General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPLEASE join our effort to get Fox News out of USA's military bases - Easy Contact Form
Thank you for reading my post, fellow DUer !
IMHO it's absolutely INSANE the Fox Network content is STILL piped into our military bases !
As this traitorous tool of the billionaire Murdock is now broadcasting pro-Putin talking points,
it's even more important to get their shitshow turned OFF !!
It's ONLY gonna happen if we push our representatives into taking action.
Below is a great contact tool I have used in the past, and received replies from all three of my reps.
So I know this WORKS.
And it's super easy...
Background: Lawyer John E Deaton has provided this free service mainly to support a non related project he's pursuing, but
he has made it very clear we may use this for our own issues we want to communicate to our reps.
I have written some text you are welcomed to use to compose your own message, should you like.
(I added my full name, city, state at my message's end)
Finally, in my 18 years here on DU, I have NEVER asked for a K&R - please, help get this message out !!
Thank you all
https://www.crypto-law.us/connect-to-congress/
Subjects:
1) Why is the Russian Propaganda mouthpiece - Fox News - STILL radicalizing our military?!!
2) PLEASE look into why the pro-Putin Fox Network is STILL being piped into our military bases?!!
3) I am OUTRAGED that anti-American FOX propaganda is STILL blaring into our military bases!!
4) Are you doing ANYTHING to STOP the Russian Propaganda Fox Network from radicalizing our military?
( my own text sent out this morning - if you have the time put your own feelings and requests here instead )
---
Recently, Russian government sent out to their pro-Putin media outlets memos which were obtained by MotherJones. These memos tell the outlets "it is essential" they feature Tucker Carlson in their coverage of the Ukraine war "as much as possible." Nightly, this anti-American Putin mouthpiece recites - nearly verbatim - the Kremlin's propaganda. Other Putin supporting "talking heads" at Fox spew out similar pro-Russian talking points. OVER AND OVER, propelling the propaganda to their listeners.
AND THIS ALL IS PIPED INTO OUR MILITARY BASES!!
PLEASE do something.
If not for us - your voters - then do it FOR OUR COUNTRY and its interests.
Thank you for your time!
Link to tweet
Funtatlaguy
(10,862 posts)This needs to find its way to the White House, Pentagon, and all Demleaders.
Response to Pluvious (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)Cha
(296,771 posts)FakeNoose
(32,555 posts)K & R
...and shared!!
K&R
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)since they might as well be Russian state propaganda
KatK
(185 posts)monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)Cable company's from forcing in down our throat to pay for it on tv channels ?
Hekate
(90,527 posts)MLAA
(17,238 posts)tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)soldierant
(6,785 posts)And, if you do succeed, would you consider taking on some other institutions? Like prisons?
trof
(54,256 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Congress to do something a bit close to violating free speech.
Pluvious
(4,305 posts)My hope is our public servants can find a workable solution which protects both our Constitutional rights and shield our service people from extremist radicalization.
I think stipulating that this stream of toxic content shouldnt be displayed on government owned devices in public areas should addresses concerns of unfettered access to view via their own devices and such; ie. service personnel are free to go stream it in their private spaces, etc.
I've read that a number of field commanders had banned Fox in the past, as it was viewed as interfering with their mission.
It is the obligation of the military to create cohesion among the troops. Fox divides them.
I'm in total support of free speech, but I would not want some death-cult leader encouraging everyone to kill others in cold blood and then kill themselves to be allowed to be shown on government TV monitors in public spaces on our bases.
Where does a free society draw the line ?
If its radicalizing members of our military with our tax dollars - I say that is wrong, and should be restricted.
Other democratic countries have managed to put restrictions on hate and dangerous speech and still remain democratic. Maybe we can find a wise solution too ?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,175 posts)The word "but" is used to negate the statement that goes before it. The word "total" in this usage means "complete or absolute." You are very clearly not in total support of free speech, despite your assurances to the contrary.
Would you support the government banning MSNBC on military bases? Would you support the government criminalizing the utterance of racial slurs? Would you support the government taking down sites like Breitbart or the Daily Wire?
In suggesting this, you're behaving in the exact same way the right frequently does. "I don't like or agree with this, therefore it should be banned."
Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2022, 05:57 AM - Edit history (3)
Congress or its agents can't pick and choose points of view that it or they find acceptable.
Banning everything isn't practical. The base commander could decide that there wouldn't be any TV sets running in any place of work on the base. ... So what happens if there's a big news event, like one country invades another? Wouldn't it be important to watch a few snippets of that? I can't see how you could say that FOX News would not be an option.
Bowling alley? The PX? Barracks? I don't see how he could ban one channel.
Could he ban the delivery of one newspaper that he didn't like? Say the base commander takes offense at something said in the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Should he be able to ban it from the base library? Home delivery on the base?
Is that what you want?
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #24)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #26)
mahatmakanejeeves This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)How about the next guy wants to ban MSNBC, ABC, newspapers provided to military, DU on government purchased devices? Doesnt sound right, no matter how much we hate FOX.
Doesnt sound like right message.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2022, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)
{edited from "You win the prize. NT"}
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #27)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)I think you're one of the better posters here, and this isn't going to change that.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #25)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)There are pages that I can't get to on that computer. Wordle, crossword puzzles, and so forth. Anything they deem frivolous. No expectation of privacy. Their computer; their choice. If I don't like it, I can use my own computer.
They don't mind if I keep up with the news, a lot of which is job-related. I mean, I can't watch the news for eight hours straight. I have to keep it in line.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Armed Forces Network is legally only able to broadcast to military troops overseas.
Response to hack89 (Reply #72)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Congress will not allow the creation of a domestic military run news service and there is no way the military would want to do it - they have no desire to get dragged into a screaming political cultural war fight.
And exactly how do you explain the disappearance of all those TVs to the troops? "You can't be trusted to make adult decisions so we have to remove the TVs to ensure you believe the right things."? Don't you think that would also set of a massive firestorm?
Response to hack89 (Reply #75)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That is from someone who spent 20 in the Navy.
Response to hack89 (Reply #85)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)and this is from someone who spent 35 years in the Corps.
Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #88)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's here, while I may disagree with someone's opinion, I respect their right to express it.
Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #90)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)Have a great evening.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I cant believe people think this is justified.
Ive never watched them, but people do have the right.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And as long as it is labeled entertainment, not news, which they admit.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... vs them be able to portray themselves as not associated with the agenda of a political party in the US.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)DENVERPOPS
(8,787 posts)That they are NOW tied to a Foreign Political Agenda.........
And are basically operating as a branch of the Russia Owned News Network................
They should take Fox News off the Military airwaves, and give each member of the military a vote of agreement or disapproval.
Then count the votes, and easily determine JUST HOW DEEPLY INGRAINED the Trumphumpers are in our military..........
I would think that the results would be a real wake up call.............Just the same as our Police Departments across the entire nation....
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... should be exposed for the connections to the GZP agenda
Pluvious
(4,305 posts)I am humbled and gratified at your support
After this morning's info-dump of the never-ending Russian Horror Show, I was just overwhelmed.
This is so awful, so evil - as Jon Stewart said: the Impotent rage is wearing, I needed to do SOMETHING.
May Zeus bless you all !
Evolve Dammit
(16,694 posts)calimary
(81,085 posts)The Wizard
(12,532 posts)Russian propaganda? This is akin to our troops being force fed Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose in 1943.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)The DOD cannot ban programming just because you're upset by the knowledge that someone else is watching it.
You are free to choose for yourself what to watch or not watch, but you are not free to dictate to others what they can't watch. I call this concept "pro-choice." The opposite of letting people choose for themselves is exemplified by book burning and removing books from the library shelves.
The only way you could ban FOX News is to ban all the cable news networks. You can't ban one and leave the others alone. It's all or nothing.
They all say that.
Here you go. For the benefit of you and all the other First Amendment haters at DU, here's why you can't do what you want to do.
Source: https://blog.library.gsu.edu/2012/03/23/secularists-descend-upon-d-c-for-reason-rally/
{edited to add}
Fri Jan 25, 2019: Johns Hopkins to buy Newseum building in D.C. as journalism museum plans to relocate
As that swell Molly Ivins said, "I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag."
Hey, that would make a great signature line.
You'll get over it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2022, 05:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Sat Dec 11, 2021: On this date, December 11, 1725, George Mason was born. He conceived the Bill of Rights.
I've posted this on this day for the last few years.
Fri Dec 11, 2020: On this date, December 11, 1725, George Mason was born. He conceived the Bill of Rights.
Wed Dec 11, 2019: Happy 294th Birthday, George Mason. Founding Founder, He Conceived the Bill of Rights.
Tue Dec 11, 2018: Happy 293rd Birthday, George Mason. Founding Founder, He Conceived the Bill of Rights.
Mon Dec 11, 2017: Happy 292nd Birthday, George Mason. Founding Founder, He Conceived the Bill of Rights.
Sun Dec 11, 2016: Happy 291st Birthday, George Mason. Founding Founder, He Conceived the Bill of Rights.
copy of a 1750 portrait by John Hesselius
Born: December 11, 1725; Likely present-day Fairfax County, Virginia, British America
Died: October 7, 1792 (aged 66); Gunston Hall, Fairfax County, Virginia, United States
Resting place: Mason Family Cemetery, Lorton, Virginia
Coordinates: 38.66862°N 77.16823°W
George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 [O.S. November 30, 1725] October 7, 1792) was an American planter, politician and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution. His writings, including substantial portions of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, and his Objections to this Constitution of Government (1787) opposing ratification, have exercised a significant influence on American political thought and events. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, a document of which he has been deemed a father.
{snip}
I'm not sure why that says his birth year is 1726. I thought it might be that Gregorian calendar - Julian calendar thing, but that would account for only 11 days. I'll see what I can find.
Through enactment of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, Britain and the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States) adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, by which time it was necessary to correct by 11 days. Wednesday, 2 September 1752, was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752. Claims that rioters demanded "Give us our eleven days" grew out of a misinterpretation of a painting by William Hogarth. After 1753, the British tax year in Britain continued to operate on the Julian calendar and began on 5 April, which was the "Old Style" new tax year of 25 March. A 12th skipped Julian leap day in 1800 changed its start to 6 April. It was not changed when a 13th Julian leap day was skipped in 1900, so the tax year in the United Kingdom still begins on 6 April.
There have been a couple of postage stamps about him and Gunston Hall:
1958 3-cent Gunston Hall and 1981 18-cent George Mason
This wise Virginian was a friend to four future presidents, yet he refused to sign the Constitution
By Stephan A. Schwartz
Smithsonian Magazine
@SmithsonianMag
April 30, 2000
The air was cool and fresh on that Monday morning in September 1787 as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered at the State House (now Independence Hall) in Philadelphia to sign the new Constitution. Only three present refused to add their names. One of them was the Virginian George Mason. Because the Constitution created a federal government he felt might be too powerful, and because it did not end the slave trade and did not contain a bill of rights, he withheld his support from the document he had played so large a role in crafting.
In 1776, Mason, then 51, had been appointed to a committee charged with drafting a "Declaration of Rights" for Virginia. From the writings of English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), Mason had come to a then-radical insight: that a republic had to begin with the formal, legally binding commitment that individuals had inalienable rights that were superior to any government.
One other committee member did play a significant role: Mason's young friend James Madison, who kept his (and Mason's) friend Thomas Jefferson apprised of Mason's progress in drafting the declaration. Mason's work began, "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights...namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Jefferson's U.S. Declaration of Independence included the immortal words of what may be the most famous political statement in history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In 1787, toward the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason proposed that a bill of rights preface the Constitution, but his proposal was defeated. When he refused to sign the new Constitution, his decision baffled some and alienated others, including his old friend, George Washington. Mason's stand nonetheless had its effect. At the first session of the first Congress, Madison introduced a Bill of Rights that paralleled Mason's Declaration of Rights of 1776.
Here is 2018's letter to the editor of the Alexandria Gazette Packet about George Mason from Alexandrian Eleanor Latane Tabb:
Alexandrian George Mason is among the most important of our Founding Fathers, but few people even in our city and at his home, Gunston Hall, celebrate his Dec. 11, 1752, birthday because they do not know and therefore honor his contributions to our federal republic nor do most celebrate Bill of Rights Day, Dec. 15 (1791), although it is by far the best known section of the Constitution. Masons insistence on its inclusion cost him Washingtons friendship and his rightful place in our history books written by the generals Federalist partisans. Mason also provided Jefferson with the most famous claims in our Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson used the thesis of his mentor Mason, whom he deemed the most intelligent man of his day, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He had copies of Masons first and final drafts of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted by the General Assembly on June 12, 1776, and admirably edited its language to some of the most stirring words ever written. Masons lines, That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety became in Jeffersons words . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Inspired by the English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), Mason had the then radical insight: a republic needed a legally binding commitment that individuals have inalienable rights superior to any government. Also, it is necessary for those rights to be written so they would be clear to both government officials and the people. Therefore, he created the first written statement of those individual rights which he believed must be included to restrain all levels of government.
Mason also wrote Virginias (and the colonies) first Constitution, which included a Bill of Rights, and was used until the 1970s. That constitution was a model for our national Constitution.
Mason was the first delegate at the Constitutional Convention to urge including a Bill of Rights with our Constitution; indeed, he thought it should begin with a statement of rights. His proposal was voted down unanimously (Washington vigorously opposed it), but when the states ratified the Constitution, almost all required a Bill of Rights be added. Mason was one of three delegates present for the entire Constitutional Convention to vote against its adoption. His 16 objections listed its failure to end slavery and include a Bill of Rights. In the Virginia General Assemblys ratification debate, Mason, Edmund Randolph and Patrick Henry argued vigorously against adopting the Constitution; if five men had voted the other way, it would have failed. Washington was furious at Masons failure to support his higher priority: creation of a strong national government with the Bill of Rights to come later if it were necessary, which he doubted.
Fortunately for us, Masons argument prevailed.
Ellen Latane Tabb
Alexandria
reACTIONary
(5,766 posts)... I really like the first amendment façade at the Newseum. Every time I'm in DC I grab a picture of it. Unfortunately, with the demise of the Newseum, the façade will be taken down. It is considered an "artifact" of the museum. Don't know what they are going to, or have done, with it.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)into work, I'd cross Pennsylvania Avenue right at that intersection where the East Building of the National Gallery of Art is. I'd walk along the sidewalk and scan the front pages of that morning's newspapers. Then I'd walk across Canada (okay, the Embassy of Canada) and on to work.
Maybe it's still up. I haven't been into work in two years.
reACTIONary
(5,766 posts).. and it was still up. I usually visiting the NGA or the Hirshhorn. Since its the weekend, I park on C street by the district court, and walk through Marshall park, right next to Canada. If I'm going to the older wing, I would walk by the Newseum and scan the headlines.
I hope they do right by the façade; it is a real inspiring monument!
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)yours would get one from me, but instead, here's some smilies:
Raine
(30,540 posts)maxrandb
(15,292 posts)There is nothing...NOTHING...that is preventing ANY Sailor, Soldier, Airman, Marine, Coast Guard member, or DoD Employee and contractor from watching Faux News to their hearts content at their own private residence, or while Off-Duty.
There is a lot of stuff you accept as part of your "privilege" to serve the United States Military. In fact, those of us who have served would like nothing more than to return to the days of 3 CCTV Movies to choose from, or Reel to Reel Projectors on the Mess Decks. We would get a lot more work done, with less arguments.
Does your employer block the visiting of certain websites while you are at work? Is that in violation of your 1St Amendment Rights?
This bogus 1ST Amendment argument is always made when there are boycotts, or attempts to stamp out propaganda directed at our troops.
The right to free speech does NOT equal the right to be free of consequences.
Additionally, military service is pretty damn unique.
For example, you can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for contemptuous speech toward the President, Vice President, or anyone in your chain of command.
Faux News routinely broadcasts contemptuous speech on a minute by minute basis.
It should NOT be on AFRTS.
If that meant getting all cable news and hate-radio off of our military installation, all I can say is; "don't threaten me with a good time"
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... the agenda of a political agenda in the US that should get it taken off the list of serious info outlets.
Wednesdays
(17,306 posts)Wish I could rec this post.
Permanut
(5,553 posts)I'm not upset about this issue, I'm concerned about right wing indoctrination of any kind. My understanding of DU is that disagreements about politics and policy are open for discussion, without anyone having to "get over it".
uponit7771
(90,301 posts).. FAUX NewZ is tied to the political agenda of the republican party.
That itself should get them taken out of the news pool alone or placed in category where serious journalism isn't considered for that outlet.
Jedi Guy
(3,175 posts)It's good to know which folks here on DU are authoritarians. These threads always draw them like flies.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)There are so many DUers vying to be first in line to sell you out.
Permanut
(5,553 posts)Sogo
(4,986 posts)I doubt they would be concerned about Fox on military bases....
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)1. Fox News isn't what is making these folks conservatives. The ones who come in as enlisted are over represented from the South, from military families, who are already, generally speaking, very conservative. Banning Fox News isn't changing that.
2. More military voted for Biden than Trump. Fox News didn't matter. Besides, Soldiers spend the vast majority of the day working, they aren't watching TV. You do PT at 630, you come in and do your job from 9-5 or 6. Grab lunch when you can, then head home. There aren't even really much in the way of barracks anymore. I had a TV in my office for half my officer time, I rarely had time to watch it. Usually it was after hours if I was working late.
3. Banning a single news network is not the message liberals need to be sending right now.
BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,081 posts)Meowmee
(5,164 posts)Ends up to something about crypto currency not fox news in the military.
hwmnbn
(4,279 posts)onetexan
(13,019 posts)Despite it being an antidemocratic, prorussian, proauthoritarian mouthpiece.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)Well, as has been stated numerous times, Faux operates on cable, which the FCC has zero authority over, content or otherwise.
Cable, satellite and the internet are all pay to see/use, unlike over the air broadcasting, and the FCC, by law, has no authority over those venues, you don't even need a license to operate, those are privately owned systems.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... should get them taken away from objective news sources
onetexan
(13,019 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,249 posts)Faux Nooze is on cable, which the FCC has zero authority by law to regulate, as it should be.
bluecollar2
(3,622 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)Wednesdays
(17,306 posts)tavernier
(12,368 posts)KS Toronado
(17,136 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... object info outlet and that should get it taken down off of places were objective news should be allowed.
At LEAST deem them as entertainment and stop allowing them in the WH news pool like they're serious.
pandr32
(11,548 posts)Truthfully, Fox needs to be off all programing in the U.S. period! It has radicalized too many people and created problems we would be much better off without.
What good has it done? Anything? It certainly doesn't 'inform'.
birdographer
(1,304 posts)c-rational
(2,587 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,558 posts)Luckily, in Canada you have to pay extra to get FAUX as part of your cable package, so it's very easy to avoid here.