4 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Yes Fox news gets it wrong now and then but the left media only get it right now and then. For true reporting about everything that is newsworthy please tune in to Mark Levin podcast, who knows you might just learn something?

Learn what, bias confirmation? 

 

8 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

You obviously don't understand how my nation's Constitution functions, or basic laws regarding speech that are almost universally applied throughout the country.  The amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech was approved through a democratic process involving the states' legislatures.  Those same state legislatures could theoretically vote to repeal that amendment, through the representative, democratic process that's contained in our Constitution.

 

Basic restrictions on speech (short list there are many others):

- You may not threaten someone

- You may not incite a riot...cry fire in a crowded theater

- You may not libel or defame someone

 

And common sense should tell you, you can't talk to someone else's 9-year old kid about whether they're gay or straight.  You don't have a 'right' to talk to anyone's dependent child.

Dang, so close. Then you added the last paragraph which totally contardicts the paragraphs preceeding. 

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The media always reports what politicians say, especially when it comes to accusations of WMD. They are not the cause.

Ask Bernie if the media reports what politicians say with equal intensity and fervour. 

 

Anyway there is mountains of evidence showing the MSM knew it was pushing lies about 9/11 and Iraq. 

 

In my opinion a FAR WORSE crime than election lies. 

50 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Kim from North Korea was a never Trumper until they became friends.

That really says it all and the fact that you write this* without batting an eyelid says everything I need to know about you.

 

* I feel that I actually need to spell it out; Kim and trump are friends! trump is friend with the most Orwellian and murderous dictator in the world.

18 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Political lies DO NOT reach citizens ears without media complicity. 

Complicity?? You mean reporting what politicians say? Well shame on them!

12 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Ask Bernie if the media reports what politicians say with equal intensity and fervour. 

 

Anyway there is mountains of evidence showing the MSM knew it was pushing lies about 9/11 and Iraq. 

 

In my opinion a FAR WORSE crime than election lies. 

You probably need to quote the evidence that the MSM media KNEW it was pushing lies. I paid close attention at the time and read nothing to that effect. All I saw was Cheney and the CIA claiming there was WMD.

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Dang, so close. Then you added the last paragraph which totally contardicts the paragraphs preceeding. 

You should put your fringe, extremist beliefs to the test the next time you're in the US.  Go to any elementary school in any state and approach a random child and start talking to him or her about whether they're gay or straight or want to be a girl or a boy.  Please report back on your experiences with the legal system.

 

4 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

You should put your fringe, extremist beliefs to the test the next time you're in the US.  Go to any elementary school in any state and approach a random child and start talking to him or her about whether they're gay or straight or want to be a girl or a boy.  Please report back on your experiences with the legal system.

 

Nobody ever has done that.

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You probably need to quote the evidence that the MSM media KNEW it was pushing lies. I paid close attention at the time and read nothing to that effect. All I saw was Cheney and the CIA claiming there was WMD.

Backed up by Tony Blair. 

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Backed up by Tony Blair. 

lack of link as usual from the right

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

lack of link as usual from the right

Details, actually reading the posts you comment on, and common knowledge about recent events are all long poles in your tent, aren't they?

On 2/18/2023 at 6:25 PM, Hummin said:

and repeatably same news over and over again and again,

Are you serious? Every news organisation I listen to does that. Only need to watch one Al Jazeera news show as same same all day, unless breaking news.

12 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

You should put your fringe, extremist beliefs to the test the next time you're in the US.  Go to any elementary school in any state and approach a random child and start talking to him or her about whether they're gay or straight or want to be a girl or a boy.  Please report back on your experiences with the legal system.

 

You are being very disingenuous now by bringing in a VERY obvious strawman fallacy.

 

Obviously no one is condoning random strangers going up to children to discuss sexual orientation but the argument is about teachers discussing it with children in a school setting. Whether you agree with it or not (in the UK it's age 11 which I think is reasonable), it lends itself to the bigger argument about what's going on in Florida with DeSantis banning books and the likes and whether he is just playing with parents justifiable concerns for purely political reasons.

 

However, I'm conscious this is going off topic (and hope the moderators allow this as a one of rebutle) as the subject is about Fox News.    

 

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

lack of link as usual from the right

Not sure what you are saying here as I'm not 'the right' and I thought it was common knowledge that Blair backed Bush with his WMD nonsense.

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you serious? Every news organisation I listen to does that. Only need to watch one Al Jazeera news show as same same all day, unless breaking news.

When you first quoting me, make sure you quote all of it 

26 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are being very disingenuous now by bringing in a VERY obvious strawman fallacy.

 

Obviously no one is condoning random strangers going up to children to discuss sexual orientation but the argument is about teachers discussing it with children in a school setting. Whether you agree with it or not (in the UK it's age 11 which I think is reasonable), it lends itself to the bigger argument about what's going on in Florida with DeSantis banning books and the likes and whether he is just playing with parents justifiable concerns for purely political reasons.

 

However, I'm conscious this is going off topic (and hope the moderators allow this as a one of rebutle) as the subject is about Fox News.    

 

Having a teaching license doesn't grant immunity from any laws.  The Florida statute was put in place because some school districts were implementing this kind of curriculum to young children without their parents' consent and the legally elected governor and legislature passed a law to stop it.  It's a strawman argument to call that a threat to democracy and free speech.

 

But, I do agree the point is moving away from the subject of Fox News, which I personally find abhorrent and not a credible source of information on almost anything.  My original point in the discussion was that at least they're more 'in your face' about their disingenuity, while the other side of the media divide portrays themselves as the savior guardians of society, while also being disingenuous.  The Florida law being a case in point.

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by Lorenzo Valla
grammar

35 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

Having a teaching license doesn't grant immunity from any laws.  The Florida statute was put in place because some school districts were implementing this kind of curriculum to young children without their parents' consent and the legally elected governor and legislature passed a law to stop it.  It's a strawman argument to call that a threat to democracy and free speech.

 

 

That's simply not true.

 

'For one, sex education has already been banned in Florida (as in many states) until the fifth grade. So critics say the law tries to solve a problem that doesn’t exist for the state’s youngest students. Because it limits even discussions about LGBTQ issues, it could stifle conversations for children who need to work through their own gender or sexual-identity questions, they say'  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/01/what-is-florida-dont-say-gay-bill/

 

If 'school districts were implementing this kind of curriculum to young children' then I would agree with you but it simply wasn't happening. School curriculums are VERY tightly controlled and all DeSantis was doing was stirring up controversy when there was none there. That's the actually point about the 'Don't say Gay' backlash. He was trying to score political points over something that wasn't even happening with both this and critical race theory.

 

But as you say, we digress.

 

44 minutes ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

Having a teaching license doesn't grant immunity from any laws.  The Florida statute was put in place because some school districts were implementing this kind of curriculum to young children without their parents' consent and the legally elected governor and legislature passed a law to stop it.  It's a strawman argument to call that a threat to democracy and free speech.

 

But, I do agree the point is moving away from the subject of Fox News, which I personally find abhorrent and not a credible source of information on almost anything.  My original point in the discussion was that at least they're more 'in your face' about their disingenuity, while the other side of the media divide portrays themselves as the savior guardians of society, while also being disingenuous.  The Florida law being a case in point.

Failed fact checks from Fox again. 9 year old children were not taught this curriculum.

 

"The Florida Department of Education told PolitiFact that sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in the curriculum taught in the state’s kindergarten through third-grade classrooms."

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/mar/23/dont-say-gay-vs-parental-rights-fact-checking-clai/

1 hour ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

Details, actually reading the posts you comment on, and common knowledge about recent events are all long poles in your tent, aren't they?

I have common knowledge of most US political events and claims by the far right press do not amount to facts. Rules are rules and claims to fact must be supported by links. A quick reading of the rules shows that it isn't optional.

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Not sure what you are saying here as I'm not 'the right' and I thought it was common knowledge that Blair backed Bush with his WMD nonsense.

If it were I wouldn't have asked for the link. That said, I acknowledge that many politicians on both sides were suckered by the lies perpetrated by the CIA to support Cheney's business interests. I was too. I supported the war, based on Saddam Hussein having gassed the Kurds, until I discovered that it was all a lie.

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If it were I wouldn't have asked for the link. That said, I acknowledge that many politicians on both sides were suckered by the lies perpetrated by the CIA to support Cheney's business interests. I was too. I supported the war, based on Saddam Hussein having gassed the Kurds, until I discovered that it was all a lie.

If you genuinely didnt know about this then here you go. It was just as much Blair as it was Bush, with both Powell and Bush quoting MI6 as justification. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot

2 hours ago, Lorenzo Valla said:

You obviously don't understand how my nation's Constitution functions, or basic laws regarding speech that are almost universally applied throughout the country.  The amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech was approved through a democratic process involving the states' legislatures.  Those same state legislatures could theoretically vote to repeal that amendment, through the representative, democratic process that's contained in our Constitution.

 

Basic restrictions on speech (short list there are many others):

- You may not threaten someone

- You may not incite a riot...cry fire in a crowded theater

- You may not libel or defame someone

 

And common sense should tell you, you can't talk to someone else's 9-year old kid about whether they're gay or straight.  You don't have a 'right' to talk to anyone's dependent child.

It's clear that you haven't read what you originally wrote. You justified this law because it was democratically passed. As I will point out again most likely to no avail, that in itself is no justification for the law.

 

And your disquisition about how amendments to the Constitution can be amended is utterly irrelevant to the issue at question.

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

If you genuinely didnt know about this then here you go. It was just as much Blair as it was Bush, with both Powell and Bush quoting MI6 as justification. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot

Thanks for providing the link. MI6 were likely led along by the nose as well. Australia wasn't immune to the deceit as well. Howard was a willing cheerleader.

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by ozimoron

3 hours ago, mikebike said:

Ok. CNN virtually lead the charge of ongoing lies and omissions which resulted in the Iraq War and (debatably) 500,000+ deaths. 

Not much to add to what other posters said. They should have been more critical as there were credible dissenting voices at the international level. They diffused what was being served to them by the Bush administration. At that time, there was a climate of collective irrational craziness in the U.S.

This is also long time ago and I guess some media have learned a lesson from it. It cannot be compared to more recent events such as the case in the OP.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

You obviously did not read well my post. I wrote "knowingly and repeatedly lying". In the OP case, there is evidence exposed that they knowingly lied (they knew it was not true), and they did it repeatedly (making the same lies about elections over and over, until they perceived a lawsuit threat from Dominion.

 

You don't have any evidence that they knowingly lied, and there is evidence they did not repeat the same lies as they usually publish retractations after they find out (see example below from Greenwald's article).

 

On top of it, these were minor issues and minor misinformation compared to the Big Lie.

 

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

 

So nothing to compare with the case in the OP.

It's curious just how few of the right wing are completely unfazed by evidence of deliberate lies in their favourite media. They are being suckered and yet lap it up like puppies and milk. I would have serious second thoughts if the politicians I voted for were fact checked to degree even remotely like the right wing pollies are.

An off topic post trying it's hardest to hijack the topic has been removed, also replies

34 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's curious just how few of the right wing are completely unfazed by evidence of deliberate lies in their favourite media. They are being suckered and yet lap it up like puppies and milk. I would have serious second thoughts if the politicians I voted for were fact checked to degree even remotely like the right wing pollies are.

I think some of them believe what they are being served, but others just don't care what is true or not. They just think they can score a point against the other side.

 

Anyway, most of them won't even know about it, as the right-wing media are mute about it. I made a quick check: nothing on Fow News website (of course), nothing on the NYPost website either, and not a line about it on the Washington Examiner website (which is sometimes a bit more informative than the other two). So someone who only looks at right-wing media won't even know about it.

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by candide

CNN are making hay out of this report tonight.

Anyone who was cynical or dismissive about Fox News Channel before now has suddenly learned that they weren't cynical or dismissive enough. Astounding evidence emerging this week from the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox, Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan and others shows, in excruciating detail, how the "fair and balanced" network actively lied to its viewers about purported "fraud" in the 2020 presidential election.

 

If it was ever possible to believe anything on Fox News, it isn't anymore. What these documents demonstrate beyond question is that from Murdoch down, the Fox apparatus prizes ratings above all else, and in their greed will readily trash the truth night after night.

 

In a limited space, it is impossible to convey the full impact of these disclosures, which have vaporized the reputations of Dobbs, Bartiromo, Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and their bosses like a nuclear blast.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/newsflash-you-really-can-t-trust-fox-news-ever/?traffic_source=Connatix

 

15 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Obviously no one is condoning random strangers going up to children to discuss sexual orientation but the argument is about teachers discussing it with children in a school setting.

Children's sexual orientation is no business of teachers or anyone that is not the child or the parent. Just stay out of it.

I'm not talking about "sex education" per se, and I'm OK with that as likely many parents will not discuss with their kids ( mine certainly didn't ).