PDA

View Full Version : Can't FOX be held accountable for some level of election rigging?




arcooke
02-26-2008, 06:36 PM
The average person hears about and learns about the candidates from the news. Fox knows he was a viable candidate with a huge following, but they still shut him up. They intentionally gave him little coverage in order to keep peoples attention elsewhere.. and when they DID give him attention, half the time they were manipulating his views on things (like removing the Dept of Edu and CIA) to turn peoples favor to other candidates.

In my opinion, this is no different than physically modifying the ballots. They successfully removed votes for Paul by intentionally ignoring his campaign for their own benefit, or whatever motives it is they have.

There are so many millions of people that would have been Ron Paul supporters if only they would have been informed about him.

EVERYONE knows Hillary, Obama and McCain are running. Why? Because the news mentions them on a daily basis. Most people have never even heard Paul's name. Why? Because the media purposefully ignored him.

Maybe I'm just rambling here.. but I think there should be some serious consequences for this. I've got no problems saying I honestly believe Fox news almost single-handedly rigged the 2008 election.

LibertiORDeth
02-26-2008, 06:40 PM
In YOUR opinion, but not the gov't.

Kludge
02-26-2008, 06:41 PM
I never tell my friends about Hillary Clinton. Am I accountable for election rigging?

arcooke
02-26-2008, 06:43 PM
I never tell my friends about Hillary Clinton. Am I accountable for election rigging?

The masses don't rely on YOU for news on a daily basis, now do they?

Fox has a responsibility. You don't.

Kludge
02-26-2008, 06:48 PM
The masses don't rely on YOU for news on a daily basis, now do they?

Fox has a responsibility. You don't.

OHO! Right into the trap! Corporations have NO responsibilities except to make money (while not committing aggression). If you'd like to decide which news goes on the air, start your own news corporation.

Radiofoot
02-27-2008, 08:03 AM
OHO! Right into the trap! Corporations have NO responsibilities except to make money (while not committing aggression). If you'd like to decide which news goes on the air, start your own news corporation.

It's so no simple as that though is it, and you know it.

Big media companies are no different than big government - both are detrimental to a society.

bander87
03-01-2008, 09:05 AM
I read an article a while back that the media can actually lie:

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=media+legally+lie&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Kludge
03-05-2008, 02:22 AM
It's so no simple as that though is it, and you know it.

Big media companies are no different than big government - both are detrimental to a society.

News companies are simply seeking self-profit. That's NOT immoral. News is privately owned (though you could argue they work as a type of "co-op", not that it matters since it was done consentually).

WHY should we limit the power of a company, even a company of MSM?

Because they promote ideals other then our own?

What if a news company was libertarian-leaning and had a "black out" of McCain, are they then "election riggers"?

Does the size of the company matter?

What if I had a friend who relied on me for "news", am I THEN responsible for election rigging?


"We" CAN'T control private entities through aggression, and the government SHOULDN'T.

pahs1994
03-11-2008, 01:10 PM
I am waiting for a youtube/internet type news company to show up and eventually grow into something big like a CNN, MSNBC, FOX, only with our nice little libertarian slant of course. I think the only way to beat them would be to actually compete with them.

pepperpete1
03-11-2008, 10:22 PM
The broadcasting companies do have to adhere the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) rules. There are stiff fines and the possiblity of loss of license if found guilty of infractions of those rules.

According to the rules they are to give the same (free) coverage to all candidates. They have an accounting of the minutes of each candidate's airtime. You and I know that RP's time is way short of the "favorites", of which there is not supposed to be.

I for one feel they should be sued for the mismanagement of the coverage of the candidates

Doktor_Jeep
03-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Leni Riefenstahl spent some years in prison after the nazi regime was taken out. So when America is full bore police state and the good guys manage to take it back, the precedent is already set to bring the meat puppets and paid off journalists to trial.

Of course the biggest fish will likely be living in a bunker in Dubai by that time.

Doktor_Jeep
03-11-2008, 11:12 PM
I am waiting for a youtube/internet type news company to show up and eventually grow into something big like a CNN, MSNBC, FOX, only with our nice little libertarian slant of course. I think the only way to beat them would be to actually compete with them.

I think there is a place trying to get started like that...
http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Kludge
03-11-2008, 11:13 PM
The broadcasting companies do have to adhere the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) rules. There are stiff fines and the possiblity of loss of license if found guilty of infractions of those rules.

According to the rules they are to give the same (free) coverage to all candidates. They have an accounting of the minutes of each candidate's airtime. You and I know that RP's time is way short of the "favorites", of which there is not supposed to be.

I for one feel they should be sued for the mismanagement of the coverage of the candidates

Well, see, MSM is just protesting Statist laws, that's all =P

...>.>

gracebkr
03-11-2008, 11:28 PM
The average person hears about and learns about the candidates from the news. Fox knows he was a viable candidate with a huge following, but they still shut him up. They intentionally gave him little coverage in order to keep peoples attention elsewhere.. and when they DID give him attention, half the time they were manipulating his views on things (like removing the Dept of Edu and CIA) to turn peoples favor to other candidates.

In my opinion, this is no different than physically modifying the ballots. They successfully removed votes for Paul by intentionally ignoring his campaign for their own benefit, or whatever motives it is they have.

There are so many millions of people that would have been Ron Paul supporters if only they would have been informed about him.

EVERYONE knows Hillary, Obama and McCain are running. Why? Because the news mentions them on a daily basis. Most people have never even heard Paul's name. Why? Because the media purposefully ignored him.

Maybe I'm just rambling here.. but I think there should be some serious consequences for this. I've got no problems saying I honestly believe Fox news almost single-handedly rigged the 2008 election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2YoZ1NvFM

watch it. I am ready when everyone else is.

AisA1787
03-14-2008, 12:29 AM
The average person hears about and learns about the candidates from the news. Fox knows he was a viable candidate with a huge following, but they still shut him up. They intentionally gave him little coverage in order to keep peoples attention elsewhere.. and when they DID give him attention, half the time they were manipulating his views on things (like removing the Dept of Edu and CIA) to turn peoples favor to other candidates.

In my opinion, this is no different than physically modifying the ballots. They successfully removed votes for Paul by intentionally ignoring his campaign for their own benefit, or whatever motives it is they have.

There are so many millions of people that would have been Ron Paul supporters if only they would have been informed about him.

EVERYONE knows Hillary, Obama and McCain are running. Why? Because the news mentions them on a daily basis. Most people have never even heard Paul's name. Why? Because the media purposefully ignored him.

Maybe I'm just rambling here.. but I think there should be some serious consequences for this. I've got no problems saying I honestly believe Fox news almost single-handedly rigged the 2008 election.

Here's a PBS video explaining the FCC rules:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01252008/watch3.html

check around the 6:00 mark if you want to skip ahead to it

boggie08
03-19-2008, 04:37 PM
The costs outweigh the benefits. We should focus on other activities, like supporting Ron Paul Republicans and Ron Paul's bills is Congress.

muh_roads
03-23-2008, 11:17 AM
..

muh_roads
03-23-2008, 11:19 AM
Kludge,

So what hitmen do is not immoral by killing others? They are simply seeking self-profit after all.

We are not in the age of free market capitalism here. We are in an age of corporatism, where the military industrial complex runs the show. 24/7 news media that forces its' way into our homes should have a responsibility to reporting accurately. You are naive to think smaller media outlets have never been under attack by the major media conglomerates by wanting to report accurate information. A form of aggression. Outfoxed talks a lot about how Fox News foot soldiers threatened other media outlets.

Don't you think it is immoral for news companies seeking self profit so they can continue the evil aggression of bombing countries that are no threat to us?...just so they can continue to profit more? (General Electric owning MSNBC for example) Something needs to be done. The MSM is using their power to continue this charade. MSM profits from war. War leads to more printing & borrowing of money. More spending leads to more inflation. More inflation leads to more robbing of American citizens.

If that isn't a sign of aggression through immoral personal gain, I don't know what is.

If a little aggression through government regulating that the MSM can't be owned by the military industrial complex, then so be it. If it saves a soldier, an innocent civilian, or prevents the continuation of indirectly robbing the American wallets in this country, then it is worth it. Government regulation to prevent one from killing or stealing from another is fine by me.

Corporatism is evil. I'm sick of it being confused with free market capitalism. You and I are slaves that help fund the establishments pursuit of wealth and happiness through the endorsement of killing under the hidden veil of "capitalism". The MSM is there to continue to help bring in that corporate welfare, government contracts and subsidies. Socialism for the rich at its' finest and you defend it.

I want to throw up.

Kludge
03-23-2008, 11:24 AM
Kludge,

We are not in the age of free market capitalism here. We are in an age of corporatism, where the military industrial complex runs the show.

24/7 news media should have a responsibility to reporting accurately. You are naive to think news corporations have never been under attack for reporting accurately by the major media conglomerates. A form of aggression. Outfoxed talks a lot about how Fox News foot soldiers threatened other media outlets.

Don't you think it is immoral for news companies seeking self profit so they can continue the evil aggression of bombing countries that are no threat to us...just so they can continue to profit more? (General Electric owning MSNBC for example)

Something needs to be done. The MSM is using their power to continue this charade. MSM profits from war. War leads to more printing & borrowing of money. More spending leads to more inflation. More inflation leads to more robbing of American citizens.

If that isn't a sign of aggression through immoral personal gain, I don't know what is.

If a little aggression through government regulating that the MSM can't be owned by the military industrial complex, then so be it. If it saves a soldier or an innocent civilian, then it is worth it.

Corporatism is evil. I'm sick of it being confused with free market capitalism. You and I are slaves that help fund the MSM pursuit of personal wealth and happiness through the endorsement of killing.

People who promote aggression are not evil. People who commit aggression do evil. It's your responsibility to filter out what is and isn't bullshit. Watching MSM is problematic to your intellectual well being.

Were the Chicago Eight guilty of aggression for "inciting a riot"?

Why arrest the leaders when the followers are the truly dangerous? They give (or at the least, allow) the powerful power.

Promoting the death of others for profit is virtuous. Killing others for ANY reason other then the defense of yourself or something you own, is aggression and as such, is immoral.

I commend President Bush's team for their excellent exploitation of the American People. That being said, the infringement on individual liberties through coercion he uses is unforgivable and that is the only reason I wish him out.

I commend the powerful, the wealthy, and the intelligent on their success.

(edit: Damn, this is an old thread...)

muh_roads
03-23-2008, 11:48 AM
People who promote aggression are not evil. People who commit aggression do evil. It's your responsibility to filter out what is and isn't bullshit. Watching MSM is problematic to your intellectual well being.

Were the Chicago Eight guilty of aggression for "inciting a riot"?

Why arrest the leaders when the followers are the truly dangerous? They give (or at the least, allow) the powerful power.

This is pointless, you are now going to argue just for the sake of arguing. If the Chicago Eight were indirectly robbing my wallet somehow to further their cause, then yes they are guilty of aggression.

Your example has nothing to do with the kind of dangerous nationwide promotion I'm talking about.

The followers will never be accurately informed until something is done about it.

I guess you don't see things how I see them. Continue to defend corporatism if you wish. I hope you enjoy the continual theft of your wallet and the killing of others for someone elses personal profit. Yes, commendable indeed. [/sarcasm]

Kludge
03-23-2008, 12:10 PM
This is pointless, you are now going to argue just for the sake of arguing. If the Chicago Eight were indirectly robbing my wallet somehow to further their cause, then yes they are guilty of aggression.

Your example has nothing to do with the kind of dangerous nationwide promotion I'm talking about.

The followers will never be accurately informed until something is done about it.

I guess you don't see things how I see them. Continue to defend corporatism if you wish. I hope you enjoy the continual theft of your wallet and the killing of others for someone elses personal profit. Yes, commendable indeed. [/sarcasm]

I' find non-coercive theft much more preferable then the organized looting Americans are currently subject to.

Edit: Compare voluntary military and draft for completeness.