Are you listening to the news? Officer Wilson Not Indicted in Brown Shooting

They may.... unless mom and dad could pay for a good attorney. I'm not sure they would be shot either..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-wilson-ferguson-killing-grand-jury/70076886/



Now you have to remember... Brown was not that much bigger than Wilson.. who is also 6'4" and weights 210. I'm not sure such FEAR would have been generated by a White teen. Wilson is in the wrong business if that much fear was generated. It's the stereotype of Blacks having some superhuman strength and physical ability... almost animal like that seems to have colored Wilsons judgment. Of course he was testifying to save his butt too... so of course he is going to make it sound like he was really terrified of this kid who was not that much bigger than him. One would think that a trained police officer would be able to defuse this situation without killing someone....

Brown wasn't much taller but out weighed Wilson by 80 pounds at 290 pds. Brown by weight looks much beefier. And the Hulk Hogan description would fit. 210 pounder trying to control a 290 pounder from a seated position would be awkward to say the least regardless of any training(street fights are not in a ring/controlled conditions). I think during the initial scuffle after the gun was fired for the first time tripped both combatant's andrenal glands with both already agitated/in combat mode. The forensic evidence seems to tell the most including a 20 ft trail of blood from where Brown was first hit heading toward Officer Wilson. The "demon" word was a poor choice but I would assume there are many other words he really wanted to use.

The thing with the cigar/arrest of suburban kids-around here in many police departments just asking a police officer a question is considered a wtf act so reaching into a policeman's car is all but a death sentence which is basically accepted. Think about the scenario and not race. True, any police department should have a policy where non lethal force is the primary tool to subdue someone but there are some lines you simply don't cross and most seem to know what they are.
 

Don't smack me, but I have to ask.............if it were a white kid killed, would there be the protesting, looting, rioting? Just askin'. If you act ghetto, you'll be treated like ghetto. If you act like white trash, you'll be treated like white trash. I don't care what color you are. Prejudices live on because people's actions keep them alive.

If it were a systemic condition in the white community, yes. It's not so cut and dry, as in if you act like "A" you get treated like A B or C. In some instances that may well be true, but there has been a system in place that people continue to ignore. I personally don't know the history of Ferguson, but what the people who are protesting about and are so angry about at least as been reported by those not out committing thievery or other misconduct in general is that they have endured mistreatment by the police department in that area no matter what they are doing or not doing. But all everyone keeps doing is pointing to the thugs and equating all people in the community as being one and the same and no matter how you shade it, by the statements, that's how it's coming across when people refuse to hear what the non-criminal element have to say about how they're being mistreated and people just dismiss their feelings because they rather cling to what they've already made up their minds to believe.

Do you know there were people in the community standing out protecting properties from as many vandals as they were able others pleading with those foolish trouble makers to stop what they were doing?

And here you have sides divided again, people had their minds made up one way or another as to what took place in and outside of the police vehicle, there's nothing that's going to change some people's opinion depending on which side they fall. People acting like they have all the evidence in front of them to make factual analysis, as if they were there to hear witness testimony. Even some lawyers are divided as to how that was handled. Give anyone time and they can line up all the dots. Now I'm not saying it isn't as it was described, but without proper cross examination of the evidence, how can any of us lay people be so sure to the facts other than basing things on hearsay and what we've already convinced ourselves of to begin with.

I agree if you act in a certain way often that's how you will be perceived and treated, but, as often depending how many zeros follow your closing balance on your bank acct it will be a whole other story. There are many thugs living it up with swiss bank accounts acting all kinds of trashy, putting on airs for the public.

Some people do indeed like stirring the pot and keeping it going, could be there are many doing it in this case as well, but, I believe there may be just as many hoping for dialogue and change for the better.

PS. At the moment though, I think, they need to call a halt to the street protest and a curfew needs to go into effect; what good is coming from the protesting in the immediate, they need to regroup and find a new way to solve what's wrong in their community, not just the people that serve it. At this moment the ones that don't really care are going to take them all down to the bottom of the gutter.
 
I personally don't know the history of Ferguson, but what the people who are protesting about and are so angry about at least as been reported by those not out committing thievery or other misconduct in general is that they have endured mistreatment by the police department in that area no matter what they are doing or not doing. But all everyone keeps doing is pointing to the thugs and equating all people in the community as being one and the same and no matter how you shade it, by the statements, that's how it's coming across when people refuse to hear what the non-criminal element have to say about how they're being mistreated and people just dismiss their feelings because they rather cling to what they've already made up their minds to believe.

Do you know there were people in the community standing out protecting properties from as many vandals as they were able others pleading with those foolish trouble makers to stop what they were doing?

Now I'm not saying it isn't as it was described, but without proper cross examination of the evidence, how can any of us lay people be so sure to the facts other than basing things on hearsay and what we've already convinced ourselves of to begin with.

Some people do indeed like stirring the pot and keeping it going, could be there are many doing it in this case as well, but, I believe there may be just as many hoping for dialogue and change for the better.

I agree that there are law abiding good citizens of Ferguson that are completely against the rioting and violence, and have done their best to assist store owners and try to reason with those causing all the trouble and destruction there. They showed some of that on the news, but like you said, some people would just like to lump all those in Ferguson into one category of unreasonable violent protesters. Also, there are outside people engaging in the fires, theft and shootings, people who are not from that area at all, and who really don't care about Ferguson or its residents/police force.

I was hoping for proper cross examination and more real evidence to come out, unfortunately we never got that, so everything is hearsay. There needs to be a dialogue in order to have some positive change.
 

I agree that there are law abiding good citizens of Ferguson that are completely against the rioting and violence, and have done their best to assist store owners and try to reason with those causing all the trouble and destruction there. They showed some of that on the news, but like you said, some people would just like to lump all those in Ferguson into one category of unreasonable violent protesters. Also, there are outside people engaging in the fires, theft and shootings, people who are not from that area at all, and who really don't care about Ferguson or its residents/police force.

I was hoping for proper cross examination and more real evidence to come out, unfortunately we never got that, so everything is hearsay. There needs to be a dialogue in order to have some positive change.

What's funny is I was even leaning more to the officers side in the matter and still might be, but listening to what his cold synopsis of what happened some of it just didn't sound right for me. I'm sure I'm missing something, what were the toxicology reports for Brown, I really haven't heard much about that. For him to have said and reacted in the way Wilson relayed it. I'm not saying I don't believe Wilson, it just all sounds too biazar unless the kid had a death wish or was on some kind of psychotic drug.

I don't care how big, how much bravado you think you can muster, you have to be working with an off switch to charge an armed person in such a manner. Wilson's comment to the effect that he had no alternative but to shoot to kill, is what bothers some people as well, no other option, not even a hesitation on the matter. That sounds like something he was told to say. And not a blink of the eye so to speak. I wasn't there, I was thinking, yes, I could understand that, but, just the way he relayed the story didn't sit right. I don't feel we were hearing from him, we were hearing from his coaches, except maybe he was too nervous and forgot to tilt the head with just the right amount of show in compassion. He probably would have been better off telling in his own words.

Can you imagine being in that situation, no, most of us can't. So still, I don't know what to think. It's not the death of Brown, I have a problem with, it's the thought of how the officers in the community see the people they serve, do they even view many of them as human beings or just something to be dealt with.
 
What's funny is I was even leaning more to the officers side in the matter and still might be, but listening to what his cold synopsis of what happened some of it just didn't sound right for me. I'm sure I'm missing something, what were the toxicology reports for Brown, I really haven't heard much about that. For him to have said and reacted in the way Wilson relayed it. I'm not saying I don't believe Wilson, it just all sounds too biazar unless the kid had a death wish or was on some kind of psychotic drug. I don't care how big, how much bravado you think you can muster, you have to be working with an off switch to charge an armed person in such a manner. Wilson's comment to the effect that he had no alternative but to shoot to kill, is what bothers some people as well, no other option, not even a hesitation on the matter. That sounds like something he was told to say. And not a blink of the eye so to speak. I wasn't there, I was thinking, yes, I could understand that, but, just the way he relayed the story didn't sit right. I don't feel we were hearing from him, we were hearing from his coaches, except maybe he was too nervous and forgot to tilt the head with just the right amount of show in compassion. He probably would have been better off telling in his own words. Can you imagine being in that situation, no, most of us can't. So still, I don't know what to think. It's not the death of Brown, I have a problem with, it's the thought of how the officers in the community see the people they serve, do they even view many of them as human beings or just something to be dealt with.

The problem is that the fix was in from the beginning. The Prosecutor had no intention of getting an indictment.. Now we will never have answers because there will be no trial... No cross examination of Wilson, or all of the witnesses under oath. We will never know unless the family files a civil wrongful death suit.. or the Govermnent files a Federal Civil Rights case against him.
 
These rioters were well prepared to create havoc...no matter which way the grand jury verdict came down. You don't set buildings and cars on fire with a cigarette lighter...it takes containers of flammable liquids and some careful planning to achieve the damage done to Ferguson last night. While the bulk of the protesters kept the police occupied, a few of the Terrorists sneaked in behind the cops, and quickly ignited their homemade firebombs. This was not a sudden impulse action...rather it was a well rehearsed plan.

All they will have accomplished, in the end, is destroying a largely Black neighborhood, and hardening racial attitudes even further.

Saw a report today they think it was the same crew that started most of the fires. The reaction was orchestrated after months of conditioning from the media and social media just like the guy mentioned. They were misused AND misinterpreted. I think too many confused or assumed an indictment was just like a guilty verdict after a trial. They also failed to account that in a trial there must be a preliminary and administrative hearings to see if there even enough evidence to proceed to trial(evidence of a crime)-other than testimony what was the physical evidence the officer was malicious. Also people boast Wilson would've been called out on the witness stand. You don't think witnesses who said they saw hands up wouldn't be crossed examined? They should be so lucky they there was even a grand jury. In many communities a police oversight board might have investigated for a few months-not the state police, FBI and/or Justice Department.

Back to the orchestration. As much as I don't agree with the anti police crowd using Brown as a martyr or inspiration there are places like New York where I'm stunned they didn't have massive protests years earlier. It seems at least once a year a suspect in New York gets shot like a 50 times or something. This summer they choked a guy to death. Or after years of stop and frisk I would've been marching long before this. I think was Arizona or New Mexico a suspect was shot 38 times while surrendering. In LA the police shot two innocent women hunting down Christopher Dorner. In my mind I find many but not all of the protestors too finicky or insincere with their "causes" and will not forgive them for their CRIMES.
 
Something that is never mentioned is Brown's Islamic background.
Yes, he was a Muslim. We never hear that part.

Really? Michael Brown Jr. was a Muslim?? I never heard that! Even if he was, does that mean he was a radical Islamic terrorist? I have no doubt that those involved with Hamas and Islamic terrorism step into any riot situation that presents itself to them in the US.

I would like to see proof that Michael Brown Jr. was even a Muslim. I'm suspicious that this is just more of Fox news biased media drama. Any real documentation of Michael Brown Jr.'s religious affiliations would be appreciated.

Walid claimed Brown was a Muslim, although when pressed, Walid denied he had made such a claim. Brown was buried in August after a memorial service at the Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis.
 
This is telling...

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b

WASHINGTON, DC
– The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.


I would imagine if any group would know that this was a fix... this group would. I would go so far as thinking the Prosecutor McCullough should face disbarment.
 
Fox News is one of the US's most reliable and honest news stations. They have folks of both liberal and conservative and libertarian and Democrat and Republican all running news periods or as guests on the news periods. Something most of our US news broadcast groups can not claim for their honesty and fairness.

Yes Brown is a Muslim. If you see his father on TV you will see the cultural long beard on his face and chin.
 
This is telling...

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b



I would imagine if any group would know that this was a fix... this group would. I would go so far as thinking the Prosecutor McCullough should face disbarment.

I, just a little while ago, watched, CNN where McCullough admits that the investigation was sloppy and wouldn't have stood up to cross examination in court. I was flabbergasted. Part of the excuse he and another guest on the show went on to say is that Ferguson is a small town and doesn't have the resources of those bigger cities. If they want them to do better, give them better resources otherwise don't expect similar performances from their force. Deal with it is what they are saying about sloppy work, we're doing what we can, mistakes be damned.

It's no FOX news, but um, it was all in their own voices.

All I was asking for is something I could work with to let my mind rest at ease that they do their job and the people were mistaken about how they operated at least this time. I really was hoping this was done and over, but, seems there are way too many eyes on what might not should just go away. This really sucks. I was hoping for a nice quiet holiday weekend, I hope no one ask me about this situation at tomorrow's dinner, it's getting exhausting.

I'm sure there will be replays of the Anderson Cooper interview featuring McCullough if people really want to comment based on what's coming out of the people's mouths involved in this case. I'll see if the interview is available to post already, if it is, I'll post it here.

There is good news, within the community, there are multi-cultural, multi-denominational and other groups of people that have been prior to and continuing to make strong efforts to improve relations in general amongst themselves in Furgerson. There were comments stating that the people themselves need to work on what's wrong with them and taking personal responsibility.
 
Fox News is one of the US's most reliable and honest news stations. They have folks of both liberal and conservative and libertarian and Democrat and Republican all running news periods or as guests on the news periods. Something most of our US news broadcast groups can not claim for their honesty and fairness.

Yes Brown is a Muslim. If you see his father on TV you will see the cultural long beard on his face and chin.

That's your opinion, as you are likely a loyal follower of Fox, and believe all they say as bible. As far as I've seen, their reports are extremely biased, and often times untrue or exaggerated. I do watch both Fox and MSNBC to see what each side is saying about an issue. As far as Brown being a Muslim because his father has a beard, I would like more documentation than that, lol.

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-most-biased-name-in-news/

"But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01).

George W. Bush extolled
Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01).

The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much
Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side.

Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look."


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/12_most_despicable_things_fox_news_did_in_2012/




"2012 was a dismal year for Fox News. The PR arm of the GOP failed to fulfill its prime directive: advancing the interests of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. It spent much of the year constructing an alternative reality that left millions of its flock in shock when President Obama won an overwhelming reelection.

It refused to accept the facts on the ground and denigrated polls (even its own) when the results conflicted with the fictional narrative it was peddling. And perhaps most painful of all, Fox surrendered its ratings lead to MSNBC. Two-thirds of its primetime lineup (Hannity and Van Susteren) dropped to second place behind the competition on MSNBC (Maddow and O’Donnell).

However, Fox’s travails did not occur for lack of effort. It was clearly operating at the top of its capacity to distort and deceive. In the process it unleashed some of the most feverishly biased reporting, even for Fox News. What follows are a few of the worst departures from ethical journalism by Fox in the last year.

1) Romancing Petraeus: Fox News CEO Roger Ailes tries to recruit for the GOP.

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward revealed that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes had dispatched a Fox News defense analyst, to Kabul, Afghanistan to recruit Gen. David Petraeus as a GOP candidate for president. The notion of a news network soliciting candidates for political office is a perversion of the role journalists play in society. In response, Ailes claimed that it was “a joke” and that he “thought the Republican [primary] field needed to be shaken up.” Where Ailes got the idea that it was his right and/or duty to shake up the GOP primaries is unexplained. News people are supposed to report the news, not make it. Woodward’s story affirms that Fox News is a rogue operation. Its intrusion into the political process debases journalism by breaching all standards of ethical conduct. And it debases democracy as well by exploiting its power and wealth to manipulate political outcomes.

2) Fox News produces its own anti-Obama video.

Last May on Fox & Friends, the program’s hosts introduced a video that purported to examine “Four Years of Hope and Change.” What it was in reality was a four-plus minute campaign video that presented a variety of soundbites by President Obama accompanied by ominous graphics and eerie music that falsely implied his campaign promises were unkept. The video (which Media Matters thoroughly debunks here) could not have been a more pro-Romney, anti-Obama attack had it been produced by the Republican National Committee. Apparently Fox News also recognized the gross inappropriateness of its anti-Obama attack ad. Minutes after the video was posted online it was removed. Later, an edited version was re-posted, and then that too was removed. Eventually, Fox EVP Bill Shine issued a statement scapegoating an “associate producer” and concluding that the matter “has been addressed.” But it’s difficult for Fox to absolve itself of responsibility for this atrociously unethical affair. By now it is so obvious that Fox exists only to promote Republicans and bash Democrats that this video fits squarely within its mission.

3) Question for Fox News: How much rape is too much?

In a discussion of the role of women in the military, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta expressed an opinion about new rules from the Pentagon that would permit women to serve closer to the front lines. Trotta’s take on this centered on the problems faced by servicewomen who are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers whom she regards as whiners because they won’t shut up and accept the fact that if they work closely with men they should expect to be assaulted. And if that weren’t bad enough, Trotta went on to complain about the expensive military bureaucracy set up to “support women in the military who are now being raped too much.” I would really like to know precisely how much rape is acceptable before it crosses Trotta’s line. Is there any context in which she might have meant that that isn’t unfathomably repulsive?

4) Fox News conning Latinos for politics and profit.

Fox viewers are accustomed to stories about “illegals” swarming across the border to take up residency in the U.S. and sponge off of our prosperity. There is hardly a mention of immigrants on Fox that isn’t associated with crime, joblessness or drug cartels. Lately, however, someone at Fox News has recognized a major flaw in its strategy to demonize immigrants, particularly Latinos, who are a growing constituency of both consumers and citizens who can vote and are registering in record numbers. So how does Fox maintain its editorial animosity toward immigrants without alienating an increasingly important voter group? The answer appears to be by developing news content specifically for this demographic and sequestering it from the rest of its viewership. This has resulted in a flurry of disparaging articles on the Fox News flagship, while the same story is presented on the new Fox News Latino in a far less bigoted fashion. The pinnacle of this hypocrisy occurred during a Fox report on the election when it displayed video of illegal border crossers with a caption reading “The Hispanic Vote.”

5) Fox lies about military access to voting in Ohio.

This year Republicans in the state of Ohio sought to amend their early voting law so that only members of the military would be permitted to vote early in the three days prior to the election. Democrats objected to this as it discriminates against certain voters, and they filed suit to preserve the right of every Ohio citizen to vote early. Fox News picked up the story advancing the premise that Democrats were seeking to take something away from our military. Anchor Shannon Bream falsely declared that “If President Obama gets his way, the special voting rights of some of America’s finest will be eliminated.” The truth is that Democrats in Ohio were suing to ensure that nobody’s rights were eliminated. The Ohio GOP was deliberately attempting to suppress the votes of citizens they presumed would vote Democratic. And Fox News helped them in that mission by brazenly lying about the substance of the debate.

6) Graphic evidence of the racism of Fox News: racial photoshopping.

Coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting was handled by Fox News in a manner that is revealing and offensive. On the day that Florida law enforcement authorities planned to file charges against George Zimmerman, Fox ran a story featuring a photo of Zimmerman with a beaming smile alongside one of Martin that looked foreboding and was obviously darkened. The editors were demonstrating their overt hostility to both African Americans and journalistic ethics. Later in the day, a more impartial photo was inserted that was not as overtly disparaging of the victim. You think they got a few complaints about the previous photo? Fox had numerous pictures from which to choose of both Martin and Zimmerman, and it chose the most negative picture of Martin which it paired with the most positive picture of Zimmerman. This was not an accident. It was the result of deliberate editorial judgment. And it tells us everything we need to know about Fox’s editors.

7) The polling schizophrenia at Fox News.

Throughout the year Fox News led its audience on a roller coaster ride of propaganda and censorship as it shifted from celebrating what it regarded as positive electoral news to suppressing the negative. It persistently sought to cloister its audience in a bubble that filtered out any facts that might upset its viewers or political patrons. Fox was so determined to shut out anything that might challenge its narrative that it even failed to report its own Fox News polls if Obama was ahead. This was a part of a broader effort to deceive its audience by castigating or ignoring polls when it didn’t like the results and praising the same pollsters when their numbers were more favorable. They launched a campaign to demean professional pollsters and prop up disreputable charlatans with its “unskewed” versions. Not surprisingly, this led to the unprecedented post-election state of shock experienced by those who were foolish enough to rely on Fox for information.

8) Fox News psycho analyst: Newt Gingrich’s adultery means a stronger America.

The in-house Fox News psychiatrist, Keith Ablow, has offered his embarrassingly ridiculous diagnoses on a number of occasions. Without ever having examined (or even met) President Obama, Ablow has declared him to be contemptuous of the judiciary and devoid of all emotion. He further assessed that Obama has “got it in for this country” and doesn’t like Americans. These are the delusional ramblings of a quack who is more preoccupied with his own animosity for the president than with credible psychiatric analysis. During the GOP primary, Ablow chimed in on criticism of Newt Gingrich for his serial marriages that ended when his wives became ill or failed to serve his political purposes. Ablow’s astonishing diagnosis was that Gingrich as president would make America stronger specifically because of his multiple infidelities. Ablow actually thinks that three wives and two extramarital affairs (that we know about) enhances Gingrich’s qualifications to be president. His reasoning had something to do with the fact that multiple homewreckers found him to be marriageable material and that was a mark of character. This is what passes for family values in today’s GOP.

9) Fox News airs hour-long commercial for anti-Obama film on Hannity.

In the heart of the presidential campaign season, Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News devoted the full hour to a blatant infomercial promoting an anti-Obama movie by the people who brought us Citizens United. The program featured lengthy clips from the film as well as interviews with the film’s creators, David Bossie and Steve Bannon. Bossie is the head of Citizens United, the organization that prompted the abhorrent Supreme Court decision that made it possible for individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums of cash to political candidates and causes. Bannon is chairman of Breitbart News and was the director of the monumental flop, Sarah Palin: Undefeated, a movie that managed to fail miserably despite millions of dollars in free publicity courtesy of Fox News. What’s particularly disturbing about this is that the producers freely admit that their purpose was not so much to promote the film, but to let their ads serve as disguised political messages aimed at disparaging the president and affecting the outcome of the election. The reason they chose October to release the film was so their advertising would appear during the campaign season and they could pretend it was merely marketing for the movie. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is something they specifically admit to and boast about. Fox News was merely the first stop on their media blitz.

10) Fox News “Democrat” Kirsten Powers accuses Obama of sympathizing with terrorists.

The next time you hear the Fox News slogan “fair and balanced,” be sure to remember that its rendering of fairness is to trot out covert conservatives and label them Democrats. A perfect illustration of this is alleged Democrat Kirsten Powers, who took to Fox News to attack President Obama in an article titled “President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence.” Powers was addressing the violence at American facilities in Libya and Egypt when she wrote that respecting religious beliefs “is implicit sympathy for the claims of some of the attackers and rioters.” So Powers thinks that respect for the diversity of faith is tantamount to sympathizing with terrorists. She cannot comprehend that such respect is offered to the vast majority of peaceful Muslims who had nothing to do with the violence. And allowing her to spew that bile while posing as a Democratic analyst is part of how Fox distorts its presentation of fairness and balance.

11) Fox News spinning furiously on unemployment rate.

Behaving entirely consistently with a network that harbors politcos who want to see President Obama fail, Fox News cavalierly dismissed the October unemployment report showing a drop from 8.1 to 7.8 percent. Heaven forbid anything good happens in this country while President Obama is in charge. Fox spent the whole morning trying to hatch skeptics. It brought in former General Electric CEO Jack Welch to explain his delusional Tweet: “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers.” Fox’s Stuart Varney concurred along with Donald Trump and a bevy of correspondents and guests. None of them could explain why an independent agency of career economists, without a single Obama appointee, would fudge the numbers for a president to whom they owed nothing.

12) Fox opposes ban on assault weapons but imposes ban on talking about it.

The most heartbreaking news of 2012 was surely the massacre in Newtown, CT, where 20 schoolchildren and six adults were senselessly murdered by a deranged gunman. The resultant outcry from concerned Americans about the easy access to weapons that are capable of such carnage was met by Fox News as an attack on the Second Amendment and free enterprise. Its response was to slaughter the First Amendment by prohibiting any discussion of gun safety on the network. Sources told Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine that “David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air.” It’s also worthwhile to note that while Fox banned all talk of gun control, it did not banish talk of other explanations for the atrocity in Connecticut. Fox had no problem with laying the blame on mental illness, movies or video games. Fox host Mike Huckabee was permitted to go on the air and blame the killings on the absence of God in the classroom (which does nothing to explain similar shootings that have taken place in churches).

While Fox News broadcasts flagrant distortions of reality on a daily basis, the examples above transcend the conventional dishonesty and bias that is its hallmark. These assaults on ethical journalism demonstrate how dangerous it is to permit a political enterprise to disguise itself as a news network in order to shape an extreme political agenda. It is evidence of social programming and manipulation at its worst. The sad part is that we can expect much more of this in 2013. Happy New Year!





 
Fox News is one of the US's most reliable and honest news stations. They have folks of both liberal and conservative and libertarian and Democrat and Republican all running news periods or as guests on the news periods. Something most of our US news broadcast groups can not claim for their honesty and fairness.

Yes Brown is a Muslim. If you see his father on TV you will see the cultural long beard on his face and chin.

I'm glad to see that FN has cleaned up it's act, they used to have an easily recognizable Right-wing bias.
 
Hey AprilT, I'm with you on Fox News. I think they even tried to set up a studio in Canada and our regulators refused them.

This is how that refusal went down: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rober...be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html

Note the part where it says our Prime Minister, good ole Stevie-boy, want to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news! Since he couldn't get Fox across the border, he made up for it by sticking us with Sun News which has a pathetically puny listenership of about 20,000. Those people at Sun are open liars at the best of times and at the worst of times they are bullying, liars! And if I understand correctly, one of their top guys (the head creep) headed up Steven Harpers campaign group in the early days of trying to get elected.

I never watched Fox on TV when we had more stations and when we are in the car, we whiz right by their station. Unless we're really bored and falling asleep in the car and Hannity is on. Doesn't take long and we're wide awake and wiping the 'I'm so mad I could spit' stains off the dash.
 
The media like CNN, FOX and MSNBC, not news networks hyped, contorted, omitted, misconstrued this and many other stories for an agenda. If you are reading or posting here you have to the ability to be your own news network and not get your news spoon fed to you. I cannot sit through anyone one hour telecast without flipping channels or turning it off because of all the bs & waste of my time which is better spent researching stories on my own. The mainstream media is a starting point. I've actually found myself watching the evening news on the old three letter broadcast networks much more often. I used to stick with cable only. Point is you need multiple sources and to know your sources especially if it is a foundation, center for, think tank or dot org. Also go to the local newspaper & tv for local reporting which might have more unspun facts.

The problem here in the Ferguson story was the bias and going with emotion instead of facts. Several of the networks are trying to play up the grieving parents, ok I get that but today they spent more time reporting what the parents and lawyer thought of Darren Wilson ie he's a liar, cold blooded etc rather than point out improbabilities. Yet how many networks reported or noted the fact that testimony had Wilson saying at one point while it was right hand to right hand contact in the struggle at the car. Think about that. Position your self in the drivers seat, think where your right hand is and think how a person could stick their right hand in the window and reach over or across your body for right hand to right hand contact. And I believe the finding of the grand jury but this needs explaining. Then when it came out that blood was found in the car a week or so ago some networks and commentators didn't report that then or even now. It's convenient reporting shaped to fit their hole oops ment agenda.

If you are on the internet and still relying on spoon fed information not reviewing it or thinking about it shame on you.
 
I agree with everything you said WhatInThe and would add this...there used to be multiple news outlets across the country(s) so you had a wide variety of opinions offering information. Now those 'many' have been bought up by a few and they hogtie journalists and screen the 'news'. Not only that, but those few are part of the 1% who have a vested interest on making sure the news comes across a certain way to support what, the status quo perhaps?

I've seen a specific example of how the news can be fed lies and that's what they put out there and the beneficiary was a certain global corporation. When I saw that, I pretty much lost faith in the big news outlets (unless it's a 'cat saved from tree' story) and look all over the internet for credible, alternate sources.
 
We will have to change the name of our country if people don't stop working so hard to take "sides" (including myself). It is the "United States of America", or was:( Things do change, that's one thing I've known to be true.
the+pledge+of+allegiance+%28screenshot+of+1+per+page%29.jpg
 
Looters & arsonists

There is absolutely no justifiction or excuse for Looting or Arson as a means of protest. Looters and Arsonists should be warned ahead of time by the media and public authorities and then shot on site.
Too harsh? I don't think so. A civilized society has the right to protect and preserve it's property from those less civilized.
 
I agree with everything you said WhatInThe and would add this...there used to be multiple news outlets across the country(s) so you had a wide variety of opinions offering information. Now those 'many' have been bought up by a few and they hogtie journalists and screen the 'news'. Not only that, but those few are part of the 1% who have a vested interest on making sure the news comes across a certain way to support what, the status quo perhaps?

I've seen a specific example of how the news can be fed lies and that's what they put out there and the beneficiary was a certain global corporation. When I saw that, I pretty much lost faith in the big news outlets (unless it's a 'cat saved from tree' story) and look all over the internet for credible, alternate sources.

The word "opinions" stood out for me Debby, it was a good reminder that not only with news sometimes, people only have opinions due to what they hear. We can't all be eye-witnesses, thank goodness. But it does get confusing for me when one show says one thing (reports) and another says something else. Whatinthe has the right plan of action and that is to take what the say, and then weed out what you can, or maybe come to a conclusion that is mostly what is actually happening, or happened.
 
There is absolutely no justifiction or excuse for Looting or Arson as a means of protest. Looters and Arsonists should be warned ahead of time by the media and public authorities and then shot on site.
Too harsh? I don't think so. A civilized society has the right to protect and preserve it's property from those less civilized.

How would this work, do you have to be holding a match and loot when the shooter takes the shot? does it matter if their doing one or the other as om arson or looting or do they have to be doing a combination of both. How about muggers, child molesters, scam artist, can people take aim at them as well in future scenarios? This could be an interesting proposal to write into law.

Anyway, I'll have to come back and read more interesting proposals such as this later, I now have to turn off the noise and go get ready for happier things like spending time with friends on this day to try for thinking of things to remember something to be grateful for instead of focusing on looking to stir up more hate

Looking forward to chatting you all up later. Enjoy the rest of your day as best you allow yourselves to.
 
How would this work, do you have to be holding a match and loot when the shooter takes the shot? does it matter if their doing one or the other as om arson or looting or do they have to be doing a combination of both. How about muggers, child molesters, scam artist, can people take aim at them as well in future scenarios? This could be an interesting proposal to write into law.

Anyway, I'll have to come back and read more interesting proposals such as this later, I now have to turn off the noise and go get ready for happier things like spending time with friends on this day to try for thinking of things to remember something to be grateful for instead of focusing on looking to stir up more hate

Looking forward to chatting you all up later. Enjoy the rest of your day as best you allow yourselves to.

This is going to wander off topic I think (maybe?) but if fines/punishments were stiffer in the US I don't believe there would be so much crime, so I can see Lon's point. But I also would be asking the same things April does. To me, to many "good" (hey they have to be good at finding all the loop-holes) lawyers get people off of crimes. If that's our reputation, the US, what's to stop folks from doing the crime? Some crimes are rightly punished, some I don't agree with. What is that saying, the punishment should fit the crime? I guess that what we have to decide, what fit's what. Whenever I start looking for answers, I get overwhelmed because things are such a mess.
 
Certainly obvious a lot of the posters on this site are both lefties and non receptive of those that will accept other than far left news on TV or where ever.

I am not a lefty nor am I a hard core conservative. I only watch some shows on FOX NEWS and more on NBC, CBS, and others. One station I do occasionally do listen to is MSNBC, but they are far too left for real news or facts about things in this country. They are also seeing their number of listeners going down in the recent years. So watch what you wish but you should not waste so much time and effort posting all the twisted crap about FOX NEWS. Some may be true but much might be twisted, something others could do about other TV news stations if in a hurry to destroy competition rather that demand greatness of your favorite stations. MSNBC is not at great or honest place to listen to news. They have a lady that once had her own station running but when there were no listeners left for her the station was closed. Now at least she is on MSNBC and killing their listeners count.

Yes I did say see his fathers beard, and factually so, as he has been described as a Muslim in more than one place since the killing event. Sounds like some here just do not read enough to know what is really going on. Sad for so many to just want to lay their very own narrow mindedness on to everyone or you will be called names for sure. People that can say Obama is doing great in spite of all the problems caused to the US treasury and the rejections by over 60% of the people in the US just are not people to trust or believe. This seems to be a large group on this thread. I won't say for this forum as I have only been on a couple threads.

OK, I am not far enough left for some of you folks, but that is OK on most forums that do listen to both sides and allow the other posters to have there thoughts too.
 
I think anyone, anywhere that bad-mouths the others side, calls names, and insists only they know the true facts are childish, as well as ignorant.. There is truth on both sides. That's why I don't want to take sides. See what both say and then make a decision.

There are lots of folks in the middle now Bob, then there used to be, and there is such a handful of people that even speak up here. Did you ever notice how many just "read" a post without commenting? Who knows what they think, but I can't blame them for avoided some of these threads;)
 


Back
Top