occupy san diego-issuing death threats

[Talon]

Fox went to court to defend it's right to fire reporters that refused to air deliberate lies (about tainted milk) under the concept that the FCC's guideline about "news distortion" is just that - a guideline. They fought for the idea that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Didn't Fixed Noise also launch a punitive lawsuit back at the reporters to cover their legal fees?

"It's not enough that you hang me, I have to buy you the rope?" - Law & Order

[Duelist925]

Fox is not a news network. Yet Fox still has news shows.

No, they have Entertainment programs (which aren't very entertaining) which label themselves news shows. They do not have to follow the same regulations and federal policies as a legitimate news show, so no, they are not news shows.

What kind of network it is doesn't change the fact that a news show on it reports news.

What kind of network it is changes EVERYTHING. As Several other people have pointed out, Fox has faught until they bled to remain labeled an entertainment network, specifically so they would not have to follow the same regulations and laws as other, legitimate sources. They have done this, specifically to be able to legally broadcase lies, prevarications, exaggerations, blatant bias, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Jon Stewart reports news, despite his show being a comedy on a comedy network. Saying that anything on his show doesn't count because it's not a news network is just laughable.

3 things
1:Jon Stewart does not maskerade as legitimate news. He has always been up front that he is a comedian. Fox is nowhere near as honest about the fact that they are legally entertainment.

2: I do not say anything on his show doesnt count. I say I do not trust it without verification from another source, one that is trustworthy. I do not take anything Stewart says at face value. To add to that, Stewart has, not, to my knowledge, blatantly lied except in parody situations that are blatantly parody. The same cannot be said of Fox.

3: Jon Stewart is actually funny. Fox news isnt.

Anyone can start a tv show. So what? Just because Fox has their own channel, they aren't legit? God forbid they do a professional version of presenting news.

...What? The arguement is not that fox is untrustworthy because they have their own channel. No one has stated that. What has been stated is that Fox is not a reliable news source, because they have, to put it until simple list form:

Blatantly shown disregard to actual news procedure, airing exaggerated statistics, and claiming what is merely opinion as outright fact

Repeatedly shown they have an extreme bias, and have no problem using underhanded tactics, and fired employees who refused to use said underhanded tactics.

And lastly, the thing that Allows them to do everything else I've mentioned:

Fought to remain labeled entertainment specificly so they would not have to follow the same regulations as a legitimate news source, as I stated above, and to blatantly air lies, as another poster posted.




Please. Please, come up with some other mental gymnastics to defend fox.

[Greenday]

Please. Please, come up with some other mental gymnastics to defend fox.

Well, I'm done arguing over Fox. People who don't agree that news shows are news shows just because they are biased will never believe it's a valid source, just like every other source given against their views. You accuse me of mental gymnastics without coming up with ANY arguments other than LOLfoxnews.

[Duelist925]

Well, I'm done arguing over Fox. People who don't agree that news shows are news shows just because they are biased will never believe it's a valid source, just like every other source given against their views. You accuse me of mental gymnastics without coming up with ANY arguments other than LOLfoxnews.

I made several statements which are commonly known fact, and which can be easily confirmed with some googling, discrediting your source. Much of what I';ve said is reiterated, supported by several other posters. That is hardly "lolfoxnews".

Fox news is not a valid, reliable news source. Anymoreso than Comedy Central is. If you have any arguements, that refute ANY of the points I made in my previous post, PLEASE. Please. Make them.

[Andara Bledin]

People who don't agree that news shows are news shows just because they are biased will never believe it's a valid source, just like every other source given against their views.

They went to court to defend their right to lie. That's so far past "biased" it's unbelievable that you still think that is the basis for this debate.

Honestly, if the best argument is, "LoL, then I won't accept YouTube or ABC, then," then you should also accept stories that were published in The Weekly World News or The Onion. They're "news" stories, too, after all.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

This thread is just getting surreal. Talk about pissing away your credibility for now and ever. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you hoping if you argue against reason and facts long enough you'll break through to the other side and magically be right? This is like a Fark politics thread. Stubborn denial of evidence, "counterpoints" that are attacks on "liberal" sources as if that somehow disproves or excuses the original problem.


What's next? Arguing Bat Boy is real?

[Greenday]

This thread is just getting surreal. Talk about pissing away your credibility for now and ever. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Are you hoping if you argue against reason and facts long enough you'll break through to the other side and magically be right? This is like a Fark politics thread. Stubborn denial of evidence, "counterpoints" that are attacks on "liberal" sources as if that somehow disproves or excuses the original problem.

Here's the funny thing. I think the exact same thing about you guys, denying facts and all.

[Gravekeeper]

Here's the funny thing. I think the exact same thing about you guys, denying facts and all.

Key difference being we have evidence of our facts and aren't perfectly happy to not only be lied too by media sources, but wilfully defend said sources despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Duelist925]

Here's the funny thing. I think the exact same thing about you guys, denying facts and all.

If you bring up a fact that can be verified by a reputable news source, it will be listened to you. You have not done this yet.

We have not denied facts. We have, for the most part, managed to prove your assertions either wrong, or exaggerated, via EVIDENCE not opinion.

Please either provide evidence, from a reputable news source, or admit that you cannot do so.

Or, if you prefer, prove FOx news to be reputable. AGAIN, I say, if you have ANY arguements to be made against ANY of the points I, or others, have made about FOx news lack of honestly, please, I want to hear them. If you don,t have any arguements against my points, then why in the world are you still defending fox?

[Greenday]

Multiple national news networks have reported on it.

Hell, go to google news, enter "occupy sand diego vendor", look at any of the articles by Fox, the LA Times, Men's News, etc. etc.

Is CBS not a credible source? Are the owners of the carts not credible sources? What about San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio who has confirmed the reports? Is he not a credible source?

How many sources does it take to prove something? Do I have to fly to San Diego and interview people myself? Do I have to spend every waking moment filming the protesters and put those videos on youtube for their to be enough proof?

It's not like I used a wikipedia article where any average moron can put stuff there. This is Fox News. And they even posted their sources in the article. But based on the responses here, it's obvious no one read them. So it's interesting how people can argue over articles they don't even read.

[Andara Bledin]

All that actually "proves" is that the vendors both claim verbal harassment and vandalism, and one of them also claims assault with bodily fluids, including urine and blood.

Hearsay. No evidence. Not a single picture of even a graffitid cart to support the claims, much less the greater claim of blood and urine.

Nobody is really disputing that there were some EWs there who got pissy at being cut off and shouted things, including threats of harm and death, at the vendors. We've seen it often enough over stupid, trivial matters in posts at CS that it's not even cause to blink.

However, it's very rare, outside of specific types of protest (of which this is not one), that anybody ever uses blood for vandalism. The claim that it was done here, without any evidence of any form to back it up makes it highly suspect.

The only people who have ever claimed that there was any blood or urine was one (not both, just one) of the vendors and a councilman who I sincerely doubt ever visited the area or the carts and is just trusting that the one person who claimed it happened isn't making shit up to get sympathy and/or money.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Multiple national news networks have reported on it.

You seem to be unable to separate hearsay and actual reporting. The same story is circulating, verbatim, but no one's actually investigating it just repeating it. The original source was Free Republic. Which makes it even less credible than it was to start with. CBS was reporting it from them, and the article is just making the rounds now. No one's actually investigating or interviewing, its just being passed around ala Associated Press.

The owners of the carts aren't credible, no. At least the one making the bulk of the claims and all of the noise isn't. No pictures, no evidence, no police action, they've changed their story now too. Now the whole truck was "full of blood", but still, no pictures except those two black and white ones of a slight stain. They both claim they were followed home by evil protesters now too. One claims her cart was pissed on ( Which is believable ), the other claims her truck was filled with blood after they were chased out of town by a lynch mob apparently ( Not so believable ). There are no claims of feces smearing anymore, a claim which originally came from the GOP councilman Carl DeMaio. Who jumped on this the moment he heard about it of course. The claims of theft and death threats have also vanished.

But hey, $4000 in fundraising for them.

]How many sources does it take to prove something?

There are only two original sources: The vendors and Free Republic. If there were any real meat to this story, the vendors and their pitifully damaged carts would be on Fox News 24/7 and half the GOP nominees would fly in to shake their hands on TV. As is, there are actually 3 vendors involved. 90% of the claims are coming from 2 of them. The other one seems to just be annoyed, and didn't run to a councilmen or city hall to plead for martial law.

[KabeRinnaul]

Do most news reports actually research their talking points? Or do they just repeat the same information from another report, over and over?

You decide.