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

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you TheStatutoryApe.

You're welcome.


By the way, I'm not sure if you are fimiliar with the idiom but "hail from" generally is synonymous with "come from". It doesn't necessarily mean anything else.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Fox News is in the business of entertainment. Although "News" appears in their name ( OH NO!), the network's pundits and entertainers can really say whatever they want. Is this right? It's free speech. Do we need to sue Fox News- as someone suggested earlier- for "misleading" viewers or for "extreme" things said? There is no spectrum scarcity. If you don't like what they are showing, change the channel instead of adding to their ratings. Troll the internet searching Fox News Bias? Your time would be put to better use honing your own political ideology. Fox News is biased, as are other stations- get over it.

 

[WhoWee]

By falsely representing themselves as a news agency and then reporting false and inflammatory information that supports the allegations of radical organizations, Fox "News" could easily lend credence to the claims of those organizations.

In fact, the degree to which Fox is willing to misrepresent the facts suggests that they are knowingly and willfully creating an environment of malice that could easily foster violence.

Don't you EVER support your statements Ivan?

This is my third challenge of your statements in (about) as many days...across multiple (at least 2) threads.

You do know the rules, don't you?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Don't you EVER support your statements Ivan?

This is my third challenge of your statements in (about) as many days...across multiple (at least 2) threads.

You do know the rules, don't you?

Censorship has always been a big deal for me so I may have been rather a bit obnoxious in some of my posts here but I have to say that Ivan is a fairly rational human being and polite discourse is more likely to elicite meaningful discussion than your blatant attacks.

Please propose logical arguements against his or simply report him if you truly feel he is violating guidelines. Otherwise you are just killing the thread. Personally I prefer to engage persons I disagree with rather than taunt or accuse them.

 

[Proton Soup]

We have a grip and a good one, better check you own.

Show me an example of MSNBC pulling off an interview ambush like this:



There are plenty more examples on youtube. Just search Fox News Bias

just pick anything olbermann. he's on 5 days a week.

 

[LowlyPion]

just pick anything olbermann. he's on 5 days a week.

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

 

[Proton Soup]

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

i'll give you the rest, but Van Susteren? really?! i haven't watch her in a long time, but she always seemed a very level-headed interviewer to me. kind of Larry King-ish, actually.

 

[mheslep]

Like it or not MSNBC at least has some standards. Heck they even have Joe Scarborough with a show and his bias is pretty close to Fox, but he certainly stops short of Megan's kind of ambush. Her attempt to smear Acorn was a simply dishonest dissembling of the facts.

Sure Olbermann and Maddow and now Ed Schultz at night are a decidedly leftward tilt to the scales, but they are nothing compared to the shrill rants from Beck and O'Reilly and Cavuto and Hannity and Van Susteren.

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

 

[LowlyPion]

i'll give you the rest, but Van Susteren? really?! i haven't watch her in a long time, but she always seemed a very level-headed interviewer to me. kind of Larry King-ish, actually.

Her husband is consulting for Palin.

Read her Gretawire site. It look's to me like straight rebranding of the standard Fox fare served up on Hannity, et al..

 

[LowlyPion]

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

Which one?

 

[mheslep]

Which one?

Shelby

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Olberman called a US Senator 'traitorous' the other night. Not tongue and cheek either.

My local talk radio personalities John & Ken, with a conservative libertarian bent, have called just about every single republican in office in California traitors. They even have "heads on pikes" on their website. As much as I enjoy them and their rants it doesn't make them any less biased.

 

[LowlyPion]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

 

[WhoWee]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

Maybe he read it on Twitter?

Did you read the transcript...he jokes about too much whiskey. Did he actually do anything...or just makes threats?

 

[T.S.Morgan]

Now comes the arrest of Daniel Knight Hayden for his Twitter threats of mass violence launched against police at Oklahoma City Tea Party.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5648778/daniel_knight_hayden_charges

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events, because how else would anyone have known about them except for the promotion by Fox?

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events? That's crazy , they were all over the internet for months beforehand.

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe he read it on Twitter?

Did you read the transcript...he jokes about too much whiskey. Did he actually do anything...or just makes threats?

The FBI have charged him, so yes I guess his stupid incendiary comments were considered as something.

Funny too how the bozo that shot the 3 policemen in Pittsburgh was also getting his courage from a bottle ... and his news from Fox?

Maybe look at his myspace page and find out what kind of quirky looney tunes things he was into besides being an armed pro gun, anti-abortionist.

Maybe there is more truth to the DHS Risk Assessment of Right Wing Groups after all?

 

[LowlyPion]

He must have watched Fox to even know about these events? That's crazy , they were all over the internet for months beforehand.

Without Fox personalities headlining at the events on stage and promoting heavily over the air during the weeks before, no one would have noticed that anything was really going on. It was Fox that made it an event. That was no grass roots.

 

[NeoDevin]

That was no grass roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing"

 

[WhoWee]

The FBI have charged him, so yes I guess his stupid incendiary comments were considered as something.

Funny too how the bozo that shot the 3 policemen in Pittsburgh was also getting his courage from a bottle ... and his news from Fox?

Maybe look at his myspace page and find out what kind of quirky looney tunes things he was into besides being an armed pro gun, anti-abortionist.

Maybe there is more truth to the DHS Risk Assessment of Right Wing Groups after all?

Do you honestly believe (I'll make an unfair racist profiling comment to make a point) "Drunkin Rednecks" watch FOX news at the bar during happy hour?

 

[LowlyPion]

I may be mistaken but I am fairly certain that most rightwing orgs are pro-local law enforcement. Can you show me any examples of rightwing groups targeting police officers? Otherwise this doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not Fox is liable for someone who shot three cops.

Do you maybe have examples of Fox making people blow up abortion clinics or burn crosses on people lawns? Maybe even just a neo-nazi giving someone a skinhead smile?

Now what of O'Reilly's frequent screeds on, and in this case most specifically against this Dr. Tiller? Has his characterizations of this man as a mass murderer or as "Tiller the baby killer" represented "Fair and Balanced" exposition? (MSNBC puts O'Reilly's mentioning Dr. Tiller at 28 times.) Has his failure in the afterglow of Dr. Tiller's murder now to accept even the slightest amount of responsibility in labeling and condemning this Dr. Tiller's legal, let me say it again, legal activities, using highly charged inflammatory polemical language ... at what point are you willing to say there is no accountability, that there is no connection between the environment that these nut-balls live in and their actions?

"When I heard about Tiller's murder, I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime and that is exactly what has happened, ... everything we said about Tiller was true ... no back-pedaling here."

As a side note I'd say the threat assessment DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism was apparently a little more prescient in identifying this very kind of threat, than the Right Wing Ideologues that were decrying its publication may want to admit.

How many more incidents will it take before Fox begins to take responsibility for the polarizing atmosphere that they are apparently feeding?

 

[drankin]

Now what of O'Reilly's frequent screeds on, and in this case most specifically against this Dr. Tiller? Has his characterizations of this man as a mass murderer or as "Tiller the baby killer" represented "Fair and Balanced" exposition? (MSNBC puts O'Reilly's mentioning Dr. Tiller at 28 times.) Has his failure in the afterglow of Dr. Tiller's murder now to accept even the slightest amount of responsibility in labeling and condemning this Dr. Tiller's legal, let me say it again, legal activities, using highly charged inflammatory polemical language ... at what point are you willing to say there is no accountability, that there is no connection between the environment that these nut-balls live in and their actions?


As a side note I'd say the threat assessment DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism was apparently a little more prescient in identifying this very kind of threat, than the Right Wing Ideologues that were decrying its publication may want to admit.

How many more incidents will it take before Fox begins to take responsibility for the polarizing atmosphere that they are apparently feeding?

For one, this murderer does not qualify as a Homeland Security threat.

And for a media personality to describe abortion as "baby-killing" does not equate to condoning a wackjob to kill another human being. That would be a contradiction to their point. The point being murdering a human being is wrong, regardless of age or development.

 

[LowlyPion]

For one, this murderer does not qualify as a Homeland Security threat.

And for a media personality to describe abortion as "baby-killing" does not equate to condoning a wackjob to kill another human being. That would be a contradiction to their point. The point being murdering a human being is wrong, regardless of age or development.

I see. Targeted killing in a church is not to be taken as terrorism because ... it was not indiscriminate? Of course those in the church, his family, they were not terrorized. Right Wing Individuals that express themselves in acts of targeted senseless violence, even though they would apparently be deranged, can be trusted not to act indiscriminately, and hence could never be terrorists because ...?

As to the condoning ... that isn't the issue. The responsibility is the thing. The filling of the air waves with hate-mongering polemics that this Doctor was a mass murderer, even though he was doing NOTHING illegal, there is no consequence for that because O'Reilly thinks that what he was saying was "truthful"? The failure to take responsibility for his words and his rhetoric, contributing to a climate that only serves to encourage a deadly outcome, a murder that is clearly illegal, this then is OK?

Words have consequences as Fox well knows, else they wouldn't be engaging in perpetually painting the news with their palette of right wing pigments.

 

[drankin]

I see. Targeted killing in a church is not to be taken as terrorism because ... it was not indiscriminate? Of course those in the church, his family, they were not terrorized. Right Wing Individuals that express themselves in acts of targeted senseless violence, even though they would apparently be deranged, can be trusted not to act indiscriminately, and hence could never be terrorists because ...?

As to the condoning ... that isn't the issue. The responsibility is the thing. The filling of the air waves with hate-mongering polemics that this Doctor was a mass murderer, even though he was doing NOTHING illegal, there is no consequence for that because O'Reilly thinks that what he was saying was "truthful"? The failure to take responsibility for his words and his rhetoric, contributing to a climate that only serves to encourage a deadly outcome, a murder that is clearly illegal, this then is OK?

Words have consequences as Fox well knows, else they wouldn't be engaging in perpetually painting the news with their palette of right wing pigments.

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

 

[LowlyPion]

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

Who cares when he was first shot at? That has nothing to do with anything. He was shot at on Sunday. He was killed on Sunday. Fox has not once but 28 times at a minimum prior to Sunday characterized him on air - incorrectly I must point out - as a murderer, a mass murderer - even though his activities were permitted by the Laws of the US.

It's shocking to think that they would say that they have no responsibility in raising the temperature of a public colloquy that has led now to the unjustifiable death of a man.

You might want to look up Frank Shaeffer on line. You might find this:

And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there's a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder. And so people like me are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds. And so when O'Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against Fox or against him or trying to muzzle debate, he's telling a lie.

... But I also think that pretending that you can call abortion murder and Tiller the baby killer, etc., etc., etc. and that these words don't have an impact is crazy. So this is what helps unhinge a society, talking like that. And I apologize and I will apologize again. I am sorry for what I did.

No sorrow apparently clouds Fox's brow for the polarity of their words and their part in the cavalcade of events.

 

[BoomBoom]

How long has Fox News been around? The first time this guy was shot was long before Fox News was around. Nice try though.

He was shot the first time, and his clinic was bombed due to the same type of rhetoric being spread (probably by church groups), and now Fox news is spreading that same rhetoric to millions. Nice try though.

 

[drankin]

He was shot the first time, and his clinic was bombed due to the same type of rhetoric being spread (probably by church groups), and now Fox news is spreading that same rhetoric to millions. Nice try though.

Can you specify the rhetoric in question exactly?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that making assertions that abortion is murder is a moral interpretation, whereas calling Obama a Marxist or a Socialist, as in the hype related to the op, is a misrepresentation of the facts. It seems to me that the issue of abortion is a free speech issue, and the other is simply spreading lies.

However, the claim of "fair and balanced" is obviously a misrepresentation of the facts - fraud.

 

[mheslep]

Enough with the feigned concern for FN fed violence. Any real concern for harm done to people would elicit discussion on the media at large. Any idea how much violence ecomilitant groups like these:

Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
Arissa
Animal Rights Militia
Band of Mercy
Animal Liberation Brigade
Vegan Dumpster Militia
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Direct Action Front
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008

The Justice Department
While SHAC sets a new standard for eco-terrorism, another British import is making American and Canadian authorities even more nervous.Since it sprang up in 1993, the so-called 'Justice Department' has claimed responsibility for hundreds of violent attacks in the U.K. With an underground cell structure similar to those of the ALF and ELF, the Justice Department has made creative use of letter bombs, which have injured several people, and sent out scores of envelopes rigged with poisoned razor blades.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=91

and anti-globalization groups have done and continue to do, led on by a general drum beat in the media and Hollywood about how the world is being destroyed by evil capitalists? How much violence do gansta rappers encourage against women and the cops? Please, what a load.

 

[BoomBoom]

Can you specify the rhetoric in question exactly?

That doctors who perform abortions are "mass murderers", and that aborting a fetus that has not yet been born (and in the vast majority of cases is barely formed at all) is on par with "killing babies"...for starters.

 

[drankin]

That doctors who perform abortions are "mass murderers", and that aborting a fetus that has not yet been born (and in the vast majority of cases is barely formed at all) is on par with "killing babies"...for starters.

That is their stance on the issue. Is it wrong for them to state their opinion? Did they tell anyone to kill doctors?

 

[BoomBoom]

That is their stance on the issue. Is it wrong for them to state their opinion? Did they tell anyone to kill doctors?

Well, no they didn't...that would have probably really got them in trouble for inciting violence.

I am a huge fan of free speech and believe they absolutely have the right to state their opinions. It is also our right to call them out when we think their opinions are leading extremist wackos to do violent acts based on those opinions.

...they can call abortion murder, and I can call them murder instigators.

 

[BoomBoom]

Enough with the feigned concern for FN fed violence. Any real concern for harm done to people would elicit discussion on the media at large. Any idea how much violence ecomilitant groups like these:

Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
Arissa
Animal Rights Militia
Band of Mercy
Animal Liberation Brigade
Vegan Dumpster Militia
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Direct Action Front

...and how many people have all these groups killed? I have no idea, but I'd be willing to bet it is zero or nearly zero.

Not that I am condoning their actions, terrorism is dispicable. But wackos from the right seem to be far more dangerous than wackos from the left.

 

[Hepth]

Think of it less as blame, and more as something that needs to be changed.
Say you look at inner city school teenagers (not all obviously), you could say "Well, nobody told them to join a gang/do drugs/steal/etc", so no one is to blame. But at the same time you must also accept that by ALLOWING an environment to exist that, through indifference, condones these acts, the society/city/etc has a mild accountability especially in the face of prior crimes stemming from this allowed environment. But rather than accountability to the CRIME they are accountable for the CONTEXT of said crime.

That being said, my opinion would be similar. FOX and other Right-wing news media share in a guilt of creating this atmosphere of "Murderous Abortionists Slaying Babies" that could/would be taken by a few (very few) to be something that they feel they MUST act to prevent.

I would also therefor share the same opinion about Left-wing media. Though it doesn't seem to be as bad (due to the lack of morally extremely objectionable topics). If the Left began preaching about how wrong the death penalty was, and how the prisons/guards/wardens were murderers for allowing/performing the slayings of the prisoners, and some extremist left-wingnut bombed a prison on the basis that he was preventing murder, then YES, the media is mildly responsible for creating that environment.

Its a matter of using the emotions of the public to sway their opinions. In doing so you must accept the inevitability that some emotionally-confused or unstable person may take violent actions based on these emotions.

If you approach it as a political opinion in the news rather than right or wrong, you could cut down on these violent outcries. Unfortunately you would severely depress your ability to sway public opinion.

 

[drankin]

Well, no they didn't...that would have probably really got them in trouble for inciting violence.

I am a huge fan of free speech and believe they absolutely have the right to state their opinions. It is also our right to call them out when we think their opinions are leading extremist wackos to do violent acts based on those opinions.

...they can call abortion murder, and I can call them murder instigators.

Leading extremist wackos to do violent acts? Noone in the popular media is doing that. Basically we have opinions of one group vs opinions of another. One group had murderous wacko that agreed with some of their opinions. It is not the fault of those who hold that opinion. It is the fault of the wacko.

I hold a murderer responisible for a murder, not the media he consumes. Whether it is music, radio, tv, video games, newspapers, or comic books.

And as far as Fox is concerned, no one on the network condones murder. The blame is misplaced by those who differ on their opinions.

 

[BoomBoom]

I hold a murderer responisible for a murder, not the media he consumes. Whether it is music, radio, tv, video games, newspapers, or comic books.

I guess we can't put any blame on the muslim extremist madrasah's for creating Islamic terrorists then either, by that logic.