FOX News calls for creation of "OFFICE OF CENSORSHIP" by Bush

[Julius Civitatus]

Chilling. Just absolutely chilling.

Fox News called for the creation of an "Office of Censorship" to screen news reports and censor the press, as long as we are in war (of course, this is a war with no end in sight).

Several Fox News anchor-people have floated this idea in several ocassions this week, including Brian Kilmeade and E.D. Hill.

In a Fox News interview, J.D. Hayworth first dismisses the idea of an office of censorship, only to argue in favor of bringing back that concept, as well as requiring self-cersorship by the media.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606290009

On June 29, several Fox News media figures suggested that the U.S. government should "put up the Office of Censorship" to screen news reports to determine whether they "hurt the country" or are of "news value," in the wake of a New York Times article disclosing a Treasury Department program designed to monitor international financial transactions.

I doubt Pravda was so eager to advocate government censorship in the worst days of Stalinism.

[AX10]

1. It's called facsism.

Fox "News" is a terrorist organization.

[ixion]

2. we are not at war

and FAUX needs to stop spreading fascism. :grr:

[roguevalley]

88. so, can we call them Nazis now? :-D

[badgerpup]

3. Maybe...just maybe...even the koolaid drinkers might pause at this...

"Office of Censorship" is a just too blatant about what it is really all about...no high sounding bullshit about it like "Security" or "Patriotism" or "Protection"...:scared:

[leeroysphitz]

22. But they won't call it Office Of Censorship.

They'll call it "Office Of Truth", Or "Office of Patriotic Information Management" or something and the bushbots will waive their flags and cheer thankful to finally have some protection from the godless liberal media that has been running rampant for the last ten years.

[halobeam]

27. BINGO.! Office of Truth. Exactly opposite of what it is.

That sums it up, it's probably outlined with a benchmark date already.

[LSK]

93. 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984

[Bluebear]

109. 1984 9/11 1984 9/11 1984 9/11 1984 nt

[InternalDialogue]

60. Let me modify your office name a bit.

We'll call it the Office of Patriotic Information And Terrorism Eradication. That way its acronym is OPIATE, which is exactly what they're hoping for.

[Generic Other]

61. Here is an official poster for the office

[leeroysphitz]

64. Good one. Sadly, I really won't be surprised if it turns

out that they REALLY use it!

[The Wizard]

87. Would anyone believe

Propaganda Ministry

[bperci108]

115. Or how about....

The Ministry of Truth.

Oh wait....wasn't that in a book or something?

:eyes:

[MiniMe]

117. What about Office of Patriotic Information User Management

The acronym would be OPIUM

:rofl:

[ikri]

94. How about

Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Pres. They could hire the KGB staff that ran the organization of the same name in the USSR.

Is there no one working in the US press that understands the concept of the Fourth Estate?

[patricia92243]

4. This is the scariest thing I've read lately -and with this administration

that is saying a mouthful.

Sometimes I feel like a lot of people do - hide my head in the sand and don't know (or care) what is going on.

[BOSSHOG]

5. limbaugh's twin (hayworth) does not deserve his citizenship

This constitution loving veteran looks forward to the civil war. My are the fascists getting desperate as they see more reports of their potential demise in November. limbaugh ranting lunatic prose to his lunatic audience about pelosi and hayworth who doesn't understand the concept of constitutional liberty wanting to turn our country into a stalinist regime. And people are supposed to vote for this nonsense?

[The Brethren]

41. i don't think many people will vote for this

It's become a vicious cycle that is only becoming more ridiculous and dangerous every time we turn around. I personally think we're heading for a civil war. My last straw was this past bogus election. Without a voting system that is even somewhat honest and accurate, we don't have democracy no matter how much politicians want to assure us it will all be ok. B.s.!

[Beelzebud]

6. When do we set up the Office of Revolution?

[Hugin]

7. I say we...

CENSOR FOX NEWS!

[Julius Civitatus]

8. It's just getting worst and worst every day

They won't stop until we become some sort of corporate police state. The case of the NY Times reporting is giving these fascists an excuse to destroy another American freedom. And what makes me sicker is that the WSJ and the Washington Post are siding with the Bush administration and throwing the NY Times under the bus:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1534613

[greyl]

23. Right, so there's no need to exaggerate.

I think you should edit your OP for accuracy.

[lpbk2713]

9. These assholes are getting more blatant and obvious

with each passing day. They keep trying to outdo themselves. Y2006 and Y2008 can't get here soon enough to suit me.

[Quantess]

46. The monster is growing bigger and uglier each day.

This "war on terrorism", (which, by the way, is a miserable failure just like *), is a convenient excuse for fascist policies.

The B*sh Administration hates America.

[EFerrari]

10. We're here! n/t

[Hugin]

13. Yeeeup...

Both hands of the clock are pointing at HIGH FASCISM.

[Justitia]

11. Freaking Fascist Pravda promoters! -eom

[Fovea]

12. Welcome to New China

now STFU and sit down.

[zonmoy]

116. actually shouldn't it be welcome to the 4th reich.

[leeroysphitz]

14. God help us. (or somebody, please)

Hey at least we've got a the supreme court to check this kind of abuse of power. Oh wait...

Hey dems in Washington! Is our powder dry enough yet?

[greyl]

15. You are making this sound slightly worse than it is.

In the article you link to, Hayworth argues against the idea.

[Julius Civitatus]

25. J.D. Hayworth argues against the name, not the concept

He defends this type of behavior should be brought back, as he says, we need to "rediscover this notion." He starts his rant saying that he doesn't think we need the office per se, but then he argues that the government should be able to censor news, and that media should exercise self-censorship to please the government.

[greyl]

28. Listen, he's a total asshole, but

you're taking what he said out of context.
In your OP, you falsely say that the idea is voiced by him.

Hayworth and Brian & The Judge co-host Andrew P. Napolitano both challenged the need for an "Office of Censorship,..."

[Julius Civitatus]

29. They are floating that idea in the media

I modified the OP to reflect the nuance, but notice that they first say it's not necessary, yet they argue in favor of the censorship. They are trying to have it BOTH WAYS. J.D. Hayworth even calls letting the media report impartial and uncensored news a "national suicide."

[greyl]

37. "they"? It's a ridiculous idea.

There are already standards that good journalists follow.
As opposed to Geraldo, for example, who divulged specific military actions on the air a few years ago.

[Julius Civitatus]

38. What exactly do you mean?

What do you mean by "they"?

[greyl]

39. I was asking what you meant by "they"

when you said "They are floating it in the media".

It looks to me like it's a couple of idiots on Fox radio who don't deserve any attention.

[Julius Civitatus]

43. Wrong. Fox News serves to bring certain ideas to the public arena

By "they" I mean Republicans in general, or the Republican PR elves in particular. I don't think Brian Kilmeade has enough functioning braincells to come up with this idea all by himself. And it's been clear that Fox has served a a platform to push Republican PR into the public arena for years (for example, the Swiftboat liars). I mean, I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone in DU, seriously.

Wonder if other shows and media figures will follow on this. Wonder if Howard Kurtz will discuss the need for media censorship in the USA, or any other pundits and right-wing columnists will follow up by also hinting the "need" of censorship.

So yes, "THEY" are testing the waters and injecting the concept of media censorship as a "need" in a time of war into the national discourse.

[greyl]

50. What's "wrong"?

You don't have to explain anything about Fox to me. You are imagining the need to, similar to how you imagined what Hayworth said.

[Julius Civitatus]

51. Boy, are you defensive...

Yes, Fox News always floats ideas for the Repugs. And yes, Hayworth is trying to have it both ways. Keep defending him. I don't care.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julius Civitatus]

56. Get over yourself

"Blatant falsehood"... yeah right. Just like your breathlessly apologetic dismissal of Hayward and Fox News, right? Whatevs!

[greyl]

58. Calling him a total asshole is defending him?

Okaayyyy.

[The Gunslinger]

83. I think the Administration controls everything they do.

They are floating it out there to see what the response will be. If its good, Rush and Hannity and Billy will catapult the propaganda, then it will be proposed, then 25% of the dems will vote for it, making it a law and the end of the constitution.

I hope thats not the case.

Bringing that up on Fox is far more dangerous than what the NY Times did. They only reported news.

[nolabels]

70. Geraldo, the same guy with the TeeVee special............

who spent a whole long show designed for him show with a national audience plOwing through abandoned buildings basements that were packed with trash looking for some treasure supposedly buried by some well known gangster. They touted the show for weeks (this was years ago) and the show was such a mega flop that we didn't see Geraldo for years after. Why can't he just do a show like that again or just go away all together :shrug:

[greiner3]

103. You know what really sucks;

He married Vonnegut's daughter. Their children have HALF a chance at being someone!

[Occulus]

44. Well, your half of the quote makes you half-right...

Here's the rest...

"...although Hayworth went on to characterize "those in journalism who have taken it upon themselves to become the arbitrators of what should be national security" as displaying a "nationally suicidal" reasoning."

And here's the part that makes you half-wrong:

" HAYWORTH: Well, E.D., I don't know that we need an office of Censorship. What we do need to rediscover, if you will, is a notion that I guess was borne out in World War II. Stephen Ambrose, the late biographer of Dwight Eisenhower, writes very eloquently of a situation prior to D-Day, when Ike called together the war correspondents in -- in England and said, "Fellas, just thought you ought to know, we're going to go in early June." And Ambrose, in that wonderful biography, says to a man, the war correspondents stopped writing, and one asked, "General, why did you tell us?" And Ike responded, "Because you're good Americans and I know you will not jeopardize the lives of fellow Americans."

We all need to rediscover that, especially those in journalism who have taken it upon themselves to become the arbiters of what should be national security and some who argue that no, they're really not so much citizens of the United States, now they are citizens of the world, neutral observers of the scene. That's a strange type of reasoning here and it's certainly -- I won't call it politically correct. I think it's nationally suicidal."

In other words, yes, they really are floating the idea. It's ridiculous to take this in any other way; Hayworth and others are suggesting it. Hayworth says we don't need an office named that and then goes on to describe exactly that in less alarming terms.

[greyl]

52. Did you support Geraldo when he

drew troop movements in the sand?

The general idea is that certain things shouldn't be divulged by the media, and good journalists are well aware of that, and withold information all the time. Hayworth seems to be taking a crack at the New York Times, and I thoroughly disagree with him on that point.

[Occulus]

55. Strawman. Geraldo is not at issue.

Hayworth is, himself, relying on a strawman as well; this is not a war anything at all like WWII, and as we already know, the potential for abuses on the part of commanders, both military and civilian, and the administration running the show as well, is very high.

"Certain things?" Which 'certain things'? Plame? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? NSA spying? To accept the idea, even the core concepts, of media censorship because "we're at war" renders legitimacy to the war- the which, it does not have.

I'm against it, period, because I know this group will abuse it.

[greyl]

57. No, it's only a question.

I'd guess your answer is "no". Why not admit it?

[Occulus]

16. Another thing

If it's coming from FAUX, it means it's coming from the administration.

They're floating the idea to see if it's accepted, ignored- whatever.

Be afraid.

[lpbk2713]

24. I agree. BushCo uses FauxNews (among others) as a weather vane.

They run a contentious issue by Faux to see which way the public wind blows.

[skids]

62. Me three...

FWIW. You cannot take anything on FOX at face value. If it is said, it is said for the total effect -- in this case, injecting the meme -- not just for the surface meaning. And if it is said, barring an internal spat, it's being said at the behest of the neocons/administration.

[MnFats]

17. you had to figure these pigs would trash the First Amendment completely..

...at some point since they can't pursue their evil aims while it's still in place.
...If this stands, our country will be fundamentally changed....in terrible, terrible ways.
....perhaps this is just bluster.... if not, it should send masses of people into the streets.....seriously, this can't be permitted...

[WI_DEM]

18. Well FAUX just admitted that by supporting this they have absolutely

no credibility as a news organization.

[Up2Late]

19. GOOD IDEA if they start with Fox "news."

The FCC should shut them down for not producing News.

[The Wielding Truth]

31. Does the FCC still exist? I mean is it still American or is it Corporate?

[man4allcats]

53. Actually, I was wondering about this.

This might be one of my more half-baked ideas, but might it not be possible to bring the FCC into this? I recall prior to the 2004 election there was a right wing broadcaster (can't recall the name just now) that was engaged in the swift-boating effort against John Kerry. Many of us, myself included, petitioned the FCC to have their broadcasting license pulled (or at least not renewed). I think the stated grounds were "failure to act in the public interest" or something like that. I'm pretty sure that broadcaster still has a license, but if FAUX is really going to stick it's neck out and advocate something this far to the right, maybe the FCC could be just the axe we need to chop off or at least threaten to chop off FAUX's head. Starting such a petition might be something for the DU Activist Corps to take on. I doubt we could succeed, but maybe we could shake FAUX up enough to drop this particular bit of Fascist rhetoric. Does anyone think this is do-able, or is it just a waste of time?

One final thought: It did occur to me that maybe FAUX news does have the right to say what they want. Just because I don't like it doesn't necessarily mean they can't voice it. On the other hand, I don't think the First Amendment allows for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It seems to me that in this case, FAUX has crossed that line.

[Up2Late]

101. You might want to kick the idea around in GD and maybe the Media

...forum too. I'm not an expert on such things, but there are a lot of very smart people here.

[tenshi816]

20. These people aren't very good at taking

the long view, are they? At some time in the future, maybe sooner, maybe later, the Democrats are going to be in charge again. One day there may even be both a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. If the Republicans and FOX News get their way and a "Department of Censorship" is indeed created in the meantime, they're going to squeal like stuck pigs when the very thing they strove to put into place is used against them - someday.

[intheflow]

30. Well, if they got something like a department of censorship

they could pretty much ensure that Dems never regained power because they'd be controlling what information was being distributed. So I don't think that possibility enters into the equation in their tiny, reptilian brains.

[Solon]

35. Your assuming they would even let Democrats win elections...

They already have no compulsion in committing election fraud to ensure their own victory, to be honest, they probably wouldn't be against a total dictatorship here in this country, at least till this war of infinity ends.

[tenshi816]

45. I know. Time for me to read

It Can't Happen Here again, I think.

[gully]

21. Was it helpful to "the country" when we heard about Monica Lewinsky

DAILY. Clinton was fighting a "war on terror" as well, the difference is that HE was effective.

[Roland99]

26. Momma raised some good little Fascists!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

32. I think it's a GREAT idea!

Let's call it the "Ministry of Truth"

[The Brethren]

33. McCarthyism is back

along with black lists, witch hunts and a new face.

[Heywood J]

34. I'm sorry, but what the fuck?

Edited to reduce to four quoted paragraphs.

Summary: On June 29, several Fox News media figures suggested that the U.S. government should "put up the Office of Censorship" to screen news reports to determine whether they "hurt the country" or are of "news value," in the wake of a New York Times article disclosing a Treasury Department program designed to monitor international financial transactions.

I'm sorry, but has the constitution completely been blown out the window yet for that to be appropriate? Never mind that bit about prior restraint or press freedom, apparently.

This can't be serious. The suggestion is just so absurd, even for Fox - that bastion of rational thought.

On the June 29 broadcast of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, co-host Brian Kilmeade, who also co-hosts Fox News' Fox & Friends, suggested that the U.S. government should "put up the Office of Censorship," in the wake of reports in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal detailing a Treasury Department program designed to monitor international financial transactions for terrorist activity. Similarly, during the June 29 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host E.D. Hill wondered if it would be appropriate for the U.S. government to create an "Office of Censorship."

Never you mind that Bush himself documented this program's existence and that it's been on the White House web site for nearly five years, we need press censorship, damnit!

Back then, partisanship was at a relative low, there was an actual declared war on, with a tangible enemy, an administration that hadn't taken every possible opportunity to advance an agenda proposed by special interests, or blatantly violated civil rights for its own gain. Other than those minor details, this is of course, the 1940s. Now let's return to such other shining policies of the time, such as separate-but-equal.

Of course, however, now the Nazis are not at the door. There are no U-boats in Long Island sound, no balloons off the West Coast, no men in trenches across Western Europe. If the ends are to justify the means and all, then what's the clearly-defined ends in the war on terror?

KILMEADE: Not crushing -- preserving our freedom by preserving our secrets because war is not a free thing. Intelligence is not something to be shared: It's to be coveted and used to our advantage. Here's what Roosevelt did. He appointed Byron Price, a respected journalist, to run the office. Price accepts the post on the condition that the media can voluntarily agree on a self-censorship. The Office employs 14,000, and they are civilians, to monitor cable, mail, and radio communications between the United States and other nations. The Office closes in 1945. Our nation still flies. The flag still soars.

Do we actually have any of those left ("respected journalists")? I mean, when news outlets are running fake news stories paid for by the administration, or sitting on stories for a year...

Unfortunately, the "media" back then and now are vastly different things. There was no television news, no independent stations, no Internet news outlets, no news from other countries. It's a much different task, and unless you plan on tapping Internet connections or DDOSing webhosts, it won't work. But that war again had a well-defined end - the Nazis, the fascisti, and the Japanese were defeated. They surrendered. When does the "War on Terror" end?

KILMEADE: No, they wouldn't. You're not doing anything anti-American.

Except exercising press restraint and interfering with Constitutional protections, but that's not un-American.




I'm sorry, that's a stupid idea - even for Fox News to put out.

[bigbrother05]

75. The fact that it was not a secret is immaterial

The BuSH**istas and friends had to do something to change the story. They went back to their old standby, terror/patriotism.

The NYT didn't really reveal anything new, they just brought the media spotlight back on how this regime is operating. Their story was about something most folks didn't remember and hadn't been thinking about. After the NSA stories had been moved off the front page by Dimson's 'great' week of news, they weren't going to let the liberal media risk 'Murikan lives with such treasonous stories.

It is clear that we are in full ROVEr drive election mode and this is just their next step. Most folks won't buy this censorship push, but if they can create a bit of hesitation in some news outlets while the echo chamber amps up, you can be sure this will take on gay marriage/illegal immigration/flag amendment proportions. This will be used to try and discredit any media outlet or story that doesn't write glowing accounts of all things Repub.

Yes, we should all be very afraid. Now is when we must be careful while at the same time pushing back all the harder. We have them on the run, but don't give them a chance to catch their breath and turn on us, they are literally fighting for their (way of) life.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. FoxNews: the network who interprets the First Amendment as giving

them the right to lie, is now trying to stop other other networks from telling the truth.

[lonestarnot]

40. Ahhhh how sweet... "The Office of Censorship." How facist of

them. Don't you just love Fox.

[Mrspeeker]

42. Calls for or creates?

Yeah well whatever the great leaders of this croonie country say shall be done! Lets support the World banking system and the corporations even more by taking it up the ass for the GOP and FOX fair and balanced reporting for the Governments agenda!

this country is on a downward path to facism!

Hail to the Neo Cons
Hail to the Emperor
Hail the New World Order!
Or just Fucking DIE, or wait in line to be killed!

[originalpckelly]

47. I guess "Ministry of Truth" was already taken?(nt)

[Kerrytravelers]

48. I read something like this not too long ago... ah yes... here it is...

[dogday]

49. The Office Of Propaganda and Disinformation

Any information that is unacceptable is thrown away.. Only articles that they decide have merit will be published.... :scared:

[mirounga]

59. SS

Call it the SS or Gestapo? Himmler as head?

[The Brethren]

105. The Gestapo News Inc.

All hail our new Hitler, Bush.

[Sequoia]

63. Remind those bastards what a great president said:

"Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost" Thomas Jefferson

[Dembo98]

65. Funny... just finished Orwell's 1984 yesterday...

Bigger fish to fry, this Office of Censorship has about a 0% chance of ever happening and this whole notion will be forgotten in about 1 week. Lets focus on ideas and taking back our government in this election.

[w4rma]

69. This is a big fish and I think Repugs should learn not to even think about

trying this in America.

[Kerrytravelers]

72. I think we can focus on elections and follow their attempt at a

fascists take over all at once. We are now 70% of the country and growing.

[sakabatou]

66. Velcome to Stalin's Russia!

[achtung_circus]

67. I know the PERFECT man to head it.

He's a Doctor, too.



Well, actually, a Herr Doktor.

[Radical Activist]

68. Then every news outlet will sound just like Fox State Television.

[Left Coast Lynn]

71. I thought this was The Onion

Until I read it. Stunning.

[WarhammerTwo]

73. Missing the Big Picture?

Um, I'm kinda new to the whole New York Times-SWIFT fiasco (been real busy as of late to keep up), so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the New York Times break the whole SWIFT story because it's not exactly on the up-and-up? I mean, they revealed it because the program could very well be ILLEGAL, correct? As a matter of fact, didn't almost every "secret" program that's been revealed so far by the media been done because the media thought that they were all done ILLEGALLY?

See, that's what all these boneheaded pundits seems to be missing: the fact that every program reported on has been AGAINST THE LAW (allegedly)! AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION (allegedly)! AGAINST THE VERY FREEDOMS OUR TROOPS ARE CURRENTLY DYING TO PROTECT (allegedly)! I bet you a dollar a donut that if anyone in the media discovered a "Secret" program and found that it was within the rule of law, they would not report it. THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE! These programs may be ILLEGAL! Get it? AGAINST THE LAW! They aren’t reporting about a super secret program just to get the scoop on it. They are doing it because it may be breaking the law and violating our rights as American citizens. I want to reiterate that point. The media is reporting on it, not to destroy America, but to make sure these things get investigated and so that the government is kept in check. Personally, I believe that if these programs violate the law, that they should be exposed, investigated and stopped if they violate our rights or freedoms.

Y'know, they story mentions a little anecdote about Ike revealing the early D-Day invasion to the reporters who promptly stopped writing. Well, the key difference, which Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth was too obtuse to mention, was that scheduling an invasion date doesn't break any laws. Wire tapping the phones of Americans without warrants? That's a no-no. Hence, one is reported on so that it can be stopped, the other is kept hush-hush and all is right with the world. Why can't any of the media smack these Censorship Supporting Bucketheads with this very logical argument?

And why can't the Administration come up with National Security measures that don't break any laws? I'm positive there have got to be ways. Like, I dunno, maybe getting secret warrants to wire tap. Oh, wait...

Hmmm. Well, I guess that proves my point that there are legal ways. Then why isn't the Administration using those methods?! I mean, it's not possible that the people of this great country actually elected a bunch of criminals to run the most powerful nation in the world, right? Oh, wait...

[annabanana]

77. Welcome to DU!

If any disinfectant sunshine ever got into those fetid, moldy rooms the whole structure would collapse at their feet. They do not want the whiff of the hint of accountability about their business.

[emmadoggy]

85. Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner!

AMEN! Absolutely! Dead on right. Excellent. I've been waiting for SOMEONE to explicitly point this out, as well.

[Ganja Ninja]

74. Why not make July 4th 'National Book Burning Day'?

We could all put on brown shirts and jackboots and goose-step around while hailing the fuhrer.

:banghead:

[Kerrytravelers]

76. That is the reich-wingers ultimate wet dream!

Sorry. That is a pretty gross thought, huh? :puke:

[Reckon]

78. I recommend we censor the Faux News propaganda machine!

I boycott them so does my family!

[Independent_Liberal]

79. FOX are a bunch of fascist thugs.

Speaking of FOX, I love how O'Reilly calls the ACLU a terrorist organization and the World Can't Wait a communist organization. If O'Reilly says it's a terrorist or communist organization, it must be something good for us.

:rofl:

[Child_Of_Isis]

80. Well, that's the end of Fox news!

It was nice knowing ya, boys!

[The Gunslinger]

84. I wish.

If theres a PNAC, theres a Fox news.

[Child_Of_Isis]

108. Just remember that I called it first. ;-) eom

[tinfoil tiaras]

81. Are. You. Fucking. Kidding. Me.

This just rings of 1984....god, "Office of Censorship" now, Thought Police next...

:( :( :( :(

[The Gunslinger]

82. Im tired of this "in times of war" bullshit

CONGRESS NEVER DECLARED WAR. WE ARE NOT IN A WAR. WE
ARE OCCUPING A COUNTRY.

I guess the constution in now bunk. I wonder if the Dems will try to fight this. They just dont say that crap on Fox. The administration is floating it out there to see if they can get away with it.

[Swamp Rat]

86. GREAT!!! EXCELLENT!!!

This will tie FUX Nooz directly to the Bushler cabal! Then they can be prosecuted for war crimes too! :bounce:

[liberal N proud]

89. So is this the USSR?

What the hell is wrong with anyone who even thinks this way?

[derby378]

90. So when do we start protesting local Fox affiliates?

I want to see some plans being developed here, folks...

[krkaufman]

91. Fox News calls for its own dissolution?

("Office of Censorship") ... could screen news reports to determine whether they "hurt the country" or are of "news value."

By these standards, would Fox News have any material to broadcast?

[Dr Fate]

92. Mommy! Mommy! Is it 1984 yet? n/t

n/t

[Ksec]

95. State run news

Theyre trying to become the Soviet Union. They had such things. They hated free press and other freedoms.

[Rex]

96. The Office of Censorship.

Only a FASCIST FUCKING COUNTRY would need an 'office of censorship'. :eyes:

[Arkham House]

97. They aren't even pretending anymore...

...anyone remember those obsolete notions? "Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"? They may be on the line, directly and personally, for all of us--sooner than we ever imagined...I'm ready...

[lildreamer316]

98. Kindly tell them to f&#@ OFF!!! n/t

[iamahaingttta]

99. I will never watch The Simpsons again!!!

I will never knowingly watch, listen, buy, rent or even steal anything produced by the News Corporation ever again. I live in New York City, so I will never watch WNYW or WOR ever again. I don't have cable or satellite, so I already don't watch FX, the Fox sports channels or any of their TV offerings, and I'm going to keep it that way. I will never again knowingly watch a movie produced by 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight. I will never again even look at the New York Post (not that I did to begin with. News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, InsideOut, The Daily Standard and even the fucking TV Guide are all on my "Never Again" list. I will never again read a book on any of the HarperMorrow or Children's Books Group imprints. I will never again look at or participate in MySpace. In fact, I would suggest that each of you look at this list:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/newscorp.asp

and purge from your life anything from any of these New Corp subsidiary companies. Of course, their biggest sponsors and advertisers need to go on this list as well. This is the only way we get these bottom-feeding scum to leave our planet once and for all.

Starve the Beast!

[SKKY]

100. Ok, people, just one more time so I make sure I get it right...

...is it Eastasia or Eurasia we're at war with? I keep forgetting.

[cynatnite]

102. I'm all for it as long as Michael Moore runs it...

Maybe that'll save us from stupid car chases, missing blondes and celebrity breaking news.

[texpatriot2004]

104. No Transparency = No Democracy

My significant other sent a couple of messages in protest about this issue. I agreed with him that those in favor of an "office of censorship" should move to some country where democracy doesn't exist.

[Larry Ogg]

106. Absolutely sickening, there is no bottom to the degraded depths

that these slithering fascist elite bastards would like to take this world to. The poles are showing republicans are going to loose there asses. And Fox news realizes that the reason the Republicans are going to loose there asses is because people are finding out the truth. And that could only mean one thing; more and more people are not watching Fox news. Imagine if every-one really wanted to know the truth, Fox would be out of business. What a shame… Furthermore Fox & Friends might be found guilty of conspiracy to propagandize the American people while the fascist warmongers commit there high crimes and misdemeanors, crimes against humanity, crimes of treason etc… Screw Fox News

[iamjoy]

107. This Could Be A Good Thing

I mean, too bad we didn't have that when they were digging up all that dirt on the Clintons. Our government could have just censored it, right?

[dusty64]

110. Not surprised.

:kick:

[Julius Civitatus]

111. Must be the latest TALKING POINT from the GOP (WSJ too!)

A major editor for the Wall Street Journal (can't remember his name, sorry), was in the CSPAN talk show "Washington Journal", discussing the NY Times controversy. Not only did this guy blame the NYT and exonerated the WSJ, even though they both published the same story, but also advocated for the idea of an Office of Censorship, where the government tells newspapers what's fit to publish.

This is the second time, after the Fox dum-dums, that a conservative figure calls for censorship this week. It must be an official talking point. Watch out for the Sunday shows; this may show up again.

[robbedvoter]

112. All part of a concerted effort as Buzzflash caught WSJ blurting out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1546035

[blogslut]

113. Fie on Fox

Their "news" division is comprised of a bunch of gum-flapping, button-pushing, nattering neighbobs of negativism. Let them spout. Let them scream and throw pouty baby tantrums. Their ratings are still going down...:)

[zoeb]

114. So propaganda TV shows it's true colors...

A real news organization would never entertain an idea like that. This will really help topple their ratings now. The end is near for this faux news outlet.