This year a number of employees former and current at Fox news have exposed the corruption and lack of integrity at the supposed "news" channel on top of revelations that Murdoch "owned" (i.e., corrupted) a good chunk of the British government. Here's some of the latest as to what's going on in the USA.
Former Fox Defending Media Critic: Fox News is "rotten to the core"
Fox News' "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday May 30, 2012 aired a scathing review of the first three years of President Barack Obama's term in office, countering his "hope" and "change" motto with a series of "then and now" facts about the national debt, jobless rate, gas prices and more.
It is not a mystery to anyone on the "Ed Show" that Fox News is a political operation pretending to be a News Channel. In fact, we're pretty sure most of the country is aware of that fact. There are, however, a few well-meaning intelligent people in the media who have defended Fox from the assertion that it's a political operation first. The Baltimore Sun's TV critic Dave Zurawik is one of those people. After Fox News aired their 4-minute attack ad aimed at the President this morning (above), Zurawik changed his mind.
But as the guy who challenged the Obama administration two years when it tried to deny Fox News access to interviews and other opportunities offered to the media on the grounds that Fox was not a legitimate news operation, I have to tell you even I am shocked by how blatantly Fox is throwing off any pretense of being a journalistic entity with videos like this. Don't be fooled by Bret Baier's Boy Scout smile or all the talk about how some shows are news and some are opinion on the channel. Any news organization that puts up this kind of video is rotten to the core.
Yet more proof Fox is the spawn of Satan. Don't we have enough evidence already that they need to be shut down, rounded up, and moved out? WIll no one think of the children?!?!?!?!
Frazzled wrote:Yet more proof Fox is the spawn of Satan. Don't we have enough evidence already that they need to be shut down, rounded up, and moved out? WIll no one think of the children?!?!?!?!
Don't forget Fox's slightly slowed kid brother, MSNBC. I say burn em both to the ground and see what new idiocy rises from the ashes like a phoenix. We might even get lucky with some strange two-headed beast where both heads spew hatred into the other. It'd be like a reverse ouroboros.
Joey wrote:Fox is a spectacle. It wouldn't be allowed in the UK by virtue of being fething mental.
have you actually taken a look around your news scene lately?
Yeah.
Anyway I wasn't trying to sound anti-American, many of them are as amazed as I am. I used to watch The Daily Show regularly and Fox came up...a lot.
Joey wrote:Fox is a spectacle. It wouldn't be allowed in the UK by virtue of being fething mental.
have you actually taken a look around your news scene lately?
Yeah.
Anyway I wasn't trying to sound anti-American, many of them are as amazed as I am. I used to watch The Daily Show regularly and Fox came up...a lot.
As long as Fox is around Mr. Stewart will not run out of material.
Joey wrote:Fox is a spectacle. It wouldn't be allowed in the UK by virtue of being fething mental.
have you actually taken a look around your news scene lately?
Yeah.
Anyway I wasn't trying to sound anti-American, many of them are as amazed as I am. I used to watch The Daily Show regularly and Fox came up...a lot.
I think that you are as aware as anyone else that I was not making reference to the BBC. Referring to the BBC as Fox's British counterpart is out and out trolling.
Frazzled wrote:Yet more proof Fox is the spawn of Satan. Don't we have enough evidence already that they need to be shut down, rounded up, and moved out? WIll no one think of the children?!?!?!?!
Yeah, it's a totally measured and reasonable conclusion to draw that any suggestion that a media outfit is biased is a call to censor them. Totally honest debate there, fraz.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote:Wait, there are people who still watch Fox?
And they think its news to boot?
You learn something new every day...
Just like there are people who use check cashing agencies and pawn shops.
And there might even be something of a correlation between those two groups.
And the sleaze from Fox Nuisance just never ceases. They're actually producing negative campaign ad videos of their own, directly involving themselves once again in pushing their Republican agenda.
We all know Fox News is the official mouthpiece of the Republican Party - but this time - they've really outdone themselves. What's that latest propaganda coming out of the network - and when will the American people wise up to GOP TV's real agenda?
LOLZ, Fox is literally producing anti Obama ads. Yeah, they really need a little disclaimer that says, "WARNING: FOX NEWS IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE" or something like that.
More than one study has shown that people who watch Fox Nuisance are less informed of any actual factual information than people who do not watch any news at all. Which is no surprise since they deliberately avoid reporting anything that doesn't fit their agenda and willfully lie as they see fit.
A new study is showing that viewers who watch only Fox News are the least informed people in the country. In fact, the study is showing that those who watch Fox News are more uninformed than those who don’t watch any news at all.
Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University had originally done a study in 2011 that found the exact same statistics. They recently updated the study to find out if they would get the same results nationally that they got in the first study which was only conducted in New Jersey, where the University is located.
The poll interviewed participants about their knowledge of international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and news that is strictly for domestic consumption (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline). The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don’t watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
Then the study found out that those who watched only Fox News fared much worse than the average.
The study found,
“The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.”
MSNBC viewers also did worse than those who watch no news at all but only in the international news section of the study.
Among those who did the best in the study are people who only listened to NPR or watched Sunday morning talk shows or “The Daily Show”
It really is quite a remarkable thing. Murdoch and his new agencies in the UK are shown to directly involve themselves with politicians, in order to score political and personal advantage for Mr Murdoch. And it still seems to be beyond some people's grasp that Murdoch might use an openly partisan news channel in the US for exactly the same purpose.
I love how Fox pisses you lefties off no end. It warms my cold black heart. Its probably how I feel when viewing MSNBC, the New York Times, Pacifica Radio, NBC/ABC news, or the Washington Post. Strangely I still read the Washington Post and NY Times and don't want them banned, with their editors tarred and feathered. Guess you can't take a contrasting opinion...
In other news, recent action photo of Rodney performing his patented flank attack on an animal that wandered onto the back 40.
See the thing is this: all our " news" is really just a business. Sure, individual reporters may care about the integrity of journalism. But as far as the companies go the newscast is just the delivery vehicle to which the advertising gets attached. MSNBCNNFOX don't make money by reporting the news, they make money by selling ads, and in order to sell adds they need solid ratings. FOX realized long ago that the market was under-saturated with news that catered to people with conservative viewpoints, so they took that niche and filled it in order to profit from it.
Does Fox exist to dumb down America or does Fox exist because people want to watch a program that reinforces what they already think is true? Many people watch MSNBC or FOX because they want to know that what they believe is right. The 'news' is simply meeting a demand. They are not here to spread the truth, they are here to make money.
Yeah... over here in my liberty deprived and oppressive regime of a country we actually have a regulatory entity that kind of prevents news outlets like news papers and televisions from passing on blatantly false news and / or propaganda pieces.
If any one of our news stations tried something even remotely like what FOX news does, they would loose their license.
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alarmingrick wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I would think that silly little things like FACTS would make it easier to decide?
Interviewer interviews three people for a job. He asks each one question.
He asks the engineer. “Whats two plus two?”
Engineer breaks out the slide rule (yes its that old of a joke), does some quick calcs and says “4.” Interviewer says thank you and moves on.
He asks the accountant. “Whats two plus two?”
The accountant breaks out their latest FASB rules, checks the debits and credits and says “4.”
Interviewer says thank you and moves on.
He asks the lawyer. “Whats two plus two?”
The lawyer calmly goes over to the window, closes the blinds and quietly asks “how much do you want it to be?”
Interviewer : You’re hired.
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
The use of the discovery by German troops of the Katyn massacre by Stalin to delegitimize the Polish exile government.
Really Frazz, while I agree with you in concept it's a bit of a slippery slope argument to argue that any regulation instantly leads to tyrrany and opression, which you seem to be doing.
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
This or this kind of thing are demonstrably false, one is unreseached and the other fabricated, both are lies.
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
This or this kind of thing are demonstrably false, one is unreseached and the other fabricated, both are lies.
purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.
Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?
Frazzled wrote:Who decides whats a lie or is "inaccurate?"
Thats who decides what they like and don't like.
Absent raw elementary school math everything else is a point of view.
I assume it's if you say something like 'person A is responsible for/has done this' where in reality they aren't/haven't...
Opinion pieces are something else entirely but knowingly reporting false news as facts is pretty damn low...
Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.
I'll categorically give in simple factual catches. However generally FOX (which is the subject of the thread is accused of falsehoods and evil EVIL!!!! all the time, but generally it comes down to opinions not falsehoods.
purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.
Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?
They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...
Frazzled wrote:I'll categorically give in simple factual catches. However generally FOX (which is the subject of the thread is accused of falsehoods and evil EVIL!!!! all the time, but generally it comes down to opinions not falsehoods.
Don't forget Frazz, any opinion right-of-center is factually false.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...
Holy crap, seriously? They get warned, sued, and can lose their license if they merely report on allegations that are later proven to be false?
I suspect crime reporting is virtually nonexistent then.
purplefood wrote:Taking an example from a newspaper in Britain (The Daily Mail)
They 'reported' a story where a Labour MP supposedly changed something concerning rubbish collection or similar which involved spending a large sum of money.
This was untrue. It hadn't happened. It was false. It was presented as the truth.
Would reporting allegations that are later proven to be false be in violation of the law?
No as they are ALLEGATIONS, reporting it as fact that it did occur rather than it is alleged to have occurred should be illegal.
purplefood wrote:They may be brought to account for it (Ofcom would warn them and there may be a possible slander suit depending on how bad it is) and there may be further knocks from loss of advertising but it's unlikely they'd lose their licence unless they did it repeatedly...
Holy crap, seriously? They get warned, sued, and can lose their license if they merely report on allegations that are later proven to be false?
I suspect crime reporting is virtually nonexistent then.
That is why you have to say allegedly, otherwise you kind of fail on the innocent until proven guilty thing.
Here, we have Fox News claiming that Diane Sawyer's first question to Romney was about him having his dog ride on the roof of his car.
Quote: "That was her first question. Not how are you going to create jobs? What is going wrong? How will you turn things around? It was why did you let your dog ride on the roof of the car?"
Things that were asked about before the dog came up (keep in mind many topics had multiple questions): Basic Nominee questions (how does it feel? etc) Romney's Tax Returns Relatability Issues Tax Reform HUD Equal Pay for Women Abortion War in Afghanistan Ann Romney's connection to women's issues
Joey wrote:Fox is a spectacle. It wouldn't be allowed in the UK by virtue of being fething mental.
What exactly are we calling Sky News then?
Davylove21 wrote:
Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.
There really isn't.
You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.
Frazzled wrote:I love how Fox pisses you lefties off no end. It warms my cold black heart. Its probably how I feel when viewing MSNBC, the New York Times, Pacifica Radio, NBC/ABC news, or the Washington Post. Strangely I still read the Washington Post and NY Times and don't want them banned, with their editors tarred and feathered. Guess you can't take a contrasting opinion...
It also warms the cockles of my heart, almost as much as posting how much you hate Fox for it's lack of integrity and post clips from bastions of journalistic integrity like Russia Today. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Really Frazz, while I agree with you in concept it's a bit of a slippery slope argument to argue that any regulation instantly leads to tyranny and oppression, which you seem to be doing.
Did you really attempt to use an April Fool's hoax as an example of fake news? If that's the direction you wanted to go why not go all the way?
http://www.theonion.com/ Not real news you say? That's kind of the point isn't it.
Here, we have Fox News claiming that Diane Sawyer's first question to Romney was about him having his dog ride on the roof of his car.
Quote: "That was her first question. Not how are you going to create jobs? What is going wrong? How will you turn things around? It was why did you let your dog ride on the roof of the car?"
Things that were asked about before the dog came up (keep in mind many topics had multiple questions):
Basic Nominee questions (how does it feel? etc)
Romney's Tax Returns
Relatability Issues
Tax Reform
HUD
Equal Pay for Women
Abortion
War in Afghanistan
Ann Romney's connection to women's issues
And, then, after all that, the dog is brought up.
Fox News presented an absolute lie.
Wait really? Thats all you've ing got? What a pussy.
Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.
There really isn't.
You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.
The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?
Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.
There really isn't.
You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.
The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?
My mistake I thought both were broadsheets.
You live there why don't you tell me.
That would be Fox straight up lying either through ignorance or whatever.... As well as completely ignoring the one person who knows what the F he is talking about.
Melissia wrote:Yes, there's definitely some brit crapola that's as bad as FOX.
There really isn't.
You live in a fantasy world where the Guardian, Daily Mail, and not to mention the tabloids like say the Daily Mirror are all
a. crap
and
b. in Britain
that's just keeping it to print/internet psudeo print publications.
The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?
My mistake I thought both were broadsheets.
You live there why don't you tell me.
I only watch BBC or C4 news and they are spot on, there was a bit of a thing about bbc journos doing their research on wikipedia a while back though, and there have been incidents where they haven't reported certain stories, but they don't knowingly present fiction as fact. I can't imagine Sky is unbiased as it's Murdoch owned, but I've never watched it, seems a bit sensationalist from its adverts though. ITV, well if you can spell your own name, you shouldn't be watching ITV anyway.
That would be Fox straight up lying either through ignorance or whatever.... As well as completely ignoring the one person who knows what the F he is talking about.
It's also a talk show format.
Edit: That doesn't stop it from being aggravatingly biased but that wasn't news, that was people discussing the news.
That would be Fox straight up lying either through ignorance or whatever.... As well as completely ignoring the one person who knows what the F he is talking about.
I'm not watching that for 6.4 minutes at work. Whats the allegation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What if they keep up witht heir nefairous ways?
Are you suggesting that society stop punishing criminals who break the law just because they keep doing it?
Fraz, I don't know you any more.
Answer the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:As well as being lyings dicks about everything..
And hence subject to the provolone beatdown right? You make my case so easy.
That would be Fox straight up lying either through ignorance or whatever.... As well as completely ignoring the one person who knows what the F he is talking about.
I'm not watching that for 6.4 minutes at work. Whats the allegation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What if they keep up witht heir nefairous ways?
Are you suggesting that society stop punishing criminals who break the law just because they keep doing it?
Fraz, I don't know you any more.
Answer the question.
If they continue to break the law they should face major legal action like anyone else, duh.
That would be Fox straight up lying either through ignorance or whatever.... As well as completely ignoring the one person who knows what the F he is talking about.
I'm not watching that for 6.4 minutes at work. Whats the allegation?
They read the byline for a story and MS' response. The overall claim was Mass Effect had "full digital nudity" and the player could direct the scene by scene sex. The Spike TV guy told them it was graphic for 2 minutes in a 30 hour game. His feed was cut and they proceeded to talk about how evil ME was for 5 minutes and how it demeaned women and made little boys sex crazed maniacs.
What are you talking about? What do I (as a citizen of the UK who has no stake in american politics and does not give a flying feth) want to say Frazz?
And Fox should be ended because of that? Come on i expected better than this petty gak. By this standard ABC, NBC, and CNN should be off the air because they all said "automatic" for "semi" automatic and used that mistake as an argument for more gun laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote:What are you talking about? What do I (as a citizen of the UK who has no stake in american politics and does not give a flying feth) want to say Frazz?
You said subject to legal action. What legal action do you want them subject to? What penalty.
Corpsesarefun wrote:What are you talking about? What do I (as a citizen of the UK who has no stake in american politics and does not give a flying feth) want to say Frazz?
You said subject to legal action. What legal action do you want them subject to? What penalty.
Well start with warning and fines, if they continue then you up the fines and eventually start making arrests. In the UK if there is a scandal those responsible tend to step down politely rather than kick up a fuss so often the arrests aren't needed.
Corpsesarefun wrote:What are you talking about? What do I (as a citizen of the UK who has no stake in american politics and does not give a flying feth) want to say Frazz?
You said subject to legal action. What legal action do you want them subject to? What penalty.
Well start with warning and fines, if they continue then you up the fines and eventually start making arrests. In the UK if there is a scandal those responsible tend to step down politely rather than kick up a fuss so often the arrests aren't needed.
I like that. Kill a network because they had a biased discussion about nudity in a video game. Yes Fox is evil. EVILLLL!!!!
Alternatively you guys are serious about your video games.
Frazzled wrote:I love how Fox pisses you lefties off no end. It warms my cold black heart. Its probably how I feel when viewing MSNBC, the New York Times, Pacifica Radio, NBC/ABC news, or the Washington Post. Strangely I still read the Washington Post and NY Times and don't want them banned, with their editors tarred and feathered. Guess you can't take a contrasting opinion...
In other news, recent action photo of Rodney performing his patented flank attack on an animal that wandered onto the back 40.
The NY Times, NBC/ABC and Washington Post aren't even as close to as bad as Fox. Do you understand the difference between having some educated left wing writers and actually taking a side on the issue and making ads that support your stances while still claiming to be 'fair and balanced'? Because its a pretty big one.
dæl wrote:I take it you didn't read the link then?
I did, in fact. BBC reported false facts as if they were true. Sounds like they should be subject to criminal liability. Maybe arrest some journalists.
Or are you saying only deliberate falsehoods are (or should be) punishable? That is, the person communicating the falsehood has to know that it's not true, or demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the matter.
dæl wrote:I take it you didn't read the link then?
I did, in fact. BBC reported false facts as if they were true. Sounds like they should be subject to criminal liability. Maybe arrest some journalists.
Or are you saying only deliberate falsehoods are (or should be) punishable? That is, the person communicating the falsehood has to know that it's not true, or demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of the matter.
They didn't report anything, they used a photo which they specifically noted was unverified, they didn't base a story or even a part of a story on the contents of the photograph, and once informed of the legitimacy of the photograph it was taken down. So where is the falsehood exactly? They should have researched and verified the photograph and the contributor, but calling for the arrest of a journalist (who would have been nowhere near this, they write, editors compile with photos) is absolute stupidity.
Corpsesarefun wrote:What? I was answering the question you aimed a Melissia, "What happens if a news broadcaster continuously states untruthes as fact?".
Yes and I am answering as this is pretty much the level of "factual" mistatement being argued. Run Corpse you're getting friendly fire! Collateral Damage. Run!
dæl wrote:They didn't report anything, they used a photo which they specifically noted was unverified, they didn't base a story or even a part of a story on the contents of the photograph, and once informed of the legitimacy of the photograph it was taken down. So where is the falsehood exactly?
They associated a photograph with the event to make it seem worse than it actually was. They presented the photograph as a depiction of the event and as substantiating evidence of the event.
That's a falsehood.
dæl wrote:calling for the arrest of a journalist is absolute stupidity.
Agreed. Whether it's Fox, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, or whatever, arresting journalists for reporting on stories that are not wholly truthful is absolute stupidity.
Frazzled wrote: Define false news. Define an instance where news has been false other than simple math. I'll proffer I or someone else can punch holes in it. (ok by simple math I will upfront say m,ea culpa and say things like "gravity" are pretty non partisan.)
You're not going to like this. I might even anger others due to the numerous beating I've given this dead horse.
But, you did ask for it. Malmedy. Period.
Yes, it's Media Matters. But please tell me the part of the Olberman story that's not true?
I bet you can spot Oreally's pretty easy. And then Fox changes the transcript to cover his lie.
Oreally lied, and Fox did the same to cover him.
dæl wrote:They didn't report anything, they used a photo which they specifically noted was unverified, they didn't base a story or even a part of a story on the contents of the photograph, and once informed of the legitimacy of the photograph it was taken down. So where is the falsehood exactly?
They associated a photograph with the event to make it seem worse than it actually was. They presented the photograph as a depiction of the event and as substantiating evidence of the event.
That's a falsehood.
dæl wrote:calling for the arrest of a journalist is absolute stupidity.
Agreed. Whether it's Fox, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, or whatever, arresting journalists for reporting on stories that are not wholly truthful is absolute stupidity.
They presented a photograph they said was unverified, if they had said this is a photo of what happened, then that would have been, rightly, illegal. They marked the photo as unverified, therefore they didn't break the law, they could have done more to verify it but they didn't present it as an absolute truth. Journalism is a position of power, if someone is presenting fiction as fact, or wilfully taking statements out of context to make the message different, then they deserve to be arrested and charged. Look at how many children were put at risk, and still are, because of how the media reported the MMR scare.
dæl wrote:They presented a photograph they said was unverified, if they had said this is a photo of what happened, then that would have been, rightly, illegal.
They intended to convey a message by including the photograph. If they didn't want the photograph to convey anything, they shouldn't have included it with the story.
dæl wrote:Journalism is a position of power, if someone is presenting fiction as fact, or wilfully taking statements out of context to make the message different, then they deserve to be arrested and charged
Like the BBC.
dæl wrote:Look at how many children were put at risk, and still are, because of how the media reported the MMR scare.
alarmingrick wrote:Sorry Fraz, had you started with the whole "hole punching" thingy yet? I don't seem to see them....
You're right. I haven't. I been flummoxed by mispeaking abouta video game = Great Satan of All Mankind that everyone keeps talking about.
Fox has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
ABC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
NBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CBS has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CNN has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
MSNBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
alarmingrick wrote:Sorry Fraz, had you started with the whole "hole punching" thingy yet? I don't seem to see them....
You're right. I haven't. I been flummoxed by mispeaking abouta video game = Great Satan of All Mankind that everyone keeps talking about.
Fox has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
ABC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
NBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CBS has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CNN has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
MSNBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
But Fox is demon enfused Horus...er ok...???
So in short you're saying "You're right Rick. That is an example of the name brand (trying horriblely) to cover an opionn(dick)head's misspeaking.
And by doing so, they DID lie." Glad you could say that.
You don't seem to be grasping the difference between presenting alleged facts as alleged facts, and presenting alleged facts as absolute truths. Read the MMR report, it's language is that of "Child vaccine linked to autism" and states that "more research is needed", and then when things come to light presents this, which is of comparable size. This is not saying MMR causes Autism, and then barely covered the redaction. They reported a piece of research, and then reported when it was proved wrong, so no the BBC should not be arrested, but the doctor involved should be struck off, as he was responsible for misleading the public not those who reported his research.
alarmingrick wrote:Sorry Fraz, had you started with the whole "hole punching" thingy yet? I don't seem to see them....
You're right. I haven't. I been flummoxed by mispeaking abouta video game = Great Satan of All Mankind that everyone keeps talking about.
Fox has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
ABC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
NBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CBS has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
CNN has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
MSNBC has hard news. Then they have their little talky talky circles. Then they have their opinion page guys with their little talky talky circles.
But Fox is demon enfused Horus...er ok...???
So in short you're saying "You're right Rick. That is an example of the name brand (trying horriblely) to cover an opionn(dick)head's misspeaking.
And by doing so, they DID lie." Glad you could say that.
NO.
I'm saying its such a minor thing I couldn't be arsed to research it. I thought someone was going to actually bring up something material.
Should NBC be dissolved for playing the the Zimmerman 911 call?
Should CBS be dissolved for its false report about Bush on the eve of the election?
SHould MSNBC be dissolved for having Al Sharpton on its program?
Should the NY Times be dissolved for peddling unfounded rumors about McCain having an affair?
Should ABC be dissolved for not reporting the Edwards craziness earlier?
Frazzled wrote:I'm saying its such a minor thing I couldn't be arsed to research it. I thought someone was going to actually bring up something material.
Why halfass it? Either jump in or stay out. If it's too much of a hassle to read replies and linked stories, stfu.
Frazzled wrote:I'm saying its such a minor thing I couldn't be arsed to research it. I thought someone was going to actually bring up something material.
Why halfass it? Either jump in or stay out. If it's too much of a hassle to read replies and linked stories, stfu.
I'm not the one saying you should shut down the network, evidently over a video game
If the argument gets gets too close to you accepting you're wrong simple belittle the opposing argument with tangentially related examples, Frazz style.
Here, we have Fox News claiming that Diane Sawyer's first question to Romney was about him having his dog ride on the roof of his car.
Quote: "That was her first question. Not how are you going to create jobs? What is going wrong? How will you turn things around? It was why did you let your dog ride on the roof of the car?"
Things that were asked about before the dog came up (keep in mind many topics had multiple questions):
Basic Nominee questions (how does it feel? etc)
Romney's Tax Returns
Relatability Issues
Tax Reform
HUD
Equal Pay for Women
Abortion
War in Afghanistan
Ann Romney's connection to women's issues
And, then, after all that, the dog is brought up.
Fox News presented an absolute lie.
Wait really? Thats all you've ing got? What a pussy.
Every time I ready one of your posts my opinion of you guys down 1 point. It is currently at negative 674.
It IS the current law.
ing got? What a pussy.
