Boycott Fox News

[phillybear 366]

Shephard Smith on FoxNews always seemed really down the middle when I used to catch it. I think he is pretty high up on he FoxNews team. He pretty much does the actual breaking news and "news" part of Fox which you find during the daytime hours before the Editorial shows kick in around 7:00pm est.

 

Also (on the talk show front), I read somewhere where Michael Smerconish is getting a new show on CNN. He is another person who tries to talk common sense as opposed to picking a side and then contiually downgrading the "other" side instead of just talking about the issue at hand.

 

Just throwing some options out there of cable news for folks who aren't looking for completely partisan talk.

 

Shephard Smith loves himself some man yogurt.

 

Smerconish was on in Philly years ago. Hard core conservative, but couldn't get traction. Changed format to go liberal/faux moderate and left the area and apparently carved out a career. Total fraud.

[MDC 7,470]

Back when I used to watch cable news shows I liked Joe Scarborough and found him to be fairly moderate.

 

That's all I got.

[Phurfur 70]

 

 

First Amendment: The FCC has cooked up a plan to place "researchers" in U.S. newsrooms, supposedly to learn all about how editorial decisions are made. Any questions as to why the U.S. is falling in the free press rankings?

As if illegal seizures of Associated Press phone records and the shadowy tailing of the mother of a Fox News reporter weren't menacing enough, the Obama administration is going out of its way to institute a new intrusive surveillance of the press, as if the press wasn't supine enough.

Ajit Pai, a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission, warned this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that a plan to dispatch researchers into radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms called the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" is still going forward, despite the grave danger it presented to the First Amendment.

Pai warned that under the rationale of increasing minority representation in newsrooms, the FCC, which has the power to issue or not issue broadcasting licenses, would dispatch its "researchers" to newsrooms across America to seek their "voluntary" compliance about how news stories are decided, as well as "wade into office politics" looking for angry reporters whose story ideas were rejected as evidence of a shutout of minority views.

Pai questioned if such a study could really be voluntary, given FCC's conflict of interest (and, he might have added, the Obama record of going after political opponents).

 

 

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021314-690050-fcc-newsroom-plan-all-about-controlling-the-free-press.htm#ixzz2togQOQll

[TD Ryan2 316]

 

Smerconish was on in Philly years ago. Hard core conservative, but couldn't get traction. Changed format to go liberal/faux moderate and left the area and apparently carved out a career. Total fraud.

Smerconish was on Boston's right-wing talk radio for a while - I really liked him - thought he was pretty fair and level headed.

 

It's interesting that he changed his "schtick" - I don't doubt your claim. Michael Graham was the mid-day guy on that same station. Right leaning, but usually level headed when in the mid day time slot.

Then Smerconish took over mid day and was even milder than Graham.

But Graham was moved to pm drive time - and he became a completely unbearable right wing blow-hard.

 

These guys have a role to play and a script to follow designed to increase ratings. It really is as simple as that.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I tilted the whole tard canoe

 

 

great thread wins bunny and jerry, you even have sho nuffy creating diversion from what a hack he is threads bwaahhaaaaha

 

You mean the jerry that actually talked about the topic and had a civil discussion and he and I pretty much have said the same thing?

Yeah...good one...Im really the "hack" and all "on tilt".

 

Maybe one day you will have a point that is not completely wrong and foolish. Doubting that though.

[Sho Nuff 720]

First Amendment: The FCC has cooked up a plan to place "researchers" in U.S. newsrooms, supposedly to learn all about how editorial decisions are made. Any questions as to why the U.S. is falling in the free press rankings?

As if illegal seizures of Associated Press phone records and the shadowy tailing of the mother of a Fox News reporter weren't menacing enough, the Obama administration is going out of its way to institute a new intrusive surveillance of the press, as if the press wasn't supine enough.

Ajit Pai, a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission, warned this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that a plan to dispatch researchers into radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms called the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" is still going forward, despite the grave danger it presented to the First Amendment.

Pai warned that under the rationale of increasing minority representation in newsrooms, the FCC, which has the power to issue or not issue broadcasting licenses, would dispatch its "researchers" to newsrooms across America to seek their "voluntary" compliance about how news stories are decided, as well as "wade into office politics" looking for angry reporters whose story ideas were rejected as evidence of a shutout of minority views.

Pai questioned if such a study could really be voluntary, given FCC's conflict of interest (and, he might have added, the Obama record of going after political opponents).

 

 

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021314-690050-fcc-newsroom-plan-all-about-controlling-the-free-press.htm#ixzz2togQOQll

 

So, your other thread about this got no traffic so you decided to throw it in here/?

[NewbieJr 541]

 

So, your other thread about this got no traffic so you decided to throw it in here/?

It's called senility. He posted it in a thread that has nothing to do with his story. It happens around that age.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

It takes 10 minutes a day, we'll worth the commotion it causes amongst the Socialist bottom feeders.

 

If you take weekends off, that comes out to 41 hours a year.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

If you take weekends off, that comes out to 41 hours a year.

He doesn't take weekends off. Every day is a weekend for him. He's too old to work.

[TD Ryan2 316]

You mean the jerry that actually talked about the topic and had a civil discussion and he and I pretty much have said the same thing?

 

[FeelingMN 273]

So, your other thread about this got no traffic so you decided to throw it in here/?

I think it's appropriate to the "discussion" .....for those interested in discussing these things.

 

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

 

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

 

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

 

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

 

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

 

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

 

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

 

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

 

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

 

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

 

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

 

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

 

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

 

I'd be a lot more comfortable if this study was being conducted by someone else. And if I could totally trust the government, I'd believe they'd conduct such a study for informational purposes only. But it is bullsh!t. There's no way the Feds would look at the results of this and not try to impose regulations for how information is disseminated. Bad, bad juju with this.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I think it's appropriate to the "discussion" .....for those interested in discussing these things.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

 

I'd be a lot more comfortable if this study was being conducted by someone else. And if I could totally trust the government, I'd believe they'd conduct such a study for informational purposes only. But it is bullsh!t. There's no way the Feds would look at the results of this and not try to impose regulations for how information is disseminated. Bad, bad juju with this.

 

That does raise all sorts of red flags.

 

It's the same way I feel when Obama, the POTUS, actually talks about FoxNews in public. Dude, you're the POTUS, try and be above the media bias's. Leave that stuff for the talking heads and message boards. Not only is it amateaurish IMO, but its a bit scary he is clued in that much. It makes me wonder what all goes on behind the scenes and if he uses his power to influence media as he so often brings it up.

[Reality 3,121]

So, MSNBC and Fox aren't exactly the same. Sweet, I'm glad we got this thing hashed out. Good work fellas.

 

[NewbieJr 541]

 

That does raise all sorts of red flags.

 

It's the same way I feel when Obama, the POTUS, actually talks about FoxNews in public. Dude, you're the POTUS, try and be above the media bias's. Leave that stuff for the talking heads and message boards. Not only is it amateaurish IMO, but its a bit scary he is clued in that much. It makes me wonder what all goes on behind the scenes and if he uses his power to influence media as he so often brings it up.

I'll bet that Presidents have an entire media team working for them. And they are very well aware of what's being said by whom. It didn't begin, and won't end, with this administration.

[5-Points 3,564]

 

That does raise all sorts of red flags.

 

It's the same way I feel when Obama, the POTUS, actually talks about FoxNews in public. Dude, you're the POTUS, try and be above the media bias's. Leave that stuff for the talking heads and message boards. Not only is it amateaurish IMO, but its a bit scary he is clued in that much. It makes me wonder what all goes on behind the scenes and if he uses his power to influence media as he so often brings it up.

That's his background. He's a rabble-rouser. He doesn't know what it means to be presidential.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,447]

Why is it Worms and Newbie an now MDC seem so mad all the time?

 

 

I think Worms and MDC have reverese PMS.

[FeelingMN 273]

I'll bet that Presidents have an entire media team working for them. And they are very well aware of what's being said by whom. It didn't begin, and won't end, with this administration.

 

But isn't it a bit odd....scary....inappropriate....for the Executive Branch to be at all aware of what is being said by whom? That's not the job of the Executive Branch. Shouldn't it be totally consumed with the job of governing....which is the only job the American People elected it to do?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,447]

 

That does raise all sorts of red flags.

 

It's the same way I feel when Obama, the POTUS, actually talks about FoxNews in public. Dude, you're the POTUS, try and be above the media bias's. Leave that stuff for the talking heads and message boards. Not only is it amateaurish IMO, but its a bit scary he is clued in that much. It makes me wonder what all goes on behind the scenes and if he uses his power to influence media as he so often brings it up.

 

 

He hires members of the media when they do their job and make him look good. I wish Bush would have done this. The press would have gone apeshit.

[MDC 7,470]

 

 

I think Worms and MDC have reverese PMS.

I probably come off as angry cause so many people here are so focking unfunny and dumb.

[TD Ryan2 316]

But isn't it a bit odd....scary....inappropriate....for the Executive Branch to be at all aware of what is being said by whom? That's not the job of the Executive Branch. Shouldn't it be totally consumed with the job of governing....which is the only job the American People elected it to do?

agreed, it is odd and scary.

But I also agree - it's nothing new.

 

Obama, Reagan, Kennedy, all the way back to the invention of newspapers - they know who said good and bad things about them in the press.

[NewbieJr 541]

But isn't it a bit odd....scary....inappropriate....for the Executive Branch to be at all aware of what is being said by whom? That's not the job of the Executive Branch. Shouldn't it be totally consumed with the job of governing....which is the only job the American People elected it to do?

I don't know about scary. I think it's good they have a hand on the pulse of the people. I'm sure that Bush took the MSNBC rumors and opinions and took them with a grain of salt, and I'm sure Obama does the same with the stuff Fox says. But they still care about public opinion, in general. And they know the outlets that gets the information out there. This has gone on forever, but it's obviously stepped up in the internet age.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

Shephard Smith loves himself some man yogurt.

 

 

I do have an afffinity to ghey news men.

 

My three favorites are Shephard Smith, Don Lemon, and Anderson Cooper.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,447]

But isn't it a bit odd....scary....inappropriate....for the Executive Branch to be at all aware of what is being said by whom? That's not the job of the Executive Branch. Shouldn't it be totally consumed with the job of governing....which is the only job the American People elected it to do?

 

 

They have workers/interns that listen, read, watch, and monitor web pages 24/7. They know everything that is said about them and by whom. The reason Obama attacks Fox and talk radio is, they're effctive. When he lies, like he did with Obamacare, they call him out on it when tthe others do not. Fox News exists because the media is in bed with the left.

 

And anyone who says CNN is just slightly to left, shut up. They aren't as in your face as CNBC and are more subtle than Fox, but they are clearly way left. Look at the way they handled the Abu Ghraib story. They ran that story for weeks. They acted like it was the worse thing to happen since 9/11. Meanwhile soldiers in Iraq at the time were practically begging them to stop running it. A few dumb ass soldiers were making the rest of them look bad. CNN ran that story to death. They loved how bad it made GWB look. And don't get me started on how they covered Katrina. They were the ones who came up with the bullsh!t story of multiple people being murdered or raped in the Super Dome. Which was proved to be false.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

I do have an afffinity to ghey news men.

 

My three favorites are Shephard Smith, Don Lemon, and Anderson Cooper.

In recent polls, they are actually the top three newsmen amongst sweater vest-wearing , chess club members.

[FeelingMN 273]

I don't know about scary. I think it's good they have a hand on the pulse of the people. I'm sure that Bush took the MSNBC rumors and opinions and took them with a grain of salt, and I'm sure Obama does the same with the stuff Fox says. But they still care about public opinion, in general. And they know the outlets that gets the information out there. This has gone on forever, but it's obviously stepped up in the internet age.

Gonna have to explain to me how media rumors equate with public opinion. I understand that one helps shape the other, but to have a hand on the pulse of the people would require soliciting public opinion....not acquainting yourself with what the media is saying.

 

Obviously it's human nature to be curious about how you're being depicted by others. But to research that depiction? Why? That's what's scary to me. They're going to research how outlets get the information out there.....they're going to find bias, which we all agree exists. Then what? Are they gonna make recommendations on how that information should be presented? Or are they just gonna write up a huge report telling the American people that media is biased? Maybe....maybe it's just all informational. Maybe they just wanna quantify the bias. Who knows....but I'm anti-authority by nature and I think it warrants our attention. I don't think we should shrug our shoulders and say this is the way it's always been....no big deal.

 

Also...a quick google search on this topic was dominated by right wing media. I couldn't find anything from CNN. I would think all media would be against this but a quick search showed the usual rightie rags the only ones reporting on it.

[NewbieJr 541]

Gonna have to explain to me how media rumors equate with public opinion. I understand that one helps shape the other, but to have a hand on the pulse of the people would require soliciting public opinion....not acquainting yourself with what the media is saying.

 

Obviously it's human nature to be curious about how you're being depicted by others. But to research that depiction? Why? That's what's scary to me. They're going to research how outlets get the information out there.....they're going to find bias, which we all agree exists. Then what? Are they gonna make recommendations on how that information should be presented? Or are they just gonna write up a huge report telling the American people that media is biased? Maybe....maybe it's just all informational. Maybe they just wanna quantify the bias. Who knows....but I'm anti-authority by nature and I think it warrants our attention. I don't think we should shrug our shoulders and say this is the way it's always been....no big deal.

 

Also...a quick google search on this topic was dominated by right wing media. I couldn't find anything from CNN. I would think all media would be against this but a quick search showed the usual rightie rags the only ones reporting on it.

I'd be willing to bet that all Presidents since the internet and cable news boom have added things to speeches solely because of things that were being said about them or their policies by the other party's media outlets. That's a way of swaying/controlling public opinion.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

 

They have workers/interns that listen, read, watch, and monitor web pages 24/7. They know everything that is said about them and by whom. The reason Obama attacks Fox and talk radio is, they're effctive. When he lies, like he did with Obamacare, they call him out on it when tthe others do not. Fox News exists because the media is in bed with the left.

 

And anyone who says CNN is just slightly to left, shut up. They aren't as in your face as CNBC and are more subtle than Fox, but they are clearly way left. Look at the way they handled the Abu Ghraib story. They ran that story for weeks. They acted like it was the worse thing to happen since 9/11. Meanwhile soldiers in Iraq at the time were practically begging them to stop running it. A few dumb ass soldiers were making the rest of them look bad. CNN ran that story to death. They loved how bad it made GWB look. And don't get me started on how they covered Katrina. They were the ones who came up with the bullsh!t story of multiple people being murdered or raped in the Super Dome. Which was proved to be false.

blammo, the guy just keeps winning this thread ovah and ovah.

[FeelingMN 273]

I'd be willing to bet that all Presidents since the internet and cable news boom have added things to speeches solely because of things that were being said about them or their policies by the other party's media outlets. That's a way of swaying/controlling public opinion.

 

Kinda like....if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? I remember that being said to allay the fears associated with Obamacare. Brilliant.

 

So Obama adds things to his speeches because of what Rush and FNC and Breitbart are saying to help sway the opinions of that audience? Seems to be working.

 

How about this.....how about if you run for President you accept the fact that you're gonna piss a lot of people off and you keep your focus on the job at hand rather than worrying about perception. People who try to control perceptions are focking tyrants.

[NewbieJr 541]

Kinda like....if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? I remember that being said to allay the fears associated with Obamacare. Brilliant.

 

So Obama adds things to his speeches because of what Rush and FNC and Breitbart are saying to help sway the opinions of that audience? Seems to be working.

 

How about this.....how about if you run for President you accept the fact that you're gonna piss a lot of people off and you keep your focus on the job at hand rather than worrying about perception. People who try to control perceptions are focking tyrants.

Try for just a few minutes, if that's possible, to stop thinking this is an Obama invention. And address it with the knowledge that Bush did it too. And Clinton. They have entire staffs monitoring the media. Try to get past Obama. Even if for only ten minutes.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

 

 

They have workers/interns that listen, read, watch, and monitor web pages 24/7. They know everything that is said about them and by whom. The reason Obama attacks Fox and talk radio is, they're effctive. When he lies, like he did with Obamacare, they call him out on it when tthe others do not. Fox News exists because the media is in bed with the left.

 

And anyone who says CNN is just slightly to left, shut up. They aren't as in your face as CNBC and are more subtle than Fox, but they are clearly way left. Look at the way they handled the Abu Ghraib story. They ran that story for weeks. They acted like it was the worse thing to happen since 9/11. Meanwhile soldiers in Iraq at the time were practically begging them to stop running it. A few dumb ass soldiers were making the rest of them look bad. CNN ran that story to death. They loved how bad it made GWB look. And don't get me started on how they covered Katrina. They were the ones who came up with the bullsh!t story of multiple people being murdered or raped in the Super Dome. Which was proved to be false.

See some of what you're perceiving as political bias, isn't. Abu Ghraib, that presented an interesting question. The public has a right to know what's being done in their name--you don't honestly dispute that, right? But then on the other side you have the reporting potentially harming American objectives and endangering American soldiers. What do you do with that kind of situation? It's a conundrum for sure but it certainly isn't a right or left thing. It's not like a lefty says run the story because he hates American soldiers. And it's not like a righty says ignore the story because he hates knowing the truth about things done in his name. It's simply an editorial decision with competing values attached. You may disagree with their ultimate determination but I really don't see where a left/right-type bias comes into play in making that determination.

[FeelingMN 273]

Try for just a few minutes, if that's possible, to stop thinking this is an Obama invention. And address it with the knowledge that Bush did it too. And Clinton. They have entire staffs monitoring the media. Try to get past Obama. Even if for only ten minutes.

 

I'm not assigning blame to Obama or saying this is specific to this Administration. You said all Presidents make references in their speeches to counter the media coverage. I simply used Obama as an example. He did use things in his speeches to try and sway public opinion. They were blatant lies.

 

And I don't see the logic in trying to sway an audience that will never be swayed. Who cares what Rush and O'Reilly are saying about you. The people who listen to them have a fixed view of you anyway. They will never be persuaded by anything you say....no matter how much you lie. Total waste of time.

 

Again, to be at all concerned with how you're being covered is just bad governance in my opinion. I don't care if every President has gone down the same road. You don't lead based on controversy. You lead from conviction.

[Sho Nuff 720]

blammo, the guy just keeps winning this thread ovah and ovah.

 

If by winning you mean proving how biased he is and how much of a hack you are...then sure.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

If by winning you mean proving how biased he is and how much of a hack you are...then sure.

:lol;

[edjr 6,602]

Jesus Christ.

 

 

Who posted in: Boycott Fox News

 

Member name

Posts

NewbieJr 65
Sho Nuff 34
drobeski 32
IGotWorms 30
jerryskids 26
BunnysBastatrds 25

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

:lol;

 

solid rebuttal

[drobeski 3,061]

Jesus Christ.

 

eds taken the lead in this thread

[drobeski 3,061]

 

solid rebuttal

hacktard saywut

[BunnysBastatrds 2,447]

See some of what you're perceiving as political bias, isn't. Abu Ghraib, that presented an interesting question. The public has a right to know what's being done in their name--you don't honestly dispute that, right? But then on the other side you have the reporting potentially harming American objectives and endangering American soldiers. What do you do with that kind of situation? It's a conundrum for sure but it certainly isn't a right or left thing. It's not like a lefty says run the story because he hates American soldiers. And it's not like a righty says ignore the story because he hates knowing the truth about things done in his name. It's simply an editorial decision with competing values attached. You may disagree with their ultimate determination but I really don't see where a left/right-type bias comes into play in making that determination.

 

 

They run and play out the Abu Ghraib story till they can't anymore. But then try and ignore the deaths of Americans serving their country in Benghazi and paly along with a story about a retarded filmaker. One is a story of underwear on a bunch of prisoners heads and the other is the lack of security at an embassy on the anniversary of 9/11. If you can't see any problem with that, you need underwear on your head.

[Googballz 39]

Kinda like....if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? I remember that being said to allay the fears associated with Obamacare. Brilliant.

 

So Obama adds things to his speeches because of what Rush and FNC and Breitbart are saying to help sway the opinions of that audience? Seems to be working.

 

How about this.....how about if you run for President you accept the fact that you're gonna piss a lot of people off and you keep your focus on the job at hand rather than worrying about perception. People who try to control perceptions are focking tyrants.

Good posting

[NorthernVike 2,087]

Good posting

We don't allow the phrase 'good posting' here

 

 

 

 

It's uber ghey.