8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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 ).

Teachers aren't interested in children's sexual orientation and it isn't something that would be discussed in class.  Teachers are interested in teaching and anything that affects the classroom negatively is of concern.  In my experience teaching that happens when students are actively bullying others -- that maybe about perceived sexual orientation, race, disability, economic status or any of a number of other things.  Those issues may need to be addressed in order to effectively teach.  

 

We had a student who was HIV+.  He was infected at birth and on medication that made his viral load undetectable.  When word got out he was ostracized, bullied, teased and physically assaulted.  Do you think that should have been overlooked in a classroom?

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Teachers aren't interested in children's sexual orientation and it isn't something that would be discussed in class.  Teachers are interested in teaching and anything that affects the classroom negatively is of concern.  In my experience teaching that happens when students are actively bullying others -- that maybe about perceived sexual orientation, race, disability, economic status or any of a number of other things.  Those issues may need to be addressed in order to effectively teach.  

 

We had a student who was HIV+.  He was infected at birth and on medication that made his viral load undetectable.  When word got out he was ostracized, bullied, teased and physically assaulted.  Do you think that should have been overlooked in a classroom?

I was responding to johhnybangkok's statement "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" which appeared to be about discussion in a classroom, but if I was wrong and it was not, I apologise for getting it wrong.

Edited February 19, 20233 yr by thaibeachlovers

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was responding to johhnybangkok's statement "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" which appeared to be about discussion in a classroom, but if I was wrong and it was not, I apologise for getting it wrong.

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

 

It's not always possible to 'just stay out of it'.   Good teachers don't stay out of things that affect the ability to teach or of students' ability to learn.  It's used as a teachable moment and that's what was done. 

A post with a link that contains false or misleading information has been reported and removed. 

20 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. 

Fox News, in your own words, reported on the "lies and omissions which resulted in the Iraq War and (debatably) 500,000+ deaths."  Are you going to blame Fox News for the Iraq War?

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Fox News, in your own words, reported on the "lies and omissions which resulted in the Iraq War and (debatably) 500,000+ deaths."  Are you going to blame Fox News for the Iraq War?

No. I clearly blame ALL of the MSM. 

I’d love to see Fox News after they pay dommion their 1.7 billion fine that the first 2 minutes of each and every (news) program they air should be spent telling their viewers they willfully lied to them about the election and betrayed the country in the quest for money and ratings an absolutely despicable group of sleazy $&*@ people 

That the leader of the House majority is cooperating with a company who is the subject of a 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit is beyond the pale.

 

 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has turned over 41,000 hours of surveillance footage from the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to Fox News primetime commentator Tucker Carlson, reported Axios on Monday.

"Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks," Axios reported.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-2659441803/

Edited February 20, 20233 yr by ozimoron

One of my relatives in Canada told me that he only watches Fox News, and gets the rest of his

stuff from his computer. I asked if He heard of Q Anon, and other sources in the computer and he still

says his new sources are better than CBC, CTV, Global news in Canada, or CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN.

He likes Rebel News and a few other twitter news sources so  he gave me a good laugh for my day.

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That the leader of the House majority is cooperating with a company who is the subject of a 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit is beyond the pale.

 

 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has turned over 41,000 hours of surveillance footage from the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to Fox News primetime commentator Tucker Carlson, reported Axios on Monday.

"Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks," Axios reported.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-2659441803/

If McCarthy can get away with giving this footage to Fox News only, instead of sharing it with all news organizations, then the House ethics rules are even more grossly inadequate than I thought.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

If McCarthy can get away with giving this footage to Fox News only, instead of sharing it with all news organizations, then the House ethics rules are even more grossly inadequate than I thought.

And about to be weakened or trashed further.

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

That the leader of the House majority is cooperating with a company who is the subject of a 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit is beyond the pale.

 

 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has turned over 41,000 hours of surveillance footage from the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol to Fox News primetime commentator Tucker Carlson, reported Axios on Monday.

"Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks," Axios reported.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/january-6-2659441803/

There is always two sides to a story!

Americans are very interested in hearing and seeing what Thompson is objecting too!

 

“It’s hard to overstate the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly,” Thompson said in a statement.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/hill-politics/bennie-thompson-rips-mccarthy-for-giving-tucker-carlson-jan-6-footage

Just now, riclag said:

There is always two sides to a story!

Americans are very interested in hearing and seeing what Thompson is objecting too!

 

“It’s hard to overstate the potential security risks if this material were to be used irresponsibly,” Thompson said in a statement.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/hill-politics/bennie-thompson-rips-mccarthy-for-giving-tucker-carlson-jan-6-footage

Most of it is public anyway. You didn't address my point about the court case and house ethics. Furthermore, why only Fox?

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Most of it is public anyway. You didn't address my point about the court case and house ethics. Furthermore, why only Fox?

Its a law suit its not criminal in nature. They happen all the time! Imop

Ethics, meh ! They threw out ethics when Nancy wouldn’t allow jim banks and Jim  jordan on the sham committee  imop

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-bans-jim-jordan-jim-banks-jan-6-committee

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Its a law suit its not criminal in nature. They happen all the time! Imop

Ethics, meh ! They threw out ethics when Nancy wouldn’t allow jim banks and Jim  jordan on the sham committee  imop

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-bans-jim-jordan-jim-banks-jan-6-committee

That's because they were implicated in the crime that was being investigated. It would have been insane to allow them to be on that committee.

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's because they were implicated in the crime that was being investigated. It would have been insane to allow them to be on that committee.

Wrong! Read the article from Fox, Nancy wanted control of the narrative imop

“Pelosi, who has the final say on select committee appointments, said she's rejecting both Banks and Jordan to preserve the "integrity" of the committee's work”.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-bans-jim-jordan-jim-banks-jan-6-committee

 

Enough of this probably off topic 

 

Edited February 21, 20233 yr by riclag

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Wrong! Read the article from Fox, Nancy wanted control of the narrative imop

“Pelosi, who has the final say on select committee appointments, said she's rejecting both Banks and Jordan to preserve the "integrity" of the committee's work”.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-bans-jim-jordan-jim-banks-jan-6-committee

LOL, the OP is about Fox news being deliberately dishonest yet you quote them as a credible source. I can't stop laughing.

 

Keeping the fox away from the hens (the accused off the committee) is protecting the integrity of the committee. Just like a judge needs to recuse himself from a case he's involved in.

Edited February 21, 20233 yr by ozimoron

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

LOL, the OP is about Fox news being deliberately dishonest yet you quote them as a credible source. I can't stop laughing.

 

Keeping the fox away from the hens (the accused off the committee) is protecting the integrity of the committee. Just like a judge needs to recuse himself from a case he's involved in.

Stop trying to bait me into arguing with you about what this forum is “allowed to use” as a source.

 

 

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Stop trying to bait me into arguing with you about what this forum is “allowed to use” as a source.

I didn't. I laughed at the irony. Fox is an allowed source, I'm not contesting that.

 

I personally find Fox not to be a credible source, a view supported by the OP.

Edited February 21, 20233 yr by ozimoron

“If Speaker McCarthy has indeed granted Tucker Carlson — a Fox host who routinely spreads misinformation and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s poisonous propaganda — and his producers access to this sensitive footage, he owes the American people an explanation of why he has done so and what steps he has taken to address the significant security concerns at stake,” Thompson said.

 

Carlson has accused the select committee of “lying” about what happened on Jan. 6, and has boasted that Fox News did not cover the proceedings, or what he called “propaganda,” on live television.

In 2021 he produced “Patriot Purge,” a documentary series that purports to tell an alternative story of the Jan. 6 insurrection and features at least one subject who suggests the event may have been a “false flag” operation.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3867063-bennie-thompson-rips-mccarthy-for-giving-tucker-carlson-jan-6-footage/

On 2/18/2023 at 6:47 AM, Issanman said:

Makes one wonder how they can be the number one cable news channel for over 20 years.

 

Forbes:

The latest cable news ratings show that, every year since January 2002, Fox has been #1 in total day and primetime viewership as well as #1 in the key 25-54 demo.

I know some non-Americans who like to watch it. They consider it comedy.

Full transcript of the Dominion. Its a pdf download https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685956-dominions-brief-iso-summ-judgment

 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY OF FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLCAND FOX CORPORATION

 

It can also be found from the New York Times Link here

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

 

Here's a few other snippets that were not in the thread above from Roger Parloff Senior Editor Lawfare

 

The 1st 44 pages of @dominionvoting's remarkable brief, unsealed Thursday, in its defamation case against Fox News is wall-to-wall smoking guns.

In sum, Dominion alleges that Fox knowingly amplified election lies to avoid losing ratings to Newsmax. At Fox, “respecting our audience” and “protecting the brand” became the euphemisms and excuses for serving up the lies its viewers wanted to hear

 

"Carlson also feared that Trump could ruin Fox if it bluntly reported the truth of his loss. “What [Trump’s] good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.” 

 

“Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience? We’re playing with fire, for real. … an alternative like Newsmax could be devastating to us.”

 

Full tweet thread here

https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1627659279816658947

 

16 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

One of my relatives in Canada told me that he only watches Fox News, and gets the rest of his

stuff from his computer. I asked if He heard of Q Anon, and other sources in the computer and he still

says his new sources are better than CBC, CTV, Global news in Canada, or CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN.

He likes Rebel News and a few other twitter news sources so  he gave me a good laugh for my day.

I never had tv access to any of the others listed, but I watched CNN occasionally for a laugh. I certainly never took it more seriously than Fox, but neither IMO were a source of serious news. IMO the crown for serious news belongs to Al Jazeera, the one widely available news source not beholden to advertisers.

11 hours ago, amexpat said:

I know some non-Americans who like to watch it. They consider it comedy.

I used to watch the Greg Gutfeld show as it was extremely funny when it exposed the Democrats for what they are, but that was the only "comedy" show on the channel. The rest of the opinion shows were entertaining, but not particularly amusing.

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never had tv access to any of the others listed, but I watched CNN occasionally for a laugh. I certainly never took it more seriously than Fox, but neither IMO were a source of serious news. IMO the crown for serious news belongs to Al Jazeera, the one widely available news source not beholden to advertisers.

False equivalence. CNN is surely not perfect but not comparable to Fox News. You cannot cite similar cases as in the OP, of CNN knowingly  and repeatedly (no retractations) lying about an issue of similar importance with widespread evidence contradicting what has been diffused.

13 hours ago, riclag said:

Wrong! Read the article from Fox, Nancy wanted control of the narrative imop

“Pelosi, who has the final say on select committee appointments, said she's rejecting both Banks and Jordan to preserve the "integrity" of the committee's work”.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-bans-jim-jordan-jim-banks-jan-6-committee

 

Enough of this probably off topic 

 

Well sure they are both suspect in the attempted coup you remember the one were the sitting president sent a linch mob after the VP because he wouldent do something illegal for him were the sitting president tryed to destroy our democracy Fox News is enemy in my book they don’t care about the USA they care about grifting and the proceeds of said grift 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I used to watch the Greg Gutfeld show as it was extremely funny when it exposed the Democrats for what they are, but that was the only "comedy" show on the channel. The rest of the opinion shows were entertaining, but not particularly amusing.

Gutfield exposing the democrats. He's a shallow mouth for hire. As shallow as a roadside puddle after a shower. So, what are the Democrats?

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Gutfield exposing the democrats. He's a shallow mouth for hire. As shallow as a roadside puddle after a shower. So, what are the Democrats?

I've been saying it for years:   the right can't do political satire, and the left can't do the "hair on fire!" political urgency.  Gutfield isn't really satire, it's junior high school level insults, or "rank outs." 

But I have to take part of it back, the left has been doing well with the backlash to Roe being cancelled.

The only right-winger I can give credit to for satire was Al Capp, in the 1960s I enjoyed picking subtle digs out of his Li'l Abner comic strip.  But that was more than 50 years ago, and post-mortem word has circulated he was quite the odious b*stard.  Hear what Goldie Hawn has to say: https://people.com/movies/goldie-hawn-recalls-being-sexually-harassed-by-famous-cartoonist-al-capp-i-walked-out/

 

 

'I strongly disagree': Fox News host speaks out after company bans reporting on Dominion lawsuit

 

https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-dominion-ban/

On 2/19/2023 at 7:15 PM, Tug said:

I’d love to see Fox News after they pay dommion their 1.7 billion fine that the first 2 minutes of each and every (news) program they air should be spent telling their viewers they willfully lied to them about the election and betrayed the country in the quest for money and ratings an absolutely despicable group of sleazy $&*@ people 

What I'd like to see is Fox (and Fox Biz) ordered by the FCC to run a chyron to the effective of "WARNING: the information in this program may not be true!"

 

And today brings this: https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-dominion-ban/

The word is recusal, Howard.  I have no doubt you would be using the word frequently if another news entity was in a similar position.