Never attribute to conspiracy, deviancy, or cunning planning that which is simply explained by stupidity.

Yawn......

Here's and opening for the wretched, I don't get it. I mean some
individual got rapped for doing what Many media entities , not just one, do often. What's new? Money has always made some more equal than others.
Just another opportunity for Odd to hiss and moan about something
or other. And bonus, he gets to use a bit of Latin, and multisyllable
words beside his usual four letter jargon.
lil ad hominem, nichts.

Ah yes the "they all do it" argument.
The only difference is Fox argued it's their right to free speech to lie to the American public.
I think that fits the definition of propaganda, so in essence they argued for the right to preach propaganda, and call it news.
Why do they hate America so much?

FINALLY Sko... you actually contributed something that you didn't c&p... and it is completely on topic!

In fact... I can't think of anything MORE ironic than what you just posted!

Congratulations?

Todd hasn't practied law in quite some time, and probably never will again (at least for money) but he sure rallies the girls on here with his astute FOX commentary.

Freedom of speech is different from "freedom to pretend to be a hero with fake medals and benefit from the deception".

You 'moral equivalency', liberal fags have just swung and missed again. I find the liberals' obsession with FOX news to be sad but phvcking hilarious. I guess in the little, twisted, liberal vaccum that they call minds they believe they are the guardians of responsible media....like Air America.lol

4 salt said, "I can't think," righto. 'Tis true, it's obvious you cannot
think.

Heya..if you want to think that FauxNews lying to the world is somehow better than others lying to the world...knock yourself out.

You are totally welcome to be a FauxNews sycophant...they don't exist without tools like you...be that tool.

Fish on...

Todd

To me the real crime of Fox news is not that they're hypocrites, but that I (and many many others) subsidize them and their jack-assery because I pay for cable TV, and because I cannot sufficiently punish them by electing to NOT TAKE THEIR CHANNEL -- they get my money anyways.

It's a fricking SUBSIDY to the tune of half their revenues.

And because news is relatively lowly rated overall, my bet, in a world of a-la-carte programming, is that extremism is punished with people voting with their wallets. Even though you have higher fox news ratings on a day-to-day basis, I would expect that if you gave people their CHOICE of a single news network, you'd find both MSNBC and FOX with fewer paying customers than CNN.

Said another way, the average joe doesn't watch 10 hours of FOX News a day (or MSNBC for that matter). He watches the news when a big story hits, and generally he turns to a centrist news agency (Network or CNN).

So END FOX NEWS SUBSIDIES, and let's get a-la-carte cable!

"a-la-carte cable"

That's been pushed for many times but the argument against is that minority channels would cease to exist. For instance all of the foreign language channels we subsidize and don't want would go bye bye. But it's about time we allow direct competition in sharing of the lines.

I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that Todd watches more Faux news than anyone--at least he sure knows what it says, all the time!

Todd=#1 FNC viewer in the U.S.?


Ya might want to try broadening your perspective. I have this little device that gives me news from around the world, including everthing from Fox news to the Xinha News from China, and everything in between. Even gives me news from India. And on top of that, I can even make phone calls with it! Pretty cool.

Really, how do you find so much time to watch TV? And especially FNC?

All of you are welcome to come over to the dark side and drop cable like me. HD works just as good on Broadcast TV as it does with cable. A huge plus is not only do i no longer pay to watch, but I don't have to worry about subsidizing the $hitbags that are polarizing this country into one corner or the other.

I didn't, but now I do!

Off topic, the stolen valor act denies any citizen it's First Amendment right to do what Alvarez did. That's why it's there. Violent criminals lose their Second Amendment rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't declare exceptions for them.

Laws that violate the Constitution are...unconstitutional, and get struck down by the courts.

Typically the courts weigh the interest being served by the law against the interest being served by the Constitution, and decide if it's important enough to curtail someone's Constitutional rights. In this case a 9th Circuit panel voted 2-1 that stopping lying about his service record wasn't as important as protecting the guy's right to free speech.

Fish on...

Todd

Dude, I *KNOW* the numbers. You're (like all FOX jackwagons) looking at the part of the data that YOU want to make your point. Let's try looking at ALL of the data:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/12...viewing/113502/

Notice there are NO CABLE NEWS programs? That's because while Fox News has high "news" ratings, they have the same 49 people watching them all day long. Their viewership is small, but passionate/loyal.

Furthermore, if you look at the data when BIG events go down (like say election nights, or on the day a large news story breaks) you find propaganda driven sources (Fox and MSNBC) are dwarfed by more centrist/objective outlets (broadcast and CNN).

SO, to say it again, if we had true a-la-carte pricing, I believe Fox's biz model (and MSNBC) gets nuked, because the 90% of us paying to subsidize your "star trek convention" of Fox fanboys would have serious business model problems.

No, you aren't.

+4,897,613

After the Rupert Murdoch dust settles it'd be nice to see him stripped of all media ownership and the entire family sent to prison.

Hankster can have his head filled with crap on visitng days.

Gestapo recruiters would do well on this thread.

It's a good piece of data Hank, I did miss your post... I hadn't looked at the mid-term elections, only the last general.

The 2008 general election had CNN about 1/3 larger than FOX... And to my real point, mainstream (CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS) had about 45M viewers, while Fox + MSNBC were about 16M viewers.

It's interesting to see the different results because we know the 2010 mid-term election was successful for the right, so it makes sense that the "winners" watched lots of TV that night. The reverse probably was true in 2008, so it's not really clear what's a trend and what reflects the level of success/enthusiasm for each group during the electoral cycle.

Regardless, I reached my conclusion when I realized that 51M out of 60M viewers on 2008 election night voted *against* Fox news as their news outlet of preference, so presumably a lot of them would -- in an a-la-carte world -- probably choose against Fox in that context too.

After more thinking though, it's unclear how this would all break, because in an a-la-carte world, you could easily imagine paying the same $$$'s for overall less choices.

I think what I'll argue for instead is not a-la-carte, but rather "OptOut" where I can get my $0.71 a month back and lose Fox. I don't want to individually opt IN, but I do think my decision to watch ESPN in my house shouldn't REQUIRE me to support what I consider to be a political/religious advocacy network.