Heck, the FOX FCC claim isn't the worst ...

... in Daily Caller's latest article about Journalist-less-list.

Just look at some of the stuff that Tucker's new site reported:

Wishing death on another person:  (or at least refusing to rescue them).

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

But that's not all of it, and the FOX comment isn't even at the top of the article.

Someone else calling Tea Party supporters racist:

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama...

You're half right, Yeselson... it's because we have a president named Barack Hussein Obama with a ton of socialist/communistic/marxist tendencies, not because of his skin-pigmentation... but hey, let's just throw a few more "nuts" into the general claims

...But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nutsnuts and the anti-tax ).

Note that every 'stance' that Yeselson identifies is a "nut job" stance.

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

(I dunno Beyerstein.. sounds like a lot more of a liberal position than a tea-party position you're describing there.)

Then another throws the racist meme out there;

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an anti-immigration piece for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

So now we're not just racists, but we're all murderers under our core.

But then we get to the reported "big bang".. which is a lot less impressive than the title of the article claims:

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

However, it seems common sense did seem to appear on the question...

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

According to the article, only one person seemed to agree with Zasloff.. so is it really as much of a big deal as the rest of this article? (Unless Tucker's boys simply didn't want to go searching for more people in agreement, and assumed the worst?)


So this is another one of those more "anti-Tea Party" lists than anti-FOX.   (Of course, I missed Tucker's interview on Hannity, so maybe there was more than in this article?)

Btw.. what is a law professor doing on a journalist's email listing?