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.
Don't you get it, they said they are lies so they are, no proof required, it is how they get their information from the talking heads and FOX, just believe and do Not question.
Casper
I don't care for Fox, I call it Faux news however this kind of information is not exactly reliable. She is an ex employee possibly with an ax to grind, not exactly the most reliable information source.
Don't you get it, they said they are lies so they are, no proof required, it is how they get their information from the talking heads and FOX, just believe and do Not question.
Casper
I don't know why you bothered to post this unless it was to feed the trools agaisnt Fox. Anyone with half a brain does not believe liberals or disgruntled employees.
and anyone with a full brain doesn't trust Fox News or conservatives
Geez, even my republican friend who worships the ground that Hannity walks on, will never tell me a story that Fake News puts on. She's been put on the spot too often about there being facts and then there's the Fake News spin. She got busted last time when she was telling me Hannity showed what a huge rally there was against health care. All well and good, except Hannity showed footage from another, much larger rally - certainly not the one he was referring to. Also, she doesn't want me to remind her that Hannity reneged on being waterboarded for charity, after saying, a) that waterboarding was not torture and b) that he would most assuredly agree to be waterboarded for charity.
There is an annual contest at the University of Arkansas calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was:
"Political Correctness."
The winner wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of $hit by the clean end. "
The liberal mindset in this country proves this daily
Making a claim that a product causes cancer in humans opens a news organization up to litigation if they are unable to prove what they claim. The couple were never able to prove that rBGH caused cancer in humans and refused to drop the claim. The Fox affiliate refused to air unsubstantiated claims because they (unlike the couple) are not in the business of reporting BS. The Fox affiliate was the defendant and never sued for a right to lie. They never sued for anything. Here's the FL appeals court's decision. Enjoy...
There remain to this day health concerns over its use and numerous companies now make a point that they clearly label their products rBGH free. Almost all nations besides the USA ban its use.
secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis
IGF is produced by the cow in response to BGH injections,[14] and it is this hormone which increases growth and milk production. Bovine and porcine IGF-I are identical to human IGF-I, while IGF-II differs among animal species.[15]
IGF plays a role in the formation of new tumours [16][17][18] and increased levels of IGF-1 may be linked to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer.[19][20] However IGF is involved in many biological processes so it is not possible to assign a clear-cut cause and effect relationship. IGF-1 is not denatured by pasteurisation, so consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily intake of IGF-I.[citation needed]
Further association of IGF with breast cancer was provided by a 20-year epidemiological study begun in 1976, which was published in 1997.[21]
The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.[1] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.
In the United States, public opinion has caused a number of products and retailers to become rBST-free
The point of the whole matter as it applies to this thread is that Fox acted as a conduit for corporate interests instead of acting on behalf of the public, which is what their FCC license states is their duty. The court's decision stated that the FCC position is a policy and not a requirement.
So, Fox is not bound to provide accurate or unbiased "news" that would be in the public interest. They can continue to act as corporate mouthpieces. A function their viewers appear to be strongly inoculated against recognizing.
That's a pretty fair claim on their part. They don't say that they're a "news channel."
Fox News' motto: Fair and balanced
And they clearly trumpet themselves as a news channel.
It effectively fools the nonanalytical.
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.
