"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's.
The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.

If you haven't watched the show, you need to. It takes a comical look at a
number of politically charged issues. Here's an exchange between Candace
Bergen and William Shattner:

LEWISTON (Bergen)

The problem is the basis of the

case, if there is one, would lie in

The Bill of Rights, which Denny, of

course, thinks never should have

been passed.



CRANE (Shattner)

We're one Supreme Court appointment

away from overturning them.



SCHMIDT

The Bill of Rights.



CRANE

Damn right. Red States rule.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.



Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.

NOYB wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.







news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the
networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment.

Sadly true -- in all cases

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:32:39 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

NOYB wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




Did anybody watch Boston Legal the other night? A high-schooler was suing
his school's principal for putting special "news filters" on the TV's. The
only news station that the principal chose to filter out was "the one that
calls itself fair and balanced". The judge found in favor of the kid, and
forced the principal to remove the filters.

The funny parts were the arguments made by James Spader:

"But you didn't find it a problem that a certain network published forged
national guard documents"?

He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.







news has become nothing more than a form of entertainment used by the
networks to make money...and should be protected by the First Amendment.

Sadly true -- in all cases

Most especially the 'mainstreamers', who play to only one party.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his
habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was
"entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make
money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his habit
of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was "entertainment" and
therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

Here's the Boston Legal exchange on this issue:

JUDGE GREENBLATT

Mr. Shore. This is a school. Is

it wise to expose students to

programs which send the message --

you're anti-American if you question

the government?



SHORE

I'm not sure Fox sends that message

Your Honor, but before we convict

them as the network of conservative

values, or any values for that

matter, these are the folks who

brought you "Joe Millionaire," and

"Who's Your Daddy?"





JUDGE GREENBLATT

That's the entertainment division,

I'm talking about the news.



SHORE

(building steam)

And I'm telling you it's all the

same. This isn't about political

content. This is a corporation

looking to make money. Fox News

began as alternative news programming

to grab a market share, they saw

ratings and profit in a conservative

demographic, and they've been waving

the flag ever since. And so what?

News today, all of it, is

infotainment. Last February, a

deadly toxic known as Ricin was

found in the mailroom of the Senate

Majority leader, potential

terrorism. CNN Headline News led

with Janet Jackson's exposed breast.

A month ago, while we're in the

middle of a war, newscasts all across

the country led with Prince Harry's

costume at a keg party. It's a

business, and while ABC and NBC go

for the deeper social issues like

Brad and Jennifer's breakup, Fox

chooses to run with red, white and

blue. And by the way, before you

villify them, a survey done in 2002

revealed that seventy percent of

the people in this country believe

it is good when news organizations

take a strong pro-American point of

view. Seventy percent.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

Does that make it right?



SHORE

Of course it makes it right.



Because the rule in infotainment is

give the people what they want.

The reason Fox is such a big threat

is because they're popular. So

much so that they've been copied by

both CNN and MSNBC. CNN actually

toyed with getting Rush Limbaugh to

help capture some of Fox's market

share. This is money, Your Honor.

Not politics.



Let me say, I am a great lover of

the news.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

I can see that.



SHORE

I watch it all. On days like 9/11,

or other world-changing events, the

news programs are nothing short of

spectacular. When President Kennedy

was shot, when Martin Luther King

delivered "I Have A Dream," when we

walked on the moon, our lives were

shaped by these events, in part

because of the news. But on all

the other days,... they're

businesses, looking to compete like

anybody else in a competitive market

place. They sell product. Fox is

simply a network like ABC, NBC,

CBS, CNN, -- chasing the God-almighty

buck. And even if you're determined

to believe that Fox is some evil

empire, looking to spread rightwing

propaganda... that still doesn't

change the fact that we are in this

room today because a principal is

shutting down the expression of

ideas... because he disagrees with

the content. If you say that's

okay... my, my. Then we really do

have a problem.



JUDGE GREENBLATT

I grew up watching Walter Cronkite.

It was a time, the news seemed to

be fair, objective... and trusted.

In fact, whenever we doubted the

blather coming out of the

politicians' mouths... it was the

press we turned to to get a sense

of the truth. Well... Walter

Cronkite has definitely left the

building. When it comes to

credibility... big media is dead.

Networks pander, some to

conservatives, others to liberals,

and I agree with Mr. Shore, it's

probably more about money than

ideology. Where it was once the

obligation of the media to ask the

tough questions, today we have a

network operating from a mantra,

"don't ask questions." Don't

criticize your government. It's

horrifying. But Fox is just as

free as other networks to adopt a

bias in hopes of attracting a bigger

audience.





JUDGE GREENBLATT (CONT'D)

Doesn't make for good journalism...

but this network is hardly alone.

Mr. Harper, I realize times have

changed in the high schools as well.

Hate violence is on the rise.

Administrators have to be more free

to curtail students' civil liberties,

including disruptive speech. But

attaching a device to a television

to block out a certain network

because of its content... that seems

to go too far. It's censorship.

And I cannot let it stand. Motion

for the plaintiff... is granted.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote:

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his
habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was
"entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

DSK

If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think you're
making it up.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:33:05 -0500, DSK wrote:

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.




NOYB wrote:
He goes on to successfully make the argument that news has become
nothing
more than a form of entertainment used by the networks to make
money...and
should be protected by the First Amendment.


That's funny, many years ago Rush Limbaugh defended himself and his
habit of lying egregiously on his program by saying it was
"entertainment" and therefor he had no obligation to be accurate...

DSK

If you could show some proof of that, it would be very nice. I think
you're
making it up.
--

He'll probably quote someone like al franken, who has as much integrity as
michael moore.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 15 Mar 2005 07:37:29 -0800, wrote:

Many of those who believe Faux News is biased also labor under the
impression that water is wet.

Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they can
compare. You've spent your life seeing one side.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Most folks who consider Fox biased have nothing balanced to which they
can
compare. You've spent your life seeing one side.
--
John H

************

I see both sides very clearly.

One side says I am my brother's keeper.
The other says I am my brother's employer, if not his master. He darn
well better learn to "keep" himself, and at miniwage if I can con or
force him into accepting it.

One side says that all of life's values can be reduced to money.
The other side says that the most important aspects of life are not for
sale.

One side measures success by the amount of wealth it can accumulate.
The other measures sucess by the amount it can afford to share.

One side says we are stewards of the earth.
The other side says it is our responsibility to wring all useful
resources from the planet at the fastest possible rate.

One side makes lists of people who should be shunned or excluded.
The other makes lists of people we should reach out to include.

The fact that I choose one side with reasonable consistency doesn't
mean I can't see the other.
Quite the opposite. I see it more clearly than many who embrace it.