Why do we continue to allow FAUX NOISE any credibility whatsoever?

[Electric Monk]

We know they're full of shit. They've demonstrated it repeatedly. Yet, again and again, we let them define the terms of the debate. This Shirley Sherrod thing is just the latest in a long list of examples of that. This shouldn't even be a story, but now all the channels are talking "Brietbart this, Brietbart that" blah blah blah.

FOX is the Cartoon Network of cable media. Turn the channel to something real for your own good.

[Warpy]

1. Who the hell is that we you talkin about, kimosabe?

Nobody here at DU did. We saw the name Breitbart and knew it was another hatchet job and quite likely a slice and dice scam, pushed by Pox and all the hysterical pundits.

And we were right.

[Electric Monk]

2. That we're even talking about it as much as we are is my point.

It should be a non story.

[gateley]

3. Might have something to do with the Fairness Doctrine being abolished in 1987. nt

[jae1227]

5. I think the fairness doctrine only applied to over the air stations not cable TV

[gateley]

6. Oh - thanks for clearing that up. A caller to Thom Hartmann asked how, legally,

Fox News could use the word "News" in their title - wasn't it against the law to be a mouthpiece for a political party? Hartmann said Reagan repealed something in 1987 and I assumed (I know) that's what he was referencing. Do you know of some law that's been in place since the 30's - 40's that might apply? Or maybe Hartmann didn't make the cable connection. :shrug:

[Booster]

4. Shirley Shirrod needs to sue them for slander. That's the only

way to stop this shit.