Free all the hatred for Fox News

[Pogo]

So... ipse dixit, and that's it huh?

Yeah, I figured you were running on empty and I knew if asked you would demonstrate it.
Thanks for that.

ps once again I'm not a Democrat. I have no party. Those are for followers.

Pogo, your childish protestations don't change reality.

You are the party of slavery, going to war to keep slaves. You are the party of the KKK, which was the terrorist wing of your shameful party. You are the party of Jim Crow. Now you are the party of hatred of whites, with you "old white men" mantras and calls to blacks and Hispanics to displace the whites.

You were, are, and will always be, the party of racial hate.

You know it, I know it, the board knows it.

Once again, for s l o w r e a d e r s, I don't have a party. I don't believe in 'em. I've called for all parties to be abolished. So "I" am not the party of anything.

I do know something about history though. I know the KKK has never had a political party. I also know there is no history of my saying anything whatsoever about blacks and Hispanics (I don't even use the word Hispanic).

So once again, ipse dixit cotton candy and stuff you just make up. Empty tank. Thanks for re-confirming.

 

[eflatminor]

If the Nat'l Enquirer vanished who would notice ?

Congrats Bonzai! The sole vote in favor of censorship.

It's cuz you know what's best for everyone else, right?

 

[American_Jihad]

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Friday, December 28, 2012

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC 1,044 202 405
CNN 351 100 155
MSNBC 532 159 218
CNBC 178 63 92
FBN 44 13 24
HLN 185 79 106

Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 1,532 333 532
CNN 416 115 190
MSNBC 956 253 377
CNBC 213 110 108
FBN 55 16 24
HLN 303 103 145

...

Cable News Ratings for Friday, December 28, 2012 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers



...

 

[FJO]

The brain power of the one (1) "yes" vote is like the size of the bonzai compared to the California Redwood.

 

[FJO]

Why would any liberal want Fox news shut down?

It contributed to Obama’s reelection.

Otherwise, as already correctly noted, liberals have been strong advocates of First Amendment rights, particularly that of a free press.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and any freedom of the press, and it is vigorously promoted by liberal who are scared shitless about conservative talk radio and FOX News.

Liberals strong advocates of First Amendment????? Give me a break, now that you gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Pogo]

Why would any liberal want Fox news shut down?

It contributed to Obama’s reelection.

Otherwise, as already correctly noted, liberals have been strong advocates of First Amendment rights, particularly that of a free press.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and any freedom of the press, and it is vigorously promoted by liberal who are scared shitless about conservative talk radio and FOX News.

Liberals strong advocates of First Amendment????? Give me a break, now that you gave me a good chuckle.

That's absolute horseshit.

We debunked that FD myth back here repeatedly. We invited anyone to demonstrate how this could be true; examples, anything. No takers. Because it's bullshit.
And FWIW the Fairness Doctrine was championed by conservatives.

That you could float such a turd despite the obvious poll sitting right above us on this thread voting at this point 22 to 1 against squelching a media voice (the sole dissenting vote being a newbie who just got here) demonstrates the power of your own self-delusion.

But go ahead, feel free to demonstrate your myth into reality. You'll need more than ipse dixit.

Cue crickets.

 

[FJO]

I don't want to shut the FOXNEWS down, on the contrary, I want to encourage more partisan networks, I'd like to see one or two more RW networks provide decent competition.

Believe it or not, I would LOVE to see Glenn Beck start his own RW network to rival the FOXNEWS.

If he did, it would be far more successful than the failed venture of the biggest hypocritical fraud in human history, Al Gore.

And if Glenn Beck would decide to sell his TV network, he would NEVER consider selling it to a sworn enemy of the United States.

 

[Pogo]

Why would any liberal want Fox news shut down?

It contributed to Obama’s reelection.

Otherwise, as already correctly noted, liberals have been strong advocates of First Amendment rights, particularly that of a free press.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is in direct opposition to the First Amendment and any freedom of the press, and it is vigorously promoted by liberal who are scared shitless about conservative talk radio and FOX News.

Liberals strong advocates of First Amendment????? Give me a break, now that you gave me a good chuckle.

That's absolute horseshit.

We debunked that FD myth back here repeatedly. We invited anyone to demonstrate how this could be true; examples, anything. No takers. Because it's bullshit.
And FWIW the Fairness Doctrine was championed by conservatives.

That you could float such a turd despite the obvious poll sitting right above us on this thread voting at this point 22 to 1 against squelching a media voice (the sole dissenting vote being a newbie who just got here) demonstrates the power of your own self-delusion.

But go ahead, feel free to demonstrate your myth into reality. You'll need more than ipse dixit.

Cue crickets.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA]Cricket Chirping - YouTube[/ame]

That's what I expected. Eloquent.

Ah, life in the Bubble. Where you can just make it up and run away and never be bothered by the Fact monster.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Fairness Doctrine was pretty well deep sixed by Obama's FCC director in 2011; most likely to protect NBC and its subsidiaries who were not even making an attempt to follow the FD guidelines. Fox News at least follows the spirit of the FD. In a lot of his broadcasts, for instance, if O'Reilly takes on a political figure or group, he will always include a statement that the person or spokesperson for the group was invited to come on the show to respond and declined to do so. If they accept he puts them on and treats them fairly.

But apologies to WillowTree, as I answered the poll before I noticed it was directed at liberals. Sorry about that.

And as for the topic itself, you don't hear Senators and Congresspersons on the right railing against MediaMatters, the most dishonest website on the internet other than maybe Moveon.org, or MSNBC, or any other liberal news outlet. You do see many on the left calling out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, etc. etc. etc. so they must feel especially threatened.

Presidents probably since George Washington have been complaining about media coverage but until Obama and his criticism of Fox News, I don't recall any President ever targeting a specific news group with criticism. Nor in my lifetime do I recall a mainstream media so blatantly being in bed with a political party or politician as our modern media is. Fox News is the one hold out that won't play advocate for anybody.

 

[AmyNation]

Nonsense. Bush blocked MSNBC all the time! Which is perfectly fine with me. FOX is an extension of the GOP, just like MSNBC is an extension of the democrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense. Bush blocked MSNBC all the time! Which is perfectly fine with me. FOX is an extension of the GOP, just like MSNBC is an extension of the democrats.

Explain how Bush 'blocked MSNBC.' please. I am a pretty avid media watcher and I am unaware of that.

 

[AmyNation]

He refused interviews, ignored their questions, didnt invite their reps to events. My mother loves MSNBC, it was on often ,in the background of my life when Bush was president. MSNBC took full advantage of Bush's blocking, they loved it. Anytime it happened it was all they talked about for days.

 

[Foxfyre]

He refused interviews, ignored their questions, didnt invite their reps to events. My mother loves MSNBC, it was on often ,in the background of my life when Bush was president. MSNBC took full advantage of Bush's blocking, they loved it. Anytime it happened it was all they talked about for days.

Well perhaps it is true, but I don't think I missed watching any of President Bush's press conferences or other media interaction, and I don't recall any missing news organizations or any reports of news organizations complaining that they were being excluded. If you have any evidence of that, I would be interested in seeing it.

If you have any evidence of President Bush singling out MSNBC for criticism I would like to see that too. Because I don't recall him doing that to any news group. He certainly had reason to do so as MSNBC was absolutely relentless in their denigration of him, most especially during the 2008 election cycle.

Whatever his shortcomings, President Bush was not prone to come across as thin skinned or accusatory toward individuals or groups who opposed or cxriticized him.

 

[Pogo]

The Fairness Doctrine was pretty well deep sixed by Obama's FCC director in 2011; most likely to protect NBC and its subsidiaries who were not even making an attempt to follow the FD guidelines.

Exactly, except ... not at all. Complete fabrication.

Actually it was Reagan's FCC director in 1987, and it wasn't to "protect" anybody except the monologuists like Lush Rimjob who then took the invitation to demonstrate exactly what the FD was in place to prevent. Neither NBC nor anyone else was in trouble with compliance. This is my career, MamaFox; I know whereof I speak. I worked in broadcasting both before and after the FD was scrapped and it was part of my job to make sure everyone was aware of it and that we complied. And in its entire existence there is no instance of the FD ever "silencing" anybody. Not one. That's why I keep inviting people to document one; I already know there ain't any. That's how I collect so many crickets.

Strangely enough in your next paragraph you exhibit an accurate sense of what the FD did -- "strangely" in that even with that understanding you still reached the impossible conclusion above...

Fox News at least follows the spirit of the FD. In a lot of his broadcasts, for instance, if O'Reilly takes on a political figure or group, he will always include a statement that the person or spokesperson for the group was invited to come on the show to respond and declined to do so. If they accept he puts them on and treats them fairly.

-- That is in fact the spirit of the FD, although you've singled out one commentator and extended it to the whole channel. In any case the FD applied to broadcast; it never applied to cable -- so it's moot here anyway. FJO was just showing his own ignornace, which is why I called him on it. There have been plenty of talk radio whiners putting this myth out (Sylvester Hannity was one of them) and never explaining themselves, so dittoes like FJO come in parroting the line without doing their due diligence of what's behind it, and they get burned.

More to the point of the FD (broadcasting), once it went away we got Lush Rimjob who never has a dissenting voice on. It's a monologue. He couldn't have got away with that under the FD -- which is why he started his hate broadcasts right after it was scrapped. See how it works?

But apologies to WillowTree, as I answered the poll before I noticed it was directed at liberals. Sorry about that.

Don't worry, these are just labels, and as such, meaningless. Those enslaved to labels limit only themselves.

And as for the topic itself, you don't hear Senators and Congresspersons on the right railing against MediaMatters, the most dishonest website on the internet other than maybe Moveon.org, or MSNBC, or any other liberal news outlet. You do see many on the left calling out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, etc. etc. etc. so they must feel especially threatened.

"Calling out" when they lie, naturally. And you're welcome to do the same with MediaMatters or anyone else. But no one is calling for "silencing" one side. Look at the poll in this thread.

Hell, I just called out FJO when he posted a myth. That doesn't mean I'm "silencing" him.

Presidents probably since George Washington have been complaining about media coverage but until Obama and his criticism of Fox News, I don't recall any President ever targeting a specific news group with criticism. Nor in my lifetime do I recall a mainstream media so blatantly being in bed with a political party or politician as our modern media is. Fox News is the one hold out that won't play advocate for anybody.

Sigh. You were doing so well, until the last sentence...

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." --Paul Simon

 

[AmyNation]

I'm sure I could google and find stories of MSNBC complaining about Bush pushing them out, but I don't really feel the need. The issue to me is, does the president have the right to marginalize the media hand of the opposite party? I say, yes. Bush had the right to deny MSNBC and Obama has the right to deny Fox.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Fairness Doctrine was pretty well deep sixed by Obama's FCC director in 2011; most likely to protect NBC and its subsidiaries who were not even making an attempt to follow the FD guidelines.

Exactly, except ... not at all. Complete fabrication.

Actually it was Reagan's FCC director in 1987, and it wasn't to "protect" anybody except the monologuists like Lush Rimjob who then took the invitation to demonstrate exactly what the FD was in place to prevent. Neither NBC nor anyone else was in trouble with compliance. This is my career MamaFox; I know whereof I speak. I worked in broadcasting both before and after the FD was scrapped and it was part of my job to make sure everyone was aware of it and that we complied. And in its entire existence there is no instance of the FD every "silencing" anybody. Not one. That's why I keep inviting people to document one; I already know there ain't any. That's how I collect so many crickets.

Strangely enough in your next paragraph you exhibit an accurate sense of what the FD did -- "strangely" in that even with that understanding you still reached the impossible conclusion above...

Fox News at least follows the spirit of the FD. In a lot of his broadcasts, for instance, if O'Reilly takes on a political figure or group, he will always include a statement that the person or spokesperson for the group was invited to come on the show to respond and declined to do so. If they accept he puts them on and treats them fairly.

-- That is in fact the spirit of the FD, but you've singled out one commentator and extended it to the whole channel. In any case the FD applied to broadcast; it never applied to cable -- so it's moot here anyway. FJO was just showing his own ignornace, which is why I called him on it.

There have been plenty of talk radio whiners putting this myth out (Sylvester Hannity was one of them) and never explaining themselves, so dittoes like FJO come in parroting the line without doing their due diligence of what's behind it, and they get burned.



Don't worry, these are just labels, and as such, meaningless. Those enslaved to labels limit only themselves.

And as for the topic itself, you don't hear Senators and Congresspersons on the right railing against MediaMatters, the most dishonest website on the internet other than maybe Moveon.org, or MSNBC, or any other liberal news outlet. You do see many on the left calling out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, etc. etc. etc. so they must feel especially threatened.

"Calling out" when they lie, naturally. And you're welcome to do the same with MediaMatters or anyone else. But no one is calling for "silencing" one side. Look at the poll in this thread.

Presidents probably since George Washington have been complaining about media coverage but until Obama and his criticism of Fox News, I don't recall any President ever targeting a specific news group with criticism. Nor in my lifetime do I recall a mainstream media so blatantly being in bed with a political party or politician as our modern media is. Fox News is the one hold out that won't play advocate for anybody.

You were doing so well, until the last sentence...

I will stand by the last sentence.

And Limbaugh was not syndicated until 1988 and did not become well enough known to be a problem for the left for some years after that. He was so critical of President George H.W. Bush, however, that the elder Bush invited him to the White House for a visit. That seemed to work because Rush toned down the criticism after that.

Rush was the trail blazer for conservative talk radio that nobody had even thought about before that. Because there are so many conservative talk show programs now, it has cut into Rush's audience a bit--he probably has 15 million market share as opposed to the 20 million he once enjoyed--but that is only because he did pave the way for so much successful competition. He was still listed as No. 1, well ahead of everybody else, by Talkers Magazine in 2012.

The reason the Left hates Rush and conservative talk radio and Fox News so much is because they can't manipulate or control the message like they do with the leftist media. I can assure you that we would not be getting the whole story on anything controversial if we left it up to the leftist media to inform us. Fox on average does do a better job of presenting both sides even if they do editorially favor one side.

It is true that the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctine in 1987, but various political figures have tried to ressurect it from time to time and some have actually introduced legislation (that went nowhere) to do just that. Then in 2011. . . .

The Fairness Doctrine and 83 other "outdated and obsolete media-related rules" were tossed Monday into the regulatory dust bin of the Federal Communications Commission, in a move that the agency said helps it achieve the FCC's "reform agenda."

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the decision to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine was part of a larger mandate proposed by the Obama administration to ease regulatory burdens by getting rid of duplicative or outdated measures. Genachowski informed Congress in June of the pending action.

"The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead," Genachowski said in a statement on the FCC website.


Read more: FCC Drops 'Fairness Doctrine' | Fox News

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure I could google and find stories of MSNBC complaining about Bush pushing them out, but I don't really feel the need. The issue to me is, does the president have the right to marginalize the media hand of the opposite party? I say, yes. Bush had the right to deny MSNBC and Obama has the right to deny Fox.

Happy to help...

(L-R: Mike Gallagher, Neil Boortz, Laura Ingraham, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved)​

""Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz all stopped by the White House to discuss the President's fiscal cliff proposal. Can anyone even imagine how the press would have reacted if Fox News hosts and conservative personalities had stopped by the Bush White House to discuss policy? They would have been rightly outraged." -- Laura Ingraham


Selective memory. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure I could google and find stories of MSNBC complaining about Bush pushing them out, but I don't really feel the need. The issue to me is, does the president have the right to marginalize the media hand of the opposite party? I say, yes. Bush had the right to deny MSNBC and Obama has the right to deny Fox.

Happy to help...

(L-R: Mike Gallagher, Neil Boortz, Laura Ingraham, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved)​

""Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz all stopped by the White House to discuss the President's fiscal cliff proposal. Can anyone even imagine how the press would have reacted if Fox News hosts and conservative personalities had stopped by the Bush White House to discuss policy? They would have been rightly outraged." -- Laura Ingraham


Selective memory. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Interesting photo. What was the event? Who initiated it? Was anybody invited who declined the invitation? Who is in the foreground who is not named? Is it photoshopped? A lot of questions to be asked yes?

 

[Pogo]

The Fairness Doctrine was pretty well deep sixed by Obama's FCC director in 2011; most likely to protect NBC and its subsidiaries who were not even making an attempt to follow the FD guidelines.

Exactly, except ... not at all. Complete fabrication.

Actually it was Reagan's FCC director in 1987, and it wasn't to "protect" anybody except the monologuists like Lush Rimjob who then took the invitation to demonstrate exactly what the FD was in place to prevent. Neither NBC nor anyone else was in trouble with compliance. This is my career MamaFox; I know whereof I speak. I worked in broadcasting both before and after the FD was scrapped and it was part of my job to make sure everyone was aware of it and that we complied. And in its entire existence there is no instance of the FD every "silencing" anybody. Not one. That's why I keep inviting people to document one; I already know there ain't any. That's how I collect so many crickets.

Strangely enough in your next paragraph you exhibit an accurate sense of what the FD did -- "strangely" in that even with that understanding you still reached the impossible conclusion above...



-- That is in fact the spirit of the FD, but you've singled out one commentator and extended it to the whole channel. In any case the FD applied to broadcast; it never applied to cable -- so it's moot here anyway. FJO was just showing his own ignornace, which is why I called him on it.

There have been plenty of talk radio whiners putting this myth out (Sylvester Hannity was one of them) and never explaining themselves, so dittoes like FJO come in parroting the line without doing their due diligence of what's behind it, and they get burned.



Don't worry, these are just labels, and as such, meaningless. Those enslaved to labels limit only themselves.



"Calling out" when they lie, naturally. And you're welcome to do the same with MediaMatters or anyone else. But no one is calling for "silencing" one side. Look at the poll in this thread.



You were doing so well, until the last sentence...

I will stand by the last sentence.

And Limbaugh was not syndicated until 1988 and did not become well enough known to be a problem for the left for some years after that. He was so critical of President George H.W. Bush, however, that the elder Bush invited him to the White House for a visit. That seemed to work because Rush toned down the criticism after that.

Uh... 1988 would be one year after 1987. That's the point I just made.

Who Rush was critical of is not the point as regards the Fairness Doctrine. The point is an answering view -- which was, and still is, absent.

Rush was the trail blazer for conservative talk radio that nobody had even thought about before that. Because there are so many conservative talk show programs now, it has cut into Rush's audience a bit--he probably has 15 million market share as opposed to the 20 million he once enjoyed--but that is only because he did pave the way for so much successful competition. He was still listed as No. 1, well ahead of everybody else, by Talkers Magazine in 2012.

Don't be naïve. Talk radio was around long before Lush was born. Ever heard of Father Coughlin?

The reason the Left hates Rush and conservative talk radio and Fox News so much is because they can't manipulate or control the message like they do with the leftist media. I can assure you that we would not be getting the whole story on anything controversial if we left it up to the leftist media to inform us. Fox on average does do a better job of presenting both sides even if they do editorially favor one side.

Sit down dear. I have to tell you something. There is no "leftist media".

OK, that's hyperbole-- there is, it exists. But you'll have to look under a lot of rocks to find it, somewhere in the bowels of the Current TV schedule (I think, not even sure). Leftist media is by definition populist; Fox Noise, as well as MSNBC, all the alphabets and CNN, are media as business. As such, they're out for audience, period. They're not going to let little botherations like accuracy, fairness or what the public legitimately needs as news, get in their way, and they're certainly not going to take anything but a conservative status-quo approach that might threaten their own self-perpetuation. The "liberal media" myth is just that, like the FD myth, a lie told over and over until the people start to believe it.

"The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." -- Bill Kristol

"I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that" -- Pat Buchanan (ibid)

It is true that the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctine in 1987, but various political figures have tried to ressurect it from time to time and some have actually introduced legislation (that went nowhere) to do just that. Then in 2011. . . .

The Fairness Doctrine and 83 other "outdated and obsolete media-related rules" were tossed Monday into the regulatory dust bin of the Federal Communications Commission, in a move that the agency said helps it achieve the FCC's "reform agenda."

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that the decision to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine was part of a larger mandate proposed by the Obama administration to ease regulatory burdens by getting rid of duplicative or outdated measures. Genachowski informed Congress in June of the pending action.

"The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead," Genachowski said in a statement on the FCC website.

-- Then what's the issue??

Seems you've just confirmed that the O'bama Administration isn't interested in either silencing voices OR the Fairness Doctrine.
So why keep propagating the myth? Not quite honest, is it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Will just agree to disagree, Pogo. I have been doing some research using sources that are more credible than MediaMatters, etc. and apparently the meeting with conservative media personalities did happen during George W. Bush's term of office. And. . . .Rachel Maddow says she was unable to get an invitation to such events. So be it. I don't know one way or the other, but the preponderance of the evidence does support Bush currying favor with conservatives. Just as Obama does with liberals. I honestly don't have an opinion about whether that is a reasonable thing or not and don't care enough to form one.

But I still say that officially Bush was not singling out any media personality or news group for criticism, which was my initial point.

As a former media person and long time media watcher, I have my reasons for seeing things as I do. As I am sure all the rest of you do too.