Fox News under fire?

Solonoid · April 26, 2017, 09:20:22 PM

Sean Hannity next in line for a smear campaign, a blogger came out and said he sexually harrassed her in the early 2000s.

Apparently, she has admitted this claim was false.

Hannity spent his opening segment tonight claiming Fox News was being systematically attacked and defending himself personally. His main goal was to discredit anyone and everyone speaking against him.

Sound familiar?

Anne Coulter then came on and complained about how UC Berkley shut down an event she had been permitted previously to run on their campus.

The two of them threatened to sue, well, basically everyone who had been adverse to them, Anne Coulter describing a lawsuit already in action as "a great lawsuit".

Essentially, the entire conservative news system is taking up Trump brand rhetoric, in what will surely be the downfall of analytical and focused reporting, as every newsman on the right becomes as self obsessed and self righteous as the frontman they hope to replace, Bill O'Reilly, and the President they espouse to defend, and surely, they deign to emulate.

DAS B00T x2 · April 26, 2017, 09:28:12 PM

Fox under systematic attacks AND Alex Jones being drug through the court system in a custody battle with a Jewess? Total coincidence Goy. Nothing to see here.

challengerX · April 26, 2017, 09:51:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Jet Wave · April 26, 2017, 11:13:25 PM

It's a great lawsuit, absolutely yuuuuge. It's the biggest. Nobody has a better lawsuit than me, everyone says so.

Azumarill · April 26, 2017, 11:32:22 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 09:51:37 PM

I don't give a fuck I hope all these lying racist assholes lose their jobs and die in a gutter somewhere.

ಠ_ಠ · April 27, 2017, 11:34:27 AM

YouTube

ban me · April 27, 2017, 03:47:21 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Solonoid · April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM

Quote from: Nuka on April 27, 2017, 11:34:27 AM

YouTube

people respond to Tucker Carlson.

He's the natural replacement for O'Reilly. This reaction, calling him problematic, is the exact thing Hannity is complaining about, and as long as people want to wage war against the opinionated talk 'news' of the right, they're going to fight back.

The liberal media is going to have to accept that there are an endless supply of assholes in the conservative media to continue voicing opinions that are very real, and held by a number of Americans.

The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.

We all need to learn to attack people's stances instead of attacking people, because silencing someone is no way to deal with dissent. At that point, we really are fascists.

Alternative Facts · April 29, 2017, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM

The liberal media is going to have to accept that there are an endless supply of assholes in the conservative media to continue voicing opinions that are very real, and held by a number of Americans.

The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.

Yes and no.

Luciana · April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM

The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.

A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*

Alternative Facts · April 29, 2017, 03:27:24 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.
A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*

I gotchu boo

DAS B00T x2 · April 29, 2017, 03:28:06 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.
A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*

The people who don't realize this probably don't know what that means, bro.

Solonoid · April 29, 2017, 04:18:29 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.
A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*

Fox stays on the air because there are people who want to hear the things they're saying.

So no, the old "yeah but that doesn't mean I have to hear it" doesn't apply.

We're all free to change the channel, and everybody who wants to listen will stay tuned.

I don't agree with their messages, but I respect their right to voice their opinions, and accept the fact that there are people who are listening and nodding along.

Attacking a stance you don't agree with is the foundation of democracy in most of the world. But attacking a person because you don't agree with them is downright un-American.

Solonoid · April 29, 2017, 04:22:56 PM

Daily reminder that the value of a person's opinion in a democracy is valued not by any iron clad grid of ethics, instead simply by the number of people who agree.

Solonoid · April 29, 2017, 04:31:11 PM

Quote from: Alternative Facts on April 29, 2017, 03:27:24 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.
A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*

I gotchu boo

Bill O'Reilly's show didn't get cancelled because people didn't want to listen to him, it got cancelled because somebody ran a slanderous mudraking campaign against him and very probably falsified claims in order to demonize him, not before his public, but before his producers, who were too afraid for their own reputations by association.

That's not dissent, that's a targeted silencing.

And it's no coincidence they nearly did the same thing to Sean Hannity only for it to very quickly turn out falsified so soon after O'Reilly went down.

Alternative Facts · April 29, 2017, 04:44:04 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 29, 2017, 04:31:11 PM

Bill O'Reilly's show didn't get cancelled because people didn't want to listen to him, it got cancelled because somebody ran a slanderous mudraking campaign against him and very probably falsified claims in order to demonize him, not before his public, but before his producers, who were too afraid for their own reputations by association.

First off, neither O'Reilly nor his lawyers have provided evidence to defend himself or disprove the claims that he and Fox News paid settlements to the tune of $13 million to five different individuals. They aren't even attempting to disprove that at this point because it's been confirmed by The New York Times.

Their issue at this point is that a left-wing media group decided to bring attention to the fact the network has allowed this guy to remain in his position despite have to settle five times because of claims of sexual harassment and verbal abuse - ironic, considering the image of the news outlet standing for "Conservative, family values".

So yes, he wasn't yanked because of free speech. He was yanked because he acted inappropriately, tried to cover it up, and lost the network money when advertisers decided they didn't want to be connected to him. So I'm sure exactly sure why you're deciding to paint him with the brush stroke of innocence and victimizing him - he fucked himself in the ass on this one.

Quote

That's not dissent, that's a targeted silencing.

So hold on a second. The left-wing media group is the person in the wrong here because they uncovered O'Reilly/Fox News' unethical cover-up and decided to run with it?

Luciana · April 29, 2017, 05:22:27 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on April 29, 2017, 03:28:06 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: Ramona on April 28, 2017, 06:00:51 AM
The fact that anyone who voices these opinions is called problematic and attacked shows a serious lack of respect for free speech.
A daily reminder that free speech is a civil liberty and not a civil right.

*insert free speech comic here*
The people who don't realize this probably don't know what that means, bro.

Basically what the comic covered. As long as the government isn't suppressing it, it's not a violation of shit.

There is a difference between a private business kicking someone off the air/not coming to an event because it doesn't match with what their message is or whatever. It's an entirely different thing when Turkey (for an example) is blocking social media and Wikipedia.

Solonoid · April 29, 2017, 10:21:38 PM

Quote from: Alternative Facts on April 29, 2017, 04:44:04 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 29, 2017, 04:31:11 PM
Bill O'Reilly's show didn't get cancelled because people didn't want to listen to him, it got cancelled because somebody ran a slanderous mudraking campaign against him and very probably falsified claims in order to demonize him, not before his public, but before his producers, who were too afraid for their own reputations by association.

First off, neither O'Reilly nor his lawyers have provided evidence to defend himself or disprove the claims that he and Fox News paid settlements to the tune of $13 million to five different individuals. They aren't even attempting to disprove that at this point because it's been confirmed by The New York Times.

Their issue at this point is that a left-wing media group decided to bring attention to the fact the network has allowed this guy to remain in his position despite have to settle five times because of claims of sexual harassment and verbal abuse - ironic, considering the image of the news outlet standing for "Conservative, family values".

So yes, he wasn't yanked because of free speech. He was yanked because he acted inappropriately, tried to cover it up, and lost the network money when advertisers decided they didn't want to be connected to him. So I'm sure exactly sure why you're deciding to paint him with the brush stroke of innocence and victimizing him - he fucked himself in the ass on this one.

Quote
That's not dissent, that's a targeted silencing.

So hold on a second. The left-wing media group is the person in the wrong here because they uncovered O'Reilly/Fox News' unethical cover-up and decided to run with it?

quite simply, I don't believe any of it ever happened

Just like I still don't believe Bill Cosby raped 50 women.

Maybe one or two, but the rest is sheer opportunism.

The fact that immediately afterward Hannity was targeted, and the use of similar tactics against the President, who really is guilty of nothing more than speaking crudely in a private setting, but was also accused of secual misconduct for only nothing to come of it.

It's obvious the Sean Hannity is right.
The left is trying to systematically wipe out dissent by means of career assassination.

There was once a time in this country when even if you didn't care for what a man had to say, we were willing to die for his right to say it.

I may think Fox News is nothing but right wing propaganda, but I can absolutely admit when they're not being given a fair shake.

Alternative Facts · April 29, 2017, 10:30:41 PM

See, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe the accusations - there is evidence that it happened, as publically detailed in media outlets, and no counter evidence has been presented to disprove the claim. You don't get to claim something is true/false, offer no evidence to counter, and then continue to parrot said belief as if you've determined it to be fact.

I can't speak to Sean Hannity's case as I've yet to read any details about it. But as I said before - O'Reilly and Fox News did this to themselves by attempting to cover up crimes. This is not a Freedom of Speech violation, it never was and never will be because the government is not stepping in saying what Fox News can say.

This is advertisers and the public disassociating themselves with a guy who did shit, lied about it and paid victims to cover it up. That isn't a free speech violation, that's the beauty of having options in who you watch and support. Unless you have evidence that this is some conspiracy to take down a network (Which still WOULD NOT be a violation of freedom of speech), then this is simply a glorified opinion of yours and not a fact.

Solonoid · April 29, 2017, 11:49:14 PM

Quote from: Alternative Facts on April 29, 2017, 10:30:41 PM

See, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe the accusations - there is evidence that it happened, as publically detailed in media outlets, and no counter evidence has been presented to disprove the claim. You don't get to claim something is true/false, offer no evidence to counter, and then continue to parrot said belief as if you've determined it to be fact.

I can't speak to Sean Hannity's case as I've yet to read any details about it. But as I said before - O'Reilly and Fox News did this to themselves by attempting to cover up crimes. This is not a Freedom of Speech violation, it never was and never will be because the government is not stepping in saying what Fox News can say.

This is advertisers and the public disassociating themselves with a guy who did shit, lied about it and paid victims to cover it up. That isn't a free speech violation, that's the beauty of having options in who you watch and support. Unless you have evidence that this is some conspiracy to take down a network (Which still WOULD NOT be a violation of freedom of speech), then this is simply a glorified opinion of yours and not a fact.

I never claimed free speech was being violated, I said they don't respect free speech.

There's a difference.

As for the other, I'm not getting into an analytical discussion about it or trying to prove to you Bill O'Reilly is innocent, because I've looked at the facts and made up my mind and you've looked at the fact and made up yours.

My point is, you don't have to take a person's rights from them to demonstrate a basic lack of respect for human rights.

The assault against people who voice dissent is, bottom line, without regard for free speech.
Obviously people are free to have no respect for someone's right to voice their opinion, and they're free to have no respect for people's wishes to hear what other people have to say.

The fact that we permit their disrespect doesn't make them less fascist, it just makes us better democrats.

DAS B00T x2 · April 30, 2017, 12:14:55 AM

Quote from: Ramona on April 29, 2017, 11:49:14 PM

I never claimed free speech was being violated, I said they don't respect free speech.

You're fucking retarded.

If I'm an old money Jew with lots of American shekels tied up in the old media and trying to control what people think in an elaborate 5D game of Chinese checkers, I'm not going to pay a player who mentions or subscribes to or performs actions not in alignment with what I want the public to abide by.
It's not a disregard for free speech, it's a careful regard for my own Jewish money.

Luciana · April 30, 2017, 01:13:23 PM

Quote from: Ramona on April 29, 2017, 11:49:14 PM

because I've looked at the facts and made up my mind and you've looked at the fact and made up yours.

Lol

I think you should understand the basic definition of what a fact is.