The people have spoken: the media is largely biased

[AllieBaba]

someone said they worked in the media in a conservative town and the liberals were overjoyed knowing they were lying? something like that?

what a liar.

randi rhodes isn't aired in red states. they only play rush.

this argument is rediculous.

the media should be dems and gop's enemy. they should not be used for propoganda.

fairness doctrine. look it up right wing idiots.

I'm not a liar, douchebag.

 

[midcan5]

This from a guy with Liberal under his name. Of course you think it is not Biased.

Liberal is a badge of honor to be worn with pride. It is the foundation of our country and every parent who has raised smart well adjusted children.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Joe Bageant: Australian labor unions reverse a trend

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm not a liar, douchebag.

So you didn't say something that wasn't true?

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not a liar, douchebag.

I call bullshit. Who did you work for? What "liberal lies" did they gleefully put on the air to misinform viewers? You are so full of shit.

NATIONALLY, this is how the NEO CONS took over the media. With an all GOP GOVERNMENT FROM 2000-2006, the Democrats were helpless to stop this. Actually, Clinton signed the deregulations bill in the 90's. Which is funny because these right wing medias bashed Hillary so much, they probably helped Obama beat her. LOL. Serves the Clinton's right:

Previous to the Reagan Administration, our public airwaves were regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) who enforced stipulations that were meant for the public good:

- The Fairness Doctrine required media outlets to provide equal time for opposing view points.

- Broadcast frequencies were assigned to companies - not to the highest bidder, but by what the FCC determined as the “best public use.”

- A corporation was only allowed to own a certain amount of radio, TV and newspapers in any geographical location; this was to keep any one company from monopolizing what was seen, heard or read in the area.

In 1982, 50 companies controlled half or more of the media business.

When the Reagan Administration took power in the early 1980’s, many of the doctrines of the FCC were considered outdated.

The FCC was revamped to promote a more “free market” approach to broadcast and print media.

In 1987 the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1994, broadcast spectrums were auctioned to the highest bidder, regardless of “best public use;” this made only the largest and most powerful of corporations able to afford them.

Large media giants swallowed the smaller companies that could not afford to compete.

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.

The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent.

Today, most of what we see, hear and read is controlled by nine large media conglomerates; the largest five are Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (i.e. FOX News).

Now, take into consideration the fact that 1% of the population controls more than 50% of the wealth of this nation.

That 1% know each other very well!

Call them what you want, the illuminati or whatever, but these are the few families that chose the candidates that we are allowed to pick from.

These candidates, no matter who wins, are no more than puppets of the billionaire families that control the nation’s industry and money.

The way the electoral college is structured, the process only works if you have two serious candidates, and the powers that be make sure they own them both.

So, when Congressman Ron Paul (aka Dr. Paul) from Texas entered the Presidential race last year, he was pretty much written off by the mainstream media as an “extremist” due to his “unconventional” views.

Dr. Paul, did make sense to a lot who listened; his respect for the Constitution, his ideas of small government, a sane fiscal policy and civil liberties are popular ideas in today’s mass-deficit, intrusive totalitarian police state.

But, his ideas and platform challenge the power of the few who control the money, government and media; Congressman Paul’s ideas threaten the status quo.

Ten years ago, the media would have just ignored Dr. Paul until he faded away into obscurity.

However, he gained massive support through the unregulated internet.

So when Dr. Paul won most of the Republican Straw Polls, most of the post debate call-in and internet polls and raised more money in a single day than any other Presidential candidate, the main stream media could no longer ignore Dr. Paul.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not a liar, douchebag.

Seriously, who did you work for? I'll look into who owns them, who are their station managers and who are their reporters. Who are their advertisers. Come on bullshitter? Who!!!!

Most likely a local cable station.

 

[sealybobo]

Liberal is a badge of honor to be worn with pride. It is the foundation of our country and every parent who has raised smart well adjusted children.


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Joe Bageant: Australian labor unions reverse a trend

Randi Rhodes on Nova M Radio compared lefty liberals to whiny girlfriends. They love you, but they are never really happy. They're always bitching about something. It was pretty funny. She said, "but in the end they care about the boyfriend (conservatives), even with all his faults, and she will still take care of them right or wrong. LOL.

 

[AllieBaba]

Seriously, who did you work for? I'll look into who owns them, who are their station managers and who are their reporters. Who are their advertisers. Come on bullshitter? Who!!!!

Most likely a local cable station.

It was a paper, not a station. The people I worked with, when I worked with them for 3 years 20 years ago, and when I worked with them 18 months ago, are no longer there. Though the two worst are editors of award-winning newspapers now themselves.

And no, thank you, I don't want you calling around to my ex-bosses and freaking out on them.

 

[sealybobo]

It was a paper, not a station. The people I worked with, when I worked with them for 3 years 20 years ago, and when I worked with them 18 months ago, are no longer there. Though the two worst are editors of award-winning newspapers now themselves.

And no, thank you, I don't want you calling around to my ex-bosses and freaking out on them.

Fox & Friends daily morning show went on the air on April 24th and treated the parody as a factual story. During the morning news program, Fox and Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade repeatedly mixed elements of the fabricated story with those from real wire sources and without the slightest hesitation continuously ridiculed Levesque for his handling of the incident.

According to Hornby, “During the course of the three-hour Fox & Friends cablecast, the defendants repeatedly raised and discussed the April 11 incident, relentlessly ridiculing Levesque and his handling of the episode. They reported as true some of the quotations that Plagman falsely attributed to Levesque. They also attributed to Levesque certain fabricated statements that the Plagman article had attributed to Wessler. The defendants also used the incident as the basis for their ‘question of the day,’ where the hosts ask viewers to call or email the show to share their thoughts. The question they posed was: ‘Ham sandwich, hate crime or just lunch?’”

After the Fox report aired, Levesque was hit with a barrage of negative e-mails and phone calls, all stemming from the Fox News account of the incident. Levesque’s attorney contacted Fox News Channel to inform the network of the inaccuracies in the April 24th cablecast. A little more than three weeks later, on May 16, 2007, Fox & Friends issued a retraction and an apology.

Superintendent Levesque would file his slander lawsuit in June, asserting both defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims.

The Judge’s Findings

The judge would go on to render findings that painted an exceptionally poor portrayal of the folks at Fox. The judge noted, “The defendants were certainly gullible. Even if they believed the segments of Plagman that they repeated on the air, at least two portions of the Plagman piece were so absurd that they should have raised the defendants’ truth-seeking antennae and caused them to question the accuracy of the article as a whole.

“Their failure to conduct further research (this was not breaking news; there were no time constraints) or to question the reliability of the Plagman piece was a ‘negligent failure to connect the dots, and, one would hope, an ‘extreme departure from professional standards.’”

According to the District Court Judge, “The record suggests that the initial research may have been completed in about twenty minutes.” Also within the summary, the judge noted that despite the executive producer’s instructions that Levesque be called for an on air interview, the morning show began airing the parody version of the report for roughly two hours before anyone called Levesque’s office.

As to defamation, the judge offered, “Under Maine law, a statement “is defamatory ‘if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.’ The statement must be read in context, and must be ‘construed in the light of what might reasonably have been understood therefrom by the persons who [heard] it.’ A statement is defamatory if it ‘naturally tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.’”

Despite the false reports and on air ridicule of Levesque, the judge dismissed the suit stating, “that is not enough to satisfy the actual malice standard. The First Amendment protects journalists even when they are gullible.”

The judge rendered his dismissal despite offering up yet another not-so-flattering statement. “The facts in this case ― a morning cable news show derisively reporting events and statements obtained unwittingly from an online parody ― should provide grist for journalism classes teaching research and professionalism standards in the Internet age.”

But the judge concluded that “unprofessional conduct does not amount to reckless disregard of the truth,” and “failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reasonably prudent person would have done so, is not sufficient to establish reckless disregard. A reasonable jury could not find clear and convincing evidence of actual malice based on these comments.”

Fox Praises Final Ruling Leaving, Levesque and Attorney Astonished

Bernard Kubetz, Levesque’s attorney appeared stunned by the final verdict. “I think it’s an unreasonable, narrow interpretation of the facts and the law,” stated Kubetz.

The attorney added that Fox portrayed “a public servant with an outstanding reputation as someone who acted foolishly and thoughtlessly, which was totally false.”

Superintendent Levesque also seemed incredulous with the final ruling. The overall findings of unprofessional behavior, the improper vetting of material and the false attribution of quotes certainly seemed to the superintendent to demonstrate, at a minimum, a reckless disregard for the truth.

Fox was reportedly pleased but remarkably mum on the matter. The one quote that could be found concerning the Fox response to the verdict appeared in the Lewiston Sun Journal on June 4th.

“The Fox News Network was happy with the court’s decision, said a spokesperson who declined to be identified.”

Of course, one might understand some jubilation on the network’s part based on winning a slander suit. At the same time, one might think that a network that prided itself on being ‘fair and balanced’ would express severe consternation over having their reputation sullied.

After all, it is not everyday that a district judge calls a national news network “gullible” and “unprofessional.”

To read the judge’s findings, see the pdf document at the Lewiston Sun Journal.

Fox logo photos courtesy of ario _j and Pberry.

 

[sealybobo]

It was a paper, not a station. The people I worked with, when I worked with them for 3 years 20 years ago, and when I worked with them 18 months ago, are no longer there. Though the two worst are editors of award-winning newspapers now themselves.

And no, thank you, I don't want you calling around to my ex-bosses and freaking out on them.

APPEALS COURT REVERSES JURY IN "AKRE V FOX TV" CASE:
Court Condones Media Lies, in Spite of FCC Policy Against "News Distortion"

QUOTE
Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges in at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.


In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle-blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

 

[sealybobo]

There, now I proved your right wing media lies. Now, try to prove liberal media lies. You can't? Didn't think so. You think truth ='s lie. WRONG!!!

 

[AllieBaba]

You are a spas.

 

[sealybobo]

I know. But thanks for sticking up for me on another board. At least I know you are fair and balanced. LOL.

 

[random3434]

Oh, lookie. It's the zionist Jew, quoting Media Morons no less.

How ironically apropos.

Wow,,the name calling really get your point(s) across, don't they?



For you then, I'm sure you'll LOVE this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S46-zQkbehI]YouTube - Nutty Conspiracy Theories of Right-Wing Racists[/ame]

 

[Yurt]

NDP, do you realize that you currently hold the title of biggest douche on the USMB? You will struggle to find 3 posters that would say otherwise. It's not just that you act like a douche, we all do, but it's that you embody the very essence of douchery with comments like "I could script a bot to be like you" and "I call a spade a spade".

douche on, bro

saying "douche on bro"....that makes you so cool

 

[Foxfyre]

APPEALS COURT REVERSES JURY IN "AKRE V FOX TV" CASE:
Court Condones Media Lies, in Spite of FCC Policy Against "News Distortion"

QUOTE
Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges in at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.


In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle-blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

Sealy, it will be much appreciated if you post a link for cut and pastes like this, and the information will be considered more reliable if it comes from a general media source instead of a radical left or right wing site or from a message board blog.

 

[midcan5]

This may help:

foxBGHsuit

 

[Annie]

This may help:

foxBGHsuit

Only slightly. The original poster acted like it was 'FOX News,' the network. It wasn't. It was an affiliate, which is why most of us never heard of this:

Broadcasting law

Broadcasting Law and Regulation

Is it illegal to force journalists to lie on the air? Does the FCC "news distortion rule" mean anything at all?

In 1996 and 1997, Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson investigated the use of a synthetic growth hormone (BGH) in Florida dairies. They found that the hormone probably had dangerous side effects, which was why it was banned in Canada and several European countries. When their report was completed, they also found their TV station, Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, was under heavy legal pressure from hormone manufacturer Monsanto.

Rather than airing a program that balanced public health concerns against the industry's position, Monsanto's lawyers told Fox management that they would sue if any program was run. Eventually, after a considerable amount of argument, Akre and Wilson were fired. ...

 

[CharlestonChad]

saying "douche on bro"....that makes you so cool

Joke





Your Head

 

[BrianH]

Sealy, it will be much appreciated if you post a link for cut and pastes like this, and the information will be considered more reliable if it comes from a general media source instead of a radical left or right wing site or from a message board blog.

and not to mention it's an infringement on copyright laws....

 

[Yurt]

Joke





Your Head

humorous