FOR THE KIDS (why faux news is not a credible news source)

[Xayd]

kids being all of the new neo-cons showing up on this forum trying the same old failed tactics that got their predecessors made fun of incessantly years ago. so, lets have a little lesson on why faux news and their associated blogs are not credible. that way we won't have to worry with the the new little neocon'lets showing up to derail threads by turning it into a faux news defense initiative.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ic-disclosure/

no need to read the whole story (no one else does, i'll get to that later) a glance clearly demonstrates that there is no link to the law they're complaining about, and to actually get even the cite of the law, you have to get to the last paragraph.

now, lets look at all of the faux copypasta bloggers who will run with the story, also without reading the law in question..

"Huge" story says this one
conspiracy blog, gets the story right but has to sensationalize the headline, of course
sec not obliged to respond to press?
the newsbusters article is 2/3 defending bush and alot of the rest complaining about MSNBC, big fucking surprise there...
and, of course, one has to take it way over the top (guess who)
glenn beck says the SEC has exempted itself from 'all transparency laws'

and, since fox ran the first story, they can now use their own story as a source for other stories, which also do not include the text of the law, or a cite/link to the law.

so what does the law say? if you read any of the above links you wouldn't have a clue. either they didn't read it either, or also, like fox, chose not to cite the law because anyone who read it would understand that it was a non-story, because it only involves releasing information regarding investigations, which aren't supposed to be public (you can't go to the police precinct and demand a copy of all reports filed in relation to your neighbors, only after charges are filed does the information become public at trial, this law simply states that).

here is the law, it simply states that the SEC will not disclose details of ongoing investigations (which no other enforcement agency does, either. it's counterproductive for the target of an investigation to see the details of his investigation in the newspaper, for obvious reasons)...like so...

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (f), the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose records or information obtained pursuant to section 17(b), or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.

`(2) TREATMENT OF INFORMATION- For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this subsection shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Collection of information pursuant to section 17 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.'.

(b) Investment Company Act of 1940- Section 31 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-30) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:

`(c) Limitations on Disclosure by Commission- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any records or information provided to the Commission under this section, or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency requesting the information for purposes within the scope of jurisdiction of that department or agency, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this section shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Collection of information pursuant to section 31 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.';

(2) by striking subsection (d); and

(3) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.

(c) Investment Advisers Act of 1940- Section 210 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Limitations on Disclosure by the Commission- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any records or information provided to the Commission under section 204, or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency requesting the information for purposes within the scope of jurisdiction of that department or agency, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this subsection shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Collection of information pursuant to section 204 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.'.

no blog is a sufficient source of information.
no faux story is a sufficient source of information.
no faux opinion editor is a sufficient source of information.

this is why.

so the next time any of you kids want to play the "EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME AS FAUX" card do our jobs for us (i hear you love that, especially when mexicans and union members say it) and link yourselves to this thread, in which you can bask in your own idiocy.

[pyramid]

but it's so much easier to manufacture outrage if you don't provide all the facts.

won't someone please think of the manufactured outrage!

[Mooninites]

Not that I disagree with you, but the full text of the law is at the bottom of the fox article

[Xayd]

the faux article starts out with...

SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure

By Dunstan Prial

Published July 28, 2010

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

which is a lie.

you can't request information from ongoing investigations, that's all the law says.

it doesn't say anything about "all requests". hannity, beck, and o'reilly will then vastly expand on the 'all requests' lie, and become sources for the 'news' story on faux later that day or the next morning.

the story will be 'SOME SAY THE SEC IS EXEMPTING THEMSELVES FROM ALL INFORMATION REQUESTS'. some is themselves.

this is the machine in action.

[pyramid]

Maddow is getting good at exposing their shit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...53636#38353636

[Electrikfuzz050]

News outlets sensationalize stories to get more exposure?

Please, tell me more!

[Bukkakeboy]

Just an apropos to glen beck

[sir tex]

Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050

News outlets sensationalize stories to get more exposure?

Please, tell me more!

.

[joemama]

Dare I point out that nobody in this thread (or the other one that obviously spawned this one) has come to the defense of Fox News? All I see is Xayd and Pyramid jerking each other off...and I really didn't need to see that. So let me get this straight, the worse you make Fox news look, the better (and truly "fair and balanced") your chosen news sources will be...rite?

[pyramid]

Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050

News outlets sensationalize stories to get more exposure?

Please, tell me more!

Yeah, and fox, not being a news outlet, makes them up completely.

[coalesce]

I don't even watch Fox news but I know most FOX hate comes from MSNBC which is an even worse news source than FOX. Maddow, Mathews and Oberman on one channel? I'd rather walk in on Glen Beck get goatse'd.

[coalesce]

Man I hate Glenn Beck too. That guy tries to hard to be funny on a fucking news channel where he's not suppose to be funny.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by pyramid

Yeah, and fox, not being a news outlet, makes them up completely.

yeah exploding GM? truck gas tanks. oooppps fox didnt exist then That was Dateline NBC

Rathergate yeah fox news did that one

gary condit's pregnant intern getting murdered, and gary destroying evidence. Oh yeah fox invented that Obviously or Rather would have covered it and not claimed it was not news for 2 weeks.

Unruly mob of tea party protesters( holding up signs and behaving themselves) vs Mostly peaceful Arizona law protester( filmed throwing stuff at cops and pro law groups)

etc etc

I thought I told you NOT to be the same type of scum as spxayed and dumbho?


A few highlights


http://mediamythbusters.com/index.ph...ications/Lying

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/raw...ctory_how.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...977814,00.html

[pyramid]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

yeah exploding GM? truck gas tanks. oooppps fox didnt exist then That was Dateline NBC

Yeah, saddlebag gas tanks were totally safe. NBC was fucking stupid to rig something that didn't need to be rigged.

Rathergate yeah fox news did that one

gary condit's pregnant intern getting murdered, and gary destroying evidence. Oh yeah fox invented that Obviously or Rather would have covered it and not claimed it was not news for 2 weeks.

Fox was all over the Gary Condit Story, calling for his resignation daily... remember he was a democrat. But so was everyone else.

Unruly mob of tea party protesters( holding up signs and behaving themselves) vs Mostly peaceful Arizona law protester( filmed throwing stuff at cops and pro law groups)

You left out Rodney King but congratulations, you found almost as many bad news stories covered by the rest of the media over the last 30 years as fox has run this year. Bravo.

A few highlights


http://mediamythbusters.com/index.ph...ications/Lying

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/raw...ctory_how.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...977814,00.html

And what is different between most of those and similar occurrences at fox?

Most of those people got fired from their jobs when it was discovered they were lying or fabricating things. Fox doesn't fire for lying or fabrication, they fire you when you refuse to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

[TheMorlock]

your choice.