Good Ole Socialists/Progressives: Trying To Get Fox News Banned...

[Truthseeker420]

This is what the Democratic Party has come to. Pretty sad.


This month, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski asking him to revoke the broadcasting licenses of Rupert Murdoch. A ban would include any and all news organizations affiliated with Murdoch’s umbrella organization, News Corp, which owns Fox News.

Read more: Should Fox News be banned? | The Daily Caller

How is this the Democratic Party? and why should i believe this guy's interpritation of what the letter to the FCC said?

 

[jasonnfree]

They do have liberals on, you're correct. They just never let them finish a sentence. And Hannity is the worst of the bunch.

I record "The Five", "O'Reilley Factor", "Hannity" and "On the Record" on FOX on weekdays.
I record "Hardball", "The Ed Show" and "The Last Word" on MSNBC on weekdays.

I watch them at my leisure, skipping all the commercials.

Two things you can be sure of:

The shows on FOX will always present liberal guests, and in some segments, ONLY liberal guests, while the shows on MSNBC will present conservative guests only very rarely.

MSNBC shows are offensive hate fests, filled with phony and snide remarks, always at the expense of those who dare to be conservatives, while the shows on FOX are entertaining and funny and the FOX hosts have the grace and sense of humor to - sometimes - laugh at themselves.

As far as news, there is nobody on MSNBC even comparable to Shepard Smith.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Lots of new users suddenly. Crazies at that.

 

[Cowman]

This is what the Democratic Party has come to. Pretty sad.


This month, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski asking him to revoke the broadcasting licenses of Rupert Murdoch. A ban would include any and all news organizations affiliated with Murdoch’s umbrella organization, News Corp, which owns Fox News.

Read more: Should Fox News be banned? | The Daily Caller

I hear a bunch of "socialists/progressives" who disagree with what fox news says, not wanting for it to be banned.

Idiot.

Obamafuck(s)

How childish are you? You're giving bripat9643 a run for his money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fox and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine are a joke and a disgrace to everyone but brainwashed loudmouth dittohead/dupes/haters. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine so there is an argument against the demagogues. ...Fox IS sneaky but many stories are ignored, many stats are spun. The evidence is the chumps on here.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jong Il and Progressives everywhere favor the Fairness Doctrine

 

[zeke]

Lots of new users suddenly. Crazies at that.

Hadn't you heard? Politics is an infectuous disease. Makes people crazy and it is addictive.


And I really wouldn't have a problem with FOX in that they could say whatever the hell they want, they just need to drop the "News" part of their headline.

Up in Canada they have some sort of truth in broadcasting laws. Fox wouldn't be allowed to do what it does here if they were in Canada. Those crazy Canadians. Wanting their new shows to report facts instead of make believe. No wonder no one wants to live in Canada. Except Canadians.

 

[MuadDib]

I hate socialists and progressives. I can't stand them.

 

[MuadDib]

I don't think anyone should be taken off the air!!!

That's not the American way!!!!

BTW....can you name me ONE fox news anchor, commentator, ect. who has any educational experience in political science? Any practical experience in matters of war? Any background in economics or business?

During my 20 years in that business, I don't recall such a prerequisite for the anchor position. Link? Also, how would your question apply to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS achors?

Looking forward to your response.

.

Well, Rachel Maddow's father was an Air Force Captain which automatically makes her MORE qualified to discuss military issues than O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Suesteren, AND Geraldo combined lol!

Of course when you add to that her degree in Public Policy (Stanford University 1984), and a Rhodes Scholarship and Doctorate of Philosophy in politicts from Oxford University you can see that she alone is more qualified to discuss public policy than ANY of the jokers at FOX including Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes (the poineers of this propaganda network).

I'm just sayin!

Intelligence AIN'T always necessarily evil when you're talking about "KNOWLEDGE!"

My great-great-great-great grandfather was a Colonial soldier in the Virginia militia during the American Revolution and fought in the Battle of Kings Mountain, but that doesn't make me more qualified to talk about freedom and liberty than anyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, Rachel Maddow's father was an Air Force Captain which automatically makes her MORE qualified to discuss military issues than O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Suesteren, AND Geraldo combined lol!

Of course when you add to that her degree in Public Policy (Stanford University 1984), and a Rhodes Scholarship and Doctorate of Philosophy in politicts from Oxford University you can see that she alone is more qualified to discuss public policy than ANY of the jokers at FOX including Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes (the poineers of this propaganda network).

I'm just sayin!

Intelligence AIN'T always necessarily evil when you're talking about "KNOWLEDGE!"

So now your dad has to have been in the military to make you qualified to be a news analyst? So when O'Reilly and other Fox commentators, who regularly have military personnel on their shows to discuss military issues, that means what exactly? Do they need to ask Maddow to approve because her daddy was in the military? Do you realize how retarded you sound?

You nailed it.

For the American Left, freedom of the press and freedom of speech appear to be one-way streets only. Sometimes it gets a little tough to defend such an inane position, and so we end up with goofy arguments like "one advocate journalist's dad was in the military, so she's more qualified to talk about war".

Too funny.

.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Lots of new users suddenly. Crazies at that.

Hadn't you heard? Politics is an infectuous disease. Makes people crazy and it is addictive.
And I really wouldn't have a problem with FOX in that they could say whatever the hell they want, they just need to drop the "News" part of their headline.
Up in Canada they have some sort of truth in broadcasting laws. Fox wouldn't be allowed to do what it does here if they were in Canada. Those crazy Canadians. Wanting their new shows to report facts instead of make believe. No wonder no one wants to live in Canada. Except Canadians.

I love listening to self righteous Canadians claim to have a gov't that's a cut above all others when in reality the Queen of England can dissolve the Canadian gov't whenever she wants to.

Canada is a Colony.

 

[Bloodline]

Well, Rachel Maddow's father was an Air Force Captain which automatically makes her MORE qualified to discuss military issues than O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Suesteren, AND Geraldo combined lol!

Of course when you add to that her degree in Public Policy (Stanford University 1984), and a Rhodes Scholarship and Doctorate of Philosophy in politicts from Oxford University you can see that she alone is more qualified to discuss public policy than ANY of the jokers at FOX including Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes (the poineers of this propaganda network).

I'm just sayin!

Intelligence AIN'T always necessarily evil when you're talking about "KNOWLEDGE!"

So now your dad has to have been in the military to make you qualified to be a news analyst? So when O'Reilly and other Fox commentators, who regularly have military personnel on their shows to discuss military issues, that means what exactly? Do they need to ask Maddow to approve because her daddy was in the military? Do you realize how retarded you sound?

You nailed it.

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

 

[Mac1958]

So now your dad has to have been in the military to make you qualified to be a news analyst? So when O'Reilly and other Fox commentators, who regularly have military personnel on their shows to discuss military issues, that means what exactly? Do they need to ask Maddow to approve because her daddy was in the military? Do you realize how retarded you sound?

You nailed it.

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

Okay, let's stipulate for now that she's "more qualified".

So?

This thread is about people who want to shut down Fox News. I'm sure you're not saying that Fox News should be shut down because its commentators are not as qualified as Rachel Maddow on certain issues, are you?

.

 

[daveman]

They should be calling themselves "Fox Opinion Network". They sued for the right to lie and their rational was that they weren't a "news" organization, rather an "opinion" network. Calling themselves "Fox News" is a lie to the American people and misleading.

Democrats practice free speech. Republicans lie.

So, you call it free speech when you claim a polluted Chinese river is in Texas?

 

[paulitician]

This is as low as it gets for the Left/Democrats. This is an awful Un-American attempt at crushing Free Speech/Press. How can people vote for a Party who hates Freedom,Liberty, and the Constitution so much? I just don't get it.

 

[Bloodline]

You nailed it.

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

Okay, let's stipulate for now that she's "more qualified".

So?

This thread is about people who want to shut down Fox News. I'm sure you're not saying that Fox News should be shut down because its commentators are not as qualified as Rachel Maddow on certain issues, are you?

.

No, and thank you for the benefit of the doubt. That is not what I am saying.

I am all for bringing back the fairness in broadcasting doctrine though for both the left and the right.

I try to balance my "news" by getting it from sources all over the political spectrum. For instance if I see a story reported by Maddow on MSNBC I'll also try to catch Fox's take on the same issue. I am constantly amazed at how polar opposite the slant can be on the same topic. I listen to NPR pretty regularly but I also peruse the transcripts of Limbaugh's show regularly as well. Often I will find myself just shaking my head at a commentators slant on something because I already know how its being reported by all the other sources so it's easy to spot it when I see truth being manipulated.

I believe that the only way to TRULY guarantee that your news is fair and balanced is to do the sifting and balancing yourself from a multitude of disparate sources. Don't let anyone tell you that they are "balanced" so you don't really need to think for yourself. Especially if they bait you with false laims like "We report....you decide."

Yeah right!

I think the biggest problem with "news" reporting in America today is laziness and complacency on the part of audiences. People like to think they are informed because they keep up with the "news" but for most it's just the news that echos their own opinion and their minds are completely closed off to experimenting with other sources for fear that differing viewpoints will make them uncertain about what they already think they "know."

 

[Mac1958]

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

Okay, let's stipulate for now that she's "more qualified".

So?

This thread is about people who want to shut down Fox News. I'm sure you're not saying that Fox News should be shut down because its commentators are not as qualified as Rachel Maddow on certain issues, are you?

.

No, and thank you for the benefit of the doubt. That is not what I am saying.

I am all for bringing back the fairness in broadcasting doctrine though for both the left and the right.

I try to balance my "news" by getting it from sources all over the political spectrum. For instance if I see a story reported by Maddow on MSNBC I'll also try to catch Fox's take on the same issue. I am constantly amazed at how polar opposite the slant can be on the same topic. I listen to NPR pretty regularly but I also peruse the transcripts of Limbaugh's show regularly as well. Often I will find myself just shaking my head at a commentators slant on something because I already know how its being reported by all the other sources so it's easy to spot it when I see truth being manipulated.

I believe that the only way to TRULY guarantee that your news is fair and balanced is to do the sifting and balancing yourself from a multitude of disparate sources. Don't let anyone tell you that they are "balanced" so you don't really need to think for yourself. Especially if they bait you with false laims like "We report....you decide."

Yeah right!

I think the biggest problem with "news" reporting in America today is laziness and complacency on the part of audiences. People like to think they are informed because they keep up with the "news" but for most it's just the news that echos their own opinion and their minds are completely closed off to experimenting with other sources for fear that differing viewpoints will make them uncertain about what they already think they "know."

Outside of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, I agree with most of your post. A consumer of news can only be adequately informed if they examine a (sadly) wide variety of "news" outlets, analyze the various input, and make their own determination. That's pretty much the best we can do.

I don't for a moment, though, trust the government to decide what's "fair". As a freedom of speech purist, I believe the responsibility lies with the consumer to do that. That's why this movement to shut down opposing speech angers me.

.

 

[Bloodline]

Okay, let's stipulate for now that she's "more qualified".

So?

This thread is about people who want to shut down Fox News. I'm sure you're not saying that Fox News should be shut down because its commentators are not as qualified as Rachel Maddow on certain issues, are you?

.

No, and thank you for the benefit of the doubt. That is not what I am saying.

I am all for bringing back the fairness in broadcasting doctrine though for both the left and the right.

I try to balance my "news" by getting it from sources all over the political spectrum. For instance if I see a story reported by Maddow on MSNBC I'll also try to catch Fox's take on the same issue. I am constantly amazed at how polar opposite the slant can be on the same topic. I listen to NPR pretty regularly but I also peruse the transcripts of Limbaugh's show regularly as well. Often I will find myself just shaking my head at a commentators slant on something because I already know how its being reported by all the other sources so it's easy to spot it when I see truth being manipulated.

I believe that the only way to TRULY guarantee that your news is fair and balanced is to do the sifting and balancing yourself from a multitude of disparate sources. Don't let anyone tell you that they are "balanced" so you don't really need to think for yourself. Especially if they bait you with false laims like "We report....you decide."

Yeah right!

I think the biggest problem with "news" reporting in America today is laziness and complacency on the part of audiences. People like to think they are informed because they keep up with the "news" but for most it's just the news that echos their own opinion and their minds are completely closed off to experimenting with other sources for fear that differing viewpoints will make them uncertain about what they already think they "know."

Outside of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, I agree with most of your post. A consumer of news can only be adequately informed if they examine a (sadly) wide variety of "news" outlets, analyze the various input, and make their own determination. That's pretty much the best we can do.

I don't for a moment, though, trust the government to decide what's "fair". As a freedom of speech purist, I believe the responsibility lies with the consumer to do that. That's why this movement to shut down opposing speech angers me.

.

We are in agreement on your last statement. I don't know....seems to me that everytime government gets its hands on anything trying to "fix" it it just becomes more fubar!

 

[clevergirl]

So now your dad has to have been in the military to make you qualified to be a news analyst? So when O'Reilly and other Fox commentators, who regularly have military personnel on their shows to discuss military issues, that means what exactly? Do they need to ask Maddow to approve because her daddy was in the military? Do you realize how retarded you sound?

You nailed it.

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

No, O'Reilly's education is as qualifying as Madow's.

No bait and switch- YOU are the one claiming her fathers service somehow makes her a more qualified interviewer- it was stupid to make that claim.

Your inability to see that O'Reilly having military personnel as guests undermines any position you may have of his not being qualified (which I disagree with) by the mere fact he has these guests to ask questions of. His job is to inform the public.

The inanity of your argument about qualifications is further damage when discussing "qualifications" when you look at O'Reilly's education compared to say a Walter Cronkite, who dropped out of college. Seriously you argument over qualifications is more then a little wanting.

 

[Bloodline]

You nailed it.

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

No, O'Reilly's education is as qualifying as Madow's.

No bait and switch- YOU are the one claiming her fathers service somehow makes her a more qualified interviewer- it was stupid to make that claim.

Your inability to see that O'Reilly having military personnel as guests undermines any position you may have of his not being qualified (which I disagree with) by the mere fact he has these guests to ask questions of. His job is to inform the public.

The inanity of your argument about qualifications is further damage when discussing "qualifications" when you look at O'Reilly's education compared to say a Walter Cronkite, who dropped out of college. Seriously you argument over qualifications is more then a little wanting.

Sounds like you're a real O'Reilly apologist?

Didn't mean to scratch on a nerve.

Yeah...ok....O'Reilly is a real stand up guy.

BTW....wonder how much he finally spent to buy the silence of the loofa chick he went all pervy on?

 

[clevergirl]

Now there's a (not so) clever bait and switch.

I would think Maddow's degrees in Public Policy and Politics are more relevant than her being a militark kid wouldn't you?

She also has military guests on her show.

But how does having a military guest on one's show somehow "qualify" a host as credible and knowledgeable? It doesn't. Maddow is more "qualified" than O'Reilly and Hannity based upon her QUALIFICATIONS.

She lends to MSNBC a credibility an level of sophistication you just don't find on FOX News.

No, O'Reilly's education is as qualifying as Madow's.

No bait and switch- YOU are the one claiming her fathers service somehow makes her a more qualified interviewer- it was stupid to make that claim.

Your inability to see that O'Reilly having military personnel as guests undermines any position you may have of his not being qualified (which I disagree with) by the mere fact he has these guests to ask questions of. His job is to inform the public.

The inanity of your argument about qualifications is further damage when discussing "qualifications" when you look at O'Reilly's education compared to say a Walter Cronkite, who dropped out of college. Seriously you argument over qualifications is more then a little wanting.

Sounds like you're a real O'Reilly apologist?

Didn't mean to scratch on a nerve.

Yeah...ok....O'Reilly is a real stand up guy.

BTW....wonder how much he finally spent to buy the silence of the loofa chick he went all pervy on?

Yes, that's how to win a debate... <eye-roll> Using O'Reilly as a Fox News personality to debate your assertions of Maddow being better qualified, took a turn you didn't like...I understand and so do the posters seeing your departure to the mud.

The fact of the matter is you're a moron with a moronic position, who argues that position like a...moron.