someone please explain..

[ekg]

I've backed away from politics in the last few week because.. well, I have to every now and then to save my sanity..HA!


anyway, I think I have the gist on Benghazi, even the whole 'whistle-blower' dud and abc news,false email reporting.

I have a good idea on the irs thing..altho I am still trying to figure out what exactly was so wrong with making  entities that want to destroy the tax system thru political donations prove they aren't really a political entity, just a 'wink-wink' 501.4c one.. fill out extra paper work and answer more questions than say the boy scouts of America..I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the actual scandal is.. I mean, if someone had the unfortunate name "Osama Bin Laden" and they never change it, but one day decided they wanted a passport.. would it be a scandal if the State depart held that passport application for a few extra days/weeks and asked this fellow a few more questions before giving him a passport?

sure I get that the gov't isn't supposed to single out a political group for scrutiny.. but I thought these groups were applying for 'non-political,tax-free' status.. so how can they claim shielding under the 'gov't can't be biased against any political group' ? 

or am I missing something?

thirdly.. the AP/Foxnews scandal..

wtf is all that about?

someone at Fox and the AP disseminated classified information.. the DOJ, legally, looked at their phone records.. all media lost the mothefucking minds..

but where was this media-mind-losing meltdown when the rest of the country was getting(legally) wiretapped after implementation of the Pat Act?

Where were the same GOP'ers now crying "Obama Tyranny" when liberals were warning them 10 years ago "This is not a slippery slope you're one, it's the complete destruction of privacy".. OH yeah, I remember where they were.. Some of them, like the Cheney,Bush and Rumsfeld were telling those liberals they are either with them or the terrorists.. funny how they didn't care about it then, but do now..funny how then it was 'its a time of war, the gov't must be able to do it's job to save american children' but today, in a time of war, when you release classified, cia, information that could have only been leaked by someone within the national security apparatus it's "OMG  they're stepping on our freedoms"..

I get that reporters have the duty to go to jail before revealing their source.. but that doesn't mean they can't be investigated does it?

Where was the outrage when  the gov't, in collusion with the media (Judith miller comes to mind).. started a war on lies? Where was the outrage when the gov't contracted the media (miller again) to out a classified CIA agent along with anyone who was sharing her 'backstory' and any contact she ever had?


I know the media is saying "It's not a crime to report classified information that was given to them".. So why aren't they just as damning for Julian Assange freedom right now? Did he do the exact same thing?


what am I missing? what is the scandal here?

[Howey]

I've backed away from politics in the last few week because.. well, I have to every now and then to save my sanity..HA!


anyway, I think I have the gist on Benghazi, even the whole 'whistle-blower' dud and abc news,false email reporting.

I have a good idea on the irs thing..altho I am still trying to figure out what exactly was so wrong with making  entities that want to destroy the tax system thru political donations prove they aren't really a political entity, just a 'wink-wink' 501.4c one.. fill out extra paper work and answer more questions than say the boy scouts of America..I'm still trying to wrap my head around what the actual scandal is.. I mean, if someone had the unfortunate name "Osama Bin Laden" and they never change it, but one day decided they wanted a passport.. would it be a scandal if the State depart held that passport application for a few extra days/weeks and asked this fellow a few more questions before giving him a passport?

sure I get that the gov't isn't supposed to single out a political group for scrutiny.. but I thought these groups were applying for 'non-political,tax-free' status.. so how can they claim shielding under the 'gov't can't be biased against any political group' ? 

or am I missing something?

thirdly.. the AP/Foxnews scandal..

wtf is all that about?

someone at Fox and the AP disseminated classified information.. the DOJ, legally, looked at their phone records.. all media lost the mothefucking minds..

but where was this media-mind-losing meltdown when the rest of the country was getting(legally) wiretapped after implementation of the Pat Act?

Where were the same GOP'ers now crying "Obama Tyranny" when liberals were warning them 10 years ago "This is not a slippery slope you're one, it's the complete destruction of privacy".. OH yeah, I remember where they were.. Some of them, like the Cheney,Bush and Rumsfeld were telling those liberals they are either with them or the terrorists.. funny how they didn't care about it then, but do now..funny how then it was 'its a time of war, the gov't must be able to do it's job to save american children' but today, in a time of war, when you release classified, cia, information that could have only been leaked by someone within the national security apparatus it's "OMG  they're stepping on our freedoms"..

I get that reporters have the duty to go to jail before revealing their source.. but that doesn't mean they can't be investigated does it?

Where was the outrage when  the gov't, in collusion with the media (Judith miller comes to mind).. started a war on lies? Where was the outrage when the gov't contracted the media (miller again) to out a classified CIA agent along with anyone who was sharing her 'backstory' and any contact she ever had?


I know the media is saying "It's not a crime to report classified information that was given to them".. So why aren't they just as damning for Julian Assange freedom right now? Did he do the exact same thing?


what am I missing? what is the scandal here?

There are no scandals, from Benghazi to AP to the IRS. I've spent a lot of time on JPP on each. They're all more misguided right wing bullshit trying to create a mountain out of a molehill.

The only one with any credence is the IRS deal, which boils down to as even Issa said today, a few people in an office in Cincinnati that equals less than a percent of employees and has nothing to do with the president.

[uselesslegs]

Here's what I came away with, after spending days just reading all the articles I could and people's perceptions therein...

The IRS debacle and AP dealio, both have some validity in reflecting badly and being questioned.  As to Benghazi...incompetence, lack of resources, CIA hush-hush...but no sleeping dragon...at least not the dragon hunted.

All three, however, share the common theme of something, anything, to make the admin and President look bad. The outcry is specific in tone.  It's not, "shit, something went down on this persons watch, lets see what the fuck happened." It's, "shit, something went down on this persons watch, I know that muther fucker is up to his eyeballs in involvement!" The former acknowledges an investigation is needed to see exactly what happened, why, how and who. The latter acknowledges a forgone conclusion and an investigation that should specifically link to/prove that conclusion.

The IRS deal is just a cluster fuck of odd.  Tea Party groups WERE targeted, in that, certain indicators viewed to be identifiers of Tea Party groups were used to give them some extra special attention. But, because of the way the language was changed with regard to 501c(4)'s and because no real guidelines existed or were ever put in place with verifying intent of groups applying for 501c(4) status...IRS workers are sort of left to their own devices to figure how who's full of shit and who's not.  When those workers saw a neon glowing pattern, I think they said fuck it....grouped them together and started in with what they felt was appropriate questioning/verifying.

Now mind you, the real bullshit, at least to me, was/is that these groups, who are about as political and politically active as you can imagine and who promote no or next to nothing in taxation, had the balls to apply for a "primarily" non-political, tax-exempt free status. So a bunch of hyper-political, taxation loathing people/groups wanted to apply for tax-exempt status, under the umbrella of a 501c(4), who weren't going to be primarily political...?  There's so much bullshit in there, that you'd drown.  I see a silver lining though. This may very well FORCE our cluster fuck of a congress and senate to finally address exactly what a friggin 501c(4) is.  You can't raise this much hell and pretend the thing that's at the center of what you're bitching about, doesn't exist or isn't a concern.  The Republicans saw an opening to "possible impeachment" (well, to be fair, they see everything as an opening to possible impeachment) went for it (with some justification...SURPRISE! THEY GOT ONE!) and now...oopsie.  Karl Rove didn't waste ANY TIME trying to link his superPac to...the NAACP...even if in the most obscure, full of shit way as possible.  He and the Koch's know EXACTLY what this genie coming out of the bottle means...and they ain't happy...at all.

The AP and the Fox News Journalist? Yea, they get to bitch on that one too.  Even as much as I loathe Fox, or anyone who works for them as a journalist who feels that they can be employed by them and have an ounce of integrity as a journalist. Especially the Fox News one.  What happened there wasn't really anything earth shattering, in the details released.  "North Korea's going to answer the U.S.'s finger wag on Nuclear Weapons, by setting off more."  Well duh. The suns coming up tomorrow and North Korea threatens something involving nukes...no brainer. It was excessive for the DOJ to go ape shit over that particular factoid getting out a bit earlier than their projected release of the information. The bigger question should be, why the journalist, citing anonymous sources, thought that story was even worthy of using anonymous sources in the first place. It's like a 1 or a 2, on the "Oh My!" scale of reporting.

Now the AP crap...I'm torn.  There was some sensitive friggin information going on there. Information that could of blown covers and literally gotten people killed. So yea, call me hyper-vigilant, but in that particular instance, how secure are they on their end to receive that information? And I'm not even going to get into the person that felt that was *crucial* information the reporter needed to know, so he could tell the world...and how secure were they?  This isn't kiddy time.  That was a deep ass, under cover operation, in about as a hostile environment as you can imagine.  What were we going to gleen from the sharing of this information? Were the operatives doing something wrong? Did we need to know about some treachery going on that would never see the light of day otherwise? *Usually* the motivation for airing laundry is to shine a light on something dubious that the public needs to be made aware of. In my reading, I can't seem to find anything dubious. Covert? Yes. But dubious? No. So I'm trying to wrap my head around the motivation, the need.  Was it just so they could show they had the inside track on secret operations? That they were watching? To show how big a dick they had on anonymous sources? I'm confused.

[ekg]

Thank you for the summation.. I will answer within..

Here's what I came away with, after spending days just reading all the articles I could and people's perceptions therein...

The IRS debacle and AP dealio, both have some validity in reflecting badly and being questioned.  As to Benghazi...incompetence, lack of resources, CIA hush-hush...but no sleeping dragon...at least not the dragon hunted.

All three, however, share the common theme of something, anything, to make the admin and President look bad. The outcry is specific in tone.  It's not, "shit, something went down on this persons watch, lets see what the fuck happened." It's, "shit, something went down on this persons watch, I know that muther fucker is up to his eyeballs in involvement!" The former acknowledges an investigation is needed to see exactly what happened, why, how and who. The latter acknowledges a forgone conclusion and an investigation that should specifically link to/prove that conclusion.

worse, all three proved their fears about Obama all along.. we've said it before, unfortunately this admin and every single one of the million or so people who work for the gov't under this admin.. cannot in any way become tainted by scandal.. sure-sure that's an extremely unreasonable and illogical idea because who, in their right minds, would blame Obama for what an assistant to a field officer in Dubuque, IA did on her lunch hour one friday..But we're not dealing with people in their right minds... and these scandals, not red-flag warning scandals IMO more like "wtf, someone fucked up" problems, are amplified times infinity..

The IRS deal is just a cluster fuck of odd.  Tea Party groups WERE targeted, in that, certain indicators viewed to be identifiers of Tea Party groups were used to give them some extra special attention. But, because of the way the language was changed with regard to 501c(4)'s and because no real guidelines existed or were ever put in place with verifying intent of groups applying for 501c(4) status...IRS workers are sort of left to their own devices to figure how who's full of shit and who's not.  When those workers saw a neon glowing pattern, I think they said fuck it....grouped them together and started in with what they felt was appropriate questioning/verifying.

Now mind you, the real bullshit, at least to me, was/is that these groups, who are about as political and politically active as you can imagine and who promote no or next to nothing in taxation, had the balls to apply for a "primarily" non-political, tax-exempt free status. So a bunch of hyper-political, taxation loathing people/groups wanted to apply for tax-exempt status, under the umbrella of a 501c(4), who weren't going to be primarily political...?  There's so much bullshit in there, that you'd drown.  I see a silver lining though. This may very well FORCE our cluster fuck of a congress and senate to finally address exactly what a friggin 501c(4) is.  You can't raise this much hell and pretend the thing that's at the center of what you're bitching about, doesn't exist or isn't a concern.  The Republicans saw an opening to "possible impeachment" (well, to be fair, they see everything as an opening to possible impeachment) went for it (with some justification...SURPRISE! THEY GOT ONE!) and now...oopsie.  Karl Rove didn't waste ANY TIME trying to link his superPac to...the NAACP...even if in the most obscure, full of shit way as possible.  He and the Koch's know EXACTLY what this genie coming out of the bottle means...and they ain't happy...at all.

that's what I don't get at all.. Issa's trying to dampen this one down.. or was when he admitted he's known about the investigation for a pretty long time.. and if Issa's not railing and wailing, then you know not only is it nothing, but it involves people with (R) after their name or will hurt people with (R) after their name.. I mean, of all people in congress to make a mountain out of a molehill? Darryl Issa is it.. and even he's like "eh, nothing to see here"..

and there isn't anything to see.. as far as I can tell, these organization were intending on scamming the tax office by, as you said, claiming 501c(4) status.. everyone knows it's open-legit scam, everyone knows this. doesn't mean the IRS can't make you answer extra questions when trying to file as one. especially when you're name is a throw-back to a tax-revolt.. Jesus, you call yourself the tea-party, you're mission statement is 'kill the irs,burn the  tax office down,stop paying the crooks in Washington your money', you file under a know scam-law.. and you're shocked the gov't would say "Um, we're going to give you this rope you're asking for, but 1st we want to fille this paperwork out in triplicate"....

again, whiney bullshit iMO..

The AP and the Fox News Journalist? Yea, they get to bitch on that one too.  Even as much as I loathe Fox, or anyone who works for them as a journalist who feels that they can be employed by them and have an ounce of integrity as a journalist. Especially the Fox News one.  What happened there wasn't really anything earth shattering, in the details released.  "North Korea's going to answer the U.S.'s finger wag on Nuclear Weapons, by setting off more."  Well duh. The suns coming up tomorrow and North Korea threatens something involving nukes...no brainer. It was excessive for the DOJ to go ape shit over that particular factoid getting out a bit earlier than their projected release of the information. The bigger question should be, why the journalist, citing anonymous sources, thought that story was even worthy of using anonymous sources in the first place. It's like a 1 or a 2, on the "Oh My!" scale of reporting.

Now the AP crap...I'm torn.  There was some sensitive friggin information going on there. Information that could of blown covers and literally gotten people killed. So yea, call me hyper-vigilant, but in that particular instance, how secure are they on their end to receive that information? And I'm not even going to get into the person that felt that was *crucial* information the reporter needed to know, so he could tell the world...and how secure were they?  This isn't kiddy time.  That was a deep ass, under cover operation, in about as a hostile environment as you can imagine.  What were we going to gleen from the sharing of this information? Were the operatives doing something wrong? Did we need to know about some treachery going on that would never see the light of day otherwise? *Usually* the motivation for airing laundry is to shine a light on something dubious that the public needs to be made aware of. In my reading, I can't seem to find anything dubious. Covert? Yes. But dubious? No. So I'm trying to wrap my head around the motivation, the need.  Was it just so they could show they had the inside track on secret operations? That they were watching? To show how big a dick they had on anonymous sources? I'm confused.

either the AP deserves what they got.. or Julian Assange doesn't deserve what FoxNews has vilified him for.. it's just that simple... Yes, the AP can legally disseminate classified intel.. but the gov't can legally investigate who disseminated that intel to them.. and after the Pat Act, that means emails baby..no-knock warrants,no-warrant taps etc etc... don't like it? sorry, you didn't mind when it passed don't come whining about it now..you claimed 'national security' when it was happening to others, you can't now claim 'gov't overreach' when it happens to you..

as for the Fox guy.. he too was seen meeting with a known 'leaker'.. one who was being investigated himself... hell, if I go into a drug-dealer house, while he is being watched by LE, my ass is going to get secretly followed and background checked too..  it's the name of the game. Should he have been implicated? Should the DOJ have used all the legal means at their disposal when the found out it was 'press'? why not? What gives Fox news or any other a free pass? Are we supposed to say "Oh, whoops, that guy has a press pass.. let's end the investigation.. damnintman"... if that's the case then every AlQ group out there should start embedding US journalist to hide behind..

in neither case were these journalists trying to protect the people from an evil rogue gov't.. neither of these people were exposing gov't corruption that is damaging the foundation of this country.. that is what a free-press is about. and that's when the press does get a free-pass.. but when they are involved with telling a non-story that will, by being told, jeopardize months or years of investigation,lives,covers,contacts.. well, your editor should have stopped you from putting that story out there because now you're involved in a national security leak, in a time of war, and homey don't play that.

[ekg]

huh... So Rupert Murdoch knew 3 years ago about the subpoenas but didn't tell Roger Ails/Fox news about them?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/25/sources-fox-news-knew-of-phone-records-subpoena-three-years-ago/?hpt=hp_t2

The parent company of Fox News was aware years ago that the Justice Department was targeting one of its reporters in a leak investigation, sources said Saturday.

One law enforcement source said the Justice Department notified a media organization three years ago of a subpoena for detailed telephone records, and a second told CNN that organization was Fox News.

After that news broke, a Fox News executive said the Justice Department notified Fox's parent company News Corporation of the subpoena in May 2010. But Fox News itself apparently never got the word.

The subpoena came as the Justice Department was investigating Stephen Kim, a former State Department worker accused of the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter.

It is standard procedure for Justice Department officials to notify news organizations when they subpoena an outlet or its reporters.

CNN and other media outlets have previously reported a separate Justice Department query into Rosen's e-mails. With the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder, Justice officials obtained a warrant from a federal judge to access Rosen's e-mails.

While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail.

"In the investigation that led to the indictment of Stephen Kim, the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media," a law enforcement source told CNN. "Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile and e-mail."

Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently, and newly released court documents show the government was trying to keep the investigation under seal. The network did not disclose to its viewers that the phone records had been subpoenaed.

The government's notice did not detail the extent of the investigation, in which the government labeled Rosen a possible co-conspirator. An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's e-mails described him as potentially being an "aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the crime of disclosing government secrets.

The Justice Department has come under scrutiny this month as news broke of two government probes into reporters' records. Besides the Rosen case, the Associated Press announced the department had dug into the phone records of its reporters, including work, cell, and home lines.

bet they don't discuss this on Hannity..

[uselesslegs]

I bet you're 100 percent right.

[ekg]

I bet you're 100 percent right.

HA!

On Saturday, a Fox News executive said that the notice had gone to News Corp., its parent company, on Aug. 27, 2010, but that Fox News was not told until Friday. The executive said they were still trying to sort out how the notice fell through the cracks

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/fox-news-knew-of-department-of-justice-subpoena-in-2009/

.

Oh I know how it uh... fell thru the cracks..

iirc, that  was all about the same time Rupert's 'news corp' was being investigated for phone hacking too weren't they?

no wonder he didn't say anything.. Foxnews was able to silent on that issue because they were never a part of the 'investigation'.. Had Roger Ails known that they actually were being investigated, but for something else, that probably wouldn't have looked too good.. so instead, *zip* not a word was mentioned..

the MSM can get their panties untwisted since we know now that the DOJ was following the law.. and notifying the boss of the person of interest..  not too mention that that updated article linked above said yes, Fox news DID know about the phone lines.. they just chose to ignore that they knew..

when will the MSM stop carrying Fox's water? When will they actually look at a fucking story before reporting anything that broadcast company spews forth? Not a single story they've ever reported ever stays the same.. it always evolves into bullshit..

[uselesslegs]

My, my.  Do the wonders of bullshit never end? So Rupert knew, but didn't want to share...?  Yeah...that might have been a *tad* significant.

Fox News has become/been the sibling that constantly feels the need to get their other sibling in trouble, that winds up getting in more shit themselves, once the BS is unraveled.

The only difference is...unless it's something truly simplistic in nature to understand, something they can't keep bullshitting about because even the most non-astute of their viewers can see the contrary BS...they keep plodding along otherwise.  Milking that crap for every ounce of hackery they can. Especially on items that seemingly have a tad bit more of nuance or something that can be injected with a bunch of "what ifs."

They really are a journalistic scourge.

I think the thing that annoys me most is that the regular viewer cannot (or refuses to) tell the difference between a witch hunt and actual news that contains unflattering or negative implications in the story.

There's a huge difference in news items that aren't positive for the individual or thing being reported, based on the information provided that can cast a negative light...and the news organization itself, making sure that they will only relay stories that contain content that is negative or CAN BE skewed to produce that effect.

President Obama is far from perfect. None of us are. But if you only watch Fox News, you'd be convinced that he has never, ever done anything that had one ounce of positivity or neutrality.  I mean...nothing. I've met and known some miserable pricks in my day...but I've never met someone who is wrong 24/7. Not according to Fox, however.  President Obama is wrong, has been wrong, on EVERYTHING...even the stuff he got right, they will make sure you understand it's not as positive, and matter as fact, it's actually negative...contrary to what the information suggests.

[ekg]

and the story deepens..

see if you can spot the 'slant'... I'm guessing the media is still smarting over being investigated number one.. and number two, slowly coming to realize they've been had by FoxNews once again..

Washington (CNN) - Under fire for seeking records of journalists' communications, government officials pushed back Wednesday against statements from Fox News that it was not notified about government subpoenas to the organization.

On Wednesday a law enforcement official showed CNN paperwork to support Justice's claim that on August 27, 2010 three messages were sent out about the subpoenas and went to both a lawyer for Fox News' parent company, News Corporation, and reporter James Rosen.

The Justice Department subpoenas were for two days of phone records in 2009 during a national security leak investigation. The department said it notified Fox News about seeking toll records for five phone lines but did not tell them about seeking access to Rosen's personal email traffic. When news of the search warrant became public, Fox News released a statement acknowledging Rosen was the reporter described in the affidavit and expressing outrage.

The official said two notifications were sent to Lawrence Jacobs who was the senior counsel for News Corporation. The law enforcement official showed CNN a fax receipt with a time stamp to show something was faxed to Jacobs at precisely 4:09 pm on August 27. In addition, CNN was shown a U.S. Postal Service certified mail receipt indicating a registered letter was sent to Jacobs the same day. The official did not show the messages sent to Jacobs.

CNN was also shown an email to the Fox News reporter sent at 4:20p on August 27th. The reporter's name was blacked out but the official acknowledged it was sent to Rosen. The reporter also was copied on the letter sent to Jacobs. Again, CNN was not shown what message was sent.

The law enforcement official stated that there was no indication that any of the messages did not go through. But the official also did not provide any further proof that the intended parties actually received the communications.

"Nobody has bothered to show me anything," Jacobs told CNN Wednesday. "I am not suggesting anybody is lying. But I have no recollection of anyone receiving anything....Why would I sit on it?"

Jacobs left News Corp in in June 2011 but said he's been in contact with his old company and officials there have said they have searched records and found no messages from Justice Department officials about seeking phone records.


CNN has reached out to Fox for comment on the newly disclosed documents. In the past, Fox has said they were not notified about subpoenas for phone records.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/doj-says-e-mails-letter-prove-it-notified-fox-of-subpoenas/?hpt=hp_t2

of course Fox news isn't commenting on this... they threw their gas on a fire, started the blaze and  will run along to the next spark now that this one is panning out to shit.. it's their "MO"..shame on the MSM for backing them on this..


"something as faxed"
"offical did not provide proof  that Fox  got communication"
"Not shown message"
"Again, not shown message"..

wtf cnn? they're making the DOJ sound like the liars in this scenario..  How about asking Fox "wtf Fox news? full of shit much?"

covering up Fox news on this is a shit-ton more disturbing than the DOJ investigating a leak..

[uselesslegs]

CNN is now among other outlets like the Huff, NY Times, CBS and AP who have declined to meet with Holder to have an off the record discussion about the DOJ's media investigations and reforming the DOJ's policies regulating the investigation of journalists. They don't want it off-the-record and are basically like, "give us a buzz when we can print the details."

I get it, I do...they're pissed. They fill infringed upon, violated and there's some meat there. But what annoys me, is that they're absorbing Fox News into this (by way of James Rosen)...and they shouldn't be.  They're allowing a "news" outlet under their umbrella of outrage/concern...that doesn't deserve that comradery. It's not even a "strange bedfellows" thing. Fox, once again, has shown themselves to be full of shit. Once again their outrage carries an assload of "exceptions" and "misdirection." And once again, what I would consider legitimate journalists/media, are giving them a seat at the table, by entertaining their crap. 

I blame the "legitimate" media for Fox News.  They've been carrying their dirty water damn near since their inception. How many times have Fox's stories panned out to be bullshit, fabrication and lies? This has been going on since 1996...and since 1996 what I would consider responsible journalists/news outlets do very little in admonishing the bullshit and ripping it apart. Does the 4th estate have some weird "code" like other organizations do?...Where if you point a finger at the crap, you're a snitch? "Well, even if it disagrees with the reality of situations or is contrary to evidence as it exists...they have a right to disseminate information...poorly or with a specific political agenda."  Really? I mean really? So the rest of the 4th Estate has no duty to eviscerate the bullshit and tear the facade of "Fair and Balanced" to fucking shreds if it's not?

If Fox News manufactured products like food or cars or things...do you know how many fuck'in major recalls of significance there would have been since 1996? I mean Jesus Christ, as a company they would no longer exist in the market place! They're the friggin Lawn Darts and Barbed Wire Hula-Hoops of news for gawds's sake! So, if they CONSISTENTLY damage and chip away at the integrity of legitimate News and Journalism...why in the fuck do other actual News outlets and Journalists tolerate and provide cover for them?