The latest legal battle over a name: Fox News vs. Al Franken (1 Viewer)

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

and is probably attributable to the fact that most of America is moderate to liberal

I'm sure Fox enjoys the millions of moderate to liberal viewers then making their shows consistantly number 1 in the ratings.

I defend Foxnews rights to make their case and try to show that Franken has defamed them in some way. Will Foxnews win? you know probably not, but this is exactly the kind of attention Franken had wished for and yes he will be a media darling for a few weeks on the talk show circuit.

Like I said in a earlier post, you have to follow the money. With all this hoopla over this event, who is likely to sell more books now, Franken or O'Reilly. O'Reilly has a book coming out the day after Franken's book.

Paul

 

[SteveA]

most of America is moderate to liberal

I think moderate to conservative is closer to the truth. Dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart liberals like Al Franken and Micheal Moore are a small but very vocal minority.

 

[CharlesD]

I'm sure Fox enjoys the millions of moderate to liberal viewers then making their shows consistantly number 1 in the ratings.

Number one in the ratings as far as 24 hour cable news goes. IIRC O'Reilly is their highest rated show which gets just over one million viewers, so they don't have "millions" of viewers of any type.

Compare that aprox. 1,000,000 to, for instance, the CBS evening news which gets over 10,000,000 viewers (as do each of the NBC and ABC evening news broadcasts). So their "number one in the ratings" is actually a tiny fraction of the people watching some type of television news.

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Your right Charles, I should of been more clear in the stat. Foxnews is number one in cable news.

Compare that aprox. 1,000,000 to, for instance, the CBS evening news which gets over 10,000,000 viewers

But Franken is not going to sell more books by calling Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw liars. Even calling Larry King a liar wouldn't garner as much reaction. Larry would just invite him on the show and ask him fluff questions about SNL.

Franken's big beef is that there finally is an outlet that goes out and ask's questions that the big networks and CNN never asked or ignored and some of those questions lead to answers that Franken does not like to see answered.

Paul

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Franken's big beef is that there finally is an outlet that goes out and ask's questions that the big networks and CNN never asked or ignored and some of those questions lead to answers that Franken does not like to see answered.

Riiiiight. So Fox News didn't ignore the news that thousands of young, male, Arab immigrants (legal and otherwise) were being rounded up under the guise of illegal immigration laws. It must also be Fox News that didn't change their stance from "DIA Had No Evidence of Chemical Weapons in Iraq Last September" to "DIA: Intelligence Report Supports WMD Claims". And I'm sure Franken is quaking in his boots that some of those questions the other networks won't ask are being answered.

The crux of this court case isn't Franken or the "liberal bias" or anything even remotely resembling journalism (which, in IMO, is Fox News in a nutshell). It's intimidation tactics and name-calling from a network that can't take a joke, lest it bite into their bottom line. Franken, despite his almost juvenile book titles, has a sharp wit and penchant for using people's words against them. It just happens that the majority of those people happen to be right-wing. The Washington Post put it best when they said the only people that'll confuse Franken's book with Fox News are "those that still count using their toes".

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Has O'Reilly ever been out of this country to report news? Does O'Reilly have any spine at all when he's not in his cushy newsroom?

Actually, O'Reilly spent many years doing overseas correspondence in some of the worst areas on the planet (Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Columbia, etc.). He was known as a fine field reporter who's rise was hampered by his habit of always speaking his mind to the audience and his superiors. O'Reilly has been criticized for a lot of things, lacking a spine is not one of them.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Well, I've yet to see Rather et al scream at their guests

Rather's show is a news broadcast. He does not generally have guests. O'Reilly's is a talk show- his opinions, not the news. Can't you see the difference?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Rather's show is a news broadcast. He does not generally have guests. O'Reilly's is a talk show- his opinions, not the news. Can't you see the difference?

Yes, it's the rest of their news coverage that's equally suspect. O'Reilly is SYMPTOMATIC of the overall problem.

 

[John_Berger]

So, how about that Al Franken book, eh?

:rolleyes

{ sniff sniff } I smell a thread lock coming...

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I think moderate to conservative is closer to the truth.

I believe there are more registered democrats in this country. I also need to note that this country elected democrat presidents the last 3 elections.

Note also M. Moore's MONTHS on the bestseller list and Hillary Clinton's book trouncing right wingers like Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity.

Back on topic...



I don't know what O'Reilly's beef is with the cover. If you snap a pic of your TV set, is that NOT in the public domain?

 

[SteveA]

I also need to note that this country elected democrat presidents the last 3 elections.

Not in 2000, according to the constitution. Even Gore's popular vote win is questionable, since a victory margin of 0.5% is within the margin of error of ALL voting devices in use. The popular vote was a statistical tie.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Reminder: HTF Rules prohibit discussion of politics. This topic of this thread is a lawsuit over the use of a phrase. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

M.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Steering away from politics and into some facts. It is a FACT that there are more registered Dems than Repubs. It is also a fact that the number of Dems has been decreasing for decades, and the number of Repubs slowly rising. But the FACT is that Dems do slightly outnumber Repubs. I see it as right-sizing, where both will eventually balance out. It makes sense, statistically, in a closed system. Most of my FACTS came from the recent Dem gathering of centrists (I forget the name, but they helped big Bill get elected) explaining how the Dems were losing ground, and how to get it back. It was fairly interesting, even for a conservative independent like myself. Intelligent and introspective.

Anyways...
Who cares? The title of the book is satire. While I would probably disagree with Franken on plenty of things (and O'Reilly for that matter), I am certain he is laughing all the way to the bank. Tons of free publicity, they prove his point for him, and he'll win in court. Any partisan bias (which is the real problem) aside (from either "correct" group), Fox News is STUPID for this stunt.

And they'll regret it,
Chuck

 

[CharlesD]

Any partisan bias (which is the real problem) aside (from either "correct" group), Fox News is STUPID for this stunt.

To quote O'Reilly: "shut up! shut up! don't say that, its not true, just shut up!"

(gotta love Bill's sharp debating skills)

 

[Holadem]

Reminder: HTF Rules prohibit discussion of politics. This topic of this thread is a lawsuit over the use of a phrase. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

Shouldn't you be busy looking for a flash light or something?

--
Holadem

 

[Joe Szott]

I also need to note that this country elected democrat presidents the last 3 elections.

Come on Patrick, you know better than to claim that this stat means something. By that logic, if we look at the last 6 elections, 2 were democrats (clinton x2) and 4 were republican (reagan x2, bush major, bush minor.) Thus flipping your original claim.

Back on topic: I'm sure Al Franken is laughing all the way to the bank on this one. If Fox News actually drags this into court and takes it to the end, Franken will have the material for his next book hand delivered with a silver bow. You would think of all the networks that Fox News would understand that the best way to bury something is to NOT draw attention to it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Come on Patrick, you know better than to claim that this stat means something. By that logic, if we look at the last 6 elections, 2 were democrats (clinton x2) and 4 were republican (reagan x2, bush major, bush minor.) Thus flipping your original claim.

What part of "HTF Rules prohibit discussion of politics" was unclear?

In the interest of keeping this thread open and on topic, I will close the account of the next person to offer such obvious political commentary. The same will apply to any attempt to debate the no-politics rule. Fair warning has been given.

M.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Damn, the mods get medieval!

Anyhoo, there's a call for today to be "Fair and Balanced (tm Fox News)" day. Check out the list of sites that are using the term to mock Fox News. Minus one point to the supposedly unbiased network using a lawsuit as a shield for reverting to first-grade tattle-tales and name-calling.

I wonder if Dave Barry or Aaron Macgruder's Boondocks will get in on this?

Happy "Fair and Balanced (and #1 preorder)" Day guys!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Not medieval, Jesse. Just trying to keep this thread within the posting guidelines. (There's a whole World Wide Web available to discuss politics.) My colleague has specifically requested that this thread stay focused on the lawsuit itself.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> I don't know what O'Reilly's beef is with the cover.

Probably something about having his face on it when the subject of the book is "lying liars", I would imagine. :frowning: