I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Coverage of the U.S House and Senate hearings and votes is live when in session, taped for repeat viewing only by CSPAN as only their cameras permitted in Congress. Closed captioning is part of coverage for the hearing impaired and deaf community, known to us who watch their channels routinely. CSPAN1 = House, CSPAN 2=Senate while CSPAN 3 covers congressional hearings, the White House, speeches and other important public
affairs events. Broadcast and cable TV coverage is from CSPAN feed when they choose to show their viewers major news events.
Correction. Not close captioning. It should have read close ups of Cheney's face. Almost like a soap opera. Hollywood produced, non the less.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
FYI, Hearing staff not involved in camera angles --CSPAN chooses which shots to take of hearing participants, which CSPAN discussed in their coverage leaning up to hearing.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Did they? Has the defamation case concluded? This is your opinion. And what if the court proceeding conclude that the FOX news figures did not defame dominion? Will you accept that? No. You will continue to use this a a counter attack fir any reference to FOX news. Knowing full well that these particular news figures are obvious opinion and only make up a small part of FOX as a whole.
Again. You are taking isduee with what they believe. And what they say. Eventhough it appears they believe exactly what you do.
I don't care the outcome of the case. Juries are unpredictable. Maybe they'll punish FOX for their lies about another company that caused damages. Maybe they won't.
I care that other journalists reported on the case filings so that we could see some of the sworn evidence now. I read the words of Hannity and Ingraham and Carlson when they thought they were shielded by privacy. In private they said their guests were crazy but on air said that they shared their guests thinking or concerns. They pushed to continue with lies when truth and facts appeared to hurt their stockck prices. I don't need a trial to know those people are liars and shouldn't be trusted. Do you?
Those people you call "news figures" before you say they are only opinion... which is it? Do you think they are news figures/ journalists that should have some professional standards for reporting? Do you think they consider themselves journalists?
Quote
Sean Hannity does not consider himself a journalist. "I'm a member of the press,” he said on his Fox News show last year, "but I don't claim to be a journalist.”
His boss, however, feels differently. "Ultimately, they're journalists,” Fox Corp chief executive Lachlan Murdoch said of Hannity and his fellow prime-time opinion hosts in a deposition in December. "They report a strong opinion.”
Do you think the opinion of the employer about Hannity's status is important?
Did you completely miss the point that my issue is that they lied to the public about facts and events for some unspoken agenda? Or are you just trying to make a strawman argument work in our discussion when hyperbole, misrepresentations, and projection won't?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Did they? Has the defamation case concluded? This is your opinion. And what if the court proceeding conclude that the FOX news figures did not defame dominion? Will you accept that? No. You will continue to use this a a counter attack fir any reference to FOX news. Knowing full well that these particular news figures are obvious opinion and only make up a small part of FOX as a whole.
Again. You are taking isduee with what they believe. And what they say. Eventhough it appears they believe exactly what you do.
Irrespective of the defamation, it is clear that popular Fox hosts were pushing lies and false narratives to their viewers and they knew they were lies and falsehoods. That is clear from their own words. Feel free to trust them or the network that still employs them because you are waiting for a defamation trial results.
I'm taking issue with their lies. Are you misunderstanding or trying to misrepresent my position... you know... make a strawman argument?
MaybeeRN said:
Seems to think CNN and other left wing media are actual news sources.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
Liberals debunking? Theres that gaslighting again. Because you wish things to be so doesn't make them so. Like a typical Liberal you accuse Republicans of the very thing liberals do. You have no proof just portly written opinion pieces from left wing rags that wouldn't even be useful in an outhouse. You get your news from CNN and MSNBC which is why you have no clue about what really goes on. That's why you and nursej22 didn't know about Eric Holder claiming to be Obama's wingman.
Apparently you believe that if you keep repeating your beliefs about what I knew they'll magically become correct or true. That's cute.
I don't care the outcome of the case. Juries are unpredictable. Maybe they'll publish FOX for their lies about another company that caused damages. Maybe they won't.
I care that other journalists reported on the case filings so that we could see some of the sworn evidence now. I read the words of Hannity and Ingraham and Carlson when they thought they were shielded by privacy. In private they said their guests were crazy but on air said that they shared their guests thinking or concerns. They pushed to continue with lies when truth and facts appeared to hurt their stockck prices. I don't need a trial to know those people are liars and shouldn't be trusted. Do you?
Those people you call "news figures" before you say they are only opinion... which is it? Do you think they are news figures/ journalists that should have some professional standards for reporting? Do you think they consider themselves journalists?
Do you think the opinion of the employer about Hannity's status is important?
Did you completely miss the point that my issue is that they lied to the public about facts and events for some unspoken agenda? Or are you just trying to make a strawman argument work in our discussion when hyperbole, misrepresentations, and projection won't?
So you agree. Whatever the outcome of the case , you have already made up your mind. I'd imagine it would be exactly the same if Trump was found not guilty in a court of law. However if he was found guilty, you would be broadcasting that is was the most accurate criminal trial in all of history. And that the jurors were stellar citizens. In the end, you will have the
Demos play this game to. They had no intention of bringing charges against Trump. This allows them to blab off about his guilt without proving it. Knowing the citizens who vote Democrat will believe it like gospel. And hopfully convincing a few moderates as well. All to prevent him from being elected. What's this about election interference?
They work at a news company. They are news figures. They themselves do not call themselves journalists. It's obvious a opinion part of FOX news.
Who cares if they lied? Who cares what they believe? Until it is proven otherwise, that's is their constitutional right. If they are found to have defamed Dominion, they they should pay damages. Dominion also has to prove that there were damages as well.
Again. You have a pathological obsession with what people think or say. You cannot control that. And good thing too!
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
So you agree. Whatever the outcome of the case , you have already made up your mind. I'd imagine it would be exactly the same if Trump was found not guilty in a court of law. However if he was found guilty, you would be broadcasting that is was the most accurate criminal trial in all of history. And that the jurors were stellar citizens. In the end, you will have the
Demos play this game to. They had no intention of bringing charges against Trump. This allows them to blab off about his guilt without proving it. Knowing the citizens who vote Democrat will believe it like gospel. And hopfully convincing a few moderates as well. All to prevent him from being elected. What's this about election interference?
They work at a news company. They are news figures. They themselves do not call themselves journalists. It's obvious a opinion part of FOX news.
Who cares if they lied? Who cares what they believe? Until it is proven otherwise, that's is their constitutional right. If they are found to have defamed Dominion, they they should pay damages. Dominion also has to prove that there were damages as well.
Again. You have a pathological obsession with what people think or say. You cannot control that. And good thing too!
I've formed an opinion about the honesty and integrity of Fox news and their hosts, yes. Some legal experts believe it's an unusually straightforward case and I will watch the trial if that is possible.
You are welcome to make hyperbolic guesses about what I might do if this or that happens. Your speculation only reflects you and your opinions so have at it. Similarly, you can share your generalized opinion of this vague thing that you believe democrats are doing simply to prevent Trump from becoming president. In reality, Trump needs no help preventing Trump from being president. He is not very popular with the general public, only a subset of republican voters.
The fellow who employs those news figures considers them journalists. But, if they aren't journalists then they don't have any journalism sources to protect. Shrugs. It's going to be an interesting case to watch and is possibly going to make Fox look pretty shady as a "news" platform.
You don't care if outlets purporting to publish "news" are actually publishing lies and propaganda? That seems in inconsistent. Why did you start an entire thread about bias if you don't even care if large media outlets are deliberately spreading lies?
Again, strawman arguments only reflect badly upon the user.
I've formed an opinion about the honesty and integrity of Fox news and their hosts, yes. Some legal experts believe it's an unusually straightforward case and I will watch the trial if that is possible.
You are welcome to make hyperbolic guesses about what I might do if this or that happens. Your speculation only reflects you and your opinions so have at it. Similarly, you can share your generalized opinion of this vague thing that you believe democrats are doing simply to prevent Trump from becoming president. In reality, Trump needs no help preventing Trump from being president. He is not very popular with the general public, only a subset of republican voters.
The fellow who employs those news figures considers them journalists. But, if they aren't journalists then they don't have any journalism sources to protect. Shrugs. It's going to be an interesting case to watch and is possibly going to make Fox look pretty shady as a "news" platform.
You don't care if outlets purporting to publish "news" are actually publishing lies and propaganda? That seems in inconsistent. Why did you start an entire thread about bias if you don't even care if large media outlets are deliberately spreading lies?
Again, strawman arguments only reflect badly upon the user.
I'm not sure if they were reporting it dishonestly or if they were reporting what Trump was claiming. Not necessarily what they personally believe.
Is it only permissible for journalists or opinion figures to report something they themselves believe? They can't report info someone else's believes?
Do you think every journalist has never reported on something that they may or may not believe themselves?
If they were reporting what Trump was saying and doing, but did not believe what he was saying themselves, so what?
Unless they made definitive claims that this was in fact happening, not just reporting what Trump was saying, I do not think they are defamatory. Even if they used selective language to suggest its true. Unless they said, "Dominion is interfering with a US election, there is no doubt about it. And Dominion caused Trump to lose an election. They are bad." And then, Dominion suffered actual significant damages, then that could be considered defamation.
It's a grey area but lies do not immediately breach the first amendment. Every politition would be sued. Dominion also has to prove that they had suffered damages because of alleged lies. You can't take people to court for saying a lie about you unless is has caused damages. Could you imagine if everyone sued a person for saying a lie about them?
Dominion has a large burden to prove this is not protected speech. However it doesn't matter anyway, you do not seem to value freedom of speech much. Or freedom of beliefs either.
I know the people who are involved in this case are opinion commentators. And a opinion part of FOX news. There is many other departments that made up FOX. Not just these commentators and their obvious opinion shows.
If Trump wasn't a threat, they wouldn't be pulling these obvious political theater stunts. And that's what they said about him last time LOL.
Roitrn
618 Posts
Correction. Not close captioning. It should have read close ups of Cheney's face. Almost like a soap opera. Hollywood produced, non the less.