I don't need to. It's been done repeatedly (including some examples below). Fox News is the only "news" media to fight and win a state supreme court case to get affirmation of their right to lie.
Nice try. You've mastered the Fox News red herring garbage. None of those links refutes what I said - you're simply trying to hide the facts behind a stream of nonsequitors. No one cares if Akres won their other arguments. The ruling is clear:
The appeals court decision (as affirmed by the supreme court) said:
" the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute."
That is, they supported Fox News' claim that there was no law requiring them to tell the truth.
Jon Stewart (and Colbert, as well) regularly lampoon the constant lies from Fox News. All you need to do is go to their web site and watch virtually any of their shows for examples of Fox lying.
Nice try to you as well. The case, if you read it, stated that they lawsuit against FoxNews as to their ability to fire someone based on the plaintiff using a FCC regulation that was not law. You can't state you were protected by a law that does not exist. NOTHING at all said ANYTHING about FoxNews' ability to lie, but that you can't use that FCC ruling to warrant suit against being fired.
Read it again.
and you quote comedians as your news source? 'Nuff said!
Nice try to you as well. The case, if you read it, stated that they lawsuit against FoxNews as to their ability to fire someone based on the plaintiff using a FCC regulation that was not law. You can't state you were protected by a law that does not exist. NOTHING at all said ANYTHING about FoxNews' ability to lie, but that you can't use that FCC ruling to warrant suit against being fired.
Read it again.
and you quote comedians as your news source? 'Nuff said!
I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.
The issues were:
Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.
Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.
I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.
The issues were:
Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.
Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.
Now go read it again. Take your free MSNBC 3-D glasses off.
The case had nothing to do with truth or lies on appeal, but whether there was a law to which the judgement was granted, and there was NOT!
The original jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired due to a whistleblower status, which could have been very well true. However, on the grounds (which is where Akre was wrong) based on a FCC rule that was NOT law. Therefore, you can't sue someone based on a law that does not exist. If Akre sued on whistleblower status, not claiming this false FCC law, she most likely would have won.
I have not read up on the original article and what FoxNews supposedly wanted changed, so I can't comment on that. Although if need be, I'll go read more.
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets get more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
The sad part is, this dude likely even believes this drivel he writes to be true.
Chances are, he also believes in virgin births, intelligent design, dinosaurs and humans roaming together in paradise only a few thousand years ago, and that Jesus was a white boy speaking English...
...and certainly he believes in American exceptionalism, that USA is #1 regardless how far it is trailing large parts of the developed world, and other nonsense.
That's the result of living in the right-wing echo chamber where everything and anyone who doesn't agree with the orthodoxy must be a left-wing radical.
Even Reagan and Nixon's policies would be unbearably "left wing liberal" in today's Teapublican party, but to notice that would require to not engage in revisionist history like the right wing media does, and of course it would require memory and attention span beyond what Twitter-ready news-bites promote.
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.
It’s an anti-corporate tax lobby that feeds the lower classes easily digestible sound bytes telling them why they should emotionally and religiously vote against their own interests in order to make the super rich even richer, under the delusion that they are protecting their faith and being patriotic. A far more effective way to promote fascism and socialism for the rich at the expense of a crushed middle class than any of the experiments of the early 1930s in Europe. The rich are actually getting much richer, and the middle class are inheriting the public debt that’s financing that concentration of wealth via public policy favoring the military industrial complex that Republicans used to warn us about before they were co-oped by Koch Enterprises and neocon groups like FreedomWorks.
Chicken nuggets might be the most popular form of meat Americans eat, but that doesn’t mean they are a quality product, or even meat.
Outside of a small handful specializing in click-baits, how many people are seriously saying that Apple is doomed?
There are far more people whining about predictions of impending doom for Apple when there has not been a serious prediction about this. But it fits the narrative of Apple being an underdog to perpetuate this myth.
DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.<br><br>
So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.
DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.
So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.
Oh come now. The resolution of the displays obviously isn’t important to the viewing audience. They are stage props. But the point is, Fox is portraying these actors as being journalists who are fact checking twitter in real time. This is absurdly ludicrous. But even if Fox has some relevance as a fact checker for populist chatter on a social network, the tools required to do this would not be vast 55” screens with less pixels than an iPad.
They are for show. They are useless and pointless as “tools.” It doesn’t matter than Microsoft makes them, and it would be equally absurd if the “news desk” was populated by a bunch of handsome people reviewing Twitter on handheld iPads, telling the audience what was true and what wasn’t.
But don’t be confused, the point of the article is simply showing what a farce Fox is for presenting mega-screens with low resolution and calling them new age tools for journalists. A news room doesn’t require such nonsense to gather information. This is a phony set designed to impress stupid people who haven’t given any of this any thought. And who want to believe what Fox is telling them to decide about what’s being reported, while also saying "we report, you decide.”
Massive contradictions aside, these non-ergo, non-powerful low resolution big screen displays are simply silly distractions, much like Samsung’s mega screens shouting about how advanced the Galaxy Gear watch was.
Oh come now. The resolution of the displays obviously isn’t important to the viewing audience. They are stage props. But the point is, Fox is portraying these actors as being journalists who are fact checking twitter in real time. This is absurdly ludicrous. But even if Fox has some relevance as a fact checker for populist chatter on a social network, the tools required to do this would not be vast 55” screens with less pixels than an iPad.
They are for show. They are useless and pointless as “tools.” It doesn’t matter than Microsoft makes them, and it would be equally absurd if the “news desk” was populated by a bunch of handsome people reviewing Twitter on handheld iPads, telling the audience what was true and what wasn’t.
But don’t be confused, the point of the article is simply showing what a farce Fox is for presenting mega-screens with low resolution and calling them new age tools for journalists. A news room doesn’t require such nonsense to gather information. This is a phony set designed to impress stupid people who haven’t given any of this any thought. And who want to believe what Fox is telling them to decide about what’s being reported, while also saying "we report, you decide.”
Massive contradictions aside, these non-ergo, non-powerful low resolution big screen displays are simply silly distractions, much like Samsung’s mega screens shouting about how advanced the Galaxy Gear watch was.
Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?<br><br>
I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.
Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?
I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.
The story delivered the exact premise of the headline. If you felt “suckered,” it's a problem on your end.
And the relevance to Apple is that its a popular story about a high profile deployment of professional information tools expressly in response to the shift from static TV watching toward mobile iPad use, using what appear to be mega-iPads, except they are actually only capable of displaying less information than Apple's consumer tablet, let alone a typical tool for journalists like a notebook or conventional PC.
If you can’t connect such data points, I’m at a loss to help you understanding it.
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
Well, no. I can't stand Fox News because I don't like "news" media spreading blatant lies.
I'm only a liberal by Fox News standards. By virtually any other standard, I'm pretty conservative. The Tea Party has hijacked the language so much that words like 'conservative' and 'liberal' no longer have much meaning.
For example, Obamacare is essentially the same plan that Romney put in place in MA. Even more to the point, it's almost exactly the same plan proposed by the GOP in 1992 in opposition to Hilary's single payor plan (which I think was a terrible plan from the start). Yet Obamacare is being portrayed as the worst kind of socialism. So explain to me why it was OK in 1992, but it's now completely evil?
Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.
It’s an anti-corporate tax lobby that feeds the lower classes easily digestible sound bytes telling them why they should emotionally and religiously vote against their own interests in order to make the super rich even richer, under the delusion that they are protecting their faith and being patriotic. A far more effective way to promote fascism and socialism for the rich at the expense of a crushed middle class than any of the experiments of the early 1930s in Europe. The rich are actually getting much richer, and the middle class are inheriting the public debt that’s financing that concentration of wealth via public policy favoring the military industrial complex that Republicans used to warn us about before they were co-oped by Koch Enterprises and neocon groups like FreedomWorks.
Chicken nuggets might be the most popular form of meat Americans eat, but that doesn’t mean they are a quality product, or even meat.
So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it. And if you don't think the other stations have a bias as well, watch during election time. Those stations will invariably say that Romney lost to Obama in the debates, just like they said about bush and gore, bush and Kerry, Clinton and dole, bush and Clinton.... when it's time to vote they are the most vocal about their opinions. And if, for example, most news stations agree that Obama beat Romney in the debates, does that make it right? Why should I believe the majority of news stations? Is it because journalists are smarter than the average uneducated viewer? I doubt that. It's like saying I should vote the same way most mechanical engineers vote, or how most doctors vote. I see a common misconception about conservatives. Do the rich benefit from the Republican Party? Yes they do. Does that make it wrong? No. There are people who believe that rich people shouldn't have to pay any more taxes than the poor. Not because they're brainwashed, not because they're rich, because they happen to think it's right and fair. There are people who think the rich should pay more, because they think that's fair. Neither one has to be dumb, brainwashed, or evil to believe what they believe. They simply follow what they think is right. And for those who think its naive let the rich pay fewer taxes, because they have the means and we don't, even though we work just as hard if not harder and have just as great a need, there are a few examples of countries who have taken that idea and implemented it... and we have the benefit of studying it from afar. Search: a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I understand that too little or too much government is equally bad, but don't write off the principle that sometimes less is more. We need to defend both political parties to have the correct balance.
So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it.
Here's the biggest lie exposed: that one chooses the channel according to one's party affiliation.
No, I choose channels according to whether or not something is good journalism, and yes, there is something like standards of journalism, it's not all relativistic and just a matter of whether or not one agrees with the editorial page.
Good journalism separates the news from the commentary, Fox routinely mixes the two, presents conjectures as if it were fact, etc.
Fox has just about nothing to do with serious journalism at all. Period.
In Europe, conservatives tend to be doing good journalism, which is why I read there newspapers and journals that are considerably to the right of my own views, but I read them, because they do good journalism, and I can inform myself, even though I disagree with what they write in the editorial pages. e.g. The Economist or the Swiss NZZ are in many ways oriented differently than I am, but it's good journalism. In the US it tends to be centrist newspapers like the NYT that do good journalism, and again, that's not a matter of whether or not I agree with what they write (and no, the NYT isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the meaning, it's just to the "left" of right-wing extremists.
The same cannot be said about Fox.
As for other US news outlets being guilty of similar sins as Fox: yes, the "news-as-entertainment" thing, the punditry, etc. are now all over the place, but it's a vain attempt by these other channels to beat Fox in a race to the bottom.
As far as other channels having a left bias: Of course, if one's standing on the extreme right wing, everything else tends to be to the left, except maybe hard-core Nazism. But just because something is "to the left of something" doesn't means it's "left" in an absolute sense.
Reagan and Nixon both would be considerably to the left of the Tea Party and mainstream Republican partisans of today. Does that mean that Reagan and Nixon are lefties? Hardly.
So start learning to make a difference between "to the left of my own extreme views" and "on the left side of the political spectrum", because frankly, you're not the navel of the world who demarcates the true center.
Here's the biggest lie exposed: that one chooses the channel according to one's party affiliation.
No, I choose channels according to whether or not something is good journalism, and yes, there is something like standards of journalism, it's not all relativistic and just a matter of whether or not one agrees with the editorial page.
Good journalism separates the news from the commentary, Fox routinely mixes the two, presents conjectures as if it were fact, etc.
Fox has just about nothing to do with serious journalism at all. Period.
In Europe, conservatives tend to be doing good journalism, which is why I read there newspapers and journals that are considerably to the right of my own views, but I read them, because they do good journalism, and I can inform myself, even though I disagree with what they write in the editorial pages. e.g. The Economist or the Swiss NZZ are in many ways oriented differently than I am, but it's good journalism. In the US it tends to be centrist newspapers like the NYT that do good journalism, and again, that's not a matter of whether or not I agree with what they write (and no, the NYT isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the meaning, it's just to the "left" of right-wing extremists.
The same cannot be said about Fox.
As for other US news outlets being guilty of similar sins as Fox: yes, the "news-as-entertainment" thing, the punditry, etc. are now all over the place, but it's a vain attempt by these other channels to beat Fox in a race to the bottom.
As far as other channels having a left bias: Of course, if one's standing on the extreme right wing, everything else tends to be to the left, except maybe hard-core Nazism. But just because something is "to the left of something" doesn't means it's "left" in an absolute sense.
Reagan and Nixon both would be considerably to the left of the Tea Party and mainstream Republican partisans of today. Does that mean that Reagan and Nixon are lefties? Hardly.
So start learning to make a difference between "to the left of my own extreme views" and "on the left side of the political spectrum", because frankly, you're not the navel of the world who demarcates the true center.
In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat. I'm simply trying to explain to some of the more extreme and vocal commenters against Fox News that the large percentage of Americans who disagree with you, and vote with their remote, aren't necessarily stupid or brainwashed, but see the station differently. And that those continually posting these excited comments may actually be more analytical of fox without realizing it. I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported. But I'm not going to publicly bash them like I'm seeing from these overly vocal, loud and critical people, who think that by continually repeating their labels of fox as stupid, mindless, and a mouthpiece of the rich that they may possibly have a bias much like the one they say fox has, a bias they may not realize, but if they check their political party as democrat, may realize that there is a possibility that they are more critical of fox than others.
In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat.
Interesting how you know my political affiliations....
....and manage to be totally wrong.
Which means you probably decided based on truthiness, aka Bush's "gut feeling".
No, I'm not a Democrat (with capital D) although I'm a democrat (with lower-case d). The closest I come to being a Democrat is that I consider the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, which holds the entire party by its balls, to be a bunch of lunatics, meaning that the Republican party, as it exists today, is not electable, which leaves a rational person with the option to vote for the party that does the least possible damage given the realities on the ground, and that happens to be the Democratic party, thanks to a rather despicable two-party system that makes any democratically (lower case d) minded person cringe given how it dumbs down and limits political debate.
If anything, I'm a libertarian, but one who doesn't use it as a code word for laissez-faire, gone hog-wild capitalism, but one who recognizes that economic entities need laws and police just as much as natural persons, if the game is supposed to remain fair and civil, and one who recognize that allowing economic actors to externalize costs upon the shoulders of society at large is allowing unfair, distorted competition in the marketplace.
Even in a free society blackmail and murder must be outlawed, and even with free, libertarian markets, economic actors need to be subject to environmental laws and anti-trust laws, etc.
Quote:
I'm simply trying to explain to some of the more extreme and vocal commenters against Fox News that the large percentage of Americans who disagree with you, and vote with their remote, aren't necessarily stupid or brainwashed, but see the station differently.
They see the station differently because they are stupid and/or brainwashed, or because they are cynical and enjoy what Fox news does for their investments.
I would want to see a formal SEC inquiry into who with political connections benefitted from currency speculation in connection with the government shutdown. I'm sure there are some people who made millions by betting against the US$ well knowing that they will vote against a clean funding bill.
90%+ of Fox viewers or even their pundits either doesn't get or intentionally mixes up the difference between "debt" and "deficit"
Quote:
I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported.
That's a rubber statement. What's a "worse quality story"? One you're not interested in? One that's not important? One that goes counter your interests? One that's stylistically bad? Or one that's a lie? If the latter, it would be well worth pointing out the lies...
Quote:
But I'm not going to publicly bash them like I'm seeing from these overly vocal, loud and critical people, who think that by continually repeating their labels of fox as stupid, mindless, and a mouthpiece of the rich that they may possibly have a bias much like the one they say fox has, a bias they may not realize, but if they check their political party as democrat, may realize that there is a possibility that they are more critical of fox than others.
There's plenty of bad reporting and bias in certain parts of e.g. MSNBC, but it's on a totally different level than what's on Fox, and in particular, for the most part, there news and commentary are distinguishable.
Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.
Guess you've never used an iOS device and an AppleTV with Airplay. Not just mirroring. You can build apps that are full screen/full HD on the TV via Apple TV and have different content on the iPad.
The point is the 5S (and our family owns 3), does not have a top of the line display for a smart phone. 5S display is 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. Not even 720p.
Top line android smart phone like the one being ridiculed are 1920x1080 at 440 ppi. So why not write an article entitled: "Iphone 5S: Newest Apple phone touch screens have fewer pixels than Galaxy S4."
Apple products are great so are Android and some Windows devices. So why does AI feel the need to always mock the competition. Fear of an open market with competent competitors? This article was just silly.
Comments
I don't need to. It's been done repeatedly (including some examples below). Fox News is the only "news" media to fight and win a state supreme court case to get affirmation of their right to lie.
Nice try. You've mastered the Fox News red herring garbage. None of those links refutes what I said - you're simply trying to hide the facts behind a stream of nonsequitors. No one cares if Akres won their other arguments. The ruling is clear:
The appeals court decision (as affirmed by the supreme court) said:
" the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute."
That is, they supported Fox News' claim that there was no law requiring them to tell the truth.
Jon Stewart (and Colbert, as well) regularly lampoon the constant lies from Fox News. All you need to do is go to their web site and watch virtually any of their shows for examples of Fox lying.
Nice try to you as well. The case, if you read it, stated that they lawsuit against FoxNews as to their ability to fire someone based on the plaintiff using a FCC regulation that was not law. You can't state you were protected by a law that does not exist. NOTHING at all said ANYTHING about FoxNews' ability to lie, but that you can't use that FCC ruling to warrant suit against being fired.
Read it again.
and you quote comedians as your news source? 'Nuff said!
I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.
The issues were:
Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.
Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.
I did read it. But, then, I didn't have Fox News making up stupid arguments.
The issues were:
Akre was fired. She claimed whistleblower status. The court ruled that whistleblower status was valid only if Fox had broken the law. But since Fox argued (and won) that there was no law requiring them to be truthful, Akre lost.
Fox's argument was simple - the law did not require them to be truthful. Period.
Now go read it again. Take your free MSNBC 3-D glasses off.
The case had nothing to do with truth or lies on appeal, but whether there was a law to which the judgement was granted, and there was NOT!
The original jury found that Akre was wrongfully fired due to a whistleblower status, which could have been very well true. However, on the grounds (which is where Akre was wrong) based on a FCC rule that was NOT law. Therefore, you can't sue someone based on a law that does not exist. If Akre sued on whistleblower status, not claiming this false FCC law, she most likely would have won.
I have not read up on the original article and what FoxNews supposedly wanted changed, so I can't comment on that. Although if need be, I'll go read more.
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
The sad part is, this dude likely even believes this drivel he writes to be true.
Chances are, he also believes in virgin births, intelligent design, dinosaurs and humans roaming together in paradise only a few thousand years ago, and that Jesus was a white boy speaking English...
...and certainly he believes in American exceptionalism, that USA is #1 regardless how far it is trailing large parts of the developed world, and other nonsense.
That's the result of living in the right-wing echo chamber where everything and anyone who doesn't agree with the orthodoxy must be a left-wing radical.
Even Reagan and Nixon's policies would be unbearably "left wing liberal" in today's Teapublican party, but to notice that would require to not engage in revisionist history like the right wing media does, and of course it would require memory and attention span beyond what Twitter-ready news-bites promote.
The liberals who hate Fox News do so for two reasons...#1. Fox is the top cable news outlet..by a HUGE margin...Bill O'Reilly probably gets more viewers for his show than any CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazera and PBS shows combined! And #2. They can't control it to plant stories about how awesomely wonderful Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC are and how awful and nasty Republicans are! And that makes them angry!!! Sorry little liberals, life isn't always the way you want it!! You'll realize that one day when you grow up and move out of your parents basement!!
Actually, there’s no secret that Fox News was created by a rich Austrian to promote a conservative/right wing agenda. He said so. He bragged about it! It’s pretty pure propaganda for the Republican party, and particularly the billionaire-funded resurgence of the John Birch Society under the name Tea Party.
It’s an anti-corporate tax lobby that feeds the lower classes easily digestible sound bytes telling them why they should emotionally and religiously vote against their own interests in order to make the super rich even richer, under the delusion that they are protecting their faith and being patriotic. A far more effective way to promote fascism and socialism for the rich at the expense of a crushed middle class than any of the experiments of the early 1930s in Europe. The rich are actually getting much richer, and the middle class are inheriting the public debt that’s financing that concentration of wealth via public policy favoring the military industrial complex that Republicans used to warn us about before they were co-oped by Koch Enterprises and neocon groups like FreedomWorks.
Chicken nuggets might be the most popular form of meat Americans eat, but that doesn’t mean they are a quality product, or even meat.
DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.<br><br>
So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.
DED's AI article itself is click-bait. Think about it...it's a television show, bring broadcast at a resolution of at most 1080p. Who cares that the background screens in the studio are only 1080p. You'd never see any higher resolution anyway because of the limitation of the television broadcast. A good 1080p TV for your home costs more than an iPad and has lower resolution. And if Apple comes out with an Apple television it will also cost more than an iPad and have lower resolution, and it probably won't have a touch interface.
So what is the point of this article other than click-bait for the Apple faithful? I like Apple, too. But kinda wish I hadn't wasted my time reading anotther fanboy article from DED.
Oh come now. The resolution of the displays obviously isn’t important to the viewing audience. They are stage props. But the point is, Fox is portraying these actors as being journalists who are fact checking twitter in real time. This is absurdly ludicrous. But even if Fox has some relevance as a fact checker for populist chatter on a social network, the tools required to do this would not be vast 55” screens with less pixels than an iPad.
They are for show. They are useless and pointless as “tools.” It doesn’t matter than Microsoft makes them, and it would be equally absurd if the “news desk” was populated by a bunch of handsome people reviewing Twitter on handheld iPads, telling the audience what was true and what wasn’t.
But don’t be confused, the point of the article is simply showing what a farce Fox is for presenting mega-screens with low resolution and calling them new age tools for journalists. A news room doesn’t require such nonsense to gather information. This is a phony set designed to impress stupid people who haven’t given any of this any thought. And who want to believe what Fox is telling them to decide about what’s being reported, while also saying "we report, you decide.”
Massive contradictions aside, these non-ergo, non-powerful low resolution big screen displays are simply silly distractions, much like Samsung’s mega screens shouting about how advanced the Galaxy Gear watch was.
Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?<br><br>
I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.
Well, yes, Fox is a farce. But if that was the point of the article then: a) why the numerous comparisons to iPads, and b) what is the article doing on AI?
I'm just kicking myself for getting suckered into clicking on the link and reading another pointless article that's about nothing at all. Certainly nothing concerning Apple.
The story delivered the exact premise of the headline. If you felt “suckered,” it's a problem on your end.
And the relevance to Apple is that its a popular story about a high profile deployment of professional information tools expressly in response to the shift from static TV watching toward mobile iPad use, using what appear to be mega-iPads, except they are actually only capable of displaying less information than Apple's consumer tablet, let alone a typical tool for journalists like a notebook or conventional PC.
If you can’t connect such data points, I’m at a loss to help you understanding it.
Well, no. I can't stand Fox News because I don't like "news" media spreading blatant lies.
I'm only a liberal by Fox News standards. By virtually any other standard, I'm pretty conservative. The Tea Party has hijacked the language so much that words like 'conservative' and 'liberal' no longer have much meaning.
For example, Obamacare is essentially the same plan that Romney put in place in MA. Even more to the point, it's almost exactly the same plan proposed by the GOP in 1992 in opposition to Hilary's single payor plan (which I think was a terrible plan from the start). Yet Obamacare is being portrayed as the worst kind of socialism. So explain to me why it was OK in 1992, but it's now completely evil?
So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it. And if you don't think the other stations have a bias as well, watch during election time. Those stations will invariably say that Romney lost to Obama in the debates, just like they said about bush and gore, bush and Kerry, Clinton and dole, bush and Clinton.... when it's time to vote they are the most vocal about their opinions. And if, for example, most news stations agree that Obama beat Romney in the debates, does that make it right? Why should I believe the majority of news stations? Is it because journalists are smarter than the average uneducated viewer? I doubt that. It's like saying I should vote the same way most mechanical engineers vote, or how most doctors vote. I see a common misconception about conservatives. Do the rich benefit from the Republican Party? Yes they do. Does that make it wrong? No. There are people who believe that rich people shouldn't have to pay any more taxes than the poor. Not because they're brainwashed, not because they're rich, because they happen to think it's right and fair. There are people who think the rich should pay more, because they think that's fair. Neither one has to be dumb, brainwashed, or evil to believe what they believe. They simply follow what they think is right. And for those who think its naive let the rich pay fewer taxes, because they have the means and we don't, even though we work just as hard if not harder and have just as great a need, there are a few examples of countries who have taken that idea and implemented it... and we have the benefit of studying it from afar. Search: a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I understand that too little or too much government is equally bad, but don't write off the principle that sometimes less is more. We need to defend both political parties to have the correct balance.
So, there are people who believe differently than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Everyone who has criticized Fox News in this thread is likely a Democrat. I'm not saying that all democrats criticize Fox News, I'm just saying that if you're criticizing, you're quite possibly a democrat. And if you are, you may be just as biased as you say Fox is. I, personally, can see a lot of bias in almost every other network towards the left. I don't say they're stupid, or lying machines. The other stations and newspapers print just as many mess ups, they don't have as many networks 'focused' on publicizing it.
Here's the biggest lie exposed: that one chooses the channel according to one's party affiliation.
No, I choose channels according to whether or not something is good journalism, and yes, there is something like standards of journalism, it's not all relativistic and just a matter of whether or not one agrees with the editorial page.
Good journalism separates the news from the commentary, Fox routinely mixes the two, presents conjectures as if it were fact, etc.
Fox has just about nothing to do with serious journalism at all. Period.
In Europe, conservatives tend to be doing good journalism, which is why I read there newspapers and journals that are considerably to the right of my own views, but I read them, because they do good journalism, and I can inform myself, even though I disagree with what they write in the editorial pages. e.g. The Economist or the Swiss NZZ are in many ways oriented differently than I am, but it's good journalism. In the US it tends to be centrist newspapers like the NYT that do good journalism, and again, that's not a matter of whether or not I agree with what they write (and no, the NYT isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the meaning, it's just to the "left" of right-wing extremists.
The same cannot be said about Fox.
As for other US news outlets being guilty of similar sins as Fox: yes, the "news-as-entertainment" thing, the punditry, etc. are now all over the place, but it's a vain attempt by these other channels to beat Fox in a race to the bottom.
As far as other channels having a left bias: Of course, if one's standing on the extreme right wing, everything else tends to be to the left, except maybe hard-core Nazism. But just because something is "to the left of something" doesn't means it's "left" in an absolute sense.
Reagan and Nixon both would be considerably to the left of the Tea Party and mainstream Republican partisans of today. Does that mean that Reagan and Nixon are lefties? Hardly.
So start learning to make a difference between "to the left of my own extreme views" and "on the left side of the political spectrum", because frankly, you're not the navel of the world who demarcates the true center.
My mother told me to never to sit that close to the television.
This just in... Fox reporters demand coverage for eye doctors be added to their health care plan.
In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat. I'm simply trying to explain to some of the more extreme and vocal commenters against Fox News that the large percentage of Americans who disagree with you, and vote with their remote, aren't necessarily stupid or brainwashed, but see the station differently. And that those continually posting these excited comments may actually be more analytical of fox without realizing it. I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported. But I'm not going to publicly bash them like I'm seeing from these overly vocal, loud and critical people, who think that by continually repeating their labels of fox as stupid, mindless, and a mouthpiece of the rich that they may possibly have a bias much like the one they say fox has, a bias they may not realize, but if they check their political party as democrat, may realize that there is a possibility that they are more critical of fox than others.
In my post, I said those criticizing Fox News are 'quite possibly' democrat, so you wouldn't have to explain to me that centrists criticize Fox News as well. But doing a quick search through your posts, I see that you're a democrat.
Interesting how you know my political affiliations....
....and manage to be totally wrong.
Which means you probably decided based on truthiness, aka Bush's "gut feeling".
No, I'm not a Democrat (with capital D) although I'm a democrat (with lower-case d). The closest I come to being a Democrat is that I consider the Tea Party wing of the Republicans, which holds the entire party by its balls, to be a bunch of lunatics, meaning that the Republican party, as it exists today, is not electable, which leaves a rational person with the option to vote for the party that does the least possible damage given the realities on the ground, and that happens to be the Democratic party, thanks to a rather despicable two-party system that makes any democratically (lower case d) minded person cringe given how it dumbs down and limits political debate.
If anything, I'm a libertarian, but one who doesn't use it as a code word for laissez-faire, gone hog-wild capitalism, but one who recognizes that economic entities need laws and police just as much as natural persons, if the game is supposed to remain fair and civil, and one who recognize that allowing economic actors to externalize costs upon the shoulders of society at large is allowing unfair, distorted competition in the marketplace.
Even in a free society blackmail and murder must be outlawed, and even with free, libertarian markets, economic actors need to be subject to environmental laws and anti-trust laws, etc.
They see the station differently because they are stupid and/or brainwashed, or because they are cynical and enjoy what Fox news does for their investments.
I would want to see a formal SEC inquiry into who with political connections benefitted from currency speculation in connection with the government shutdown. I'm sure there are some people who made millions by betting against the US$ well knowing that they will vote against a clean funding bill.
90%+ of Fox viewers or even their pundits either doesn't get or intentionally mixes up the difference between "debt" and "deficit"
I personally think msnbc and cnn are worse in terms of the quality of stories reported.
That's a rubber statement. What's a "worse quality story"? One you're not interested in? One that's not important? One that goes counter your interests? One that's stylistically bad? Or one that's a lie? If the latter, it would be well worth pointing out the lies...
There's plenty of bad reporting and bias in certain parts of e.g. MSNBC, but it's on a totally different level than what's on Fox, and in particular, for the most part, there news and commentary are distinguishable.
Austria != Australia
No kangaroos in Austria.
Can we just move this thread to PO?
The point is the 5S (and our family owns 3), does not have a top of the line display for a smart phone. 5S display is 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. Not even 720p.
Top line android smart phone like the one being ridiculed are 1920x1080 at 440 ppi. So why not write an article entitled: "Iphone 5S: Newest Apple phone touch screens have fewer pixels than Galaxy S4."
Apple products are great so are Android and some Windows devices. So why does AI feel the need to always mock the competition. Fear of an open market with competent competitors? This article was just silly.