Fox Editing Out Paul's Response To Electibility On Debate Replays?

Yes, I'm a lawyer. However, I am no expert in Media law nor an expert on FCC regulations. However, I do have a background in First Amendment law.

In layman terms, Fox News can spin the news however it wants so long as it does not defame a person in the process. Now, we as Ron Paul supporters may not like how Fox News spins the news on Ron Paul. However, unless Fox News is defaming Ron Paul in any way, which it is not (so far), then neither Ron Paul or his supporters have standing to bring a lawsuit against Fox News. If we don't like how Fox News is spinning the news on Ron Paul, then are recourse is not through the courts but through non-litigation means such as boycotting sponsors and setting the record straight on Ron Paul through other news media including the internet.

In the early days of the Republic, there was no such thing as a non-partisan newspaper. Every newspaper was sponsored directly by a candidate, a party, or a special interest group. Consequently, every newspaper was very partisan. Now, there is nothing to prevent us Ron Paul supporters from starting our own news network. Fox News got started by finding a niche audience that it could appeal to like no other mainstream media. I think that today there is a niche audience developing for an alternative media source other than Fox News and the existing main stream media.
 
Thomas Paine said:
Yes, I'm a lawyer. However, I am no expert in Media law nor an expert on FCC regulations. However, I do have a background in First Amendment law.

In layman terms, Fox News can spin the news however it wants so long as it does not defame a person in the process. Now, we as Ron Paul supporters may not like how Fox News spins the news on Ron Paul. However, unless Fox News is defaming Ron Paul in any way, which it is not (so far), then neither Ron Paul or his supporters have standing to bring a lawsuit against Fox News. If we don't like how Fox News is spinning the news on Ron Paul, then are recourse is not through the courts but through non-litigation means such as boycotting sponsors and setting the record straight on Ron Paul through other news media including the internet.

In the early days of the Republic, there was no such thing as a non-partisan newspaper. Every newspaper was sponsored directly by a candidate, a party, or a special interest group. Consequently, every newspaper was very partisan. Now, there is nothing to prevent us Ron Paul supporters from starting our own news network. Fox News got started by finding a niche audience that it could appeal to like no other mainstream media. I think that today there is a niche audience developing for an alternative media source other than Fox News and the existing main stream media.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the information; and I do think that we should start our own news network as a for-profit enterprise with shareholders.
 
rwl4 said:
So is this confirmed? Did they indeed cut out parts of RP's answers and/or his response to his electability? If so, can someone provide a youtube link? I'd love to send this to my neocon friend, if it's true.
Click to expand...
yes....heck we never even saw that clip by the time it hit hawai'i!! i found it last nite here on the boards--unbelievable
 
MalcolmGandi said:
I was at the debate, and I booed really loud whenever the question was asked about electability... I guess the microphones were closer to the front :p
Click to expand...
k...u r the first one i've seen post u were at the debate.....WHAT did romney do when RP was speaking & they tried to make him look foolish by saying he responded incorrectly about "other candidates being passive etc..." ?????
 
But the fact is that Fox News calls itself "Fair and Balanced." Obviously they are not when they censor a candidate, editing and cutting parts from a debate. Fraud?
 
4RP08inKCMO said:
I recorded the replay of the debate and just finished fast-forwarding through it (stopped fast-forwarding for Dr. Paul's parts that were included of course ). Here is what they did:

The replay of the debate started at midnight ET. They showed the debate as normal through the Israel discussion. After the Israel discussion, they went to the commercial as normal but when they came back, it went straight into the middle of Romney talking about the ECONOMY AGAIN. They started showing the first topic of the debate in the middle of this thing. This happened at around 1:15 am ET. At 1:21 am ET, they got to the Reagan question for McCain for the second time where he said “prin…ci…ple,” real slow like an idiot. Immediately after McCain mentions the “bridge to nowhere,” it goes to commercial in the middle of him speaking. When they return from commercial, they are magically on the last segment which was over immigration. An entire segment was removed including the electability question.

Now I don't know if this was done directly against Paul, but it is definitely very suspicious. Here is part of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbifbtAKTT0.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, this is really messed up. They actually went back to the beginning in the middle of the debate? That McCain clip, where he says "bridge to nowhere" and the caption underneath says "What has happened to reagan conservatism?" happened only 20 minutes into the debate. In the replay you recorded, they then go to a commercial, and they come back with Hume saying it is their final segment, which in real life didn't occur until about the 1 hour 20 minute mark, A FULL HOUR later. WTF??

BTW "bridge to nowhere" was not the last thing McCain said, he kept talking after that! About climate change no less!
 
Last edited:
You want to get a better understanding of what msm are up to? Watch this video, starting at about the 41 or 42 minute mark. RFK Jr provides a very easy to understand explanation. You may decide to not watch them ever again after hearing what he has to say.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954858769441262005

I want to thank whoever posted this link on RPF a couple of days ago. This (Greg Palast and RFK in NYC- MayDay 2007) was one of the most enlightening, best videos I've seen.
 
dmspilot00 said:
But the fact is that Fox News calls itself "Fair and Balanced." Obviously they are not when they censor a candidate, editing and cutting parts from a debate. Fraud?
Click to expand...

In every type of fraud lawsuit, there have to be recoverable damages. Assuming arguendo fraud on the part of Fox News, what are the monetary damages that each viewer has incurred??? Furthermore, not every viewer is going to agree that Fox News has committed fraud.
 
barbz said:
You want to get a better understanding of what msm are up to? Watch this video, starting at about the 41 or 42 minute mark. RFK Jr provides a very easy to understand explanation. You may decide to not watch them ever again after hearing what he has to say.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954858769441262005

I want to thank whoever posted this link on RPF a couple of days ago. This (Greg Palast and RFK in NYC- MayDay 2007) was one of the most enlightening, best videos I've seen.
Click to expand...

wow, excellent video so far.
 
I don't think this is a matter of Faux trying to censor his response because they thought it was damaging. The debate ran slightly longer than 90 minutes, so to keep their schedule straight they had to cut a segment. Of course, they decided to cut a Ron Paul segment, because in their eyes he's the least "important" candidate up there. I really don't think there's anything more sinister behind it than that, in this case. Sorry, I just had to play devil's advocate. Flame away.
 
29ytsejam said:
I don't think this is a matter of Faux trying to censor his response because they thought it was damaging. The debate ran slightly longer than 90 minutes, so to keep their schedule straight they had to cut a segment. Of course, they decided to cut a Ron Paul segment, because in their eyes he's the least "important" candidate up there. I really don't think there's anything more sinister behind it than that, in this case. Sorry, I just had to play devil's advocate. Flame away.
Click to expand...
That's not it. Read the other posts a few posts up. In the replay, in the middle of the debate they went back to the beginning and showed part of it twice. Also, in the replay, there was McCain talking about "bridge to nowhere," then a commercial, and then they came back with the "final segment," which in reality occurred a full hour after the bridge comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
My Debate against Walter Block on Libertarianism and Israel
Replies
0
Views
430
PAF
PAF
W
Tim Walz on Debate The expansion of Israel and its proxies necessity for the United States
Replies
1
Views
322
vita3
V
jmdrake
Progressive Medhi Hassan embarasses 20 "far right" Republicans
2
Replies
20
Views
230
unknown
unknown
L
Charlie Kirk and Kamala Harris Debate Gun Control [forum member video project]
Replies
0
Views
38
libertyvidz
L
PAF
Gabbard Falls in Line, Claims Iran Close to Nukes
Replies
11
Views
128
CCTelander
C
Back
Top