FauxNews Does It Again! And AGAIN!
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, November 23, 2009 17:20
VIEWED: 4010
PAGE 1 of 1
Bachman and Hannity were crowing over their surprise at the 20,000-45,000 protesters at their recent Washington DC rally, which was "completely word of mouth" according to them--only it wasn't, as it was announced and pushed on Faux News itself.
Problem is, they inserted footage from the previous 9/12 rally to make the crowd look larger. If you notice, all the footage is of clear, blue sky and autumn leaves on the trees (2:51, 4:12), except one or two shots with CLOUDED sky and green trees (3:05-3:44, 4:17), overviews showing huge crowds in the latter. Hysterical...and of course none of their sheep would have noticed it...
Washington Post estimated the crowd at 10,000 or so...
Jon Stewart had a ball with it on Daily Show last night: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-us
es-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage
What do those of you who defend Faux News as a "legitimate news station" think about this? While we're discussing free speech...what about "fake speech"? Why are they allowed to mislead the public like this? Yes, I know the answer, but it still pisses me off...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What do those of you who defend Faux News as a "legitimate news station" think about this? While we're discussing free speech...what about "fake speech"? Why are they allowed to mislead the public like this? Yes, I know the answer, but it still pisses me off...
I'm wagering it'll either be totally okay, or they will remain silent.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigh...sadly...probably true. What a world...what a strange little species...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hah - what's worse is, I heard one douchebag saying on Gordon Liddy's show that the crowd was more than a million strong!
And hell, the photos they showed of the "million plus" at the 9/12 tea-bag party weren't even of that event. Someone pointed out that some of their photos were actually of the "Million Man March", and pointed out the Native American museum (can't remember if that's its correct name or not) - or rather, the LACK of said museum, which stands there now, but didn't when the Million Man March went off.
Oh, FauxNews... Is there NOTHING you won't report wrong?
But hey, at least they'll soon be joined by Lou Dobbs, who just resigned - tonight - over at CNN. Said tonight would be his last show, and adios. Only he didn't actually SAY "adios", 'cuz, ya know, he's not down with the brown folks.
Mike
Let the wild rumpus start!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't know about that one...sigh...and their puppets bought both, no doubt...it's the librul media conspiracy to make them look bad, of course!
Tho' I saw Hannity APOLOGIZED for the Faux News faux pas:Quote:
As Mediaite reported yesterday, the eagle eyes of The Daily Show noticed that Sean Hannity substituted news footage from the 9/12 rally for last week’s much-lower-attended Super Bowl of Freedom. The effect was that the latter event seemed like a much bigger deal than it was.
Last night, Hannity apologized, claiming that the footage had been used “inadvertently.” Here’s specifically what Hannity had to say:Quote:
“And finally tonight, although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart? Comedy Central? He was right. Now on his program last night, he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican healthcare rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct, we screwed up, we aired some video of a rally in September, along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadvertant mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, so Mr. Stewart. you were right, we apologize. But by the way, I wanna thank you, and all your writers, for watching. (Laughter)”
Hannity’s claim that they “played some incorrect video,” is a bit of an oversimplification of the production process. Since the video they played was part of a pre-edited package, this most certainly wasn’t a case where the technical director simply hit a wrong button. The footage for this package was selected by someone, then edited by an Editor.
So — was this an honest mistake? Given the recent debate about the distinctions between Fox News’ opinion programming and its news programming, its at least worth another look.
You may recall the name Griff Jenkins from a previous flap involving Fox News: it was his crew that was “reprimanded” for whipping up a 9/12 crowd for the cameras.
While the White House took some lumps over their treatment of Fox News, incidents like this certainly seem to underscore their overall point. One of the linchpins of Fox News’ defense is the idea that there’s a wall between their news and opinion programming. Problems with their news programming notwithstanding, this defense isn’t exactly air tight.
The “opinion show” defense is only really operative when it comes to opinions. When it comes to news content on opinion shows, they retain some duty to present facts accurately and fairly. For example, MSNBC recently drew criticism for dishonestly editing footage of a gentleman who was carrying a gun at a Town Hall event. And similar criticism of blurry lines between news and opinion at MSNBC exist when day time news anchor David Shuster fills in to guest host Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. Even The Daily Show has been called out for blurring the line between facts and opinion (or comedy in this case.)
Fox’s news personnel are frequent guests on Fox opinion programs, which lends traditional journalistic credibility to opinion programming of Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. While it makes programming sense to promote shows and personalities across the network — which Fox News does better than any network — it also blurs the line between the two sides of Fox programming for a less informed or critical viewer.
Sean Hannity certainly deserves credit for the quick and earnest apology for the footage miscue, and while he’s clearly on the opinion side of FNC, it is legitimate to ask whether this mistake also harms the credibility of Fox News “news desk.” This mistake not only gives rise to Fox News fiercest and most vocal critics, which until recently, included the White House, but raises a larger question: shouldn’t there be any concern about this expressed by FNC News Desk?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It says a lot about your "news" organization when COMEDY CENTRAL is the one doing your fact-checking. None of what it says is good, though.
And they STILL can't figure out why people are pointing and laughing at them when they call themselves "reporters". ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are they a "news" organization? 
(By the way, where are all those people who were arguing that ClusterFox didn't deserve to be dissed by Obama because it's a responsible news organization? They're awfully quiet...)
(Also, how do you make an "inadvertent mistake" like that? I'd like to learn, I don't know much about editing video, I'm sure I could learn a thing or two from them...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I cant stand that left-wing liberal commie Fox.
Cant get more un-American.
http://piratenews.org/fox-news-owned-by-communist-china.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
(Also, how do you make an "inadvertent mistake" like that? I'd like to learn, I don't know much about editing video, I'm sure I could learn a thing or two from them...)
Well, you start by doing whatever you want to do, and then if anyone calls you on your lies, you claim it was "inadvertent". :)
And PN thinks they're "commie liberals"... Really, what more needs to be said about his level of batshit?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now, is that a case of the "denial" you mentioned elsewhere, or just complete nut-wing batshit? Or does it matter which one it is? Yup.
Yeah, I cant stand that left-wing liberal commie Fox.
Ah, the mind...such a terrible thing to waste/screw up completely...
As to Quote:
Yeah, I knew that, I should have put [sarcasm] before and after it.
Well, you start by doing whatever you want to do, and then if anyone calls you on your lies, you claim it was "inadvertent".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why y'all so obsessed with Fox News? If you watch, great. If you don't watch, then you don't know how bad or how good they are. All the cable news shows are suspect in my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Why y'all so obsessed with Fox News? If you watch, great. If you don't watch, then you don't know how bad or how good they are. All the cable news shows are suspect in my opinion.
So you were okay with Dan Rather's story about Dubya's ducking out on his National Guard duties and playing hookie and going AWOL and never finishing his duty? Seems a lot of people were upset about that one, because they had this silly notion that a "news" reporter ought to show at least a casual interest in the actual "facts" of a story.
Are you saying you have no problem with "news" that doesn't check its facts, or that purposely reports information it KNOWS to be false?
Do all conservatives have standards as high as yours? It would explain a lot about Faux News, its viewers, and its "journalists".
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sometimes mistakes get made in both news reporting and news opinion. And sometimes details get omitted in the grander story. For example, last nite on MSNBC Rachel Madow did a story about the NY 23rd Congresssional election that is now being challenged. Rachel said " The Conservative conceded the loss, and the winner was already sworn in." Well that's all true, EXCEPT she omitted this key point:
THE ELECTION HAS NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED in NY state!
There was slow reporting in some areas where support for the Conservative Hoffman came in later as stronger than anticipated, and now he's only a few thousand votes behind, with 10 thousand absentee ballots still uncounted. So he's taken back his concession, much like Gore did in 2000.
Now he's likely not going win when all the votes are counted, but when Madow said he was sworn in, that was completely true, yet very misleading. Again, NOT certified by NY State. Pelosi had him flown in to DC on a Saturday night to cast his vote for her Healthcare Bill. That seems pretty desperate and smarmy to me, but not unexpected as politics go. AND if I'm supposedly a Fox hound as some imply, what am I doing watching Madow anyhow?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you were okay with Dan Rather's story about Dubya's ducking out on his National Guard duties and playing hookie and going AWOL and never finishing his duty? Seems a lot of people were upset about that one, because they had this silly notion that a "news" reporter ought to show at least a casual interest in the actual "facts" of a story.
Those were the "facts"-- or at least a valid interpretation of the story. What Rather got busted for was a forged document that "confirmed" the facts in black and white. It would be interesting to know who actually created the fake document and who fed the bait to CBS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you were okay with Dan Rather's story about Dubya's ducking out on his National Guard duties and playing hookie and going AWOL and never finishing his duty? Seems a lot of people were upset about that one, because they had this silly notion that a "news" reporter ought to show at least a casual interest in the actual "facts" of a story.
Those were the "facts"-- or at least a valid interpretation of the story. What Rather got busted for was a forged document that "confirmed" the facts in black and white.
Hello,
I imagine that police officers and detectives sometimes use a similar tactic.
They might plant evidence, knowing the suspect is guilty of something, and justify it to themselves. They tell themselves, "surely it's a fact that this man is guilty of something. The evidence that confirms the facts may be false, but the facts themselves are valid."
Of course, there's a good reason for outrage when someone tries to use falsified evidence. Even when such evidence is used against very bad people.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama is going to be interviewed on FOX NEWS this Wednesday at 6:00 pm Eastern time according to their promo. Ought to be interesting in light of their recent skirmishes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maddow reporting the winner in NY was exactly what every other station reported. And as you said, it was true, not an outright lie. I haven't heard ANY news that the election hasn't been certified, so she's no more to blame than anyone else...I believe Faux News as well?
River, I don't feel I'm "obsessed" with ClusterFox, but I abhor such blatant lies as they provide and I abhor the TRUE ugliness they present against the current administration and anything Democrat-related.Quote:
These weren't mistakes. You can't "mistakenly" insert video from one event into another, and doing so was an obvious attempt to make the event look larger than it was. That's fraud and propaganda. I don't trust cable shows either and check my facts, but Faux News is blatant and what they do is unconscionable, so I'll call 'em on it when I'm aware of it.
Sometimes mistakes get made in both news reporting and news opinion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Obama is going to be interviewed on FOX NEWS this Wednesday at 6:00 pm Eastern time according to their promo.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced it will happen. :) After all, if FauxNews is reporting it, how reliable can it be?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If he does (which I also doubt...good way to rake in viewers then claim he was too chicken to show!) I hope he nails 'em good and proper. Would be nice.
But I don't think it will happen...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would love to see someone nail down Obama on his beliefs.
Something he can't back out of.
If hes got the balls for it, I would actually give him more credit. Especially after his camp tried to discredit a news source, and to un-Constitutionally silence them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Especially after his camp tried to discredit a news source, and to un-Constitutionally silence them.
Can you elaborate on that?
How did he try to "silence" them? Did he have them jailed? Killed?
By the way, I noticed that Rachel Maddow had asked Sarah Palin for an interview, and was refused. Why is Palin trying to "un-Constitutionally" silence Rachel?
Quote:
I would love to see someone nail down Obama on his beliefs.
Heck, I'd be satisfied if someone could nail YOU down on YOUR beliefs. I mean, other than just mumbling things like "freedom" and running away or posting up a stupid movie clip. How 'bout it, Wulfie - what do YOU believe in?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aaaaannnnndd they've done it yet again.
http://www.examiner.com/x-30067-Knoxville-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m11d
20-FOX-News-caught-using-misleading-footage-video
Their story about Palin's book drawing crowds and long lines was punctuated with pictures of crowds and long lines - at a Palin rally from last year! What made it worse was the "news" reader saying over the footage, "These pictures are just coming in..." and showing the crowd at one of her campaign rallies before the election last year.
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that FauxNews uses the word "news" and the phrase "fair and balanced" in exactly the same way that The Onion calls itself "America's Finest News Source". And they should be taken every bit as seriously, and their "facts" given exactly the same credence.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Especially after his camp tried to discredit a news source, and to un-Constitutionally silence them.
Can you elaborate on that?
How did he try to "silence" them? Did he have them jailed? Killed?
By the way, I noticed that Rachel Maddow had asked Sarah Palin for an interview, and was refused. Why is Palin trying to "un-Constitutionally" silence Rachel?Quote:
I would love to see someone nail down Obama on his beliefs.
Heck, I'd be satisfied if someone could nail YOU down on YOUR beliefs. I mean, other than just mumbling things like "freedom" and running away or posting up a stupid movie clip. How 'bout it, Wulfie - what do YOU believe in?
Bump because Wulfie apparently refuses to answer.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um,ok.
Whats the question?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"FOX News caught using misleading footage (video)
For the second time in two weeks, FOX News has once again had apologize to viewers for using misleading footage. During a story about Sarah Palin drawing large crowds while promoting her new book, footage of a well-attended campaign rally played on the screen. Host Gregg Jarrett said "Some of the pictures [are] just coming to us...The lines had formed earlier this morning."
FOX's senior vice president, Michael Clemente, has said that the footage shown was unintentional. "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video," he said in a statement.
Last week, on Sean Hannity's program, the network showed footage of a protest on the Mall in Washington, saying that the crowd had been at an anti-health care reform rally organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart noticed the footage mix up and used it on his show."
Hello,
I am surprised that they would make the same mistake again so soon. I hope someone gets fired at FOX for this, as this is really harming their credibility. They need to work hard to restore their reputation.
One begins to understand why many young people prefer to get their news from the Daily Show. It's biased and fake, but it is much more entertaining and there's lots of good humor. Also, strangely and inexplicably, after watching 30 minutes on FOX news and watching 30 minutes of the Daily Show, I feel that I have learned more by watching the Daily Show. I am at a loss to explain this, since the Daily Show is patently not trying to inform me, but rather to entertain me.
Lately I have been increasingly disappointed with CNN, as it feels like it's becoming more difficult to extract the information from the chaff. I was so upset when I got home yesterday and watched the 'Cop Tasers 10 year old' video, as the video provided no useful information on the event, and I found no apparent link for a standard text format article with details.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Um,ok.
Whats the question?
Two questions, as stated above.
1) Can you elaborate on how you think the government "un-Constitutionally" tried to silence Lou Dobbs?
2) As asked above (twice): "I'd be satisfied if someone could nail YOU down on YOUR beliefs. I mean, other than just mumbling things like "freedom" and running away or posting up a stupid movie clip. How 'bout it, Wulfie - what do YOU believe in?" Use your WORDS; don't rely on someone else's video to tell you how you feel. USE YOUR OWN WORDS TO EXPLAIN IT TO US. We know you claim to not be a conservative, but we also know that you hate all liberals and Democrats. We know what you hate; what is it you BELIEVE IN?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lately I have been increasingly disappointed with CNN, as it feels like it's becoming more difficult to extract the information from the chaff. I was so upset when I got home yesterday and watched the 'Cop Tasers 10 year old' video, as the video provided no useful information on the event, and I found no apparent link for a standard text format article with details.
See, Anthony - we're more alike than you'd like to believe, I'm afraid. :)
Getting "the story" out of "the news" these days is harder and harder. I rely on the news to give me the broadest possible strokes on what it is that people are interested in. Then I have to go online and start digging, to actually try to churn up enough info the discern what they're NOT telling us, not just what they ARE telling us. And even at that, you have to read between the lines an awful lot.
Lately, I've been trying to figure out just WHY the Republican party doesn't want terror suspects tried as criminals, but rather wants them tried by the military for what were criminal acts. What is the core belief behind it, when you think your military is the only arm of government strong enough to inflict - er, I mean ENFORCE - your laws? And what does it say about the government if one side so actively believes that, and is so urgently pushing back against the idea that we treat criminals as criminals, and not treat criminals as war heroes or martyrs in a religious war?
Oh, and since I can't let a post go by without snarking it at least somewhat (or so I'm told)...
My first reaction when I read your words about Fox needing "to work hard to restore their reputation" was to laugh and say, "Good one!"
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I suggest starting a new thread, "A reaffirmation of my beliefs" by Wulf.
And then I suggest everyone pinkie swear not to snark at the guy, not to criticize the guy. The only questions should be to more fully understand his position. Even if he was to post, "I love Nazis and hate America" (just an off-the-wall example) you shouldn't interrupt him by making fun of him or yelling at him or anything like that. Just let him talk, explain in his own words, and maybe ask him questions to clarify his position without criticizing his position.
Then, with his position fully stated and not made fun of or interrupted with shovelfulls of snark, you'll have a base reference thread to check back on when Wulf posts on other threads.
I suspect you'll find that in 6 months, some of his ideas will have evolved and changed. And this will be a good thing. I am very glad that I don't hold all the same opinions I held 5 years ago.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) Never said the "gubmint" tried to silence Lou Dobbs. But did this current administration go after Fox? Absolutely.
2. Um, I would still need questions. As in, "What is your belief on XYZ"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, anyone who's done much editing with modern software would tell you that "accidentally" inserting old footage from other events into a new story is ridiculously unlikely.
It's not like those clips are just drifting around willy-nilly.
They either have utterly incompetent editors, or they are flat out lying.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I would like to rule out 'utterly incompetent editors' and favor lying... But the ease of detection of this deception indicates *someone* at Fox is utterly incompetent and foolish.
It's not like they didn't know they were being scrutinized... And then they did it again. And they did it *after* releasing a statement that said, "We have taken steps to make sure this never happens again." I mean, it's mind-bogglingly terrible. I wasn't kidding when I suggested someone should be fired. And I wasn't thinking of the video editors.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You guys actually think Fox news (maybe) is the only one that does this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Wulf,
That's a good question. No, I suspect most news agencies do this from time to time.
Fox is doing it frequently lately, and is doing it very badly. Like a kid signing his parent's name to a homework notice with a crayon.
Surely you agree that they're just horrible about this lately?
But no, I have concerns about many news agencies. Not always the same concerns. Note my rant about the increasingly uninformative CNN.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whenever a news agency claims to either A) bring you unbiased information, or B) not have an agenda.... you should KNOW right off the bat they are lying.
Then, when you have news agencies claiming to FOLLOW an agenda, they are REALLY lying.
But whats the alternative? Straight facts? That would be too boring for the public.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Its the age old question... are you lying if you purposely leave out facts, which then causes your audience to reach a pre-approved conclusion?
Fox News may manipulate stories, but so does CNN, NPR, MSNBC, ect ect.
the only thing you can do when watching the news, is acknowledge that SOMETHING happened.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Mike,
You would be disappointed to learn how little it troubles me that we may have a lot in common. :-)
In reference to terror suspects being tried in military courts...
I wonder what they are saying, then? Are they suggesting that terrorism is part of a legitimate military action against the United States? An interesting position. And if they are accusing these combatants of war crimes, shouldn't we try them in an international court? Isn't that what we did with the Nazis?
What a mess that would be for us, when our own mistreatment of these people comes to light.
But a criminal case would reveal our inequities just as surely.
So, secret military courts with closed doors and unknown evidence - and yet no acknowledgement of our enemy as valid combatants, and no trying them in international court for war crimes. Amazing.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
1) Never said the "gubmint" tried to silence Lou Dobbs. But did this current administration go after Fox? Absolutely.
2. Um, I would still need questions. As in, "What is your belief on XYZ"
You're weaseling. I thought you hated that.
Here's your quote from above:
Quote:
I would love to see someone nail down Obama on his beliefs.
Something he can't back out of.
If hes got the balls for it, I would actually give him more credit. Especially after his camp tried to discredit a news source, and to un-Constitutionally silence them.
Now, you distinctly accused "Obama" and "his camp" of trying to silence a news source. If "his camp" is NOT the government nor his administration, then who is?
Also, that addresses your Question 2 as well. YOU want to be asked specifics. You didn't ask for specifics from the President, though, did you? You said, and I quote, "I would love to see someone nail down Obama on his beliefs." No "his beliefs on XYZ", just an open-ended query about "his beliefs". So I asked about yours.
Are you saying you would hold a black man to a different standard than you hold yourself? Or that we should? :P
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*sigh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its the age old question... are you lying if you purposely leave out facts, which then causes your audience to reach a pre-approved conclusion?
Fox News may manipulate stories, but so does CNN, NPR, MSNBC, ect ect.
the only thing you can do when watching the news, is acknowledge that SOMETHING happened.
It's more than that, though, isn't it?
The question SHOULD be, "Are you lying when you replace facts, make up facts, or substitute different facts in your stories to push your agenda and lead your audience to a pre-conceived conclusion?"
Fox isn't saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer. In essence, they're swapping data to say that smoking DOESN'T cause cancer, but eating salads DOES. It's not a lie of omission (leaving something out to lead to a specific conclusion); it's a lie of commission (stating erroneous information with premeditation and malice aforethought). There's more than just a slight difference there.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You guys actually think Fox news (maybe) is the only one that does this?
Of course not. We all know about the cropped shots of the black man with a rifle.
But Fox is just the most blatant about it. And to do it so brazenly after JUST being caught a week before is amazing.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Especially after his camp tried to discredit a news source, and to un-Constitutionally silence them.
I'd like to know in what universe refusing to talk to someone is unconstitutional?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're weaseling. I thought you hated that.
I think we've all learned that though he likes to pose them - there is very little chance of Wulfie answering a direct question.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can you be bothered to ask a direct question, whereby the answer is not so open ended that it would take 50 pages to write about? (I.E. What do you believe?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have many times - the same one in at least 3 separate threads - and you always dodge, every time, so I've given up.
And funny that you consider that particular question so unreasonable, since it was you who posed it in the first place.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I assumed that by saying that Obamas beliefs should be nailed down, folks would understand that it would take direct, specific questions... so as to not be able to give a political answer to them.
You know, like reporters are supposed to do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Can you be bothered to ask a direct question, whereby the answer is not so open ended that it would take 50 pages to write about? (I.E. What do you believe?)
Okay, I'll play.
What is it that you find "un-Constitutional" in Obama's staff saying that Fox News isn't really a news organization? What specific constitutional breach did they commit? How EXACTLY did they "silence" either Fox News OR Lou Dobbs?
Be SPECIFIC in your answers. Please cite for me the articles and sections of the Constitution you think have been breached.
Further, I'd like to ask you specifically what you consider to be "free speech", and who specifically you think it applies to. I realize you think you should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, but do these rights that you hold to be universal also apply to the President of the United States? In other words, does the President (or any of his staff or administration) have any right to say that he considers a certain news organization to be a pathetic joke?
Further, does that "free speech" right extend to freedom NOT TO speak? For instance, does the President have the right to NOT grant an interview to a reporter or "news outlet"?
Again, please be specific, and explain your answers and your reasoning behind those answers.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What is it that you find "un-Constitutional" in Obama's staff saying that Fox News isn't really a news organization? What specific constitutional breach did they commit? How EXACTLY did they "silence" either Fox News OR Lou Dobbs?"
Again, I didn't say Lou Dobbs.
However, as to Fox, Obamas staff have said (quote) "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece."
also,
“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network....”
I will link here, TO Fox for this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-
control-internet/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28497.html
Do I think the administration is trying to discredit a news agency? Oh hell yeah.
The question tho, is why?
When you have to try and discredit your detractors, then that just means you cannot stand on your own.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
OR OF THE PRESS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Further, I'd like to ask you specifically what you consider to be "free speech", and who specifically you think it applies to. I realize you think you should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, but do these rights that you hold to be universal also apply to the President of the United States? In other words, does the President (or any of his staff or administration) have any right to say that he considers a certain news organization to be a pathetic joke? "
The President is a U.S. citizen (PLEASE dont snark on this one), so he and his staff can say whatever they want.
However, by calling for a boycott, it is essentially creating an embargo on free speech.
And again, who are his handlers, and why are they trying to control information? To, in essence, control the propaganda that is put forth?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Further, does that "free speech" right extend to freedom NOT TO speak? For instance, does the President have the right to NOT grant an interview to a reporter or "news outlet"?"
Absolutely.
Trying to answer these questions while busy, excuse me if they are a bit disjointed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
However, as to Fox, Obamas staff have said (quote) "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece."
also,
“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network....”
Saying those things is not unconstitutional. If they outlawed Fox, or put actual legal restrictions on someone, you'd have a point, but that's not the case.
So, how is what they are doing unconstitutional? Boycots are protected as well. Folks have the choice to participate or not.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Further, I'd like to ask you specifically what you consider to be "free speech", and who specifically you think it applies to. I realize you think you should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, but do these rights that you hold to be universal also apply to the President of the United States? In other words, does the President (or any of his staff or administration) have any right to say that he considers a certain news organization to be a pathetic joke? "
The President is a U.S. citizen (PLEASE dont snark on this one), so he and his staff can say whatever they want.
However, by calling for a boycott, it is essentially creating an embargo on free speech.
And again, who are his handlers, and why are they trying to control information? To, in essence, control the propaganda that is put forth?
Hello Wulf,
I disagree. Asking people to willingly turn away from a belief or institution is not control on free speech. It is exercise of free speech. It's like when I tell people they should stop listening and supporting Piratenews until he cleans up his messages and uses more honest reporting. I do NOT advocate banning Piratenews. I am not trying to shut him down. I am trying to get people to see that he is unreasonable and not to support his mania.
However, if it could be shown that the government was using illegal leverage (having FOX news people arrested, having FOX news affiliates audited, etc.) Then I would agree that they have done something illegal.
Just as if I were to hack into PirateNews' website and shut it down, I would be doing something illegal.
Encouraging people to turn away from and ignore a news agency is not illegal. Nor is it unconstitutional.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
OR OF THE PRESS.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Can you please show me WHERE AND WHEN the Obama administration OR this Congress made a law muzzling Fox News specifically? Where did they "abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press" of Fox News?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"What is it that you find "un-Constitutional" in Obama's staff saying that Fox News isn't really a news organization? What specific constitutional breach did they commit? How EXACTLY did they "silence" either Fox News OR Lou Dobbs?"
Again, I didn't say Lou Dobbs.
However, as to Fox, Obamas staff have said (quote) "The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece."
also,
“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network....”
I will link here, TO Fox for this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-
control-internet/
Okay, do you have a source for any of those alleged quotes that ISN'T Fox News? You'll pardon me and understand if I'm a bit skeptical of your source on those. I've been following the story, and I haven't heard that first "quote" attributed to anyone within the Obama Administration, and the specific wording of it sounds far more like something that Sean Hannity or Glen Beck would say, and then try to CLAIM that the administration said.
Now, as to the second quote, Anita Dunn did indeed say that. But I don't see the part about her announcing any "boycott" of Fox News. I see her (and saw her make the remarks on the air) saying that we shouldn't pretend that Fox News is a *news* network, and that's what this entire thread has been about. And in my opinion, she's correct.
As I've said before, if you have an agenda, feel free to push it. MSNBC does, clearly. They make not bones about it. They call themselves "The Place for Politics", which tells you that things are going to get their political spin. What they DON'T call their coverage is "fair and balanced", or try to claim that it's unbiased and not agenda-driven. If you're going to claim that your "news" channel is going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a "fair and balanced" way, it's probably best that you not be caught out again and again and again telling outright lies and inventing "quotes".
So, in your opinion, would it be okay for me to put a story out on MSNBC that says "This just in - with photos to prove it - Ron Paul blows goats!" and then put up pictures with the face blocked out, claiming it was Ron Paul blowing a goat? Would that be within my "free speech" rights, or would that, in your estimation, be crossing a line by simply making shit up that isn't true (as far as you know), and then backing up the claims with doctored or misleading photos?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those quotes wern't from Fox.
"So, in your opinion, would it be okay for me to put a story out on MSNBC that says "This just in - with photos to prove it - Ron Paul blows goats!" and then put up pictures with the face blocked out, claiming it was Ron Paul blowing a goat? Would that be within my "free speech" rights, or would that, in your estimation, be crossing a line by simply making shit up that isn't true (as far as you know), and then backing up the claims with doctored or misleading photos?"
lol Yeah itd be fine. PN does it all the time, so do supermarket tabloids.
The problem is of course, that you would no longer be considered a "legitimate" news agency.
When you are considered legitimate, your "news" and "facts" have more weight and are believed and trusted by more people.
What is happening is that this administration is trying to discredit a news agency, in order to silence a dissenting opinion. To, make Fox out as a supermarket tabloid, so that people will no longer listen to them.
As Fox seems to be the largest detractor, with political clout to back it up (there are other smaller news agencies critical of Obama, but they don't carry as much "weight" as Fox) dont you guys find it very disturbing that this administration would seek to discredit it?
ETA: Lets say this was 3 years ago, and Bushs team was saying the same kind of things about NPR, or CNN?
lol I always WANT to hear a dissenting opinion. I want to hear "NO". I would get very nervous if I didn't. Because nobody, and noones ideas are perfect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The President is a U.S. citizen (PLEASE dont snark on this one), so he and his staff can say whatever they want.
Heck, we actually AGREE on that much! Pardon the mini-snark, but I'm a bit surprised. Can I put you on the record as saying that Obama IS a natural-born U.S. citizen?
Quote:
However, by calling for a boycott, it is essentially creating an embargo on free speech.
I think this is where *I* have to call "shenanigans". You're assigning actions and positions to the White House that they simply haven't taken and don't hold. Who called for a boycott? Saying that you don't take their "news" coverage seriously is not the same as calling for a boycott. To put it in perspective, I said in another thread that I absolutely do not take Sarah Palin seriously, and I don't find her to be a serious person who can be taken seriously or spoken to or about in a serious manner. But you never, NEVER heard me call for any kind of "boycott" of her, her book, her appearances, her little political rallies, or anything else.
Quote:
And again, who are his handlers, and why are they trying to control information? To, in essence, control the propaganda that is put forth?
THAT is the crux of the matter, right there. WHO are his handlers, and WHY are they trying to control information? As to who, that depends on whom you ask, no doubt. To PN, "the Jews" are his handlers; to DT, it may be the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations); to Frem it might be AIPAC. So that part is up in the air.
As to WHY "they" (and this is true no matter WHO the "they" is, mind you) are trying to control information, it's all about spin. EVERYONE is trying to control the information coming from the White House and out of the Capitol. If you can put your spin on it, you get to control the conversation a bit more, since essentially you get to lay out the terms of the debate. It's why things like "Death Panels" really take off - because they sound juicier and more scandalous than calling them "end of life matters and decision-making", which is indeed what they amount to ("Death Panels" ask questions like, "If you are in a persistent vegetative state, would you wish to remain on life support indefinitely, or would you wish to be removed from life support?" which are questions that people really should have documented answers for, just in case).
So while Fox tries to control information in their way, the White House tries to do the same in its own way. Fox tells you not to believe the President, but if the White House tells you the same thing about Fox News, people shit all over themselves and go berserk claiming that the White House is trying to muzzle a legitimate news outlet.
For the record, I don't think they're trying to MUZZLE Fox; I think they're trying to force them to live up to what a "journalist" is supposed to do. Sadly, the closest thing Fox has to REAL reporters are the "pimp & ho" kids from the ACORN scandal.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Those quotes wern't from Fox.
Actually, yes they were. Can I call 'em, or what?
I said it sounded like Hannity or Beck.
Here's Hannity's blog. Read the first sentence. See if it sounds familiar to what you posted as a quote from the Obama Administration.
http://hannity.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/19/white-house-steps-up-assau
lt-on-fox-news/comment-page-1/?action=late-new
Quote:
October 19, 2009
White House Steps Up Assault on Fox News
The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually I got it from one of those other smaller sites I was talking about. Now let me go see if I can find the link..
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64271-obama-suggests-
fox-news-is-talk-radio
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, for consideration:
http://www.newsli.com/2007/11/29/cnn-ducks-ron-paul-at-republican-yout
ube-debate/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"So, in your opinion, would it be okay for me to put a story out on MSNBC that says "This just in - with photos to prove it - Ron Paul blows goats!" and then put up pictures with the face blocked out, claiming it was Ron Paul blowing a goat? Would that be within my "free speech" rights, or would that, in your estimation, be crossing a line by simply making shit up that isn't true (as far as you know), and then backing up the claims with doctored or misleading photos?"
lol Yeah itd be fine. PN does it all the time, so do supermarket tabloids.
The problem is of course, that you would no longer be considered a "legitimate" news agency.
When you are considered legitimate, your "news" and "facts" have more weight and are believed and trusted by more people.
EXACTLY! And as long as FauxNews is going to ACT like a tabloid, they should be REGARDED as a tabloid.
Quote:
What is happening is that this administration is trying to discredit a news agency, in order to silence a dissenting opinion. To, make Fox out as a supermarket tabloid, so that people will no longer listen to them.
They are trying to tell people that this isn't a "news" agency, but an "opinion" agency. Which it most certainly and clearly IS. They can claim whatever they want, but they can't claim that it's "news" or "fact" when they spout their opinion.
Quote:
ETA: Lets say this was 3 years ago, and Bushs team was saying the same kind of things about NPR, or CNN?
Or MSNBC? That's documented. Dana Pirino even admitted as much, on Fox, much to the chagrin of their "news" anchors. Look and see how many interviews Bush did with MSNBC sometime.
Quote:
lol I always WANT to hear a dissenting opinion. I want to hear "NO". I would get very nervous if I didn't. Because nobody, and no ones ideas are perfect.
If you want to hear a dissenting opinion, maybe you should be listening to more than just Fox news, and reading more than just Fox news blogs.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually I got it from one of those other smaller sites I was talking about. Now let me go see if I can find the link..
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/64271-obama-suggests-
fox-news-is-talk-radio
Funny, but that "quote" is not there. It's on Hannity's blog, because Hannity wrote it. Not Obama, not his administration. Hannity. At Fox.
And this perfectly illustrates the danger of having a "news" agency like Fox behave like a tabloid. Because they will make things up that were never said, and then the chattering class will run and tell each other that these things were said by Obama.
Arrrggghhhh... And now I have to leave my day job and go work all night because the girl who was supposed to handle the shift at the convention center can't make it. So I'm off to do that now.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, you guys really truck. Dunno if I can catch up, but I'll try:
Wulf, I don't recall anyone trying to "silence" ClusterFox...when did that happen?
And as for calling them "a news source", 
thanx for my second big laugh of the day! Wulf, if those quotes weren’t from Faux News, could you please give us to cites from where they DID originate? The one you gave us doesn’t say that anywhere (and scrolling down the list of topics is pretty clear what their slant is). I didn’t hear the remark anywhere either. So you need to produce a link to where it actually appeared OTHER than Faux News…hopefully a reliable one…?
thanx, Mike, for my third smile of the day (didn’t deserve a giggle or laugh, too predictable) with that link. They just don’t know when to stop, do they? I adore their apologies—“let’s look incompetent, rather than fraudulent!”
Uhhh, Anthony, “harming their credibility” and “restore their reputation” seems to indicate you believe they HAVE credibility to harm, and HAD a reputation to restore… Really?? Oh, I see Mike had the same reaction I did, except I don’t think it’s a “good one”, because I don’t think you meant it as a joke!
As to the Daily Show, I agree about the entertainment value fer shore, but I find Olbermann just as entertaining, and I take him just about as seriously. Maddow is less entertaining, but still fun, and gives me more things to investigate on my own to verify. I, too, am getting sick of CNN, for reasons similar to yours.
Yes, Mike, you got it: Quote:
Exactly what I do.
I rely on the news to give me the broadest possible strokes on what it is that people are interested in. Then I have to go online and start digging, to actually try to churn up enough info the discern what they're NOT telling us, not just what they ARE telling us. And even at that, you have to read between the lines an awful lot.
The only thing I can figure about the push-back on trying the terrorists is that usually “Party of no” thing…ANYTHING Obama or the Dems do has to be ripped apart (if possible)and be claimed to be socialist, making us unsafe, or whatever argument they can imagine to come up with. Isn’t that about how it’s been all along? I believe trying them in a military tribunal does exactly what you said, make martyrs of them and acknowledge that we ARE afraid of them, which is what terrorism is all about. Trying them as criminals to me lessens them to that category, says we don’t consider them or their “war” on us as legitimate, and shows we believe in the court of law. But tell a right-winger that…
Story, Quote:
Yeah, anyone with half a brain knows this, which is why their excuses are so pathetic. Personally, I vote for “flat out lying”, given the subject of the “errors” and how they inflated on their show the number of people who showed up at the first tea party. Pretty blatant, but their views won’t buy that.
By the way, anyone who's done much editing with modern software would tell you that "accidentally" inserting old footage from other events into a new story is ridiculously unlikely.
They either have utterly incompetent editors, or they are flat out lying.
Mike, I don’t think “they're trying to force them to live up to what a "journalist" is supposed to do” at all. I think they know the futility of such a thing, as do all sane people, I think they were just saying “we know it too”, in the hopes that MAYBE someone was listening. Unfortunately, it did no good, only give Fox Noise something to cry about and make more noise about—their audience isn’t listening to rational statements, and the rest of us already knew it. If you take the time to read down the comments on the Hannity link, you’ll see it’s peopled with others just like Wulf, for whom Faux News is the darling and who believe Obama’s “scared” of them because he spoke out. Does anyone really think these people can be reasoned with?
Which is why, Anthony, it’s not incom
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I thought I should say this: Calling for a boycott is not even a violation of Free Speech to my mind. Calling for a boycott is actually an expression of free speech.
Enforcing a boycott IS a violation of Free Speech. Making the sale of Book X illegal, for instance. Or having the FCC shut down FOX.
I would be delighted if the Obama administration called for a boycott on Fox news, and any news agency that refuses to sever ties with them. I would be ecstatic if the relationship between the White House and the news agencies became hostile. Just so long as the White House doesn't actually censor the news, I'm happy.
Personally, I think the government and the news agencies are a bit too chummy for my taste. Rather than passing along official Press Releases all day, it would be nice if the news agencies did some actual investigative journalism.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Investigative journalism has been dead for years. Talking heads don't want to get their suits dirty, and like I said, it's been "newstainment" for ages now. Otherwise why would Prejean get the coverage she does?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I thought I should say this: Calling for a boycott is not even a violation of Free Speech to my mind. Calling for a boycott is actually an expression of free speech.
Enforcing a boycott IS a violation of Free Speech. Making the sale of Book X illegal, for instance. Or having the FCC shut down FOX.
I would be delighted if the Obama administration called for a boycott on Fox news, and any news agency that refuses to sever ties with them. I would be ecstatic if the relationship between the White House and the news agencies became hostile. Just so long as the White House doesn't actually censor the news, I'm happy.
Personally, I think the government and the news agencies are a bit too chummy for my taste. Rather than passing along official Press Releases all day, it would be nice if the news agencies did some actual investigative journalism.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Good points, Anthony. And yes, the press SHOULD have an adversarial relationship with the government. It SHOULD be skeptical. Think how many lives might have been saved had we had a skeptical press in 2002.
But what they DON'T need to do is invent facts and outright fabricate stories.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Niki2:
The only thing I can figure about the push-back on trying the terrorists is that usually “Party of no” thing…ANYTHING Obama or the Dems do has to be ripped apart (if possible)and be claimed to be socialist, making us unsafe, or whatever argument they can imagine to come up with. Isn’t that about how it’s been all along? I believe trying them in a military tribunal does exactly what you said, make martyrs of them and acknowledge that we ARE afraid of them, which is what terrorism is all about. Trying them as criminals to me lessens them to that category, says we don’t consider them or their “war” on us as legitimate, and shows we believe in the court of law. But tell a right-winger that…
Sadly, I *wish* it were that "innocent". I get nervous any time my government starts telling me that the military is the best answer for what is basically a crime problem. I don't like where that road leads, and it feels like the Republicans have been walking us down that road for quite a while now.
By the way, "terror" isn't the REAL aim of terrorism. The REAL aim is economic. The idea is to get people so scared they won't go out, they won't go overseas, they won't shop or go on vacation, they won't spend, and the economy will grind to a halt and collapse under the enormous weight of ever-increasing military expenditures. On that front, Bush played perfectly into the hands of Bin Laden, and Bin Laden definitely won at least a few battles, if not the war.
You know how you beat the terrorists? By ignoring the fuck out of them, refusing to be cowed by them, and by putting up two bigger, taller, nicer, FANCIER towers right there on Ground Zero. And cap 'em with a couple giant eagle flagpoles flipping the bird towards Mecca. Tell the terrorists, "3000 people? Is that the best you got? Fuck, we kill ten times more than that every year on our highways, and that's if we're not trying! Shit, we kill MORE than ten times that many every year just because they don't have health insurance, and we don't even give a fuck about their deaths! Do you think three thousand makes a goddam DENT? We could lose that many every day, and you STILL couldn't fuck with us!"
The way to beat terrorists is to refuse to be terrified of them. Treat them like the two-bit hoods and petty crooks they are, and throw them in a dank cell forever and forget about them. You know what terrifies a terrorist? Not making a bit of a fucking difference, and then being completely forgotten about.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Niki2:
Mike, I don’t think “they're trying to force them to live up to what a "journalist" is supposed to do” at all. I think they know the futility of such a thing, as do all sane people, I think they were just saying “we know it too”, in the hopes that MAYBE someone was listening. Unfortunately, it did no good, only give Fox Noise something to cry about and make more noise about...
I should have been more accurate. They're trying to force Fox to at least behave the way a *modern* journalist does. That is, show at least a passing respect for truth and accuracy.
Now, as to the idea that it did no good at all to call them out... I disagree. I know what you're saying, but you'll also note that they're being called on it more often, and MORE people are looking and fack-checking them now, and either they're going to start reining that shit in, or they're going to be known even amongst their most loyal followers as purveyors of many fine things, but the truth won't be among those things. The more people notice, the more people WILL notice. I'll take that as a win-win. :)
The reason the tabloid example is so perfect is because it fits. I mean, it REALLY fits. Look at Murdoch and his holdings: Tabloids. Lurid headlines on Page One, tits on Page Six. New York Post. Hell, he's even turned the once-respected Wall Street Journal into nothing more than a paid tabloid advertisement for Golden Sacks - er, I mean Goldman Sachs. Murdoch is to "news" what American Idle [sic] is to scripted television drama. In other words, the two (Murdoch and "news") have no relationship at all, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wow, you guys really truck. Dunno if I can catch up, but I'll try:
Oh, it doesn't normally move along that quickly, Niks. Wulf and I seemed to catch each other in real time, both posting at the same time, and things can move really fast when that happens, with all the back and forth. It's ALMOST like having a live conversation with someone when it happens.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It kinda reminds me of that PC - Mac commercial where the PC guy says "trust me it's different this time" regarding Windows software problems past and present.
Faux News - Fair and Balanced, wait...........lol
I gotta stop laughing for a moment to cotinue..................
Ah, hell. I just can't do it with a straight face.
Do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
Ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaa, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa
Make them stop...............
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sums it up for me! I saw something long ago in which they showed that terrorism never actually WORKED, yet groups keep trying it over and over again. I'm sure other(s) here will disagree on that, but they put forth some pretty cogent arguments at the time.
The way to beat terrorists is to refuse to be terrified of them. Treat them like the two-bit hoods and petty crooks they are, and throw them in a dank cell forever and forget about them. You know what terrifies a terrorist? Not making a bit of a fucking difference, and then being completely forgotten about.
But still, on Fixed News we part ways at Quote:
I still maintain that there was no effort to have any impact on Fixed Noise, I think it was just calling them out for what they are and saying what millions of us have known all along.
Now, as to the idea that it did no good at all to call them out... I disagree
I repeat: It makes no difference. Their viewers are as steadfast as those of talk radio, and just as desirous of knowing the "truth". They may lose a few viewers over it, but I doubt many; most of their followers are died-in-the-wool and will only defend them.
Yes,I loved the tabloid comparison. Talk radio is good too, but tabloid fits better to my sense of humor. I realize talk radio is probably more accurate, as the two behave the same, and Fixed Noise doesn't actually blow things up quite as bad as tabloids...but I like it.
Do NOT get me started on Murdoch. He is the one and only thing in this world that I hold against Aussies. I even forgive them Mel Gibson, but not Murdoch. I'll let it rest there, or this would be less than a PG post.
Shiny, I hope you didn't hurt yourself laughing. I'm right there with you...
O, my...I just realized my true HATRED of Fixed Noise is far, far more intense than my dislike/disdain of Palin...I must REEEEELY fear them, huh?? 
Or is it more 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME