War on Fox News

[JohnL.Burke]

So John, your reference to that 1974 couirt case that had no link... I just came across the phrase you quoted, "inescapably dampens the rigor and limits the variety of debate" and if we're looking at the same case, this is Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) -- which is a case about a newspaper publishing statute in Florida .... nothing to do with broadcast law. Or with federal law, or with the FCC. Which means it's an entirely different thing.

But since you gave no reference, I'm left to assume this is the case. Let me know if it's not.

{edit: OK now I'm sure it's the same case, because I found your entire passage here was lifted -- virtially verbatim -- out of the same page that Foxfyre gave me.
No wonder you didn't have a link; I'm afraid you're quoting bits and pieces without grokking the whole.}

concerning the point you presented I suggest you read American Jihad's link. Look under the heading TESTED IN COURT.

Huh? where?

I refer you to page 5. I'll even give you an extra helping of baby to keep your energy up as you trek to the previous page.

 

[Pogo]

concerning the point you presented I suggest you read American Jihad's link. Look under the heading TESTED IN COURT.

Huh? where?

I refer you to page 5 with an extra helping of baby to keep your energy up.

Sorry but on my screen this IS page 5 and yours is the only post on it. What page we're on depends on how you have USMB configured (mine is set to 20 posts per page). Maybe you can give me a post number?

::chomp:: ::chomp:: mmm.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

huh? Where?

i refer you to page 5 with an extra helping of baby to keep your energy up.

sorry but on my screen this is page 5 and yours is the only post on it. What page we're on depends on how you have usmb configured (mine is set to 20 posts per page). Maybe you can give me a post number?

::chomp:: ::chomp:: Mmm.

#74.

 

[Pogo]

i refer you to page 5 with an extra helping of baby to keep your energy up.

sorry but on my screen this is page 5 and yours is the only post on it. What page we're on depends on how you have usmb configured (mine is set to 20 posts per page). Maybe you can give me a post number?

::chomp:: ::chomp:: Mmm.

#74.

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

sorry but on my screen this is page 5 and yours is the only post on it. What page we're on depends on how you have usmb configured (mine is set to 20 posts per page). Maybe you can give me a post number?

::chomp:: ::chomp:: Mmm.

#74.

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

You accuse the Heritage Foundation of outright fabrication but you don't list what you think they fabricated. Can you please give me the post number presenting the link (and the name of the link if there is more than one) I apparently copied please? Thanks!

 

[American_Jihad]

sorry but on my screen this is page 5 and yours is the only post on it. What page we're on depends on how you have usmb configured (mine is set to 20 posts per page). Maybe you can give me a post number?

::chomp:: ::chomp:: Mmm.

#74.

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

Hey big earth, here is some more stuff for ya, enjoy...

glenn beck on fairness doctrine - Google Search

 

[Pogo]

#74.

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

You accuse the Heritage Foundation of outright fabrication but you don't list what you think they fabricated. Can you please give me the post number presenting the link (and the name of the link if there is more than one) I apparently copied please? Thanks!

Yes, once again, the page reads, fabrication in bold:
>> Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) <<

Well it did no such thing, because that case, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, is, as I just linked for you, about a state law in Florida regarding newspapers. Not the Supreme Court, not about federal law, not about broadcasting, and not about the Fairness Doctrine. I can't make it any plainer than that; it's an irrelevant case that they tried to bring in to make their argument. Presumably they hope people like me won't fact check.

"without ruling the Doctrine unconstitutional" -- well I guess technically that's not a lie; the court didn't rule the Doctrine unconstitutional, because a state court can't do that, and they weren't ruling on the FD anyway. A state court can't do that either. Weasel words if I ever saw 'em.

And that is the passage and the case you cited in your protest that I 'didn't tell the whole story'. This is not a part of the story.

 

[Pogo]

#74.

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

Hey big earth, here is some more stuff for ya, enjoy...

glenn beck on fairness doctrine - Google Search

I like AJ. Know why? He's got a delicious sense of humor. I'm reminded of that every time I see one of his threads.

"Glenn Beck on the Fairness Doctrine". Now appearing next to "Evel Knievel on Safe Driving" and "The Michael Moore Diet Plan".

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Thanks.
AJ's link doesn't have it but it's in his quote from Foxy. And that's the exact same page I referred to; that's what you copied from.

And it's a lie; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is about a Florida state newspaper law --- not the Fairness Doctrine. Nothing to do with broadcasting and nothing to do with federal law. Don't take my word for it -- have a look.

You gotta vet what you write, especially when your source is biased. That link is from the Heritage Foundation. Apparently they too are not above outright fabrication.
I don't know about you but when somebody has to resort to fabrication to make their case it makes me wonder what's so weak about the case that it would need that.

You accuse the Heritage Foundation of outright fabrication but you don't list what you think they fabricated. Can you please give me the post number presenting the link (and the name of the link if there is more than one) I apparently copied please? Thanks!

Yes, once again, the page reads, fabrication in bold:
>> Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) <<

Well it did no such thing, because that case, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, is, as I just linked for you, about a state law in Florida regarding newspapers. Not the Supreme Court, not about federal law, not about broadcasting, and not about the Fairness Doctrine. I can't make it any plainer than that; it's an irrelevant case that they tried to bring in to make their argument. Presumably they hope people like me won't fact check.

"without ruling the Doctrine unconstitutional" -- well I guess technically that's not a lie; the court didn't rule the Doctrine unconstitutional, because a state court can't do that, and they weren't ruling on the FD anyway. A state court can't do that either. Weasel words if I ever saw 'em.

And that is the passage and the case you cited in your protest that I 'didn't tell the whole story'. This is not a part of the story.

Of course it's part of the story because it involves the Fairness Doctrine and the suspicion it has garnered through the years. You seem to just be focusing on one case when the argument against the Fairness Doctrine is more involved. Such as the trepidation some have of letting a government agency invoke it's power when it comes to speech content. Anyway, we're just repeating ourselves now. Time for my baby chowder and coffee.

 

[Polk]

If a Republican was in the White House and it was New York Times or MSNBC published leaked information, you guys would be singing a completely different tune.

 

[Pogo]

You accuse the Heritage Foundation of outright fabrication but you don't list what you think they fabricated. Can you please give me the post number presenting the link (and the name of the link if there is more than one) I apparently copied please? Thanks!

Yes, once again, the page reads, fabrication in bold:
>> Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) <<

Well it did no such thing, because that case, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, is, as I just linked for you, about a state law in Florida regarding newspapers. Not the Supreme Court, not about federal law, not about broadcasting, and not about the Fairness Doctrine. I can't make it any plainer than that; it's an irrelevant case that they tried to bring in to make their argument. Presumably they hope people like me won't fact check.

"without ruling the Doctrine unconstitutional" -- well I guess technically that's not a lie; the court didn't rule the Doctrine unconstitutional, because a state court can't do that, and they weren't ruling on the FD anyway. A state court can't do that either. Weasel words if I ever saw 'em.

And that is the passage and the case you cited in your protest that I 'didn't tell the whole story'. This is not a part of the story.

Of course it's part of the story because it involves the Fairness Doctrine and the suspicion it has garnered through the years. You seem to just be focusing on one case when the argument against the Fairness Doctrine is more involved. Such as the trepidation some have of letting a government agency invoke it's power when it comes to speech content. Anyway, we're just repeating ourselves now. Time for my baby chowder and coffee.

I'm clarifying this case because it was presented as both an assessment of the Fairness Doctrine and as a complaint that I "didn't present all the facts", neither of which is true.

To put this to rest, regardless what the Heritage Foundation blog says, the case is about a Florida state law regarding newspapers. It has nothing to do with broadcasting, it has nothing to do with Federal law or federal agencies, and it has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. When they represent it that way They Are Lying. It is entirely unrelated.

Neither the Fairness Doctrine, nor the FCC, has or ever had anything whatsoever to do with publishing. The publishing medium (newsprint, paper) is theoretically unlimited. That's the whole point underlying the Fairness Doctrine. And the FCC has no jurisdiction on publishing anyway; not newspapers, not books, not magazines or anything else.

Therefore no it is not part of this story. Period, the end.

I hope you and yours enjoyed a fine holiday baby-cue

 

[Zona]

I'll be posting anti Fox articles in this thread...


Obama&#8217;s War on Fox News Reporters

May 21, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert

In a stunning sequences of events that unfolded yesterday, it was revealed the Department of Justice&#8217;s (DOJ) efforts to intimidate the media went beyond targeting reporters and editors at the Associated Press. Early in the day, the Washington Post reported that the DOJ not only seized the phone records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, but used his security badge to access records tracking his movements at the State Department, traced the timing of his calls with a Department security advisor suspected of giving him classified information, and obtained a search warrant to access his personal emails. Later in the afternoon another bombshell was dropped: two more Fox staffers, reporter William La Jeunesse and producer Mike Levine, were also targeted by the DOJ.

...

Obama?s War on Fox News Reporters | FrontPage Magazine

Oh please. How many times did Oreilly and, Rush (the unofficial king of the right) and Hannity have "interviews" with Bush?

STFU Fox and suck it up. You only have to deal with this for two more elections.

 

[American_Jihad]

"F**K me"

Report: Eric Holder feels remorse over Fox News case​

By Rachel Weiner, Published: May 28, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder &#8220;felt a creeping sense of personal remorse&#8221; after reading the Washington Post&#8217;s report on a Justice Department probe of Fox News reporter James Rosen, according to the Daily Beast. That story, combined with the news that the DOJ seized phone records from Associated Press reporters, has led him to question the current guidelines for leak investigations and his own personal decisions.

...

Report: Eric Holder feels remorse over Fox News case

 

[JohnL.Burke]

"F**K me"

Report: Eric Holder feels remorse over Fox News case​

By Rachel Weiner, Published: May 28, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder &#8220;felt a creeping sense of personal remorse&#8221; after reading the Washington Post&#8217;s report on a Justice Department probe of Fox News reporter James Rosen, according to the Daily Beast. That story, combined with the news that the DOJ seized phone records from Associated Press reporters, has led him to question the current guidelines for leak investigations and his own personal decisions.

...

Report: Eric Holder feels remorse over Fox News case

Ring...Ring...Ring....
Eric Holder- Hello, is this Daily Beast?
Daily Beast- Yes, this is Daily Beast, may I help you?
Eric Holder- Yes, thank you, I just wanted to say that I'm a friend of Eric Holder and I have some information.
Daily Beast- Yes, what is your information please?
Eric Holder- Yes, I would like to say I saw Holder sitting at his desk feeling a creeping sense of personal remorse.
Daily Beast- Uhmm... is this you Eric?
Eric Holder- No no no! My name is uhmmm Deric ....yea... Deric Boulder...uhmmm.... the third.
Daily Beast- Oh, uhmmm ok then. Thank you for the information.
Eric Holder- You're welcome, I also noticed that Eric Holder is a brilliant man who is being unfairly maligned by Fox News. He also has an enormous penis.
Daily Beast- Thank you for calling.