Why do we ignore the numerous executive orders BO is DICTATING and instead criticize TALK SHOW HOSTS?

See what I’m talking about? Attack the criticizer, avoid accountability. This is what we elected. Grob. We lost the last election because McCain was liberal on issues like immigration, the environment, taxes, debt etc. McCain actually wanted the government to buy up people’s mortgages. So don’t even try to distort and tell me he was […]

Workers’ Compensation, Gossip and You! 9 Tips From a Legal Perspective

While office gossip has existed as long as there have been offices, it has intensified in recent years as workers face more pressure and the threat of downsizing. It breeds when intense competition and professional envy are entwined. Gossip can harm careers, deflate morale and expose employers to legal liability. The First Amendment doesn’t grant […]

Employees Expose FOX NEWS’ Distortions

http://de.youtube.com/user/tyrannyofsoulz

FOX News: “Fair and balanced” because they say so!

A brief but shocking compilation from the documentary:
“OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”
http://www.outfoxed.org/

As Rupert Murdoch’s ‘war on journalism’ hits new lows, droves of disgruntled employees are confessing their many misdeeds, brought upon by the Soviet-Union-esque environment they faced at FOX News. Watch how FOX executives dictate their bias by forcing reporters to follow memos that predetermine what they can say and how they should say it.

Rupert Murdoch has decided that the best approach to journalism is to parade opinions dressed-up as News. The reason is simple: No one can disprove an opinion, and therefore, credibility is easier to maintain. Should they ever be caught lying, the legal process affords them protection under the First Amendment. We also have Congress to thank for the bright idea of passing a rider Bill (hidden) to deregulate the News Media.

That’s right; Corporate News entities can tell lies and distort the news as they please, and it’s all perfectly legal.

To the best of my knowledge, no country can have or maintain democracy without an honest Press or, at least, one that can be held accountable. But where is ours?

Not convinced? “Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organization lying, concealing or distorting information”: http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertM…

This video clip is a brief compilation from Robert Greenwald’s documentary:
“OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Duration : 0:9:58

Read more about Employees Expose FOX NEWS’ Distortions

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Pulled form PBS Show called “The Botany of Desire pt1 Cannabis”

MARIJUANA CANNABIS MARIHUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZE WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL JACKSON DOPE GRASS BONG RIP JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NWO NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS H1N1 Flu HASH GANJA HEMP SEX LIBERTARIAN RAGE swine LEGALIZATION POT ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET LIBERAL COMPASSIONATE PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EDUCATION ACTIVISM HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro HIGH ECONOMY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE hosser420 NORML MPP DMT legalize conservative sex tits freedom GMO New Jersey nj

Duration : 0:2:49

Read more about WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Case Western Reserve University Constitution Day

Constitution Day 2010 at Case Western Reserve University held on September 17, 2010 in Cleveland, Ohio

Duration : 1:26:16

Read more about Case Western Reserve University Constitution Day

Is it legal for news outlets to keep posting false headlines?

For example all the headlines were that the "BODY" of the missing grad student from Yale was found in the lab building. I kept reading the articles wondering why they didn’t describe the condition it was found in and the details. One hour later and the headlines all read Evidence Seized but Still No Sign […]

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the “Mayflower Doctrine,” which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station’s. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as “Ascertainment of Community Needs,” and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a “Christian Crusade” program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

Duration : 0:2:50

Read more about FAIRNESS DOCTRINE