http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk

Pisano wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>
Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
news."

(Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
- that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
SquarePants".)

-- Don

Don Del Grande wrote:
> Pisano wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>>
> Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
> use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
> channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
> part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
> news."
>
> (Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
> once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
> - that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
> SquarePants".)
>
> -- Don

Also, don't bother mentioning that Matt Groening said "the Fox viewer
might confuse our cartoon with actual news", not "Fox News viewer."

--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE
outback_jon@ver.no.sp.am.izon.net
AMD Opteron 165 (@2.5) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:24:03 -0800, Don Del Grande
<del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Pisano wrote:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>>
>Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
>use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
>channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
>part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
>news."
>
>(Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
>once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
>- that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
>SquarePants".)
>
>-- Don


The way Krusty the Clown (McCain, et al) was promoted over his
opponent (Ron Paul) on the cartoon news broadcast is precisely the way
it is done in the business of "real" "news".

They are intentionally deceiving the public.

Pisano wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:24:03 -0800, Don Del Grande
><del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Pisano wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>>>
>>Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
>>use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
>>channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
>>part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
>>news."
>>
>>(Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
>>once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
>>- that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
>>SquarePants".)
>>
>>-- Don
>
> The way Krusty the Clown (McCain, et al) was promoted over his
>opponent (Ron Paul) on the cartoon news broadcast is precisely the way
>it is done in the business of "real" "news".
>
> They are intentionally deceiving the public.

I suppose, but here's news: There has never ever been a news service
that has not, to some degree, intentionally deceived the public. This
is true because there are no unbiased people and news serices are run by
people so there can be no unbiased news reporting. Story selecting will,
to some degree, reflect that bias. The act of running a news service is
therefore an act of intentional deception.

There are, of course, matters of motivation and degree to consider, but
it's best to avoid thinking that any new service can be completely
innocent even, or perhaps especially, if you happen to agree with their
biases.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

In article <47C9E35B.D762EF23@nospam.net>,
"Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

> Pisano wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:24:03 -0800, Don Del Grande
> ><del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Pisano wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
> >>>
> >>Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
> >>use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
> >>channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
> >>part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
> >>news."
> >>
> >>(Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
> >>once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
> >>- that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
> >>SquarePants".)
> >>
> >>-- Don
> >
> > The way Krusty the Clown (McCain, et al) was promoted over his
> >opponent (Ron Paul) on the cartoon news broadcast is precisely the way
> >it is done in the business of "real" "news".
> >
> > They are intentionally deceiving the public.
>
> I suppose, but here's news: There has never ever been a news service
> that has not, to some degree, intentionally deceived the public. This
> is true because there are no unbiased people and news serices are run by
> people so there can be no unbiased news reporting. Story selecting will,
> to some degree, reflect that bias. The act of running a news service is
> therefore an act of intentional deception.
>
> There are, of course, matters of motivation and degree to consider, but
> it's best to avoid thinking that any new service can be completely
> innocent even, or perhaps especially, if you happen to agree with their
> biases.

Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
semblance of balance in reporting.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
Ten Steps to Fascism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
>> some semblance of balance in reporting.
>
>"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."
>

Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.

Timberwoof wrote:

>In article <47C9E35B.D762EF23@nospam.net>,
> "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Pisano wrote:

<snip>

>> > They are intentionally deceiving the public.
>>
>> I suppose, but here's news: There has never ever been a news service
>> that has not, to some degree, intentionally deceived the public. This
>> is true because there are no unbiased people and news serices are run by
>> people so there can be no unbiased news reporting. Story selecting will,
>> to some degree, reflect that bias. The act of running a news service is
>> therefore an act of intentional deception.
>>
>> There are, of course, matters of motivation and degree to consider, but
>> it's best to avoid thinking that any new service can be completely
>> innocent even, or perhaps especially, if you happen to agree with their
>> biases.
>
>Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
>semblance of balance in reporting.

That's absolutely true but if you're asserting that Fox news is not
meeting that standard then tell me, please, how many hours of Fox News
have you watched in, for example, the last 90 days?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

Timberwoof wrote:
>
> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
> some semblance of balance in reporting.

"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."

Pisano wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Timberwoof wrote:
>>>
>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
>>> some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>
>>"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."
>
> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.

And how much Fox News do you watch?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
<michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:

>Pisano wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Timberwoof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
>>>> some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>>
>>>"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."
>>
>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>
>And how much Fox News do you watch?


Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.

Pisano wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
> <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Pisano wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere
>>>>> to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>>>
>>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
>>>> unafraid."
>>>
>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>>
>> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>
>
> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.

Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read the 'ron
paul is cool' blogs."

On Mar 1, 7:38*pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pisano wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
> > <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> Pisano wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> >>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere
> >>>>> to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>
> >>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
> >>>> unafraid."
>
> >>> * * * *Yeah. *Unafraid to LIE.
>
> >> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>
> > Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>
> Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read the 'ron
> paul is cool' blogs."


And you sir, are now creating yet another lie.

How does it feel to be devoid of TRUTH?

kenpisano@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:38 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Pisano wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
>>> <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Pisano wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere
>>>>>>> to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>
>>>>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
>>>>>> unafraid."
>>
>>>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>>
>>>> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>>
>>> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>>
>> Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read
>> the 'ron paul is cool' blogs."
>
>
> And you sir, are now creating yet another lie.

Prove it.

> How does it feel to be devoid of TRUTH?

How does it feel to be devoid of a brain? That's what smoking dope does to
ya. <This is your brain on drugs..... crack...... splatt....
sizzzzzzzllllleeee>

Dave Bugg wrote:

>Pisano wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
>> <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Pisano wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere
>>>>>> to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
>>>>> unafraid."
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>>>
>>> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>>
>> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>
>Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read the 'ron
>paul is cool' blogs."

Perhaps, but it's certain that I didn't expect a quantitative answer to
my question!

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

On Mar 1, 7:51*pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kenpis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 7:38 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Pisano wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
> >>> <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Pisano wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere
> >>>>>>> to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>
> >>>>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
> >>>>>> unafraid."
>
> >>>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>
> >>>> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>
> >>> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>
> >> Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read
> >> the 'ron paul is cool' blogs."
>
> > And you sir, are now creating yet another lie.
>
> Prove it.


Truth rings like the Liberty Bell, whereas the sounds you make are
like that of a dull thud.

>
> > How does it feel to be devoid of TRUTH?
>
> How does it feel to be devoid of a brain? That's what smoking dope does to
> ya. <This is your brain on drugs..... crack...... splatt....
> sizzzzzzzllllleeee>


Ah, yes. Ad hominem. The last resort of the logically bankrupt.

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <47C9E35B.D762EF23@nospam.net>,
> "Michael R. Kesti" <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Pisano wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:24:03 -0800, Don Del Grande
>>> <del_grande_news@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pisano wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>>>>>
>>>> Apparently, somebody is worried that, since the news crawl appears to
>>>> use computer-generated letters rather than having them "drawn", some
>>>> channel-surfer is going to see the crawl and think, "Well, the top
>>>> part is a cartoon, but the bottom part isn't, so that must be real
>>>> news."
>>>>
>>>> (Meanwhile, nobody else seems to remember the time a CNN news anchor
>>>> once admonished a reporter on the air for "mentioning the competition"
>>>> - that competition (to Cartoon Network) being "SpongeBob
>>>> SquarePants".)
>>>>
>>>> -- Don
>>> The way Krusty the Clown (McCain, et al) was promoted over his
>>> opponent (Ron Paul) on the cartoon news broadcast is precisely the way
>>> it is done in the business of "real" "news".
>>>
>>> They are intentionally deceiving the public.
>> I suppose, but here's news: There has never ever been a news service
>> that has not, to some degree, intentionally deceived the public. This
>> is true because there are no unbiased people and news serices are run by
>> people so there can be no unbiased news reporting. Story selecting will,
>> to some degree, reflect that bias. The act of running a news service is
>> therefore an act of intentional deception.
>>
>> There are, of course, matters of motivation and degree to consider, but
>> it's best to avoid thinking that any new service can be completely
>> innocent even, or perhaps especially, if you happen to agree with their
>> biases.
>
> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
> semblance of balance in reporting.
>

No, but there is no requirement that they adhere to any semblance of
anything except profit. They are a business and not a service. They
exist to make money and will do what it takes to do so. This is true of
all news media in our country.

The only alternative is to have a government run news service that does
not need to make a profit to exist. This, obviously, leads to a
completely different bias in the news.

So far, the best news is the independent blogs on the Internet, as long
as you recognize their obvious biases. But since there are approximately
equal numbers on each side of an issue, you can usually figure out the
truth or a fairly close approximation to it.

Steve Rothstein

kenpisano@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:51 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> kenpis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 7:38 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Pisano wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
>>>>> <michaelke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Pisano wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to
>>>>>>>>> adhere to some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>
>>>>>>>> "Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and
>>>>>>>> unafraid."
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>>
>>>>>> And how much Fox News do you watch?
>>
>>>>> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>>
>>>> Translation: "I don't watch it at all, I merely smoke dope and read
>>>> the 'ron paul is cool' blogs."
>>
>>> And you sir, are now creating yet another lie.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>
> Truth rings like the Liberty Bell, whereas the sounds you make are
> like that of a dull thud.

As I said, you don't watch Fox News. BTW, the only bell around here is you,
Tink.

>>
>>> How does it feel to be devoid of TRUTH?
>>
>> How does it feel to be devoid of a brain? That's what smoking dope
>> does to ya. <This is your brain on drugs..... crack...... splatt....
>> sizzzzzzzllllleeee>
>
>
> Ah, yes. Ad hominem.

Your urine test came back positive.

> The last resort of the logically bankrupt.

The strawman of the rhetorically deprived.



--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Pisano" <kenpisano@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejtjs3l1qacg051k42l75v077l0j0rjqqu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:28:58 -0800, "Michael R. Kesti"
> <michaelkesti@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Pisano wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Timberwoof wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
>>>>> some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>>>
>>>>"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."
>>>
>>> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>>
>>And how much Fox News do you watch?
>
>
> Enought to know they are feeding bullshit to sheep.
>

I suppose you get your real news on short wave or low power radio like KNAZI
or RDNK 101 give us a break. Massive conspiracy by all the networks,
affiliates and of course the FCC! I almost forgot them. Go look for the
second shooter will ya?

When I watch Fox, I have a major problem telling if the news is deliberately
cartoonish or it just happens to be a cartoonish by chance. So I give them
the benefit of the doubt and think to myself that they really aren't trying
to be cartoonish but it just happens because of ineptitude.
--
meport

"Pisano" <kenpisano@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3kahs3d0mlparamvboc4n41pa39k1k5p34@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blUTIUxh-Mk
>
>

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:20:09 -0500, Pisano <kenpisano@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:17:52 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Timberwoof wrote:
>>>
>>> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
>>> some semblance of balance in reporting.
>>
>>"Balanced" is their middle name, as in "Fair, balanced, and unafraid."
>>
>
> Yeah. Unafraid to LIE.
>
Why don't you point out a few of those "lies". If there are so many,
it shouldn't be a problem.

meport2 wrote:
> When I watch Fox, I have a major problem telling if the news is
> deliberately cartoonish or it just happens to be a cartoonish by
> chance. So I give them the benefit of the doubt and think to myself
> that they really aren't trying to be cartoonish but it just happens
> because of ineptitude.

You've not read many of my posts on tx.guns, then.

Samples:
* 3,000 pair of panties stolen,
* Woman addicted to fake bomb threats,
* Statute of Liberty involved in gun fight,
* Dogs chew tires off mail truck,
* Cop sics dog on mope,
* Cat confession introduced at trial,
* Don't take a machete to a biker bar,
* Fake seatbelts don't work
* Cal State lockdown due to fake ROTC drill gun
* Man eats landlady's chihuahua

Fox is reporting it straight; it's the people who make the news that are the
cartoons.

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote

> Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
> semblance of balance in reporting.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar slant on
the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.

In article <47ca384d$0$30705$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"P. Roehling" <nowayjose@uh-uh.edu> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote
>
> > Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
> > semblance of balance in reporting.
>
> Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
>
> As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
> owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar slant on
> the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.

This is where I become a socialist. When the FCC removed the fairness
doctrine and the rules about the size of news media conglomerates, news
reporting became a moneymaking scheme and all responsibility to reporing
actual news was abandoned. One of the foundations of a healthy
democracy[1] is freely flowing information. Organizations like Fox News
injure that foundation.




[1] Go ahead. Get out your club labeled "For use on people who think
this is a democracy when it's really a republic". I know what you mean.
And you know what I mean.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

In article <hanyj.748$Td2.478@trndny08>,
"Dave Bugg" <davebugg2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> kenpisano@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 7:51 pm, "Dave Bugg" <davebu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> How does it feel to be devoid of a brain? That's what smoking dope
> >> does to ya. <This is your brain on drugs..... crack...... splatt....
> >> sizzzzzzzllllleeee>
> >
> >
> > Ah, yes. Ad hominem.
>
> Your urine test came back positive.

Of course it did. He studied all night for it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote

>> Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
>>
>> As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
>> owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar slant
>> on
>> the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.
>
> This is where I become a socialist. When the FCC removed the fairness
> doctrine and the rules about the size of news media conglomerates, news
> reporting became a moneymaking scheme and all responsibility to reporing
> actual news was abandoned. One of the foundations of a healthy
> democracy[1] is freely flowing information. Organizations like Fox News
> injure that foundation.

Eh. Fox saw a marketing opportunity and took it: they serve the brain-dead
far right wing and make no real pretense of doing otherwise. (Let's face it:
not even Fox's talking heads can pronounce the phrase "Fair And Balanced"
and make it sound as if they're not about to burst into hysterical
laughter.) In the same light, anyone who wants to is free to start a
strictly left-slanted news network along the lines of the SNL fake news.
(And if they hire Tina Fey to write and deliver it, I'll become a faithful
watcher for sure.)

> [1] Go ahead. Get out your club labeled "For use on people who think
> this is a democracy when it's really a republic". I know what you mean.
> And you know what I mean.

You're confusing me with someone else. I've yet to use that argument in my
life.

Timberwoof wrote:
>> As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
>> owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar
>> slant on the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.
>
> This is where I become a socialist. When the FCC removed the fairness
> doctrine and the rules about the size of news media conglomerates,
> news reporting became a moneymaking scheme and all responsibility to
> reporing actual news was abandoned. One of the foundations of a
> healthy democracy[1] is freely flowing information. Organizations
> like Fox News injure that foundation.
>

It isn't now, nor was it ever, about "news conglomerates." There never have
been "fairness" rules on newspapers, magazines, and the like. Only
electronic communications came under the jurisdiction of the FCC. For
example, the Fox empire includes newspapers (The Wall Street Journal),
magazines (Weekly Standard), Satellite TV (DirectTV), Cable (Fox News,
National Geographic), Books (HarperCollins), and movies (20th Century Fox).

Further, the FCC wasn't solely responsible for removing the "fairness
doctrine and rules about the size of media conglomerates."

The 1984 United States Supreme Court ruled "Fairness Doctrine was 'chilling
speech,' and added that the Supreme Court would be 'forced' to revisit the
constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have 'the net effect of reducing
rather than enhancing speech.' "

After losing several court cases, the FCC repealed the doctrine by a 4-0
vote in 1987.

The FCC still maintains control over mergers and acquisitions in the
electronic communications field.

As to Fox: The way I see it is that Rupert Murdoch saw that the national
networks were fairly liberal in their outlook. Assuming 40% of the public
was conservative, Murdoch probably figured he could configure a competing
network with a conservative bent, get 40% of the viewership, and leave the
big three to divvy-up the remaining 60%.

It worked. Fox News is, by far, the largest cable network.

As for TV stations:

Fox - 25 owned and 175 affiliates
NBC - almost 200 affiliates
CBS - 16 owned, almost 200 affiliates
ABC - 10 owned, almost 200 affiliates

The Fox network began in 1986 and has been in business for 21 years. NBC was
formed in 1926 and has been broadcasting for 81 years.

On Mar 2, 1:07*am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article <47ca384d$0$30705$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> *"P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
>
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote
>
> > > Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to some
> > > semblance of balance in reporting.
>
> > Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
>
> > As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
> > owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar slant on
> > the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.
>
> This is where I become a socialist. When the FCC removed the fairness
> doctrine and the rules about the size of news media conglomerates, news
> reporting became a moneymaking scheme and all responsibility to reporing
> actual news was abandoned. One of the foundations of a healthy
> democracy[1] is freely flowing information. Organizations like Fox News
> injure that foundation.

So you think someone else should get to decide what they can or cannot
say? I think that's called censorship. If they are in fact telling
lies those harmed by the lies can bring suits against them, so they
are limited in how far they can go.

> [1] Go ahead. Get out your club labeled "For use on people who think
> this is a democracy when it's really a republic". I know what you mean.
> And you know what I mean.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote

> So you think someone else should
> get to decide what they can or cannot
> say? I think that's called censorship.

Urr, we already *have* laws in place that tell you what you may or may not
say under varying circumstances, and they've been in place for a long long
time.

It's just a question of where to draw the line.

In article
<9678d101-c558-4d68-a76b-9574e1772388@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Bruce Richmond <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 1:07*am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <47ca384d$0$30705$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > *"P. Roehling" <nowayj...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.s...@infernosoft.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Granted, but none of that excuses Fox News from having to adhere to
> > > > some
> > > > semblance of balance in reporting.
> >
> > > Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
> >
> > > As a private enterprise, Fox has no responsibility to anyone but it's
> > > owners. But on the other hand, if you don't care for their peculiar slant
> > > on
> > > the news you aren't going to be forced to watch.
> >
> > This is where I become a socialist. When the FCC removed the fairness
> > doctrine and the rules about the size of news media conglomerates, news
> > reporting became a moneymaking scheme and all responsibility to reporing
> > actual news was abandoned. One of the foundations of a healthy
> > democracy[1] is freely flowing information. Organizations like Fox News
> > injure that foundation.
>
> So you think someone else should get to decide what they can or cannot
> say? I think that's called censorship. If they are in fact telling
> lies those harmed by the lies can bring suits against them, so they
> are limited in how far they can go.

Huh. Sure they can. And sure they're likely to. Fox's harm to people is
in deceiving them by telling them what they want to hear. Their viewers
aren't going to sure them ... especially when the proper response is,
"Change the channel, dummy!"

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.