Originally Posted By queenbee How is that any different... This isn't opposing viewpoints; it's a multi-billion dollar campaign through the likes of Fox News and Clear Channel to get voters scared so they'll elect people who are bought and sold by many of those same entities. This is a concerted, systematic effort to concentrate American power in the hands of the few so those few can be puppeteers of those in Congress, giving us the illusion of choice and Democracy, when in reality, we'll have no such thing. ***************** Very simple William, lies about Zimmerman or the specific situation with Bush did not concentrate power into a few hands and those lies affect everyday American much less than the Fox News/Clear Channel lies.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Let's remember too that CBS didn't fabricate evidence; they didn't adequately vet what they were given. Which, of course, they should have. But that is different from fabrication, just to be precise.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Let's remember too that CBS didn't fabricate evidence<< I disagree with that, Dabob. I remember that incident well, and the fonts/typography used on those documents would not have been available for typewriters in those days. So at the very least, those documents were re-typed for some reason, they were not the original documents. A CBS producer was fired over the incident, and Dan Rather was pushed into retirement hastily. Meanwhile, Fox & Friends makes up stuff off the cuff, and rarely apologize for it, let alone get fired for it. That's one of the big differences.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As I recall, 2oony (and I could have it wrong), CBS news did not create that document; it was passed to them. They accepted it as legit rather than verifying it independently, as they should have. That in itself got the producer fired, but they did not fabricate it themselves.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Fair enough. We don't know for sure who created it, but we do know they outright ignored expert advice and ran with the story anyway, and they did so because they just "knew" it had to be true.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Building a story and conclusions around shaky evidence is a form of fabrication, so that's what I was thinking. But you're correct, that they didn't actually fabricate the phony documents.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I stand corrected, I do feel that most news agencies pull the same crap Fox pulls. That is why it is essential that we all do research on any major news story, using a variety of news agencies for input rather than relying on one source of information.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Fair enough. We don't know for sure who created it, but we do know they outright ignored expert advice and ran with the story anyway, and they did so because they just "knew" it had to be true.> Oh absolutely. What was so maddening was that it was such an obvious fake, given the raised, smaller "th"s in the dates, which wasn't possible with typewriters. You'd think they'd have seen through that in an instant. In fact, lefty websites at the time posited that Rove and Co. might have been behind the bogus documents, just PRAYING that CBS would run with them, so that the larger issue of Bush skipping National Guard duty would get muddled, or even "settled" in his favor; i.e. if these documents were phonies, then Bush didn't skip duty. That doesn't follow of course. And neither does the idea that because this story blowing up ultimately benefited Bush that the Bush people had to be behind it. Anyway, CBS looked pretty stupid not noticing something so obvious.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Sorry for the delayed response. I’m often out in the field, with little time for blogging. It’s principally why I rarely participate in debates anymore. <<I don't want to minimize the effect they can have just yet either. In fact, how many times on these very boards have I talked about those very people (some of them related to me) and how impossible they can be to shake out of their belief system, and how the noise machine manipulates them? I just don't want to overstate the case, either - or "correct" the problem with something like jettisoning civil liberties.>> I know you do your best here and elsewhere to educate and clarify when necessary. And neither do I want to jettison with free speech as a core American principle. But free speech mustn’t also be laissez faire---and it never has been (military and justice system) as you pointed out. So, the question is, what controls can we place on free speech (particularly the way “news” is presented) that best promotes the informed society critical to sustain a healthy democracy. That’s where I am, because as it stands, the notion of free speech and free press is being used to undermine democracy rather than support it. I don’t think a concerted effort to get Fox News off the air would be profitable---rather the opposite as conservative will circle the wagons as usual. But there might be ways to make news agencies more accountable. The current method where advertisers pull their sponsorship sometimes works, but then, many businesses can and do profit from the lies imparted by news agencies, so it isn’t very reliable. And self-policing is likewise ineffective when a huge percentage of the population would believe and support anything that coincides with their ideology, true or not. So what do news agencies really benefit from self-policing? Not much. I’m leaning more toward independent fact-checking agencies with some type of power to enforce standards and indict clear demonstrations fabrication or bias. Sort of like a news media FCC. Make the board members accountable too. If everyone is accountable for playing it proper role in society, everyone benefits. This is pure Madisonian. Anyhow, even if the terms are loose, it might make media personalities think twice knowing their show could be fined in some way or press credential suspended if they are unable to substantiate their reports. There is certainly plenty room for debate as to what constitute a violation, but I think it’s a good start toward reining in the blatant and intentional diseducation of the American electorate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The devil is always in the details, but I wouldn't be opposed to something along those broad lines.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A friend of mine brought up a good point. If (and it's a big if) an amendment is ever enacted that says that corporations aren't people, then would that mean that corporations couldn't use the First Amendment as a bulwark against censorship?
