Keith Olbermann's Greatness
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
- Status
evince
Truthmatters
You want LIES its not the jrest of the worlds fault.
Dont you remember all the shit these assholes have told you over the years that has turned out to be BULLSHIT?
Lynch
Tillman
Falluhgia and WP
Abu Garib
WMDs
Plame not a covert
911 ties to Iraq
Damn are you people slow learners
Dont you remember all the shit these assholes have told you over the years that has turned out to be BULLSHIT?
Lynch
Tillman
Falluhgia and WP
Abu Garib
WMDs
Plame not a covert
911 ties to Iraq
Damn are you people slow learners
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/fox-news.cfm
Go read about the court case in which two journalists SUED fox for forcing them to REPORT as news falsehoods!
Go read about the court case in which two journalists SUED fox for forcing them to REPORT as news falsehoods!
evince
Truthmatters
This latest decision stems from a case filed in 1998 by former Fox journalists Akre and Wilson who charged they were pressured to broadcast what they knew and documented to be lies about an artificial hormone injected into dairy cows, then fired when they refused and threatened to report the matter to the Federal Communications Commission.
After a five-week trial in 2000, a jury decided unanimously that Akre was fired solely because she threatened to blow the whistle to the FCC the broadcast of a false, distorted or slanted news report. The panel that found in Akre's favor awarded nothing to Wilson who represented himself at trial.
The Fox appeal was largely on an argument that it is not technically illegal for a broadcaster to deliberately distort the news on television. The appellate justices reasoned that since state law provides whistleblower protection only for employees who object to misconduct which is against an "adopted law, rule, or regulation" and they decided prohibitions against news distortion are merely a "policy" of the FCC, the reporters' eight-year-old lawsuit must have been without merit from its
inception.
After a five-week trial in 2000, a jury decided unanimously that Akre was fired solely because she threatened to blow the whistle to the FCC the broadcast of a false, distorted or slanted news report. The panel that found in Akre's favor awarded nothing to Wilson who represented himself at trial.
The Fox appeal was largely on an argument that it is not technically illegal for a broadcaster to deliberately distort the news on television. The appellate justices reasoned that since state law provides whistleblower protection only for employees who object to misconduct which is against an "adopted law, rule, or regulation" and they decided prohibitions against news distortion are merely a "policy" of the FCC, the reporters' eight-year-old lawsuit must have been without merit from its
inception.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
The vernacular meaning of the word "Democracy" is not restricted to direct democracy.
We're back to arguing strict definitions again. How repetitive and redundant.
But a quick look at that story Desh shows me this >In her ruling which followed a lengthy hearing in Tampa Wednesday (August 18), Judge Vivian Maye cited previous court decisions that allow judicial discretion in deciding whether whistleblowers must reimburse defense costs if they ultimately lose.
so the wistleblower lost and Fox lost getting money back???? Is that what you want to say? LOL
so the wistleblower lost and Fox lost getting money back???? Is that what you want to say? LOL
evince
Truthmatters
It was not in dispute wether Fox lied ,Fox admitted to the Lie, they just said they didnt have to tell the truth!
I dont care who won this suit ,they fired a reporter for NOT wanting to lie!
The reporter sued and lost on a fifth appeal.
Fox is free to LIE and fire reporters who want to tell the truth.
ARE YOU FUCKING CATCHING ON YET ASSHOLE?????????
I dont care who won this suit ,they fired a reporter for NOT wanting to lie!
The reporter sued and lost on a fifth appeal.
Fox is free to LIE and fire reporters who want to tell the truth.
ARE YOU FUCKING CATCHING ON YET ASSHOLE?????????
maineman
Banned
Klaatu..for you to make an issue about Keith calling America a democracy is pretty fucking petty. Can you imagine any elected official standing up and claiming that we did not live in a democracy? YOu need to let that little bit of minutia go and then re-watch this clip again and let him speak to you.
Put in the right context Cypress. Dan Rather had a huge scandal. Peter Jennings wrote a book,and Phil Donahue....well,he is just nuts
(shakes head)
Keith has a ridiculous vendetta against O Relly. He is like a puppy begging for a treat,trying to get OReilly's attention
Translation: When a Republican does it, then that's OK.
Damo, Krisy and Bravo et el, seem to be listing all anchorman that the right wing perceives (and perception is not reality, but for the purpose of brevity, we will call them liberals LOL, or, choke out loud I should say) to be "liberal".
Have you noted the complete absence of anyone perceived to be on the right, and from FOX news, on their list? Don't you think they might claim more "cred" if they added a few in?
You know Damo, since you are no partisan, you should be the one to tell them so. It shouldn't be a service you supply soley to liberals, as thankful as we are for it, I'm sure we want you to spread that non-partisan generosity around!
What "list" are you speaking of? I have listed nothing darling darla. I quoted some examples of people that someone stated OReilly picks on,that's it.
No. The point is that OReilly was covering things that all the other stations were as well. I never heard him talk about Dan Rather the way Keith Oberman talks about him. He reported and commented on the story,but certainly didn't hand out the immature insults that Oberman gives him.
I stated nothing of "liberal"... I stated that those anchors became the news and therefore were reported on. I also stated that Editorial shows express opinion, just as this guy and O'Reilly do. So basically I can't figure out what my "partisan message" supposedly is here... Methinks it is only perceived through partisan glasses.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
No, I'm not talking about what you stated. You obviously stated, while being careful not to direct it at anyone, that they were both opinion shows.
What I was saying is, that you are very quick to jump on any liberal for commenting on a republican transgression without documenting every or any democrat who made similar transgressions, and claiming it doesn't help their "cred". You make zero comments like that to coms. Which is fine, but don 't at the same time use the word "partisan" as if you're not, because Damo, you most certainly are.
You and I both know from reading the convoluted excuse making on this thread, that any "cred" anyone thought they had, is a laugh. Under YOUR definition of cred.
- Status