Could Fox News Go Down With the Rest of Rupert Murdoch’s Empire?

If you’ve watched or read news other than Autostraddle lately, you have probably heard at least a little of what is going on with Rupert Murdoch and the News of the World (NoW). The British tabloid published its last issue on July 10th, amidst allegations of phone-hacking and resignations of various important people formerly associated with the paper. The scandal has touched everyone from the Prime Minister (whose communications director, Andy Coulson, is a former NoW reporter associated with the hacking) to Scotland Yard (which also employed a former NoW reporter, Neil Wallis). As the UK branch of Murdoch’s media empire collapses, Americans can’t help but wonder: what would happen if hacking surfaces over here, too? Could it mean the end of Murdoch’s enterprises here — like, oh, I don’t know, FOX News? Well, hang on to your hats, everyone, because we may soon find out!

The hacking scandal — which in Britain, touched everyone from the royal family to murdered teenager Milly Dowler — is trickling across the ocean, starting with one of Britain’s own: Jude Law. Reports have surfaced alleging that the actor’s phone was hacked into while he was at JFK Airport in New York, and the information discovered was used to inform a 2003 News of the World story. Sienna Miller, Law’s ex-fiancée, was also impacted by the NoW hackings in the U.K.; the High Court ordered NoW to pay her ₤10,000 in damages. However, because the hacking of Law’s phone happened on American shores while he was using an American phone network, it becomes the U.S.A.’s problem, opening up a brand new can of worms. The FBI has contacted Law for more information about the hacking. And it’s becoming clearer and clearer that just as in the UK, famous actors are only the beginning of News Corp’s victims in the U.S.

via Wikipedia

As the FBI moves forward with its investigation of possible hackings in the U.S. (with the urgings of several members of Congress), more and more appalling information has surfaced: namely, that families of 9-11 victims may have been among those hacked by News Corp journalists. 10 years later, America still hasn’t fully recovered from the September 11th attacks, and regardless, its victims and their families remain sacred cows. So if reports of 9-11 victim hackings turn out to be true, it could spark outrage similar to that over the hacking of Milly Dowler’s voicemail in Britain — and could spell death for at least some of Murdoch’s media properties in the U.S. Megan Carpentier puts it as bluntly as possible in her Guardian article titled “If News Corp hacked the phones of 9/11 families, Fox News is finished.” Obviously, an end to FOX News would be great news for feminists, queers, liberals and other groups regularly demonized by the various FOX talking heads.

But it’s not time to break out the champagne glasses yet; many more think reports of News Corp’s total death are premature. And even if that was the end result, it’s unlikely to happen overnight. That doesn’t keep everyone from speculating, though, as to whether News of the World is alone among Murdoch properties in its depravity. Launce Rake of The Nevada View sees NoW as part of a “culture of corruption” in Murdoch’s media empire, connected to FOX’s horribly skewed reporting. Former FOX News executive Dan Cooper has come forward claiming that the channel had a “black ops” department which “ran counter-intelligence” on their competitors: “Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News…I knew it also housed a counter intelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy as pie…It was staffed by 15 researchers and had a guard at the door. No one working there would engage in conversation.” Another anonymous former FOX executive described the conditions for staff there as like “Russia at the height of the Soviet era.”

via The Guardian

Perhaps the scariest part of the whole ordeal is the perceived consequences for those brave enough to speak out. Cooper reported in the above article that he has already been threatened for going to the media about the FOX News “black ops.” And tragically, News of the World whistleblower Sean Hoare was found dead in his home in Watford, Hertfordshire on July 18, though it’s still unknown if his death was related to the investigation and Hertfordshire police have claimed that it is “not thought to be suspicious.”

If you want to read more about the News Corp hacking scandal and its possible endgames, BBC News has a timeline of events so far and The Atlantic has a list of possible outcomes of a U.S. investigation. For some particularly interesting takes on the story: Ian Jack at The Guardian compares Murdoch to Citizen Kane, and Michelle Chen at In These Times wonders what this all means for the future of journalism.

Last but certainly not least, has a petition pushing for a full U.S. investigation of the Murdoch empire’s shady dealings; sign it here.

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Rose is a 25-year-old Detroit native currently living in Austin, TX, where she is working on her Ph.D. in musicology. Besides Autostraddle, she works as a streaming reviewer for Anime News Network.

Rose has written 69 articles for us.


  1. oh that would be amaaaazing. especially since fox news seems to be the only channel my gynecologist makes available in the waiting room.

    • That seems like a weird choice for a gynecologist’s office, considering the FOX News people’s attitudes about sexually-active women and the health services they need. (Not that everyone who visits a gyno is necessarily sexually-active, but you know what I mean.)

      • yeah i thought so also until i actually met the guy. he refused to remove the cyst on my ovary that was making my period abnormally long for fear of affecting my fertility (even though i said i didn’t care, didn’t he know how exhausted i was by that point) and also didn’t want to put me on birth control either. then the fox news in the waiting room made sense.

        • Wow, what a douche. My gynecologist didn’t hesitate to put me on B.C. as soon as he found out about my dysmenorrhea.

          I kind of wonder why guys like your gyno go into the profession, when it seems like so much of what they’re doing would violate their “values.”

          • Maybe there are some nutcases who believe that they’re ensuring a woman’s “rightful place” by monitoring and treating female fertility at any cost.

          • that’s insane. i have to go to the VA for my stuff, and my gyno was this shy, timid chick that wasnt much older than me, but she was nice, and didnt even assume that i slept with boys. she said “anything sexual” counts.

            but my psychiatrist wanted me to take an aids test when he found out i was gay. even though my paperwork he was looking at said i had just gotten bloodwork done for everything ever. he was just being a jerk.

          • JEEZ. I swear, it is SO hard to find a good psychiatrist. I have had such good counselors and even a great pscyhotherapist, but when it comes to the actual prescribing of drugs, the majority seem to be terrible. Ultimately I just try to get my counselors and my primary care physician to work together to get me my Prozac, and I leave psychiatrists totally out of the equation.

        • I’d have threatened him with a lawsuit, & had a lawyer visit him & throw legalese words around, for fun. If he’s denying you proper medical care, then he’s doing the same to other women. (Incidentally, is this another of those blogs outed by the Daily Show as pretending to be lesbian-run but really operated by a man?)

          • No, those were Gay Girl in Damascus and Lez Get Real, which Autostraddle covered, too. If you look up those articles (the latter of which is linked on the front page sidebar since it got a lot of comments), I believe they address your worries.

  2. Dear god, I hope this is the death knell of that hellhole they try to pass off as journalism.

  3. rupert murdoch, fox news, and the news of the world have dragged journalism into a dark slimy ally and nearly beat it to a pulp with all the crap they try to pass of as news. it just keeps surprising me how many people they have taken down with them (including the police). someone get marisa over here because this shit is crazy!

  4. Wow alot of hatred on Fox News for telling things through the viewpoint of the majority of the American public. Most Americans are center-right leaning by nature. Only 7% of people consider themselves liberal. Thankfully.

    Watch the O’Reilly Factor and you will see he is pretty harsh towards the Tea Party movement. You have MSNBC, CNN and all the prime time news channels that look at things from the left. I would rather be flayed alive than watch that stuff, but I respect their right to opinion. That same respect is not given to Conservatives and to be honest its a shame.

    To sum it up and answer your question….NO, Fox News is not going anywhere. Their prime time ratings are higher than all the other cable news channels combined. You can look it up if you dont believe me. Dont try to silence people just because they disagree with you politically. Variety is a good thing

    • It’s a shame your supposed “majority of American public” can’t give the “minority” any respect either, because, face it, the only reason someone of your politics is here on this website is to troll and piss on the opposing point of view.

      Until Fox News starts treating *US* with respect, then, well, maybe neither side will have reason to complain about the animosity. That’s not going to happen though as long as people with your political stance continue boohooing over nothing.

    • fox news viewers are also the most ill informed viewers (you can actually look that up to). the problem that i have with fox is that they pass opinions and distorted stories off as news. one small example im going to give is the whole death panel thing. are you going to tell me that was real? that wasn’t even an opinion, just a straight up lie.

      where have you been vincent? in damascus?

    • I don’t see how anyone is trying to “silence” Fox News. Saying that you’d be happy to see it go is not the same as taking steps to censor it. Believing that everyone is entitled to their First Amendment right to free speech does not mean you have to be happy every time someone chooses to exercise that right. (Certainly, you don’t seem to be happy with my choice to exercise my First Amendment rights here!) And demanding an investigation into any possibly illegal activities that Fox News is engaging in is not the same as censoring them, either. Because if they are indeed hacking into phones, too, that’s not exercising one’s First Amendment rights, it’s violating other people’s Fourth Amendment ones. And as the article pointed out, you have several former FOX News executives implying that the channel engaged in a lot of the same practices as News of the World, so these suspicions are hardly unsupported.

      And CNN has a “liberal bias”? Oh please. It’s so funny how some conservatives throw this around like it’s undeniable fact, when no one outside their camp says or believes this – while meanwhile, the fact that FOX News consciously biases things toward the right and hires more people who agree with conservative politics than otherwise is something that’s so well-documented that even a lot of conservatives won’t argue with it.

      Also, lol at you being “thankful” that more Americans supposedly aren’t liberal – god forbid that more people believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone! And you’re aware that there are plenty of polls that show the opposite, right, like the ones that show that there are nearly twice as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans? All these labels are nebulous and don’t necessarily give any indication as to how people actually vote or what media they prefer.

      • AMEN. The fact that conservatives consider CNN to have a definite liberal bias (I’ve even heard it referred to as the Communist News Network) is just solid evidence that the right has moved so FAR right that even centrist viewpoints and opinions look liberal in comparison.

      • i’m a lesbian and watch fox news. nothing wrong with it. whats the argument about, i mean seriously. fox news has good shows, good debate, great personalities, and does well for themselves. i don’t HATE cnn for example when i see it on in most airports. if i don’t want to watch msnbc or another network i wont. you people need to calm down… and why even write an opinion/article about how it would be “good news” for murdoch to go down and bring fox news with him? that’s ridiculous.

        • If you actually read the article, you would understand why I wrote this: there are good reasons to celebrate the possible demise of FOX News. Their various pundits have a history of saying damaging things about the queer community (among many others), and the way they take totally biased reporting and pass it off as being “fair and balanced” has hurt the political discourse in this country by causing so many people to think they’re getting the full story from them when they’re not. I’ve never tried to pretend here that I’m giving both sides of these issues, and various AS writers have encouraged readers in their articles to supplement them with news from other places. I’d also say that FOX News doesn’t provide “good debate.” Good debate means every side of an issue gets a chance to present their case fairly. FOX News doesn’t do that. And that’s not even going into all the privacy-invasion they’re suspected of, just because I don’t feel like repeating myself a second time.

        • WHAT ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE REALLY A LESBIAN??!? jk..I’m also a lesbo Fox News viewer. I mean, it’s kind of a given that AS would lean toward anti-Fox News & that’s okay bc they’re doing them & I’m doing me & you do you. Sometimes it’s not even worth the hassle y’know? Because it’s a personal preference in the end.

  5. I am surprised there are so few people standing by Rupert. You would think (outside of the newspapers that he owns that must defend him because they’re paid to) there would be more support from friends in the industry. Perhaps he doesn’t have any friends. If this was Bob Iger or Jeff Bewkes I think people would be crawling out of the woodwork to support them. So far Rupert only has Piers Morgan and Khan Manka, Jr. on his side. Pretty sad.

    • Having Piers Morgan on your side seems like a death sentence to me. There’s a reason he hopped across the pond to the USA – I can’t think of a single person over here I know of who likes him (from the right-wing, e.g. my dad and the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson; to the left-wing, i.e. pretty much everyone else I know).

    • And the thing is, I’d be very surprised if News Corp were the only people in the media business resorting to such low tactics to get stories.

  6. To answer the headline question, one can only hope. All media outlets, with few exceptions, need their diapers changed.

    • Totally agree. As much as I hate Fox News and their (sometimes hateful) bias, there’s just as much bias and sensationalism on other, left-leaning channels. I pretty much just stick with the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. My dad has a big fat crush on Rachel Maddow though, so I watch her show sometimes with him.

  7. Variety is a good thing. I just don’t think Fox news provides any.
    Ratings don’t mean quality, Two and a Half Men is proof enough of that.
    I don’t watch “news” in general, it is mostly all opinion pieces and not objective journalism.
    If you want to watch “news” to parrot the opinions you’ve already formed, be my guest.


  8. is there a way to sign that petition without giving them my monies? I am but a poor college student, all of my extra monies goes to autostraddle and the the feeding of my kitten.

  9. While I hope for the collapse of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, it probably won’t happen. The News Corporation has been monopolizing various media markets for decades. They have destroyed competition unfairly and saturated media outlets with mediocre, sometimes untrue, and unoriginal programming.

    The more justice Rupert Murdoch is forced to deal with, the better the world will be.

    • Yes. The Murdoch family has owned newspapers in Australia since federation and currently own 70% of the print media. It’s a real problem because the Murdoch papers here also have a distinct conservative bias — the Labour party cannot do anything right and the oddly named Liberal (read conservative) party is God’s gift to the world. Fortunately the phone hacking scandal has motivated an enquiry, but at this stage, I don’t think it will be possible to loosen Murdoch’s control.

  10. I have a degree in journalism and have worked as a writer all of my life. Fox news leans right however since every other major news station out there leans left I don’t see why everyone is so upset.

    Just because you don’t like some of the conclusions or angle they put on the news(especially if it offends your particular group mentality) does not make it wrong. We all have issues and if we are informed and feel strongly about them we should be able to tolerate opposing viewpoints to be heard.

    If worries me how many out there truly prefer that other voices be silenced, even to the tune of diminishing the first amendment. These days, political correctness, which is lying by omission, is preferred to the market place of ideas. Democracies don’t last long with that mentality.

    Personally I read news sources from all over the world to get news. If you really want the truth, you’d better close down your CNN MSNBC CBS NBC AND ABC with Fox and start looking at some objective papers from Europe, Australia, etc. at least when it comes to domestic affairs in the USA. They are far more honest about issues affecting America than our own news sources.

    Finally, when someone tells me that Fox news watchers are uniformed, and that this has been proven, my first question is how w as it proven and my second question is when were you last tested on your level of information? Grow up, stop living your lives around your personal group mentality. We have far bigger fish to fry than gay marriage, elderly rights or reparations. You cant get reparations or medicare out of a collapsed economy and who cares if you’re same sex married if there is not enough food to eat and your neighbor is coming in your back door with a gun to take what you have? What is around the corner for our nation and the world will make all of these issues look trivial.lyn

    • Funny how you use the phrase ‘lying by omission’ to deride something you don’t like, then do exactly the same thing later; specifically, the part about the economy. Your insinuation that it’s only the right wing that are trying to do anything about the economy isn’t just dishonest, it’s downright laughable. The fact that you, I assume, disagree with the method that the Democrats have suggested for dealing with the possibility of a default is irrelevant; you’re directly insinuating that they haven’t come up with ANY method whatsoever. And given that the right wing is fanatically against ANY form of tax raise no matter how dire the financial situation is, even if it comes in conjunction with large cuts in spending on the things you already mentioned like medicare (i.e. the deal that Boehnner rejected just the other day), exactly which side is clinging to that group mentality?

      Lastly, if gay marriage is no big issue, then why is the right wing spending so much time and effort to denounce and oppose it at every turn rather than concentrating on the economy?

    • I seriously doubt you have a degree in journalism (or at the very least, you must have slept through media law) when you can’t understand the difference between what I’ve said here vs. calling for FOX News to be censored. I’m not going to repeat myself though since this is an article on the Internet, not a conversation in real-time, and therefore it’s very easy for you to scroll up and read what I’ve already said on the topic of what censorship is and isn’t.

    • Slightly inappropriate, but I totally giggled at the neighbor coming in my back door with a gun comment. One part slippery slope fear mongering hypotheticals (the end of days, I tell yah!), one part funny mental image of my neighbors – who can’t even screw in a light bulb without help or breaking the lightbulb- trying to figure out how to get into my house.

      That said, debate is awesome. However, ya gotta let the person you’re debating actually make a point and be able to speak for themselves… something that many tv and radio news organizations – regardless of political bent – do. There’s also an extreme lack of understanding or talk of the socio-economic historical context of, well, every issue. Part of good reporting is to contextualize, and PART of that contextualization is opinion. A GOOD opinion is one with a strong, well-argued, well-thought out, well-presented foundation based on research (academics, scholars, etc.), history, sociology, science, etc. I have come across many GOOD conservative opinions… just very rarely on Fox news *shrug* (mostly from conversing with friends. We agree on what a problem IS, but completely diverge on how to “fix” the problem… even specific ones, local government ones).

      Anyways, as journalists, they (news broadcasters) have a civil duty – and with duty comes ethics – to do their best not to deceive their viewers, much less purposefully distort things that are matters of fact (and there are facts, and if there are facts that are contradictory… has to be right and the other wrong IF THEY ARE LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY, so present BOTH and let the VIEWER DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.) to sway opinion. *shrug*

    • Does it actually need to be pointed out the Rupert Murdoch IS Australian? He owns most of our media too… if you’re after ‘some objective papers’ you’re looking at the wrong country sweets.

      • Lol and true. Although lyn should know that no source is truly objective. Good media literacy means recognizing that everybody is biased whether they claim to be or not.

        For example: I’ve been defending CNN all over here against people accusing it of having a liberal bias but, honestly, it’s biased in its own way – toward the center. It’s a good idea that they always try to present every side of an issue and give them equal time, but there are a few issues where one side clearly has a better case – like evolution or climate change or, hell, LGBT rights. And insisting on treating people arguing science with science and people arguing it with a religious text (for example) as on equal footing means you are actually misinforming your viewers. Assuming the truth always lies in the middle is in fact a logical fallacy; it really comes from reading EVERYTHING, and approaching it all with both an open mind and strong critical thinking!

        (Not specifically directed at you, just trying to start some discussion)

        • Pfft, perfect objectivity is kind of a farce anyways, especially when it comes to something so heavily entrenched in…humanity? Human construction? Perpetuated by humans? Bah, I was trying not to say GO PURE OBJECTIVITY HOO AHH!. Or even to say that all opinions or “evidences” used as support are on equal footing. Or even that the middle-ground is the way to go (because of that wonderful fallacy you linked, thank you kindly ;-)).

          But yah, I wasn’t trying to say “argue science with science, pluralism yah! objectivity rules all yah!.”

          Let’s see if I can clarify. With the “contradictory facts” statement, I was thinking of situations, such as court cases, where there is a contradiction in “whodunnit” or what happened/how things played out. The defense says X happened, the plaintiff says X didn’t happen. Contradictory, but both are offered up to the jury, along with support/evidence, etc. With the support, one of the contradictory statements is shown to be “right” (or can only be deemed “right” with consideration to what is presented and usable as evidence), and the other wrong, or at least, to the best of our ability one is shown to be right (for better or worse). This happens all the time, and the basic concept of illustrating how one “side” of a matter is right CAN be accomplished, and GOOD journalism can accomplish this nicely, it just takes a LOT of work… a LOT of careful reading and CAREFUL research. Journalism and journalists make claims and offer critical insight, maybe connecting the dots THAT ARE THERE but may be hard for many to connect on their own (after all, it’s hard sometimes to see what’s in front of us), but lazy/bad journalism and journalists purposefully make sensational claims, knowing that they are sensational claims, knowing that sensational claims sell. Even worse is when bad and lazy journalism has a specified purpose: propaganda. That’s where journalism stops being, well, journalism… especially when the propaganda pseudo-journalism says it’s responding critically (at that point, it’s a bald-faced lie). When it comes to civil duty and ethics, journalism has a duty (or so I think) to not be lazy, to be mindful of how to best say, phrase, and present information to prevent as little misinterpretation as possible, and to present what’s legit going on (So, if there is a well-documented peaceful protest in Madison, WI., don’t try to make it what it’s not by trying to pass off clips of a completely unrelated protest from a few years ago that went violent…that’s poor journalism, purely made to push a particular viewpoint that is incorrect for sensationalist and/or propaganda purposes. and ethically wrong as it’s a blatant attempt to misinform).

          (Nothing wrong PER SE with sensational stories… if it is indeed worthy of the sensation it causes. A former state senator being caught, tried, and sentenced with embezzlement, corruption, and/or selling a Senate seat IS SENSATIONAL…when it’s true. Fabricating it or trying to make a weak cause-and-effect or unfounded speculation… not so much).

          My issue with Fox News is that – while all news organizations have bias of some sort at work – Fox News actively pushes, sponsors, and SEEMS to write propaganda, as opposed to news and insightful, critical elucidation of events as they are unfolding. When it comes to interviews, interviewer’s treatment and interaction with their guests, and how the questions are phrased, Fox tends to fail more at both bringing out good information and actually letting it BE an interview where the interviewee can get a word in without turning into a caustic scream-fest. Not saying I haven’t seen this occur on CNN or MSNBC, or that I haven’t seen good interview questions done by O’Reilly. Lots of news makes me /facepalm.

          tl;dr: I think way too much about this stuff, and I’m totes not disagreeing with you on this point, Rose. :)

          • It was actually a reply to Cat’s comment about Australian sources not being more “objective,” not yours, but thanks for adding to the discussion! I’ll respond later when I’m not so sleep-deprived…

            And I agree with you about Fox News, which is what I think separates it (as well as The Drudge Report, Free Republic and WorldNet Daily – the last two make Fox look like they do vigorous fact-checking) from regular news that happens to be written by a conservative. Obviously, you can never completely wash your statements clean of your own biases. But there’s a difference between trying to be objective and accidentally letting some bias seep in, and intentionally creating propaganda. Fox clearly falls into the second camp.

            If they didn’t do that, there wouldn’t be such a huge gap between how they report stories and how the rest of the mainstream media does (like the Wisconsin teachers uprising story, as you pointed out).

          • NBD! I love the comments you’re making. They’re the kinds of responses I was hoping to get from this!

  11. P.S. My observation is that the people who cant stand to even hear the opposition speak are people who are often not well informed on the issues and therefore they choose censorship over debate.

    • Because obviously the fact that I don’t like one channel means that I can’t stand to hear conservatives speak at all.

      Also, I’m a little suspicious of how much someone is truly engaging with and listening to the opposition when they believe that every mainstream media outlet has a “liberal bias” except FOX News.


    Anyone who knows who George SDorsos is and how he hates Fox news and this country will not need an explanation of this.

    Hey you are funny too. As I said , if you want to know the truth dont read this kind of propaganda and find out where it comes from. Even looking at how the study was allegedly performed should tell anyone with an average IQ that it is flawed.

  13. “who cares if you’re same sex married if there is not enough food to eat and your neighbor is coming in your back door with a gun to take what you have?”
    lol alrighty then

    • And cutting social programs really helps poor people to get something to eat, doesn’t it?


      • There are a lot of thoughts bouncing around in my head concerning this entire “Fox is just like everyone else” discussion. Really though, I think you summed it up nicely.


  14. Vinny You disappoint me, I thought because you were attempting a debate it would be somewhat based on fact not assumptions.Twice you say I insinuated when I did not and you say once that I assumed once something I did not. I said that political correctness is lying by omission.It is because when PC is the controlling issue, so much goes unsaid so as not to offend anyone that the debate is never held. As for me lying by omission regarding the economy, that does not make sense. I dont recall even mentioning either of the two parties. You made that assumption. In fact you made so many assumptions that I lost the connection between what I said and your response. This is why we need to bring High School debate class back.

    as for same sex marriage, I believe consenting adults should be free to do whatever in their own bedrooms. I also believe that adults have the right to teach their children their beliefs about moral issues without being told by the state or gay and lesbians what out kids need to believe.Therefore gays and lesbians need to get their indoctrination classes out of the public schools.Its an fair trade I believe.

    • Actually, I’m a long-term University debater. And if you didn’t insinuate any such thing, then pray tell, what was this all about?

      “We have far bigger fish to fry than gay marriage, elderly rights or reparations. You cant get reparations or medicare out of a collapsed economy and who cares if you’re same sex married if there is not enough food to eat and your neighbor is coming in your back door with a gun to take what you have? What is around the corner for our nation and the world will make all of these issues look trivial.”

      If you had just stuck to gay marriage, you would be able to say you were responding to the people on this website in particular; bringing in medicare, reparations and elderly rights, when no-one on this page had mentioned those topics up to that point, shows it was a direct statement about left-wing politics, and an insinuation that the left-wing doesn’t care about the economy at all. And no, you didn’t mention the two parties at that point, but you were sure as hell making a statement about left vs right, and by extension the parties themselves given that the elderly rights and medicare topics have been directly involved in the debate around the default.

      And I never said you assumed anything, by the way. If you’ll actually read what I wrote, I said that -I- assumed something about YOUR position; namely that you disagreed with the Democrats method for dealing with the debt problems. An assumption on my part, yes, but one I admitted to up front in the interests of honesty. This is why we need to bring basic literacy back.

      On your last point, gay marriage isn’t ‘whatever in their own bedrooms’, and neither is it ‘indoctrination classes’ in school. And explain EXACTLY which part of these lessons in schools it is that you have a problem with? The part where they teach children that gay people are humans too? That bullying someone or discriminating against them on the basis of their sexuality is wrong? Go on, explain EXACTLY which facts are being taught in schools about gays and lesbians that qualifies as ‘indoctrination classes’. Be explicit, not vague.

      • Go Vinny!

        Although I think lyn’s idea of “good debater” is “people who agree with me.”

        • Merci, merci. ^_^

          And yeah, I think you’ve pegged that one pretty accurately. Seems to be a common feature of those who drop into AS just to troll…

  15. Rose, wrong again, the majority of my friends are liberal and I get their views all of the time. How many conservative friends do you have? Im not the one who spends my time on a one viewpoint blog that spends their time massaging each others egos. Get out in the real world , talk to people of all persuasions educate yourself just a little.

    • take your own advice lyn. this isn’t high school we’re not playing the “i have more friends” game. go out into the real world. i think everyone has had enough of your educated self. please stop with the trolling

      • Lol and “I have liberal friends” sounds a lot like when people say “I have gay friends” to defend their homophobia. I also wonder how liberal these friends are, exactly, considering she thinks CNN has a liberal bias?

        • Well, plus it’s fallacious thinking, all around, to say “I have friends of X group” so I “know” what X group thinks about Y, Z, ESPECIALLY when I talk to them and we present *insert whatever new, valid, sound information someone has found* 1) More than a few people SAY they are of a particular sociological, economic, political, religious persuasion… and actually know very little of what they’re talking about. 2) There are plenty of people who are -ahem- human and hence, probably idiots some-or-all of the time (to err is human) 3) given 1 and 2, PLUS the extremely low sample size (ooo research terms) of “people I know of X group” in relation to actual number of people in X group, PLUS confirmation bias… basically makes broad generalizations based on a small sample size super weird… partially because (and finally) 4) Politics and solving life’s problems between an individual, various communities, and “the law” is way more complex than what dichotomous thinking/segregating/labeling allows for.

          Also, careful, critical reading skills are a must. Sigh. *shrug*

    • I grew up in a conservative area where I was surrounded by Republicans and I had to defend my views all the time. My family actually had our Kerry signs torn apart and throw in the bushes the day after the 2004 election. So I think I’m hardly “uneducated” on the views of conservatives.

      I’m educated enough, for example, to know that while CNN is conservative to me, it is centrist compared to the overall media landscape, and that while MSNBC is not as liberal as I am, they are to the left of most other mainstream media outlets. That degree of perspective seems to be something you lack, however. Where a media outlet is in relation to your views is where you think it is in relation to everything.

  16. oh rose, your very reasoned arguments just knock me over. It wasnt me that stopped at high school apparently

  17. i think what we proved here today is that you cannot fight ignorance with intelligence. you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

  18. I am not the one who spends their time blogging with those who think just like me and massaging each others egos. I came here by accident just reading the article. I always think its good to throw a little firecracker into these mutual admiration societies in the hopes that maybe a little objective factual information that hasnt been run by the PC will wake you guys up. You live in a bubble. Someday reality will break in a bite you on the ass (that will be fun). But until then you guys live in you fantasy world. bye

    • It’s funny you talk about “educating” us, Vinny asked you to clarify your positions so as to better inform everyone as to where you stand and you ignored that opportunity! You also asked me whether I had conservative friends, and I answered – and yet you still ignored that information to repeat the same baseless, vague generalities! Really engaging with the facts there! Needless to say, I find it odd that you’re lecturing people on “living in a bubble” or “living in a fantasy world” or “massaging each other[‘s] egos” or ‘splaining about how writing for a liberal LGBT site means I obviously don’t read anything else.

      But I’ll miss you and your firecrackers of lulz.

    • You’re taking this all too seriously/hyperbolically right now for anything you say about ~reality~ to seem worth listening to.

  19. If Fox News goes down, I’m afraid something even more horrific will pop up in its place.

Comments are closed.