Why do Conservatives Like to Deligitimize MSNBC by Saying it Has Lower Ratings Than Fox? (ideology, federal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats EXACTLY what I said, and this doesnt even support your claim, it says they HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE.. where does it admit they lied? You are actually providing evidence that you are wrong. But hey, you watch MSNBC who tells you how to think and what it says, because you clearly cant think for yourself.
Tell me where Fox said they were telling the truth. Show that. Show where Fox says "we're not lying, but we have the right to lie". Because that is what you have said and that is not the case. Fox could not dispute that they told the reporters to lie, so instead, they said they had the right to lie.
Tell me where Fox said they were telling the truth. Show that. Show where Fox says "we're not lying, but we have the right to lie". Because that is what you have said and that is not the case. Fox could not dispute that they told the reporters to lie, so instead, they said they had the right to lie.
If I tell you that I have a right to shoot people coming into my home and threating to kill my family, this doesnt mean I have to prove that I have killed people in my home There is no need to show they were telling the truth because that wasnt the issue, the issue was if they had a right to FIRE an employee.. (let alone the fact it wasnt Fox, it was an affiliate)
But hey, you watch MSNBC who tell you how to think, again, thats from YOUR link, where they admitted thats what they do. haha
Her job was to report the news, not to lie. When she didn't lie, Fox fired her.
Wrong.. her job was to report what she was told to report. Reporters dont have carte blanc to report whatever the hell they wish None the less, she wasnt even fired by Fox, it again was an affiliate, but you dont know the difference.. haha..
If I tell you that I have a right to shoot people coming into my home and threating to kill my family, this doesnt mean I actually killed people in my home
Your analogy fails because I'm not challenging you in court on your right to shoot people. There was no shooting. But here, there was a lie and a refusal to report a lie.
There were two ways Fox could have defended themselves in this case.
1. On the merits of the story. If the story they wanted the reporter to give was actually true, and the reporter refused to report it, that would be considered not doing her job.
2. Right to lie. The defense Fox used. They could not use the merits of the story because they were lies.
So they chose to defend themselves using the right to lie. They lost the case initially. They were fined $425K. They won on appeal (in Florida no less) because they said they had the right to lie.
Wrong.. her job was to report what she was told to report. Reporters dont have carte blanc to report whatever the hell they wish None the less, she wasnt even fired by Fox, it again was an affiliate, but you dont know the difference.. haha..
So if Roger Ailes tells Sean Hannity to report that Bermuda is harboring nuclear weapons and we need to blow them out of the water, and he refuses, Sean Hannity should be fired for refusing to lie? Gotcha. And that's why you think the way you do.
Your analogy fails because I'm not challenging you in court on your right to shoot people. There was no shooting. But here, there was a lie and a refusal to report a lie.
Wrong, the information turned out to be wrong YEARS after the court battle, there was no way to know it was incorrect whe the reporter was fired. And the analogy is 100% correct, because YOU are the one who is claiming she was fired because she refused to lie, this means YOU are the one who needs to prove this to be true, and not only do you need to prove this to be true, but you also need to prove Fox knew they were lying. You not only havent provided any of this, but you've quoted court records showing that they have a right to fire even IF they were lying, not that it took place.
But hey, you are so superior even though you need someone to hold your hand and explain the difference to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
There were two ways Fox could have defended themselves in this case.
1. On the merits of the story. If the story they wanted the reporter to give was actually true, and the reporter refused to report it, that would be considered not doing her job.
2. Right to lie. The defense Fox used. They could not use the merits of the story because they were lies.
Wrong, and you continue to display your ignorance over and over again.. It was an employee case, and all they have to do is prove an employee/employer relationship exists, which was never in question, and that the legal authority exists to fire. There is no need to argue the merits of the story, and anyone who knows 1 thing about the law and employee relationships know this to be true.. I guess this excludes you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
So they chose to defend themselves using the right to lie. They lost the case initially. They were fined $425K. They won on appeal (in Florida no less) because they said they had the right to lie.
No they didnt.. they chose to defend themself by arguing that it doesnt matter if its a lie or not, it wouldnt change the employee/employer relationship.
Having a right to lie doesnt mean you did lie.. But hey, ignorance seems to be your strong suit, no surprise you watch MSNBC, and question other peoples "links", as questionable, while you quote sites like blogs and daily kos.. haha..
So if Roger Ailes tells Sean Hannity to report that Bermuda is harboring nuclear weapons and we need to blow them out of the water, and he refuses, Sean Hannity should be fired for refusing to lie? Gotcha.
Yes, if his job is to report what he's told to report, and he refuses, he should be fired..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
And that's why you think the way you do.
Tell me what part of the employee/employer relationship protects the employee from being told to lie? Quote me the law on it. I challenge you to display your understanding of ONE thing here on this whole thread using anything factual rather than bloggs.
Wrong, and you continue to display your ignorance over and over again.. It was an employee case, and all they have to do is prove an employee/employer relationship exists, which was never in question, and that the legal authority to fire. There is no need to argue the merits of the story, and anyone who knows 1 thing about the law and employee relationships know this to be true..
If that was true, why did Fox lose the case initially under the WHISTLEBLOWERS law:
TAMPA (August 18)óAfter listening to all the evidence for five full weeks and deliberating more than six hours, a state court jury has agreed with what fired journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre said long ago: FOX Television pressured them to broadcast a false, distorted or slanted news report.
The jury awarded $425,000 in damages after finding the evidence proved that FOX took retaliatory personnel action against Akre because she threatened to blow the whistle to the Federal Communications Commission.
Florida Reporters Win Trial Over Fox TV and Monsanto Suppressionof rBGH Story (http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akrewins.cfm - broken link)
And if the story was not found to be a lie for years, why did the reporters immediately know it was a lie? And don't forget, Fox lost the case first. They lost. They appealed saying, so what, we have the right to lie based on the First Amendment. They LOST the case first based on whistleblower.
Yes, if his job is to report what he's told to report, and he refuses, he should be fired..
Tell me what part of the employee/employer relationship protects the employee from being told to lie? Quote me the law on it. I challenge you to display your understanding of ONE thing here on this whole thread using anything factual rather than bloggs.
Clearly, as Fox has shown, an employee can be told to lie. And that is the point. The point is, if Fox tells their reporters to lie, and fires them if they don't lie, then how can you trust them as a news source? You really don't get it, do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no need to show they were telling the truth because that wasnt the issue, the issue was if they had a right to FIRE an employee.. (let alone the fact it wasnt Fox, it was an affiliate) 
