How Is This Not Racist (PIC)??
images.salon.com — Fox News keeps getting away with this stuff.
GeorgeCarlin- 7312 diggs
- digg it
- Jayhawk05, on 06/12/2008, -182/+962Fox should lose its FCC licenses unless it begins to readily admit being a right-wing smear machine. Fox News: Fairly Balanced on the Extreme Right.
- daaaveg, on 06/13/2008, -10/+118From Wikipedia:
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a United States government agency, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute, and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current president."
So it doesn't look like they will be doing anything about it anytime soon.- stark2051, on 06/13/2008, -5/+40The FCC only acts if people file complaints. Why would you want a government agency to silence an organization? I know you think they suck, and so do I, but they have a right to say what they want, even if it's lame.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/13/2008, -16/+15Then i have a right to broadcast hustler videos on PBS at lunchtime.
That's right, obscene. So is Fox. - durant0s, on 06/13/2008, -1/+12yeah it sucks but your right.
- thcobbs, on 06/13/2008, -18/+9Oh, so it's racist to put that up there on the TV, but what about THIS?
Michelle Obama's Whitey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi6U811hxE - FuckThaMeme, on 06/13/2008, -9/+1@thcobbs - Yup, I'd say that's pretty racist.
Don't watch if easily offended.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/13/2008, -16/+15Then i have a right to broadcast hustler videos on PBS at lunchtime.
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/13/2008, -38/+30Ok, I'll take a stab at it... it's not racist because it doesn't touch on the issue of race at all?
This is exactly as Rush Limbaugh has been talking about for months. Any little jab at Obama is going to the the "RACISM!!!!" label from the left.- 5urr3al5am, on 06/13/2008, -30/+29you're going to get buried because:
1) you mentioned Rush Limbaugh without slamming, defacing, or slandering him.
2) you mentioned the President, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, (etc Republican) without slamming, defacing, or slandering them.
3) you show logic - gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -7/+25Although I agree that it was not racist, it was stupid.
The term "Baby Mama" although originating in rural black areas, is no longer exclusive to those areas. Not sure if you all noticed the movie with that title that is conspicuously full of white people.
However the term does infer a lack of affection, as it's typically used to refer to someone who you had a kid with, yet are no longer intimate with, so it may be demeaning in that sense, especially among conservatives.
Regarding 5urr3al5am's post.. I agree with the Rush thing, and think it's retarded that the race card is being played here, not by Obama's people, but by his drones (read: constituants) instead. Also, I can't really think of any reason that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice should NOT be slammed, and defaced. And he didn't mention any of them anyway, so the whole premise of your second point is false.
Bottom line... not racist, stupid. - pierrelourens, on 06/13/2008, -4/+12Regardless of race, the term "baby mama' is degrading to Michelle Obama.
The media doesn't call Cindy Mccain names, and they have failed to mention that John Mccain dumped his first wife after her disfiguring car accident. Regardless of whether this is racial prejudice, it is rude and disrespectful of Fox News. I don't care about the legality of this issue, but I make my distaste of Fox News clear because of incidents like this.
Why not just say, "Outraged Liberals: stop picking on Michelle Obama?" - esfisher, on 06/13/2008, -4/+14I would only say it's racist because you'd likely never hear Fox using that term to describe a potential first lady who is white. It's because they chose that term due to the fact that she is black that makes it racist.
Imaging you have two white lady friends and one black lady friend, all of which have kids, and you greet them by saying "Hi [name], Hi [name], Hi baby momma!". While it may not be racist in the context of a friendship, using such a silly term only when talking about someone who is black could definitely be construed as racism.
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/13/2008, -30/+29you're going to get buried because:
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/13/2008, -14/+3ahhh -- right.. THATS how it all works.. right!
- theodenking, on 06/13/2008, -1/+14It's racist stereotyping. Society expects politicians to be happily married, and yet Obama's partner is not his wife but his "baby mama"?
- ruddy, on 06/13/2008, -22/+1you stupid ***** need to educate yourselfs
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/02/se. ...
typical retard libs- heypetray, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Aaaand reported.
- jgtg32a, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Dugg down for being racist asshat but you did link to an interesting article.
MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: My baby's daddy Barack Obama. Yeah!
- stark2051, on 06/13/2008, -5/+40The FCC only acts if people file complaints. Why would you want a government agency to silence an organization? I know you think they suck, and so do I, but they have a right to say what they want, even if it's lame.
- unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -32/+206There's a little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT that might apply in this situation. I prefer having the freedom of speech, no matter how much others are able to offend me.
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -16/+11Jawhawk didn't say anything about silencing their free speech, only that while they are freely speaking they need to acknowledge that they have the hugest bias ever seen on television (compensating for something, anyone?).
- p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -6/+12Would you say they are more biased than MSNBC or less biased than MSNBC?
- Origin415, on 06/13/2008, -5/+15MSNBC has conservative hosts, it also has liberal hosts, and independent hosts. I can't think of any even slightly liberal hosts on Fox.
- StealthMonkey, on 06/13/2008, -24/+3Think a little harder, I know it hurts, but try.
Alan Colmes. - Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -6/+9Alan Colmes is no liberal. He's a fake liberal put on that network to make them feel less biased.
- DanMiller, on 06/13/2008, -5/+12Alan Colmes is a joke. Placing a soft spoken pushover in the position opposite Hannity is not balanced nor does it represent the opposite view accurately. Colmes speaks 20% of the show while Hannity yells and blusters over the rest. Fox has a great track record of choosing ill prepared liberal guests or drowning them out by placing them in a position where their viewpoint isn't expressed or if it is it's actively chastised. The representation of editorial as factual news is bad no matter who's viewpoint is being expounded.
- christor, on 06/13/2008, -5/+11The only "liberals" on Fox serve as human strawmen for idiot tough guys to knock down. Most cable news is rife with teh stupid (Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck are both on CNN, for example.). We all know that. But Fox is in a league of its own. It certainly ought not be stopped from broadcasting, but its popularity should serve as a barometer for our nation's stupidity level.
- OC73, on 06/13/2008, -11/+13FOX News has on far more liberals than MSNBC has conservatives. MSNBC brings on their version of "real" conservatives--e.g., Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson. Whooptie friggin do. On any given day (and show) on Fox they'll bring in Kucinich, Charles Barron, dozens of democrat party strategists.
Fox offers a much more balanced perspective on issues, and all the hosts will gladly take on any guest any day.
When was the last time Keith Olbermann debated someone with an opposing view on his show?
Exactly. - SidiousX3, on 06/13/2008, -11/+9I agree, it seems the majority of digg users are just liberals that seem to hate fox news because it has conservative views. Go back to CNN. And if you don't like it, don't ***** watch it.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7So anyone who doesn't think Fox is fair and balanced must be a liberal and must have a grudge against Fox news.
Have you been paying attention? This is not a conservative news station, they don't report news at all, they twist stories to fit the talking points of the day, they cut people off when they disagree with the host, they flat out lie repeatedly to serve their own interests.
Fox is not a news organization or i would be agreeing with you. The fact that you can't tell the difference means you are more biased than anyone.
By the way, i'm fairly conservative, but i have no respect whatsoever for Fox or even the ***** pundits you mentioned. - jamesLankford, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8"Fox should lose its FCC licenses "
you fail at reading
- EBFoxbat, on 06/13/2008, -13/+8li·bel : Law. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures or anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
You only have rights if they don't infringe on mine. I have a right not to be libeled therefore you have no freedom of speech to libel me.
The common use of 'baby momma' insinuates something that is not true. As printed by a media outlet it is libel. Fox will apologize for it then will do it again in no time as they have no interest in being even accidently objective.- bentman78, on 06/13/2008, -8/+7Your grabbing at straws there...
In don't see the comment as libel at all. He is in fact Obama's baby's momma isn't she or are you suggesting she isn't? - Futurejunior, on 06/13/2008, -10/+4Bentman, if you ever figured out pronouns you might have a shot a making an argument
- curtisag, on 06/13/2008, -0/+12Public officials and politicians do not fall under the libel law. Because they are in public spotlight, any judge would throw this out of court so fast it would make your head spin off. Even if fox had called her something truly malicious like a *****, there would still be no case. You can't silence people you disagree with in this country, that's what makes it so great. Read the constitution.
- EBFoxbat, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1curtisag,
That ONLY applies on the floor of the Senate chambers.
"*****" doesn't have an insinuation. "Baby Momma" suggestion they are not married and they children where conceived out of marriage (not that I would care even if they where). Writing something that is factually false and damaging is libel. Any news editor should avoid anything that is even close to the libel line. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Not libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._F ... - DrCyclops, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3If I'm not mistaken the epithet "baby momma" describes a woman who has born your child, but is not your wife or even necessarily in a relationship with you. So it's suggesting that their children are illegitimate.
Though, as far as libel goes, I think this isn't so much an attempt to defame the Obama family as it is a case of using black slang like clueless white people.
Right, dog? Word up, my homies! - mouthbreether, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Wow, way to back up your argument by stating that you are completely wrong. This makes you a failure. Go back to school and don't pass Go.
- bentman78, on 06/13/2008, -8/+7Your grabbing at straws there...
- ClosedCaption, on 06/13/2008, -4/+14I agree that it fits under the First Amendment but my only thing is that they continue to label themselves as a "news" organization.
- illwil, on 06/13/2008, -3/+10Revoking FCC licenses is not preventing someone from expressing their views, it is limiting the audience that would hear them.
Is that a violation of the First Amendment? I don't know. - esfisher, on 06/13/2008, -4/+11The existence of the FCC invalidates the First Amendment
- Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5freedom of speach means freedom to portray your message... it does not give you the right to swear or put porn on public airways so that children can hear/see them... its a freedom that parents should be allowed to let their kids watch tv without worry.
- sodoh, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1This would fall under Libel under other countries laws. The US is screwed up though.
Basically it is not libel unless you can prove malice. US media hides beind this very well. - Syphon8, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9Slander is illegal, first amendment or no.
- MalDON, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, but making racist comments and pulling them off as news goes past the line. I'm all for freedom of speech, but touching on a man/woman's race is just outright wrong, and even more so for a news agency.
- vladimirpoopen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
- Vash3001, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Indeed
I mean the dick holes at MSNBC usually say any off the wall thing that pops out Keith olbermann's ass.
So why can't fox make a black joke?
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -16/+11Jawhawk didn't say anything about silencing their free speech, only that while they are freely speaking they need to acknowledge that they have the hugest bias ever seen on television (compensating for something, anyone?).
- gilbertj99, on 06/13/2008, -10/+183"I disagree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
Voltaire- SpyDerMann, on 06/13/2008, -4/+42That is, unless you're Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, to whom the media says "I disagree what you say and good luck with getting anyone to listen."
- thcobbs, on 06/13/2008, -3/+25Also, in reference to a priest wanting him to denounce Satan on his death bed, he was quoted along these lines:
"Now, now my good man. This is no time to be making enemies."- cJw314, on 06/13/2008, -10/+1...and now, he's burning in Hell.
(too obvious?) - Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Does this have ANYTHING to do with the article?
You do know that he was NOT an Athiest right? There are to many Athiests who hold him as their champion of reason when they don't even understand what he DID believe. - rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Voltaire was a Deist, who lived in an era before modern cosmology or Darwin, a time when there were no scientific theories accounting for the origins of the universe or the evolution of life on Earth. He arrived as his conclusions rationally, and would have been amenable to disproof of his belief if presented with empirical evidence to the contrary.
From a practical standpoint, there is little of substance separating atheists and deists. We have no quarrel with people who have a different theory of the origin of the universe, as long as they share our assertion that the universe behaves according to natural laws and that intercessionary prayer is empirically useless.
Why would you think that atheists would only respect atheists? Chauvinism and prejudice are theistic traits, as theism divides the world into right and wrong, believer and nonbeliever, and then assigns inherent worth to individuals based on their adherence to one group or another.
Voltaire championed the Enlightenment principles that all people of reason should endorse: critical thinking aka the scientific method as the way to understand the world, rejection of blind dogma, belief in equality, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience; individual and political self-determination.
He rejected the divine origins of the bible and other religious texts, encouraged free inquiry, and was, in general, a humanist.
He was also the product of his times, as were inspiring rationalists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
So what? I count among my intellectual heroes theists like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. I know few atheists who believe only atheists have something of value to contribute to this world. I know many theists who believe that, however, and who are taught that from the moment they can store a thought. - heypetray, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I'm guessing you learned who said that from the cracked article earlier this week... "Most badass last quotes"
Admit it.
- cJw314, on 06/13/2008, -10/+1...and now, he's burning in Hell.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/13/2008, -5/+17Yes, yes, you have a good point... but Fox would smear you for quoting a French man.
- wuxia, on 06/13/2008, -10/+28They said it because Michell Obama introduced her husband in 2004 as, "My baby's daddy, Barak Obama".
Transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/02/se. ...
I dont like Fox either but, seriously, let's move onto the important stuff!- bbatsell, on 06/13/2008, -8/+6No, that was the after-the-fact justification for it put forth by Michelle Malkin.
Plus, not even close to the same thing.
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=870 - SuicideMouse, on 06/13/2008, -8/+4I was about to rip on you but then I saw bbatsell replied exactly how I was going to, well done.
"Baby mama" is generally a pretty derogatory term. - gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4SuicideMouse: Please tell me when this became a derogatory term. It's just a popular term. In this case it was used incorrectly, however it's not derogatory.
- keymanjim2, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3It becomes derogatory when it fits their politics.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2gn0stik, look it up yourself. "Babymama" is commonly used to indicate the unwed mother of a bastard - which, in our repressed, theistic society, is considered derogatory.
- bbatsell, on 06/13/2008, -8/+6No, that was the after-the-fact justification for it put forth by Michelle Malkin.
- koswix, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6It's not actually a Voltaire quote, but it's an excellent sentiment. I just wish the big media companies would adopt it as their motto.
- slsanity, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7If anyone feels like a history lesson today:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The quote was written in a book by Hall on the subject of Voltaire, in which she was trying to sum up Voltaire's stance towards a "rival". The quote does sum up Voltaire's stance very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#cite_ref-3
- slsanity, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7If anyone feels like a history lesson today:
- kgmurray, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Either way, we are all tired of cliche quotes.
- HitokiriX, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"It is clear to me that none of you are worthy of my blood or my life; but I will stand for you."
-Worf - HitokiriX, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1"It is clear to me that none of you are worthy of my blood or my life; but I will stand for you."
-Worf - ogisdan, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1depending who was saying what, i might fight for their freedom of speech. if a KKK guy was spewing hate speech and i were black, i wouldn't fight for him.
- unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
---Martin Niemöller - Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2and that is why when you and all the other people complain that their freedom of speach is in jepordy... that people don't respect you. Because you have to give respect to get it...you have to allow others freedom of speech to get it.
You don't have to believe in what they say to allow them to say it.
I wish I didn't have to but because of my audience I better make a formal statement and say I am not a member of the KKK and no I do not believe in what they say. - rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2This is not about freedom of expression, quite the contrary; the criticism is an expression of our freedom to condemn the speech of others.
It is also criticism about abuse of a taxpayer benefit - FCC licensing - which comes with certain legal conditions, which critics allege Fox News is violating.
If you receive a license providing financially-favorable access to regulated airwaves, and that license contains certain restrictions, to which you agree when you receive that license; and if you then repeatedly, blatantly and deliberately violate that license - how is it censorship when members of the public exercise their freedom of speech to protest that violation, and request that the licensing authority, representing taxpayers and their dollars, enforce the terms of that license? - unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1@ rationalist, You would be correct if Fox News broadcasted over the air
- gn0stik, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1onecrazychicken: I love that you posted that. I have seen very few people actually making sense and defending free speech here.
to everyone else, is our sense of justice so easily swayed that we need to silence an obviously marginal news network?
- unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8First they came for the Jews
- here2do, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0FYI: For those who are unaware. In America you have the right to say it (virtually anything) but that right doesn't mean that others MUST listen.
- luke16, on 06/13/2008, -16/+23And yet i still find Michelle Malkin hot...
- swicken, on 06/13/2008, -3/+11It must be a flaw in space-time.
- luseton, on 06/13/2008, -3/+20....until she starts talking.. :)
- JoeDiggsIt, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1She only says what the teleprompter tells her to say...
- p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3Yeah, but why is Aunt Esther on the screen next to her?
- MRCAB, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1haha!
- austinwpetersen, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1That's how they get you, they draw you in with the hotness and know no matter how much she lies into your face, your crotch drive is stronger! Haha!
- eggballs, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2She is one hot baby mama!
- thwoom, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3I would have sex with her, but I wouldn't tell anyone else.
- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -12/+53i don't think they should lose their license, just not be allowed to call themselves a news network. perhaps Fox Views.
- curtisag, on 06/13/2008, -9/+5While we're at it we should have a good old fashioned book burning. Lets go through the libraries and burn all books that don't meet our high standards. It's a god damn free country. The constitution thankfully protects us against people like you.
- PDubNYC, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3I be the next thing you'll say is that he is not a patriot because he says Fox is not an unbiased news channel.
Book burning, please. You conservatives get more pathetic everyday. Unfortunately, you still have plenty of time on your hands to rip this country apart, make the world hate us, put science back 200 years and wave your tiny american flags. - pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3for someone who cares so much about books, you don't seem to know how to read. i didn't say they should be banned or pulled off the air, just properly titled. there is no need to burn books, just put them in the right section in the library. you wouldn't file dr. suess in the reference section.
- gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8I had to bury every single post in this thread because both sides of the argument are full of bad comparisons, false assumptions, slippery slope arguments, and ad-hominem attacks.
This is has become the norm. No intellectual discourse on any topic can be had with these kinds of vitriolic attacks, and hence no progress can be made, on either side.
Although I agree that fox is more of a chain of editorials than a news network, they should still be allowed to call themselves whatever they want. We know better. Let them be the parody of news that they are. They are already a laughing stock and their profitability will determine their success or demise.
Here's something all you conservatives out there might not have taken into consideration. Fox News has done more damage than good to conservatism in the media, both in core values, and public image. Has it ever occurred to you that might be the whole point? Before the channel started, real conservatism had teeth, and credibility, and most republicans had a wildly different perspective than they do today. Now days, there are no more real conservatives.
Economy: They just want to spend money on different things.
Liberty: They just want to take away different rights.
Rupert Murdoch is not the conservative's friend people. He hired the biggest jackasses he could find to make us all look stupid, and get us to fall in line behind the new conservatives.
Think about what you used to value, and check it against how your views may have changed in recent years. There's your evidence. - alien006, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0@PDubNYC
Because it is a known conservative belief that we hate science? And also, we are all bible thumping morons, (well, actually I'm agnostic-atheist friendly). Also, McCain is willing to go further on with Mars than Obama.
- PDubNYC, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3I be the next thing you'll say is that he is not a patriot because he says Fox is not an unbiased news channel.
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/13/2008, -5/+8Before we yank Fox News's license, why don't you explain to me how it racism?
Because she's black, does that mean that any little jabs, even if they don't mention race, are suddenly racism?- gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Well I didn't bury every post. I dugg you Charlotte. I agree, not racist, just stupid.
- apothekari, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2Racism is hard to define exactly,Sort of like pornography, My personal definition is much like the one used by most for porn "I know it when I see it"
To me this seems racist because it belittles the woman who might be the first lady eventually you would never hear anyone in the MSM say this about Barbara or Laura Bush OR Rosalyn Carter or Hillary Clinton it is a well known term invented by black folks of a certain economic level.It would be the same as Inbred or white trash jokes being tossed at Hillary because she was from Arkansas.
You can bury me if you want but gn0stik has it about right in my opinion I used to have a great many friends on the right and now ALL of them consider themselves independents my views of things haven't changed over the years{ I am fiscally conservative socially liberal} neither have my friends, but the RESPECTFUL HONORABLE conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan is gone and the wild eyed , stop at nothing to win fear mongering conservative of Joseph McCarthy and Karl Rove has replaced it.
We used to have a middle ground in this country and ask any true social liberal and ALL the democrats that have ran in the past decade or so have run to the right.NO republican has ran to the left AT ALL except perhaps Mccain in 2000 and Ron Paul now.
Public character assassination is the domain of the Republican Party now NOT Ideas and that to me is sad. - Alreadyinuse99, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0I would never have said something like that about Hillary Clinton. I might say she is a heartless, cold, manipulative bitch but never would I have called her "baby mama"
- unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1What do you not get about freedom of speech? Fox has the right to call itself anything it wants (so long as it is not obscene (per FCC regulations) and not infringing on a trademark. They could rename the network Perfect-All-The-Time Fox and be completely within their rights.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1they should eliminate the power of the FCC to regulate speech, as it is clearly unconstitutional. the FCC should only exist to protect rights to various radio frequencies and TV channels so there aren't competing broadcasts to mess up the signal. unfortunately, the FCC has become a political wing of evangelical christianity, out to censor any speech that offends them.
- curtisag, on 06/13/2008, -9/+5While we're at it we should have a good old fashioned book burning. Lets go through the libraries and burn all books that don't meet our high standards. It's a god damn free country. The constitution thankfully protects us against people like you.
- Hosalabad, on 06/13/2008, -26/+16It's ok to say it because Michelle Obama introduces her husband the same way.
Shut up race baiting subby.- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -10/+8[citation needed] She called Barack her baby mama?
Or are you talking about when she introduced her husband as "My baby's daddy"? You do see how "Baby mama" (incorrect grammar, common slang for woman with illegitimate children) and "My baby's daddy" (correct grammar, no such slang interpretation) are different, right?- gurudrew, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7But why not just introduce him as "my husband Barack"? Introducing him as "my baby's daddy" implies that their relationship is based around the fact that they had a child together instead of a relationship founded on love that grew into a family.
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5She does introduce him that way. A lot. This time she chose to highlight the relationship he has with his children.
- DanMiller, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1There is not difference to Hosalabad....
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1"You do see how "Baby mama" (incorrect grammar, common slang for woman with illegitimate children)"
You want to give a citation for that claim? Because I've never heard it to mean such.
And even if it did mean that, how would it be racist? Don't white women also become single parents? - DanaLynn86, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_mama
You're either an ***** for acting like "you didn't know it was slang" or you truly live under a rock.
- rdoger6424, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Okay. Can I call McCain's wife a *****?
- apothekari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Touche'
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -10/+8[citation needed] She called Barack her baby mama?
- whiterice0, on 06/13/2008, -22/+9Enough already. You've already posted this lame story once. Go find some other non-story to foam at the mouth about.
- keithb1984, on 06/13/2008, -38/+41This is not racist because black people say the same damn thing all the time! I'm sorry but if black people wants all things in society equal between all races, then they can't have words reserved for only black use!!! White people don't get that, Mexicans don't get it, neither should blacks.
Stop being a cry baby and realize that I am going to say the same words black people use daily because I view blacks as equals to myself and they dont have anything up on me, not even there vocabulary.- jdenzer, on 06/13/2008, -11/+19Do you even know what "Baby Mama" means?
It is not a compliment, nor is it accurate to refer to Michelle Obama that way.
It is like calling Cindy McCain a "junkie" when referring to her admitted addiction to prescription drugs- apothekari, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Or "Junkie *****" for that matter.
plus we are not talking about some one on the street we are talking about someone who's husband is running for president ergo she might be the first lady.
IT IS RACIST because you KNOW the intent of it being uttered and you say it anyway.
this false parsing shrugging your shoulders and saying "What...I didn't say *****?" is ***** MALKIN threw that out KNOWING who it was directed at.{racists}people who FEAR a black person becoming president.
Was she attacking her on a idea or statement or policy position she had taken?
Racism to me lies in intent not words the fact that I used ***** in my comment does not make me a racist the fact that I used it and am white does not make me racist but if I said it with the INTENT to rile or to upset a Black person,THAT is Racist. - mouthbreether, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3How do you know it was meant to upset black people? You don't. You're making assumptions. But now you're upset because Fox news is using the same type of language used by your beloved Michelle Obama.
You're just as bad as Fox news by having the "It's ok for one racial group but not ok for another", or in this case not ok for Fox news, attitude. Categorizing people by race and pitting them against each other is a form of racism. It assumes that one racial group is more/less privileged than another.
Hence, you are a racist.
- apothekari, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Or "Junkie *****" for that matter.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/13/2008, -10/+8It is racist. "Black people" use the term to apply to unmarried persons. The Obamas are married so it could only have been intended as a smear to marginalize them. Plus, it's Fox Knews--you know, knews from the devil?
- mouthbreether, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Well then why are you not bitching about Michelle Obama who used this language in the first place and started all this crap?
- SakisRakis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Your reasoning is riddled with fallacies.
- gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4Although I agree it's not racist, your reason is not all that great. Black people also use the N word quite often. Do you use that word in public places? I know I don't. I don't even use it in private. Not because of some false propped up ideal called political correctness, but out of respect for my black friends and colleagues.
It goes to offensiveness, and respect.
last time I checked "baby mamma" was not offensive, and hence it's not disrespectful to use.
However, it was stupid of fox to assume that it wouldn't be taken negatively, and it was stupid to think they were anywhere close to hip enough to pull it off.- vulapine, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The phrase was likely used to add a belabored rhyme and cadence to the headline when spoken.
I would expect that the word 'drama' will be used in something like "McCain to Obama: Stop all the Drama" or somesuch.
- vulapine, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The phrase was likely used to add a belabored rhyme and cadence to the headline when spoken.
- ogisdan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I can't believe people can be so unintentionally racist/ignorant. Keith, keep on fighting to make the N word no longer exclusive to blacks anymore, but also for whites and mexicans.
- juradosa, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0*THEIR vocabulary*
...clearly they do have "something up on you" since I know blacks who can use the proper their/there/they're.- Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1And I know blacks who don't know how to pronounce ask. Not all of them but the ones who want to have a self destructive culture and wear their pants around their ankles... its called a typo get over it.
Seriously though they go into a job interview looking like a slob and use such bad grammar that it makes the interviewers brain hurt, then when they don't get the job they claim its because they are black! Can anyone say reverse racism?!?! If there is one thing I respect greatly about Obama he is a good role model when it comes to speaking correctly.
- Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1And I know blacks who don't know how to pronounce ask. Not all of them but the ones who want to have a self destructive culture and wear their pants around their ankles... its called a typo get over it.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Straw man. It is unacceptable because of the content, not the race of its originator.
It has nothing to do with using "words reserved only to black people". I don't even know the race of the person who operates Fox News' chyron, nor the race of his or her manager.
The term is unacceptable because it is derogatory and uses a deliberate cultural association used to cast aspersions on Michelle Obama - and the association only has weight because she happens to have dark skin. Using that kind of term in that kind of context is a classic example of racism - denigrating a human being's value because you group them with other human beings based solely on the level of melatonin in their skin, and then associating negative traits to that class of people as a whole. In this case it is sexist as well, using a term exclusively attacking a behavior that is not equally condemned in men.
In any case, it is A) offensive, B) inappropriate for any organization aspiring or pretending to be a respectable news organization, and C) not even applicable - in other words, it is a deliberate smear spreading information known to be false.
When a "news" organization knowingly spreads false information, it ceases to merit the label "news organization".
Legally, the FCC licenses national news organizations differently than partisan propaganda organizations.
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to have a rational discussion about whether Fox News is violating the terms of their license and abusing the public trust.
- jdenzer, on 06/13/2008, -11/+19Do you even know what "Baby Mama" means?
- TimDigg, on 06/13/2008, -10/+31I honestly don't believe Michelle Malkin believes half the stuff she spews, it's all a game.
As a black guy, I could go to Fox and get my own show and I would make millions.
Since you know Fox would jump at the idea of giving a crazy right wing black guy a television show, they would promote him to no end.
Conservatives love it when minorities and women spew their trash.
Too bad I have integrity.....but damn I could make sooo much money....- jayscot, on 06/13/2008, -8/+9That is clearly sensationalism. Why do so many liberals (as i assume you are) assume all conservative ideas are trash?
I'm a conservative. I love my family. I want to live a good, peaceful and prosperous life as I'm sure you do as well.- thescimitar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7The term "conservative" is a word in transition. Few people could identify the difference by lexicon alone between Grover Norquist and President George W. Bush. By many definitions I would be a conservative as well, but by others, I would be exceedingly liberal.
The process of generalization is, to summarize Utah Phillips, a journalistic (and lexicological) convenience to marginalize individuals, who support specific concepts or ideas, en masse. When you do not want to deal with a specific idea, because it is difficult or obtuse, but wish to retain the auspices of integrity, you refer to the idea as a child of a group at large, and then marginalize the group, thus marginalizing the idea. - TimDigg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Conservative mean something very different these days then it did in the past. For example I considen Ron Paul to be more left leaning under the current definition of conservative.
Tim - withears, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4I can only base my opinions of conservatives on the conservatives I know (and, due to my work, MOST of the people I work with are conservatives) and I am very careful not to leave anything of value laying around.
- phike, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2conservatives/republicans don't always spew trash -- FOX News does. The left has plenty of trash to spew as well.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1He was not referring to conservative "ideas" as trash. He was referring to the trash conservatives spew on the airwaves as trash.
Things like calling Michelle Obama "babymama", for instance. Not an intellectual debate about the historical evidence in favor of or against supply-side economics.
It seems that, these days, a primary "conservative" value is practicing the same kind of amoral ends-justify-the-means behavior that conservatism always warned would be the legacy of social liberalism.
Don't blame liberals for the content-free hateful spew that passes for conservative rhetoric on the airwaves - blame those like you who spend more time blaming the opposition than holding your own people to account for their behavior. Clean house first, then we'll talk. I'm old enough to remember when I had conservative friends, and when my liberal heroes had conservative heroes as friends as well, all the way up to the White House and Congress.
The moral bankruptcy of modern conservatism is your own fault, not ours.
- thescimitar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7The term "conservative" is a word in transition. Few people could identify the difference by lexicon alone between Grover Norquist and President George W. Bush. By many definitions I would be a conservative as well, but by others, I would be exceedingly liberal.
- p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5Malkin never said it. Some clown operating the ticker did it.
- peggs82, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2That is true, in no way does any of that just happen. Graphics AD's, Producers, and Directors would have had to signed off on it as well. If nothing else the assistant director of graphics and ultametly the producer should share the blame.
- bentman78, on 06/13/2008, -6/+5so every black or woman who has conservative views is a sell out? Elders, Steele, ingraham, MKH, Sister Toldjah , LaShawn Barber (black and woman...that must really get your goat up), Amanda Carpenter, Ericka Andersen, Pamela Geller, Rachel Lucas, Colin Powell , Clarence Pendleton, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Louis Wade Sullivan, Condoleezza Rice, Alveda King, Deroy Murdock, James Earl Jones.....
The list goes on..
They are all in it to make money only huh? They can't possible have a view that leans to a conservative side of personal freedom and less government handouts (not a slur to insist all blacks and woman use welfare), and greater personal rsponsbility, no they just spew their crap because whitey likes to hear it.
You sir are a dolt..- TimDigg, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3Conservative as defined by Ron Paul is a very respectible ideology.
However, Ron Paul is irrelevant in today's conservative movement.
Today's conservative is defined by George Bush and the neocons. - p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2No. The conservatism defined by George Bush and the "neocons" is exactly that. It's the conservatism defined by them.
- rdoger6424, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1@p0s3r
We need to get better labels. I'm sure Wolfowitz could ramble for hours on the differences (if superficial) between his and Bush's philosophy.
Why don't we call the true neocons neocons and call Bush's style Bush Conservatism? - rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1The issue is not what they believe, the issue is what they choose to talk about on the air. Not conservative ideas, not substance, but rather ugly, ad hominem spew that exploits ignorance and ratchets up hate and divisiveness in America.
The moral bankruptcy of the public face of "conservatism" is conservatives own fault. There are plenty of decent people who are rational thinkers and happen to hold politically conservative ideals. But they are not the ones speaking on TV or talk radio - or in Congress or the White House. And don't blame liberals for that, you need to look to your own house before you caste stones elsewhere.
- TimDigg, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3Conservative as defined by Ron Paul is a very respectible ideology.
- jayscot, on 06/13/2008, -8/+9That is clearly sensationalism. Why do so many liberals (as i assume you are) assume all conservative ideas are trash?
- paalia, on 06/13/2008, -10/+4FAIRLY balanced on the EXTREME right?? what does that even mean??
- misguidedmonkey, on 06/13/2008, -16/+7Michelle Obama used the term "baby daddy" to introduce her husband, so clearly she does not find the language offensive. I'm guessing that increases her cred on the street, yo. Or, maybe it's just a fun, light hearted thing to say. Wait, I think it might be the latter.
I guess it's like black people can say ***** but white people can't.
Must be great to be a *****.- Ultrace, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4She said, "My baby's daddy," and while I certainly think that's an awkward and undignified introduction, there's a still a big difference between it and this term.
- curtisag, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4Split some more hairs why don't you. This is a non-story and a bunch of ***** designed to give people a false reason to be outraged.
- misguidedmonkey, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0Well, when Digg was cool, you know, before sucking on Obama's nuts, you would have taken my side. But since this whole issue is damaging your God, Obama, you take offense and give any excuse to protect him.
- Ultrace, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4She said, "My baby's daddy," and while I certainly think that's an awkward and undignified introduction, there's a still a big difference between it and this term.
- cawpin, on 06/13/2008, -4/+7To answer the question in the submission, the same way it wasn't racist yesterday.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Fox_News_Calls_M ... - mm911, on 06/13/2008, -8/+19You don't need an FCC license to run a cable channel = YOU FALE.
- unique172, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Just beautiful...that one's going on my wall.
- CrazedLeper, on 06/13/2008, -9/+4You don't need an "E" to spell "Fail". You fail.
- ErikHarrison, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5That is the funniest ***** I have seen in months, I want to add you as a friend just to read your other ***** comments!
- rdoger6424, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2spell it PHAYLE next time :D
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Incorrect. From page 1 of the Communications Act:
"The provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to cable service, to
all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable
operators which relate to such service, as provided in title VI."
Funny how, during the GOP primaries, all the Ron Paul libertarians were screaming about how Fox News should lose their FCC license because they were violating the equal access rules by denying him a platform (which, ironically, *is* something that is no longer required under the Reagan-era revision of the rules - which made Fox News possible in the first place), but now, the same "defenders of liberty" conveniently claim that cable does not require FCC license. Wrong.
- p51d007, on 06/13/2008, -14/+11Ok, let's take your idea to the other side.
If Fox News is "so extreme to the right", then how about we do this.
For every "right wing" news, talk, paper, blog we eliminate, we have parity and eliminate
one "far left" thing? No wait, to have "parity" we need to eliminate 3 so called right wing ones for every semi-liberal one. That's considered fair you know.
The reason FNC "looks" far right, is because they show BOTH sides of an argument.
It's just that people like you are so screwed up you can't tell the difference.- PhilliesBlunt, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2What two sides? The Presidents and the Vice Presidents?
- tragic8, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0This is so true... It's like having some kind of force pressing you from one side all your life and the all of a sudden it goes away and you fall to that side. Nothing pushed you from the other side it's just that since you are so used to leaning the other way it feels like you have to push the other way...
It's kinda hard to watch FNC without feeling that you are being pushed to the right because nearly every other station is so obviously liberal. Most diggers won't get this at all, but there are a still a few who think for themselves... - rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Fair and balanced news coverage does not mean putting two screaming extremists from opposite fringes of every issue together; it means attempting to objectively present facts and explain complex issues without overtly taking sides, and certainly without uncritically and selectively parroting propaganda from only one end of the spectrum.
It is sad that reason, respect and a search for common ground, which used to characterize both the political process and public debate in this country, have given way to intolerant partisanship, simplistic absolutism and hatred.
The difference between an extreme partisan view point and a moderate, rational one, in terms of news reporting, should be judged by the way reality is interpreted through the lens of the reporting - not by blaming reality itself for having a "well-known liberal bias".
I am sure you would argue that covering news about global warming is evidence of a liberal bias - but covering news about global warming is merely responsible journalism reporting on the conclusions of a global consensus of expert scientists, as well as reporting on actual evidence of the results of climate change on the Earth. And, yes, responsible journalists also give room for dissenting voices to be heard. And, one of the common standards of journalistic practice is to openly reveal conflicts of interest such as funding from a partisan source.
On the other hand, providing exclusive airtime to individuals paid by oil companies to pose as legitimate skeptics - without *ever* revealing the fact that the "dissenters" are, in fact, paid not to be objective, that is an example of bias.
It would be wrong it it were perpetrated on the left as it is when it is perpetrated on the right. It just so happens that, these days, what used to be extreme rabid right has now become mainstream; that is, that it is commonly accepted that, in order to promote supposedly righteous ideas, it is legitimate to pursue any means. In journalism, that means lying, deceiving and abusing the public trust.
That is unfortunate. Yes, there are fringe outlets on the far left that do the same thing, such as communist rags - but they do not have a mainstream outlet, and are largely dismissed and disrespected by traditional journalists. On the other hand, the Right celebrates, promotes and presents as its sole spokespeople hatemongers, paid shills and Barnum-esque conmen.
Your beef should be with a movement that tolerates Fox News as its champion, not with a reasonable public that rejects the notion that the truth lies only on one side of the aisle. In other words, blame yourself for not standing up to the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Michele Malkin when they knowingly and deliberately speak lies.
- Tomchei, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Keep in mind that Fox news is only available via subscription (i.e., cable, satellite) and the decency rules are more lax on that area.
- withears, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Let's make Michelle Malkin move again.
- withears, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8Terrorist Fist Jab!!!!!
- JettaMan, on 06/13/2008, -7/+5Uh, how is that racist? Could someone point out the part of that screen shot that is supposed to be racist?
- kanabiis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Baby Momma refers to a woman who had your child out of wedlock, and who you are no longer with in a relationship capacity. It started as slang directly from the 'ghetto' and is often used in a derogatory manner.
This is absolutely the opposite of Michelle Obama, who has been married to Barak for 16 years, and both of their young daughters were born during their marriage, and not out of wedlock.
It is also quite interesting that Michelle Obama is somehow Baraks baby mamma, while Cindy McCain has never received the same title. Care to attempt to justify that?- Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1This is NOT racist... it is false and slandering... but I fail to see the RACEism.
On another note... I really think Fox news is shooting themselves in the foot... there is NO way that this is ever going to hurt Obamas campaign...if anything it just helped it ALOT... sometimes i wonder if Fox isn't really liberal but act like conservatives to put a bad light on them. - JettaMan, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2So saying momma is racist. Wow. Have the PC crowd really lost their minds this badly?
- MRCAB, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1it's not racist! it's just FOX news trying to be hip. Lots of people use this to describe the mother of a child.
I just heard some mexican kids out in the ally the other night calling each other "*****".. what's up with that?! LOL
- Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1This is NOT racist... it is false and slandering... but I fail to see the RACEism.
- kanabiis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Baby Momma refers to a woman who had your child out of wedlock, and who you are no longer with in a relationship capacity. It started as slang directly from the 'ghetto' and is often used in a derogatory manner.
- kokapeli, on 06/13/2008, -6/+9This is not an issue. Michelle Obama referred to Barack as her baby daddy. It's hypocritical to say that Fox is racist when she opened the door to the terminology. you guys should really care about something more important.
- kanabiis, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Just like you can call your wife a bitch, but I cant.... same principle....
- suedeb, on 06/13/2008, -5/+6misleading headline. go ahead and bury me liberals, but fox news is simply using a catchphrase that has already been thrown out by society and other various media sources. most liberals don't like fox news so of course they're going to pick on them for lame ***** like this. it's like the time when, when in a speech, obama referred to his grandma as "a typical white women." all you liberals are probably okay with that statement but if mccain were to turn around and harmlessly use the phrase "typical black person" you'd all be up in arms. same thing with this caption there on fox. anyone other news organization uses it and you'd probably let it slide.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2If the CNN chyron referred to John McCain as "the bastard son of an illegal immigrant", would you make the same argument?
"Babymama" refers to the unwed mother of an illegitimate child - and primarily, specifically in the black community.
Since the chyron made it seem that Barack Obama was defending Michelle using that term himself, it was doubly offensive.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2If the CNN chyron referred to John McCain as "the bastard son of an illegal immigrant", would you make the same argument?
- km6847, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6You might want to get an education about the FCC and 'licenses' before putting such stupidity on Digg. Fox News is a cable news channel. They have no FCC 'license' to speak of. Only broadcast channels are licensed. And, even if they did have a license, the FCC has no domain over the style or content of programming beyond indecency.
You should stop looking to the government to solve your problems.- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Incorrect. Read page 1 of the Communication Act.
- km6847, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Which Communication Act? 1934 or Telecommunication Act of 1996? What part? What's incorrect? I gave up on mind reading buddy. Regardless, I am right.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Incorrect. Read page 1 of the Communication Act.
- CaptUnderpants, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2Isn't Michelle Malkin African-American?
Then, by definition, nothing she says can be racist.- Nitesmoke, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1no, shes asian
- bicyclethief, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2No, I think they disavowed her long ago.
- Nitesmoke, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1no, shes asian
- alien006, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5Extreme right... k. You're probably so far off center that a little right of mainstream seems extreme right. You bitch about bias, have you ever been to the Huffington Post? I bet you have considering it's on the front of Digg everyday, that is what we call biased. But this is digg, and it is full of college kids so everything dugg up is inherently liberal. And oh yeah, Fox News should lose its FCC licenses, that buddy is the First Amendment you should know plenty about that. Also Fox News is the 7th rated cable network, while your kind of programming (MSNBC - bet you're a huge Olbermann fan) is ranked 27th.
Commence digging down.- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Huffington Post is group opinion blog on the Web, it is not a news outlet on television. It does not claim to be "fair and balanced" nor does it pretend to separate "news" from "commentary", and claim that its "news" side is presenting an objective and complete picture of reality.
As for your assertions about Digg, they are also empirically false. You are wrong about the demographics of Digg, you are wrong about inherent "bias" in Digg, as it is merely the expression of the collective judgment of its readers, not edited or vetted by its owners. It is, in fact, far more democratic than anything decided by Rupert Murdoch. You are also confused about government licensing vs the 1st Amendment. There is no 1st Amendment requirement to license a corporation that uses federally regulated communications media.
Finally, you are wrong about the ratings. Can't find the link at the moment, but there was an expose about the bogus numbers behind Fox News' claim to be the most watched news outlet. Also, their ratings have been in a precipitous slide for nearly a year now.
That is not to say that there are not millions of Americans who don't still tune in to Fox News. Numbers of believers, however, have no bearing on whether or not a thing is true, or news is real.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Huffington Post is group opinion blog on the Web, it is not a news outlet on television. It does not claim to be "fair and balanced" nor does it pretend to separate "news" from "commentary", and claim that its "news" side is presenting an objective and complete picture of reality.
- jsmcbride, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Tee Hee.
"Right wing smear machine"..... That sounds gross **yuck**
But this sounds pretty damned over the line to me! - DiggDuggDunn, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3That's right!!! If they don't march the goosestep with the alphabet soup networks and claim that BHO is the second coming, they should be shut down.
- evilgourmet, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1You CAN complain to the FCC for "Unauthorized/unfair/biased/illegal" TV/Cable/SAT/Radio broadcasts.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
Complain -- lets see what happens ( I am bookmarking it, and let the FOX marathon BEGIN! )- alien006, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Really, what do you not understand about the FCC having NOTHING to do with Fox News as it is a cable network; my God you are ignorant, there are like 20 comments up ^^^ there about it.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Read page 1 of the Communications Act.
Ah, hell, here is a link for all you lazy ***** content to get your information filtered through a corporate Murdoch outlet, rather than apply critical thinking and act as responsible adult citizens in a democracy:
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Read page 1 of the Communications Act.
- cpizanias, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Didn't God/Jesus say something about not judging others "lest ye be judged?" I seem to remember something like that...but with a broad stroke you have just disparaged a swath of people in the same line in which you invoke a deity linked to a non-judgemental philosophy.
I'm sorry, whom is ignorant in this scenario?
- alien006, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Really, what do you not understand about the FCC having NOTHING to do with Fox News as it is a cable network; my God you are ignorant, there are like 20 comments up ^^^ there about it.
- richardpryor, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Fox News doesn't work for the FCC. Why do you think they are legally allowed to go against FCC guidelines?
- fool13, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2Michelle Obama is being targeted because of the comments she has made, ie: her princeton thesis -http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/13/michelle-o ... Those are a lot worse than calling Obama her baby's daddy but if she is going to patronize the black community she has to expect some backlash.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Michelle Obama is not the issue, the Fox News chyron is the issue.
If a CNN chyron say, "John McCain defends his illegitimate bitch", would you argue that his adopted daughter is just being targeted because of claims the Bush campaign circulated during the nomination race in 2000 - that she was the product of a McCain affair with a black servant?
My guess is you would express outrage at the inappropriateness of the smear appearing on the screen of a major national news outlet.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Michelle Obama is not the issue, the Fox News chyron is the issue.
- parkerconrad, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3They're a cable only channel. They don't have an FCC license, nor do they require one. The FCC only regulates public airwaves. And, thank god, only for obscenity....
- DiggityDugged, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Fox just released an apology video:
http://digg.com/politics/Fox_News_video_apology_to ... - kosser, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1this is obviously a tactic to unite people more with Obama. Everyone hates Fox news so whoever they trash, people will like more. it's an obvious tactic to get you to unite and justify this horrible candidate that will then introduce RFid chips and carbon credits. they know how to easily manipulate the public and they start early.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3You forgot to blame the Commie-Nazi Judeo-Islamic Reptilian North American Union Army.
- kosser, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1well you got a couple of those right: nazi and north american union...they both are part of the eventual control grid we will face and you idiots will keep denying it until it smacks you in the ***** face.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3You forgot to blame the Commie-Nazi Judeo-Islamic Reptilian North American Union Army.
- thatsmyaibo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3So if it's right wing media it's a bad thing but when Huffington Post has 30 stories on the front page of digg it's an unbiased news source? I'm not a fan of Fox News but this is as bad as the nappy headed hos thing and when that happened, digg raised a stink about how Imus should have kept his job. The hypocrisy that goes on here is ridiculous.
People are so concerned with attacking opposing sides that nothing is ever going to get done in this country. Bipartisan fights need to be put aside so we can better the US.- southcode, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0test
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -1/+41) citation needed for allegation that diggers claim Huffington Post is an "unbiased news source"
2) relevance needed when the issue is not whether Fox News is an unbiased news source, but the appropriateness of presenting a chyron implying that Barack Obama is defending the unwed mother of an illegitimate child, when referring to his wife, Michelle Obama, mother of their legitimate children.
3) ignorance exposed by referring to digg as if it were anything but a way for its readers to express their collective judgment, free of editorial bias.
4) avoiding the issue by deflecting attention to a straw man about "attacking opposing sides", as there is no counter-example of another major news outlet posting something like, "McCain defends illegitimate bitch" on their screens.
This is not about "bipartisan fights", this is about standards of common decency - which, at the moment, were violated by Fox News - as they, themselves, have frankly acknowledged.
If you want to "better the US" and get things done, I suggest you stand up for elevating the standard of discourse in the country, and stop defending indefensible ugliness like this.
- ScipiosLegion, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1there is no valid reason the FCC should exist it is unconstitutional. If you don't like Fox News don't watch it.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Citation needed
- taianib, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1all you left wing freaks would not know fair and balanced if it were up your ass, go read the huffington post or somthing
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2By "left wing freaks", I take it you mean people with minimal standards of decency offended when a national news network refers to the wife of a presidential nominee as the unwed mother of a bastard, then, I suppose, McCain supporters were "left wing freaks" when they objected to the Bush campaign spreading rumors that McCain's adopted daughter was his illegitimate child by way of an illicit affair with a black servant.
- MarkJaquith, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4The FCC doesn't have anything to do with cable TV channels.
- J3Holaday, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I was afraid nobody else realized that.
- CrushThemTorg, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Cable networks don't fall under the purview of the FCC because they don't use the publicly owned part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even if they did, this wouldn't satisfy the criteria to revoke a license. Any sort of content-based restriction must follow strict constitutional scrutiny, which this would absolutely not pass. Hell, this doesn't even qualify in the murky realm of indecency. Any punishment outside of normal market forces, would be a chilling effect on free speech.
Jayhawk05, please think before make the rest of us look bad. I hope you feel like as much of an ass as you've made yourself look. - neimanville, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1all i have to say is jews smell
- ithismythat, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Why is this racist? I'm not up on the lingo. You want to here racist, go listen to that crazy fool Preacher that Obama has confided in most of his life. And why is this site so damn liberal?! CNN and practically every other media outlet in this country is extremely left wing. They are biased. You like them because you agree with their view points. So what if they say negative things about Obama or he's wife. He's not President yet. How many negative things are said about your current President. Media outlets have bashed him all over the place calling him every name under the sun.
- jayb1rd, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1loled at "and why is this site so damn liberal?!". Obviously you haven't been around long :)
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1The issue is not saying negative things about the presidential nominee. The issue is posting text on the screen of a national new outlet suggesting that Barack Obama is defending the unwed mother of an illegitimate child.
How is this any different than when the Bush campaign spread rumors in South Carolina that McCain's adopted daughter was his illegitimate child by way of an affair with a black servant? Imagine if CNN had put on their chyron, "McCain defends his illegitimate bitch"? Of course, that is hard to imagine ,because CNN would never stoop to the kind of gutter filth that Fox News regularly wallows in.
This is not a left-right issue. This is an issue about common decency and minimal standards of public discourse.
Which USED to be core conservative values.
- FrankRizzo69, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Ok so when CNN pulls the talking corpse (Larry King) and Wolfy Blitzer from their left-wing smear machine it will finally be, fair and balanced!
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Please provide evidence of comparable example, say, CNN putting up a chyron when talking about the Bush campaign smearing McCain in South Carolina in 2000 by claiming that his adopted daughter was an illegitimate love-child he had with a black servant, and that chyron saying something like, "McCain defends illegitimate bitch".
This is not about right wing vs left wing, it is about stepping back from an abyss of filth and ugliness in our public discourse.
It used to be a conservative value to be polite and respectful and restrained in public expression. Conservatives used to rail against permissiveness and "immorality" that would result from lack of standards.
This is ugly, and we can do better, no matter what our political beliefs.
- rationalist, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Please provide evidence of comparable example, say, CNN putting up a chyron when talking about the Bush campaign smearing McCain in South Carolina in 2000 by claiming that his adopted daughter was an illegitimate love-child he had with a black servant, and that chyron saying something like, "McCain defends illegitimate bitch".
- moisture, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1pepper the FCC with specific complaints towards your local FOX affiliate.
- unpolloloco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1ummm.....the Fox media conglomerate has stations completely across the political spectrum.
- southcode, on 06/13/2008, -4/+0test
- southcode, on 06/13/2008, -4/+0test 2
- jayb1rd, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Dugg you up for a great comment and because you're a KU fan. Rock Chalk Jayhawk!
- crow22, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Apparently you're not well educated in how the FCC works. Allow me to explain. The FCC monitors content for obscenity. They don't monitor based on political alignment.
Furthermore, it seems like quite a few people failed to miss the "Outraged liberals:" prefix to the statement, implying that the 'outraged liberals' were being quoted in saying "stop picking on Obama's baby mama." Apparently there's no problem with liberals SAYING that, but there's a problem with people REPORTING it. I'd also like to point the lack of media coverage to Wright's sermons. Apparently saying "baby mama" is offensive but saying things like "God damn America" is not.
And don't give me that "taken out of context" crap. There's no pretense you could put upon that quote to make it any less offensive. - charm803, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I guess by their term of being fair and balanced, they meant that not only do they attack Obama, but to be fair and balanced, also his wife.
Michelle Malkin can suck it! - tyho, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Funny thing to me is all the Liberals thinking this is a big deal in their lives. It really is very sad that you are all so upset. It's like Liberalism is some kind of mental disorder.
If this is racism, what did you call his preachers words?
If this is just disrespect, then you get what you give. How long have you Liberals been disrespecting the current president and his office? Now you want respect for candidates and their wives. It's too ***** late for that, your collective irrational hatred has cheapened discourse for both parties and you only have yourselves to blame. - MRCAB, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1there should be no FCC at all, jackass!
- nimbleprune, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Libs have cnn and bbc....conservatives have foxnews....dont see what the big deal is
- da_bradler, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1The FCC has no control over Fox news. Fox news is a cable channel. "Fox" is the broadcasted channel. Fox is normally just small local news, while FOX news is the right wing smear channel. FCC doesn't have any say over cable channels since cable channels aren't granted public frequencies to broadcast on.
- daaaveg, on 06/13/2008, -10/+118From Wikipedia:
- tehbeermang, on 06/12/2008, -107/+88People watch enough Fox News to pull screenshots. Just quit watching. They'll go away.
- Diderotten, on 06/13/2008, -12/+50Unfortunately, some people watch it as their news source. Fact-checking and calling them out on all their crap is the only way to seriously combat them. Just not watching hasn't ever solved anything. Make no mistake: apathy is the virus that corroded the common sense of the U.S.
- jamesmcv, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7If it was a profit-maximizing strategy to produce quality journalism, the majority of media outlets would do so. The only news programs worth watching in Australia are shown on government owned/funded stations (ABC News and SBS World News). People are stupid, so poor journalism and blatant sensationalism sells.
- thescimitar, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9James is absolutely correct. If it was profitable to sell responsible journalism, the mainstream media would. However, the main stream media is comprised of a few very large corporations with generally modest profit margins. They can only appeal to the lowest common denominator.
High quality journalism, whether it be the Economist or NPR (conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter) is a niche market that depends upon consumer activism. The masses are not activists, they are apathetic sloths that demand entertainment. High quality journalism often results in murky or unclear conclusions, reportage that is unsettling or vague, and a whole lot of gray values. Infotainment "journalism" offers black and white values, easy answers, and explanations for any phenomenon, no matter how obtuse.
By their very nature, it is easy to suss out their cultural value, and easier still to understand why one is popular and the other niche. - akamurph, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1You're a d-bag.
- theredwhyno, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0Journalistic integrity matters very little to the corporate media, and it's no wonder why. To compete in the prime-time market with reality tv, sitcoms and every other bit of inane programming that passes for entertainment, news outlets can't afford to be 'boring'.
As loath as i am to say it, Fox News excels insomuch as its ability to entertain. People watch Fox News because it's interesting to watch the commentators (Bill O'Reilly, et al) get angry. It's ironic that O'Reilly attempts to discredit the positions of the Left on many issues with the accusation that "it's all just based on emotions," or by mocking so-called "bleeding hearts," when people watch "The O'Reilly Factor" out of such desperation for excitement that watching Bill get angry will suffice... - dafunkmonster, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2OR you could get a ***** life and quit wasting space on digg with this *****.
- Albear89, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1agreed.
- asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -10/+13Can black people be racist? That's news in itself!
- jzuska, on 06/13/2008, -3/+13Can they? They are some of the most racist people out there.
- asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5It's amazing people can't pick-up on sarcasm when written opposed to spoken. Reading comprehension can't teach that, it has something to do with the street-smarts lobe...
- BaldMonkey, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4You do understand that you are being racist when you call "them" the most racist people out there.
Oh my, the irony.
Just stop dividing people into races and this world would be a better place. - ghostoftomjoad, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2@jzuska, and if they were, that would be some of the most justified racism ever. We whites have earned our hatred from brown and black people everywhere
- akamurph, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4@Baldmonkey - you do realize you are being racist by calling him racist.
- BaldMonkey, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1akamurph, please explain how that makes me a racist. Did I group him with a certain group with a certain skin color or did I address him as an individual.
- MadOtaku, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4@ghostoftomjoad
I don't know about you, but I have never done anything to earn hatred from black people; hell, I live in such a white area that I've hardly met any. I also do not take responsibility for my ancestors (seeing as I wasn't alive to do anything about them, kinda makes sense), but even if I did, my ancestors were poor immigrants that had nothing to do with slavery or anything.
Quit taking the guilt of horrible actions done by dead people and acting as if you are responsible. If there is a CURRENT injustice, do whatever you can to fix it. But you owe nothing to the people of today for crimes your ancestors committed against theirs.
- jasoninoakland, on 06/13/2008, -3/+4Your point?
We're talking about the "Obama's Baby Mama", "Michelle said whitey", "terrorist fist jab" ***** that Fox News repeatedly pulls to engage their viewers at their base, racist level.- asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Sorry dude, I live in Brasil.. They don't make a translator for what you just said.
- jzuska, on 06/13/2008, -3/+13Can they? They are some of the most racist people out there.
- jasoninoakland, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8There's an outfit that posts YouTube clips that says "We watch Fox News, so you don't have to". I doubt they even have a Nielsen box.
I don't think you'll ever get Fox News to go away (there are far too many bigots who eat that up), or take away its license (we do have free speech in this country). I'd like to see a movement growing that relegates Fox News as a right-wing fringe station, a tiny step above local access. I remember in the mid-80s there were a lot of jokes about Fox trying to be one of the big networks. It's time we revive those jokes again, but for a different reason. - silverbulletky, on 06/13/2008, -7/+3It's not racist the same way that the move 'Baby Mama' that came out a few months ago wasn't racist. There were no black people in that movie.
- Ranvier, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Guess you didn't see the movie then, there was a rather prominent black character throughout the movie.
- silverbulletky, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3You're right.. I haven't seen it... and I'm proud to say that.
- Ranvier, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Guess you didn't see the movie then, there was a rather prominent black character throughout the movie.
- vat0r, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1Yeah just hide your head under the blankets and that axe murderer standing over your bed will evaporate right, or will he? Muahahahahahahahaha
- zombies187, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2They will not go away until we make laws against calling yourself 'news' if your organization is this objectively partisan.
- Diderotten, on 06/13/2008, -12/+50Unfortunately, some people watch it as their news source. Fact-checking and calling them out on all their crap is the only way to seriously combat them. Just not watching hasn't ever solved anything. Make no mistake: apathy is the virus that corroded the common sense of the U.S.
- Radishette, on 06/12/2008, -64/+43Fox is ridiculous. It gives me nightmares... or good dreams where I move to Sweden.
- sexMeUp, on 06/13/2008, -30/+1Fox is run by zionist jews
- luet, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7no
- sexMeUp, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0why is there such as obvious biased towards israel then
- luet, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Because the current conservative government is biased towards them. Current government does not like palestine because of the hezbollah. So they side with israel. Fox news sides with current conservative government. Nothing to do with "zionist jews".
- etnuts, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5scientologists maybe, but not jews
- sexMeUp, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0why is there such as obvious biased towards israel then
- luet, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7no
- orgazmo, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1Canada is closer
- GorfTron, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7More hot blonds in Sweden. Also, they have ABBA and Volvo.
- jeuhrn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Volvo is american now. Sry.
- kungfoolou, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Hence why Volvo now sucks
- GorfTron, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7More hot blonds in Sweden. Also, they have ABBA and Volvo.
- usafdave, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2Bye now!
- smittyme, on 06/13/2008, -13/+2I have the same dream...YOU moving to sweden, or canaduh...take the rest of the libs with you!
- sexMeUp, on 06/13/2008, -30/+1Fox is run by zionist jews
- IrishJoe, on 06/12/2008, -120/+1866Someone's baby mama is an urban term that refers to a woman whom you never married although you had children by her and you are no longer involved with her. By labeling Michelle as Obama's baby mama, they are calling her a whore and calling their two children bastards. This is the likely next first lady and first family of the United States. This wasn't just a comment that might have slipped out of someone's mouth. This was a chiron that was preplanned to go with the picture of the likely next first lady. What would the Right do if a major media outlet had a picture of Laura Bush and a chiron calling her a whore and calling her two daughters bastards? Seriously how do you think they would react?
- plimpton777, on 06/13/2008, -46/+232I was at level 10 on the outrage meter until I heard that Michelle Obama actually referred to Barack as her "Baby Daddy." Faux News are race-baiting neo-fascists, but to play devil's advocate here, Michelle Obama definitely shot herself in the foot with this one by throwing out the disparaging black cultural reference first.
Why the hell would she describe Barack as her "Baby's Daddy?" That's a term to describe a relationship where no typical social relationship--marriage, boyfriend, friend, lover--exists. The only thing they would have in common is offspring. Michelle Obama was patronizing the black community by using out this term. Regardless, Michelle Malkin can suck my libertarian *****.- Steinr, on 06/13/2008, -22/+13what's your source? Even if what you are saying is true, Obama and his partner can call each other what they wish, but for the media to do so publicly is very very wrong!! and racism.
FOX has to be penalized for this.- aladrin, on 06/13/2008, -11/+13It's true, but just because she joked about her husband doesn't give Fox the right to call her names, even if the name is similar.
If she had said 'My husband is a *****!', does that give Fox the right to call her a *****, too? It's the same difference. - Loonacy, on 06/13/2008, -4/+25http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/02/se. ...
MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: My baby's daddy Barack Obama. Yeah! - StealthMonkey, on 06/13/2008, -3/+9We must penalized people for exercising free speech because I disagree with what they said and I find it offensive!!!!!
Do you hear yourself? - sugarazor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3StealthMonkey - They have a right to free speech, but I also have a right to my free speech to express my outrage and hope that FOX's advertisers will pull their money from FOX News programming.
- R0am3r, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Penalized? Stop acting like a leftist retard. Michelle OBlama clearly introduced Barack with the following: "My husband, my honey, my man, my babies daddy". How does this make Fox the villain?
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"baby's daddy" is not the same as "baby mama". One uses correct grammar and actually makes sense, the other insinuates a lack of education, not to mention the obvious "she's not really his wife, they're just shacking up like those black people so often do" insinuation that Fox loves to make.
- aladrin, on 06/13/2008, -11/+13It's true, but just because she joked about her husband doesn't give Fox the right to call her names, even if the name is similar.
- chicoer2001, on 06/13/2008, -7/+66Can CNN call Cindy McCain a whore now, because allegedly McCain called her that.
- chadisawesome, on 06/13/2008, -4/+53I believe the word he used was *****.
- EatSleepJeep, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3Even better!
- curtisag, on 06/13/2008, -7/+7Actually, yes they can. Because this is a free country and we don't violate people's right to free speech.
- CircleFusion, on 06/13/2008, -0/+13curtisag, when he asks "can they?", he means without public outcry. He's not asking if it's legal.
And on a side note, I believe that would probably result in a libel (or slander) lawsuit if they referred to John McCain's wife as a whore on National television. - ialwayswin7, on 06/13/2008, -6/+0no one called michelle obama a whore so stfu douche.
- ialwayswin7, on 06/13/2008, -6/+0no one called michelle obama a whore so stfu douche.
- andbruno, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, they can feel free to call that ***** a *****.
- justaboutdead, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Slander isn't protected free speech
- jiqiren, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1You can slander all you want - you just might have to pay for it...
- shodanx, on 06/13/2008, -20/+7petty americans bicker on useless trivia
while the real issues pass right by
"militantly unaware" comes to mind
oh well, good thing we started selling stuff to those commie surrender monkey europeans and have a chance to service -when- the US will fall
hey you should feel good, you had a good run, 234 episodes
countries have a tendency to become too outlandish after 250 episodes anyway- cyberprunes, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3This is not useless trivia. This points out a LARGER and major issue which is the deliberate shaping of public opinion by so called new organizations to fit their agenda. Fox (and any other news outlet) should be held responsible for their subversion. I was in ***** awe when I heard a fox news reporter relate the Barack-Michelle "fist bump" to a possible"terrorist fist jab". What kind of nonsense is that??
- shodanx, on 06/13/2008, -18/+1petty americans bicker on useless trivia
while the real issues pass right by
"militantly unaware" comes to mind
oh well, good thing we started selling stuff to those commie surrender monkey europeans and have a chance to service -when- the US will fall
hey you should feel good, you had a good run, 234 episodes
countries have a tendency to become too outlandish after 250 episodes anyway - Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -9/+134You do see how "Baby mama" (incorrect grammar, common slang for woman with illegitimate children) and "My baby's daddy" (correct grammar, no such slang interpretation) are different, right?
- plimpton777, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Um yeah I see a pretty distinct gender difference.
- LBTS, on 06/13/2008, -10/+18First of all, plimpton777, can you make an attempt to unconfuse yourself and get your quote straight. You offer two quotes, one wrong, and one right. They have different meanings entirely.
A woman referring to her husband as her baby's daddy is hardly anything new, and is rather benign. What Fox did was quite the opposite.
Normally I wouldn't nitpik about something this minor, but clearly you based your conclusion on the incorrect quote.- hitdrumhard, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3no, plimpton777 is right about the meaning of "my baby's daddy." It is a woman's way of refering to her ex, so that no one confuses them of having any kind of relationship, beyond the child. It makes no sense for a woman to refer to her husband as such, unless she was insulting him (e.g., I don't like him today so I will refer to him in a manner that implies we aren't really together) or making a joking reference to people who are single mothers.
- sulthernao, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3baby daddy is slang.
baby's daddy isn't.
Not hard. - plimpton777, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1First of all, "LBTS" (Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Septuagenarian, I assume?), don't ***** condescend to me with your knee-jerk liberal finger-wagging.
Second of all, adding a freaking apostrophe and an S does NOT change the meaning of the phrase. "Ain't" means the same thing as "isn't."
Third, and finally, normally I wouldn't nitpick about such a douchebag comments, but something about your tone irks the living ***** out of me and I had to issue the critical beatdown. Your left-wing condescension is the main reason working class people vote against their interests and elect a douche like Bush. So back the ***** off and shut the ***** up.
- n3dm, on 06/13/2008, -30/+2I was at level 10 on the ROFL meter and couldn't agree more when they called the muslim's wife "baby mama."
- Naughtyme, on 06/13/2008, -3/+10You sir are a prick.
- sugarazor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wiza ...
- foofightrs777, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1I've heard that Mrs. Obama did say this. I haven't seen a clip or transcript of her doing so however. Can someone please provide a link?
- IrishJoe, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5She has referred to Barack as her "babies' daddy" which means the father of her children. If Fox had referred to her as Obama' babies' mama it would be extremely awkward and strangely colloquial for a news organization, but not offensive. Instead they referred to Michelle as Obama's baby mama which is an urban term mostly used the inner city African-Americans to refer to a woman a man had children by but never committed to and subsequently left. It's a disrespectful term and even if they claim it was unintentional they need to apologize for referring to the likely next first lady this way. They wouldn't refer to Laura Bush or Cindy McCain this way. A real news organization wouldn't refer to any woman in this disrespectful way.
- Quaterni0n, on 06/13/2008, -2/+27baby daddy != baby's daddy
- thetanman, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Nice finish.
- babylonian, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Maybe she was joking and being coy/ Are we going to hold how people refer to themselves to an equal standard to that of news organizations?
Are you also one of those people who is outraged that he can't use the n-word? - shadovvman, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1"What would the Right do if a major media outlet had a picture of Laura Bush and a chiron calling her a whore and calling her two daughters bastards?"
I don't know what the Right would do, but I'm pretty sure most Diggers would think it funny and, possibly, true. - here2do, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0This is a typical response for those who don't actually have any real life dealings in the "black community". Many of you speak as if you have been immersed in black culture, but more times than not you come to the wrong conclusions about the meaning of and the importance of the simplest of things. This term, "baby mama", is not meant to be derogatory, when used by blacks in the black community. It's simply meant to be descriptive. Sad but true.
70% of black females have babies out of wedlock and the other 30% use these terms about people they love and care about. With 70% of out of wedlock births, there is no doubt that almost all blacks personally know and care about someone that's "a baby mama". So, why not discuss why this is happening? Answer: You would then have to deal with your "white guilt" and liberal views. Welfare has taken the place of fathers and husbands. Now, that's important!
- Steinr, on 06/13/2008, -22/+13what's your source? Even if what you are saying is true, Obama and his partner can call each other what they wish, but for the media to do so publicly is very very wrong!! and racism.
- HanSolo69, on 06/13/2008, -4/+97Not that I don't agree with you on most points...but just because a woman has a man's child and he's not around doesn't make her a whore. Just a single mother.
- davidrools, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9The phrase does imply that it was more of a fling or a hit it n' quit it scenario, which is more disparaging than a single mother who had a child in a committed relationship that ended in death or divorce.
- desertDenizen, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1There's nothing wrong with single motherhood under any circumstances so long as the child is well provided for and loved.
- IrishJoe, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5You're right. I apologize to anyone I offended.
- davidrools, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9The phrase does imply that it was more of a fling or a hit it n' quit it scenario, which is more disparaging than a single mother who had a child in a committed relationship that ended in death or divorce.
- melissa1031, on 06/13/2008, -7/+35well put. memo to Fox: how about calling her his WIFE? It's completely ridiculous but then again we all knew that anyway. However, it still continues to frustrate me to no end.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12You are forgetting that Barack is a Black, racist, Muslim, terrorist. Hasn't Fox taught you anything?
/sarcasm - BECoole, on 06/13/2008, -8/+5Memo to Michelle: How about calling Barack her HUSBAND? It's completely ridiculous to call him your "baby's daddy".
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12You are forgetting that Barack is a Black, racist, Muslim, terrorist. Hasn't Fox taught you anything?
- Bmarofsky, on 06/13/2008, -36/+13"By labeling Michelle as Obama's baby mama, they are calling her a whore and calling their two children bastards."
WTF?!
You are almost as bad a FoxNews.- P0peRatz0, on 06/13/2008, -9/+11No, you are wrong. Using the ghetto term "baby mama" for Michelle Obama is tantamount to calling her a whore and her children bastards.
It also suggests that Barack impregnated her and then left her.
This is unbelievably racist of Fox News. They really need to have their FCC license suspended for this.- Bmarofsky, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3"It also suggests that Barack impregnated her and then left her."
Agreed, but how does that make her a whore and her children bastards?
Are all single mothers whores and there children bastards? - arjie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Bmarofsky: Well, the bastard part would be true, yes. The dictionary definition of bastard even. If the child is born out of wedlock he/she is a bastard.
Not to enter the argument on either side, I just wanted to state that the way the word is defined, 'bastard' is applicable if this is the case.
- Bmarofsky, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3"It also suggests that Barack impregnated her and then left her."
- P0peRatz0, on 06/13/2008, -9/+11No, you are wrong. Using the ghetto term "baby mama" for Michelle Obama is tantamount to calling her a whore and her children bastards.
- itzdiceman, on 06/13/2008, -24/+13Baby's mama is actually the PC term for a mother who is not married to the father. It's not an urban term. Usually it is used when the parents are not in, or never have been in, a relationship. I know you think it's an insult, but its the accepted term.
As far as the whore thing, I agree with Bmarofsky, you are an idiot. You are obviously a virgin. Just because someone has sex doesn't make them a whore. I know you don't understand, but some day you wont think girls have cooties, and you'll want to touch them.- reddoggie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Baby's mama, correct grammar and benign. "Baby Mama" slang and inappropriate.
- theirishcreme, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1"mama" is not correct grammar, however. "Baby's mother" might be what you were looking for on that "correct grammar and benign" thing.
- Mejari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2actually, "mama" is not incorrect grammar, it's incorrect spelling.
- JakobVirgil, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1the child's mother would be the "PC" term used by social workers lawyers and what not
not "baby's mama"
-JAke
- reddoggie, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Baby's mama, correct grammar and benign. "Baby Mama" slang and inappropriate.
- slantyeyed, on 06/13/2008, -9/+66since when is a single mother a whore? you just sunk your whole case there.
- dazparkour, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2That isn't his case - that is what the phrase has come to insinuate.
If I called you a fr
- dazparkour, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2That isn't his case - that is what the phrase has come to insinuate.
- plimpton777, on 06/13/2008, -46/+232I was at level 10 on the outrage meter until I heard that Michelle Obama actually referred to Barack as her "Baby Daddy." Faux News are race-baiting neo-fascists, but to play devil's advocate here, Michelle Obama definitely shot herself in the foot with this one by throwing out the disparaging black cultural reference first.
