|
|
Post by MozMode on Apr 7, 2009 17:24:15 GMT -5
www.dailykostv.com/w/001122/Personally, I think Beck is the "new" Rushlo or O'Reilly. Only ten times more batshit insane. But when is this going to end? When is someone from the MSM going to take these fuckers to task & call out anyone thats using this sort of rhetoric? Back in Bush years, anyone speaking out against the President or critisizing the administration was labeled a traitor. Now, every right wing pundit out there is calling for revolt or using some sort of violent rhetoric against Obama. There will always be dissent. That's a given. But nowadays, it seems the language of Rush, O'Reilly, Bachmann, Beck etc. is getting worse & worse. We've seen in recent days the effects of such language (the 3 cop killing) and I'm afraid it might get worse. As the Right wing sees its numbers dwindling and sees Obama's approval numbers increasing, I can only imagine what goes through their mind. I can only imagine what the words of someone like Beck or Rush does to an already mentally unstable person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 7, 2009 17:27:44 GMT -5
Well, he's definitely posied to replace Limbaugh if the Hutt ever decides to retire.
(I can't wish death on anyone, not even Rush)
|
|
|
|
Post by MozMode on Apr 7, 2009 17:33:35 GMT -5
Lol the Hutt...I just imagined Jaba licking his lips with that gross ass tongue. Definitely Rush...definitely.  |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 7, 2009 17:39:02 GMT -5
The government sucked GM dry? Oxycotin must be one hell of a drug, I think they're all on it.
Oh, and it's not going to end until the Government steps in and demands that Fox either drop the word news, or actually start telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Apr 7, 2009 18:03:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 7, 2009 18:05:54 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that news networks don't have to actually, you know, report news, i.e. they're allowed to make crap up. A link to the decision was posted on the old board once...could someone dig that up?
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 7, 2009 19:01:02 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that news networks don't have to actually, you know, report news, i.e. they're allowed to make crap up. A link to the decision was posted on the old board once...could someone dig that up? And every time someone tries to address the issue, people scream "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" and run screaming into the streets. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 7, 2009 22:03:04 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that news networks don't have to actually, you know, report news, i.e. they're allowed to make crap up. A link to the decision was posted on the old board once...could someone dig that up? And every time someone tries to address the issue, people scream "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" and run screaming into the streets. To some extent, I'd rather people were more afraid of curtailing free speech than stamping out misrepresentation. On the other hand, that doesn't really work if only half the people involved actually respect the ideal of freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 7, 2009 22:32:37 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned Faux can continue what they're doing, IF they drop News from their name.
I don't think that's too much to ask, considering they have an entertainment license.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Apr 7, 2009 22:44:57 GMT -5
Could someone hook me up with a transcript. Dial-up is not friendly to youtube-like media.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 7, 2009 23:07:45 GMT -5
To some extent, I'd rather people were more afraid of curtailing free speech than stamping out misrepresentation. On the other hand, that doesn't really work if only half the people involved actually respect the ideal of freedom of speech. I'd rather not curtail free speech myself, but it used to be a journalist could get in deep shit for getting her facts wrong. Now, it doesn't even need to be true to get on the news. There's something seriously wrong with that system. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 7, 2009 23:10:05 GMT -5
Well to quote Furman...
Ironbite-IT NEVER ENDS!
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Apr 8, 2009 2:42:17 GMT -5
What the fuck?
Seriously, is that guy on ice or something? How hell can shit like that pass for 'news' anywhere?
I haven't seem anything from Rush or O'Reilly but if they're anything like that guy the US is ten times more screwed up than I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 8, 2009 2:52:01 GMT -5
I'm not against free speech, but i am against a 'news' channel using that right to incite violence and acts that affect other people based on lies, twisted facts, and misuse of the title 'news'.
If they want to discuss or bitch about how something's so bad based on what actually happens, let'em. To use 'news' as an excuse to bitch about how bad, say for example, Obama is because he didn't produce a birth certificate which leads people into a frenzy, no, I can't agree that's protected by freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 8, 2009 5:26:22 GMT -5
Extremist "news" is not a new phenomenon. The "smear" tactics in news media are as old as the free press. Andrew Jackson was elected that way.
To paraphrase Lincoln, you can fool some of the people, all the time, but you can't fool all the people, all the time. A vast majority gives no credence to the likes of Rush or Beck, and their marginalization increases each time they spew their vitriol, as does their credibility.
If a commentator does actually violate the law, however, by advocating the violent overthrow of the government, ie, assassination or the like, there are laws against that. Silencing the anti-Obamo wing nuts through government action would give them far more credence then they are entitled to.
|
|
