# Turn off Fox!!!



## CrazyLee (Oct 11, 2010)

Well, I would love to turn off foxes too, but I can't seem to find their damn off button.


Okay, in all seriousness, there's a campaign to turn off Fox News in public locations. The campaign is called "Turn off Fox" which makes it sound like they want to turn off local Fox stations, which broadcast such wonderful right-wing rhetoric like Family Guy and Simpsons and Glee. (the real irony is that Fox broadcasts such liberal shows like Family Guy in the first place) In reality, they want to get public locations like bars and restaurants to stop playing Fox News because it's EVIL and distorts the truth.
https://secure.colorofchange.org/turnofffox/sticker/

Of course Fox News has far right commentators and talk show hosts, just like MSNBC has left-leaning commentators and talk-show hosts.

But some conservatives have claimed that such a campaign is Liberal's attempt to censor the truth, to censor anyone who disagrees with them, to violate freedom of speech (Not sure how NOT showing a certain channel in a bar is a violation of freedom of speech, however).

And of course in many of the comments over this I've heard the usual mudslinging, each side saying they know the TRUTH, and they're in the right, and the other side are a bunch of commies or traitors or socialists, or nazis or facists. Is it just me or does it seem the political hate between "liberals" and "conservatives" has reached fevor pitch, where each side spits out the other side's name like a four-letter word?

I think I'll just stick with the BBC and their thick accents and bad teeth.


----------



## Cam (Oct 11, 2010)

Good... I concur with this idea

Peace, propaganda


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

This is just another pathetic liberal attempt to censor the truth. You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Down with socialism!


----------



## Cam (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This is just another pathetic liberal attempt to censor the truth. You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Down with socialism!


 
But there no truth in there to start with :c


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This is just another pathetic liberal attempt to censor the truth. You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Down with socialism!


I'm trying to figure out what liberals, censorship, guns, and socialism have in common. Or how all liberals have suddenly become socialists.


----------



## Deo (Oct 11, 2010)

Faux News will not be quiet about this. This movement to tun them off in public will be used by them to propogate their viewership's victim/persecution complex and boost ratings by polarizing their main whack job audience base with more fear mongering.


----------



## Ratte (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.


 
My dad has a belt buckle that says this.  :T


----------



## Ames (Oct 11, 2010)

Ratte said:


> My dad has a belt buckle that says this.  :T


 Wow.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

Ratte said:


> My dad has a belt buckle that says this.  :T


 
Your dad is a hero.


----------



## Willow (Oct 11, 2010)

Lol Fox 

They came to my school not too long ago

Also what is your avatar?


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 11, 2010)

I just get my news from Stewart/Colbert


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Your dad is a hero.


 
I've been thinking of starting a thread here debating gun control. How we can have reasonable limits on things like free speech (libel and slander, for instance) yet apparently having any limits on guns is somehow evil. As if the forefathers foresaw us having guns that can shoot 100 bullets a minute and don't take 5 minutes to reload. I'd be interested to see your responses in such a thread.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 11, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> Well, I would love to turn off foxes too, but I can't seem to find their damn off button.
> 
> 
> Okay, in all seriousness, there's a campaign to turn off Fox News in public locations. The campaign is called "Turn off Fox" which makes it sound like they want to turn off local Fox stations, which broadcast such wonderful right-wing rhetoric like Family Guy and Simpsons and Glee. (the real irony is that Fox broadcasts such liberal shows like Family Guy in the first place) In reality, they want to get public locations like bars and restaurants to stop playing Fox News because it's EVIL and distorts the truth.
> ...


 
Hmmm... seems to be "a great to-do about nothing" to me.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I've been thinking of starting a thread here debating gun control. How we can have reasonable limits on things like free speech (libel and slander, for instance) yet apparently having any limits on guns is somehow evil. As if the forefathers foresaw us having guns that can shoot 100 bullets a minute and don't take 5 minutes to reload. I'd be interested to see your responses in such a thread.


 
Go ahead and start your evil communist anti-America thread and see what happens. Just remember: guns don't kill people, untrained people with illegal guns acquired for the purpose of commuting crimes kill people who gave up their right to train and protect themselves with legal guns.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Go ahead and start your *evil communist anti-America thread* and see what happens. Just remember: guns don't kill people, untrained people with illegal guns acquired for the purpose of commuting crimes kill people who gave up their right to train and protect themselves with legal guns.



Oh ho ho ho. I can't tell if you're just a moron or a troll. People who disagree with your opinions and feelings on gun control are evil, communists, and anti-american? There's something anti-american about having a differing opinion? 

Oh, I think we'd have a fun discussion but I have to work a midnight job so I'll save it for tomorrow and make sure you get a link to it so you can share your delightful opinion.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 11, 2010)

JamesB said:


> Wow.


 
Yeah... how did he get all of that on a belt buckle?


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> Oh ho ho ho. I can't tell if you're just a moron or a troll. People who disagree with your opinions and feelings on gun control are evil, communists, and anti-american? There's something anti-american about having a differing opinion?
> 
> Oh, I think we'd have a fun discussion but I have to work a midnight job so I'll save it for tomorrow and make sure you get a link to it so you can share your delightful opinion.


 
I'm a moron _and_ a troll, but you still can't have my guns.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 11, 2010)

I don't think I've ever been in a public establishment that was damn fool enough to have Faux News on the TV.  Of course, the moment I see one, I'll be sure to change the channel.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 11, 2010)

But Britain ranks high in dental care (although their dental care is among the most expensive in the world).

Sorry, I know that's not the point, but I'm with you. BBC or nothing.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 11, 2010)

God I wish my place of work had BBC.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

I never thought I'd see the day where an entire furry forum went anti-fox. Damn kids. You'll smarten up after you've been in the real world for a while.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> I never thought I'd see the day where an entire furry forum went anti-fox. Damn kids. You'll smarten up after you've been in the real world for a while.


 
Stop posting on the internet, grandpa.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

Liar said:


> Stop posting on the internet, grandpa.


 
What is this internet? You are a tiny puppy trapped inside the electronic box sitting on my desk. You will do what I say, or I will turn the switch off and you will die! And so, I command you to spout off some idealistic liberal thoughts so I can have a good laugh.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> What is this internet? You are a tiny puppy trapped inside the electronic box sitting on my desk. You will do what I say, or I will turn the switch off and you will die! And so, I command you to spout off some idealistic liberal thoughts so I can have a good laugh.


 
Chill. I was making a joke.


----------



## Kreevox (Oct 11, 2010)

Honestly I don't care about Fox News, I'm just pissed that they are having a bitch fight with Dish Network, I want FX back NOW, and I want It's Always Sunny even more!


----------



## The Color 12 (Oct 11, 2010)

Okay, so Fox is right-leaning. Big whoop, it's not like we give two shits about the liberal channels (which I cannot recall off the top of my head or have already been mentioned here). I just say live and let people speak their minds.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 11, 2010)

I hate Fox News as much as the next guy, but I think if a business owner wants to play it on their property they have every right to. After all a restaurant or a bar is not really a 'public' place like a library or the DMV is (as in taxpayer money supports it)


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 11, 2010)

Liar said:


> Chill. I was making a joke.


 
you lie


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 11, 2010)

Personally, as much as I hate FOX news, I'm against this. 

Seriously, people should be allowed to put on whatever they want in public locations, if you don't like it, then simply ignore it, people have the right to express their opinions.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 11, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> you lie


 
I really need to change my name...


----------



## OfficerBadger (Oct 11, 2010)

You, thread creator, I like your moxy.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 12, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> *I've been thinking of starting a thread here debating gun control.* How we can have reasonable limits on things like free speech (libel and slander, for instance) yet apparently having any limits on guns is somehow evil. As if the forefathers foresaw us having guns that can shoot 100 bullets a minute and don't take 5 minutes to reload. I'd be interested to see your responses in such a thread.


 
Been there, done that, horse corpse pummelled repeatedly into a bloody smear on the floor...


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 12, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> I hate Fox News as much as the next guy, but I think if a business owner wants to play it on their property they have every right to. After all a restaurant or a bar is not really a 'public' place like a library or the DMV is (as in taxpayer money supports it)


 
This is true.

It's also true that if people want to vote with their feet and or wallets against supporting said businesses because they play Fox News on their waiting room TVs etc, they have a perfect right to do that too.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 12, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This is just another pathetic liberal attempt to censor the truth. You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Down with socialism!


 
So, uh, a dumb exaggerated claim and two unrelated platitudes.

do you consider this a first amendment issue



Darkwing said:


> Personally, as much as I hate FOX news, I'm against this.
> 
> Seriously, people should be allowed to put on whatever they want in public locations, if you don't like it, then simply ignore it, people have the right to express their opinions.


 
SERIOUSLY, there's no force involved here.  "Hey, can you turn that TV to some other station or turn it off?"  If yes, great.  If no, well, that's the end of it.  Most of the time, waiting room TVs are for the customers, anyway- by virtue of complaints and pushiness of the typical FNC viewer, many places have just found it easier to leave the TV on that station.

Conduct an experiment.  Next time you're in a waiting room and a TV's on, and nobody's watching it, get permission to change it to something else, like MSNBC.  Then wait for people to come in and see how long it takes for someone to gripe that the TV is showing liberal garbage.

you say "people have the right to express their opinions" when simply having a TV on a certain station is not exactly an expression, nor is this an infringement on that right.  irony is that you think these people should NOT attempt to get waiting room TV stations changed from fox news channel, which is in itself an expression of their opinion.


----------



## TrickyDick (Oct 12, 2010)

So many trolls, so little meaningful discussion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 12, 2010)

This thread needs moar Cyberfox


----------



## Shico (Oct 12, 2010)

Has anyone seen Fox new's report on Pedobear?...because, um yeah, after seeing that report I do believe Fox news is run by retards and that their news reports should be watched at ones own risk and not be on the TV in a public place...
   "Be on the look out for some one dressed as pedo bear at your local fair/park/whatever because it is probably a pedo out to get pleasure touching your kids because a sex offender at some convention was wearing a Pedobear costume!"
    my fave part has to be the article version on the site: they have an "update"...  it turns out that the guy in the Pedobear costume was not a registered sex offender.
 So here we have Fox news fear mongering people into thinking sex offenders will turn up at random wearing Pedobear costumes so they can grope your kids (which is stupid) and on top of that they have not even a single instance of this being the truth...


----------



## Carenath (Oct 12, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> I never thought I'd see the day where an entire furry forum went anti-fox. Damn kids. You'll smarten up after you've been in the real world for a while.


 I've been in the real world for long enough to realise that American news media sources in general have no concept of neutrality, if they lean to too far to the left or too far to the right, they're not trustworthy and only serve to fuel an already bipolar nation.

Also, I find it ironic, that Americans would find a British news service more believable than a local American service.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 12, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> This thread needs moar Cyberfox


 
Absolutely not!


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 12, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I've been in the real world for long enough to realise that American news media sources in general have no concept of neutrality, if they lean to too far to the left or too far to the right, they're not trustworthy and only serve to fuel an already bipolar nation.
> 
> Also, I find it ironic, that Americans would find a British news service more believable than a local American service.


 
The problem isn't bias itself- bias is inescapable.  Most Americans are unable to account for bias, and it doesn't help that "unbiased" has not only become a buzzword/selling point (Fox News' own slogan of "Fair and Balanced" for example, borders on the tautological.  What makes them fair and balanced to people?  Because they say they're fair and balanced.) despite being an unreasonable expectation, it's increasingly being used to mask extreme bias that ends up compromising the very essence of journalism and muddy the waters.  The ones most loudly proclaiming how unbiased they are, how neutral they are, are really trying to pull the debate and tone in this country further to an extreme.  To advocate extreme views, yet to call yourself moderate or centrist or neutral over and over again, will eventually cause that extreme to be accepted as a middle ground.  It's what Fox has been doing, and as a result (not to mention charges of LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MSM MEDIA being catapulted by Fox News and less mainstream but far more conservative outlets like Free Republic or Hot Air) the less conservative outlets fall all over themselves to cover stories Fox covers, even when they're non-stories, misrepresented to the public, or entirely fabricated.

To Americans, "fair and balanced" means to have someone who knows what they're talking about being yelled at some guy off the street that disagrees with him- and is loud.  There.  Great.  Both sides are represented and the people are entertained.  And that's terrible.

not to defend any of the media outlets here, but fox news is really the worst.  goddamn


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 12, 2010)

Slant, nothing, I haven't seen Fox News report anything or talk about anything in years that was relevant and wasn't better covered elsewhere.  I don't watch Fox News because they report relevant news as often as Music Television (MTV) play music videos.


----------



## Jw (Oct 12, 2010)

Fox news serves its purpose. Though I don't particularly like any 24/7 news channel, they are all biased in one way or another thanks to their sponsors and executive officers. It's unavoidable. But having multiple news organizations allows at least one of them to check the facts of the other news organizations. 

Don't think that MSNBC and CNN are immaculate. They're news channels too, and they have lies and propaganda as well as Fox News. 

Honestly, I'd rather watch sports in restaurants anyway 




Carenath said:


> I've been in the real world for long enough to realise that American news media sources in general have no concept of neutrality, if they lean to too far to the left or too far to the right, they're not trustworthy and only serve to fuel an already bipolar nation.
> 
> Also, I find it ironic, that Americans would find a British news service more believable than a local American service.


 
I am actually rather impressed with BBC's news programs, so I'd agree with you there.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 12, 2010)

jwmcd2 said:


> I am actually rather impressed with BBC's news programs, so I'd agree with you there.


 
The British really know how to report news.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 12, 2010)

Liar said:


> The British really know how to report news.


 
that was awesome


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 12, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> that was awesome


 
"...ignoring all the pricks around you like you're in the fucking matrix" made me lose it. Gotta love British humo(u)r.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 12, 2010)

Liar said:


> The British really know how to report news.


 
Compared to this.

I think this thread's sorted with just two videos.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 12, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Compared to this.
> 
> I think this thread's sorted with just two videos.


 
Jesus Christ. I'm so glad I switched to BBC. For all its dryness, at least it's not a huge shit-flinging competition like that video describes.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 12, 2010)

"oh hurr durr fox news is bad but so is everyone else i am going to imply they are all equally bad therefore fox news is beyond criticism also i am intellectually bankrupt" - most posters in this thread


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Oct 12, 2010)

The funny thing is that most people that I know over here prefer sky news to BBC, and I think that sky news is something to do with america's fox!


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 12, 2010)

Liar said:


> The British really know how to report news.


 
I watched that when it was aired. Likely the funniest thing I have seen that was news-related.

I think (Our) BBC is alot more reliable than fox, but I think its more reliable than Sky news too.

EDIT:




Nyloc said:


> Compared to this.
> 
> I think this thread's sorted with just two videos.



Holy crap, your right... The British strike again!
*Sends as an attachment to fox"
Take that, piss eaters!


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Oct 12, 2010)

SKY news gets stories quicker then the beeb!


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 12, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> SKY news gets stories quicker then the beeb!


 
Perhaps, however SKY news is someone sitting at a desk spurting facts, stories and things you 'don't really care about' at you.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Oct 12, 2010)

True, and for regional news you really can't beat the BBC! And the (mostly) addlessness of the beeb is much better then SKY, however, if something big is happening globally then SKY gets the stories about 5-10 minutes faster then BBC news.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 12, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Compared to this.
> 
> I think this thread's sorted with just two videos.



_"Bill [O'Reilly] gets wound up by virtually anything to the left of Mussolini, hectoring and yowling like a wolf that's got it's nuts caught on a coathanger."_

Priceless!


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 12, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> True, and for regional news you really can't beat the BBC! And the (mostly) addlessness of the beeb is much better then SKY, however, if something big is happening globally then SKY gets the stories about 5-10 minutes faster then BBC news.


 
As if people really care about 5-10 minutes of waiting for something they don't know they're gonna get anyway...


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Oct 12, 2010)

impatience is a virtue...


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 12, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> impatience is a virtue...


 
It is!? Huh, well, i'm gonna have to buy a new outfit :V


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 12, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> SERIOUSLY, there's no force involved here.  "Hey, can you turn that TV to some other station or turn it off?"  If yes, great.  If no, well, that's the end of it.  Most of the time, waiting room TVs are for the customers, anyway- by virtue of complaints and pushiness of the typical FNC viewer, many places have just found it easier to leave the TV on that station.
> 
> Conduct an experiment.  Next time you're in a waiting room and a TV's on, and nobody's watching it, get permission to change it to something else, like MSNBC.  Then wait for people to come in and see how long it takes for someone to gripe that the TV is showing liberal garbage.
> 
> you say "people have the right to express their opinions" when simply having a TV on a certain station is not exactly an expression, nor is this an infringement on that right.  irony is that you think these people should NOT attempt to get waiting room TV stations changed from fox news channel, which is in itself an expression of their opinion.


 
I see, my mistake. 

It's pretty fucking hilarious, though, I think these people are overreacting. Sure, FOX news is right-leaning, all American news stations lean to some kinda political view, so does it really matter?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I see, my mistake.
> 
> It's pretty fucking hilarious, though, I think these people are overreacting. Sure, FOX news is right-leaning, all American news stations lean to some kinda political view, so does it really matter?


 
Fox leans towards the Right damn near as much as Hitler leaned away from Judaism (yeah yeah Godwin cry me a fucking river).  What other "news" network ever organized something so ridiculous as the Tea Party?

I sure would like to know where all this liberal media I keep hearing about is.  It would be nice to hear someone sane and informed behind a news desk for once.


----------



## Sauvignon (Oct 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Fox leans towards the Right damn near as much as Hitler leaned away from Judaism (yeah yeah Godwin cry me a fucking river).  What other "news" network ever organized something so ridiculous as the Tea Party?
> 
> I sure would like to know where all this liberal media I keep hearing about is.  It would be nice to hear someone sane and informed behind a news desk for once.


 
The Tea Party is not ridiculous. You are required to back outlandish claims such as that with credible sources, or face one infraction point. :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 12, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Compared to* this. *
> 
> I think this thread's sorted with just two videos.



Ouch...!


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 12, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I see, my mistake.
> 
> It's pretty fucking hilarious, though, I think these people are overreacting. Sure, FOX news is right-leaning, all American news stations lean to some kinda political view, so does it really matter?


 
I take it you've never heard of Glenn Beck, or Bill O'Reilly?


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Fox leans towards the Right damn near as much as Hitler leaned away from Judaism (yeah yeah Godwin cry me a fucking river).  What other "news" network ever organized something so ridiculous as the Tea Party?
> 
> I sure would like to know where all this liberal media I keep hearing about is.  It would be nice to hear someone sane and informed behind a news desk for once.


 


Lastdirewolf said:


> I take it you've never heard of Glenn Beck, or Bill O'Reilly?


 
I take it you never heard of MSNBC? 

And well, still, yeah, conservatives are retards (But personally I think liberals are retards, too) but the people who actually report news aren't bad.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I take it you never heard of MSNBC?
> 
> And well, still, yeah, conservatives are retards (But personally I think liberals are retards, too) but the people who actually report news aren't bad.


 
Show me an example of any sort of consistent liberal bias from MSNBC's news programming (Olbermann and Maddow's late-night pundit shows aside).


----------



## jeff (Oct 12, 2010)

i liked al jazeera tv until rumsfield said they were the worst and my television provider took them off the air

then we launched a missile at them and tried to murder their journalists


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Show me an example of any sort of consistent liberal bias from MSNBC's news programming (*Olbermann and Maddow's late-night pundit shows aside*).


 
Sorry, if you get to use Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, "we" get to use Olbermann and Maddow...


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sorry, if you get to use Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, "we" get to use Olbermann and Maddow...


 
What Roose said.

The "This" button isn't working for me for some reason >:C


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 12, 2010)

Oh this thread

Why would anyone even bother

I give up


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 12, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I take it you never heard of MSNBC?
> 
> And well, still, yeah, conservatives are retards (But personally I think liberals are retards, too) but the people who actually report news aren't bad.


 
Are we talking news casters, or the Fox News Channel? Not the "eleven o'clock news" shit, but the "Shows more Nazi's than the History Channel" Glenn Beck.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sorry, if you get to use Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, "we" get to use Olbermann and Maddow...


 
Olbermann and Maddow are pundits, they are completely up front about being liberal opinion shows.  The network is otherwise politically neutral, albeit still sensationalist and shitty.  Meanwhile, Fox bills itself as the "fair and balanced" network while having a hard right slant in every segment throughout the day, even ignoring or distorting basic facts in straight "news" segments to force the narrative to fit the network's right-wing agenda.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Olbermann and Maddow are pundits, they are completely up front about being liberal opinion shows.  The network is otherwise politically neutral, albeit still sensationalist and shitty.  Meanwhile, Fox bills itself as the "fair and balanced" network while having a hard right slant in every segment throughout the day, even ignoring or distorting basic facts in straight "news" segments to force the narrative to fit the network's right-wing agenda.


 
Whatever... you still don't get to pick and choose, if "we" don't get to pick and choose.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Whatever... you still don't get to pick and choose, if "we" don't get to pick and choose.


 
I don't _need_ to pick and choose, because a hard right bias is incorporated into every facet of the entirety of Fox's programming.  An hour of liberal punditry simply does not equal the omnipresent liberal bias in news media they claim exists, full stop.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Olbermann and Maddow are pundits, they are completely up front about being liberal opinion shows.  The network is otherwise politically neutral, albeit still sensationalist and shitty.  Meanwhile, Fox bills itself as the "fair and balanced" network while having a hard right slant in every segment throughout the day, even ignoring or distorting basic facts in straight "news" segments to force the narrative to fit the network's right-wing agenda.


 
_*shrugs_ 

Someone has to fight The Good Fight.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I don't _need_ to pick and choose, because a hard right bias is incorporated into every facet of the entirety of Fox's programming.  An hour of liberal punditry simply does not equal the omnipresent liberal bias in news media they claim exists, full stop.


 
As I said, whatever.  You made a challenge, then added conditions to it.  I simply stated, if you get to set conditions, then so do "we".  I never said anything about the degree of bias... or whatever.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> As I said, whatever. You made a challenge, then added conditions to it.



You added post-challenge conditions first :v

Just sayin'.



Roose Hurro said:


> Sorry, if you get to use Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, "we" get to use Olbermann and Maddow...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 13, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You added post-challenge conditions first :v
> 
> Just sayin'.


 
No, I simply made clear that Lobar could not exclude two "librals" after he included two "conservatives"... or whatever you want to call them.  No double standards allowed, in other words.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 13, 2010)

go ahead, count olbermann.  count maddow.  the list on the conservative side would be pretty vast, as well as have much more unbalanced (and consistently so!) rhetoric and patterns of malfeasance/misrepresentation.

added bonus: take into account the size of their respective audiences and the recognition/influence has.  there's no comparison.

that's like saying "you think sarah palin is crazy but you guys have cynthia mckinney!!!" when she hasn't been relevant for years and isn't going on talk show/speech-giving/ghostwritten book tours and doesn't have very high profile support and recognition.

*casts post off into this complete void of a dumb thread*


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> go ahead, count olbermann.  count maddow.  the list on the conservative side would be pretty vast, as well as have much more unbalanced (and consistently so!) rhetoric and patterns of malfeasance/misrepresentation.
> 
> added bonus: take into account the size of their respective audiences and the recognition/influence has.  there's no comparison.
> 
> ...


 
It's funny when a conservative tries to turn an argument into a "tit-for-tat" when they have many more obnoxious "tits" than the liberals have.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 13, 2010)

when has Michael Moore spoken at a Democratic National Convention
when has the Democratic party as a whole ever had to apologize to Al Franken for offending him
what deference has been shown to ANY prominent liberal media figure, really?
liberals hide their crazies.  conservatives parade them around.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> when has Michael Moore spoken at a Democratic National Convention
> when has the Democratic party as a whole ever had to apologize to Al Franken for offending him
> what deference has been shown to ANY prominent liberal media figure, really?
> liberals hide their crazies.  conservatives parade them around.


 
For the same reason they fixate on hot-button issues so much, no doubt.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Oct 13, 2010)

They have been saying Turn off Fox ever since Fox was still airing Married with Children.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, I simply made clear that Lobar could not exclude two "librals" after he included two "conservatives"... or whatever you want to call them.  No double standards allowed, in other words.


 
"No double standards"? That sound like a condition...oops! I'm not talking whether it's right out wrong, but YOU clearly made the first condition not in the challenge. Regardless og what it is.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 13, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> I'm trying to figure out what liberals, censorship, guns, and socialism have in common. Or how all liberals have suddenly become socialists.


 
Liberals support stronger government. Socialists support stronger government. Of course this is faulty logic to assume such a generalized thing, but it is what it is.

If you know anything about the early 1900's/1910's, it's that there were Progressives (pretty much liberals), and there were Socialists, who were like radical Progressives. Socialists were actually a legitimate, well-respected party up until the beginning of the Cold War. In fact, many held government positions, including mayors and legislators.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 13, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> Liberals support stronger government. Socialists support stronger government. Of course this is faulty logic to assume such a generalized thing, but it is what it is.
> 
> If you know anything about the early 1900's/1910's, it's that there were Progressives (pretty much liberals), and there were Socialists, who were like radical Progressives. Socialists were actually a legitimate, well-respected party up until the beginning of the Cold War. In fact, many held government positions, including mayors and legislators.


 
I don't think it's a fair thing to say that liberals support a larger government, and conservatives support a smaller government. Now hold on, you're saying, isn't that the very definition of liberal and conservative? Well yes in an economic sense, but in a social sense conservatism seeks to control our personal lives in an authoritarian and "moral" religious sense, (clearly ignoring the separation of church and state) while liberals value personal freedom and choice, and equality rights for all citizens. So it's not so much the size of the government, but how it functions. Conservatives are the party that most wants to interfere with your personal life, liberals do not. Well I guess there is the gun control issue, but I personally have mixed feelings about that. I support people's right to own guns in their own homes, but then once it comes to public areas, that's another story. This issue is pretty much the only exception. Otherwise, liberals definitely support freedom more. We want more control over the people at the top, yes, but only to prevent them from taking advantage of the less privileged of us and to keep order to the system. We don't want to take away their wealth, just make sure they don't act irresponsibly with it, as it obviously wields a lot of power. As middle class citizens you must be crazy if you support conservatives. It makes perfect sense for the rich to support them, but the liberals really have the best interest of the middle class at heart. THEORETICALLY. A lot of them are corrupted by corporations, but not anywhere near as much as the conservatives. Conservatives do NOT represent the people. There is a HUGE disparity between conservative leaders and their base, between what the Republicans say and what they actually do. And most republicans do not realize this. They think they're for the little guy, and the LIBERALS are the elitists. HA! Both parties are fucked up, but by a long shot the Democrats are the lesser of two evils.

In the current economic climate, corporations have vast control over politics. The conservative stance of deregulation and privatization will only further push America into corporate control. At this point from an economic standpoint we need strong regulation and control of businesses, we need to hold them accountable. After all, they crashed our economy. Maybe you could argue that there is a time and a place for the conservatives' economic position, but this is not it. 

Theoretically, the liberal position is to increase government spending. Even though I am a liberal, I disagree. The government budget is bloated. The problem is, it's all in the wrong areas. We need to massively downsize our defense spending, defense contractors make a fortune off America's wars. America is a war machine, and this really needs to change. There are hundreds of government agencies and Homeland Security has really gotten out of control. As a result of all this investment into defense, America has gotten less safe. You see, even though we have all these government agencies, all these thousands and thousands of federal employees, there is little order and communication between them. If we can downsize and make them more _efficient_ we would save a fortune in capital and be safer and better functioning as well. This is not going soft on defense. You can't just keep adding and adding to a system that does not work. We have a no fly list and all these airport security measures but all these terrorists keep slipping through easily through all the disorder. Thank goodness they're all horribly inept so no damage has been done (cross your fingers) Defense should be about actually DEFENDING the country, rather than making contractors rich. This is why we need much stronger government regulation. Not to mention pouring countless amounts of money into unwinnable wars, while if you suggest that we spend the tiniest bit more money on domestic issues the conservatives will spit in your face. Think of our defense spending as trying to put a 600 horsepower engine into a beat up 1992 Dodge Caravan without upgrading the suspension, brakes or tires. You're pretty much fucked. And meanwhile the conservatives want to add a supercharger and take the doors off to save weight.

Meanwhile we have a nearly collapsing infrastructure system, millions of unemployed people, a growing gap between the poor and the rich, and a failing education system. If we can just shift the budget to cover those issues, and eliminate waste, we could actually SAVE money. I'll say it again, we're spending TOO much, I don't know if that's blasphemous for me to say as a liberal, but we need to re-examine our priorities. REGULATION is the most important thing here, in that sense I want the government to be much larger. The government should police corporations like a hawk and increase taxation on the top earners by a massive amount. This will NOT discourage businesses from hiring. They will always try to make a profit. The idea that they will stop hiring out of protest is ludicrous. CEOs got record bonuses as our economy was crashing, I'm sure they'll be fucking fine. They won't be able to afford the 10 million dollar yacht, and they'll have to settle for the 5 million dollar one, boo fucking hoo. Conservatives say this idea is redistribution of wealth and class warfare, but the truth is that the richest Americans take advantage of tax loopholes and end up paying LESS or even NO taxes, while middle class people end up paying MORE taxes than the CEOs they work for. Besides, the current tax rate on the rich is only a fraction of what it used to be 50 years ago.

*TL;DR: The size of the government or the amount of spending is not the issue. It's HOW the government functions, and how efficient the system is. It's not as black and white as everybody paints it*


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's funny when a conservative tries to turn an argument into a "tit-for-tat" when they have many more obnoxious "tits" than the liberals have.


 
That's not the point.  The point is, Lobar told "us" we couldn't use two liberals as examples, after he already used two conservatives as examples.  If he gets to "tit", we get to "tat"... understand?




Bobskunk said:


> when has Michael Moore spoken at a Democratic National Convention
> when has the Democratic party as a whole ever had to apologize to Al Franken for offending him
> what deference has been shown to ANY prominent liberal media figure, really?
> *liberals hide their crazies.*  conservatives parade them around.


 
That's not the point.  The point is, liberals HAVE crazies... "hidden" or not.




Lastdirewolf said:


> "No double standards"? That sound like a condition...oops! I'm not talking whether it's right out wrong, but YOU clearly made the first condition not in the challenge. Regardless og what it is.


 
Of course it's a "condition"... after Lobar already set his own "condition".  Tit for tat, remember?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 14, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Of course it's a "condition"... after Lobar already set his own "condition".  Tit for tat, remember?


 
So you're just purposefully being a jerk about it :v That's pretty neat.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So you're just purposefully being a jerk about it :v That's pretty neat.


 
No more of a jerk than Lobar.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 14, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> No more of a jerk than Lobar.


 
We both know that's not true. :V Even just comparing Maddow and Olbermann with Glenn Beck doesn't compare. As fox's main pundit, Beck is ten times as crazy and dishonest (As measured in fempto-Clownposses) than those two put together. You're comparing Fox's mountain of political bias with the molehill of two commentators.

Rachel Maddow- excellent school records, political science doctorate from oxford.
Olbermann- Bachelor's from Cornell
Glenn Beck- Barely graduated high school.

Hmm. Lets look at their previous jobs.

Rachel Maddow's previous career- Radio hostess with various morning then political shows.
Olbermann- Well known sports broadcaster.
Glenn Beck- Rodeo Clown with a serious drinking problem.

Oops. Well, it's what their current reporting style is about, isn't it?

Rachel Maddow - Calls people dishonest at worst.
Olbermann- calls people Irresponsible at worst.
Glenn Beck- calls progressives crypto-commu-nazi-fascists. Constantly.

Well, at least we can look at personal and journalistic integrity, right?

Rachel Maddow- Self proclaimed pundit.
Olbermann- Self Proclaimed Pundit
Glenn Beck- "I'm just a normal guy who has no political interest, so here's what I think about politics. Also the economy is about to collapse, but it's okay, you can buy gold from my sponsors! Also those other people have arabian stockholders so clearly they're in the pocket of al-qaida. ANY MONEY FROM AN ORGANIZATION TOTALLY COLORS THE ENTIRE MESSAGE OF THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION. Except mine of course, now buy more gold!"

Business Acumen?

MSNBC still has their sponsors. Glenn beck has had most his  major sponsors pull their ads.


So in other words, it's hardly a fair comparison.


----------



## Kanin (Oct 14, 2010)

Like I care, I get my news from the Onion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 14, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> No more of a jerk than Lobar.


 
Well he's coming in with something of a debate platform, and you just plop on the ground, sitting there like a child throwing a tantrum.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 14, 2010)

The funny part is that I never specified Beck or O'Reilly, that was someone else.

I've consistently said that Fox's far-right slant infects their entire lineup, not just their superstars Beck, O'Reilly, or Hannity.  It goes down all the way to the rank-and-file of Neil Cavuto, Sheperd Smith and Greta Van Susteren et al.  Not to mention the abominable Fox'n'Friends crew.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 14, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> I don't think it's a fair thing to say that liberals support a larger  government, and conservatives support a smaller government. Now hold on,  you're saying, isn't that the very definition of liberal and  conservative? Well yes in an economic sense, but in a social sense  conservatism seeks to control our personal lives in an authoritarian and  "moral" religious sense,


 
Crap, I forgot to put that in (I intended to).

I'm everywhere in government views. I believe that the amount of government practices now well exceed its authority, and that the elastic clause is used far too much, but I also believe in more strict environmental control, destruction of political machines, patronage, and the Christianization of Govt. (Though I am an Agnostic Christian; I'll explain if you want) There should be a lot less government spending, as we should focus on the debt and not on throwing money to businesses for failing in their own right, and to universalizing healthcare. Furthermore, not all deregulation is bad. Many things the government has taken over has been run into the ground. A new traffic light being installed on a roadway for my town is costing $600,000. That's to pay for two separate entities to inspect the road, and to pay a hell of a lot of contractors to oversee it. You can bet if the government just hired a company, it'd be less.

Also, I've just read your post in its entirety, and it's pretty much a more elaborate version of mine. You don't sound to me like a liberal. Kinda just straddling the middle, like me.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 14, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> Crap, I forgot to put that in (I intended to).
> 
> I'm everywhere in government views. I believe that the amount of government practices now well exceed its authority, and that the elastic clause is used far too much, but *I also believe in more strict environmental control, destruction of political machines, patronage, and the Christianization of Govt.* (Though I am an Agnostic Christian; I'll explain if you want) There should be a lot less government spending, as we should focus on the debt and not on throwing money to businesses for failing in their own right, and to universalizing healthcare.


 
disambiguate this please, you believe in the Christianization of Govt. or you believe in the destruction of the Christianization of Govt.?


----------



## Ratte (Oct 14, 2010)

Lobar said:


> disambiguate this please, you believe in the Christianization of Govt. or you believe in the destruction of the Christianization of Govt.?


 
oh god please be the latter


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sure there are plenty of people attempting the inverse.  I think I'll step outside the echo chamber and watch some Parker/Spitzer.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> We both know that's not true. :V Even just comparing Maddow and Olbermann with Glenn Beck doesn't compare. As fox's main pundit, Beck is ten times as crazy and dishonest (As measured in fempto-Clownposses) than those two put together. You're comparing Fox's mountain of political bias with the molehill of two commentators.
> 
> Rachel Maddow- excellent school records, political science doctorate from oxford.
> Olbermann- Bachelor's from Cornell
> ...


 
You know, after all these words, I hate to tell you about your lack of reading comprehension.  All the crap you mention is not the point, the point is, you can't use "our people" against us, then tell us we can't use "your people" against you.  Simple as that, nothing else added.  But I doubt you'll get a clue, Mojo... you usually don't.




Kanin said:


> Like I care, *I get my news from the Onion*.


 
I like onions.  Especially sauteed in garlic, and slathered over my broiled beef liver...




Lastdirewolf said:


> Well he's coming in with something of a debate platform, *and you just plop on the ground, sitting there like a child throwing a tantrum*.


 
That's debatable.




Lobar said:


> *The funny part is that I never specified Beck or O'Reilly, that was someone else.*
> 
> I've consistently said that Fox's far-right slant infects their entire lineup, not just their superstars Beck, O'Reilly, or Hannity.  It goes down all the way to the rank-and-file of Neil Cavuto, Sheperd Smith and Greta Van Susteren et al.  Not to mention the abominable Fox'n'Friends crew.


 
You're missing the point, Lobar... yes, someone else specified (to be specific, Lastdirewolf), but you said this:



Lobar said:


> Show me an example of any sort of consistent liberal bias from MSNBC's news programming (*Olbermann and Maddow's late-night pundit shows aside*).


 
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/84351-Turn-off-Fox!!!?p=2198979&viewfull=1#post2198979

You provided the names of two liberal commentators in comparison, then told "us" we couldn't use them.  I disagreed.  But all I got in return was all this irrelevant crap about how Olbermann and Maddow were "mild" (or whatever) compared to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly (or whoever else).  I provided a point of order, making it clear, if you could bring up Glenn and Bill, "we" could bring up Olbermann and Maddow.  I never said anything about the differences between the two sides, simply that you could not tell "us" we couldn't use whatever liberal commentator we wanted to use.

Or do I need to keep repeating myself over and over again?

Oh, one more thing.  If you think liberal bias doesn't permeate the liberal news in the same way conservative bias permeates conservative news, then you're rather naive.  Or just so awash in liberal bias yourself, you can no longer see.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 15, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> you can't use "our people" against us, then tell us we can't use "your people" against you.  Simple as that, nothing else added.


 
Here's your post edited down so there's actually "nothing else added". :V Please note that cut just that one paragraph more than in half.

But it IS the point, because the point is that Fox news- and the people it employs- are more dishonest. This is not a binary statement, we know Olbermann is on the left and O Reilly on the right, what the issue here is that Fox Network is severely lacking in integrity, but a comparative one. The fact that there are people who disagree with fox does not mean fox gets a free pass out of its well deserved reputation for being a journalistic farce.



Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, one more thing.  If you think liberal bias doesn't permeate the liberal news in the same way conservative bias permeates conservative news, then you're rather naive.  Or just so awash in liberal bias yourself, you can no longer see.


 
On the same note, there being people who support a liberal message in the media does not mean there is a bias. "Bias" implies that there's more liberal coverage in the media than is represented in the population or that conservatives somehow aren't allowed to express their views in the media. This isn't even going into the other issues, such as conservatives labeling anything left of right "liberal" or "progressive". I mean, clearly the "liberals" managed to get the numbers to vote Obama into office with a 6% margin. :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> But it IS the point, because the point is that Fox news- and the people it employs- are more dishonest. This is not a binary statement, we know Olbermann is on the left and O Reilly on the right, what the issue here is that Fox Network is severely lacking in integrity, but a comparative one. *The fact that there are people who disagree with fox does not mean fox gets a free pass out of its well deserved reputation for being a journalistic farce.*



As I have apparently failed to make clear, that is not a point in contention.  The same can be said for "your" side:  No Free Pass.  That's all it is.




Mojotech said:


> On the same note, there being people who support a liberal message in the media does not mean there is a bias. "Bias" implies that there's more liberal coverage in the media than is represented in the population or that conservatives somehow aren't allowed to express their views in the media. This isn't even going into the other issues, such as conservatives labeling anything left of right "liberal" or "progressive". *I mean, clearly the "liberals" managed to get the numbers to vote Obama into office with a 6% margin.* :V


 
Again, not anywhere near the issue I'm highlighting.  Everyone is biased, in one way or another... bias is part of human nature, something that cannot be weeded out.  It's not a matter of who has "more coverage", or whatever.  If conservatives can't hide/exclude their "extreme" people, neither can liberals, no matter the degree of bias.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 15, 2010)

So we've come to the conclusion Roose cannot come up with any other examples, and is simply red herring the shit out of this thread.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 15, 2010)

OP, if you don't like the Fox news network then don't watch it.  Simple and easy.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So we've come to the conclusion Roose cannot come up with any other examples, and is simply red herring the shit out of this thread.


 
_*facepalm*_


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 15, 2010)

Surprisingly, inb4 "Glenn Beck tellz dah tr00f!"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> Surprisingly, inb4 "Glenn Beck tellz dah tr00f!"


 
Nobody tells the truth anymore.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 15, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> OP, if you don't like the Fox news network then don't watch it.  Simple and easy.


 
This was already addressed in this thread. :V Long story short, you can't really "Not watch it" if it's being played constantly in public spaces, and this petition is to let said public spaces know they'd rather watch something less partisan.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> This was already addressed in this thread. :V Long story short, you can't really "Not watch it" if it's being played constantly in public spaces, and this petition is to let said public spaces know they'd rather watch something less partisan.


 Forgive me if I am treading on familiar ground, but what is to stop individuals from going up to the management of the places that show Fox, and complain to them directly? Surely that would be a better way of getting a station you do not like off, as a manager of a bar/gym/what have you will be more likely to listen to a paying customer than an online petition. I mean I understand the political message this petition is trying to send, and if that is all it is trying to do then cool. But I don't see how this is an effective way of getting businesses to stop showing Fox on their TVs.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 15, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Forgive me if I am treading on familiar ground, but what is to stop individuals from going up to the management of the places that show Fox, and complain to them directly? Surely that would be a better way of getting a station you do not like off, as a manager of a bar/gym/what have you will be more likely to listen to a paying customer than an online petition. I mean I understand the political message this petition is trying to send, and if that is all it is trying to do then cool. But I don't see how this is an effective way of getting businesses to stop showing Fox on their TVs.


 
Because a person with a petition represents a group of complaining customers in addition to the person physically handing the petition in. (Single Complaining Customer) < (Single Complaining Customer + List of people who agree with him), in other words. This is especially important when dealing with larger organizations, who care less and less about smaller numbers of people as they get larger and larger.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Because a person with a petition represents a group of complaining customers in addition to the person physically handing the petition in. (Single Complaining Customer) < (Single Complaining Customer + List of people who agree with him), in other words. This is especially important when dealing with larger organizations, who care less and less about smaller numbers of people as they get larger and larger.


 But larger corporations are not going to be responsible for the TV content of its individual stores, unless they take an official stance against a particular channel or organization and forbid any stores from airing them. Individual stores are far more likely to pay attention to the demographics of the customers in their area. For example, I go a gym a bit down the freeway, and this being a pretty conservative area, they show Fox news and ESPN. A gym in a more liberal area like San Fransisco will be far more likely to show MSNBC or something other than Fox. In other words, a petition is not going to mean much to a manager who knows that the people in _his area_ don't support it. If his customers approached him personally, however, he would be forced to rethink which channels he chooses to show, lest he anger some of his costumers. 

The CEO of a company is not going to know what choice of news the people in a particular town prefer. He is going to leave such calls up to the management of the stores in their respective areas. A CEO may very well be presented with a petition signed by 3,000,000 people saying they hate Fox and he should not show it, but that isn't going to matter. In areas where people do not like Fox and have said as much, it should not be on. In areas where people do like Fox, it will be on. It just makes more sense to leaves these kinds of decisions on the local level, and the local level is less likely to consider a large petition which may not accurately describe the opinions of the populace there.

The decision of what news channel to play in a public area run by a private organization should be based on local tastes, not national opinion.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 15, 2010)

Yes let's encourage censoring the media.

Just because they're so DERP-y doesn't mean they should be forced off the air.

Also fuck your sig OP >=[


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 15, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> But larger corporations are not going to be responsible for the TV content of its individual stores, unless they take an official stance against a particular channel or organization and forbid any stores from airing them. Individual stores are far more likely to pay attention to the demographics of the customers in their area. For example, I go a gym a bit down the freeway, and this being a pretty conservative area, they show Fox news and ESPN. A gym in a more liberal area like San Fransisco will be far more likely to show MSNBC or something other than Fox. In other words, a petition is not going to mean much to a manager who knows that the people in _his area_ don't support it. If his customers approached him personally, however, he would be forced to rethink which channels he chooses to show, lest he anger some of his costumers.
> 
> The CEO of a company is not going to know what choice of news the people in a particular town prefer. He is going to leave such calls up to the management of the stores in their respective areas. A CEO may very well be presented with a petition signed by 3,000,000 people saying they hate Fox and he should not show it, but that isn't going to matter. In areas where people do not like Fox and have said as much, it should not be on. In areas where people do like Fox, it will be on. It just makes more sense to leaves these kinds of decisions on the local level, and the local level is less likely to consider a large petition which may not accurately describe the opinions of the populace there.
> 
> The decision of what news channel to play in a public area run by a private organization should be based on local tastes, not national opinion.


 
A petition might not mean much to a manager, but a person without a petition will probably mean much less. Business Beuracrats understand numbers, and having a petition with 6000 signatures is going to mean a lot more to them than just one person with one signature.  In other words, if a company is going to ignore someone with a petition, they'd also be the kind of store to ignore one person. A person without a petition will always have less of an impact.

Great, but I doubt many people are going to be handing these to CEO's of multinational corporations. :V They're more likely to give it to the nurse of their HMO or such, sending a clear message that there are better news sources than FOX.

And petitions like these are a good way for people to tell businesses that their customer base may be more liberal or centrist than they think., thus leading to said change in decision. 



Heckler & Koch said:


> Yes let's encourage censoring the media.
> 
> Just because they're so DERP-y doesn't mean they should be forced off the air.
> 
> Also fuck your sig OP >=[


 
Nothing is being censored, nobody is being forced to do anything, there's no violence or legislation, it's a petition asking organizations to not tune their TV's onto the absolute worst news channel. :V


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Nothing is being censored, nobody is being forced to do anything, there's no violence or legislation, it's a petition asking organizations to not tune their TV's onto the absolute worst news channel. :V


 
It's not a news channel.  It's poison.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 16, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's not a news channel.  It's poison.


 
I watched a show with my parents (die-hard conservatives) once. While it did argue a point I somewhat agreed with (Welfare is actually promoting not having a job, and people seem to get a job right when it ends), it said so in such an alarmist, emotion-driven tone that it made me actually start to hate it.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Oct 17, 2010)

The Erie "International" Airport plays it constantly, forcing you to watch it in the terminal.  You can't change the channel.  There's no other network.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> The Erie "International" Airport plays it constantly, forcing you to watch it in the terminal.  You can't change the channel.  There's no other network.


 
You are not forced to watch it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to watch fox new or you die.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You are not forced to watch it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to watch fox new or you die.


 
You know what he means, stop being purposefully obtuse.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 17, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> You know what he means, stop being purposefully obtuse.


 
No one is forced to watch and listen to anything. You can ignore something, or not pay attention to it.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 17, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> No one is forced to watch and listen to anything. You can ignore something, or not pay attention to it.


 
That must be some mighty strong zen fu, to be able to ignore something being shouted from every single speaker in hearing distance well enough to conduct distraction-free and mistake-free business.  What's your secret, other than learning to like the verbal pulp?


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 17, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> That must be some mighty strong zen fu, to be able to ignore something being shouted from every single speaker in hearing distance well enough to conduct distraction-free and mistake-free business.  What's your secret, other than learning to like the verbal pulp?


 
Umm... Ignoring it? Seriously, it isn't hard, I've had no problems with FOX News being aired in Public places, even though I'm not a fan of it myself. My neighborhood is quite conservative so I see FOX News being aired in a lot of public places, and personally, it isn't my business to care about it. 

You guys are being rediculous, you all act like speakers are being crammed into your ears, and that you're all being force-fed EVIL NEWS so that you can properly be brainwashed by the EVIL BILL O REILLY. 

Just grow up, and, y'know, don't care about it.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 17, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> Umm... Ignoring it? Seriously, it isn't hard, I've had no problems with FOX News being aired in Public places, even though I'm not a fan of it myself. My neighborhood is quite conservative so I see FOX News being aired in a lot of public places, and personally, it isn't my business to care about it.
> 
> You guys are being rediculous, you all act like speakers are being crammed into your ears, and that you're all being force-fed EVIL NEWS so that you can properly be brainwashed by the EVIL BILL O REILLY.
> 
> Just grow up, and, y'know, don't care about it.


 
I usually do take that advice, in the form of not frequenting any business airing any news channels for customers, be it Fox or another.  (When I want news, I turn on the radio or hit up Google News.)  The thing is, while avoiding it is indeed a powerful choice, avoiding places broadcasting it is my only choice.  I'm too unable to focus on what really matters otherwise.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 17, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I usually do take that advice, in the form of not frequenting any business airing any news channels for customers, be it Fox or another.  (When I want news, I turn on the radio or hit up Google News.)  The thing is, while avoiding it is indeed a powerful choice, avoiding places broadcasting it is my only choice.  I'm too unable to focus on what really matters otherwise.


 
If only there was some way to convince businesses or those who maintain televisions in public spaces to give people who go there control over the channel, or perhaps to set it to something bipartisan. If only there was some way of showing them that there are multiple people who'd like that. Maybe by keeping a count of how many agree, and perhaps their names in case someone wants to double check all the people agreeing actually do? If only there was something like that... :V


----------



## Merinotetrapoda (Oct 17, 2010)

But I like fox news...

its hilarious fffffffff!!!


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 17, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> If only there was some way to convince businesses or those who maintain televisions in public spaces to give people who go there control over the channel, or perhaps to set it to something bipartisan. If only there was some way of showing them that there are multiple people who'd like that. Maybe by keeping a count of how many agree, and perhaps their names in case someone wants to double check all the people agreeing actually do? If only there was something like that... :V


 
V:

A few do.  Most don't.

But still, we're now off the zen-foo part of turning off Fox.  Is mine really that weak?

Wow, I didn't mean to pick up the banner of activism on this topic.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 18, 2010)

TVs in public places shouldn't play anything but calming images of swirling patterns so as not to offend anyone, problem solved.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> TVs in public places shouldn't play anything but calming images of swirling patterns so as not to offend anyone, problem solved.


 
Actually, there shouldn't be any TVs in public, anyway.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, there shouldn't be any TVs in public, anyway.


 
Or books, or cinema, or any material that might affect your opinion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 18, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> TVs in public places shouldn't play anything but calming images of swirling patterns so as not to offend anyone, problem solved.


 
You might wig out the pot heads. That's offensive.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> V:
> 
> A few do.  Most don't.
> 
> ...


 
Not really, you have to remember- conservatives are big fans of proclaiming things that aren't choices are, in fact, choices. Who you love, socioeconomic status, gender identity, what kind of icecream you like, and what you watch when someone else has the remote. But in the end we both know it's actually not, and in this case it's up to the person with the TV remote to change it to something everyone wants.



Nyloc said:


> TVs in public places shouldn't play anything but calming images of swirling patterns so as not to offend anyone, problem solved.


 
It's not about not being offended. It's about fox news and the talking heads on that station, specifically, being awful journalism. There are much better sources of news readily available at the same time periods.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Or books, or cinema, or any material that might affect your opinion.


 
No, all of those are fine... I just find public TVs annoying, when I'm trying to read and enjoy my tea/coffee/whatever.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> It's not about not being offended. It's about fox news and the talking heads on that station, specifically, being awful journalism. There are much better sources of news readily available at the same time periods.


 
That's entirely based on opinion, Mojo, you may think that FOX is awful journalism, probably because it doesn't fit your bias, but others may think that FOX news is okay, or, heck, maybe even decent journalism. 

Personally, I don't think that FOX is a good News channel, but it really helps to watch it because it helps you better understand the conservative side on certain issues. I personally think that Liberals should watch FOX News more often to better understand the conservative side. I think that FOX News is okay, but I take some of their stuff with a grain of salt. Especially the stuff from the Talk-show hosts. 



Roose Hurro said:


> No, all of those are fine... I just find public TVs annoying, when I'm trying to read and enjoy my tea/coffee/whatever.


 
I think he was being sarcastic, Roose.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> I think he was being sarcastic, Roose.


 
Yes, very possible... in fact, very obvious.  I just chose to take it at face value.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> That's entirely based on opinion, Mojo, you may think that FOX is awful journalism, probably because it doesn't fit your bias, but others may think that FOX news is okay, or, heck, maybe even decent journalism.


 
http://www.miraclemineral.us/ You may think drinking bleach is bad for you, probably because it doesn't fit your bias, but others may think that drinking bleach is okay or, heck, maybe even clinical best practice.

In short we can objectively tell FOX is brain poison, and just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean they're a group of liars. :V


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> In short we can objectively tell FOX is brain poison, and just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean they're a group of liars. :V


 
You could say the same about liberally biased media. 

I never said that I liked FOX News, and when I watch it, I watch it unbiased, yet at the same time take their stuff with a grain of salt. I do the same, not just with FOX, but with all other News networks as well.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> You could say the same about liberally biased media.
> 
> I never said that I liked FOX News, and when I watch it, I watch it unbiased, yet at the same time take their stuff with a grain of salt. I do the same, not just with FOX, but with all other News networks as well.


 
Not really. :V the problem isn't with conservative VS Liberal Media, but with the fox news network itself and its campaign of literally handing down the news on high from every day. "We want to send this message, find us something to say it", as well as things like succesful lawsuits saying they're allowed to willingly fabricate the truth in their stories.
http://meathaus.com/wp-content/images/fox-news-shitty-photoshop.jpg Here's one of the more infamous examples.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Not really. :V the problem isn't with conservative VS Liberal Media, but with the fox news network itself and its campaign of literally handing down the news on high from every day. "We want to send this message, find us something to say it", as well as things like succesful lawsuits saying they're allowed to willingly fabricate the truth in their stories.
> http://meathaus.com/wp-content/images/fox-news-shitty-photoshop.jpg Here's one of the more infamous examples.


 
OMG!!! Slightly photoshopped pictures?! I can REALLY feel the PURE BRAIN DRAINING EVIL from FOX News now! 

And yes, they should be allowed to fabricate the truth, Freedom of Press, it's in the Constitution.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 18, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> OMG!!! Slightly photoshopped pictures?! I can REALLY feel the PURE BRAIN DRAINING EVIL from FOX News now!
> 
> And yes, they should be allowed to fabricate the truth, Freedom of Press, it's in the Constitution.


 
You're missing the point. They are an organization with a well deserved reputation for putting their political carriage before their factual horse, as it were, and this picture is endemic of their larger problem with honesty in general.

And "Freedom of the press" is not relevant to the point that Fox is a singularly awful source of factual information. Yes, by law they are free to lie as much as they please, *AND THEY DO.* Edit: In other words, just because something is allowed by the constitution does not mean it is socially acceptable, or even morally or ethically right to do so.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> You're missing the point. They are an organization with a well deserved reputation for putting their political carriage before their factual horse, as it were, and this picture is endemic of their larger problem with honesty in general.


 
I cannot argue with that. Although personally I don't find the photoshopped pictures much of a big deal since it has little difference in anything. 



Mojotech said:


> And  "Freedom of the press" is not relevant to the point that Fox is a  singularly awful source of factual information. Yes, by law they are  free to lie as much as they please, *AND THEY DO.*


 
That's true. FOX is extremely bias, there's no arguing that, but ultimately it's the viewer's fault for not educating themselves. 

Not everything on FOX news is a lie, believe it or not they actually report news once and a while, but you gotta take everything with a grain of salt.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 18, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> OMG!!! Slightly photoshopped pictures?! I can REALLY feel the PURE BRAIN DRAINING EVIL from FOX News now!
> 
> And yes, they should be allowed to fabricate the truth, Freedom of Press, it's in the Constitution.


 
Fox News actually did a half-decent job of subtlety in shooping their bad guys to look ugly.

They're not alone in fabricating news, sadly.  Remember the clone tool fire and the three-flare missile during the '06 Israeli-Lebanese conflict?  Reuters had an exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 18, 2010)

Haters gonna hate on my Al-Jazeera y Noticiero Univision.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> You're missing the point. They are an organization with a well deserved reputation for putting their political carriage before their factual horse, as it were, and this picture is endemic of their larger problem with honesty in general.
> 
> And "Freedom of the press" is not relevant to the point that Fox is a singularly awful source of factual information. Yes, by law they are free to lie as much as they please, *AND THEY DO.* Edit: In other words, just because something is allowed by the constitution does not mean it is socially acceptable, or even morally or ethically right to do so.


 
In other words, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater may be technically within your Constitutional rights, but it is not proper or wise.



ArielMT said:


> Fox News actually did a half-decent job of subtlety in shooping their bad guys to look ugly.
> 
> They're not alone in fabricating news, sadly.  *Remember the clone tool fire and the three-flare missile during the '06 Israeli-Lebanese conflict?*  Reuters had an exclusive.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies


 
Remember that 60 Minutes fiasco dealing with exploding gas tanks?  Shoot, can't find that info, for some reason, but this is relevant:

http://www.walterolson.com/articles/wpexperts.html


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> In other words, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater may be technically within your Constitutional rights, but it is not proper or wise.


 
Bad example.  Every court hearing such a case has ruled that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not Constitutionally protected speech because it incites panic.

Try something more exemplary of his point, such as claiming Elvis was gay.  It's obviously protected speech, and it's obviously unwise to say.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> In other words, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater may be technically within your Constitutional rights, but it is not proper or wise.


 
Good point. 

But I dunno, personally, I'm a big constitutionalist, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid or fabricated, that is including the press. Like I said before, largely it's the viewers responsibility to educate themselves and separate fact from opinion/lies.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 18, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Bad example.  Every court hearing such a case has ruled that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not Constitutionally protected speech *because it incites panic*.
> 
> Try something more exemplary of his point, such as claiming Elvis was gay.  It's obviously protected speech, and it's obviously unwise to say.


 
That's the point...

But yes, the "Elivs is gay!" shout would be a better example.




Darkwing said:


> Good point.
> 
> But I dunno, personally, I'm a big constitutionalist, I believe people should be able to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid or fabricated, that is including the press. Like I said before, largely it's the viewers responsibility to educate themselves and separate fact from opinion/lies.


 
Thing is, the press (a public entity) has a responsibility to report accurate events, whereas a private individual does not.

Oh, and I read through my above link, and did find mention of the rigged fuel tanks...   >.<


----------

