can sue for anything, but would they be successful in this case? Supposing they were successful, would that be a good thing and increase the accuracy of our media, or would it result in a chilling of speech and a suppression of the reporting of certain types of stories?

I personally absolutely despise Fox News and think they are a wholly destructive force in this country, and I think they know exactly what they are doing, and are doing it in support of a particular radical political agenda.

However, I place the first amendment in a position of near reverence and I'm wary of anything that interferes with it.

I know that certain types of speech aren't protected. For example, speech that incites a crime. What about speech (especially false or intentionally misleading speech) that incites what amounts to a suicide?

I know that there have been lawsuits against bands and music distributors because of songs that supposedly incited suicides. As far as I know, none of these suits have been successful. Is this the same thing?

I think it's different in that the bands weren't claiming that what they were singing was news or even true. There was no intent to mislead people, and there certainly was no intent to incite suicide.

I also don't think that Fox intended to incite suicide, but I do think that they intend to mislead and frighten people or, at the very least, they don't mind if they do as long as it makes a profit.

Can an intent to needlessly frighten people be considered a crime?

Can indifference to possibly deadly consequences be considered a crime?
  #2  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:14 AM
Justin_Bailey Justin_Bailey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,739
Even if it is true, the man could have called an ambulance at any time and had them forcibly take his mother to the hospital. Especially since she's clearly not in her right mind.

But this just sounds like more satire to me.
  #3  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:24 AM
Acid Lamp Acid Lamp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kissimmee, Fl
Posts: 4,693
I've no idea if this is actually true, but it reads like a lefty version of a chain e-mail; so count me suspicious.

I think the answer to your second question is: Maybe a tiny bit. The problem though is that it takes two to tango here. She could have watched something else. Hell, the poster could have taken five seconds out of his time and used the TV controls to block FOX News on his mum's set when he started to notice this issue. If you defend the rights of people to make their own decisions about their bodies and rights, then you have to defend the choices you don't like as well.

I"m not a lawyer, but I sincerely doubt they bear any legal responsibility for anything at all. I've argued on here before that we do need media reform of some sort, but it is a difficult and tricky thing to tackle. Particularly when we value our freedom of expression as highly as we do.

The problem with the argument made by the photo creator is that it basically boils down to: "If FOX News wasn't telling lies then my mum would still be here today!". It just isn't so cut and dried. Even as a FN-loathing, staunch lefty, I can only answer with: "Them your mum was a twit, and you obviously didn't do enough early on to arrest the creeping paranoia that ultimately contributed to her demise." It is just as easy for me to assume that she would have latched onto some other tinfoil hat theory.

Last edited by Acid Lamp; 03-19-2012 at 08:26 AM.
  #4  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:35 AM
Mr. Accident Mr. Accident is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Boondocks
Posts: 1,054
1. I highly doubt it is true. If she suffered enough damage to die from a fall, chances are she was in immense pain and would have sought medical care. There are some fruity nutcakes out there though, so there is a possibility of it being true.

2. If it is true, then no, Fox News has no moral responsibility in this case. They didn't force her to not seek treatment. They didn't force her to believe in them. Anyone with any sense knows to get their info from more than one source. Hell, we're taught that in middle school when doing research papers.

3. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no clue if they'd be legally responsible.
  #5  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:39 AM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,701
You might as well blame her school for not teaching her how to think for herself.
  #6  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:07 AM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
I think Fox News should be held accountable. This is an organisation that doesn't just parrot untruths - it deliberately, repeatedly fabricates untruths and presents them as fact. If Fox "News" is brazen enough to act in such a manner and to provide proof of its unethical behavior, it's their own damn fault if it comes back to bite them.
  #7  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:33 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,456
They morally responsible for their dishonesty. But it doesn't necessarily follow that their dishonesty caused this woman's death (assuming this was not fiction, a pretty big assumption).
  #8  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:46 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,476
I want the press to attack the press, not the prosecutors.
  #9  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:47 AM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,252
I think they should be held responsible the same way Rush is currently being held responsible. Nothing forced by the government, or adjudicated in the courts, but let their precious free market do its job. Let the outcry to advertisers be so great that companies have to withhold their dollars. As long as these cretins are making money, they'll keep getting bolder and wackier and more divisive and dangerous.

I don't care if this story is true or not, if it can create a public perception that Fox News cause something reprehensible to happen due to their over-the-top rhetoric, then good. Let the outcry begin.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 03-19-2012 at 09:49 AM.
  #10  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:55 AM
Nars Glinley Nars Glinley is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,319
If true, her own stupidity killed her.
  #11  
Old 03-19-2012, 09:55 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey View Post
Even if it is true, the man could have called an ambulance at any time and had them forcibly take his mother to the hospital. Especially since she's clearly not in her right mind.

But this just sounds like more satire to me.
I disagree that such a woman would "clearly not be in her right mind." She could easily simply be a person of strong conviction, much as a Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist will, because of their convictions, refuse many life-saving treatments.

Neither her beliefs--if even simply because they are not unusual--nor the result of the strength of her conviction constitute her as "not in her right mind."
  #12  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:01 AM
Jasper Kent Jasper Kent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 453
"I personally absolutely despise Fox News and think they are a wholly destructive force in this country, and I think they know exactly what they are doing, and are doing it in support of a particular radical political agenda.

However, I place the first amendment in a position of near reverence and I'm wary of anything that interferes with it."

This is how I feel about it.
  #13  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:01 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,947
In Canada, a licensee (a licenced broadcaster) “may not broadcast any false or misleading news.” There was an attempt to loosen this law to “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

When the public got wind of the proposed change, the popular up swell against the proposed loosening of the law caused it to be shot down in flames.

In short, we do not want rabid foxes in Canada, for we have seen how the USA has let itself go off the rails.
  #14  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:04 AM
Frylock Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
In Canada, a licensee (a licenced broadcaster) “may not broadcast any false or misleading news.” There was an attempt to loosen this law to “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

When the public got wind of the proposed change, the popular up swell against the proposed loosening of the law caused it to be shot down in flames.

In short, we do not want rabid foxes in Canada, for we have seen how the USA has let itself go off the rails.
I don't see how such a law would help. When I watch Fox News, they are careful not to state any outright falsehoods. (And what does "misleading" mean in a legal context?) To create the impression that there are death panels, they don't say there are death panels, rather, they quote people who say there are death panels. That's neither false nor misleading in any sense I can imagine being applicable.
  #15  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:18 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,947
To continue (sorry about the interupted post):

There really isn't much of a legal remedy to tie a hate mongering broadcaster to the harm a nutty follower suffered due to her believing the boradcaster. Remoteness and capacity come to mind.

Where regulation can be effective is in helping limit the volume of unfettered nonsense that weak minds all to easily buy into. It is one thing to have freedom of speech in presenting opinions, but it is quite another to have freedom to lie. The social benefit of freedom of speech is that it permits alleged facts to be tested and for opinions to be discussed, so that society can move forward. There is no social benefit at all to having the freedom to lie, for that makes it more difficult to test alleged facts, and makes it more difficult for opinions to be discussed on a rational basis, for rather than factual investigation and informed, logical debate, it leads to arguments based on solely on belief.

Just as there is harm in shouting "fire" in a movie theatre, there is harm in what Fox and the like are shoulting on the airwaves, but the harm is societal, rather than easily, directly and immediately tied to the fate of any one person.
  #16  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:20 AM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 33,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey View Post
Even if it is true, the man could have called an ambulance at any time and had them forcibly take his mother to the hospital. Especially since she's clearly not in her right mind.
No, he couldn't have. Or rather, he could have, but the paramedics could not transport her. They are not qualified to determine mental competency.

He could have gone to a court of law and gotten a judge's order that she was mentally incompetent and move to be made her Power of Attorney for Healthcare and THEN he could call the ambulance for her and against her will. Bit time consuming, unless he happened to be an ER doc with a judge on speed dial.

While I'm a strong, strong proponent of the First Amendment, I do also feel that Fox News, by the very fact that they use the word "News", is in fact committing fraud. When called on it, they're quick to point out that they are simple entertainers (The Jon Stewart Defense). So I find their efforts to mislead people into thinking they are a legitimate news source dangerous and fraudulent.

I don't have the right to say I'm a doctor, or to set up an office with scales and tongue depressors and wear a white lab coat and a nametag that says WhyNot, MD and perform surgery on you. I have the freedom of speech to talk about medical issues, but I do not have the freedom of speech to call myself a doctor unless I am one.
  #17  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:37 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 13,307
I'd be surprised if Fox News ever told anyone not to go to the doctor.
  #18  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:37 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
I don't see how such a law would help. When I watch Fox News, they are careful not to state any outright falsehoods. (And what does "misleading" mean in a legal context?) To create the impression that there are death panels, they don't say there are death panels, rather, they quote people who say there are death panels. That's neither false nor misleading in any sense I can imagine being applicable.
They often go further than that. However, it is the US news, and it is all deceptive in nature. But Fox is the only one that manufactures news out of whole cloth on a consistent basis.
  #19  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:46 AM
handsomeharry handsomeharry is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: oklahoma city
Posts: 7,886
It is morally wrong to make conclusions when we know that we have something that probably didn't happen, and assign blame to FOX for something that never happened, and for which they were not responsible.
There would be 100 million variables, and we hear junk like this instead of 'facts', to determine variables, and, ultimately, the yes-no votes would probably line up along party lines .
Reading the OP's quote, the bereaved goes into what a pimp the owner/president/whoever was for the Republicans. How it is 'not fair and balanced.' His mother is in the ground because of FOX, and he gives a biography of the owner. That's something I'm going to trust.

I think that is more than enough to show it is business as usual for an election year.
  #20  
Old 03-19-2012, 10:59 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,403
As much as I hate FOX, the people that take them seriously as a news source don't exactly have both oars in the water in the first place. The woman in question might have had some mental issues even before she started to watch the Network of Darkness and Fear. Even FOX can't cause someone to become paranoid, they need to be predisposed to become that way.

There are a lot of sources that call themselves news that are no such thing- just look at the tabloids in your grocery store checkout. It's better to have too much information, even if it contains a lot of misinformation and even if outright liars call themselves a fair and balanced news network.
  #21  
Old 03-19-2012, 11:14 AM
Acid Lamp Acid Lamp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kissimmee, Fl
Posts: 4,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
There are a lot of sources that call themselves news that are no such thing- just look at the tabloids in your grocery store checkout. It's better to have too much information, even if it contains a lot of misinformation and even if outright liars call themselves a fair and balanced news network.
True, but there isn't any reason we couldn't simply require them to stop referring to themselves as a news affiliate. We could require them to run a disclaimer, that states they are a political entertainment channel; and that the views and stories expressed may not be completely accurate, truthful, or balanced.
  #22  
Old 03-19-2012, 11:17 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid Lamp View Post
True, but there isn't any reason we couldn't simply require them to stop referring to themselves as a news affiliate. We could require them to run a disclaimer, that states they are a political entertainment channel; and that the views and stories expressed may not be completely accurate, truthful, or balanced.
The trouble with that in my opinion is who gets to decide what news is true news? Or if we succeed in having disclaimers put on FOX, who's to say that next time the Republicans control all the levers for government that MSNBC and CNN would have to wear the scarlet letter?
  #23  
Old 03-19-2012, 11:18 AM
MyFootsZZZ MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,591
I don't watch Fox news, and don't think this is a real story. If it is true, Hallie's a little crazy. I think Fox News holds at least some moral responsibility for this, if this is the type of stuff they report.

Is Fox news really that bad? The Daily Show doesn't seem to attack them more than other 24 hour news networks.
  #24  
Old 03-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,151
Quote:
1. Is this true?
2. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold at least some moral responsibility for this?
3. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold some legal responsibility for this?
The more important questions here are: (1) is Fox News morally or legally accountable for things it broadcasts? And (2), is Fox News morally or legally accountable for killing this old lady?

The answer to (1) is probably yes. The answer to (2) is almost certainly no.

As much bullshit as Fox does broadcast, I seriously doubt even Glen Beck has ever accused Obama of funneling money to the Muslim Brotherhood. I also don't remember any Fox anchor warning people about "Obamacare getting their information".
  #25  
Old 03-19-2012, 12:52 PM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
[*]Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold at least some moral responsibility for this?[*]Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold some legal responsibility for this?[/LIST]
For the sake of debate, even if this story turns out to be not true; what if it, or something like it, were?
I would say that Fox does hold some moral responsibility for actions that people take based on the things that Fox presents as true, since Fox presents itself as a source of facts.

By the same token, the most legal responsibility that Fox could possibly find itself under is fraud of some kind, and I don't believe that there's a high enough presumption of accuracy from TV news to even support that.

Possibly relevant: I've heard several anecdotes about nursing homes and assisted care facilities banning Fox News because their particular presentation style is highly alarming even to people in full control of their mental faculties, and nigh-panic-inducing in people who have a diminished mental capability. I don't think there's any hard data on that, as yet (good luck funding THAT research).
  #26  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:04 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and respond without even reading anything but the thread title: no, no Fox News did not kill the man's mother.

Note to mods: this belongs in the pit. It's really just a lightly disguised rant against Fox News. At least in that forum, the poster would be able to get some really valuable feedback.
  #27  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:13 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,678
I think Fox has come up with a splendid solution to the healthcare crisis.
If they keep on broadcasting that going to the doctor will cause your records to go into the horrid Obamacare, their critically ill viewers will die without becoming expensive patients. We save money, we raise the national average IQ level, and we reduce the pool of Republican voters who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to be entrusted with this sacred right. What's not to like?

We can call this a Modest Fox Proposal to Reduce Medical Costs.
  #28  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:15 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and respond without even reading anything but the thread title: no, no Fox News did not kill the man's mother.

Note to mods: this belongs in the pit. It's really just a lightly disguised rant against Fox News. At least in that forum, the poster would be able to get some really valuable feedback.
What could be more valuable than your "I didn't even read the thread but here's my knee-jerk opinion anyway" contribution, which you've already graciously provided?
  #29  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:22 PM
PandaBear77 PandaBear77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Anyone But Obama Country
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
  1. Is this true?
  2. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold at least some moral responsibility for this?
  3. Assuming that it is, does Fox News hold some legal responsibility for this?

1. Probably not. Sounds like something from an email foward. I'm surprised he didn't stick in something like "if you don't foward this you hate old people and puppies."

2. No.

3. No.


IF it happened (which I seriously doubt), this lady had a screw loose. Her son doesn't sound as if he's playing with a full deck, either.

Last edited by PandaBear77; 03-19-2012 at 01:22 PM.
  #30  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:24 PM
Justin_Bailey Justin_Bailey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhyNot View Post
No, he couldn't have. Or rather, he could have, but the paramedics could not transport her. They are not qualified to determine mental competency.
OK, you got me. But, as described, the woman would have had to have been in horrible physical pain. That would have earned her a trip to the hospital.

And not for nothing, but people who are that far gone would only require a little white lie to get them to cooperate... "Hey Mom, great news! We found you a private hospital that doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare! They'll fix you right up!"
  #31  
Old 03-19-2012, 01:42 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
What could be more valuable than your "I didn't even read the thread but here's my knee-jerk opinion anyway" contribution, which you've already graciously provided?
If it's moved to the pit you will have the answer you hunger for.

And now that I have read the thread, I see that I was completely right.

Question for you though: your noted infatuation with me aside, do you not think it odd that one would come into a thread and not opine on the actual subject of that thread? So while I'm sure there are many things more valuable than me giving a quick answer to the absurd question posed by the OP, the question your post raises is: is there anything that could be less valuable? A question that your post is affirmative proof of.
  #32  
Old 03-19-2012, 02:00 PM
Blaster Master Blaster Master is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 6,127
1. As others said, I highly doubt that it's true. It's not even consistent, it seems to be based on a satirical view of Fox News. That's not to say that I'm a fan of Fox News, I'm not, but even of all the people I know who watch it religiously, they're mostly old people who depend heavily on medicine.

2. No. The vast majority of this sort of information doesn't even come in the form of news but from the commentary types, like O'Reilly, Hannity, and their ilk, though the anchors themselves do spread untruth at times. Still, everyone has a responsibility to research and verify information or at least verify their sources and how accurate their information is.

3. No. I'd think, or at least like to believe, that First Amendment rights cover this. There's nothing that says what you say has to be true or honest or well researched or anything. It may be horrible and damaging speech, but I think we can't start trying to break this right down or we'll quickly lose it. As far as I'm concerned, the First Amendment is sacrosanct.
  #33  
Old 03-19-2012, 02:18 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,289
I agree that the story sounds suspect for a number of reasons, but I think it makes a good hypothetical for an interesting debate.

As the OP, I should be participating more, but I'm swamped at work at the moment so, carry on.
  #34  
Old 03-19-2012, 02:56 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Question for you though: your noted infatuation with me aside, do you not think it odd that one would come into a thread and not opine on the actual subject of that thread? So while I'm sure there are many things more valuable than me giving a quick answer to the absurd question posed by the OP, the question your post raises is: is there anything that could be less valuable? A question that your post is affirmative proof of.
Had I known you were so eager to hear my opinion, I wouldn't have tantalized you with the anticipation. Yearn no further, my son, and slake thy thirst:

1) Doubt it.

2) No. In an ideal world, yes, but we don't live in an ideal world and Fox News is an amoral entity composed of immoral members.

3) No.
  #35  
Old 03-19-2012, 03:59 PM
Saintly Loser Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,879
Doesn't sound like Fox News killed anyone here. What it sounds like (assuming the quoted and linked-to report is true, which I'm not assuming) is that their sensationalist ranting reinforced the delusions of an already unbalanced woman.

And, by the way, this struck me:

Quote:
As she made out her will she told her lawyer, "I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!"
What kind of lawyer is it that assists a clearly demented woman to write a will? Surely (again, assuming that the report is true) there's no way such a will would hold up in court if anyone wanted to contest it?
  #36  
Old 03-19-2012, 04:09 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
As much as I hate Fox News, I just can't buy this one. It reads too much like one of those conservative recreational outrage chain letters my family is always buying into, which are usually stuffed to bursting with lies and exaggerations. And even if it is true, Mom, crazy or not, is way too gullible.
  #37  
Old 03-19-2012, 04:19 PM
just_some_guy5 just_some_guy5 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 156
Why would someone be scared that Obamacare would have their medical records? The basis for this supposed story appears to be that she avoided going to a hospital for fear Obamacare would have her records -what kind of explanation has Fox News been supposedly espousing that would lead her to 1) believe Obamacare would get her records and 2) believe this would be a very bad thing?

Can someone at least post a link to one of these Fox News stories?
  #38  
Old 03-19-2012, 04:20 PM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Howth Castle & Environs
Posts: 16,178
Crazy mom is crazy.
Also, dead.
  #39  
Old 03-19-2012, 04:21 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lair
Posts: 20,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_some_guy5 View Post
Why would someone be scared that Obamacare would have their medical records? The basis for this supposed story appears to be that she avoided going to a hospital for fear Obamacare would have her records -what kind of explanation has Fox News been supposedly espousing that would lead her to 1) believe Obamacare would get her records and 2) believe this would be a very bad thing?

Can someone at least post a link to one of these Fox News stories?
An old person would be scared that Obamacare would have their medical records because that would mean they would get into the hands of one of the death panels that conservatives have conjured up out of thin air, meaning they would be marked for death. (I don't believe a word of it, but I know the meme is out there.)
  #40  
Old 03-19-2012, 04:57 PM
DoctorJ DoctorJ is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Eastern Kentucky
Posts: 6,472
My grandmother is 82 years old and has never shown any signs of dementia. She lives by herself, takes care of her own affairs, etc.

She keeps Fox News on for most of the day and sort of half-watches it. She doesn't pay enough attention to really understand what they're talking about, or to question it. (Like many in her generation, she believes they couldn't say things on TV if they weren't true.) What she gets from it is an impression, and the impression is pretty much a parody of Fox News--Obama is a non-Christian and probably non-American who has destroyed the economy, associates with bad people, etc. A few years ago she started talking about ACORN, but clearly didn't know what the organization actually did--they were just a big scary bunch of people trying to do unspecified bad things.

She hasn't talked to me about Obamacare, but I'm sure she has a similar impression about it. I like to think she wouldn't refuse medical care over it, but if a little bit of dementia started to set in I could see it.

The story in the OP rings my bullshit alarm, but I don't think it's implausible.
  #41  
Old 03-19-2012, 05:25 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Had I known you were so eager to hear my opinion, I wouldn't have tantalized you with the anticipation. Yearn no further, my son, and slake thy thirst:

1) Doubt it.

2) No. In an ideal world, yes, but we don't live in an ideal world and Fox News is an amoral entity composed of immoral members.

3) No.
You confuse any interest in your opinion with my puzzlement of you coming into the thread and commenting on my ability to have divined the thrust of the OP by reading merely the headline—without commenting on the thread itself. But now that you have shared your thoughts, I see that you agree with my assessment. Excellent. I strongly suggest you adopt a strategy of agreeing with my assessments from here on out, as it has served you so well here.
  #42  
Old 03-19-2012, 06:15 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,151
It's not the OP's rant.
  #43  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:07 PM
gunnergoz gunnergoz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sandy Ego, California
Posts: 414
Looks like disinformational agitprop to me...a red herring planted by someone wishing to stir up people one way or the other, then sit back and enjoy the ensuing chaos.
  #44  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 16,298
The story sounds like pure BS to me.
  #45  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:30 PM
Bemused Bemused is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and respond without even reading anything but the thread title: no, no Fox News did not kill the man's mother.

Note to mods: this belongs in the pit. It's really just a lightly disguised rant against Fox News. At least in that forum, the poster would be able to get some really valuable feedback.
As I read through this thread, I shake my head and again understand why I label modern american liberalism as a mental illness.

It isn't the views the liberal holds, it is how the liberal holds those views. Thus, Fox News promotes hatred, people who listen to Fox News are bigots, or stupid, or don't have both oars in the water. And some people are willing to give credence to the screed that heads this thread.

And then, they insist that they are both rational and intelligent!!! And tolerant. Tolerant!!! ROTFLMAO.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Two people can look at the same set of facts and reach very different conclusions from them.

The essential - the KEY feature of a Republic is that the people are both tolerant of, and willing to listen to and consider, different viewpoints. But the modern american Left has almost totally lost that ability.

In fact, modern american liberalism has become a religion, and modern american liberals are bigots exactly the same way as those on the far religious right are bigots: "if you aren't with us, you are against us", and "we're the good ones, the smart ones, the sophisticated ones, and the best ones, and if you don't see it our way you are...etc, etc, etc". They sound EXACTLY like the far-right religious zealots. They sound INDISTINGUISHABLE from them, except, of course, for what they rant about.

Too bad. The Republic has probably had it because, in significant part because of the insanity of the Left, there is no longer any rational discussion of the great issues of this society. So the Republic will fall.
  #46  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:46 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Shhhhh, Bemused. Do you want to be taken to Room 101?
  #47  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:50 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,291
Quote:
Looks like disinformational agitprop to me
Yeah, I'd go as far as to say Murdoch himself may be behind it.

Quote:
And then, they insist that they are both rational and intelligent!!! ... So the Republic will fall.
Uhm, right. Well, hope you and your Ubermensch buddies are around to pick up the pieces.
  #48  
Old 03-19-2012, 07:55 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 41,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bemused View Post

Too bad. The Republic has probably had it because, in significant part because of the insanity of the Left, there is no longer any rational discussion of the great issues of this society. So the Republic will fall.
I'm confused. Do you think that the question of whether Obama is a Muslim deserves rational discussion? How about death panels? How about his birthplace? How about Bush conspiring to cause 9/11? (Yes, there are left wing kooks also - the difference is that Truthers don't get sympathy from those in power, unlike Birthers.) Do you think that all questions have two equally legitimate sides? And do you think that Fox actually is dedicated to giving a "fair and balanced" account of the News, as opposed to one side?
  #49  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:12 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,371
This part sounds logical, as in most people know someone who thinks like this, Fox news or not.

People my mother's age, in their prime years during the age of the Fairness Doctrine, were literally indoctrinated to thinking all news is true or they wouldn't be able to broadcast it. My mother was uneducated and a lifelong Republican, back when it truly was my father's Republican Party. About ten days before mother died she tripped and fell and refused to go to the doctor, saying Obama would get her information and use it against her and that his death panels would decide her fate, instead of her. No amount of logic or love could convince her otherwise.

Then he goes on to talk about ... State Rape?

Rape by the state is now in effect in Texas and Virginia, and being proposed by GOPers in several other Republican controlled states. No Democrats are passing laws like this. It is the Republican Party that has become America's Taliban by methodically assaulting women's rights. The Texas law does not provide for free and voluntary consent by the woman. The law states that before the sonogram that is conducted prior to an abortion, the pregnant woman must sign a form that is called the "abortion and sonogram election," which includes the statements that "Texas law requires that I receive a sonogram prior to receiving an abortion," and that she is "making this election of my own free will and without coercion." How is this voluntary consent when the ultrasound is mandated by law? When our planet is dying from global warming, over population, pollution, etc., what possible reasons can legislators have to pass laws like this, which is tantamount to state rape.
  #50  
Old 03-19-2012, 08:12 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
Legally contribute to her death? Not in any criminal sense, and not civilly either.

Ethically and morally, however, I fully believe that misinforming people on health matters can cause culpability for death. If I told people not to seek medical care and they relied on it, even if they were crazy in relying on it, I would certainly feel partly responsible.

News is important business. Sometimes people will die if they rely on bullshit news. Is Fox bullshit news? They've reported and I've decided that they are bullshit news.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017