Fox News - Media Control over election process watch!
liveleak.com — Good thing we still have PBS.... Fox News Corp... (more) Added: January 05, 2008 Good thing we still have PBS.... Fox News Corp - this may be the best explaination as to why Ron Paul was excluded from their debate, even after beating Rudy in Iowa and having 17 million more in campaign funds than Rudy... hummmmmm??? Oh ya Rudy is bud
truthseeker3- 2269 diggs
- digg it
- badwithcomputer, on 01/12/2008, -116/+13PBS is 'pubes' without the vowels.
- bonds, on 01/12/2008, -7/+32You get off on spelling BOOBS with a calculator don't you, badwithcomputer?
- PURPLEDRINK, on 01/12/2008, -6/+2if he doesn't, i do! fap fap fap fap fap
- nospinhere, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Funny I didn't see any Ron Paul stories today hit the front page today. Could the Paultards be avoiding attention so nobody brings this up: Ron Paul newsletters: Racist rants
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsle ...
- nospinhere, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Funny I didn't see any Ron Paul stories today hit the front page today. Could the Paultards be avoiding attention so nobody brings this up: Ron Paul newsletters: Racist rants
- badwithcomputer, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1you know it! i'm badwithcomputer but greatwithti86
- PURPLEDRINK, on 01/12/2008, -6/+2if he doesn't, i do! fap fap fap fap fap
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 01/12/2008, -4/+22I don't get it. One day you are trying to put up an open letter to the Digg community about it's negativity, and then you post something as stupid as this.
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/12/2008, -2/+4Hey, I chuckled.
I thought the Open Letter was inane, but there's always a place for humor. - badwithcomputer, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3there's nothing negative about what i said- just an observation.
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/12/2008, -2/+4Hey, I chuckled.
- Magnolit, on 01/12/2008, -4/+11Immature kid.
- Jimmerz, on 01/12/2008, -4/+8Judging by this post, you are a pube without pubes.
- bonds, on 01/12/2008, -7/+32You get off on spelling BOOBS with a calculator don't you, badwithcomputer?
- cusoman, on 01/12/2008, -5/+178Bill Moyers. Gotta love him...
"We'll be back next week with a new journal, unless we've been bought out"- Charlotte_Web, on 01/12/2008, -26/+8Where was Bill when the left wing had a stranglehold on the news coverage for DECADES?
Oh, that's right, he's part of that left wing establishment.
I love how scared the liberal establishment are of Fox News, that they have to attack it outright. Fox News is just one of many channels. The message is that you can't be conservative AND objective (but they can be LIBERAL and objective).
Whine, whine, whine.- tyywebb, on 01/12/2008, -4/+8First off you are a ***** moron. Second off he's not talking about liberal vs. conservative he is talking about $$ vs. truth.
- p0s3r, on 01/12/2008, -14/+5People taking some liberal hack's opinion piece as facts. Good one, diggtards.
- DestroyFascism, on 01/13/2008, -2/+2News Limited
Owner Rupert Murdoch: USA
Papers / Network Australia.
7 network Australia, relinquished FOX cable to Telstra of which he still owns a significant control of shares.
Magazines:
Total Girl (sexualising teenagers), Home Beautiful, New Idea, Marie Clair, Mens Health, better Homes, APC, PCmagazine, Australian PC, Atomic.
Web Yahoo!! (Don't bother with the privacy policy, we know it stinks, just ask the guys in China.....)
Papers
* Queensland | The Cairns Post
* Queensland | Townsville Bulletin
* Queensland | Gold Coast Bulletin
* Queensland | Quest Community Papers
* Queensland | Brisbane News
* News South Wales | Cumberland Community Papers
* Victoria | MX
* Victoria | Weekly Times
* Victoria | Geelong Advertiser
* Victoria | Geelong Info
* Victoria | Leader Community Newspapers
* South Australia | Messenger Community Papers
* Western Australia | Perth Community Papers
* National | The Australian
* Queensland | The Courier-Mail
* New South Wales | The Daily Telegraph
* Victoria | Herald Sun
* South Australia | The Advertiser
* Tasmania | The Mercury
* Northern Territory | NT News
* Queensland | The Sunday Mail
* New South Wales | The Sunday Telegraph
* Victoria | The Sunday Herald Sun
* South Australia | Sunday Mail
* Western Australia | The Sunday Times
* Tasmania | The Sunday Tasmanian
* Northern Territory | The Sunday Territorian
External
* Asia Pacific | Fiji Times
* United Kingdom | News International
* United Kingdom | News of the World
* United Kingdom | The Sun
* United Kingdom | The Sunday Times
* United Kingdom | The Times
* United Kingdom | Times Literary Supplement
* United States | New York Post
Tv Stations
External
Fox cable
Fox media free to air.
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/12/2008, -26/+8Where was Bill when the left wing had a stranglehold on the news coverage for DECADES?
- jksturm, on 01/12/2008, -5/+61Nice Work Bill.
- More4, on 01/12/2008, -4/+6also see Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed: http://www.outfoxed.org/
- More4, on 01/12/2008, -4/+6also see Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed: http://www.outfoxed.org/
- masterm1nd, on 01/12/2008, -5/+67You cannot trust MSM these days.
George Mason University study on media election bias 12-21-07:
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Stu ... .
Harvard study on general media bias 11-01-07:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=2 ... .- Schneckehaus, on 01/12/2008, -0/+7True matter.
Mainstream might as well mean "agenda populist" these days. We've got nothing but bias on both the liberal and conservative sides, and the irony of it is, they play the game is if there are only two sides to any argument.
One can quite easily be neither liberal or conservative, democrat or republican.
***** the bifurcated bias of our media.- andy3109, on 01/12/2008, -3/+3I think CNN is getting better.
- Schneckehaus, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and white supremists aren;t as bad as they were in the 30s.
But they're still white supremists.
(thats an analogy for you)- Angostura, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1(thats an analogy for you)
....
(thats a poor analogy for you)
/fixed that for you.
- Angostura, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1(thats an analogy for you)
- Schneckehaus, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and white supremists aren;t as bad as they were in the 30s.
- andy3109, on 01/12/2008, -3/+3I think CNN is getting better.
- KyjL, on 01/12/2008, -5/+4According to that GMU study you posted:
"Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties
than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were
split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49%
positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53%
negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For
both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs.
59% negative."
...Interesting.- TheSwashbuckler, on 01/12/2008, -3/+2Having an equal amount of positive and negative views of something does not necessarily make the coverage "balanced." After all, should there have been an equal amount of positive and negative views of Saddam prior to either invasion?
- jolifam77, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4This conclusion is erroneous. The amount of coverage itself should be an issue. Fox News can bury a candidate if they decide to simply ignore him/her, Ron Paul case in point.
- Schneckehaus, on 01/12/2008, -0/+7True matter.
- agsinger, on 01/12/2008, -11/+62mass media is dead/dying anyway - media reporting is becoming democratized due to the web anyway
the big media dinosaurs are sources of info only to the older generation - the younger generation, our generation, doesn't buy it...at least i don't- ElAssoWipo, on 01/12/2008, -8/+37Ah the optimism of youth... Mass media is buying your free news source and lobbying to impose laws on it. And in any case, this generation isn't able to:
Evaluate the quality of information
Evaluate the source of information
Evaluate the validity of information
Identify fallacious arguments within the information
The younger generation is buying it, by the bucket. The only difference is that you're not even aware of it. There isn't just one side trying to control the information you know...- PHiZ187, on 01/12/2008, -3/+6I'm hopeful that the increased scrutiny of media bias will cause a resurgence of the ability of people to critically evaluate what the read/hear/see. I hope to see increased focus on such media literacy issues.
- userperson, on 01/12/2008, -9/+1Yeah all the young people is stupid. {eye-roll}.
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Meant facetiously.
- airwalkery2k, on 01/12/2008, -1/+7Independent thoughts require independent people. I hate to be cynical, but I certainly don't see either coming from the majority of my generation.
- imnojezus, on 01/12/2008, -3/+8And aside from the arguments above, guess who typically votes in much higher percentages. That older generation you mentioned takes the information that is fed to them and goes to the polls while our generation sits around and whines about it. I'd be more active if I were you. Don't be so quick to brush it off.
- OHiggins, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2If you actually want to change something, 2008 is the best possible year to get out there and do something.
- spaceman77, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1yes I agree with you and there are 'those' that are now wanting to control and filter the internet.
Beware! - xyzunit, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2Time to figure out how I can get a foothold in this Web-journalism thing to push my own Flying Spaghetti Monster-worshipping agenda.
- Mutton, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Um... how is YouTube/blogs/websites not mass media? We need educated, intelligent citizens who can think for themselves or nothing will change.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/12/2008, -8/+37Ah the optimism of youth... Mass media is buying your free news source and lobbying to impose laws on it. And in any case, this generation isn't able to:
- flogistan, on 01/12/2008, -6/+42Bill Moyers should be made a saint.
- Waterrat, on 01/14/2008, -0/+1 Indeed...Now you see why the powers that be want to kill PBS so badly..
- lucutus, on 01/12/2008, -3/+102This is why I donate to PBS. Anyone who feels this type of reporting is valued should support thier local PBS station!
- Rohhob, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5Exactly. In the long run you'll help more people by opening their eyes to what's really going on in the world and forcing people to see the reality of what their country has become than to send it to some organization like "save the rain forest."
If you're going to donate, seriously look into PBS - it's the only true people's voiced network.- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Nothing says free and independent like a Gov't subsidy.
- Rohhob, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5Exactly. In the long run you'll help more people by opening their eyes to what's really going on in the world and forcing people to see the reality of what their country has become than to send it to some organization like "save the rain forest."
- skews13, on 01/12/2008, -5/+46keep your grubby little fingers off of my pbs
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -10/+3PBS should keep its grubby little fingers out of my pocket.
- skews13, on 01/12/2008, -1/+3you'll have to take that up with the head of pbs,who by the way is a bush appointee. while your at it,tell him iwant the president to keep his grubby little fingers out of my pocket as far as his faith based innitiative programs go
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -10/+3PBS should keep its grubby little fingers out of my pocket.
- amalagaura, on 01/12/2008, -3/+17A modern day soliloquy worthy of shakespeare
- DearSergio, on 01/12/2008, -13/+6The alliteration is overwhelming!! Bill must be related to Dr. Seuss.
- Kishoba, on 01/12/2008, -2/+20I haven't been able to find any coverage of much of Fox News' recent activities. Does anybody know of any articles by major news outlets reporting on some of this? (for example cutting out Ron Paul's response to the electability question from the debate)
- lucutus, on 01/12/2008, -0/+5Even the Reuters story seems biased. The headline is promising but then the story says nothing of his responses in the most recent debate, rather talks about his blimp and some of the nast questions posed with nothing about his response. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/01/11/republ ...
- stretch611, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4No one wants to cover it, they want to emulate it. Seriously, If they start snooping around fox, eventually they will be snooped around and none of them want that.
- ZenMojo, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3CNN beating the drums of war harder than Fox News is one sign of this stupidity.
- PHiZ187, on 01/12/2008, -24/+2Wow, this video player sucks. Hello, learn to buffer.
- asspants, on 01/12/2008, -3/+5hi it works fine for me. Hello, lrn 2 get better internets connection kthx
- raskali, on 01/12/2008, -3/+6Right on.
- brwright, on 01/12/2008, -6/+18Did anyone look at the video tags?
Tags: New World Order Secret Societies Illuminati 9/11 Anti Jesus Christ Satan Devil Knights Templars Banking Conspiracy North American Union Land Gun Grab Election Vote Fraud Population control 666 Patriots militia- TrinitronX, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2That just means the person who submitted the video and tagged it is crazy. The video itself is a well presented look at the mass media corporations.
- PHiZ187, on 01/12/2008, -3/+26And PBS (Seasame Street) wouldn't exist without government subsidy, because it just isn't profitable in the free market. We see what is profitable, the MSM crap that has evolved through competition. Pandering, biased, uninforming crap. The free market FTW!
- SeekerDarksteel, on 01/12/2008, -5/+11Unfortunately, it isn't the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity. If people are dumb enough to watch and accept MSM as real news then it's their own damn fault. It sucks for the rest of us, but it is not the job of government to create utopia.
- PHiZ187, on 01/12/2008, -3/+9Why not? If the mission of a democracy is to sustain itself, what is wrong with ensuring an informed electorate? Especially when the interests of corporations run contrary to a free society.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -4/+5I get it. Lets do away with our freedom of speech and let the government tell us what to think! And that will secure our freedoms?
- catullus, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2wrong. if the mission of a democracy were merely to sustain itself, its purpose would be identical to that of totalitarianism
- tyywebb, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1Well I guess most people assume when they put on "the news" they are not being fed propaganda if not outright lies. Especially when they have been relying on television for their information for so long.
- PHiZ187, on 01/12/2008, -3/+9Why not? If the mission of a democracy is to sustain itself, what is wrong with ensuring an informed electorate? Especially when the interests of corporations run contrary to a free society.
- DrCalculus, on 01/12/2008, -2/+14Where is this free market that you talk about? I haven't seen one around here for ages.
- JohnFromChicago, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5Not true ... the govt controls who gets the to use the airwaves to broadcast, and corporations fund the programming they want. If you want to see free market journalism in action you have to look no further than the web. Digg and YouTube reflect true free market viewing habits of people. The MSM is nothing more than a propaganda arm for corporations and the government.
- rarson, on 01/12/2008, -1/+2I really don't understand how that stuff is profitable, because honestly, most of what I see on TV is total crap, which is why I rarely watch TV.
People are stupid, bottom line.- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1... you are a computer then 'eh?
- Navicerts, on 01/12/2008, -1/+2PBS is one of the few government programs that would go against the constituion that i agree with. Someone had the foresight many years ago to see what was going to happen to our media today and acted to protect us, that's pretty intelligent if ya think about it.
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1They're protecting us from our money too!
phew! I was worried what I might do with it, now I don't have to worry, Thanks!
but you're right they are pretty intelligent; theft w/o the work of having to go out and mug people.
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1They're protecting us from our money too!
- GhostyBoy, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1The MSM crap we see right now is the result of monopoly, not free market competition. Because the networks are consolidated and owned by giant parent companies they don't need to compete, they own the competition. That's why this crap is pure crap.
- SeekerDarksteel, on 01/12/2008, -5/+11Unfortunately, it isn't the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity. If people are dumb enough to watch and accept MSM as real news then it's their own damn fault. It sucks for the rest of us, but it is not the job of government to create utopia.
- egthareal, on 01/12/2008, -6/+9buried for making me look at pics of rupert murdoch. This is one instance where I can live without pic or it didnt happen.
- mogebier, on 01/12/2008, -28/+5Just another "piss and moan" post about people who hate Fox News.
Get over yourself people, christ!!- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -3/+9says the man with the simpsons avatar
... - lucutus, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4Sounds like someone let thier blinders slip off at the wrong moment. If you love fox news so much why are you here? There's got to be some new Clinton story on fox.com
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1There's a thin line between acknowledging the poor quality and inescapable bias of for-profit media entities, and going all ***** crazy with the "omg brainwashing people manipulating elections new world order out to suppress ron paul and eat your babies" crap.
I'm no fan of Fox News, but there's nothing I hate more than the elitist zealots who frequent Digg spouting their usual anti-Fox diatribe.
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1There's a thin line between acknowledging the poor quality and inescapable bias of for-profit media entities, and going all ***** crazy with the "omg brainwashing people manipulating elections new world order out to suppress ron paul and eat your babies" crap.
- d03boy, on 01/12/2008, -1/+8Trying to get the message out that Fox news is corrupt and sways the elections drastically...
- shiv68, on 01/12/2008, -3/+5People complained about Hitler too.
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1The boy cried wolf too.
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -3/+9says the man with the simpsons avatar
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -0/+17MSM, particularly fox news's relationship with megacorps is no different than gov't run communist media's relationship is to their dictator.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -7/+2Do you mean, no different than PBS?
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2no. megacorps use MSM as a mouthpiece to project propaganda in the same way that communist gov'ts used and continue to use in some countries the state-run media. the american public is being lied to, either by withholding information, presenting information in a slanted way, or by outright lying.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -7/+2Do you mean, no different than PBS?
- metamorfoza, on 01/12/2008, -3/+5you have to love the tags for the video. militia?!! wtf!? how is that related to video?
- Goodanswer, on 01/12/2008, -1/+3its the same thing people on other video web sites do to link their unrelated video to something that is going viral..59 vid responses and maybe 2 are actual responses.
- Look4Truth, on 01/12/2008, -6/+28Fix News...we distort, we deride.
- ninjasdash, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1i see what you did there
- jetboyterp, on 01/12/2008, -27/+6Oh, for cripes sake...Ron Paul does. not. stand. a. friggin'. chance.
End of story...If you really believe FOX News is "out to get" Paul, or anyone else, then you give one media outlet waaay too much credit.- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -1/+13don't be an idiot, jetboy. ron paul was not mentioned once in the video, but your own response was proof enough that ron paul is being targeted by fox- why else would you have brought it up? the video didn't, and at the time of posting, only one comment had ron paul's name in it. it's obvious that fox targets ron paul, and you know it.
- jetboyterp, on 01/12/2008, -12/+3So, FOX News is "targeting" Ron Paul...by letting him in the debate? Why would ANYONE need to target that guy? He's never going to win...and you'll claim "conspiracy" at every turn...*sigh*
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5did you even watch the S.C. debate? this clip was removed from later broadcasts- even fox thought it was over the top. i'm sure you and everyone else has seen this by now, but just in case:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cucn32Eja3c
based on that clip, and carl cameron's blatant rudeness and complete lack of journalism- how can you suggest fox isn't biased against ron paul... even if you hate ron paul (though i can't understand why anyone would hate him aside from bureaucrats who will surely lose their jobs when he is elected), are you really lying to yourself to that extent?
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5did you even watch the S.C. debate? this clip was removed from later broadcasts- even fox thought it was over the top. i'm sure you and everyone else has seen this by now, but just in case:
- jetboyterp, on 01/12/2008, -12/+3So, FOX News is "targeting" Ron Paul...by letting him in the debate? Why would ANYONE need to target that guy? He's never going to win...and you'll claim "conspiracy" at every turn...*sigh*
- Notasheeple, on 01/12/2008, -3/+8Grow a real pair buddy..............There is blatant discrimination of RP!
- greeninoregon, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4You are a moron. I read through your other comments, and you obviously have no concept of anything that is going on around you. Your comments keep getting voted way, way down yet you still pander out ridiculous messages that don't make much sense to the topic at hand. You obviously aren't a fox plant or a scammer because I think either would try a little harder to not be so f@cking retarded. People like you are the reason this country sucks so f*cking bad. Get off the internet, go back to school and shut the hell up.
- metapop, on 01/12/2008, -1/+13don't be an idiot, jetboy. ron paul was not mentioned once in the video, but your own response was proof enough that ron paul is being targeted by fox- why else would you have brought it up? the video didn't, and at the time of posting, only one comment had ron paul's name in it. it's obvious that fox targets ron paul, and you know it.
- tetrismasterJ, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5This type of activity is everywhere. Don't think it's not happening on the internet. The only way is to educate children in school that not everything they watch or read is true. Sadly they rarely teach you that in grade school. Then they go on to university and still haven't develop an independent thinking of what's what.
- userperson, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1Hmmm ... why would Gov't school do this to people? ... the world may never know.
{facetiousness}. - chipsdw, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah, we don't want to believe everything you read. We want people to be open minded. But then again if anyone admits to thinking something outside the box... say not believing in evolution or global warming... the users of the site would crucify them.
The fact is, you guys don't want free thinkers, you want people to think like you.
- userperson, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1Hmmm ... why would Gov't school do this to people? ... the world may never know.
- deathguppie, on 01/12/2008, -4/+14never forget the great work done by NPR http://www.npr.org/
you may not always agree with what you see, but they will always show all sides of a story, no matter how bizarre, their points of view. The have reporters all over the world and are not beholden to any company for money. - rento, on 01/12/2008, -3/+6so true
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -13/+5George Soros and PBS do exactly what they accuse Rupert Murdock and Fox of doing and they use our tax dollars to do it.
- Acewrap, on 01/12/2008, -3/+1Back it up with proof or ***** off.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -3/+2Here is a study by George Mason University that found Fox News was the most fair and balanced on reporting election coverage.
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Stu ...
Now contrast this with the nasty little shot Moyers took at the Clintons in video related to this article.- Acewrap, on 01/12/2008, -2/+1Now show me where in that PDF it mentions PBS.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -1/+3Do you need someone to wipe your ass for you after you take a crap?
I just showed you 1+1. It's up to you to figure out what that adds up to.- Acewrap, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1*****. You specifically called out PBS. PBS is not mentioned in that PDF. You fail.
- Jamihabs, on 01/12/2008, -3/+2Here is a study by George Mason University that found Fox News was the most fair and balanced on reporting election coverage.
- Acewrap, on 01/12/2008, -3/+1Back it up with proof or ***** off.
- j.carcinogen, on 01/12/2008, -16/+8PBS is just as bad, its funded by the government just like a socialist TV channel.
- breezytrees, on 01/12/2008, -6/+2the only thing pbs is good for are their story tellings and their science programs. Those are amazing. PBS however, should remain completely out of anything political and they fail to do this.
Ever notice how PBS seems more conservative now? Back when clinton was president it was more liberal? Yea. FTL - dn11, on 01/12/2008, -5/+1SOCIALISM!IJ@K@K@KJJ@KJ@K#@J@#J#AJAJK#AJ#A4KSJ
- SiNN4R, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4The people's broadcasting station.
- Acewrap, on 01/12/2008, -5/+1Back it up with proof or ***** off.
- j.carcinogen, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2PBS is a non-profit, private corporation which is owned collectively by its member stations.[1] However, its operations are largely funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a separate entity funded by the U.S. federal government. Its headquarters are in Arlington, Virginia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_S ...
- j.carcinogen, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2PBS is a non-profit, private corporation which is owned collectively by its member stations.[1] However, its operations are largely funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a separate entity funded by the U.S. federal government. Its headquarters are in Arlington, Virginia.
- breezytrees, on 01/12/2008, -6/+2the only thing pbs is good for are their story tellings and their science programs. Those are amazing. PBS however, should remain completely out of anything political and they fail to do this.
- userperson, on 01/12/2008, -2/+7Exactly! People shouldn't be able to use their property as they please -- they should be regulated and censored by the Gov't, we can trust them / they don't have the evil lure of money, just justice, truth, and standing up for the common man.
{overt facetiousness}- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -1/+3Ifts one thing to use your property for yourself.. its another to use your property to brainwash the most powerful country on the planet.
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Indeed. There should be a 'Ministry of Truth' that evaluates these sorts of things (I think they had one of these in the former USSR)
It would decide what should and should not air, to protect the public good. I don't think it should stop there, let's regulate what people say on television, or in public even. If people are allowed to lie or deceive, the simple-minded might be mislead, such speech and expression should be curtailed, again I'm sure we can trust the Gov't to deal with this appropriately.
{overt facetiousness}
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Indeed. There should be a 'Ministry of Truth' that evaluates these sorts of things (I think they had one of these in the former USSR)
- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -1/+3Ifts one thing to use your property for yourself.. its another to use your property to brainwash the most powerful country on the planet.
- Spoomeister, on 01/12/2008, -5/+8I totally agree with and digg the message, but looking lower on the page, I found the tags on the video amusing:
Tags: New World Order Secret Societies Illuminati 9/11 Anti Jesus Christ Satan Devil Knights Templars Banking Conspiracy North American Union Land Gun Grab Election Vote Fraud Population control 666 Patriots militia- JohnFromChicago, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5So what ... those tags are supposed to get the video viewed - I often see videos tagged with Britney Spears, or the infamous YouTube thumbnail baiting. It's irrelevant.
- tyywebb, on 01/12/2008, -1/+4Well it's all quite simple. Rupert Murdoch (also known as Satan or the Devil) who happens to be a member of the Knights Templars is trying to take our Land away through Banking Consipiricies while also securing his position in the New World Order, but his efforts are in competition with with Secret Societies who did 9/11 and want to form a North American Union. So this Election unless you want stringent Population Control laws passed, you'd better Vote Ron Paul (aka Jesus) or be true Patriots and Grab your Guns and form a Militia to destroy this Fraud of a media!........666
- breezytrees, on 01/12/2008, -4/+3This guy obviously did not read the editorial pages or follow the duel between wsj readers+the bancroft family and rupert murdoch. It was the editorial pages that wsj readers and the bancroft family were worried about, not the news sections. And Rupert Murdoch promised to not meddle with it, supposedly quelling the fears of the family, but not the readers. The family supposedly was going through some internal issues. A lot of the members of the family wanted out (of wsj), only a few wanted to stay.
The bancroft family had little to do with the actual news printed in WSJ, they however were very involved in the editorial section.- slashdotted, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1dude, you're right about the duel, you're DEAD WRONG about him not knowing about it.
agree the news is great / high quality.. but bill didn't say that.
He even gives props to the newsroom in his piece, as you probably heard.
The WSJ newsroom should be ok for now.. Bill even mentions their high credibility and standards, but he gives people the context that many have succumbed to "apples".
WSJ management DO STILL control one thing: -- and this is important, but subtle.
They ask reporters what to report on (what is news). They also tell them what not to report on.
This is subtle. And the the Editorials of the WSJ are basically .. well, as bill says.. and this was true with the Bancroft family, too, alas.
I have met a good reporter at the WSJ and she's told me that, "she doesn't read the editorial pages"...- breezytrees, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Bill should have stated Rupert promised to uphold the quality of the paper as a whole, not just the news section. That's exactly what he (rupert) did in an attempt to quell the fears of the board and the Bancroft family. Rupert promised to keep the news section and the editorial section separate, something that all of dow jones' publications have accomplished.
I disagree when Bill mentions that the editorial section and Rupert Murdoch are made for each-other. The views of the editorial section reflect this. BEFORE the takeover, the entire editorial section was blasting Rupert Murdoch left and right. Not one letter published in the section was pro-takeover. All letters published by readers thought he was a terrible fit. The editors detested Rupert Murdoch and everything he stood for.
Interestingly, as soon as the takeover went public, the editors wrote a letter to the readers exclaiming how great the takeover was for WSJ. No more letters from readers were published blasting the takeover... Right about this time I stopped reading WSJ.
As a subscriber and reader for 6 years, my parents even more so, I cared greatly about this Newscorp takeover of WSJ and followed it very carefully. I'm angry it happened and am no longer a subscriber.
Your reporter friend is right, nobody should read the editorial section at WSJ anymore.
but then again, I believe nobody should read the news section anymore either....
- breezytrees, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Bill should have stated Rupert promised to uphold the quality of the paper as a whole, not just the news section. That's exactly what he (rupert) did in an attempt to quell the fears of the board and the Bancroft family. Rupert promised to keep the news section and the editorial section separate, something that all of dow jones' publications have accomplished.
- slashdotted, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1dude, you're right about the duel, you're DEAD WRONG about him not knowing about it.
- Magnolit, on 01/12/2008, -2/+8Moyers should run for Congress as an Independent and than report daily from Capitol Hill and expose the ***** up there.
- rmd34, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1In the meantime... you can see Moyers, on demand, from here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
- rmd34, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1In the meantime... you can see Moyers, on demand, from here:
- echolyean, on 01/12/2008, -7/+3What I find intriguing is when members of the MSM bash the MSM and act as if they're not a part of it.
- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1its not all MSM its the 3-4 big fat cats who control/manipulate the world through mainstream media. Rupert just happens to be the biggest, fatttest, most selfish one of them all.
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1I'll just put that through the translator for you:
"Rupert just happens to be the biggest, fatttest, most selfish one of them all." => "Rupert just happens to be the most successful, important, wealthy and influential one of them all. I'm so jealous of him that, instead of getting out there and trying to make something for myself, I'm going to slander him on the Internet." - echolyean, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I never said or implied it was all. Nor was I meaning to say that Bill Moyers fell into that category. But O'Reilly, for example, says it just about every time I accidentally turn on his show whilst channel flipping.
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1I'll just put that through the translator for you:
- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1its not all MSM its the 3-4 big fat cats who control/manipulate the world through mainstream media. Rupert just happens to be the biggest, fatttest, most selfish one of them all.
- YoWaldorf, on 01/12/2008, -0/+8If there is ever a time you can do good, it would be now, here, and with this. Send this to everyone you know.
- nathanaver, on 01/12/2008, -2/+17Is it a coincidence that PBS and NPR's government subsidy was cut 25% this year? They are a threat to these people so they are the next target. I am generally a fan of small government, but if I were going to start cutting things PBS would be very very low on my list.
- evilpoptart, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3NPR is the *****.
- Snarfy, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1You mean NPR IS *****. They are just as biased in their Ron Paul bashing as Fox news, or haven't you been listening lately?
- evilpoptart, on 01/12/2008, -0/+3NPR is the *****.
- evilpoptart, on 01/12/2008, -7/+2i would also think that Murdoch would be pro ron paul due to the candidates policy of privatizing everything, which would poke holes in the argument that his affect on Fox is why Ron is being shunned.
- angrygalactus, on 01/12/2008, -0/+5What Murdoch has isn't privatization, but corporatism, where the corporations are in bed with big government.
- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2The thing is Ron Paul isnt corrupt. SO he wont be able to control and manipulate Ron Paul. Unlike Most of the other candidates he can pick who he wants and OWN them.
- mochaman, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4If MSM continues to consolidate and control elections the way it has for the past 20 some odd years, our democracy will be and we will all be screwed.
- cprnow, on 01/12/2008, -0/+5I came back here to see the video with the edited RP question during the debate, which had over 4000 diggs just an hour or two ago, and it is gone! Am I making some sort of noob mistake, or did it happen again, cuz I had read on comments that it had disappeared before that one appeared? wtf.
So, has anyone read 1984 by Orwell? I thought that was supposed to be fiction. - StnkDtktor, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Since Murdoch is a board member of the Cato Institute he should read some of the white papers they have issued. One entitled the, "Libertarian Vote", was published on October 6, 2006 and was written by David Boaz and David Kirby. The last two sentences are, "The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it." FOX news and Rupert Murdoch must be trying to throw the election to the Democrats. You can read the entire white paper at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715.
- Drax0n, on 01/12/2008, -2/+3Murdok the most powerful man on the planet.. Its such a shame people think that the president or the pop have anywhere near the power he does. He PICKS the presidents..
- djohnmalkovich2, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2Everyone must see this
- balilanai, on 01/12/2008, -2/+2Never watch Fox News. I never did.
- Dibou, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5Then how would you know anything about them....
Oh, right. You are TOLD they suck by their competitors.
You just admitted your ignorance.- BillOReilly08, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Add some intelligence to basic common sense, and that is what TELLS me that Fox News is not an unbiased news organization.
- theright, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3You're so cool.
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1So ... do you want a cookie?
- Dibou, on 01/12/2008, -1/+5Then how would you know anything about them....
- StarChatterer, on 01/12/2008, -3/+1I don't typically like PBS because, like almost all media, they lean leftward towards socialism. I don't care to hear a debate about nationalized (fill in the blank). I'm a libertarian. I don't want nor do I need the government to look after me. However, when I see what Fox News just did to Ron Paul, I am royally pissed off. I think the people of this country are (generally) intelligent enough to hear a divergent point of view on occasion, and to make that viewpoint available without commercial influence is certainly worthwhile. So yes, I personally support PBS even though I don't always like the message. Those of us who are tired of Fox should do the same -- don't expect the government or anyone else to sponsor free speech. It's up to us.
Ron Paul 2008, god dammit.- warlokaz2004, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0PBS/NPR feels 'fair and balanced' is putting Wall Street Week on after some Bill Moyers socialist propaganda -- I actually don't mind either and wish them well if they want to broadcast everything from MacNeil/Lerher to Elmo...I just disagree with my Tax Dollar subsidizing them (and not well apparently considering how they'll hold shows 'hostage' during pledge time.) If we are going to have PBS/NPR it should be either fully funded by the government or not funded at all (but maybe with a special mandate by congress excusing them from copyright fees as they exist to expose the public to media they won't get normally)...right now its just some guilt free way lefties can make a charitable donation for their annual 100$ pledge 'gift bags' :P
- dbzssj44676, on 01/12/2008, -1/+0Patrick Gates?
- Dibou, on 01/12/2008, -0/+4People on Digg are dying to jump on Fox News over Ron Paul.
The real question is how much coverage does Ron Paul get on ABC, MSNBC, etc?- bustaballs, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1He gets a decent amount on MSNBC and CNN.
- kaelyiesta, on 01/12/2008, -1/+1Yet one more example of government colluding with industry, keeping both in power. These topics feels like preaching to the choir, because most of diggers seem more informed about this problem. If only this kind of information was shown to the rest of the populace.
- Jamihabs, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1What you don't see shown to the general populace are the two articles linked to by masterm1nd, near the top of this thread.
- jjhammel, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1"The younger generation is buying it, by the bucket. The only difference is that you're not even aware of it. There isn't just one side trying to control the information you know..."
The younger generation is the one challenging it! We are the first generation of Americans to turn to informal sources for accurate political information (YouTube, Digg, among others) BEFORE approaching the mass media. What's funny is that traditionally, the most significant factor in deciding to accept or doubt information has been the credibility of the source. But now, the critical factor has become the motive. Why would a main stream media source lie? Why would they not report on people like Dr. Paul? Or, when they do, accuse him of knowingly accepting money from brothel owners (a la FOX)? My opinion has been formed. For those who either have their own or want to know more, google or YouTube the following terms:
Bilderberg
Executive Order 11110
This presidential election has already been decided. And not by the American people.- nationalist, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
"This executive order allowed the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to issue silver certificates against silver bullion based on authority delegated by the President to the Secretary under the Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act."
??? - BillOReilly08, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1The only problem with that is it is next to impossible to find unbiased information on the Internet.
- nationalist, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
- funkywood, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1In the UK he does own The Sun and Sky.
- Mikhail101, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6America a democracy? my ass
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1It is dude.
Would you like a giant douche or a ***** sandwich?
Majority decides (or electoral college, or supreme court, or congress, or maybe you were right and your ass does decide).
- userperson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1It is dude.
- richterscale, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Not only is PBS the only one with enough balls to air this but to actually report news not just the same old biased crap that seems like what you saw yesterday. (insert fear causing news story here.)
- DestroyFascism, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2The public is damned with this lot in power...In Australia and NZ he owns 60% of the market...80% of the main Tabloids...PC user, PC mag and so on....
- CurtisLow101, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1America needs to pull the plug on FOX... The End
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by