A default judgment is a judgment entered against a defendant who failed to defend himself.

 

How does that differ from a guilty judgment?

How does that differ from a guilty judgment?

 

A default judgment is entered in a civil action versus a guilty judgment being a criminal action. So that tells us Obama's DOJ was prosecuting a civil case against him, not a criminal case.

A default judgment is entered in a civil action versus a guilty judgment being a criminal action. So that tells us Obama's DOJ was prosecuting a civil case against him, not a criminal case.

 

So the Bush DOJ decided not to file criminal charges and the Obama DOJ filed civil charges?

So the Bush DOJ decided not to file criminal charges and the Obama DOJ filed civil charges?

 

That is what it looks like, and that is not a unique move. The levels of proof required for a judgment are different so it can be easier to get a judgment in civil court. Witness OJ getting off in his criminal proceedings but losing the civil action. If I recall, many of the court actions taken in the civil rights movement by the Federal authorities were civil cases.

That is what it looks like, and that is not a unique move. The levels of proof required for a judgment are different so it can be easier to get a judgment in civil court. Witness OJ getting off in his criminal proceedings but losing the civil action. If I recall, many of the court actions taken in the civil rights movement by the Federal authorities were civil cases.

 

So what is the issue that Fox is making? Are they saying that the Obama DOJ should file criminal charges? They've had special reports on all of their shows but I'm not sure what their issue is if the current DOJ has taken more action than the previous DOJ. What am I missing?

I am out of the loop on the story and I rarely watch FOX, MSN or any of those channels. They are so often about ratings over truth that I gave up on all of them. Slow ratings month and they are getting viewers out of this story? Is that the answer?

So what is the issue that Fox is making? Are they saying that the Obama DOJ should file criminal charges? They've had special reports on all of their shows but I'm not sure what their issue is if the current DOJ has taken more action than the previous DOJ. What am I missing?

 

I watched some of it on Fox yesterday. It looks to me like these panther thugs are willing to say about anything on national television. Their hatred and lust to kill white folks (crackers) is amazing and very interesting. These clowns are hung in the sixties. It seemed to me that Fox is more concerned with what these thugs are getting away with saying, other than which DOJ did what.

 

I found the story very interesting without even thinking of politics. Mianstream media will wait till roles are reversed before they see it as a story. Let a white leader get close to saying something like this and CBS will take 20 of their 30 minutes a night for weeks.

I watched some of it on Fox yesterday. It looks to me like these panther thugs are willing to say about anything on national television. Their hatred and lust to kill white folks (crackers) is amazing and very interesting. These clowns are hung in the sixties. It seemed to me that Fox is more concerned with what these thugs are getting away with saying, other than which DOJ did what.

 

I found the story very interesting without even thinking of politics. Mianstream media will wait till roles are reversed before they see it as a story. Let a white leader get close to saying something like this and CBS will take 20 of their 30 minutes a night for weeks.

 

With their ratings, how is FoxNews not mainstream?

With their ratings, how is FoxNews not mainstream?

 

Ok then. CBS, NBC or ABC. Better?

Ok then. CBS, NBC or ABC. Better?

 

Why do they need to cover it, when Fox has more viewers?

Why do they need to cover it, when Fox has more viewers?

I have heard the argument for "journalistic integrity" for decades, wherein the news side of a broadcast outlet or newspaper is supposedly immune to what occurs on the advertising side. I understand this in theory, from the standpoint that media does not want their news coverage to be influenced by the economics of appeasing the agenda of heavy advertisers... the Catch-22 however... is that without the revenues generated by advertising, it is not feasible to cover the costs of news production. For at least the past 60 years, the fact that the three major networks maintained audiences in the millions, journalists at all three were able to get away with more and more "editorial" manipulation to the point that they lost touch with the actual interests of the audience they serve.

 

That's why Fox is climbing as the formerly "mainstream" networks are declining.

 

It when it becomes apparent that one's audience is evaporating, accompanied by one's advertising revenue stream, it would seem that the prudent, business decision would be to suffocate biased agenda driven reporting, and at least attempt a "balanced" presentation.

 

This includes covering stories that may go against the personal political beliefs or agenda of news staffers, for the purpose of presenting all relevant events in a reasonably truthful manner.

I have heard the argument for "journalistic integrity" for decades, wherein the news side of a broadcast outlet or newspaper is supposedly immune to what occurs on the advertising side. I understand this in theory, from the standpoint that media does not want their news coverage to be influenced by the economics of appeasing the agenda of heavy advertisers... the Catch-22 however... is that without the revenues generated by advertising, it is not feasible to cover the costs of news production. For at least the past 60 years, the fact that the three major networks maintained audiences in the millions, journalists at all three were able to get away with more and more "editorial" manipulation to the point that they lost touch with the actual interests of the audience they serve.

 

That's why Fox is climbing as the formerly "mainstream" networks are declining.

 

It when it becomes apparent that one's audience is evaporating, accompanied by one's advertising revenue stream, it would seem that the prudent, business decision would be to suffocate biased agenda driven reporting, and at least attempt a "balanced" presentation.

 

This includes covering stories that may go against the personal political beliefs or agenda of news staffers, for the purpose of presenting all relevant events in a reasonably truthful manner.

:thumb:

I have heard the argument for "journalistic integrity" for decades, wherein the news side of a broadcast outlet or newspaper is supposedly immune to what occurs on the advertising side. I understand this in theory, from the standpoint that media does not want their news coverage to be influenced by the economics of appeasing the agenda of heavy advertisers... the Catch-22 however... is that without the revenues generated by advertising, it is not feasible to cover the costs of news production. For at least the past 60 years, the fact that the three major networks maintained audiences in the millions, journalists at all three were able to get away with more and more "editorial" manipulation to the point that they lost touch with the actual interests of the audience they serve.

 

That's why Fox is climbing as the formerly "mainstream" networks are declining.

 

It when it becomes apparent that one's audience is evaporating, accompanied by one's advertising revenue stream, it would seem that the prudent, business decision would be to suffocate biased agenda driven reporting, and at least attempt a "balanced" presentation.

 

This includes covering stories that may go against the personal political beliefs or agenda of news staffers, for the purpose of presenting all relevant events in a reasonably truthful manner.

 

Are you saying that FoxNews is unbiased?

Why do they need to cover it, when Fox has more viewers?

 

TB, Fox does not even come close to CBS, NBC, or ABC when it comes to nightly news. they dominsate the CABLE ratings.

Whether anyone believes me or not King Samir Shabazz is not a black panther or at least from the group that was started by Seale and Newton.

 

These guys are from the black muslim separatist movement. They are trying to use the name as a cover. Listen to the clips then go back and listen to some of the old clips of Malcom X before he left the group founded by Elijah Muhammad. Also note the names. The Black Panthers of the '60's used their own names.

 

The names were the first thing that I noticed, which is sad because I almost feel like I'm profiling but yes I did notice the names and was going to mention that as well.