Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?

[NBAJam100]

... and I think they are at a minimum morally on the hook for what is a reasonably foreseeable possibility as a consequence of their amped up rhetoric.

Well, McDonald's serves the vast majority of the general public amped up (in terms of temperature) coffee... I don't however feel that they are at a minimum morally responsible for peoples burn injuries (which have in fact resulted in absurd lawsuits). This is of course a more accident based case, where the topic at hand is murder based... But I think you get the point.

You call the case at hand a reasonably foreseeable possibility? Seems pretty surprising to me...

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, McDonald's serves the vast majority of the general public amped up (in terms of temperature) coffee... I don't however feel that they are at a minimum morally responsible for peoples burn injuries (which have in fact resulted in absurd lawsuits). This is of course a more accident based case, where the topic at hand is murder based... But I think you get the point.

You call the case at hand a reasonably foreseeable possibility? Seems pretty surprising to me...

The McDonald's case is a bad citation, because they were the proximate cause for the burns sustained by the individual. They did heat the coffee up. They did serve it. And someone along the line felt that they might have reasonably foreseen that it could spill in someone's lap.

Did Fox News suggest that shooting at police officers would be a laudable result? Of course not. In that sense I don't see that there is a substantial nexus to Fox or that there is any case to be made for civil of criminal liability.

But I do see Fox as acting with a certain modicum of irresponsibility, as regards the effects that their words might incite. You have Glen Beck just the other day railing about a Marxist revolution going on in America. (Not the Marx Brothers either.) And that kind of rhetoric, while it may be red meat for their apparent target demographic of less well educated red state Conservative fundamentalists, is also laden with red flag code words that one might reasonably expect could trigger anti-social behavior.

Here's the YouTube link to Beck's radio remarks the other day:

(And yes Beck is syndicated by Premiere Networks and that's ClearChannel, but they serve Fox News Radio, in a highly intertwined relationship. But it is surely illustrative of the kinds of unsupported crackpot accusations that filters into his on air shows on Fox Cable News.)

 

[drankin]

...is also laden with red flag code words that one might reasonably expect could trigger anti-social behavior.

Oh, this is good! Could you expound on this? I'm curious of what these code words are that might flip a switch in my head and turn me into an anti-social psychopath. LOL! *cough* sorry, this is serious stuff!

 

[OmCheeto]

There are only two possibilities in America; don't imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Democrats: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Socialism, or else it is the Republican party, which in the end, when the people are in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory for America or annihilation of America and the victory of Obama.

Guess the authorhttp://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111hit1.html"

Then guess whether or not I think the media can motivate people to murder others.

Btw, how long has Charlie been in prison now? Or has everyone forgotten the original Manson?

 

[drankin]

Guess the authorhttp://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111hit1.html"

Then guess whether or not I think the media can motivate people to murder others.

Btw, how long has Charlie been in prison now? Or has everyone forgotten the original Manson?

Back to reality. Fox news did not motivate Poplawski to shoot cops. Charlie Manson was before my time but I don't believe he ever had a job in the media. Poplawski was a keg of gun powder looking for his fuse to be lit. If some other wackjob listens to Air American and decides to burn down a church (lets say Wasilla, AK), we aren't going to place blame on AirAm for this persons behavior. Come on people, can anyone commit a crime anymore without being able to blame it on someone or something else? Lawyers love this stuff.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Then guess whether or not I think the media can motivate people to murder others.

Society seems to like to find scapegoats. Its hard to believe that a human being can be capable of killing another. Murder comes from greed and "evil" and your average joe just isn't greedy and "evil". But who is? That news guy who spews all of that hateful rhetoric for profit? He seems pretty evil. How about those guys that dress up in demonic makeup and sing songs about death and drugs and nihilism and sell millions of albums to young impressionable kids? They seem pretty evil. How about those guys with those sick imaginations who draw pictures and write stories about dismembering women and sell millions of copies to young impressionable kids. They seem pretty evil too! Hey I bet these sick disgusting people are what's making average people do disgusting evil things!

 

[Alfi]

All FOX motivates me to do is change the channel.

I just can't stand the talking over one another that I saw when I last tuned in.
Even the Daily Show had to poke fun at that one.

 

[OAQfirst]

This is almost entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring"

Yet very illustrative.

 

[Al68]

Of course not ... so long as it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

Here's the logo from their website for Heaven's sake.

From what I can see, that seems to go beyond deception and looks like plain fraud.

You don't seriously consider your claim that fox is less fair and balanced than others is objective fact instead of opinion do you?

The big three have been grossly unfair and unbalanced for decades, with no attempt to inform anyone of it. They presented their gross misrepresentations of facts as objective truth the whole time.

 

[LowlyPion]

You don't seriously consider your claim that fox is less fair and balanced than others is objective fact instead of opinion do you?

The big three have been grossly unfair and unbalanced for decades, with no attempt to inform anyone of it. They presented their gross misrepresentations of facts as objective truth the whole time.

Well with respect to the original question, I'd say it's pretty much irrelevant what the other networks may have done or not done in the past as you would see it. At this point they are not the ones that are broadcasting this kind of inflammatory content that would possibly be seen as encouraging this type of behavior.

 

[Al68]

Well with respect to the original question, I'd say it's pretty much irrelevant what the other networks may have done or not done in the past as you would see it. At this point they are not the ones that are broadcasting this kind of inflammatory content that would possibly be seen as encouraging this type of behavior.

I'd say it's relevant in that they are the ones who set the precedent that broadcast news shouldn't be just objective journalism.

And they established the practice of presenting propaganda over the air as news without disclosure, like the AP and newspapers historically has long done with print media. (Most don't even have the name "Democrat" in their title anymore to legitimize their bias.)

 

[WhoWee]

Attacking Sanchez is totally irrelevant. It's a totally specious attempt by Beck to deflect criticism for his outrageous theatrical presentations, clearly intended to incite discord, and depict imminent doom. (Egads he even had that totally laughable farce discussing the issues from his Doom Bunker, or this totally ridiculous sob job he did about loving his country and his devotion to his project 9/12.)

It sounds like you watch his shows...pretty ENTERTAINING... isn't he?

 

[edward]

Glen Beck has been on a "liberal fascism" rant for the last few months. Apparently socialist wasn't a strong enough word, or he didn't want to copy O'Reilly and Rush.

This link is from a few months ago.



Today he was on the same manic rant. He had a couple of guests explaining how the current world economic situation is the same as it was in the 1920's. A little side bar in the lower right of the screen kept flashing: "Its happening again"

Oddly he started out in the video above with Nazi troops marching in the background. He started out with the same Nazi troop clip today. Then he switched to fascists and pictures of Mussolini.

An hour of that tripe each day, and day after day, is going to bend a lot of brains.

While he rants the real news scrolls across the bottom of the screen.

 

[WhoWee]

Glen Beck has been on a "liberal fascism" rant for the last few months. Apparently socialist wasn't a strong enough word, or he didn't want to copy O'Reilly and Rush.

This link is from a few months ago.



Today he was on the same manic rant. He had a couple of guests explaining how the current world economic situation is the same as it was in the 1920's. A little side bar in the lower right of the screen kept flashing: "Its happening again"

Oddly he started out in the video above with Nazi troops marching in the background. He started out with the same Nazi troop clip today. Then he switched to fascists and pictures of Mussolini.

An hour of that tripe each day, and day after day, is going to bend a lot of brains.

While he rants the real news scrolls across the bottom of the screen.

He's on a cable news channel in the afternoon. Who does he compete with...Oprah and Dr. Phil?

I'm more concerned about my kids watching the Simpsons and Family Guy in Prime Time.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'd say it's relevant in that they are the ones who set the precedent that broadcast news shouldn't be just objective journalism.

I appreciate that you hold that opinion (which I certainly don't share), but I don't see how that is relevant to whether a fringe-pot would seemingly entrap police officers and murder them, because he was laboring under some desperate thought that he might no longer be allowed to arm himself, or that communists were taking over, or whatever fantastic illusion he had latched onto, when these are apparently the kind of rhetorical flourishes that Fox News has been shoveling in their attempt to whip up dissent with the current administration.

 

[LowlyPion]

It sounds like you watch his shows...pretty ENTERTAINING... isn't he?

I see snippets on occasion. But I am careful not to watch too long, because I have a personal theory that stupidity may have secondary contact effects, and I prefer not to get infected, just immunized.

 

[edward]

He's on a cable news channel in the afternoon. Who does he compete with...Oprah and Dr. Phil?

I'm more concerned about my kids watching the Simpsons and Family Guy in Prime Time.

LOL I'd rather have a tooth pulled rather than watch Oprah or Dr Phil. You are definitely right about kids watching the Simpson's and Family Guy.

 

[Proton Soup]

Of course not ... so long as it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

Here's the logo from their website for Heaven's sake.

From what I can see, that seems to go beyond deception and looks like plain fraud.

i think you are confused about the first amendment. it wasn't reporting of cold facts that the founders chose to protect, but inflammatory rhetoric. the federalist papers were not shipping manifests.

 

[Al68]

I appreciate that you hold that opinion (which I certainly don't share), but I don't see how that is relevant to whether a fringe-pot would seemingly entrap police officers and murder them, because he was laboring under some desperate thought that he might no longer be allowed to arm himself, or that communists were taking over, or whatever fantastic illusion he had latched onto, when these are apparently the kind of rhetorical flourishes that Fox News has been shoveling in their attempt to whip up dissent with the current administration.

I didn't say it was relevant to all that. It's relevant to

...it is not presented in a form that makes it clear that it is their editorial opinion, and not fabricated polemics clothed as factual content.

I have no interest in claiming that any news show is "unbiased", Fox or otherwise. But the purpose of the first amendment is necessarily to protect inflammatory and outrageous speech. And especially even the kind of speech that could lead to revolt. This isn't the extreme of what is protected, it's the primary purpose.

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre or saying "gimme your wallet or die" is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

 

[isabelle]

He's on a cable news channel in the afternoon. Who does he compete with...Oprah and Dr. Phil?

I'm more concerned about my kids watching the Simpsons and Family Guy in Prime Time.

Glenn Beck is an idiot who doesn't have a clue what fascism is, watching that horrible clip it's obvious that he is trying to use the association between Nazis and the word 'facism' to advance his own political dogma while enriching himself.

On the other hand, Homer Simpson is an animated idiot whose purpose is to deliver lighthearted entertainment to teenagers and immature adults, with the ultimate goal of enriching his creators.

How ironic that Beck, who appears on an electronic screen to spew hate speech in the form of fake news about fake enemies, gives a 'warning' that we are becoming a 1984 society. In fact, I'm sure that if this were 1984, or Germany in 1935 for that matter, Beck would be kissing-up to the administration rather then opposing it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre ... is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

And it's a crime, because (among other things) it endangers people's lives...

 

[G01]

Could that statement be any more uselessly broad/obviously impossible? Dang, that 1st amendment is really annoying if people aren't saying what you want them to say, isn't it? If you get rid of Fox and conservative talk radio, you also have to get rid of their admittedly less popular counterparts. Liberals have a forum that conservatives don't, though: movies. There is a case before the USSC right now that could seriously hinder guys like Michael Moore (it isn't about accuracy, but political campaigning).

You're a big fan of Coast to Coast, right? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzpt - gone.

I agree. I personally do not agree with FOX or their politics, but what they are doing is not illegal.

 

[Al68]

And it's a crime, because (among other things) it endangers people's lives...

So did the Federalist papers, speeches by Lincoln, and many other examples.

I think the key words are "among other things".

 

[LowlyPion]

This isn't the extreme of what is protected, it's the primary purpose.

The reason that yelling "fire" in a theatre or saying "gimme your wallet or die" is not protected isn't because it's generally inflammatory, it's because the speech is used to commit a specific crime.

I tend to agree with your point, and certainly I have no difficulty with viewing seditious speech as protected.

But there is also public responsibility insofar as Fox - "Fair and Balanced" they call themselves - might encourage acts that maybe aren't against the organization of government, but do result in unlawful behavior as a result of scare content that while dramatic and theatrical as far as its presentation, might tend to mislead weaker minds. While I don't see a sufficient nexus between Fox's antics and the Pittsburgh case, absent some direct connection, I do see Fox as choosing a lesser god of profit and polemics over being more socially responsible than misdirecting those weaker minds that they are knowingly catering to with their content.

Here is an example of their content, which arguably does not rise to any level of responsible analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDEM2X4UZU

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Compare that to a quality news program, like This Week, with George Stephanopoulos - what idiots like Beck and other right-wing zealots refer to as "the liberal media".
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7033169

If the link is having trouble, go here
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

and see the Best of This Week; WATCH: 'This Week' Debate: Economic
about half way down the page.

Compare that to the nonsense that Fox is airing. To call it "Fox News" is fraud. For starters, Fox should be sued for false advertising.

 

[WhoWee]

Glenn Beck is an idiot who doesn't have a clue what fascism is, watching that horrible clip it's obvious that he is trying to use the association between Nazis and the word 'facism' to advance his own political dogma while enriching himself.

On the other hand, Homer Simpson is an animated idiot whose purpose is to deliver lighthearted entertainment to teenagers and immature adults, with the ultimate goal of enriching his creators.

How ironic that Beck, who appears on an electronic screen to spew hate speech in the form of fake news about fake enemies, gives a 'warning' that we are becoming a 1984 society. In fact, I'm sure that if this were 1984, or Germany in 1935 for that matter, Beck would be kissing-up to the administration rather then opposing it.

Given your description, what's the difference between the animated feature and Beck...both spewing trash for profit?

Have you seen the violence in cartoons lately...at least Beck denounces violence.

 

[Al68]

I tend to agree with your point, and certainly I have no difficulty with viewing seditious speech as protected.

But there is also public responsibility insofar as Fox - "Fair and Balanced" they call themselves - might encourage acts that maybe aren't against the organization of government, but do result in unlawful behavior as a result of scare content that while dramatic and theatrical as far as its presentation, might tend to mislead weaker minds. While I don't see a sufficient nexus between Fox's antics and the Pittsburgh case, absent some direct connection, I do see Fox as choosing a lesser god of profit and polemics over being more socially responsible than misdirecting those weaker minds that they are knowingly catering to with their content.

Here is an example of their content, which arguably does not rise to any level of responsible analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRDEM2X4UZU

Well, anyone with a mind so weak they could possibly get the impression that that is the content that is being referred to as objective journalism is having enough trouble just finding someone to tie their shoes for them.

That being said, it sounds like we agree on the free speech issue in general.

 

[edward]

Given your description, what's the difference between the animated feature and Beck...both spewing trash for profit?

Have you seen the violence in cartoons lately...at least Beck denounces violence.

The news content of Beck's performances is about the same as that in the cartoons.

He denounces violence out one side of his mouth while a clever choice of words incites violence out of the other.

While Nazi Video plays behind him the real news scrolls by at the bottom of the screen.

 

[Al68]

Compare that to a quality news program, like This Week, with George Stephanopoulos - what idiots like Beck and other right-wing zealots refer to as "the liberal media".

I thought in general it was the straight news that was referred to as the "liberal media", ie 6 o'clock news with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, AP, etc., where they're pretending to just report the news objectively, not political news programs where they are obviously presenting points of view, even if it's different and opposing points of view.

But I could be wrong, I haven't heard it every time anyone has used the phrase.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought in general it was the straight news that was referred to as the "liberal media", ie 6 o'clock news with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, AP, etc., where they're pretending to just report the news objectively, not political news programs where they are obviously presenting points of view, even if it's different and opposing points of view.

But I could be wrong, I haven't heard it every time anyone has used the phrase.

Just another lie perpetuated by the Fox-like nuts. Sure, any news source can be biased. In fact the first rule of journalism is that there is no completely unbiased report, but nothing on ABC, CBS, NBC, or certainly on PBS news has ever stooped to the base levels of Fox.

Note that Rather was forced to resign because one story that he reported wasn't accurate. And that only happened because he was tricked!

When Tim Russert died, [Russert ran the NBC news department], anyone who is anyone in Washington DC attended the funeral or memorial service. Why? Because Russert was considered to be the gold standard of journalism by Washington insiders.

When the Presidential candidates wanted unbiased moderators for their debates, they turned to PBS and CNN.

When you see Beck pretending to pour gasoline on someone, or a Fox guest suggesting that someone should kill Obama, is it any wonder that Foxheads find the real networks biased? "Biased" in that case means "not a fanatical right-wing zealot".

Take note also that the once respectable WSJ - a paper that I read daily for years - is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Another one bites the dust!

 

[NBAJam100]

For starters, Fox should be sued for false advertising.

What is with you and absurd lawsuits?

I have a sort of random side comment to throw in here that I'm sure many of you won't agree with or will declare a non-issue.

You have shows out there like the daily show, while although admittedly don't claim to be a legitimate news source, that influence probably more people than any of the actual news shows/companies combined. I am in my early/mid 20's and its amazing to me how many people jumped on the Obama train solely due to the daily show alone. I wasn't for or against either candidate in this election but as the election went on I started to question the motives of many of the Obama voters.

You would have kids running around campus rallying for Obama who knew NOTHING about his policies or plans of action. You would ask why they feel Obama is the best choice and about 80% of the time the only response I received was "We want change!" This is saying nothing about Obama himself, I am just commenting on the age demographic that I'm in and what I noticed. I am sure many kids in my age demographic had a strong knowledge of politics, but to me, it seemed as if the vast majority did not.

With that being said, I actually have more of a beef with these comedic news shows which apparently have a very strong impact on what you could call... weak minded (politically) individuals who could clearly be swayed to one side without knowing a damn thing about the candidate they are claiming to be the savior of our country.

Its great that people legitimately did want a positive change, but its kind of scary to see people being swayed in such a way with very little knowledge of what they are jumping into. That could lead to VERY BAD things.

 

[russ_watters]

Ivan, I'd like a quick clarification: Do you believe that what you are suggesting is how the 1st Amendment works/was intended to work or are you suggesting a new way for freedom of speech to work? If the former, you really need to provide evidence to support your claim, in the form of legal/historical/philosophical precedent.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, anyone with a mind so weak they could possibly get the impression that that is the content that is being referred to as objective journalism is having enough trouble just finding someone to tie their shoes for them.

The corollary to this is in my mind is that since Fox cultivates this kind of demographic they also have a responsibility not to take advantage of the less capable minds to whip up anti-social behavior. If Glen Beck is any indication of the kind of viewers they hope to attract to their network programming, then I'd say they surely must be reasonably expected to anticipate that antisocial behavior is an entirely possible result of such infantile but inflammatory polemical prattle.

That being said, it sounds like we agree on the free speech issue in general.

I enjoy mine. I see no reason to deny others theirs. Even Glen Beck if he thinks he can make a buck acting retarded on the air. But to the extent that his nonsense provokes similarly retarded thinking in those acting out on his incendiary rants, I can't see how he escapes total responsibility for any consequential helter skelter. It may not rise to a sufficient preponderance to sustain an adverse civil judgment, but the blame must still be his for advantaging himself without regard for the power that his words may have on these weaker minds that need help tying their shoes.

 

[Al68]

Just another lie perpetuated by the Fox-like nuts. Sure, any news source can be biased. In fact the first rule of journalism is that there is no completely unbiased report, but nothing on ABC, CBS, NBC, or certainly on PBS news has ever stooped to the base levels of Fox.

Note that Rather was forced to resign because one story that he reported wasn't accurate. And that only happened because he was tricked!

When Tim Russert died, [Russert ran the NBC news department], anyone who is anyone in Washington DC attended the funeral or memorial service. Why? Because Russert was considered to be the gold standard of journalism by Washington insiders.

When the Presidential candidates wanted unbiased moderators for their debates, they turned to PBS and CNN.

When you see Beck pretending to pour gasoline on someone, or a Fox guest suggesting that someone should kill Obama, is it any wonder that Foxheads find the real networks biased? "Biased" in that case means "not a fanatical right-wing zealot".

Take note also that the once respectable WSJ - a paper that I read daily for years - is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Another one bites the dust!

I can only assume that you're just pretending to miss my point.

 

[edward]

A bit of comic relief from John Stewart. BARAKNOPHOBIA

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey