Obama Censorship Begins

[4sarge]

Fox Decides To Discard "Fair And Balanced" Mantra


FOX News' motto is "fair and balanced." For the most part, it was the only television news source this past election which even attempted to be fair in its coverage of the presidential race, although the network had a complete news blackout like the other media on the glaring issue of Obama's inability to satisfy the constitutional requirement for being president. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC all threw in with the Obama campaign earlier in the year when Obama was still fending off a challenge from Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Daily News' Rush & Malloy reports that FOX News Director Roger Ailes has ordered the network's top news folks to lay off of Obama:

Fox News boss Roger Ailes doesn't want to spoil Barack Obama's political honeymoon, we hear. A source says Ailes has told prime-time hosts , Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren to lay off the President-elect - at least for a while. "We

're not going to have any personal attacks on Obama," a network insider says. "The public has spoken - we must treat him with respect."
​

This news comes as we get further confirmation that censorship is already occurring on the Internet to protect Obama from his critics. The latest censorship victim is Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller, an outspoken conservative who blew the lid off of Obama's birth certificate problem and his flagrant violation of federal campaign finance laws. Both issues have become popular Internet search items, but Google has decided to "sandbox" posts that Obama and his supporters find offensive. "I was in the top five search results before the story got legs," Geller told WorldNetDaily. "These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day." Traffic to her site plummeted over night after Google took steps to block access to her posts. Google CEO Eric Schmidt is an unabashed supporter of Obama during the campaign, even hitting the campaign stump for him.

It is absolutely incredible that in America, "Land of the Free", an important constitutional issue that has been the subject of no fewer than a dozen lawsuits, including one that is pending before our U.S. Supreme Court as I write, has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. If you hadn't bothered to tune in conservative talk radio shows or surf Internet blogs, you would have no idea the issue even exists. Then again, very few Americans know anything about the U.S. Constitution anymore thanks to the declining state of public education in this country. Why should we expect the news media to care?

 

[haldir]

First Google was playing ball with the ChiComs in censoring hits for their citizenry, I guess it isn't such a change to start blocking anti-Obama sites. Funny how the left in America always wants to push the story that the Right is the one to fight civil liberties...

 

[right winger]

This is very scary. Who or What is next?

 

[semperfi211]

Whats next comrads?

I never thought this could happen in The United States Of America>

 

[10ring]

Resurrection of the fairness doctrine is whats next, but this time they will probably even try to include the Internet.

 

[Hoosier8]

To be fair, there is no law about news being fair and I don't think anyone wants one. We get the news from our choice of news outlets and have found the info on Obama's origin of birth problems. It can still be googled and found even if Google has some sort of control. Long ago most news outlets were very partisan and some were created just to push one candidate or the other. The lie is that news organizations are touting themselves as fair. Like the Mark Twain quote, "Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear."

This year the obvious lie about news has been exposed and we are all the wiser.

 

[4sarge]

Resurrection of the fairness doctrine is whats next, but this time they will probably even try to include the Internet.

Internet Censorship is already being considered as a National Security Issue

 

[4sarge]

To be fair, there is no law about news being fair and I don't think anyone wants one. We get the news from our choice of news outlets and have found the info on Obama's origin of birth problems. It can still be googled and found even if Google has some sort of control. Long ago most news outlets were very partisan and some were created just to push one candidate or the other. The lie is that news organizations are touting themselves as fair. Like the Mark Twain quote, "Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear."

This year the obvious lie about news has been exposed and we are all the wiser.

A very Big Difference in Reporting the News (just the facts) and adding Editorialized Comments/Opinions and Reporting that as the News

 

[rhino]

All the more reason to use other search engines.

 

[agentl074]

Found using webcrawler metasearch.

 

[DodgebyDave]

I use Scroogle Scraper

 

[Bill of Rights]

To be fair, there is no law about news being fair and I don't think anyone wants one. We get the news from our choice of news outlets and have found the info on Obama's origin of birth problems. It can still be googled and found even if Google has some sort of control. Long ago most news outlets were very partisan and some were created just to push one candidate or the other. The lie is that news organizations are touting themselves as fair. Like the Mark Twain quote, "Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear."

This year the obvious lie about news has been exposed and we are all the wiser.

You're correct that today there is no law about news being fair. You are incorrect that no one wants one and you seem to not know that there used to be one. The FCC used to require that if a station broadcast information or sold airtime to one candidate, they had to do so for the other as well. This "fairness doctrine" was abolished as it is wrong to force a business owner to engage in business with someone he chooses not to. The liberals do very much want the return of the Fairness Doctrine, however, to stifle conservative talk radio, among other bastions of conservatism. Additionally, Sarge is completely correct in that the insertion of opinion and editorializing into the news reclassifies it to make it not the news anymore but rather "spin".

Hypothetical example:President Bush today ordered that the 101st Airborne Division be withdrawn from Iraq.

vs.

President Bush today ordered a retreat of the 101st Airborne Division before the powerful troops of the reconstituted Iraqi Republican Guard's forces could overtake and capture or kill them.

Both relate the fact that the 101st would reportedly be coming home. The former does only that. The latter adds sensationalism and makes the 101st look weak in the eyes of the reader.

Still, I suppose there might be a use for the Fairness Doctrine... after all, Barry Hussein could never have bought all that airtime and press space if the outlets had had to sell equal time to McCain, who didn't have the same funding. I suppose there would have to be a loophole to allow it to be applicable only when it benefitted the candidate who was not an American nor eligible to take the office the press wanted him elected to fill.

Blessings,
B

 

[DRob]

Don't use Google, then.

Do we have a right to fair reporting of anything by anybody? No, we don't! It is, and has been for a long time, ridiculous to expect fairness, honesty, or truth from the media. The internet is a part of the media and, just as this forum can exert a certain amount of control over the content, so can Google exert control over it's domain.

Just say NO to Google!

DRob

 

[TopDog]

Nothing has changed in all this time...

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." Mark Twain

Add watch TV news after read the newspaper and you have a accurate and current view of American society.

 

[rambone]

Hmm... scary if true. However, I noticed that the articles cited in the OP are from October/November 2008. Eight months later, I have not noticed much of a change. Lets hope that no one - FOX or otherwise - falls victim to tyrannical censorship of free speech.

 

[Joe Williams]

I never thought this could happen in The United States Of America>

The founding fathers did.

 

[Rob377]

Bing.com FTW

google is evil. I don't expect them to be Impartial, just as I don't expect Rush. I don't think either should be subjected to a "fairness doctrine"

 

[The Meach]

<HTML>

<AMERICA>
<RIGHTS>
<FREEDOMS>

<IMG="fear">
<IMG="cowardice">

<EMBED="OBAMA">

</FREEDOMS>
</RIGHTS>
</...