Fox News asked this question a couple of months ago, seriously (as serious as they could) debating the ramifications of The Muppets featuring an oil tycoon as the movie’s villain. If you missed out on the segment, here’s the video…

The video generated a fair amount of buzz, leaving many people bewildered by the extent Fox News went on to attack the movie. There were two people muppets who responded to the attack over the weekend at a UK press event. They had this to say…

Uh oh, Fox News, you’ve made Miss Piggy upset. If you’re familiar with the Muppets, you know Miss Piggy’s wrath runs long and deep.

Hopefully this story brought a bit a laughter to your Monday, I know the second video did for me. Also, in case you’re wondering, this was my response to the initial Fox News segment.

And as Fox News’ Bret Baier hits the candidates with questions, viewers will have a chance to give their feedback regarding just how honestly and openly the hopefuls presented their responses.

Twitter and Fox News are teaming up to give the debates an added dimension – real time feedback via Twitter reactions. Twitter is asking viewers to use two particular hashtags when tweeting about candidates’ responses: #dodge and #answer.

For instance, let’s say that you think Rick Santorum tried to talk his way around a question about Afghanistan, you can tweet Santorum’s name along with the #dodge hashtag. Conversely, if you think Ron Paul tackled a question about Medicare head on, you can tweet his name with the #answer hashtag.

The results of these tweets will be displayed on the Fox News site. This way, users can see real-time meters that judge the national consensus – do a majority of Twitter users feel a candidate made a good attempt to answer a question, or was it a clear example of dodging?

VP of Fox News digital Jeff Misenti told the NYT that they’re going to use the Twitter data when analyzing the debates. When commentators are breaking it down afterwards, “we’re going to try to pull some of this data into those conversations,” he said.

This is the second time that Twitter and Fox News have tried this live reaction tracking. Back in December, viewers we asked to use the #dodge and #hashtags to comment on how well the candidates tackled each debate topic. But this debate has even more significance, as the candidate list has narrowed since Iowa, and the real primaries are underway.

Twitter wants everyone to join the conversation, even when they aren’t tweeting about candidates dodging questions. Users are asked to use the more generic #scdebate hashtag with all their debate-related tweets.

In fact, much to my surprise, the mainstream, 24-hour media cycle — including Fox News — is offering the “SOPA is bad for the web” perspective, and seems to be supporting that perspective. Take, for instance, the appearance of the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper on Fox News’ business channel. Considering the think tank’s libertarian background, it’s safe to say the group is against the protection acts, and I can’t help but be impressed by the Fox Business Channel’s willingness to relay the message.

In all honesty, I would’ve expected RIAA mouthpieces to get much more air time, explaining how SOPA will single-handedly save the entire entertainment industry. Instead, anti-SOPA positions had the floor. Thanks to TechDirt’s post, we have video of Harper’s appearance, which dissects the potential dangers these bills pose:

While Harper’s appearance isn’t as long as it should be, he does a great job of discussing the players involved with SOPA/PIPA, and the host even mentions something about a lack of due process. All in all, color me impressed. Granted, a two-minute television appearance isn’t even close to the necessary amount of time it would take to discuss all the potential ills of the protection acts, but the fact that the opposition is getting a platform to share their views, one that extends beyond the Internet, is a step in the right direction.

TechDirt also points to a tweet from MSNBC personality, Dylan Ratigan, who indicates his show will be discussing SOPA as well:

The question I have is this a “too little, too late,” situation, or, like Ratigan says, is this a case of timing being everything?

Lead image courtesy.

Republican presidential candidates are not only taking to social media, but the social network of the hour, with Google+. And they’re not only taking to Google+, they’re utilizing hangouts. An update on the Special Report (the Fox News program) Google+ Page says:

On November 15, Bret Baier will begin the first in a series of Google + Hangouts with Governor Mitt Romney. Throughout the weeks leading up to Election 2012, Bret will moderate a Hangout with each of the GOP presidential candidates and several members of the public.

On that note, here’s an interview we did with Hugh Hewitt at BlogWorld last week discussing the impact of social media on the Presidential race:

Special Report has 2,106 followers on Google+. It will be interesting to see how this news is able to boost the follower count.

The Hangouts feature has been one of the clear stand-outs of Google+ since its launch, when comparing the social network to Facebook and Twitter. Recently, Google made Hangouts even better, with the addition of mobile Hangouts, Hangouts on Air, and Hangouts with Extras.

In fact, Hangouts are likely to be a highly engaging feature of Google+ Pages moving forward, and will no doubt be used by all kinds of businesses and celebrities.

All of those exchanges are now available on the Fox News YouTube Channel, as are dozens of other clips from last night’s debate. All in all, 39 clips are available to watch.

The official YouTube Blog has a post today talking about last night’s debate. In the post, they ask you to continue talking about the candidates’ performances on the Fox News YouTube channel. Post your comments and grade the candidates on their responses on certain topics.

In addition to giving the candidates a grade, when you visit the Fox News YouTube Channel you’ll find a “pulse” tab that shows data visualizations based on the debate.

Over on the Google Public Sector Blog, you’ll find some pretty interesting search trends from last night.

For instance, searches for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who was participating in his first debate, spiked all night – well over the frontrunners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. And every time Herman Cain mentioned his “9-9-9″ plan, searches concerning it skyrocketed.

Also, Mitt Romney’s book “No Apology” was searched more than Rick Perry’s book “Fed Up.”

In case you missed it, you can watch the entire debate below –

What did you think about the debate? Who had a good night? Whose performance hurt their chances? Let us know in the comments.

And remember to also submit your comments to the individual clips on the Fox News YouTube channel.

At the beginning of the month, partners YouTube and Fox News announced the interactive Fox News / Google debate that would feature the Republican Presidential Primary candidates answering questions from the online community.

Tonight’s the night for the debate. It will be streamed live on YouTube over at the Fox News channel starting at 9 pm EST. (It will also air on the Fox News TV channel)

According to a Google blog post, over 18,000 questions have been submitted on the Fox News YouTube channel, ranging in topics from immigration reform to health care to social security.

Like discussed before, the debate will feature some of these pre-submitted questions along with live submissions during the debate from folks online. Google will also be setting up real-time voting on the issues and on the candidate’s responses via the YouTube broadcast.

Even if you’re watching on TV, you can visit youtube.com/foxnews during the debate to vote on real-time polling questions and submit live commentary. Throughout the evening, we’ll share Google politics-related search trend information and public data that will provide context to the issues discussed. Fox News moderators will ask specific questions that were submitted by citizens through YouTube, and we’ll be looking at overall trends that emerge from the questions in aggregate.

YouTube will also be hosting a live pre-debate show starting at 8:30.

The debate will be hosted by Fox’s Bret Baier.

Remember to submit your questions to the Fox News YouTube channel.

The debate will take place in Orlando, Florida on September 22nd and will be broadcast live on the Fox News Channel as well as streamed live on YouTube.

According to the YouTube blog, this debate will be interactive and rely heavily on user-submitted questions. Beginning today, interested parties can submit their questions for consideration to the Fox News channel via video or text.

Viewers will be able to vote on which questions they want to see the candidates debate -

The Fox News/Google Debate will combine the questions you submit on YouTube with maps, facts and information to enrich and guide the discussion. You can vote thumbs up or down on the questions using Google Moderator, and many of the top-voted will be put straight to the candidates to answer.

From the Fox News side of it, they have announced the moderator for the debate: Fox News host Bret Baier. Fox News’ Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly will also be on the panel.

During the debate, the broadcast will include real-time public data and search trends from Google – a way to visualize the chatter about the questions and the candidates’ answers.

The debate is set to kick off at 9 pm ET.

It’s unclear whether Twitter removed the topic or it simply fell off the list naturally (evidence suggests the latter), but the question remained: Should they censor that offensive content?

Your comments last week provided a pretty clear answer to the question: No. Although the distinction was made that social networks like Facebook and Twitter are private companies who aren’t compelled to operate under the same free speech allowances as the U.S. Government, a majority said that it would be wrong to remove the offensive content.

This week we ask a similar question, but with raised stakes. What about content that advocates violence? Let us know in the comments.

Let it be known, the following article will contain no religious opinions from yours truly – whether heavy-handed or carefully cloaked. At the heart of this, for me at least, is simply the issue of anonymity online and the tendency for people to say crazy things when staring at a keyboard and a monitor. Oh, and some of these posts are simply epic in their jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

Here’s how the story goes:

Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists made an appearance recently on America Live with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel.

The reason that he appeared was to discuss the recent lawsuit filed by the American Atheists group over the cross-shaped steel beams at the World Trade Center site know as the “World Trade Center Cross.” The cross would form part of an exhibit at the September 11th Memorial and Museum.

The lawsuit alleges that the cross-shaped steel beam display promotes Christianity over all other religions and it diminishes the civil rights or non-Christians since it is included on public property.

To them, it’s a matter of church and state separation. Either that or it’s about the singularity of the religious celebration. According to ABC News, the American Atheists said that they “have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the ’500 non-religious Americans’ who were “among the victims of the 9/11 attack.”

They say that their request was met with silence.

After Mr. Scott’s appearance on the show, Facebook users flooded the Fox News Facebook page with comments.

UPDATE: Fox News has issued a statement about the comments in question:

“We make every attempt to keep our Facebook page as safe as possible,” said Peter Drace, Fox News VP and creative director of promotion, “and we take immediate steps to remove all hateful and dangerous language.”

Fox News deleted the post containing the comments after identifying over 200 threatening comments. The post containing the comments went up on the night of July 28th. The post was removed on the morning of July 30th.

Although the content is no longer available as it has been removed, multiple sources managed to grab screencaps of the comments. Here are the ones culled by American Atheists themselves -

From the mouth of one gentleman, “few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists.” Just before that, “can we start killing them now.” Isn’t it ironic? Dontcha think?

Some bloggers who also screencapped many of the comments blurred out the names of the commenters. Others specifically brought attention to their names. Their argument is that the internet needs accountability. Basically, if you have the balls to say something, you should have the balls to answer for it. Nobody should protect people on the internet who post controversial content for public consumption.

Anonymity: Is it the landmark achievement of the internet or its central problem? Last year, a Facebook product design manager wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times where she called for content providers to stop allowing anonymous commenting. She pushed the importance of accountability.

And just recently, (former) Facebook employee Randi Zuckerberg said that anonymity on the internet has to go. She said that “people behave a lot better when they have their real names down” and “people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

Well, the majority of the commenters above didn’t hide behind closed doors. They used their reals names to post their misguided comments. You can check out their Facebook pages – many of them aren’t set to fully private. Is the fact that people aren’t having to talk directly to people’s faces enough? Is that all the anonymity they need?

We talked yesterday about new research linking Facebook use to aggressive behavior. Is this what they were talking about? Is all of that anger and hatred a product of Facebook use in general? Or is Facebook simply a platform that can be used for everything, good and bad – and Facebook just enables some people with certain predispositions to bad behavior?

Motivations for the behavior aside, controversial content finds its way to social media sites. This is a fact. And once it gets out there for public consumption, decisions must be made regarding how to deal with it.

From the various reports from people who were screencapping these comments as the rolled in, the pace at which the truly extreme “death wishes” disappeared was pretty quick. It’s much more likely that the Fox News Admins were fighting to remove the content as opposed to Facebook stepping in. But the debate remains: if the comments above had been left alone, should Facebook have removed them?

Or do the inarguably vile comments deserve free speech protection within the realm of social media speech guidelines?

I know that few topics of conversation could be filled with more sensitive issues than vile threats to atheists over a Christian monument at 9/11. That’s hitting all the hot spots – religion, national tragedy, politics, etc. And it’s virtually impossible to separate those sentiments from a free speech debate. But let’s try to think about this as Christians, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists – whatever title your identity merits.

Does this violent speech have a place on Facebook? Even though it doesn’t advocate the death of any singular person, is it prone to incite violence?

Should it remain as a testament to free expression? Let us know what you think in the comments.

[Lead Image Credit]

At around midnight some people noticed that the account’s logo had been changed to an SK logo and the bio information had been changed to read “H4CK3D BY TH3 5CR1PT K1DD3S.” That stayed that way for just a short time before tweets began rolling out saying that Obama was dead.

The first tweet coming from the @foxnewspolitics account stated that @BarackObama had “just passed.” Later tweets went on the detail the purported incident, saying that he was shot twice at a restaurant in Iowa. The tweets then used the hashtags #america and #obamadead. Here’s a screencap of all the tweets that went out on the 4th.

The tweets weren’t removed until about 10 hours after they were first posted. Fox News released a statement saying that their @foxnewspolitics accounts had been hacked.

Jeff Misenti, vice president and general manager of Fox News Digital, said FoxNews.com was working with Twitter to address the situation as quickly as possible.

“We will be requesting a detailed investigation from Twitter about how this occurred, and measures to prevent future unauthorized access into FoxNews.com accounts,” Misenti said.

FoxNews.com regrets any distress the false tweets may have created.

The group behind the hack call themselves The Script Kiddies. Members of the group talked to ThinkSB and told them that they have an affiliation with Anonymous.

“I would consider us to be close in relation [to Anonymous], 2 of the members of our group were members of Anonymous,” said a representative of The Script Kiddies to ThinkSB. “I was a member of Anonymous. We hope to be working with them soon.”

Why did they chose to hack a Fox News Twitter account?

“We are looking to find information about corporations to assist with antisec. Fox News was selected because we figured their security would be just as much of a joke as their reporting,” the anonymous member said.

The group’s Twitter account, @ScriptKiddi3s, has been suspended by Twitter.

Twitter has said that the e-mail account associated with the specific @foxnewspolitics account had been compromised, not their servers. The White House hasn’t commented but the Secret Service has said that they are investigating the matter.

Halperin, who also works as an editor for Time magazine, was discussing Obama’s conduct in a press conference yesterday. During this discussion, he said that he “thought [Obama] was a kind of a dick yesterday.” Scarborough reacted as you would expect, with uncomfortable laughter.

A couple of hours later, MSNBC overreacted and suspended Halperin indefinitely. Check out their statement –

Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

Yes, please apologize to your viewers, who haven’t been damaged this much since they saw Janet Jackson’s right nipple during the Super Bowl. I’m sure they will never be able to recover from hearing Mark Halperin say the word “dick.”

Check out his gaffe and subsequent apology below –

Halperin has now released a statement of his own, saying that he “completely agrees with everything in MSNBC’s statement.” He goes on to say that his remark was “unacceptable and [he] deeply regrets it.”

Here’s some Twitter commentary rolling in about Halperin –

Okay. Let’s break this down. This is not a political issue. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a left-wing network, so they are sensitive to what people say about Obama. Thus, they overreacted based on some partisan outrage. Fine, make that argument. But remember that they parted ways with Keith Olbermann for contributing to Democratic candidates. MSNBC doesn’t always protect its liberal commentators.

This a problem with sensitivity. Grow up, America. Are we really so sensitive that we have to reprimand someone for calling someone a dick? Sure, it was in poor taste to call the President of the United States a dick – it is disrespectful. But he apologized and MSNBC should have moved on. But no, fake outrage wins out every time.

This Twitter user seems to feel the same way –

On the other side of the spectrum, Fox News has a history of sticking by their pundits who make controversial statements. Remember when Bill O’Reilly said that he was surprised that the diners in a black restaurant were civilized? He said he was surprised that there “wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming ‘M.F’er, I want more iced tea.”

Or remember when Glenn Beck basically called Obama a racist, saying he has a “deep-seeded hatred for white people.”

Fox News released this statement -

Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the of the Fox News Channel or any employee here other than him. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.

And putting my own personal political feelings aside, I applaud Fox’s decision to stand by O’Reilly and others. We claim to be a country who values free speech, yet we are so inflamed when anyone says anything a tad bit jarring. People that appear on any news channel that are supposed to be “analyst” or “commentators” are going to be people with opinions. Do I think what Glenn Beck said is ridiculous? Yes. But he wasn’t suspended. Mark Halperin was for calling Obama a “dick.”

Seriously, MSNBC? I can only assume that you are acting on the notion that this is what our too-easily-offended American culture would want.

Nobody should be suspended for saying anything as benign as what Mark Halperin said. I think this is something that liberals, conservatives and everyone else should agree on.

END RANT.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.