 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » Economic Politics Forum » Obama lies all the time, Other news agencies used FOX... |
|
Page 2 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Quote: Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they were
doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said
was "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were
quoting people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep
had some people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX
for their breaking news.
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
Fox went to court to be able to "lie and distort the news", case
closed.
That's why CNN uses FOX's "material".... CNN wants to lie and
distort?
Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
clearly can't tell the difference. lol
If it's on FOX it's on FOX, trying to parse the news is Semantics. The
President and company didn't suggest that anyone on FOX was Newsworthy.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yup wrote:
Quote: On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
aren't required to be truthful
That just covers their ass for when they have a Liberal on their shows,
they know that Liberals will lie and trying to accept liability for the
lies Liberals tell, would guarantee your demise. Even at a dollar a lie
they would go broke after just a few Liberal guests are put on the network.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Agent Orange... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 6:27 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi... at (no spam) uniserve.com> wrote:
Quote: Wotta fucking loon, Scotty. Obama can only down along with the economy for next 3 years.
"Moribund The Burgermeister" <garekm... at (no spam) ymail.com> wrote in messagenews:c7803dfe-e22c-4965-8a3e-e02531376b52 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 9:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
1% of Americans watch Fox News. That's just short of the number who
will be voting Republican in 2010
Just like Bob McD. and Chris Christie were going to get waxed in
Virginia and New Jersey, respectively? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Quote: Peter Franks wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they were
doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said
was "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were
quoting people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep
had some people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX
for their breaking news.
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
Fox went to court to be able to "lie and distort the news", case
closed.
I wasn't aware. Could you please elaborate?
I could, but it's all over Google and probably more believable from there.
Basically they went to court six times, before three different judges, to
verify their right to "lie and distort the news" (actual quote) so they
could get away with firing a whistleblower. Apparently in the state where
this occurred, whistleblowers have no protection unless they are reporting
an actual crime, so Fox chose to prove their lying did not constitute a
crime.
I'm defending and I don't defend Fox, but your references* are based on
supposition and inference. I see very little fact. If there are some
actual facts to the case that I'm missing, I'd appreciate if you could
provide those.
* Your references are suspect at best, probably more politically driven
than newsworthy.
That said, let's take a look at one of your references:
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/fox-admits-that-they-lie-and-distort.html
"According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited
about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys
wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives
that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the
story that were in direct conflict with the facts. "
We have two sides here, and the details from neither. It is
inappropriate to arrive at a conclusion that Fox news is lying based on
assertions from "Akre and Wilson". The facts should speak for
themselves, but are not mentioned.
So, at this point, it isn't clear, nor can it be concluded that Fox news
is in fact attempting to "lie and distort the news".
Subsequently, it was determined that neither were protected under
'whistleblower' clauses, therefore Fox was not "[getting] away with
firing a whistleblower."
"Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to
broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right
to do so."
Your conclusion that "Fox went to court to be able to 'lie and distort
the news', case closed." is not case closed.
The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Agent Orange wrote:
Quote: On Nov 6, 1:43 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right
wingers clearly can't tell the difference. lol
More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
positions are mostly based on politics.
Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100% from
lies - right when America actually needs at least two parties that make
sense. That's why as soon as someone with the facts shows up, they get
their clock cleaned every time.
Excellent example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/iwndis-jerome-corsi-claim_n_348461.html
To the republican party, any dead serviceman will be used as a political
asset. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they
were doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was
going. The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they
said
was "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were
quoting people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX.
Shep had some people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing
from FOX for their breaking news.
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
Fox went to court to be able to "lie and distort the news", case
closed.
I wasn't aware. Could you please elaborate?
I could, but it's all over Google and probably more believable
from there. Basically they went to court six times, before three
different judges, to verify their right to "lie and distort the
news" (actual quote) so they could get away with firing a
whistleblower. Apparently in the state where this occurred,
whistleblowers have no protection unless they are reporting an
actual crime, so Fox chose to prove their lying did not constitute a
crime.
I'm defending and I don't defend Fox, but your references* are based
on supposition and inference. I see very little fact. If there are
some actual facts to the case that I'm missing, I'd appreciate if you
could provide those.
* Your references are suspect at best, probably more politically
driven than newsworthy.
That said, let's take a look at one of your references:
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/fox-admits-that-they-lie-and-distort.html
"According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited
about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their
attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto
representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other
revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. "
We have two sides here, and the details from neither.
Sounds like you need to find the court documents.
It is
Quote: inappropriate to arrive at a conclusion that Fox news is lying based
on assertions from "Akre and Wilson".
Didn't happen.
The facts should speak for
Quote: themselves, but are not mentioned.
So, at this point, it isn't clear, nor can it be concluded that Fox
news is in fact attempting to "lie and distort the news".
Sounds like you need to find the court documents.
Quote:
Subsequently, it was determined that neither were protected under
'whistleblower' clauses, therefore Fox was not "[getting] away with
firing a whistleblower."
Sorry, the definition of the word whistleblower is not limited in that
way.
Quote:
"Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to
broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their
right to do so."
Your conclusion that "Fox went to court to be able to 'lie and distort
the news', case closed." is not case closed.
It is already 100% proven, and you are very late to the game.
Quote:
The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
In fact, I can, as the evidence for that stretches well over a decade.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html
And, in fact, it is well known throughout the industry. No one claims
otherwise except those who believe their causes profit from it, because no
other conclusion is possible given the record. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
Quote: Yup wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
aren't required to be truthful
That just covers their ass for when they have a Liberal on their
shows, they know that Liberals will lie and trying to accept
liability for the lies Liberals tell, would guarantee your demise.
Even at a dollar a lie they would go broke after just a few Liberal
guests are put on the network.
As always, the right winger just makes some shit up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:39:45 -0800 (PST), Yup
<johnnycat at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
aren't required to be truthful
Like Drugs Limbaugh their product is just "Infotainment" - aimed
mostly at the elderly and hillbilly trailer trash.
I believe CNN or C-SPAN archives programs---the one of
a symposium of "radio and TV talk show hosts" was
informing
Limpballs told his peers "I'm an entertainer--I make my
living entertaining an audience"
He said: "I merely REFLECT my audience's beliefs"
Given that--rightwingers should parse it so that they
figure out if what his "viewers believe" isn't
true---he's not constrained to tell them the truth
"If I didn't entertain them", he said, 'I'd be out of a
job" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:21:27 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
Quote: Yup wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
aren't required to be truthful
That just covers their ass for when they have a Liberal on their shows,
they know that Liberals will lie and trying to accept liability for the
lies Liberals tell,
Which are? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:57:06 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
<agentorange91 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 6, 1:43 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
clearly can't tell the difference. lol
More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
positions are mostly based on politics.
We're talking about a biased/slanted entertainment
channel pretending to be legitimate "news" that was
started intentionally to promote a conservative
political position
That's why |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:16:36 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
Quote: Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
clearly can't tell the difference. lol
If it's on FOX it's on FOX, trying to parse the news is Semantics. The
President and company didn't suggest that anyone on FOX was Newsworthy.
Why would they
Faux is not reliable or truthful most of the time
They won court cases that absolved them of having to do
so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:57:06 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
agentorange91 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:43 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort
the news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying
right wingers clearly can't tell the difference. lol
More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
positions are mostly based on politics.
We're talking about a biased/slanted entertainment
channel pretending to be legitimate "news" that was
started intentionally to promote a conservative
political position
That's why
They had to be subsidized their first two years. =) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:54:52 -0800, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
BWHAHAHAHA
You can't be serious?
90% slanted/biased opinion based journalism,
intersperced with dubious "news" claimed to be
"unbiased" certainly isn't credible
What's more telling is that someone (like you) that
belives it is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:39:45 -0800 (PST), Yup
johnnycat at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
aren't required to be truthful
Like Drugs Limbaugh their product is just "Infotainment" - aimed
mostly at the elderly and hillbilly trailer trash.
I believe CNN or C-SPAN archives programs---the one of
a symposium of "radio and TV talk show hosts" was
informing
Limpballs told his peers "I'm an entertainer--I make my
living entertaining an audience"
He said: "I merely REFLECT my audience's beliefs"
Given that--rightwingers should parse it so that they
figure out if what his "viewers believe" isn't
true---he's not constrained to tell them the truth
"If I didn't entertain them", he said, 'I'd be out of a
job"
The problem is, he knows right wingers aren't very smart, and so his show
is filled with assurances that he is always right and other news outlets are
slanted away from HIM instead - and his audience is dumb enough to instantly
forget his entertainer stance and argue for him endlessly every time. lol |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Gisin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Wotta fucking loon, Scotty. Obama can only down along with the economy for next 3 years.
"Moribund The Burgermeister" <garekmolo at (no spam) ymail.com> wrote in message
news:c7803dfe-e22c-4965-8a3e-e02531376b52 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 9:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
Quote:
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
1% of Americans watch Fox News. That's just short of the number who
will be voting Republican in 2010 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:59 pm
|
|