I just saw an F911 ad on Faux News

[RummyTheDummy]

What's that all about? Kinda surprised me a little bit.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Money is Money

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Ayuh

[RummyTheDummy]

3. You're right

Which is yet more proof on just how deep the Repug party's convictions run.

[Tina H]

4. Do you think they should have nixed the ad?

To show their Reug conviction?

C'mon, credit where credit is due.

[RummyTheDummy]

5. FNC has a loooooong way to go before they deserve any credit

They spew propoganda 24-7, 365 days a year in an unrelenting fashion. Showing a couple of ads doesn't undo that, nor does it justify any "credit".

The larger point is that at the end of the day, they're all about the Benjamins, much like the political party that is their guiding light.

[Tina H]

6. Faux should show the ads.

Your reply strongly implies that Faux should not show the ads.

In this case, Faux is right and your reply is wrong. Like I said, credit where credit is due.

Maybe everything else, Faux has ever done in the past is wrong. Maybe everything Faux will do in the future is wrong. Still, they are right to show the ads.

[RummyTheDummy]

7. You're reading too much into it

And clearly don't get the touch of irony in the fact Faux News is taking money from Lions Gate Films to run ads for a Michael Moore film.

Whether they were right or wrong was never in the equation, it was more the shock that they ran them. Nowhere did I say they shouldn't run the ads or imply that they shouldn't run the ads.

[Tina H]

8. I don't think it is ironic at all . . .

I think that public broadcasting should be forced to run more of the paid advertising that they currently reject (usually for business or "controversy" reasons).

For example, in one of his books, Prof Lessig talks about a group that thought the war on drugs was misplaced, yet couldn't get its ads on the air. This is a real freedom-of-speech type problem, not just some ivory-tower, gee-you-read-into-things type issue.

Faux is setting a good journalistic example here by running an ad that their management clearly would rather not run from a political standpoint. Faux's good behavior here should be acknowledged. It should not make us question the "depth" of their political convictions (which I somehow mistook for a criticism of Faux, sorry about that).