Should this be against the law?

LOL, maybe it's the OP who's spitting out the same talking points that were used in Sept 2010 (when the vid was made). The continuous loop is what lefties do... but most of us prefer to call it a circle jerk.

 

What mechanism are you referring to?

Good point nonetheless.

 

This subject has been covred ad nauseum on this board and similar venues for years. Nothing new. Same argument on both sides. We could all repeat it verbatim. Lets not pretend like this thread brings anything of substance to the party.

 

Sorry, Daggdag, but if lying and misrepresenting was illegal, President Obama would not be on the news very often. I'm sure you'll find a way to get dissent outlawed, though.

 

Would you describe what Hannity did as dissent?

 

Any news outlet should be required by law to report the facts, and not distort the truth. That goes for the TV news, newspapers, radio etc.

Unfortunately, every news outlet is biased either one way or the other and will distort the facts to suit their own agenda. Much of the media over here is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Liberal. Much of the news we read in the paper is written with a conservative bias.
That wouldn't be so bad expect people tend to believe everything they read, so as a result, we have some pretty uninformed idiots in this country.

 

I said it should be illegal, not that it is....and dude.....most politicians would be put to death if lying was made illegal, not just Obama.

 

It wouldnt be illegal for Hannity, but fox has done it on their news shows as well and news outlets should have to,by law, report on the facts..since that is the purpose of the press in the first place.

 

If the Bush tax cuts expire the very poorest earners will have their taxes go up by 1/3rd from 10% to 15%. What's out of context about that.

 

Actually, the video was saying that under the Bush tax cuts, taxes were scheduled purposely to go up that next year. It didn't say anything about them expiring....Hannity edited the video so that it looked like Obama was simply announceing he was raising taxes, and told his viewers that it was what ws being said. He openly and purposely lied, distorting the facts to fit his view....

 

Hey, do you expect the FoxNews CEO who tells fibs to the British parliament not to tell fibs to those Americans dopey enough to watch FoxNews?

 

I think many in here are missing the liberal mindset a bit in this. Perhaps not undstanding why they are so upset at an "opinion" show. At their very core, liberals earnestly, honestly, believe that anyone who is not liberal, is stupid, or evil, or both.

Therefore they take the stance that all of the people watching an opinion show, will be duped into believing whatever they say. Fact or not is really not important to them, difference of opinion is!. They figure the best way to make sure that everyone agrees with their opinion, is to make sure no other opinions are allowed on the air. They do not view this as censorship either. They see it as a public service. From their point of view, liberalism is always correct. So anything else must inherently be wrong. To them.... censorship of something that in their mind is "wrong" is not censorship at all.... just protecting the people from "wrong" ideas..... This is very much how liberal "elitism" is expressed....

 

You are saying the government must require (read 'force') a news reporting agency to report the 'truth' (how ironic). You honestly don't know how dangerous and foolish this is? Think!

How do you know if the government is identifying the 'truth' honestly and objectively? Any govt with the power to prohibit 'falsehood' in reporting is a government that will lie to you about what is 'falsehood' in reporting. You will end up with a state controlled media that will be required to report the government's version of the 'truth'. This is what characterizes a dictatorship.

A free press that "misinforms" is one of the prices you pay for freedom because the alternative is a grave threat to human existence.

 

The one that is permitting us to recognize this report as misinformation. Fact finding, research, alternative media.. this very forum..

Of course a clever person might say that one man's 'misinformation' is another man's 'truth' depending on your politics.

Separating fact from fiction is difficult work and the average person may not be equipped to find the truth in every instance but people have to consider what the alternative many propose (making 'false' reporting illegal) will do to us. Depending on the government to find the facts and identify what stories are 'true' or not puts us in great jeopardy as I explained before. I just cannot believe that there are folks on here that want to strip the '1st Amendment' from our Constitution. What gives?

 

You too? How many people on here are ready to shred the Bill of Rights? I'm actually a bit surprised by this. I'd expect better of folks with an alleged history of attempting to preserve 'civil liberties' and 'Constitutional rights'.

 

Why not go all the way?

All academia cleared out, and made 50-50, instead of the 90% liberal, 10% conservative that exists. No more broad spewing of liberal ideology from the education institution.

And how about not just the news media. Let's remove the black listing of conservatives in the celebrity world, by the leftist heirarchy, who behind the scenes censor via limited work to conservative celebs. Hollywoods not so secret dirty little secret, from Dodd to Turner.

Let's clean the whole (*)(*)(*)(*) thing up, not just opinion pieces on Fox. We certainly don't want another Dan Rather in the purchased MSM. as rare as that incident was. /sarcasm.

 

Hogwash! You have not established any such thing. Making 'false reporting' illegal transfers control of media content from a free and private press to the Government which means that the Government now determines what is 'true' and what is 'false'. What happens when the government says "This is true. This is not. Report what we say is true." , all of this at the point of a gun ??

.. and you say this is not an act of dictatorship (How Orwellian).

 

No. If you don't like what FOX news has to say, don't watch it. No one is forcing you to. They should be able to say what they wish to say.

 

False. It's only fools who can't tell the difference. I am a liberal and I know the difference.

 

This is good stuff.

 

The Fox program "Hannity" is not a news program. So why are you using it as an example for the point you are trying to make?

 

You likely knew he was scum before the vote. So did millions of Americans (who voted against him in both elections) with access to the same media as the ones who elected him. Your blame is misplaced.

 

It is true that Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck are liars.
I tried to watch Fox numerous times, but O'reilly, for example, is very unpleasant to listen to.

 

People need to be woken up

 

Related to the topic is the issue of defamation lawsuits. This clever song on Youtube teaches about what claimants in a defamation suit are required to show in order to win their case against a report about them that is allegedly false:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OaEWVNOjg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OaEWVNOjg[/ame]

This is one of the mechanisms that already exists to deal with 'misinformation' about public figures. Obviously, some here think we need something more than this.