Fox News attacks the Free Press

[jj]

Oh, bloody hell, I had a long post linking to the transcript and an NY Times discussion today of the matter, and I hit the wrong key and lost it. Screw it, here's the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200893,00.html

And here's the NY Times's response:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/26cnd-bank.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

jj, is this what you're talking about?

Possibly.

Part of my ire is in the time I spent listening (which did amount in total to about 15 minutes over the hour I was aware of it), they never SAID what they were upset about. The only word I heard that was even remotely indicative was that they mentioned "economic" once.

But they were very clear that the NYT should be silenced. They wanted people sent to jail. About what, they seemed either unwilling or unable to say, but they wanted people in jail, etc.

Oh, and I would recognize Arlen Spector, he wasn't one of the heads.

 

[BPSCG]

But they were very clear that the NYT should be silenced. They wanted people sent to jail. About what, they seemed either unwilling or unable to say, but they wanted people in jail, etc.

JJ, what show was it?

 

[jj]

Doesn't look like it. The first use of "bad" in Fox News link comes after the discussion of the NYT story.

JJ, what show was it?

Hm, 3 heads. Not O'Reilly, not Hannity, no sign of Arlen Spector (who I would recognize).

Later afternoon PST, Saturday.

 

[Jocko]

Hm, 3 heads. Not O'Reilly, not Hannity, no sign of Arlen Spector (who I would recognize).

Later afternoon PST, Saturday.

Do you think it's fair to put 5 or 6 otherwise productive citizens to work, just so there can be some hint of evidence behind YOUR claim?

Do you think, jj, that there should be any onus whatsoever for you to provide basic data such as the name of the program? Particularly when you have often confused other seemingly straighforward issues, such as which poster you are replying to?

 

[RandFan]

That is because in the several 5-minute parts I watched didn't provide any information. Don't complain to me about that.

The irony is indeed that although I must have wasted about 15 minutes out of an hour watching this over the hour I was aware of it on the TV, I never DID hear the issues, only the heads nodding and going 'badbadbadbad'.

Then you will understand how we can't simply nod our heads since there is no information in this thread, right?

 

[BPSCG]

Hm, 3 heads. Not O'Reilly, not Hannity, no sign of Arlen Spector (who I would recognize).

Later afternoon PST, Saturday.

Great. You've narrowed it down to three people who it wasn't.

That's a big #$%^ing help.

 

[BPSCG]

I think I found the video. Back in a bit.

 

[EBU]

This was apparently about the story that the NY Times wrote about the government looking at people's bank records as part of its anti-terrorism campaign. Did you notice that the same story was also run by the Wall Street Journal? Did Fox News complain about the Wall Street Journal too?

 

[jj]

Do you think it's fair to put 5 or 6 otherwise productive citizens to work, just so there can be some hint of evidence behind YOUR claim?

My "claim", sorry buddy boy, I reported my perception. Are you saying I didn't percieve what I think I did?


I didn't ask anybody to go to work. I indicated my disgust, which was about several things, from hostility about the freedom of the press to not actually bothering to say what they were so (*&*( upset about.

I admit freely that I do not usually watch Faux news. The only time I'm exposed to it is at the health club in closed-caption, and it's always at O'Reilly time. For some reason this does not encourage me, generally, to seek it out.

Were it not for the banner about the NY Times hurting America (I do not recall the exact wording, that's a fair summary) I would not have watched it this time. I was letting the Grill heat up more after doing something like 15 grilled portobellos, so that I could toss on the steaks. After I did the steaks I looked again, it was still running, while the grill was reheating from doing the steaks. And after I put on the ribs and basted them, it was STILL going on...

I watched at least 5 minutes each time in a sort of horrified fascination of "hey, what ever did they do, HEY TELL ME WHAT THEY DID" (my thoughts there, Whodini, so you can stop stalking me in that regard) and all they did was go on about how awful the Times was and how bad it was for America... Sheeesh.... Once one of them used a series of words I recall as economic approach...

And then we ate.

 

[jj]

This was apparently about the story that the NY Times wrote about the government looking at people's bank records as part of its anti-terrorism campaign. Did you notice that the same story was also run by the Wall Street Journal? Did Fox News complain about the Wall Street Journal too?

Not that I saw. YMMV

 

[American]

Did Fox News complain about the Wall Street Journal too?

For this to matter it would require that the actions of the NYT were wrong, which you surely believe they were not.

Though in case you do feel they were wrong.... that FOX would single out an adversary to exhibit rather than a friendly competitor is a selfish act, but not a wrong one.

 

[Darat]

T'ai Chi. jj, jocko any continuation of your childish bickering in this thread will result in an immediate suspension of at least 3 days.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[EBU]

About Fox complaining about NY Times publishing story but not complaining about Wall Street Journal:

"For this to matter it would require that the actions of the NYT were wrong, which you surely believe they were not.

Though in case you do feel they were wrong.... that FOX would single out an adversary to exhibit rather than a friendly competitor is a selfish act, but not a wrong one"

I would argue that if Fox called this story something like typical liberal bias, mentioning NY Times, but not Wall Street Journal, then that would be wrong. But (from what I can tell from transcripts) Fox news and its commentators have not done this. (I think the statements discussed previously were made by guests on Fox News.) So that hypothetical question seems to be irrelevant as far as Fox is concerned.

But here's an interesting bit from a discussion of this matter that appeared on FOX on Saturday. Participants were Cal Thomas, Jim Pinkerton, and Neal Gabler:
PINKERTON: If we lose — if we lose the war, that would be bad.
GABLER: But what if we lose all our civil liberties?
PINKERTON: Well, I'd rather — I'd rather lose our civil liberties than lose the war.
THOMAS: Amen.

Perhaps new topic for discussion: Which would you prefer to lose, the war in Iraq or our civil liberties?

 

[Luke T.]

It wasn't Fox News complaining about the NYT. It was Congressman King. And if you read the links that have been provided in this topic, you would see that King said he had problems with the other media outlets as well and only singled out the NYT because he considers them the most "recidivist". His opinion, his attitude. Not Fox News.

It was King attacking the NYT. Not Fox News. Once again, jj, you got it wrong with the topic title and OP. I would hope after the "Facist Republicans" and internet stalkers disaster, you would be more careful.

 

[fuelair]

About Fox complaining about NY Times publishing story but not complaining about Wall Street Journal:

"For this to matter it would require that the actions of the NYT were wrong, which you surely believe they were not.

Though in case you do feel they were wrong.... that FOX would single out an adversary to exhibit rather than a friendly competitor is a selfish act, but not a wrong one"

I would argue that if Fox called this story something like typical liberal bias, mentioning NY Times, but not Wall Street Journal, then that would be wrong. But (from what I can tell from transcripts) Fox news and its commentators have not done this. (I think the statements discussed previously were made by guests on Fox News.) So that hypothetical question seems to be irrelevant as far as Fox is concerned.

But here's an interesting bit from a discussion of this matter that appeared on FOX on Saturday. Participants were Cal Thomas, Jim Pinkerton, and Neal Gabler:
PINKERTON: If we lose — if we lose the war, that would be bad.
GABLER: But what if we lose all our civil liberties?
PINKERTON: Well, I'd rather — I'd rather lose our civil liberties than lose the war.
THOMAS: Amen.

Perhaps new topic for discussion: Which would you prefer to lose, the war in Iraq or our civil liberties?

So Pinkerton and Thomas (I recognise him as some rightwing comic - from what I have read of his drivel) would like to lose their civil liberties. Cool with me - as long as I keep mine!!!

 

[jj]

It wasn't Fox News complaining about the NYT. It was Congressman King. And if you read the links that have been provided in this topic, you would see that King said he had problems with the other media outlets as well and only singled out the NYT because he considers them the most "recidivist". His opinion, his attitude. Not Fox News.

It was King attacking the NYT. Not Fox News. Once again, jj, you got it wrong with the topic title and OP. I would hope after the "Facist Republicans" and internet stalkers disaster, you would be more careful.

I would reply to your false summary of the situation if it were permitted. However, I am at present unable to discern what is permissable and what is not.

 

[Luke T.]

Mercury News attacks Free Press

 

[BPSCG]

I would reply to your false summary of the situation if it were permitted. However, I am at present unable to discern what is permissable and what is not.

Statements of fact are always permissible. You know that.

Got any?

 

[American]

However, I am at present unable to discern what is permissable and what is not.

That's absurd.

I was only banned once, ever, and it was for a small copyright violation (rule 4).

 

[Dcdrac]

i showed some dvds which had fox news broadcasts to a jounralist freind of mine and he jsut laughed all the way through them and could not beleive they were fro real.