Fox News War on Journalism

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Coca Cola.
More...

Nice try:)

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/20...arketing-of-vitaminwater-as-lawsuit-proceeds/

My friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently scored an important court victory in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for deceptive marketing of its product vitaminwater. (In case you missed it, the soft drink giant purchased Glaceau, maker of vitaminwater, back in 2007 for a cool $4.2 billion in cash.)
The class action, filed in January 2009 in federal court in New York, alleges that Coca-Cola’s claims about vitaminwater’s heath benefits are false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. As CSPI’s press release explained:
Vitaminwater’s website, marketing copy, and labels claim that vitaminwater is healthy, claiming, for example, that “balance cran-grapefruit” has “bioactive components” that promote “healthy, pain-free functioning of joints, structural integrity of joints and bones” and that the nutrients in “power-c dragonfruit” “enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to the structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system.”

If those claims sound like they belong on a pharmaceutical product, you’re right. As CSPI notes, they go way beyond anything the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows “and cross the line into outright fraud.” Then there’s the sugar. According to CSPI, “the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles.”
An important hurdle in a lawsuit like this is surviving what’s called a motion to dismiss. That’s what Coca-Cola’s lawyers filed to ask the judge to throw out the case before it can even get to trial. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson denied Coke’s motion on almost all grounds, a huge victory for the plaintiffs.
 
Not trying to bash you over the head 777. I think this forum is quite dead when you and Gabby don't post.

However, despite your aversion to the deception that FOX plays, the left does it just as much, and almost all companies of their size, regardless of the business they are in, eventually get caught up in shenanigans.

Caveat Emptor:)
 
So you equate one product of Coca Cola (a purchase of theirs) to the constant propaganda of Fox News?

In your example, the plaintiffs have won nothing yet, have they?



Quote from RCG Trader:

Nice try:)

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/20...arketing-of-vitaminwater-as-lawsuit-proceeds/

My friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently scored an important court victory in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for deceptive marketing of its product vitaminwater. (In case you missed it, the soft drink giant purchased Glaceau, maker of vitaminwater, back in 2007 for a cool $4.2 billion in cash.)
The class action, filed in January 2009 in federal court in New York, alleges that Coca-Cola’s claims about vitaminwater’s heath benefits are false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. As CSPI’s press release explained:
Vitaminwater’s website, marketing copy, and labels claim that vitaminwater is healthy, claiming, for example, that “balance cran-grapefruit” has “bioactive components” that promote “healthy, pain-free functioning of joints, structural integrity of joints and bones” and that the nutrients in “power-c dragonfruit” “enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to the structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system.”

If those claims sound like they belong on a pharmaceutical product, you’re right. As CSPI notes, they go way beyond anything the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows “and cross the line into outright fraud.” Then there’s the sugar. According to CSPI, “the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles.”
An important hurdle in a lawsuit like this is surviving what’s called a motion to dismiss. That’s what Coca-Cola’s lawyers filed to ask the judge to throw out the case before it can even get to trial. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson denied Coke’s motion on almost all grounds, a huge victory for the plaintiffs.
More...
 
Really, that is a failed attempt.

I am not denying that media is corporate for the most part, and that the left wing media that caters to the left wing audience is not partisan.

However, does that make what Fox News does right?

Your response below is a strawman.

It is a rationalization, devoid of principle beyond greed is good.

Look, I see this type of argument all the time from the right. When it is pointed out to the right what they do is wrong, they respond something like this:

"MSNBC is worse."

How does what MSNBC does, equal or worse, make what Fox News does right?

This just further reveals how corrupt and devoid of principle the right is. Note, that I am not saying the left is free of the same corruption.

I watch the right defend what they can't defend all the time, and when you get cornered...what do you do?

You blather along the lines of it is beyond the tipping point and that you hope to be somewhere else when it crumbles.

My view of you is that you are not genuinely principled beyond some narcissism of what is in it for you with the positions you take.

Taking a view that organized criminal activity is something that you admire?

Your concept of morality is vacuous.




Quote from RCG Trader:

Not trying to bash you over the head 777. I think this forum is quite dead when you and Gabby don't post.

However, despite your aversion to the deception that FOX plays, the left does it just as much, and almost all companies of their size, regardless of the business they are in, eventually get caught up in shenanigans.

Caveat Emptor:)
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Your concept of morality is vacuous.
More...

Well, since when did you become the arbiter of morality?:D

Inevitably, when you look at "morality" you are looking thru your own personal lens. So, that makes your view a personal one. Vacuous is a matter of opinion on your part, and there are many who would turn that cannon around on you:)

So perhaps, lest you find yourself on a slippery slope, you should refrain from making "moral" judgements.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Well, since when did you become the arbiter of morality?:D

Inevitably, when you look at "morality" you are looking thru your own personal lens. So, that makes your view a personal one. Vacuous is a matter of opinion on your part, and there are many who would turn that cannon around on you:)

So perhaps, lest you find yourself on a slippery slope, you should refrain from making "moral" judgements.
More...

And by the way, that is the second time you have left the debate and tried to attack me personally, that is called an ad hom. It is usually a concession of the debate, in practical terms.
 
You asked for a business, I gave one.

You claimed to admire organize crime.

You needed to redefine your question.

I answered it.

You claim that Coca Cola which is not a health food company has done something wrong (there is a lawsuit regarding a minor product of the Coca Cola corporation yes, but no verdict)...and that is the same as Fox News continual and blatant propaganda, while claiming to be fair and balanced.

Sorry, if you were being serious in a debate, I would respond equally, but you aren't doing that at all.

When wrong, simply concede the point.

This was not a concession of being wrong:

"Again I would ask u to name a business that is free and clear of the practices that FOX uses."

You asked, I answered.

Then when I illustrate that not all business practice what Fox News practices, you need to modify your question...without admitting that I answered your question, and demonstrated easily that not all companies do what Fox News Corporation do.

So if you want to be serious, please act that way.



Quote from RCG Trader:

And by the way, that is the second time you have left the debate and tried to attack me personally, that is called an ad hom. It is usually a concession of the debate, in practical terms.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You asked for a business, I gave one.

You claimed to admire organize crime.

You needed to redefine your question.

I answered it.

You claim that Coca Cola which is not a health food company has done something wrong (there is a lawsuit regarding a minor product of the Coca Cola corporation yes, but no verdict)...and that is the same as Fox News continual and blatant propaganda, while claiming to be fair and balanced.

Sorry, if you were being serious in a debate, I would respond equally, but you aren't doing that at all.

When wrong, simply concede the point.

This was not a concession of being wrong:

"Again I would ask u to name a business that is free and clear of the practices that FOX uses."

You asked, I answered.

Then when I illustrate that not all business practice what Fox News practices, you need to modify your question...without admitting that I answered your question, and demonstrated easily that not all companies do what Fox News Corporation do.

So if you want to be serious, please act that way.
More...

Since you are curious as to my moral compass I can sum it up in two sentences.

1. All is fair in love and war.
2. Business is war.

I admire any person, group or organization that is good at what they do. It is a concept called, " the worthy adversary". It is a warrior's concept and I am aware that not everyone has that.

I would maintain that all companies comparable to FOX do what FOX does.

U did answer the question, but it is customary to compare apples to apples, and not apples to goldfish.

So when you tried again, you used KO. Okay, fine. Comparable market cap. I demonstrated that they also have been accused of deceptive practice within the scope of the business they are in

Now, you say they do not spread propaganda.

Could it be because they are not a media giant?

I would assert, that ALL large cap media companies in the business of delivering news try to shape opinion that goes along with the news they deliver. They all want you to view the news they deliver in a certain way so as to shape ideas, which will in time lead to the shaping of legislation. All of them do it.

FOX is no better, or worse, than any of the others.

And I will go further to assert that all large cap national and multi-national companies have bent or broken what might be commonly called "ethical standards". It is a fact of business life.
 
Business is not a war.

That is just nonsense. It is just some crap that people use to engage in predatory business practices motivated by greed.

A good business will put their customers first, not because it is a war, but because if you do a good job, provide a good product for someone, they will not likely go buy their goods and services somewhere else. It is hard to get someone to go elsewhere if their needs are met when they currently spend their money.

You can maintain anything you like about Fox, but you have not proved it to be true.

Coca Cola doesn't do what Fox News does. You would have to show that Coca Cola intentionally deceives their customers with all their products.

(In the case with Vitamin Water, if an athelete burns up the calories they get from Vitamin Water, it is not an issue. The problem is fat people who don't exercise drink it thinking they will get healthy. Vitamin Water doesn't have more sugars than Welches Grape Juice, orange juice, pineapple juice, etc. Doubt me? Look at the labels for the amount of sugars per 8 ounce serving).

It is not customary to compare anything to anything.

You asked a poor open ended question, and got an answer...and when the answer exposed the silliness of your question...then you had to backtrack and redefine the question.

Fox News is yellow journalism. Sizzle with no steak.

Yes, Fox News is worse than other corporations...

I think you need to go home if you are not there already and take a shower and try to wash away the filth that would have you admire organized crime and compare Fox's business practices to all media corporations.

Hell, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt both have more integrity than Rupert Murdoch...

Quote from RCG Trader:

Since you are curious as to my moral compass I can sum it up in two sentences.

1. All is fair in love and war.
2. Business is war.

I admire any person, group or organization that is good at what they do. It is a concept called, " the worthy adversary". It is a warrior's concept and I am aware that not everyone has that.

I would maintain that all companies comparable to FOX do what FOX does.

U did answer the question, but it is customary to compare apples to apples, and not apples to goldfish.

So when you tried again, you used KO. Okay, fine. Comparable market cap. I demonstrated that they also have been accused of deceptive practice within the scope of the business they are in

Now, you say they do not spread propaganda.

Could it be because they are not a media giant?

I would assert, that ALL large cap media companies in the business of delivering news try to shape opinion that goes along with the news they deliver. They all want you to view the news they deliver in a certain way so as to shape ideas, which will in time lead to the shaping of legislation. All of them do it.

FOX is no better, or worse, than any of the others.

And I will go further to assert that all large cap national and multi-national companies have bent or broken what might be commonly called "ethical standards". It is a fact of business life.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Business is not a war.

Really? Then you have never run one.

That is just nonsense. It is just some crap that people use to engage in predatory business practices motivated by greed.

In truth if you sell a product for profit, it is predatory

A good business will put their customers first, not because it is a war, but because if you do a good job, provide a good product for someone, they will not likely go buy their goods and services somewhere else. It is hard to get someone to go elsewhere if there needs are met when they currently spend their money.

Tell that to WalMart, and the many many businesses they have euthanzied

You can maintain anything you like about Fox, but you have not proved it to be true.

Okay, I will work on that

Coca Cola doesn't do what Fox News does.
relative to the business they are in, yes they do, I just posted that.

It is not customary to compare anything to anything.
In a debate, you have thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, when discussing this, the debater make relevant comparisons to prove a point, this is standard collegiate practice

You asked a poor open ended question, and got an answer...and when the answer exposed the silliness of your question...then you had to backtrack and redefine the question.
Silly is a derogatory adjective meant to cast dispersion on the debater, this is called an ad hom, and is considered poor taste

Fox News is yellow journalism. Sizzle with no steak.
Name a company that is not

Yes, Fox News is worse than other corporations...
And what facts can you present that put them as clearly more corrupt?

I think you need to go home if you are not there already and take a shower and try to wash away the filth that would have you admire organized crime and compare Fox's business practices to all media corporations.
This entire statement is a derogatory missive meant to cast dispersion on the debater, this is called an ad hom, and is considered poor taste

Hell, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt both have more integrity than Rupert Murdoch...

A very interesting perspective
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top