NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to kick this off with a cartoon from Tom Tomorrow:
http://www.thismodernworld.com/foxtap.jpg
Just thought that was cute.

Now for the big news:
Moveon.org (http://www.moveon.org/fox/) and Common Cause (http://commoncause.org) are filing complaints with the FTC to force Fox to drop its "fair and balanced" tag because it's false advertising and a deceptive business practice. The first link takes you to an FTC petition you can sign if you wish.

And in even more news--this is unrelated to the FTC complaint--the British Office of Communications (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101) found Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code. This was in reference to comments made by John (80% of all reporters are liberal) Gibson
about remarks made on the BBC by former reporter Andrew Gilligan. In other words, OfCom found that Fox News was guilty of lying through its teeth.

And as always, for the latest in calling Fox out on its bullshit, you can go to Media Matters. (http://mediamatters.org)

Bastards!

foxnews must also be sued for journalistic malpractice and purgury as well

Ok, this is not news :p

No pun intended..lol

This is why I don't watch the news on TV.

hahah

good cartoon and I read about this and signed the petition already.


They deserve it anyway. They Tried to sue Al Franken for his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" - but they were LITERALLY laughed out of court.


Maybe the Law just favors poopyheads.

foxnews must also be sued for journalistic malpractice and purgury as well

Lets also add Micheal Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and all of CBS and NPR to that as well. I mean you guys act like this is an isolated event in the media. Either they serve for the good of all mankind like CNN or MSNBC or they are hopelessly bloated networks that spew out false and ridiculously biased information. (Notice I put people who lie consistently on both sides of the political spectrum if you wish to challenge me on any of them I will compile a list of questionable things they have said.)

Great Cartoon. So true....

Of course, Formal Dances will be a little miffed about this thread....

Lets also add Micheal Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and all of CBS and NPR to that as well. I mean you guys act like this is an isolated event in the media. Either they serve for the good of all mankind like CNN or MSNBC or they are hopelessly bloated networks that spew out false and ridiculously biased information. (Notice I put people who lie consistently on both sides of the political spectrum if you wish to challenge me on any of them I will compile a list of questionable things they have said.)

Alright.
I challenge on Ann Coulter being hopelessly bloated.

Politcal Agenda in play here. Nothing more nothing less!

foxnews must also be sued for journalistic malpractice and purgury as well

umm...with you on the malpractice, but when did they lie in court. You aren't thinking of slander, are you?

Politcal Agenda in play here. Nothing more nothing less!
I will certainly admit that Moveon and Common Cause are on the opposite of the ideological fence from Fox--will you? That would require that you admit that Fox has an ideological bent, after all.

But the last part--the smackdown from OfCom--is hardly a political agenda at play. That's the British version of the FCC bitchslapping Fox News for lying on the air. Apparently, it's against the law to be deliberately full of shit on the air in Britain.

anything to get these conservo-creep morans! (misspelling is intentional...liberals will understand the inside joke...conservo-creeps, get a liberal to explain it to you)

Figured I'd go ahead and 'splain it myself:
http://www.maniahill.com/images/morans.jpg

I will certainly admit that Moveon and Common Cause are on the opposite of the ideological fence from Fox--will you? That would require that you admit that Fox has an ideological bent, after all.

But the last part--the smackdown from OfCom--is hardly a political agenda at play. That's the British version of the FCC bitchslapping Fox News for lying on the air. Apparently, it's against the law to be deliberately full of shit on the air in Britain.

You get the same e-mails as me it seems, so you know about this. (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

Not likely to get as much play as F 9/11, but really, at this point what can? (I do think MM will take Curac's suggestion and do the next one on media....)

This film (http://thecorporation.com/) has an interesting story I'll only paraphrase here about FOX asking news reporters to lie to protect a corporation. When they got FOX to put the request in writing they tried to file a whistle blower suite that was thrown out. Because FOX wasn't asking them to lie? No, because it was found that it is not unlawful in the US to lie in the news, only to slander. That's why it falls on OfCom and not the FCC to officially say, FOX, your full of shit.

Sadly, that finding doesn't bode well for the chances of moveon.org's, but sometimes winning the court case isn't the point. (The teens that sued McD's lost, but McDs has started to change it's menu.)

Figured I'd go ahead and 'splain it myself:
http://www.maniahill.com/images/morans.jpg
despite my opposition to onamanpia(sp) on the internet, you'll excuse me for a second-

BWAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

I feel better.

You get the same e-mails as me it seems, so you know about this. (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

Not likely to get as much play as F 9/11, but really, at this point what can? (I do think MM will take Curac's suggestion and do the next one on media....)

This film (http://thecorporation.com/) has an interesting story I'll only paraphrase here about FOX asking news reporters to lie to protect a corporation. When they got FOX to put the request in writing they tried to file a whistle blower suite that was thrown out. Because FOX wasn't asking them to lie? No, because it was found that it is not unlawful in the US to lie in the news, only to slander. That's why it falls on OfCom and not the FCC to officially say, FOX, your full of shit.

Sadly, that finding doesn't bode well for the chances of moveon.org's, but sometimes winning the court case isn't the point. (The teens that sued McD's lost, but McDs has started to change it's menu.)I ordered it last week, and got the Amazon email today saying it shipped. I'll be posting a full review on it when it comes in. I haven't seen The Corporation yet, but I think it's still playing in the city, so I might get to see it yet.

That was a very cute cartoon. Although I never watch TV, and I certainly don't go to their site, so I can't speak for myself about Fox, I'm all for them being taken down.

If that is at all the point of this thread. *blinks sleepily*

I ordered it last week, and got the Amazon email today saying it shipped. I'll be posting a full review on it when it comes in. I haven't seen The Corporation yet, but I think it's still playing in the city, so I might get to see it yet.
I'll be looking forward to that review, since I'm still poor and can't buy everything....(I had to see The Corporation with a pass from the Shakespeare company I'm interning with. WELL worth it, should be viewed by everybody)

And in even more news, the British Office of Communications (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101) found
In other words, OfCom found that Fox News was guilty of lying through its teeth.
Erm, that doesn't seem to be anything to do with "fair and balanced"

Erm, that doesn't seem to be anything to do with "fair and balanced"
Didn't say it did. The OfCom report deals with putting out false information and refusing to allow the group they accused time to rebut. The first piece of news was dealing with the FTC petition and the impending "fair and balanced" lawsuit. I just lumped it all together because it involved Fox News' lack of credibility all the way around.

Didn't say it did. The OfCom report deals with putting out false information and refusing to allow the group they accused time to rebut. The first piece of news was dealing with the FTC petition and the impending "fair and balanced" lawsuit. I just lumped it all together because it involved Fox News' lack of credibility all the way around.
Yeah, but its misleading if, in a thread talking about Fox's "fair and balanced" tagline, you put that OfCom has condemned them without mentioning that the condemnation was for something else. It looks like OfCom agrees with the point in the lawsuit (or at least, that was how I read it til I remembered about OfCom's earlier thing.)

Yeah, but its misleading if, in a thread talking about Fox's "fair and balanced" tagline, you put that OfCom has condemned them without mentioning that the condemnation was for something else. It looks like OfCom agrees with the point in the lawsuit (or at least, that was how I read it til I remembered about OfCom's earlier thing.)
My apologies--I'll edit the original post to make sure the difference is clear.

My apologies--I'll edit the original post to make sure the difference is clear.
Damn


I was kindof looking forward to an arguement here. Or indeed anywhere. I'm very much in the mood to kick someone's ass.

Where are all the nazis when you need them?

I dunno, if we're gonna start suing for false advertizing over slogans then things are gonna get silly. Besides, I'm fairly sure that slogans are considered trademarks that don't neccessarily fall under the general rules of advertizing.

But hey - I hope they have fun with it, and I can think of some fun new slogans as a result of such suits if they were to succeed:

Maxwell House: Like dishwater 'til the last drop.
or
Nike: just look like you are equiped to do it if you weren't such a fat lazy bastard.

The possibilities are endless!

I dunno, if we're gonna start suing for false advertizing over slogans then things are gonna get silly. Besides, I'm fairly sure that slogans are considered trademarks that don't neccessarily fall under the general rules of advertizing.

But hey - I hope they have fun with it, and I can think of some fun new slogans as a result of such suits if they were to succeed:

Maxwell House: Like dishwater 'til the last drop.
or
Nike: just look like you are equiped to do it if you weren't such a fat lazy bastard.

The possibilities are endless!

Lol do like your point even if the “slippery slope” argument really is not my thing :-D
As with a lot of things the “reasonable person” rule should start to be applied to not only criminal offensives but also civil
Things like “I didn’t know the coffee was hot even though I just ordered hot coffee”
And a host of other frivolous law suits that make it through

(not saying this necessarily is … though some of it comes a little close) lol

Lol do like your point even if the “slippery slope” argument really is not my thing :-D
As with a lot of things the “reasonable person” rule should start to be applied to not only criminal offensives but also civil
Things like “I didn’t know the coffee was hot even though I just ordered hot coffee”
And a host of other frivolous law suits that make it through

(not saying this necessarily is … though some of it comes a little close) lol

Well, I'm just not sure that it IS a slippery slope argument. I just honestly do not believe that trademarks fall under the same rules as advertizing. Otherwise people would have sued Pepsi as "not being my voice" or something else.

Fox could, after all, just stand up and say "Fair and Balanced" taken as a statement is just that. If you want to construe it as meaning that this is how we present our news that is your problem. We meant it as a description of our boss in that he is fair skinned, and is generally balanced - excet when innebriated.

Trademarks are not required to be descriptive of the product, nor should you neccessarily infer that from them.

I'm going to kick this off with a cartoon from Tom Tomorrow:
http://www.thismodernworld.com/foxtap.jpg
Just thought that was cute.

Now for the big news:
Moveon.org (http://www.moveon.org/fox/) and Common Cause (http://commoncause.org) are filing complaints with the FTC to force Fox to drop its "fair and balanced" tag because it's false advertising and a deceptive business practice. The first link takes you to an FTC petition you can sign if you wish.

And in even more news--this is unrelated to the FTC complaint--the British Office of Communications (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101) found This was in reference to comments made by John (80% of all reporters are liberal) Gibson
about remarks made on the BBC by former reporter Andrew Gilligan. In other words, OfCom found that Fox News was guilty of lying through its teeth.

And as always, for the latest in calling Fox out on its bullshit, you can go to Media Matters. (http://mediamatters.org)
Talk about bias. All those groups are bitter partisan prodemocrat agencies.

Both Moveon and CommonCause are branches owned and operated by the Democratic Party.

Both Moveon and CommonCause are branches owned and operated by the Democratic Party.

Bull.

woot!

not that anyone who watches fox will hear about it though...

Bull.

Moveon.org is an anti-bush group and hates the republican party. They give money to the democratic party under the 527 section of the tax code. Thus, they are attached to the democratic party. I know nothing on CommonCause!

Both Moveon and CommonCause are branches owned and operated by the Democratic Party.

All right I will call that one!

State your evidence please.....

Moveon.org is an anti-bush group and hates the republican party. They give money to the democratic party under the 527 section of the tax code. Thus, they are attached to the democratic party. I know nothing on CommonCause!

There is a huge diference between contributing to a candidate or party of your choice, and being "owned and operated" by them.

I don't contest that they are liberal - I just don't like blatant false statements.

Does this mean I can get the FTC to force CNN from using the slogan "The most trusted name in news?"

Me!

Moveon.org is an anti-bush group and hates the republican party. They give money to the democratic party under the 527 section of the tax code. Thus, they are attached to the democratic party. I know nothing on CommonCause!

Donating and attachment are two different things.

I just read that the RNC in Mich did a signup campaign for Nader to get him on the ballot(seems he couldn't get enough sigs).

Does that make him attached to the Republicans?

Moveon.org is an anti-bush group and hates the republican party. They give money to the democratic party under the 527 section of the tax code. Thus, they are attached to the democratic party. I know nothing on CommonCause!
They are part of the democratic party too.

There is a huge diference between contributing to a candidate or party of your choice, and being "owned and operated" by them.

I don't contest that they are liberal - I just don't like blatant false statements.
The people involved in Moveon.org are bitter partisan democratic party acitivists. Even the head of the Democratic Party has been involved in using party funds to support the false accusations of Moveon.
Hell, Hillary Clinton is one of Moveon main leaders.

phhh liberials

The people involved in Moveon.org are bitter partisan democratic party acitivists. Even the head of the Democratic Party has been involved in using party funds to support the false accusations of Moveon.
Hell, Hillary Clinton is one of Moveon main leaders.


Being a bitter partisan activist still does not make you "owned and operated" by the democratic party.

Your view point on their politics and "bitterness" may indeed be correct. Your initial statement, however, was a blatant falsehood.

Trying to make a point by lying is hardly a smart way to go about things. Indeed, it makes you no better than you probably characterize moveon.org as doing.

Does this mean I can get the FTC to force CNN from using the slogan "The most trusted name in news?"

Me!

Sure, go ahead. Although I understand that they took on that slogan after a nationwide poll bestowed that honor upon them, so you might have a hard time proving your case. And it doesn't speak to the veracity of their news, but rather to the public impression of that veracity. A slightly diferent concept than what Fox's slogan seems to try and present.

After all, if people trust them then the people have no-one to blame but themselves! lol

Okay--let's get something straight here. Moveon and Common Cause, by virtue of the fact that they are 527 groups, can not work with the Democratic party or the Republican party or any political party. They are advocacy groups, just like the Club for Growth. They certainly favor points of view, but they are forbidden by law to work with any of the parties. And Hillary Clinton is certainly not connected with Moveon in any way, shape or form.

Secondly--OfCom isn't even American--it's British--so it's just stupid to call it a Democratic institution in the first place. Jeeze!

I just posted an interview that Bill O'Lielly had with David Cole and it provides undeniable evidence not only of how foxnews rapes the truth but the rampent rightwing hypocrisy that florishes there as well

I just posted an interview that Bill O'Lielly had with David Cole and it provides undeniable evidence not only of how foxnews rapes the truth but the rampent rightwing hypocrisy that florishes there as well

How can one interview tell you this?

How can one interview tell you this?
in the interview he describes how O'reilly perverted the words of the 911 commission and made them say the exact opposite of what they said

in the interview he describes how O'reilly perverted the words of the 911 commission and made them say the exact opposite of what they said

Have you seen the interview with O'Reilly? I did and I like to know how O'Reilly perverted the said words. O'Reilly stopped Cole from Spinning! Of course he's mad at him for that. He got caught! Unless you've seen it, which I did, don't editorialize it. I can because I saw the said interview and Cole was treated fairly on the show.

They deserve it anyway. They Tried to sue Al Franken for his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" - but they were LITERALLY laughed out of court.

I loved that book. :-D

While I'd rather not have a serious horse in this battle, I have a suggestion to keep the "yes they are" "no they're not" posts, which have gone on for about a page now, down to a minimum.
Have any of you heard of citing (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=MoveOn#Relationships_with_other_organizations) your sources?
When you make a claim, showing where you get the information lets people know that you're not just, y'know, talking out of your ass. This, for instance, serves as evidence of absense to a formal relation to the democratic party, and took all of 45 seconds to find. Unless a more reliable news source is cited disagreeing, Whittier's claim is formally bullshit.

As a matter of copywrite law, don't quote the whole article, please, but if there aren't internal anchors, quote the relevant section of text. Matter of ettiquette.