You're kidding, right? Where do you keep coming up with this MSNBC nonsense? Apparently y'all have forgotten the "evening in the white house" that NBC pre-empted the incredibly popular at the time "West Wing." Yes, we all tuned in to watch our idealized "liberal" imaginary president and instead were treated to a full on propaganda piece fille dwith hardball questions like "how did you feel when they announced you had won the election?"When a "news channel" advertises protests before they happen, then send producers to LEAD the protests, that is not "news" it is lobbying. Does FOX have the right to lobby? Sure - but they also have the responsibility to report those facts as such. What they report instead are lies.Just like we all have a RESPONSIBILITY to take care of one another. Stop sucking at the koolaid long enough to read some history and consider the realities: like it or no, sending money to those less fortunate is not "charity" it is pragmatism. Read up on the French Revolution to see what happens when things get too far out of whack. Think it can't happen today? Just look at the changes that happened throughout eastern Europe just a decade or two back. We spend more of our economy on prisons than the the other top ten world economies combined and what does it get us? That "redistribution of wealth" is cheaper than declaring a war on the poor, which is what comes next if some balance isn't restored. And that doesn't mean FOX's definition of "balance," either.

As I said, whether you want to call it socialism is up to you. It certainly doesn't fit under any real definition of a true free market economy (otherwise known as capitalism). It is obviously not full blow socialism, but rather something in between. Churches are private CHARITIES that people WILLINGLY give their property (money) to in order to help the poor. And I am against giving private charities any sort of advantage or tax benefit. I am not blindly partisan. But even with such benefits for churches in place, there is still a difference between asking for someones money to give to the poor, and lobbying to FORCE (through taxation) people to give money to the poor. Charity and taxes for welfare are two entirely different things. Fox officers using funds inappropriately? Probably happens all the time. The offenders get fired if caught, and everyone moves on. The difference is that Fox is not funded by taxpayers. Ever hear of AIG? Everyone (including me) had a problem with them using their taxpayer money to pay their executives off. Whats the big difference now? Did you even pay attention during the Bush years? The exact same sort of attacks were made (also correctly) against Haliburton and their ilk.
The tea party protests certainly happened. They didn't make it up, although they did promote them, and they probably are the reason that they even happened in the first place. They did report on them way more than the situation warranted, but the same happened during Bush years with MSNBC, at least in terms of over-coverage of protests. Blatantly partisan? Definitely. Just like MSNBC.
Lobbying group? They do present news, however wrong the facts are at times.
My point being that just because you disagree (over interpretation OR facts) is no reason to take legal action to cover up Fox. I'm sure everyone would have screamed at the top of their lungs if Bush had taken action to consider them a "lobbying organization." If you want ANY biased network to be treated as such, then sure. Remember the faked Bush air force papers? Fox is definitely not the first, and most certainly not the last to make up partisan drivel to advance their goals. On both sides.

You're kidding, right?The half truth is that "redistribution of wealth" is in any way socialist! And whether it is or it isn't, funding a "socialist organization" that heps people is in no way worse than funding a CHURCH led organization that helps people - and thanks to shrub changing the rules there are now plenty of those. Here's a question: how many corporations (including FOX itself) have officers who use funds inappropriately? I'm not excusing corruption but simply pointing out that FOX is very, very (and blatantly partisan) in choosing its battles. They are not a news organization but a political lobbying organization and, therefore, should be regulated as such.The problem here is that FOX more often than not is simply creating or inventing the news rather than reporting it - the most blatant being the last month's "teabag" protests.

And i agree that there certainly is a lot of that, on both sides. Specifically about this video, they did show entire sections of the interview. And some things you cant take out of context to a point where they no longer meant the same thing. Most you can, and Fox and MSNBC do it literally all the time. But the point of these channels isn't to be fair or balanced, even if they do advertise that. You have to take everything they say with a grain of salt, and sift through it for the truth that MAY be embedded in it. I watch MSNBC all the time for the specific purpose of forming arguments in my mind to counter what Chris Matthews is saying and why I disagree, if I even do disagree with what he is saying.
A brain dead simplistic answer? Fox specifically, when talking about Beck yes some of the time, with respect to the "It's their fault" piece. But that is the libertarian view, that the state is the enemy. No matter what good it claims to be doing. The idea being based essentially on property rights, that a society that recognizes property rights cannot morally take by force the property of it's citizens. So if you understand that Beck is a libertarian, the show can be quite informative, regarding what libertarians and the economically far right are thinking. Just as I can gain something out of watching Olbermann, namely by trying to understand what him and his viewers are thinking, and to formulate intelligent counterarguments.
Although admittedly, as a constitutional minarchist, essentially as Libertarian as you can get before you reach anarcho-capitalism, my views are not exactly mainstream. So, when reading my posts, you have to understand what kind of biases I may have when writing these posts.
Again, in this video specifically, I see no important half-truths. There is no doubt that ACORN is for the redistribution of wealth. Whether you want to call it socialism is up to you, but it really is so far from real capitalism that if its not socialism, you might as well come up with a new name for it. And whether you think that the redistribution of wealth as ACORN envisions it is a good thing or not is a debate this country desperately needs to have once again. I am willing to debate on economic and moral the benefits of true Lassez-Faire capitalism (not the state run Corporate Capitalism we have now), and Socialism has been shut out of the argument as a legitimate side to take by the Republicans, so there has been no debate. And Fox definitely takes that particular stance, but it doesn't change what the man is saying.

Presenting HALF a fact is a lie. Presenting a quote removed from context is a lie. Asking scurrilous questions based on no facts whatsoever is a lie. "Tell me senator, is it true you've stopped beating your wife?" The problem with fox is it denies half the truth and presents a brain dead simplistic non-answer to everything: "it's THEIR fault! Let's get them!"