digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at alternet.org

Why I Called Fox News "Propoganda" Live on Fox News

alternet.org — I ripped into Fox "News" while on a Fox "News" morning show last week. I thought I'd answer a bunch of questions people had about the incident.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -29/+435The jesters are making a stand while the press fails at it's responsibility to the public.
    • DeadFrost, on 02/29/2008, -9/+51I miss the days of reporting where the news casters actually did research on the subject at hand and were better prepared with the questions they asked their guests. The caliber of the media in this day and age leaves little to be desired.
      • RoboHobo, on 02/29/2008, -7/+65I'd say it leaves a lot to be desired.
        • DeadFrost, on 02/29/2008, -22/+10No, I mean little...meaning I have little desire to watch low caliber reporters whose soul purpose is to look good on TV and not bother to gain Intel on what they're reporting about. They could give a damn about whats being discussed/reported about as long as they get a paycheck. They are just media meat puppets.
          • SlyMm, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9They are..wtf, why are you being dugg down? Do the masses here have a reading comprehension problem or something? TV news...especially cable news is inundated by pseudo-actors nowadays in a disturbingly large way. From what i see on the major American networks anyway.. save for like jack cafferty and that Aussie cnn guy in Iraq. If i want a little truth i read the newspaper or watch my local CBC news for the non-***** version of the truth; no crazy ass religious base to worry about offending here, nor is there a war-mongering base, and we aren't bogged down except in Afghanistan..the cold hard truth of which is reported to the people.
        • FTLJohnson, on 02/29/2008, -20/+4Hrm, I thought the expression "little to be desired" meant just that... Little to be desired. For Example... Jessica Alba, Simpson, and Biel in a room would be a "lot to be desired". Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity would be very "little to be desired". If we are left with little to be desired (which has been shortened to drop the word "with" ... Then all we have is a room full of right-wing pundit ass-bags. I'd prefer the room that leaves a lot to be desired... (Is that even an expression ? It doesn't make much sense) and take some time with the Jessicas.
          • Angostura, on 02/29/2008, -0/+16The entire phrase is it "leaves a lot to be desired". The "leaves" is important.
          • DeadFrost, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Thank you for that...someone understood what I was saying!
          • FTLJohnson, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1and your PROOF on that?

            There are just as many hits on "leaves a little to be desired". The LEAVES part is very important. It indicates (at least in my mind) what you are LEFT with.... A little to be desired... or a lot!
          • stratosonic, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1semantics?
          • MWeather, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Just Google "a lot to be desired" or "little to be desired." The common usage is to precede it with "leaves".
        • DJMack, on 02/29/2008, -0/+10RoboHobo and Angostura are right. I understand what you meant, DeadFrost, but that's not the actual meaning of the idiom. When something "leaves something to be desired," this means it is not as good as you would like/desire it to be. Therefore, you desire something more. So if you say something leaves "little" to be desired, that means it's pretty good and you expect little else. But if you say something leaves "much" or "a lot" to be desired, that means it's pretty bad and you expect much better.

          See: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/leave+somethin ...

          I hate to fall into a trap of misusing an idiom myself, so I'm only trying to be helpful!
          • DeadFrost, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Learn something new every day...Thanks DJ!
      • cawpin, on 02/29/2008, -34/+15FTA, "I didn't say what I said in order to get attention."

        No, you just submitted it to Digg to get attention a week after it happened. You proved nothing except that you can play at the same low level that you were criticizing.
        • buhbyebot, on 02/29/2008, -6/+21Wait, what? Fox news has been brainwashing people for years to think one way. They have an agenda. Don't beat this person down, as if he is doing the same thing they have been doing.
          • oldhick, on 02/29/2008, -5/+6Why isn't he? He has his opinion and he's pushing it just like FOX. Screw 'em both I'll think for myself.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Well, there is hope that if the US Dollar sinks low enough for long enough,
            it will undermine the E.U.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=D ...
          • norman619, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3An individual. I salute you and Digg you up.
          • norman619, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2@buh:

            Sorry but he IS doing the same thing. It doesn't matter how long the other guy has been doing it. What matters is the he is guilty of the same *****.
          • heypetray, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1@Norman:

            He's a comedian. They're a "Fair and Balanced" national news source. You wanna talk principles? Look at context.
        • nitramlliw, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8well, considering the author didn't submit it to Digg, you're a ***** moron.
      • tomservo51, on 03/01/2008, -2/+4Does this guy think he's famous? I don't get it.
        • bayviews, on 03/01/2008, -3/+3no, he thinks he has balls, and that's the funny part
      • airburst, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2When were those days? The media has always been beholden to corporate interests. If anything I think it was worse in the past. With so many sources of information today these tactics are very visible yet they are still rampant.
    • FreddieD, on 02/29/2008, -4/+24The only thing I found really funny was the fat ugly chick at the bottom try to get a word in edgewise to defend the station.
      • tomservo51, on 03/01/2008, -4/+1Yeah, she was really ugly and fat! Good one bro!
    • warrenterr, on 02/29/2008, -10/+4damn dude, he's human too, lol, not a jester.
      • draegloth, on 02/29/2008, -0/+26your dehumanization of jesters is offensive to me.
      • Solis, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Jester in his case (as he is a comedian) is not meant to be offensive.
      • Bilabrin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I think the term "jester" here is a reference to Nezitche.
    • GregIsLegend, on 02/29/2008, -3/+16lol "well... I love fox news!" Even though though this guy wasn't nearly as articulate as montel was during his tirade, he still deserves a big thanks for going on doing what he did. We need more people to do this.
    • elegantjihad, on 02/29/2008, -5/+6It seems to be working well for Al Franken ;-)
    • kolobcreek, on 02/29/2008, -26/+14How can anyone watch keith oberman or paula zahn and call fox news propaganda?
      • Gerfervonbob, on 02/29/2008, -10/+11Indeed, there all propaganda.
      • citizenchan, on 02/29/2008, -4/+20Paula = dumbest person on TV. Olbermann presents opinion as opinion. Fox News presents opinion as fact.
        • codered1322, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2Paula Zahn is not that bad, she is way better than Katie Couric.
          • nitramlliw, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4someone should take away couric's right to free speech
    • skewer324, on 02/29/2008, -11/+5It's means "it is." Its is possessive. You fail at "you're" responsibility to grammar.

      But, I do agree, ya know, with the rest of the comment.
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -0/+13*****. I actually was thinking about that one when I wrote the damn comment. I retyped it like 3 times and still failed. Son of a bitch.
      • paperclipsNsoup, on 02/29/2008, -3/+8Oh *****! The grammar police! Quick, everyone check you're grammar...

        /sarcasm
      • diggimator, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I can has grammar?

        More seriously, maybe someone should make an additional grammar rule that allows "its" to be spelled as "it's", as if it (it) weren't a pronoun, because I see this mistake way too often. Whenever I'm reading in proof-reading mode, it helps me to mentally swap each occurrence of "it's" with "it is."

        However, people who spell "it is" as its, or gets you're and your mixed up should continue to be shot in the face.
    • Bilabrin, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8Take note of the new written nomenclature. Fox "news" always with parentheses from now on. I had the same idea and when I saw it in this article I knew it was the new meme. They can get a taste of their own new-speak for a change over at the Fox "News" network.

      And might I add ***** ***** ***** FOX "NEWS!"
      • airburst, on 03/01/2008, -3/+3Yeah, fight the man with quotes. Does it ever get tiring hating with so much fury?
      • bayviews, on 03/01/2008, -5/+1what a dolt
      • historicity, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1That should be their new theme song,"*****, *****, ***** Fox News" by Rick Astley.
    • Chris_F, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7Thats because today television news is more Hollywood than actual press. You get better news from the daily show.
    • moush, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1I'm pretty sure the press' job is to spin the news for the public to make it interesting. It never says they have to report the truth.
    • akamurph, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Wait, I must have missed something... you're telling me 548 people are dying per day for the past 5 years "because of the war"?
  • ichchappycat, on 02/29/2008, -34/+261This has been happening a lot on Faux News lately hasn't it?
    • Todash19, on 02/29/2008, -31/+3Are you following me? :)
      • jj101, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5Actually your comment followed his? Or is this a joke that I don't get?
        • xBDVx, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1I think it has to do with the pronunciation of the word 'faux' because it's close to the 'fol' sound in following, but not quite. So, as a joke, it doesn't really work.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/29/2008, -4/+40NOT ENOUGH.
    • n0xin, on 02/29/2008, -3/+38TFA links to Montel Williams' clip too http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/75800/
      • SceptreData, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9Wow, I never really thought Montel had it in him.
    • jaybird1905, on 02/29/2008, -12/+0I see what you did there.
    • Hobbes24, on 02/29/2008, -20/+10hoho, i get it. because you said "faux" instead of "fox" implying it was fake.

      that hasn't been done a million ***** times on digg
      • Tgg161, on 02/29/2008, -5/+6I hate Fox News too, but this guy's right about 'Faux News' being a tired joke.
      • HolyMan28, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5It's the first time I've seen it. Guess I'm not a super-Digger like the rest though.
      • ruddy, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2BUT IT WAS EPICER THIS TIME!
        i litterally rofl every time i hear it cuz its so damn witty! FAUX!!!!! LAWloCOPtORS!! almost as funny as M$!!
    • PolishLogic, on 02/29/2008, -1/+19It should be done to every news channel, not just Fox. They're all guilty of propagandist *****. Some are just more covert about their agenda.
      • heypetray, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5covert and nonexistant can look a lot alike
    • Strongwings, on 02/29/2008, -11/+5no it's just happening to them because digg can only focus on one thing. CNN and MSNBC and every other new network does it just as much, but since "Faux" is on the conservative side, digg goes after them first.
      • dgendreau, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Dug down because CNN and MSNBC are government/corporate shills just like Fox, they are just not as brazen about it.
      • Akronos, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Hardly... we know all the other media corporations are *****. That's why we're on digg. We get our news from the internets, not TV.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 02/29/2008, -9/+5Faux News...is that a new joke? That's clever. I've never heard it before. You know when you say it out loud, it sounds nothing like Fox News right?
      • BlaenkDenum, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Regardless. The point is faux = false, and taking that into consideration, one could take it as faux sounds as fox (Though it shouldn't).
  • thinman1189, on 02/29/2008, -28/+194I wish a lot more people would do this; and that they'd go more in depth about why while still on air.
    • jj101, on 02/29/2008, -5/+35They wouldnt have tolerated a second more before cutting to something else. But I agree it would be nice.
      • oldhick, on 02/29/2008, -7/+7Thats actually not true. Maybe with the name calling... But my sister loves FOX news and whenever I attempt to enjoy an evening with her family I have to endure the lovely FOX news channel. I will say I am continually surprised by the fact that they do invite people on who completely disagree with their spin on a story. I have repeatedly seen people with opposing views mouth off and to be honest I think FOX digs it. It keeps there whole "Fair and Balanced" bull-***** claim alive.
        • Velnich, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Any publicity = good publicity I suppose. Look at home many cartoons they run that frequently crack jokes at Fox's expense.
        • Me1000, on 02/29/2008, -3/+9Fox may invite people on that disagree with them, but then they slander their position and refuse to let them refute!
        • cersad, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7Me1000 is right, but they still have the safety curtain of "We're fair and balanced! Look at all the dissenting opinions on air!" even though the anchors lie about and slander their opposition.
    • chili555, on 02/29/2008, -29/+10>why still on air

      Why, obviously, the advertisers still pay for it. Oh wait, did you mean if you don't agree with their opinion, they should be taken off the air? Freedom of Speech for some, but not all? Those you approve?

      Nice.
      • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -5/+19Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of an audience.
        • VinceNoir, on 02/29/2008, -19/+6You're an idiot. What good is speech if no one is allowed to hear it? Turn it around then... why don't we just cut Fox News off all satellite and cable networks. They aren't entitled to an audience either. Oh wait, that's right... through some misbegotten notion that corporations have more rights than people, they are entitled to as many ears as they want, right? Heh. Idiots complain about "big government" but turn a blind eye to "big business". The hypocrisy is astounding.
        • BigW, on 02/29/2008, -4/+17No, freedom of speech means they get to speak, and we get to choose to listen or not. If I can't choose whether to listen or not, the n their speech isn't free.
        • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -4/+13You both missed the point. The point was, it's Fox's business if they want to cut this person off or not. They are a private company that can choose that. Freedom of speech means that you can go out into the public and say what you want. However, when private companies are involved, then yes, they can do that. Perhaps you should read up on the Constitution and see what it means.
      • imikedaman, on 02/29/2008, -1/+18So by being taken off the air, you somehow lose your ability to speak? Is that what you're getting at? Because if not, you seem to have a remarkably inaccurate view of what freedom of speech entails.

        You remind me of this one guy who thought that disabling the comments section on a website was a violation of freedom of speech.
      • redphone, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6@chili555
        What thinman1189 said was that he wanted more guests who make these statements to explain "why [they are making the comments] while still on air." I would assume he meant as opposed to explaining themselves later on while off the air.

        But, yes taking Fox news off the air for protected speech activities would be a violation of their right to free speech. Saying that the the speakers could just go to some other forum is not valid in this situation.
      • fantasticFlan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Hey guy, you cut a word out.
        He wants people saying these kinds of things to explain why they're saying them before their air time is up.
    • Velnich, on 02/29/2008, -8/+4It's nice that he said what he said, but "go outside and hug your children" wreaks of too much cheese for me. I wish he'd just slammed fox and then quickly listed a few decent news sites to use instead. Non-american ones for example.
      • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -10/+5Perhaps if you got off your anti-American bandwagon, you'd see that there are plenty of good examples of journalism here to. Think for yourself for once.
        • Velnich, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Stop jumping to conclusions. I didn't exclude other american news sources, I just didn't know what were the best ones to list. It should however be common knowledge (common sense?) that other countries report on the same incidences differently, high-lighting different facts and including some that may have been left out by other news sources. Instead of interpreting my comment as a slam against ALL AMERICAN NEWS, why didn't you fill in the blanks and include some local news sources that you'd recommend?
    • cbuddha42, on 02/29/2008, -13/+2Fox news actually has every right to put whatever they damn well like on their own chanel. They can tell you that Jesus won the Democratic primary in 5 states yesterday if they like. To accept an invitation to go on their channel live and then call them propoganda makes you an *****. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Stop acting like they have some God given responsibility to report what you think is important or even to report the truth let alone to include your opinions.
      • sporg, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6You are the ***** cbuddha.
      • TheCasablancan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+7Just to be clear, I'm going to look again at your last line, then cut it down to what I stood out to me the most.

        "Stop acting like that have some God giving responsibility..." "...to report the truth..."

        I'm going to go for a jog, then think about that for a while.
        • nreynolds, on 03/01/2008, -0/+5dude... think about it while you jog. you'll save a lot of time and running is ***** boring...
      • diggimator, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3I think there is an aspect of what the man did that was indeed questionable, because people are allowed to protest in public but not on private property for a reason.

        But you're also saying that Fox has the right to spew propaganda or anything else, but a guest shouldn't call a kettle black, even though they're both forms of speech. News sources are allowed to have poor editorial policy, for example. However what's legally allowed doesn't make it ethically acceptable. In that regard, both are to be blamed to some degree ethics-wise.
      • cbuddha42, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1Crap, I hate when my posts mysterious disappear into the nightmare that's digg's comment system rather than making it to the intended page. Unfortunately now you guys get the short version.

        sporq: That's nice. I assumed your comment meant you were upset what I was saying was true and distressed by the current state of society. I agreed with you that society seems a little worse of the wear right now though I'm not at all sure that's a unique situation (that's society may always appears to be in downwards spiral as of the present).

        TheCasablancan: I had no problems with how you cut down my statement and agreed it was a good thing to ponder. I made some comments about our reliance privately held media companies and then tied it to previous comments on the state of society and lead into the next response. I also agreed with nreynolds that you should think and jog simultaneously.

        diggimator: I drew a distinction between corporations and people. I then talked a little about relativistic morals and the ability to criticize others in such a framework. I defended corporation’s exemption from moral standards by pointing out capitalism's reliance on corporate greed. Finally I compared the actions in question to going to someone's wedding and calling them an ass.
      • Extraneous, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2I think my sheep-o-meter is going off the scale, *****!
  • Groovemaster, on 02/29/2008, -55/+220Good to know there are still heroes in America.
    • ChocChunkOaties, on 02/29/2008, -10/+32R.I.P Bill Hicks, Hunter S Thompson & Richard Pryor. Their legacies live on.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/29/2008, -31/+10Oh please.....to mention this whiny unfunny douche on the same page as Bill Hicks is ridiculous.
        • rationalist, on 02/29/2008, -9/+11Someone should do a collection of the profoundly intellectual user names of right wing assholes. It would be a thing of beauty.
        • VinceNoir, on 02/29/2008, -3/+13He wasn't being funny Mr Douche. He was pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes. Apparently, you're bothered by naked truth.
        • oldhick, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I admire and respect what this kid did, but I have to agree that he shouldn't be compared with Bill Hicks. Bill Hicks was a legend and made a career out of anti-establishment rants. This kid did one interview. Its just a little early to place him with the likes of Bill Hicks. And I love Bill Hicks for more than his last name!
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5Kurt Vonnegut.
    • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -10/+26Go to a firestation and you'll see them all over the place, you just haven't been looking around.
      • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -9/+7Wow, I've been getting dugg down for that eh? I'm very disappointed in you all.
        • draegloth, on 02/29/2008, -4/+9you're dug down for the facile sympathy grab for firemen.. yeah, we all know they have dangerous jobs and save people's lives, but they've been turned into propaganda just like the american flag lapel pins and magnetic yellow ribbons.
          • Wargalas, on 02/29/2008, -8/+7Juts because they've been "turned into propaganda", does that mean that they aren't heroes? I'm saying take a look around, you'll find heroes all over the place. Just take off the anti-American glasses once, and you'll see.
    • SuperVepr308, on 02/29/2008, -15/+27Oh, the courage it must have taken...*eye roll*
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -7/+29In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
        • SuperVepr308, on 02/29/2008, -7/+1I am a flaming Socialist- George Orwell
      • Xondar, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Read the article before you comment. The guy was fairly sure his career would be ruined if he slammed Fox "News" on the air. It did take quite a bit of courage to risk his livelihood, his career, what he loves doing.
      • opiniastrous, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2I doubt you would have rocked the boat in that situation.
    • jetboyterp, on 02/29/2008, -13/+19Sad to know that there's people like you who actually think of this guy as a "hero"...what a set of values you must have.
      • yfguitarist, on 02/29/2008, -9/+5On digg this guy is a bigger hero than soldiers, firefighters, police officers...
        • Groovemaster, on 02/29/2008, -8/+5He's definitely a bigger hero than soldiers who subserviently fight in a war of aggression against a nation that posed no threat whatsoever to America.

          Heroes don't follow. They lead.
        • JBish828, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Whoa, Groovemaster. Why don't you sit this round out? Take a breather...
      • JBish828, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Even if his motive was noble, he came across looking like a young, snarky punk.
        • skinturtle, on 03/01/2008, -1/+0Oh give me a break..it was so bad for him to come off as a snarky punk for ..what?..10 secs? But's it's ok for those trash weasels to spew their corporate agenda into peoples mind everyday.

          I see him as a kind of a "Neo" against a corporate "Matrix". People need to be shaken awake.
    • mongo12357, on 02/29/2008, -5/+16You're confusing the term "hero" with "tubthumper". Your application of the word "hero" to a self-promoting, and ridiculously ineffective presenter of ideas. His counterpart on the conservative side is/was Mark Hyman, who's "The Point" for Sinclair Media was also a poorly presented diatribe that was all opinion, and very little fact design to fire up an ill-informed constituency. Whether you are liberal, conservative, or defy classification, do your own evaluation of alternative views from either side and reach an informed opinion. Knuckleheads like this won't help you.
      • geddon, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1You can hear the results in mainstream music and politics -- the most radical of which call for a Revolution which seems to be based on the belief that "You guys suck." YOU SUCK, YOU HEAR ME? Meanwhile, everyone raises their fists and calls for them to be dethroned because they SUCK. Without an actual idea, however, we're doomed by a void which will surely be filled by someone else who sucks.
      • heypetray, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Pissin' The Niiiight Away~~~!!!
    • ronaldinho, on 02/29/2008, -3/+6It's quite ironic that comedians felt more compelled to get real on American issues than most of the rest of the media. Damn these guys should be the least likely to get real! Props for trashing Fox live, still feeling sad for the many sheep out there.....
      • JBish828, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Real American issues like the credibility of Fox News?
    • designer, on 02/29/2008, -5/+9How about the men and women in The United States Armed Forces.
    • PixelMagic, on 02/29/2008, -6/+3You forgot George W. He's a hero.
    • turner050, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1pfffft
    • tomservo51, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1This guy clearly has self-control issues.
  • bohemianowl, on 02/29/2008, -27/+18right on! Mainstream Media thinks they control what people think.
    • rokinroj, on 02/29/2008, -4/+27don't kid yourself...sadly, for the vast majority, they still do.
    • ownwonnow, on 02/29/2008, -4/+7Digg certainly has you drinking the kool-aid.
    • xBDVx, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6oops, you messed up there. You meant:
      'Mainstream Media controls what people think'
    • jm4847, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1I can tell you they don't control what I think
    • juicebag, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1FIGHT THE POWER MAN
  • Look4Truth, on 02/29/2008, -34/+176Faux, CNN, and the other *cough* "news" stations are a bunch of lying propaganda feeders . But hey, it's important to know what's going on with Brittney and Paris while they ignore the failing economy, ya know?

    What's more pathetic, the people behind the MSM propaganda machine or the brain dead zombies who provide their ratings? Hmm...
    • imikedaman, on 02/29/2008, -6/+19"But hey, it's important to know what's going on with Brittney and Paris while they ignore the failing economy, ya know?"

      Have you even watched the news lately, or visited their web sites? News of an upcoming recession appears all the time. Even then, everybody just ends up whining about how the news stations should *stop* reporting about the upcoming recession because it somehow causes a self-fulfilling prophecy by causing people to spend less.

      Here's one article that was on the front page of CNN this morning:
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/28/beck.commentary/i ...

      The comments section was full of people complaining about the abundance of recession news.
      • IndigoMoss, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Isn't it sad that you'll see tons of people complain about news that's actually important and impacts this country, but then goes around says how they want more Brittney Spears news? While I do believe the news stations are douchebags for underplaying a lot of important issues and taking time away from them to put into other, frivolous stories about some celebrity; they do it for ratings, because for some reason, people would rather hear celebrity gossip than actual news.
        • heypetray, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1That's perfectly acceptable in my opinion. That's great that a celebrity news source reports on celebrity news. It's not okay for national news to ignore national issues, while claiming they have 'all the news you could get'
      • grumpyrain, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Since when is sticking your fingers in your ears and singing out "LALALALALA can't hear" you not a responsible reaction to news of a shrinking economy?
        /sarcasm
    • MrZaiko, on 02/29/2008, -6/+2They say jump, and you say...?
    • Jade10145, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7I hear what your saying, but you have to remember that it is the audience who demands Britney and Paris. If the market didn't exist then news stations wouldn't broadcast this bull *****. Lets be honest here, most of the TV audience is made up of people who don't want hear something that will make them think. They want gossipy trash, so they can fulfill their gossip voyeuristic lifestyles. They want simple stories that aren't challenging. Then there are the growing minority who are sick of this ***** and hit the internet instead. Were a very vapid society, luckily there is a growing rebellion of intellectualism.

      Think about people you knew in college, a place that is supposed to be full of rebellion and questioning values. Then ask yourself how much your fellow students knew about what was happening in the world, and then how much they knew about where the next party was. Its sad, but again there seems to be a promising uprising a foot.
      • BabaRamDass, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5Well said. It's human nature to try and forget oneself while simultaneously entertaining oneself. This is why CNN, Fox, reality shows, alcohol, etc. are so popular. They help people forget their meaningless lives while simultaneously satisfying themselves. Thinking critically laughs at the face of this certain aspect of human nature.
    • robbob, on 02/29/2008, -3/+3"Leave Britney alone!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
    • RealHyperX, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2because you know - cnn doesnt talk about britney...
      • Pillage, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Wha!? CNN has much more class then that good sir. They also never supported "the unwarranted invasion of Iraq." or "knowing that nearly a million civilians have died in Iraq and yet then reporting that 80,000 have.". Nope CNN has never done that either.....
    • freedomwv, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1News reporting is not about giving people what they want to hear but about what they need to hear. This I learned this while studying journalism. There is a very fine line one must cross when deciding what is news.
  • Mothrog, on 02/29/2008, -131/+31A lame blog to follow up on a lame comment. What a choppy, poorly written mess.
    • chicofaraby, on 02/29/2008, -18/+75No rebuttal of Lee Camp's point, huh? Just your opinion of his style.

      We understand.
      • Mothrog, on 02/29/2008, -59/+14What's to rebut? All the imbecile did was say Fox News sucked in the middle of a broadcast in a slightly dressed up way. Nothing much to engage there.
        • chicofaraby, on 02/29/2008, -18/+17Sure. We all get it.
        • waynetheman, on 02/29/2008, -12/+70No. He called it a "parade of propaganda". Considering that propaganda is usually political, that Americans are pretty split politically, and that the current Presidential administration is clearly (and strongly) supported by Fox, I think it's pretty clear, even to the hosts, what the comment implied. That Fox News is a partisan shill for the Bush administration.

          Care to engage that point?
          • Mothrog, on 02/29/2008, -9/+3And the other networks are bias free? Give me a break.
          • waynetheman, on 03/01/2008, -0/+5I never claimed they were. Please don't lump me in with the usual "Red Team" vs. "Blue Team" hooplah.

            But anyway, then, I guess you're admitting Fox News is a partisan shill, right?
        • teh_techie, on 02/29/2008, -10/+4oooo, you got him!
        • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6I don't think he was trying to get him, more like reason with him.
          Watch for the bogus "Tu quoque" Hannity answer or an ad hominem response.
    • RedForemanTM, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Moth - there's a link within Lee Camp's article to Montel Williams doing something similar . Give it a look.
  • Todash19, on 02/29/2008, -20/+5You own.
  • scrushmaster, on 02/29/2008, -27/+9lol i like what the one dude replies, you "can" get all the news you "can" get on FOX news. Is he the antichrist?
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 02/29/2008, -83/+32Hey buddy your 15 minutes called. They said something about being up.
  • geddon, on 02/29/2008, -34/+7Weak sauce, but you got your point across!
  • paintpro, on 02/29/2008, -26/+3Pwned!
  • borez, on 02/29/2008, -42/+9And...the big swinging dick of the day award goes to...
    • ronaldinho, on 02/29/2008, -1/+9some male porn star named "Lead Pipe" on one of your foreskin-fetish porn video?
    • Augie1969, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2You, borez, you.

      Grats!
    • BestJaxx, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1Leave it at "dick" and await the buries.
    • borez, on 03/01/2008, -2/+1For any of you who don't know...and obviously you ***** don't :A BIg swinging dick is what somebody with balls of steel is called in the upper echelons of finance. e.g. somebody who cops a £10,000,000 bonus at Goldman Sachs is a big swinging dick.

      Therefore...well you work it out eh?




    • borez, on 03/01/2008, -2/+1More reading on the subject:

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big ...

  • rodeosmurf, on 02/29/2008, -13/+105Propaganda: not that hard to spell
  • nittanylion06, on 02/29/2008, -51/+122I am as disgusted at Fox News as much as the next guy, but his "ramble" was pitiful. If you've got a national mic at your disposal, I hope you'd try a little better at making your point. It wasn't funny, it wasn't insightful -- it was just lazy.
    • CryRightardCry, on 02/29/2008, -17/+21It's still a hundred times more than any other talking turd on that channel.
    • briguymaine, on 02/29/2008, -7/+27awkward at best
    • isaactwito, on 02/29/2008, -15/+47How the ***** can you say that? This guy is willing to slam an entire news network while in the middle of their studio, while broadcasting live. That takes serious balls, and if you didn't know, Fox News is a bunch of horrible propaganda. Not many other news networks are even close to decent, but Fox is straight up evil. If you actually submit to the Fox ***** and this inconceivably terrible administration then please, for the good of the country, die in a nascar fire.
      • nbyn, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4This guy is Adam Goldberg's character in Dazed and Confused (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0010603/); yeah - maybe Clint / Fox News was the ***** and someone should stand up to him/them, but the manner in which it was planned and carried out (not to mention the self-congratulatory blog post) just makes both Adam's character and Lee Camp out to be the bigger douche in the situation.
      • Scaryclouds, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Nice generalization.
    • smotpoker, on 02/29/2008, -1/+14You also have to consider he probably expected to be, or thought he was, cut off pretty quick (considering it is Fox News). His only intent was probably to get a few zingers in there and draw some attention to fact so that he could (justifiably) discredit them.
    • DarkDx, on 02/29/2008, -9/+17He still did SO MUCH MORE than you and your fat ass in that chair.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/29/2008, -4/+14Got to applaud him for trying though
    • JStraum, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1http://tinyurl.com/2mggon
    • biotch, on 02/29/2008, -2/+9You also have to remember he had just a few seconds to do it. What point can you reasonably make about the network in that time? All you can do is decry its hypocrisy and get cut to commercial.... then get the stink eye on the way out.
    • mgalvin, on 03/01/2008, -1/+5OK... put your money where you mouth is... what would you say? Don't just rip on the guy and act like you could do better sitting there in front of millions of people.
    • Savantgarde, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0He certainly did better than the woman trying to reply to him...
      "well, you should be more concerned about Hillary, and... um, okay"
      I forget her exact words, but it was something just as stupid
  • seraph582, on 02/29/2008, -49/+16O WOW d00D YER SO KEWL!!!

    retard. all MSM ***** is propaganda. Go ***** yourself. Better yet - kill yourself. Remember, down the street, not across the tracks.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7Sounds like someone has his DVR set to record Fox 24/7 so he can masturbate to it later.
  • NuFadZoo, on 02/29/2008, -15/+65This same guy showed his middle finger in our class photo.
    • bamapachyderm, on 02/29/2008, -6/+11That figures.
    • pjpark, on 02/29/2008, -14/+10Wouldn't surprise me. His writing sounds pretty self-absorbed. You think maybe he's trying to compensate for something?
      • Rodman930, on 02/29/2008, -0/+11self-absorbed? He was writing a story about himself.
        • Scaryclouds, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2Exactly he's self absorbed!

          /sarcasm
    • iammii, on 02/29/2008, -1/+17Pics or it didnt happen...
  • crossgrain, on 02/29/2008, -20/+63I'd rather see the segment with the naked Star Trek chicks.

    >:-(
    • jocamero, on 02/29/2008, -14/+7And you're part of the reason why our country is going to *****.
      • crossgrain, on 02/29/2008, -5/+12Why? Because I don't give a flying ***** what some comedian thinks of Fox News? Whoop-de-doo! I arrived at the conclusion that getting news from multiple sources, educating myself about current events, and not believing everything I hear is a far better way to make sense of the world long before this egocentric douchebag was done suckling his mommy's tit. Yeah, Fox is *****, but I certainly don't need some self-aggrandizing putz telling me so.

        No, I'd rather see naked Star Trek chicks thank you very much.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -6/+2Why? Cause he's not gay? Or if she's a woman, cause she's a lesbian?
      • allahuakbar, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1No jocamero, YOU'RE calling the kettle black.
    • pintomp3, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Go away... 'batin
      http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media= ...
  • blackturtleus, on 02/29/2008, -6/+57The technique employed by CNN to avoid actual news is to excessively focus on local events of a tragic nature. For instance, a large fire in some city is tragic and hence has a high interest level, but has very little relevance on the national scope. Car chases, explosions, multi-car accidents, etc. don't really have a place on CNN assuming that the mission of CNN is deliver news that is relevant to informing watchers of news events of national importance. Side-stepping the reporting of important events is one thing and deceptive or misleading news stories is quite another... they do that too... and certainly Fox does so much more blatantly.
    • VinceNoir, on 02/29/2008, -3/+6Actually that is largely because of who they are trying to target. Only the middle class thinks on a national scope. Those who live in poverty and are easily manipulated by the MSM news outlets only think locally. This is based on information I read recently in a book called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty". What better way to manipulate someone than to focus on what they believe is more relevant?
    • xBDVx, on 02/29/2008, -1/+7Too bad we can't get CNN International in the US....it's soooo much better. It actually reports news! One might even go so far to say that it's balanced!
      • zoom1928, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I can't believe the morons here are digging you up when you post a bold-face lie. I travel a lot for work, and in quite a few cities you can get CNNi. I have it at my house near Seattle, and my parents have it in their house in GA.

        The problem with it is that it is not balanced. It is very socialist, even more so than CNN Headline News.
    • Rich711, on 02/29/2008, -4/+2Yes, atleast FOX has the respect to state that they are covering news from a politically right wing point of view. While, CNN, MSN etc... pretend they are unbias as they run puff pieces on Obama and re-run a 10 year old slime piece without a single fact on McCain.
    • Xondar, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4I think CNN stopped being relevant as a real national news source the day they chose to have 24/7 coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.
  • simplicityiskey, on 02/29/2008, -25/+9We're still having to hear from this guy? It's not like the guy didn't anything particularly special. I personally prefer the videos of people calling Fox News anchors and throwing out profanity before they get disconnected--now that, my friends, is sticking it to the system.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -5/+1BABA BOOEY BABA BOOEY HOWARD STERN'S PENIS
      • TrevaLVF, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Next time, find a different topic to share your obsession with Howard Stern's best friend.
  • roomforpanic, on 02/29/2008, -11/+48I'm sorry, I read 'naked Star Trek chicks' and the rest of the text went blurry. What was this about again?
    • iamdecal, on 02/29/2008, -8/+3too right, well worth watching the vid cliip to the end for once ;-)
      • VinceNoir, on 02/29/2008, -10/+3You two are the reason why this country is in such a mess. You'd rather party than work. Lazy asses.
        • lolinyerface, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4Oh please. You'd rather work than get it on? Lies.
        • allahuakbar, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I think he was trying to be sarcastic - I think.
  • reaper527, on 02/29/2008, -7/+75i think people focus on fox news too much. yes, they are biased and report what they want to do, but cnn and any other mainstream media outlet are no different (aside from where their interests lie).
    • mogebier, on 02/29/2008, -5/+30Exactly. It's amazing all the Fox News bashing that goes on here on Digg. These College kids are all brainwashed into hating only Fox News, when it's all the media that is the problem.
      • Hraes, on 02/29/2008, -13/+7They are kind of the most blatantly biased of the lot.
        • mogebier, on 02/29/2008, -6/+14It does appear that way because they lean more toward the right, while the others are so far to the left you can really see the gap between them.
          • Hraes, on 02/29/2008, -9/+6I think I'd disagree with that. All of the mainstream media are strongly left-wing? Seriously? Strongly left-wing is Sweden and functioning socialism, not the vaguely leftish moderate-conservative view that Americans take it to be.
          • reaper527, on 02/29/2008, -1/+9as far as the american scale of politics goes, yes i would say all the mainstreama media outlets except fox news are strongly left winged.
        • mogebier, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Who the F said anything about Sweden???
          Obviously you are a lefty trying to defend the media for some unknown reason.
      • Yoweigh, on 02/29/2008, -11/+5We just hate Fox the most.
      • bamapachyderm, on 02/29/2008, -2/+15I seriously doubt any of the rabid Fox News-haters even watch it enough to know what they're talking about. They just have it in their heads that Fox (er, sorry, "Faux") News is right-wing propAganda (learn to spell, submitter) and keep repeating it like broken robots.
        • UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5I'm a Fox News hater, and I leave my TV on several hours per day (next to my PC) tuned into Fox News. Been watching it for several months now, and to be honest, it actually makes me laugh. The idea that some people can believe some of the crap coming out of that news station?! Just, wow... It cracks me up sometimes.

          One anchor suggested the falling USD was a *good* thing because Europeans come here and spend more money! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing, and then I got really depressed because I know there are millions of people watching who believe this girl. By the way, before the segment started, she referred to herself as a "geek" for mentioning the USD decline.
          • xienze, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"One anchor suggested the falling USD was a *good* thing because Europeans come here and spend more money! I nearly fell out of my chair laughing, and then I got really depressed because I know there are millions of people watching who believe this girl."

            So the anchor presented one way to look at the falling dollar versus the Euro (and that's a view many other people hold, mind you, along with the thinking that a weaker dollar encourages more countries to import cheaper US goods), and you're blasting her for it? There is more than one line of thinking when it comes to currency devaluation. There are many negative aspects to it, but an argument can be made for positive aspects. I have a feeling you've made your mind up that only bad things can come from the weakening of the USD and if you don't hear that on the news, they must be brainwashing the masses.

            Did she clearly and unambiguously say "this is a fact: the falling USD is a good thing and everyone else is wrong!" or did you just imagine that?

            I really don't see what the big deal is.
        • xienze, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3What happens is they see one or two clips of O'Reilly (probably the one where he tells the guy he's interviewing to shut up) and they make their mind up that Fox News is the "O'Reilly 24/7 Network". They also tend to forget that O'Reilly airs an editorial program and, as such, his program doesn't have to do anything but present his point of view to an audience. But no, they've made it up in their mind that Fox News doesn't actually report news but opinions. They're all parroting the same tired old lines over and over again.
      • KingGorilla, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1I'm fond of the BBC
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -10/+6This is a myth I hear a lot. If you start actually researching how fox news operates you would begin to understand what sets them apart. That CNN or whoever doesn't do a good job of providing relevant news is relatively excusable when compared to the mob like atmosphere of Fox. Fox is known to destroy the career and reputations of anyone who dares speak against their right wing views and be on their pay roll simultaneously. Montel is an easy and recent example, and he's not alone. There are dozens of stories from ex-FN employees who have talked about the atmosphere of fear around the office. Everyone knows they had better stay in line or risk losing their job, getting black listed, and probably having their name smeared nationally. From this environment comes the repeated and grievous lies that are routinely reported on Fox. Fox is also the only station that twists the idea of patriotism to an outrageous and disgusting degree. The list of offenses not made by other stations really drags on and on.

      To you, it may seem that people are unfair to Fox News, but the truth is they deserve every bit of criticism and disdain they receive, actually more. Fox News, unlike much of the rest of MSM, does not even bother with ATTEMPTING to provide any measure of balance or news. Everything is slanted and working towards an agenda. While other news stations may be guilty of not fulfilling their job of informing the public, Fox News is alone in actively seeking to mis-inform the public and confuse the truth for it's own political and financial gain. It's deplorable and frankly down right scary.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/29/2008, -5/+6You just really can't stand that they don't take the populist/socialist slant on reporting news. And they have many guests and anchors who are not right wing, but you wouldn't know that since you don't actually watch it. The real fact of the matter is the left wing can't stand the fact that there is one mass media outlet (outside of talk radio) that doesn't take a liberal stance; and is not even willing to recognize it as that. And for all you who say the mass media is not liberal, you have no idea, story selection is subtle, but it says a lot.
        • Viral, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Fox news doesn't (or shouldn't) represent the right wing of anywhere. They represent the Republican party of the US. There is a difference, although most seem to find it difficult to differentiate.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Well, I certainly hated Bill O'Reilly's guts
    • gernblansted, on 02/29/2008, -1/+9CNN has truly become a shell of it's former self, not that it was ever 'great', but now it's just as important as mud on my shoes.
    • BECoole, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6I agree.
      Fox isn't out forging Gov't documents and staging car fires like CBS.
    • serif69, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I never see anyone complain about rawstory or HuffPo, even those are clearly biased sources. Just jump on the bandwagon. Digg any story with the word "Obama" in the title, call Fox News propaganda, and turn a blind eye to Arianna Huffington's self-proclaimed "left-wing" bias.
    • mgalvin, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3sure, I agree, but like to add that... that is the way things are... you can't trust *anything* you see on mainstream TV.
  • extratwice, on 02/29/2008, -20/+14"I think it's pretty clear, even to the hosts, what the comment implied. That Fox News is a partisan shill for the Bush administration."

    Fox News supports Hillary you douche. Check the high-ups at fox and their max contributions of $2300 to the Clinton campaign, including Rupert Murdoch.
    • HencheMann, on 02/29/2008, -8/+15You are correct, though for cynical reasons. Fox Neo Cons feel she would be easily defeated in the General Election. So, of course they would support her.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1Do you even know what a neocon is? And you don't have to capitalize general election.
    • evilunleashed, on 02/29/2008, -3/+13Fox News supports Hillary Clinton because she is a Right-Wing shill in Left-Wing clothing. That is why she is losing her support. Look at her voting record in the Senate and you will see that she is a Democrat only by claim, not by action. Fox News supports the Democrat that is closest to the Right and always has, while making a mockery of any true Left-Wing Democrats. Hence their smear campaign against Obama.
      • Railz, on 02/29/2008, -5/+1Actually they want her because McCain will win if she is the elected Democrat. Republicans will come out of the wood works just to stop her.
        • evilunleashed, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Doubtful. McCain has meager support in the Republican party, and historically Democrats are more likely to vote in a "clothespin election" than Republicans are. Republicans that don't like McCain will most likely not vote at all, while Democrats who do not like Hillary will most likely vote for her anyway. Support for Hillary from the Right comes because she is actually more to the Right than McCain when it comes down to it. You don't have to believe me, look at their voting records, they speak for themselves.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -2/+1You don't understand the scope of the hatred for Hilary on the right, do you. They like Bill more than they like her. And you remember how much they liked Bill...
          • evilunleashed, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I understand the hatred for her from the commoners, but the elite in control feel much differently about her, hence the clandestine support. Discreet sabotage of her competitors, monetary support, ever-increasing media coverage and airtime. Read between the lies.
      • PoppaSpanky, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Actually, they gave her a wing of her own because nobody wants to be around the bitch, much less have her lead (sic) us.
    • OrangeCrush, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Of course they want Hillary to win the primary. Conservative voters have been trained to *DESPISE* her. With all the negative feelings towards the current administration, Democratic voters are in a frenzy, energized, and mobilized to vote more than ever in recent memory. The Republican voters aren't all that thrilled by Bush's legacy and not all that gung-ho about McCain. The only way a Republican is going to win the White House is by whipping the Republican voters up into a seething frenzy so they match and defeat the record number of Dems voting. Hillary has already been painted as a demonic bitch. She's a much better figurehead to incite rage and fear in Republican voters. Rage and fear gets butts off sofas and ballots cast.
      • PoppaSpanky, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1. . . "Hillary has already been painted as a demonic bitch."

        thing is, she was the one with the paintbrush . . . nobody had to help her.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3HencheMann hit the nail on the head. It is a classic neo-conservative tactic (ala Karl Rove) to support the Democratic candidate whom you feel is weakest. It happened in both Bush elections to great effect.
    • TrevaLVF, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Don't you know, they live by the "attack early and attack first" motto? They want her to run because they anticipated that she would run for president back when her husband was serving his first term as president. They've been preparing all these years to slam her if she ever received the Dem Party's nomination to run against their candidate. They've been in a constant state of panic over the possibility that Barak Obama, not Hillary, will get the nomination. They're just not prepared for this possibility.
      It's not that they hate Hillary (but taught their inbred cult members to hate her), because they agree with many of her policies. They know where she leans to the far right and they love her for it. It is because she isn't carrying their party's banner.
  • JanYpe, on 02/29/2008, -11/+35Rawr propaganda!
    That wasn't a very useful clip. Maybe it made sense to people who'd watched whatever the hell came previous, but this segment did not make a point. Ok, you called Fox a bunch of propagandists.Good for you. What else is new? This "Pffft, Fox" display was a step above calling them all big stupidheads, it hardly deserves to be called "ripping in to them".
    I get the reasoning behind it, I read the article. Looking at the clip, however, it just sounds like a lot of hot air. (queue the "well it WAS about Fox" jokes.)
    • spamthecatcher, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1Well it WAS about Fox! hahahaha
      Erm... wait, that wasn't very funny. Maybe I missed the point?
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2He said himself he didn't expect much to come of it and was surprised it became such a big deal. So what is your point?
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2It became a big deal? I didn't hear about it until I opened this thread about his self promotion.
  • madk, on 02/29/2008, -28/+175 minutes are up buddy...and like any intelligent adult you must filter and analyze what you take in. I'm so sick of hearing people generalize this so-called 'mainstream media' or Fox News. If you don't like it or agree with it don't watch. It isn't all propaganda and full of agenda.
    • signal15, on 02/29/2008, -7/+13Well, the problem with Fox is that it affects all of us, whether we watch it or not. They have their tabloid style programming to hook the people of lower intelligence, and then they pepper in between segments with political propaganda. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
      • bamapachyderm, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7Who's underestimating the power of stupid people in large numbers? This article DID get front-paged, after all.
        BTW, you might want to actually WATCH Fox News, before you deem it "tabloid style programming." That is, unless you say all the news networks use "tabloid style programming."
        • exronin, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I HAVE watched fox news and its sickening. CNN/MSNBC are not much better, but I could watch a crackhead make up news and it would still be more truthful than Fox News.
      • signal15, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2I have watched FOX news, and more than half of it is ***** about celebrities, paris hilton, and stupid crap like naked star trek girls. That's not real news.
    • writeman, on 02/29/2008, -5/+2I guess the Star Trek chicks weren't propaganda. But that's about it.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Oh great idea, just ignore the problem and it's like it isn't there! Genius! I'm sure it won't fester and become a greater issue when no one does anything to stop it.
      /sarcasm
  • Hraes, on 02/29/2008, -27/+37Mad, mad ***** props for this guy. The world needs more people like him.
  • raoulduke87, on 02/29/2008, -18/+31I like how he blatantly compares himself to George Carlin and Bill Hicks when there are a few major differences between him and those fellows, the man one being that they're good.

    Great stand-up comics are few and far between, but goddamn theres nothing more pathetic than a bad one.
    • hlampert, on 02/29/2008, -4/+12That's not really fair. True, by implication he compared himself to them by way of them all, including him, being comics. Everyone should have role models; there's nothing wrong with having an aspiration of someday making the pantheon. He did NOT "blatantly" compare himself to them - he just said that he admired the way they tell the truth.
      • eexlebots, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1I just read a few of his comics and they are god-awful, mindsplittingly, unfunny. I'd rather read "Marmaduke."
    • yourmanstan, on 03/08/2008, -0/+1so if he said something like, "i'm only doing what any other aspiring patriot would do." you would respond, "yeah only a real scumbag pathetic loser would try to become a patriot"
  • clesters, on 02/29/2008, -19/+40Not that I am a Fox News fan, but for some reason I doubt that there was a "bunch of questions people had about the incident".

    I think it is more likely that you are trying to retain the small amount of attention you got from being on the show by posting your clip on digg. The problem is that, like a reality TV star, nobody will remember who the ***** you are 30 seconds after they watch this.
    • Sharky35, on 02/29/2008, -4/+8+1 Intelligence
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -10/+4Dude's name is Lee Camp. I consider him a hero for speaking out the way he did, and so do many others. I won't forget his name.

      Lee Camp.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -6/+2"Not that I am a Fox News fan"

      Wow, awesome, so someone gets attention for expressing views your AGREE with in forum you don't have access too, and all you can think to do is criticize them for being an attention whore. Way be totally counter-productive. People like you are the reason America can't pull itself out of the toilet. You're to busy feeling superior to everyone, even people who agree with you, and pointing out why everyone else sucks and is an idiot to actually DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Conservatives don't do this. They overlook glaring character flaws and immorality in people if they agree with their opinions. That's why the Republicans in congress regularly organize strong party votes while many democrats hum and haw and hedge.
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I hope the "MILLION DEAD IRAQIS" would take. I dont give a ***** if anyone remembers HIS name, and I dont think he does either.
    • Rodman930, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3You could be right. OR, he could have really gotten alot of questions seeing as how 300000 people watched his video in one day.
  • mverta, on 02/29/2008, -13/+7I read as far as, "As most of you have seen..." I don't watch piece of ***** "news" programs, and I have no idea who this douchebag is. If he was cool at all, he wouldn't be on the news. I think Blockbuster is missing a guy from the night shift.
    • Hraes, on 02/29/2008, -3/+3It's not his fault you're not one of the 300,000 people that have seen the clip. 300,000 is a pretty large audience to accumulate in a day.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1I think the idea was that you wouldn't be reading an article called "Why I Called Fox News "Propaganda" While Live on Fox News" unless you were curious about the answer to that question and knew what it was referring to or wanted to find out.

      Don't be an ass.
  • adambur, on 02/29/2008, -5/+7did i hear it right at the end of the video, that the new book was written by bones, you know him as McCoy. I'd like to know how that was accomplished since DeForest Kelley past away in 1999.
    • writeman, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0So maybe the Star Trek girls thing WAS propaganda...
    • verbose, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Why is adambur's comment being dugg down? It's a sub-outrage from Fox News, this one tailor made for Digg, in that they would mis-state something about our beloved DeForest Kelley!
  • mckirsch, on 02/29/2008, -9/+19Fox biased?

    Roger Ailes, the President of Fox News was former George H.W. Bush's campaign manager. He put Rush Limbaugh on the air, helped Reagan get re-elected, and is an openly conservative supporter of the GOP. Everyone has some political leaning, not all of us have HUGE NEWS NETWORKS to use to share our views.

    News is not unbiased. By the power of human nature, all reporting is biased, if even subtly. Fox unfortunately goes to the other end of the spectrum however, featuring conservative rhetoric, themes, and news reporting, unfortunately.
    Therefore, they suck.

    • Trixrox, on 02/29/2008, -6/+4There is nothing wrong with the opposite of liberal....or even for a centrist. Fox is annoying, I agree, especially their commercials, but there are a few things the republican party has right in my opinion. Gun Control (lack of it),and social programs (lack of support)...
      • mckirsch, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5Theres lots of things the Republicans get right, unfortunately the people in charge are not Republicans in the sense of conservatism. They are fiscally irresponsible, bigger government (google new government agencies), and basically lied to get us to war in order to enrich their pals. Reagan was a good president because of this reason, his responsibility.
        But people thinking that news is impartial, while it really is just propaganda, is wrong. The basic American in my estimation has no idea that the rhetoric they hear on Fox is opinionated, and works to an agenda. They think its gospel truth.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1They really have strayed from the days of Reagan, which is why I think it's a GOOD thing for the Republican party that McCain is winning the nomination, showing the fringe of the party that it doesn't WANT to be a fringe party.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1Showing the party that it's better to be a democrat if you can't beat one.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2What republican doesn't support social programs? Let me know, I've been looking hard for one to vote for lately.
  • HencheMann, on 02/29/2008, -11/+5I would have like to see more scathing articulate venom, but this kid is a young'n. Still, moving in the right direction. I would LOVE to see George Carlin rip into these assholes.
  • Sharky35, on 02/29/2008, -12/+4You really showed them! Next you'll declare that EXXON is a bunch-o-crooks!!
    • malman4, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0Now he should go on pmsnbc and set their sorry asses straight. They don't believe a million iraqi civilians have died either. ( and neither does any one else with more intelligence than a cheap comic)
  • shuckl4k, on 02/29/2008, -9/+6answer: because it is.
    -end of article-
  • PH4GE, on 02/29/2008, -13/+7Nobody with nothing to say.
    • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6You're just projecting your own situation.
  • JimmyIkon, on 02/29/2008, -5/+15Digg loves Fox News.
  • Darkkshadow449, on 02/29/2008, -12/+17Fox News: Your #1 source for dumbed-down entertainment propaganda
  • justjoehere, on 02/29/2008, -3/+6As long as reporters work for money there will always be bias and a claim of propaganda.
  • chili555, on 02/29/2008, -9/+45Pick up that remote control and push the button marked POWER; yes, that one right there. Poof! Fox News is out of your life. Simple, wasn't it.
    • charlie55, on 02/29/2008, -5/+11it isnt about what i watch, i want to control everyone else!
    • Hraes, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5You make it sound so easy. People don't ever turn off their ***** televisions.
    • coustoe, on 02/29/2008, -2/+7Dude, Soooo Complex!
    • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -6/+8Do I have a mute button for the Fox viewers too? Until I can get one, Fox is still affecting my life.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -5/+2You know if you have Fox News you either have cable TV or satellite. You can REMOVE the channel from showing up as you press channel up and channel down. You make it sound like you're sitting in Gitmo being forced to watch Fox News with your eyelids ducttaped open.
        • mbelrose, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4You didn't read my comment, or didn't understand it. I still have to deal with the effects Fox has on the people around me. That's not the same thing as me watching it. Honestly, it's not even close to what I said.
    • spacewhale, on 02/29/2008, -7/+3Is there a remote control that turns off the people that watch Fox News? They seem to be all around me...and I just noticed the comment above me...silly me.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 02/29/2008, -10/+4Fox News has lost its way since the man they shilled for the GOP nomination (Guiliani) failed to ignite.

    They, Rush and many of the GOP only "support" Hillary because they want to make it easier for the GOP to hold onto the White House. If that fails, then they will have a strawman, another Clinton, to beat on for the next four years. Don't kid yourselves if you want to believe otherwise. They don't want Obama to win the Dem nomination.
  • charlie55, on 02/29/2008, -9/+16good job. i like it when women speak their mind. little bearded ladies in particular dont get enough face time.
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Shut up, bitch. Back to the kitchen! And bring me a beer while yer at it.
    • tomservo51, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Dude, STFU, she's HOT!!
  • timaepi, on 02/29/2008, -8/+3Does Fox still tout themselves as "Your fair and balanced news source"?
    • PS3Camaro, on 02/29/2008, -1/+0I think it's... "We report, you decide"
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1"Fair, balanced, and unafraid" and "We report, you decide".
    • malman4, on 03/01/2008, -1/+0they had this little jerk on, didn't they?
  • NYCowboy, on 02/29/2008, -9/+4it is a very good article check out the Montel Williams clip as well.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2Montel loses all credibility with his Sylvia Brown psychic episodes.
  • wizbor, on 02/29/2008, -16/+26Just read his article on alternet, this guys is full of himself, "telling the truth" your kidding right? "..a million people dead in iraq? infestation of ignorance? Its one thing if you disagree with someones point of view but being the only cable station to even show the other side of arguments is refreshing, agree with them or not, its what woke this debate up. Name calling and blindly throwing random figures about made him look like a fool not a hero.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -8/+4"blindly throwing random figures about"
      http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h ...

      What? If by "woke this debate up" up you mean "created this debate by mixing the truth with lies" then yes, I totally agree.
      • wizbor, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2With all that advanced time to think of something meaningful to say in his short amount of time and THATS what he choose to say? The guy is a fool. Even better he shows us by putting on his blog.

        Oh and your link, I wont even click it, anywebsite that is afraid to show us their real identity is not gonna get a click thru from me. There WHOIS data:

        Domain Name:JUSTFOREIGNPOLICY.ORG
        Created On:25-Feb-2006 21:02:06 UTC
        Last Updated On:11-Jan-2008 21:10:00 UTC
        Expiration Date:25-Feb-2009 21:02:06 UTC
        Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
        Registrant ID:tuMnhbqUeenckhjU
        Registrant Name:contactprivacy.com
        Registrant Organization:Contactprivacy.com
        Registrant Street1:96 Mowat Ave
        Registrant City:Toronto
        Registrant State/Province:ON
      • tomservo51, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Noway! An internet link! It MUST be true then!! It's on the INTERNET!!
    • KataLieb, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2wizbor: SADLY, it is not a random number, but probably very close to the truth. ONE MILLION dead Iraqis because of the invasion. 1 million. 1.000.000. You must be watching some American Grade A media as well?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_cas ...
      Some people criticized the studies (2004 and 2006)..
      The UK government, too, rejected the researchers' conclusions. In doing so, it did not mention the advice of the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, who had called the study "robust" and its claimed methods "close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq", in an internal memo on the day the study was published, dated 13 October, 2006"
      "
      but, then again...

      On October 11, 2006 Middle East Professor Juan Cole noted:
      "But last May [2006], the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even to be reporting on it, yes or no."
      "

      Whatever it is, its more than 400 000 FOR 100% SURE. And very likely up to a million. Plus all the Depleted Uranium that will be around in Iraqis lungs for years to come - as well as the US soldiers coming home to die homeless and sick on the streets of their Land of the Free.
  • right75, on 02/29/2008, -7/+13If Fox News is so inconsequential, then why would he waste his time going on there in the first place? If I were a hack comedian and I hated something like FNC or whatever, I wouldn't waste my time being there in the first place.
    • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -4/+7Because Fox News distorts the truth on an National level and needs to be called on it.
      • right75, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1What do they distort? Do you have any specifics?
        Just curious; I'm not really a news-tv watcher.
    • LordKaT, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4As someone who sucks at comedy and would kill to get exposure to land another contract: I'd do it in a heartbeat.
    • homeslice57, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1It's probably because he knew it would get tons of exposure on sites such as Digg.
    • dsiv, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Fox news is not inconsequential, it is harmful. See the difference?
  • LogicBomB, on 02/29/2008, -8/+12I get detroit fox news from my location (Ottawa, Ontario). Everytime it's on it seems like they are about to have heart attacks over EVERYTHING. It's crazy.

    I saw one segment on the recent deep-freeze and snow. They were interviewing people going "DONT DO THE SPEED LIMIT! Do just under! It's slippery and anything can happen!" and then they showed a bunch of people skidding and interviewed like 4 people who talked as if they just lost their home in a fire. OVER A SLIPPERY PATCH OF ROAD. What the ***** hell? Detroit isn't that far from Ottawa and up here we call it winter.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2You're watching local Fox channels.
      We're talking about the national Fox News channel.
    • spider418, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2So you were amused, enraged, or in other words entertained. That is the point of their reality show. News is just a title left over from another age.
  • speakingdreams, on 02/29/2008, -5/+9I am by no means a liberal. Most of my opinions would probably more closely line up with what people define as conservative, but I am still capable of analytical thought and realize that that was hilarious. I don't like that "news" station, or almost any "news" station for that matter. Most of them are crap in my opinion, and whether they are shelling out propaganda or mindless swill (or many times both), I think it is great to see someone catch them with a nice jab.

    And to the people that are getting on this guys case for explaining his perspective of the events: Relax. The guy did something he believed in, so when he gets all kinds of questions and responses to his action then he will feel compelled to respond. I am sure he would have said nothing if no one had said anything to him about it. He feels strongly about it so he is going to make sure, to the best of his ability, that what he did is as effective as possible.
    • malman4, on 03/01/2008, -1/+0key words "to the best of his ability". ...not much there to speak of...
  • eth3l, on 02/29/2008, -15/+31Now go and do the same with CNN ... Propaganda is propaganda. Why don't you, who hate Fox News, not watch it? Go read the Economist, or the NYT, or the Washington Post. The anti-Fox business is a waste of time and the interviewee looks like a homeless smelly loser with nothing better to do. Is he really making the world a better place by attacking Fox? I thought this was ironic: "A right-wing comedian and I told some lame Huckabee jokes. The anchor, hard hitting journalist Clayton Morris, asked the necessary questions while seeming completely unaware that I was a fellow human being, and that was about it." You figure out why.

    BTW - I did not hear about this except for on Digg so his exposure is minimal.
    • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -12/+8I'm sure during Hitlers rise to power, the people were encouraged to go drink beer and smell the flowers also.
      Even the Reich-wingnuts say that it's important to be vigilant with our freedoms.
      Fox is propaganda and needs to be called for it.
      • JanYpe, on 02/29/2008, -3/+5Hellooooo Godwin!
        • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -6/+3America is a little over 230s old... a VERY young democracy.
          You don't think ***** can happen in a couple of hundred years? Look who's controlling the debate and pulling the levers at THIS time in our history, guys like Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Robert Bass... etc, etc.

          And you bitch about Soros?... give me a break.
      • bamapachyderm, on 02/29/2008, -7/+10Grow up.
      • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -5/+5Look who's controlling the debate in America now... and we stil aa very young democracy at about 230yrs now.
        Things can happen in another 200yrs... really.
        Google Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Robert Bass.

        And you worry about Soros?

        Give me a break.


        • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -4/+5From what I've read and seen in 51yrs, I've come to the conclusion that right-wing Republicans would be PROUD and UNAFRAID to live in far-right, ultra-national, police state... just saying.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/29/2008, -1/+53 replies chatting to yourself. Are you in the right thread?
          • davemartin7777, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3Sorry, not a big fan of creeping Reich-wing, American Fascism.

            Thanks for stopping.
          • Mothrog, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2@SpaceMonkey

            What do you expect nutty, self important people to do? They love to hear themselves talk.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/29/2008, -6/+6"I did not hear about this except for on Digg so his exposure is minimal." Haha, because what YOU hear about is what everyone hears about, right? Jesus, ego much? And as I've said before the CNN/Fox comparison is a flimsy one at best and only serves to demonstrate your lack of understanding and overall ignorance of why people hate Fox News so much.
      • eth3l, on 03/01/2008, -1/+3Actually, I read The economist and get my news mostly from Reuters sources. Local news does not cover drivel like this.

        You go ahead and pin yourself to Jon Stewart for your news.
    • eth3l, on 02/29/2008, -7/+2Your comment makes no sense.

      Well your comment about Fox New being Propaganda was in the form of a sentence. But you have to consider, *ALL* News is propaganda. Fox News is just Propaganda YOU disagree with. In America, you can go somewhere else for your news. Fox News is not controlled by the state as was the news in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cuba.

      I am surprised that after 51 years you haven;t realized that the truth is different for everyone. get a Priest, Theologian, Physicist and an actor in a room and they wont agree that they are all in the same room, but they will try to convince you their interpretation is the right one. Only the rational mind will consider all opinions and then weigh against his own investigation/knowledge=owledge.

      I cannot stop but to recognize the irony of people who slam fox for being Propaganda and then use the term "Reich-wingnuts".
      • Bilabrin, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2Your comment is propaganda.
        • eth3l, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
          prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
          –noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
          2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
          3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
          4. Roman Catholic Church. a. a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
          b. a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.

          5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          [Origin: 1710–20; < NL, short for congregātiō dé propāgandā fidé congregation for propagating the faith; propāgandā, abl. sing. fem. gerundive of propāgāre; see propagate]

          Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
          o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
          –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
          2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
          3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
          4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
          5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
          6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          [Origin: 1250–1300; ME < OF < L opīniōn- (s. of opīniō), deriv. of opīnārī to opine]
        • brownrabbit, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2no. it's a challenge. I believe this man is challenging you to think for yourself.
        • Bilabrin, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1@eth3l

          I was highlighting the irony of your statement here and also making a point that in an ideological war, all is fair.

          2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
          Glad to see you agree.
      • RayG68, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2If I said "I feel God's presence" I would be delusional; it would just be an opinion, not "my own truth." Truth is an objective thing and that is why there are scientists who discover it. We don't need any more priests and theologians giving their opinions on whatever and their very human interpretations of various "holy" human-written texts. And humanity doesn't need people like you denying facts like 1,000,000 dead Iraqis as a direct consequence of the war and occupation, or denying evolution, or denying the fact that FOX news and all mainstream media really do have common interests with the State or else they would be doing some real journalism exposing some truth, instead of balancing every exposure with more official bull.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 03/01/2008, -2/+3And, you are making the world a better place by making this comment? Get over yourself.
  • crazywarthog, on 02/29/2008, -1/+4All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

    Adolf Hitler
  • eth3l, on 02/29/2008, -3/+4Try it on CNN ... see what happens.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of