|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
Fox Appears to Censor Vigil in Order to Protect PalinPosted on Jan 11, 2011
We don’t want to jump to conclusions, but—oh what the hell. In this clip Fox News cuts to commercial the moment Sarah Palin’s name comes up at an Arizona vigil. In case you haven’t heard, Sarah Palin has been absorbing some of the fallout of the recent massacre in Arizona because she once put a target sign on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ district and told her supporters to “reload.” Advertisement Previous item: Barbara Walters: ‘Unfair’ to Blame Sarah Palin Next item: Snowy Conditions Proving Hazardous for Nation’s Idiots New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By gerard, January 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
richardbelldc: It’s called “editing” and it pays pretty well—especially if you are short on ethical scruples and common sense.
Report thisBy richardbelldc, January 12, 2011 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
Does Fox have some poor intern sitting 24/7 next to a red button, to be pushed if the intern believes that some derogatory words about Palin (or any other Fox “pets”) are about to be uttered? Or does this functionary only get called up when the producer knows that the context of the broadcast might allow someone to say something Fox does not want its viewers to hear or see? What a job!
Report thisBy diamond, January 12, 2011 at 4:53 am Link to this comment
So? If it was good enough for ‘Pravda’ it’s good enough for Fox. Murdoch can craft until his spotty old hands cramp up but as Obama so accurately observed, ‘You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.’ The whole idea that she could ever be president would have made Groucho Marx trot out a one liner and wiggle his cigar and eyebrows simultaneously. Groucho knew a bad joke when he saw one.
Report thisBy gerard, January 11, 2011 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment
For the guy who asks “how does this matter?”
Report thisIt matters because it cuts off an important part of the segment to protect a loudmouth fireball who obviously went too far, creating a close encounter with avocacy of violence. It matters because it is presenting “doctored” information as “news”, changing it from objective to bias toward one point of view, and in the process changing the entire meaning of the clip. Whoever the speaker was, he was denied his rights of free speech. If it could happen to him it could happen to anyone, and if that happens, free speech is not worth the paper it’s written on. It’s called “doctoring” the news. It’s called willful deceit. It’s called propaganda.
It’s called “spin” as you probably very well know. The fact that it is done everywhere doesn’t make it right or helpful.
By mack894, January 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
Sarah Palin has been given an opportunity to rise above the fray, to even take the
lead in this crazy debate that has reduced to the right finding as many examples
as they can (you know, Obama once said the cliche about bringing a knife to a
gunfight or referred to an “enemy) to show that liberals are responsible for the
vitriol poisoned rhetoric.
She can do the “leadership thing.” Instead of tweeting or facebooking, call a press
conference, answer questions, fly to Arizona and talk to the families.
This is what leaders do. Say, we make some mistakes but we are given
Report thisopportunities to correct them.
By abjuron, January 11, 2011 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why does this matter? Private news corporations have every right to cut segments however they want. It is hardly an infringement of free speech. If you wanted to hear his rhetoric so badly, then write a letter to Fox News voicing your displeasure about their programming decisions. That is YOUR right as a private citizen.
Oh, and if you are so inclined, you can censor out any f-bombs in your letter with asterisks. Don’t worry, you’re not destroying free speech by doing so, you are just exercising your prerogative to say whatever the **** you want, however the **** you want. 1st Amendment. Gotta love it!
Report thisBy Peetawonkus, January 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment
Betty,
Report thisTypical. Can’t even spell the name of your own hero correctly.
By Betty, January 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Will you post my comment, and if not will you tell me why? There is no untruth in what I said.
Report thisBy Betty, January 11, 2011 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How did did Sarah Palen have any more to do with the tragedy in Az then the DLC had - both used cross hairs? Or the Daily Kos who, only a few days ago, had a article attacking Congresswoman Giffords which stated in its title: rough quote: “Gabrille Giffords didn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi - she is dead to me.” Can’t give you a direct quote because Kos scrubbed the post just before he attempted to blame Sarah Palen for something she posted years ago.
Report thisBy Aaron Ortiz, January 11, 2011 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
How is this different than the mainstream media self-censoring themselves about
the oil spill in order not to offend Obama?
Both sides do it…both sides are to be condemned for fabricating “truth”.
Report thisBy samosamo, January 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
****************
Yep, fux news protecting THEIR national treasure. Now that that
Report thisis established, keep watching to see how rube murdock will craft
sarah into the republican nominee for president in 2012.