Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Fox News Evil or Stupid? [CLOSED for further review]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 351
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?Page 15 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

who tapped phones, erased messages, led a poor girl's family to believe she was alive or tapped the phones of 9/11 victims.


I didn't know anyone suspected the news outlets you mention of doing those things. I have no reason to doubt that your statement that they did not is true. But if they didn't do them, who are you claiming did? And if they acted illegally, what, if anything, was done about it?
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 352
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 2:18:13 PM
Cute, very cute, guess your another one who watches only what he wants to see.

FOX's parent corporation did it. Or haven't you seen the hearings in Parliment? Guess news for you ends at your driveway. NewsCorp is accused of this on a massive scale.

But then again, I guess FOX runs these stories late at night when you all are aspleep!

Next you will be telling me, that this is a different part of the company. Like Ruppert baby, didn't know what's going on. Hundreds of thosands of pounds changed hands, they already shut down one newspaper and fired several sacrifical lambs to keep the Murdochs from the limelight or alledged knwoledge.

Funny, I always thought that the CEO and Chairman of the Board was responsible for the actions of those who work for him and do things in the name of his company. Or are you gonna be one of the ostriches who stick their heads in the sand and say "i didn't know" or "he did it, I didn't know"?

My best hope is they find some of the documents BEFORE they get shredded, and tie this to his feet. Then it will cease to be an issue, FOX will lose their broadcast licenses, or be sold to a more responsible entity instead of this family of muckrackers.
 hoopsnhikes
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 353
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 3:41:10 PM

This may come as news to the crowd here that gets their news from the NYT and guys in their under ware who look like Michael Moore posting things on YouTube

Yes, since Fox is nothing more than a right wing propaganda machine, you can simply refer to this very thread to find the apparent preferred "fair and balanced" news sources for those who are so concerned about such shameless biased reporting. From the Daily Kos to the Daily Show....or Media Matters, CrooksandLiars, and Smirkingchimp, to name a few more.

One sided reporting is evidently perfectly acceptable as long as it's coming from the "right" side...with the "right" side being the left side.


people who watch Fox news are allowed to vote

We can only hope that someday this injustice will be corrected. Better yet, maybe all of the Fox viewer votes could be given to those who rely on all of the other sources listed above and found throughout this thread. After all, it hardly seems fair that the most enlightened among us only receive one vote.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 354
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 4:18:24 PM

Cute, very cute, guess your another one who watches only what he wants to see.


Guess again. I didn't know what you were referring to. Yes, I heard about it, but I don't watch Fox News much and really don't care about Mr. Murdoch and his alleged wrongdoings. I don't see how his personal character determines whether Fox reports accurately, in any case.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 355
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 4:30:45 PM
"I don't see how his personal character determines whether Fox reports accurately"

Gee, you must have one of those funny jobs!

When our pal at BP, decided safeguards were less necessary than saving the cost of 250K a day for the drill ship, everyone said no I'm sure. When Koslawski told accounting to pay for those paintings and have them delivered out of state(not really, they sent empty crates), I'm sure those folks said no to the boss, that would be illegal.

I could go on but what's the use, by now I hope you have a clue.

If the boss tells you to cover the news with a slant, you do it, or get fired. I guess where you work, you tell the boss to go piss up a rope and he smiles at you, and says that's fine, you do the right thing.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 356
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 4:39:38 PM
The Viewers spoke, answered in person and verified the OP question. Yuppers... Both.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 357
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 6:06:05 PM

The Times wasn't breaking the law by spreading enemy propaganda, nor is anyone breaking it by criticizing that action.

I didn't see the "forty-six straight days" of coverage so I don't know what exactly they published, but if the topic was generally the abuses at "Abu Ghraib" then that wasn't "enemy propaganda" was it? It was factual news published in the public interest.
To suggest otherwise is to endorse cover ups of uncomfortable realities.



But then... you go on to suggest that the NY Times was irresponsible to exercise these "guaranteed rights", hinting, as I noted before, that they must be communists for daring to expose abuses and suggesting, apparently approvingly, that the government should have pressured them to censor the information, which kind of conflicts, I would have thought, with the concept of having a "free press".


If so, you would have thought wrong. The freedom to make or publish statements, like the other freedoms the Bill of Rights guarantees, is not absolute. Laws against defamation, or child pornography, or inciting people to imminent violence, or disclosing military secrets, for example, are not necessarily unconstitutional.

Why are you raising irrelevancies? No one was talking about "defamation, or child pornography, or inciting people to imminent violence, or disclosing military secrets". The topic under discussion was reporting of human rights abuses in relation to 'press freedom'.
Specifically, that you often refer to 'guaranteed rights and freedoms' approvingly, if not reverentially, yet were advocating that the NY Times, in relation to a story about human rights abuses, should have either self censored or had its freedom curbed by the government.
That would make the NY Times kind of similar to the 'Peoples Daily' wouldn't it? Or Pravda?


...you cast them (the NY Times) as 'communists' (the worst insult you can think of I suspect) for doing so.

If not the worst, close to it. Communism is completely inconsistent with the principles on which the United States was founded. This government was designed to foster individual freedom and protect property rights.

Which ^^^ is why I said it was inconsistent, and "odd" that you seemed to be advocating that governmental pressure should have been applied to the NY Times.



All the while, as you flex and contort these, apparently not-so-sacred-really, notions of freedom you completely overlook that the NY Times, by allegedly covering Abu Ghraib for "forty-six straight days" was perhaps, rather than acting as an organ of 'communists' as you scathingly suggest, was acting from the highest principles of morality and justice, and was therefore acting to remind Americans how far they'd drifted from their principles.


Not so. I don't overlook your speculation at all. I reject it as pompous nonsense. The New York Times--which has been caught in more than one self-serving lie in recent years--is no more a guardian of American principles than Mother Jones, the Daily Kos, or Pravda.

If that's the case, given your readiness to abandon its principles to serve a short term strategic aim, then your adulatory references to 'The Constitution' are also nothing more than "pompous nonsense".
Because the bottom line is, human rights abuses aren't a 'political issue', they are are a moral and/or ethical issue.

To see the truth of that ^^^ all you need do is read up on some distant case of human rights abuse perpetrated against some hapless population, or person, with whom you feel no special connection.
For instance, considered from a moral or ethical standpoint, would it have been 'better' for German newspapers, during the second world war, to expose what was going on in those camps in Poland? Or is it preferable, as you appear to be suggesting, that they bowed to government pressure and said nothing?

Do tell.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 358
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 9:00:02 PM
Why are you raising irrelevancies? No one was talking about "defamation, or child pornography, or inciting people to imminent violence, or disclosing military secrets". The topic under discussion was reporting of human rights abuses in relation to 'press freedom'.


Thanks for the laugh. You are like someone trying to play chess without even knowing how the pieces move. By calling those things irrelevant, you make very clear you don't understand even the basics of the U.S. Constitution--in this case of the First Amendment. But you don't let that stop you from trying to lecture me about abandoning its principles. If you want to keep pretending to know what you do not, please feel free.

There is some overlap between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and of the press. Freedom of the press has involved issues like broadcasts of indecent speech, limiting public and press access to trials, making members of the press testify before grand juries (the Times featured in one of those decisions), the "fairness doctrine," and regulation of cable TV and the Internet.

I gave a few examples of speech or publication the First Amendment does not protect. There are others. Government can and does regulate or even prohibit these things by law, without violating the Constitution. Sullivan, the Supreme Court decision that defines how the boundary between constitutionally protected speech and defamation varies under certain circumstances, also involved the New York Times. Freedom of the press is not absolute--you don't get to broadcast to the world during wartime just when and where the country's warships are sailing, and what their mission is.


Because the bottom line is, human rights abuses aren't a 'political issue', they are are a moral and/or ethical issue.


You don't say. And now maybe you can tell us exactly what those lofty-sounding "human rights" are, other than a bumper sticker slogan for fuzzy-minded internationalists. Maybe your moral and/or ethical outrage was inspired by an old Jimmy Carter speech.

U.S. servicemen are not bound to respect any abstract "human rights," or to obey hazy international laws or courts meant to enforce any such rights. The soldiers guarding prisoners at Abu Ghraib were bound by federal laws, mostly in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The ones who were found to have violated those laws were held responsible.

No one has to approve of the shabby things some soldiers did at Abu Ghraib to recognize how the enemies of this country--and their abettors at the New York Times and elsewhere--grotesquely and cleverly exaggerated the events to harm the United States. This certainly cost the lives of other servicemen--no one knows how many. The soldiers who committed the abuses were of course directly responsible for them. But those who purposely did all they could to magnify those abuses--while their country was at war--are also to blame.

Your attempt to compare making some prisoners pose nude, or simulate sex acts, or scaring them with dogs, or otherwise humiliating them, with the Nazis' heinous murders of countless innocent people trivializes that atrocity. It is a disgusting insult to the memories of all those poor souls.

Next you'll probably be suggesting that what was done at Abu Ghraib--where no one was even seriously injured--was as bad as Japanese troops torturing many thousands of prisoners to death in the most degrading, agonizing, sadistic ways imaginable during WWII. Contrary to what you're implying, the fact that getting a hangnail and being decapitated are both injuries does not make them comparable.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/25/2011 10:26:02 PM

Why are you raising irrelevancies? No one was talking about "defamation, or child pornography, or inciting people to imminent violence, or disclosing military secrets". The topic under discussion was reporting of human rights abuses in relation to 'press freedom'.


Thanks for the laugh. You are like someone trying to play chess without even knowing how the pieces move. By calling those things irrelevant, you make very clear you don't understand even the basics of the U.S. Constitution--in this case of the First Amendment. But you don't let that stop you from trying to lecture me about abandoning its principles. If you want to keep pretending to know what you do not, please feel free.

Knowledge of the constitution thing isn't required to detect irrelevancy. The issue was human rights abuses and the reporting thereof.


There is some overlap between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and of the press. Freedom of the press has involved issues like broadcasts of indecent speech, limiting public and press access to trials, making members of the press testify before grand juries (the Times featured in one of those decisions), the "fairness doctrine," and regulation of cable TV and the Internet.

I gave a few examples of speech or publication the First Amendment does not protect. There are others. Government can and does regulate or even prohibit these things by law, without violating the Constitution. Sullivan, the Supreme Court decision that defines how the boundary between constitutionally protected speech and defamation varies under certain circumstances, also involved the New York Times. Freedom of the press is not absolute--you don't get to broadcast to the world during wartime just when and where the country's warships are sailing, and what their mission is.

So what. Clouding the issue with more irrelevancy might confuse your typical Fox viewer but it won't fool anyone who hasn't lost their mind. The issue was human rights abuses and the reporting thereof.


Because the bottom line is, human rights abuses aren't a 'political issue', they are are a moral and/or ethical issue.


You don't say. And now maybe you can tell us exactly what those lofty-sounding "human rights" are, other than a bumper sticker slogan for fuzzy-minded internationalists. Maybe your moral and/or ethical outrage was inspired by an old Jimmy Carter speech.

Why is it that apparently need me to tell you what "human rights" are? Don't you know?
And what does Jimmy Carter have to do with me, or the issue?

Bizarre.


No one has to approve of the shabby things some soldiers did at Abu Ghraib to recognize how the enemies of this country--and their abettors at the New York Times and elsewhere--grotesquely and cleverly exaggerated the events to harm the United States. This certainly cost the lives of other servicemen--no one knows how many. The soldiers who committed the abuses were of course directly responsible for them. But those who purposely did all they could to magnify those abuses--while their country was at war--are also to blame.

Your attempt to compare making some prisoners pose nude, or simulate sex acts, or scaring them with dogs, or otherwise humiliating them, with the Nazis' heinous murders of countless innocent people trivializes that atrocity. It is a disgusting insult to the memories of all those poor souls.

Next you'll probably be suggesting that what was done at Abu Ghraib--where no one was even seriously injured--was as bad as Japanese troops torturing many thousands of prisoners to death in the most degrading, agonizing, sadistic ways imaginable during WWII. Contrary to what you're implying, the fact that getting a hangnail and being decapitated are both injuries does not make them comparable.

I said nothing about the scale of transgression. I even invited you to select a scenario with which you feel no personal connection as a means of illustrating the point. Which you've either missed or ignored, along with the question it led to. Apparently so you can promote some personal agenda about heinous things someone else committed.

To remind you, here is the question again - "For instance, considered from a moral or ethical standpoint, would it have been 'better' for German newspapers, during the second world war, to expose what was going on in those camps in Poland? Or is it preferable, as you appear to be suggesting, that they bowed to government pressure and said nothing?"

It's a simple question. Can you manage a simple answer?
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 360
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:12:58 AM
EP are you talking about the question time links?

if you are then why do you think the bbc apologised for the
way the show went?

it was overboard and the smug hatered could only be down
to the HANDPICKED audience the bbc wanted at first.

folk in the uk were outraged, ordinary decent working class
folk who were disgusted by the bbc.

i will say when 9 11 first happened there was a wee bit of
'well you lot armed the ira with funds to bomb our citys and
so welcome to our world' but after watching folk jump from the twin towers
the attitude soon changed to sympathy.

i know we will never agree on anything but i cannot fathom your reply mate.

p.s. whats that green dancing condom/gherkin about?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 361
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:43:09 AM
Vlad Jimmy,
I was referring to the repeated misinformation presented on these forum by Fox Viewers. They answered the OP with their Fox talking points.

From the constant labeling of anyone left of Ayn Rand as commie, to denial of their ho hum attitude about the constitution under Bush, the embrace of torture and indefinite detentions as "american values" and a few thousand other instances, it is clear that the information they are receiving is at odds with the real world. The latest study presented by LC and others highlights this diet of false information to the detriment of our national well being and democracy itself.

Meanwhile, fascists among us are pushing yet further erosion of human rights.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

For all the rhetoric about liberals being the lead fascists here, more of it seems to be coming from the far right fringes and we may hit the tipping point soon if we have not alrready.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/09-5#.Ts5O--2F10N.facebook
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 362
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:04:38 AM
To the Lib-Progs? Should Fox News be banned, and by whom?

And what of Fox News broadcast cousins, talk radio -- conservative talk radio, I mean.

Or should Fox simply be censored or overseen for content? And by whom?

Would this be a reasonable solution to your fears that too many Americans are stupid and trending towards evil based on their inability to turn the dial?

Thanks.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 363
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:05:01 AM
i dont personally see your conservatives as fascist though mate.

honest sit tight and watch europe there you are going to see a REAL fascist
movement.

it will start of conservative in outlook then nationalist and protectionist,
i realise most posters on here are from over the pond and europe is
a far away land. this is a view taken by all sideds across the pond though
as far as i can see..

but to think it wont affect your side of the pond is to bury the head in the sand

frankster has a good grip of the reality in europe and although i think
we would disagree on a lot i also think we sing roughly from the same
hymn book. (dont know if youse use that expression)

enjoy your saturday and i hope you never got pepper sprayed at the black
friday fight at the liberal book store lol (only joking mate)

vlad dracul, getting settled and ready to listen to the hibees match on the radio as its windy rainy and dark in edinburgh

toodle pip
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 364
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:42:38 AM
shy..


Fox news is for people who cannot think for themselves or intelligently differentiate between propaganda and good ole BS


So, then, what do you think should be done in the national interest?
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 365
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 7:44:22 AM
vlad...


honest sit tight and watch europe there you are going to see a REAL fascist
movement.

it will start of conservative in outlook then nationalist and protectionist,
i realise most posters on here are from over the pond and europe is
a far away land. this is a view taken by all sideds across the pond though
as far as i can see..


The Gathering Storm, Part II
 hoopsnhikes
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 366
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 8:34:36 AM

Fox news is for people who cannot think for themselves or intelligently differentiate between propaganda and good ole BS.


Uh oh...I must admit, I always thought that propaganda and BS were pretty much the same thing. Which must be why I (apparently wrongly) find it humorous that so many who are whining about Fox News then constantly turn to their far left blog sites for their information.

So...what IS the difference between propaganda and good ole BS? And which one do you consider Fox to be, and which one do you consider your source of news be?
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 367
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 8:38:26 AM
a gathering storm indeed mate. interesting and i can see extremely
violent times ahead in europe and no ammount of hand wringing or
banning people from speaking out will stop it.

what ridiculous things folk on here are saying about people who
watch fox news though.

it at times looks like the fox viewer is seen as untermensch
who should be denied the right to vote or to speak. (oh the irony 1)

how about having to wear something on your clothes that says
you are a fox viewer so the analyticaly minded can snear and
resort to name calling and mentioning hitler? (oh the irony 2)


or they could ban fox news in the interests of freedom to speak only
what they want you to hear? (oh the irony 3)

frankster i would consider myself to be a nationalist, scottish and british
and i also hold socialist (mainly) views. i am non religious and although i oppose
immigration i dont feel particularly racist. but i still opine that the far right and the far left are one and the same in europe. with immigration being the only thing thats really seperating them.
 Forereels
Joined: 5/22/2011
Msg: 368
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:47:38 AM

Fox news is for people who cannot think for themselves or intelligently differentiate between propaganda and good ole BS.



Surely you jest, that is a pretty wide brush stroke.

I like to take in as much info as I can from all angles before making a decision. There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 369
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 11:07:24 AM

righties who want a christan theocracy


Thanks for the laugh. Even if someone did want that, why care, since they obviously can't have it? Might as well worry that your car will one day start itself up and drive away, all on its own. Evidently you don't know that since 1791--only 220 years ago--the First Amendment has made any U.S. theocracy illegal.

Your statement's a little less laughable when it comes to state governments, though. You're only 64 years off, there. Any state which wanted could have created a theocracy of sorts as late as 1947. In that year, the Supreme Court finally applied the part of the First Amendment which prohibits establishing an official religion to state governments.

But do keep watching out for those Christian theocrats, just in case.
 Forereels
Joined: 5/22/2011
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 4:27:43 PM

Glenn Beck.

'Nuff said.



Last I checked, Glen Beck does not have a show on Fox anymore.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 371
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 5:26:54 PM

what do you think should be done in the national interest?

I think that there should be a website that points out the many factual errors and distortions exhibited by Fox News. There should even be a lawsuit on record that exposes Fox News' lack of journalistic integrity, and the complete legality of that lack-- that would definitely illustrate the importance of critical thinking skills when watching any news, really.

I also think that there should be a prominent comedian dedicated to political and media satire who often makes fun of Fox News and points out its copious hypocrisies. I also think that people who recognize Fox News' propagandistic techniques should post their opinions and observations to an internet site-- maybe even an internet dating site that happens to have a forum for these sorts of things even if that forum has gone "underground" because of the difficulty in moderating politically charged discussions.

Maybe someday, these things will be done by conscientious citizens in response to Fox News' style of "journalism." We can only hope...
 dolly419
Joined: 12/22/2010
Msg: 372
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:35:07 PM
Fox News is both evil and stupid!
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 373
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/27/2011 1:56:43 AM
Jon Stewart does a pretty good job of keeping an eye on the Foxhaus. He did note that "conservative victimization is the true genius of what Fox News has accomplished."
We see it a lot in this thread in particular.
These sites keep an eye on the Faux News.
http://mediamatters.org/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020?frontpage
http://www.newshounds.us/

I have no idea, other than money and corruption, why Fox "News" has not been shut down under FCC rules. At the least, they should acknowledge that they are not a news organization, but rather an opinion organization or satire site like the Onion. (Hard to tell the difference oft times.)

Has Canada still upheld their ban on fake news sites like Fox?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 374
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:57:32 AM
Good news for all the Fox haters!

Fox news will be closing shop and merging with Oprah's new channel.

Expect a lot more weeping from former the former devil anchors and reporters at Fox. Kleenex boxes will be branded with "Kimberly-Clark", one of the new sponsors.

The new working name is the Oprah-Fox Network.

Now, go get those talk radio guys and women, but not the ones who failed so well with "Air America", which, by the way, was the name of a CIA airline.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 375
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 11/27/2011 6:02:38 AM
did someone state earlier about collating the fox news storys?

heres a wee link to the simpering pc stasi uk bible the grauniad

it has all your favourite fox news storys but in a cuddly liberal way that
only liberals can show

have fun bairns


vlad dracul (been invited out for his tea to his pals so no microwave
meals for him today)


oops forgot the link its the excitement of someone with my views
being asked to anothers house for his tea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/fox-news
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Fox News Evil or Stupid? [CLOSED for further review]