It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: BrianFlanders
I think it's more than just a disagreement on politics. FOX News attracts the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, religious extremists, and anti-science crowd. There is so much ridiculousness there. This is why it's so popular. It appeals to the lowest level, and sadly, we have a lot of that here in this country. For FOX News to be successful, means a turn for the worse in humanity, and that's why people hate it. Not to mention they fought for their right to lie... Basically a HORRIBLE news station.
wow, how tolerant of you lefty msnbc peoples.
why do you hate all those you mentioned?
sounds like jealousy. yeah, jealousy.
how many lefty broadcasters have been fired or quit the lefty stations?
seems like 1 a month. they are so bad that the stations don't even want them.
originally posted by: charles1952
It is good to hear it directly from the source. I'm not sure that those videos show "the source," however. These are the two people who filed the law suit against the station. It might be similar to considering Bill Clinton "the source" for the truth about Monica Lewinski.
originally posted by: thesaneone
If fox is a joke then why are they number 1 ?
originally posted by: thesaneone
I would imagine it's because people like what they sell.
Your analogy is a bit backwards. Clinton was "the accused", not "the accuser". Wilson and Akre were the plaintiffs, not the defendants.
As far as the court's findings go. Fox won the appeal based on a loophole/technicality. The court didn't find Fox "innocent" of falsehood.
(No, actually, they did not. There was never a finding that Fox distorted or lied about anything, and Fox never said they did.)
The Court ruled that FCC "guidelines, rules, and regulations" are not "laws"; so no actual "law" was broken by their untruth and distortions.
(Close. The ruling was that Akre couldn't have the protection of a whistle blower, because to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law or regulation.)
Since no "law" was broken, fox was not found to be liable. That was the heart of Fox's lawyers' argument, and with that loophole they won the case in appeals.
(Really? Oh, I see the "pretty much." Up until 2003 the media didn't distort things?)
Before this ruling news organizations pretty much treated FCC guidelines, rules, and regulations as gospel.
(Sorry, false. You do remember that nothing on that subject was aired, the idea of "infotainment" was never raised at court, and Fox never tried to defend or assert a right to lie.)
After Fox defended their right to lie and distort, news organizations basically went off the deep end throwing the rules and regulations to the wind in the name of infotainment and increased profit from commercial sponsors.
originally posted by: charles1952
Please note that they didn't find them guilty of falsehood either. The question wasn't addressed and didn't have to be.
originally posted by: charles1952
Close. The ruling was that Akre couldn't have the protection of a whistle blower, because to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law or regulation.
originally posted by: charles1952
Really? Oh, I see the "pretty much." Up until 2003 the media didn't distort things?
originally posted by: charles1952
Sorry, false. You do remember that nothing on that subject was aired, the idea of "infotainment" was never raised at court, and Fox never tried to defend or assert a right to lie.
originally posted by: spiritualzombie
If you look up the FOX effect, you'll see that news agencies were getting very disturbed by the growing popularity of FOX News back in 2002, 2003 and beyond... They watched as practically overnight the show became hard core red, white and blue, American flags all over. Strong strong nationality. Strong strong blame and hatred for the terrorists. Where CNN and other news agencies would focus on deep tragedy of 9/11, FOX would focus anger on the attack and the 'thugs' who carried it out. And people ate that anger up. They ate it up... and ratings soared.
People feared what the FOX effect would mean for future journalism... Would we see an increase in propaganda news? News geared toward emotional response rather than informative? They pointed out that CNN was still mostly remaining neutral and was fading. MSNBC was seen to respond by starting to push from center to more left... The FOX effect.
For everyone who thinks FOX fights the establishment. They were the salesman for the Iraq War. They stepped right in for Bush and Cheney, with their frequent neocon talking heads, fueling anger, and fear, and calling everyone who would speak against war Anti-American.
So, why hate FOX specifically... Let's just say they take a special place in the historical timeline of American journalism.
Fox's lawyers' won the appeal by a loophole technicality, skirting the issue of their distortions/lies, and simply arguing that the rules/regulations of the FCC were not laws.
to be a whistle blower you have to report on someone breaking a law. Breaking regulations isn't considered,
In my opinion Fox certainly did defend their "right to lie" by moving the goal post and skirting the issue. By making it a regulations issue (not law), they were able to get the initial ruling overturned
The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.
The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. (Cites removed)(Emphasis added)
Redmage, I will give you $1000 for each distortion, lie, or spin found in the version of Akre's story aired on Fox. I will sign any legal document you want to make that wager binding. There was no challenge in this case to "their false/distorted" (as you put it) method of reporting. No one even claimed they showed a false story.
and set legal precedent against court challenges to their false/distorted method of "reporting".
What precedent? You realize this case only affected the State of Florida, and only under the whistle blower statutes of nearly 20 years ago? If the legislators changed the statutes, there'd be a different result. Maybe they have, I don't know.
The precedent is set,
Here, I think you demonstrate a little misreading of the Court's decision. If we can get past those misunderstandings mentioned above, we can proceed to this one.
you can not bring a case because being unethical is not against the law when it comes to distortions and spin. This opened the floodgates for trash like MSNBC, Fox, and CNN to "go wild".
Come on. Really? No one is claiming distortions didn't exist, but they were no where NEAR the rampant mess they are today. Once upon a time news agencies actually were considered to have quite a bit of credibility. Now people are fleeing in droves to alternative/independent sources because the spin and distortions have become so transparent in the MSM. With a name like Charles1952 I would assume you remember such times. Do you not see a distinctive difference between then and now? Where once there were investigative reporters and real issues brought up, now it's Miley Cyrus "twerking", and blatant political spin.
No one is claiming distortions didn't exist, but they were no where NEAR the rampant mess they are today. Once upon a time news agencies actually were considered to have quite a bit of credibility. Now people are fleeing in droves to alternative/independent sources because the spin and distortions have become so transparent in the MSM. With a name like Charles1952 I would assume you remember such times. Do you not see a distinctive difference between then and now? Where once there were investigative reporters and real issues brought up, now it's Miley Cyrus "twerking", and blatant political spin.
In 1994 CBS produced and broadcast a controversial segment of "60 Minutes" entitled "The Ugly Face of Freedom," about modern Ukraine. The broadcast angered some viewers who believed that many elements of the program had been designed to give the impression that all Ukrainians harbor a strongly negative attitude toward Jews.
For example, interviewer Morley Safer suggested that Ukrainians were "genetically anti-Semitic" and "uneducated peasants, deeply superstitious." Also, soundbites from an interview with the Chief Rabbi of Lviv, Yaakov Bleich, gave viewers the impression that he believes all Ukrainians are anti-Semites who want all Jews to leave Ukraine. In addition, CBS overlaid the sound of marching boots on a film clip of Ukrainian Boy Scouts walking to church and introduced it in such a way as to give viewers the impression that they were seeing "a neo-Nazi, Hitler Youth-like movement."
The narrator also stated that the Ukrainian Galicia Division had helped in the roundup and execution of Jews from Lviv in 1941, though this Division was not in fact even formed until 1943 and therefore could not possibly have participated in the deed. Perhaps most egregiously, when Ukrainian speakers used the term "zhyd," which means simply "Jew," they were translated as having said "kike," which is a derogatory term."
Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no policy against news distortion and indeed that management considered some distortion acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You don't like to baldly lie, but I have." Colman McCarthy, The TV Whisper, Wash. Post, Jan. 7, 1995, at A21.
Don Hewitt, the executive producer of "60 Minutes," is quoted in the same article as saying that some deception is permissible because "it's the small crime vs. the greater good," and elsewhere as saying that "I wouldn't make Hitler look bad on the air if I could get a good story." Richard Jerome, Don Hewitt, People, Apr. 24, 1995, at 85, 90.
CBS, taking the position that any official investigation into its news broadcasting "offends the protections of a free press," did not submit any evidence. Nonetheless, the Commission denied the petition without a hearing.(Emphasis added)
After the broadcast interviewees and members of the Ukrainian-American community deluged CBS with letters. In his letter Rabbi Bleich stated "unequivocally" that his "words were quoted out of the context that they were said" and that "the CBS broadcast was unbalanced" and "did not convey the true state of affairs in Ukraine."
Cardinal Lubachivsky, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who had also been interviewed, both sent a letter to CBS and released a statement to the press. In the latter he stated, "[M]y office was misled as to the actual thrust of the report. Mr. Fager [the producer] presented the piece as one about 'post-communist Ukraine.' ... I can only deduce that the goal of the report was to present all Western Ukrainians as rabid anti-semites."
Many other viewers pointed out historical inaccuracies and offensive statements or characterizations in the show.
Notwithstanding the requirement in 47 C.F.R. 73.1202 that a licensee keep and make available all letters received from viewers, WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C., forwarded the letters it received to CBS's main office in New York. When a representative of the Ukrainian-American Community Network asked to see the letters, WUSA contacted CBS in New York and was told by Raymond Faiola that the letters were in storage and that a response had been sent to each viewer who wrote in; Faiola attached what he said was a copy of that response.
After failing to locate any viewer who had received such a reply, the UACN representative questioned this story. A CBS attorney in turn questioned Faiola, who then explained that the response letter had been sent to only about a quarter of the viewers who had written in about the program. When an intensive advertising campaign, however, failed to turn up even one person in the Ukrainian-American community who had received a response, the UACN representative complained to the Commission and sent a copy of the complaint to counsel for CBS.
When CBS's counsel asked Faiola for an affidavit confirming his story, Faiola admitted that the letter he had sent WUSA had been merely a draft and that he had forgotten to have any actual response letters sent out.
originally posted by: neo96
Why Such Hate For Fox News Specifically?
Because the left can't stand the thought of any ideas competing with theirs.
That is why Fox News is constantly demagogued.
Basically they hate it, so everyone should.
Even though most don't ever watch it.
People need to be glad Fox News is on the air.
Because if it wasn't ?
The current administration would have no idea ISIS is taking over Iraq.
The Current administration would have no idea about the IRS.
The current administration would have no Idea about the veterans dying on waiting lists at the VA.
Apparently the current administration has 'no' idea of what it does.
And if that ain't proof of a government that has become 'too big to fail' ?
I don't know what is.
Fox News haters ?
All hat no cattle.
Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?
your all sizzle, no steak cowboy
originally posted by: charles1952
Dear redmage, please read the opinion of the Appeals Court.
www.2dca.org...
It says, in pertinent part:
The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.
The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. (Cites removed)(Emphasis added)
So you see, Fox wasn't splitting hairs about laws, rules, and regulations.
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300
Please explain this to me. You quoted a long post simply to say
Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?
your all sizzle, no steak cowboy
I enjoy hearing fresh, new, ideas. What were you trying to say?
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: kevinp2300
Please explain this to me. You quoted a long post simply to say
Forget the spelling and the punctuation errors, everyone does that sometimes. What does that even mean? Are you simply saying you disagree? If so, with what do you disagree?
your all sizzle, no steak cowboy
I enjoy hearing fresh, new, ideas. What were you trying to say?
originally posted by: ArtemisE
originally posted by: tsingtao
originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: BrianFlanders
I think it's more than just a disagreement on politics. FOX News attracts the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, religious extremists, and anti-science crowd. There is so much ridiculousness there. This is why it's so popular. It appeals to the lowest level, and sadly, we have a lot of that here in this country. For FOX News to be successful, means a turn for the worse in humanity, and that's why people hate it. Not to mention they fought for their right to lie... Basically a HORRIBLE news station.
wow, how tolerant of you lefty msnbc peoples.
why do you hate all those you mentioned?
sounds like jealousy. yeah, jealousy.
how many lefty broadcasters have been fired or quit the lefty stations?
seems like 1 a month. they are so bad that the stations don't even want them.
Actually, them getting fired blows the right-wing myth about liberals can say what ever they want and not get fired, While conservatives say anything and are racists ,out of the water.