More proof the looney left loves the 1st Amendment, as long as they agree with what you say. If they dont, well, you see acts such as this.

What are libs so afraid of? Dont they always say you need to sit down and discuss things?

Ah, they torture in the movie to try to find Daniel Pearl. Didn't anyone tell them that torture doesn't work, rapport does.

Allan Greenspan.

Angelina has no time for tabloid news.

She is concentrating her efforts on raising the level of awareness not dumbing it down any further.

What is AJ's problem with Fox? She has streed cred in Africa.

Oh yes, time was of the essence in the Pearl case; rapport takes time.
==============================

Fox isn't "the press" - that's the difference.

No Lee, Fox News doesn't spout the socialist liberal mantra of the MSM and you can't deal with it. Like AJ, they want take the ball and go home if you don't get your way.

Libs monopoly on information dissemination is over. WAY OVER. Get used to it. We get to call Bull Shit on all sorts of stupid and fake news stories & articles, and yes, it does make folks like you look like the total clueless idiots you are.

John Galt. As to the part Jolie is playing and the movie, odd that it championed press freedom and then she pulls this. These people tend to believe their own pubicists about how important they are.

The Bill of Rights apply to government infringement on those rights of the individual. They do not apply to private entities limiting the rights of other private entities. She can talk to, keep association with, be interviewed/photographed by, etc. whomever she chooses, that is her first amendment right.

Lee, if Fox isn't news, then neither is CNN, CNN's Headline News, MSNBC, the 'legacy' networks, etc. I think a good deal of what is Fox's non-news reportage is sensational and tabloid-esque, yet they are really no different than any other network in that regard. Then again, that's not what you have a problem with now, is it?

Dear Idiot Sean, the red carpet is not hers. It is Cannes. Now, go play and let the adults talk. ww

Did she specify why no Fox?

=================

Watch AJ's publicist and lawyer do lunch with Paramount's publicist and lawyer.
=======================================

"I think a good deal of what is Fox's non-news reportage is sensational and tabloid-esque, yet they are really no different than any other network in that regard."

They are different in that regard, they're worse. Much worse. And since their primary product is tabloid-esque, and their political coverage is strongly biased to the right, those newsmakers who disagree with the tabloid'esque or political aspects have every right to shun them.

Fox doesn't do "news" anyway.... Last Friday Fox News Channels' Studio "B"s coverage of Paris Hilton returning to jail was the number one show that day on Fox, even beating out O'Reilly. Fox viewers want sleazy tabloid journalism, and Fox News gives it to them, and to see Wizbang pundits continually linking to Fox at the same time that they decry the downfall of the MSM is patently stoopid (but less than surprising).

It's not as if what AJ had to say wasn't going to get out there without Fox cameras in her face -- in fact, she got more coverage then she would have otherwise.

All that's left now is for Lorie Byrd to declare a boycott on AJ's movie because of this -- that would guarantee an Oscar and box office success for Jolie! LOL

AJ and all of hollywood are obsessed with their image. An insecure lot that has to be told by many daily that they are great. They frequently run their mouths before what little brain they have kicks in. Apparently, Lee (Liar,Liar Pant of Fire) Ward loves people like this. He is so distracted by AJ he doesn't even know what the post is about. Take a cold shower Lee, then read. I suppose Lee the Liar approves of selective press. Remember that folks. And personally, I am not a fan of hers. She cannot act in my opinion. She can pose and pout, but that is it. Now I know she can't think. Come to think of it, Lee is just like her. ww

You know what makes me laugh the hardest? The reactions if this were reversed and some star didn't want CNN to ask questions because of their support of genocidal dictators like Saddam.
The people against this would be against that too.
But the people for this, like Lee and civil behavior, would be "OUTRAGED!"

And, just to prove I'm still a jerk, I have to respond to this (even though responding to Lee is about stupid)
in fact, she got more coverage then she would have otherwise.

Ummmmm no, she got less. Why? Because FoxNews actually has viewers, unlike their competition.

the red carpet is not hers. It is Cannes.
WildWillie

Fair enough, but that does not get at the central point I raised, namely that freedom of speech prevents gov't infringement of rights, not private entities limiting participation at an event (whether that be Jolie or the Cannes Film Festival is irrelevant). So if Jolie said the CFF that she will only attend if Fox News is not on the red carpet, she has every right to make such a request and Cannes has every right to abide by it or not. And it is your right to disagree with Jolie's choice, but this has little to do with an actual first amendment violation.

BTW, your reply was just what I would expect from a mature adult.

That agreement she and her lawyer wanted everyone to sign appalled many in the industry. She is the odd one out here on this issue, and that she should be more alienated from Fox than the others is one sign that Fox is right. Think it through, a crazed press response like hers makes the biggest target of her craziness look sane in comparison.

Look at Deb Frisch and the Bible Thumper out in Eugene.
====================================

Sean:
"The Bill of Rights apply to government infringement on those rights of the individual. They do not apply to private entities limiting the rights of other private entities. She can talk to, keep association with, be interviewed/photographed by, etc. whomever she chooses, that is her first amendment right."

I agree with you in that only the government can censor someone. I think Kim (Or Fox?) mis-spoke.

I say that because it would piss me off to no end when the Dixie Chicks or Susan Sarandon & Tim Whatsisname would complain about being the victims of censorship because people stopped buying their crap because of the opinions they held. The consumers of the products they are hawking are exercising their 1st amendment rights as well. As long as people are consistent on this point, all is well.

Actually, V, I think Lee is right about the exposure. I knew about the film because of the torture scene(which I hope will provoke more interesting discussion than AJ's sorry press relations), but this brouhaha will raise awareness about the film. I about half believe it was deliberate about Fox. The Dem Pres candidates made it 'cool' to trash Fox. It'll get old fast, and backfire.

Murdoch discovered a niche market; half of America. And really folks, compare liberal MSM, TV and dead tree to conservative talk radio and the internet. Notice growth patterns. This is why, in desperation, the Democrats want to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' in broadcasting. It is their only chance of getting a share of the dialogue, but note, it has to be a mandated share.

Imagine the internet without the corrupting influence of Soro's slush funds. Half a billion a year he spends to pollute you with trolls.
===================================

Uh, folks, the First Amendment does apply to government restriction of speech. Ordinary tort laws apply in other restrictions. It's not as if it is just OK to restrict others'
speech as long as you are not the government.
=========================

In other words, the term 'Free Speech' does not equate to 'First Amendment'.
===================================

The Dem Pres candidates made it 'cool' to trash Fox.

That's a good point, Kim. But I don't see it getting old fast. Alot of liberals can't deal with day to day realities unless they're scapegoating someone.

I would like to say however, that I'm not going to change my overall opinion of Jolie, which is fairly positive (and no it's not based on looks....alone.)

The difference really is monologue, and dialogue. The left has TV and Print Journalism, which is monologue. The right has talk radio and the internet, which is dialogue. It is really not a fair fight, and you can see it in the sphere. The leftwing blogs use deleting and banning as a first resort; the rightwing ones use it as a last resort.

If it's about controlling the dialogue, George, money won't buy happiness. Only in controlled markets.
==========================

Jolie is top-notch on Darfur.
===========

Kinm, I apologize for assuming you misspoke, I was in a hurry to get to my point.

I personally think that it is a fair use of the word "censor" to apply it only in terms of the government restricting the speech of another. In this case, I think that is a bit strong. Also, I'm being contrary because I've not had enough coffee yet...

I do agree with you on the larger point, hypocrites are funny.

From the linked story: "It was only with the intervention of mortified Paramount staff that an FNC camera crew was allowed to be present."

So AJ was overruled by the business people. It's never was about 1st amendment rights, it's about hypocrisy. A charge the left often levels, but more often is guilty of.

Does anyone really care what she thinks or does? I find it ironic that hollywood lefty mutts would put together a movie about Mr. Pearl while mostly refusing to acknowledge the threat of the Islamofacists.

Who knows Ms. Jolie, maybe someday a piano wire could be stretched around your neck. I'll be you'll recognize the threat then.

Fair enough, but that does not get at the central point I raised, namely that freedom of speech prevents gov't infringement of rights, not private entities limiting participation at an event

...so when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed murdered Daniel Pearl, it wasn't "infringing on his freedom of speech," either. He was just "limiting participation at an event."

Stalin's "Usefull Idiots"--still alive and well in Hollywood. Pretty vain, vacant and vaccuous....

AJ is under no obligation to suffer propaganda tools posturing under the guise of news agencies.

Color me amazed that the lefties are oblivious to hypocrisy. It's a central part of their entire political identity.
-=Mike

More proof the looney left loves the 1st Amendment, as long as they agree with what you say.

I wasn't aware that Jolie is the 4th branch of government, such that the 1st Amendment prohibits her from censoring others.

Thanks for the crack reporting, brainiac.

Are people JUST noticing Jolie's a hypocrite?

First: please excuse my previous comment. I'm tired and it's making me crabby.

It's not as if it is just OK to restrict others' speech as long as you are not the government.

She wasn't going to commit the tort of false imprisonment or anything. She tried to contractually limit the scope of articles.

This is perfectly legal, has nothing whatsoever to do with the 1st Am, and probably happens all the time in entertainment law.

Why do hot liberal women have to speak? Can't they just look good and leave it at that?

I think the main idea is she wanted FNC banned from the red carpet. All stars, politicians and others set ground rules for interviews. That is a no brainer. She, AJ, wanted to ban FNC from the red carpet which covers all the hoopla. A little brazen you think? For someone so untalented. ww

I'll bet that "putting food on your family" and "Is our children learning?" are one and the same - as if we might hold a more favorable opinion of the same rhetoric if we think it's a different person.

I find it ironic that most of the lefties here don't seem to recognize the irony that AJ does a movie centering around the price a man paid for exercizing free speech in the press and then forbids ANY one particular media outlet from reporting on the movie. I notice that Pakistan's media was there, China's media was there, but she wanted Fox out?

Instead we get, "She has a right." Well whatever. No one said she didn't. Again it's being twisted into a wish to deny her a right rather than just criticism of her actions.

(Oyster is it ok if I say something?) Awh hell, I will anyway. Wee wee lee lee wardie is all afraid of the Foxy network because they make people like him look like the dumbass liberals they are. Love it. Bluie calling wardie, where are you?

This is perfectly legal,

...and perfectly wrong.

It's funny - she wanted to limit access by reporters (while promoting a movie about reporters wanting access to, well, everything), but only picked out one news organization to completely exclude, while including all of the others (which have been telling all sorts of stories about her strange life for years).

Of all of the companies to exclude, she didn't automatically shut out CBS, which was one of the villains of the Daniel Pearl story, due to showing his execution.

Instead of allowing a major news organization (which tends to cover her various philanthropic efforts fairly) to cover her newest film (which they gave a nice review to), she lets her other politics get in the way.

Veeshir vented: "Ummmmm no, she got less. Why? Because FoxNews actually has viewers, unlike their competition."

I believe Fox was allowed to cover the event despite Jolie's objections, so she reached the same audience much as she would have otherwise, fi not more.

If Fox had been precluded from covering the event as Jolie wanted, then they probably would have stood on the corner and done a story about that - which in turn just may have received more play then a straight piece -- but maybe not. Other media would have likely covered the "shunned Fox" angle more though, so the air time for Jolie and her case goes right back up again.

In another five years the average American will see Fox News as the same level of journalism as those supermarket tabloids. Yes, tabloids are popular, but don't suggest they are "the press" either.

It's an interesting exercise to go back and try to figure out exactly where Fox "jumped the shark". If you have a theory send it to the tips line at Wizbang blue and we'll write it up. email bluetips@wizbangblog.com.

What the hell would the PR arm of the RNC be doing at a movie premiere anyway?

this is not about freedom of the press and to say it is shows ignorance of what the press is. this is public relations. she is controling her public relations. and it is common. ground rules in situations like this are set up ahead of time all the time. it is nothing unusual.
excluding faux news? i would too...just on principle.

Angelina is a pig. The sooner she and Mr. Nothing fall of the radar screen, the better.

The Asshat Couple.

In another five years the average American will see Fox News as the same level of journalism as those supermarket tabloids.

You keep saying this, but somehow, your examples keep dropping out of your posts.

So when is Fox finally going to achieve the quality level of, say, CBS?

How many memos do they need to forge to have someone of Dan Rather's stature? Or do they need to start showing al Qaeda members beheading journalists, like CBS did with the Daniel Pearl video (when nobody else would, since it was too "tabloid television" like)? Angelina doesn't seem to mind that, even though it was the event which made this movie necessary. Or maybe she doesn't mind people murdering journalists, as long as the network showing the video is firmly in the Democratic pocket...

Or do they need to start showing more snipers killing American troops, like CNN? Funny - almost anyone would call that a "tabloid moment," yet you seem to not remember it...

Fox News was never anything other than an extension of the right wing noise machine. Anyone who doubts this need only research the exploits of Roger Ailes, its founder and president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

Unfortunately, reality in a liberal democracy does have a liberal bias - get used to it. Oh, and FYI - CBS didn't forge anything, but they were stupid enough to fall for it. Probably one of Rove's tricks.

"We get to call Bull Shit on all sorts of stupid and fake news stories & articles..."

Congrats. You folks on the right have made tremendous progress in the past 6 years in making truth, justice and responsibility the American way. The list begins with ignoring the warnings that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.

And the list goes on and on and on and on.

Don't expect a liberal to address a fact, cirby.

I appreciate facts though:)

On a similar note (to the general story):

George Bush prohibits protestors from going to his speeches, even if they are acting peacefully and not disturbing anything. Hell, you couldn't even wear an unapproved t-shirt or hold up a negative sign.

So how is this OK but Jolie can't do what she wants as well?

All politicians have protestors removed from venues they speak or appear at. Bush is the freakin' POTUS. Wake up.

Jolie can do what she's done, she just can't do it free of criticism.

Free speech.

George Bush prohibits protestors from going to his speeches, even if they are acting peacefully and not disturbing anything.

Actually, the fact that they PROTESTORS kinda gives the lie to the "not doing anything" line.

Not to mention, of course, that Hillary and the rest of the Dems do the same (and more).

Especially since I've yet to see one of those "peaceful, quiet" protestors manage to stay quiet for more than a minute.

Then what we do is not bother watching A MIGHTY HEART dont bother sending our money to what is most likly leftists propeganda

Angelina is a pig. The sooner she and Mr. Nothing fall of the radar screen, the better.

Dang, where did that come from? Angry much?

Angelina Jolie actually does alot of good things for alot of people that she doesn't have to. Just because she wanted to control press at this event (which I disagree with her doing) suddenly she's the devil incarnate?

Tough crowd.

Sean, I don't know if your slow or what. I asked you to go play so the adults can talk. I will say it again, Jolie can do whatever she wants in regards to her own interviews. She cannot forbid the press from Cannes red carpet. I do not know why that is hard for you to understand. Nevermind. I know. ww

"Murdoch discovered a niche market; half of America"

Bwahahahahahahaha

2+/- million viewers out of 300,000,000 Americans for any given Fox show is the draw from "half of America?"

Do you do demographics?

Sean: "you couldn't even wear an unapproved t-shirt or hold up a negative sign"

I've heard this claim before. And like now, the claim is never supported with evidence.

And what, dare I ask, is an "approved" t-shirt? I have seen how Liberals treat people they dislike at public gatherings, maybe you're demanding they wear 'Che' shirts?

the fact that they PROTESTORS kinda gives the lie to the "not doing anything" line.
cirby

You're right, poor word choice. Maybe I should have said: George Bush prohibits anyone who exhibits disloyalty from going to his speeches.

Is that better?

I've heard this claim before. And like now, the claim is never supported with evidence.
DJ Drummond

Here's your evidence:
Teachers' T-Shirts Bring Bush Speech Ouster

My personal favorite? Free speech zones.

Like this one.

Fox News was never anything other than an extension of the right wing noise machine. Anyone who doubts this need only research the exploits of Roger Ailes, its founder and president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

Unfortunately, reality in a liberal democracy does have a liberal bias - get used to it. Oh, and FYI - CBS didn't forge anything, but they were stupid enough to fall for it. Probably one of Rove's tricks.

This made me LOL! How gullible can one person be? Using Wikipedia as a reference? Any reasonable person should realize how desperate this would make them look.

And to even postulate that Rove "leaked" the fake documents to discredit Rather is simply laughable. Even if Rove came out tomorrow and admitted doing it, it would in no way exonerate Rather; he is still an idiot for believing what he wanted rather than doing his journalistic due diligence.

Oh I see. Rants from extreme activists now count as supporting evidence?

BWA - HA - HA.

SAHMmy,

Still jealous because chicks think Pitt's better looking than you, I see.

Robert,

SAHMmy is a woman, so I don't think that's the issue.

Rants from extreme activists now count as supporting evidence?
DJ Drummond

With this mindset, you can disagree with anything that conflicts with your point of view, making it quite easy to believe there is nothing to dispel you of your pre-conditioned mindset.

In other words, you're willfully ignorant.

BWA - HA - HA indeed.

"I've heard this claim before. And like now, the claim is never supported with evidence."
DJ, try to keep up with the news. The story at this link has been widely reported. Three people were tossed from a public forum, paid for by taxpayers, because a White House functionary didn't approve of the bumper sticker they had on their car. Now go ahead and defend that.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5341085

And PeevedGuy, I'm finding this more and more on this site: "This made me LOL! How gullible can one person be? Using Wikipedia as a reference?" OK, first, I'm trying desperately to avoid ridiculing you for the use of LOL. When I saw that I was ROTFLMAO. But I must point out that wikipedia is a pretty widely accepted reference. If you followed the link, you'll see it's a pretty straightforward recitation of Ailes' career. If it's such a ridiculous refrence, perhaps you'll take the time to point out the errors? Or are you from the kim school that believes simply stating something makes it true, and supporting evidence is unneeded?

I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reference to support an opinion, but why do you claim it's illegitimate as a source of facts?

Honestly Sean, using "Commondreams.org" as evidence? By that logic, I should be able to use anecdotes from Rush Limbaugh as factual support, hmm?

Seriously, there's a lot of professional media out there. If it's happening the way you say, surely you can find a local/national news outlet, say with some video of folks being hustled away?

No?

Not even CBS or CNN?

Then you have not proven anything, and trying to use a subjective opinion site as eividence only shows how pathetic the claim really is.

So, Chris O, what some flunky does is the same as direct orders from Dubya?

Uh huh. Sure. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

You're projecting, you know that?

And as for Wikipedia, it depends on the entry. Some are well-referenced, some are just wild and bizarre. Fortunately, the Wikipedia folks have been good enough to put disclaimers warning of possible bias or lack of substantiation.

Chris,

Fine. I Laughed Out Loud when I read that, literally. I was simply too lazy to type it when in today's society (and especially amongst users of a forum such as this), I thought that I might me able to save a few keystrokes by using a common abbreviation. But since you feel like being contrary, I'll watch my P's and Q's from now on. Oops.

Regarding the Wikipedia issue: Why do I claim it's illegitimate as a source of facts? Because there is no guarantee that any article in Wikipedia contains a single fact, that's why. I am not as willing to implicitly trust a source that anyone can edit at anytime. This particular article doesn't seem to be particularly slanted or biased, but how do I know? I'm not necessarily casting aspersions on the point they were going for, simply the method used to get there. Generally I see people referencing Wikipedia much in the same way you see people using LOL, ROFL, STFU, etc. They were just being lazy.

So show me one instance when FOX news was "fair and balanced"

Compared to CBS or CNN, just pick any broadcast!

It has to be asked:

civil [mis]behavior, Lee see if you can spin this.

O'Reilly featured a segment on Jolie that was very favorable to the actress for both her efforts as a U.N. ambassador and her personal philanthropy to charitable causes.

Many of Jolie's commercial enterprises, i.e. movies and the like are advertised on Fox news.

(as an aside, I get Fox's international edition they have featured one on one interviews with Jolie vice the advertisements you get)

CB and Lee can you explain why Ms "adopt anyone except thousands of available American orphans" Jolie has never called for these two instances to be blocked from airing?

And BTW, good call by Paramount to very quickly smacking down Jolie's lunacy.

Sorry folks, freedom of the press refers to the press, not Faux Noise.

Right Wing entertainment, yes. Journalism, no.

Lies and distortion, yes. Accuracy and honesty, no.

And Angelina Jolie has the freedom of speech to tell them to go to hell. Good for her.

madmatt:

So show me one instance when FOX news was "fair and balanced"

How about any O'Reilly (or any other Fox show) segment that includes both a Dem and Rep to debate a political issue.

liberalpercy:

And Angelina Jolie has the freedom of speech to tell them to go to hell. Good for her.

And her production company Paramount had the same right ands by their actions told her to go to hell.

And BTW liberalpercy you're free to answer why she has never blocked or attempted to block the two senarios outlined above.

Libs just hate Fox News cuz it exposes them for what they are.

Long live Fox News!!

BTW liberalpercy:

Sorry folks, freedom of the press refers to the press, not Faux Noise.

Would you really want to argue that point before the U.S. Supreme Court?

If you do you're operating under delusions on grandeur. Something that is obvious from my vantage point.

What's really funny is now we know that Lee watches FOX.

So now the liberals (lefties, whatever) are openly saying that freedom of the press DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU unless you are actually a member of the press (presumably this means CNN and Time and Newsweek etc.). Fox News is in the exact same business as CNN, but no, Fox News does not have "freedom of the press."

I guess it's good to get a reminder every once in a while of the kind of ideas leftists have that would bring tyranny, not the fake "I get a migraine every time I remember Bush is still president" type, but the REAL type, where you can literally go to jail for saying the wrong thing where others can hear.

Time out people. This is serious and I want Lee's attention and anyone else who thinks they are liberal and rational.

This is not funny!

"Sorry folks, freedom of the press refers to the press, not Faux Noise."

This is serious. Freedom of the press, freedom of *speech* absolutely is freedom for those with whom you disagree. It is *more* about freedom of those with whom you disagree.

It's not a trivial thing when people start to say that "freedom of speech is not the freedom to offend" or that freedom of the press is not freedom for the lunatic fringe to spout their fantasies.

That is *exactly* what freedom of speech and the press must ensure. Otherwise we're looking at freedom for approved speech and approved press *only*.

How have we gotten to this place? Because before there weren't newspapers printing slanders? Look at some of the early newspapers in this country, the editorials critical of government and individuals, the robust fighting that went on in print. The people who wrote the Constitution and voted on it understood just what they were protecting.

This is a bedrock principle. Are we giving it up because people get offended by ideas they feel are false or lies? So freedom of the press doesn't apply, or freedom of speech doesn't apply?

I will not accept that the liberals here are not 100% with me on this.

It is not okay to let people make these sorts of statements without explaining that they are wrong and why. It's not okay to let them stand, to let similar statements that "freedom of speech is not freedom to offend" stand without saying something.

Jolie can be an idiot, it's her right. And it's not like anyone is going to shut down FOX News or Limbaugh or anything like that anytime soon. But it doesn't make the perversion of our fundamental freedom of expression any less serious should the acceptance of this denial of freedom become normal.

"Compared to CBS or CNN, just pick any broadcast" in reference to Fox being "fair and balanced"DJ Drummond

That is a laughably absurd statement. But it does explain why you and 2 1/2 others think Bush is one of the greatest presidents.

Are we giving it up because people get offended by ideas they feel are false or lies? So freedom of the press doesn't apply, or freedom of speech doesn't apply?

Definitely not. I don't know who liberalpercy is, but he is dead wrong and you are absolutely right, Synova.

Even if he were referring to the legitimate discussion of what the definition of "the press" is (meaning the interpretation that it doesn't apply to moving pictures/audio), which he clearly is not, the liberal position is that all media are protected. Hell, liberals embraced and expanded the term "freedom of expression" beyond shorthand for the enumerated forms (press, speech, assembly, grievance) to all forms. Jackass percy ain't a liberal if he thinks freedom of the press doesn't apply to any and every news outlet.

Sadly for me I don't have cable, so I can't watch Fox News very much. But to say that NOTHING they ever do is fair and balanced is patently absurd. Most of the daytime lineup is people reporting the same stories as CNN. Maybe the fact that they don't criticize Bush and Republicans as much as CNN and MSNBC colors your idea of what "balanced" actually means.

What is amazing about Fox is the way that it has been on for what, 10 years, yet routinely destroys the competition, especially at night, when EVERYBODY has their opinion shows on. It must be how the rest of the world when America, only 231 years young, has attained a level of prosperity unheard of in the world, with unparalleled freedom for its eople to boot.

Jealousy is a powerful emotion. Just read the lefties on this thread.

First, to Synova: word. Great comment.

To John F Not Kerry: I watch Fox, but precisely because it's not news. I get my news from blogs and the paper, and when I watch TV I want some idiotic infotainment. Ya can't beat Fox for that.

I watch it because it sucks as news, in other words. And I'll bet a lot of people watch it because it's less newsy and more entertaining.

JPE-

I agree with you in this way- very little of what we see on TV is really "news". It is a packaged product meant to attract viewers and advertisers, which I have no problem with. The problem I have is that nobody except Fox is willing to admit that they have ANY bias. The only reason I tune in to Fox is to see legs. There, I said it!

Thanks, mantis.

I expect that we are *all* in accord on this. I just figured it was important to say so.

DJ:

I just posted the first article I found, I figured once you saw the story you could research it more if you had doubts. Plus, if you read the page closely, you would have seen it was actually an excerpt from a local Oregon news affiliate written in conjunction with "AP staff", whatever that means.

Here is another, pretty balanced, article by a local paper with quite a bit of pro-Bush sentiment in it, but also talks about the multiple people who were tossed from the event.

Crowd lauds Bush for conviction, 'his word'
http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/1015/local/stories/03local.htm

Hopefully this satisfies you so. If you have any more doubts about the story, please do your own research.

What it boils down to is this:

Lying about the reasons for sending our kids to die? No problem. Illegaly wiretapping all Americans? No problem. Leaving an American city without aid for days after a gargantuan hurricane? No problem. Embracing torture as an official instrument of American policy? No problem. Locking up civilians for life without charging them, giving them a trial or giving them access to communicating with anyone in the outside world? No problem. Ignoring warnings that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.? No problem. Outing a CIA agent? No problem. Using the U.S. Justice Dept as an instrument of the GOP? No problem.

But SWEET HOLY GOD IN HEAVEN, WHAT IS THIS LIBERAL ANGELINA JOLIE UP TO?????!!!!!!

Breathe, Kevin. They're coming to get you next.

Actually it sounds a lot like something Ayn Rand would have done. She quite famously refused to have anything to do with the National Review following their negative review of Atlas Shrugged (the reviewer implied she was a fascist). She referred to it as the "worst and most dangerous magazine in America". Bill Buckley even wrote a fictional account of how he pictured Rand reacting to the review in his book "Getting it Right" (search googlebooks for "to hell with Whittaker Chambers" and you should find it). She would oppose government censorship but not individuals taking actions to oppose news organizations.

Kevin illustrates how dangerous it is to have a partisan media, like CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN et al EXCEPT Fox News. ALL of the media outlets save Fox spew the same left-slanted reports, carry the water for the DNC with just a single news network to bring people the other side of issues.

And even though Fox's programming kicks the ass out of all the other networks, ratings wise, it clearly is woefully unsuccessful.

For example...

"Lying about the reasons for sending our kids to die? No problem. Illegaly wiretapping all Americans? No problem. Leaving an American city without aid for days after a gargantuan hurricane? No problem. Embracing torture as an official instrument of American policy? No problem. Locking up civilians for life without charging them, giving them a trial or giving them access to communicating with anyone in the outside world? No problem. Ignoring warnings that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.? No problem. Outing a CIA agent? No problem. Using the U.S. Justice Dept as an instrument of the GOP? No problem."

This bogusness is believed to be TRUE not just by our moonbats but by otherwise normal folks, because that is the unending meme coming from the Leftist Media, sans Fox News. It's clear one, lone network cannot combat the bullshit put out by all the other networks.

Things is getting way scary here. Way scary.

You imply that Fox is a news orginization. What evidence to you have to support that assertuin?

What's an "assertuin"?

Ec1009,

What evidence do you have that you are capable of rational thought? Are you ready to be asked the same question about NBCCBSABCCNNMSNBCCNBC and the NEWYORKTIMESWASHINGTONPOSTLOSANGELESTIMES?

" It's clear one, lone network [FOX]cannot combat the bullshit put out by all the other networks." SAHMmy

No SAHMmy, your problem is that one lone network cannot take reality & stand it on its head, save for a group of Pavlovian yipping pups like yourself who will ingest shit at the ring of a wingnut bell.

LOL Don't be afraid of the truth PFOYF. Embrace it!

Liberals. SO scared that they're wrong but all they can do is plug their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA!"

Fox "News" is not a news organisation. It is a propaganda arm of the republican party. Only stupid people think it is fair and balanced.

I really don't get it. Fox is a lot more balanced than CNN or MSNBC and it has a lot of viewers and it like Jolie's movie and has had good things to say about Angelina's efforts on behalf of human rights and non profits. Oh well.

limo, that's the funniest thing I've read all day. And they really think they're getting somewhere with the 'faux' meme.
=====================

I see it's not much use arguing here.

Meticulous journalists like Rush Limbaugh have used their integrity and tireless devotion to accuracy and evenhandedness to point the readers of this blog to the unbiased truth. That 90% of journalists are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to spin wildly unfair fantasies out of thin air.

It can't change the fact that George W. Bush is a heroically courageous, endlessly thoughtful, brilliantly balanced great leader and defender of the Constitution. Amen, morons.

You mistake, K. The left wing bias of MSM is not an active conspiracy, it is a passive one. All those journalists are thinking and breathing as one.

George Bush has going to end up being the least appreciated contemporaneously judged great president, except perhaps for Lincoln.
==============================

Kim,

How many times have you given the journalism of Seymour Hersh, Nat Hentoff, George Packer, Ron Suskind or James Fallows a fair and balanced look?

These people are mindlessly drowning in groupthink?

I'm assuming the truth couldn't possibly be that you just don't read all that much....

I forgot how to read in 7th Grade; the information acquisition is too static.

Did thug elements in the CIA stovepipe disinformation or did the excellent Seymour just make that up?
=======================

Answer: Yes, that's one thing he didn't make up.
=============================

You idiots the First Amendment protects the press against the government not from celebrities