Consequentialist Fox sacrifices truth to the greater good

Fox News will attempt to maximize global utility.

Ailes responded to the report in the New York Daily News that he instructed FNC to tone down attacks on President-elect Barack Obama. He denied giving specific orders, but said he told staffers "all presidents deserve time to get their team on the ground and get organized."

"We have some obligation in a new presidency not to attempt to destabilize it," he said.

News is to be reported, not on the deontological basis of whether or not it is true, but on the consequentialist basis of whether or not reporting it will destabilize the presidency, thereby threatening global utility.

Of course, we have long known that members of the media see their noble mission not as to inform their audience but as to promote the greater good by manipulating the public. It is too bad for the media that the paying customer remains the audience and not the greater good.

Share this

the audience

Hence the decline of the mainstream media.

One interesting question is: Why do all organizations move left?

Observe, for example, that the piracy crisis has not inclined shipowners to arm their vessels. Vessels are disarmed in part because of regulatory reasons, but the owners could easily bypass regulations or find loopholes, or just damn well break regulations and beg for forgiveness if problems ensued. As one of my bosses used to say whenever I remarked that what he was doing was illegal "The sword of the law has two edges, both of them blunt."

The curious reluctance of Fox to report the news parallels the curious reluctance of shipowners to arm their crews.

Hoover Syndrome Expanded

If what historians say about Hoover is true and he kept dossiers on certain people, his methods fall squarely into the privilege of data mining exploded to include government and allies, or affiliates, so that the entire nation now reflects the substance of those criticisms by allowing national and commercial surveillance under the guise of national security.

It's become a Hoover nation, if not a Hoover world.

Who should not object to that illegitimate and deceptive panacea?

Nobody really trusts the

Nobody really trusts the media nowadays. I think the people are somehow "smarter" now, given the wider spectrum of media today (ie. internet). Lesson learned, don't believe everything you see and hear. Think for ourselves.

For the greater good of all?

CONGRESS’S "TO HARM" CONTINUES?

In honor of those that serve, on 5 May 2009 the U.S. House passed, "Resolved, That the House of Representatives strongly urges Americans and people of all nationalities to visit national cemeteries, memorials, and markers on Memorial Day, where the spirit of American generosity, sacrifice, and courage are displayed and commemorated."[1] Despite the efforts of some members of Congress, do the ignored U.S. Senate proven Department of Defense (DOD) for the greater good of all "experiments that were designed to harm" continue?[9] Under the 2006 established Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) "NATIONAL SECURITY MISSIONS", now ongoing are these DOD conducted on "hundreds of thousands" [9] of Veterans lessons learned?[11] In October 1995 is the history of human experiments 15 January 1994 U.S. President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Report.[3] On December 8, 1994 is the U.S. Senate REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.", i.e., its many "designed to harm" DOD experiments conducted on "hundreds of thousands".[9] The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court STANLEY [4] determined that their 1950 FERES also protects the government from its "designed to harm" acts. The 1950 U.S. Supreme Court FERES Doctrine decided that the U.S. Government can not be held accountable for injuries "incident" to U.S. Military Service.[2]

"IT WAS NECESSARY "TO CONCEAL THESE ACTIVITIES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN GENERAL," BECAUSE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE" UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC CIRCLES AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS MISSION." Footnote 4, U.S. Supreme Court 1987 STANLEY military experiments case, Page 688.[4] This case confirms their FERES Doctrine [2] decision that correction is through the U.S. Congress. After STANLEY Congress passed the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA). Established was the Legislative, Article I severely restricted, Veteran’s Court with Congress’s, "The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.", i.e., the needed for treatment "designed to harm" evidence.[5] In 2009 the U.S. Congress still has not corrected the U.S. Senate’s 1994 reported 50 years of a DOD "experiments that were designed to harm" policy. The Veterans Court Chief Judge stated, "The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, "I haven't been told by my boss to change. If you don't like it -- appeal it."[8] Given to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the Judicial Branch’s final authority on "the policies underlying the schedule" questions of law![6] Accordingly a sham, politically correct with ‘no teeth’ Veteran’s Court. The "to harm" experiments were performed under the secrecy cover of our past wars. They were in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary's 1953 TOP SECRET order. This order was unclassified twenty two (22) years later.[3] In 1953 and since known by the Secretary's of all Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DOD Research and Development (R&D) Board and the U.S. Congress.

Each deliberate "to harm" project completes the R&D process. Prior R&D is reviewed. The resulting Scope of Work defines what each experiment is "designed" to accomplish. The how, where, when and who is identified. The conducted RESEARCHED cause and effects are closely followed and recorded. From the results are DEVELOPED safe production, use, treatment and protection.

The needed for treatment, experiment revealing evidence is: 1. Not in a subject’s Medical History, so that they never the wiser become. And 2. The resulting alerting injuries are not in the VA "schedule...for disabilities"! There is no, "Veterans Right to Know...". After honorable service Congress still has not given back to veterans those rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep![7]

The "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[10] A "to harm" subject's right to get the needed for treatment evidence never became law.

GIVEN THE U. S. CONGRESSIONAL, NOW 65 YEAR [9], PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, DO NOT THE EXPERIMENTS CONTINUE UNDER THE COVER OF OUR PRESENT WARS??

REFERENCES:
NOTE: Copies of all documents have been downloaded. If any of the links are not active, on request they are available as PDF or wpd attachments.

[1] 2009 - U.S. House 5 May 2009 to honor veterans act. H. RES. 360. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action

[2] 1950 - Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). LINK: http://supreme.justia.com/us/340/135/case.html

[3] 1953 - DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In REFERENCE [8] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169. The provided Link is to the U.S. President’s established 15 January 1994 Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) resulting October 1995 Report. Chapter 1: The Department of Defense: Consent is Formalized Go "Page Down" 15 times to the DOD Secretary's 26 February 1953 Memo. .

[4] 1987 - U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). In REFERENCE [8] cited in NOTE169. http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/669/case.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/483/669.html

[5] 1988 - Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (VJRA), Pub. L. No. 100-687, Div. A, 102 Stat. 4105 (8 December 1988) DVA-Chapter 4 and http://law.jrank.org/pages/6784/Federal-Courts-Court-Appeals-Veterans-Claims.html#ixzz0MIKbF8ND

[6] "United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality." US CODE: Title 38511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality

[7] 1994 - U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7". Second and Third Periodic Report of the United States of America ...

[8] 1994 - Chief Judge and colleague statements, Court of Veterans Appeals, Annual Judicial Conference, Fort Meyer, VA., 17 & 18 October 1994. www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm Chief Judge Frank Nebeker's Statement

[9] 1994 - December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170. Senate Report 103-97

[10] 2005 & 2006 - "Veterans Right to Know Act" to establish the Veterans' Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259

[11] 2006 - Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Bill S. 3678 2006. Signed into law 16 December 2006. Cloaking BARDA - The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog