Fox News' outrage at President Obama’s critical remarks about their network is becoming hysterical. It’s not a simple matter of their being pissed at his criticism. No, the President is trying to shut them down. He’s going after the First Amendment just as he went after the Second. And he’s sending the country down the tubes because without a free Fox there is no free America. So, at least, said “legal analyst” Peter Johnson Jr., appearing on Fox and Friends for the second morning in a row.
We have previously noted that Johnson is also Roger Ailes’ personal attorney, and speculated that he might be acting as a stand-in for Fox's chief. Since Johnson also appeared on Hannity last night, and maybe on other shows as well, I speculate that he's speaking for Ailes in this case, and that the F&F segment was part of a Carefully Orchestrated Outrage Strategy.
Brian Kilmeade fed Johnson the appropriately sensational opening lines: "After going after the Second Amendment, President Obama, unhappy with freedom of speech, is going after the First Amendment.” Indeed he is, agreed Johnson, as the chyron shouted FIRST GUNS, NOW FREE SPEECH. “The imperial Presidency playbook is open." The First Amendment is "seriously in doubt,” he added, when the President embraces those that echo his talking points, and brands anyone who seeks to “foster debate” as an “enemy of the state.” GOING AFTER FREE SPEECH, the chyron hollered.
Of course he would, said Kilmeade, right on cue. Obama’s got all the Democrats and all the mainstream media and even a few scared Republicans in his camp – “everyone but Fox and Rush apparently.” BIAS ALERT, the chyron screamed.
Johnson then took Fox's outraged-victim message out to the stratosphere. Obama is not just criticizing Fox; he’s threatening the free press that is the bulwark of our democracy. “Ask Thomas Jefferson,” pontificated Johnson. “Ask Alexis de Tocqueville (I might, gentle reader, but they are both sort of like – ahem- dead. Died without having heard of Fox News, poor guys.) “Look at our history. Without a free press, there is not a free America. Without a free Fox, there is not a free America.... Fox is doing its job. ‘Fair and balanced’ means something, especially in a media that’s in the tank across the board, and the President does not like that.”
Doesn’t it make you sleep better at night, gentle reader, knowing that Fox is standing all alone (except for Rush of course) between you and that imperial dictatorial bully in the White House? After this, I expect that Obama will shut the network down and throw all its staff in the slammer. That's what imperial dictators generally do.
Do you like this post?
Sandman2 commented
2013-01-31 11:42:41 -0500
· Flag
U Mad? commented 16 hours ago· Flag
And regarding the Fairness Doctrine:
The only reason the left wants it reinstated is to silence Conservative talk radio. Thats it. The left hates the fact that conservative radio is highly popular but very few want to listen to the left. You cant compete when its actually fair so you want to put in a law to limit free speech; but only conservative free speech.
I’m not interested in bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” I’d like to see something called an “Honesty Doctrine.” That would do two things: Make sure that there are concequenses for dishonesty, Lies, and false equivilancies that run rampant on talk radio. And secondly, it would naturally eliminate most rightwing talk radio programming, which would likely be replaced by more left leaning hosts who tend to be much more honest than the Lying tools that now occupy the radio dial.
Facts and honesty replacing facts pulled from there ass’s and lying to there own audience.
Sounds like a win win to me.
And regarding the Fairness Doctrine:
The only reason the left wants it reinstated is to silence Conservative talk radio. Thats it. The left hates the fact that conservative radio is highly popular but very few want to listen to the left. You cant compete when its actually fair so you want to put in a law to limit free speech; but only conservative free speech.
I’m not interested in bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” I’d like to see something called an “Honesty Doctrine.” That would do two things: Make sure that there are concequenses for dishonesty, Lies, and false equivilancies that run rampant on talk radio. And secondly, it would naturally eliminate most rightwing talk radio programming, which would likely be replaced by more left leaning hosts who tend to be much more honest than the Lying tools that now occupy the radio dial.
Facts and honesty replacing facts pulled from there ass’s and lying to there own audience.
Sounds like a win win to me.
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 11:33:50 -0500
· Flag
Those gNOpig idiots are still trying to figure out what went wrong in the last election.
El Limpo, to his credit, didn’t throw his humongous trap behind Mittens. In the last days before the election, he pretty much conceded saying something about “the country can endure another 4 years of Obama”
But not the Fox gNOpig Propaganda Network.
No, Sireee Boob. Not them.
They were gushing Paul Ryan like he was Raygun reincarnated.
Let’s look at the clown car wreckage.
Ann Coulter brought Mittens to the forefront because “he was electable”
El Limpo gave his half assed support because Mittens, for all his hidden wealth, crafted Mittens-care.
This was the same reason why most teabagged couldn’t in good conscience vote for Mittens.
The sht flinging Baboon Glenn Beck was supporting “limited gubbimint” Rick Santorum.
Seanny Poo was going to yelp after anything with an R next to the name.
Billdo, the Independent, was a bit more careful earlier but in the end he resorted to the same chicken little tactics, braying about his taxes and howling for re-runs of Leave it to Beaver.
I know the list is far from complete, not enough time to credit the bit players, but just look at their lines:
Ann Coulter: ELECTABLE!
Limpo: SOCIALISM!
The Sht flinging Baboon Glenn Beck: DOOMSDAY!
Seanny Poo: RONALD RAYGUN!
Billdo: DEBAUCHERY! EUROPE! DE-RISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH! MOOCHERS!
Somehow, I am missing the pages of the script where the gNOpigs have solutions for the country.
El Limpo, to his credit, didn’t throw his humongous trap behind Mittens. In the last days before the election, he pretty much conceded saying something about “the country can endure another 4 years of Obama”
But not the Fox gNOpig Propaganda Network.
No, Sireee Boob. Not them.
They were gushing Paul Ryan like he was Raygun reincarnated.
Let’s look at the clown car wreckage.
Ann Coulter brought Mittens to the forefront because “he was electable”
El Limpo gave his half assed support because Mittens, for all his hidden wealth, crafted Mittens-care.
This was the same reason why most teabagged couldn’t in good conscience vote for Mittens.
The sht flinging Baboon Glenn Beck was supporting “limited gubbimint” Rick Santorum.
Seanny Poo was going to yelp after anything with an R next to the name.
Billdo, the Independent, was a bit more careful earlier but in the end he resorted to the same chicken little tactics, braying about his taxes and howling for re-runs of Leave it to Beaver.
I know the list is far from complete, not enough time to credit the bit players, but just look at their lines:
Ann Coulter: ELECTABLE!
Limpo: SOCIALISM!
The Sht flinging Baboon Glenn Beck: DOOMSDAY!
Seanny Poo: RONALD RAYGUN!
Billdo: DEBAUCHERY! EUROPE! DE-RISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH! MOOCHERS!
Somehow, I am missing the pages of the script where the gNOpigs have solutions for the country.
doors17 commented
2013-01-31 10:14:19 -0500
· Flag
Once again Fox and right wing radio are using a false boogieman to distract what the President really said. He’s not trying or wants to shut down Fox, Rush or any of his clones. He was simply pointing out the truth that several Republicans are fearful that if they ever show any signs of compromise they’ll have to face the wrath of attacks from Fox and all the other fire breathing talk radio hosts, or Tea Party members who walk around dressed like Benjamin Franklin.
Personally I would like to allow them all the free speech they have a right to. Fox and Rush both turn off the swing and moderate voters who decide our elections, with their extremist ranting where they rightfully come across as bat shit crazy to those in the middle who naturally turn to the Democratic Party. Besides they provide great material for Comedy Central.
Personally I would like to allow them all the free speech they have a right to. Fox and Rush both turn off the swing and moderate voters who decide our elections, with their extremist ranting where they rightfully come across as bat shit crazy to those in the middle who naturally turn to the Democratic Party. Besides they provide great material for Comedy Central.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-31 02:28:05 -0500
· Flag
AAP, you forgot the part about that he “doesn’t have to listen” to us, while he pretends to be reasonable.
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 02:20:03 -0500
· Flag
It is only fun when we get the GOOD trolls.
When some fruitcake comes and demands we listen to him because President Obama is about to abolish Freedom of Speech.
Oh, Nelly!!
When some fruitcake comes and demands we listen to him because President Obama is about to abolish Freedom of Speech.
Oh, Nelly!!
Bigtoe commented
2013-01-31 02:12:07 -0500
· Flag
But you would care if you weren’t a mushroom. And that really is the whole crux of the Fox and Rushbo hold on the rwnj masses. Their followers are in a bubble and have no escape. It’s like an intervention is necessary.
Wow, I had no idea playing with trolls could be so fun. Buh Bye now.
Wow, I had no idea playing with trolls could be so fun. Buh Bye now.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-31 02:10:50 -0500
· Flag
You cannot conceive of the fact that you have no right to force people to listen to you.
Says the guy who defends Jesse Watters and Griff Jenkins when they come up. BTW, whenever you feel like addressing an actual fact that was directed your way, and not just rehashing your little “It’s wrong if I disagree!” pity party, you be sure to let me know.
Says the guy who defends Jesse Watters and Griff Jenkins when they come up. BTW, whenever you feel like addressing an actual fact that was directed your way, and not just rehashing your little “It’s wrong if I disagree!” pity party, you be sure to let me know.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-31 02:04:20 -0500
· Flag
Bush/Nazi comparisons are shameful, but carry some basis in fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
U Mad? commented
2013-01-31 01:56:50 -0500
· Flag
The rest of the post is your interpretations of Obama’s actions. I really don’t care how you interpret what he said.
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 01:54:35 -0500
· Flag
Cheebuz…
You are still defending George Bush,
The Mayberry Machiavelli who couldn’t find WMDs, couldn’t track down OBL, who brought us the Department of HOMELAND Security, the Patriot Act and fingering babies and old ladies at the airport.
Do go on.
You are still defending George Bush,
The Mayberry Machiavelli who couldn’t find WMDs, couldn’t track down OBL, who brought us the Department of HOMELAND Security, the Patriot Act and fingering babies and old ladies at the airport.
Do go on.
U Mad? commented
2013-01-31 01:46:07 -0500
· Flag
In his New York Post column of Wednesday, August 20, 2003, page 29, entitled “In the Land of Bush Haters,” Rich Lowry writes:
“President Bush is routinely portrayed as a Nazi on left-wing Web sites, which post pictures of Bush with a Hitler mustache and sell T-shirts with Bush’s name spelled with a Swastika.”
Proving Lowry’s point, on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.com, Dave Lindorff, a contributor to The Nation magazine and Salon.com, wrote in an article titled “Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear”:
“It’s going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration’s fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels [….] are not at all out of line. Hitler would be proud that an American president is emulating him in so many ways.”
“President Bush is routinely portrayed as a Nazi on left-wing Web sites, which post pictures of Bush with a Hitler mustache and sell T-shirts with Bush’s name spelled with a Swastika.”
Proving Lowry’s point, on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.com, Dave Lindorff, a contributor to The Nation magazine and Salon.com, wrote in an article titled “Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear”:
“It’s going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration’s fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels [….] are not at all out of line. Hitler would be proud that an American president is emulating him in so many ways.”
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 01:40:17 -0500
· Flag
I guess Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply to President Obama for naming the clowns at the Fox gNOpig Propaganda Network.
Go figure.
Go figure.
Bigtoe commented
2013-01-31 01:39:34 -0500
· Flag
I don’t recall the ‘Nazi’ thing being used against ‘W’—it didn’t rear its ugly head until the teaparty showed up with posters of the president with the Hitler mustache. Be that as it may here are some facts for you:
President Obama doesn’t want to shut Fox or Rushbo down. He couldn’t even if he wanted to. Here’s what he wanted to do when he made the comments about Fox and Rushbo punishing republican politicians for ‘compromising’ or as we like to call it ‘doing their jobs’, you know, governing.
—He knew that the mushrooms wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for their news. Why would they, they’re mushrooms. Fox and rushbo have done their jobs.
—He knew Fox and Rushbo would take the bait and make a big deal about 1st amend rights, etc, etc. And in doing so they would have to play what the President said on THEIR air because the mushrooms aren’t going anywhere else to see the Presidents comments.
- By baiting Fox and Rushbo, all the mushrooms got a chance to see the President actually call out Fox and Rushbo for what they really did - and that was punish republican politicians for doing their jobs by working with the Dems.
This way the mushrooms got actual “news” and got it almost in real time.
President Obama doesn’t want to shut Fox or Rushbo down. He couldn’t even if he wanted to. Here’s what he wanted to do when he made the comments about Fox and Rushbo punishing republican politicians for ‘compromising’ or as we like to call it ‘doing their jobs’, you know, governing.
—He knew that the mushrooms wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for their news. Why would they, they’re mushrooms. Fox and rushbo have done their jobs.
—He knew Fox and Rushbo would take the bait and make a big deal about 1st amend rights, etc, etc. And in doing so they would have to play what the President said on THEIR air because the mushrooms aren’t going anywhere else to see the Presidents comments.
This way the mushrooms got actual “news” and got it almost in real time.
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 01:38:08 -0500
· Flag
Irony is lost on the dim witted Fox viewers.
Every time anyone dared to criticize Fearless Leader Bush, Hannity was all up and down “How can you insult our President during time of war!”
Of course. All of that changed when President Obama was elected.
Every fruitcake smear is now “Freedumb oss speech!”
Every time anyone dared to criticize Fearless Leader Bush, Hannity was all up and down “How can you insult our President during time of war!”
Of course. All of that changed when President Obama was elected.
Every fruitcake smear is now “Freedumb oss speech!”
U Mad? commented
2013-01-31 01:36:42 -0500
· Flag
And the people who run this site don’t have to let me post anything on here. And the government cannot and should not make them. You have a view point. When you use the government to shut me up so you can tell me your view point you have violated my rights. You have the right to voice your view points. You do not have the right to force me to broadcast them.
You cannot grasp that. You cannot conceive of the fact that you have no right to force people to listen to you. That is why the Fairness Doctrine will never come back. No one with any sense will let it.
You cannot grasp that. You cannot conceive of the fact that you have no right to force people to listen to you. That is why the Fairness Doctrine will never come back. No one with any sense will let it.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-31 01:24:04 -0500
· Flag
Im defending their right to have those view points.
No, you’re not… you’re telling us how, if you ran a radio station, you wouldn’t let anyone who disagreed with you on the air, even if there is a legit reason for them to air their side of the issue/story. Apparently on no other grounds than that the law in place to uphold their 1st and 6th amendment rights against the media is repealed.
Ironically on a site where you’re the point of view that’s disagreed with.
No, you’re not… you’re telling us how, if you ran a radio station, you wouldn’t let anyone who disagreed with you on the air, even if there is a legit reason for them to air their side of the issue/story. Apparently on no other grounds than that the law in place to uphold their 1st and 6th amendment rights against the media is repealed.
Ironically on a site where you’re the point of view that’s disagreed with.
Aria Prescott commented
2013-01-31 01:16:29 -0500
· Flag
You are the one that either doesn’t understand how it really works or don’t care how it works because you want to shut the other side up.
You still haven’t explained how that works. By your own definition, all it does is makes sure the other view is represented fairly. How is this shutting anyone up? If anything, it’s a violation of the 6th amendment’s confrontation clause to tell them to fuck off because “I don’t have to hear your side of this, just don’t listen to mine!”.
And if you tried to present your side on a network that did that to you, you’d be crying about your 1st and 6th all day long.
And you damn sure don’t have the right to make me listen to or air your side.
Actually, if you’re billed as a news outlet… you do.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Let me point out the only one you’ll even read:
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
I counter with:
*— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.*
The conservatives are the ones that have proven to us that they cannot do this by choice, and need a law to make them. You personally have not only proven that you don’t know shit about this particular doctrine, but you have also made it abundantly clear that you don’t know what censorship means.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making stupid comments like the free speech of others violates your rights if you hear something you don’t agree with. It’s their right to say it, it’s the responsibility of a responsible outlet to air it so their viewers hear the opposing view from the horse’s mouth.
But, by all means… post something to make yourself look ever dumber and more bigoted. We’ve allowed you to do it here so far, even though you admit you wouldn’t extend the same courtesy if this was your site.
You still haven’t explained how that works. By your own definition, all it does is makes sure the other view is represented fairly. How is this shutting anyone up? If anything, it’s a violation of the 6th amendment’s confrontation clause to tell them to fuck off because “I don’t have to hear your side of this, just don’t listen to mine!”.
And if you tried to present your side on a network that did that to you, you’d be crying about your 1st and 6th all day long.
And you damn sure don’t have the right to make me listen to or air your side.
Actually, if you’re billed as a news outlet… you do.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Let me point out the only one you’ll even read:
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
I counter with:
*— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.*
The conservatives are the ones that have proven to us that they cannot do this by choice, and need a law to make them. You personally have not only proven that you don’t know shit about this particular doctrine, but you have also made it abundantly clear that you don’t know what censorship means.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making stupid comments like the free speech of others violates your rights if you hear something you don’t agree with. It’s their right to say it, it’s the responsibility of a responsible outlet to air it so their viewers hear the opposing view from the horse’s mouth.
But, by all means… post something to make yourself look ever dumber and more bigoted. We’ve allowed you to do it here so far, even though you admit you wouldn’t extend the same courtesy if this was your site.
Average American Patriot commented
2013-01-31 01:15:29 -0500
· Flag
Wow, you are really something.
The problem is, your side doesn’t believe anyone should believe anything other than what they tell them.
Still trying to depict us Progressives and LIBERALS as some sort of monolithic oppressive machine.
I already conceded your point.
You have every right to listen and regurgitate whatever you choose. It doesn’t make it any more valid.
Go ahead. Continue to play victim.
Did you hear how President Obama is about to establish reparations?
Yup. Every registered Democrat will be entitled to 8 gNOpig slaves and 2 corn fed babes, one every 6 six months.
Can I interest you on some Survival Seeds?
The problem is, your side doesn’t believe anyone should believe anything other than what they tell them.
Still trying to depict us Progressives and LIBERALS as some sort of monolithic oppressive machine.
I already conceded your point.
You have every right to listen and regurgitate whatever you choose. It doesn’t make it any more valid.
Go ahead. Continue to play victim.
Did you hear how President Obama is about to establish reparations?
Yup. Every registered Democrat will be entitled to 8 gNOpig slaves and 2 corn fed babes, one every 6 six months.
Can I interest you on some Survival Seeds?
