Sen. Rockefeller Suggests Eliminating FOX, MSNBC

[Pony Boy]

Sen. Rockefeller Suggests Eliminating FOX, MSNBC
(Rockefeller is saying that the United States electorate will be better informed if we ELIMINATE two major media voices - that getting rid of them would essentially be addition by subtraction).


By Ryan G. Murphy, RTDNA Digital Media Editor

I was very disappointed to wake up this morning and see a video of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) blasting both FOX and MSNBC during a Cable & Broadcast subcommittee hearing on Wednesday with what appeared to be a request for government intervention if the network's content is not cleaned up.

Here's part of Rockefeller's statement: "There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future."

As I'm reading this, Rockefeller is saying that the United States electorate will be better informed if we ELIMINATE two major media voices - that getting rid of them would essentially be addition by subtraction.

Put your own politics on FOX and MSNBC aside for a second and let's just agree that they can both sometimes present potentially polarizing views.

What Rockefeller is suggesting with his statement is that the views presented on FOX and MSNBC have no place in the news consumers' world and, because they are not "quality news," the government should intervene. Simply put, that's absolute censorship and undermines having a diverse flow of information in the market. It also destroys market-based competition among the networks. This is America, right?

Rockefeller failed to point out that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate either FOX or MSNBC. The channels are on cable - not broadcast airwaves. It's frustrating to see that he would even THINK to have the government step in because of content.

As the New York Times reported, the comments about FOX News and MSNBC were not in Mr. Rockefeller’s prepared remarks. In those prepared remarks, he also said:

"When it comes to developing content, our entertainment machine is too often in a race to the bottom. Even worse, our news media has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment. Instead of a watchdog that is a check on the excesses of government and business, we have the endless barking of a 24-hour news cycle. We have journalism that is always ravenous for the next rumor, but insufficiently hungry for the facts that can nourish our democracy. As citizens, we are paying a price."

Among the digs in the above statement, Rockefeller is making a valid, and often discussed point among my colleagues - a 24-hour news cycle brings with it a vast set of challenges that require careful planning and extreme adaptability. It appears that during yesterday's hearing Rockefeller would have done much better if just stuck to his script.

Suggesting censorship is not only the easy way out but it also undermines the point you were trying to make, senator. Healthy political discourse requires diversity of opinion, not no opinion at all. If there's something on television you don't like, please just change the channel.


http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/sen.-rockefeller-suggests-eliminating-fox-msnbc1143.php

[Obushma]

Wow, a Rockefeller calling for unconstitutional media silence, color me not surprised.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here's part of Rockefeller's statement:

It would be nice to hear the entire statement, in context, before the rightards pounce.

[Pony Boy]

Well, I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with Mrs. Rockefeller, She is the wife of Sen. Jay Rockefeller and she is the chief executive officer of WETA, the leading PBS station in the Washington, D.C., area – and broadcasting home to such signature programs as "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" and "Washington Week."

[baja]

Never happen for lots of reason but if you consider the plight of this country and what needs to happen to get out of this mess it would be a good move.

[Florida_Bronco]

Would love to see it, but it'll never happen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Never happen for lots of reason but if you consider the plight of this country and what needs to happen to get out of this mess it would be a good move.

Getting rid of Faux and MSRNC isn't necessary.

Just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

[Pony Boy]

It would be nice to hear the entire statement, in context, before the rightards pounce.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-eulT8-XIxU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-eulT8-XIxU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[baja]

Getting rid of Faux and MSRNC isn't necessary.

Just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

We used to have lots of safeguards that worked well and served the wellbeing of the people for a long time

[spdirty]

Would love to see it, but it'll never happen.

Never happen for lots of reason but if you consider the plight of this country and what needs to happen to get out of this mess it would be a good move.

not surprising.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Getting rid of Faux and MSRNC isn't necessary.

Just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Um...you realize you associated the most wacko lefty network in the history of TV (pretty wacko considering the long line of liberal TV networks) with the RNC?

What a dupe!

[spdirty]

getting rid of faux and msrnc isn't necessary.

Just reinstate the fairness doctrine.
Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Um...you realize you associated the most wacko lefty network in the history of TV (pretty wacko considering the long line of liberal TV networks) with the RNC?

What a dupe!

According to your skewed perceptions of political reality, any source other than Faux News is a "whacky lefty info clearing house, propaganda mil, etc., etc." - even mainstream American newspapers. Ha!

In any event, did Olberman, et al, really appear on anyone's radar before Bush's approval ratings equaled Nixon's Watergate numbers?

I don't think so.

It's all about the Benjamins.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-eulT8-XIxU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-eulT8-XIxU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Just as I expected: In context, the quote doesn't sound as "alarming" as the right-wing echo chamber makes it out to be.

There's a difference between saying part of you would like to shut down a network and actually doing it.

In any event, we can rest assured that if a rethug senator said the same thing about a network the righties dislike, those righties would applaud him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right-wing double standard

The GOP's reality show politics in action:

House Republicans announced today that they will force a floor vote to eliminate taxpayer-funded support for NPR in response to the firing of Juan Williams. A proposal to defund NPR was the winner in the GOP’s weekly “YouCut” contest, in which the public votes online for various spending cuts — GOP leaders have pledged to force votes on the winning items (so far nearly every such vote has failed to pass the Democratic-controlled House).

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-andrew-stiles (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253479/gop-force-vote-npr-funding-andrew-stiles)

Thanks to TonyR for posting this on another thread.

[Drek]

I largely agree with Rockefeller. Not necessarily shut them down, but they should not have the ability to call themselves "news" or "journalists" and they shouldn't be issues press passes to the White House and the like.

They're an entertainment medium and should be treated as such, simple as that. Honesty in branding would go a long way.

Giving Fox News and MSNBC press passes and letting them pass off their networks as "news" is on par with letting MTV do the same.

[elsid13]

Well, I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with Mrs. Rockefeller, She is the wife of Sen. Jay Rockefeller and she is the chief executive officer of WETA, the leading PBS station in the Washington, D.C., area – and broadcasting home to such signature programs as "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" and "Washington Week."

The News Hour and BBC World New America are the two best daily news programs on the air. While Washington Weeks is also one of the political round tables on TV

[SJ Bronco]

It's important to let people spout all the nonsense they want. It's called free speech. I hate fox, but I think instead of silencing them, they need to find a way to hold them accountable for what they do. First of all, I'd cut off anyone calling themselves a news network (and their ownership and talent) from donating to campaigns in ANY form. Also, there should be a requirement for public servants to appear in person on any "news" network that requests it. That way, both sides would get a chance to question them. After that, it's up to the public to figure out which networks are spewing rhetoric and which ones are legit news organization. It is important to have people of extreme partisan views ask the hard questions so we can get a response. I don't know. It's a ll a pipe dream, but after a while, it's about whether or not an the individual can be responsible enough to acquire information from as many different places and views as possible, If they are smart enough to think for themselves, and if they can see the real motivation behind any one persons opinion.

[JJJ]

It's important to let people spout all the nonsense they want. It's called free speech. I hate fox, but I think instead of silencing them, they need to find a way to hold them accountable for what they do. First of all, I'd cut off anyone calling themselves a news network (and their ownership and talent) from donating to campaigns in ANY form. Also, there should be a requirement for public servants to appear in person on any "news" network that requests it. That way, both sides would get a chance to question them. After that, it's up to the public to figure out which networks are spewing rhetoric and which ones are legit news organization. It is important to have people of extreme partisan views ask the hard questions so we can get a response. I don't know. It's a ll a pipe dream, but after a while, it's about whether or not an the individual can be responsible enough to acquire information from as many different places and views as possible, If they are smart enough to think for themselves, and if they can see the real motivation behind any one persons opinion.

For a second there I thought you almost understood the constitution. Then the highlighted parts kicked in and it became obvious that was not the case.

[Pony Boy]

The News Hour and BBC World New America are the two best daily news programs on the air. While Washington Weeks is also one of the political round tables on TV

Two of the best....... that's obvious by the ratings......

The NewsHour drew a household rating of 0.8 for the 2008-09 season, flat from the previous season. That compared with an average rating of 5 for the network news programs from July 2008 to June 2009

[baja]

Two of the best....... that's obvious by the ratings......

The NewsHour drew a household rating of 0.8 for the 2008-09 season, flat from the previous season. That compared with an average rating of 5 for the network news programs from July 2008 to June 2009

That reveals more about the people watching that it does about the value and accuracy of the news services.

[Florida_Bronco]

I largely agree with Rockefeller. Not necessarily shut them down, but they should not have the ability to call themselves "news" or "journalists" and they shouldn't be issues press passes to the White House and the like.

They're an entertainment medium and should be treated as such, simple as that. Honesty in branding would go a long way.

Giving Fox News and MSNBC press passes and letting them pass off their networks as "news" is on par with letting MTV do the same.

My feelings exactly.

[SJ Bronco]

For a second there I thought you almost understood the constitution. Then the highlighted parts kicked in and it became obvious that was not the case.

I don't think requiring someone to be accountable about there involvement in politics when they are responsible for communicating facts to the public to be unreasonable. I mean, Fox and MSNBC can donate all they want, as long as they just admit they are just editorial commentators, and not news networks. As I said though, I don't blame them, i blame the people that can't think for themselves on both sides. I'm just concerned about undisclosed political donations. I get nervous about where the money comes from. To many hands in the cookie jar, makes our system corrupt from where I stand. It's all wishful thinking. No one will ever be honest enough to run a clean campaign. It's a moot point.

[JJJ]

I don't think requiring someone to be accountable about there involvement in politics when they are responsible for communicating facts to the public to be unreasonable. I mean, Fox and MSNBC can donate all they want, as long as they just admit they are just editorial commentators, and not news networks. As I said though, I don't blame them, i blame the people that can't think for themselves on both sides. I'm just concerned about undisclosed political donations. I get nervous about where the money comes from. To many hands in the cookie jar, makes our system corrupt from where I stand. It's all wishful thinking. No one will ever be honest enough to run a clean campaign. It's a moot point.

To try and determine what is real news and what is fake news is pure folly and limiting their contributions even if you were successful in doing so is pretty much unconstitutional.

You should simply stop at the highlighted portion above and call it a day.

The money will get donated one way or another, that is for sure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To try and determine what is real news and what is fake news is pure folly and limiting their contributions even if you were successful in doing so is pretty much unconstitutional.


Not at all.

In the journalistic world, this is known as "fact checking." :welcome:

[Atwater 27]

You get rid of Fox and NBC, better include CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, All conservative and Liberal talk radio shows, 90 % of the newspapers in the country, shut down the internet too. Cuz they're all biased one way or another. Then what would you have?
Thanks for playin.

[Drek]

You get rid of Fox and NBC, better include CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, All conservative and Liberal talk radio shows, 90 % of the newspapers in the country, shut down the internet too. Cuz they're all biased one way or another. Then what would you have?
Thanks for playin.

Talk radio doesn't generally bill itself as "news". The major networks as well as PBS and NPR do hold themselves to a level of journalistic integrity.

The problem is networks like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC where they no longer report the news as news but instead use every story as fodder for pundit ranting. They leave out the facts and go heavy on the conjecture. That is well within their right as a media organization to do so, but it is not "news" and to call it such is false advertising on a massive scale.

The single best litmus test I've found to see how unbiased and clear a view of the political landscape someone has is to ask their opinion on PBS and NPR.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Talk radio doesn't generally bill itself as "news". The major networks as well as PBS and NPR do hold themselves to a level of journalistic integrity.The problem is networks like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC where they no longer report the news as news but instead use every story as fodder for pundit ranting. They leave out the facts and go heavy on the conjecture. That is well within their right as a media organization to do so, but it is not "news" and to call it such is false advertising on a massive scale.

The single best litmus test I've found to see how unbiased and clear a view of the political landscape someone has is to ask their opinion on PBS and NPR.

Incredibly naive.

You just named the organization who took money from Soros and then fired Juan Williams because he was a liberal on FOX News, and said that they had "journalistic integrity". It was FOX who righted that wrong and gave the guy a huge contract. You also included "major networks", all of whom campaigned for Obama, one of whom even falsified documents in the 2004 election cycle to try to get Kerry pushed into office.

You have it backward.

Juan Williams has been a liberal pundit for a long time on FOX news and his opinions have never been stifled, muted, or altered in any way to appropriate themselves to FOX's viewership. This is the case for several liberal regulars on FOX news shows.

Its time to wake up, guy. You shouldnt have that kind of trust in nanny state mouthpieces. Your news IS biased. Its just the way things are today. Journalism schools teach activism now. Money is thrown at media organizations because its the best and fastest way that big money can make its way into the US and have a tangible effect on the way people think. Theres a reason why people like Soros want to have control over what people talk about. These are the same clowns who get inside governments in places like Russia and basically buy their way to the ends they desire.

[Rohirrim]

Incredibly naive.

You just named the organization who took money from Soros and then fired Juan Williams because he was a liberal on FOX News, and said that they had "journalistic integrity". It was FOX who righted that wrong and gave the guy a huge contract. You also included "major networks", all of whom campaigned for Obama, one of whom even falsified documents in the 2004 election cycle to try to get Kerry pushed into office.

You have it backward.

Juan Williams has been a liberal pundit for a long time on FOX news and his opinions have never been stifled, muted, or altered in any way to appropriate themselves to FOX's viewership. This is the case for several liberal regulars on FOX news shows.

Its time to wake up, guy. You shouldnt have that kind of trust in nanny state mouthpieces. Your news IS biased. Its just the way things are today. Journalism schools teach activism now. Money is thrown at media organizations because its the best and fastest way that big money can make its way into the US and have a tangible effect on the way people think. Theres a reason why people like Soros want to have control over what people talk about. These are the same clowns who get inside governments in places like Russia and basically buy their way to the ends they desire.

Liberal "guests" on Fox serve the same purpose that the Washington Generals serve.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Liberal "guests" on Fox serve the same purpose that the Washington Generals serve.

Liberal guests on Fox are given time and space to voice their own opinion. It should be obvious to you that they are not setting the topic. FOX is a conservatively-slanted network.

The show Red Eye is partly written and produced by a gay liberal, who also appears as a regular panelist. The show usually has 4 panelists, always including Schulz and another liberal.

The network has moderate liberal show hosts: Shepard Smith, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta van Susteren.

Hannity's show has regular panelists Bob Beckell, Ed Rendell, Doug Schoen, and Pat Caddell to give liberal voices to his "Great American Panel".

O'Reilly has regular liberal representation and has staff liberals who give daily opinion on issues. Lis Wiehl, Joe Trippi, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, etc.

Beck I'm not sure about, but I do know that MLK's niece has been a regular, and that Beck regularly promotes MLK.

Juan Williams is now a significant figure at FOX, appearing in several shows.

You guys hate fear mongering but you sure love to do it when it comes to FOX news or any conservative punditry. You dont see conservatives railing against MSNBC all the time. Partially because nobody watches it.

The modern conservative is considerably more tolerant of opposing views than is the modern liberal. No doubt. We have had to be because there hasnt been an alternative to liberal media for a long time. Now there is, and the liberals hate it. Power corrupts. The liberal hatred for conservative news trumps their own standards and values for free speech and for tolerance. It ruins that whole "we hate fear-mongering" illusion as well.

You guys should just learn to live better with your neighbors instead of trying to force your ideology down everybody's collective throat.

[Atwater 27]

Skillet telling it like it is...

[Drek]

Incredibly naive.

You just named the organization who took money from Soros
PBS takes money from the Koch brothers, does that make them a right wing news organization?

and then fired Juan Williams because he was a liberal on FOX News, and said that they had "journalistic integrity". It was FOX who righted that wrong and gave the guy a huge contract.
Juan Williams breached his contract, multiple times. NPR expressly forbids working as a pundit for any of its journalists. Williams had received multiple warnings for violating that policy and his remarks were nothing more than the straw that broke the camel's back. It would be no different if he was doing it on MSNBC, CNN, etc.. His pursuit of work as a pundit was in direct conflict with his NPR contract.

You also included "major networks", all of whom campaigned for Obama, one of whom even falsified documents in the 2004 election cycle to try to get Kerry pushed into office.
You mean the same network that immediately rolled out an internal investigation and fired all of the people involved with the story? CBS could have easily kept that on the back burner until after the election if they were trying to influence the election, instead they assembled and funded an internal investigation that lead to them firing everyone involved, before the election took place.

In short: rogue individuals who have worked in journalism have tried to exert their political bias as part of NPR and with the major news networks. In those cases the standards for true journalistic integrity come into play and the industry polices itself. This is completely different from say, Fox News who rarely if ever pays any credence to fact checking and yet never does any internal policing or auditing. MSNBC drives home this difference as well by their "suspensions" of Scarborough and Olbermann.

Its hilarious that people on the far right like to point at the "mainstream media" (i.e. the major networks, NPR, AP, and the major newspapers) as an example of liberal bias when in reality they're a text book example of a competitive free market industry that polices itself. The only difference is that their currency is fact based information, not economic wealth. They are the poster child for free market economics in this country but the extreme conservatives attack them every time they're forced to police their own.

These are the same clowns who get inside governments in places like Russia and basically buy their way to the ends they desire.
So people have bought their way into Russian politics despite it basically being a fascist state ran by Putin? And I'm the one who needs to wake up?

How do you get to be this delusional Skillet? Were you born a shill for "conservative values", the economic equivalent of an uncle Tom, or did you just wake up one day and decide it'd make life a whole lot easier if you could just tune into Fox News and Glenn Beck rather than make that gray matter in your skull try to process anything for yourself? Because the depth to which you have your head buried straight up the extreme far right's a-hole is just shocking and I can't imagine it getting that far up there without your own concerted effort.

Does it make life easy being a 10%'er? You know, the 10% of this population so far on the right or left fringe that your view of reality is nothing more than what your ideologue of the month tells you it is? Thanks for ****ing this country up with your inane half assed bull****.

[Drek]

Skillet telling it like it is...

Why don't you try to debate the rebuttles to your own posts, instead of relying on Papa Mouthpiece to fight your battles for you? Or is your own understanding of these "values" you spit so much vitriol over really so shallow that you can't even follow with your own counterpoints?

You are just another growth from the same infection as Skillet, on a pathetically even lower level. Instead of taking your marching orders straight from a wealthy ideologue you rely on that ideologue's mouthpiece to then disseminate it down to you.

I.e. Skillet is the pig being fed slop and gobbling it up like there is nothing better in life while you are the dung beetle feeding off the slop he ****s out.

[epicSocialism4tw]

PBS takes money from the Koch brothers, does that make them a right wing news organization?


Juan Williams breached his contract, multiple times. NPR expressly forbids working as a pundit for any of its journalists. Williams had received multiple warnings for violating that policy and his remarks were nothing more than the straw that broke the camel's back. It would be no different if he was doing it on MSNBC, CNN, etc.. His pursuit of work as a pundit was in direct conflict with his NPR contract.


You mean the same network that immediately rolled out an internal investigation and fired all of the people involved with the story? CBS could have easily kept that on the back burner until after the election if they were trying to influence the election, instead they assembled and funded an internal investigation that lead to them firing everyone involved, before the election took place.

In short: rogue individuals who have worked in journalism have tried to exert their political bias as part of NPR and with the major news networks. In those cases the standards for true journalistic integrity come into play and the industry polices itself. This is completely different from say, Fox News who rarely if ever pays any credence to fact checking and yet never does any internal policing or auditing. MSNBC drives home this difference as well by their "suspensions" of Scarborough and Olbermann.

Its hilarious that people on the far right like to point at the "mainstream media" (i.e. the major networks, NPR, AP, and the major newspapers) as an example of liberal bias when in reality they're a text book example of a competitive free market industry that polices itself. The only difference is that their currency is fact based information, not economic wealth. They are the poster child for free market economics in this country but the extreme conservatives attack them every time they're forced to police their own.


So people have bought their way into Russian politics despite it basically being a fascist state ran by Putin? And I'm the one who needs to wake up?

How do you get to be this delusional Skillet? Were you born a shill for "conservative values", the economic equivalent of an uncle Tom, or did you just wake up one day and decide it'd make life a whole lot easier if you could just tune into Fox News and Glenn Beck rather than make that gray matter in your skull try to process anything for yourself? Because the depth to which you have your head buried straight up the extreme far right's a-hole is just shocking and I can't imagine it getting that far up there without your own concerted effort.

Does it make life easy being a 10%'er? You know, the 10% of this population so far on the right or left fringe that your view of reality is nothing more than what your ideologue of the month tells you it is? Thanks for ****ing this country up with your inane half assed bull****.

Its sad how confused you are.

[Spider]

Liberal guests on Fox are given time and space to voice their own opinion. It should be obvious to you that they are not setting the topic. FOX is a conservatively-slanted network.

The show Red Eye is partly written and produced by a gay liberal, who also appears as a regular panelist. The show usually has 4 panelists, always including Schulz and another liberal.

The network has moderate liberal show hosts: Shepard Smith, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta van Susteren.

Hannity's show has regular panelists Bob Beckell, Ed Rendell, Doug Schoen, and Pat Caddell to give liberal voices to his "Great American Panel".

O'Reilly has regular liberal representation and has staff liberals who give daily opinion on issues. Lis Wiehl, Joe Trippi, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, etc.

Beck I'm not sure about, but I do know that MLK's niece has been a regular, and that Beck regularly promotes MLK.

Juan Williams is now a significant figure at FOX, appearing in several shows.

You guys hate fear mongering but you sure love to do it when it comes to FOX news or any conservative punditry. You dont see conservatives railing against MSNBC all the time. Partially because nobody watches it.

The modern conservative is considerably more tolerant of opposing views than is the modern liberal. No doubt. We have had to be because there hasnt been an alternative to liberal media for a long time. Now there is, and the liberals hate it. Power corrupts. The liberal hatred for conservative news trumps their own standards and values for free speech and for tolerance. It ruins that whole "we hate fear-mongering" illusion as well.

You guys should just learn to live better with your neighbors instead of trying to force your ideology down everybody's collective throat. you should have been a used car salesman , you got the knack for spreading bullshiat

[Spider]

Skillet telling it like it is...

here keep yourself busy and let the big people talk http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

[Drek]

Its sad how confused you are.

Then by all means, let us debate how your extremist views are so right. Your opening statement at your leisure. Or better yet, just counterpoints to my previous rebuttle would be a nice start.

[Atwater 27]

Why don't you try to debate the rebuttles to your own posts, instead of relying on Papa Mouthpiece to fight your battles for you? Or is your own understanding of these "values" you spit so much vitriol over really so shallow that you can't even follow with your own counterpoints?

You are just another growth from the same infection as Skillet, on a pathetically even lower level. Instead of taking your marching orders straight from a wealthy ideologue you rely on that ideologue's mouthpiece to then disseminate it down to you.

I.e. Skillet is the pig being fed slop and gobbling it up like there is nothing better in life while you are the dung beetle feeding off the slop he ****s out.

you are gay.

[Requiem]

McSkillet being able to formulate his own arguments and rebuttals?

Not a chance in Hell.

But if you do remember, he almost won Dallas-Fort Worth Man of the Year. He is on a higher level than all of us!

[Drek]

you are gay.

Ok, so thats one of you little extremist puppets who can't come up with anything approaching intelligent thought.

Come on Skillet.

[elsid13]

McSkillet being able to formulate his own arguments and rebuttals?

Not a chance in Hell.

But if you do remember, he almost won Dallas-Fort Worth Man of the Year. He is on a higher level than all of us!

Only two things comes from Texas......

[Atwater 27]

Ok, so thats one of you little extremist puppets who can't come up with anything approaching intelligent thought.

Come on Skillet.

Not really. It was intelligence on par with the post it was replying to; and truly, more than your post deserved as a response. :thumbsup:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

you are gay.Brilliant response, what do you have against gay people?

[baja]

Brilliant response, what do you have against gay people?

I think you read him wrong. He was asking for a date.

[Atwater 27]

I think you read him wrong. He was asking for a date.

Indeed. You interested?

[Atwater 27]

Brilliant response, what do you have against gay people?

Nuthin at all. Just enjoy using the derogatory and descriptive term, when it fits...

[baja]

Indeed. You interested?

No, I don't like your politics. ;D

[baja]

<b>Nutin</b> at all. Just enjoy using the derogatory and descriptive term, when it fits...

Is that a Freudian slip?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ok, so thats one of you little extremist puppets who can't come up with anything approaching intelligent thought.

Come on Skillet.

I thought it was nice how you avoided my argument. That was cute.

It also showed us all that you are too biased by your own liberalism to reasonably debate.

[mhgaffney]

Not at all.

In the journalistic world, this is known as "fact checking." :welcome:

Exactly. Once upon a time we had muckraking journalists who exposed the lies.

That kind of journalist has all but disappeared from the mainstream media.

If lying and deception were grounds for a network losing its FCC license -- they would have to close down every network, including PBS.

[JJJ]

Exactly. Once upon a time we had muckraking journalists who exposed the lies.

That kind of journalist has all but disappeared from the mainstream media.

If lying and deception were grounds for a network losing its FCC license -- they would have to close down every network, including PBS.

Nonsense. The things you put as fact on a regular basis on this board are absolute figments of your imagination. The line between fact and fiction is so completely blurred for you it really defies description.

Let's get our news from the filtered lens of LABF and Gaffney. It would just be a fact-loaded bonanza of a half hour. Loaded with half-truths, conspiracy theories, all of which have been fact checked by bloggers in basements eating cheetos, of course.

[Spider]

Nonsense. The things you put as fact on a regular basis on this board are absolute figments of your imagination. The line between fact and fiction is so completely blurred for you it really defies description.

.

you 2 do have something in common

[epicSocialism4tw]

Nonsense. The things you put as fact on a regular basis on this board are absolute figments of your imagination. The line between fact and fiction is so completely blurred for you it really defies description.

Let's get our news from the filtered lens of LABF and Gaffney. It would just be a fact-loaded bonanza of a half hour. Loaded with half-truths, conspiracy theories, all of which have been fact checked by bloggers in basements eating cheetos, of course.

Ha!

[Drek]

I thought it was nice how you avoided my argument. That was cute.

It also showed us all that you are too biased by your own liberalism to reasonably debate.
What argument did I avoid. I addressed the non-conspiracy theory wack-job comments with rebuttals. You've given nothing back on them. By all means point out this argument of yours that I missed.

And claiming someone is too biased to debate? Just about the most chicken **** excuse I've ever seen. Especially coming form you.

Come on now. You claim I'm some crazy fringe lefty but I've already proven you wrong on that once when you thought I must obviously be pro-abortion. Not my fault the concept of people in the middle makes your brain hurt.

[Odysseus]

Would love to see it, but it'll never happen.

Correct!

This whole thread is an example of what is happening in the media. Nobody, including the "intelligent public" seems to have the ability to stay on point. There are certain corrupt institutions which have become, lately, above reproach.

The Senator is correct in what he says because the press has zero accountability. If you want to know what is happening overseas ask your enemies (Al Jeezera) ask your allies (BBC) but don't ask your own "free" press because they won't tell you the truth.

[TonyR]

Your news IS biased.

To a degree, yes. But the MSM is more statist than liberally biased. The MSM is more driven by the popular themes and talking points than it is the driver of them. Whatever the current hot topic is that drives ratings is the topic they'll cover and push. The MSM in general does not have a party/philosophy backed agenda to anywhere close to the extent that Fox News does.

[TonyR]

The modern conservative is considerably more tolerant of opposing views than is the modern liberal.

LOL Now that's some funny stuff right there. Modern conservatism shouts down even the moderate elements of the right. Moderate thinkers aren't tolerated, so you're of the opinion that moderate conservatives are more open to discussion than liberals. Wow, that's just a little out of touch there.

[epicSocialism4tw]

LOL Now that's some funny stuff right there. Modern conservatism shouts down even the moderate elements of the right. Moderate thinkers aren't tolerated, so you're of the opinion that moderate conservatives are more open to discussion than liberals. Wow, that's just a little out of touch there.

Look.

You believe that the mainstream media are putting stuff on the air that people want to see, which is ridiculous considering that they are going out of business left and right while FOX and talk radio are flourishing.

Its you who needs to wake up.

It doesnt do anybody any good to sit here and lie about what people do or do not want to watch. It only hurts what little credibility that you may have in the mind of someone who doesnt yet realize that you are a far left shill.

[TonyR]

...they are going out of business left and right while FOX and talk radio are flourishing....

Who's going out of business? Print media is dying primarily because of the internet, not because of Fox News and radio.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Who's going out of business? Print media is dying primarily because of the internet, not because of Fox News and radio.

Just this last summer, the msm in many facets wanted to be part of the bailouts:

"Journalism is moving through a significant transition in which business models are crumbling, innovative new forms of journalism are emerging, and consumer news habits are changing rapidly."
http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf


FTC Push for Media Bailout Continues; Public Pushes Back
From Kelly William Cobb on Monday, June 14, 2010 5:26 PM

A lot has changed since the Federal Trade Commission released their draft proposal on bailing out the media, but that isn’t stopping the Commission from holding its next workshop tomorrow called “Will Journalism Survive in the Internet Age?” We previously highlighted the plethora of tax hikes totaling $35 billion that the FTC outlined in their draft media bailout proposal. Almost immediately, public opposition was so high that it forced FTC Chairman Jonathan Leibowitz to state that “some of these may not be advisable policy recommendations” and that the 5% tax on consumer electronics in particular was a “terrible idea.”

Since we noted the opposition to the tax and spending components last week, another survey by Rasmussen Reports has found alarming public concern about free speech violations and government content control that could result if Uncle Sam (read: taxpayers) starts cutting checks. Here are some highlights:

•85% believe that maintaining freedom of the press is more important that supporting the newspaper industry.
•69% believe that government funded media will avoid criticizing government policies.
•64% think that if government pays the salaries of journalists, they will place limits on what those journalists can cover (including 41% who think it is very likely).
•Only 19% think government should take steps to save traditional forms of journalism, while 60% oppose it.
Wrapping this all together, 71% oppose a government bailout of the newspaper industry. So, while we appreciate FTC Chairman Leibowitz’s hesitations about the iPad tax, I hope he shares the same negative sentiments for the tax on Internet, cell phones, online ads, and spectrum, as well as proposals to boost subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, local news, and outright government funding of journalist salaries, amongst others.

So, where on earth are all these horrendous ideas coming from? The same neomarxists at Free Press who are waging another war to regulate the Internet under Net Neutrality. Not only did Free Press founder Robert McChesney testify before the FTC at a previous workshop on media bailouts, but almost all of the tax and spend recommendations the FTC listed came directly from his work. Compare, contrast, and learn how McChesney's socialist ideas wound up in the FTC's plan.



Read more: http://www.atr.org/ftc-push-media-bailout-continues-public-a5078##ixzz16EOV80PA

[TonyR]

Just this last summer, the msm in many facets wanted to be part of the bailouts...

You didn't answer the question but instead employed your usual tactics of backtracking and obfuscating. I'll give you another chance: who is going out of business left and right? Give some examples. Cite some evidence. That or admit you're wrong and live to fight another day.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You didn't answer the question but instead employed your usual tactics of backtracking and obfuscating. I'll give you another chance: who is going out of business left and right? Give some examples. Cite some evidence. That or admit you're wrong and live to fight another day.

I gave you a direct link to the FTC (thats the Federal Trade Commission, btw) bailout draft.

Thats a good place for you to start, because you clearly have very little idea what you are talking about.

[TonyR]

I gave you a direct link...

But you still haven't answered my very simple question.

[epicSocialism4tw]

But you still haven't answered my very simple question.

Your answer is there. Read it for yourself. It sounds like it would do you some good anyhow.

[Requiem]

TonyR, do not even bother. You are dealing with an advocate of EEC. He does not have ma****in' clue.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's get our news from the filtered lens of LABF and Gaffney. It would just be a fact-loaded bonanza of a half hour. Loaded with half-truths, conspiracy theories, all of which have been fact checked by bloggers in basements eating cheetos, of course.

::)

Aren't you the poster boy for projection?

You just described your own contributions to this forum to a "T."

You're little more than a RNC spambot.

[Dudeskey]

Getting rid of Faux and MSRNC isn't necessary.

Just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

More like start enforcing the Sherman antitrust act for a change. Centralizing our news media to a handful of corporations is monopolistic IMO

[elsid13]

More like start enforcing the Sherman antitrust act for a change. Centralizing our news media to a handful of corporations is monopolistic IMO

I totality agree, most of the media is controlled by 6 different corporations and local ownership is non-existing these days.

[Odysseus]

More like start enforcing the Sherman antitrust act for a change. Centralizing our news media to a handful of corporations is monopolistic IMO

You mean our free press is largely not free? The freedom we are all committed to having, sharing, and keeping is largely an fallacy like privacy, financial stability, or military intelligence.

[TonyR]

Fair and balanced!

Five big name Republicans have two things in common- they are all considering runs for president and are each employed by Fox News.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich serve as contributors.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee hosts a weekend show on the network.

And after Sunday's announcement that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton is "considering" a run, he can be added to the list of presidential hopefuls to grace the network.

None of the prospective candidates have made official announcements, but media buzz surrounds each of them, creating a monopoly of sorts for the news network.

Media critic Howard Kurtz, who also serves as Washington bureau chief for "The Daily Beast" and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," said the exposure on Fox allows possible candidates the chance to answer questions where "the risks are low and the payoff could be quite high."

"For a Republican presidential candidate – even someone just thinking about running – a Fox platform is gold," Kurtz said in an e-mail. "Fox News is the go-to channel for most GOP primary voters, and being a host or frequent guest is a terrific platform in a friendly environment."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/29/fox-news-2012-roster/

[epicSocialism4tw]

Fair and balanced!

Five big name Republicans have two things in common- they are all considering runs for president and are each employed by Fox News.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich serve as contributors.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee hosts a weekend show on the network.

And after Sunday's announcement that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton is "considering" a run, he can be added to the list of presidential hopefuls to grace the network.

None of the prospective candidates have made official announcements, but media buzz surrounds each of them, creating a monopoly of sorts for the news network.

Media critic Howard Kurtz, who also serves as Washington bureau chief for "The Daily Beast" and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," said the exposure on Fox allows possible candidates the chance to answer questions where "the risks are low and the payoff could be quite high."

"For a Republican presidential candidate – even someone just thinking about running – a Fox platform is gold," Kurtz said in an e-mail. "Fox News is the go-to channel for most GOP primary voters, and being a host or frequent guest is a terrific platform in a friendly environment."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/29/fox-news-2012-roster/

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/crying%20kid.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/palin%20-kim.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/liberty-w-boarded.jpg

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.spam.com/ASSETS/0EE75B480E5B450F807117E06219CDA6/spamReg.png

Da Wepubwicans wont give me more Obama money!!!!1!!!11!!

WAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!11!!!1
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/britney-bawling-2.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

This from the same pinhead who accounts for at least 6 threads in the top ten just about anytime you log in here?

That's classic McSilly right there. Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

McSkillet posts articles from liberal major media outlets and all I can come up with are bartcop far-left Bush cartoons to satisfy my Bush obsession!!!!1!!!!!11!!!

WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!111!!!111!!!!!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kDA5dGX2-9c/SvOh2Sk20EI/AAAAAAAAANc/6S_4rGYRWXk/s400/lebron+cying.jpg

Its okay LABF, your party will be put out of its misery soon enough and you and your fellow far-left loon brigade here can have a good collective cry together.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I should be embarrassed after making a complete ass of myself so many times (e.g., see Cato reference) but hey - this is the Internet.

Fixed. :thumbs:

[TonyR]

...your party will be put out of its misery soon enough...

Says the guy whose party is currently Caribou Barbie's to lose. Can't make this stuff up, folks.

[Rohirrim]

Says the guy whose party is currently Caribou Barbie's to lose. Can't make this stuff up, folks.

Ed Rollins, Reagan's political wonk, took Caribou Barbie apart this AM on CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/01/rollins.palin/index.html?hpt=Sbin

[TonyR]

Ed Rollins, Reagan's political wonk, took Caribou Barbie apart this AM on CNN.

Yup, some of the "outsiders" are staring to opine on her. Chris Christie took a veiled shot at her on one of the talk shows the other night. But I think a lot of people in the party are afraid to say too much because they don't want to alienate the "real Americans" who support her so fervently.

Here's Sullivan making an interesting comment about her TLC show:

I wouldn't under-estimate this kind of stuff. It's for her base, of course. But the propaganda is powerful, intense and the sheer energy she must expend doing all of this, while tweeting and speaking and flying all over the place is, well, impressive in a deranged kind of way. If anyone thinks this neurotic, delusional force of nature is not going to run for the White House, they should watch the show.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/its-her-party-now-ctd.html

[JJJ]

Yup, some of the "outsiders" are staring to opine on her. Chris Christie took a veiled shot at her on one of the talk shows the other night. But I think a lot of people in the party are afraid to say too much because they don't want to alienate the "real Americans" who support her so fervently.

Here's Sullivan making an interesting comment about her TLC show:

I wouldn't under-estimate this kind of stuff. It's for her base, of course. But the propaganda is powerful, intense and the sheer energy she must expend doing all of this, while tweeting and speaking and flying all over the place is, well, impressive in a deranged kind of way. If anyone thinks this neurotic, delusional force of nature is not going to run for the White House, they should watch the show.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/its-her-party-now-ctd.html

For someone who is not a threat and has no political clout you Dems seem to like to talk about Mrs. Moose quite a lot.

[TonyR]

There's a fascinating, and rather devastating, new University of Maryland study ( http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf ) out there, detailing how misinformed voters were in the last election. Some issues of fact were pretty straightforward: the 2009 stimulus, for examle, was about one-third tax cuts; Obama was born in the US; the recovery had been underway for a while, if anemically; the auto bailout and TARP began under Bush. And yet large numbers of voters believed the opposite and acted on that false knowledge.

The primary fault is with the appalling failure of the Democrats and Obama to comunicate the truth about what they'd done. But what's interesting in the study is how it shows that Fox News, more than any other source, distorted the truth and created a false reality, for all its viewers, Democrats and Republicans. Money finding (I've focused on indisputable factual errors):

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

the economy is getting worse (26 points)

the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Let's be clear about this. One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies.
Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party. And that's a fact.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-propaganda-channel.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

There's a fascinating, and rather devastating, new University of Maryland study ( http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf ) out there, detailing how misinformed voters were in the last election. Some issues of fact were pretty straightforward: the 2009 stimulus, for examle, was about one-third tax cuts; Obama was born in the US; the recovery had been underway for a while, if anemically; the auto bailout and TARP began under Bush. And yet large numbers of voters believed the opposite and acted on that false knowledge.

The primary fault is with the appalling failure of the Democrats and Obama to comunicate the truth about what they'd done. But what's interesting in the study is how it shows that Fox News, more than any other source, distorted the truth and created a false reality, for all its viewers, Democrats and Republicans. Money finding (I've focused on indisputable factual errors):

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

the economy is getting worse (26 points)

the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Let's be clear about this. One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies.
Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party. And that's a fact.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-propaganda-channel.html

Yeah...and Dan Rather never forged documents either. LOL

And Huffington Post and NPR arent funded by George Soros at all.

[Odysseus]

Is that a Freudian slip?

Indeed.