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.

 

Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Since Fox isn't "news" anyway, and even the courts say so, and even Rupert admits it, why bother?




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 

They admit it, but do people really acknowledge this or care? Does it matter because some people still think it's news and factual and the truth and they make their decisions accordingly and that affects us all? Decisions like supporting candidates and wars. Minor things like that.


[edit on 7/23/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
FOX News is the only outlet that expresses Americanism.

Of course the communist thugs want to shut it down. It presents the facts about communism, progressivism, revisionism and all the other vile tactics used against the American people for decades in an effort to destroy our Constitution and turn us into another communist crap hole.

Fox = Constitution, Republic, Individual Liberty

MSM = Communism, Corruption, Slavery

Fox has got the commies all up in arms. It is great.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
You can sense how the liberals here would burn down Fox News if they could. Leftists always show totalitarian tendencies. Thats why one of Chavez first acts of state was to shut down Conservative and Moderate TV Stations in his country. Give leftists enough power and they not only shut down opposition but have all intellectuals executed.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
can you say Khmer rouge?


don't be outraged, can way happen here.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
. Thats why one of Chavez first acts of state was to shut down Conservative and Moderate TV Stations in his country.


LOL. YOu haven't been to Venezuela, ever, have you?

Last time I was there all the private stations had a 24/7 CHavez is the Antichrist hate-fest going on.
Not that I care much for Chavez anyway.

People can discuss anything - there's a big difference between discussing the merits of shutting Fox down and actually using state power to do that.

Come back and whine about "totalitarian" liberals as soon as they shut down Fox; before that, it seems that you don't have that much of a case. Surely you're supportive of the first ammendment, right? What's wrong with discussing things?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 
That is easy to say.

Just when was the last time you were there?

It is relatively easy to PROVE that he has shut down media since he took control of the government.







Notice I did not use FOX as a source.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
FOX News is the only outlet that expresses Americanism.



Well that is true. If Americanism is used in a pejorative sense, that is.

When I watch news I'd prefer "news" to "Americanism" any time. One is about reality, the other is about secular mythology. Good luck with keeping yourself informed when you demand an ideological standpoint from the people you get your news from.

Americanism is something I'd want from a natinal myth, from literature, movies and such, but definitly not from anyone whose job it should be to keep me informed.

Of course, as the courts noted and Rupert admitted - keeping people informed is not on the agenda of Fox news, never has been.

(Of course it is debatable if there is any outlet left with the sole purpose of "informing the public", but the signal-to-propaganda level of Fox news is lacking any serious competition up to now.) ... Especially when you label yourself "fair and balanced" - that's so 1984....



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy


Just when was the last time you were there?

It is relatively easy to PROVE that he has shut down media since he took control of the government.



Notice I did not use FOX as a source.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by butcherguy]


I don't deny that Chavez has been closing down media outlets, no doubt about that.
And I am not supporting that in any way. Guess what I was trying to say was that despite that fact when you turn on a TV or Radio in Venezuela it is most likely that you will hear Anti-Chavez propaganda, and not pro-chavez stuff. He will have to close down stations for years to come until his pro-Chavez propaganda outweighs the anti-chavez stuff; so it is not really fair to speak of Venezuala as a country where only one voice is heard.

But of course you are right; he isn't benevolent to the guys that want to oust him. And he certainly does not believe in the rule of law when it comes to dealing with such things ... As I said.. I'm no fan of him .. I just remembered how the majority of media was 100% against him when I was there years ago :-) That doesn't make his shutting down stations any better of course....

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Come on people!

Haven't you all just about agreed on ATS that the whole Mainstream Media is just awash in an agenda?

Don't we mostly agree that the MSM's job is to convince, hypnotize and placate the masses? Isn't the MSM as complicit in the conspiracies of our time as the government is? For Gosh Sake....don't you know who the media is owned by?

Why pick out just one media source?

As far as I can tell, they're all neck deep in BS.

Why waste space deciding which one is worse than the other?

Do your research!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Maybe I'm misremembering, but what was FoxNews' position on the Patriot Act during the Bush era? Isn't the Patriot Act was one of the most devastating threats to the U.S. Consitution we've ever faced? Didn't they support it no questions asked?

And what was FoxNews' position on Ron Paul, one of our most staunch Constitutionalists in Congress? Seems to me I recall them ridiculing and blacking him out for many years? They did everything short of calling him a nut job.

Did they by some miracle all of a sudden become convinced that they were wrong for 7 years? Did they shift their views in response to who is in the White House rather than on what is right? Could be. But again, they're allowed their opinons. Hypocrisy doesn't bother some people, but it bothers me.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 




The shift from real journalism and news reporting to punditry was subtle and slow. Many people never realized what was happening. It still looked like the news, so it must be the news. But more people are now starting to discern the differences, still not enough, in my opinion, but it's a start.


And why is it good, or even desirable or necessary, to discern between hard facts and 'punditry'? If someone states just the 'facts' to you, do you have enough information to make a reasoned conclusion. I think not.

Discussion of issues is good. Unbiased analysts are rare. But that does not mean all analysts are bad. People, too, mimic analysts. They approach the news with a certain viewpoint. And that is also OK. It is natural for a person to gravitate to an analyst that shares his point of view.

Are you upset that conservatives outnumber liberals?

Are you sure that you're not just trying to force your point of view as the only correct one?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by lucid eyes
 



Give leftists enough power and they not only shut down opposition but have all intellectuals executed.


Exactly.
Which dictator was it that had all members of the opposition that wore eyeglasses, to be executed (eyeglasses implied education) ? VietNam?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 




The shift from real journalism and news reporting to punditry was subtle and slow. Many people never realized what was happening. It still looked like the news, so it must be the news. But more people are now starting to discern the differences, still not enough, in my opinion, but it's a start.


And why is it good, or even desirable or necessary, to discern between hard facts and 'punditry'? If someone states just the 'facts' to you, do you have enough information to make a reasoned conclusion. I think not.

Discussion of issues is good. Unbiased analysts are rare. But that does not mean all analysts are bad. People, too, mimic analysts. They approach the news with a certain viewpoint. And that is also OK. It is natural for a person to gravitate to an analyst that shares his point of view.

Are you upset that conservatives outnumber liberals?

Are you sure that you're not just trying to force your point of view as the only correct one?


reply to post by mishigas
 

I believe you missed my point entirely. All I was saying here is that there is a huge difference between punditry and journalism, and there is a danger in people believing that punditry is journalism. Journalism is fact-based. Punditry is not always fact based, and to assume it is is a mistake.

People who reported news in the past took the responsibility seriously and went to great lengths to check facts and eliminate bias to the best of their ability. And people who watched the news came to expect just this. When the shift started, many did not realize it was happening and began to confuse punditry with journalism and to assign punditry more credence than it necessarily deserved.

I personally prefer only the facts first with no bias or punditry. Now I just have to dig harder for them. And I, like many others, simply don't always have the time. Then, if I want opinion BASED on the reported facts that I know everyone heard the same way at the same time, I can seek it out. Of course discussion of issues is good. Who said it wasn't? But again, even in discussion there is fact and there is opinion, and the purpose of discussion is to put together different fact and knowledge bases that define the different opinions to see where they differ and why and where it's all possibly leading.

What's with your statement about conservatives outnumbering liberals? I neither know nor care if this is true. Why would I be upset about it? Are you assuming for some reason that I'm a label? What exactly in my quoted post has forced you to conclude any of this?

I'm not attempting to force any point other than there is a difference between the punditry and journalism, and that the shift from one to another was slow and subtle, so that many people may not have even realized that it happened.


[edit on 7/23/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by lucid eyes
 



Give leftists enough power and they not only shut down opposition but have all intellectuals executed.


Exactly.
Which dictator was it that had all members of the opposition that wore eyeglasses, to be executed (eyeglasses implied education) ? VietNam?
It was Pol Pot, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge.

Source:



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
One more thing about the punditry vs. journalism issue...

I'm not saying that media outlets intentionally set out to confuse the two or to deceive. Maybe they did...maybe they didn't. It's a possibility. But it was probably more like that's what drove the up the ratings and consequently the revenue, so they started to do it more and more.

And that people started confusing the two and/or didn't realize this was a platform for varying agendas isn't the fault of the corporate media.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
A Pastor entered his donkey in a race and it won. The Pastor was so pleased with the donkey that he entered it in the race again, and it won again.

The local paper read:
PASTOR'S ASS OUT FRONT.

The Bishop was so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the Pastor not to enter the donkey in another race...

The next day, the local paper headline read:
BISHOP SCRATCHES PASTOR'S ASS.

This was too much for the Bishop, so he ordered the Pastor to get rid of the donkey..

The Pastor decided to give it to a Nun in a nearby Convent. The local paper, hearing of the news, posted the following headline the next day:
NUN HAS BEST ASS IN TOWN.

The Bishop fainted! He informed the Nun that she would have to get rid of the donkey, so she sold it to a farmer for $10.

The next day the papers read:
NUN SELLS ASS FOR $10.

This was too much for the Bishop, so he ordered the nun to buy back the donkey and lead it to the plains where it could run wild.

The next day the headlines read:
NUN ANNOUNCES HER ASS IS WILD AND FREE.

The Bishop was buried the next day.

The moral of the story is ....
Being concerned about public opinion can bring you much grief and misery. It can even shorten your life. So be yourself and enjoy life to the fullest. Stop worrying about everyone else's ass and you'll be a lot happier and live longer!

I thought the moral was ... "You need to control the local press"



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
You can sense how the liberals here would burn down Fox News if they could. Leftists always show totalitarian tendencies. Thats why one of Chavez first acts of state was to shut down Conservative and Moderate TV Stations in his country. Give leftists enough power and they not only shut down opposition but have all intellectuals executed.


But American conservatives championed warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying, the Patriot Act, and McCarythism. And aren't mainline conservatives commonly to be seen bemoaning the "elitist intellectuals" who supposedly comprise the liberal fold? And wasn't Bush censured by a bipartisan review of his signing statements because they “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers"?

Contrary to what you might hear from Fox, the problem is not "liberals" versus "conservatives". It is a complicated and thoroughly bipartisan issue. Government always seeks to expand it's power and guarantee it's continuance whether guided by a conservative or a liberal philosophy. The primary difference is in how these groups pursue their agendas; liberals increase spending (and thus government size, and hypothetically a people's dependence on their government) by expanding entitlement programs. Conservatives do it by expanding foreign adventures and by necessitating more police and prisons. Both parties expand government by attempting to legislate social behavior in accordance with moral standpoints, but liberals are more concerned with systemic abuses of classes of people (racism, sexism) and conservatives are more concerned with issues of individual morality such as abortion, recreational drug use, and homosexuality.

Them's the breaks.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Reply to weedwhacker...

Faux News.....I love how you brainwashed sheep


Stopped reading there.

We get it - you're vastly superior because you know The Truth.

No way is that an overcompensation for low-self esteem.

Nope.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
You can sense how the liberals here would burn down Fox News if they could. Leftists always show totalitarian tendencies. Thats why one of Chavez first acts of state was to shut down Conservative and Moderate TV Stations in his country. Give leftists enough power and they not only shut down opposition but have all intellectuals executed.


Thank goodness nothing like that happens in right-wing reactionary regimes. Pinochet, Somoza, Batista, Martinez, Trujillo, Duvalier, Stroessner, Marcos, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini...they were paragons of freedom and liberty.


More here: friendlydictators.blogspot.com...

Besides...I thought the chief gripe about "leftists" was that they were all "intellectual elitists..." It would be nice if the right wing got their stories straight.




top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join