London Attacks Bring Out the Worst in Fox News

[SeveneightyWhoa]

London Attacks Bring Out the Worst in Fox News
Network becoming more than soft on terror as on-air rhetoric reaches a new, dangerous level


July 8 2005
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs


The London terror bombings have brought the evil out of the hearts and minds of the faces of America’s most successful cable news channel. In this age of global terror, where the media has an even greater responsibility to calm and inform the public in the face of growing fear, Fox News is instead acting to inflame the anger and confusion of their audience while allowing inflammatory statements—from their own hosts and anchors—that border on dangerous.

Continue.. http://counterbias.com/339.html

[donco6]

1. Who cares about Paris??

On July 6, the day before the attacks, Fox's John Gibson appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s radio show and said that “the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity” to pick France for the 2012 Olympics. “If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?”

You know, the FCC has a shit fit when someone says - well, shit, on the radio. But these guys can make statements like this and that's OK? I don't get it.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. Great idea -- why not start contacting the FCC?

They only respond when people do. (Sometimes.)

[donco6]

6. How to contact the FCC about complaint:

How can I file a complaint about obscenity or indecency on the radio or television?

You may file a written complaint and mail it to:

FCC
Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554

The Commission asks complainants to provide the following information: (1) the date and time of the alleged broadcast; (2) the call sign of the station involved; and (3) information regarding the details of what was actually said (or depicted) during the alleged indecent or obscene broadcast. With respect to item (3), in making indecency determinations, context is key! The Commission staff must have sufficient information regarding what was actually said during the alleged broadcast, the meaning of what was said and the context in which it was stated. There is flexibility in how a complainant may provide this information. For example, the complainant may provide a significant excerpt of the program describing what was actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial tape or transcript of the material. In whatever form, the complainant provides the information, it must be sufficiently detailed such that the Commission can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and the context of those words or language. More information about obscenity and indecency complaints...

They probably won't consider this an obscenity complaint, but I'll make the case as best I can.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

7. More ways to contact FCC:

(from www.fcc.gov)

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: [e-mail]
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: [e-mail]
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: [e-mail]
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: [e-mail]


To Obtain Information via E-mail

General information, inquiries & complaints: [e-mail]
Freedom of Information Act requests: [e-mail]
Comments on FCC Internet services: [e-mail]
Elections & political candidate matters: [e-mail]

[Zenlitened]

12. Does the FCC have any jurisdiction over a cable news outlet?

:shrug:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

14. LOL..no idea.

Since I'm so interested in the media, I suppose I should know more about things like that. But I'm Canadian, so that's my excuse. :)

[dArKeR]

9. This is incredible. To the point I really can't believe it. Is there any

audio you can provide or some evidence. As far as I'm concerned this is insighting violence on both sides. All sides. All pyschologically imbalanced people... to pick up weapons and kill whatever they disagree with.

Does this mean Fox is promoting terrorist attacks against Canada too?

[NeoConsSuck]

3. CNN.COM is no better

Yesterday morning at 6AM, CNN.COM had on their home page a picture of three Muslim women on the street of London, right under the headline "TERROR STRIKES LONDON". The inference was any Muslim=Terrorist.

I wish I would have saved the home page & graphics to my hard drive. I'm putting together a CNN site that shows what a racist, neocon network they really are.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

4. Did they have shocked or scared expressions on their face?

Maybe you're reading a bit too much into it? Muslims can be VICTIMS of terrorism, too, and I'm assuming thats what CNN.com was picturing. Perhaps they didn't discriminate victims based on their race?

[NeoConsSuck]

5. I'm not reading into anything...

CNN.COM is a scum neocon website.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. Ok. Can you tell or show us more?

I'd like to take your word for it but I'll need to see some evidence backing that up. Just because your political perspective is to the left of CNN's website, doesn't make that website "neocon scum".

[NeoConsSuck]

10. Did you read my original post??

I wish I would have saved the home page & graphics to my hard drive

When did CNN.COM employees start to monitor DU postings?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

11. So...TELL me about it.

I'm sure you can recall a few incendiary instances of neo-con scumminess?

[NeoConsSuck]

13. You were told about it..

in the original post. A picture tells a thousand words.

So what position do you hold at CNN.COM? LOL!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

15. *chirp chirp*

I haven't seen the picture. I've only seen you making inflated claims about it, as well as throwing around pretty nasty labels like "neocon scum", without anything to back up your claims.

I'm still waiting for you to explain further, and telling me that Muslims living in London were pictured in an article about terrorists, does not mean ANYTHING to me. There are innocent Muslims living in London, if you didn't notice, and showing their reactions to a terror attack does not signify that the person displaying the picture is connecting them to Islamic terrorists. I don't even see how you came away with such a conclusion.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

16. Oh and I don't work for CNN.

In fact, I've probably been more critical of CNN than you ever have.

The difference is, my criticisms are rational, logical and coherent.