• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fox News attacks the Free Press

jj

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
Yesterday, I saw at least a 1-hour program dedicated to attacking the NY Times for publishing news.

It couldn't be much clearer that Faux News would greatly prefer a press in which they are the only parties free to say what they want. The attacks were jingoistic, emotionally laden, scare-tactical, and logically bankrupt, and amounted to the 3 talking heads saying "we didn't like that so the NYT is a threat to the amuurkin peepull".

Geeze, louise!
 
jj said:
No kidding. Wouldn't have but for just surfed past it. I have to remove that one from the lineup, I think. Ble.
Click to expand...

It is good for a laugh, if you're willing to look at the right way, as the right sort of satirizing itself. As comedy, its great. Yesterday, they were blaming North Korea's nuclear program on Clinton. Yes, if not for him, we'd have a fully working missile shield protecting this country and the Korean program would have been completely shut down.
 
Bad money drives out good (Gresham)
Badly reported news drives out well reported news (fuelair)
 
jj said:
Yesterday, I saw at least a 1-hour program dedicated to attacking the NY Times for publishing news.

It couldn't be much clearer that Faux News would greatly prefer a press in which they are the only parties free to say what they want. The attacks were jingoistic, emotionally laden, scare-tactical, and logically bankrupt, and amounted to the 3 talking heads saying "we didn't like that so the NYT is a threat to the amuurkin peepull".

Geeze, louise!
Click to expand...
It's difficult to comment. Can you give us a gist of what the story was about? Did they tell people to stop reading NY Times? Where they attacking NY Times in general or was there a particular issue that they (FOX News) felt should be reported on?
 
jj said:
Yesterday, I saw at least a 1-hour program dedicated to attacking the NY Times for publishing news.

It couldn't be much clearer that Faux News would greatly prefer a press in which they are the only parties free to say what they want. The attacks were jingoistic, emotionally laden, scare-tactical, and logically bankrupt, and amounted to the 3 talking heads saying "we didn't like that so the NYT is a threat to the amuurkin peepull".

Geeze, louise!
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt that Fox News is comprised of shameless right-wing hacks, could you be a little more specific about what their actual criticisms of the NYT were?
 
RandFan said:
It's difficult to comment. Can you give us a gist of what the story was about? Did they tell people to stop reading NY Times? Where they attacking NY Times in general or was there a particular issue that they (FOX News) felt should be reported on?
Click to expand...

They didn't offer a solution I could discern, they spent their time trying to say "HOW BAD THIS IS FOR THE USA" and "HOW THIS WAS SO UNAMERICAN" and "THIS IS MAKING EVERYONE UNSAFE"...

Never said HOW any of that was happening, or what to do about it, at least while I was watching.

All they needed was Annie-dearest...
 
JamesDillon said:
While I don't doubt that Fox News is comprised of shameless right-wing hacks, could you be a little more specific about what their actual criticisms of the NYT were?
Click to expand...

That's the problem, they spent a while yelling about it, but there was no factual detail to be discerned.
 
jj said:
Yesterday, I saw at least a 1-hour program dedicated to attacking the NY Times for publishing news.

It couldn't be much clearer that Faux News would greatly prefer a press in which they are the only parties free to say what they want. The attacks were jingoistic, emotionally laden, scare-tactical, and logically bankrupt, and amounted to the 3 talking heads saying "we didn't like that so the NYT is a threat to the amuurkin peepull".
Click to expand...
So the Times exposes how the government uses a particular weapon against terrorists, one that is apparently perfectly legal, and has been used with the cooperation and approval of both congress and other countries' governments, an exposure that can do nothing to help us in the war, but can help the enemy, and you're perfectly fine with that.
 
jj said:
They didn't offer a solution I could discern, they spent their time trying to say "HOW BAD THIS IS FOR THE USA" and "HOW THIS WAS SO UNAMERICAN" and "THIS IS MAKING EVERYONE UNSAFE"...

Never said HOW any of that was happening, or what to do about it, at least while I was watching.

All they needed was Annie-dearest...
Click to expand...
"How bad", what, is? What is unamerican? I would like to make an informed decision about your post however there is no information other than your opinion of what you saw. Could you give us something more? Perhaps I can find an Internet version of the story.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
It's difficult to comment. Can you give us a gist of what the story was about? Did they tell people to stop reading NY Times? Where they attacking NY Times in general or was there a particular issue that they (FOX News) felt should be reported on?
Click to expand...

No no, he's given you all you need to know. Certainly don't tune in and find out for yourself, working man. We're all too busy toiling in salt mines to be able to think.

It's the same "Rush Limbaugh" = "shouting, hateful, racist" line that has lead to his very success. People eventually hear him and realize he is nothing like liberals portray. He owes very much success to this: the fact that many held grossly inaccurate views of him as a person and are eager to give him a second chance.
 
jj said:
That's the problem, they spent a while yelling about it, but there was no factual detail to be discerned.
Click to expand...
So, let me see if I got this right. They did a story that simply reported that the NY Times is bad for 1 hour?
 
RandFan said:
So, let me see if I got this right. They did a story that simply reported that the NY Times is bad for 1 hour?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell. You do notice that I don't claim to have watched the entire debacle, yes? The closest I heard was something on the order of "creating economic risk". What risk wasn't clear, perhaps they announced this at the beginning, I wasn't there at the time, I was grilling steak.
 
RandFan said:
"How bad", what, is? What is unamerican? I would like to make an informed decision about your post however there is no information other than your opinion of what you saw. Could you give us something more? Perhaps I can find an Internet version of the story.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll say it again, I'm simply reporting what I picked up from the times that I tuned past. What I'm reporting is not "my opinion", either, it's the claims they were making.

I have to admit I don't usually watch Faux news at all. Are they always like that?
 
RandFan said:
So, let me see if I got this right. They did a story that simply reported that the NY Times is bad for 1 hour?
Click to expand...
Brit: "So Fred, what do you thinkk of the Times?"
Fred: "They're bad, Brit."
Brit: "Morton, anything to add to that?"
Morton: "Yes; I think the Times is bad."
Brit: "Mara?"
Mara: "The Times is a bad paper, Brit, bad."
Brit: "I see; Juan, what's your take on this?"
Juan: "Brit, I need to add here that the Times is bad."
Brit: "All right then. Juan, what is it about the Times that's bad?"
Juan: "Well, Brit, here you have this bad paper, and they just do bad things, so they're bad."
Brit: "Mara..."
Mara: "The baddest thing about it is just how badly bad it is."
Brit: "When we come back, we'll get into further discussion about why the Times is bad. And our call-in line is already lit up with viewer reaction; when we get back, we'll talk with regular viewer "jj" from Seattle, who wants to get something off his chest. You're watching Fox News"
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
So the Times exposes how the government uses a particular weapon against terrorists, one that is apparently perfectly legal, and has been used with the cooperation and approval of both congress and other countries' governments, an exposure that can do nothing to help us in the war, but can help the enemy, and you're perfectly fine with that.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you appear to know more about what they were complaining about than they did, or at least that they bothered to mention.

Continue, please ...
 
jj said:
Interesting, you appear to know more about what they were complaining about than they did, or at least that they bothered to mention.
Click to expand...
How do you know what they were complaining about, if you were busy grilling steaks?
 
jj said:
As far as I can tell. You do notice that I don't claim to have watched the entire debacle, yes? The closest I heard was something on the order of "creating economic risk". What risk wasn't clear, perhaps they announced this at the beginning, I wasn't there at the time, I was grilling steak.
Click to expand...
Then please forgive me but I see little reason in drawing any conclusions from the OP or your subsequent posts. I'd like to take your word but I am a skeptic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom