came out with that film at a point that will be regarded in by History as a watershed in American conservative politics. Conservative voices dominated every corner of the airwaves and print media. The tip of the spear of the corporate controlled agenda was fox news. If by "obstruct" and "block" you mean offer an alternative viewpoint, then you are correct, because that was Robert Greenwalds aim. What fox news does of course is not to offer both points of view. They offer straw men in place of liberal opinion, and spin in place of facts. They are entitled to do that. And we are entitled to name them for what they are: Not A News Organisation. In fact, I propose that to be Fox's new call letters. NANO.

by hazmat on 01/10/2009 05:29:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

is the foundation of everything. Conservatives are against it. I welcome you to my "free speech zone". I really have no idea what you're talking about "red handed". If your referring to Dan Rather, the story he broke is 100% true, but, sad day for him, he took Karl Rove's bait and ended up with egg on his face. CBS effectively fired him (squeezed him out you might say) because they are concerned for their reputations, and importantly, deathly afraid of right wing backlash. Fox News? They cover unsubstantiated propaganda all the time. In fact its par for the course over there. The difference is that they're not losing any sleep over public perception of their low-to-non-existent journalism standards.

I'll say it again, nobody has asked to take them off the air. You sound like a real nutter. Hey, I won't cry if they fold because they lost 2 billion this year, but I fully expect someone else to replace them if they do go under. That's the beauty of the marketplace. It just sent fox a $2 bn messg.

Pwnd.

by hazmat on 01/10/2009 08:00:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]