What to do about Fox News

That Fox News Channel — recently labeled the “Fox Nothing Channel” by Keith Olbermann — is a blight on the nation is not exactly new information. But questions are how to deal with a massive, successful propaganda network, with no professional standards or concerns for objective reporting, are fairly new.

Take Barack Obama, for example. FNC helped orchestrate a smear of the senator last week, suggesting that Obama might be a Muslim trained, at the age of 6, in a radical madrassa, possibly financed by the Saudis. Yesterday, Obama said he would not be “Swift boated” by the far-right network, and called out Fox hosts Steve Doocy and John Gibson by name for airing “malicious, irresponsible charges.”

As Greg Sargent said, “If this is a sign of how Barack Obama intends to deal with the right-wing media during his Presidential campaign, then I’m all for it.” In particular, Sargent was referring to a memo Obama’s staff distributed on the subject.

Fox News quickly parroted the charges, and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy went so far as to ask, “Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a Madrassa?”

All of the claims about Senator Obama raised in the Insight Magazine piece were thoroughly debunked by CNN, which, instead of relying on unnamed sources, sent a reporter to Obama’s former school in Jakarta to check the facts.

If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken [time] to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father – an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.

Later in the day, Fox News host John Gibson again discussed the Insight Magazine story without any attempt to independently confirm the charges.

All of the claims about Senator Obama’s faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false.

Given the Swiftboat lies of 2004, it seems clear that Obama’s response is the only way to take on the right-wing smear machine. Respond to the charges and correct the record — and then call out, by name, those who are lying to the public. (Obama’s memo also included a letter signed by 11 leaders of Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, and other Christian groups condemning Fox News’ reporting as a mean-spirited attempt to drive a wedge between American faith traditions.)

How the rest of the mainstream media deals with FNC is less clear.

After CNN debunked Fox News’ “reporting” on Obama’s two years of elementary school in Indonesia, the far-right network responded with yet more smears.

Last week, Fox News highlighted a right-wing report alleging that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended an Islamic “madrassa” school as a 6-year-old child. In a memo released today, Obama’s office specifically called out Fox News host John Gibson for discussing the story “without any attempt to independently confirm the charges.”

On his radio show this week, Gibson refused to back down. He claimed the CNN reporter who debunked the false report “probably went to the very madrassa” as Obama. Gibson implied that CNN’s report had covered up religious extremism at the school.

For a Fox News personality to lash out like this is pathological. Gibson shouldn’t be on the air; he should be on medication.

Atrios argued, “This is a point I’ve returned to repeatedly, but the mainstream media – the “serious” media – really needs to figure out how to handle outlets like Fox…. The right wing noise machine has not only gone unchecked for too long, it’s been embraced and mainstreamed. It’s long past time for that to change.” Quite right. FNC’s competitors too often consider the network’s reports legitimate and worth repeating. The more we see reports such as CNN debunking Fox’s Obama story, the better.

And as for the Dems, wouldn’t now be a good time for the party’s elected officials to consider a boycott?

How the rest of the mainstream media deals with FNC is less clear.

I disagree — in the case of ABC, it’s clear enough: try to emulate them.

  • Paul Waldman at Media Matters suggested the Dems boycott FNC after the Nov. election. He further recommended they go on all the other networks and say why they were boycotting Fox. Now they need to do the same to ABC. Sounds logical to me.

  • This doesn’t all happen in an abstract vacuum, though. There is the problem, of the vast legions of conservatives for whom Fox news is everything – and who don’t really care about journalistic “truth” or not, so long as their own world views are re-inforced (people like my father LOL).

    How do you discredit FOX without permanently alienating that segment of the population – or do you just write them off anyway?

  • I really believe these media personalities at FOX are supremists. Not necessarily white supremists, but supremists who buy into the fallacy that their point of view is omniscent compared to other American views. This is a very sick dynamic over there @ FOX. They have rapped themselves in a holier than thou, Rupert will save the world, mentality. This station and its affiliates need to be confronted. Though I am loath to organize, I believe communities need to get out in front of this station’s corporate headquarters with placards that read how FOX is damaging our long-standing political traditions here in America.

    It has become evident to me that FOX cares less for our Constitution and its principles outlined in the first 7 Articles and its Bill of Rights. FOX needs to go! To work a variation of what the Honorable Senator Webb noted, if FOX can’t work on becoming more fair and balanced interms of the reality-based community, then we will have to show them the way. Massive emails to this abhorrant station would be a start. Address book the e addresses of these clowns, and then let them have it in cyberspace everytime they massage the pain of intolerance, present falsehoods for their vested interests, and spew propaganda instead of committing themselves to honest reporting.

    Oh, and Keith did modify his new reference to FOX as the FOXNOISE channel. I like the terse message that one sends. I think it’s a keeper! -Kevo

  • “Quite right. FNC’s competitors too often consider the network’s reports legitimate and worth repeating. The more we see reports such as CNN debunking Fox’s Obama story, the better.” I’ve been thinking about this problem a lot lately, as have many CB and other blog readers. The only solution I can imagine is that the increasingly powerful blogosphere must consistently challenge the msm to not only repudiate single untrue stories like the Obama/madrassa one, but to insist they make the “facts” and trajectory of these false stories the story. “There they go again” would be the perfect tagline everytime one of these appears, with each story written like a detective story. Maybe we could get the Post or Times to put up a twin to Froomkin’s column whose brief is to follow these charades in real time.

    CNN really did a very good job of tracking how this particular “story” happened, and they effectively laid out, without naming it specifically, the vast right wing conspiracy. The outlines are perfectly clear to any sentient being. CB, dKOS, TPM, Digby, Greenwald, MyDD, and others (including, of course, Daily Howler) keep talking about this problem. The “serious” msm shows faint signs that they aren’t happy with the current dynamic (see CNN above). We can stongly encourage them to marginalize all of the avenues through which these stories get started by consistently shining a bright light on them.

    I wouldn’t ask Solomon to do it though.

    Just rambling. Other thoughts out there?

  • Trust me, I’ve seen them operate from the inside. They thrive on this crap. If you think for one minute they are sitting behind closed doors right now, introspectively regretting the smear, or chastising Gibson or Douchey, think again.

    It’s all orchestrated. Everything they do is orchestrated, at the behest of the RNC and the White House.

    It’s a classic operational move; make your opponent deny it. The work has been done, the mission accomplished. Throw a reckless accusation out there, deflect the criticism by refocusing the issue (did the charges originally come from the Hillary machine ?), and now it’s up to the spongeheads who watch Fox to figure out for themselves.

    Believe me, they won’t. And those spongeheads with will organically spread the word so other voters who make up their minds about candidates in the most superficial of ways will be similarly tainted.

    The examples are legion. Remember Howard Dean ? When I worked there, the strategy was to paint Mr Dean as a loon; the talking point was, Bush would LOVE to take on Dean because he’s such a loose cannon.

    The opposite was true. The Bush campaign would have wilted under Dean’s no nonsense barrage of calling a spade a spade. So FNC was charged with tearing him down.

    You think Obama will still be denying this nasty, ignorant undercurrent of suspicion 18 months from now on election day ? I guarantee it. “Obama has been forced to deny for the past 18 months blah blah blah ….. ”

    As far as dealing with FNC’s recklessness ? That’s a tough one, because these kind of issues are the life blood of a network that is all propaganda and bullying. They want to be engaged on this level; it feeds the maw of ugliness, which keeps them going.

    Tough as it is, ignore them. Better yet: I’d publicly urge the Democratic party to systematically boycott them. Why help support an ugly, racist, propagandic network by appearing on their programs ? Leave them to wallow in and with their own narrow minded kind.

    The blogosphere is the only way to get a grass roots movement like this started, and FNC deserves it: Why not put the idea out there, and see if the Democratic party respond? Dems appearing on that network feeds FNC programming needs, which generates revenue, which goes to further disseminate propaganda and hate that directly targets Dems.

  • What do you do about them??? Sue them for slander. You cannot make patently false statements about someone on TV just because you claim to be a news channel. With all the liberal trial lawyers running around one of them must be willing to watch FOX with a stack of pre-typed civil suits in hand, ready to file when this crap happens.

  • Absolutely, there is no way that any elected Democratic leader should show up on Fox News, or on any of the other cable news network shows that include crazy people. Likewise, real journalists shouldn’t be showing up on any programs that include Fox contributors, including nut jobs like Mara Liasson and Juan Williams,

    I’ve cancelled my generous contributions to my local public radio stations because NPR continues to employ people who work for Fox, and continue to let them know that they won’t receive contributions as long as they share resources with this propaganda outfit.

    One of the tactics that other journalists should use with Fox News, outlets like the Moonie Times, and their bogus journalists is ridicule, while denying them the legitimacy that comes from associating with them.

  • “Tough as it is, ignore them. Better yet: I’d publicly urge the Democratic party to systematically boycott them. Why help support an ugly, racist, propagandic network by appearing on their programs ? Leave them to wallow in and with their own narrow minded kind. ”

    I disagree. I think the democratic machine should attack them. Let people know who they’re dealing with. Don’t be nice and say John Gibson is a loon, but wage a sustained campaign to discredit the network. Make it so that when someone says “I heard on Fox News that. . .,” the knee-jerk response is “So what, they have no credibility outside a bunch of far-right knuckle dragging, extra-y chromosome idiots.” Make it so that people won’t believe what Fox News says, not because they think it lacks credibility, but because they don’t want to be associated with the cesspool that it is.

    “What do you do about them??? Sue them for slander. You cannot make patently false statements about someone on TV just because you claim to be a news channel. ”

    No offense, but I think that’s the worst thing you can do. If one were to sue Fox News, it gives them an ideal platform to attack the person suing them on the most self-righteous of grounds. That would actually make the problem worse. Besides, all of the people that they attack would have an incredibly hard time making a slander charge stick.

  • One of the nastier weapons would be to legislate cable companies to allow users to select their channels they would pay for. I suspect that FNC is a very expensive operation to run and would not survive on its own if cable were set up that way–even Rupert isn’t going to finance O’Reilly if it eats at his profits. Also, this would have the added benefit of strangling all the religious channels in the process too, removing a lot of the echo chamber from the public airwaves.

  • wouldn’t now be a good time for the party’s elected officials to consider a boycott?

    That’s an interesting idea I hadn’t heard before or thought of. Definitely something along those lines needs to be done. Half of the American people can’t continue to get their news from a source that has all the credibility of a tabloid that reports alien invasions every week.

    It needs to be high profile and well coordinated. The Dems need to think out how they are going to do it before they do it, with the main goal probably being to get why they’re doing it spread around as much as possible. They need to reach out to the newspapers and editorialists and ask them to allow them to do guest op-eds, or to do stories themselves and cite specific instances of the smears. People need to know that there is law to redress these kind of harms (slander and libel), but that you can’t always sue someone depending on the precise facts, and they need to be reminded of the historical parallels (villainization of Jews, blacks in the south, etc.). That may seem like an extreme comparison to some, but it’s not because it’s politically motivated, and just as mean-spirited and harmful. If we let them do as much as they’re doing now, we let them lay the ground-work for not only convincing themselves that they have to become more extreme in their lies, but also acclimating the public and us to accept more extreme lies, unchallenged.

  • Nobody mentions the “Fairness Doctrine” anymore. Why? We won both houses, didn’t we? Why not kick some Republican butt for a change? Can’t we control lobbying just the way the other side did? Can’t we re-write bills late at night? Maybe we’re afraid we’ll get our hands dirty in the effort.

    We are the government now. Can’t we control the FCC’s budget and, indirectly, its composition and policies regarding entities such as Fox? Our goodie-two-shoes bipartisanship is strangling us, if you haven’t noticed. The reason is simple: the minority party has nothing to fear from what gangster leader George Walker Bush just referred to in a nationally televised speech as the Democrat Party. Obviously.

  • How to deal with them…

    Isn’t the question, who do you respect more?

    (a) Someone who quietly refuses to go on Fox.
    (b) Someone who goes on Fox and plays nice with a**holes like Coulter and Hannity.
    (c) Someone who unloads on Fox (either on tv – Clinton, Barney Frank; or in print – Obama)

    The point about Fox, apart from their obvious bias, is that they are a bunch of political thugs. So if you fall in to category (b) above, you will only be remembered as another person who took a punch in the face. Another drive-by target for the bullies. Category (a) is arguably worse, because it allows the bully to crow about his perceived dominance (ever noticed how willingly O’Reilly announces that someone turned down an appearance on his show?)

    Category (c)’s at least get remembered for not taking reichwing nonsense from dicks like Cavuto. The 72%ers – i.e. the majority of America – respect and remember someone who takes a stand against thugs, even if they don’t agree with the political message.

    I guess my point is the people who take offense at Democrats on offense are the type of people who probably will never vote D. They are the backwash, the 28%ers, the bushbots, the unconvertible. Dems are simply wasting their time if they are worrying about appealing to these people.

    So yeah, I think instead of a boycott, the Dems should consider a pact – anyone who goes on Fox is not allowed to lie back and take pinata treatment. It’s simple question of not behaving like a pinata, and if there are Dems who can’t help but come across as supine in a Fox studio, the Dems should stop them making those appearances. But I’d still have the sluggers turn up. Clinton especially.

  • If liberals don’t figure out some way to deal with this, you’re letting you country become some kind of mockery of democracy. If you’re a single- issue person, if you’re a committed feminist- this is supporting feminism. It’s worth it for some committed people who are very capable to take off from a group they’re already working on to find a way to deal with this. If you’re a civil rights person, this is supporting civil rights. And so on.

  • re comment by Nobody.

    You didn’t read my post carefully enough. Roger Ailes is sitting in his office with both fingers crossed hoping and praying for a sustained attack to discredit his network. You attack them, that’s the fuel they want and need.

    You do them the service of keeping the Obama story alive while simultaneously letting them wrap themselves in first amendment issues — you couldn’t do any worse if you sent them anonymous contributions of cash. Like the neo-cons that pull their strings,
    they crave ‘enemies’ to keep themselves occupied. They can’t deal with reality, or the truth …. so they substitute smoke and deception.

    Do a little thumbnail read on Leo Strauss; all the war hawks are disciples of his.

    That’s the MO that Fox uses as well. Wouldn’t Fox love for an organized attack so they can program up a sustained response, under the theme of protecting the right to know for the ‘little guy’.

    Ignore Ignore Ignore them. Of course, when they come out with hysterical garbage like the madrassas story, you counterpunch hard and quick. But you don’t feed the beast; starve the beast, and the best way to sap their credibility would be for all Democratic party politicians, affiliates and members to boycott them until they start abiding by some form of journalistic principles.

  • Confront and attack. Bullies don’t leave you alone if you ignore them. Every guest on that channel that is not part of the “conservative” movement (I’m not sure what those thugs believe in other than authoritarianism) should stand strong and take control of the interview. If you know how their minds work, it’s not hard to counter their attacks. They thrive on dominating others and destroying personal character. Don’t let them do either. Don’t respond to fallacious charges. Ignore it and accuse your accuser of something they are actually doing (lying, deception, manipulating viewers/listeners).

    The problem is that so many non-conservative politicians treat their FNC interviewers as honest debaters who are simply misguided. That is not the case. Right-wing media seeks to control language (this is a very important aspect of their game) and manipulate everything in their favor.

  • #13 Ed, the Fairness Doctrine would not have applied to GOPNews. It was a broadcast regulation and didn’t apply to cable operators. Only the GOPNews broadcast over the air by FOX network affiliates would be under it’s jurisdiction.

    As for boycotting FOX? As good as it might feel, it would tragically stupid. I’ve met people who actually think Alan Colmes is a prototypical Democrat. And then there’s Boltin’ Joe Lieberman. He’d be elated to go on GOPNews and tell the audience how all Democrats think. Too many people still watch it to risk allowing them to brand us.

    That said, Dems should be very disciplined when appearing. I propose 2 rules for appearing on GOPNews:
    Before engaging in any discussion with a host, press them on any outstanding grievance. “Before I address that, Sean, I’ve got to ask you why FOX hasn’t retracted it’s false story about . I’m happy to answer any questions you have, but this is already on the table. Lets just clear this up and then we can move on to other topics.”

    2nd, I agree with #5 2Manchu – Go all Clinton on them.
    The rule should be that any time a FOX host takes a jab, hit them back twice, and hit them back twice as hard.

    The on air talent over there aren’t the brightest bulbs. With the right approach and discipline, it should be easy to turn them on their heads on a regular basis.

  • I see we have are pretty split on responding to FNC versus ignoring them. Well, I can’t say which is better, but ignoring them does not weaken them at all. They still get paid. The financiers still have an agenda and threy will not just stop trying to manipulate the public. Responding to them forcefully shows strength. They may enjoy that too, but at least you have the ability to control some aspect of the “issue” (a smear that they invent).

  • What I mean to say is, there shouldn’t even be a Fox News Channel. They should be driven out of business by their competitors.

    And if you want to make that your life’s goal, then go ahead and make that your life’s goal.

  • …Obama might be a Muslim trained, at the age of 6, in a radical madrassa…

    Obama was 6 in 1967. That’s five years before the hostage crisis at the 1972 Munich Olympics. While that wasn’t the genesis of Muslim terrorism, it was the first time Americans became aware of it.

    That’s one more reason, as if we needed more, why this smear is so absurd: they’re saying that Obama was trained to be a terrorist before terrorism existed (more or less).

  • Contact their sponsors, and do it often. Send them links to the discussions of the atrocities on Faux News.

  • Bring back The Fairness Doctrine. That’s the only way to crush the Fox Noise Machine and the hate radio jerks.

  • While I’m against blood sports in general, I wouldn’t mind watching this particular fox hunt, with the hounds doing more than just baying. That’s to say, I’m with those who say “punch back”; whenever a fox (or a vixen) sticks its neck out, snap and bite it off. Foxes ain’t hydras…

  • I agree with racerx. Boycott Fox’s supporters – write them and tell them that you will not support Fox’s character assassinations. This enterprise is about making money. Cut them off at the knees.

  • You may as well ask what to do about the National Enquirer. These guys are lying, they know they are lying, their entire schtick is based on lying or at least twisting the truth until it is unrecognizable. The best (and most entertaining thing) one can do with a bunch of brazen, bullying liars is to mock them. Someone call Jon Stewart. Someone start a rumor that the executive washrooms at FOX HQ have five flavours of lube on tap, baskets of condoms and specially trained sheep in each stall. Point and laugh, they’ll hate it.

    As for the impact this will have on the Senator from Illinois, I’d give ten dollars for each person who would have considered voting for Obama before this latest round of crap begain, but is now not certain or would not vote for him because of the story.

    The FOX target audience wouldn’t vote for Obama because he is brown or because his parents are of different races or his dad was foreign or his mother was a self-described atheist, but most importantly HE IS A DEMOCRAT. This will have zero impact on his shot at the White House.

    And expect FOX to get sleazier as time goes on. They’re sloughing off their moderate audience and playing to an increasingly…shall we say…unsophisticated, group of people. Think World Wrestling Federation. Think wet t-shirt contest. Think Pork Rind Eating Constest. Think unfunny version of The Daily Show. But don’t think of it as news.

  • Fine, I hereby retract my suggestion we sue their ass. I now suggest that we buy a controling interest and turn FNC into a home shopping channel featuring all things painted with American flags.

  • ***ahem***

    What to do about FUX (Filthy Untruthful Xenophobes) news, eh? Should be simple eneough….

    This is an enemy of the United States of America we’re talking about; no less a terrorist organization that al Quaeda itself. If they had their way, anyone digressing from their invented facts would be permanently exiled. They preach a line of pro-torture, pro-fear, and pro-profit.

    So give them multiple exit-wounds, just to make them bleed out faster.

    1.) Dems need to move their press conferences into areas where Capitol Police personnel can control who goes in, and who stays out. Start checking the press passes—and don’t let the FUX representatives into the meetings. Don’t give them any advance handouts—and declare that it’s for “national security purposes.” For thast matter I think there might be precedent, based on their record of twisting the truth, to simply have them barred from the Capitol Building altogether—stirring up a hornet’s nest with lies and untruthful smears could, at least in theory, be construed as “seeking to obstruct the official business of the Government.” Maybe we can even play a possible “inciting to insurrection” gambit here—some of those FUX guys certainly make me want to go out and break stuff.

    2.) A grassroots campaign to have as many homes equipped with blocking-technology is key here. Get people to start programming their remotes to “block” all channels operated by FUX—national network channels and local affiliate chanels alike. Take it a simple step further, and you’ve got people with signs in their windows, signs in their front yards, and bumper stickers on their car—declaring to the world that “This is a FOX-free zone.” If a FUX camera crew shows up at the door, just call local law enforcement and have the filthy little vermin removed in handcuffs by “demanding your right to press criminal charges for trespassing and felony intimidation.” You catch some little imp scratching out your bumper sticker, file criminal damaging charges along with the trespass complaint. It there’s tiny little bits of bumper sticker all over the driveway, nail the little pig for littering. They call you at work or at home, get them for harrassment.

    3.) Start calling your television provider on a daily basis, and ask them when they’re going to give you “the right to purchase a FOX-free program bundle.” This will hit Mur-Duh(ch) and his shareholders right in the pocketbook. Advertisiers will not want to buy from a network that suddenly loses 20% of its audience-potential.

    4.) Get the protests up and running outside all FUX locations—national and local alike. Trust me on this one—all the other news organizations will cover an event like this, and FUX cannot follow suit. They’re clearly in the minority on this one, and they’d be forced to spread their forces too thin They could conceivably put a few hundred thugs outside CNN, for example—but we could put a raucous, pro-CNN crowd of a few thousand right there with them, while simultaneously putting a few thousand more at FUX HQ with signs, rakes, garden hoes, and pitchforks. Maybe even a few Coleman lanterns for added visual effect—and lest we forget, a healthy supply of large sticks with bundles of straw tied to the end, to simulate the torches.

    5.) Burn Bill O’Reilly in effigy, on a daily basis. Have a Roast O’Reilly block party. Plan a pig-roast for it, with lots of corn, potatoes, and dessert. Use it as a fundraiser—and hold the fundraiser during the time that the pig’s program is on the air. Plan to do other things that will draw other people away from their FUX addictions. Have a “Real News” party—and center it around an Olbermann broadcast.

    Anything else?

  • Re: 21.

    Munich 72 had nothing – nothing – to do with Islam. Black September was a Fatah-aligned group. They were a political and nationalist terrorist organization, not based on religion – this was the 70’s. Their demands even included the release of Baader and Meinhoff!

  • Munich 72 had nothing – nothing – to do with Islam.

    “Nothing, nothing” is a bit strong, but yes, that event was more politically motivated than religious. The point is that was the start of the wave of terrorism which persists to the present day. In smearing Obama as a trained terrorist, the chronology has gone unmentioned — as if he went to a “madrassa” in, say, 2002, because his entire life including his childhood can be compressed into the time before most of the country heard about him: the 2004 election.

    I never said it made any sense.

  • The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that it would oblige non-Faux stations to air opinions in line with the fuckwits at Faux. The end result would be more Faux-style bullshit rather than less. I still say the best antidote to yellow journalism is sunlight. Let the idiots at Faux News spew their nonsense and then debunk, debunk, debunk.

    As Olbermann said, this isn’t really a news station anyway. It’s propaganda for the Archie Bunker set. Gibson, et al. are merely playing to the bigotry of their audience. If Faux wasn’t here, something else would fill the vacuum.

  • Ya, but the Clinton shows up and gives them legitimacy. How about blogs, news outlets, politicians quit acting like Fox News is nothing more then a right wing 24 hour long commercial.

    This whole mess has made Fox even more legitimate because everyone is acting like they are an actual new station, that should be accountable for what they say. They aren’t and when we quit treating them like one people will quit believing they are one.

    Obama’s letter should have simply said that he considers Fox News nothing more then the Star magazine of actual news.

    Aren’t their liability issues here, where are the lawyers, if Brad Pitt can sue when someone claims he kissed Michael Jackson why can’t Obama take the same path.

  • Memogate: Documents found to be forged, resulting in a number of firings at CBS, an apology, and the early retirement of Dan Rather

    Obama/Madrassa story: Claim found to be false, but is still reported as being true.

    “Fair and balanced” is apparently the same as “lie your ass off until people start to believe it to be true.”

    On another subject, did anyone catch Stewart’s take on FNC’s little online poll, hosted by none other than Oberführer-in-training Sean Hannity?
    I have never heard a more appropriate use of the expression “those are Stalin numbers there”.

  • Think wet t-shirt contest.

    I have no problems thinking about those. None at all …

    🙂

    Actually, Racerx at #22 hits on the one and ONLY thing that will get Faux News to change: Take away their money.

    If enough people send enough e-mails to enough sponsors to get those sponsors to pull their ads, then change will have to occur, lest Murdoch spend his every last penny trying to keep the thing alive.

    These people don’t respond to threats, and simply ignoring them won’t make them magically disappear (unless you have a Neilson box, then yes, ignore them).

    But if you take away their financial ability to operate, then you get their attention.

  • Sullivan v. New York Times rules that public figures cannot sue for libel or slander, unless they can prove “reckless use” – i.e., that the libeler and the slanderer knew what they were saying was a lie to begin with. This should actually be pretty easy for Obama to prove, and tying up Gibson and the rest of the slimeballs by individually suing them for each instance of such speech, will keep them “otherwise occupied” as they spend their hard-earned money on lawyers bleeding them dry, and then end up with a judgement against them that leaves them working for Obama for the rest of their miserable lives.

    Smashing them in the face in public and then taking their money will have a “bracing effect” on the rest of the assholes. And add dickheaded druggie Limbaugh, who runs with that bullshit every day on his propaganda broadcast, to the list.

    Bankrupt them with legal fees the way they tried to bankrupt everybody who worked for Clinton.

    Since these scum are only in it for the money, threatening their bank account is the way to get them.

  • …Obama might be a Muslim trained, at the age of 6, in a radical madrassa…

    Another interesting points these idiots might not be aware of is that Islam in Indonesia was – until about 8 years ago – the most moderate and tolerant version of the religion anywhere. So back in 1967, had he gone to such a school (and not slept through the religious indoctrination as he said in his autobiography he did both here and in the Catholic school he next went to), he wouldn’t have been getting full of any sort of extremist anything.

    Of course, confronting these fuckwits with the facts only pisses them off.

  • It should also be of meaningful importance to note that a great many of these wingnuts were either (1) still in diapers, or (2) running around cornfields with pillowcases over their heads in 1967. So—how “credible” does that make THEM?

    Not very, I’d have to say….

  • Comments are closed.