Discussion: FOX News

[Kelly]

I wish the Congress would only be in session every 2 years.....the less I have to see them, the better off I am.

 

[StorminNorman]

No the Tea Party is not the answer. They are simply a more radical version of the right wing republicans. IF we are ever going to be able to change this govt and the way it works we are going to have to find common ground. Not try to follow the fringe. Turn off the pundits and talking heads.
Start figuring out what is our biggest dysfunction and find a way to fix it.

I think our biggest problem is money influencing policy. We have to wean the piglets from the teat. They aren't going to do it themselves.
We have to set some campaign rules. The way it is now they can't do their jobs for raising money.

I personally think we could do without the Senate. It's nothing but a House of Lords. They make it far too easy for the money men to manipulate the legislation. Sometimes all it takes is one anonymous Senator to stop a bill.
But that's just me thinking out of the box.

The best way to remove money influencing policy, to "wean the piglets from the teat" is the very Tea Party solution of removing of corporate taxes (and replacement with the FairTax), deregulation and term limits.

Campaign rules won't work because it requires the politicians to pass rules whose only purpose is to prevent them from abusing their positions of power. If such legislation was feasible, then such legislation wouldn't be necessary.

The most effective way of removing business influence of government is to remove the causes for it.

Furthermore, I suggested the Tea Party as the answer ONLY if they turned on the GOP should they prove to be incompetent. Such an event would remove your criticism of them being a "radical version of right wing republicans". Furthermore, what's your definition of "right wing"? If it's on a Left is Communist, Right is Fascist line, calling a Small government group "extreme right wing" would be odd as that would be the opposite of fascism.

Unfortunately this has been derailed away from Fox News.

 

[Paradoxium]

I wish the Congress would only be in session every 2 4 years.....the less I have to see them, the better off I am.

I haz makes correction

 

[Kelly]

lol...well I would like for them to get some business done.

 

[chaseter]

Politics has changed from being a duty to serve the betterment of the people, a calling, to a job where you get a paycheck and you will do anything and everything to keep getting that paycheck.

 

[bell110]

LOL

See, this is comedic gold.

Bell is criticizing Fox News for not getting the story right.

While at the same time trying to blame Fox News for jumping all of the story, forcing the Administrations hand.

When the Administration acted before Fox News ever reported it.

Thus being guilty of the VERY SAME CRIME he is blasting Fox News for.

No, I did not blame Fox for forcing the Administration's hand. I blamed them for jumping on a story they didn't have all the facts for for the sole reason to bash the Administration.

I don't think anyone here did....but pretty much Sherrod herself did, or actually the person that she quoted from the Administration that she said told her that...they did it quickly before Fox got the story, Beck to be specific.

I'm thinking that this "You're going to be on Beck" statement was more of a figure of speech than an actual accusation. Kind of like if a friend takes an embarrassing picture of you and saying "this is going to be all over the internet". I mean think about it. How would this person know what Beck's segment schedule is? And if Beck did mention it on his radio show earlier in the morning, and other right wing media/blogs are reporting on it, it's only common sense that Fox is going to pick it up, which they did.

But to be fair, posting the Sherrod story in this thread, kind of does that....and that is what Stormy was talking about.

There is really no reason to be discussing it in this thread....it is a story about this administration, not Fox.

Actually, there are two parts of the story. The first part is that the administration jumped the gun in firing her. The other part is that Fox also jumped the gun in reporting that there are racists within the administration in order to push their political agenda thus highlighting what a bunch of hacks they really are.

And I love how they were bending over backwards to show that she was fired before Fox broke (no pun intended) the story and therefore not responsable for her firing, but they don't mention anything about how they excitedly reported the racism aspect of it.

He's not giving an opposing view of what happened. He is simply telling some of the history that is not necessarily known by everyone because it is overlooked in our history classes.

In many instances he will take a piece of art of that era and point to a random black man in the photo.....and tell his story.

The historians he uses on his show have NEVER said anything that they were not able to back up with primary sources. A student of history knows that that is what is important.

I'm not saying what was said wasn't true. But I know Beck's love of hyperbole. Like that one lady, I forget her name. He was saying she beleived in eugenics, like the Nazis, and she was responsible for birth control, which he made sound like a bad thing, and she was a racist because she talked at a KKK rally, and so on. Beck made it sound like she was a horrible person, and this horrible person is a hero to liberals and progressives. I would like a neutral voice on his show that could say, "Yeah, that's all true, but it's not as bad as you make it sound, here is some context". I only saw that one episode, though.

Yes I made it up in my head Or maybe I read this link which directly says that Fox and other right wing media amplified the situation which led to her firing.

Well they DID amplify the situation.

 

[Kelly]

Interesting world you live in. Only a blood relative can take offense for something that offended.

NPR became an issue because YOU raised it as your source in an attempt to weasel out of being the person who made an unattributed statement. "Some say" this is a sign of first degree jerkitude. Oh, that should have a source.

I am that source. That's an example of manning up.

You know damn well at least one person reading this board found what you said to be inappropriate and offensive, applying a new layer of slander on a woman who had enough of it to lose her job.

If it wasn't your intent to insult her, apologize for your very poor choice of words. If it WAS your intent all along to make her look guilty of something bad time to step up and admit it.

If you can't do either, that tells everyone reading this things about you that you probably will regret becoming known.

You are her brother, I know it......

 

[Matt Mortem]

Politics has changed from being a duty to serve the betterment of the people, a calling, to a job where you get a paycheck and you will do anything and everything to keep getting that paycheck.

Yeah, it's true and extremely sad. Rather than work on legislation to better and help America, the politicians only do things that are best for their career. Really pathetic

 

[Grievous]

Politics has changed from being a duty to serve the betterment of the people, a calling, to a job where you get a paycheck and you will do anything and everything to keep getting that paycheck.

Agree

More and more people are choosing a career in Politics not because of what they can do for the people but what their office job can do for them.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Well, it's a job where they can all vote on giving themselves more money. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[Grievous]

Well, it's a job where they can all vote on giving themselves more money. Who wouldn't want that?

True but there is a difference between making a paycheck and doing your job to the greatest of your ability and just making a paycheck and giving alittle here and there.

 

[Matt Mortem]

True but there is a difference between making a paycheck and doing your job to the greatest of your ability and just making a paycheck and giving alittle here and there.

And that's the difference between a politician and a Statesman. We have too few statesmen and too many politicians.

 

[Heretic]

To stop the fact that politicians have just become people looking for a paycheck, we just need to repeal the 17th amendment. Prior to that, Senators were appointed by the state legislature, and answered to them. If they cast votes that went against the will of the people, they were simply fired and replaced. When the 17th Amendment was passed, everyone realized that the more money they had, the more likely theyd win an election...so the entire process was handed over to lobbying groups. It is the illusion of giving people more power, while actually putting the power in the hands of corporations.

 

[Marx]

And that's the difference between a politician and a Statesman. We have too few statesmen and too many politicians.

This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time.

 

[Kelly]

Sig worthy...

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I guess we'll see just how corrupting the world of politics can be when my friend gets involved.

 

[The Squirrel]

To stop the fact that politicians have just become people looking for a paycheck, we just need to repeal the 17th amendment. Prior to that, Senators were appointed by the state legislature, and answered to them. If they cast votes that went against the will of the people, they were simply fired and replaced. When the 17th Amendment was passed, everyone realized that the more money they had, the more likely theyd win an election...so the entire process was handed over to lobbying groups. It is the illusion of giving people more power, while actually putting the power in the hands of corporations.

I've always wandered why they ever changed it in the first place when I found out that the State Legislatures appointed Senators.

 

[chaseter]

This is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time.

Sig worthy...

I started it so I get 10%

 

[Marx]

FOX NEWS' PARENT COMPANY DONATES $1 MILLION TO REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/news-corp-donates-1-milli_n_684462.html

How's that 'fair and balanced' thing workin' for ya?

 

[Paradoxium]

They knew they were going to get caught. I am more surprised that:

a. it is a paltry 1 million considering the dough they rake up

b. why HuffPo would plaster this to their headlines like WW3 started, when it is sourced from Bloomberg. Not their own story. Bloomberg didn't even plaster this.

c. This is about as shocking as Smallville fans wanting Tom Welling to be Superman.

 

[Marx]

They knew they were going to get caught. I am more surprised that:

a. it is a paltry 1 million considering the dough they rake up

b. why HuffPo would plaster this to their headlines like WW3 started, when it is sourced from Bloomberg. Not their own story. Bloomberg didn't even plaster this.

c. This is about as shocking as Smallville fans wanting Tom Welling to be Superman.

HuffPo AND BLOOMBERG are the only ones I've seen it on so far but I'm sure others will pick it up. And while it might not be shocking, I'm glad it's being put out there. I am beyond sick and tired of Fox News parading around under a banner of 'fair and balanced' when they are nothing more than the media arm of the GOP.

 

[Paradoxium]

What are you talking about? Bloomberg had it up originally (yesterday). The article even links up to Bloomberg

Fox News being Republican nuthuggers is hardly a shocking revelation. Let alone, OMFG DRUDGE REPORT STYLE HEADLINES FOR YESTERDAY'S NEWS, someone sell the house.

 

[Marx]

What are you talking about? Bloomberg had it up originally (yesterday). The article even links up to Bloomberg

Fox News being Republican nuthuggers is hardly a shocking revelation. Let alone, OMFG DRUDGE REPORT STYLE HEADLINES FOR YESTERDAY'S NEWS, someone sell the house.

As I said, I'm tired of the 'fair and balanced' crap.

 

[Paradoxium]

It's NewsCorp who owns Fox News and WSJ. That's Fox News, not WSJ. Kind of like Microsoft and General Electric - with MSNBC.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

It's NewsCorp who owns Fox News and WSJ. That's Fox News, not WSJ. Kind of like Microsoft and General Electric - with MSNBC.

actually didn't Comcast just buy MSNBC?

And as far as Newscorp/Fox news/WSJ goes all of Murdoch's "news" outlets are fascist propaganda mills. Including those in the UK and Australia. They're even pushing the local Fox affiliates to carry their propaganda pieces.

But let's not worry about a multibillion dollar global media empire moving in lockstep with a political party. Doing fundraising for them and contributing to them. This is in addition to the 24/7 propaganda they broadcast for free.

There used to be a thing called "in kind contributions" that wouldn't allow such a service. but now all those quaint ideas about corporate political sponsorship is a thing of the past. It's wide open and no accountability for the lies they tell. The bigger the better.

but hey Soros might give a few dollars to a media watchdog to document those lies so it's all the same right?
I heard that Move On was funded by some shiek in Saudi Arabia.
Oh wait that's Newscorp and he's their 2nd largest shareholder.
And yet no Glenn Beck conspiracies about that guy and his motivations.