How Much Bull-Sh!# Are We Supposed To Take From Faux News?

That is not only "deceptive" as Media Matters describes it, it is fraudulent and unacceptable. Sean Hannity should be ashamed, but since he feels no shame... for anything... he won't be.

WitchyWoman...I have to agree with Andy--give up watching FNC. It may actually help your blood pressure and stress level. I have a 'basic' cable, so I don't get Fox; or MSNBC or CNN. But I'm happier that way.

In case you missed it, Fox News Corp won a court battle, entitling them to LIE on their 'newcasts' !! Yes, I said "LIE" !! And the courts agreed with them. 'Course, that lowers the esteem in which Fox SHOULD be held. You can find this if you google: Jane Akre and Steve Wilson. A synopsis of this can be found at:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public

So, IMHO, the only way that I can look at Rupert Murdoch is to consider him a rabble-rouser in the same way Enquirer is: a checkout rag for the feeble minded.

Where is the FCC? Why do they allow this ridiculous channel...?

FYI the FCC has no power over cable; their charter gives them regulatory power over broadcast radio and television only (and even that does not include the power to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth). Maybe you should actually research your subject before writing about it, that way you won't display such ignorance.

if you have a problem with FNC...then, DON"T WATCH IT!!

Oh, but then when we do that, we get the "You don't even know what they're really saying because you only go by the clips someone else brings up and never watch it for yourself" line from FNC defenders.

So, Andy, which one is it?

Oh, but then when we do that, we get the "You don't even know what they're really saying because you only go by the clips someone else brings up and never watch it for yourself" line from FNC defenders.

Thoughtful critique is one thing, ignorance driven ranting and raving (with calls for the violation of the first amendment) is quite another. It's tantamount to wishing the government would step in and regulate the OP-Ed pages of the NYTs because one disagrees with the opinions they choose to print.

RETLAW,

Do your research a little better next time. The court case you are referring to regarding Fox was supported by NBC,CBS,ABC and several other major media outlets. It almost seems as if you are selectively editing the facts to distort the truth. Funny how Witchy Woman is all about supporting you in this endeavour. We all can tell how much she despises this sort of thing...only when it comes to content she is opposed to of course.

The court case you are referring to regarding Fox was supported by NBC,CBS,ABC and several other major media outlets. It almost seems as if you are selectively editing the facts to distort the truth

D'ja think? That has to be one the most misrepresented court cases that I've ever seen and usually if not always by leftists.

The case was also from a local FL Fox affiliate and not the FNC, more selective editing, maybe you could get a job with Media Matters WW...you would fit right in.

You can delete this post as well WW!

It's tantamount to wishing the government would step in and regulate the OP-Ed pages of the NYTs because one disagrees with the opinions they choose to print.

I wasn't meaning to infer any kind of government-imposed restriction, just asking Andy for his input on how those of us who don't worship at the altar of FNC should balance FNC believers' contradictory "don't like it, don't watch it/you're not qualified to criticize at all because you're not a regular viewer" statements.

The closest thing to regulation I could see being justifiable is a disclaimer or notice of some kind. If the people who make the cardboard windshield shades have to include a notice to not drive while the shade is in the windshield, I could see news channels posting some kind of on-screen-fine-print notice of their "entertainment" hours or that a clip is selectively edited to give the viewers some kind of heads-up that accuracy is being treated as an option at that point. They can still say what they want within the laws of free speech, but differentiate between what is fact and what is opinion as well not being presented within anything resembling journalistic standards for accuracy.

make the cardboard windshield shades have to include a notice to not drive while the shade is in the windshield, I could see news channels posting some kind of on-screen-fine-print notice of their "entertainment" hours

That falls under the purview of product liability and as such has nothing whatever to do with the first amendment and it's a direct result of this country being overlawyered, which is not a good thing.

Anyone not smart enough to realize that those shows deal in news analysis, aka opinion, deserves whatever happens as a result. It's amazing how little faith in one's fellow man is regularly indicated by such condescending and patronizing drivel that ensues from the minds of liberals.

Allot a period of minutes at end of each broadcast for fact checking. In this computer age, this is possible. Further show a bar at top of screen that numbers of negatives to that show and show the positives as well. Then the viewer can make a decision that is informed about who to watch. I bet this could change some of their lying ways.

That falls under the purview of product liability and as such has nothing whatever to do with the first amendment

Would it if the shows in question ( and I was meaning for my suggestion to apply to all such shows, not just on certain networks ) were to be considered a "product" of the networks, especially when promoting a particular political agenda in ways that seem rather like they're infomercials?

Anyone not smart enough to realize that those shows deal in news analysis, aka opinion, deserves whatever happens as a result.

I'd agree, except that too many people vote based entirely on opinion taken more seriously than opposing fact and can drag the rest of us into dealing with the "result" along with them.

It's amazing how little faith in one's fellow man is regularly indicated by such condescending and patronizing drivel that ensues from the minds of liberals.

Once again, I would expect any such requirements to be applied to any such shows from any network promoting any political agenda.

As far as "faith in my fellow man" who claims to be a conservative, that died when I was told by a certain President whose preemptive war I'd supported to get rid of WMDs that it didn't matter when the WMDs weren't found, that I should just accept the fact that my tax dollars were funding torture, and that I should just believe that "end of life couseling" meant "killing grandma", just to name a few examples.

Do what Nancy Reagan advised: Just say no!! (turn the channel!)

Would it if the shows in question ( and I was meaning for my suggestion to apply to all such shows, not just on certain networks ) were to be considered a "product" of the networks, especially when promoting a particular political agenda in ways that seem rather like they're infomercials?

How do you propose to get around the five greatest words in the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law"?

if you have a problem with FNC...then, DON"T WATCH IT!!

She doesn't watch it, she relies on Media Matters, News Hounds, or Think Progress for the cliff notes.

Hate to say it BUT 1st Amendment BUT, that being said, there should be a mandatory diclaimer crawl on all their "news" programs stating this is only a biased and/or bigoted OPINION!

PEOPLE are stupid and proof is those who use Faux spews as their source in a debate!

You guys are a riot.

As has been pointed out, but I'm going to do so again because I don't think you get it:

Hannity is an OPINION PROGRAM. So is O'Reilly. So are Olberman, Schulz, Matthews and Maddow.

RE: the text of Hannity's show included in your rant.

Hannity said the president is going to make sure taxes go up. Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to end for the wealthy, AND the Bush decrease on cap gains to end as well. If cap gains rates increase, they increase for EVERYBODY of all income levels who engages in any financial activity that involves capital gains, ie a simple stock sale or mutual fund sale. What Hannity said is true.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it false or a lie.

Sorry about that.

And if you watch the MSNBC prime line up, you'll find gross distortions that are ACTUAL distortions. Olbermann recently went into a rant about the failure of the 9/11 first responders bill in the House, of course directed toward Republicans.

What he FAILED to mention was that the Democrats, who hold a 39 seat majority, CHOSE to put that bill through on a 2/3s vote instead of simple majority, to avoid having to accept ANY amendment. Why? Why are they not allowing amendments, that's central to our legislative process. Why are they requiring a 2/3s vote, when they KNOW they can pass the bill without a single Republican vote?

I'm not going to speculate, I'll let the gentle reader decide what the Democrats' motivations were for rigging the vote.

Olbermann didn't mention any of this. Food for thought, while you enjoy your lopsided love fest against Fox.

Opinion shows are ...... opinion shows. Deal with it, or turn them off.

Witchy - You (...and Kurtz and Stewart) are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The FCC went apeshlt when Janet Jackson exposed a bejewelled nipple, but they let outright lies and deception continue to masquerade as "fair and balanced" news. Free speech is one thing, but calling purposeful and blatant lying should be censured.

What lies? Opinion you don't agree with, on an opinion show, is not a lie.

She doesn't watch it, she relies on Media Matters, News Hounds, or Think Progress for the cliff notes

Exactly, You just have to laugh when the idiot left cites "Media Matters" as the arbiter of truth...LOL

Thanks for the topic Witch.

This was intended as a warning by the Founders..

"By oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813.

Then the Far-Right took it and put it in their play book...

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" ~ Adolf Hitler

What Hannity said is true.

only to those that S T R E T C H the truth. Let's talk apples to apples. Income tax, not cap gains tax, INCOME tax.

It is aparent that you take the corrupt opinion and make it fit, when if fact, not only does it not fit, it is a LIE.

Opinion my ass.

Taxes are taxes. Obama didn't specify "income" versus "cap gains". Both are taxes, and if Obama gets his way, they will go up for everyone.

PS, taxes have already gone up for millions of people. Everything the Federal government does that passes a cost along to a state, ie Medicaid and other entitlements, increases the costs to the state which in turn increases taxes.

NY state has raised taxes by about $9 billion to cover various budgetary shortfalls in the past two years, one of the largest of them Medicaid. As Obamacare expands Medicaid, this will keep going up.

The problem you people have is, you're too literal and tunnel visioned with your understanding. You think that the ONLY way the statement "Obama will raise taxes" is true is for the ACTUAL marginal rate of income taxes on a Federal level is increased.

And that's simply false.

And once again, just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't make it a lie. If your opinion is that Obama should not be held accountable for the impact his policies have on state-level policies and taxation, that's fine. It's erroneous, but fine.

Witchy - You (...and Kurtz and Stewart) are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The FCC went apeshlt when Janet Jackson exposed a bejewelled nipple, but they let outright lies and deception continue to masquerade as "fair and balanced" news. Free speech is one thing, but calling purposeful and blatant lying should be censured.

Maybe you should read all the posts Dave. The FCC has no legal jurisdiction over cable; their charter only allows them to regulate the broadcast radio and television industries. Not cable, not satellite TV and not satellite radio. And, no, censoring of any speech, especially political speech is incompatible with OUR 1st amendment. Canada may be able to haul someone before a commission to answer for speech that some do not agree with (See the Mark Steyn/Macleans affair) but that's there, not HERE. Got it?

Pragmatic -

What lies? Opinion you don't agree with, on an opinion show, is not a lie.

Oh c'mon! Editing a video segment to completely distort what was REALLY said and intended IS A LIE! If you right wing folks can't concede that this is a pure and simple deception, there is NO WAY you should be ever trusted to hold power again!

"Us right wing folks?"

Now I'm a right winger because I call BS on your BS?

What about Hannity's statement is false? Obama said, taxes will go up on everyone. Hannity said, yes they will if Obama gets his way. I've already detailed how that statement is true, and in fact how taxes have already gone up on millions of people due to Obama's policies.

How is that a lie? You keep strumming the media matters twang, with absolutely no clue or recognition for the fact that it is media matters ENTIRE PURPOSE IN LIFE to paint everything broadcast on any even remotely conservative-based network or publication as a falsehood.

THINK FOR YOURSELF, man. Will, or will not, taxes increase in 2011? Yes, they will in all likelihood based on what Obama is supporting. Will they increase for everyone? Probably, based on what Obama is supporting. They have already gone up, based on what Obama supports.

THEN. Understand, Hannity is not REPORTER. He is OLBERMANN, for conservatives.

THEN. Refute the illustration I provided, of Olbermann painting a totally biased story about the 9/11 responders vote. He didn't lie, either.

Now, you claim Hannity LIED - but in fact he didn't. You might be able to make a weak case for imcomplete information based on omission - the EXACT same thing Olbermann did.

What the hells the difference, and why aren't your boxers all wadded up over Olbermann's incomplete presentation? Are you not interested in WHY the vote failed, only that it did and there might be a convenient way to blame Republicans?

Because it serves YOUR political purpose to blame Republicans. Because you're just as biased as Olbermann. Hannity is absolutely biased, SO WHAT. So are YOU!

and why aren't your boxers all wadded up over Olbermann's incomplete presentation?

Because by comparison practically no one sees Olbermann. The plan and simple fact is that they want to determine what you see and hear; they can always change the channel.

WitchyWoman: Very good post, and by the bluster seen from those who don't like their favorite "news" program being posted as being caught in one of many lies that they do, it just goes to show the nature of those that watch and believe such shows.

I loved it when Jon showed the clip, and by the way, he does at times have no problem in poking fun at things Democrat or Obama, it seems he had a lot more ammunition when Bush was in office, but we will see how things go as we continue to try to progress for the next two years with the continuing obstruction of the Republican Party.

For those who say it is an "opinion" program, well then it needs to be constantly stated that what is being shown is not really "news" but possible scenarios of what might have been said and that the "clip" being shown is not complete in its entirety!

The closest thing MSNBC has to Hannity or Gretta, or even O'Riley is Oberman and he seems to think he needs to fight fire with fire, although I have never seen him cut a clip to suit his point(which is done by Fox all of the time, superimposing pictures, etc.) and the Ed Show is outspoken as to where Ed is, and even he attacks the President when he feels the Pres is not doing what needs to be done, then there is Rachel who does her homework, makes sure she dots every i and crosses every t. She is diligent, does her research and lays out her points with precise ability.... But, I am sure that there are those who because she is gay just think of her as trash, too bad for those unfortunate ignorant people!

Yes, what was shown was a lie, shame on Hannity.... Shame on Fox for allowing it! And shame on the poor dupped individuals who continue to watch such worthless programs posing as a news cast.... yes posing, because if you asked the majority of the ill-informed watchers, they would say they get their news from Fox Cable News Network, and they would swear by its content and the people who present it.

WitchyWoman, there is no benefit in trying to communicate, debate or have a reasonable discussion with many who stick up for such tripe, it is only a waste of time!

Good for you on this post!

Media Matters...thats a non biased right wing group isnt it? At least FNC has democrats on its payroll, whens the last time you saw a conservitive on maddow or oberman?

Obama and his cadre of Czars are nothing but a bunch of radicals and communists and it pisses you off that FNC points it out.

One of the more effective but challenging things one can do besides wiping the channel off the remote is vote with money. Don't buy from Fox advertisers when there are other choices and let them know you are. Pay a talented accountant to divest your portfolio from anything connected to News Corp. This means being prepared to give up some desired things simply because of how enmeshed stuff is, especially financially. But if enough people took actions like these, some big corporations would not be big.

Obama and his cadre of Czars are nothing but a bunch of radicals and communists and it pisses you off that FNC points it out.

Nope, it does not piss me off. I laugh at comments like yours. It's damn funny that some are so obviously lead by the noise that FOX pukes as the truth

Dear Witch,

I do not agree, there seems to be a disconnect here for you.

If you choose to listen to the Non News, many whom are going Bankrupt, that is your choice.

You cannot however make a choice of those who want all of the news from Fox, I may not always agree but I do not want anyone telling me who to listen to. This is called Freedom of the Press.

The GOP is just carrying on old traditions:

They are:

HITLER'S LEGACY

In honor of the first man to use them I call modern propaganda and information-management ... He proved that if you repeat a lie often enough in mass media, ...
webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/hitler.html - Cached - Similar

Just think of the current GOP as the smiling, joking, cowboy hat wearin and truck drivin modern, updated, orwellian/Rovian form and you hit the nail on the head.

But remember!!!! THEY are the Christians and holy ones and THEY are the Patriots NOT ANY OF YOU SCUMBAGS and you have soaked up about 25 years of massive, aggressive, and divisive propaganda. Christian Patriots! arise with your external cues! Mosques, DEATH PANELS, Koran burning, the Muslims and Mexicans are TAKING OVER and the gays and lesbians and WITCHES!!!!! GODLESSNESS and immortality of the slimey, POS liberals that are destroying this great Nation and all you Patriots!!!!!

Tex,

The Hitler card is getting as old as the Racist card. Try coming up with something new, would you.

Pragmatic - Howard Kurtz and Jon Stewart actually called Hannity's edit BS long before I did. Maybe you like Stewar...maybe you don't, but Kurtz is pretty unimpeachable.

Folks like who defend this kind of blatant misrepresentation spurs on FNC to continue the practice. Now THAT'S what Mr. Beck might call "Restoring Honor"!! /sarc/

sorry, I'm a big history buff

okay, here ya go

Mark Crispin Miller quotes

"This is a deeply uncanny and very troubling development, it exists, and it wants to take us back. It wants to take us, I mean, way back. I mean sure, they want to go back before the 70's and the 60's to the 50's, no doubt about that. They also want to go back before the New Deal to the 20's, well they also want to go back before the Progressive Era to the Gilded Age. Well, not quite, they also want to go back before the Emancipation Proclamation to the days of slavery, not even, what they want to do is take us back to a moment prior to the Enlightenment; they want to take us back to a moment when faith registered more than reason. They want to take us back to an imaginary age of absolute moral clarity, when good was good and evil was evil and everyone could see the difference. They want to take us back to an imaginary Manichean age when you're either with us or against us, which means you either are us or we'll exterminate you because we can only tolerate ourselves, we can only tolerate those who share our values. If this movement were to be given a name, I think it would most appropriate to call it Christo-Fascism, and if anyone objects to my using the word fascism, because it seems so redolent of the Axis powers, and after all we valiantly defeated fascism once, well understand this about fascism, when it arrives it never shows up in the discarded costume of some other country, and when fascism comes here, its not going to be wearing a toothbrush mustache with a luger in his belt and go goose-stepping around the mall, because that's Germany. And its precisely characteristic of fascism, that it seems absolutely, totally expressive of the homeland, it seems completely familiar, it's when 150% America puts a flag on it's lapel and a cross around it's neck and a real folksy way a talkin', but just because it's red, white and blue, doesn't mean it's American."
A Patriot Act

artizen_121

Mark Crispin Miller quotes

About: Fascism quotes.

Andy your not quite getting "it." People who have a huge problem with Fox News do not watch Fox News. Its the people that are watching Fox that are the problem. Fox News viewers are the most mis informed people in the country and those are not unrelated items. There are way too many Fox viewers who think they will go to jail if they do not buy health insurance. Way too many believe that the President was not born in America. Way too many believe in death panels, FEMA re education camps, and that Obama wants to brainwash their kids. That is the problem with Fox News. Blaming Media Matters or your opinions of the left are not the problem.

if you have a problem with FNC...then, DON"T WATCH IT!!

The airways are a public trust. FOX News abuses that trust. I don't want my airways being used by GOP propaganda machinery. Off with their heads. . .

The airways are a public trust. FOX News abuses that trust. I don't want my airways being used by GOP propaganda machinery. Off with their heads. . .

In your opinion they do...and if you did a little research or read some of the posts in this thread, you would know that FNC, or any other cable (including satellite) channel, is not regulated by the FCC, they are not broadcating over your "airwaves"

The airways are a public trust. FOX News abuses that trust. I don't want my airways being used by GOP propaganda machinery. Off with their heads. . .

That only applies to network broadcast channels...cable is a whole different animal and not a part of the public trust. I hate fox news but the idea that we should censor them is silly. They are an entertainment company and have the right to produce any content they want.

However I must say if I didn't have such a fondness for the constitution I would probably rally to get the Jersey Shore taking off TV, that snooki just creeps me out.

CCarm 1.36 Turn off Jon Sterart and try reading a book sometime. Almost all of obamas czars have ties to radical and communist groups, whether its the SDS, Weathermen, or CPUSA, the ties are there.

The airways are a public trust.

I'm really getting sick of the rank ignorance. FNC isn't broadcast; it isn't transmitted over the "airwaves" and isn't subject to FCC regulation.

Some people never tire of being stupid, it seems.

observer - You're absolutely correct about broadcast vs cable. Nevertheless, FNC openly, proudly and premeditatively lies...frequently and blatantly. This is the network that employs Glenn "Restoring Honor" Beck. Of THOSE facts, there's no denying.

Tex,

The Hitler card is getting as old as the Racist card. Try coming up with something new, would you.

More "do as we say - not as we do"

When an entire party and almost all of it's constituency relies almost exclusively upon propaganda and "truthiness" the similarity between they and the nazis of old is apparent. It's absolutely appropriate to highlight this fact. Besides... why should all the name-calling be allowed when it's from the so called "conservative" side and then somehow considered passe when it's not? If it's good enough for the goose...

Yeah, here we are, almost 2 years later and STILL blaming Bush? When are you assclowns going to wake up and pull your heads out of obama's ass? YOU elected that illegitimate, socialist piece of @!$%#- embarrassed yet? Fox News has it right- but you refuse to hear the truth, and the truth is that obummer is just trying to blame Bush for everthing....almost 2 years later- while enjoying a SUPERMAJORITY in Congress the ENTIRE TIME....but it is still Bush's fault, huh? Dumb @!$%#ing people.

Now that's rational!

LMAO

What better picture can you have of a Fox Newstainment viewer? Bush is not at fault for the issues conservatism (in it's current guise) caused, the President should've fixed everything in an instant, everyone who doesn't share the Fox thinking is an "assclown", the POTUS is an illegitimate socialist, and GOP obstructionism never occured because it couldn't.

That's the price of letting propaganda remain disguised as news.

That's the price of letting propaganda remain disguised as news.

Exactly OneNative Son! And that was rather a perfect example of a propaganda post from TON!

FYI the FCC has no power over cable; their charter gives them regulatory power over broadcast radio and television only (and even that does not include the power to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth). Maybe you should actually research your subject before writing about it, that way you won't display such ignorance.

Observer, the FCC is still very much involved with cable (and satellite). Though the Fairness Doctrine can't be used there are other rules/regulations which consumers can address to the FCC. So let's stop going crazy over everyone's supposed ignorance.

Love it when the left just can't get a head and they blame Fox News for all the bull the left is passing.
First off it easly not to watch them , Just push the channel changer where it says channel. With th little arrow on some. Anyone got a gun to your head and making you lessen to it? I don't think so.
As far The left Nazis reference people are getting tired of hearing it and at best you are just geting more people to disagree with you.

FCC: Complaints About Broadcast Journalism

As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public. The FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC does act to protect the public interest where it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. In the absence of such documented evidence, the FCC has stressed that it cannot intervene.

Filing a Complaint with the FCC

Complaints regarding news distortion, rigging, or slanting can also be filed with the FCC. There is no charge for filing a complaint. Complaints must contain documented evidence in support of the allegations. For example, it is not sufficient for a complaint to allege only that a broadcast station made a mistake in reporting a news event. The complaint must include documented evidence showing deliberate misrepresentation.

You can file your complaint using an on-line complaint form found at esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm. You can also file your complaint with the FCC’s Consumer Center by e-mailing fccinfo@fcc.gov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.

What to Include in Your Complaint

The best way to provide all the information the FCC needs to process your complaint is to complete fully the on-line complaint form. When you open the on-line complaint form, you will be asked a series of questions that will take you to the particular section of the form you need to complete. If you do not use the on-line complaint form, your complaint, at a minimum, should indicate:

• your name, address, email address, and phone number where you can be reached;

• name and phone number of the company that you are complaining about and location (city and state) if the company is a cable or satellite operator;

• station call sign (KDIU-FM or WZUE TV), radio station frequency (1020 or 88.5) or TV channel (13), and station location (city and state);

• network, program name, and date and time of program if you are complaining about a particular program;

• any additional details of your complaint, including time, date, and nature of the conduct or activity you are complaining about and identifying information for any companies, organizations, or individuals involved; and

• documented evidence showing deliberate misrepresentation.

Read more: http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/contact-the-fcc/#ixzz0zQvhgU6N

For all of you with your head up obummer's ass, there are PLENTY of socialist countries for you to go live in- in Europe. Come November, THIS country is voting to going BACK to being a true REPUBLIC.....so buy your tickets now while you can still get them cheap. When the new CONSERVATIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL Congress takes their seats in January, your day of reckoning will be at hand.

Boy, Ticked Off is a genius about economics isn't he or she?????

Any idiot knows that the mess we are in, is in fact far more reaching, far deeper, than just the "changing of the guard" would accomplish....

But let's look at what Ticked off had to say, 1st, he or she is one of those individuals who feel that Obama is illegitimate(are you one of those birthers?), and that because he cares about everyone and not just the wealthy he is a socialist...

So, ticked off why not just say what is really on your mind, or what little mind you have! I see obvious signs of a bigot(oh no, the race card you will scream, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a duck) or an avid fan of Fox and the mis-representation and right winged slant they put on everything...

Hell, with the mess we are in, this country will be licking its wounds from the results of the Bush Administration for years to come, this was not just a blip, just a minor or even a major correction in an ever changing economic model. Read books from those who know, heck I worked in the Industry, I know first hand what happened and why and have stated so a number of times on different threads on the Vine.

But to hear once more, the old excuse that Obama is now in charge and quit blaming Bush.... what a joke.... I have to tell you, if he shot me and it took three years in physical therapy before I was whole again, you bet I would be blaming him until I was whole and in regards to our economy, it is the same.....

Listen brainiac, this Great Nation almost ceased to function, the Capitalist system almost failed both the US and the rest of the world... the lack of oversight, regulations, attitudes and policies of the past administration almost destroyed the financial system and put us into what would have been the worst World Depression ever.... The greed of the Financial System, the Arrogance of those at the helm, the Boards of Directors who only rubber stamped agendas, the pushing of mortgages because of fees, the risk taking that was only exceeded at Vegas by the Banks, Savings & Loans and Mortgage Companies..... you have no idea... and if the only place you get information is Fox, then I truly feel sorry for you!

Your lack of information and knowledge is astounding!

Is Bush responsible, you bet... are others culpable, of course... but the mess happened on Bush's watch and during the decade of greed he allowed... his great Tax Giveaway left nothing for the middle class, you know, that segment of our population which keeps this great economic wheel moving..... gad!

Wait, I just saw one of your Posts, You are a Birther! That explains all, and I wasted my efforts on someone of low or no intelligence!

In an interview with National Review's Peter Robinson, Fox News chief Roger Ailes admitted that the White House may have "legitimate complaints" about the way in which Fox News covers them.

Robinson, referencing President Obama's snub of Fox News last September when he appeared on every major Sunday talk show except for Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday," told Ailes that the White House is "whining over nothing." Ailes did not agree:

Well, I don't think they're whining over nothing and I think they have -- look, there's legitimate complaints that they could have. And I've had this dialogue with David Axelrod, who I like very much and, there are legitimate areas.

Think Progress lists several examples of Fox News not living up to their "fair and balanced" slogan regarding the White House and President Obama.

Observer, the FCC is still very much involved with cable (and satellite).

No, it isn't. The FCC charter was written before cable and satellite existed. They are not subject to it's regulation, otherwise you'd see fines against cable channels like HBO and Showtime every time someone says a dirty word.

For all of you with your head up obummer's ass, there are PLENTY of socialist countries for you to go live in- in Europe. Come November, THIS country is voting to going BACK to being a true REPUBLIC.....so buy your tickets now while you can still get them cheap. When the new CONSERVATIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL Congress takes their seats in January, your day of reckoning will be at hand.

There's a difference between socialism and social democracy, genius. And I have lived in Europe. It was 17 euros ($20) for a doctor's visit! How many countries have you lived in, ace?

I got another idea - why don't you and your conservative friends get jobs on Wall Street and shut up?

Yeah, here we are, almost 2 years later and STILL blaming Bush? When are you assclowns going to wake up and pull your heads out of obama's ass?

How much mileage did the right-wing pundits get out of blaming either Clinton or Carter? Hardly a day passed when I didn't hear either of their names invoked to explain away something that was happening or that had happened. Clinton and Carter were the root of all evil.

No, it isn't. The FCC charter was written before cable and satellite existed. They are not subject to it's regulation, otherwise you'd see fines against cable channels like HBO and Showtime every time someone says a dirty word

Local networks who carry FOX News on Sunday are subject to FCC oversight according to their website. Want to see the complaint solicitation form?

No, it isn't. The FCC charter was written before cable and satellite existed. They are not subject to it's regulation, otherwise you'd see fines against cable channels like HBO and Showtime every time someone says a dirty word.

Nope, just different rules, but the FCC is their governing agency, happened over a . Check out their Cable TV Fact Sheet.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities."

You guys are hardcore today.

Seriously though, how can anyone defend Fox News flat out lying? Legally, they can say whatever, but "the market" should theoretically prevent Fox from being so front and center with its "News." That's the authors point. Shouldn't the American public stop putting up with their bulls*&t when it has been shown time and again that Fox FLAT OUT LIES to its viewers?

What Hannity said was: Obama said taxes are going to increase for everyone. The President is normally a liar and here he is having a rare moment of truth.

What the President said was: Taxes are scheduled to increase for everyone, that was by design when it was passed. We are not going to let that design go through for everyone as planned, etc, etc, etc.

How is that not FLAT OUT LYING?

My problem with Fox News is not what the speaker says, but what the viewer hears and sees and accepts. Most of their popular shows ARE opinion...but they are taken by their viewers as fact and will there fore never be removed from "the market" as news...which hurts the American people as a whole. Because the public is not voting based on fact, but based on a biased opinion they see as being true that can be easily proven false.

Well, since you can't even spell Fox correctly, I would say very little.

Faux means fake, Patrick. Keep up. It's a play on words.

CCarm 1.36 Turn off Jon Sterart and try reading a book sometime. Almost all of obamas czars have ties to radical and communist groups, whether its the SDS, Weathermen, or CPUSA, the ties are there.

Steve in #1.47

Steve, I read and have lived more life than most people. You can do 6 degrees of separation all day with me. In fact I dated someone that supposedly was a member of the SDS in 1967, OMG that makes me a communist I guess.

Go play McCarthy with someone else.

How much B/S do we have to take?

An amount equal to counterbalance the B/S from MSNBC.

Agreed...ALL of the cable news programs put their own twist on stories to fit their agenda. I dont believe any of them especially when it comes to politics.

To JWTii- FYI my socialist friend, I have been in more countries than you could possibly imagine. I have seen the European socialist democracies at work, first hand. If you want Government Healthcare, Government run business, and government handouts for all that come- by all means, GO BACK. This is America, jack, and you are to EARN YOUR KEEP. The problem with socialism and socialist democracy is that sooner or later, you are going to run out of the other guy's money. Meanwhile, the hard working person (that actually pays into the system) must wait in lines along with all the other riff raff that DO NOT pay into the system- just so he can get the exact same service as the NO JOB, NO TAX PAYING, WELFARE SUCKING piece of crap that is standing in line in front of him. Yeah, that's the system I want to be a part of.....NOT.

changing of the guard" would accomplish....

No the changing of the guard is just getting ready to happen. Obama's nothing more than Nancy's puppy.

It is painfully obvious that most of the posters here can't figure out how to think for yourselves.

So you want the government to do it. You want Fairness Doctrine on cable? BRING IT. You won't like the results.

NONE of you have anything by way of defense for the obvious obfuscation by Olbermann, becuse you're SO obvious in your own bias. As long as Olbermann's bias agrees with your left wing bull, it's Aokay! But GOD forbid someone on an OPINION show agree with a right wing bull. Then they MUST be liars.

Do you NOT see the hypocrisy?

Silence the opposition, good old believers in the 1st Amendment that you are. That is, until someone you DON'T agree with comes along.

Then it's 1st amendment for YOU, and everyone else needs to be shut down by the government? FYI, the FCC knows the difference between OPINION programming and actual news reporting - even if the lot of you don't. And you're pathetically whining for disclaimers.

USE YOUR BRAIN, ffs.

Good luck with that, and think hard in November when the Democrats loose their majorities. Because your attitudes on display on THIS board are just as much the reason as the bad policies coming out of Washginton.

You should all be ashamed of your arrogance, hatred and bigotry.

Yea, that's right, I said it.

Pragmatic- you are a hero! Excellent post!

"Your lack of information and knowledge is astounding!

Is Bush responsible, you bet... are others culpable, of course... but the mess happened on Bush's watch and during the decade of greed he allowed... his great Tax Giveaway left nothing for the middle class, you know, that segment of our population which keeps this great economic wheel moving..."

So is yours,

First line I will agree with . Both parties screwed the pouch But the president
doesn't make laws or control taxes, Congress does..Democrats had to vote on the tax laws because they have controlled congress for 4 years. As far as the middle class which is the small business owners who have to gross 250000 just to employee a couple of people are now going to get taxed on that amount because they file as S corps. You do know what that is? It doesn't mean they make that and put it in their pocket but hopefully they make enought to grow the business and pay their debt.
So why do I want to hire people?
MAybe I will just work for the union until there is no more people paying for them and we will see what really happens to the middle class.

BTW Steve- I owe you an apology....I used a very big word that you may not be able to comprehend.

Exculpatory- evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial; evidence that shows innocence

Since I didn't have the crayola crayons, this text will have to suffice.

Prag,

Olbermann's bias is just that, his bias. And most of his viewers, from what is available out there see it as such, an opinion. When Olbermann is wrong, less viewers watch him because they want to get the truth. The difference is Fox commentators statements are viewed as facts by their viewers...that's the problem. When Fox commentators are wrong and shown to be wrong their viewers...continue to watch and take what Fox says as fact. HUGE PROBLEM!

I don't want the government to do anything about Fox. I want people to stop being ignorant and hanging on Fox's every word without realizing that the opinions on their shows are opinions and far too often opinion based in lie.

Fox commentators can opine all they want. I just hope Fox viewers get a clue.

Ebook-

While I agree with 99% of what you posted, I need to remind you that in 1998, under Clinton and a D heavy Congress, Glass-Spiegal was broken and revoked. THAT was the first domino to drop- unfortunately nobody listened to us then, when we tried to reason with these people that "Glass-Spiegal was put into place for a damned good reason". "Oh, that's just silly" they claimed. Yeah, so silly. So stupid of us to not understand WHY it was put into place....gee, what idiots we were. Hmmm...who's the idiots now? Oh, sure, the economy seemed to bloom fairly well after that- and people did not realize the horror that they had unleashed. Well folks, I hope you understand it now.....and if you don't, you need to read up on it!

Nope, just different rules, but the FCC is their governing agency, happened over a . Check out their Cable TV Fact Sheet.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities."

That has to do with certain technical aspects of CATV, not content.

FOX news has to report the BS going out there. So, this will stop only when Obama stops putting out the BS. Know what I mean, WW?

I need to remind you that in 1998, under Clinton and a D heavy Congress, Glass-Spiegal was broken and revoked. THAT was the first domino to drop-

The partial repeal of Glass-Steagal. i.e., Gramm-Leach-Bliley, had little to nothing to do with the financial meltdown. See this Factcheck.org entry

The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.

And I'm AWED and AMAZED that you have the audacity to think YOU know what everyone watching Fox thinks.

I've already proven the WHOLE premise of this circle jerk wrong, by pointing out that Hannity did not even LIE.

And you want to try to tell me that in your ARROGANCE, you know what ALL Fox viewers think?

Who the hell do you think you are, that you've made the expert determination that Olbermann viewers (such as they are) are just soooooo much smarter than Hannity viewers?

I'll tell you who you think you are: You think you are a liberal, who be default is head and shoulders above anyone that's NOT a liberal, not matter how educated or well informed they may be.

The fact that you responded to my post about arrogance, bigotry and hate with more arrogance, bigotry and hate?

Thanks. I couldn't have proved the point better if I tried.

Ticked off Now: What were you before you were Ticked, I imagine just off! Beware of calling someone a moron whose command of the English language is tantamount to yours.

Where do I start? Let's go right above to the Glass-Steagal Act, that Would be spelled Steagal brainiac!

It was repealed in 1999 not 1998 and yes, Clinton was President but you have your facts wrong, for it was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: All three of the authors were in fact Republicans and as follows: in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.

The Congress that repealed it was in fact republican The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate^[11] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.^[

Clinton signed it into law knowing it could pass his Veto

So, the ones you are calling idiots are your same Republicans.... what a dolt!

Now to address your comments on the greatest spending spree, there have been Thread after Thread here on the Vine disproving your statements and showing the stats proving my statement.

As far as the exculpatory(must be your new word of the day in Reader's Digest huh?) evidence, you are so full of it! And, as I have said, you might do some reading of your own, rather than depend upon the folks at Fox to provide you with the zingers you rant about....

I have seen all too many like yourself, that have no reason or rationality to themselves, they do have an agenda and in finding them out they resort to (as you did) language that one would deem less than appropriate in civil discussions.

You say you have traveled in more countries in Europe, well I have also, but in my capacity of being an Investment Banker and fully knowledgeable about the goings and comings of that Industry and why they were so responsible as was the previous Administration in the culpability of the financial mess we are in.

Don't even attempt in your feeble way to even step on the stage with me regarding financial instruments and the risk involved with derivatives. The risk ratio exploited by Banks, and others including AIG a mega insurance company. Your statement should be expunged from this thread, but here we do allow those of minimal intelligence to roam so even you are welcome.

Oh, finally, Obama does not, nor did he ever have a Super Majority, but Bush did have one for six of his eight years in office... Just like a Republican to say falsehoods and turn them around to make it seem the other way.

If Obama had a Super Majority, we would have had a Public Option.

If Obama had a Super Majority we would have works projects going on right now.

If Obama had a Super Majority we would not have the obstruction we currently have with the Republicans threatening to start a filibuster on each and every item presented to be passed.

I said finally, but not.... your obvious air of distinction of not wanting to stand in line with others, that you deserve more, that you are better than others, is such an elitist statement, I am amazed more haven't laughed you out of the Vine. I will now go and see if you have a bio, most like yourself do not have one as they are cowards.... Guess you are one of those who really don't care about your fellow man or that in doing so, it brings more to your life not less as you perceive it! Hope that means you are not a Christian for that is not Our Lord would do or think....

You also do not know the tax system, the new taxes are on adjusted gross income, and those small business men and women file a schedule "C" so workers are part of the cost of doing business, in fact all costs are deducted and then they flow to the 1040, so that if someone with a small business is then generating $250K after all costs, that is his profit, he and his wife(if married) then can utilize the standard deduction or can itemize further reducing their taxable income, then with the workfare credits that liability is reduced more...etc.

After retiring from the Investment Banking area, I now am a licensed tax preparer and Enrolled Agent... please do not cross swords with me, you will most likely fall on your own.

And, perhaps you are just one of those brainwashed Republicans whose job is to maintain identities on sites like this just to rabble rouse.... who knows, who cares!

That has to do with certain technical aspects of CATV, not content.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part that said "Different rules?"

Here again from the FCC Fact Sheet:

Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming? In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, you can file complaints about any cable station with the FCC. The FCC has also taken action against a cable company (Comcast) for:

Stations are slipping corporate-sponsored "video news releases" or VNRs — promotional segments designed to look like objective news reports — into their regular news programming. This deception is illegal under FCC rules.

And in fact fined them:

In September 2007, the FCC announced fines for Comcast for airing five separate VNRs on its CN8 channel without identifying their sponsors. But the FCC still needs to do more to stop widespread VNR abuse. It should start by taking action against the more than 100 other stations caught broadcasting VNRs without disclosure.

Notice the fines were against Comcast, not the content providers. i.e., FoxNews or USA Cable, etc. The FCC has no jurisdiction of them or what they choose to air. The First amendment still obtains, at least so far.

How do you propose to get around the five greatest words in the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law"?

Funny you should mention that. Here's the rest of the First Amendment that you left out on a thread questioning the validity of selectively quoting and editing.

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.

Now, regarding this as it applies to "news vs. entertainment" shows and my suggestion for a disclaimer, I see my suggestion as being no more unconstitutional than the TV and movie ratings system or the standards regarding health and nutrition claims on food.

If we can identify recommended ages for viewing shows and factors going into that advice, or deny a food company the "freedom of expression" to say "100% pure beef" when half of the hamburger's content is earthworms, how is specifying whether a show is held to a standard of being based on supportable fact or is coming from a guy who has stated on national TV that he doesn't need to check facts "abridging" free speech or denying the press the chance to investigate and report facts that are found?

By letting the opinion shows say what they want, free speech is not "abridged," and my suggestion is just to make sure what's said freely is categorized. "Press" is mentioned seperately, which would indicate to me that there's a basis included in the First Amendmet to allow the clear identification of which is which.

Ticked: I have seen your limited if not void bio.... and all of the rants you have done in the past..... one thing many of us here on the Vine will give to you, is the title of Troll......

I love your statement in one of the Threads where you lament the Jim Crow laws being put in place.... so I did hit the nail on the head, your are one of those who really, really do not like a Black man in the White House, how dare he!

Any who wish to read your bio, the balderdash your spew on the limited threads you have posted too, will most likely find as I did, a person of limited capability with obvious ills towards the courts and any laws which give respect to a lessor person.

By the way, former Republican, white as Casper the Ghost, married, but have plenty of gay friends, your thoughts on the Gay gene is so busted as medical science has shown the reason for them, and finally I was part of, a very large part of the Capitalist and financial system we all live and work in as I was one of those Investment Bankers who knew many of the players who brought down the system utilizing the methods and investments allowed by the administration with little or no oversight on us.

Yes, Yosho, it absolutely CRUCIAL that we remove yet one more responsbility from people and transfer it to the government to regulate. Pretty soon, we can all just nuzzle up to the government tit completely and go to sleep, Big Brother's got us, right?

Will all of you STFU with your "fox lies" bullcrap, if a little warning label saying "opinion" goes up on it? Pretty please?

No, you'll just find something else to complain about, some other way to insist the government and liberals (of course) know better, some other way to encourage people to be AS STUPID as some of the posts on this thread are - because the government will do their thinking for them and let them know which shows to watch. State run media sounds REALLLY good to you, doesn't it.

You need to watch approximately 15 seconds of Hannity to be able to tell whose side of any current political argument he's on. With Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow it usually takes even less time.

WHAT THE HELLS THE PROBLEM. Why do liberals need every damn thing labeled for you, are you THAT incapable of figuring things out for yourself?

Like, for instance, coffee is HOT?

Now you'll say, well, what does it hurt? IT HURTS that you can't figure things out for yourself, and hold your fellow Americans in such LOW esteem that you don't think they can either. It HURTS that you're so damn eager to give government even more control of the daily lives of Americans.

Have I been perfectly clear?

Prag, why are you getting so angry? If you want proof of my statements just say so dear:

And I'm AWED and AMAZED that you have the audacity to think YOU know what everyone watching Fox thinks.

I never said such a thing. I said Fox's viewers continue to watch, which indicates to me that they are accepting what they see, even when the broadcast or statements within the broadcast are proven false because Fox's ratings remain really high (or are they just watching for fun or do they just leave their TVs on Fox while they go do other things?). Or are Fox's ratings not really high? Is Fox not the "most trusted" name in news? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

I've already proven the WHOLE premise of this circle jerk wrong, by pointing out that Hannity did not even LIE.

Hannity did lie. Sorry, any way you spin it. That clip was meant to give credence to a lie, to create an assumption that is a lie in the mind of the viewer. If anything, he intended to convey a lie by the clip selected and the statements before and after. He said, Obama is going to make sure everyone's taxes go up...lie. I'm not buying your crap. Don't bulls*&t or parse words.

Who the hell do you think you are, that you've made the expert determination that Olbermann viewers (such as they are) are just soooooo much smarter than Hannity viewers?

Did I say smarter? No. Did I mean smarter? No. Did it come out as smarter? Sure. What I'm saying is Olbermann viewers turn to other sources when Olbermann is wrong or when they think he is becoming too polarizing, while Fox when wrong, continues to maintain high viewership. Proof: http://www.businessinsider.com/quarterly-ratings-keith-olbermann-is-slipping-in-the-key-25-54-age-demographic-2010-6 What that says to me is Olbermann viewers are getting their news from multiple sources and finding better more interesting sources when given in correct information. Not smarter, because Fox viewers are capable of getting more accurate information. But Olbermann viewers seem to find out when they've been given incorrect information and accept that it was wrong. Meanwhile, Fox viewers are not doing their homework and fact checking, they are not watching it to be informed, or they are simply enjoying the entertainment "value" of Fox, something is keeping Fox on, but it's not the truth. What does it say to you?

I'll tell you who you think you are: You think you are a liberal, who be default is head and shoulders above anyone that's NOT a liberal, not matter how educated or well informed they may be.

No. I like facts when I'm forming an opinion, or listening to someone else's. That's all. I don't hate too often. But I hate when people form an opinion off of a lie, like Hannity's clip.

The fact that you responded to my post about arrogance, bigotry and hate with more arrogance, bigotry and hate?

Where was the arrogance, bigotry, and hate? Just because I'm challenging what you say doesn't mean any of those opinions you hold of me is true. I'm allowed to challenge what you have to say. As a matter of fact that's what NV is for, right? Vibrant discussion. The only thing I'm hating on is ignorance. How dare I want my fellow Americans to be fully informed, when I try to be well-informed myself???????!!!!!! How dare I question Fox's motives in they way they report? How dare I tell you why I think you're wrong when clearly you're right and there can be no discussion what so ever?

Don't be so indignant.

Thanks. I couldn't have proved the point better if I tried.

You proved nothing. I don't have to be tolerate of ignorance and lies.

Steve, and I mean this sincerely, your opinion is not worth a two day old squirt of piss. Have a nice (deluded) life. Keep trying to paint anyone that dares speak the truth to be a racist or a bigot.....you see exactly what you are in others, even though it is not so. Basically, a pitiful excuse for a human being and of such poor character that we cannot help but to pity you.

WHAT THE HELLS THE PROBLEM. Why do liberals need every damn thing labeled for you, are you THAT incapable of figuring things out for yourself?

Liberals aren't the ones whose votes are based on "commentary claimed to be fact" like "killing grandma" and "Obama's a Muslim" in large numbers even after such things are proven to be BS. I suggest you save the accusations of incompetence for those who do.

If that wasn't true, Obama would have never been elected....liberals do what their liberal media tells them. The only "truth" they know is the "truth" fed to them by their liberal MSM.

How is it that the liberals can't think for themselves? It was a perfectly spelled out point- "

Why do liberals need every damned thing labeled for you, are you THAT incapable of figuring things out yourself?"

The answer is YES, you are THAT incapable of figuring things out for yourselves. You BLINDLY follow whatever your kool-aid sucking liberal media tells you to.

Will all of you STFU with your "fox lies" bullcrap, if a little warning label saying "opinion" goes up on it? Pretty please?

Um, no, I won't "STFU." Funny how someone who's such a defender of free speech would make such a suggestion.

No, you'll just find something else to complain about, some other way to insist the government and liberals (of course) know better, some other way to encourage people to be AS STUPID as some of the posts on this thread are - because the government will do their thinking for them and let them know which shows to watch. State run media sounds REALLLY good to you, doesn't it.

How about stating how my suggestion would limit free speech if it still lets the schedule and content of the programming continue on the current pattern, but just adds something like the ratings markers we already have ( and you've yet to complain about ) to advise viewers of the reliability of the content?

You need to watch approximately 15 seconds of Hannity to be able to tell whose side of any current political argument he's on. With Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow it usually takes even less time.

The issue isn't the political leanings of the commentators, which is why I specifically said my suggestion would apply to all sides. The issue is incidents like what happened with Shirley Sherrod and what it indicates can be allowed to influence our elections when people accept that level of editing ( or "killing grandma" or "Obama's a Muslim" ) to be accepted as "fact".

Now you'll say, well, what does it hurt? IT HURTS that you can't figure things out for yourself, and hold your fellow Americans in such LOW esteem that you don't think they can either.

Once again, liberals aren't the ones holding on to the "killing grandma" and "Obama's a Muslim" lies long after they've been disproven. They're not the ones claiming Obama's out to Raise taxes" now while ignoring the fact that it was Bush who set the expiration date on the tax cuts. I'll hold certain demographics of my fellow Americans in the esteem you suggest when we no longer have such nonsense.

It HURTS that you're so damn eager to give government even more control of the daily lives of Americans.

How is it "controlling the lives of Americans" to let the networks ( and, once again, I was suggesting all such networks, not just FNC ) continue to say what they please but make sure there's a clear distinction between "fact" and "opinion"?

Have I been perfectly clear?

Yes. You cry "Big Brother" and "trampling First Amendment" at my suggestion even though I specifically stated the programming content should not be changed or censored, only properly labeled. You feign indignation over the suggestion that some measure of "truth in advertising" be introduced while the side you seem to favor thrives on the deception this suggestion would address. I'd welcome a thought-out counterargument against my suggestion based on constitutionality or logic, but you'd rather jump to accusations and insults.

Including the hypocritical "STFU" suggestion that I surrender my First Amendment rights because it's your will. Whose condescending?

I'm angry because I used to be a Democrat, and I used to be a liberal. And I was proud of it. And now I'm embarrassed, because of the sheer nastiness exhibited on the part of liberals. The lengths that liberals will go to prove that they're somehow intellectually superior to everyone else make me want to vomit.

Your dissertations are just more of the same.

Meanwhile, Fox viewers are not doing their homework and fact checking, they are not watching it to be informed, or they are simply enjoying the entertainment "value" of Fox, something is keeping Fox on, but it's not the truth. What does it say to you?

You're taking a larger ratings base for Fox, combined with a decreasing ratings base for Olbermann and extrapolating that Fox veiwers aren't fact checking, and you want to tell me your not being arrogant, bigoted and hateful? Really?

I'm going to cut and past for you the intial portions of the Hannity clip:

Hannity: "Now, the president did have a rare moment of honesty during a speech, and I hope voters around the country are watching this."

(Clip)

President Obama: "…taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year…for everybody."

Hannity: "Alright, that's right, I know the anointed one will make sure that happens."

Does Obama support the elimination of taxes on the wealthy and an increase to the cap gains tax, OR NOT?

Speaking of selective editing, did you bother to watch the REST OF THE SEGMENT that MM pulled this 5 second section out of? Here, why don't you give it a shot? The approximately 90 seconds PRIOR to that 5 seconds sets up the ENTIRE scenario of the Bush tax cuts.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4332639/rove-responds-to-obamas-economic-pitch

Hannity DID NOT LIE. You're so busy believing anything Media Matters tells you to believe, you're doing the EXACT same thing - taking Hannity's comments ENTIRELY out of context. Media Matters and John Stewart (!!!) are the ones lying.

Yosho -

Now that that's out of the way, proving that Media Matters is the one lying ...... so you really want to discuss the fallacies on "my side"?

My side is zero tolerance for the BS. Right now, on this vine, my target happens to be liberals. Tomorrow, on another vine or blog, it might be zero tolerance for Conservatives - which is what I had for the death panels.

Democrats have been lying for 8 years about the Bush tax cuts being only for the wealthy. They lied about their support for the Iraq war. They lie when they rig votes in the House to favor their political desires.

Ticked Off; Facts speak for themselves, it is your opinions and falsehoods that I hold in contempt.

Your opinion is so lopsided, so biased as shown by your statements on other threads, that I do not have to even state an opinion, for you have demonstrated yourself to all here and you have been outed!

I fight here for Truth, for Justice even for individuals like yourself, sour, dour, limited in understanding except for you own opinions and those who agree with you.

My party was in fact Republican, and so for some thirty years, it was only with the advent of the Bush Administration, the obvious hate spewn individuals like yourself, with such self pity for a world turned up-side down by the placing of a Black Man(regardless of his education and communicative skills) in the White House... your other statements on your other threads which can be seen by all betrays you, your thinking your thought process.

I hope, I hope that individuals like yourself will one day be gone from our America, the America that understands what it means to take care of another. The service I was in, the Nation I fought for is far greater than the bile your bring to the surface. The things that were once the standard of the Republican Party no longer exists.... it is made of individuals who listen to Rush and Beck and follow like sheep. Like individuals who speak or jump before the even look.... your own words have betrayed you....

My opinion is that you are a sad, miserable person, but that is my opinion... your referance to a two day old bag of piss is exactly what I thought you would say or react.... Either you are an old fart, older than myself by years if not by your limited reasoning, or some young idiot speaking from a limited capacity and without any experience.... you may in fact be a former soldier who has fought in some of the lates combat zones... but it is appearant that you mask yourself, not taking the time to write a bio, with little or at least one who will call you friend.

I will let others judge you, the words you say without facts and knowledge.... and when you make a mistake as your have, be man enough to own up to them.... and fact check before you write, it gives you credibility...

You have written like a true Republican, one who say what he does not know.... and then throws it back to others....

You have taken too much of my time, for most of my time is spent trying to find what can be done to put middle class America back to work, working with civic and social groups to entertain new ideas, and seeking an answer to help our small business men and women to make a living and employ people at a fair wage.

You say your statement was sincere, and I believe it was, full of the anger, the hate you hold within, the bias feelings shown both on this thread and on all of the other you have been on for so short of a time..... but it takes all to make America, and without individuals like yourself, I would be slacking.... and with your statements you help me achieve a greater feeling of worth, one where I can toe the line, and keep lies and falsehoods in check.

I have had great banter with some of those I have dis-agreed with, and in fact have called them friends.... you are someone I would not like to know, and I know many!

Good luck to you in your misery.... I only wish you could get what you wish for, and see the destruction that would come with it... but I sense you do not care, except for yourself and your own agenda in life.

I see my suggestion as being no more unconstitutional than the TV and movie ratings system or the standards regarding health and nutrition claims on food.

Firstly the movie ratings are voluntary and are not the product of a law made by congress. Secondly, food labeling and safety is a legitimate public safety interest (and we could argue about whether the US federal government is the best and most efficient device for ensuring food safety; the fact is that it's the producers that ensure food safety and its the free market that incentivizes honesty in labeling much more than does so the government)

Firstly the movie ratings are voluntary and are not the product of a law made by congress.

I also mentioned the TV ratings system, which was effectively put in place by Congress when they mandated the V-chip. Once again, this didn't dictate what could be shown, but did allow for basic classification and viewer decision-making based on content.

Secondly, food labeling and safety is a legitimate public safety interest (and we could argue about whether the US federal government is the best and most efficient device for ensuring food safety; the fact is that it's the producers that ensure food safety and its the free market that incentivizes honesty in labeling much more than does so the government)

And the free market factor would still be in place with my suggestion. If someone really likes Hannity or Maddow, and the content isn't changed, how is some kind of disclaimer or "news vs. opinion" specification going to change their viewing preferences? If a few suddenly realize that what they've been hearing from Beck or Olbermann isn't as objective as they thought and stops watching, enough such disillusioned viewers would create a new demand for something new and the network that meets that demand has the chance to cash in.

As far as "legitimate public safety" goes, who affects those policies of "public safety" more than the politicians we elect? Who sets the policies that affect our safety, from water and air quality standards to foreign policy including where to send our military?

So, Free Market would be intact, First Amendment would be preserved, and public safety interest ( in the form of voters having the option to use such a specification to make sure their decisions when voting have more fact and less spin contributing to the decision when choosing who will set policies that affect this country ) are addressed.

The thing is, I'm not expecting any such measure to be proposed. I'm in no position to make it happen, and even if someone who was were to succeed in doing so I doubt it would eliminate the influence of Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, or Hannity have on the average voter. It was just an idea, but I think the fact that much of the disagreement I've encountered ranges from the insulting to hysteria with willful omission of my inclusion of factors to preserve free expression demonstrates the effect of the "opinion over fact/no compromise/what hypocrisy?" mentality that's dominating our culture.

observer, I think we've had some less-than-kind disagreements before, and I apologize if I responded too harshly to #1.19, but I have appreciated your input here.

Pragmatic, you lost credibility with me with "Preserve the First Amendment/STFU."

You guys are hilarious.

Do you even realize your own liberal media do the same thing? That is, if they even bother to report ANY news that makes Obama look bad.

It is so one sided it is pathetic and you have the balls to (femal dog) and whine about 1 news station.

You mention Sherrod. Did you watch the video? Do you realize that using your authority (or lack of) to an extent beyond or below what you can do because of someones skin color is wrong? Yea, I know... SHE DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END. She admitted to having those thoughts and that is wrong, and racism no matter what you say. It is the definition of racism to be honest.

Did you notice how the crowd cheered her when she mentioned that? Yup, that was the NAACP meeting and it speaks VOLUMES about them also.

I would love to be called racist by the NAACP. It would mean I am doing something right.

The bottom line is ANY media outlet can SPIN things in the favor they want them. Like I mentioned above, you have CBS, MSNBC, ABC, CNN and a lot more.

And you @!$%# about the 1 you don't have.

You are on a sinking ship and you are still blaming the iceberg. Come November, your ship will sink and you think it's all fox news fault. That is lame, pathetic and you guys need some serious help if you think Fox can change an election.

@ observer3141, way up on 1.85

Notice the fines were against Comcast, not the content providers. i.e., FoxNews or USA Cable

Actually, they were fined for content they placed on one of their channels, it's right there in the quote, they were fined for content their stations showed. So they are a cable company that owns stations/providers, and it was as owners of stations/providers that earned them the fine.

And, this still remains:

Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming? In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

Pondering whether I care if Yosho thinks I'm credible because I called him on the whining ....

Nope. Don't care. Typical thin skin, can say whatever but doesn't want to hear it back.

Because I notice you SPECIFICALLY ignored the link I provided, illustrating how Media Matters is actually the liar here, and are the ones taking Hannity's comments out of context to try to bolster their ongoing "Fox lies" campaign.

Whether I have any credibility with you or not, which we've determined is irrelevant to the only person who it should matter to - me -

Go to the source. Watch the Fox video, and know Media Matters for the liars THEY are.

Here, I'll link it for you again.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4332639/rove-responds-to-obamas-economic-pitch

I don't want the government to do anything about Fox. I want people to stop being ignorant and hanging on Fox's every word without realizing that the opinions on their shows are opinions and far too often opinion based in lie.

I definitely agree! FOX News is viewed by a lot of folks. What gets me is the vitriol being spewed here.

I don't watch FOX News, but as an American, I care about the harm they are committing against fellow Americans. Studies have shown that FOX viewers' understanding of current events are sorely lacking in accuracy. When a media entity lies to its viewers on purpose, making them uninformed/misinformed, we all lose.

PragmaticToAFault

You were never a lib.

Once again, the arrogant all seeing liberal has decided they know everything.

Good job, CCArm.

To a certain extent, you're right. I was NEVER a liberal like some people now are liberals. I was, and am, a liberal that believed in personal freedom and responsbility for everyone, not just people with whom I agree. I have never advocated, based on lies, that someone elses speech be curtailed because I didn't like their message.

Once again, you do NOT want to tackle the issue of the video in its entirety.

Good job.

How do you know it is [ BS] ? Maybe you are only looking at your side thinking it is the only right side.

All you have to do is change the channel! Not a difficult thing to do. As far as telling the truth, time will prove the left has been deceived.

All you have to do is change the channel! Not a difficult thing to do. As far as telling the truth, time will prove the left has been deceived.

History taught us that by then it will be too late... The German people turned their backs on this same kind of propaganda organization once and the result is their greatest shame and regret.

The Great turning away...

History taught us that by then it will be too late... The German people turned their backs on this same kind of propaganda organization once and the result is their greatest shame and regret.

The Great turning away...

And this is what the so called "conservative" right wants America to do while calling everyone else every label from socialist to nazi... from blind sheep to petty communist tyrants.

These people defend the worst propaganda network in existence today with the whole of their hearts and souls. They do so while not only ignoring but parroting the brownshirt tactics of intimidation and the rhetoric of fear Fox Newstainment inspires and supports.

No, it isn't. The FCC charter was written before cable and satellite existed. They are not subject to it's (sic) regulation, otherwise you'd see fines against cable channels like HBO and Showtime every time someone says a dirty word.

No, cable was around before you knew it was around OBSERVER!! Good try at spinning, at a save, at back-peddling, at turn around, LOL, LOL!!! Now you're going with "some tech issues." And you're still wrong!! Seems you need to take your own advice.

Fox News and the Far-Right they represent, Listen to what they say... History is repeating...

"Fascism is a religious concept"~ Benito Mussolini

“The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative." ~ Benito Mussolini

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace."~ Benito Mussolini

The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building. Benito Mussolini

"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal. Benito Mussolini

Pondering whether I care if Yosho thinks I'm credible because I called him on the whining ....

Pondering whether I want to feed Pragmatics rampant narcissism....

Nope. Don't care. Typical thin skin, can say whatever but doesn't want to hear it back.

No, you haven't said anything "back" that I've seen, just offered opinions with no basis stated, including being condescending and insulting. The lack of insults on my end is called "not lowering myself to the level of someone who prefers insults and rants to making points." In other words, trying to actually debate. Observer and I have had several disagreements in the past, and I acknowledged his input this time despite that because he actually discussed points of debate.

Because I notice you SPECIFICALLY ignored the link I provided, illustrating how Media Matters is actually the liar here, and are the ones taking Hannity's comments out of context to try to bolster their ongoing "Fox lies" campaign.

I notice you SPECIFICALLY avoided mentioning how the Republican-promoted lies I mentioned contribute positively to the political process or how exactly anyone would be harmed by the proper categorizing I mentioned.

Whether I have any credibility with you or not, which we've determined is irrelevant to the only person who it should matter to - me -

Heard that kind of narcissistic attitude before from a certain half-term former governor of Alaska.

Go to the source. Watch the Fox video, and know Media Matters for the liars THEY are.

Here, I'll link it for you again.

A link with Rove's name mentioned? You want to accuse anyone of lying and as a reference for honesty and integrity you bring up Karl-frakking-Rove?!! Just when I thought the "First Amendment/STFU" showed a lack of logic, you one-upped yourself. And before you crow about the fact that I didn't bother checking out the link, it's not because of any fear of facing "Rove's truth", it's because the very concept of the man being truthful is about as ludicrous as an atheist making it to the Papacy.

I'm done. No more. Don't worry about any more "whining" from me in response to your comments, since I won't be seeing them.