| It's not true.
In fact, it's complete BS.
As Media Matters reports:
In an interview with Media Matters later Monday, Tobin sought to downplay the incident, which he continued to describe as a "punch."
"It was a punch. A punch is a punch, but it was just a punch in my arm. I grew up with three older brothers, it's not my first time being punched. I don't want to overdramatize it for the sake of TV or anything like that."
Then came the video.
On Tuesday morning, what appears to be footage of the alleged incident recorded by someone in the crowd was posted at LiveLeak.com.
Mediaite, which had trumpeted Tobin's initial allegations, reported that the new video "certainly seems to counter the initial claim that Tobin had been hit."
And Raw Story reported that "someone merely touched [Tobin's] shoulder, as evidenced in the video. ... The incident he claimed was a 'punch' could instead be described as a pat, at most."
After the video emerged, Media Matters once again contacted Tobin for comment. This time, he didn't respond.
Instead, a Fox spokesperson called Media Matters and said that Tobin would have no further comment on the matter. (more, here)
Well, OF COURSE Tobin "would have no further comment" - he'd just been caught tellin' a whopper. In other words, Tobin's tweets - posted above - are lies.
Now, back to Canada, and why they don't let Faux Noise broadcast their propaganda to Canadians. First, we'll go to a public comment on the matter, by Professor Stephen Phillips from the Dept. of Political Science, Langara College in Vancouver:
Date reçu / Date Arrived: 2011-02-09
Numéro de processus public / Public Process Number: 2011-14
Numéro d'intervention / Intervention Number: 3166
Cas / Case: 146611
Demande à comparaître à l'audience publique / Request to appear at the public hearing: Non/No
Commentaire / Comment:
I oppose the proposed amendments to regulations governing the broadcasting of false or misleading news. The proposed qualification (viz, false or misleading news "which is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public") would have the effect of narrowing significantly the scope of the current restriction. I fail to see the rationale for making it easier for broadcasters to mislead the general public. News organizations have a duty to use the public airwaves in a responsible manner. The should not have carte blanche to deceive the public.
Like any right, free speech is not absolute. It must be balanced against other rights and vital interests. The parliamentary committee that recommended this review is evidently of the opinion that the current regulations may run afoul of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, largely based on past jurisprudence (the Zundel case in particular). Be that as it may, it would not be appropriate in my view to amend the current regulations merely because they "may" be found one day by the courts to violate the Charter. It is difficult at best to anticipate how the courts may rule in Charter cases. That is especially so given that the facts and circumstances of the Zundel case are materially different from those having to do with the regulation of Canada's public airwaves. Notwithstanding their ruling in Zundel, the courts may well conclude that the public interest in accurate, reliable news coverage by licenced broadcasters trumps the rights of those who would flood the airwaves with false information.
In any case, were the courts to strike down the current regulations, it would be open to Parliament to sustain them by using the notwithstanding clause. Such a move would be an entirely legitimate exercise of Parliament's constitutional authority. It would therefore be presumptious to loosen regulations that the courts might uphold or that parliamentarians may choose to reaffirm.
In conclusion, there is no compelling need to weaken the current restrictions on the broadcasting of false or misleading news. On the contrary, it would have undesirable consequences for Canadian democracy. The impunity with which disreputable news organizations like Fox News spread lies and invective in the United States should alert us to the dangers of removing the regulatory safeguards now in place in Canada.
Copie envoyée à la réquérante / Copy sent to applicant: Non/No
Let's take a look again, at the professor's last sentence:
The impunity with which disreputable news organizations like Fox News spread lies and invective in the United States should alert us to the dangers of removing the regulatory safeguards now in place in Canada. (emphasis added)
And there's a whole bunch of comments, from concerned Canadian Citizens, saying essentially the same thing: "We do NOT want Faux Noise's BS here in Canada."
Now to be fair, there IS something Sock Puppet "Man" On The Scene, @MikeTobinFox reported that IS true; he said he was surrounded by protesters chanting "Fox Lies" and holding signs saying the same thing: "Fox Lies."
But the protesters were only chanting "Fox Lies" and holding signs saying "Fox Lies" for the old-fashioned reason: it's true.
Sock Puppet "Man" On The Scene, @MikeTobinFox reporting on-air, on Faux Noise, that he was "punched" is NOT true.
Faux Noise: We distort; You Abide.
In Canada, that's illegal. Here in America, it's not. (Thank you, Uncle Ronnie - NOT.)
Which, of course, helps explain the 2010 election results...
It's like I always say: "Those that forget the lessons of history (and, watch Faux Noise) tend to vote GOP" |
