Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[11XHooah]

Oh happy days! In case you have never heard of forsake the troops, it was a website created by a scumbag named Michael Crook. On this site, he bashed the military, and even made fun of pictures of dead Soldiers. Basically, he thinks that the U.S. military is useless, and he would have the freedoms that he has today without their protection. This site has recently been shut down after he faked his death. When he "died", it said that he was assaulted by Soldiers I guess this was his attempt to turn more people against the military. But recently he was taken on to Fox news with Hannity and Colmes, who made him look like the total a**hole that he is.

 

Here's the link: http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/videovie...TheMilitary.wmv

 

From the looks of things, I don't even think he knows what he is fighting for. This guy is definitely FUBAR.

[Kor Qel Droma]

that guy is a douchebag...

[Gorth]

Michael Crook vs. Fox News...

 

Am I the only one who thinks that the only one to really suffer will be the truth (and the viewers) ?

[Archmonarch]

Alone in this assumption you are not... <_<

[Kaftan Barlast]

I thought he was funny because he used classical republican arguments to propagate for his "cause".

 

 

"Those damn overpaid leeches, cut their wages and let em walk back home to the US!"

 

:D

[SteveThaiBinh]

I feel slightly less intelligent for having watched that. Why would a news channel even give him airtime?

[Darth Flatus]

 

That was dumb vs dumber.

Shame on FOX for picking such an easy target and bullying him (i expect nothing less from the channel that gives you a fair and balanced view).

Shame on Crooks for being an inarticulate indecisive unassertive retard... and shame on him for his hair (wtf was up wid dat?)

[Archmonarch]

I feel slightly less intelligent for having watched that.  Why would a news channel even give him airtime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because Fox are conservative crazies always searching for a way to discredit the left, even when its obvious the chosen subject is insane beyond party lines.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because Fox are conservative crazies always searching for a way to discredit the left, even when its obvious the chosen subject is insane beyond party lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should have realised that! The brain damage must be worse than I thought.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Even with this guy being an obvious moron(even though he's funny) its good to see that FoxNews are sticking to their old school ways of really 101 rethorics.

 

 

-Arent these soldiers fighting for your rights?

-No.

-Come on, they are.

-No.

-They are too!

-Ok, maybe a little.

-Its more than just a little.

-Alright, maybe in some way more than a little

-WHAT?! I dont understand your logic, all of a sudden you're saying these people are protecting your rights?!! How can we take you seriously if you're contradicting yourself?

 

:D

[Darth Flatus]

yes but that tactic only works on morons.

 

I dont agree with what the anti military guy was saying but it would be easy to counter the FOX line of questioning.

[Archmonarch]

When would it not?

[Volourn]

Wow. That reporter shouldn't be a reporter. I mean, he wasn't even close to being professional. LMAO

[metadigital]

Even with this guy being an obvious moron(even though he's funny) its good to see that FoxNews are sticking to their old school ways of really 101 rethorics.

 

-Arent these soldiers fighting for your rights?

-No.

-Come on, they are.

-No.

-They are too!

-Ok, maybe a little.

-Its more than just a little.

-Alright, maybe in some way more than a little

-WHAT?! I dont understand your logic, all of a sudden you're saying these people are protecting your rights?!! How can we take you seriously if you're contradicting yourself?

 

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is truly sad is that this is regarded as news journalism. One of the main bright points in internation news is the BBC, reknowned for its impartiality: they do not have these "Jerry Springer" confrontations, instead, where polemics are involved, they will interpret each argument and be the person who puts the best of those arguments to the opposition, thus taking some of the emotion out of the debate and helping to focus on the issues rather than the personalities.

 

This is a perfecct example of something, but it isn't journalism. More like vigilante public execution in the Fox colloseum.

[Volourn]

BBC is often partial. Afterall, their previous Editior (I believe it was their Editior) got canned because they got caught for their brand of impartiality...

[Darth Flatus]

the BBC television news service and the website is very impartial.

 

The whole hutton inquiry incident was a complex affair. Nobody was "canned" the director general and chairman of the BBC both resigned.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The Hutton inquiry found that the BBC broadcast a controversial story for which there was insufficient evidence. Both the Chairman and the Director General of the BBC resigned. However, a subsequent inquiry by Lord Butler found that the original story was effectively true, though it didn't say so explicitly.

 

The BBC is generally impartial and accurate in its reporting, although there are always mistakes and exceptions. I particularly remember one moment in the Gulf War when the US was putting out the story that they'd taken over Baghdad Airport, and the BBC reporter was saying "I'm standing on the runway at Baghdad Airport, and there aren't any US troops here". The BBC treated information coming from the 'coalition' as suspect until verified, and this was criticised as being an anti-war stance.

 

Back on topic, my favourite part of that 'interview' was at the end when the interviewer delivers an insulting rant against the interviewee before terminating the interview. If that's the standard of journalism on this programme, why would anyone wish to be interviewed by them?

[metadigital]

BBC is often partial. Afterall, their previous Editior (I believe it was their Editior) got canned because they got caught for their brand of impartiality...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No organisation the size of the BBC can be perfectly impartial. The point is that there is an institutional edict to remain impartial; so much so that they have been accused of being the "unofficial opposition" to the government since the real opposition is quite weak.

 

Also, I believe there is a lot more to the Hutton enquiry and Greg Dyke standing down than we know about; certainly the fact that the Prime Minister commissioned four inquiries, all with a very small, specific scope -- including Hutton -- rather than a large, general enquiry into the whole decision to go to war on Iraq without a second resolution from the UN; and considering the pausity of reliable intelligence and the disparity of what the PM knew to be fact and how he reported the scenario to the parliament in such a disingenuous way all make for a large political attack on the BBC.

 

Greg Dyke, the former Director General of the BBC, stood down on the findings of the Hutton Enquiry, which totally exhonerated the government of complicity in the death of a senior government advisor (David Kelly, the senior Weapons Inspector for Iraq over the last decade). Mr Kelly committed suicide because he tried to leak his knowledge about the actual state of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the media anonymously, and the government (allegedly specifically Alistair Campbell, formerly of the tabloid press and at the time the senior spin doctor of the Labour party and close, personal friend to Mr Blair) leaked his name and he was beseiged by the press until he could not take the pressure.

 

I don't feel the BBC has suffered a blow to its credibility through all this. That doesn't mean any of us can be complacent; life is a constant battle for truth.

 

Unfortunately the Murdock Fox network is more akin to the Ministry of Information than the BBC. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Back on topic, my favourite part of that 'interview' was at the end when the interviewer delivers an insulting rant against the interviewee before terminating the interview.  If that's the standard of journalism on this programme, why would anyone wish to be interviewed by them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wondered the same thing; still there doesn't seem to be a diminishing of wannabe-famous-for-anything participants to similar shows like Jerry Springer, so I guess there is no reason to alter the modus operandi of the "host".

[Volourn]

"Nobody was "canned" the director general and chairman of the BBC both resigned."

 

Uh. Please. Canned, resigned, it's basically the same thing. They lost their jobs because of doing a poor job due to thier baisness. And, yes, BBC is partial. They were very much anti war,a nd their work showed it. of course, they are nowhere as bias as Fox News is; but who is? Being positvely comapred to Fox is not a compliment.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like BBC, and they are one of my two main sources of news (along with CNN); but they do have their own biases much like CNN is slightly bias in favor of the war. Slightly.

 

On the other hand, Fox News is just a joke. :D

[metadigital]

"Nobody was "canned" the director general and chairman of the BBC both resigned."

 

Uh. Please. Canned, resigned, it's basically the same thing. They lost their jobs because of doing a poor job due to thier baisness. And, yes, BBC is partial. They were very much anti war,a nd their work showed it. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that is not a clear conclusion; the Director General resigned because the Hutton Enquiry did not find proof that the government was guilty of the "sexing up" of the "dodgy dossier" of intelligence of WMD in Iraq, as had been alleged by the erstwhile tabloid reporter Andrew Gilligan, and so the buck stopped with Dyke.

 

I don't believe it is possible to be completely objective in reporting; what needs to be fought is the deliberate spin-doctoring that has become the norm for all governments: propaganda gone mad! Speaking of the Labour party's tenure in government, they have completely co-opted the ostensibly-impartial public services into the Labour propaganda process, so public srevants are now giving party political statements for and on behalf of the ministers! We are on a slippery slope, not only does the public not believe most of the governmental disclosures, but also it is not a large step to a malevolent power in government using the existing tainted system for absolute ruthless self-aggrandizement, feduciary gain and power.

 

For a democracy to function it must have a free press. The electorate cannot make informed decisions without information.

 

I fear for the consequences of the choices made by some of our politicians now.

[Volourn]

Having free press isn't the problem. Afterall, both BBC and Fox News are examples of 'Free Press' news organizations.

[metadigital]

Having free press isn't the problem. Afterall,  both BBC and Fox News are examples of 'Free Press' news organizations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would question your definition of "Free" -- I doubt Al Gore could have his own chat show on Fox. As much as it is denied, I certainly believe that there is an implicit -- if not overt -- editorial policy straight from the Board of Directors.

[Lucius]

For the record, I think the war is illegal, but that guy really isn't too bright for writing those things. However, Mr Stupid Fox News guy, whom I've seen before in an interview where he behaves almost as immature as this, is equally stupid. I mean, he believes the US soldiers in Iraq are fighting for the ability to have free speech and liberty? Does that include the Danish contingent down there as well? Because I'm fairly sure they don't know that, someone outta tell em! :D

[Volourn]

"I would question your definition of "Free" -- I doubt Al Gore could have his own chat show on Fox. As much as it is denied, I certainly believe that there is an implicit -- if not overt -- editorial policy straight from the Board of Directors."

 

It's free. Fox, as a non government business, can allow or disallow anyone from being on their channel. It very much is Free Press. The Board of Directors has every right to set editioral policy. That still doens't change the fact that it is Free Press.

 

 

"For the record, I think the war is illegal"

 

The war was very legal.

[Commissar]

The war was very legal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I guess that kind of depends on what you view as international law and what you don't.