Like Big Brother: Fox Propaganda is EVERYWHERE! (update)
Mr. TheraP told me first. Mr. Deanie Mills noticed it too. I've checked google and there's a growing awareness out there. A blog at TPM. And others. All saying:
Inquiring minds want to know: Something fishy is going on here!
If you don't like force-fed propaganda, contact your legislators.
Seems to me the FCC should be regulating this.
I can tell you one thing for sure:
Force Feeding of propaganda seems inconsistent with a free society.
[I've cross-posted this at Oxdown/FDL - to make sure we get the word out!]
_____________________________
Update:
Add airports. Media specifically do look for a "captive" audience.
Fox News is ubiquitous!• Medical Waiting Rooms.Do they subsidize TV's or cable to force viewing?
• Auto-repair Waiting Rooms
• Hotels
• Motels
• Restaurants
• You name it! And please do.... [airports!]
Is this a way to drive ratings up?
Inquiring minds want to know: Something fishy is going on here!
If you don't like force-fed propaganda, contact your legislators.
Seems to me the FCC should be regulating this.
I can tell you one thing for sure:
Last time I was in a medical office, I tried to turn the sound off.It was impossible to do that!
Force Feeding of propaganda seems inconsistent with a free society.
[I've cross-posted this at Oxdown/FDL - to make sure we get the word out!]
_____________________________
Update:
Add airports. Media specifically do look for a "captive" audience.
Advertisement
Not up here in the hinterlands. No our waiting rooms are CNN. But I live in a Democratic stronghold.
I hate to be vague (Like I am not always vague) but there was a blog on our site a while ago relating a cable/satelite conspiracy of sorts where Fox was getting the better end of things.
Publication is everything. And nothing happens by chance at Fox.
Something to think about. Maybe we need a 'grassroots' campaign. People should not sit still for this--as it were.
Complain to the person(s) responsible for providing the cable at the location!!!
May 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about your hotels? Motels? Restaurants? Surely they want to catch the travelers! ;)
May 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. In fact, writing Michael Copps at the FCC now is a very good idea. He is acting Director and his commitment to the public good is beyond question.
You can fire off a quick email here:
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/mail.html
Or
File a comment here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/
They have a matter on their docket called:
Cable and Satellite subscriber options, e.g. a la carte channels - Docket 04-207
Which is somewhat related,
or send a real mail here:
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Thanks Thera, this is a very important topic. Big business should be held accountable for turning our 4th estate into a cesspool.
May 10, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, bwak. I've posted this over at Oxdown/FDL now. And in a comment I placed a quote from you, including the info for emails and snail mail.
We need to get the word out! More than anything is the annoyance of their propaganda blasting - with no way to eliminate it! (What a way to help the sick, eh?)
May 10, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once I was sitting with my daughter in a hospital, waiting to have some test or other done, and Fox was on in the waiting area. It was so annoying. There was a (gasp) Mountain Lion (THEY ARE KILLERS YOU KNOW!!!) Near an elementary school (IT'S IN LOCKDOWN!!!), sniffing at garbage in a nearby home, in Los Angeles.
It apparently was News to Fox, that Mountain Lions (THEY ARE KILLERS YOU KNOW!!!!) Periodically do this, and generally are shot with a tranquilizer dart and then examined to determine their health, given Medical Attention if necessary, and then transported back into their own territory. I grew up there, and this Mountain Lion, (THEY ARE KILLERS YOU KNOW!!!) wasn't looking for trouble, just a bite to eat. The buzzing helicopters and news vans likely didn't make the professionals jobs any easier.
So my daughter and I started ridiculing the talking silicone hairdo and soon had the waiting room people laughing and smiling. Everyone agreed that it was ridiculous. Sometimes, ridicule is a good weapon.
May 10, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Further confirmation. Just got this email:
You are the greatest, bwak!!!!
May 10, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have found that a combination of direct dealing with the FCC as well as pressure on the congress actually works.
For anyone who isn't familiar with what the FCC can and can't accomplish, the details of deregulation and loosened standards can be seen here:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
It details how the public fought the law and the public won. Don't let anyone discourage you.
=D
Fox News shouldn't be able to call itself 'news.' Period. They are a foreign owned conglomerate that practices propaganda for the benefit of corporations, not the public. Since this is the case, they should lose their license, or at least should not be allowed to be counted as a "news" station in a media bundle. Obviously, media bundling is an issue the FCC is grappling with right now, as is evidenced by their docket. Now is the time for public comment, and yes, it certainly makes a difference.
May 10, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and keep in mind that the NRA joined this fight, they may do so again, if it is framed correctly.
May 10, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bow before you, bwak! Top TPM Bird!
May 10, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a very interesting link, bwak. Of all the options open to us, writing and communicating with the FCC is probably the best one. That is why when regulatory changes are made, comments are solicited by the agencies that are making the changes.
Thanks for pointing us to the FCC.
May 10, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, in other word, the framework is there for direct public input, and they do respond to it, as that is how they were set up. Even before the internet, they solicited public opinion, (except when Powell was chairman) and the public let them know that was unacceptable.
Thanks seashell, your command on issues makes me look like a piker, but this is an "area of interest" to me. I am amazed by the amount of disinformation out there. Discouraging people to get involved is anti-democratic, and runs contrary to how our government was set up to function.
Kinda of makes one stop and go, "huh?"
May 10, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a VERY good command of the issues, Bwak, especially the one under discussion here, where the issue is not TV noise in public places, but the ownership and availability of channels to the public.
Clearly, one of the proper recourses for those concerned about the real issues under discussion is to make use of the FCC's comment framework. It is only the uninformed that think contacting the FCC is pointless. Thanks again for pointing it out!
May 10, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty simple stuff. Unless one needlessly complicates it and engages in purposeful misinterpretation.
=D
Fox is the only news station in many parts of the country due to bundling. So, regulate bundling practices to give customers a choice. It should not be left up to just a few corporations whose self-interest is ruining the fourth estate.
I earlier said that the issues were related. They are. It may not be exactly what Thera blogged about, but it is a path to address it.
I find it's better to be constructive and helpful. Doom and gloom gets us nowhere.
May 10, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
A doctor's office is not a public space.
A restaurant is not a public space.
A grocery store is not a public space.
May 10, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you are speaking narrowly. We were speaking broadly. Obviously.
May 10, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's a private establishment, you are welcomed not to use it. End of story. But like Old Grouch who segued from doctor's offices to walking on streets, people here complain about one thing, and then move onto the next when they can't defend against a rebuttal.
The case as presented here is weak and you wouldn't be able to convince anyone except the closed group here who think the whole thing is "self evident".
May 10, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently facts do not deter you. As cited above, the broader public spaces that are what we are discussing here, are actually subject to more regulation, not less.
If you have an establishment into which the public has access, you have certain responsibilities. Or don't have the establishment.
THAT is the salient fact. Also that Fox news is part of the cheap bundles, which is certainly an issue the FCC is inviting public comment to right this minute.
Now you can continue to play dumb, or just admit you are not informed on this issue and go learn about it. It's pretty obvious you are be contrary because you wished to hijack Thera's thread. If by chance you want to learn, the links I provided might be a good place to start.
May 10, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This statement is patently not true for the topic at hand. But I don't expect much from your "logic" which usually amounts to being angry at anyone who you perceive has authority.
The public having access to a restaurant, hotel, etc. is not the same as a public place like a library.
May 10, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this instance it is, and the limits to dispensing propaganda are if anything, more restrictive. You are simply, wrong. Look it up, I provided the wiki, but it's easy enough to google. You have provided nothing.
You do like to make assertions in a dismissive style, but the fact is, what I have said is true. If you don't think that private establishments that broadcast into public spaces isn't subject to regulation, then you haven't looked into the matter. Even a little.
May 10, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can dispense whatever you like, short of threatening anyone, in a private establishment. Please show me a federal law stating otherwise?
Moreover, you would have to prove, in a court of law, that Fox news is a dispenser of propaganda.
Care to show me a well-respected lawyer who would sign of for that case?
When your rebuttal is "do your homework" you are to be dismissed as quickly as we all dismissed Condi Rice for stating the same.
May 10, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? Where have you been?
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/lawsuit.html
Next?
May 10, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? You kidding???
Over 8 years ago!
a) you never showed me the federal statute that I requested
b) you have to prove the Fox News is a propaganda *machine* in your case in 2009. This lawsuit does nothing even close to that. It merely shows a single story was distorted. It's a nice start, but not even close to what you need to prove.
But I understand your confusion. You must have types "Fox Lawsuit Propaganda" and this came up.
May 10, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, ally. Well, "the corporation," a link you like to throw around heavily, is from 2003 and actually featured that lawsuit.
Kind of a strange point, here. I understand that mindless dismissal is about all you got.
I'm afraid you've bored me, now. Ignorance just ain't all that interesting.
Have a nice evening.
May 10, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, the perfect Internet technique: when you can answer a simple question, claim you were bored and move on. That way some may forget you couldn't answer the question.
May 10, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did. The links are up. Lying about the news and slanting it are clearly not in the publics best interest, is it? Fox admitted that they slanted the news, in a court of law. I answered your questions. Try answering mine.
Google "FCC" Read their statement of responsibilities. Digest them, and when you get caught up, perhaps you will be able to discuss these issues in an intelligent and somewhat informed manner.
As I said, it's obvious from your first belligerent and rather far-fetched first comment that you were here to disrupt this thread. You have added nothing but belittlement and insulting condensation. No substance. Why are you here?
May 10, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, just thought I'd add one more reply. I'm hoping that the thread ends up being one letter per line!
May 12, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - here is the reference point for my post:
I often dislike TV noise in public places as well.
Posted by clearthinker
May 10, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 10, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and here is some more of what you said in that same post of yours that I was referencing about TV noise in public places, CT:
Here's my solution in places like an airport or a doctor's office: get yourself a little headset and play whatever music you like.
So who is the one complaining that people here complain about one thing, and then move onto the next when they can't defend against a rebuttal?
Please. Look in a mirror and go re-butt yourself.
May 10, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job conflating two statements.
Let me be clear:
1) Background noise can be a nuisance when I am out in public.
2) When I am faced with noise in a collective area, headsets are valuable.
I hope that clears things up.
Doctor's offices, restaurants, hotels, etc. are private places of business. Therein lies the difference. Okay? Okay.
May 10, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private companies that have common or public spaces are subject to government regulation.
You wouldn't want to eat in a restaurant not subject to regulation, anymore than attend a doctors office and get inundated with propaganda. Both of these scenarios have long established government agencies that regulate what they can and can't do. Otherwise, one wouldn't need a license.
Okay?
Okay.
May 10, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the page for a specific complaint:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
I tried the others. But this is specific.
I've complained to them in the past and they've been very helpful in resolving problems. Both going after an annoying telephone solicitation and getting charges I never authorized reversed from my phone bill.
Thanks for the advice, bwak, Queen of Birds!
May 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
To make up for the dreary topic on a nice holiday, for lovely music, go here:
http://revjph.blogspot.com/2009/05/midnight-jukebox_09.html
A wonderful selection!
May 10, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about the music below the photo.
(haven't tried the music to the right - might be ok too)
May 10, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does this phenomenon bring A Clockwork Orange to mind?
Here in the liberal DC area, it is usually C-SPAN droning in the background. But if I go into a retail establishment (e.g., carry out, dry cleaner) and Fox is blasting, I usually leave, but not before telling the person at the counter that I find it insulting to be exposed to media porn against my will.
May 10, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it!
May 10, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
try this:
http://www.tvbgone.com/cfe_tvbg_main.php
May 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choices!
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tv+b+gone&x=0&y=0
I'm gonna put that in my basket!
May 10, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I thought it was a joke--but you can actually order these???
May 10, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just think, we can sneak around and do good! ;)
May 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's bloody brilliant!
May 10, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I WANT one!!!
May 10, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just bought one from Amazon. I'll let everyone know how it works.
Creating a Fox Free Atlanta, one TV set at a time!
May 10, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! :-)
May 10, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we just need a closet bgone
(trucknutz!)
May 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's make that: clutter b-gone! ;)
May 10, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know TheraP and Bwak, I think my definition of clutter might be changing, even as we speak.
CluTter in locked closets might not be a bad thing, ya think?
May 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/05/like-big-brother-fox-propagand.php#comment-3463236
How perceptive you are!
May 10, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, thank you for that, TheraP. Very enlightening in clearing a path through the clutter.
May 10, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and if we ever need it, I have the very link were tt was attacked for having two ID's - by the very one who later admitted same. Oops!
May 10, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No "oops" TheraP. As we have discussed many times on this board, the policy of having a non-political cartoon character is ambiguous.
It may be too subtle for you, but tt's characters were not in that mold.
Pirate Peet was everyone's friend and everyone liked him.
But as usual, you try to address these things in a passive aggressive manner.
May 10, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we need the full monty here. Check the link, folks, and look above it to see the threadof what happened. You be the judge:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/simple-justice---not-a-witch-h.php#comment-3347085
May 10, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your reactions, TheraP, are really entertaining. Would you care to get back on to the topic of YOUR blog, or would you care to discuss stuff that I've already discussed that's at best tangential?
You are the only poster I know who spams her own blog!
May 10, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to go with CT on this one. There is nothing but aggressive disregard for dissenting opinions on that link. If the title needs to disavow something, the what follows is almost always that entirely. The comment thread on that particular blog does nothing to change that assumption for me.
May 11, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the whole site. What a hoot. I rarely go places where there are TVs on except where I live now (my parents) but I will keep this in mind when I get to the point of taking them more places and waiting. I think that is a really great invention.
May 10, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long before it is illegal to turn off a TV? Actually, it probably already is, since it belongs to the establishment. (The actual, not metaphorical one.)
Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. TV-Begone could provoke a test case.
I hate TV in the grocery or hospital; it's a blathering idiot in the corner, unresponsive to the real world, clearly insane. But it doesn't end there, we now have active billboards lighting up the highway, and I expect ads on clouds any day. Now that companies get free advertising on shoes and shirts (don't just do it), we have to get tattoos to get paid for the service we provide.
Adding insult to injury is the utter lack of awareness of aspect ratio, so we are tortured by talking heads that are squashed, stretched to outlandish bloat by the unavoidable widescreen flat panels. It's enough to make one stay home and not shop, oh wait, that's already happening.
May 10, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOW DARE YOU CALL THE 'MENTALIST' BLATHER!!
May 10, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should change the name of that to to smug. Is he mostly plays mind games and appears smart because he leaves everyone else out of his ploys.
May 11, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always cite Mentalist as an example because I like the show, I watch the show, and yet...something nags at me. I mean its a stupid show.
Gregor you got me laughing before noon. hahhahahaha
May 11, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I/have/watched/it/once.//He/impresses/himself/a/lot.
May 11, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
TVBgone has been around for years.
May 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you invented it, and stand to gain, I'm gonna get me one of those....
May 10, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi TheraP,
I am doing some research on all of this. Did you notice that today in 'lockstep' Newt, John McCain, and Emporer Cheney were on the talk shows...transmitting 'their' message... they are trying to control perception. They have been doing it for some time and become quite masterful at it.
One things I am reading about is mind control. If you google Karl Rove and mind control you'll be suprised what you find. The reference has been constantly... as Dickday pointed out to me yesterday... since Nixon. I even found a website that claims to have a device that will block out Fox News on your cable.
I am curious if you polled all of the people who willingly or less willingly watch Fox News whether they would agree that it is a 'christian' news station.
Propaganda and 'controlling perception' are apparently what the rebuplicans have used to rule in our country. They try not to 'budge' on message so that people hear it over and over again. People don't realize what is happening to them.
I am also curious to the degree that people trust what they hear based on 'faith' or a perception that their religious views are shared... when they are actually being exploited for that.
There is so much here that I can't write a blog until I do more research but there's no doubt in my mind that Dick Cheney is out their like Blagojevich trying to 'inform' public perception to lessen as much as possible public support for the investigation or prosecution on torture.
Today Cheney said that the president 'authorized' these techniques... sounded a bit like Condi's argument... Somehow I just don't believe that Mr. Dick was 'just following orders' and I know that does not excuse him from breaking the law and not upholding our laws as vice president.
May 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I know I went on a tangent here because I am reading all of this stuff about the propaganda and mind control, Karl Rove, etc. trying to understand why it has worked for them. Fox News is definitely one of their biggest tools.
May 10, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tangents very connected to this, I think!
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I'm not sure how people would describe Fox, but christian would have been the last I would have expected.
I look forward to your blog on propaganda. You've done good work here!
May 10, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a TV Clip of Bush Air America used to play where Bush/admitted/he/had/to/repeat/the/propaganda/for/it/to/take/effect.///My/space/bar/is/stuck,but/this/propaganda/issue/is/critical.//It's/Soviet-style/government.//Probably/what/Bush/saw/in/Putin's/soul.
May 11, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often dislike TV noise in public places as well.
Nevertheless, the solutions here are not in line with the usual "live and let live" philosophy that liberals like to espouse. Reading this post and it's comments reminds me of what you might find on Red State if they found a television tuned to MSNBC.
Here's my solution in places like an airport or a doctor's office: get yourself a little headset and play whatever music you like. If you don't want music, there are plenty of white noise, or rainfall, CD's out there.
Fox is not the only station I've seen on. CNN and "women's programming" (e.g. Oprah, The View) and a local news station are also common. In many doctor's offices, it's a tape loop of health tips. If you think about it, the situation is simply the next step beyond Musak.
Is the issue the TV, or Fox?
Using the gadget described is simply passive aggressive and a sign that one is too cowardly to do something about the situation for real. Here's a tip: most places will gladly lower the volume even if they don't want to turn the television off. I know, I've asked. It's easy. You don't need a revolution to do it. And you don't need to be a sneak. And if you were really "doing good", you certainly wouldn't have to be stealth about it.
How often do you see no one watching the television? If anyone is watching, does that give you a right to turn it off? (After all, they didn't put the television there, the establishment did.)
Writing to the FCC is pointless and it's hard to imagine them getting involved at all. It's the establishment that controls the dial.
May 10, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Live and let live is only worth pursuing if it's mutual. Otherwise, it's merely ceding control to the overly aggressive.
It's not about anything other than exerting a bit of control over some of the ambient noise in our environment. Much of it we can't do anything about. TV noise, especially including Faux News propaganda, sometimes we can. And why should we not? Would you allow someone to come into your living room and harangue you endlessly for no good reason? Would you put up with it from an actual living person in a public space? (I'm guessing not, or you truly are a wimp.) If not, then why put up with it from an electronic annoyance?
May 10, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, the solution suggested assumes everyone both can afford the headphones and has them handy all the time.
I really like your answer better than my hedge, however.
May 10, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't afford a head set, but you can afford a TV jammer? You are on thin ice, TheraP.
May 10, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense!
I'm sure you realize I'm referring to the population at large. The jammers cost $20 or less. Noise canceling headphones are more. For dd those might mean giving up eating for a day or more.
Besides, OG's refutation overrides mine in terms of its importance.
I'm not arguing with you over this any further.
May 10, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about noise cancellation? My comment was having headsets for personal music.
Your argument is beyond ridiculous. Someone should spend to get a jammer, but can't afford a headset? They, too, are under $20. Here's an MP3 player and all for $22. If someone can afford one gadget they can afford the other. If you are poor, you can't afford either one.
And your argument about "too poor to afford the solution" is a red herring and a technique you often use. It's a nice way to try to paint anyone with a counter viewpoint to look like Simon Legree. It also doesn't add to the discussion.
Your response also implies you see nothing wrong with dictatorially shutting off televisions that you decide you don't like. Oh, yes, you are just the sort of person I'd want making those decisions.
May 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headphones are a bad idea in many instances. They isolate us from our surroundings and make things like walking in urban areas, where traffic is a problem, potentially dangerous. I prefer being aware of my surroundings rather than trusting to the brakes - and skills - of some unknown driver.
Just to point out one example.
May 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Grouch: how did we get from doctor's offices to walking in the street?
Your example is a non sequitor at best. I guess you've run out of substantive arguments.
May 10, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shut up and give me your lunch money, punk. And if you don't like it, leave, like you advocate others doing.
May 10, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've confused so many issues, Grouch.
1) You aren't in my living room, you are in a public space
2) If a private establishment allows someone to speak in a corner, that's their right. If you don't like it, leave.
Right now, I can hear my neighbor's kid practicing piano -- it's pretty hard to listen to. Maybe I should go over and say "knock it off"?
You talk about "electronic annoyance" but then switch into "turn off Fox news". My point is that these are two separate issues. In fact, this is a bait-and-switch ploy worthy of Fox News itself: try to control what the public does or doesn't hear on the basis of a complete of electronic annoyance.
Passive aggressive. Beautiful. Or as TheraP would say "a hedge".
So, you tell me: which issue are we really discussing?
May 10, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it - your handle is ironic!
You are incapable of grasping even the simple truth that your own right to be left in peace is what's at stake here.
If I come up to you in a public place, where you are enjoying your surroundings, and I begin haranguing you, you're going to leave? You're not going to stick up for yourself? And if I keep following you, you'll keep moving? Brilliant!
You're a bully's dream. An endless, willing victim, incapable of even realizing that standing up for yourself is a good idea.
You make me embarrassed to belong on the same end of the "political" spectrum. Really.
Oh, and to clarify: The issue we are now discussing is how much of a chickenshite you are, being unable to summon the courage to stick up for your own right to be left in peace.
Maybe you're fine with that sort of wimpiness. I am not. Nor would I ever encourage it in anyone else. I may (only) at first turn the other cheek, but believe me, the third one's going to be mine, and it's a beast.
May 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your emotional reaction in trying to trash me, prevented you from actually bothering to read what I wrote. I see no point in replying until you do.
Same for your comment below.
I leave it to others to judge you on your belligerent response.
May 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read what you wrote. You're a punk antagonist, and you're not especially good at it. If you don't like that, leave.
May 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most perfect humor and irony is generally quite unconscious. [Samuel Butler]
:-)
May 10, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, Old Grouch. Well said.
May 10, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals have been playing clean and nice since Gene McCarthy's office in the Watergate got busted into. Look where it has gotten us and the world.
A little electronic intervention is fair. It's my space too. If you want to go annoy some receptionist that's OK too. Then again if the chanel just flips they probably won't notice for three days. And if it just mysteriously keeps turning off they will assume it is broken and leave it off.
May 10, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not very fair to put the receptionist in the middle here either. I like your theory of "free space".
May 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, are we talking about having a TV in a place or what's on the TV?
May 10, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you believe in fair play or not. If you can't promote your view without resorting to dirty tricks, that should tell you that your view is not very convincing. Whatever rules you chose to play by it fine with me as long as you are consistent.
But remember that the other side will use your behavior as an excuse for theirs as well. Then we have all kinds of TPMers whining about the big bad GOP.
And please remember your quote when I jam your cell phone because I'm tired of listening to you talk on it.
As with most things, people don't really think through the consequences of their opinions.
May 10, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe in my right to be left alone. You seemingly do not, so how dare you talk of jamming someone's cell phone? Wouldn't you be more consistent with your own weak-kneed worldview if you simply moved on down the block?
Or does consistency only matter to you when it's someone else being consistent?
May 10, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, CT posts as a self-described "character" - and also admitted to posting as another "character":
See here (bottom of the quote):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/can-americans-be-happy-with-le.php#comment-3358768
May 10, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, TheraP, when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. You never respond in substance to my comments to you, which leads me to conclude that you believe your position is not defensible when examined.
May 10, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a message?
Other than misdirection, I mean...
May 10, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might claim to be a "character" but shows a clear lack of same.
He reminds me of the sort of punk who pesters others until someone takes a richly-deserved swing at him, then runs crying to his mother.
Consider me underwhelmed by this self-styled "clear thinker". What a pathetic, deluded loser.
May 10, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, Thera, here I'm adopting the "character" of someone rather bellicose, someone who pushes CT a few times, gets in his grille if you will, to see if he does as he advocates and moves along rather than resisting. And he'll no doubt whine and whine like a crabby four-year-old over it.
So now we'll test this "character" of his...
May 10, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But If you're "adopting a character," which I doubt, it's with the very same message as always:
I salute you, kind sir!
May 10, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he'll no doubt whine and whine like a crabby four-year-old over it.
That's the sum and substance of it, OG. Nicely put.
May 10, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign!
May 10, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once, I have to agree with CT on this. The doctor's office is not public space, or your space, it's the doctor's space - the same as your living room is your space. Turning off the TV in the doctor's office is exactly, specificially and indistinguishably (I think that's a word) the same as if I came into your living room and turned off Olberman (actually, I'd sit down and watch because I cheaped out a few months ago and cancelled my basic cable package, but I still miss Keith, but I'm making a point).
May 10, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you serve the public in your living room? Charge them for goods or services? No?
Two different things entirely. A private residence is far different from a doctors office, one requires business and professional licenses to operate, (both state and federal,) the other is the place you sleep.
In this case a doctors office is considered a public space under the broad definition of public space.
May 10, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only one little teeny tiny inconsequential comment, aheam.
It's MS Deanie Mills. ;-D
May 10, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You told me it was your husband who told you! So that's why I called it Mr. ;)
I know you're a woman! :)
May 10, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a lady.
=D
May 10, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lady Deanie. And Sir Mr. :)
May 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the primary issue is that faux news claims to be fair and balanced when it is anything but. Many people think it is actual news, when in reality it is entertainment. The fact that in some places faux news is available when msnbc is not, or you have to pay extra to get msnbc is galling. Yes, you can sometimes avoid listening which is certai my an option for informed listeners, but lots of people are not informed and they are being duped into thinking they are watching/listening to news.
May 10, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shall we call it Fox Spews?
May 10, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox Spews! I love it!
May 10, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment. While I agree that the most dangerous thing is an uninformed person thinking that he is informed, that criterion can be applied to many of the people here at TPM on critical issues of science, technology, and natural resources.
Now, if you were to think this comment arrogant, that's okay, but that's how you look to the people who like to listen to Fox News.
So just as you have an issue with me because of how I present facts, the people you are trying to reach have an issue with you.
By the way, MSNBC is also entertainment ("The worse person in the world?", "Puppet theater"?). In fact, what Fox has done is destroyed the boundary between news and commentary. I suggest you watch the documentary, THE CORPORATION, and see how this not only came about but why other stations raced to get to the bottom with them.
And, no, bloggers as we know them today won't save us. They are serving micro-demographics and also can be woefully wrong (remember the DailyKos hysteria over Palin's kid)? The only way for bloggers to gain respectability is to have a editorial oversight, etc... which turns them into the MSM on the Internet. We need professional journalists.
May 10, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, believe it or not, I'm glad to have you commenting once again...As much as your style can drive me up a wall, I think a lot of what you say has merit. I'm going to make getting past your demeanor and trying to focus on your points a priority. :-)
I watched your documentary...no new information, but it was presented in an interesting fashion.
Here's the problem as I see it. Somehow in America, and perhaps in the world, we have lost sight of what "news" is...Maybe I'm just romanticizing the "good old days," but it seems like there used to be a thing called "journalistic integrity." Things got "reported." We weren't told how to feel about it. Or maybe it has always been screwed up and I just wasn't paying attention. That is certainly a possibility.
Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy listening to the pundits. I enjoy the banter and segments like "worst person" make me laugh. But that segment is not portrayed as "news." Billo, on the other hand, is very vocal about his desire to "look out for the folks." To hear him tell it, he has the skinny on everything, and will clear through all the b.s. and give it to you straight. What a bunch of hogwash!
When I was a Fox news fan, I thought I was getting news. It wasn't until I discovered Obama, and I knew that the things they were saying about him weren't true, that I realized how far Fox had gone in slanting the "news." So much, in fact, that it was no longer news, but merely their "spin" on the news..."NO SPIN ZONE" my booty! Fair and Balanced? Not even close.
My issue now is the way FAUX (which says it all, as far as I'm concerned) seems somehow to have been embedded in our lives, and how they are allowed to basically LIE, under the guise of fair and balanced reporting.
Synchronicity has parents who thought it was straight shooting news, and she set them straight. But two people at a time is going to take forever...If the FCC won't take action on its own, seems like we ought to help them.
At the very LEAST, if Faux is offered as basic cable, CNN and MSNBC should be, as well. It is my opinion that no one of the three should be on the airwaves anywhere without the others. And in order to be able to call yourselves fair and balanced, you should have to be.
Just my opinion. Not a fact.
May 10, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the bundling is at issue right now. The reason it is on in so many places, is simply because it is included in more bundles. People want to be able to choose their own cable channels in these bundles, and it is an issue the FCC is working on now.
I would think that if the people prevail, Fox won't be on on so many public spaces, nor will their ratings be kept artificially higher than they probably are.
May 10, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, if that passes, I might get cable, just to cut out Fox!
May 10, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
First: Nearly everything you see on the cable networks is commentary, not news. This goes for *all* of them. The reason is simple: they have 24 hours to fill and they have to show a profit.
I suggest you rent GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK to discover a little bit about what news used to be like -- and why it changed. (True, it is fictionalized, but the general points are made clearly.)
So, for starters, it's just not Fox, it's CNN, and MSNBC... and CNBC, etc.
Second: the 24/7 news cycle promoted by all the cable networks has changed the way news is even delivered. This is the reason for the major mistakes made by places like the NY Times, CBS, NBC, etc. that used to be stalwarts of solid journalism.
Most of what you see today is spun PR -- and that includes *everything*. This is the reason you hear talk about keeping the President "on message". This started for real under the Reagan administration, but *all* administrations have used this model since.
Third: There's no conspiracy for Fox News. Cable companies want to provide as much content as possible. It's probably that Fox News is literally giving away their content. Do you know why Rush Limbaugh is on so many stations? Because the show is given away for free, but Rush gets to keep the advertising dollars. So if I have a small radio station, I can problem upwards of 20 hours a week with a real name and build the rest of my programming day around it. There's no conspiracy at all, but it would be easy to concoct one in your mind if one so chose.
tpmgary makes excellent points above, but no one really addressed them (even though there are responses to his comment). If a doctor's office has Fox on, it's not the FCC's problem. Moreover, one's complaint can't be you don't like Fox News -- as I have stated above, I've seen all kinds of programming on public televisions.
The central issue for this blog still remains open: are we concerned about electronic noise here, or by Fox News' being on *some* (not all) televisions?
If you want a perspective on how this thread looks, check out http://www.redstate.com/ and see what happens when a group of like minded people can convince themselves of. As an example in this mode, you may remember that when I said that the GOP was hardly a dead party, Aunt Sam immediately came back with "Yeah, but we won and you lost!" Really? How does she know that?
Isn't that exactly the type of narrow and misled thinking that people here are complaining about when it comes from the right?
May 10, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could respond to the points I made?
May 10, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Punk antagonists such as CT don't do that. They'd prefer to misdirect and generally make noise.
I think we've found an attention whore...
May 10, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
An attention whore? Grouch, you keep talking about me with no end in sight! LOL!
May 10, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you may win the prize of the day, OG!
May 10, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
I responded very directly to both of your main points
a) addressed the issue of where news went in American
b) explained issues involving how programming gets distributed.
But while we are at it, perhaps you could read with fresh eyes some of the responses of your friends. It's revealing. If you choose to see it with fresh eyes.
May 10, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not responsible for what anyone else writes. You are a big boy, perfectly capable of defending yourself. You once told me that you have a mother and don't need me to try and be yours. So, I'm honoring your wishes...you can fight your own battles.
As far as "our" conversation goes, I don't know who makes the rules, but it certainly seems like there should be some, if there aren't. Making sure that everyone has access to more than one point of view where the "news" is concerned should not be too hard to do. I would not want ANY channel to be the only one available anywhere.
There is just too much riding on it.
My bottom line...people need to be made aware that Faux News is not news, and it is not fair and balanced. Should they choose to still watch and use it as their main source of what they think is news, have at it. But they should have a choice, and they shouldn't have to pay extra to get it.
May 10, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli,
Your condescension is amazing. You needn't talk down to me and refer to me as a "big boy". No one asked you to fight my battles. I merely wanted you to note the unprofessional, immature way some of your friends post. That you missed my point is not surprising. After all, your previous post to me asked me to address your issues when I already had.
Part of the problem is that you were "ignorant" about Fox News. Guess what? How do you know you are on the path of light now? Is it because you are getting reassurances from your friends?
As far as choices, we've gone over this one. Your choice is to turn it off. Same as pamphlets left in your mailbox. What you don't like, you toss. Were NBC to give away it's cable news, I'm sure you would have that on your dial as well. Why not write to your cable company and ask about pricing structures? Why not find out something definite?
Here's a real plan: find out what your cable company offers. If it's not to your liking, you can then fax (always) fax a letter of complete to your congressional officials and raise the issue with them.
Heck, you live in Sacramento... why not drive to the capital and raise something with your state officials as well?
And do please go to Red State at some point. Read the posts there and reflect on how similar they look to the posts here.
That might tell you something.
May 10, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Merriam Webster, entertainment is " amusement or diversion provided especially by performers ". My own personal definition includes the word "voluntarily" somewhere in it.
Some people are entertained by Fox News. Some people are entertained listening to Barry Manilow nonstop.
I'm not.
May 10, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they were merely being entertained, that would be one thing...but many of them think they are getting the news...fair and balanced. THAT is not right, and should not, IMHO, be permitted. I AM entertained by Barry Manilow, but I when I'm listening to him, I don't think he's giving me the news.
May 10, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what worked for one email friend:
May 10, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I mentioned this exact response, you didn't acknowledge it.
Then you said you didn't want to get the receptionist involved.
Now you are endorsing the "speak up" response.
Which is it, TheraP?
May 10, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes,
sadly, many people don't realize options are available. AND sadly many people do not recognize, do not understand that Fox is not NEWS and it is NOT Fair and Balanced.
My mom was an example and I know she felt a bit embarassed when I talked to her about it but the information also set her free, allowed the part of her that doubted information more freedom to question and pulled the plug on the ability of Fox News to 'yank her chain' i.e. manipulate her.
For those who are aware they definitely have a choice to not listen, ask people to change the station, wear headphones, sing loudly, etc.
But I do have real concern for the unaware people who would make different choices if they understood what was really going on.
The excessive exposure used/available to Fox News is something that expanded during the Bush years when rules were bent to allow Murdoch to own more media avenues. So we definitely have some cause to expose media and in this case particularly Fox News for what it is. It is empowering to those who are less aware.
May 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was your blog, as I recall, that set the ball rolling here. Since then there have been others complaining on the web. It's touching a chord!
May 10, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the initial question-- whether or not FOX has some unfair practices advantage with regard to FCC rules or Nielsen or media regulation-- been answered?
I can't just write the FCC saying I think it's unfair for hotels and doctors' waiting rooms and other public places to be default-tuned to FOX.
Especially if I think they should be tuned to some particular other station with a different political bend.
How do you prove in a court of law that Fox news isn't really fair and balanced? (I know this is going to sound strange, but aside from the fact that it is self-evident?)
May 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what the FCC is for. They make their determination based on legislated criteria, and if Congress doesn't like it, they change the law. Then the FCC uses the new criteria, but the criteria is there. It's a question of whether what they do can be considered actual news or not.
You might just question whether or not they meet the definitions of serving the public good and information that the title "news station" implies. Then question why they are included as a news station if they fail that definition, and the apparent uneven cable bundling practices. It is an issue on their docket right now (links above) and they are looking for public commentary.
May 10, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I complained on the basis of unfair advertising. That they are exposing captive audiences to propaganda. And I asked if they are providing the TVs or the cable service and if the TVs are set to Fox automatically. I explained you can't turn them off or turn down the volume.
May 10, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well stated, tpmgary. You will also note that many posters here are arguing two different points:
a) electronic noise
b) Fox News
Normally, I would assume this is a result from some poster who didn't get the point of the original blog, but in this case TheraP is also discussing both points. That's one reason it's difficult to have a specific discussion -- and you'll note that no one has yet really answered my question about what the central topic is.
May 10, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was contacted by someone from this site
when I posted my blog about rebranding Fox
check it out!
FoxNewsBoycott.com
May 10, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Thanks
=D
May 10, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I was part of a boycott, but never knew it. We don't have cable. But our antenna pulls in Fox. Though, as I say, we never, ever watch it. But it's not the full-time news channel. Or I don't think it is.
But I'll check out your link. Thanks for posting it!
May 10, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! You can get FOX even people without cable may be exposed...
I don't have cable or dish either...just internet but I am looking into changing my internet service provider as comcast is a sponsor of FOX News.
May 10, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If/it/is/on/the/public/airwaves/there/are/different/rules.//We/may/have/found/an/Achille's/heel/even/if/only/in/one/market.//FOX/has/a/less/regulated/broadast/because/it/is/cable/and/NOT/on/the/public/airwaves/though/it/seems/it/is.
May 11, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the most insidious propaganda ploy Fox has made is to corner the market on so much sports broadcasting. This gives them incessant access to what they see as their core audience- working people who relax and socialize in bars to watch sports after work . Even if it's not a news show, that banner at the bottom continuously displays their talking points. It's borderline subliminal indoctrination, except that it's right out there to see. I assumed that this was widely observed by progressives, but perhaps not. It scares the hell out of me.
May 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow,
I knew that Fox comes with most basic cable while it rarely includes CNN and usually does not include MSNBC... which clearly makes them appear to be 'the' mainstream' 'news source'. And I know that Murdoch owns DTV and apparently at least for some people that I have confirmed with, you have to pay more to get channels like MSNBC and CNN but Fox comes with basic.
Not being a sports fan this aspect had never occurred to me. Yuck!
May 10, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Use this very link to complain about deceptive advertising:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm
That's what it sounds like you're getting at. That people tune into sports and are treated to propaganda!
Thanks for that info. It's horrifying!
May 10, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called free enterprise. Fox pays a lot of money for the broadcast rights. NBC cross promotes all the time. Or did you miss all the appearance of Jim Cramer on the Today Show when CNBC was in trouble.
Horrifying? Please. It's called a media conglomerate.
Here's what's amusing about this thread:
No one here is upset that corporations control your access to information. They are upset about *which* corporation is controlling it. Kind of ruins the purity of the argument, doesn't it?
Proof? Not one person has mentioned that CBS/NBC/ABC are talking about not carrying Obama next time in primetime because they have lost revenue on his 3 previous press conferences. Why not write the FCC about that issue?
Of course, be prepared when a president who wasn't your choice is on television all the time as well.
Perhaps the best joke of all is that people here think that they are getting more news from MSNBC or CNN. I know, you don't believe me. But some of you wouldn't have believed me 8 years ago if I told you the same thing about Fox when you watched it, right?
May 10, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broadcast rights come with responsibilities.
Are you aware of what those are?
May 10, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Fox satisfies those rights. As does MSNBC.
The real question are YOU aware what they are?
May 10, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I am not sure that Fox does. You were maybe an FCC commissioner recently? if not, your surety is rather inappropriate. Much has changed recently.
May 10, 2009 9:38 PM