I know there's a bunch to blog about, but I can't really think about it all right now. I watched last week's Boston Legal last night and it was quite an interesting episode. One of the cases had to do with a filtering device placed on televisions in a high school to only filter out a certain "fair and balanced" channel. Ironically, David E. Kelley was forced to censor himself by ABC execs after the original script called for the television channel to be called by name - Fox News. The basis for the censorship was that the blatant bias of the channel incited the students against each other and therefore, to keep the peace, the principal removed the channel - and only that channel.
Throughout the show, there were many inaccuracies spewed out against Fox News which every sane person knew they were talking about even though it wasn't mentioned by name. A few times they called out O'Reilly and another they quoted the documentary "Outfoxed" - which, thankfully, the judge pointed out obviously had it's own bias. But one of the ideas that riled me up was when they stated multiple times while arguing the case that Fox News has said that anyone who speaks out against the government is a traitor. Since I have been listening to FNC after work on my way to my classes, I knew they were referring to O'Reilly's labelling of Ward Churchill as a traitor against the country. Now, a traitor is defined as someone who commits treason and treason is defined as:
Even though the whole show is fictional, Boston Legal just seemed to strike a chord with me. In the end, it was argued that Fox News Channel, along with every other network news station - CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. - are nothing more than infotainment. When there is nothing going on in the world that requires 24/7 news coverage, the television stations are there to make money. Fox News sought out the conservatives in the nation and they make money by slanting their news that way. CBS seeks to offend no one and they slant their news towards the left. As do CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. In the end, the judge found that blocking just one channel was censorship and ordered the device removed. From the argument of the principal, I wouldn't have waited for the case to be over - it was a ridiculous claim that this single channel fostered intolerance and was propaganda for the right.
Like I said, I listen to FNC and O'Reilly from time to time and I don't agree with everything he says, but there are some points of his that have merit. I think Ward Churchill should be fired - not just for his treasonous statements, but also for his plagarism, his copyright infringements, and the fact that he obtained his job by lying about his ancestry. I sincerely hope that Boston Legal stays around for a while - I find it to be one of the most entertaining, and informative, shows on television right now. And even though I thought the way they presented the case against FNC wasn't without bias, it was interesting to watch the merits being argued.
ABC.com: Boston Legal - Sundays 10/9c
Throughout the show, there were many inaccuracies spewed out against Fox News which every sane person knew they were talking about even though it wasn't mentioned by name. A few times they called out O'Reilly and another they quoted the documentary "Outfoxed" - which, thankfully, the judge pointed out obviously had it's own bias. But one of the ideas that riled me up was when they stated multiple times while arguing the case that Fox News has said that anyone who speaks out against the government is a traitor. Since I have been listening to FNC after work on my way to my classes, I knew they were referring to O'Reilly's labelling of Ward Churchill as a traitor against the country. Now, a traitor is defined as someone who commits treason and treason is defined as:
# Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.Ward Churchill has called for a violent overthrow of the government. While the definition above may not fit per se, here's another definition of treason:
Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior.If that definition doesn't fit Ward Churchill, I don't know which one will. The man is an obvious sympathizer with the terrorists - he has called those who perished in the World Trade Centers "little Eichmanns" and he has given speeches where he calls for the overthrow of the government - not the Republicans, nor the Democrats - but our Democracy. I'm not sure how any person could not see that as treasonous. And I certainly can't understand how that would be grounds for censorship of a television station.
sub·ver·sive: Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government.
Even though the whole show is fictional, Boston Legal just seemed to strike a chord with me. In the end, it was argued that Fox News Channel, along with every other network news station - CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. - are nothing more than infotainment. When there is nothing going on in the world that requires 24/7 news coverage, the television stations are there to make money. Fox News sought out the conservatives in the nation and they make money by slanting their news that way. CBS seeks to offend no one and they slant their news towards the left. As do CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. In the end, the judge found that blocking just one channel was censorship and ordered the device removed. From the argument of the principal, I wouldn't have waited for the case to be over - it was a ridiculous claim that this single channel fostered intolerance and was propaganda for the right.
Like I said, I listen to FNC and O'Reilly from time to time and I don't agree with everything he says, but there are some points of his that have merit. I think Ward Churchill should be fired - not just for his treasonous statements, but also for his plagarism, his copyright infringements, and the fact that he obtained his job by lying about his ancestry. I sincerely hope that Boston Legal stays around for a while - I find it to be one of the most entertaining, and informative, shows on television right now. And even though I thought the way they presented the case against FNC wasn't without bias, it was interesting to watch the merits being argued.
ABC.com: Boston Legal - Sundays 10/9c


