Where's the stage? Spurious Generalities > Politiw00kchat
Fox News: At it again
V00D00BR3W:
Current front-page story (above the fold) on FN.com:
--- Quote ---Conservative bloggers taking precautions over ‘SWAT-ing’ attacks
LAS VEGAS – Conservative bloggers are on heightened alert following a string of so-called "SWAT-ing" incidents and are taking precautionary measures to ensure they don't fall victim to the potentially dangerous prank as the political blogosphere prepares for a heated election season.
"SWAT-ing" refers to a hoax in which an anonymous prankster falsely reports a violent crime at an unsuspecting person's home, prompting a police team to respond to the location believing a dangerous situation is at hand.
The illegal practice has in recent months targeted well-known conservative writers and commentators, including Erick Erickson, founder of the blog RedState.com -- who claims he was eating dinner with his family in May when a SWAT team surrounded his home following such a false 911 call.
The growing trend, which some say could one day prove deadly, had conservatives on edge at the annual RightOnline conference of right-wing bloggers and activists in Las Vegas this weekend.
"What they're clearly trying to do is dampen down free speech, but it goes beyond that -- it's putting people's physical safety in jeopardy," said Ali Akbar, who heads a group called the National Bloggers Club made up of conservative online writers.
Akbar told FoxNews.com that he believes he is a target after he claims his mother's home address in Texas was posted on various Internet sites to "incite someone crazy on the fringe left to do something absolutely awful to one of us for what we're talking about."
Akbar and others are urging troops of conservative bloggers to protect themselves by contacting their local law enforcement before they post about a "controversial" topic.
"Notify law enforcement," he said. "It's uncomfortable to talk to your local police about this, but it's absolutely important because getting SWAT-ted is not a joking matter. They come to your house with their guns drawn. They'll kick in your door."
Such was the case for conservative Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications, who reportedly had a SWAT team --with guns drawn -- descend on his California home in July 2011 and handcuff him.
Those orchestrating the hoax make the calls appear as though they are originating from the victim's home by using sophisticated methods, like "voiceover IP" on a computer that makes it untraceable.
There is now a growing call to track down those responsible for the calls.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who headlined the two-day RightOnline conference, declared that "those responsible for this SWAT-ing must be held accountable by the law."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., as well as 85 other members of Congress, is calling on the Justice Department to a launch a federal probe into the matter.
"The emerging pattern is both disturbing and dangerous," Chambliss wrote in a June 5 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. "Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels."
The advances of the Internet -- like the birth of social media -- have enabled everyday "citizen journalists" to spread their messages like never before, but they have also created a potentially dangerous world for a political blogger, Akbar warned.
"We're writing in digital ink," he said, "So there's enough room these days for everybody to talk about everything."
via
--- End quote ---
So let me get this out of the way up front: it's completely fucked up and in no way acceptable to have a SWAT team called on some poor unsuspecting sap.
That said, I find FN's breathless panic over this "trend" to be quite amusing and typically self-serving. If SWAT-ing is really the epidemic this article and the RightOnline conference make it out to be, you'd think they could cite more than the two incidents mentioned in the article -- and one of them was nearly a year ago.
Also, LOL at this author's clunky and incorrect explanation of what "VOIP" means.
V00D00BR3W:
FN.com has been hammering Obama over his "you didn't build that" comment (which he claims was meant to apply to things like roads and infrastructure, not private businesses themselves; not that you'll see FN give much deference to claims that remark has been taken out of context).
Here's the current top front page story:
Yesterday featured a similarly snarky top story and front-page graphic poking at the "build that" "gaffe."
I love the giant headline within the graphic: "Obama built that." It's presented as a quote but there's no attempt right there to attribute it to anyone or make clear that FN is merely reporting on some third party's criticism. This kind of presentation effectively allows FN to blatantly editorialize while the quote marks let them claim they were simply passing along a comment. They have such high journalistic integrity, you know.
And having read the story, I can only assume the front-page quote was (incorrectly, as it happens) taken from a Romney e-mail referenced in the story, which was titled "The Obama Economy: Barack Obama Built This."
It must be nice when you can fire off garden-variety campaign missives and have a major "news" outlet parrot your jabs on the front page of its website, with nary any attribution or elaboration to identify whose opinion is being echoed here.
phil:
It goes both ways. Watching MSNBC's coverage of Mitt Romney's bumbling attempt at international relations last night was akin watching fourth-graders in suits explain why their teacher is a butt-head. It's all drivel, the only difference is which side they're pandering to.
Edit: This is what I'm talking about
Is this what passes for serious reporting in this country? Do people just not have time to do things right anymore because of the 24-hour news cycle?
V00D00BR3W:
The difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell's show is quite clearly an opinion show. It's not straight journalism. Just like Olbermann before him, or John Stewart or Sean Hannity.
Anyone who's honest will acknowledge that MSNBC's programming panders to the left-leaning viewer just as Fox News panders to conservatives. But looking at how they are pulling that off, it's different. MSNBC does it through what is clearly personality/opinion-driven content, while Fox News shows clear bias in the stories they cover and they way they cover them -- the bias at Fox News is much more deeply entrenched and is very anti-journalistic. In my opinion.
phil:
--- Quote from: V00D00BR3W on July 27, 2012, 02:05:14 PM ---The difference is that Lawrence O'Donnell's show is quite clearly an opinion show. It's not straight journalism. Just like Olbermann before him, or John Stewart or Sean Hannity.
Anyone who's honest will acknowledge that MSNBC's programming panders to the left-leaning viewer just as Fox News panders to conservatives. But looking at how they are pulling that off, it's different. MSNBC does it through what is clearly personality/opinion-driven content, while Fox News shows clear bias in the stories they cover and they way they cover them -- the bias at Fox News is much more deeply entrenched and is very anti-journalistic. In my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Fox has the added advantage of a target audience with an average IQ of about 90, so they can get away with a lot more. I think all of those cable news networks are nothing but garbage.
NPR or gtfo.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version