Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

dailycaller.com

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is just coming out tonight. I find it very disturbing that some in the media would even suggest that the liscence be pulled to prevent reporting on issues or in this case a canidate from being viewed in a bad light or to bring questions out about his association. This is reprehensible and goes against everything this country stands for. The first admentment would have been blantently violated if they did what was suggested.
After everything that has gone on, and now that Barak Obama is in power, the question must be asked, is this something that would occure during the 2012 election to prevent unfavorable reporting on any canidate that the White House or those who would seek to remain in power use to duely influence the general population?

dailycaller.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I find it disturbing.

"If we can't succeed on the merit of our philosophy, we are going to legislate it to the masses."

I personally think Limbaugh is a blowhard, and incapable of an independent thought other than the party line.

But a party that wants to curtail his right to free speech, or use taxpayer money to implement some sort of 'Fairness Doctrine' is much more dangerous, in my opinion.

Fox news should be shut down. (In fairness, so should all of the other mainstream networks).

Purposefully reporting news incorrectly as often as they do should be a crime.

However, I would be appeased if they simply had to change their name from "Fox News" to "Fox Entertainment" and there was a banner flashing across the top of the screen at all times that read "Fox Entertainment does not accurately report information. Any and all statements made by Fox Entertainment should be assumed to be false or incorrect."

I don`t go for any MSM, but, what is it with these parties? When either side has a major news channel on their case, they are ready to shut them down. Big deal, if you can`t take the heat, then get out of politics.

What happened to the media being the watchdog? Or is it hitting to close to home, and they can`t stand it? It would be the same thing if the other party was in office. Neither side can take it. They are two sides of the same ol coin in my book. It`s like, let`s do what we can to take a little more freedom away from somebody.

I think the ones who are shouting this the loudest should be made public. I want to see who the ones are who want to over step their powers. Then I want to ask them what happened to the oath they took to defend our freedoms. Or, am I getting the word defend mixed up with the word trash?

Yea, I am completely against that thought.

While FOX News is really anything BUT news, it still has the rights under the 1st amendment to blow whatever kind of smoke they want up their viewers behinds.

Although I do have to agree with Sarah Spitz in regards to Rush Limbaugh, if I saw that bloated slimy dirtbag having a heart attack on the street, I wouldn't help him at all either. I probably would laugh in his face as his eyesight started fading to black.

But to stop him from his show? No way. Freedom of speech is one of our best rights. I don't wish his show to go off the air, I don't wish for FOX News to go off the air. Why would I?

reply to post by drwizardphd


You have a censored sign in your avatar and you want to end the Free Press and Free Speech? How odd?

Originally posted by Blaine91555


You have a censored sign in your avatar and you want to end the Free Press and Free Speech? How odd?

I absolutely do not want to end free speech. I do want to end "free press" if it means that one can simply report whatever they want and claim it as fact.

If you purport yourself as a source of "news", then you should absolutely be held to the highest standards of truth and accuracy, and any willful violation of those standards should result in your right to call yourself a source of "news" being nullified.

As far as I am aware, every single major televised news source is guilty of this infraction.

If they want to call themselves entertainment,and provide a disclaimer that what they say may not be accurate, then that's a whole different story.


(The avatar is from an episode of South Park and deals with the censorship of Muhammed in media, incidentally.)

Once the First Amendment gets taken away, you will know we are in deep, deep #.....

reply to post by drwizardphd


Here's a copy and paste of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The press, in general, is the ONLY profession protected under the bill of rights. You like free speech but you don't like free press? If you don't like the opinion don't listen to it...You don't call the cops.

Originally posted by projectvxn


The press, in general, is the ONLY profession protected under the bill of rights. You like free speech but you don't like free press? If you don't like the opinion don't listen to it...You don't call the cops.

You inadvertently highlighted the problem: opinion.

Fox News (and indeed all major news outlets) are sources of opinion masquerading as sources of information.

Yes, I have freedom of speech. But that does not mean I have freedom from the consequences of my speech. When you habitually lie to the populace under the guise of "news", you should no longer be able to call yourself as such.

If I publicly defame an individual or a corporation I could very well face charges in court. Why, then, do those same standards not apply to the companies that the vast majority of Americans turn to as their primary sources of information?

Noun 1. free press - a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology

Note: not restricted regarding "politics or ideology". Free press does not guarantee you the right to purposely report false information.

And one is as bad as the next. You have Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann over at MSNBC. You know what angle they're coming from.

You have Megyn Kelly and company over at Fox News. You know what angle they're coming from.

I think truly objective journalism is a rarity these days....

Originally posted by Darkrunner
And one is as bad as the next. You have Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann over at MSNBC. You know what angle they're coming from.

You have Megyn Kelly and company over at Fox News. You know what angle they're coming from.

I think truly objective journalism is a rarity these days....

Absolutely! The only true sources of objective journalism are the deeply underground: those that have escaped the notice of corpo-political interests.

It's not the angle of the news that is the problem. I think it is healthy and beneficial to hear opinions from as many different angles as possible. The problem is when you have news organizations that blatantly misrepresent facts and in many cases outright lie, yet still manage to hold a degree of 'credibility' in America.

As I stated before, all major news sources are guilty of this.

reply to post by drwizardphd


I can understand where you are coming from, if a show is describing themselves as a NEWS broadcast, there should be a reasonable expectation of truth and accuracy in the stories they present.

If they continue to report lies, misinformation, slander, and are conclusively biased in their approach, they should be required to label the show as such. That way the public is not mislead by false information.

They should still be able to spew out whatever nonsense they want to report, but if they are just spewing out lies, it would be nice for the show to reflect that.

MSNBC is losing money. They want to use the FCC and the FTC to control the conservative news outlets. Obama doesn't like being criticized. It's sad really to see this country going down the tubes.
www.examiner.com...

reply to post by drwizardphd


It's a matter of principle.

Like I said, you don't call the cops when someone says something you don't like. You either refute it, or don't listen. But don't tell me free speech should be restricted because YOUR opinion of a particular media corporation is sour.

Originally posted by projectvxn

It's a matter of principle.

Like I said, you don't call the cops when someone says something you don't like. You either refute it, or don't listen. But don't tell me free speech should be restricted because YOUR opinion of a particular media corporation is sour.

I don't have a problem with people saying things I don't like.

I have a problem with News organizations repeatedly and purposefully printing or airing lies to the American public. Never did I say I wanted to curtail free speech. My point is actually quite simple: while it is illegal for an individual to publicly defame another entity, why is it not illegal for a news organization?

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

Do defamation laws violate our free speech? If so then we have not had free speech since before the founding of our nation, as defamation laws predate the American Revolution.


You bring up my opinion of "a particular media corporation" when I clearly stated

Fox News (and indeed all major news outlets) are sources of opinion masquerading as sources of information.

and

As far as I am aware, every single major televised news source is guilty of this infraction.

and even in my first post

Fox news should be shut down. (In fairness, so should all of the other mainstream networks).

No offense, but are you really that dense? Or are you just looking for an argument?




[edit on 21-7-2010 by drwizardphd]

Here's an idea:

Why don't we break up the gigantic monopolistic corporations THAT CONTROL AND OWN ALL MAJOR MEDIA????????

5 CORPORATIONS......5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anti-trust laws? HMMM????

[edit on 21-7-2010 by David9176]

reply to post by drwizardphd


I watch MSNBC as often as FOX. They do the same damned thing. The problem came from the government(who holds contracts with the parent company of MSNBC, i.e. GE) creating a media wing for themselves. The Neo-Cons did the same thing with Fox during the bush admin.

What we need here is LESS government involvement.

Fahrenheit 451, baby! ...next on the liberal agenda...


2nd line