Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[bascule]

bascule; I'm not here to explain/protect Mr. Beck, he is entitled to his opinions and state them by any means he can. However I do agree, that socialism is a disease, as dependency grows on people and it is opposed to everything American or at least the Country I was born into. I couldn't begin to tell you the things that are different today than during my earlier days or in my studies of American History (some good, most not), especially in the growth of a Federal Government, in many cases subverting the rights of States or individuals to make even the simplest of decisions. He also is NOT calling for a military revolution, but politically and at the voting booth....

 

You're colluding two different things here. Socialism does not necessarily result in a loss of personal liberties.

[toastywombel]

Jackson33, I decided to see if charity could take the place of government by providing for the society more adequately as you inferred.

 

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

 

The above link mentions the healthcare costs of 2007 (around 2.2 trillion dollars). This includes public and private funding for healthcare.

 

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html

 

The link above this, on the other hand lists all charitable donations by United States citizens/business/corporations for 2006.

 

"Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions.

 

"The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO."

 

So, how do you expect charity to help provide for the society's needs if the total charity from 2006 only constitutes roughly one eighth of the total healthcare costs? And I am only listing healthcare, were not even talking about food, shelter, water, and other needs. It is obvious that charity cannot do it alone.

[swansont]

Technically, when you join the Service, you join from a State and were (not sure about today), would be obligated to additional years in that States National Guard. I'm sure you can still voluntarily maintain this relationship.

 

That wasn't true 25 years ago and I'm pretty sure it's not true today.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

swansont; But a lot less "falls under" when you add the word PROMOTE (implied by "general" and stated in the preamble). I'll go back to my "Food" analogy and the one thing all humans require, well above HC. According to the arguments I'm seeing, the Federal should be taking over all grocery outlets, allowing people to pick and choose what they eat, if they agree with that choice...

 

We have food stamps, and many states have state-run liquor stores. Come to think of it, why have the conservatives let the socialist liquor stores continue to exist? (To be fair, the governor of my state wants to sell them off to raise a quick buck)

 

But more to the point, there is a distinction between "socialist" programs being mandated and these programs being permitted. Grocery stores are not dysfunctional in the way that the medical/insurance system is. And as I pointed out above, we have a program in place to assist people who have trouble getting food.

[Phi for All]

Phil; Technically, when you join the Service, you join from a State and were (not sure about today), would be obligated to additional years in that States National Guard. I'm sure you can still voluntarily maintain this relationship.

That's not true. When you join a branch of the US Armed Forces, you are joining a federally funded program. The defense of the country is not a state matter, it's a federal one. Can you imagine the disparity and chaos if defense of the country was left up to individual states?

 

Your insurance Company, whether your insuring you family home, car/truck, life or Health or anything else are personal choices you make, those choices having nothing to do with anybody else or the concern of a Federal Government.

This is a horrible argument, mainly because it has nothing to do with my position. I'm arguing that I don't want the insurance company between me and my healthcare in the first place. Insurance for my car or home, even my life (which is a quantized value upon my death, for insurance purposes) are things I can objectively assess since they have a value that can be ascribed to them. But my health is subject to too many variables and can't be easily quantized.

 

If you actually have a legitimate compliant with one Company, many do with every provider including Government, there are available means to argue your case and possibly receive compensation. If the Federal Government denies you a service, for any reason Medical in nature (Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIPS/Disability) you have no recourse to that decision, it happens everyday.

But the argument is for socialized medicine, something that hasn't been established. You are placing current restrictions for a service that has yet to be determined.

[jackson33]

jackson33, it seems you are confusing socialism with totalitarian dictatorship. In a totalitarian dictatorship anyone can be told they must do a given job, such as being a soldier. In socialism, the people own and pay for a given resource, such as the military. You can have both, either, or neither. For example, if a given private entity forced people to join his military, and paid for it himself, that would be a capitalistic totalitarian military. If the people as a whole pay to support the military, and the military's job is to protect the people, and joining the military is optional, then you have a socialist volunteer military. Which is what we have.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Who is doing what; The US Military is being called a Socialist Program, not by me. It's a program and designed into the American Constitution, which happens to be a Capitalist Society, opposed to Socialist. I don't think you intended this but your agreeing with me, its simply a program.

 

toasty; I don't think I've said anything about Taxation or the need for Government, Federal or State. We are a Union of 50 States, that were designed/planned to be sovereign and independent from the Federal on many levels. Look at it this way, imposing any Socialism by the Federal will have to be on all States, I understand the needs of the most major urban areas are going to be different than those or rural, but the Federal can only address the total. Does that make any sense to you...

 

It appears as if you have no ability to differentiate socialism from communism. [/Quote]

 

The opposite of Socialism is Capitalism, the opposite of Communism is Democracy, either of one can be part of the other, by degree.

 

Furthermore, I don't think the food analogy is a good one. The government taking over food would be difficult. [/Quote]

 

And Health Care is not difficult? The analogy stands, but remember all things leading up to the outlets would still be free market. Can you visualize the impossibility of a free market producer being controlled by what the Government will distribute. It's the same thing with HC, what is authorized and paid for.

 

Yet when it comes to giving poor people food and healthcare, you act as if it is so sacreligous to the foundations of the United States. [/Quote]

 

Government cannot provide either, so why be involved at all. They can demand access, but think you'll find the free market forces are much better at it...

 

It seems your primary argument against socialism is that citizens will become too dependent on the system. We are all dependent on the system though. That is the point, we all depend on each other for survival, that is how humanity works, together.[/Quote]

 

No, first it's not and was not the intention of those that created this Country. Second, and a repeat, if we all become dependent on Government, where are the resources going to come from. Would you do a 40 Work Week, for a thank you and equal access only to what every body else receives?

 

Your argument is that "most" people are not involved with those deductions. And you expand your argument by saying that they don't want to get the tax breaks because they have to fill out a long form. [/Quote]

 

No, I'm saying most people don't pay income taxes in the first place, then most of us don't give charity for the deduction or keep track of it. I'll often drop a few dollars (cash) into some collection bucket, or buy can goods for some drive or donate to an organization and have for years, not ever once that I recall, deducting one cent and since I deal in stocks (day trading since retirement) MUST file the long form, even as recently, showing a loss. I don't want to misrepresent the rich here either, since even the wealthy are limited to what can be deducted for charitable trust or other charity and may be donating above there limits, paying taxes on what was donated.

 

toasty; On your latest post, where is this charity funded Healthcare coming from. I am saying that if certain individuals who are unable to attain HC or anything else, there is charity available. Most all in the Medical System, from Pharmaceuticals to Neurologists donate a part of their time or products to treat the poor. I have no idea how many Vehicles that travel the States, with free this or that, where anybody can use them. Personally I still think, privatizing Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP would be the best direction to go...

 

 

You're colluding two different things here. Socialism does not necessarily result in a loss of personal liberties.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Anytime choice is reduced or limited you have reduced liberties. This and many issues are based on the idea, the loss of some freedom justifies the results.

 

swansont; I joined the AF in the mid 50's and when deactivated was liable for recall -X- number of years, think to a certain age. If inferred I was required to what are now NG obligations (week-end and summer camps), that was an error. Anyway today when a person quits, their obligation I assume is over, but can be continued by agreement. I did say, I was not sure.

 

Liquor laws are pure State issues and somewhat confusing. In Dallas, Texas you can openly sell or buy beer/wine/liquor in one county in Dallas and not in the other. Yeah, I remember driving around in NE, think Maine or Vermont and Liquor Stores were in the rest areas on the Interstate, talk about entrapment. Anyway I only oppose Federal Socialism, since they deal with all States. As with religion IMO, they should be oblivious to social affairs.

 

Grocery stores are not dysfunctional in the way that the medical/insurance system is. And as I pointed out above, we have a program in place to assist people who have trouble getting food. [/Quote]

 

Neither was the Health Care System, up to 1970, maybe later, as Medicare/Medicaid began influencing the system. Cost were a lower part of the GDP than any UHC system in the World today and the customers drove the market.

 

If we have a program to help people get food (we do), what would be wrong with doing the same for health, personal accounts/vouchers, where those folks could shop for service.

 

On the insurers; States each regulates what must or cannot be included in any policy sold in their State, the insurance Companies adjust cost accordingly. Maybe it's an appearance of dysfunctional, since primary providers in one State may be charging twice the price in one State compared to a nearby State, but I'd bet any Medical Facility would say they prefer dealing with the insurer over the Federal Government.

[Mr Skeptic]

Skeptic; Who is doing what; The US Military is being called a Socialist Program, not by me.

 

The military is being called a socialist program by everyone here who is not you. We, the people, are forced to pay for the military, which in turn serves to protect us. Ergo, a socialist program.

 

It's a program and designed into the American Constitution, which happens to be a Capitalist Society, opposed to Socialist. I don't think you intended this but your agreeing with me, its simply a program.

 

Wrong, we are not capitalist. Are you saying private citizens own the military? We are a mixed economy. We have capitalism, yes, but also socialist programs. Which makes us a mixed economy.

 

I made a thread about the socialist programs provided by our government. We have plenty of them, but they don't account for more than half our GDP, I think, which would still leave us more on the capitalist side overall. But we are very, very far from pure capitalism.

[jackson33]

That's not true. When you join a branch of the US Armed Forces, you are joining a federally funded program. The defense of the country is not a state matter, it's a federal one. Can you imagine the disparity and chaos if defense of the country was left up to individual states? [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Have corrected the error, agree the Federal needs to be in charge (said many times) and agree the chaos would be intolerable. Think the Militia Act of 1903, pretty well set the stage and that was before my time in the service.

 

This is a horrible argument, mainly because it has nothing to do with my position. I'm arguing that I don't want the insurance company between me and my healthcare in the first place. Insurance for my car or home, even my life (which is a quantized value upon my death, for insurance purposes) are things I can objectively assess since they have a value that can be ascribed to them. But my health is subject to too many variables and can't be easily quantized. [/Quote]

 

I can't believe you would choose government to your local insurance agent, in coming between you and your doctor. All these things are services, in the event you wish to protect you assets, health being an asset. I see no different in calling a local provider for one over another, health or auto and complex is relative to understanding. That is if you know your genetics, know your lifestyle or may ten other things, it's no more complicated than protecting any other possible future event.

 

But the argument is for socialized medicine, something that hasn't been established. You are placing current restrictions for a service that has yet to be determined. [/Quote]

 

No, it's in our common law; You can't sue yourself and you are the government. I'm sure there might be places to call or email, but the last time I called the IRS, spent 6 hours holding, gave up and sent them the 37.50, which by the way never resulted in a confirmation.

[Phi for All]

I can't believe you would choose government to your local insurance agent, in coming between you and your doctor. All these things are services, in the event you wish to protect you assets, health being an asset. I see no different in calling a local provider for one over another, health or auto and complex is relative to understanding. That is if you know your genetics, know your lifestyle or may ten other things, it's no more complicated than protecting any other possible future event.

It's simple. The government wouldn't have to take as much out of my healthcare dollar for administration, nor does it take a cut for profit, or for 7-figure executive bonuses. Doctors would benefit because the government pays on a 30-45 day cycle, as opposed to insurance companies who take 90-120 days while they spend even more of my money checking to see if I filled out my applications incorrectly, or if the doctors might have used some kind of experimental drug to save my life that they won't have to pay for.

 

You've may not have heard of these kinds of things, because FOX News doesn't criticize insurance companies (to keep on topic).

 

 

No, it's in our common law; You can't sue yourself and you are the government. I'm sure there might be places to call or email, but the last time I called the IRS, spent 6 hours holding, gave up and sent them the 37.50, which by the way never resulted in a confirmation.

Again, you're using the current restrictions of the IRS for a non-existent socialized healthcare program. It could easily be set up with a right to recourse, much as the IRS has Tax Advocacy available. And if you had a problem with your medical procedures, I'm sure you'd be taking it up with the doctors involved, not the feds. I don't see us taking away the capitalist side of medicine, but I'd love to take away the idea of medical insurance. I'd rather pay my $850/month to someone who isn't skimming profit so they can turn me down when I need them most.

[swansont]

Skeptic; Who is doing what; The US Military is being called a Socialist Program, not by me. It's a program and designed into the American Constitution, which happens to be a Capitalist Society, opposed to Socialist. I don't think you intended this but your agreeing with me, its simply a program.

 

Whoa, hold the phone. Congress has the power to regulate commerce and coin money. Where does the Constitution say we are capitalist?

 

swansont; I joined the AF in the mid 50's and when deactivated was liable for recall -X- number of years, think to a certain age. If inferred I was required to what are now NG obligations (week-end and summer camps), that was an error. Anyway today when a person quits, their obligation I assume is over, but can be continued by agreement. I did say, I was not sure.

 

No, you sign up for an obligation — you don't quit. (Regular, i.e. non-reservist officers can resign their commission, but the service doesn't have to accept.) I had to sign up for an eight-year hitch, with four years of active duty and four years of reserve duty, not NG. Even after that, I couldn't get out of the reserves because Desert Storm was ongoing — the government can extend your obligation indefinitely, as recent service members have discovered.

[toastywombel]

Okay Hold up Jackson, the opposite of capitalism is not socialism and the opposite of communism is not democracy. I have taken three years of college level political science to know that that is straight bs. I would suggest you look at some political diagrams that show the relationships between different political groups. The opposite of free market capitalism would most likely be serfdom, and the opposite of democracy would probably be a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. It is possible to have a capitalist-socialist society and a communist-democratic society, therefore I would not consider them opposites. Opposites would be mutually exclusive, for example you can not have a democratic Monarchy, or a capitalism-serfdom.

 

If anything I would say that Socialism is opposite of Nationalism and Communism is opposite of of Fascism (in principle).

 

I really don't have the time to argue with you any more Jackson, I have decided that I should stay away from the politics section for a while. But it was fun while it lasted

Edited March 2, 2010 by toastywombel

[Pangloss]

Can I just point out here that the important thing is not definitions, but rather the meaning behind them? Whether one sees a program as "socialism" or not, and whether they see that as a good thing or not, is surely a matter of personal judgment. I think, Jackson, the issue people are trying to raise with you is that calling it socialism is not an automatic grounds for universal objection, because there are many aspects of society that have some of the same traits that you're complaining about.

 

The argument is ultimately a bit silly, because jackson33 isn't an anarchist and I doubt we could get EVERYONE on this forum to agree on a complete list of services that are essential and necessary to a proper democratic state.

 

But I also wouldn't mind some of Jackson's opponents acknowledge that there is such a thing as too much service -- that there is an upper limit to spending that has no bearing on human suffering and dramatic emotional appeals. One of the problems I've always had with the modern liberal ideology is the idea that the direction of travel is seen as infinite. It isn't. Money is a renewable resource, but like any renewable resource its potential at any given moment in time is finite, not infinite (though like some renewable resources, its potential can grow over time, but only if we shepherd it carefully). We wouldn't be talking about global warming if there were 3 million cars on the road instead of 300 million (or whatever), and likewise there is a finite number of trillion dollar spending plans that our children's bank accounts will be able to absorb.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pangloss, who is arguing that there is no such thing as too much service, or that there should be no upper limit on spending? Where did you get that impression?

 

jackson33 is suffering from a severe case of not knowing what words mean. The Republican party, and Fox News, all are being really hypocritical brandying around words like "socialist" as some sort of evil while supporting various socialist programs.

[Pangloss]

I don't think that IS how you feel, I'm just pointing out that saying it might alleviate some of the misunderstanding between the two sides.

 

Personally I agree with you -- not saying a thing is not the same as saying it, and presumption is annoying in debate. But sometimes you can point something like that out and save some aggravation. (shrug)

 

And you can all probably stand to do a bit less obsessing over whatever Jackson33 may or may not be suffering from.

[toastywombel]

Can I just point out here that the important thing is not definitions, but rather the meaning behind them? Whether one sees a program as "socialism" or not, and whether they see that as a good thing or not, is surely a matter of personal judgment. I think, Jackson, the issue people are trying to raise with you is that calling it socialism is not an automatic grounds for universal objection, because there are many aspects of society that have some of the same traits that you're complaining about.

 

The argument is ultimately a bit silly, because jackson33 isn't an anarchist and I doubt we could get EVERYONE on this forum to agree on a complete list of services that are essential and necessary to a proper democratic state.

 

But I also wouldn't mind some of Jackson's opponents acknowledge that there is such a thing as too much service -- that there is an upper limit to spending that has no bearing on human suffering and dramatic emotional appeals. One of the problems I've always had with the modern liberal ideology is the idea that the direction of travel is seen as infinite. It isn't. Money is a renewable resource, but like any renewable resource its potential at any given moment in time is finite, not infinite (though like some renewable resources, its potential can grow over time, but only if we shepherd it carefully). We wouldn't be talking about global warming if there were 3 million cars on the road instead of 300 million (or whatever), and likewise there is a finite number of trillion dollar spending plans that our children's bank accounts will be able to absorb.

 

Just to make note, If you look at my posts I think it is quite obvious that I have promoted a mixed economy. But in my previous post I have to admit I somewhat lost patience, my apologies.

[bascule]

I'd like to cite this thread as evidence that the systemic problems with Fox also affect their web site. My apologies to toastywombel for attributing problems with Fox to him.

 

The original article contained a flagrantly untrue headline and was littered with what I can only describe with lies. These same lies were repeated on the Fox cable channel. The entire argument within this thread is predicated on lies spread by Fox and was completely unnecessary. While I stand by what I said, it's now clear to me that Fox is deliberately spreading disinformation and I am sick of it.

 

I'm taking a stand on this and will never link to a Fox article again except to criticize it. I'm also going to stop referring to Fox with the word news in their title, since they're not a news source. I will not consider their articles sources of substantive information and will request those who post Fox articles post one from a real news source instead.

 

I've had enough.

[Mr Skeptic]

This one reminded me of this thread.

 

(you can click on it to get a larger view)

[Pangloss]

Let's review this thread and see if we can determine why 27 of you found the original poster's argument so compelling that you just had to vote in agreement.

 

 

I think you're missing the point here. Do you know about the 9.12 Project?

 

http://www.the912project.com/'>http://www.the912project.com/

 

Fox News isn't just covering the protests. They aren't just saying good things about them. They're saying "we're organizing a protest. Show up to Washington on 9/12 and protest the government"

 

Did CNN ever orchestrate an "Impeach Bush" rally and tell the protesters when and where to show up?

 

This remains an unsupported allegation. The 912 project is not a Fox News thing, it's a Glenn Beck thing. All outlets have editorial commentators who do not officially represent the opinion of their employers. FNC is behaving no differently from CNN or MSNBC in this area. Many commentators from various networks and even elected officials participated in "Impeach Bush" rallies.

 

-------------------------

 

When their bias extends to organizing and promoting anti-Democrat protests, making them effectively a political action committee no different from MoveOn.org, they cease to be a news organization.

 

Unsupported allegation.

 

-------------------------

 

Bill O'Reilly calls his program the "No Spin Zone" and "No Ideology Zone"... just because you call yourself something doesn't make it so.

 

Bill O'Reilly is not a news reporter. His program represents his personal opinion.

 

------------------------

 

You can find many examples of CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, etc organizing and promoting anti-government protests in Washington?

 

Unsupported allegation.

 

------------------------

 

My problem with the material is when they cover anti-government protest they themselves created.

 

Unsupported allegation.

 

------------------------

 

To repeat myself for about the 100th time, Fox is effectively a political action committee. They organize anti-government protests. Then they "cover" the protests they themselves organized on their "news programs".

 

Unsupported allegation.

 

--------------------------

 

It's not like they even try to hide it. At the bottom of:

 

http://912project.com/

 

You will find: (fox news logo)

 

No such site exists. There is a "the912project.com" that appears to be their official site. No Fox logo appears on that page. The Copyright on that page does not belong to News Corp. This allegation was made in post #61 and repeated in #77 even more starkly:

 

To reiterate for the hundredth time, I'm referring to this:

 

http://www.the912project.com/

 

And this, at the bottom of 912project.com:

 

I wonder if you got duped by some left-winger who wanted to make FNC look more devious than it is.

 

----------------------------

 

Let's review how Fox "News" works:

 

1. Call yourself a news organization

2. Create' date=' sponsor, and promote anti-Democrat protests in Washington, DC

3. Use stock footage of that protest to make subsequent anti-Democrat protests look bigger, while simultaneously lying about the number of attendees

4. ...

5. PROFIT![/quote']

 

Unsupported allegation.

 

-----------------------------

 

You repeat the tea party connection allegation a number of times further in the thread, all without support. The rest of the thread is sarcastic humor -- videos and images from tea parties and The Daily Show. I will give you credit for supporting your allegations regarding global warming late in the thread (between ~175-195), but that's mostly, again, about Glenn Beck, not so much FNC. You also supported your allegation that CNN caters to conservatives, at least to the extent that you showed it to be a reasonable opinion. But these issues are not related to the opening post and your allegation that Fox News is not a valid news organization.

 

 

In conclusion,

 

It seems like no matter how many times I repeat the fact that Fox News is deliberately and unabashedly organizing and promoting anti-government protests, and that's the reason they're not a news organization, the response is always "You just hate Fox News because they're conservative!"

 

That's because your allegations are unsupported, and your argument is based on ridicule. But apparently it worked -- for 27 members of this forum. Congratulations?

[iNow]

My vote had little to do with bascule's argument, and everything to do with the reality of what Fox news does day in and day out to misrepresent reality.

[bascule]

Let's review this thread and see if we can determine why 27 of you found the original poster's argument so compelling that you just had to vote in agreement.

 

Okay! Let's start with your first argument, and keep going until you're wrong!

 

I think you're missing the point here. Do you know about the 9.12 Project?

 

http://www.the912project.com/

 

Fox News isn't just covering the protests. They aren't just saying good things about them. They're saying "we're organizing a protest. Show up to Washington on 9/12 and protest the government"

 

Did CNN ever orchestrate an "Impeach Bush" rally and tell the protesters when and where to show up?

 

This remains an unsupported allegation. The 912 project is not a Fox News thing' date=' it's a Glenn Beck thing.[/quote']

 

Yeah, it's a Glenn Beck thing. And who is Glenn Beck?

 

xbRr-wCH6Rc

 

Oh yes, that guy. On Fox News. Where is he at and what is he doing? Oh, he's at a tea party at the Alamo. Which he promoted through Fox News channel. Live coverage brought to you through Fox News channel... during the news hour (note the time on the clock).

 

Nice try Pangloss. Thanks for playing.

[Pangloss]

Unsupported allegation.

 

You haven't indicated any connection between Glenn Beck's opinions and the reporting of Fox News Channel.

 

Furthermore, the image that precedes that video indicates that it's part of his daily television broadcast, which is hosted by Fox News, not part of their regular news broadcast. This is no different from CNN broadcasting John King (at 7), Campbell Brown (at 8), or Anderson Cooper (following Larry King at 10). (You want news during that time, you're stuck with Headline News.)

 

Is that it?

[Mr Skeptic]

This remains an unsupported allegation. The 912 project is not a Fox News thing, it's a Glenn Beck thing. All outlets have editorial commentators who do not officially represent the opinion of their employers. FNC is behaving no differently from CNN or MSNBC in this area. Many commentators from various networks and even elected officials participated in "Impeach Bush" rallies.

 

It is a Fox News thing. Glenn Beck is doing this during his work hours for Fox News, on the Fox News channel, being paid for doing so by Fox News, and with the Fox News logo. Here's a thought: try making some political statements on TV with your company's logo during work hours. See what happens.

[ParanoiA]

It is a Fox News thing. Glenn Beck is doing this during his work hours for Fox News, on the Fox News channel, being paid for doing so by Fox News, and with the Fox News logo. Here's a thought: try making some political statements on TV with your company's logo during work hours. See what happens.

 

 

Ok, then if that flies then apparently we now have incontrovertible evidence that CNN, MSNBC, ABC and etc - all of them are officially liberal now. They each have liberal commentators making political statements on TV with their company's logo clearly plastered in digital glory.

 

So, now that we have officially determined they are liberal news outlets, let's talk about that conflict of interest and how they, also, are not real news networks. Also, Fox would be the only conservative biased news outlet, which makes them more important for "balance" than ever before.

 

Oh yes, that guy. On Fox News. Where is he at and what is he doing? Oh, he's at a tea party at the Alamo. Which he promoted through Fox News channel. Live coverage brought to you through Fox News channel... during the news hour (note the time on the clock).

 

Yes, let's expore this "pretty" logic.

 

To be a real news network, Fox News has to *not* cover the tea party at the Alamo? ....because Glen Beck is involved with it? And that's how they achieve "real news network", by *not* covering news? Seriously?

 

Are they supposed to fire Glen Beck, send him back to CNN where CNN won't cover Glen and the tea party so that Fox news can be a real news network? What would that make CNN?

 

Yeah, that logic isn't passing the common sense test. Why don't you tell us what Fox News is supposed to do - to be a real news network - that doesn't involve ignoring news? Or doesn't involve bullying one of their commentators into not exercising his right to free speech and organizing protest.

 

They are a news organization. Their model is something altogether new that the traditionalists have yet to understand or get a handle on. Rather than dragging us back to the antiquated past, how about we move along into the 21st century? Here in the now, we don't subscribe to the preposterous joke of "objective journalism" that causes so much harm due to it's false premise.

 

Of course, this is more of a devil's advocate post, as I'm not fond of Fox News that much. But that's more about their website and their treatment of "fringe" candidates.

[bascule]

You haven't indicated any connection between Glenn Beck's opinions and the reporting of Fox News Channel.

 

*facepalm*

 

Pangloss, if that's what you want to believe, I can't convince you otherwise.

 

Have you ever actually watched Fox News Channel? Seriously, you would seem to be arguing that promotion of the 9.12 Project on FNC is an "unsupported allegation". The 9.12 Project was born on and promoted through Fox News Channel. Extensive coverage of their protests took place... on Fox News Channel. And as far as I can tell you're arguing there's no connection.

 

It's not like they even try to hide it. At the bottom of:

 

http://912project.com/

 

You will find: (fox news logo)

 

Funny you changed the actual Fox News logo to text... because:

 

http://www.the912project.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fndotcomlogo.png

 

 

Hey look. The file is there. They've just removed it from their front page since I made my original post.

 

Regarding 912project.com:

 

No such site exists. There is a "the912project.com"

 

Yes' date=' 912project.com exists:

 

[indent'] Domain Name: 912PROJECT.COM

 

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:

Christopher Balfe balfer@yahoo.com

4312 Main Street

Apt 401

Manayunk, PA 19127

US

610-617-2030 fax: 999 999 9999

[/indent]

 

It's registered to the same guy as the912project.com:

 

Domain Name: THE912PROJECT.COM

 

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:

Christopher Balfe

balfer@yahoo.com

4312 Main Street

Apt 401

Manayunk, PA 19127

US

610-617-2030 fax: 999 999 9999

 

It seems the registration for 912project.com lapsed. They used to point to the same site.

 

...that appears to be their official site. No Fox logo appears on that page. The Copyright on that page does not belong to News Corp. This allegation was made in post #61 and repeated in #77 even more starkly:

 

[...]

 

I wonder if you got duped by some left-winger who wanted to make FNC look more devious than it is.

 

No Pangloss. It used to have this Fox News logo on the bottom of the front page:

 

 

Now they've removed it. Perhaps Fox is distancing itself.

 

Unfortunately the site is not in archive.org so I can't prove it.

 

And I see your incessant "Unsupported allegation" crap is really about this same issue. Did you really need to say it 10 times? That's in bad form' date=' IMO.

 

Bill O'Reilly calls his program the "No Spin Zone" and "No Ideology Zone"... just because you call yourself something doesn't make it so.

Bill O'Reilly is not a news reporter. His program represents his personal opinion.

 

 

To be a real news network' date=' Fox News has to *not* cover the tea party at the Alamo?[/quote']

 

There's a huge difference between "covering" an event like the tea party and devoting 9/11-esque nonstop live coverage of an event, with a Fox News producer cheering on the crowd. Does that sound like "covering the event" to you? It does to me, if that event were 9/11, not a government protest.

Edited May 6, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

It is a Fox News thing. Glenn Beck is doing this during his work hours for Fox News, on the Fox News channel, being paid for doing so by Fox News, and with the Fox News logo. Here's a thought: try making some political statements on TV with your company's logo during work hours. See what happens.

 

It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary, which is practiced today by most major news outlets. It is understood that the commentator does not speak for the outlet. Liberal Paul Krugman does not speak for the New York Times any more than conservative David Brooks does.

 

 

Have you ever actually watched Fox News Channel?

 

Only enough to agree with you 100% about its bias toward the right. Only enough to notice that it is like other outlets in that regard. Only enough to notice that it has political commentators who like to get people riled up over some ideological position, just like most major news outlets.

 

 

The 9.12 Project was born on and promoted through Fox News Channel.

 

Can you give an example of a paid advertisement for the 9.12 Project that was shown on the Fox News Channel?

 

Can you give an example of a promotional piece aired on Fox News Channel for the 9.12 Project that did not appear during Glenn Beck's program?

 

You've indicated several news stories covering events, but those events were covered by other outlets.

 

 

And as far as I can tell you're arguing there's no connection.

 

No, I'm challenging your factual statement that there is one.

 

I will say this -- is it self-serving for them to host a guy who creates an event, and then cover that as news? Sure it is, and they aren't so stupid that they don't know what's going on. That puts them in the same danger zone as any other outlet that hosts political commentary that gets out of hand.

 

But of course that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming it's all planned and deliberate.

 

 

No Pangloss. It used to have this Fox News logo on the bottom of the front page:

 

That's fine, I believe you. If they have the same logo on their site and you saw it there at one time, so that's good enough for me.

 

 

Now they've removed it. Perhaps Fox is distancing itself.

 

I agree, this suggests that Fox News Channel did NOT want to be associated with them. Or it may suggest some conspiracy to you. You're welcome to have any opinion you want.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary

 

*facepalm*

 

Let's see, what was that you were saying earlier...

 

And not once during that response have I used ad-hominem in any way

 

Okay, you I am "unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary" but you are free of ad homimens. Okay. No really, not okay. Keep those ad hominems subtle and they don't count against you, right? Right... no, not right.

 

Psst, that was an ad hominem, Pangloss.

 

It is understood that the commentator does not speak for the outlet.

 

It is understood? By who? I hate to lapse into ad hominem, but my only answer to the "by who" question is... tards. Okay Pangloss, now we're even.

 

Seriously, you're giving carte blanche to News Corp allowing their immensely powerful media delivery system to transmit Glenn Beck's narrative. After all, he's simply a Fox employee. His opinion is irrelevant. What he has to say does not reflect back on News Corp whatsoever.

 

Do you really buy that? Have you watched other Fox commentators try to stick up for Glenn Beck? Like... Bill O'Reilly...

 

"He spouts!" - Bill O'Reilly

 

Yes he does. Bill O'Reilly, despite his immense moral corruption, appeared to be troubled in his delivery of a defense of Glenn Beck to Jon Stewart. It was certainly a hands-off approach. Let Glenn spout what he wants to spout. He's everyman!

 

it is like other outlets in that regard.

 

Fox News: Seriously, CNN sucks. You're really not going to say that Fox sucks worse, right?

 

Hey Pangloss, I agree... CNN sucks. But the reasons they suck are the diametrical opposite of Fox. CNN has eliminated substance out of fear that they'll be chastized by the right, for being "liberal", much like the "liberal New York Times" (oh thanks for reminding me... I'm improperly prefixing my sources). They are the victims of the real definition of political correctness. In an attempt to downplay whatever liberal biases they may have, they have been neutered as a news organization. They're not worse than the ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox (great precedent you've started here, Pangloss!), but the value of the information they're reporting has been extremely diminished, because amid a cacophony of complaining conservatives, the "liberal" CNN has lost its balls and substituted substance for inoffensiveness.

 

Can you give an example of a paid advertisement for the 9.12 Project that was shown on the (ultraconservative narrative-driven) Fox News Channel?

 

Because ultraconservative narrative-driven Glenn Beck would pay to air material on a network which will let him talk about whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants?

 

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/09/12/griff-20090912-beck2.flv

 

10AM? Those aren't the normal hours of the ultraconservative narrative-driven Glenn Beck Program, are they? Yet there's already ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox correspondents and producers out there helping ultraconservative narrative-driven Beck out?

 

I will say this -- is it self-serving for them to host a(n ultraconservative narrative-driven) guy who creates an (ultraconservative narrative-driven) event, and then cover that as (ultraconservative narrative-driven) news? Sure it is, and they aren't so stupid that they don't know what's going on. That puts them in the same danger zone as any other (liberal) outlet that hosts (liberal) political commentary that gets out of hand.

 

What? You admit ultraconservative narrative-driven Fox creates ultraconservative narrative-driven events then covers them as news, then write it off as "so do the other (liberal) guys"?

 

I'm sorry but:

 

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Unsupported allegation.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bascule