Fox News Declares Cyberwar on the Liberal Blogosphere

[Turborama]

Source: The Gawker

How do you annoy the maximum number of Liberal blogs with minimal effort? If you're Fox News, all you have to do is shut down the YouTube channel that supplies them with infuriating O'Reilly Factor clips. Today, Fox did this!

Spend even a few minutes on a politically-inclined blog that leans to the left, and you'll spot the little red-and-white "News1News" logo (above) attached to the upper-left corner a YouTube clip, usually of Glenn Beck ranting hilariously or otherwise being horrible. News1News specializes in capturing and uploading Fox bloviator's most outrageous statements for all of eternity. And each day, we bloggers—from the Huffington Post, Mediaite, Truthdig, Gawker, etc.—plucked newsworthy clips from News1News' Youtube channel, surrounded them with our words, and put them on our sites. (In fact, Mediaite's feature "Your Moment of Glenn" is all News1News clips.) From all this blog love, News1News had more than 20 million cumulative views by the time it was shut down. It was the simple, convenient way to stoke Liberal ire!

But today, it appears that Fox News determined it was time to shut down this one-stop Liberal blog fodder shop: They sent more than 150 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube regarding Fox News clips on the News1News channel, said the channel's proprietor, John. (John, a doctor living in Washington, DC, didn't want his last name to be used). This put the channel well over YouTube's controversial "three-strike" copyright violation limit. The channel was shut down, and John was inundated with emails from caffeine-addled bloggers asking, frantically, "what happened!?"

Because, now, if you try to watch Hannity's infamous apology to Jon Stewart on the Huffington Post, or Michael Jackson's "ghost" on Gawker, or Glenn Beck saying dumb stuff on Truthdig, you will only see "This Video is no longer available due to copyright claim by Fox News LLC". (SPOOKY!!)

=snip=

News1News is back up, at a new address—at least until Fox takes it down again. But what's surprising about this whole episode isn't that Fox will use digital copyright law to fight back against its political opponents; it's that the operators of these popular cable news-ripping YouTube channels are actually pretty important players in the blog game. Think about it: They not only get to select which cable news clips have the possibility of "going viral" and becoming news themselves, but if they're taken down, whole swaths of video-based blog posts become a lot of words surrounding a big empty space.

Read more: http://gawker.com/5403691/fox-news-declares-cyberwar-on...

---

I know this is from a blog but it is real news as News1News has been taken down from YouTube by Faux and I couldn't find any MSM sources. Could this be why the videos forum had to be temporarily taken offline?

[msongs]

1. between fox and the centrist/right wing dems liberals may be extinct soon nt

[still_one]

18. no way, what they are doing will backfire on them in a big way. I can hardly wait until

murdoch decides to charge for their pseudo news content on the internet

[HowHasItComeToThis]

116. ALL THEY DO IS BLOWVIATE

[jasi2006]

34. We all need to start a major posting around the internet that FOX

did this to keep Hannity from being exposed as a liar and untrustworty "news" source.

[SpiralHawk]

64. That is why they did it. To cover up thier Fox-Republicon lies

..And everyone knows Fox did it to cover up their systematic Republicon lies...

[robo50]

52. Liars love censorship of the truth. n/t

[newtothegame]

102. We ain't exactly saints here. Look how many DU'ers want to shut down conservative radio...

and replace it with liberal radio to make it more fair? I don't like listening to Rush or Beck any more than the next guy, but if we expect honesty out of the other side, we ought not be coy about our intentions either. Forcing a radio station to drop successful and profitable enterprises like Rush, Beck, etc. and to replace them with failing enterprises like Air America, etc. ain't exactly going to win us points.

[SoCalDem]

132. Actually, for the 8 years I have been at DU, I have NOT seen Duers

wanting to shut down conservative radio...rather, they (we) have always wanted parity, along with a hope/wish/dream that more local radio stations could be resurrected, and ClearChannel de-fanged a bit.

The gobbling up of local radio stations all over has turned into a GIANT megaphone for right wingers, leaving liberals whispering to each other in a linen closet.

[liberal N proud]

54. Only if they start killing liberals

It will be like poking a bear.

[agoraphile]

62. These days more like poking the Pillsbury doughboy

[Le Taz Hot]

65. Speak for yourself,

doughboy.

[agoraphile]

66. Gosh, I keep forgetting how dedicated and effective we've been the last 10 months.

Did the liberals accomplish something I missed?

[fascisthunter]

69. if it weren't for Liberals this country would be full-blown fascist

and the moderates and righties would be the reason. How much have the righties and moderates accomplished? Oh, that's right, they are the reason this country is so fucked up now.

[Le Taz Hot]

72. Activism is a long-term committment.

Those of us adults who have been around longer than a minute-and-a-half understand that.

[donquijoterocket]

111. definition

Interesting that those who'd fling around the "us adults"put-down don't often supply a definition of "adult" for the rest of us to judge whether we might be included or not.Depending on your definition I'd put my adulthood/maturity/whatever other poo you're flinging up against yours any day.Judging from your comment I'd say a minute and-a-half probably exceeds the limit of your development,and might also determine the limits of your understanding.

[Le Taz Hot]

121. In this case, "adult" refers

to the ability to be patient and continue to work, regardless of whether you won or lost the last skirmish. Post 66 indicated impatience because the Progressives hadn't won much in the last 10 months. My point, of course, was to point out demands for immediate results and instant gratification is, for the most part, a characteristic of youth. Those of us who have hung out long enough have a unique perspective in that we've been able to watch the evolutionary process in many many social causes.

[agoraphile]

115. I protested the Viet Nam war many times and very publicly...perhaps before your

conception. Are you older than 67?

[Le Taz Hot]

129. Then you're old enough to remember

that it took MANY years to end the Viet Nam war. Iirc, the first G.I.'s that started coming back and telling us what was REALLY going on was about '65. There were VERY few anti-war activists early on and the "love-'em-or-leave-'em crowd reflected the sentimentality of probably 98% of Americans at that time. It took TIME to build that movement. Activists worked from the "fringes" for a long time. Finally, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite, of all people, turned against the war. Add to that the release of the Pentagon Papers -- all pretty much turned the tide against the war. Unfortunately Nixon and Kissinger decided to extend the war out 3 more years, mainly for his '72 re-election campaign (we all remember "peace is at hand" ).

And for the record, I'm 54. My activism started in '68 by "campaigning" for Bobby Kennedy (I handed out campaign fliers at my school) and I've been an activist ever since.

Now, comrade, shall we listen to some Floyd and enjoy some doobage? 'ere.

[Javaman]

77. Sniff? Sniff? nt

[agoraphile]

114. Pardon me for observing the paucity of liberal accomplishments.

Do you disagree?

[Javaman]

117. hmmmm. sniff, sniff? nt

[AlbertCat]

122. the paucity of liberal accomplishments

What time scale are we talking here? Recent or long term.


Here's a paragraph from the introduction of Joe Conason’s 2003 book “Big Lies” :


“ If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including over-time; if you enjoy a 40-hour work week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights – you can thank liberals.
If your food is not poisoned and your water drinkable – you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family – you can thank liberals. If your rivers are getting cleaner and your air isn’t black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green – you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has a right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society – you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances. The country we know and love today was built by those victories of liberalism – with support of the American People.”

Not bad IMHO. Also interesting is the erosion of some of the above achievements....which I would say is recent. The part about "LONG, difficult struggles against entrenched power" is very relevant to recent history too.

[agoraphile]

131. I meant recently. I sure do recall seeing a lot of posts here lamenting the

spinelessness of the current crop of Democrats in office...or did I imagine them all?

[The Wielding Truth]

84. Welcome!! Welcome,Anglophile!! Fox is on the run from the sunshine

of a democratic government.

[YOY]

103. Liberals are in power?

Do we have a President Kucinich? When did that happen?

I though it was either just right of center or so far fucking right it's scary. Did it go back to Pre-Reagan standards and nobody told me anything?

[agoraphile]

113. That was pretty much my point. Apparently I have too little seniority here to make sarcastic

comments.

[YOY]

118. Try the sarcasm smiley.

Because the amazingly stupid shit that can come out of people on the internets demands it.

[agoraphile]

119. I see what you mean...thanks.

yikes

[lsewpershad]

98. No way

only if WE let them. I'm sure we can find way to fight back.

[ShortnFiery]

125. Nope, the more we're oppressed, the more dedicated we become to "find a way" ...

to get our message out.

[jobycom]

2. That might just kill FOX. I still think the only people who watch Beck and O'Reilly are liberals

looking to be outraged. I work with a lot of conservatives, and most of them couldn't tell me what O'Reilly said today. I can only find that with liberals.

[woundedkarma]

78. yah there's people watching them...

My nephew(16) and niece (18, married and pregnant) watch orally and beck, fox in general seems to be where they get any news. I can't have them as friends on facebook because they post things like "is obama the antichrist."

The day.. if it ever comes.. that fox shuts down, I'll be rejoicing for the sanity of millions.

[shadowknows69]

100. I'm a liberal and I hate to be outraged.

And you couldn't pay me to watch Faux.

[AlphaCentauri]

3. The future of internet will be fox rule

private companies are taking control of the internet content

[Patchuli]

21. No they won't. nt

[Enthusiast]

39. They will if they can.

Look at health care reform as an example.

[Patchuli]

128. They are not going to stop

the progress this time. Too many people are aboard!

[guruoo]

4. Idiots. They're gonna lose this war.

[Farzan]

67. No Foxclips? I will need to go to a rehab!

[RoyGBiv]

5. Bring. It. On.

Murdoch is just winning friends all over the place.

He (says he) wants to block Google from linking to his properties. Now he's removing his content from YouTube.

How Fox News's disappearance from media outlets I actually watch is going to annoy me, I admit I am clueless to say. Frankly, I wish he'd speed it up a bit and make the network irrelevant.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Ahhhhh so that is what happened earlier today.....

[tomm2thumbs]

7. folks can just post clips of Olberman or Rachel talking about & reviewing the clip

heck, it'll already come with scathing commentary so may as well use their clips anyway.

they can run, but they can't hide

[Angry Dragon]

8. If they really had news

they would not be afraid of anyone watching it. It would just get them more exposure. When you hide you have something to hide.

[Enthusiast]

40. Funny how Faux quotes

their opposition out of context yet can't abide clips of their own actual words.

[Uncle Joe]

91. That's because Murdoch is a coward. n/t

[guruoo]

9. [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[tomm2thumbs]

10. plus they'll never stop Talking Points Memo

I think they have figured out the right way to do a commentary/clip review without violating the fair use clause. Poor Fox. They are just drawing more attention to themselves in their soiled underwear.

[Turborama]

13. I was just about to mention them in response to your other reply

Their version of that clip is still on YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8HeJuBcI3Y

[dmr]

22. Media Matters, too.

Rupert can't keep us from poking fun of their SNAFUs.

[Enthusiast]

42. Fox News, the Frank Burns of

TV journalism.

[girl gone mad]

11. It's just part of Murdoch's attempt to tame the Internet.

Good luck with all that, Rupert.

[tavalon]

32. It's so cute to watch the Murdock throwing his little temper tantrums

Thank goodness he's a tech moron. We can point and laugh and then ignore him to our hearts content. A Rupert Murdoch free internet is a good internet.

The series of tubes may get a little bit brighter.

[KamaAina]

101. The Intertubes were originally designed to interpret censorship as damage

and route around it.

[tsuki]

12. The Morlock has declared a "War on Fair Use". He is bragging

that HE will get the law vacated. After all, HE is The Morlock.

[Jester Messiah]

16. Yeah, this isn't about politics per se.

This is more about Rupert's war with Google. He wants some of that sweet Google ad money. If he can't get it, he doesn't want any pointers to Fox content outside of Fox sites, so that all the pageviews and ad traffic will accrue to his coffers.

If he wants to reduce the availability of his networks' tripe, I find myself disinclined to stop him.

[Turborama]

17. If that was the case

How come all these Glenn Beck Channels and this Conservative New Media channel are still up with their hundreds of Faux news clips?

[tavalon]

33. Exactly! Let's make the internet Murdoch free!

And he's willing to do it without our help! My sides hurt. Silly, Wabbit!!!!

[tsuki]

95. Except that he has declared a "War on Fair Use". Any ruling against

'fair use' will affect everyone. It will stifle all sites.

[DeSwiss]

14. It had to be about O'Reilly.

Him and his, "we can't kill all the Muslims" quote. Purely inflammatory and over-the-top. I wonder why there's been no jihad declared against him for that one? Murdoch has a lot of assets in Muslim countries.

- He probably told them to kill the story. NOW.

K&R

"No, I don't know where the seals have gone...."


on edit: spelling

[Turborama]

15. Thanks for the reminder

TPM still have a clip of that one up and I'm downloading a copy of that as well. If the Hannity and Lielly clips totally disappear I'll upload them to a special sockpuppet account.

[tavalon]

35. Fine example of why this is a completely ineffectual game by Murdoch

We have the tech savvy to make sure that any content we want is available, widely disseminated. And that which we don't care to see, Murdoch will keep us from having to deal with it on the internet. It's a win/win for our team.

I know he really thinks this makes a difference. It's actually kind of cute, his extreme ignorance of the internet. Kind of reminds me of Grampa McCain.

[sendero]

70. Between this and his..

... "you can't link to our content" crap, it's clear to me that Murdoch doesn't understand the internet at all. He's screwing himself left and right, have to love it.

[FVZA_Colonel]

19. God, it would be nice if Youtube grew a spine and stood up to people like this.

[nxylas]

41. Trouble is, legally, they haven't got a leg to stand on

The fact is, Fox News clips are copyright material, and as such, aren't supposed to be posted on YouTube in the first place. You may believe, as I do, that copyright laws are a major constraint on intellectual freedom, but they're something we're lumbered with until the revolution comes.

[Turborama]

49. What about the channels in post number 17? We should do a mass flagging of them too

In that case.

[nxylas]

88. We can alert the Murdoch Evil Empire to the fact that they're posting copyrighted material

I wouldn't expect Rupe to do anything about it, though.

[Crzyrussell]

123. Youtube has to

follow the law.... just like the rest of us. And our Hollywood friends would disapprove of any effort to change it.

[Lautremont]

20. Well, we'll see how Archbunker Stevenson reacts to this.

[PJPhreak]

23. Let me get this straight...

I was always under the impression that "News" was not only part of our right of "Freedom of the Press/Freedom of Speech,but that "News" was part of the public Domain...In other words if Fux News put something on the air,weather it was a report on the Fort Hood Shootings or an airplane crash or a speech by one of our illustrious Congress critters that this in no way could be copyrighted.
I also thought this included any Op-Ed piece that a "Journalist" may Write/Produce.

I do understand that a Broadcaster has the right to copyright their "Broadcast" of the News,but not the news in itself.

This being so isn't Fux guilty of denying me my right to "Freedom of the Press" and of me being able to disseminate Proper Political Opinion/News and to be able to make up my own mind based on Truthful Journalism and a Free Press?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

If so then why is Fux News able to call themselves "News" and if its not news then the only way Fux can do this is if they consider this "Intellectual Property" ie: Entertainment.

The reason I ask is that I do not have access to Television or Radio Broadcasts...The Net is my ONLY Source of News and Info...I live WAY too far out in the Boonies to get any TV or Radio...My 3-G Internet is spotty at best and if the one Cell Tower in my area goes down then I have to drive ten miles to get a net connection.

Thats right,there is no Cable here,Satellite service is not available to me due to too many trees on and around my property and all I get for radio is one really crappy ClearChannel retro-rock station,the net is all I got.

Do I smell a Lawsuit?

[tavalon]

36. It's kind of cute the way you pretend that Faux is news

They like to pretend every once in a while, too.

[PJPhreak]

89. Well,They call thmselves News,I don't Nt

[Enthusiast]

43. Dang, Mr. Phreak

you DO live out in the boonies!

I would love to live clear out in the boonies. As long as my satellite TV and internets would work.

[loudsue]

86. During the Bush administration they went to the Supreme Court to make sure

they were declared an "entertainment" channel, in a case where they were challenged on their lies. The Court said that they don't have to tell the truth, because they are an entertainment channel. Freedom of speech, dontcha know.

That is why their lies have gotten more and more outrageous as time passes. They got permission from the court to spew their lies.

[PJPhreak]

90. Ahhh, Thats what I thought,Thanks. Nt

[JDPriestly]

24. Frankly, I think we would all be better off if we simply forgot that Fox News

existed. Think of it, not only would Hannity and O'Reilly be silenced forever -- as far as we are concerned, but we would not hear another peep from another Teabagger. I never, never watch Fox. And I very rarely watch the Fox clips posted here on DU or elsewhere. I do watch the clips by other commentators putting down Fox News, but to the extent possible not the Fox clips. I wish more people would join me in my personal boycott of Fox.

[Divine Discontent]

27. my friend, I hope others do the same as you mentioned. they need to be ridiculed when anyone

brings them up as a news source.

peace

[Turborama]

46. Pretending something isn't there doesn't stop it from existing

I'm sure Faux would like nothing better than for us to take our eyes off the disinformation and dangerous propaganda that they spew.

[JDPriestly]

126. When you watch them, you add to their credibility and ratings.

The more we talk about them, the more people think they are popular, the more curious people are about what is going on on Fox -- and Fox just spouts made-up stuff. Why do you want to waste your time on that. There is enough real news out there that we could be watching. Don't watch Fox News. Nobody needs to watch Fox News considering how much real news there is out there.

[Turborama]

127. Not if you watch them on YouTube & fight against their disinformation by posting counter arguments

...that tell the truth.

Here's just a few examples...

Why Do Fox Nation Moderators Keep Allowing Racist Comments?

Because ignoring their fear mongering would be (is) letting them get away with it

OK, I've found out that it was a "big oil" lobbyist behind the Van Jones smear campaign


There are hundreds of other examples on Media Matters and Newshounds.

I'm not saying you should watch Faux, just answering your question: "Why do you want to waste your time on that".

[Enthusiast]

47. I only watch my local

Fox and then only for NFL.

[FarLeftFist]

25. Right now as we speak the Dems HC bill does not allow abortions but the GOP's does.

Which is probably why this is going on, they're buying time to fix their hypocrisy knowing damn well the Left will jump on this so fast they won't know what hit them.

[davidpdx]

26. Fucking idiots

It's too bad there wasn't a soda bottle big enough to shake up and open the lobby door of Fox News. Oh would the suds be worth it though.

Maybe we need to send some boxes of shit.

[DFW]

28. Think about this for a second

Guruoo has a major point to make. Comedy central obviously has no problem with clips being shown, and
neither does MSNBC, so if THEY include the absolute worst of FAUX in their own commentary, not only
do we still get to see the worst of FAUX (not that it's any kind of privilege), but we get to see
the most egregious clips with stinging commentary over which FAUX has no control whatsoever. Maddow
and Stewart would not take FAUX clips out of context (as FAUX does with their own commentary), but
then there is no need. Clips from FAUX are pretty much frothing-at-the-mouth in their own right.

So not only will we still get to see the worst of FAUX, but with the added pleasure of Maddow, Olbermann,
Stewart, Colbert, etc etc etc destroying their clips in real time. FAUX would have been better off letting
well enough alone. Their action does speak volumes, however.

So ashamed of your own broadcasts that you don't want them out there after being shown? Tsk, tsk, Rupert.

But we feel your pain. So would anyone who has ever watched your channel, and has an IQ in at least double digits.

[lonestarnot]

29. So snooze they don'r really want anyone to see, snort

fuck them and I can take a joke!

[Piewhacket]

30. Just cut your internet connection Rupert!!! Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!

[tavalon]

37. Go for it Rupert!

[David Zephyr]

133. +1

.

[tavalon]

31. Faux "News" is clearly showing the internet savvy. Not!

Many people will come in and guarantee that those amusing clips get placed, if not with you tube, any video uploading site will work and peer to peer if all else fails.

We're going to drag those idiots kicking and screaming, into the 20th century. The 21st century is still way beyond them.

Amusing right wingers. Is there something about being a right winger that almost guarantees that you have few computer savvy skills? Is it that they are older or just more rigid?

You would think after the last few big wins by tech savvy Dems, the thugs would, I don't know, go to night classes on internet savvy?

I'm actually grateful that they are so stupid. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[tavalon]

38. I have fun guessing who will make it into the top ten conservative idiots

but this one is a no-brainer. Rupert, I predict, will make it into the top 5 with this one.

[zbdent]

44. I thought that Repugniconvicts hated lawyers ...

guess not ...

[NecklyTyler]

45. It is all about the money

Rupert Murdoch is trying to force everyone to view his programs and watch the advertisements also, not just watch clips of the "good" stuff. As if Mr. Murdoch doesn't have enough money as it is, he wants more by collecting advertising dollars through viewership.

A good dose of a fairness doctrine on cable news networks might be just what Mr. Murdoch needs to straighten out his thinking process

[Turborama]

48. I think it's more to do with controlling the message/disinformation

As you said, he doesn't need the money. Murdoch has an agenda and it's political, not financial. His mission is to destroy President Obama by any means possible.

The asshole actually deserves a court case which exposes him and his propaganda outlets as seditionist.

[rasputin1952]

50. 150 DMCA take down notices...

that's like 10 people swamping them 15 times each...it's not a RW "attack", more like a little sniping by some fools that have nothing to do while they sit around in Mom's basement fueled by Cheeto's, Mt Dew and rage.

"Look at eh POWER I have!"...bunch of jugheads...

[Turborama]

53. I've been looking at the flagging function to do the same to the channels in post #17

I'm really tempted to organize a mass flagging to give them a taste of their own medicine.

The thing is though, when you flag you have to say that it "infringes my copyright" which makes it seem like only the copyright owner can make the complaint, this could mean that it was actually Faux themselves who took this action.

I'm slightly worried about the abuse warning that's given on the Flag function and don't want to lose my channel in the process, so am not sure if the mass flagging campaign is a good idea or not.


On edit...

BTW MSNBC have an pre-arranged agreement and allow their videos to be uploaded to YouTube. They have used this: http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid which I get notices of whenever I upload one of their videos.

For example, this is what I got with one of my latest vids:


Your video, Keith Olbermann On Hannity Being Busted By The Daily Show For Lying & How Bachmann Broke House Rules , may include content that is owned or licensed by these content owners:

* Content owner: MSNBC Type: Visual content

What should I do?

No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide.

[rasputin1952]

55. FAUX probably has a small battery of employee's ...

looking for specific instances of video's being used that show them in a "bad" light...(don't the all... ).

The only thing the RW can do is squawk...the way I figure it, they put it on the air, they should stand by their garbage, not try to suppress it.

I think they know just how incredibly stupid they look...all YouTube does is record that stupidity and disseminate it further...

[Fearless]

51. They're slowly circling the drain....

And they're making their own route shorter.

[Wizard777]

56. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

[Turborama]

57. News1News had a lot more on it than just Faux

It was full of MSNBC clips and Obama speeches too, for example.

[Wizard777]

130. But Faux is what I was talking about. Beck has that Howard Stern thing going.

The only people that listen to Howard Stern more than the liberals that love him is the conservatives that hate him. So the best way to keep beck from becoming the next King Of All Media is to turn him off and quit talking about him. Rupert is actually doing us a favor by taking some wind out of the Faux Sails.

[peacetalksforall]

58. Why operate if you don't spread your message? If no You Tube, the people you

want to have as your audience won't see and hear their message. So who is their real audience? They only want to attract an unsuspecting, head in the sant audience ... fleetingly? At the airport, bars, hotels, plus the couch potatoes?

Maybe this means Beck and O'R will fall faster than Dobbs?

Couldn't people with tivo capture still photos of comparisons of scenery like Steward did to supplement the written exposure - a still photo is not a you tube video, right?

[Botany]

59. Please Ruppert I want this fight

[PassingFair]

60. Conservatives I know have HATED YouTube since the "Macaca" moment....

The idiots will see this as protecting themselves
against mockery and/or inquiry.

They long for the pre-Prejean era, when they could
be bigoted liars and never be called on it because
they mostly spoke into a vacuum.

Dolts.

[AnneD]

61. WHAT ......

Does that mean the War on Christmas has been canceled! Do you know how hard it is to win 2 wars at one time, THis is a big mistake Fox. The keyboard warriors will be doing tour of duty after tour of duty. Why they'll never get out of their basements.

[Politicub]

63. We are a starfish - cut off one tentacle and it will grow back. Cut us in half and you'll create two

This is somewhat akin to the DVD industry trying to stop the spread of the cracked DVD code.

Entertainment industry lawyers tried to put that Genie in a bottle. But they inadvertently started a movement to distribute it as far and wide as possible. The entertainment industry finally had to give up.

And we will prevail in this battle with Fox. They can not hide from the truth and they will be greatly outflanked.

The old saying used to be you can't win an argument with people who buy ink by the barrel.

I believe that the new saying should be, if you fuck with the blogosphere and the online community, we don't need to buy ink - our weapon is creativity, and pixels are open and virtually free.

This may be something that the left and the right could both rally around. Wait... who am I kidding... the right will defend it's precious fox at all costs. But we don't need the right to fight this with us - never did need them for anything else.

[paparush]

68. They're restricting the message to the faithful.

Waste of time really.

I mean how many Fox-nuts heard about Hannity's "lie" and how many that heard really gave a sh*t? Not very many.

[fascisthunter]

71. all together now: AWWWWWWWWWWW.... poor Fox News

can't take the scrutiny.... awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

[GOTV]

73. I wonder if this is part or Murdoch's plan to wall his properties off from the rest of the internet?

In any case, I think this will be good for the world and bad for fox news.

[Deep13]

74. What, again?

YAWN!

[benld74]

75. What was it their lapdog said once? Oh Yeah BRING IT ON!

[ThoughtCriminal]

76. Oh, if they really want to piss us off

they can just stop broadcasting.

[davidwparker]

79. maybe they'll send Fox security after us. n/t

[DuaneBidoux]

80. Somebody needs to do it with a .ru extension. Can you imagine Fox's reaction then?

Anything can be found with a .ru extention. Then it can't be easily brought down, and imagine the right's freakout over a site where video's of Fox can be downloaded and they are coming from .ru.

How much fun could we have then?

I've always wondered why there isn't an offshore equivalent of Youtube where it is difficult to stop the videos.

[juno jones]

107. I believe there is a RUtube.

I've seen it mentioned a few times in other venues.

[mstinamotorcity]

81. I tell you what I

smell. yep,smells just like fear. Fear of truth. Listen it doesn't matter, there was a time when they could hide and we couldn't see them coming. You remember when they blocked all the avenues of knowledge. This is no longer we have our voice and we wont be silent. There are enough of us to keep each other up on them fools. So let them shut down one we will just create two more. We will not be extinct nor silent.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

82. oh god, I love this thread!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

Pox Spews, with the amazing "Morlock the Untamed"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

[apnu]

83. Sorry Faux... you're gonna lose this one. (nt)

[izzybeans]

85. I don't know, i think this is also a form of self-mutiliation by Fox.

Without liberal viewers who look on as if it were a comic tragedy, half their viewership will disappear.

maybe this is a good thing.

[ihavenobias]

87. Thanks for posting.

Rec'd.

[Zhade]

92. This has more to do with Murdoch's anti-internet leanings than a fatwa.

He doesn't want to let Google index his "news"papers either.

[Turborama]

97. See post #17 While he might be having a war against Google and the BBC about his written propaganda

...this is a new departure for Faux. They can get away with their disinformation and dangerous propaganda by crying out about 'freedom of speech' but are now censoring anyone else from the wrong side of the political spectrum who wants to share their speech that they're so quick to defend.

There's some sort of evidence that could be used in a court case in this somewhere, I just haven't worked out what it is yet.

[d_r]

93. internet 1.0

they should just capture the video they want to post and host it themselves. The more mirrors the better, that's the way the web ought to work instead of expecting companies like youtube to take care of hosting the video for you. If they host it themselves there won't be anybody else taking it down and leaving a blank box.

[and-justice-for-all]

94. Bwahahaha!!!! fucking losers!!!

This is an obvious reaction to the Beckkk getting dumped by many corporate sponsors and Media Matters handing Faux's shit kings their asses everyday.

I hope Faux dies a slow and painful death!

[anonymous171]

96. BRING IT ON MOTHERFUCKERS! nt

[cosmicone]

99. All that is needed is a youtube like streaming video server

which serves .flv files located somewhere outside the US -- such as Libya or Iran for example.

Then Murdoch won't be able to do anything about it.

[winyanstaz]

104. K & R

Well this will bite Fox in the ass too because...they will lose viewers as well.
This just means my question when I saw you tube was shutting down things was spot on.....that they were cleaning house and getting rid of things they didnt want people to see.
We need a new site like you tube but one that cant be bullied somehow...

[sabrina 1]

105. Rupert Murdoch's media empire is in trouble.

He wants people to have to pay for his 'news'. The Internet baffled him and long ago, he stated he was going to 'get into it' thinking he could charge money for access to his material. That was about six years ago. He correctly predicted that the Internet would affect the revenue of other 'news' organizations. Other news orgs did try to profit from their online publications, but it didn't work. They have managed it by placing ads on their blogs and videos. He is stuck in the old thinking, salivating over the money he thinks he could be making online, but not understanding the nature of the 'new' medium.

He probably is now figuring out how he can charge people to view his 'news' clips.

What he should have done was to attach ads to those clips as some of the other news organizations have done.

But if they just block viewers from seeing them, Fox will die a slow death.

They've lied about crowd numbers, I think they are lying about their viewer numbers as well.

An article on Fox I read a while ago, said that while their audience is relatively small even if it is what they claim, their numbers come from bloggers and others linking to them.

Everyone who understands the Internet knows that links are currency to any organization.

I'm hoping his hissy fit cuts them off completely to only their fringe audience. Because some of those who watch them now, probably do so after seeing a reference to something online.

One thing is for sure, they are feeling the heat as the liberal media grows with people like Rachel and Keith and more people are finding Fox to be unreliable as far as news goes.

[sudopod]

106. Isn't this the sort of thing that got Scientology in trouble with the internets? nt

[ProgressOnTheMove]

108. ...

[ProgressOnTheMove]

109. I more take this as a sign of Pres. Obama winning the war on Faux they're hiding in shame...

Sounds like the ability to show youtube clips on iphone has exposed them to lot of people.

[NICO9000]

110. The only way I can watch Faux is via the YouTube links

I've turned it on TV less than five times in my life and quickly changed the channel. My high blood pressure can only stand so much angrying up.

[Recoverin_Republican]

112. I thought as long as you showed the source of your video you wouldn't get in trouble

with re to copyright laws?

[pleah]

120. They will lose!

Losers!

[superconnected]

124. Fox news declares war on free speech.

Figures.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

134. Two words:

Streisand effect.

[KakistocracyHater]

135. that's why those little balloons in primary colors exist.......

at least I thought so......