So Tucker Carlsons replacement last night Brian Kilmeade decided to show an obvious photoshopped picture of the judge who signed the Mar A Lardo warrant with Ghislaine Maxwell and played it off as real. Not until he was lambasted that he finally put out a "Yeah it was a meme" This "news" channel is going to get someone killed one day. I hope the judge sues them for every penny they have.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox ... 49482.html

People have tried and their defense is always that they are "entertainment", not "news" and that no reasonable person would believe them. I guess that shows the 'reasonableness" of their viewers. So far, their defense has worked.

This case could be different. However I am sure the staffer will claim they found it on the internet. This alone would prove to most sane people that nothing presented on Fox news is well thought out, but oh well. There is so much fun in having dumb ideas.

Fox can afford top quality lawyers. Anybody who wants to sue Fox will need to have a VERY strong case and some VERY good lawyers.
There would need to be something truly terrible to cause Fox to have to shut down. Read about the "News of the World" scandal - that's the kind of thing you would need - it involved police bribery and hacking phones of many people including a girl after she had been killed by a paedophile

johns624 wrote:

People have tried and their defense is always that they are "entertainment", not "news" and that no reasonable person would believe them. I guess that shows the 'reasonableness" of their viewers. So far, their defense has worked.

I get that their counsel consistently use that argument (I think they were defending Tucker's show when they claimed no reasonable person would believe the content) - but if so, they should have to remove 'News' from their title. That said, they do have a bona fide news operation on the programming side not affiliated with the evening hosts/disinformation agents. It's a complicated situation.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

People have tried and their defense is always that they are "entertainment", not "news" and that no reasonable person would believe them. I guess that shows the 'reasonableness" of their viewers. So far, their defense has worked.

I get that their counsel consistently use that argument (I think they were defending Tucker's show when they claimed no reasonable person would believe the content) - but if so, they should have to remove 'News' from their title. That said, they do have a bona fide news operation on the programming side not affiliated with the evening hosts/disinformation agents. It's a complicated situation.

Neil Cavuto isn't bad.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

People have tried and their defense is always that they are "entertainment", not "news" and that no reasonable person would believe them. I guess that shows the 'reasonableness" of their viewers. So far, their defense has worked.

I get that their counsel consistently use that argument (I think they were defending Tucker's show when they claimed no reasonable person would believe the content) - but if so, they should have to remove 'News' from their title. That said, they do have a bona fide news operation on the programming side not affiliated with the evening hosts/disinformation agents. It's a complicated situation.

"News" is the channel name, same way those National Geography channels are hosting those reality shows that barely have anything to do with name of their channels. In what way else may they improve the labelling?

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

People have tried and their defense is always that they are "entertainment", not "news" and that no reasonable person would believe them. I guess that shows the 'reasonableness" of their viewers. So far, their defense has worked.

I get that their counsel consistently use that argument (I think they were defending Tucker's show when they claimed no reasonable person would believe the content) - but if so, they should have to remove 'News' from their title. That said, they do have a bona fide news operation on the programming side not affiliated with the evening hosts/disinformation agents. It's a complicated situation.

"News" is the channel name, same way those National Geography channels are hosting those reality shows that barely have anything to do with name of their channels. In what way else may they improve the labelling?

The problem is low information people taking everything the opinion hosts say to be ‘news’ with the label in the corner. Is that entirely the network’s responsibility though? Hard to legally say it is.

I take your point, but NatGeo reality shows are not inspiring people to take extreme actions. As I said, it’s a complicated situation.

I understand the whole not news angle. I'm more concerned with this blatant slander of the issuing judge. This is not the first time they've done something like this and it won't be the last until someone sues them into extinction.

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I get that their counsel consistently use that argument (I think they were defending Tucker's show when they claimed no reasonable person would believe the content) - but if so, they should have to remove 'News' from their title. That said, they do have a bona fide news operation on the programming side not affiliated with the evening hosts/disinformation agents. It's a complicated situation.

"News" is the channel name, same way those National Geography channels are hosting those reality shows that barely have anything to do with name of their channels. In what way else may they improve the labelling?

The problem is low information people taking everything the opinion hosts say to be ‘news’ with the label in the corner. Is that entirely the network’s responsibility though? Hard to legally say it is.

I take your point, but NatGeo reality shows are not inspiring people to take extreme actions. As I said, it’s a complicated situation.

My last post was a genuine question asking what sort of measure can be promoted to improve identification. As you said it is complicated but what can be the start?

c933103 wrote:

"News" is the channel name, same way those National Geography channels are hosting those reality shows that barely have anything to do with name of their channels. In what way else may they improve the labelling?

They could change their name during the “entertainment” slots. Plenty of channel carry multiple names depending on the time of day.

Or maybe spell out their name during the “entertainment” slots. No more “This is Fox news”, but “This is Fascist Opinion X’posed, now entertaining with sh!t”

c933103 wrote:

My last post was a genuine question asking what sort of measure can be promoted to improve identification. As you said it is complicated but what can be the start?

It could be done under the truth in advertising laws, using the pattern of cigarette labeling. As I've mentioned here before, researchers are finding that misinformation and conspiracy theories are similarly addictive to certain people.

You can't stop people from smoking, and you can't stop them from watching Fox. But you could attach a mandatory label for the opinion segments.

"This program consists of editorial content that is not factually verified or held to journalistic standards of truthfulness. It may contain falsehoods or misinformation. Viewer discretion is advised."

This would need to be applied to all the networks for opinion segments. If a network wanted to avoid this labeling, they would need to show that statements of all their commenters have been vetted.

That would kill a lot of spontaneous coverage, which is the bread and butter of cable news. So probably not likely.

In the past, news organizations prided themselves on accuracy, and clearly distinguished editorial content from factual coverage. In those days news was a public service and not a profit center. Today, news is big business and editorial content is now the majority of coverage. And they pride themselves on how fast they can get events on the air, at the expense of all else.

Still, even within this paradigm, Fox and other conservative outlets stand out for their reliance on propaganda. All the networks are bending the rules to an unprecedented extent, but these networks are particularly bad.

Unfortunately all three major 24 hour news networks in the US (Fox, CNN, and MSNBC) have been busted peddling lies in the past. It is abhorrent and dangerous but nothing will change. Outrage, even if generated by falsehoods, generates more views and clicks than truth in many cases. We aren't supposed to be informed; we're supposed to be angry and engaged.

Just off of the top of my head, recent dishonesties from these networks include:

MSNBC editing George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound more racist-
https://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-apo ... ist-2012-4

CNN anchors pushing the "hands up, don't shoot" myth that never happened-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha1ljAbOPnY

The Covington Catholic debacle-
https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/covington ... -with-nbc/

TriJets wrote:

Unfortunately all three major 24 hour news networks in the US (Fox, CNN, and MSNBC) have been busted peddling lies in the past. It is abhorrent and dangerous but nothing will change. Outrage, even if generated by falsehoods, generates more views and clicks than truth in many cases. We aren't supposed to be informed; we're supposed to be angry and engaged.

Just off of the top of my head, recent dishonesties from these networks include:

MSNBC editing George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound more racist-
https://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-apo ... ist-2012-4

CNN anchors pushing the "hands up, don't shoot" myth that never happened-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha1ljAbOPnY

The Covington Catholic debacle-
https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/covington ... -with-nbc/

There's greatly differing context in the examples you gave, though. The NBC edits of Zimmermann were misleading and they were immediately called on it and apologized. It was an isolated incident.

The hands-up controversy was due to differing eyewitness accounts of Brown's behavior. He did raise his hands at one point, but they were not raised when he was shot. And it took time for that to be resolved in the report, during which there was cause for doubt. And again it was accepted once established.

For the Sandmann case, there again was initial confusion about group affiliation and the exact events that transpired. CNN and WaPo settled with him, with no admission of guilt, but he lost every case that went to trial.

I'm not suggesting that other news outlets aren't guilty of getting the story wrong. But there is a clear and compelling difference in the nightly propaganda that Fox puts out, and that heavily slants their daily presentation of the news. It would be impossible for that to result from other than intentional action.

Granted that it goes on within other networks as well, but Fox is an egregious case for which there is no real equivalent. This week has proven that beyond any doubt.

I believe in the importance of freedom of speech, and so do our laws. But Fox News and CNN are entertainment channels. They fit into “respected, hard news” the same way the History Channel fits into legitimate history discussion, or the way MTV would fit into a doctor of music program. Just stop watching and try to make better choices. Life is short.

LCDFlight wrote:

But Fox News and CNN are entertainment channels.

I like to see a mix of views and so, even as a non-American, I watch portions of both Fox and CNN. One of them leans one way, The other doesn't lean, it has totally fallen over and has been that way for some time. "Extremists" is not an exaggeration.

CaptHadley wrote:

I understand the whole not news angle. I'm more concerned with this blatant slander of the issuing judge. This is not the first time they've done something like this and it won't be the last until someone sues them into extinction.

And you think that MSDNC, CDN, and all the in-the-tank fake news outlets haven't been slandering Trump and MAGA Repubs with the whole "Russian Collusion" or the "Russian Disinformation" BS the last 7 years? I really hope TCT keeps it all up as it obviously just grates you and others to the bone

jetjack74 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

I understand the whole not news angle. I'm more concerned with this blatant slander of the issuing judge. This is not the first time they've done something like this and it won't be the last until someone sues them into extinction.

And you think that MSDNC, CDN, and all the in-the-tank fake news outlets haven't been slandering Trump and MAGA Repubs with the whole "Russian Collusion" or the "Russian Disinformation" BS the last 7 years? I really hope TCT keeps it all up as it obviously just grates you and others to the bone

Your post doesn't make sense.

However I do agree and find it very enjoyable watching Trump supporters cry over being stuck with no valid information or sources to point to. Only BS to throw like obviously fake pictures that they have to immediately call themselves out on or be sued.

Also there are many "in the tank fake news outlets" that constantly praise Trump and his stupidity and that of his followers. From FoxNews to OAN, The Blaze, InfoWars, Breitbart and NewMax. They are so "in the tank and fake it's pathetic.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

jetjack74 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

I understand the whole not news angle. I'm more concerned with this blatant slander of the issuing judge. This is not the first time they've done something like this and it won't be the last until someone sues them into extinction.

And you think that MSDNC, CDN, and all the in-the-tank fake news outlets haven't been slandering Trump and MAGA Repubs with the whole "Russian Collusion" or the "Russian Disinformation" BS the last 7 years? I really hope TCT keeps it all up as it obviously just grates you and others to the bone

Your post doesn't make sense.

However I do agree and find it very enjoyable at how trapped many Trump supporters are now with no valid information or sources to point to. Only BS to throw like obviously fake pictures that they have to immediately call themselves out on or be sued.

Also there are many "in the tank fake news outlets" that constantly praise Trump and his stupidity and that of his followers. From FoxNews to OAN, The Blaze, InfoWars, Breitbart and NewMax. They are so "in the tank and fake it's pathetic.

Tugg

Let's just point out that Fox news blatantly used a photoshop of a judge onto Epstein's body to remind everyone how bad Fox news is as a news source. Let's also remember that Russian collusion was real, and Trump had to pardon Stone for it.

The fact that folks that think Trump is in the clear are the reason we have so many mental institutions.

casinterest wrote:

The fact that folks that think Trump is in the clear are the reason we have so many mental institutions.

The fact there are not enough mental institutions is why so many folks think Trump is in the clear.

petertenthije wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The fact that folks that think Trump is in the clear are the reason we have so many mental institutions.

The fact there are not enough mental institutions is why so many folks think Trump is in the clear.

Well money has to be made on those willing to part with their time and money to watch or read such sources that still wave all this off as normal.

It all goes towards an argument of why Fox News should not have News in the title. Their biggest ratings come from the timeslots that are specifically not news . the shows most watched on Fox news are slimy talk shod that distort what is occurring to keep people hooked and angry.

When will Fox news get sued into oblivion? --- right about the same time CNN does. Any law that allows one to be taken down will affect the other. And they both know that. Both sides of politics knows it. So they all have a legally endorsed boogeyman.

.In the tank fake news outlet. You mean like InfoWars and a couple of Alex Jones. other companies that he placed in Chapter 11.

casinterest wrote:

This case could be different. However I am sure the staffer will claim they found it on the internet. This alone would prove to most sane people that nothing presented on Fox news is well thought out, but oh well. There is so much fun in having dumb ideas.

I could see a lawsuit from this judge claiming defamation which is probably a legitimate case especially if he has received threats since this was ran.

If that were to be the case then it would be settled quite quickly, it would never go to a full trial. Fox would spend upwards of eight figures to not have this see a courtroom.

Fox infotainment will never ever be "sued into oblivion" over the BS they pump out. Free speech is allowed. That is the basis for their BS. They have every right to put out what they put out. They will then turn the tables and say "but it's not OUR fault people believe it! We are simply exercising our First Amendment rights!" Which is all well and good until another coup attempt that succeeds and, suddenly, that First Amendment right is restricted.

I agree there does need to be a disclaimer on shows saying it is simply opinion and not fact. It must be read loudly, clearly, and so anyone with a third grade education knows it is simply opinion. Not that it will stop people from believing what is said, but it also absolves responsibility from that infotainment channel.

And, before the MAGAs start whining about "both sides do it" let me just say that we need BOTH SIDES in this case. I would even demand "both sides" (read: MAGAs) be forced to watch the other side. Every American knows the MAGA side of the story. We MUST DEMAND the "other" side be aired as well. Just because "both sides" blahblahblah.....

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

This case could be different. However I am sure the staffer will claim they found it on the internet. This alone would prove to most sane people that nothing presented on Fox news is well thought out, but oh well. There is so much fun in having dumb ideas.

I could see a lawsuit from this judge claiming defamation which is probably a legitimate case especially if he has received threats since this was ran.

If that were to be the case then it would be settled quite quickly, it would never go to a full trial. Fox would spend upwards of eight figures to not have this see a courtroom.

Maybe so, but the issue is that so much of the bad stuff gets out there. Retractions and lawsuits mean little in the battle against bad information.

There is supposed to be free speech, not free lies

Every tenet of democracy can also be used against democracy. It's the fundamental cost of freedom, and is why vigilance is always required.

Also why non-democracies are easier to sustain, and are favored by dictators & despots. They don't allow the freedoms that might unseat them.

seb146 wrote:

I would even demand "both sides" (read: MAGAs) be forced to watch the other side. Every American knows the MAGA side of the story. We MUST DEMAND the "other" side be aired as well. Just because "both sides" blahblahblah.....

That’s a middle ground fallacy. Just because there’s “two sides” doesn’t mean the truth lies between the two, or that both sides must be heard. Constantly Fox and right wing media fall on the side

For instance I know people who work in healthcare and vaccine education, I show them a random Fox anti vaccine segment and they say it’s total BS

I know people who are involved with climate change science. I show them a Fox climate clip and they howl in laughter.

It goes on and on and on in every field. Then I show them a “mainstream” piece of media regarding those topics from what the right would call “left wing media”, and the consensus is that whilst they generally dumb down and sensationalise things mainstream media is generally on the side of correct fact, whilst Fox and right wing media is just made up nonsense

jetjack74 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

I understand the whole not news angle. I'm more concerned with this blatant slander of the issuing judge. This is not the first time they've done something like this and it won't be the last until someone sues them into extinction.

And you think that MSDNC, CDN, and all the in-the-tank fake news outlets haven't been slandering Trump and MAGA Repubs with the whole "Russian Collusion" or the "Russian Disinformation" BS the last 7 years? I really hope TCT keeps it all up as it obviously just grates you and others to the bone

I'm sorry, and you are?

sierrakilo44 wrote:

For instance I know people who work in healthcare and vaccine education, I show them a random Fox anti vaccine segment and they say it’s total BS

I know people who are involved with climate change science. I show them a Fox climate clip and they howl in laughter.

It goes on and on and on in every field. Then I show them a “mainstream” piece of media regarding those topics from what the right would call “left wing media”, and the consensus is that whilst they generally dumb down and sensationalise things mainstream media is generally on the side of correct fact, whilst Fox and right wing media is just made up nonsense

This is very true. While there is clearly presentation bias on both sides, the mainstream media does still try to get the facts right, and they retract and apologize when they don't.

With Fox, the trend is more toward how far can we push this, what can we get away with, and then like Trump, deny and defend when they are called out. The thing that allows this is the mixing of opinion and news. If they say something untrue, they can claim it fell under opinion and not news. Or alternative facts.

I would hope that sources that repeatedly publish lies and claim to pass it off as truth and facts will start facing consequences for their irresponsible behaviour. After Alex Jones, I'm hoping Tucker Carlson is next. Free speech is an important thing, but there are too many people abusing that right.

luckyone wrote:

When will Fox news get sued into oblivion? --- right about the same time CNN does. Any law that allows one to be taken down will affect the other. And they both know that. Both sides of politics knows it. So they all have a legally endorsed boogeyman.

CNN already has by Nick Sandmann the Covington teen. Fox is not the only one who needs to get sued into oblivion I am waiting for MSNBC to get it next.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settl ... -sandmann/

stratosphere wrote:

luckyone wrote:

When will Fox news get sued into oblivion? --- right about the same time CNN does. Any law that allows one to be taken down will affect the other. And they both know that. Both sides of politics knows it. So they all have a legally endorsed boogeyman.

CNN already has by Nick Sandmann the Covington teen. Fox is not the only one who needs to get sued into oblivion I am waiting for MSNBC to get it next.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settl ... -sandmann/

Sandmann has settled with WaPo and CNN, but has lost all the cases that went to trial, including NBC. I'm sure those settlements were to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and end the dispute quickly, not because they would have lost. The settlements notably did not admit guilt.

Conservatives frequently trot this case out as an equivalence to Fox, but it really isn't at all. Fox is in serious trouble with Dominion and Smartmatic. Their reporting on the election fraud issue was absolutely and completely false.

Avatar2go wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

luckyone wrote:

When will Fox news get sued into oblivion? --- right about the same time CNN does. Any law that allows one to be taken down will affect the other. And they both know that. Both sides of politics knows it. So they all have a legally endorsed boogeyman.

CNN already has by Nick Sandmann the Covington teen. Fox is not the only one who needs to get sued into oblivion I am waiting for MSNBC to get it next.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settl ... -sandmann/

Sandmann has settled with WaPo and CNN, but has lost all the cases that went to trial, including NBC. I'm sure those settlements were to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and end the dispute quickly, not because they would have lost. The settlements notably did not admit guilt.

Conservatives frequently trot this case out as an equivalence to Fox, but it really isn't at all. Fox is in serious trouble with Dominion and Smartmatic. Their reporting on the election fraud issue was absolutely and completely false.

Clearly CNN wasn't sued into oblivion as they're still around, but let's not get caught up in details like answering the actual question of the thread. Meanwhile, there's a fair bit of speculation that the parties settled for cost, whatever that speculation is worth.

Avatar2go wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

luckyone wrote:

When will Fox news get sued into oblivion? --- right about the same time CNN does. Any law that allows one to be taken down will affect the other. And they both know that. Both sides of politics knows it. So they all have a legally endorsed boogeyman.

CNN already has by Nick Sandmann the Covington teen. Fox is not the only one who needs to get sued into oblivion I am waiting for MSNBC to get it next.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settl ... -sandmann/

Sandmann has settled with WaPo and CNN, but has lost all the cases that went to trial, including NBC. I'm sure those settlements were to take responsibility for inaccurate reporting and end the dispute quickly, not because they would have lost. The settlements notably did not admit guilt.

Conservatives frequently trot this case out as an equivalence to Fox, but it really isn't at all. Fox is in serious trouble with Dominion and Smartmatic. Their reporting on the election fraud issue was absolutely and completely false.

There has been horrible reporting everywhere, Elizabeth Smart, Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewell all were gotten wrong in a rush to judgement with no facts or sources then when they have egg on their face they say their sources were "credible", give me a break. To make this out to be just a Fox thing is a joke.

NIKV69 wrote:

There has been horrible reporting everywhere, Elizabeth Smart, Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewell all were gotten wrong in a rush to judgement with no facts or sources then when they have egg on their face they say their sources were "credible", give me a break. To make this out to be just a Fox thing is a joke.

Yes, all the outlets are guilty of both occasional errors and bias in presentation, as noted. The key difference with Fox, and why they are in trouble, is because they continued to push the election fraud claims long after the other outlets reported that they had no basis. That's why there isn't an equivalence.

If Fox had just got the story wrong, then admitted and retracted, they could claim fog of war, innocent error. But they pushed that story for weeks, and defamed the companies on the basis of no substance at all.

Truth matters. Lies have consequences. But Murdoch's pockets are so deep, that it probably won't make any difference at Fox. He can drive ratings & revenue higher with lies, than with the truth.

Tugger wrote:

However I do agree and find it very enjoyable watching Trump supporters cry over being stuck with no valid information or sources to point to. Only BS to throw like obviously fake pictures that they have to immediately call themselves out on or be sued.


Tugg

Good thing there's CNN to bring us non-partisan, fact-based news!

Redd wrote:

Good thing there's CNN to bring us non-partisan, fact-based news!

The CNN reporting was factual. More than 90% of the BLM protests around the country were peaceful. The incidents of violence, rioting, and destruction that occurred, were between 4% and 6% of the protests.

Obviously, only the violent protests make the news. So using that as the selected data, as Fox does, the conclusion is that BLM is a violent movement. It's a good example of confirmation bias. If you already believe that anyway, it behooves you to only select the data that reinforces your point.

I saw this in my own community. There was a Twitter/Facebook flash alert of a bussed-in BLM protest in the town square/park, requesting people turn out to defend local businesses. We went to the park and found about 100 people, from the surrounding area, peacefully congregating with signs, giving speeches, and marching around the square. They did this for several hours and went home.

That was by far the typical event around the country. I knew many of the people, they were in no way violent or destructive.

That doesn't mean that vandalism & destruction didn't happen in some locations, and obviously that was wrong. No excuse for that behavior. But it doesn't characterize the movement.

https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rch-finds/

cskok8 wrote:

There is supposed to be free speech, not free lies

The trouble is, one man's lies are another's "alternative truth".

seb146 wrote:

And, before the MAGAs start whining about "both sides do it" let me just say that we need BOTH SIDES in this case. I would even demand "both sides" (read: MAGAs) be forced to watch the other side. Every American knows the MAGA side of the story. We MUST DEMAND the "other" side be aired as well. Just because "both sides" blahblahblah.....

The trouble is, when presented with fact based evidence, one side just screams "Fake news!"

seb146 wrote:

Free speech is allowed. That is the basis for their BS. They have every right to put out what they put out.

Not quite, "free speech" comes responsibilities.
If Fox want to keep shouting "fire" in a crowded room, their time will come.

ChrisKen wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Free speech is allowed. That is the basis for their BS. They have every right to put out what they put out.

Not quite, "free speech" comes responsibilities.
If Fox want to keep shouting "fire" in a crowded room, their time will come.

Fox (and CNN and MSNBC, to be fair) are not covered under the same rules as ABC, CBS, NBC, and CW. Over the air broadcasts have a higher standard set by the FCC. Which is why the Sunday morning talking head shows, while spinning, are dry as the Atacama.

Keeping that in mind, I don't understand why the open minded right refuses to listen to CNN or MSNBC since they simply tell the rest of what Fox will not say. They force us to listen to everything Fox says because "liberal media" but refuse to actually hear what "liberal media" says. Just what Fox tells them "liberal media" says.

ChrisKen wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Free speech is allowed. That is the basis for their BS. They have every right to put out what they put out.

Not quite, "free speech" comes responsibilities.
If Fox want to keep shouting "fire" in a crowded room, their time will come.

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

LabQuest wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Free speech is allowed. That is the basis for their BS. They have every right to put out what they put out.

Not quite, "free speech" comes responsibilities.
If Fox want to keep shouting "fire" in a crowded room, their time will come.

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

People who sit in a studio purporting to inform their audience should be entirely free to misinform them? That smacks of absurdity to me.

LabQuest wrote:

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

Not talking about free speech, talking about news, which is supposed to have journalistic standards of truth, fact and accuracy. Fox defines itself as entertainment to avoid those standards, but many of their followers accept it as news.

Avatar2go wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

Not talking about free speech, talking about news, which is supposed to have journalistic standards of truth, fact and accuracy. Fox defines itself as entertainment to avoid those standards, but many of their followers accept it as news.

Because Fox branded themselves as news for many years, people believe it. Repeat the lie long enough as the saying goes...

Funny how when it comes to things like gender identity, the right wingers preach fact before feelings but when it comes to politics, then its feelings over facts.

Strange group these people are.

Fox is one man's, one families way of pushing American's to his viewpoint. Murdoch. He does it in Australia. He does it in the UK. He seeds division and hate. Those that present and dish out this rediculous danger to democracy (and I'm not over-exaggerating this, it truly is) are just as guilty. One day when he pops off this planet maybe, just maybe these types of "news" channels become rather more moderate. But I wouldn't bet on it, i'm sure his son will continue his legacy.

That much power to brainwash from one source is not healthy, and has and will lead to people dieing because of what is said.

art wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

Not quite, "free speech" comes responsibilities.
If Fox want to keep shouting "fire" in a crowded room, their time will come.

They are doing nothing of the sort. Its perfectly legal to lie and to push falsehoods about government or whatever they want.

There should be no restrictions on speech other than imminent, directed threats of violence.

People who sit in a studio purporting to inform their audience should be entirely free to misinform them? That smacks of absurdity to me.

Yes, of course. Absurdity isn't illegal.