flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:40:06 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:37:26 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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****.

No, it means "oops."

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm#RESPONSE

But thank you for considering me so versed in law that I could cite
Florida Statute, like § 448.102, off the top of my head in a post.


Not to mention your long list of outright lies. lol

Typical liberal 'one word' vocabulary: "lie."


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.


Really? Where do you find that in the below? lol

Notice how the liberal partial quotes bits and pieces out of context
and then demands things be 'found' in the culled text.


"FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

13. PLAINTIFFS' reports clearly revealed, .... new drug commonly
known as Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH)......

And could have benn any other topic. lol