flipper wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:25:18 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:57:56 -0400, Boris Mohar
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:41:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Just saw Canadian PM Harper on Fox News.

Very savvy fellow.

Can speak extemporaneously... no teleprompter (or wide-screen TV
;-) needed!

I'm VERY impressed!

Wish we had a real President :-(

...Jim Thompson

FOX News - The tabloid truth

http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/blogs/archives/8408

(1) Who the frick is Greg Gutfeld?

(2) Which Fox News show was he on? I watch Fox all the time,

That explains a lot. lol


http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by
a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury
verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was
pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she
knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically
declares it is technically not against any
law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a
television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its
conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the
station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false,
distorted, or slanted" story about
the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not
dispute
the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a
false story
to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court,
as well
as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions,
in front of
three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds
there is no
hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the
news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock,
argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or
deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal
Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a
"policy,"
not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation


I have yet to see an 'activist' liberal who could accurately recount
ANY thing of substance and the only use I've found for them is if they
try to tell you what was said or done you can rest assured that isn't
what happed.

Fox did not argue any of those things nor did the court make that
adjudication.

In the first place, Fox made 19 affirmative defenses. But, to the two
mentioned above Fox argued

"Eighth Affirmative Defense

As an eighth affirmative defense, the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida
Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant's news judgments
and the exercise of editorial discretion, consistent with the
guarantees of a free press."

That does not say one damn thing about it being "ok to lie" nor is it
an admission of 'lying'. What it says is the Constitution prohibits
infringing on a free press. And that includes calling someone a 'liar'
simply because they have an opinion different than yours.

Liberals, of course, don't give a tinker's dam about rights or the
Constitution and they'll drive a bulldozer over the whole thing if
necessary to 'get' whoever they don't like.

"Eleventh Affirmative Defense

As an eleventh affirmative defense, Plaintiffs have failed to state a
cause of action in that the Federal Communications Commission's
"rigging and slanting" doctrine is more in the nature of that agency's
obiter dictum, and is not a "law, rule, or regulation" within the
meaning of Florida Statutes § 448.102."

This, again, says not one damn thing about it being "ok to lie," It
says the issue is irrelevant because the supposed FCC 'doctrine' fails
to meet the Florida statutory requirements they purport to be suing
under.

Liberals, of course, don't give a tinker's dam what the law is either.
You're supposed to 'convict' whoever the hell they don't like for
whatever reason they dream up.

The other defenses, including the 8'th, are irrelevant because the
court ruled the 11'th to be correct. There is no cause of action under
the cited law.

And just to show how ridiculous this whole thing is, the 'point of
controversy' was over Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), an FDA approved
product that the FDA adamantly maintains is completely safe.

The plaintiffs obviously disagree but it is patently absurd to claim
someone is 'lying' simply because they hold a reasonable and rational
position that if the FDA, and independent research, says it's safe
then it just might be safe.

Nor does it matter even if it turns out they're 'mistaken' or 'wrong'.
It's not only an opinion but a reasonable and rational one.

But, of course, liberals call anyone who disagrees with them a 'liar'.

No cite = unsubstantiated bull****.

Not to mention your long list of outright lies. lol