Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

+ - Book: Fox News PR Used Sockpuppet Accounts To Rebut Critical Blog Posts->

Submitted by toadlife
toadlife (301863) writes "NPR media reporter David Folkenflik writes in his forthcoming book Murdoch's World that Fox News' public relations staffers used an elaborate series of dummy accounts to fill the comments sections of critical blog posts with pro-Fox arguments. A former staffer told Folkenflik that they had personally used "one hundred" fake accounts to plant Fox-friendly commentary. Fox PR staffers were expected to counter not just negative and even neutral blog postings but the anti-Fox comments beneath them. One former staffer recalled using twenty different aliases to post pro-Fox rants. Another had one hundred. Several employees had to acquire a cell phone thumb drive to provide a wireless broadband connection that could not be traced back to a Fox News or News Corp account."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:What a clusterf**k. (Score 1) 398

by toadlife (#44580815) Attached to: Obamacare Exchanges Months Behind In Testing IT Data Security

I didn't go on a rant. I explained where you are misinformed.

If I have no taxable income, or even better, no income at all, am I still liable for the penalty 'tax'?


From the ACA Wiki article:

Under the mandatory coverage provision, individuals who are not covered by an acceptable insurance policy will be charged an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income over the filing minimum,[115] whichever is greater; this will rise to a minimum of $695 ($2,085 for families),[116] or 2.5% of income over the filing minimum,[115] by 2016.[18][117] The penalty is prorated, meaning that if a person or family have coverage for part of the year they won't be liable if they lack coverage for less than a three-month period during the year.[118] Exemptions are permitted for religious reasons, members of health care sharing ministries, or for those for whom the least expensive policy would exceed 8% of their income.

Comment: Re:Even supporters should want to kill this thing (Score 1) 398

by toadlife (#44500043) Attached to: Obamacare Exchanges Months Behind In Testing IT Data Security

"B" is an insurance company funded ploy to strip the states ability to regulate their own health insurance markets. What would happen is that health insurance companies would all operate from one or a handful of states with the least regulation.

Maybe in the long run it would force states to implement their own state based socialized medicine, but in the short run it would do nothing to help consumers.

Comment: Re:What a clusterf**k. (Score 1) 398

by toadlife (#44499881) Attached to: Obamacare Exchanges Months Behind In Testing IT Data Security

How in the hell did this post end up at +5? It is a pile of uninformed nonsense.

Government at the state level have been forcing citizens to make certain purchases in the commercial market in order to participate in the economy decades. This includes things like auto insurance, disability insurance, pollution control devices. Massachusetts in particular has required individual citizens to purchase health insurance for years now.

The only novelty here was that the law was at the federal level, and contrary to your assertion, there is no threat of a fine or arrest. The Supreme Court's ruling specifically stated that the "fine" imposed by the Affordable Care Act was not a fine because it was a tax, and congress has the power to tax for any reason. Congress has a long history of imposing discriminatory taxes in order to encourage certain economic behavior. The penalty in the ACA is just one more example.

Just as you can opt out of many of the state level requirements by not participating in the economic activity that the various regulation affect, you also opt out of the federal requirements by choosing not to participate in the economy, or by simply choosing to pay the "fine".

Comment: Re:The Futility of Narrow Enforcement (Score 1) 679

The government's long-running attempts to mitigate the social problem of violence by regulating the supply of firearms is about to evaporate.

The goal of limiting access to guns is to curb gun violence, not violence in general. Non-gun-violence in general is unfortunate, but leads to death a fraction of the time gun violence does.

So I guess we'll get to see if the government responds by finally trying to deal with the actual cause of the social problem in question

I'm curious as to what you think that cause is.

Comment: Re:silver is honest (Score 1) 136

by toadlife (#43143247) Attached to: SXSW: Nate Silver Discusses Data Bias, the Strangeness of Fame

A continuing resolution is not a budget.

Yes, it is. It is a continuation of the budget that was already passed. You should be happy about it too, since it has effectively cut spending when you take into account inflation. The federal budget has grown less under Obama that is has under any other president since the end of WWII.

Especially if they are spending entirely differently

What does that mean? Care to elaborate?

Comment: Re:silver is honest (Score 2) 136

by toadlife (#43141483) Attached to: SXSW: Nate Silver Discusses Data Bias, the Strangeness of Fame

Between Ted Kennedy dying and the Coleman/Franken Senate race recount, the D's actually had a filibuster proof majority for ~24 working days during those two year. The rest of the time, they required Republican vote(s) to get anything through. With what little time they had, they chose to pursue health care reform instead of passing a new budget.

That aside, they *did* pass a budget. They passed a continuing resolution which extended Bush's last budget; so we've been operating on George W. Bush's last budget since FY2009.

Comment: Re:schadenfreude (Score 1) 353

by toadlife (#43111761) Attached to: UC Davis Study Concludes H-1B Workers Neither Best Nor Brightest

Actually I'm in Arizona, and yes the word "dole" very much applies due to what we term anchor baby syndrome. Parent(s) here illegally, kid is here legally and is entitled to medicaid (here we call it AHCCCS - which provides comprehensive care by the way, and is better than the health care that 90% of americans have with zero premiums, zero deductable, and copays no higher than $5.) which also makes one or both parents automatically eligible for that program as well as food stamps and cash assistance. Used to be that we deported them, but Obama signed an executive order saying that we can't.

You have been misinformed. Those here illegally do not qualify for medicaid and other social services as a result of having a child here. The children do qualify for various forms of assistance, but the parents are only entitled to emergency care, of which every human being on our soil does regardless of legal or financial status.

I hope don't think the meager assistance afforded to a child is enough for an entire family to live off of.

I live in Central California and grew up around families of mixed legality and based on my experience, your narrative of the lazy welfare sucking migrants is pure fantasy.

Leaving all of the disputed details aside, it is still true that low skilled immigrants place a lower burden on the welfare state than citizens of the same socioeconomic class.

There is absolutely no data to support the "anchor baby" narrative that scares nativists so much, while there is in fact data that disputes it.

Byte your tongue.