Fox is not news. Corporate money is not free speech. Trickle down is a lie. (crosspost from Askreddit)
reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/gujpy/liberal...Posted Apr 20, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC
128
reddit.com
This is intended to be a factual statement.
1
FOX attracts a lot of people who just want to hear what makes them feel good or what dignifies their rage.
Now, passively, FOX Viewers come into contact with some opposing view points, even if the network just presents them in order to shout them down, O'Reilly's pretty level headed, Shep in non political, and Alan Colmes peeps out the Liberal viewpoint now and again.
That's pretty pathetic right? Imagine what would happen to FOX if the viewers could vote away dissenting view points. The network's bias would inflate and take over all reasonable sections of legit news. Do you think FOX viewers would elect to keep Colmes? Laughable.
When you fully comprehend that, then you begin to understand what r/politics is. I mean, you are about to downvote right? Lol.
1
In case they're not already aware of how dishonest Fox "news" is, maybe this will help people to see the overall picture...
Let's start with the lie that's quite possibly the most astonshing claim ever made by someone at Fox "News": That Wallgreen's offers pap smears! (Wallgreen's begs to differ on that.)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104110009?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4da46cd8c9af2666,0
Fox "News" uses student's suicide in attempt to discredit Obama
Fox Reverses Poll Numbers On Public's Support of Collective Bargaining
http://mediamatters.org/research/201102230006
Direct quote from a Fox "News" insider: "We Were a Stalin-esque Mouthpiece for Bush"
Fox targets two New York Times reporters, altering their faces by blackening their eyes, yellowing their teeth, and making a nose larger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ4gAAVW2k&feature=player_embedded
Three distortions in one video: Fox lies about union pay vs. non-union pay; distorts speaker's words at NEA conference; tells lie that WI Gov. Walker campaigned with an anti-union position
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkqHm8lqgKE
Fox Repeatedly Misidentifies Republicans as Being Democrats, Often During Erupting Scandals:
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/?d=123
And, here are some specific examples:
Fox Misidentified Mark Foley (R-FL) As Being A Democrat Rather Than A Republican
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010
Fox Mislabels Mark Sanford (R-SC) As A Democrat After He Admits Adulterous Affair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-identifies-sanfo_n_220377.html
Fox "News" Wrongly Identifies Independent Joe Lieberman As A Democrat
http://mediamatters.org/research/200706120006
Fox "News" Mislabels Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) As A Democrat
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/09/fox-news-mis-labels-chafee-as-a-democrat
According to conservative Tucker Carlson, the reason Fox's slogan ("fair and balanced") was chosen is "to drive liberals crazy" [excerpt from book by Sen. Al Franken, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them..."]
People in England rally to protest cuts in government support for education. Fox uses video of the protest to support the opposite viewpoint in a story claiming that people in England identify with anti-government "tea partiers" in U.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVxCDktOS6s
[Note that Fox also said settlers to America came here to flee high taxes
During ten months in 2010, about $40 million worth of free air time given by Fox "News" to potential Republican candidates who were hosts or "contributors" to Fox programs
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011180031
Fox parent company donates $1 million to Republican Governors Assn.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Fox_parent_gives_1_million_to_RGA.html
Fox helped spread false rumors (originating from unnamed sources) that Obama was educated at a Muslim religious school madrasa, and tried to get Hillary Clinton's campaign blamed for the story. (Story first appeared in conservative magazine owned by "Moonies" a.k.a. the Unification Church.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Hm_W783Po
Additional analysis from FAIR: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
And this kind of sums things up:
For years, Fox "news" has had a tragic effect on U.S. politics, helping elect many right wing politicians (while claiming to be balanced) and spreading a long list of lies. Here are some examples of their lies and distortions that I hope others will help to make people aware of. (Just copy and re-post anywhere that seems appropriate.)
0
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
0
Wow, that is an awesome research list. I will seriously use your comment to help spread the word.
When someone approaches me and says they saw something on Fox News, my usual reply amounts to: Why? There's clearly no reason to trust Fox, and ample evidence to distrust them.
This comment could, and probably should, be emailed back to everyone who forwards all those GOP chainmails. Thanks for your contribution.
As well as the $1 million Fox (News Corp) gave the Republican Governors Association, there was also an additional $1 million in cash that Fox donated to the Republican lobbying group "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" last year.
0
Supreme court justices, far more experienced and educated than me have decided that money constitutes free speech, so I'm going to follow their ruling. And among the academia, that decision is a fair amount of support so it's not like the justices pulled the decision out of their butts. The argument exists that it shouldn't constitute free speech (which is what many educated opponents base their opposition), but legally speaking it is.
Well, you've got me there. Though due to what I feel is the partisan nature of the decision, I would put the word "legally" in quotes.
It is in fact, currently law. But I do not believe it is right. Feels one step closer to Idiocracy.
Why would you believe lolmunkies? They offered no citation, no reference, and nothing beyond "because I said so." In reality, that is not at all what the court decided in CU v. FEC. The Court did not decide that "money is speech," they decided that speech is speech. A movie, a book, a piece of media, that's speech. The FEC attempted to squelch that speech, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. The case wasn't about corporate donations, it was about the speech of people, and groups of people, that the government was banning on a non-content-neutral basis. The BCRA banned speech, not money, and the Supreme Court fixed that.
Don't believe them just because they "sound right," think for yourself, and investigate further, else you'd still be thinking that the Supreme Court believes that money is speech.
[deleted]
Not a question of believing the poster, per se. I was only conceding that legally speaking, he's correct.
The corporate money = free speech ruling allows corporations to anonymously donate as much cash as they like to PACs of their choosing now.
That is changing the law from what it was, so technically, it is now "legal".
Changing a provision of McCain-Feingold to now allow unlimited “electioneering communications” donations has the effect of making corporate donations a form of free speech, whether or not the conservative dominated court wants to believe it.