"Unemployment is near what it was when he took office and it's dropping"
Obama took office during the down swing of the most massive economic recession in the history of mankind. He's not some black voodoo doctor, get over it biccy. Oh noes, someone mispoke then clarified FIFTEEN SECONDS LATER. I'm still waiting to hear a clarification on that death panel, climate gate, 30 thousand scientists suing al gore, and Yellowcake is a WMD thing.
I saw an awful lot of spin, and one instance of blatant deflection, but no lying.
However, it is good to see that biccat continues to willfully misrepresent political statement in order to fit them into his political narrative. Honestly, one would think less effort would be required to simply listen to the words being spoken.
Woot FOX news!. Just a bunch of Right wing bull crap if you ask me. You know Fox news is banned in some countries cause its not classified as news. Their definition of news is that it actually has to be news and not a bunch of bull crap to get the conservatives in office. AND I ENTIRELY AGREE!
I agree, recession is pretty much the process to depression.
Recession is a downturn, whereas depression is an extended period of downturn if I remember correctly. It's also generally figured out by the percentage drop of the GDP, if I remember correctly over 10% can be considered a depression while less is just a recession.
This is not news just like Fox News is not news. They habitually lie and say things that are just ridiculous on a daily basis even when not outright lying. There are 10 pages of lies listed on Fact Check . org alone when you search on the key words "Fox News".
Let's not pretend like the rest of main stream media has been a bastion of impeccable, unshaded truth. When you start deciding what is true or not based solely on my opinion, only then will you be free.
WARORK93 wrote:Not really, AFAIK, a depression is just a really big recession...
A recession is two or more quarters of GDP decline. A recession is what happens when GDP stops contracting, but then doesn't recover.
Typically, you see no recovery in GDP because there's little credit available (as a banking collapse either led to the original decline, or the decline tipped over a heavily leveraged banking sector), or because deflation has set in (if a product will be cheaper tomorrow, it's only sensible to wait until tomorrow to buy it, but if everyone does that no-one is buying, hurting growth, leading to more deflation and so on).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:Let's not pretend like the rest of main stream media has been a bastion of impeccable, unshaded truth. When you start deciding what is true or not based solely on my opinion, only then will you be free.
Are we really going to go through the thing where people explain the difference between other stations saying some things that are dubious, and FOX news giving instructions from management as to how to cover stories in a way that best represents the political party they are attached at the hip to?
biccat wrote:Lying liar is given a platform to spin more lies.
It's the only way the Democrats can win in 2012, lie about their record.
Unemployment rate when President Obama took office: 7.8 percent.
Current unemployment rate: 8.6 percent.
"Real" (U-6) unemployment rate when President Obama took office: 14.1 percent.
Current "real" (U-6) unemployment rate: 15.6 percent.
Civilian participation rate when President Obama took office: 65.7 percent.
Current civilian participation rate: 64.0 percent.
As the immortal bard once said:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:"Unemployment is near what it was when he took office and it's dropping"
Obama took office during the down swing of the most massive economic recession in the history of mankind. He's not some black voodoo doctor, get over it biccy. Oh noes, someone mispoke then clarified FIFTEEN SECONDS LATER. I'm still waiting to hear a clarification on that death panel, climate gate, 30 thousand scientists suing al gore, and Yellowcake is a WMD thing.
I see you're not disagreeing that its a lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote:
biccat wrote:
It's the only way the Democrats can win in 2012, have a bunch of morons run for the republican candidacy.
Fixed that for you.
True dat.
This guy needs to run. Kilgore for President!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:Recession and Depressions are two different things.
Not really, AFAIK, a depression is just a really big recession...
Its a recession if its the other guy. Its a depression if its YOU.
I lie clarified in under the time it takes to comb my hair isn't a very meaningful lie. Once she trucks around with that line for six months and manages to turn 50 million people into blithering idiots who believe it it'll be worthy of "lies that are important coming from fox news".
I lie clarified in under the time it takes to comb my hair isn't a very meaningful lie. Once she trucks around with that line for six months and manages to turn 50 million people into blithering idiots who believe it it'll be worthy of "lies that are important coming from fox news".
I lie clarified in under the time it takes to comb my hair isn't a very meaningful lie. Once she trucks around with that line for six months and manages to turn 50 million people into blithering idiots who believe it it'll be worthy of "lies that are important coming from fox news".
So you're still not disagreeing that shes lying.
Nope. People lye all the time. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident. You lie constantly, though I believe it's more from column B. The trick is to spot when a lie is purposeful, malicious, and organized. One DNC representative saying one thing then correcting it seconds later is a waste of my precious brain time. I'm much more concerned when news organizations do things like organize defamation campaigns and pay off aging veterans to lie on camera for half a year about how they saw John Kerry shoot some Asian dudes for fun.
That's the kind of gak you should care about. But that's not your football, and I understand that. You're into the petty stuff.
In general, I'd go with the definition that the difference between a misstatement* and a lie being the window before correction. If it was never corrected, it would be a lie. If it was corrected by the speaker within a reasonable time (say, 1 minute of it being spoken) I'd call it a misstatement. So, since it was corrected well within that window, I'd feel OK with it being classified as a "misstatement".
I'd also feel pretty comfortable classifying this as a "trial lie", in which a lie is tossed out as a test balloon to see if it is challenged, or not, and upon said challenge, immediately walked back.
So, either one, really.
*I'd also call a misstatement any statement uttered by the speaker that no reasonable person would believe the speaker actually meant or believes. I don't think Obama really thinks there are 57 states, just as I don't believe Bush really knows how hard it is to put "food on your family".
Melissia wrote:Are you being PAID to be this partisan, Biccat, or is it a natural thing?
Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.
Humorous, considering I've gone on record bashing the dems too for their utter incompetence (especially their wasted time spent as majority) numerous times... less organized than a kindergarten play, and less well spoken too.
Republicans meanwhile are organized enough to get something done, but it's almost invariably the wrong thing, being misled by one extreme or the other instead of taking the moderate view...
Frazzled wrote:
I see you're not disagreeing that its a lie.
I don't mean this offensive's, but what is the lie?
She made a highly incorrect statement about unemployment.
Now I know the figure itself is majorly bogus, but thats an entirely separate issue. I just like when poltiical hacks are actually called on their statements (left and right)
Frazzled wrote:
I see you're not disagreeing that its a lie.
I don't mean this offensive's, but what is the lie?
She made a highly incorrect statement about unemployment.
Now I know the figure itself is majorly bogus, but thats an entirely separate issue. I just like when poltiical hacks are actually called on their statements (left only)
I fixed this so that it more accurately reflected how you seem to react to these kinds of things.
Frazzled wrote:
She made a highly incorrect statement about unemployment.
Which was?
Frazzled wrote:
Now I know the figure itself is majorly bogus, but thats an entirely separate issue. I just like when poltiical hacks are actually called on their statements (left and right)
Frazzled wrote:
I see you're not disagreeing that its a lie.
I don't mean this offensive's, but what is the lie?
She made a highly incorrect statement about unemployment.
Now I know the figure itself is majorly bogus, but thats an entirely separate issue. I just like when poltiical hacks are actually called on their statements (left only)
I fixed this so that it more accurately reflected how you seem to react to these kinds of things.
Thats not correct. I'm cool with attacking rightwing hacks to. Its easier here because there's lots of you'se guys already doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which was?
She said unemployment was lower than when he started. Now she did indeed backtrack when called on it, and "clarified"
I just wish more of these guys were instantly called on their nonsense.
I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
Frazzled wrote:
I see you're not disagreeing that its a lie.
I don't mean this offensive's, but what is the lie?
She made a highly incorrect statement about unemployment.
Now I know the figure itself is majorly bogus, but thats an entirely separate issue. I just like when poltiical hacks are actually called on their statements (left only)
I fixed this so that it more accurately reflected how you seem to react to these kinds of things.
Thats not correct. I'm cool with attacking rightwing hacks to. Its easier here because there's lots of you'se guys already doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which was?
She said unemployment was lower than when he started. Now she did indeed backtrack when called on it, and "clarified"
I just wish more of these guys were instantly called on their nonsense.
Then why are you giving credence to biccat?
To annoy Shuma.
I was merely commenting on what appeared to be your general modus operandi.
Frazzled wrote:
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. I heard someone trying to soft lie (I like that phrase) and backtracked quickly when called on it.
I feel like we agree on what happened, but disagree on what a lie entails.
As I said above, I heard lots of spin, and a bit of blatant deflection, but no lying.
"Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office."
"That is simply not true."
Your takeaway depends on how literally you interepret statement A.
Most literal possible interpretation: When Obama took office, it was 7.6 percent. It went as high as 10.2 percent (which makes statement A technically accurate by an reasonable means - it has gone up precipitously, 3 full points, past tense, since he took office). Under this interpretation, it would be a lie.
The less literal interpretation: When Obama took office, it was 7.6 percent. It is now 8.6 percent. Is a 1 point increase "precipitous"? Your answer to that is whether or not it was a lie.
As I said above, I heard lots of spin, and a bit of blatant deflection, but no lying.
"Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office."
The big one, obviously is "you just said that the unemployment rate has gone up since he took office and it hasn't"
Under a reasonable interpretation of the facts, an unemployment rate of 7.6 (January '09) is less than 8.6 today. Even the 8.6% rate we're at today isn't really due to an increase in jobs, instead it's due to a decrease in job seekers. The unemployment data was pretty depressing last month.
There's a valid argument that the situation is worse now than it was in '09, but I think that's a tough argument to make. Essentially the President's argument is "the other guy is worse than I am," because there's very little, economically, that the President can run on. That argument works when things are getting better, but it's a pretty hard sell when things are stagnant or getting worse.
frgsinwntr wrote:I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
As well as the not maths in the image, it also shows up a classic trick of the Lying Fox News Channel, when you have no evidence to support your claim, just talk about how lots of people believe it is true.
The massive email hacks undertaken by industry interests (something no-one seemed to care about) uncovered no evidence of falsified reports, though the media at large pretended otherwise when the story broke. In the wake of this, FOX didn't run any reports pointing out that the scientists came out clean, it just talks about how people believe there was falsified information.
biccat wrote:
The big one, obviously is "you just said that the unemployment rate has gone up since he took office and it hasn't"
Under a reasonable interpretation of the facts, an unemployment rate of 7.6 (January '09) is less than 8.6 today. Even the 8.6% rate we're at today isn't really due to an increase in jobs, instead it's due to a decrease in job seekers. The unemployment data was pretty depressing last month.
There's a valid argument that the situation is worse now than it was in '09, but I think that's a tough argument to make. Essentially the President's argument is "the other guy is worse than I am," because there's very little, economically, that the President can run on. That argument works when things are getting better, but it's a pretty hard sell when things are stagnant or getting worse.
Wait, where in this missive is biccat defending his assertion that the DNC representative lied?
frgsinwntr wrote:I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
As well as the not maths in the image, it also shows up a classic trick of the Lying Fox News Channel, when you have no evidence to support your claim, just talk about how lots of people believe it is true.
The massive email hacks undertaken by industry interests (something no-one seemed to care about) uncovered no evidence of falsified reports, though the media at large pretended otherwise when the story broke. In the wake of this, FOX didn't run any reports pointing out that the scientists came out clean, it just talks about how people believe there was falsified information.
Thats a skill they've mastered... getting peolple to believe lies without saying them
frgsinwntr wrote:I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
As well as the not maths in the image, it also shows up a classic trick of the Lying Fox News Channel, when you have no evidence to support your claim, just talk about how lots of people believe it is true.
The massive email hacks undertaken by industry interests (something no-one seemed to care about) uncovered no evidence of falsified reports, though the media at large pretended otherwise when the story broke. In the wake of this, FOX didn't run any reports pointing out that the scientists came out clean, it just talks about how people believe there was falsified information.
Thats a skill they've mastered... getting peolple to believe lies without saying them
The easiest and cheapest way to lie to the masses is to imply a mistruth without stating it directly. It's legal and the people are too stupid to see whats happening.
frgsinwntr wrote:I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
frgsinwntr wrote:I heard someone miss-speak while someone tries to talk over them, then correct themselves later.
Its like Fox news is infotainment not information... maybe this is why people are worse informed if they watch FOX.... OR it could be the lies are more deviously hidden...
THIS JUST IN! 110% of people have an opinion!
With an error of +10%?....it equals 120
Oh and a there is a detailed explanation on factcheck.org.
Out of curiosity (I know it is not empirical just a funny thing to do) type in fox news on fact checks website 517 listings, msnbc 149. I wonder what the ratio is for fact/error. Those numbers change, I got different numbers the other day but they were in the same ballpark. That is a bit off topic, so on to the OT. If someone misspoke then corrected themselves is it still a lie or an error? Also the wording of the fox reporter was decidedly slanted, is 1% increase really precipitously? I think anyone sitting in the seat across from the reporter would be quick to refute the postition as it was presented.
frgsinwntr wrote:Thats a skill they've mastered... getting peolple to believe lies without saying them
The classic trick is to have one of the pundits comes out and makes some wild claim, like that climate change scientists have been engaged in trickery. It doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to be the kind of thing that can be true or false, it's just opinion. Then the news service picks it up, reporting that there have been lots of talk about trickery in the media, maybe even using the clip from the pundit. The pundit uses the report on the news to back up his claim, it was on real actual news so it must be have some basis in reality. Then the next the news reports on a survey that says lots of people believe it (even if its just a FOX news poll). Then the pundit reports on that to back up his claim, and soon enough you've got an invented factoid out there in the real world.
It'd be a comically stupid two card trick, except that other news carriers will often pick up on the nonsense, happy to cover anything that's contraversial, even if its silly. This allows FOX to avoid looking like they're just reporting on themselves, as they can use select pieces from other media to break up the information loop.
I went to college, came out and couldn't get a job. I work 93 hours week, and get paid $17. I juggle my bills every month to avoid being evicted, or having my utilities cut off. I am the 109%.
I'm not spanish either or latino...not native amercan...not a drop of hispanic blood in me...and if you think I'm mexican then I will tell you I'm from a town outside Madrid, Spain 20 klicks away name El'Narnia
Jihadin wrote:I'm not spanish either or latino...not native amercan...not a drop of hispanic blood in me...and if you think I'm mexican then I will tell you I'm from a town outside Madrid, Spain 20 klicks away name El'Narnia
Thats great. I'm from Texas. Que is as natural dos tequilas!
no silver/gray hair...all my original teeth minus wisdom....I'm 21 then...any younger I can't go out drinking...eventually I go out...just right now I profile people
Jihadin wrote:still waiting for the malmedy one to pop up
Not sure what you mean by this? Clearly you're referring to me since i brought it up before.
Are you saying a standing lie shouldn't be exposed, or we didn't cover it enough? I certainly
stand behind my charge about American heros being defamed and slandered. the proof is there.
Don't be shy if you're trying to say something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:This is becoming ridiculous, I watch CNN and people tell me "dont watch that, its not real news" Then I watch FOX and they same the same thing...
Where the feth am I supposed to get news from?
Well, it's never a good sign for someone to say "tell me what to believe".
You'll have to decide for yourself who/what is the best source for you. facts
are easy enough to check. if you keep finding one source is inaccurate, i'd change.
WARORK93 wrote:This is becoming ridiculous, I watch CNN and people tell me "dont watch that, its not real news" Then I watch FOX and they same the same thing...
Where the feth am I supposed to get news from?
BBC Radio 4.
More seriously, you can watch a variety of sources and compare the differences between them.
Al Jazeera is worth a look, for example, as an alternative to native US channels.
You can also do your own research using resources such as the WHO, CIA Factbook and so on.
WARORK93 wrote:This is becoming ridiculous, I watch CNN and people tell me "dont watch that, its not real news" Then I watch FOX and they same the same thing...
Where the feth am I supposed to get news from?
BBC Radio 4.
Of course not. Pravda, its the only way to be sure.
BBC, Le Monde, NPR, Deutsche Welle. Most of the American news channels have a perspective/some degree of bias, but if you read/listen to the same story from more than one of them, you can usually balance it out and cancel most of the spin. News organizations with the kind of organized and deliberately political and deceitful agenda that Fox News has are thankfully rare.
Mannahnin wrote:BBC, Le Monde, NPR, Deutsche Welle. Most of the American news channels have a perspective/some degree of bias, but if you read/listen to the same story from more than one of them, you can usually balance it out and cancel most of the spin. News organizations with the kind of organized and deliberately political and deceitful agenda that Fox News has are thankfully rare.
This except layer in CNN. Disocunt MSNBC altogether. Add in the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times.
I would add in the economist, as sure they're biased (towards free trade and other libertarian ideals), but they're not so extremely so as some other mags.
Though the economist was originally british, wasn't it?
NCOPD class was on professionalism and self control in a conflict. So when this was brought up imagine our suprise.
Besides I refered to it twice and also mention O'Rielly should have brushed up on it some more
On December 17, 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, German Waffen-SS troops murdered American prisoners in the Malmedy massacre. Word of this spread rapidly among American forces[1], and caused great anger. One American unit issued orders that, "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."[2] In this atmosphere there are claims that American forces murdered German prisoners as retribution.
Author Martin Sorge writes, "It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilty went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."[3][4] An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion (of the 11th Armored Division), of battle near Chenogne describes the killing of German prisoners by American soldiers. "Some of the boys had some prisoners line up. I knew they were going to shoot them, and I hated this business.... They marched the prisoners back up the hill to murder them with the rest of the prisoners we had secured that morning.... As we were going up the hill out of town, I know some of our boys were lining up German prisoners in the fields on both sides of the road. There must have been 25 or 30 German boys in each group. Machine guns were being set up. These boys were to be machine gunned and murdered. We were committing the same crimes we were now accusing the Japs and Germans of doing."[5]
Another witness, Burnett Miller, expressed doubt that the number killed reached 60. Miller writes: "I am not clear on the exact number of victims of this crime. It seems to me that twenty five seems reasonable and I do not recall as many as forty...On the day that the prisoners were shot, some were taken for interrogation as I remember several days later quite a few were turned over to intelligence who were desperate for information."[6] Joseph Cummins also relates the account by Fague regarding the killing of roughly 60 prisoners, but also notes that before the execution of the POWs took place, several Germans including medics waving red-cross flags, were machine-gunned when trying to surrender.[7] Cummins further connects the massacre with the entry made by General Patton in his diary for January 4, 1945: "The Eleventh Armored is very green and took unnecessary losses to no effect. There were also some unfortunate incidents in the shooting of prisoners. I hope we can conceal this."[7]
On the other hand, an official history published by the United States government states that while "it is probable that Germans who attempted to surrender in the days immediately after the 17th ran a greater risk" of being killed than earlier in the year, even so, "there is no evidence... that American troops took advantage of orders, implicit or explicit, to kill their SS prisoners."[2] However, according to George Henry Bennett and referring to the above statement; "The caveat is a little disingenuous", and he proceeds to note that it is likely that the orders to commit murder (given to the 328th Infantry regiment) were carried out, and that other US regiments were likely also given similar orders.[8]
Jihadin wrote:NCOPD class was on professionalism and self control in a conflict. So when this was brought up imagine our suprise.
Besides I refered to it twice and also mention O'Rielly should have brushed up on it some more
On December 17, 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, German Waffen-SS troops murdered American prisoners in the Malmedy massacre. Word of this spread rapidly among American forces[1], and caused great anger. One American unit issued orders that, "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoners but will be shot on sight."[2] In this atmosphere there are claims that American forces murdered German prisoners as retribution.
Author Martin Sorge writes, "It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilty went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."[3][4] An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion (of the 11th Armored Division), of battle near Chenogne describes the killing of German prisoners by American soldiers. "Some of the boys had some prisoners line up. I knew they were going to shoot them, and I hated this business.... They marched the prisoners back up the hill to murder them with the rest of the prisoners we had secured that morning.... As we were going up the hill out of town, I know some of our boys were lining up German prisoners in the fields on both sides of the road. There must have been 25 or 30 German boys in each group. Machine guns were being set up. These boys were to be machine gunned and murdered. We were committing the same crimes we were now accusing the Japs and Germans of doing."[5]
Another witness, Burnett Miller, expressed doubt that the number killed reached 60. Miller writes: "I am not clear on the exact number of victims of this crime. It seems to me that twenty five seems reasonable and I do not recall as many as forty...On the day that the prisoners were shot, some were taken for interrogation as I remember several days later quite a few were turned over to intelligence who were desperate for information."[6] Joseph Cummins also relates the account by Fague regarding the killing of roughly 60 prisoners, but also notes that before the execution of the POWs took place, several Germans including medics waving red-cross flags, were machine-gunned when trying to surrender.[7] Cummins further connects the massacre with the entry made by General Patton in his diary for January 4, 1945: "The Eleventh Armored is very green and took unnecessary losses to no effect. There were also some unfortunate incidents in the shooting of prisoners. I hope we can conceal this."[7]
On the other hand, an official history published by the United States government states that while "it is probable that Germans who attempted to surrender in the days immediately after the 17th ran a greater risk" of being killed than earlier in the year, even so, "there is no evidence... that American troops took advantage of orders, implicit or explicit, to kill their SS prisoners."[2] However, according to George Henry Bennett and referring to the above statement; "The caveat is a little disingenuous", and he proceeds to note that it is likely that the orders to commit murder (given to the 328th Infantry regiment) were carried out, and that other US regiments were likely also given similar orders.[8]
Cool story Bro. Still doesn't change the Fox lie though.
Short version: O'Reilly basically shouted down a (three star?) general, essentially telling him that Americans massacred SS troops at Malmedy. The only problem is that it was the other way around. There was a retraction later (on his next show, is it daily or weekly?), and Fox whitewashed the transcript of the show so that it showed no record of Bill's screw-up.
The ultimate fallout of the event? Oblermann got more scraps to yap about, people who already believed O'Reilly was full of crap continue to do so, people who believed Bill knows what he's talking about pretended not to notice, and somewhere, an O'Reilly show fact checker was likely fired.
A public apology to the general would have been in order, but I don't recall hearing about that happening.
The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show, it's a platform for a political pundit (all of whom are generally loud-mouthed fools who make a living by screaming outrageous things). So while you can use it for examples of how Fox news is biased, it's a bit like going to a strip club and being shocked that the ladies remove their clothing.
There's a plethora of examples of Fox news shenannigans without resorting to their pundits.
He didn't lie he bolo the entire opening by mentioning 82nd with Malmedy. That threw off the generals. He got his facts screwed up. I did know what he was refering to and since most of us in the military after 4 years do can of get into military history.
Short version: O'Reilly basically shouted down a (three star?) general, essentially telling him that Americans massacred SS troops at Malmedy. The only problem is that it was the other way around. There was a retraction later (on his next show, is it daily or weekly?), and Fox whitewashed the transcript of the show so that it showed no record of Bill's screw-up.
The ultimate fallout of the event? Oblermann got more scraps to yap about, people who already believed O'Reilly was full of crap continue to do so, people who believed Bill knows what he's talking about pretended not to notice, and somewhere, an O'Reilly show fact checker was likely fired.
A public apology to the general would have been in order, but I don't recall hearing about that happening.
The O'Reilly Factor isn't a news show, it's a platform for a political pundit (all of whom are generally loud-mouthed fools who make a living by screaming outrageous things). So while you can use it for examples of how Fox news is biased, it's a bit like going to a strip club and being shocked that the ladies remove their clothing.
There's a plethora of examples of Fox news shenannigans without resorting to their pundits.
One thing. The "whitewash" consisted of the LIE. They changed the transcript to him saying 'Normandy' instead of Malmedy.
Still leaving they implication that US troops committed war crimes. And he never apologized, ever. I still think he's an ass. and
i get someone like him misspeaking. He's so full of himself how could he make an error. My problem is with the noncorrection and
changing of the facts to fit the lie.
Melissia wrote:I would add in the economist, as sure they're biased (towards free trade and other libertarian ideals), but they're not so extremely so as some other mags.
Though the economist was originally british, wasn't it?
