Yes satirizing themselves, I'm convinced someones destorying that news corporation from the inside out.

Yes, we all know how "Fair & Balanced" Fox News is. Question though.

How many of you watch the Fox Broadasting Corporation? You know, crap like House and 24... How many of you saw The Simpsons Movie in theatres?

See folks, your eyes are worth advertising dollars. The same man who profits from Fox News, also profits from the fucking shit you people eat up. Right?

That's the thing that bothers here. Right after you rag on Fox News, you fucking upvote Jack Bauer. Or you sit your fat ass down and watch American Idol. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? You despise Fox News, but gladly fork your money (your eyes) over to the man who is responsible for this disgusting farce.

If you hate what Fox News has done to your democracy, hate the deception and lies, take a fucking stand against the people who run the network. Take a stand against Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Write letters to the companies advertising with them. Tell them you won't purchase their products because you don't want your money to fund that propaganda machine. Don't fucking watch that new Twentieth Century Fox Film. Until you make that small sacrifice, YOU ARE ALL FUCKING PATHETIC HYPOCRITES.

>> ^MrConrads:
I fail to understand why if it is so imperative to have a free and unbiased press in order to have a healthy democracy why we do not fight, nay, DEMAND such a thing. If nothing else the last 8 years have proven this need. In my opinion it has been clearly shown that a country becomes more divided and obtuse rather than informed when living under a press that operates like it has here in America. We need to trust those who work in the field of journalism to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and do their duty just as much as any president or senator. So why does there seem to be this lack of oversight into one of the most important aspects of a democracy? Lawyers must swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold the law as it is written, and if they violate that oath they are disbarred. Presidents, Senators, Police, Doctors, and many other professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good must all live by similar ethics, so why not journalists and reporters? I believe that any and all who wish to work in such a profession should be sworn in to uphold the constitution, inform the public to the best of their abilities, and remain completely unbiased. If they cannot uphold these ideals they should be replaced by someone who can, that is if we want this grand experiment to work.


I agree with you in theory. However, I think it gets a bit touchy when private corporations are involved. All of these news outlets are privatized, so they all have their own agenda - their own spin on issues to target and reach a specific segment of the population. One of the main problems is that these private institutions see news as just another tv show/article/blog - it's all about ratings and corporate sponsorship (i.e. money). It's no surprise that the most unbiased news media out there is socialized (NPR) - they don't bow down to the mighty dollar coming from the fist of a corporation.

Notice also that your other examples of professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good are either government institutions or socialized (public officials and police officers). The doctor example is a touchy one, and in most industrialized nations, these would be socialized too - the reason they are held to such a high ethical standard in the US as opposed to journalists is that they're job is seen by the public as a more integral part of the human condition (protecting life). It's interesting though that most Americans support nationalizing health care in the US - in effect removing a majority of the greed, corporate motive, and lack of ethics out of the system.

Setting up any kind of ethical institution based on capitalistic principles is counter-intuitive. Ethics are only followed by corporations as long as it improves the bottom line.

If we're going to expect journalists and the private news media to hold themselves to an 'ethical standard', then we're going to have to:

a) reduce the privatization of the news media,
b) remove the rating system / corporate sponsorship from news programs,
c) realize that our society must start taking the news media as a serious ethical issue in the line of doctors/surgeons holding an ethical standard.

However, its a very fine line between preventing unethical behavior in an institution and upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Lawyers and government officials lie all the time and get away with it. So do journalists, reporters, and news corporations. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be biased in these professions. That oath of which you speak seems to be less and less followed as privatization increases more and more.

</rant>

That's true, it's rare that one side is 100% correct.

It's also true that the USA has become the most militarily aggressive country in the world today, in terms both overt and covert.

It's also true that the country of Georgia was under the guidance of the USA both politically and militarily.

Given those truths, I don't think it's very hard to deduce who was mostly in the right and who was mostly in the wrong.

The really frustrating thing is that it's neigh impossible for an American to find out what the hell is really going on over there, thanks to our right-wing disinformative "news" corporations.

Ha ha ha, upvote for the last clip.

So you're not allowed to criticize your own country, and if you do, you're not patriotic? WTF?! That's just as stupid as the flag pin fiasco way back.

I hope to live to see the day when news corporations start reporting the news, rather than fabricating it. Actually, I'd rather see news corporations dismantled into non-private-interest organizations, but that's just as likely to happen as winged monkeys flying out of Bill O's ass.

Let me clarify. I laugh at funny things. The Simpsons is not funny anymore. The show has declined in quality, and friends who watched the movie found it disappointing. Rotten Tomatoes, owned by News Corporation, is not the authority on humor. That clip, is just plain stupid. Homer is now a half-assed Peter Griffin, not the character we saw here (See: http://www.videosift.com/video/Homer-and-the-Merciless-Peppers-of-Quetzylsaccatanango/)

I ask what is wrong with you, because I don't know how anything as pathetic as that, passes for hilarity.

Then of course, there was a second issue with The Simpsons. Don't try to mix the two.