The Left's Version of Civility

[red states rule]

Is this liberals acting civil?


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F2-2DZ27U9U&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F2-2DZ27U9U&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

Yea, liberals really want to be civil folks :laugh2:


<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UaGqGpr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UaGqGpr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Indy]

Yea, liberals really want to be civil folks :laugh2:


<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UaGqGpr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UaGqGpr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Ed, how are high energy prices, food prices and out of control inflation going to help the American worker. How does Obama closing down 85% of the gulf oil production help the American worker. How does the systematic closing down our own oil production help the American worker. He must be talking about the 2 year unemployment policy where it cost small business up wards of 400% increase in they unemployment contribution. So in Ed's mind the idea of requiring identification of the funds to support these programs is working against the American worker. I guess the 45% increase in non military discretionary spending by Pelosi and gang wasn't enough for ED. Note to ED, lower gas, energy, and food prices is what helps the American worker. Hey Ed, most American workers don't get free food cards, energy credits, subsidized housing, cell phones and Internet. American workers actually pay for it Ed. Ten years of hate and vitriol from you Ed, and this is the best you can come up with? By the way ED, conservatives are the American workers.

[logroller]

Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc are all motivated by selfish greed, not truth in reporting. Media, liberal and conservative, are just following the most profitable bias. I wonder how many people realize that Fox News was the plantiff in the landmark appeal in Florida which held it isn't technically illegal to intentionally distort the news. "We report, you decide" should be "We report what makes us the most money" Reports like these are simply a business decision. The great irony in this post is how each click adds to their marketability. So who's really to blame: the guy saying this crap, or we who pay to hear it?

[Kathianne]

Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc are all motivated by selfish greed, not truth in reporting. Media, liberal and conservative, are just following the most profitable bias. I wonder how many people realize that Fox News was the plantiff in the landmark appeal in Florida which held it isn't technically illegal to intentionally distort the news. "We report, you decide" should be "We report what makes us the most money" Reports like these are simply a business decision. The great irony in this post is how each click adds to their marketability. So who's really to blame: the guy saying this crap, or we who pay to hear it?

Case name & number? Sounds interesting.

[logroller]

Case name & number? Sounds interesting.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

[red states rule]

The liberal media at its "best"

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oSLR3bW4vI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oSLR3bW4vI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

Is anyone shocked that liberal talk radio hosts have not "toned down the rhetoric" ?

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNQlSxqPSD4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNQlSxqPSD4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[fj1200]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

I'm not sure it says what you say it says. Could you be distorting? :hide: I could be misreading though...

It was an affiliate of Fox, not necessarily Fox News.

[logroller]

I'm not sure it says what you say it says. Could you be distorting? :hide: I could be misreading though...

It was an affiliate of Fox, not necessarily Fox News.


 We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy”-does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

What did I distort? The courts found in favor of the appeal on the grounds that distorting news isn't a violation of Florida law; as such, no protections for a whistleblower exist. The only remand for distortion of news is in the consideration of renewal of FCC license, which, considering Monsanto/FoxNews influence($) at the federal level, would not gain much traction with the FCC if states don't recognize news distortion as "illegal".

Admittedly, there's always two sides to a story. The story may be issue of sour grapes, which the courts overturned. However, considering the majority interest in suppressing the story lies in Monsanto, it's not much of a stretch to infer that corporate pressure from Monsanto influenced FoxNews/NewsCorp, which in turn placed pressure on the affiliate to change the story or face, at best, a loss in advertising dollars and at worst a costly legal battle wih Monsanto. Again, its just business and if you're gonna mess with Monsanto-- you'd better be roundup ready.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dWqS6fUkww?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dWqS6fUkww?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Even if half of what they say is true; it forces me to question the integrity of all major media, not just FoxNews, NewsCorp et al.

[fj1200]

What did I distort? The courts found in favor of the appeal on the grounds that distorting news isn't a violation of Florida law; as such, no protections for a whistleblower exist. The only remand for distortion of news is in the consideration of renewal of FCC license, which, considering Monsanto/FoxNews influence($) at the federal level, would not gain much traction with the FCC if states don't recognize news distortion as "illegal".

Small joke, sorry. :) I'm not sure how you can get whistleblower protection when you don't work for the offending firm. You listed Fox News as plaintiff when it was really a Fox affiliate, small difference. Much of the problem that I gleaned was the lack of a rule at the FCC which would then bring up the definition of "distortion." One man's distortion is another's truth/bias.


Admittedly, there's always two sides to a story. The story may be issue of sour grapes, which the courts overturned. However, considering the majority interest in suppressing the story lies in Monsanto, it's not much of a stretch to infer that corporate pressure from Monsanto influenced FoxNews/NewsCorp, which in turn placed pressure on the affiliate to change the story or face, at best, a loss in advertising dollars and at worst a costly legal battle wih Monsanto. Again, its just business and if you're gonna mess with Monsanto-- you'd better be roundup ready.

Which is all the more reason for better transparency at the Federal level.

[logroller]

Small joke, sorry. :) I'm not sure how you can get whistleblower protection when you don't work for the offending firm. You listed Fox News as plaintiff when it was really a Fox affiliate, small difference. Much of the problem that I gleaned was the lack of a rule at the FCC which would then bring up the definition of "distortion." One man's distortion is another's truth/bias.

Which is all the more reason for better transparency at the Federal level.

The rule exists with the FCC, but it was developed through adjudication(judicial), and not rulemaking(congress)- as such Florida law doesn't recognize it as a "rule". No one disputed what the affiliate did, it was judged by jury; the dispute was rather the affiliate actually broke a "rule"; under federal authority yes, in the state of Florida NO. Florida courts uphold the laws of Florida. So far as transparency, kinda hard to see through the billions corporations spend to protect their interests; even when clear information exists, its prone to be muddied. -- Watch the videos posted by Red; it's media mudslinging, not truth in reporting.:fart:

[fj1200]

The rule exists with the FCC, but it was developed through adjudication(judicial), and not rulemaking(congress)-

Not exactly.

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses.   Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses.
But no sense quibbling.


as such Florida law doesn't recognize it as a "rule". No one disputed what the affiliate did, it was judged by jury; the dispute was rather the affiliate actually broke a "rule"; under federal authority yes, in the state of Florida NO. Florida courts uphold the laws of Florida. So far as transparency, kinda hard to see through the billions corporations spend to protect their interests; even when clear information exists, its prone to be muddied. --

What did they win on?

... After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims.   The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury.   The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.

And no, the jury decision was flawed.

We reach this conclusion even though the whistle-blower aspect of Akre's case was without legal merit from its inception.


Watch the videos posted by Red; it's media mudslinging, not truth in reporting.:fart:

I generally don't. I know the difference between reporting and opinion.

[logroller]

Indeed, it was "without legal merit" because there isn't a law forbidding distortion of the news. So long as you don't outright lie AND someone can prove it, its OK to spin the story any which way but straight. I'm glad I don't have cable, the only exposure I get is through the internet; it's always truthful!:laugh:

[fj1200]

Indeed, it was "without legal merit" because there isn't a law forbidding distortion of the news. So long as you don't outright lie AND someone can prove it, its OK to spin the story any which way but straight. I'm glad I don't have cable, the only exposure I get is through the internet; it's always truthful!:laugh:

Nor should there be.

No cable here either.

[red states rule]

I wonder why Lawrence O'Donnell is not asking why Dems did not ram thru more gun laws when they had total control of Congress for about 2 years?





MSNBC’s O’Donnell Blames Bush & GOP for Deaths in Tucson, ‘Soulless’ NRA Against Cutting Homicide Rate

Catching up on an item from the Tuesday, January 11, Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host O’Donnell blamed President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress of 2004 for some of the deaths in the Tucson shootings because they did not have the "basic human decency" to renew the assault weapons ban and require Jared Loughner to reload his weapon sooner. O’Donnell talked of learning which victims would be alive if not for Bush and Republicans. O’Donnell:

When the investigation reveals the exact order of the 31 shots fired, we will be able to do the grim accounting and tell you exactly, exactly who would be alive today if the Republican House, the Republican Senate and the Republican President had the basic human decency to do the right thing in 2004.

Later in the show, he quoted the spokesman of the National Rifle Association and tagged him as "soulless" for opposing a rush to pass new gun control laws. He went on to contend that the NRA believes "there should be absolutely no restrictions on access to guns," and suggested that the NRA wants to keep the murder rate in America above that in other countries. O’Donnell:

Quote, "Anything other than prayers for the victims and their families at this time would be inappropriate." So says the soulless spokesman for the National Rifle Association, the most successful special interest lobby in the history of lobbying. Success in lobbying is scored according to how difficult your case is. The NRA has a very difficult case to make, that there should be absolutely no restrictions on access to guns and bullets in this country, and that we must never allow our homicide rate to fall below any other country`s homicide rate.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/19/msnbc-s-o-donnell-blames-bush-gop-deaths-tucson-soulless-nra-against-#ixzz1BWbBx11j

[red states rule]

Olbermann goes after a life long Dem. Remember for the past week how Keith has lectured his 27 loyal viewers on civility?




Olbermann: ‘Good Riddance’ to ‘Delusional Liar’ Lieberman Who is ‘Lying Even on the Way Out’

On Wednesday’s Countdown show, as he plugged a segment on former Democratic-turned independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s retirement, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann referred to Lieberman as a "delusional liar," and suggested that he had experienced a "departure from reality" for describing himself as a "moderate Democrat" after endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama for President. At the top of the show, the MSNBC host teased: "The end of the line for Joe Lieberman, self-described ‘moderate Democrat.’ Don’t let the delusional liar door hit you in the delusional liar butt on the delusional liar way out."

In another plug, Olbermann accused the Connecticut Senator of "lying even on the way out the door." And, after a segment with Minnesota Democratic Representative Keith Ellison in which the two discussed the Congressman’s experiences with death threats and hostile messages to his office, Olbermann almost seemed to lament that Lieberman had not gotten more grief even as he contended that public figures should be "untouched," and ended up declaring "good riddance" to Lieberman. Olbermann:

And then there are those politicians who sail through their public lives untouched, which is fortunate, which is the way it should be, unless what they are untouched by is reality. Tonight, goodbye, Joe Lieberman, and good riddance.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/19/olbermann-good-riddance-delusional-liar-lieberman-who-lying-even-way-#ixzz1BYrfYsFA