CNN is NOT middle of the road; continuing to claim they are ain’t gonna make it so.

Olbermann blames Bush for everything/anyting/all things. It’s in his blood. Makes him look like the fool he is.

So both sides are partially right and both sides are also exaggerating.

Well, no. This case is a civil case, and it always has been. Yes, we know it isn’t a criminal case. That doesn’t change the facts of the case, and in fact only makes it that much more curious as to why Holder dropped it. You can come up with the longest list you’d like of things this case isn’t and none of them would change what it is.

Now, is this the first time Olbermann has raised this case lately? So he could talk about what it isn’t and ignore what it is?

KO probably blames Bush for his father’s death too. And when’s KO going to attend a Tea Party rally now that he’s free to leave the confines of NYC?

Olbermann gets his own good point in though, by remarking that some of Fox News’ coverage has had a bit of an uncomfortable racial tinge to it.

Yeah, when unabashed racists are the subject of a story, it will tend to have an uncomfortable racial tinge. Remarkable, it isn’t.

You can believe this delusional hatemonger (msnbc’s Donny Deutch thinks so too! LOL) – OR YOUR OWN EYES & EARS!!!

What I’d like to know is who are the imbicilic morons that still watch this snarky, discredited ex-sportscaster?!
——————————————-
Just reverse the racial roles, and ask yourselves how little keithy – and the rest of the Despicable Network Media – would be covering the story?

It’s no longer News – It’s pure Obama/Progressive Propaganda! – No honesty left in the Network Newscasts…except for FOX!

This whole progressive network is OBSESSED with Race – It’s like you’re dealing with a Tribal Mentality of people unable to EVOLVE!

does Olby get ALL of his stories from Kos and Media Matters? What’s the point of his show, anyway?

“Fox sucks” and repeated Kos/MM talking points…

It was this story that caused the upset:

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident – which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube – had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.

Link
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?page=1&feat=home_cube_position1

Jon, first off, you seem to be one of the fairer bloggers here, so kudos. I’d love it if someone did a piece on Megyn Kelly’s segment yesterday where she said the DOJ made several trips to the whitehouse to visit lawyer Cassandra Butts (who by her own admission is super tight with BO). One such visit was the day they were told it was a good case and should be persued, but interestingly enough, after meeting with Butts, the case was pretty much dropped. Another point of interest is under Bush, he signed a directive that limited contact between the DOJ and WH to avoid undo influence, so I’m not sure if BO did away with that or is just not abiding by it.

Good article on this:

Weigel, Rest of the Left Change the Facts on the New Black Panther Case

Dave Weigel, fresh from his firing over at the Washington Post, is guestblogging over at Andrew Sullivan’s and pushing the latest Lefty meme on the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Damn, they got JournoList 2.0 up fast.

Anyway, the claim — first published at Adam Serwer’s blog as a great big “Ah HAH!” — is that the New Black Panther case was “downgraded” from a criminal to a civil case back during the Bush Administration.

[T]he case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division.
Conservative activist and former Voting Section Attorney J. Christian Adams identified United States Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli as the person who ordered the case dismissed, but he wasn’t confirmed until March, three months after the case was downgraded.

To the Left and Dave Weigel (BIRM), this somehow means that Obama flunkies couldn’t have been responsible for circular-filing the case in May 2009. Well, the obvious flaw with this line of reasoning is that it was the dismissal of the civil case that caused an uproar and started the US Commission on Civil Rights sniffing around.

The Left wants to change the story to something about a criminal case against the hate-stick wielding racialists playing thug for a day at a polling place. Well, that’d be nice (who doesn’t love folks who brandish hate-sticks?), but that’s not what the story was about.

The Washington Times broke this on May 29, 2009 (note for idiot Leftists: that’s after Obama was inaugurated and after Perrelli joined Justice):

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
It was always about the civil complaint, right from the beginning. Adam Serwer is, well, an artard who wants to change the story. And Weigel uncritically repeats this Lefty meme as if it proves something.

Nobody I know is that stupid. The USCCR and Republicans in general got interested over the dismissal of a civil complaint in May 2009. The details of that dismissal are still in doubt given Obama Administration refusal to comply with USCCR subpoenas. This will be resolved, I expect, but not until the GOP regains the House and the subpoena power that comes with the majority…

Thanks to DrewM for a pointer.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/303557.php

MichelleF said:
The Left wants to change the story to something about a criminal case

I don’t think the left wants to change the story, I think they just want to make sure people understand that Bush/DOJ didn’t think a criminal case was worth pursuing and Obama/DOJ didn’t think most of the civil case was worth pursuing except for the one injunction they got.

If everyone would just remember that and stop trying to completely ignore the WHOLE story (and only repeat their own side) this incident would be a lot less convoluted.

I don’t know why you Righty’s will give Bush a pass for not moving forward with criminal charges but damn Obama for not moving forward with all the civil charges.

I thought this article was very “middle of the road” and I join you in wishing there was a channel that presented the unfiltered, unpoliticized truth during primetime. But CNN is not middle of the road by any stretch of the imagination.

BFD, it’s pretty sad that it doesn’t bother the left that someone from DOJ says it’s policy to NOT pursue cases against black defendents. Not that I’m surprised.

Well this is typical, its not even news worthy anymore or even worth commenting on an OB1 thread…only suprise for me is, i thought bushbashing was out, and beckbashing and constantly repeating “fox noise” was in?
He aint worth the air out of my lungs, he’s a complete moron and its good that most of the people on this site, left and right see right through him.

Sad news folks. George Steinbrenner has passed away at 80. Why mention it here? In a thread about Keith Olbermann? Well, soon we’ll hear how George was of course best friends with Keith. And if not best friends, then George most definitely will have been a big fan \ admirer of Keith’s, have supported his career, love his world views, etc.

As long as Keith can make it about Keith, then things will work out in the end. Sadly though its always tough to follow up with a question to the deceased to actually confirm if they loved Olbermann. Making it harder is that somehow, someway, they will have gone their lifetime never knowing, talking to, or gasp, never even recognizing the greatness of Keith… Yet somehow, you watch, this will be about Keith.

MichelleF said:
BFD, it’s pretty sad that it doesn’t bother the left that someone from DOJ says it’s policy to NOT pursue cases against black defendents. Not that I’m surprised.

You see, this is what’s wrong with this WHOLE friggin’ story.

Partisans are spouting accusations as if they were facts before any proof has been offered.

Right now it’s all allegations, by a conservative I might add.
And even you are grossly overstating the facts. It is the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ in question, not the DOJ in general. And that mostly pertains to voting-rights cases, but that doesn’t stop you from framing it like the DOJ will never pursue a case against a Black man.

You wording just helps to fan the flames which is exactly what Fox’s wording is doing.

But I tell you what, if that WAS proven true I would be one of the first one here to condemn it.

Y

Jon,
Not having too much familiarity with your writings, I’ll defer to Michelle F’s judgement on your impartiality.

That being said, to debunk the seeming equivocation in your piece on who’s right and wrong, simply consider this:

If it had been a neo-nazi group in Alabama doing the same thing the panthers did, and a DOJ investigator TESTIFIED that there was a racial edict from the BUSH DOJ not to prosecute Whites for voter intimidation, WOULD THE NATIONAL MEDIA HAVE IGNORED COVERAGE on the case, the same way they have done under these current circumstances?

The answer, of course, is Academic: THEY WOULD HAVE TREATED IT AS A MAJOR SCANDAL!

“It doesn’t mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had … and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact,” Holder said. “If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/11/holder-floats-possibility-racial-profiling-suit-arizona/

Does anyone else believe Holder, claiming on Schieffer’s show that they might file a racial suit down the road?

This sounds like a CYA for the fact that after all the *race baiting* they did about the AZ law, they didn’t file a racial component. I don’t believe they wouldn’t include the charge in the initial law suit, if it had a chance of overturning the law.

Also, it doesn’t make it seem that Holder thinks their lawsuit will win, if he is already thinking about a lawsuit down the road, should his suit fail. So, why wouldn’t he throw all the ammo he could at it, up front? This is such political posturing, it ticks me off they are even wasting the time and resources….

KO is funny and we need his freedom of weird thinking as a counterbalance for the stamina of news that DOES practice independent confirmation seeking and not rhetoric dogma or-else-you’re-out as Dems request.

Of course this is a civil case only. I am not too failiar with PA criminal code, but I imagine the worst thing these goons could have been charged with criminally is something like disorderly conduct which results in a small fine. The big penalty is of course from the civil side of the law which is why the DOJ correctly went that route. Is KO really so uninformed that he does not realize the uproar is because of the Holder led DOJ dismissing a judgement that was already made against all three of the four defendents. Even worse is the judgement against the bat wielding thug was reduced to he is not allowed to carry a deadly weapon at a polling location again until 2012? I wonder who is up for re-election that year?

I’ll give Olbermann this, “newsgasm” is funny

…but unoriginal.

Urban Dictionary

And don’t forget about TVgasm.com.

Bush dropped the charges against the black panthers

Olbermann gets his own good point in though, by remarking that some of Fox News’ coverage has had a bit of an uncomfortable racial tinge to it.”

Why not? It was racial; when a man advocates the killing of whites and their babies, you might get the feeling that race may play a part. Except if you are a lib, of course.

Dave Noland says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:39 am

Bush dropped the charges against the black panthers

Wrong-a-roo! Please read the above links to understand the issue.

ImNotBlue said:
Dave Noland says:July 13, 2010 at 11:39 am Bush dropped the charges against the black panthers Wrong-a-roo! Please read the above links to understand the issue.

You can’t really expect someone at his intellictual level to actually comprehend something simple like civil vs criminal law.

Either Olbermann Doesn’t Know How to Use Google… or He’s a Liar

http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/07/13/either-olbermann-doesnt-know-how-to-use-google-or-hes-a-liar/

I’m going with he’s a stupid liar.

KO, a liar? That’s nothing new.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Olbermann
“Subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88 percent of all federal subsidies. Just cutting the oil and gas subsidies out would save the U.S. government $45 billion every year.”

Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 in a comment on MSNBC’s ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’
Olbermann says oil and gas subsidies account for 88 percent of all federal subsidies
False
Share this story:
retweet65

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has brought renewed attention to government subsidies conferred upon the oil and gas industry. Keith Olbermann, the liberal host of the MSNBC prime-time show Countdown, took the issue of the oil and gas industry head-on during the show that aired July 6, 2010.

He cited reports by the Center for American Progress — a liberal think tank — that outlined “nine different subsidies that the U.S. government gives to an industry that makes more money than any other industry, including refunds for drilling costs and refunds to cover the cost of searching for oil. Subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88 percent of all federal subsidies. Just cutting the oil and gas subsidies out would save the U.S. government $45 billion every year.”

“Subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88 percent of all federal subsidies.”

We tracked down the Center for American Progress paper the statistic was drawn from — “Pumping Tax Dollars to Big Oil: Getting Government Priorities Right on Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies,” published on April 14, 2010, by Sima J. Gandhi, a senior economic policy analyst with the center.

In the paper, Gandhi wrote, “Tax expenditures are government spending through the tax code. They are distributed through deductions, exclusions, credits, exemptions, preferential tax rates, and deferrals. What makes them look different from grants or checks is that they are delivered through the tax code as part of tax expenditure spending programs. These tax expenditures can amount to a significant portion of federal subsidies for oil and gas. The cost of tax expenditure programs for oil and gas companies made up about 88 percent of total federal subsidies in 2006.”

When we read that, it sounded to us like Gandhi was saying that 88 percent of all oil and gas subsidies were accomplished through the tax code — not that 88 percent of all federal subsidies went to the oil and gas industry.

To check that, we contacted Gandhi. She confirmed our suspicion and pointed us to her original source — a 2006 paper published by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, a state office. The paper includes a detailed table and says that “various taxes represented approximately 87.4 percent of federal government subsidies for oil and gas in 2006.”

So it’s clear to us that Olbermann misstated that statistic.

“Cutting the oil and gas subsidies out would save the U.S. government $45 billion every year.”

This one proved even easier to check. We located a different Center for American Progress paper by Gandhi, “Eliminating Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies,” published on May 13, 2010. In it, she outlines nine different types of subsidies (Olbermann was right about that number) and concludes that “the total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.”

That’s $45 billion over 10 years, not one year, as Olbermann had said.

So we’ll give him a rating of False.

Odd that Olbermann goes out of his way to find racism in virtually everything, but when black panthers spout racist remarks, he thinks it’s all overblown.

writer said:
Odd that Olbermann goes out of his way to find racism in virtually everything, but when black panthers spout racist remarks, he thinks it’s all overblown.

Great comment!

Oberman is a jock sniffing wanna-be and a political entertainer. Actually, he rivals Rush for ridiculous. Olberman and MSNBC are the only ones who take Olberman so seriously.

Can’t we all agree that Keith Olbermann is a hard core looney and not have any more STORIES about him. Its always the same looney stuff.

Why of course he does, his brain is particularly rewired
to function in an alternate universe….don’t know why
he’s here on this planet.

Bershad….

Both sides are NOT right.

Faux is absolutely wrong that Obama’s DOJ dropped the case because Holder is a black man.

That’s what they’ve been contending. If you disagree with that, please explain exactly why that is.

As the NYT article pointed out, there was no case for Holder to drop, and that fact BECAME a fact before Obama was inaugurated.

So in other words, Faux News lied about it, you have tried to apologize for their lie, which makes you a liar too.

Any QUESTIONS????

-Wexler

Then why did Adams resign, saying that he was told cases against blacks wouldn’t be pursued? He’s lying too, I guess. In other words, Wexler, anyone who disagrees with your take on it is ‘lying’.

William,

Do you not understand what exactly happened? There was a judgement rendered against the four parties named in the suit. The DOJ under Holder dismissed 3 of those judgements entirely and greatly reduced the civil penalties of the fourth. Do you not understand there is a difference between civil and criminal cases in this country?

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Partisans are spouting accusations as if they were facts before any proof has been offered.

There is sworn testimony to that effect. Proof is on offer.

MichelleF said:
Either Olbermann Doesn’t Know How to Use Google… or He’s a Liar http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/07/13/either-olbermann-doesnt-know-how-to-use-google-or-hes-a-liar/ I’m going with he’s a stupid liar.

I’ll take “Lying” for $2000, Michelle!

I bet blacks and other minorities are so glad that they have rich white people like KO, RM,etc. to inform them when something is racial in nature since the libs believe blacks can’t think for themselves.

Sorry, KO- that NBPP guy still thinks you are a “cracker” who ought to be killed and not all your lib BS will change that.

I’m neither a fan of FOX or O’Rielly, but I had to stop watching KO a long time ago because of his obsession, and I DO mean OBSESSION with O’Reilly. It was creepy and juvenile!

This is too funny! Mainstream media doesn’t want anyone to know that Eric Holder decides who is criminal based on the color of their skin (white = criminal). But Keith Olbermann tries to catch this hot potato, and just embarrasses himself with more Bush bashing. This is the best thing since the Left decided to blame bad weather on Bush. The more this kind of stuff gets on TV, the more voters will abandon the Democrats.

“If only there was some channel that would bowl the ball straight down the middle in prime time towards the truth. Of course, if there was a channel like that, they’d probably get horrible ratings. Just ask CNN.”

Yes, MSNBC shows bias and Fox just flat out lies, but the problem with the logic of this statement, and with CNN in general, is the idea that there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is simply not the case. The truth belongs with the facts. Sometimes one side has them, sometimes the other, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. If CNN really wanted to differentiate themselves they would spend their energies on fact checking and holding people accountable to objective, verifiable truth. It used to be called journalism.

“MSNBC shows bias”. That’s it? Just a little bias? And what are all of these ‘lies’ that Fox is telling?

What has happened to the education system in America?

Supposedly educated people lie like dogs and their moronic twit followers suck it up like Hoovers on steroids.

I remember being amazed by CB radio back in the 50s. Then the effing morons got hold of it. Same thing happened to cable TV news. The GOP operates a 24/7 lie machine and the people who WANT to believe just tune everything else out.

Sigh. Yes, then, it must be true, all black people are inherently racists because Faux tells us it’s so. Facts don’t mean anything, even though they define what happened, because the facts don’t fit what you want to believe.

Yeah, we GET IT. You GOPERs are a pack of howling imbeciles. You never heard a lie you couldn’t swallow, you never heard a demagogue wannabe like Rush Limbaugh without loving him, you still believe that Bush was right to invade Iraq because… well, just because.

I have begun to believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that we are exceptional in that we are the most privileged nation on earth and we STILL have the most uninformed and misinformed people on the planet.

Thanks, Murdoch, you’re a real gift.

-Wexler

PS This headline is misleading, did you write that all by yourself or did some asshole at GOP central write it for you?

William W. Wexler said:
What has happened to the education system in America?

I look at your post and ask the same thing. How can someone be as stupid as you are in so few years.

I can clearly see BushDrunk, staggering, swaggering in his tough-guy cheer-leading uniform. Shouting, “Go, you panthers!!!” Yup.

Wexler, can you provide a quote where someone at Fox said all black people are racist? If there was video of a white supremacist saying he wanted to kill black babies, you’d be outraged. But when a black racist is shown saying he wants to kill white babies, you ignore that and instead choose to attack the messenger. Why is that? Are you a black panther?

Nice try but, the only thing you’re likely to find down the middle is road kill. I know it kills your stupid narrative but, facts are not subject to opinions, which is why they’re called facts. Also remember that the last time the media followed fox news they got bitch smakced. See ACORN and those bullshit tapes and more recently, Climate change. Ignorance is truely bliss for the party of losers and the idiots who watch “fox we’re not news”. By the way, Obama doens’t have any ties to the new Black Panther Party of racists but, it’s nice of you inbreds to try!

Obama’s AG Holder dropping the case is Obama’s tie to the panthers. Oh, and don’t forget Rev. Wright and his best buddy, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has plenty of ties to racists.

writer said:
“MSNBC shows bias”. That’s it? Just a little bias? And what are all of these ‘lies’ that Fox is telling?

Fox News went to court to defend their right to misinform viewers. In the case in question they never even bothered to assert that they were not attempting to misrepresent the truth, only that they had a first amendment right to do so.

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw&feature=player_embedded

Here is a link highlighting an outright lie perpetrated by Fox (the idea one could go to jail for not purchasing health insurance) then the denial that they ever said it.

http://politicalirony.com/2010/04/16/fox-news-now-lies-about-their-lying/

These are just two examples off the top of my head. There are many, many more. Yes MSNBC will sometimes selectively choose facts on which to base their reports in an effort to strengthen their positions but they do not actively attempt to misinform viewers. Fox on the other hand has been proven to misrepresent facts repeatedly even when an objective truth has been well established in the effort to support the worldview they wish to impress upon their audience.

Dynamo, your examples show how out of touch you are. If you don’t buy health insurance under Obamacare, you are levied a tax. If you don’t pay the tax, you go to jail.

dynamo52 says:
July 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Fox News went to court to defend their right to misinform viewers

That’s a lie. The case (a) had nothing to do with FOX News, and (b) had nothing to do with deceiving viewers. It was about a local FOX affiliate, and their right to interview or not interview as they saw fit.

The information you provided perpetuates that lie, if you’re willing to believe it. But it’s still not the truth.

“The information you provided perpetuates that lie, if you’re willing to believe it. But it’s still not the truth.”

How?

Did you watch the video of the journalists in question describe in their own words how corporate attorneys forced 83 revisions of a factually accurate story that was set to air, how references to “cancer” were changed to “adverse human health effects” (paraphrasing) to appease Roger Ailes under pressure from Monsanto before saying “It was about a local FOX affiliate, and their right to interview or not interview as they saw fit.” and calling dynamo52 a liar?

I’m not trying to instigate a stupid “your team sucks” conversation, but I am honestly asking where did you get the information that you assert with regard to Fox news having nothing to do with this very important case and that the entire debacle can be honestly characterized as a simple disagreement with how to interview or not interview as the station saw fit?

As to the topic of this thread, I reassert that MSNBC may be selective and biased but to deny that Fox News has demonstrably lied many times is to live outside of reality. Many posters here have contended that MSNBC has demonstrably lied and point to this “88 percent of all federal subsidies” statistic as evidence. I try not to make a habit of defending corporations or the political commentators they employ, and I’m sure someone can pull up some other instance of questionable integrity but I have to defend Keith on this one as I saw him apologize for this misstatement myself and it was brought to his attention by PolitiFact to boot, for all those naysayers who say PolitiFact doesn’t fact check “liberal” media. So shame on all of you who so quickly posted that he is liar and especially shame on notsofast for copying and pasting the PolitiFact article while conveniently cutting out the update on the bottom that indicates Keith apologized 4 DAYS AGO.

Incidentally, if you follow the last link provided by dynamo52, you will find a very clear, succinct and accurate example of Bill O’Reilly, doing exactly the opposite of apologizing for a misstatement – continuously lying about it and telling his audience he has proven himself right.

“it’s pretty sad that it doesn’t bother the left that someone from DOJ says it’s policy to NOT pursue cases against black defendents.”

It would be TRAGIC if it were true.

If you were paying attention to anything beyond your own prejudices you would have noted that the DOJ got an INDICTMENT against one of these guys. I doubt he’s white.

From: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007130044 :

“Revenge of the Bush DOJ: Phony scandal is legacy of politicized hiring

“J. Christian Adams’ discredited accusations that President Obama’s Justice Department engaged in racially charged “corruption” in the New Black Panther Party case are being promoted and defended by a slew of former Justice Department officials connected to the Bush-era DOJ and its “legacy of politicized hiring. . . . ”

This extensive article provides a wealth of details and sources regarding the politicization and corruption of the Bush DOJ.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007090005

“Limbaugh, RedState, and Morrissey all ignored the facts of New Black Panther Party case in order to clear the path for dishonest race-baiting. The right-wing has to ignore those facts, otherwise there’s no there there. (i.e. The Bush DOJ treated a case of voter intimidation involving right-wing Minutemen the exact same way the Obama DOJ handled the New Black Panther case.)”

From: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007010055 :

“[T]he Bush DOJ decided not to pursue charges in a nearly identical situation against white members of the Minutemen who were allegedly intimidating Hispanic voters in Arizona.”

“Olbermann says oil and gas subsidies account for 88 percent of all federal subsidies”

Olbermann promptly corrected himself on-air . . . which you so graciously fail to note.

When Fox got caught using archive footage of another event to increase the apparent size of the crowd at a modestly attended Tea Party rally last year, Sham Hannity was eventually forced to apologize for their “mistake” – delivered with more smarmy, condescending attitude than usual.

“why did Adams resign, saying that he was told cases against blacks wouldn’t be pursued? He’s lying too, I guess.”

Yes, he is. See the first Media Matters article, above.

“libs believe blacks can’t think for themselves.”

They can think just fine, oh powerful and deviant Sphincterness. What they lack is a media forum from which those thoughts can be widely heard. MSNBC provides such opportunities.

“what are all of these ‘lies’ that Fox is telling?”

Go to mediamatters.org, search for “Fox” . . . and watch your browser EXPLODE!

Of course, you’ll accuse MM of being biased – despite their careful, exhaustive research and sourcing.

“What has happened to the education system in America?”

Four words: No Child Left Behind.

Too many people have somehow abandoned the art of “critical thinking,” finding it easier to mindlessly agree with snake-oil salesmen like Glumm Blech-h-h and Michael Savage than think for themselves.

“How can someone be as stupid as you are in so few years.”

How can someone be as OBNOXIOUS as you are, oh klassless and ignorant Sphincterness.

How can someone who remembers the ’50s have “so few years”? You can only count to 20 1/2 when you’re naked and happy, oh vaunted and vapid Sphincterness.

“Dynamo, your examples show how out of touch you are. If you don’t buy health insurance under Obamacare, you are levied a tax. If you don’t pay the tax, you go to jail.”

Nice try at deflecting the issue, but “no sale.” Dy notes Fox’s lying about imprisonment, not the actual penalty for non-compliance.

ImNotBlue said:
dynamo52 says:
July 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Fox News went to court to defend their right to misinform viewers

That’s a lie. The case (a) had nothing to do with FOX News, and (b) had nothing to do with deceiving viewers. It was about a local FOX affiliate, and their right to interview or not interview as they saw fit.

.

From wikipedia:

a) “WTVT, channel 13, is a television station in Tampa, Florida. It is an OWNED AND OPERATED STATION of the Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of the News Corporation.” [emphasis mine]

b) “a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a “law, rule, or regulation”

When Olbermann erred, he quickly corrected it.

When Fox lies, they WALLOW in it . . . and they wallow a lot.

coalminecanary says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:00 am

I’m not trying to instigate a stupid “your team sucks” conversation, but I am honestly asking where did you get the information that you assert with regard to Fox news having nothing to do with this very important case and that the entire debacle can be honestly characterized as a simple disagreement with how to interview or not interview as the station saw fit?

Read: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/sre267918713.html

It’s just a very popular smear against FNC, but inaccurate.

jrcmi says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:17 am

Your whole post is based upon regurgitating Media Matters stories. You realize they’re an advocacy group with a clear agenda, and history of misstating information to fit their political spin?

In other words, you should probably consider other sources before you try passing off their “information” as fact.

From wikipedia:

Line “A” is incorrect, as the station become an O&O AFTER the case… not before or during.
Line “B” shows it wasn’t “FOX News” as was claimed.

Additionally, I’ve provided information to show the rest of it was false.

When Olbermann erred, he quickly corrected it.

When Fox lies, they WALLOW in it . . . and they wallow a lot.

You’re joking, right? Explain this video to me.

ImNotBlue said:
dynamo52 says:
July 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Fox News went to court to defend their right to misinform viewers

That’s a lie. The case (a) had nothing to do with FOX News, and (b) had nothing to do with deceiving viewers. It was about a local FOX affiliate, and their right to interview or not interview as they saw fit.

The information you provided perpetuates that lie, if you’re willing to believe it. But it’s still not the truth.

Sorry, you are wrong. Yes it was an affiliate but that affiliate was wholly owned by NewsCorp and the policy to alter the story was pushed by the corporation. Additionally, the case was brought by reporters who refused to knowingly air false information. A jury did in fact find that the report as Fox wanted it to air was misleading and awarded over $400K. Fox reversed the decision on appeal not by arguing that the case wasn’t misleading, they did won because they successfully argued that it is not illegal to knowingly air false information. This had nothing to do with who they will or will not interview.

This is just to clarify since there seems to be some confusion on the matter:

“17. On Friday, February 21, 1997, the last business day prior to the scheduled broadcast of the reports, the president of another division of NEW WORLD’s parent company, News Corp Inc, received a letter (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “C”) from John J. Walsh, an attorney for the New York law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, retained by the Monsanto Company to challenge and stifle PLAINTIFFS’ reports.” – http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

From “Exhibit C”

“BY FAX AND BY HAND

Mr. Roger Ailes
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Fox News
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Ailes:

This firm represents Monsanto Company and I write to bring to your attention a situation of great concern to Monsanto involving your recently acquired, owned and operated television station in Tampa, Florida, WTVT-TV. This situation requires immediate investigation by you and your senior news executives. WTVT television news correspondent Jane Akre and her producer Steve Wilson in Tampa have been working on a story involving Monsanto’s product POSILAC®, a protein which improves the production of milk by dairy cows.” – http://www.foxbghsuit.com/exhibit%20c.htm

From: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ (if you don’t like that source, take your pick, all facts quoted are independently verifiable facts):

“Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement.”

“During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.”

To review:
Fox did own the station and was involved in the suit
It had everything to do with deceiving viewers
Fox did argue that they had a right to lie