Science Chic wrote: Guilt by association? Dude, it's the same company!
It's the English press SC. As noted earlier, in the British tabloid world there is no such word as ethics, never has been. It's the English press who are employed by an American company that operates news stations here in the US as well. Are you so naive to think that they wouldn't pull the same illegal maneuvers here? Why do you fight so hard to defend an investigation into the parent company when millions of in-house emails have been deleted - if they are innocent, then it will be found through the course of an investigation and they can continue doing business as usual.
Science Chic wrote: Be more like Europe and England? Where did that come from? I've never said anything like that, I've never seen anyone on this board say anything like that. And when you've heard that are you sure it was in response specifically to being more like their press or are you making broad generalizations and applying it here?
You've never seen anyone on this board say our healthcare system should be more like the ones in England and Europe? Really? That's where this whole so called progressive kick came from in the early part of the last century that the Democrats have clutched so strongly to their collectivist chests ever since. No, I remember seeing people say that if they can do it, we can do it better.
Science Chic wrote: I don't want to make any assumptions as to what you are referring to when you say "falsely accusing a sitting president of something based upon some altered documents" - but can I guess that this is about the Obama birth certificate ridiculousness? If so, look to the blogs and Fox News first for that crap. Last I heard, the MSM was accused of being liberally biased and kissing Obama's ass, not falsely accusing him of anything...
How quickly we forget......
CBS executives lost jobs following a 2004 story questioning President George W. Bush's National Guard service, an episode that eventually led to longtime anchor Rather's unpleasant departure from the network.
Yes, they screwed up and they lost their jobs because of it. Now employees of a parent US corporation has been found conducting illegal - read criminal - acts and an investigation is absolutely warranted to determine how far up the chain those directives went. I'm not calling for a witch hunt or to change their crappy journalistic style - I'm asking for an investigation to punish those who have committed crimes, how is it that we can't agree on that?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
And the news outlet, the entire news outlet, that these British reporters worked for was closed. Lots of good hardworking people in England lost their jobs as a result of the actions of these employees. Is that not enough blood in the water for you?
No one has said that the incident shouldn't be investigated, no one at all. What has been said is that the MSM, and regressives in general, are using the actions of a couple of employees working for a foreign paper owned by Murdoch to imply via the fallacy of guilt by association that the employees of FoxNews, as well as Murdoch himself, are of the same character as the employees who did this. I guess the competition his network gives them is more than they can deal with when looking at the latest ratings released just yesterday so they are resorting to attempting to paint anyone affiliated with the organization with the same brush.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/0 ... 011/98064/
Not surprising given the ethics standards exhibited by these other organizations over the past few years.
archer wrote: Huh? Are you saying PS that we shouldn't care if Murdoch broke any US laws because Dan Rather lied? I fail to see the logic.
The implication given by you here is that he has broken laws without any foundation upon which to base the accusation. IF
(yes, big if) an investigation turns up any actual evidence that Murdoch violated the laws, THEN
we can engage in a discussion about whether or not anyone cares. Because of the political leanings of the owner, and only because of the political leanings of the owner, the cart is being placed before the horse here.
Please indicate where I posted that he had broken any laws. I simply said that there was probable cause to investigate him here in the US because of allegations made in the UK. If this was CNN you would be saying the same.
It was not just one newspapers but several across the News Corp empire that were involved in criminal behavior, suggesting that rogue criminal behavior was tolerated. Now there are credible reports of the FBI investigating News Corp outlets in the US that may have hacked into the phones and voice mail of the victims of 9/11. It is also the current publisher of the Wall Street Journal who "investigated" the scandal back in 2007 and found that it was only an isolated incident, which has turned out to be false.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
We noted on Monday that FOX News had not exactly been devoting a lot of attention to the Rupert Murdoch phone-hacking scandal.
By our count, between July 7th, when the News of the World was shut down, and July 11 (the time of the posting) FOX reported on the scandal exactly 14 times, MSNBC 84 times, and CNN 126 times.
Not a great record.
In the interim a couple of other news organizations have been picking up on the phenomenon.
However, in the past 24 hours we've noticed a significant difference in the tone and time spent on FOX reports of the phone-hacking scandal.
They have suddenly become lengthy (ish) and reasonably informative.
It seems to me the CEO of each US news company owned by News Corp should be expected to make a statement about the scandal and assure us they did not follow such practices. Not that it shouldn't be investigated, but at least we'd have a statement on record.
pineinthegrass wrote: It's interesting how Fox News has reported this scandal. At first, they weren't very much. Now they are covering it a lot more...
We noted on Monday that FOX News had not exactly been devoting a lot of attention to the Rupert Murdoch phone-hacking scandal.
By our count, between July 7th, when the News of the World was shut down, and July 11 (the time of the posting) FOX reported on the scandal exactly 14 times, MSNBC 84 times, and CNN 126 times.
Not a great record.
In the interim a couple of other news organizations have been picking up on the phenomenon.
However, in the past 24 hours we've noticed a significant difference in the tone and time spent on FOX reports of the phone-hacking scandal.
They have suddenly become lengthy (ish) and reasonably informative.
It seems to me the CEO of each US news company owned by News Corp should be expected to make a statement about the scandal and assure us they did not follow such practices. Not that it shouldn't be investigated, but at least we'd have a statement on record.
So is anyone surprise that the two networks that Fox destroys in the ratings (both combined) are reporting ad nausium about this story? How many times has MSNBC reported about GE doing business with Iran? I'll bet ZERO. The losing networks are hoping and praying (well maybe not praying) that Fox goes down, but they will be sadly dissapointed and will continue to be smacked around in the ratings.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
If you think about it....I know, that's hard for conservatives who would rather just be told what to think.....if the nation is evenly divided between righties and lefties....the left have many choices where to go for news where as the right only has FOX, any other station might scare them when they see a different truth than the FOX propaganda. So of course FOX will have better ratings, half the nation is afraid to be exposed to anything that doesn't fit their preconcieved prejudices.
