Fox News Forgets Net Neutrality in Story on Net Neutrality?

Send PROOF of bias to Fox News by emailing this video to show.livedesk@foxnews.com or tweeting it to @livedesk

For those who don't think the so-called "straight news" programs on Fox News are ideologically biased, I present this video showing news anchor Trace Gallagher on the Fox News program "Live Desk" reporting a story on net neutrality that is so one-sided it fails to ever actually mention the concept or even the words "net neutrality."

You can see the entire Fox News story that was broadcast October 22, 2009, from which I take 2 short clips for my video on the Fox News website at http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streami...

I also show an image of the YouTube webpage including my July 2008 video titled "Fox News Parrots McCain Spin on NY Times Editorial Rejection" which is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhyedUq6s8Y

The image of the Washington Post article by John McCain titled "'Net neutrality' would slow the flow" that I show in this video comes from the webpage at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/net-neutrality-would-slow-the...

The image of the ACLU webpage describing net neutrality that I show in this video comes from http://aclu.org/freethenet

The LiveDesk Twitter page I show in in this video is available online at http://twitter.com/livedesk

And, finally, as always, you can find DOZENS and DOZENS more examples of Fox News bias on my Fox News bias playlist on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Fox
• News
• Net
• Neutrality
• fcc
• regulations
• federal
• communications
• commission
• president
• barack
• john
• mccain
• washington
• times
• aclu
• american
• civil
• liberties
• union
• obama
• bias
• straight
• news
• trace
• gallagher
• live
• desk
• commentary
• analysis
• liberal
• viewer
• liberalviewer

[bigglebunny]

Gullible people will believe anything. The thing about net neutrality legislation, is that it protects even those idiots from being able to watch Fox News online. Without it, a so-called "liberal" ISP could decide to shut down access to FOX news. This is a perfect example of spin designed to take a civil liberties issue and suppress it by claiming it does the exact opposite of what the bill actually says. This is not news, it's a blatant LIE about net neutrality, and an attack on freedom.

[wildhias]

@logicaldrive if 'Fox "News" ' would call it self 'The Conservative Viewer' all would be fine

[JTurner427]

Not telling the story using applicable terms while substituting other terms is not news, it's partisan.

[WowUrFcknHxC]

hold on... are they agreeing with McCain or are they disagreeing with him? they mention that big government is trying to regulate the internet, which would obviously be what net neutrality is fighting against, but McCain makes it sound evil? i'm confused.........

[WowUrFcknHxC]

@vargulf19 not jsut comcast, but charter and at&t and verizon as well...

[topthickproducer]

@grendelee All we want is the current net neutrality to continue as free as it is. Fox News makes it sound like if there will be CHANGES (WTF???) Already the government gave up net neutrality on wireless services, but the Service Providers want the whole pie.

Fuck AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the ISP's that want to charge you according to their own commercial agendas.

[Metool2]

@sinistar99 ... So you're saying getting rid of the right to free speech means getting rid of government control? Yeah, that abouts meshes with the rest of your arguements. "Well, clearly if we need more freedom we need to let the government control more things! We're only safe when politicians get to decide everything. They're more honest and trustworthy."

[sinistar99]

@Metool2 "I will never be comfortable letting them have ANY say in ANY form of media."

So you're uncomfortable with the First Amendment? Maybe we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment too so the government "get's it's mits off our right to bear arms." lol!

[sinistar99]

@Metool2 "These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it." OMG that is ridiculous.

That's like saying the First Amendment (A Government regulation) de-inscentives innovators from figuring out new ways to ban free speech. And how the hell do you know they havne't "stopped net traffic to anyone?" How could you possibley know that? They're not going to report it on Fox when they do.

[snoglydox]

@sinistar99 Excellent point.

[Metool2]

@sinistar99 It also ignores that the restrictions and regulations forced upon internet companies would only harm the providers, forcing them to give up bandwidth to 'intellectual liberationists' sharing illegal movie torrents through p2p networks while crowding out other customers who would use it in tele conferencing or the like. These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it.

[Metool2]

@sinistar99 Yet they haven't. They haven't stopped net traffic to anyone. I don't know of any cases that has. Like I said, they're just creating a false problem so they can give you a solution they wanted to implement anyway. 'Net Neutrality' wouldn't protect you from anything, because there is nothing to be protected from, if Comcast could stop net traffic you think they wouldn't have done it by now? Aren't corporations untrustworthy? Compared to the government which is flawless?