Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:

AustonT wrote:

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.

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.

What if they keep up witht heir nefairous ways? What levels of "penalty" are you talking about?

Frazzled wrote:

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

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.

AustonT wrote:

dæl wrote:

AustonT wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Bromsy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

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.

As well as being lyings dicks about everything..

Bromsy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

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.

Whats major legal action?
Why are you people not saying what you want to say?

Frazzled wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

OK those are good. Now where has Fox done that?

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.

dæl wrote:The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?

BBC?

Frazzled wrote:

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:The Daily Mail and the Guardian are tabloids, care to name a news broadcaster that spreads lies as truth?

BBC?

I take it you didn't read the link then?

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that they used di Lauro's photo on purpose

I think the BBC was setup by someone else. Most certainly the "Activist" that sent the photo to the BBC.

The only mistake the BBC made was publishing a picture that they couldn't verify from Syria

What? I was answering the question you aimed a Melissia, "What happens if a news broadcaster continuously states untruthes as fact?".

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.

But MSNBC sux. We can agree on that.

I'm not advocating we do away with Fox, I just wanted to point out that they are full of crap sometimes. Everyone usually is.

And yes, I am pretty serious about my vidjya games.

Bromsy wrote:I'm not advocating we do away with Fox, I just wanted to point out that they are full of crap sometimes. Everyone usually is.

And yes, I am pretty serious about my vidjya games.

It was a pretty asinine clip, I stopped watching and started skipping ahead after they cut off the only guy who actually played the game.

AustonT wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I'm not advocating we do away with Fox, I just wanted to point out that they are full of crap sometimes. Everyone usually is.

And yes, I am pretty serious about my vidjya games.

It was a pretty asinine clip, I stopped watching and started skipping ahead after they cut off the only guy who actually played the game.

I think that segment was carefully constructed in a lab somewhere to press each and every one of my buttons.

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200606030002

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

By the BBC.

Should the BBC be arrested and charged

Sorry Fraz, had you started with the whole "hole punching" thingy yet? I don't seem to see them....