So far the Hijacker has tried to give out posts similar to what I might give out, and maybe 60 percent of the total isn’t bad, but I fear that soon they will try to make their version of Jodi crazy or even mean.

Anyway for the pure unadulterated old sytle Jodi, you should look for the new name JodiDog.

You have a slight First Amendment problem taking away broadcast licenses for the licensee’s engaging in political speech of which you disapprove.

Yeah, I did let my outrage overwhelm my First Amendment support, but…but…It’s so wrong what Fox does!

Perhaps one could instead use the FCC to at least fulfill the “equal time” provisions on Fox.

And I still find it very difficult to support the idea that one can use the public’s TV airwaves to be blatantly partisan. I’ve no problem with Radio. Limpdick can rant on radio all he wants.

I guess it is just that I grew up with TV, and always looked to them to strive for non-partisanship. It seemed like CBS, NBC, et al viewed that as a line they could never cross without putting their license in jeopardy. As a matter of fact, this very same credo was written and spoken about over and over, so that it somehow became reality.

I guess I was wrong, and romantic. *g* In any event, a pox on Fox!

One person’s “purely partisan propaganda” is another person’s “fair and balanced.” You have a slight First Amendment problem taking away broadcast licenses for the licensee’s engaging in political speech of which you disapprove.

There are legitimate reasons for regulating broadcasters, but nearly all of them have to do with allocating spectrum (which is a public good) in ways that allow it to be used efficiently. Content-based regulations should be a big no-no. Unless, of course, you want to see every Air America outlet lose its license at the same time every Fox News outlet does.

Then the FCC could do its legal duty and take the broadcasting license away from Fox.

These are the public’s airwaves and it is illegal to broadcast purely partisan propaganda.

Not sure what anyone intends to do with all that data — 30 years ago you could have based a pretty good challenge to the renewal of the licenses of all of the Fox-owned TV stations on evidence like this, but I don’t think that’s still a viable option (any communications lawyers out there?). Continuing to say “Fox News is biased” is nice for the record, but we already know that, and the Fox News audience doesn’t care because it shares those biases. So who is this really aimed at? The FCC?

EW, Do you think you could get Robert Greenwald and Bravenew interested?

I see they’re on it, having published a post on the original ad already. …I’m just wondering how one would present the opposing argument to pressure Fox.

Does Fox require proof of erectile dysfunction to place Viagra ads? (Well, Mr. Dole, do you have proof it worked for you?) How ’bout proving that Miller tastes great?

Of course, you’re right. Fox’s challenge is an excuse because they know the ad would piss-off their viewers. I bet the CCR didn’t even ask for a discount.

EW, Do you think you could get Robert Greenwald and Bravenew interested?

“Fox News shows more sexualized violence and humiliation than probably any other network — all in the name of condemning it — while under-showing violence in Iraq, all in the name of supporting it. After this video, smart viewers and advertisers will boycott Fox.” -Gloria Steinem

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has struck down the NSA program in a suit brought by the ACLU.

DETROIT – A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.