July 26, 2007
-- by Dave Johnson
Become a Fox Attacker. Help identify FOX News advertisers (national and local) for the database. Then let advertisers know what is being said on FOX News. This is not a boycott, it is letting advertisers know what is being done with their advertising dollars.
Fight back! Become a Fox Attacker.Thanks to Brave New Films.
Fox is not a legitimate news channel. They consistently misrepresent facts, manufacture terror, and slander progressives.
We're fighting back by identifying and calling all of FOX's advertisers. All of them. Particularly local advertisers who probably have no idea the kind of hatred their money is supporting.
We’re fighting back by identifying and calling all of FOX’s advertisers. All of them. Particularly local advertisers who probably have no idea the kind of hatred their money is supporting.
This is not a boycott. We are simply calling advertisers and informing them about FOX. And making Bill O’Reilly’s life a living hell.
I've just become a proud "FOX Attacker". Now you can too. It's not a boycott. It's simply calling advertisers and informing them what FOX says. FOX can't survive that. Have a blog? Then help spread the word.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I have to say, all of these pundits who don't like the blogs handle it correctly. They criticize. And they know they will be criticized, back as you are doing with this post.
They use the power of free speech. I don't think there's one instance in this video where any commentator calls for taking away a blogger's right to free speech. Contrast this with some bloggers call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. I have more respect for Bill O'Reilly's reaction than I do for yours, Dave.
If these guys ever propose a "Fairness Doctrine" for blogs, I would come down hard on them. You won't be able to because because of your support of a fairness doctrine in TV and radio.
Jay, do you have any idea what the Fairness Doctrine IS? Once upon a time, TV and radio RENTED the airwaves from the PUBLIC through government licensing. One of the silly requirements the government had was that NO partisan political message could air without EQUAL TIME being provided for the OPPOSITE viewpoint. (Even today, most local newscasts offer a chance for rebuttal to those increasingly rare occasions when the station manager--typically speaking for the station's owners--does an editorial. Of course, a lot of these editorials tend to be "safe topics" which tend to minimize the chances of anyone offering a rebuttal.)
Since the mainstream media offers very little in the way of MEANINGFUL political variety--largely spouting the CORPORATE (and, increasingly, conservative/neocon) LINE, to the point of marginalizing ANY and ALL dissenting voices. I mean, look at the allegedly conservative vs liberal "Hannity & Colmes"--Colmes theoretically represents the "liberal" view, yet Colmes' "liberal" stance is much more middle-of-the-road since Hannity's "conservative" stance is so far to the right. (Oddly, you'd think that the "fair and balanced" Fox News--and its show hosts--wouldn't object to the Fairness Doctrine IF they were really "fair and balanced".)
The problem is that the "pundits" to whom you refer are the ones getting the AIRTIME ON RADIO AND TV. The bloggers whom you criticize don't get that airtime. There's no "free speech" involved here. The bloggers simply want EQUAL ACCESS as the Fairness Doctrine USED TO provide. People criticize the bloggers for "preaching to the choir" and not taking their message "to the people". The inherent problem is that you have to have ACCESS to THE PEOPLE in order to take your message to them. The corporate media won't allow that. The "pundits" can continue to criticize EVEN WITH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; the only difference is that under the Fairness Doctrine, the people they (and you) are always criticizing will be given the chance to be seen and heard so that EVERYONE will know what the criticism is REALLY about.
As things stand now, the pundits like (your sainted) O'Reilly TWIST FACTS to suit their agendas. (Consider O'Reilly's "lesbian gang" story which he was forced--under the pressure of the FACTS--to recant.) And as long as those lies can go OVER THE PUBLICLY-OWNED AIRWAVES WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED ON THE AIR, the average person will be far more likely to believe what they're told. Let's remember that the conservative movement spent years demonizing the mainstream media as being "liberal". They complained--falsely--that conservative "voices" were being denied airtime in an effort to brainwash "good Americans" to blindly accept the "liberal social agenda" of gay rights and abortion and forced bussing. The Fairness Doctrine was seen BY CONSERVATIVES as contributing to this "liberal takeover". Few average Americans were really as conservative as the Conservative Movement wanted so the Fairness Doctrine had to go; through the Reagan Administration's subtle assault on the mainstream media (remember the "we need more good news being reported" meme?) and the increasing presence of the Religious Right (and ITS growing media empire), the conservative core became increasingly vocal in their complaints of mainstream media "liberal" bias (remember the "CBS eye--Rather biased" bumper sticker?). For too many years, the mainstream media bent over so far to appease the conservative agenda that it's been co-opted BY the conservatives. The ONLY reason the Bushies and Fox News are so opposed to the MSM is that the MSM haven't completely fallen for the NEOCON agenda. When Fox News began, it would've rated about a 4 on a 1 to 10 scale (with 1 being ultraconservative, 10 being ultraliberal) while CBS, NBC and ABC would've been between 6 and 7 and CNN just edging over 7. Now, however, FoxNews is pushing a 2 while CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are all hovering in the 4.5 to 6 range. FoxNews has essentially reset the goal posts with the other networks feeling a need to shift more to the right as well.
As for a Fairness Doctrine for the blogs, you have GOT to be kidding. ANYONE can set up a blog; it's the MOST DEMOCRATIC (in the traditional sense) OPERATION at present. No one can RATIONALLY suggest that ANYONE can start up their own radio or tv show. I don't see Dave (or the other STF authors) blocking anyone from responding to a post no matter how asinine the comment may be. (The STF authors may block posters who are abusive, but from what I've heard of the right-wing blogs, they're more likely to simply block a poster who dares post a contrary comment.)
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)