Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

marden · Oct 14, 2006, 10:13 PM

Fox News bans ad critical of Clinton

Tells 'Move America Forward' rebuttal to terror war claims won't be aired
Posted: October 14, 2006

A new television ad that is part of a campaign by the Move America Forward organization to counter ex-President Bill Clinton's recent assertions about his administration's efforts to combat Islamic terrorism has been rejected by Fox News.

"Fox News Channel told Move America Forward that they had decided under no circumstances would they allow the organization to broadcast the ad," Debra Argel Bastian, the group's military outreach coordinator, said.

A spokesman for Fox News told WND that the advertisement made a claim about Clinton that wasn't documented, so the ad wasn't accepted.

"That's standard operating procedure for Fox News," he said. "If there's something (like that) in an ad, we ask for documentation for it."

The ad in dispute can be seen at the group's website, or via YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzTQMjkVtcI

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=52441

Fair and balanced folks. Fair and balanced.

Chuckit · Oct 14, 2006, 10:41 PM

If the issue was documentation, it sounds like "fair and protecting-oneself-from-a-libel-suit" to me.

marden · Oct 14, 2006, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If the issue was documentation, it sounds like "fair and protecting-oneself-from-a-libel-suit" to me.

If it's so simple and so sensible how come CBS got it so wrong?

amazing · Oct 15, 2006, 12:00 AM

Defamation of character is asking for a lawsuit.

But: imagine that! Must be really bad if even Fox News Channel can see it thru its distorting dark sunglasses?

marden · Oct 15, 2006, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by amazing

Defamation of character is asking for a lawsuit.

But: imagine that! Must be really bad if even Fox News Channel can see it thru its distorting dark sunglasses?

Nope, not necessarily. They just need substantiation for the claims the advertiser would make.

Fair and balanced means something to Fox News. If the other news organizations were doing it there would have been no need for FNC.

Chuckit · Oct 15, 2006, 02:13 AM

How does having libel standards prove that a network is "fair and balanced" (whatever that means)?

marden · Oct 15, 2006, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How does having libel standards prove that a network is "fair and balanced" (whatever that means)?

Troll · Oct 15, 2006, 06:27 AM

Are you paid by the post or by the word? Almost all the threads you post here are just Republican propaganda.

There was a 9/11 Commission. Do yourself a favour and read what they said!

amazing · Oct 15, 2006, 07:33 AM

Well, coming back to the thread, Fox is not blind or dumb, they must know that substantiation isn't possible in this case, so they didn't air the ad.

Clinton's turning out to be not so bad after all, considering what we've had since then.

Kevin · Oct 15, 2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Troll

Are you paid by the post or by the word? Almost all the threads you post here are just Republican propaganda.

Ad-hominem

There was a 9/11 Commission. Do yourself a favour and read what they said!

Yes please more people need to read this.

Chuckit · Oct 15, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ad-hominem

So you skip over the dunce-cap photo and cry about "ad hominem" in response to Troll's post? Yeah, you clearly care a lot about the quality of argumentation here.

BRussell · Oct 15, 2006, 01:50 PM

I don't think Fox could be sued over a political ad, could they? If there was ever a first amendment issue, it's freedom to air political speech.

I'm just relieved that finally Fox has become part of the liberal media.

Kevin · Oct 15, 2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So you skip over the dunce-cap photo and cry about "ad hominem" in response to Troll's post? Yeah, you clearly care a lot about the quality of argumentation here.

ACtually I was replying to his post about the 9-11 commission, and added that only because of such thing.

You also don't know what I do in private.

So get the foot out of your mouth.

Kevin · Oct 15, 2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm just relieved that finally Fox has become part of the liberal media.

No, they would have played it if it was anti-Bush.
Dan Rather anyone?

awcopus · Oct 15, 2006, 03:28 PM

My college's newspaper ran an ad submitted by a white supremacist group promoting Holocaust revisionism. They did this without editorial comment, on a page featuring ads for DunkinDonuts, and for a program involving a semester abroad in Israel.

They asserted that they did this because they wanted to make people aware of the existence of groups like this, but if that was their goal, then as a newspaper they should have assigned a writer and written up an article or series of articles on holocaust revisionism. They also asserted that they were doing this to demonstrate the importance of free speech rights. Of course, accepting money to run an ad is the right of any publisher, but the holocaust revisionists don't have a right to publish their ad in somebody elses's paper or magazine, so this is just sophistry.

I believe it is immoral to knowingly, consciously participate in the impartial presentation of information that is blatantly false and/or bigoted. Satire is fine, but the authentic attempt to convince people that facts are not facts or that certain human beings deserve to die for no other reason than their beliefs, ethnicity, nationality is not something that news organizations should facilitate.

Fox did the right thing. My school's paper completely f-ed up.

Wiskedjak · Oct 15, 2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So you skip over the dunce-cap photo and cry about "ad hominem" in response to Troll's post? Yeah, you clearly care a lot about the quality of argumentation here.

Apparently, he reprimands Abe's "ad hominems" through private message. Liberals get reprimanded publicly.

Kevin · Oct 15, 2006, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Apparently, he reprimands Abe's "ad hominems" through private message. Liberals get reprimanded publicly.

You missed the point of my post all-together didn't you?
Again, there was more ad-hominem attacks on both sides in here that I didn't say anything about.

But since I was replying to part his other post, I pointed out that particular one.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the off topic personal attacks.

Troll · 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Apparently, he reprimands Abe's "ad hominems" through private message. Liberals get reprimanded publicly.

If Kevin is complaining about my post, I must say that it was not an ad hominem at all. I would seriously like to know if Mojaberdeen is paid to post in here. He's accused the rest of us enough times of being foreign agents and Islam's best soldiers ...

Kevin · Oct 16, 2006, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

If Kevin is complaining about my post, I must say that it was not an ad hominem at all. I would seriously like to know if Mojaberdeen is paid to post in here.

Is it about the topic? No.

Are you attacking the messenger and not the message? Yes. Ad-hominem

If whoever is attacking you in such a way say as much. But that isn't what you did.

Wiskedjak · Oct 16, 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

You missed the point of my post all-together didn't you?
Again, there was more ad-hominem attacks on both sides in here that I didn't say anything about.

But since I was replying to part his other post, I pointed out that particular one.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the off topic personal attacks.

Unless you are a discussion moderator, an ad hominem accusation is also an ad hominem.

olePigeon · Oct 16, 2006, 11:01 AM

I'm getting really sick of that phrase. It's like one day someone said it to Kevin and he didn't know what it meant, so he looked it up in a dictionary and thought, "Hey, if I use this as an excuse in every other post, I sound smart!"

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm getting really sick of that phrase. It's like one day someone said it to Kevin and he didn't know what it meant, so he looked it up in a dictionary and thought, "Hey, if I use this as an excuse in every other post, I sound smart!"

Whatever might your strategy be to post as you do?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Unless you are a discussion moderator, an ad hominem accusation is also an ad hominem.

Highlighting a transgression hardly qualifies as an ad-ANYTHING.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

If Kevin is complaining about my post, I must say that it was not an ad hominem at all. I would seriously like to know if Mojaberdeen is paid to post in here. He's accused the rest of us enough times of being foreign agents and Islam's best soldiers ...

I won't speak for that person or those persons. But I will say that you have as foreign an orientation as I've ever seen here and I would not be surprised if the jihadists approved of your posts.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So you skip over the dunce-cap photo and cry about "ad hominem" in response to Troll's post? Yeah, you clearly care a lot about the quality of argumentation here.

Why do you assume the photo was about anyone else but the poster him or herself?

If the shoe fits, I guess...

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by amazing

Well, coming back to the thread, Fox is not blind or dumb, they must know that substantiation isn't possible in this case, so they didn't air the ad.

Clinton's turning out to be not so bad after all, considering what we've had since then.

Incorrect assumption. Incorrect analysis. Incorrect conclusion.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

Are you paid by the post or by the word? Almost all the threads you post here are just Republican propaganda.

There was a 9/11 Commission. Do yourself a favour and read what they said!

Yes. I wish more people would read the 911 Commission report.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 16, 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Yes. I wish more people would read the 911 Commission report.

I wish more people would have watched "Rescue 911." Some of Shatner's best work right there.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 16, 2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Why do you assume the photo was about anyone else but the poster him or herself?

If the shoe fits, I guess...

Huh? So you're saying that it wasn't an ad hominem because you were only referring to one person?

SpaceMonkey · Oct 16, 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by marden

I won't speak for that person or those persons. But I will say that you have as foreign an orientation as I've ever seen here and I would not be surprised if the jihadists approved of your posts.

But only when you see him blink his eyes will you really know whether or not he is an agent of Teh Terror.

Wiskedjak · Oct 16, 2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Whatever might your strategy be to post as you do?

ad hominem

Wiskedjak · Oct 16, 2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by marden

I won't speak for that person or those persons. But I will say that you have as foreign an orientation as I've ever seen here and I would not be surprised if the jihadists approved of your posts.

ad hominem

Wiskedjak · Oct 16, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Why do you assume the photo was about anyone else but the poster him or herself?

If the shoe fits, I guess...

ad hominem

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ad hominem

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ad hominem

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ad hominem

Are you trying to say humina, humina, humina?
.

Humina Humina
26 up, 5 down
An expression to imply sexual arousal. Often used when spotting a visually pleasing individual and actual words are lost.

Male cartoon characters of the 30s-40s would say this when seeing a particularly hot dame. This term is not exclusive to males, however.

Gorgeous blonde lounge singer walks into the room and the men proceed cat-calling, whistling, drooling and muttering, "humina humina humina".

Urban Dictionary: Humina Humina

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Huh? So you're saying that it wasn't an ad hominem because you were only referring to one person?

To myself.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

But only when you see him blink his eyes will you really know whether or not he is an agent of Teh Terror.

Not necessarily even then.

Ziad Jarrah and Mohamed Atta in a Terror Training Camp in Tarnak Farms near Kandahar, January 18, 2000 in a "martyrdom" video.

Wiskedjak · Oct 16, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Are you trying to say humina, humina, humina?
.

Urban Dictionary: Humina Humina

ad hominem

Eug · Oct 16, 2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by marden

WorldNetDaily: Fox News bans ad critical of Clinton

Why do propaganda sites usually have such lousy web designers?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

ad hominem

a humina

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Why do propaganda sites usually have such lousy web designers?

Because mostly male, conservative heterosexuals work for conservative sites???

brokenjago · Oct 16, 2006, 02:23 PM

Wow. Triple posting (and higher!) fun all around! Where do I sign up?!

Troll · Oct 17, 2006, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by marden

... you have as foreign an orientation as I've ever seen here ...

How can anything be foreign to an Internet site? There is no foreign on MacNN. Everywhere is local. This may come as a shock to you, but you are not in fact the centre of the universe.

Originally Posted by marden

and I would not be surprised if the jihadists approved of your posts.

Yeah, "the jihadists" - the latest word used by the fear mongerers. It's like the "swart gevaar" - create an invisible, undefinable enemy and then justify any number of things in pursuit of it. "Jihadists", "Islamo fascists" - pffff.

The fact that you see my posts as part of a "foreign", "jihadist" threat says a lot ...

Kevin · Oct 17, 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by marden

Highlighting a transgression hardly qualifies as an ad-ANYTHING.

They were attempting to spin it. I suggest you curb back on such things because they are only going to point them out because I will be.