So? Let me get this right. A cop with a search warrent is not allowed to search the persons inside the domicile? So if you got 2 oz of meth you can just put it under your armpit and, no harm, no foul? I think I did see this case, and the reason it made it to an appeals court is the fact that the mother did in fact hide drugs on the 10 year old and was convicted.

Yes the ad is not factual. in that the salient points of the case are not presented.

I got an ad for you....Senator Kennedy has slept with his daughter.

Simple ad guess you have to run it

Fox spiked an ad. The ad gets a lot more attention than it otherwise would. Fox ends up looking stupid. The system worked.

Corngrower:

You are correct. A warrant for the search of a home does not permit a police officer to strip search a child. The police could and should have called and gotten a warrant to search the child. It is called good policing!

Additionally, unless the appeal was de novo, the factual points are not at issue, the issue was purely legal: Does a search warrant for a home permit the police to strip search individuals in the home? It was not an issue about what the mother did, or what she was eventually convicted of.

Lastly, of course the appeal was brought because the mother was convicted. What kind of idiot would bring a case forward if they were found not guilty?

I could be wrong, but was anyone saying Fox should be required to show the ad?

I agree with Public Defender: my sense is that Fox is getting widely derided by the public for this decision, which is the public's right, just as it was Fox's right to make the original decision.

ac: I agree with you about misleading ads, and your point ties into my distinction between misleading and factually inaccurate ads.

For example, a car ad might claim that an automobile was rated first in class by publication x, and that claim might cause consumers to think that the car is first in its class. The proposition might be factually accurate. But if publication x is a minor publication, or if it has been discredited, or if it came out before several superior cars were introduced into the market, then the claim might also be misleading.

However, if the ad claims that publication x rated the car first in its class, but in fact, publication x has never given the car that rating, then the ad would be factually inaccurate.

I propose that networks shouldn't filter ads on the first criteria: lots of ads are misleading, and it is difficult to determine which statements will mislead, and the extent to which viewers will actually be mislead. But if the network determines the facts to be objectively wrong, then it should have the right (and, I think responsibility) to refuse to run the ad.

If they think it's factually incorrect and/or misleading, then good for them for not running it. It may show some bias, but if they think its wrong then they shouldn't run it.

As for any hipocracy in running the swift boat ads, maybe they didn't believe they were factually incorrect. If they thought the content was acurate, as they very well may have, then there is no hipocracy.

I think the real issue is not what FoxNews should or should not be doing. To me, the real issue is whether FoxNews viewers are aware of the nature and extent of the bias. So, anything that helps make the bias more clear is fine with me.

Yes, when you see things like the Oil for Food scandal only rarely and grudgingly mentioned on CNN, Washington Post or New York Times, you start to wonder. The answer, of course, is to watch Fox and CNN. (which I think is what most people end up doing, anyway).

I admit to being fairly slow on the uptake, but I'm not really following the argument that Fox News was inconsistent in accepting some of the Swift Boat ads but rejecting the anti-Alito ad. Fox News has (sort of) announced that the standard is "factual inaccuracy." If the anti-Alito ad contained claims that are demonstrably inaccurate, which may be the case because Fox's counsel can quite easily access the cases cited and make a determination as to the claims' accuracy, then they fail to meet the standard. On the other hand, the Swift Boat ads, if I remember correctly, consisted of several Vietnam vets/POWs saying (a) "John Kerry's anti-war activism was demoralizing to me," or (b) "I served with John Kerry, and I don't like him," neither of which are really susceptible to proof or disproof (other than whether Kerry really engaged in such activities, which are a matter of public record, or whether the speaker actually served with him, again, a matter of public record). Now, if the anti-Alitos managed to round up some of Alito's former colleagues for a similar ad, then Fox News would be inconsistent in rejecting it (at least to the extent that the claims were similarly subjective, i.e., "I served with Sam Alito on the 3d Circuit, and I think he's a right wing nutcase").

Daniel,

I guess it depends on what you think they mean by "easier" and what you think about his opinion. If you think they mean that he wanted to make discriminating easier than the law required him to make it, and you think he got the law right, then he didn't want to make it easier in that sense. But if you just think they mean that he was voting in favor of a higher burden of proof for the plaintiff than the majority, which in turn would make it "easier" for employers to discriminate without being successfully sued (in comparison to the majority's rule), then the claim makes sense. So, I think reasonable people could disagree about whether that was a fair or misleading characterization.

How any of this counts as "factually inaccurate" in the context of a 30-second ad is beyond me.

RK,

Again, I think it depends on what you think they mean by "approve". If you think they mean he thought it was the right thing to do, then he didn't reach that issue (although he does imply that the police had probable cause for the warrant he thinks they requested and got). But if you just think they mean he voted that the search was lawful, then the claim makes sense.

And once again, how any of this counts as "factually incorrect" is beyond me. In fact, as these things go, it is a close call whether they are even particularly misleading.

Alito, by dissenting, did affirm that the police have the right to search people inside a house, in this case, a 10-year-old girl, without a separate search warrant.

Nope. He agreed that the police had no such right. What was at issue was whether the police had qualified immunity against being sued for the illegal searches, and Alito argued that they did, because it supposedly wasn't clear from the face of the warrant that the girl &her mom weren't covered.

That was a terrible argument, b/c where the warrant listed "persons to be searched," it didn't list the two females. But it wasn't an argument that the police "had a right to search without a warrant."

I'm still waiting for someone to seriously argue what was not "factual" about the ad. According to the Washington Times article, Fox pulled the ad because it said Alito "voted to approve" the strip search, when Alito did not "vote" but merely wrote a dissenting opinion. If that's their basis, its absurdly flimsy. Technically, a judge's opinion is not a "vote" but is that the kind of shorthand that makes an add "factually inaccurate" and warrants a station's refusing to run it?

And, for the record, I've never understood what right stations have to edit ads of this nature, short of fear of liability for libel and slander. The media company may be private but the airwaves are not privately-owned. If they are going to accept political ads, how can they pick and choose without engaging in lobbying or electioneering?

What is the debate?

Does a news source have the ability to reject ads?

That Fox, home of misleading newscasts, should become squeamish about accuracy in a 30-second political ad is amusing. But it's nothing worth getting excited over. Fox only worsens its own image, bad as it already is, when it does this kind of thing. The vast majority know what Fox is, and those who like it aren't going to have their minds changed by an ad anyway. They go to Fox to get their views confirmed, over and over again.

DC Lawyer - there's a huge difference between the propriety of the search and whether the police officers can be sued. That's the first inaccuracy that comes to mind. Alito's dissent dealt with the latter, but the ad implies the former.

You know, for all those who seem to think FOX News is sooooo exclusively biased, evil, right-wing hackery, and idiotic...

You seem to be quite familiar with their particulars; hosts, programming, ads, et al. If it is so bad, why waste time watching to the degree that you can cite all these details off the top of your head?

Well, maybe you're right. You might not be that familiar with them. You are obviously aware of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and 'the rest.' You obviously forget that Hannity co-hosts with a dedicated left-winger - Alan Colmes; and, therefore, doesn't have a show by himself. What was that about the staunch, right-wing pundit, Geraldo Rivera? Ever watch their morning show? Many of their rotating hosts are decidedly to the left of Atilla the Hun. Shephard Smith a raving, right-wing lunatic? Just how far left are YOU?!

I think that this is a whole lotta ta-do about nothing. Further, I think this thread has simply been predominantly turned into an excuse to bash FOX News rather than look at any potential, legalities. To that degree, "corngrower" is absolutely spot on in his simplicity:

What is the debate?

Does a news source have the ability to reject ads?

Now, if Mr. Zywicki intended this to be a path to exploring Alito's decisions, then why not create a thread which focuses primarily on that idea? Because, Mr. Zywicki's own bias is showing through when he states: "...but this seems awfully questionable to me." Why would it be 'questionable' if, as Mr. Zywicki states, "Obviously Fox has the right to refuse to run or not run any ad it likes...?"

Mr. Zywicki bias? Yes. He has either deliberately engendered a "bash FOX News" thread or created a logical conundrum at the expense of FOX News. The former is obviously the enjoyable outcome for many here. The latter relies on the premise that, while they are not obligated to run any particular ad, to not do so represents an supposed abandonment of their obligation to be 'fair and balanced.' So far as I can discern, it is not an issue of fairness or balance; but, one of 'disingenuousness' that most of the FOX bashers are citing.

To that end, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," might seem an appropriate phrase. Set against that standard, it would seem there are a number of individuals taking a toss out of turn.

Is FOX News farther to the right than CNN or MSNBC? That's simple. "Yes." Are they a right-wing monolith or the PR department for the RNC? That's simple. "No chance." Are they truly 'fair and balanced?' Given the rhetorical nature of that question as applied to ANY form of news media outlet, why are we spending so much time FOX bashing rather than focusing on the direction that a number, including Anderson, Daniel Chapman, and Medis, have suggested; e.g., take up the role of a legal/political science/social issues blog site and look to the actual cases at issue in the rejected ad?

Or, is that less fun than bashing FOX?

Here, Keith Obermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" has spent the last week slipping in little shots at FOX under the guise of "journalism." Bill O'Reilly came up and he stated [the following is not a perfect quote, but it's real close]:

That's a guy who's been in the business 30 years. And, for those of us who have been in journalism for a long time...we know he's a guy who is a few light bulbs short of a marquee.

Obermann had Jeanine Garafalo on last night and she claimed that FOX News' morning show "Fox and Friends" was the most unfriendly, mean place she could think of. Obermann agreed with her.

Given Obermann's and Garafalo's schtick's are predicated solely on some form of "spin" rather than actual journalism, I have to wonder if their 'take' on FOX News might be more telling about their competitors than FOX News itself.

By the way, as you depart from this 'commercial interruption,' how many lawyers are employed as 'talking heads' or news analysts at FOX News? Could this be part of the issue; i.e., too many cooks 'spoiling the soup?'

You know, for all those who seem to think FOX News is sooooo exclusively biased, evil, right-wing hackery, and idiotic...

Check.

You are obviously aware of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and 'the rest.' You obviously forget that Hannity co-hosts with a dedicated left-winger - Alan Colmes; and, therefore, doesn't have a show by himself.

I would hardly characterize a milquetoast moderate like Alan Colmes a 'dedicated left-winger', I will concede that he is to the left of Sean Hannity as well as 99% of the Fox Family. Besides that, you act as if because there are two anchors, with presumably differing political views this somehow makes it immune to charges of political bias. Who are the producers of the show? Who primarily sets the agenda of the show? Who chooses the guests who appear on the show and what pet issues are discussed? The only thing the 'Sean Hannity and liberal to be named later' formula guarantees is that theoretically there will be someone other than Sean Hannity and with differing views who can comment on and respond to whatever segment or guest is currently featured. That's hardly bulletproof immunity from charges of political bias.

What was that about the staunch, right-wing pundit, Geraldo Rivera?

Geraldo Rivera isn't a pundit of any type and as you well know his show on FOX isn't centered around politics, it's a human interest centered show that doesen't even touch politics indirectly. If your refutation against FOX political bias is based on the fact that Geraldo seldom puncuates his coverage of the Michael Jacskon trial with tirades against abortion on demand and bloated government entitlement programs than I would like to defend CBS against charges of political bias because I know for a fact that a few of those journalists narrating that story about that demolished home downs syndrome kids are conservative republicans.

Ever watch their morning show?

Yes.

Many of their rotating hosts are decidedly to the left of Atilla the Hun.

I don't know Atilla the Hun's politics but, please list the Fox &Friends rotating hosts that you would characterize as leftists?

Shephard Smith a raving, right-wing lunatic?

No. Shephard Smith is one of the more tolerable features of FOX News. He may be conservative but he's no raving ultra-partisan lunatic. That's nothing special however, and the same characterization can be applied to a number of Journalists/Anchors at the 4 other networks.

Is FOX News farther to the right than CNN or MSNBC? That's simple. "Yes."

While the conclusion is obvious, the statement doesen't really reveal much. Is Fidel Castro further to the left than Tom DeLay, Lincoln Chafee, Ben Nelson, Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich? Yes.

Are they a right-wing monolith or the PR department for the RNC? That's simple. "No chance."

Cheap assertion, and based on what? Certainly not the conduct of the Channel over the last 3 years.

Here, Keith Obermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" has spent the last week slipping in little shots at FOX under the guise of "journalism." Bill O'Reilly came up and he stated [the following is not a perfect quote, but it's real close]:


That's a guy who's been in the business 30 years. And, for those of us who have been in journalism for a long time...we know he's a guy who is a few light bulbs short of a marquee.

First, if Keith Obermann taking jabs at Fox News during his program supposedly illustrates unfaithful journalism, then how would you characterize the number of programs on FOX I.E. John Gibson's, John Kasich's, Neil Cavuto's and especially O'Reilly's that regularly take the 'liberal' or 'Mainstream' media organizations to task for for bias or other various reasons.

Secondly, I don't know who this 'we' O'Reilly is speaking of (and I doubt they know either) but as much as a smarmy douche as Obermann can be, it's quite clear he's no dunce. Certainly compared a numbskulled, anti-intellectual bombastic faux-populist like O'Reilly who shouldn't be making fun of anyone's intelligence save toddlers and the mentally impaired.

Obermann had Jeanine Garafalo on last night and she claimed that FOX News' morning show "Fox and Friends" was the most unfriendly, mean place she could think of. Obermann agreed with her.

That's probably due to the fact than when she appeared on Fox &Friends last year, she was grilled and interrogated by the Fox &Friends staff, especially Brian Kilmeade (surely one of the many Fox &Friends liberals) who insulted her by saying 'Saddam must love you.' Not exactly the type of reception one sees on Good Morning America or Good day Today.

FOX news; the only channel that even politicizes it's morning Program.

Greg D:

Cheap assertion[s], and based on what?

I think that about covers your entire post. Thanks for playing and illustrating my points so effectively. I do so love it when someone does my work for me. Hey, this board could spoil a person.

This is the one originally intended for...

Greg D.:

My rule of thumb on this case is that anyone who calls it a "strip search" is either a buffoon, shooting his (or her) mouth off despite having no clue what (s)he is talking about, or else a liar.

The first problem you have is that for the majority of the public, the difference between having someone, effectively, strip down to the underwear and removing all of their clothing may be a fine legal distinction, but not an emotionally significant one. In effect, what you seem to be saying is that if it did not involve a complete removal of clothing or a 'cavity search,' it wasn't really a 'strip search.' In point of fact, though the effective difference may be significant, the perceputal difference is not.

Part of the trouble is the broader use of the word today. We have 'strip searches' at airport security where NO clothing is actually removed; except maybe a jacket. We have 'virtual strip searches' with new technology. Et al. That's the key here to their news take and the 'power of the ad.' It plays, not on the legal niceties, but on the perceptual values inherent in the term. These perceptions are exascerbated by the fact that it involved a 10 yr. old.

In other words, the second problem you have is that while you wish to split legal technicalities, you insult the intelligence of the people to whom the ad was directed - the "buffoons" who shoot "his (or her) mouth[s] off despite having no clue what" they are "talking about" or your presumed "liars" who made up the ads or push the agenda. These are the general public (who don't know the legal intricacies of what constitutes a 'strip search' and shouldn't be expected to given the legal hairsplitting which make up these differences), the talking heads on the news channels or opinion columns (where legal technicalities don't make headlines and can't be explained in 30 second or 200 word segments), and those who wish to distort the reality, as you see it, of the situation for their own political end.

Therefore, your argument is not going to win you the PR battle. The point here is that this is NOT strictly a legal issue; where lawyers talk to each other and decide that they are within 'legal bounds' as arguers of rational thought and are above the public's perceptual knowledge. Alito may have been technically correct, as far as you go with your example, from a legal perspective. But, how do you sell that to the public?

That's your challenge and "...why that's not the proper way to see things?..." That may, in fact, in a 'fair and balanced' argument (at least as juxtaposed to my above position) have been a point Mr. Zywicki's was alluding to when he state: "it is hard to rebut the hypothesis that this decision is about politics rather than the accuracy of the ad."

[Again, I apologize to Greg D. for crossing up the posts. This is the first time I've tried writing in Word and 'cut and pasting' to here. I didn't realize that there was no type editor here where I could rectify my errors.]

"He was targeting individuals and a specific entity. On the other hand, FOX's focus is on a conceptual mindset found in the 'mainstream' of the major media outlets."

I see this argument a lot and find it odd. I think that targeting individuals and a specific entity is far better than targeting an amorphous conceptual mindset. First, because it shows the courage of its convictions. It always seemed cowardly to me to attack the "mainstream media" without having the guts to call out particulars. Second, because it is more falsifiable, which I think is responsible. By being more specific, the speaker can't evade evidence disputing the claim. One can easily provide counterexamples to the asserted "conceptual mindset" (e.g, WMD coverage pre-Iraq), but its vagueness is such that the responses are evaded.

I think that about covers your entire post. Thanks for playing and illustrating my points so effectively. I do so love it when someone does my work for me. Hey, this board could spoil a person.

I fail to see how this covers my entire post or which of your points it illustrates, I must confess though that your highlighting one innocuous quote of mine and asserting (again) that it's mere highlightening obsolve you from having to address my rebuttal to you comes off as lazy and quite a bit of a dodge. I'm sure other VC readers would concur. Perhaps, just this once you could humor me and actually address my response faithfully and with some thoroughness. That is if you think you can.

Looking down I see that you did indeed decide to humor me and respond in detail. My previous request is rescinded.

Given the litany of guests on Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. who are to the left - Al Sharpton, Geraldine Ferraro, John Kerry, James Carville, etc. - and appear on the program, some of them as regular guests, I'd be careful suggesting that the producers are parading an uninterrupted procession of right-wing hacks or right-wing agenda mongers.

I never stated that Hannity &Colmes never featured presumably left leaning guests, it would have to at the very least to protest against more obvious charges of bias. But that says nothing about A: Who influences the direction of the program. B: Who decides what issues or stories are discussed. C: Who chooses the guests. D: The ratio of guests or the balance of guests for any particular segment.

And this is just for the presumably 'balanced' Hannity &Colmes. It says nothing about the litany of right-leaning mostly one-man shows on Fox I.E. O'Reilly Factor, Big Story with John Gibson, Your World with Neil Cavuto, Heartland with John Kasich, Dayside formally with Linda Vester and it's flagship news program Special Report with Britt Hume.

...a quick way to copyright infringement suit for plagarism; i.e., give credit where credit is due. In November/December 2003, Steve Rendell posted an article entitled "An Aggressive Conservative vs. a "Liberal to be Determined" - The false balance of Hannity &Colmes" on FAIR's (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Website.

Copywright infrginement? What on earth are you talking about? Are you in effect saying that my repeating of the fact, presumably revealed by FAIR that the working title for Hannity &Colmes was at one time "Sean Hannity and Liberal to be determined" somehow constitutes a infringement of copywright? If so, I think the number of lawyers who visit this weblog, if they choose, could explain law involving intellectual property and what constitutes intellectual property more in depth.

Yep, you knew you saw it someplace. Uh, their conclusion was the same as yours: "And that, in the end, is the job of Hannity &Colmes, a lopsided discussion of political issues between a forceful, connected conservative firebrand and an affable, accommodating subordinate." Of course, FAIR is obviously a 'fair and balanced,' objective organization only interested in accuracy; not a liberal, activist organization which is bound to see things from such a perspective. Naw. Never happen.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), who's assessment of Hannity &Colmes I'm inclined to agree with, is an organization that analyzes news media and media bias from a liberal/progressive perspective, and makes no secret of that fact. The same thing can be said for Media Matters. Just like Accuracy In Media (AIM) and L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, analyze News Media and media bias from a conservative/right-wing perspective (and makes little secret of that either). There's nothing wrong with analyzing news &media from a certain idealogical viewpoint, unless it's being purported under the guise of balance or objectivity. The work produced by groups like FAIR and Media Matters, or AIM or MRC for that matter should be analyzed based on the substance of their work, not because they are conservative or liberal advocates, which would be a base appeal to motive.

Ah, you did see the point. Just because they are further to the right than CNN or MSNBC doesn't, by necessity or definition, mean they are 'far right-wing' or even wholly 'right-wing.'

Yes, I addressed the roundabout nature of your question and pointed out it's lack of depth. Simply stating that FOX News is further to the right than CNN or MSNBC says little to nothing about the overall political character of the FOX News Channel, except in relation to the two other Cable News channels. A parallel example would be for me to state that Karl Marx is indeed to the Left of George Bush. The left of George Bush can be anything from Chairman Mao to Mike DeWine and says nothing about the political character of Karl Marx. It would be hard to make the cass from such a shallow statement that Karl Marx is only to the left of Bush and it doesen't follow that Marx can be constituted as being on the Hard Left or even on the Left at all. If you intended for your point to immunize FOX from charges of political bias I would say you failed in that respect.

Let's see, personal insult vs. addressing a concept, personal attacks vs. topical 'discussion.' MMMM. Do we have any examples on this board, or even this thread, which might serve as exemplars of this phenomenon? Would this count:

As O'Reilly might say - "We leave it for the audience to decide. "

Excuse me sir, but in response to incidents in which Keith Obermann was supposedly taking jabs at the Fox News Channel on his show, your response to Keith Obermann's criticism was to highlight a paraphrased quote from Bill O'Reilly in which says nothing about those criticisms or Keith Obermann save insulting his intelligence by characterizing him as being "a few light bulbs short of a marquee." Was this example to be the triumph of topical discussion over personal insult &attack? If so I would say you failed in that respect as well.

And since the only response you had to Obermann's fox criticism was to insult his intelligence, quoting Bill O'Reilly as an authority, I don't see the principled objection to my criticism of the authority you appealed to I.E. "He's one to talk."

Heaven forbid that a CABLE NEWS CHANNEL talk about actual news, politics, current events, etc. I mean really, what an horrendous precedent. FOX might take a lesson from that entertaining, non-political, icon of the radio, Don Imus; who's show is timeslotted against the Fox Morning Show on, oops, MSNBC, another cable news channel.

In your original post sir, you first defended FOX news against charges of political bias by among other things, inquiring whether anyone had viewed FOX's morning program, which I assume you thought was an example of a FOX News show that would question charges of political bias. Then, as a matter of ridicule, you describe a segment in which Janeane Garafolo appeared on Keith Obermann's show and characterized FOX &Friends as mean spirited.

Once I highlight that FOX &Friends is no exception to the overall politically charged character of the FOX News Channel and point out that Janeane Garofolo was quite right to characterize the FOX morning program as mean spirited, at least in her experience I.E. 'Saddam must love you' , you then switch gears and defend the program's conduct as a matter of discussing current events and news etc. Your attempted apologia for the FOX News Channel is becoming increasingly inconsistent.

There is presumably nothing wrong with a program on a cable news channel discussing current events and news etc. But Fox &Friends hardly bills itself as a news show, it's the FOX news channel's answer/equivalant to the Good Morning America/The Today show programs on the other networks; a sort of borad based general interest start your day program. There's nothing wrong with Morning programs discussing news and current events, they do it all the time, many times quite thoughtfully. There's quite a difference between that and the conduct displayed by FOX &Friends on the day Garafolo appeared on the program and was grilled and insulted 'Saddam must love you.' Such conduct is unbecoming of even hard news/current events programs and even the more nastier opinion programs much less a morning show.

To further address your response, there is nothing wrong with any channel much less a cable new channel discussing news, current events etc. There isn't even anything wrong with doing so from a politically charged perspective as in this case, FOX &Friends did. But if it was your intent to present FOX &Friends as an example of evidence against charges of political bias against FOX News, you failed in that respect as well.

and you answer 'yes' to...


Ever watch their morning show? ...



then I've got to ask why you are wasting all that time if you so vehemently disagree with their programming?

Wasting all what time? In response to those charging political bias on account of the FOX news channel you asked if they had ever viewed it's morning program, which I responded that indeed I had. It's hardly a regular feature of my day but I have viewed the program on several occasions. I figure a minimum qualification to comment on a particular program would be to have actually viewed it a number of times and I'm sure you would agree.

Is your remote broken and you can't haul your lazy butt the few feet over to the television to turn the knob? Is it that your cable box or satellite receiver is stuck on FOX News and you just have to watch something? Is it that CNN and MSNBC have such a lousy lineup that you're making the best of a bad situation? Or, is it that you just spent a little too much time watching Seinfeld and the reruns thereof and need fodder for your rantings so that you can spend your time claiming to be about "nothing?"

If the only response you can muster to criticisms of the FOX News Channel is to insult and instruct those critical of the channel to stop watching it perhaps you shouldn't continue in this discussion.

To address your question, my remote is not broken (thanks for inquiring), my satellite dish is fine (again, thanks) and while I would never watch CNN if I could help it I like MSNBC just dine. As it relates to cable news programming and FOX News I have 'voted with my remote' long ago. The only FOX News program I watch regularly is FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace (good show) and infrequently I'll catch FOX News Watch (pretty good show, one of a kind). The other news programs I view regularly, Meet The Press, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Situation with Tucker Carlson appear on either NBC or MSNBC.

Dustin Ridgeway: I shall share two old phrases with you by way 'washing my hands' of our reparte'; which obviously distresses you to the point of irrational invective, blind absolution seeking, and rationalized neglect. We've already seen your premise. We all understand your tactics. Frankly, I tire of your touting self-effacement through rhetorical contradiction and misleading accusations; e.g. -

If the only response you can muster to criticisms of the FOX News Channel is to insult and instruct those critical of the channel to stop watching it perhaps you shouldn't continue in this discussion.

Put in plain English, you feel insulted and embarrassed for being called on the obvious, so you wish me to stop participating. However, just prior to this, you claim to only infrequently watch FOX News coverage; which hardly puts you in a position to make such claims and posit such criticism as you have.

The first phrase that seems applicable was coined by a gentleman who is universally held to have been a pretty smart guy:

A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.

The second phrase is not quite as old, but does seem applicable:

The man who prosyletizes simply to hear himself speak, addresses an audience incapable of understanding.

The combination of these phrases as they pertain to you and your contributions to this discussion can be taken either as an insult or an admonishment. You must make the choice. Or, in a turn of phrase, "Choose, but choose wisely."

I leave you to your task.

So, you have chosen. I fear others have been made to live with that choice. I certainly don't have to.

I hope your next dharma endeavors bring you more happiness; but, I am concerned with the karma you have left to resolve. I humbly suggest that parsimony, projection, and petulance shall not lead you to the path of one.

Peace and love, brother. :o)