In America, six large media corporations have near-total control of all news that Americans receive. All of these corporations suck and give biased and at times false reporting, but there are certain media outlets that are worse than others.
This spectrum goes from the least bad, CNN, to what is the most terrible and tasteless excuse for journalism out there, Fox News, or as I like to call it, Fux "News."
Whenever a hateful, bigoted right-wing view is expressed on American television it is almost always from Fux. Fux News is out there to deceive the people into supporting bullshit neoliberal policies that end up making the rich even richer at the expense of America's poor, supporting America's international imperialist agenda, spewing hate speech against gays, blacks, immigrants and other minorities, and and dismissing issues like police brutality and the ineffectiveness of the War of Drugs.
This is why I think it'd be necessary to revoke Fux "News"' broadcasting license for good. Some may say that it is a violation of freedom of the press. I call bullshit. If anything, fucking corporate media is too blame for violations of press freedom due to its self-censorship and absolute reliance on the US gov't as a source. These US "news" outlets are nothing more than de-facto state media. They hinder reporting that is actually accurate.
Shutting down a state-owned Soviet radio station would be no more of a violation of press freedom than shutting down Fux "News" or any other of the big six corporate media outlets.

Call it "F.U.D. News" and all is revealed.

Just a question - Is fox news government owned or is it a private company? If it's the second option, then I'm sorry but as much as you don't agree, individuals are entitled to do what they want with their companies. I don't even like or watch fox news, but I'm just saying...

Shutting down the voices of those you don't agree with certainly isn't the best choice, in fact it's what a religious fundamentalist would probably want to do.

There are a lot of internet talk radios out there. Classic corporate owned tv and radio will lose it's importance with every passing generation.

As much as I dislike Faux News, I like authoritarian suppression of speech even less.

(December 25, 2014 at 6:20 pm)Blackout Wrote: Just a question - Is fox news government owned or is it a private company? If it's the second option, then I'm sorry but as much as you don't agree, individuals are entitled to do what they want with their companies. I don't even like or watch fox news, but I'm just saying...

Shutting down the voices of those you don't agree with certainly isn't the best choice, in fact it's what a religious fundamentalist would probably want to do.

It's not state-owned but Fux is responsible for promoting the agenda of the US gov't. If you were old enough to recall or (like me) you have seen footage from Fux or pretty much any other corporate media outlet from around 2002-2003 you would know that Iraq was a big topic of discussion. A lot of these "news" companies reported the lie told by Bush about Iraq having WMD's as fact. So technically Fux is privately-owned. But a privately-owned company is still not truly independent if it relies on the US gov't- a gov't notorious for lying to its people in order to advance its agenda for virtually all info.

(December 25, 2014 at 6:31 pm)RonaldReagansGhost666 Wrote: It's not state-owned but Fux is responsible for promoting the agenda of the US gov't.

They certainly don't promote Obama's agenda. They're always far right and with corporate America, since that's where their almighty boss Murdoch makes his money.

But as far as the Iraq disaster is concerned, all the networks were disgustingly uncritical of the real situation because they had their pants filled to the brim out of fear they could be called unpatriotic. I've seen the coverage and it was something to puke over.

(December 25, 2014 at 6:35 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 25, 2014 at 6:31 pm)RonaldReagansGhost666 Wrote: It's not state-owned but Fux is responsible for promoting the agenda of the US gov't.

They certainly don't promote Obama's agenda. They're always far right and with corporate America, since that's where their almighty boss Murdoch makes his money.

But as far as the Iraq disaster is concerned, all the networks were disgustingly uncritical of the real situation because they had their pants filled to the brim out of fear they could be called unpatriotic. I've seen the coverage and it was something to puke over.

I know its a different topic but we have to acknowledge two things:
a. The president doesn't necessarily call the shots with out current form of government. Whoever has the most money has the most power as most of us know. Incomes have shrunk since the recession and corporations and wealthy individuals still pay barely anything in taxes.
b. Obama is just a product. His second largest backer in his 2008 campaign was Goldman Sachs. He didn't veto the authoritarian NDAA 2012 and NDAA 2014, is waging an illegal bombing campaign in Syria and still continues the pervasive NSA spying that Bush started. Obama's 2008 campaign was supported by deception and manipulation. 2008 pretty much marked the year that America elected another Bush.

It doesn't really matter if it's government owned or not, because censoring the right to express yourself, be it in paper, radio or TV is probably against any civilized constitution. What would the US's government argue when shutting down fox news? Something like "I don't agree with these guys therefore they can't express themselves, fuck the owner and fuck everyone who works there and their rights to express their opinions even if they are wrong"

(December 25, 2014 at 6:20 pm)Blackout Wrote: Just a question - Is fox news government owned or is it a private company? If it's the second option, then I'm sorry but as much as you don't agree, individuals are entitled to do what they want with their companies. I don't even like or watch fox news, but I'm just saying...

Shutting down the voices of those you don't agree with certainly isn't the best choice, in fact it's what a religious fundamentalist would probably want to do.

This.

Stifling dissenting opinions is what religions do. Leave it to them and listen to NPR.