uh… LMFAO soo what about MSNBC, CNN, ETC support of Obama…? obvious bias… also someone start posting some of the lies of “fox” … and the facts to support said lies
I already did, but you seem to miss it. I wonder why?
Punctuation, my farming friend, punctuation. Even a good screed needs punctuation.
For all the times I seen it, I’ve yet to have seen a single instance of a person applying the gullible sheeple argument to himself. It’s always those other stupid guys over there that we need to help - for their own sake of course.
Of which supposedly you are not one. Happy were the days when the power was invested with the select few unburdened by the stupid masses.
Happy to be of service. You can send the money to my PayPal account. However I’m not defending Fox, merely that multiple news sources is the most important element of the media landscape and that the state should not meddle in or censure news. And I’ll add that if there is a group of the population for whom one kind of news is important, then certainly the supplier of that is doing a valuable service.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
Are you saying random ellipses don’t count as punctuation?
Speaking of which, have you considered watching Fox News for a week or so and bringing back an informed opinion to this thread?
Something vile, no doubt. But how about government ruling that news providers cannot lie. They don’t determine what’s true or false, but they get to decide what happens to outfits like Fox when someone else catches them in a lie. I’d be okay with that. I don’t care about a corporate entity’s freedom to lie. Libertarians might be upset, but their happiness is their concern, not mine.
Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.
Wow. Can you please explain why regulating the quality of food and medicine is a bad thing?
As did I.
No, we want the electorate, in the form of their elected representatives, to decide what they consider proper news and what does not. If the majority of the electorate makes that - admittedly delegated - decision, who has the right to deny them that decision?
Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got.
As long as you are only imposing labelling requirements and not muzzling anyone, I don’t see the problem. As long as Fox News relabelled itself as Fox Nooz (kinda like Chicken Wyngz), I wouldn’t have a problem.
The electorate already decides what they consider proper news. They do so every time they tune into or out from a program. There’s no need to involve unnecessary extra layers in the form of elected representatives and bureaucracy, people hired to monitor, access and control, the courts, police and what not. The crux of the issue is that you don’t trust the masses to make such decisions for themselves.
Of course not. Because the idea of the news is that the masses do not know a thing, and therefore the news imparts this knowledge to them. They have no idea if that knowledge is factual or not, because they did not have any prior understanding of it.
If I tell a bunch of elementary school students that 2+2 = 5, is it their fault they now don’t understand math?
A poll taken two weeks after Obama released his long form birth certificate showed that over half of people who habitually vote Republican in primaries still question his place of birth.
34% think he was born outside the US, and another 18% aren’t sure, in spite of the evidence of two forms of birth certificate, the newspapers of the time, the Republican governor of Hawaii’s certification of the authenticity of the documents, etc.
And none of that should even be necessary; all anyone needs to know about Obama’s citizenship is that George W. Bush was President, with Karl Rove as his advisor, when the 2008 election was held, and they didn’t come out with an October surprise about Obama’s citizenship. In fact, they spent tens of millions of dollars on Secret Service protection for him, beginning the day he was nominated.
Meanwhile, some 90% of the same people believe that Jesus walked on water, with no evidence whatever, except for a couple of anonymous fables.
You are right; I don’t trust such people.
I prefer “Fox I Can’t Believe It’s Not News!”
This is in line with what I had in mind. Like the way food manufacturers must list the ingredients of products they sell.
The only problem with this though is that people will start arguing what the definition of “news” is.
FYI, latest Fox controversial news: “Obama invites rapper Common to the White House”. Apparently Common raps about cop killers and inviting him is controversial.
I had to look up the lyrics and found that it’s from A Song for Assata.
He is singing about a cop killing incident from the early '70’s involving the Black Panthers. The woman he was singing about was Assata Shakur and how she was shot, mistreated and finally convicted for killing a cop. Common’s opinion in the song is that Assata was wrongfully convicted.
I looked it up and I admit I’m not convinced that she wasn’t at least partially responsible, although there are a few question marks there.
It’s hardly a song that encourages cop killing, it’s an opinion of an incident which happened during the civil rights movement.
So fox takes this and are outraged at the president for sullying the halls of the White House with a rapper who supports cop killing.:rolleyes:
Almost all the components are there. Outright lies, exaggeration, over-reaction to a non-issue and misplaced patriotism. They make it sound as if Common was the actual cop killer.
A+
Honestly, though, the FCC letting media conglomerates operate the majority of media is just dismal. 
Well, I suppose we could leave it to people to decide whether or not they want to buy the baby food with the ground glass in it or some other brand. Of course, you can’t tell which brand has the ground glass in it (or indeed whether or not they all do) but after the first time the baby eats the glass you’ll know not to buy that brand anymore. The free market rules!
Straight question - could someone provide a cite to back up the claim that UK news broadcasters require some kind of licence to “operate as news”? Just because I have never heard of such a thing. I realise that broadcasters based in the UK come under a certain amount of regulation from Ofcom (for commercial broadcasters) or the BBC Trust in the case of the BBC, but I was not aware of any particular licence for certain types of content, such as news. Are we saying that Channel Five, say, needs a “certified news broadcaster” licence in order to show its news programmes? If so, I can’t say I’m comfortable with the though of some regulator deciding what constitutes unbiased news.