Gotta love Faux News

[psyopper]

i'm lol'ing at a neocon who voted for bush, out here trying to defend faux news

I don't watch TV news or talks shows very much, but I do defend the right of free speech, support for which is sadly lacking by the hypocritical left wing. I rarely watch Fox News, but I do occasionally watch Fox Business News, which was the original subject of this thread. Fox Business News always has people of opposing views on their show.

The "bug" on the bottom of the screen says "Fox News", not "Fox Business News". It's called the Fox News Channel, not the Fox Business Channel.

I applaud your defense of the right of free speech. How exactly do you "defend" it? I too defend peoples rights to free speech in America - I do this through continuing my career in the United States Army in service to my country. Unfortunately our politicians have really lost their way when/where it comes to actually "defending" America or the rights of her citizens.

I really hate to break it to you, but the "right" is just as hypocritical as the "left." Politicians are bunk, ALL of them; not just one side or the other. If you think otherwise you have other issues.

Anyway - You are correct, Fox "Business" News may very likely have people of opposing view points on their show - and this video clearly evidences that they are there for comedic relief. I didn't hear one of these "journalists" treat this gentleman with any amount of respect for his opinion. It wasn't just the Santa Clause remark, it was also the "you must be fun at parties" and the bit about razor blades (amounting to a suicide proposal as an economic outlook).

[danimal]

Never seen Glen Beck,

which proves that you don't have an informed opinion about faux news.

you blindly criticize and blindly support things that you have zero knowledge of.

classic neocon behavior... "lets vote for bush twice, then run off at the mouth about what's wrong with america"

[danimal]

FoxNews.com Serving Up Infected Ads?
Banner ads hoisting bogus AV scamware on users...

"Users in our security forum have discovered that advertisements delivered via the FoxNews.com website have been using popup malware to force-deliver artificial anti-virus malware onto the PCs of unsuspecting visitors (of which Fox has countless millions). One of our more skilled scambusters and "malvertising" gurus has further dissected (with photos) the exact scumware delivery mechanism at work here -- and notes that users don't even need to click on an ad banner at the website in order to get infected. The vsm_free_setup.exe forced download the ads are instituting originates from Russia or the Ukraine, and appears to involve a keylogger."
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FoxN ... Ads-101995

[aristide1]

Mother Earth news recently carried an expose on Beck and his affiliation with Goldline. Both ME news and Schiff have addressed the shady practices of Goldline and there are several state investigations active at this time. Beck is screaming that the libs are out to suppress what he's saying.

Jon Stewart called O'Reilly the voice of reason on Fox, but then he also said that's like calling someone the skinny guy at a fat farm.

One day I saw Maher doing his theatrics on his show and then invited his good friend Ann Coulter to also comment. This simply proves one thing, their entire purpose in life, all of them, is to whip the feeble minded into a frenzy to make money. Although I would question if they weren't successful, and despite their politics, whether no income would actually persuade any of them to get a real job.

[m0002a]

Never seen Glen Beck,

which proves that you don't have an informed opinion about faux news.

you blindly criticize and blindly support things that you have zero knowledge of.

classic neocon behavior... "lets vote for bush twice, then run off at the mouth about what's wrong with america"

I don't blindly support anything. The clip from Fox Business News was what started this thread, and I looked at it and didn't see any improper behavior by the host. The people arguing were guest commentators like Schriff himself. I also pointed out the when Schriff appeared on CNN and other networks, he got similar push-back from their guest commentators. But given that all these people were all forecasting the future, I don't think one can call that news, nor do any kind of economic predictions fall under the heading of "journalism" unless one is just reporting what others say.

Regarding Fox News, I pointed out that much of the programming (like CNN, CNN HLN, CNBC, and MSNBC) does not even pretend to be news (Oreilly and the others do not claim to be journalists), but just opinionated talk shows. I don't usually watch them much, but they all have a right to speak under the 1st amendment of the US constitution. You seem to have an objection to people exercising their free speech rights.

I am aware that Fox and the other networks (to varying degrees) have people with a wide range of opinions that host talk shows, which is what seems to upset you the most. It does not bother me in the least.

[aristide1]

I also pointed out the when Schriff appeared on CNN and other networks, he got similar push-back from their guest commentators. But given that all these people were all forecasting the future, I don't think one can call that news, nor do any kind of economic predictions fall under the heading of "journalism" unless one is just reporting what others say.

Yes they did, but how many of those others call themelves fair and balanced?

No one is arguing that being slanted is a crime, just don't pretend you're standing up straight. It may however seem that way to those slanted in the same direction. Those are also more likely to see small slants in the opposite direction as more extreme.

[m0002a]

[quote="aristide1]Yes they did, but how many of those others call themelves fair and balanced?

No one is arguing that being slanted is a crime, just don't pretend you're standing up straight. It may however seem that way to those slanted in the same direction. Those are also more likely to see small slants in the opposite direction as more extreme.[/quote]
You are talking about Fox business news show where a bunch of analysts had different predictions about the future of the economy. When you say "slanted" what the heck are you talking about? Very few business experts agreed with Schiff's dire predictions at the time (I spelled his name wrong before), otherwise they would have bet against the economy and would be rich now. The fact that Schiff even appeared on Fox (and the other networks) is a testament to the fact that they present differing views.

BTW, CNBC had both Schiff and Art Laffer (Reagan's economic adviser who also appeared with him on Fox) on their show and it was just as contentious as their argument on Fox. Is CNBC not fair and balanced?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw

I googled Schiff on youtube and he has apparently appeared frequently on Fox and even quite a few times on Glenn Beck's show. Most ridiculous of all is that you even think that economic predictions by stock analysts has anything to do with partisan politics. I just found out that Peter Schiff is a staunch Tea Party Republican (and Ron Paul's former economic adviser) whom you seem to be defending.

Peter Schiff is currently a candidate in the Republican primary for Connecticut's U.S. Senate race. His Republican opponent is "Linda McMahon, the former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment who said that she's willing to spend $50 million of her own money." I guess that means that Schiff has a tough battle ahead.

But it is nice to see so many lefties support Schiff, and I am sure he welcomes your support and I am sure he would appreciate you making a donation to his campaign.

This whole thread (like most in the Off Topic section) has deteriorated into a bunch of knee jerk comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about other then their pre-conceived belief that Fox news is unfair, even when they present evidence from a show that is not part of the news broadcast.

Is CNN Headline News channel fair and balanced during the Joy Behar show?

[psyopper]

This whole thread (like most in the Off Topic section) has deteriorated into a bunch of knee jerk comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about other then their pre-conceived belief ...

What was that part you were talking about earlier... something about freedom of...something...Speech! Freedom of Speech!

Doesn't the fact that the person you accuse of being staunchly leftist actually openly supporting someone proven to be openly conservative really put a damper on your whole closing argument about preconceived notions?

[aristide1]

So now 3 wrongs make a right?

Actually Schiff is just another greedy bastard as well, he condemns Goldline and yet he has an ad link on his website for them.

[m0002a]

So now 3 wrongs make a right?

No, your 3 wrongs don't make a right.

The show that Schiff appeared on is a not a news show, it is a business show where every single day people of differing opinions try to predict what will happen to the economy in the future. Glenn Beck and Oreilly are not news shows. The Joy Behar Show is not a news show. Grow up.

[aristide1]

OK, let's settle for fair and balanced entertainment and call it a day.

The station may not go for it .

[danimal]

Since neither of you guys know anything about business or business news shows

The fact is that you didn't know.

a bunch of knee jerk comments by people who have no idea what they are talking about

Never seen Glen Beck,

translation: "i haven't seen glenn beck, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with faux news."

LMAO

[m0002a]

translation: "i haven't seen glenn beck, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with faux news."

LMAO

Glenn Beck is not a journalist and his show is not a news show. If you have a problem with Fox News, don't watch it. I don't watch TV News on any network very often these days, since I get most of my news from the Internet. But the few times I have seen it (or been directed there via Google News) I have not seen anything that makes me think Fox News is any worse or more biased than any other news organization.

Have you seen The Joy Behar Show on CNN HLN (Cable News Network-Headline News) channel? Joy Behar (formally of The View) is extremely biased and opinionated, but her show is not a news show either, so it doesn't bother me since she has the right of free speech.

[danimal]

it doesn't bother me since she has the right of free speech.

you already proved that you don't care about free speech, by twice voting for george bush.

your constant whining about something that you helped to destroy in this country is totally hypocritical.

look how your anti-free speech votes for bush don't stand up in federal court:

"How much does it cost to convince a federal judge your clients were victims of President Bush’s once-secret warrantless spy program? $2.63 million.

That’s the combined payment a team of eight lawyers is demanding from the government after proving their clients were illegally wiretapped under a once-secret National Security Agency spy program adopted in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The hourly rates range from $506 an hour to $296, and are based on generally accepted billing schedules.

The legal fee request (.pdf) Wednesday came three months after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco ruled the former administration wiretapped phone calls between a Saudi charity and its U.S. lawyers without a warrant, in violation of federal law."

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 ... z0vOqIVY9z

[psyopper]

it doesn't bother me since she has the right of free speech.

you already proved that you don't care about free speech, by twice voting for george bush.

your constant whining about something that you helped to destroy in this country is totally hypocritical.

look how your anti-free speech votes for bush don't stand up in federal court:

"How much does it cost to convince a federal judge your clients were victims of President Bush’s once-secret warrantless spy program? $2.63 million.

That’s the combined payment a team of eight lawyers is demanding from the government after proving their clients were illegally wiretapped under a once-secret National Security Agency spy program adopted in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The hourly rates range from $506 an hour to $296, and are based on generally accepted billing schedules.

The legal fee request (.pdf) Wednesday came three months after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco ruled the former administration wiretapped phone calls between a Saudi charity and its U.S. lawyers without a warrant, in violation of federal law."

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 ... z0vOqIVY9z

I hate to break it to you but I don't think wiretapping is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue.

To the best of my knowledge, the warrant-less wiretapping debacle falls under the 4th Amendments "Unreasonable Search and Seizure."

Bush was the free speechiest President we ever had. He did all kinds of crazy stuff with the English language which gave even people like me the right to openly make up words like speechiest and not be forced to face ridicule.

[danimal]

I hate to break it to you but I don't think wiretapping is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue.

To the best of my knowledge, the warrant-less wiretapping debacle falls under the 4th Amendments "Unreasonable Search and Seizure."

Bush was the free speechiest President we ever had. He did all kinds of crazy stuff with the English language which gave even people like me the right to openly make up words like speechiest and not be forced to face ridicule.

lol

"She said the post-Sept. 11 congressional authorization of military force did not mention surveillance or suspend federal law's requirement of court approval for wiretaps. Even if the military-force resolution had authorized wiretapping, Taylor said, Congress cannot override the Constitution.

By disregarding the warrant requirement, Taylor said, the government also is violating the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires warrants based on specific evidence of wrongdoing. She said the program[terrorist surveillance program] also violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association and the constitutional requirement of separation of powers."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0vP2w754F

[m0002a]

it doesn't bother me since she has the right of free speech.

you already proved that you don't care about free speech, by twice voting for george bush.

your constant whining about something that you helped to destroy in this country is totally hypocritical.

look how your anti-free speech votes for bush don't stand up in federal court:

"How much does it cost to convince a federal judge your clients were victims of President Bush’s once-secret warrantless spy program? $2.63 million.

That’s the combined payment a team of eight lawyers is demanding from the government after proving their clients were illegally wiretapped under a once-secret National Security Agency spy program adopted in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The hourly rates range from $506 an hour to $296, and are based on generally accepted billing schedules.

The legal fee request (.pdf) Wednesday came three months after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco ruled the former administration wiretapped phone calls between a Saudi charity and its U.S. lawyers without a warrant, in violation of federal law."

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 ... z0vOqIVY9z

What does this have to do with Fox News or free speech? Your posts have not even the slightest logic to them. Since you seem to know so much and are so certain in your moral judgments, I am nominating you for the most dangerous person in the world.

[m0002a]

I hate to break it to you but I don't think wiretapping is a 1st Amendment Free Speech issue.

To the best of my knowledge, the warrant-less wiretapping debacle falls under the 4th Amendments "Unreasonable Search and Seizure."

Bush was the free speechiest President we ever had. He did all kinds of crazy stuff with the English language which gave even people like me the right to openly make up words like speechiest and not be forced to face ridicule.

lol

"She said the post-Sept. 11 congressional authorization of military force did not mention surveillance or suspend federal law's requirement of court approval for wiretaps. Even if the military-force resolution had authorized wiretapping, Taylor said, Congress cannot override the Constitution.

By disregarding the warrant requirement, Taylor said, the government also is violating the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires warrants based on specific evidence of wrongdoing. She said the program[terrorist surveillance program] also violates the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association and the constitutional requirement of separation of powers."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0vP2w754F

You forgot to quote the entire article htat you provided a link for:

"A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the last word on the legality of the program, which most likely will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress."

This may surprise you, but there is more than one judge in the federal judiciary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Diggs_Taylor
"In 2006, Judge Taylor was the first U.S. judge to rule on the legal and constitutional issues of the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Her ruling, ACLU v. NSA, held that the domestic wiretapping conducted by the National Security Agency without court approval violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is unconstitutional. She granted a permanent injunction to halt it. The ruling, whose effect is stayed pending appellate proceedings, sparked a vigorous political and legal controversy. In the same decision, she declined to rule on the legality of the alleged NSA call database, on States Secrets grounds.

The watchdog organization Judicial Watch has alleged that Taylor may have had a conflict of interest in this case, because according to Judicial Watch she is or was secretary and trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM), a group that made a recent grant of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan, the winning plaintiff in ACLU v. NSA.

Taylor's ruling was subsequently overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The Circuit Court ruled 2-1 that the people bringing the suit did not have standing. The Court's decision vacated the portion of Taylor's ruling concerning warrantless wiretaps."

[danimal]

What does this have to do with Fox News or free speech?

denial is not a river in egypt.

you *repeatedly* whined about free speech in this thread.

[danimal]

"A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the last word on the legality of the program, which most likely will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress."

learn how to read:

"How much does it cost to convince a federal judge your clients were victims of President Bush’s once-secret warrantless spy program? $2.63 million.

That’s the combined payment a team of eight lawyers is demanding from the government after proving their clients were illegally wiretapped under a once-secret National Security Agency spy program adopted in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The hourly rates range from $506 an hour to $296, and are based on generally accepted billing schedules.

The legal fee request (.pdf) Wednesday came three months after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco ruled the former administration wiretapped phone calls between a Saudi charity and its U.S. lawyers without a warrant, in violation of federal law."

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 ... z0vOqIVY9z

[m0002a]

What does this have to do with Fox News or free speech?

denial is not a river in egypt.

you *repeatedly* whined about free speech in this thread.

I know what I said. I asked you what your posts have to do with free speech. Nothing, since you don't beleive in it.

[danimal]

I know what I said. I asked you what your posts have to do with free speech. Nothing, since you don't beleive in it.

your anti-free speech votes for bush proved how little you know about politics

lets look at some more of the free speech damage that your voting has caused... 8 years of bush appointees has ruined the supreme court:

"The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, could change American democracy. Along with strong Democratic opposition, 76% of Republicans and 81% of independents believe the Citizens United ruling was wrong. -SMD

...Now, ExxonMobil or Walmart can simply go into the district of a member of Congress who is giving them a hard time and spend as much money as it wants to defeat him. The amount of money that is available is staggering. According to Democracy 21, a group that advocates for campaign-finance regulations, corporations had revenues of $13 trillion and profits of $605 billion during the last election cycle. (Unions have far less.)

Of course, corporations may not even have to spend the money. If a member of Congress knows that General Motors or ConAgra could spend millions of dollars to defeat him in the next election, he may be a lot more sympathetic to the company’s request for a bailout or for favorable language in a pending bill. In his dissenting opinion in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens argued, on behalf of four Justices, that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.â€

[NeilBlanchard]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... fox-sake-?

[SeanRivera]

Thanks for the information.

[aristide1]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-o ... fox-sake-?

Haha, I can see why m0002a hasn't thanked you for this link.

Fair and balanced. Like Niagara Falls.

Far more fair and balanced.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j ... ty-hotline

[m0002a]

Haha, I can see why m0002a hasn't thanked you for this link.

The video says Fox admits that most of its shows are not real news (but opinion and talk shows instead). So what. Same applies to MSNBC and many of the other cable networks. Even CNN (Cable Network News) has mostly non-news shows.

The most amazing thing is that CNN Headline News (which used to be a 30 minute News Show shown 24x7) now has the following opiniion/talk/entertainment shows in their weekday lineup:

MORNING EXPRESS WITH ROBIN MEADE 6-10 a.m. ET weekdays
YOUR VIEWS (viewer call-in) 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET weekdays
WHAT MATTERS (important stories in the African-American community) Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 4 p.m. ET
SHOWBIZ TONIGHT 5 pm ET, 11 pm ET/PT
PRIME NEWS 6 p.m. ET daily (As far as I can tell, the only real news show left on CNN Headline News)
ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL 7 p.m. ET
NANCY GRACE 8 pm, midnight, 3 am ET
THE JOY BEHAR SHOW 10 pm ET/PT, 1 am ET

It looks like they "sorta" changed their name from CNN Headline News to HLN News and Views.

With the availability of news on the Internet (including streaming video), no one wants a 24x7 news channel anymore.

[aristide1]

But CNN makes no claims of being Fair & Balanced. Faux on the other hand keep repeating it, like OJ did. Eventually people buy it.

[m0002a]

But CNN makes no claims of being Fair & Balanced. Faux on the other hand keep repeating it, like OJ did. Eventually people buy it.

I don't think any cable network claims that there non-news shows are fair and balanced. I am quite sure that Fox is referring to their news segments when they say "fair and balanced," and I am quite sure that CNN thinks their news segments are "fair and balanced." You seem to be confusing the news segments with the talk/opinion shows. Admittedly, the percentage of news on all of these networks has declined, and the percentage of talk/opinion shows has soared. Maybe that is part of the confusion.

However, it does appear that most Fox talk/opinion shows (but perhaps not all of them) tend to invite more people with opposing views the the talk/opinion shows other networks. One of the things that was mentioned on CNN's "Reliable Sources" when discussing the Olbermann departure is that he did not have guests with opposing views on his "Countdown" show. Olbermann's arch nemesis O'reilly has guests with opposing views on virtually every one of his shows.

Even when conservatives appear on the "liberal networks" like CNN, they have a tendency to only invite bozo conservatives on their shows, apparently so that the liberals won't have a hard time winning the debate. CNN's Bob Novak was CNN's main conservative for many years (until he died at age 78 in 2009), but he pretty much known as a buffoon, even among conservatives. Of course, this has changed recently, as CNN has dropped precipitously in the ratings, and they have made somewhat of an effort to move more to the center.

However, I don't want to be in a position of defending any of the networks, or any of their shows (which I don't watch very often). I think you are nit-picking about Fox, and you enjoy calling them names, instead of discussing the important issues of the day in a rational manner. I see a lot of trash talk and name calling on this and other forums, but very little substance.

[aristide1]

http://tv.yahoo.com/listings

Looking at Faux News you should find

Glenn Beck at 4:00 PM
O'Reilly at 8:00 PM
Hannity at 9:00 PM

Per O'Reilly's words these people are "commentators" or "entertainers", yet that appear on Faux News.

How many people automatically consider them journalists? Call it what you will they hide behind fall pretences. The fact that CNN does the same thing does not mitigate nor justify the situation. Any station that keeps Nancy Grace employed after her early shenanigans clearly has it's head up its ass. You can compare that to Faux if you feel the need.

I am quite sure that CNN thinks their news segments are "fair and balanced."

Nobody cares what networks think, it's what they spoon feed the public by what they say, but then you already knew that, didn't you?

I see a lot of trash talk and name calling on this and other forums, but very little substance

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j ... ty-hotline
Agreed, here's a good example of what you're talking about, the example is made to the public by Jon Stewart.

You don't seem to be capable of accepting the fact that Rupert Murdoch has way outspent George Soros and anybody else on his multi media propaganda campaign, and has absolutely no way or desire of hiding this fact. "Some say...." is a journalistic farce. Some say there are little green men on Mars. Yeah, so?

I created my tagline with people like you in mind. One day I plan on making regular donations to CREW. If Faux feels they single out republicans all I can say is, "If the shoe fits...." Meanwhile Murdoch is one of the biggest hate mongers the world has ever encountered, by financial means alone. Perhaps one day Murdoch and Cheney can go hunting together. I'll donate all the booze. And please don't start with the Obama nonsense. Voting for the opposite side of the same kind is just plain silly. That mistake should have been too obvious to make.

I see a lot of trash talk and name calling on this and other forums, but very little substance

If you are so unhappy here there are other sites that share your viewpoints. You don't seem to be making much progress here, so I would point out your PC is wasting electricity visiting this site.

[m0002a]

Looking at Faux News you should find
Glenn Beck at 4:00 PM
O'Reilly at 8:00 PM
Hannity at 9:00 PM

Per O'Reilly's words these people are "commentators" or "entertainers", yet that appear on Faux

Yes, that is my point. None of the cable networks are primarily news anymore, including Cable News Network (CNN) or Head Line News (HLN), and Fox News is no different. If Fox says their news is "fair and balanced" they are referring to the news segments aired of the network, however small it is now compared to when the network started. But I did point out that at Oreilly and most others on Fox have guests with opposing (mostly liberal) views every night (unlike Olbermann).

BTW, Glenn Beck was first put on TV by CNN before he moved to Fox.

How many people automatically consider them journalists?

Whether someone is a journalist is more a matter of their role on a particular show, rather than background, training, or skill. Clearly, not many who appear on a talk or opinion show are acting as a journalist (with the exception of a few guest journalists who may report the facts of a situation before the opinions start to fly).

If you are so unhappy here there are other sites that share your viewpoints. You don't seem to be making much progress here, so I would point out your PC is wasting electricity visiting this site.

I am not unhappy, I don't "look" for people to share my viewpoint, nor I am aiming for any kind of "progress." I don't start these discussions (with rare exceptions) but feel compelled to correct some of the most outrageous and erroneous statements posted. In the interest of "fair and balanced" and freedom of speech, I am sure you are strong supporter of my right to respond.