I'd like to fucking know how FNC isn't a news organization? Because they have an opinion? So what? So does MSNBC. The news is still delivered, the commentators are just overwhelmingly intelligent (aka conservative). Sorry that not all news commentators are as stupid as rachel maddow.
AND DR. LAURA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. HOW THE HELL DO BLACK PEOPLE HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CRITICIZE WHITE PEOPLE FOR BEING 'RACIST' WHEN THEY USE THE N-WORD IN EVERY FUCKING SENTENCE. RAP, HELLO?
@retownsend Because We NIGGAZ so get over it. You CRACKERS can't say the word NIGGA because you'll get the shit stomped out of you by some NIGGAZ. HELLO! BTW its a figure of speech. Like for instance, You my nigga, or nigga please. See y'all HONKEYS are mad for no reason.........
Since 1996 when Fox News Channel went on the air, they have been owned and operated by the Republican National Committee. Rupert Murdoch is a Straw Man owner and has no input about what goes on at Fox. The RNC provides Fox with all of their "news", content, Talking Points and daily Marching Orders. From 2001 until 2009 the Bush/Cheney regime took over the duties from the RNC, because Roger Ailes was seen going to and from the White House every day.
Congratulations Media Matters your were successful to rail road Dr. Laura off the air! Shame on you... I've listened to the whole uncensored 6 minutes and I think Dr. Laura made her point very well. It wasn't "heated" or a "tirade" or "outragious" or "chastizing!" a whole lot of spinning of what actually happened! Bill had it right you guys at Media Matters really do seem to be "Kooks!" Live with it, because that seems to be "the way it is!" to quote Walter Cronkite.
Dr. laura made her point.......SHE came out and apologized the next day, for SELF-PRESERVATION! She thought it would ALL just go away.
WHY would a white Christian person WANT to say nigger in the first place? I have yet to understand that point. It seems that she just cannot grasp the fact that a black person can do something, and she can't. She said nigger, now she suffers the consequences.
Congratulations Media Matters your were successful to rail road Dr. Laura off the air! Shame on you... I've listened to the whole uncensored 6 minutes and I think Dr. Laura made her point very well.
@kwb70652 If you look you will find that Media Matters adds about 150% to whatever it is in terms of Oh MY God They Are Just Terrible and We Must Take Control. That stuff. This si a good week . Normally they are sitting around sticking pins in Glenn Beck dolls. They must have orders to lay off even though he has a big event next weekend. And NO Fox didn't sponsor it and they aren't even going to cover it. There. That will stir em up.
@drhu Well, I know what MM is, I know they can make a mountain out of a molehill. The thing is, I often agree with them, so I'm good with their opinions. I think Rush Limbaugh, and now Glen Beck are two of the worst things to happen to America -- both employed by Fox. I believe you and I will never agree -- you like Fox, I don't, you apparently defend Glen Beck, I think the sooner he's gone the better for all. I saw "Dr Laura as a hypocrite about 8 years ago -- IMHO.
@kwb70652 Oh we can agree as long as you aren't a completely sanctimonious asshole like the acolytes around here. Rush is not employed by Fox by the way.
I mostly just don't see letting this bunch get away with what's also rampant in their ranks. Dr.Laura hasn't been a major talk figure since 9/11. I can't abide fabricating events such as "The Fox sponsored Tea Party event" they supposedly show video of in one episode. Out and out fabricated crap.
@drhu I like to think of myself as NOT being an asshole, but thanks for inquiring. jeeze. My bad on the Limbaugh/Fox connection; around here he's broadcast on a Fox affiliate- I believe, but admit I rarely tune in. Wasn't my point though.
If you can let Limbaugh get away with what he does, then why are you on a high-horse about Media Matters? Did you protest the Swift-boaters too? Fabrications are happening all the time, my point: people NEED to research through reputable sources.
If you go to rush's show and go to the Drudge Report you will see a lot of what he comments on comes from there. The stuff on Drudge usually comes from a reputable Ap or Reuters or international news source. That's why he started that page to have a place where all the news was and it was easily accessible.
@drhu Good Greif, are you saying Limbaugh is factual? Come on, he's one of the biggest spin/fabricator/commentators around. To be honest, if Limbaugh uses the Drudge report, than I don't trust it because I don't trust him. I've caught him in too many lies. I prefer St. Petersburg Times on-line Politifact(.) com They have a "truth-o-meter" including links to their sources. Go on fighting against Media Matters, but you should know IT IS THE answer to the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
These "Big Picture" hosts are some of the most obnoxious, smug people that I have ever watched in my life. The information itself might be interesting, but the way in which the hosts carry on about to burst with laughter is not just annoying, its unprofessional.
@tixhaj I invite you to look back at the videos Media Matters has put forth here. I defy you to find professionalism anywhere in them. As for the laughter part, well, you know, they are reporting about STUPID people after all! Ha-ha-ha-hahahaha!
Just a little info for all those who claim Fox is not news. Surfing channels this morning I noticed CNN having the same debates found here. MSNBC discussing the reactor in Iran.
Fox however was live on the scene covering the protest going on today at the Ground Zero mosque site.
@drhu would say the Iran story is more important. The Mosque issue is drummed up and fake. A year ago I heard people on FOX News saying that the Islamic center was: a ok. But now it is politically advantageous to take the opposite point of view. FOX News tells Conservatives what they want to hear. Sheppard Smith is pretty good . What he does I would call news. The rest of those shows are Conservative versions of Countdown with Keith Olberman.
@Neoconhater All I said was that I don't like the way the hosts present their stories. I never said that what they are saying is wrong. Actually, I agree that some Fox/conservative talk show hosts rant too much and that inappropriate comments are sometimes let onto the air. But I believe that it applies to the whole news spectrum, not just to one side.
@drhu I think all these channels have their NEWS programs, and then their COMMENTARY... The problem is the viewers who don't know news from commentary and begin to believe it all as fact rather than opinion.
@drhu On both sides... No one wants to admit they are following strong opinion. What helps is knowing opinion from fact and knowing how to use critical thought; the absence of which is frightening.
@drhu Leading the sheep around is also the goal of "fair and balanced." You know it's true. Did you think that Fox would NOT get a push-back from the people who see their spin? What you call "your own gumption" I call critical thinking... People on both ends are being lead anywhere - we need critical thinking.
And why is your's better than mine? It's not.
If your gonna rally against twists and spins in commentary, than do it on both left and right.
@kwb70652 Yes but we know Media Matters won't do that. That's my push is to balance that out. Most of those posting here are fans or interns or whatever but they absolutely will not hear anything but what these videos put out.
@kwb70652 Let me explain it this way. Right now Glenn Bexk is working on a big deal this weekend. He has received contributions he doesn't need and has been giving them to a relief organization for veterans families. Bill O'Rielly has championed Jessica's Law in a great number of states to see to it child molesters get what they deserve. He also made sure one stayed in prison when a judge tried to give him a light sentence. What lib hosts have done anything like that?Besides run their mouth?
@drhu 2 Part answer, because I wasn't asking what was different between right/left wing commentators. O'Reilly and Beck should be helping others, as should anyone who is able. I'm sure they make their causes well known. Liberal Hosts: Jon Stewart - Autism Education, Feeding America, Stand up to Cancer + some. Rachel Maddow- Haiti relief, etc. And go to Look to the Stars for thousands of primarily liberal celebrities and their charities. Again -- it's the same on both sides.
@drhu BUT what I asked you was What makes you different than the MM fans. The more we write the more I believe you are exactly like the people you berate and condemn here. You seem to believe everything Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh say, and you follow up by citing Limbaugh's news source as proof. Come on, that is NOT critical thinking, that is NOT having gumption. In my opinion you are no different than the people you condemn.
@kwb70652 NO...not really. And no I don't believe everything they say. Someone has to be on here to try and be the opposing viewpoint. You do agree there should be more than one opinion don't you?
@drhu Too bad Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine" right? Then you wouldn't be having to fight so hard against MM, and they wouldn't have to be fighting so hard against Right-wing nuts.
And like I said, citing Limbaugh's information source as a reputable source is NOT critical thinking... it's just following... just like you accuse others of doing. Check out the St. Petersburg Times politifacts site.
And the Telecom Act of 1996 really sucked for media fairness and corporate ownership. It is one of the things along with NAFTA that I'm still not happy with Clinton/Gore. But it all started when Reagan dumped the fairness doctrine, the right wingnut media/hate radio included of course, has just flourished since.
@Neoconhater Thanks -- and its terribly relevant. I find the history of the Fairness Doctrine very interesting.
Oh, remember when Rush's audience called themselves "ditto-heads" I loved it: just a bunch of poor copies of the original.
And didn't the Internet make it even easier for people to spout of any random fiction and call it NEWS? Too many people believe and that is what really scares me. I bet Fox's lobbyist are strong now, but maybe it's not too late.
And Rush stills spews the Limbaugh Institute For Advanced Conservative Studies. line 'o bull.
And Beck has a University?
It is pretty easy to drivel all that stupidity when there is no one to call you on it.
The history of the fairness doctrine is very interesting, the right wing media has dumped on it for years. And the wingnut drones think it's about suppressing free speech because they buy into the propaganda, how sad.
@drhu cody/drhu/melody, you need to learn exactly what the fairness doctrine provided, not the lies fed to you at Beck University. So sad you're so clueless.
LOL!!Looks like the ignorant Fox drone cody is an upset little punk!!
Listen up chump, you repeated the same lame talking point about the fairness doctrine and a made you look as dumb as you are So all you've got left are juvenile insults. You're a good far right drone, Beck University has taught you so very well.
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
@Neoconhater Just like it's only your opinion that Fox News tries to silence people, they very clearly do not. Reality is relative to the observer, right? Everyone's reality is different, apparently.
@Neoconhater I really don't care what your opinion is; it is evidently difficult for people like you to accept simple principles like freedom of speech without resorting to hysteria. Just like it eludes the people at Media Matters, however important their role may be support for freedom of speech on principled grounds is not in their repertoire because they disagree with what the person said. Sorry, it's irrelevant what she said or didn't say, you either support free speech or don't.
@Neoconhater Sorry, but campaigning to remove her from her position is not mere disagreement. Furthermore, I have stressed repeatedly and explicitly that Media Matters has EVERY right to launch their campaign to have her removed and her advertisers withdrawn, just like they stated in this video. Just like Fox News has every right to become politically involved themselves. They both have every right to do this, however we should be honest enough to point out this isn't freedom of speech.
@Neoconhater Sorry, she quit after her source of income was threatened by the relatively influential Media Matters. This is not "disagree[ing]" this is a campaign to have her removed. I'm sure you could work your job pro bono, however Dr. Laura could not as her advertisers were "persuaded" to stop supporting her.
@Neoconhater So why is that Media Matters chastised Fox News for supporting and funding political organizations? Why would they not just say as you have "And under the Constitution that we all enjoy, to persuade folks to dump her is called free speech" and agree that Fox News has this right?
@Arkinight Congrats! Again you got spammed right out of the box. I don't know who moderates this but you are a lying hypocrite. Let this man speak if you actually believe what you say about freedom of speech. Nothing he said in that post was offensive you just can't deal with it.
@Arkinight The reasons for MM4A being critical of Fox for giving money to the gop govs is pretty clear and numerous. First l they claim to be fair and balanced, quite clearly they're not.
Second Rupert Murdoch has said, it is on video, that Fox doesn't give any money to "any political party".
So, because the mission statement of MM4A includes presenting misinformation coming from right wing media it makes perfect sense they would show the facts.
@Arkinight They are all happy because after failing to down Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck they have finally brought down the weakest in the herd, much the same way the predatory jungle animals do. It rather stings them that they couldn't get Air America to succeed and bring Fox down in one fell swoop. The truth of that is something they avoid like Kryptonite. Go ahead. Ask them about it and see.
@Orlor "The move came after a week of pressure from Media Matters and other groups, we persuaded several advertisers to cease sponsoring her radio show... what Dr. Laura experience was just the free market - doing what it does."
Might be a good idea to watch (and listen) to the video that you are presumably on here to watch before you make asinine comments.
@Arkinight You are right. I did not see that part of the video. However, the point still stands. Dr. Laura wants to have her 1st amendments rights protected without suffering the consequences of her actions. It's a case of 1st amendment rights for her but not for anyone criticizing her.
@Orlor The consequences of her actions are not criticism. It's having a large and influential organization like Media Matters use their clout to "persuade" (i.e. lobby) advertisers to stop funding her show. Well to a rational person that means she can no longer have a radio show. No advertisers means no revenue; means that in the modern advertiser-driven media she is no longer able to have a radio show. Therefore, it silences her. Sorry, but Media Matters didn't merely "criticize" her.
@Orlor And to reiterate the points that I have made at least a dozen times previously, they have *every right* to do this action, just like Fox News has *every right* to sponsor political movements and favour one side, while squelching those views they find objectionable.
We should be honest enough to see the utter hypocrisy in their condemnation of Fox News while they are engaged in the same tactics. Neither organization has a principled stance on freedom of speech.
@Arkinight See that was a heavy handed tactic by Media Matters. Pressure her out because you don't like what she said, They have been trying that with others and have failed. Now understand these are the"good guys". Forget about what the implications of such an act in our society is. They have to do that you know because people shouldn't be allowed to talk like that. Nope. No fascism there mate.
@Orlor Thank You! That's what I've been wondering. What exactly did MM do besides let everyone hear what Laura said? I'm very curious about this charge.
@Arkinight According to Dr. Laura, she is making this decision to stop her broadcast herself . She says her producers told her she didn't need to quit, but she said she wanted to do this now. She did not mention a threat to her income. She said some advertisers left, and some joined. Leaving is her decision because the media pressure bothers her. -- That is what she said.. watch the Larry Kind video on youtube.
@Neoconhater Sorry, you only enjoy the freedom of speech that you agree with, and you require to know the contents of the speech before making a judgment on whether or not an individual or organization should be able to make the statements they do. That is plainly not support for freedom of speech anymore than Fox News supports freedom of speech. Anymore than when Media Matters selectively supports the speech they agree with, and (rightly) point out Fox New's hypocrisy.
@Neoconhater However, this is clearly not support for freedom of speech, just like Fox News does not support freedom of speech in any tangible way.
"But ones freedom of speech doesn't include telling others to be quiet when they disagree."
Sorry, persuading advertisers to stop supporting her is not disagreement. She ran a radio call-in program, without advertisers she has no source of income for her show and therefore no job. This is plainly not disagreement, please acknowledge this fact.
@Neoconhater No, I'm sorry but the principle of support of freedom of speech does not begin and end with the constitution. As I have mentioned before, Brandenburg v. Ohio established the great protection that freedom of speech receives in the United States, before then it was virtually non-existent. That is exactly why Wilson's Red Scare occured. That why McCarthyism existed and so on.
The clear fact is you have no clue about the first amendment.
Just take political ads for example. The SCOTUS ruled you can give unlimited amounts of money to whomever you want. Other high court ruling also say you can outright lie in political ads. When a candidate slanders you you have the right to slander them back. When a TV personality says something vile like Dr, Laura did, MM4A or anyone else can persuade their sponsors to dump them.
@Neoconhater I'm sorry, this isn't about the First Amentment, I live in Canada and I believe in freedom of speech despite the fact that the jurisdiction of the First Amendment does not extend to this country.
This has to do with freedom of speech, not words on a parchment that were completely hollow until the 1969 landmark Supreme Court ruling.
The words on that parchment still hold loads of water.
The fact is freedom of speech in America includes anyones ability to be critical of any and all speech no matter what. This includes trying to persuade, with that same free speech right, to have advertisers drop their support to a given person or entity.
@Neoconhater Yeah, I'm sure it held a lot of water when Wilson imprisoned people for exercising their First Amendment rights. Or when McCarthyism imprisoned people for exercising that right.
Sorry, but it meant nothing until the activism of the 1960s, which civilized the country and enshrined the huge protection that freedom of speech receives.
@Neoconhater I agree but that doesn't make ir right and does not automatically defer a spine to those doing so. Media Matters has attempted this with others and failed miserably. Dr> Laurs has not has a substantial audience since after 9/1 when the public turned their attention to more important things that adultery and other such social ills. So if they can bring down any conservative they can put a check mark in that column and strut like a peacock. Pretty obvious.
@Neoconhater You mean like how he got marked as spam a while ago when he posted a legit argument. That's what happens here when it's too much for you. You just flag the comment. Who's the coward there Neo?
@Neoconhater "But you're defending cowards that claim they're [sic] free speech rights are taken away when people question them."
I'm defending cowards? Because I support the right of Dr. Laura to make the statements she made without having to endure a campaign to have her removed from her position? She's a coward to you?
"Now get back to watching the Fox circle jerk, you're missing the best ignorance ever on TV."
@Neoconhater "Sorry to tell you but free speech also includes the right of MM4A or anyone else to made Dr.Laura endure the free speech rights she also enjoys."
I apologize but I didn't understand that sentence, could you clarify?
"If she chooses to quit that her problem and shows how big a coward she is."
Well that's nice to frame it that way, however that's not what happened. Brooke Obie clearly stated that Media Matters attacked her and "persuaded" her advertisers to stop supporting her.
@Neoconhater "Free speech isn't a one way street, Dr. Laura or anyone else must be ready for the critics. She can't throw stones and expect nerf balls in return."
And I have responded to this strawman many times, you have ignored it each time, so once again:
"And Media Matters *has every right* to do this. Just like Fox News has every right. However, this is plainly vulgar hypocrisy."
I agree Media Matters can launch their campaign to have her removed, just like the video states.
@Neoconhater What the hell do you know about the Constitution? Suddenly the left wraps themselves in it after behaving as thought it is a nuisance. They certainly don't want judges to use it in their decision making. That much is clear.
@drhu Obviously I know loads more about the Constitution that you and others here that can't grasp the fact is is across the board. When some says something you don't like you have every right to respond, pretty simple.
@Neoconhater When Media Matters attacks Fox News for doing the same thing that Media Matters did to Dr. Laura that's acceptable and not hypocritical. "Do as I say, not as I do."
Sorry, but neither organization believes in freedom of speech passed their own narrow prerogatives and when it suits their views, that is why they do everything in their power to silence others whom they disagree with.
What exactly do you think the logical outcome of removing Dr. Laura's income would be?
@Neoconhater And once again I have repeatedly stressed that Media Matters has every right to do what they did to have her advertisers removed. However, this action is overt contempt for freedom of speech when it does not suit their own views. Therefore the rational observer would conclude that they do not support it - just like Fox News does not support it.
@Neoconhater Yeah, true to form, silencing the ability of others to exercise their freedom of speech is freedom of speech to you. I'm sure George Orwell would have appreciated this.
"It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
@Neoconhater I'm sorry but Media Matters did not say "we disagree with Dr. Laura" they explicitly said that they targeted her advertisers and "persuaded" them to stop supporting her - that's a campaign to have her removed. That is a far cry from "disagree." That is active participation in having someone's speech repressed - whether by government or not is irrelevant. And Media Matters has every right to do this. Just like Fox News has every right. However, this is plainly vulgar hypocrisy.
@Neoconhater It's really astonishing how the hypocrisy of their actions on this issue eludes you.
You can throw all the ad homs at me, and yes, hysteria, i.e.
"Now get back to watching the Fox circle jerk, you're missing the best ignorance ever on TV."
"... that is something you tools just can't grasp."
that you please, however it does not change the basic facts that their stance on freedom of speech is not a principled one. And it is very hypocritical when they condemn Fox for the same.
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
Media matters clearly is not in favour of freedom of speech. At least not when it comes to Dr. Laura and her comments.
@Neoconhater Sure, they're for the type of speech that they support, that is why they call for her to resign, and "persuade" advertisers to cease supporting her show. Because they support freedom of speech only when it conforms to their ideals.
I'm sorry, but this is not support for freedom of speech. And no, it is not my opinion that freedom of speech is exactly the support of speech that you find disagreeable.
@Neoconhater They chalk up their efforts to remove her from her position because they disagreed with her on something to "the free market", yes, I'm sure whatever machinations they were up to was "the free market" but when Fox News vulgarly supports one speech or one individual over another, that is illegitimate.
This is just pure hypocrisy and it really takes a lot of discipline to miss this.
Freedom of speech includes telling those that sponsor you that you don't like what you're saying. You and so many other right wingers need to learn what the constitution says!!
@Neoconhater No, I'm sorry, they didn't tell her that they didn't like what she said. Perhaps you should actually watch the video that you're commenting on.
They "persuaded several advertisers to cease sponsoring her". Well I'm sure that consisted of only "telling those that sponsor you that you don't like what you're saying". Nothing more.
Sorry, the constitution did not have freedom of speech in it anymore than it had equality in for women or slaves.
@Neoconhater I love how all of a sudden the left is huggin the constitution.None of you gave a whit about it when we were passing legislation that flew in the face of it or when the speaker says she will have people investigated for having an opinion. By the way that means she has to investigate Harry Reid and about half the Congress who want the damned thing moved as well.
Freedom of speech was put in place so tyrants couldn't oppress you for what you said. That's what.
@Neoconhater It is worth recalling that victories for freedom of speech are often won in defense of the most depraved and horrendous views. The 1969 Supreme Court decision was in defense of the Ku Klux Klan from prosecution after meeting with hooded figures, guns, and a burning cross, calling for "burying the nigger" and "sending the Jews back to Israel." With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate or you reject it and prefer...
@Arkinight Well in my case I defenc it because we have reached th epoint in this nation where one group wants to try and determine the right on a case by case basis and that being incidents they wish to use to forward their agenda. Media Matters in particular takes for example the Dr. Laura incident. Produces this video and sits around on here going" oh isn't she terrible and aren't they horrible"
It's all a production. It's all for show. It's spin
@drhu SPIN? What spin? They showed you the facts. Where's the spin? Do you honestly understand what "spin" means? If they show you exactly what happened that's not spin. Sorry to break it to you, but that's documenting events.
@laDy8A5737 Sure I know what spin means and so do yoou. It's why Ross Perot would not interview if it wan't live. You can edit things how you like to portray things in the manner you wish. Pretty simple really.
@drhu That's editing. Spin means to twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation. That's from an online dictionary. You'e talking about what Breitbart did, and that was defaming via editing and not spin.
@laDy8A5737 Yes...when you edit a certain way it is spin...yes? You don't think they arrange that stuff so as to look a certain way? That was exactly what i said?
How old are you? Should you be posting here without supervision?
@laDy8A5737 Lot's of times they post video clips and I am looking at them going....so? You can't look at tsome of it and get that it means what is implied by the surrounding material. It's guilt by implication without so mush as a real connector between them. Just well this sounds sort of like it so we lump it in with it to get the desired effect. As for freedom of speech someone needs to take madame speaker aside and clue her in a bit don't you think?
@Neoconhater Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.
- Containing The Threat Of Democracy
Sorry, but the constitution did not have any freedom of speech defense anymore than it had for the equality of all human beings until this landmark ruling after the activism of the 1960s.
Exactly why it was restricted to such an extent - I can give examples if you like.
@Neoconhater "rights wingers"? Sorry, once again "It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
If the basic idea of freedom of speech eludes you and you prefer the Stalinist/fascist standard - fine, be my guest. However, don't portray this under the rubric of believing in freedom of speech.
@Neoconhater Media Matters has every right to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
@Arkinight Freedom of speech means that the government can't try to silence you. It has nothing to do with just accepting what others say without complaint. Making such complaints and taking action are the rights of others just as much as freedom of speech. Nobody took away her freedom of speech - NOBODY.
MMFA doesn't attack everyone on the right. They single out lies, hate speech and distortions in the media whether they be news anchors or politicians.
@laDy8A5737 Media Matters has every right to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
@laDy8A5737 Perhaps you should have read what I said instead of responding to strawmen. Nobody has made the statement that what they did was "unconstitutional" or illegal. They have every right to believe in the Stalinist/fascist standard on free speech. Then criticize others (News Corp) for believing in it as well - and we should be honest enough to see their hypocrisy.
When News Corp takes a political stance - that's illegitimate. When Media Matters does the same - that's the "market".
@Arkinight I DID read what you said. MMFA isn't using the "market" as a defense. They don't even feel they need to defend anything. They are openly "Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
So where is the hypocrisy? Show me. You're using hyperbole and making silly comments about fascism and Stalin, which is a ridiculous thing to do in the first place.
@Arkinight Congrats! She hated what you said so much she spammed you. That's what happens here when they can't deal with you. They just take away your freedom of speech.
@laDy8A5737 Media Matters HAS EVERY RIGHT to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
@Neoconhater When you put out videos with people in it doing things that are plainly not so or very obviously set up then what you have is manipulation and the forwarding of an agenda. Some of this stuff comes in a form that is so patheically amatuer as to be embarrasing to the creators of it. Oh free speech exists for MM4A...if you are speaking what they want spoken. Otherwise you are racist or whatever worse thing they can find to label you with.
@laDy8A5737 Go find "The consequences of Glenn Becks hourly night of het" There you will see out of context clips and a made up little morality play that only a two year old would buy into.
Then you have "How not to track" where we see a two-man three-man inteview. This was another set-up. Just a couple of examples.
@laDy8A5737 The hypocrisy is very clearly their attempts to silence speech that they disagree with. While at the same time chastising Fox News (rightly) for their attempts at silencing the speech of others. Therefore we know their stance is not a principled one, but only one of convenience where it suits their own views. I may disagree with everything the Ku Klux Klan says, however, I support their right to say it.
"It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
@drhu I went to the website, and I'm not seeing what you're describing. can you just give me the last part of the URL for that doman? It would simply matters so that I can see what you're talking about directly.
@Orlor The fact is there are liberal/progressives who fund things just as there are the other way around. You know that. It's just like all the horribly wealthy Republicans in Congress. Want a list?
I hate how people call it the "N-word"? Are we 8? Well, "F-Word" that.
Eaglesfaninca 11 months ago
I'd like to fucking know how FNC isn't a news organization? Because they have an opinion? So what? So does MSNBC. The news is still delivered, the commentators are just overwhelmingly intelligent (aka conservative). Sorry that not all news commentators are as stupid as rachel maddow.
AND DR. LAURA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. HOW THE HELL DO BLACK PEOPLE HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CRITICIZE WHITE PEOPLE FOR BEING 'RACIST' WHEN THEY USE THE N-WORD IN EVERY FUCKING SENTENCE. RAP, HELLO?
retownsend 1 year ago
@retownsend Because We NIGGAZ so get over it. You CRACKERS can't say the word NIGGA because you'll get the shit stomped out of you by some NIGGAZ. HELLO! BTW its a figure of speech. Like for instance, You my nigga, or nigga please. See y'all HONKEYS are mad for no reason.........
Hazmat347 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since 1996 when Fox News Channel went on the air, they have been owned and operated by the Republican National Committee. Rupert Murdoch is a Straw Man owner and has no input about what goes on at Fox. The RNC provides Fox with all of their "news", content, Talking Points and daily Marching Orders. From 2001 until 2009 the Bush/Cheney regime took over the duties from the RNC, because Roger Ailes was seen going to and from the White House every day.
MrMKH2010 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
MrMKH2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrMKH2010 1 year ago
Thank you Media Matters, thank you!
hunterswine 1 year ago
Congratulations Media Matters your were successful to rail road Dr. Laura off the air! Shame on you... I've listened to the whole uncensored 6 minutes and I think Dr. Laura made her point very well. It wasn't "heated" or a "tirade" or "outragious" or "chastizing!" a whole lot of spinning of what actually happened! Bill had it right you guys at Media Matters really do seem to be "Kooks!" Live with it, because that seems to be "the way it is!" to quote Walter Cronkite.
JimHallowes 1 year ago
Dr. laura made her point.......SHE came out and apologized the next day, for SELF-PRESERVATION! She thought it would ALL just go away.
WHY would a white Christian person WANT to say nigger in the first place? I have yet to understand that point. It seems that she just cannot grasp the fact that a black person can do something, and she can't. She said nigger, now she suffers the consequences.
If you call your wife honey anywhere, can I too?
No, she is not my honey!
laura is not my nigga!
franklinjonesii 1 year ago
Congratulations Media Matters your were successful to rail road Dr. Laura off the air! Shame on you... I've listened to the whole uncensored 6 minutes and I think Dr. Laura made her point very well.
JimHallowes 1 year ago
The Big Picture is that Dr. Laura provided Media Matters with way more publicity then they could have gotten on their own. Pretty cool turnabout.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 If you look you will find that Media Matters adds about 150% to whatever it is in terms of Oh MY God They Are Just Terrible and We Must Take Control. That stuff. This si a good week . Normally they are sitting around sticking pins in Glenn Beck dolls. They must have orders to lay off even though he has a big event next weekend. And NO Fox didn't sponsor it and they aren't even going to cover it. There. That will stir em up.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Well, I know what MM is, I know they can make a mountain out of a molehill. The thing is, I often agree with them, so I'm good with their opinions. I think Rush Limbaugh, and now Glen Beck are two of the worst things to happen to America -- both employed by Fox. I believe you and I will never agree -- you like Fox, I don't, you apparently defend Glen Beck, I think the sooner he's gone the better for all. I saw "Dr Laura as a hypocrite about 8 years ago -- IMHO.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 Oh we can agree as long as you aren't a completely sanctimonious asshole like the acolytes around here. Rush is not employed by Fox by the way.
I mostly just don't see letting this bunch get away with what's also rampant in their ranks. Dr.Laura hasn't been a major talk figure since 9/11. I can't abide fabricating events such as "The Fox sponsored Tea Party event" they supposedly show video of in one episode. Out and out fabricated crap.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu I like to think of myself as NOT being an asshole, but thanks for inquiring. jeeze. My bad on the Limbaugh/Fox connection; around here he's broadcast on a Fox affiliate- I believe, but admit I rarely tune in. Wasn't my point though.
If you can let Limbaugh get away with what he does, then why are you on a high-horse about Media Matters? Did you protest the Swift-boaters too? Fabrications are happening all the time, my point: people NEED to research through reputable sources.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 And I was not calling you that.
If you go to rush's show and go to the Drudge Report you will see a lot of what he comments on comes from there. The stuff on Drudge usually comes from a reputable Ap or Reuters or international news source. That's why he started that page to have a place where all the news was and it was easily accessible.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Good Greif, are you saying Limbaugh is factual? Come on, he's one of the biggest spin/fabricator/commentators around. To be honest, if Limbaugh uses the Drudge report, than I don't trust it because I don't trust him. I've caught him in too many lies. I prefer St. Petersburg Times on-line Politifact(.) com They have a "truth-o-meter" including links to their sources. Go on fighting against Media Matters, but you should know IT IS THE answer to the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@drhu LOL I just looked up The Drudge Report on wikipedia... hilarious. My St Petersburg Times? Eight Pulitzers since 1964. :-) I like my source.
kwb70652 1 year ago
These "Big Picture" hosts are some of the most obnoxious, smug people that I have ever watched in my life. The information itself might be interesting, but the way in which the hosts carry on about to burst with laughter is not just annoying, its unprofessional.
tixhaj 1 year ago
@tixhaj I invite you to look back at the videos Media Matters has put forth here. I defy you to find professionalism anywhere in them. As for the laughter part, well, you know, they are reporting about STUPID people after all! Ha-ha-ha-hahahaha!
drhu 1 year ago
Just a little info for all those who claim Fox is not news. Surfing channels this morning I noticed CNN having the same debates found here. MSNBC discussing the reactor in Iran.
Fox however was live on the scene covering the protest going on today at the Ground Zero mosque site.
Now....which of those is news? Do we need a hint?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu would say the Iran story is more important. The Mosque issue is drummed up and fake. A year ago I heard people on FOX News saying that the Islamic center was: a ok. But now it is politically advantageous to take the opposite point of view. FOX News tells Conservatives what they want to hear. Sheppard Smith is pretty good . What he does I would call news. The rest of those shows are Conservative versions of Countdown with Keith Olberman.
lmcdowall 1 year ago
@drhu
Fox is not news cody/drhu/melody.
Fox is pure neocon madman propaganda. they're the propaganda arm of giant corporations and the gop
Fox has never been, and never will be "news".
Get a grip cody, Fox has you so manipulated you look pretty ignorant.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Ok Neo...I give up. My name is really Sybil and I have 17 different personalities. Are you happy now?
I am however not cody/melody.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater All I said was that I don't like the way the hosts present their stories. I never said that what they are saying is wrong. Actually, I agree that some Fox/conservative talk show hosts rant too much and that inappropriate comments are sometimes let onto the air. But I believe that it applies to the whole news spectrum, not just to one side.
tixhaj 1 year ago
@drhu So, the mosque controversy is news to you?
Orlor 1 year ago
@Orlor No...i was pointing out that Fox was the only news outlet physically on the scene reporting the story. THAT IS WHAT A NEWS ORGANIZATION DOES.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu I think all these channels have their NEWS programs, and then their COMMENTARY... The problem is the viewers who don't know news from commentary and begin to believe it all as fact rather than opinion.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 Sure they do . That's another goodie you won't get by with saying here.
They will hold there breath till they turn purple........
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu On both sides... No one wants to admit they are following strong opinion. What helps is knowing opinion from fact and knowing how to use critical thought; the absence of which is frightening.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 True but you have to have a little of your own gumption or you get led anywhere. That's the goal of Media Matters.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Leading the sheep around is also the goal of "fair and balanced." You know it's true. Did you think that Fox would NOT get a push-back from the people who see their spin? What you call "your own gumption" I call critical thinking... People on both ends are being lead anywhere - we need critical thinking.
And why is your's better than mine? It's not.
If your gonna rally against twists and spins in commentary, than do it on both left and right.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 Yes but we know Media Matters won't do that. That's my push is to balance that out. Most of those posting here are fans or interns or whatever but they absolutely will not hear anything but what these videos put out.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu What makes you different then them other than your opinion?
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 Let me explain it this way. Right now Glenn Bexk is working on a big deal this weekend. He has received contributions he doesn't need and has been giving them to a relief organization for veterans families. Bill O'Rielly has championed Jessica's Law in a great number of states to see to it child molesters get what they deserve. He also made sure one stayed in prison when a judge tried to give him a light sentence. What lib hosts have done anything like that?Besides run their mouth?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu 2 Part answer, because I wasn't asking what was different between right/left wing commentators. O'Reilly and Beck should be helping others, as should anyone who is able. I'm sure they make their causes well known. Liberal Hosts: Jon Stewart - Autism Education, Feeding America, Stand up to Cancer + some. Rachel Maddow- Haiti relief, etc. And go to Look to the Stars for thousands of primarily liberal celebrities and their charities. Again -- it's the same on both sides.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@drhu BUT what I asked you was What makes you different than the MM fans. The more we write the more I believe you are exactly like the people you berate and condemn here. You seem to believe everything Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh say, and you follow up by citing Limbaugh's news source as proof. Come on, that is NOT critical thinking, that is NOT having gumption. In my opinion you are no different than the people you condemn.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652 NO...not really. And no I don't believe everything they say. Someone has to be on here to try and be the opposing viewpoint. You do agree there should be more than one opinion don't you?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Too bad Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine" right? Then you wouldn't be having to fight so hard against MM, and they wouldn't have to be fighting so hard against Right-wing nuts.
And like I said, citing Limbaugh's information source as a reputable source is NOT critical thinking... it's just following... just like you accuse others of doing. Check out the St. Petersburg Times politifacts site.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652
Great post/comment!
And the Telecom Act of 1996 really sucked for media fairness and corporate ownership. It is one of the things along with NAFTA that I'm still not happy with Clinton/Gore. But it all started when Reagan dumped the fairness doctrine, the right wingnut media/hate radio included of course, has just flourished since.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Thanks -- and its terribly relevant. I find the history of the Fairness Doctrine very interesting.
Oh, remember when Rush's audience called themselves "ditto-heads" I loved it: just a bunch of poor copies of the original.
And didn't the Internet make it even easier for people to spout of any random fiction and call it NEWS? Too many people believe and that is what really scares me. I bet Fox's lobbyist are strong now, but maybe it's not too late.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@kwb70652
Yeah, Dittoheads. Dittoclowns!
And Rush stills spews the Limbaugh Institute For Advanced Conservative Studies. line 'o bull.
And Beck has a University?
It is pretty easy to drivel all that stupidity when there is no one to call you on it.
The history of the fairness doctrine is very interesting, the right wing media has dumped on it for years. And the wingnut drones think it's about suppressing free speech because they buy into the propaganda, how sad.
Neoconhater 1 year ago 2
@Neoconhater So if you only have liberal indoctrination that's the "fairness" part right? Only one commentary, only one viewpoint. How very Orwell.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu
You prove my point, you have not a clue what the fairness doctrine is all about.
It provided a counter to an argument, not just one viewpoint.
What we have now is very Orwellian, fake news outlets that spew propaganda 24/7/365.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@drhu cody/drhu/melody, you need to learn exactly what the fairness doctrine provided, not the lies fed to you at Beck University. So sad you're so clueless.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Beck university is another of those things you need stuck up your ass Neo/cody/melody.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu
LOL!!Looks like the ignorant Fox drone cody is an upset little punk!!
Listen up chump, you repeated the same lame talking point about the fairness doctrine and a made you look as dumb as you are So all you've got left are juvenile insults. You're a good far right drone, Beck University has taught you so very well.
How does it feel to be so dumb?
Neoconhater 1 year ago 2
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
SofisticatedFilms 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
tixhaj 1 year ago
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
tixhaj 1 year ago
@tixhaj I couldn't agree more. It's very pompous and self-righteous.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Folks that post rude spam are self righteous and pompous.
Again, it is only your opinion MM4A tries to silence people, they very clearly do not.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Just like it's only your opinion that Fox News doesn't silence people, they very clearly do not. Reality is only relative, right?
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Just like it's only your opinion that Fox News tries to silence people, they very clearly do not. Reality is relative to the observer, right? Everyone's reality is different, apparently.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
Nope.
My opinion is Fox is regressive corporate far right propaganda, the propaganda arm of the gop. My opinion is Rupert Murdoch is an ass.
I have never said Fox is out to silence anyone so do not state what you think is my opinion, try asking.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I really don't care what your opinion is; it is evidently difficult for people like you to accept simple principles like freedom of speech without resorting to hysteria. Just like it eludes the people at Media Matters, however important their role may be support for freedom of speech on principled grounds is not in their repertoire because they disagree with what the person said. Sorry, it's irrelevant what she said or didn't say, you either support free speech or don't.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
Hysteria?
Now I can see you're only here to talk crap.
I enjoy free speech, I think everyone else should too.
But you're defending cowards that claim they're free speech rights are taken away when people question them.
Now get back to watching the Fox circle jerk, you're missing the best ignorance ever on TV.
One thing you just don't understand, to disagree is called free speech, that is something you tools just can't grasp.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Sorry, but campaigning to remove her from her position is not mere disagreement. Furthermore, I have stressed repeatedly and explicitly that Media Matters has EVERY right to launch their campaign to have her removed and her advertisers withdrawn, just like they stated in this video. Just like Fox News has every right to become politically involved themselves. They both have every right to do this, however we should be honest enough to point out this isn't freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Remove her?
She quit, get over it!
Only cowards quit, just ask that coward Palin.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Sorry, she quit after her source of income was threatened by the relatively influential Media Matters. This is not "disagree[ing]" this is a campaign to have her removed. I'm sure you could work your job pro bono, however Dr. Laura could not as her advertisers were "persuaded" to stop supporting her.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight And under the Constitution that we all enjoy, to persuade folks to dump her is called free speech.
You just refuse to know your own rights, it is astounding!
Neoconhater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neoconhater So why is that Media Matters chastised Fox News for supporting and funding political organizations? Why would they not just say as you have "And under the Constitution that we all enjoy, to persuade folks to dump her is called free speech" and agree that Fox News has this right?
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Congrats! Again you got spammed right out of the box. I don't know who moderates this but you are a lying hypocrite. Let this man speak if you actually believe what you say about freedom of speech. Nothing he said in that post was offensive you just can't deal with it.
drhu 1 year ago
@Arkinight The reasons for MM4A being critical of Fox for giving money to the gop govs is pretty clear and numerous. First l they claim to be fair and balanced, quite clearly they're not.
Second Rupert Murdoch has said, it is on video, that Fox doesn't give any money to "any political party".
So, because the mission statement of MM4A includes presenting misinformation coming from right wing media it makes perfect sense they would show the facts.
Comment continued in next post
Neoconhater 1 year ago 2
@Arkinight
Fox has that right to give money to any political group.
MM4A has the right to show how Murdoch lied when he very clearly said they do not do so.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Well that's just your own ill-informed opinion.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight They are all happy because after failing to down Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck they have finally brought down the weakest in the herd, much the same way the predatory jungle animals do. It rather stings them that they couldn't get Air America to succeed and bring Fox down in one fell swoop. The truth of that is something they avoid like Kryptonite. Go ahead. Ask them about it and see.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu She downed herself, she quit.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater She was literally nibbled to death by ducks...those being Media Matters. Their true agenda here.
drhu 1 year ago
@Arkinight Show us where MM had a active campaign against her. Reporting on what she said is not a campaign against her.
Orlor 1 year ago
@Orlor "The move came after a week of pressure from Media Matters and other groups, we persuaded several advertisers to cease sponsoring her radio show... what Dr. Laura experience was just the free market - doing what it does."
Might be a good idea to watch (and listen) to the video that you are presumably on here to watch before you make asinine comments.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight You are right. I did not see that part of the video. However, the point still stands. Dr. Laura wants to have her 1st amendments rights protected without suffering the consequences of her actions. It's a case of 1st amendment rights for her but not for anyone criticizing her.
Orlor 1 year ago
@Orlor The consequences of her actions are not criticism. It's having a large and influential organization like Media Matters use their clout to "persuade" (i.e. lobby) advertisers to stop funding her show. Well to a rational person that means she can no longer have a radio show. No advertisers means no revenue; means that in the modern advertiser-driven media she is no longer able to have a radio show. Therefore, it silences her. Sorry, but Media Matters didn't merely "criticize" her.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Orlor And to reiterate the points that I have made at least a dozen times previously, they have *every right* to do this action, just like Fox News has *every right* to sponsor political movements and favour one side, while squelching those views they find objectionable.
We should be honest enough to see the utter hypocrisy in their condemnation of Fox News while they are engaged in the same tactics. Neither organization has a principled stance on freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Orlor She never said that. That is your idea.
drhu 1 year ago
@Arkinight See that was a heavy handed tactic by Media Matters. Pressure her out because you don't like what she said, They have been trying that with others and have failed. Now understand these are the"good guys". Forget about what the implications of such an act in our society is. They have to do that you know because people shouldn't be allowed to talk like that. Nope. No fascism there mate.
drhu 1 year ago
@Orlor Thank You! That's what I've been wondering. What exactly did MM do besides let everyone hear what Laura said? I'm very curious about this charge.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@Arkinight According to Dr. Laura, she is making this decision to stop her broadcast herself . She says her producers told her she didn't need to quit, but she said she wanted to do this now. She did not mention a threat to her income. She said some advertisers left, and some joined. Leaving is her decision because the media pressure bothers her. -- That is what she said.. watch the Larry Kind video on youtube.
kwb70652 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Sorry, you only enjoy the freedom of speech that you agree with, and you require to know the contents of the speech before making a judgment on whether or not an individual or organization should be able to make the statements they do. That is plainly not support for freedom of speech anymore than Fox News supports freedom of speech. Anymore than when Media Matters selectively supports the speech they agree with, and (rightly) point out Fox New's hypocrisy.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
No, everyone must enjoy freedom of speech no matter if they agree or not.
But ones freedom of speech doesn't include telling others to be quiet when they disagree.
You and so many others are completely clueless regarding the 1st amendment. It is just astounding you can't understand one of your own rights!
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater However, this is clearly not support for freedom of speech, just like Fox News does not support freedom of speech in any tangible way.
"But ones freedom of speech doesn't include telling others to be quiet when they disagree."
Sorry, persuading advertisers to stop supporting her is not disagreement. She ran a radio call-in program, without advertisers she has no source of income for her show and therefore no job. This is plainly not disagreement, please acknowledge this fact.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Persuading advertisers to stop supporting her is called free speech!
When will you understand that fact??
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater No, I'm sorry but the principle of support of freedom of speech does not begin and end with the constitution. As I have mentioned before, Brandenburg v. Ohio established the great protection that freedom of speech receives in the United States, before then it was virtually non-existent. That is exactly why Wilson's Red Scare occured. That why McCarthyism existed and so on.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
The clear fact is you have no clue about the first amendment.
Just take political ads for example. The SCOTUS ruled you can give unlimited amounts of money to whomever you want. Other high court ruling also say you can outright lie in political ads. When a candidate slanders you you have the right to slander them back. When a TV personality says something vile like Dr, Laura did, MM4A or anyone else can persuade their sponsors to dump them.
That is the very heart of free speech!
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I'm sorry, this isn't about the First Amentment, I live in Canada and I believe in freedom of speech despite the fact that the jurisdiction of the First Amendment does not extend to this country.
This has to do with freedom of speech, not words on a parchment that were completely hollow until the 1969 landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
I like Canada, great country.
The words on that parchment still hold loads of water.
The fact is freedom of speech in America includes anyones ability to be critical of any and all speech no matter what. This includes trying to persuade, with that same free speech right, to have advertisers drop their support to a given person or entity.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Yeah, I'm sure it held a lot of water when Wilson imprisoned people for exercising their First Amendment rights. Or when McCarthyism imprisoned people for exercising that right.
Sorry, but it meant nothing until the activism of the 1960s, which civilized the country and enshrined the huge protection that freedom of speech receives.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I agree but that doesn't make ir right and does not automatically defer a spine to those doing so. Media Matters has attempted this with others and failed miserably. Dr> Laurs has not has a substantial audience since after 9/1 when the public turned their attention to more important things that adultery and other such social ills. So if they can bring down any conservative they can put a check mark in that column and strut like a peacock. Pretty obvious.
drhu 1 year ago
@Arkinight You see...in their belief system all entities should be 501(C)iii organizations.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater You mean like how he got marked as spam a while ago when he posted a legit argument. That's what happens here when it's too much for you. You just flag the comment. Who's the coward there Neo?
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater "But you're defending cowards that claim they're [sic] free speech rights are taken away when people question them."
I'm defending cowards? Because I support the right of Dr. Laura to make the statements she made without having to endure a campaign to have her removed from her position? She's a coward to you?
"Now get back to watching the Fox circle jerk, you're missing the best ignorance ever on TV."
Yes, vapid ad homs really help your point along.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Proof you have not a clue what free speech is all about.
Sorry to tell you but free speech also includes the right of MM4A or anyone else to made Dr.Laura endure the free speech rights she also enjoys.
If she chooses to quit that her problem and shows how big a coward she is.
Free speech isn't a one way street, Dr. Laura or anyone else must be ready for the critics. She can't throw stones and expect nerf balls in return.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater "Sorry to tell you but free speech also includes the right of MM4A or anyone else to made Dr.Laura endure the free speech rights she also enjoys."
I apologize but I didn't understand that sentence, could you clarify?
"If she chooses to quit that her problem and shows how big a coward she is."
Well that's nice to frame it that way, however that's not what happened. Brooke Obie clearly stated that Media Matters attacked her and "persuaded" her advertisers to stop supporting her.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater "Free speech isn't a one way street, Dr. Laura or anyone else must be ready for the critics. She can't throw stones and expect nerf balls in return."
And I have responded to this strawman many times, you have ignored it each time, so once again:
"And Media Matters *has every right* to do this. Just like Fox News has every right. However, this is plainly vulgar hypocrisy."
I agree Media Matters can launch their campaign to have her removed, just like the video states.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Not a straw man, it is called the 1st amendment.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater What the hell do you know about the Constitution? Suddenly the left wraps themselves in it after behaving as thought it is a nuisance. They certainly don't want judges to use it in their decision making. That much is clear.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Obviously I know loads more about the Constitution that you and others here that can't grasp the fact is is across the board. When some says something you don't like you have every right to respond, pretty simple.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I agree but somehow that only goes one way doesn't it?
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater When Media Matters attacks Fox News for doing the same thing that Media Matters did to Dr. Laura that's acceptable and not hypocritical. "Do as I say, not as I do."
Sorry, but neither organization believes in freedom of speech passed their own narrow prerogatives and when it suits their views, that is why they do everything in their power to silence others whom they disagree with.
What exactly do you think the logical outcome of removing Dr. Laura's income would be?
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Dr.Laura quit all on her own.
If she had an ounce of bravado she'd still have her show, again, she quit and was not removed by anyone including MM4A.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater No, she was forced to resign because her source of income was threatened by a well funded organization called Media Matters.
Do you seriously believe she would work for free?
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight No, she was not forced to resign, SHE QUIT!!
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater And once again I have repeatedly stressed that Media Matters has every right to do what they did to have her advertisers removed. However, this action is overt contempt for freedom of speech when it does not suit their own views. Therefore the rational observer would conclude that they do not support it - just like Fox News does not support it.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
It is not an overt contempt of free speech, it is embracing that right.
You just don't get it do you?
MM4A or you as well, can be critical of anyone you please. That includes persuading people to stop supporting that person or entity.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Yeah, true to form, silencing the ability of others to exercise their freedom of speech is freedom of speech to you. I'm sure George Orwell would have appreciated this.
"It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
Simple truths that have thus far eluded you.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
Now that I know you're Canadian maybe you just need to read the US Constitution and make an effort to understand it.
Yes, freedom of speech includes being critical of something you don't agree with.
And the courts have made many a decision regarding that fact of the 1st amendment.
Again, as a Canadian you're having a very hard time understanding what happens in America. Your assuming loads of pretty dumb things.
You have not a clue do you?
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Seems he understands it way better than you do. Real shame that.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater You don't have much choice when your money dries up. There is still the internet and I wouldn't count that out.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu She quit like her coward pal Palin.
She had a choice, she chose to be a coward.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater If you really believe what you say you will tell you buddy there to stop spamming Arkinight when all he did was respond.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I'm sorry but Media Matters did not say "we disagree with Dr. Laura" they explicitly said that they targeted her advertisers and "persuaded" them to stop supporting her - that's a campaign to have her removed. That is a far cry from "disagree." That is active participation in having someone's speech repressed - whether by government or not is irrelevant. And Media Matters has every right to do this. Just like Fox News has every right. However, this is plainly vulgar hypocrisy.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
You have absolutely no clue what the 1st amendment says.
You really need to go read the Constitution before you look more ignorant.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater It's really astonishing how the hypocrisy of their actions on this issue eludes you.
You can throw all the ad homs at me, and yes, hysteria, i.e.
"Now get back to watching the Fox circle jerk, you're missing the best ignorance ever on TV."
"... that is something you tools just can't grasp."
that you please, however it does not change the basic facts that their stance on freedom of speech is not a principled one. And it is very hypocritical when they condemn Fox for the same.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@tixhaj More spam from a desperate right winger.
Anything but talk about the facts MM4A presents, all you got is some lame slander on the hosts.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
The hosts of this "Big Picture" are some of the most smug, obnoxious people i have ever watched. Don't look like you're about to burst laughing throughout the whole show whether you're smashing conservatives or not. I don't care, its in poor taste and its unprofessional regardless of the news station.
tixhaj 1 year ago
i love these new big picture videos. please keep making them!
thebuilder86 1 year ago
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
Media matters clearly is not in favour of freedom of speech. At least not when it comes to Dr. Laura and her comments.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight That is only your opinion MM4A is against Dr.Laura's free speech.
They're all for it, and they're all for using that same free speech to speak out against her.
But what MM4A does best is let these right wing dolts spew their garbage and then just point out to all how full of crap they are.
Hence your misconception they're against free speech, tey very clearly are all for it.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Sure, they're for the type of speech that they support, that is why they call for her to resign, and "persuade" advertisers to cease supporting her show. Because they support freedom of speech only when it conforms to their ideals.
I'm sorry, but this is not support for freedom of speech. And no, it is not my opinion that freedom of speech is exactly the support of speech that you find disagreeable.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater They chalk up their efforts to remove her from her position because they disagreed with her on something to "the free market", yes, I'm sure whatever machinations they were up to was "the free market" but when Fox News vulgarly supports one speech or one individual over another, that is illegitimate.
This is just pure hypocrisy and it really takes a lot of discipline to miss this.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight
Remove her??
Nope, quit just like that moron Palin.
Freedom of speech includes telling those that sponsor you that you don't like what you're saying. You and so many other right wingers need to learn what the constitution says!!
Get a grip and take a civics lesson.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater No, I'm sorry, they didn't tell her that they didn't like what she said. Perhaps you should actually watch the video that you're commenting on.
They "persuaded several advertisers to cease sponsoring her". Well I'm sure that consisted of only "telling those that sponsor you that you don't like what you're saying". Nothing more.
Sorry, the constitution did not have freedom of speech in it anymore than it had equality in for women or slaves.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I love how all of a sudden the left is huggin the constitution.None of you gave a whit about it when we were passing legislation that flew in the face of it or when the speaker says she will have people investigated for having an opinion. By the way that means she has to investigate Harry Reid and about half the Congress who want the damned thing moved as well.
Freedom of speech was put in place so tyrants couldn't oppress you for what you said. That's what.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater It is worth recalling that victories for freedom of speech are often won in defense of the most depraved and horrendous views. The 1969 Supreme Court decision was in defense of the Ku Klux Klan from prosecution after meeting with hooded figures, guns, and a burning cross, calling for "burying the nigger" and "sending the Jews back to Israel." With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate or you reject it and prefer...
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Well in my case I defenc it because we have reached th epoint in this nation where one group wants to try and determine the right on a case by case basis and that being incidents they wish to use to forward their agenda. Media Matters in particular takes for example the Dr. Laura incident. Produces this video and sits around on here going" oh isn't she terrible and aren't they horrible"
It's all a production. It's all for show. It's spin
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu SPIN? What spin? They showed you the facts. Where's the spin? Do you honestly understand what "spin" means? If they show you exactly what happened that's not spin. Sorry to break it to you, but that's documenting events.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Sure I know what spin means and so do yoou. It's why Ross Perot would not interview if it wan't live. You can edit things how you like to portray things in the manner you wish. Pretty simple really.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu That's editing. Spin means to twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation. That's from an online dictionary. You'e talking about what Breitbart did, and that was defaming via editing and not spin.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Yes...when you edit a certain way it is spin...yes? You don't think they arrange that stuff so as to look a certain way? That was exactly what i said?
How old are you? Should you be posting here without supervision?
drhu 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Lot's of times they post video clips and I am looking at them going....so? You can't look at tsome of it and get that it means what is implied by the surrounding material. It's guilt by implication without so mush as a real connector between them. Just well this sounds sort of like it so we lump it in with it to get the desired effect. As for freedom of speech someone needs to take madame speaker aside and clue her in a bit don't you think?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu SHOW ME! Stop telling me what you think they do and SHOW ME. I want clear, specific, empirical proof.
Why do you feel the need to bring up something unrelated to the topic? Who said anything about the speaker of the house?
Now, show me PROOF clearly or admit that you have none. Don't rattle off what you think you know SHOW ME.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.
- Containing The Threat Of Democracy
Sorry, but the constitution did not have any freedom of speech defense anymore than it had for the equality of all human beings until this landmark ruling after the activism of the 1960s.
Exactly why it was restricted to such an extent - I can give examples if you like.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater "rights wingers"? Sorry, once again "It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
If the basic idea of freedom of speech eludes you and you prefer the Stalinist/fascist standard - fine, be my guest. However, don't portray this under the rubric of believing in freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater What MM4A does best is fabricate crap and set it out here for progressives to spin on . That's it. Plain and simple.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu They never fabricate anything, thats why you've never been able to refute one clear case of right wingnut propaganda.
All you, cody/drhu/melody, can do is repeat all the same false narratives about Soros and accuse him of being a Nazi.
Thanks cody/drhu/melody for not posting all those swastika spam bombs.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Oh they fabricate lots of stuff. You of course don't really care what they are doing you just want to screw with somebody.
drhu 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Media Matters has every right to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Freedom of speech means that the government can't try to silence you. It has nothing to do with just accepting what others say without complaint. Making such complaints and taking action are the rights of others just as much as freedom of speech. Nobody took away her freedom of speech - NOBODY.
MMFA doesn't attack everyone on the right. They single out lies, hate speech and distortions in the media whether they be news anchors or politicians.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Media Matters has every right to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Perhaps you should have read what I said instead of responding to strawmen. Nobody has made the statement that what they did was "unconstitutional" or illegal. They have every right to believe in the Stalinist/fascist standard on free speech. Then criticize others (News Corp) for believing in it as well - and we should be honest enough to see their hypocrisy.
When News Corp takes a political stance - that's illegitimate. When Media Matters does the same - that's the "market".
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight I DID read what you said. MMFA isn't using the "market" as a defense. They don't even feel they need to defend anything. They are openly "Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
So where is the hypocrisy? Show me. You're using hyperbole and making silly comments about fascism and Stalin, which is a ridiculous thing to do in the first place.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laDy8A5737 No, I'm sorry - they did: "what Dr. Laura experienced was just the market."
I showed you the hypocrisy several times over.
"You're using hyperbole and making silly comments about fascism and Stalin, which is a ridiculous thing to do in the first place."
No, I'm sorry, read what I wrote, it was a passage from an essay and it explained very well the standards of free speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Arkinight Congrats! She hated what you said so much she spammed you. That's what happens here when they can't deal with you. They just take away your freedom of speech.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu No one has taken anyones freedom of speech away here on YouTube.
Your assertion doesn't get much more delusional.
So go soak in a tub of lard, cody/drhu/melody! And thanks for stopping the spam with swastikas.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater I am one person. Stick the rest of them up your ass.
Sure they take away your freedom of speech. They spam a good argument so it won't get read. How much more fascist can you get?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Yep, you're on person, with three names and accounts here, cody/drhu/melody.
Neoconhater 1 year ago
@Neoconhater No I don't and you can ask YouTube about that . Otherwise shut up about it.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu I don't need to ask anyone about it, OK cody/drhu/melody?
Neoconhater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laDy8A5737 Media Matters HAS EVERY RIGHT to launch a massive campaign against an individual because of what they said - just like Fox News does. However, we should be honest enough to call a spade a spade and point out the utter and sheer hypocrisy of their actions in doing so, while they at the same time condemn others (News Corp) for doing the same. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems an appropriate description of their actions. And neither truly believe in the standard of freedom of speech.
Arkinight 1 year ago
@Neoconhater When you put out videos with people in it doing things that are plainly not so or very obviously set up then what you have is manipulation and the forwarding of an agenda. Some of this stuff comes in a form that is so patheically amatuer as to be embarrasing to the creators of it. Oh free speech exists for MM4A...if you are speaking what they want spoken. Otherwise you are racist or whatever worse thing they can find to label you with.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu Where is the manipulation? They show entire quotes and transcripts. That's not distorting or manipulating.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Go find "The consequences of Glenn Becks hourly night of het" There you will see out of context clips and a made up little morality play that only a two year old would buy into.
Then you have "How not to track" where we see a two-man three-man inteview. This was another set-up. Just a couple of examples.
drhu 1 year ago
Your first bit of text pulled up no videos.
"How not to track" brings up more than I can go through. Perhaps you could post edited URLs so that I can actually see what you're talking about?
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 The hypocrisy is very clearly their attempts to silence speech that they disagree with. While at the same time chastising Fox News (rightly) for their attempts at silencing the speech of others. Therefore we know their stance is not a principled one, but only one of convenience where it suits their own views. I may disagree with everything the Ku Klux Klan says, however, I support their right to say it.
"It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths."
Arkinight 1 year ago
@laDy8A5737 Go to the Media Matters channel and scroll. They are their bits of work.
Bits of work from pieces of work.
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu I went to the website, and I'm not seeing what you're describing. can you just give me the last part of the URL for that doman? It would simply matters so that I can see what you're talking about directly.
laDy8A5737 1 year ago
@Neoconhater Sure, they're for the free speech that they agree with - hence the Stalinist/fascist standard.
Arkinight 1 year ago
Media matters they are kooks, and they post some of the dumbest things on their website.
dvd1966 1 year ago
Why do Newscorp bother to donate to republicans don't they have i poor diots, sorry I mean spporters, to do it for them
BrightonContrarian10 1 year ago
@BrightonContrarian10 Why does Media Matters support Democrats. Wonder how much money old George pumps out to them?
drhu 1 year ago
@drhu "Wonder how much money old George pumps out to them?"
Gee, I don't know drhu. Why don't you tell us how much Soros pumps into them instead of throwing around baseless accusations?
Orlor 1 year ago
@Orlor The fact is there are liberal/progressives who fund things just as there are the other way around. You know that. It's just like all the horribly wealthy Republicans in Congress. Want a list?
drhu