PDA

View Full Version : FOX gets busted again



ljb5
11-18-2009, 08:21 PM
FOX News ran a segment about Sarah Palin's book tour.

They said she's drawing big crowds. So big, apparently, that they had to use footage of her campaign appearances last year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNheD4DGr8) to illustrate it.

You might think they were just using stock footage, except that the the reporter said she was "continuing to draw huge crowds" and described the video footage as "some of the pictures just coming in to us."

Paul Pless
11-18-2009, 08:46 PM
Wow

elf
11-18-2009, 09:15 PM
anybody here surprised?

Bob Adams
11-18-2009, 09:15 PM
Who cares?

ljb5
11-18-2009, 09:30 PM
Who cares?

Seems to me that FOX and their viewers ought to care.

Phillip Allen
11-18-2009, 09:38 PM
It’s just a variation of National Enquirer. I don’t pay any attention to them, neither should you…



(palin…) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdcQ56OpxNE&feature=related :)

ccmanuals
11-18-2009, 10:11 PM
Oooo, the Daily Show is going to be fun tonight :)

ripley699
11-18-2009, 10:29 PM
So What !! Why do you care ? why should I ?

R

rbgarr
11-18-2009, 10:36 PM
But it was 'inadvertant'!

(I don't think that word means what they think it means...)

jclays
11-18-2009, 10:39 PM
No different than Newsweak using the Palin photos from Runner's world magazine. Its all about viewers,readers and ratings. They all do it. Look at the mainstream national news. Same stuff. It sells. Not even worth working up a lather over.

ljb5
11-18-2009, 11:25 PM
No different than Newsweak using the Palin photos from Runner's world magazine.


It's very different. :rolleyes:

They showed video from one event but said it was a different event.

How is that even remotely the same?

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 11:41 PM
No different than Newsweek using the Palin photos from Runner's World magazine.Very different. One is tacky, the other is deceptive.

jclays
11-18-2009, 11:48 PM
The motive is still the same. Viewer ship and readers. Its a business. Same same...

pefjr
11-18-2009, 11:51 PM
Seems to me that FOX and their viewers ought to care.You may be the only one.:D

Keith Wilson
11-18-2009, 11:57 PM
The motive is still the same. Viewer ship and readers. Its a business. Same same...Sure. The motive behind selling tacky pictures is often the same as the motive behind fraud; to make money. That doesn't make the acts the same. One is questionable taste, the other is deception.

perldog007
11-18-2009, 11:58 PM
Oooo, the Daily Show is going to be fun tonight :)

Well it was pretty good. Somebody said palin and this happened... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdcQ56OpxNE

The Lou Dobbs interview was primo.

jclays
11-19-2009, 12:05 AM
Sure. The motive behind selling tacky pictures is often the same as the motive behind fraud; to make money. That doesn't make the acts the same. One is questionable taste, the other is deception.

The end result for both companies $$$$$$. $ame.

ljb5
11-19-2009, 12:26 AM
The end result for both companies $$$$$$. $ame.

Wow. Are you really that stupid? Yes, the end result is the same, but that doesn't justify deception.

Some people work hard to make a living, others rob banks. The end result is the same, but that doesn't make it okay!

Canoeyawl
11-19-2009, 12:51 AM
Palin / Pavlov -2012
(that should get them drooling)

john welsford
11-19-2009, 12:57 AM
This is really in your own hands. A while back a local radio station here in NZ had ambitions of becoming the local stars, and greatly exaggerated a number of reports pushing relatively mild things into appearing to be real scandals. A small group of people who found this offensive began writing to the stations advertisers saying that while they advertised on that station they would refrain from purchasing their goods.
They were back in their box in just a couple of weeks.
It does not take much.

JohnW

perldog007
11-19-2009, 01:09 AM
This is really in your own hands. A while back a local radio station here in NZ had ambitions of becoming the local stars, and greatly exaggerated a number of reports pushing relatively mild things into appearing to be real scandals. A small group of people who found this offensive began writing to the stations advertisers saying that while they advertised on that station they would refrain from purchasing their goods.
They were back in their box in just a couple of weeks.
It does not take much.

JohnW

In the u.s. cable news world, such a campaign might not work - Fox kills the other cable channels in ratings. IF cable news viewers start writing advertisers it might have a chilling effect on Fox's competitors. The FOX network are already the local stars.

RodB
11-19-2009, 01:23 AM
It’s just a variation of National Enquirer. I don’t pay any attention to them, neither should you

You guys are so out of touch with reality... and cannot even listen to any source of news that you feel philosophically opposed to. Additionally, you instantly believe any negative comments about Fox without a moments hesitation.

I see half truths and incredible bias watching CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC... etc, etc.

Fox news ran several clips tonight on Sarah Palin at one of her first book signings... people in line, some interviewed... .had waited for hours to be sure to see her. It was today... this evening... not during the campaign. She was shown thanking a crowd for coming to see her and suggested it would be a change for folks to read her side of things without the filter of the left wing press. What a bunch of horse hocky you guys spew.

Perhaps some other clip was run by mistake, but I sure didn't see it this evening.

The reason Fox is leading the other news channels is because people have realized they can get all the news there, not just things that are positive for the Obama administration.

Whats really amazing to me is that you folks really believe the BS you spout here... jeesh!!

Have a nice hate filled day... as usual...


This is really in your own hands. A while back a local radio station here in NZ had ambitions of becoming the local stars, and greatly exaggerated a number of reports pushing relatively mild things into appearing to be real scandals. A small group of people who found this offensive began writing to the stations advertisers saying that while they advertised on that station they would refrain from purchasing their goods.
They were back in their box in just a couple of weeks.
It does not take much.

John W... don't believe everything you read on this left wing forum... many here are incapable of being fair minded when it comes to politics...

RodB

ljb5
11-19-2009, 01:28 AM
Perhaps some other clip was run by mistake, but I sure didn't see it this evening.

Whaddaya mean "perhaps"??!

I posted a link. You didn't see it?

RodB
11-19-2009, 01:36 AM
Those were obviously clips from the campaign... from 7pm till 11pm only video of Palin at her book signing were shown... I am quite certain there were no clips of Palin at a book signing when that was shown... because that was earlier in the day before Palin's book signing even began...

Sometimes it takes a bit of common sense to figure out whats going on and when... and anyone who knows anything about the campaign would recognize clips of same... from the past. I think they simply did not have any footage of her at the book signing yet... and wanted to show her in a crowd... so they used closeups of what they had... you know "file footage" as most news agencies do in a pinch .... It most likely came down to reporting of the crowds at the book signing before they had any footage of the event... no conspiracy just the essence of the news trying to be shown.

Later on they showed plenty of her with a large crowd outside and inside of the book signing venue... Since you hate Fox News, you will obviously take the lowest common denominator as your take on their motives and behavior. .. making a mountain out of a molehill.

R

Pugwash
11-19-2009, 06:19 AM
I know how much the right hate Wiki, but this might be a good place for Hannity & Beck et al. to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

:rolleyes:

Chris Coose
11-19-2009, 06:37 AM
Rod has come to believe that what Fox does on cable TV is called news.

McMike
11-19-2009, 07:27 AM
Perhaps some other clip was run by mistake, but I sure didn't see it this evening.


RodB


They know which file their pulling the footage from, if it says "Palin_9-23-08" then it wasnít from the book signing yesterday. Itís not rocket science, but it is their job.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 08:09 AM
You guys are so out of touch with reality... and cannot even listen to any source of news that you feel philosophically opposed to. Additionally, you instantly believe any negative comments about Fox without a moments hesitation.

I see half truths and incredible bias watching CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC... etc, etc.

Fox news ran several clips tonight on Sarah Palin at one of her first book signings... people in line, some interviewed... .had waited for hours to be sure to see her. It was today... this evening... not during the campaign. She was shown thanking a crowd for coming to see her and suggested it would be a change for folks to read her side of things without the filter of the left wing press. What a bunch of horse hocky you guys spew.

Perhaps some other clip was run by mistake, but I sure didn't see it this evening.

The reason Fox is leading the other news channels is because people have realized they can get all the news there, not just things that are positive for the Obama administration.

Whats really amazing to me is that you folks really believe the BS you spout here... jeesh!!

Have a nice hate filled day... as usual...



John W... don't believe everything you read on this left wing forum... many here are incapable of being fair minded when it comes to politics...

RodB

I tend to agree...they've been conditioned to leap out of the pond at certain trigger words and phrases

elf
11-19-2009, 08:27 AM
sex. marriage.

Talk about leaping out of the pond. Or maybe it's the trousers things are leaping out of.

Gimme a break. The cite from the first post is for the Fox channel live broadcast from a Palin book signing event. The "reporter" said "coming over the wire right now" and the clips from the campaign last fall then ran.

A number of possible things could have been going on there.

1. Fox didn't have footage, and the script by the reporter was set, so someone dug out some footage that would support the script.

In that case the reporter needed to be tipped off that the footage didn't actually show what he was saying and that he needed to mention that onair while the footage was running. Or, the graphics department needed to prepare a supertitle pointing out that the footage was from an earlier date.

Neither occurred.

That, by itself, is deceptive, whatever assumptions Fox might make about how its audience would understand what they were seeing. Assumptions don't make truthful reportage.

2. Fox knew what Rod pointed out - that the book signing hadn't started yet, so the mob scenes they'd scripted for weren't going to be available. In fact, before the interviews with the man and the young woman, the interviewer said that the people had been waiting for many hours and the book signing hadn't started yet.

So Fox actually made a deliberate decision to run the campaign footage to accompany the script. And they decided to do that without a disclaimer, as well.

Not to repeat myself, but that, by itself, is deceptive, whatever assumptions Fox might make about how its audience would understand what they were seeing. Assumptions don't make truthful reportage.

The sad part is that Rod actually can't deal with it.

htom
11-19-2009, 09:44 AM
The only thing surprising is the liberal's outrage at pictorial inaccuracy.

jclays
11-19-2009, 09:55 AM
Wow. Are you really that stupid? Yes, the end result is the same, but that doesn't justify deception.

Some people work hard to make a living, others rob banks. The end result is the same, but that doesn't make it okay!
Easy big boy.. Dont need to get your panties in a bunch. I never said that it was OK but that is how the media is. All of them. Do you think News week didnt have some sort of agenda which in it self is a form of deception. They arent known to shoot the straightest either.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 09:57 AM
The only thing surprising is the liberal's outrage at pictorial inaccuracy.

yes...I remember the Nixon-Kennedy depates

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 09:59 AM
Easy big boy.. Dont need to get your panties in a bunch. I never said that it was OK but that is how the media is. All of them. Do you think News week didnt have some sort of agenda which in it self is a form of deception. They arent known to shoot the straightest either.

it's only outragious when the "other" side does it :)

L.W. Baxter
11-19-2009, 10:00 AM
I hope that Fox news continues to sell their integrity so cheaply.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 10:12 AM
I hope that Fox news continues to sell their integrity so cheaply.

I hope they ALL do so...we need a rebellion against media manipulation of the weak minded from BOTH sides of the political spectrum

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 10:27 AM
The difference, Phillip, is that when the 'other side' does it, they fess up and issue a retraction. A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow ran an inappropriate clip associated with a story... and the very FIRST thing she did, on her next show, was to issue a retraction and apologize. When Dylan Rattigan ran some photoshopped photos of Sarah Palin the other day, on his very next show, he issued a retraction and apologized.... neither one of them needed Jon Stewart to make it enough of an issue to retract, as Sean Hannity did, regarding the wrong footage of a teabagger rally.

no, Norman the "other" side does not fess up necessairly...they (like all sides) take the view that if they don't get caught then it didn't happen...try not to be blinded by your agenda and bias...I'm not trying to insult you but it shows from where I stand and I doubt you can see it yourself

TomF
11-19-2009, 10:33 AM
It's not uncommon for the news stations I watch (CBC, BBC etc.) to air dated footage to illustrate a current news story - say, a picture of Iran's president, or Vladimir Putin talking somewhere, illustrating a story about them. I've seen the same footage of Kim Il Jong many times.

I can't think of a single case, though, where the footage hasn't had an onscreen disclaimer (e.g. "file footage") the whole time such were being aired. For truthfulness' sake, so the viewers know exactly what's going on.

I find it absolutely astonishing that Fox didn't run such a disclaimer, and even more astonishing that some think one shouldn't be necessary. It's basic journalistic ethics.

As to comments that "both sides" do this - I'd be very pleased to see something that validates this claim. A single example of one of Fox's network competitors broadcasting old stock footage without a disclaimer ... in a situation where doing so gives an obvious boost to their political point of view. I don't think you'll find one.

katiedobe
11-19-2009, 10:44 AM
Man the evil rightwingers are still mad that they lost.
Wow. I am so glad I don't live up there with you crazy folks anymore.
Much saner down here.

Oh yeah, FOX NEWS LIES!!!

Rick-Mi
11-19-2009, 10:44 AM
Much to do about nothing......


BTW the opening day of Palin's book tour in my state created quite a buzz with no need for help from the MM. Big crowds showed up in the dark and waited in line for hours just to get a wrist band making them eligible for an autographed book and a chaotic wait before the signing event itself.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-palin,0,6574472.story

It is also interesting to note that Oprah's ratings were the highest in two years with the appearance of Sarah Palin on her show.


.

ljb5
11-19-2009, 10:45 AM
I am quite certain there were no clips of Palin at a book signing when that was shown... because that was earlier in the day before Palin's book signing even began...

If it hadn't happened yet, they shouldn't have said it did.


I think they simply did not have any footage of her at the book signing yet... and wanted to show her in a crowd...

We know why they did it, but that doesn't make it okay.

A journalists job is to show what actually happens, not what they wanted to show happen.

The fact that they wanted to show her in a crowd indicates bias. The fact that they switched the video to do it indicates dishonesty.


... no conspiracy just the essence of the news trying to be shown.

The "essence of the news" is to report stuff that actually happens.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 10:47 AM
It's not uncommon for the news stations I watch (CBC, BBC etc.) to air dated footage to illustrate a current news story - say, a picture of Iran's president, or Vladimir Putin talking somewhere, illustrating a story about them. I've seen the same footage of Kim Il Jong many times.

I can't think of a single case, though, where the footage hasn't had an onscreen disclaimer (e.g. "file footage") the whole time such were being aired. For truthfulness' sake, so the viewers know exactly what's going on.

I find it absolutely astonishing that Fox didn't run such a disclaimer, and even more astonishing that some think one shouldn't be necessary. It's basic journalistic ethics.

As to comments that "both sides" do this - I'd be very pleased to see something that validates this claim. A single example of one of Fox's network competitors broadcasting old stock footage without a disclaimer ... in a situation where doing so gives an obvious boost to their political point of view. I don't think you'll find one.

I'm not even gonna make an attempt...I don't keep these things on file and I'd bet you don't either

I am struck by the apparent belief that "your" side is somehow different from other politicians...that sounds, at best, nieve

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 10:58 AM
It doesn't involve showing old footage to validate a point of view, but it is essentially the same activity.

CBS/Mary Mapes/Dan Rather/60 Minutes/Killian Documents

Showing falsified forged documents, claiming they had been authenticated by experts, and knowing all along they were fakes. All designed to derail Bush's 2004 reelection.

ell jay will be along directly to quibble over minutia

perldog007
11-19-2009, 11:12 AM
As to comments that "both sides" do this - I'd be very pleased to see something that validates this claim. A single example of one of Fox's network competitors broadcasting old stock footage without a disclaimer ... in a situation where doing so gives an obvious boost to their political point of view. I don't think you'll find one.


If it hadn't happened yet, they shouldn't have said it did.


We know why they did it, but that doesn't make it okay.

A journalists job is to show what actually happens, not what they wanted to show happen.

The "essence of the news" is to report stuff that actually happens.


It doesn't involve showing old footage to validate a point of view, but it is essentially the same activity.

......



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6-z2x4kK9c
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/20/gun-rights-group-calls-out-msnbc-claiming-gun-carrying-protesters-raci

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UIYXVosK1U



No need to troll in this pond. Just lean over the gunwale and whisper "Palin" and the sky is filled with leaping lefties.




(palin...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdcQ56OpxNE&feature=related :)


ell jay will be along directly to quibble over minutia

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 11:21 AM
yes, I knew about the Phonix lie but I won't wrestle in the mud with the left wing-nut inhabitants of this sty...(they are much better at throwing mud than I am...)

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 11:23 AM
Norman, check out the three llinks above (post #45) and get back to us please...

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 11:26 AM
As to comments that "both sides" do this - I'd be very pleased to see something that validates this claim. A single example of one of Fox's network competitors broadcasting old stock footage without a disclaimer ... in a situation where doing so gives an obvious boost to their political point of view. I don't think you'll find one.

Hey Tom...are you feeling pleased yet? (or have you looked at the links in post #45 yet?)

rbgarr
11-19-2009, 11:39 AM
The clips about the guy carrying the guns to the public meeting were real photos of a person who actually did that at that meeting at the time the video was taken. The opinions about possible racism (or even insistence on it) were just that: opinions, not 'lies'.

Nor is it inconceivable that there are blacks who are considered racist against blacks either. Bill Cosby has been accused of it by other blacks. It's a, wait for it... opinion!

The Fox report about Palin's book signing showed video about Palin in crowds that claimed it was 'pictures just coming in'. That claim was (in fact) untrue.

The difference between fact and opinion is so obvious that it's amazing it has to be pointed out as one that's important to understand.

TomF
11-19-2009, 11:46 AM
Dan Rather got busted, and his career ruined... deservedly so. You won't find me defending him.Ditto. Rather lost his career and his credibility even among Liberals for that breach of ethics ... what has Fox lost, with its audience?

Not much that I can see.

TomF
11-19-2009, 12:04 PM
Hey Tom...are you feeling pleased yet? (or have you looked at the links in post #45 yet?)I looked at the text one - viewing YouTube will have to wait 'till I'm at my home computer.

So MSNBC claimed that there were racial overtones to an anti-Obama rally where many (legally) carried guns? Claimed that the rally was mostly white guys? Yet they interviewed and got video footage of a black guy, and didn't point out he was black, and "selectively edited" the video to disguise his race?

If that was why they edited the video - then I absolutely agree it was a breach. The folks who did the editing, and who ordered it, should be busted.

OTOH, what were the proportions of black/white in the crowd? Has anyone said that they weren't mostly white guys? What kind of signs were they carrying, or slogans were they shouting? Anything dramatically different from the Obama = Nazi or Obama = The Joker we've seen in previous rallies?

I think the video footage was prolly chosen to show a guy carrying a particularly wow-worthy weapon ... something that looked scarier and more militaristic than a "normal" firearm ... Trying to scare the viewers with something more sensational. If they changed the picture to make the guy seem white ... that's over the top. If they cropped it to show the guy only from the back ...

perldog007
11-19-2009, 12:10 PM
The clips about the guy carrying the guns to the public meeting were real photos of a person who actually did that at that meeting at the time the video was taken. The opinions about possible racism (or even insistence on it) were just that: opinions, not 'lies'.

No Sir, please watch the clip again. MSNBC shows the tight shot of the black man, and the reporter says "Here we have white people..."


...... That claim was (in fact) untrue.

. There can be no defense, and to be clear - it's not posted as a defense of FOX.. Just to illustrate the point that media bias is pervasive.

Subjectively, IMO there seems to be a contingent here - that to the newcomer like me who watches MSNBC and FOX - only has a problem with the FOX view of the world, admittedly slanted right. They will pillory fox for any perceived bias and fall all over themselves spinning the truth for their favorite spin machine.



The Fox report about Palin's book signing showed video about Palin in crowds that claimed it was 'pictures just coming in'. That claim was (in fact) untrue.

Those pictures were just coming to Brett's show, he didn't say they were just coming in from the field to the network. There were crowds at the book signings. It was footage of crowds being drawn by Palin.

Does the clip portray bias? Of course it does. Fox has a conservative editorial slant. Reverses, Editing, and selective reporting of fact to support network views have been with us since television was introduced.

To pretend that only one side of the political spectrum engages in it is patently dishonest. Or totally ignorant. You decide






The difference between fact and opinion is so obvious that it's amazing it has to be pointed out as one that's important to understand.



It's obvious that if you can only see this happening at FOX ( this being media spin and I'll be the last one to claim that FOX OR ANY OTHER NETWORK does not spin) then you are not being objective. The fact that it has to pointed out is amazing.

palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdcQ56OpxN

IMHO, this flap is about as relevant as the folks who are convinced that Obama bowing to the emperor and the prince constitutes treason/sedition/mutiny/blatant disregard as to the existence of noxious and unstable plastics being allowed by a just and merciful god.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:14 PM
I looked at the text one - viewing YouTube will have to wait 'till I'm at my home computer.

So MSNBC claimed that there were racial overtones to an anti-Obama rally where many (legally) carried guns? Claimed that the rally was mostly white guys? Yet they interviewed and got video footage of a black guy, and didn't point out he was black, and "selectively edited" the video to disguise his race?

If that was why they edited the video - then I absolutely agree it was a breach. The folks who did the editing, and who ordered it, should be busted.

OTOH, what were the proportions of black/white in the crowd? Has anyone said that they weren't mostly white guys? What kind of signs were they carrying, or slogans were they shouting? Anything dramatically different from the Obama = Nazi or Obama = The Joker we've seen in previous rallies?

I think the video footage was prolly chosen to show a guy carrying a particularly wow-worthy weapon ... something that looked scarier and more militaristic than a "normal" firearm ... Trying to scare the viewers with something more sensational. If they changed the picture to make the guy seem white ... that's over the top. If they cropped it to show the guy only from the back ...

MSNBE clearly indicated the gun guys were ALL white..."mostly" never entered the script

are you really saying you think the shots which showed only a belt and PART of an evil assault rifle and not show the mentioned pistol weren't edited to prevent anyone from seing the man was black? (what was that word used on me yesterday?...oh yeah..."REMARKABLE")

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:21 PM
BTW Norman, you're smarter than that...or are you thinking others are NOT smart enough to notice your obvious spin...duh!

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Add it to the list...


In March, Fox News's Martha MacCallum presented a clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" -- and presented it as from an interview that weekend. In fact, the clip came from a 2008 campaign event at which Biden was quoting Sen. John McCain. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/fox-news-misleads-viewers_n_175462.html)

Bill Hemmer reported that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a 15-year-old student but "never reported it." In fact, the student was above the age of consent.
In April, Fox News's Wendell Goler reported on an Obama question-and-answer session that was cut short to make it seem as if the president wanted a health care system (http://mediamatters.org/research/200904250003) "like the European countries." In fact, he was just restating a question -- he went on to say that he opposed such a system.




In May, Fox News's Jon Scott said the network had decided to look back on how the stimulus "grew, and grew, and grew." In fact, the entire report came from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release, complete with typo. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/fox-passed-of-gop-talking_n_165720.html)




In October, Fox News's Trace Gallagher and Bill Sammon claimed that Senate Democrats would like provisions of the PATRIOT Act that helped catch a suspected terrorist to "go bye-bye." It was a total distortion of both the proposed changes and the terror case. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/02/misleading-on-patriot-reauthorization/)




Wallace had a former Bush administration aide Jim Towey as a guest on "Fox News Sunday" in August and together they pushed numerous falsehoods about a Veterans Affairs administration pamphlet on end-of-life issues. (http://mediamatters.org/research/200908240024)




In a segment on Obama's budget in April, the network claimed it was four times bigger than President Bush's costliest plan. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/fox-news-chyron-fails-mat_n_182981.html) That simply isn't true.




Fox News reporters constantly promoted the Tea Party movement (http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025#newsroom) and also lied about coverage of the September Tea Party march on Washington in an ad. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html) The network completely ignored an equally large gay-rights march in October. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/jon-stewart-takes-on-fox_n_320287.html)

rbgarr
11-19-2009, 12:26 PM
Those pictures were just coming to Brett's show, he didn't say they were just coming in from the field to the network.


Why say it then? Announcers don't need to tell the audience when video is on the screen. They see it for themselves. :rolleyes:

Besides, "This just in" clearly implies it's coming in from the field.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:32 PM
Add it to the list...

I accept the likely hood of truth in your list...will you accept the likelyhood of reciprical acts by left leaning media?

TomF
11-19-2009, 12:32 PM
MSNBE clearly indicated the gun guys were ALL white..."mostly" never entered the script

are you really saying you think the shots which showed only a belt and PART of an evil assault rifle and not show the mentioned pistol weren't edited to prevent anyone from seing the man was black? (what was that word used on me yesterday?...oh yeah..."REMARKABLE")I'm saying that if the video was edited to disguise the guy's race, that's a breach. The folks responsible should be hammered.

If the video was edited to show a "scary" gun rather than just a "normal" gun, I've got fewer problems. I expect any news photographer to try to get the picture which will grab their audience.

If MSNBC said the demonstration was "ALL white," they should be busted for lying. If they said the demonstration had "racial overtones," maybe they were telling the truth.

FWIW, I saw racial overtones in the cartoon about Michele Obama and a gorilla, and in the poster of Barack Obama as The Joker. Others ... who didn't like the Obamas' politics ... disagreed ...

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:34 PM
Ditto. Rather lost his career and his credibility even among Liberals for that breach of ethics ... what has Fox lost, with its audience?

Not much that I can see.

Rather did not lose his credibility...he never had it and I saw that back in the 60's, how come the lefties did not see it?

ljb5
11-19-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm saying that if the video was edited to disguise the guy's race, that's a breach. The folks responsible should be hammered.

MSNBC did show video and still pictures of the guy's face. That may have been at another time, or it may have been part of the same segment. I have no way to tell.

The only questionable video I've seen is the clip that Glenn Beck rebroadcast on his show.

We'll probably never know if Beck edited that video before showing it. I really wouldn't be surprised to find out that he clipped the parts of the video which showed the guy's face. Beck has admitted that he's a biased, partisan hack and not a journalist, so I really don't depend on him to tell me what MSNBC said.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:44 PM
Hey ell jay...did you watch and listen to this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6-z2x4kK9c

TomF
11-19-2009, 12:48 PM
I'm not going to argue Dan Rather's credentials with you - among other things, I haven't paid huge attention to most American journalists ... I've been more preoccupied with the Canadian ones.

Up here, there are many who think David Suzuki's environmental work is suspect as hell, because through his whole career he's promoted a particular view. And it's true - you'll never hear him lauding the Oil companies for their splendid environmental protection. You'll never find footage of him praising chemical companies for their fine altruistic work preventing pollution. Or the tobacco companies for their truthfulness and transparency about the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Of course, it could be that the oil companies, chemical companies, and cigarette manufacturers were mostly guilty as charged.

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 12:48 PM
I accept the likely hood of truth in your list...will you accept the likelyhood of reciprical acts by left leaning media?

When I see an equally long list, complete with links.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 12:50 PM
When I see an equally long list, complete with links.

I'm not gonna fool with it...you may continue to sit on your intellectual dishonesty

ljb5
11-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Hey ell jay...did you watch and listen to this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6-z2x4kK9c

Yes, I've seen that.

It looks suspicious, but it's also been clipped on both ends. How are we to know what they cut off?

BTW: did you notice the end of the clip where it says "Media Research Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center)"?

Do you know who runs MRC?

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 12:58 PM
I'm not gonna fool with it...you may continue to sit on your intellectual dishonesty

Whenever Fox gets busted lying, you FoxFans just LOVE to bleat about how much MSNBC and CNN "DO THE SAME THING", but when pressed for proof of this accusation, the slinking away begins.

See this thread for another example (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104726).

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 01:01 PM
Whenever Fox gets busted lying, you FoxFans just LOVE to bleat about how much MSNBC and CNN "DO THE SAME THING", but when pressed for proof of this accusation, the slinking away begins.

See this thread for another example (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104726).

ya got THAT wrong...I'm not a FOX fan...I don't like them
OTOH I have no intention to be played like an old tune by political factions

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 01:02 PM
Whenever Fox gets busted lying, you FoxFans just LOVE to bleat about how much MSNBC and CNN "DO THE SAME THING", but when pressed for proof of this accusation, the slinking away begins.

See this thread for another example (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104726).

remember, slinkies apparent perpetual motion is always...downward

Michael Beckman
11-19-2009, 01:10 PM
I don't watch any news stations.. but Fox has by far the most obnoxious talking heads.

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 01:37 PM
ya got THAT wrong...I'm not a FOX fan...I don't like them
OTOH I have no intention to be played like an old tune by political factions

Granted, I'm a noob, and don't know you from Adam.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 01:55 PM
Granted, I'm a noob, and don't know you from Adam.

I'm the handsom one...

perldog007
11-19-2009, 02:14 PM
All three of these are total bull**** (they actually refer to the same thing).

Now your being just a wee bit insulting and dismissive. They all aren't
total bravo sierra just because you disagree. You are saying that neither video or the write up contain any truth at all? I am going to have to disagree on that point.

Of course they all refer to the same thing, it's a write up and video from Newsbusters and a clip from Beck.

Were I inclined to sink to the level of your profane dismissive remark, it would be fair to ask if you figured that out all three links were referring to the same story all by yourself.




Yes, the guy in the closeup was black... but that wasn't the point. Even if they HAD shown that the guy was black, there were also white guys with guns in that crowd... and there were virtually no blacks in the crowd, either. The commentary from Contessa Brewer did not refer to THAT guy, specifically.... and neither did her commentary imply that the sum total of that protest was race-based.

Again, I am at pains to point out that the MSNBC reportage used as basis for the commentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY) was an edited shot of THAT guy and Ms. Brewer said " we have white people with guns ......"

If they weren't twisting the facts, or lying depending on your point of view, to further their bias then why did they not use the footage of some of the white guys with guns in that crowd?




Now, I DO think that her attempt to bring in the race angle was wrong; while it is most CERTAINLY true that Obama's race is indeed an issue for many people, and it's certainly true that SOME flashback against Obama is race-based, this particular protest was not. The error in her story was in making it an issue at all... and it wasn't bias, per se, it was sensationalism.

Unfortunately race is an issue on both sides of the spectrum. Even Fox conservative financial analyst Charles Payne (sp?) admitted that he voted for President Obama not on the issues but out of a sense of loyalty to black civil rights leaders like Medgar Evers and Rosa Parks.

I could very well be missing your point, but it seems to be that you are taking the position that MSNBC does not have/was not displaing an anti-gun bias, or a displayed bias against the tea party protesters. I have to agree to disagree on those points.

Like I said, I regularly watch FOX and MSNBC ( read both every day) and to me, FOX is pro tea party - MSNBC is anti tea party. IMO both networks report more anti gun news than pro gun news.


As for the video: I don't believe, for a minute, that the video was intentionally cropped to hide the fact that it was a black man; they have PLENTY of video of white guys armed at that rally, and they could have used it. I suspect it was the fact that the black guy was carrying the rifle, as well as an automatic.... the imagery of the rifle is more sensational than a mere pistol.

I have to disagree. Without pulling in tight enough to hide the fact that the rifle is carried by a black man, the video becomes worthless as supporting footage for the commentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY).

There is no way the footage was not selectively edited to support this story.




So, were they guilty of sloppy journalism? Yes.

And so was Fox, and they both were twisting stories to fit their bias. As was the case in other examples posted of FOX bias. Where the line is that makes it an outright lie seems to vary based on the bias of the observer. IMO we should be able to agree that bias exists on both MSNBC and FOX. YMMV.


How does it compare, for example, to showing video of a different event to leave the impression that a particular protest was vastly larger than it really was?

Yes, well how does showing a picture of a black guy with a bigger gun to boost editorial slant against the white tea party protesters compare with showing a picture of a bigger crowd to boost editorial slant supporting tea party protesters in general.... I'll have to think about that one for a while and get back to you.

It's hard to make a straight line comparison because that lying bastard Hannity issued an apology and retraction while those upstanding pillars of integrity at MSNBC refused to admit any lapse of journalistic standards.


No comparison. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY)

BTW - anybody can call me a fox fan, and msnbc fan, a wnd fan, a huffington post fan. all news is biased IMO and I like to hear opposing views before forming an opinion. YMMV.

I like the Daily Show too but not as much as the Colbert Report.

BrianY
11-19-2009, 02:16 PM
I just love how this kind of argument always devolves to "well, your side does it too!" and other similar kindergarten playground- level exchanges.

The issue is whether Fox News committed a breach of journalistic integrity or not.

That the "other side" may have done similar things should in no way be used to excuse Fox for their obvious mistake in not clearly labling file footage as file footage. I'm pretty sure that those who accuse MSNBC and the other "liberal" media of doing similar things would not consider the argument that "Fox does it too" as being a reasonable or acceptable excuse for their behavior either.

Nor would I expect anyone here to agree that since "they all do it" we as consumers of this information should not expect that all news organizations be truthful in their reporting...unless of course you're satisfied to hear "news" that is bent to fit your personal biases and preconceptions rather than being presented in an accurate and truthful way.

Rather than resorting to finger pointing and smearing the other side, I would be very interested to know from folks who like Fox News the following things:

a) Does Fox's failure to label file footage as such change your view of Fox News? Why or why not?
b) How does this behavior jibe with Fox's self-proclaimed position as the source of "Fair and unbiased" news coverage?
c) What are your own standards and expectations for journalistic integrity from your news source(s)? Is this sort of thing OK with you? To what extent would you allow your "news" source to film and edit stories so that they reflect your own biases rather than being a simple documentary of the "truth"?

Of course this sort of stuff requires self-examination and reflection, so I don't expect many answers to these questions. It's MUCH easier to avoid the issue entirely by attacking the other side.

John Smith
11-19-2009, 02:18 PM
Seems to me that FOX and their viewers ought to care.
One would think.

Rich Jones
11-19-2009, 02:37 PM
We, of this forum, are an intelligent bunch. After all, you'd have to be to figure out the complexities of wooden boat construction. What bothers me about any news outlet becoming the mouthpiece of any particular political party, is that there are a lot of mindless voters out there who drink this stuff up. These are the same people that read 'The Star', 'The Globe' and any of the other trashy tabloids out there. The media has a tremendous responsibility to accurately report the news. As for Glen Beck, Rachel Maddow (see, I mentioned both FOX and MSNBC!) and the rest of them, they also must realize the importance of their words. Opinion is one thing, but making up falsehoods is another. Some of you say,"Who cares what they say. It's only opinion". Well, opinion based on lies or half-truths can be very dangerous, indeed.
Oh, dear, I promised myself I'd stay out of The Bilge, and here I am again...

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 03:09 PM
BrianY, "If" you are saying the right is passing/avoiding blame by saying "your side does it too" then can we hear you say it once...please? I would feel better treated if you did

Canoeyawl
11-19-2009, 03:12 PM
We, of this forum, are an intelligent bunch.
Speak for yourself...

;)

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 03:25 PM
Norman...the editor cropped the pic of the rifle also...failing to show the standard and well recognised "evil" gun...if you believe what you are implying you are being very foolish...and biased...OPEN YOUR EYES!

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 03:29 PM
It does not, by the way, change the fact that virtually NO black people were part of the protest/rally, and that the one black guy shown in the videos at the time, who was carrying both a semi-automatic, as well as a rifle, was not the only armed guy there. As far as I could tell he was the ONLY black man there... but I could be wrong about that.

The guy with the gun turned out to be a plant (http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2009/08/assault-rifle-at-obama-speech-publicity.html) from a local conservative talk radio show.


I could enumerate a documented list of incredibly egregious examples of Fox bias in supposedly straight 'news' reporting...

I posted a linked list. All of the lies in that list were from straight news programming. Other than Phil, no one responded to it.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 03:34 PM
The guy with the gun turned out to be a plant (http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2009/08/assault-rifle-at-obama-speech-publicity.html) from a local conservative talk radio show.



I posted a linked list. All of the lies in that list were from straight news programming. Other than Phil, no one responded to it.

got any proof of that? and while you are doing that...find out if the MSNBC people knew this before or after the edited lie...perhaps they're clairvoyant(sp)

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 03:40 PM
Until you can tell me what the intent of the edited video was, we can't presume that there was ANY sort of 'lie'.

you were the one telling us what was intended...must be clair voyant yourself

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 03:59 PM
got any proof of that? and while you are doing that...find out if the MSNBC people knew this before or after the edited lie...perhaps they're clairvoyant(sp)

Proof (http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/21/assault-rifle-interview-outside-obama-town-hall-was-a-publicity-stunt/).

It came out afterward. MSNBC did not report on the man's associations.

BrianY
11-19-2009, 04:06 PM
BrianY, "If" you are saying the right is passing/avoiding blame by saying "your side does it too" then can we hear you say it once...please? I would feel better treated if you did

No problem ...err....which side am I on ? ? ?

"your "side passes the blame too...I mean "our" side passes the blame too

Let's just be grown up and agree that ALL sides do it. OK? Does that make you feel better?

Now, back to the issue at hand....

perldog007
11-19-2009, 04:07 PM
I just love how this kind of argument always devolves to "well, your side does it too!" and other similar kindergarten playground- level exchanges.

The issue is whether Fox News committed a breach of journalistic integrity or not.

That the "other side" may have done similar things should in no way be used to excuse Fox for their obvious mistake in not clearly labling file footage as file footage. I'm pretty sure that those who accuse MSNBC and the other "liberal" media of doing similar things would not consider the argument that "Fox does it too" as being a reasonable or acceptable excuse for their behavior either.

Nor would I expect anyone here to agree that since "they all do it" we as consumers of this information should not expect that all news organizations be truthful in their reporting...unless of course you're satisfied to hear "news" that is bent to fit your personal biases and preconceptions rather than being presented in an accurate and truthful way.

Rather than resorting to finger pointing and smearing the other side, I would be very interested to know from folks who like Fox News the following things:

a) Does Fox's failure to label file footage as such change your view of Fox News? Why or why not?
b) How does this behavior jibe with Fox's self-proclaimed position as the source of "Fair and unbiased" news coverage?
c) What are your own standards and expectations for journalistic integrity from your news source(s)? Is this sort of thing OK with you? To what extent would you allow your "news" source to film and edit stories so that they reflect your own biases rather than being a simple documentary of the "truth"?

Of course this sort of stuff requires self-examination and reflection, so I don't expect many answers to these questions. It's MUCH easier to avoid the issue entirely by attacking the other side.

a) no, it does not change my views of Fox, they are biased sensationalists selling advertising time like any other network.
b) the tagline is "Fair and Balanced" bias is not fair from any angle in journalism, sadly the anchors at Fox and other outlets have a hard time concealing theirs. . One right wing cable network hardly balances out three left wing broadcast networks and their cable counterparts.
c) selective editing, fact twisting, outright lies, and other gymnastics of journalists to further their own world view is deplorable.


I don't accept that either "side" is justified by the other. There are no sides. The same companies, with some exceptions are the ones paying FOX,MSNBC, and others to keep us titillated, tuned in, and watching their ads. It doesn't hurt the cause of politicians and lobbyists that we are at each other throats instead of theirs.

My point is that acting like fox is something special when it comes to fact bending, spinning, journalistic prostitution, and outright lies is either dishonest or ignorant. I'm just reporting, you decide.


I don't see any of the forum members normally considered to be "right of center" taking the position in this thread that FOX does not spin for effect. I do see one "wing nut"
( Sorry RodB, making sure 'they' know I am talking about you)
expressing his view that the incident mentioned in the O.P. does not constitute outright dishonesty.

I do see "left of center" folk in this thread taking the position that the MSNBC event mentioned was not biased or dishonest. There is also a person attacking FOX challenging the "other side" to provide an example of any other network fudging footage. The MSNBC event was mentioned specifically to in response to his challenge.


Of course this sort of stuff requires self-examination and reflection..... It's MUCH easier to avoid the issue entirely by attacking the other side.

oznabrag
11-19-2009, 04:10 PM
Now your being just a wee bit insulting and dismissive...

So...just how long are we supposed to take you seriously?

2MeterTroll
11-19-2009, 04:21 PM
i am trying hard to understand how the other networks can be construed as liberal. they look just as slimy as foux and support the same ol same ol consumerism.

all the liberal news has sunk due to being unflattering to big business.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 04:25 PM
No problem ...err....which side am I on ? ? ?

"your "side passes the blame too...I mean "our" side passes the blame too

Let's just be grown up and agree that ALL sides do it. OK? Does that make you feel better?

Now, back to the issue at hand....

I can live with that...

BA.Barcolounger
11-19-2009, 04:27 PM
My point is that acting like fox is something special when it comes to fact bending, spinning, journalistic prostitution, and outright lies is either dishonest or ignorant. I'm just reporting, you decide.

The number of documented lies seems to contradict your statement. In this thread, for example, we have a dozen documented Fox Lies (this is not even counting the "crawler" lies) compared to just one for MSNBC.

One network is clearly doing it more.


I do see "left of center" folk in this thread taking the position that the MSNBC event mentioned was not biased or dishonest. There is also a person attacking FOX challenging the "other side" to provide an example of any other network fudging footage. The MSNBC event was mentioned specifically to in response to his challenge.

Contessa Brewer was stating an opinion. It just happened to be baseless and biased. The list I provided earlier in the thread was examples of Fox News broadcasters presenting false information as facts.

perldog007
11-19-2009, 05:23 PM
Contessa Brewer is a news reporter, not a commentator. Now, it's certainly true that in the course of doing 'news', there is associated 'commentary' which, if done properly, is supposed to raise questions or provide perspective, not slant the news. If you are arguing that Contessa Brewer's associated commentary was handled poorly, I'm going to agree with you.

If you watch the
total bull**** video from Newsbusters, it's beyond raising questions and the perspective can't be called anything but slant. The clear implication is that the tea party protests are angry armed white folks who are going to try and hurt the President. That's reporting like Hannity is fair and balanced.

It's interesting to me that it I seem to have read a few posts complaining about fox failing to make a firm demarcation between commentary and news reporting. Ljb5, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think Ljb5 rightfully pointed out that fox used their "Fair and Balanced" tagline when running commercials for their commentary.

It would seem then that we could also agree that fox is not the only network that does not always separate commentary from news.


It does not, by the way, change the fact that virtually NO black people were part of the protest/rally, and that the one black guy shown in the videos at the time, who was carrying both a semi-automatic, as well as a rifle, was not the only armed guy there. As far as I could tell he was the ONLY black man there... but I could be wrong about that.

There weren't any white people except me at the last couple of cookouts I have attended. Certainly did not reflect racism on the part of those assembled. Not sure what you are getting at there.




Probably because the video editor (NOT Contessa Brewer) thought that the image of the rifle was a more powerful one than the image of just a holstered semi-automatic.

You've remember that, in a 24 hour news station, there are staff editors who are actually very low level people (and poorly paid; since my wife is in the TV biz, we know about some of this stuff) who are making independent decisions about what clips to glue together. Maybe this particular editor was trying to make a political statement... but FAR more likely is that he was given 20 minutes to assemble a montage of video to serve as the backdrop for the piece, and simply didn't think about it. This is some schlub making $30K/yr, and very happy to have the job.... not a member of senior management staff, on the editorial board.

I'm not denying that the guy shouldn't have used better judgment.... I'm just arguing that there's no evidence of malevolent intent, and even if there was, it would have likely been on the part of one low level guy, not the station as a whole.

It was wrong to use the footage in the way it was, it was wrong to try and discredit the tea party protesters as dangerous racists, and it's wrong to cover up for it. All that can't be attributed to one person who apparently by virtue of their employment is
some schlub .

It was wrong for Hannity to show the footage of the 9/12 rally and say/imply/state that it was footage of the November protest led by Bachmann. It was wrong/stupid/sloppy to use footage of campaign crowds to talk about crowds at book signings.

Arguably your
schlub defense could be applied to the above two mentioned FOX misdeeds, but I wouldn't buy it for them either.




I wasn't referring whatsoever to pro or anti gun issues at all... and that wasn't the point of Contessa Brewer's discussion, in the video: it was whether the overwhelmingly white crowd, which happened to include armed people, was evidence of a racist bias on the part of the Tea Party protesters. As I stated before, it was a tenuous argument for her to make... and bad journalism. But I see NO evidence that the video clip was an intentional effort to bolster the racism argument. It was just thoughtless editing.

Let's put it another way: suppose the video had revealed that the guy with the rifle was black... would that have proved conclusively that racism was NOT part of the Tea Party movement?

Think about it.

Whiskey tango my foxtrot? If the video clip had shown the complete person, it certainly would have looked a bit silly as a lead in for the arguably inflammatory allegations of dangerous white racism.

As I stated in my earlier post, racism is not absent from either end of the spectrum concerning our most recent historical presidential election.




. Fox isn't merely 'pro-Tea Party'... they were ENDORSING the event, on the air.

Then we have to say that MSNBC is not merely anti-tea party... they are calling the protesters tea baggers and dangerous racists on the air, and not just in opinion shows like Olberman. They are CONDEMNING the movement. That ain't exactly reporting.




The only possible way that could be true was if revealing the race would have discredited Brewer's 'suggestion' about race being an issue. Would it have? Was there a big black participation in the rally? Is race definitively NOT a factor in some people's opinions about Obama?

Yes, no, yes. If race is a factor in some people's opinions about President Obama then race is definitively not a factor in some people's opinions about Obama. "If all wicks are snicks....."




. I just described how it could have happened.

If your schlub theory was accurate, wouldn't it have made sense for MSNBC to at least admit that the wrong footage was used?

Their denial tends to make me skeptical that the selective footage was not a wanton act. Opinions vary. Sure it could have happened that way.

Anna Nicole could have married for love and those whacky Iraqis could have secretly stashed all of their WMD's in Syria to make W. look bad too.






I could enumerate a documented list of incredibly egregious examples of Fox bias in supposedly straight 'news' reporting... but you or anyone else can't seem to do it, for MSNBC. I watch MSNBC regularly, and I rarely spot anything like that.... but maybe my bias prevents me from seeing it, in which case, I'd be happy to condemn it when it's documented... but it doesn't look like anyone from the right can do it.

I'm not suggesting that a bias doesn't leak into MSNBC's 'straight news' reporting. I'm only suggesting that, in comparison to Fox, it's far, far less common.

Actually, folks have been arguing about media bias and listing gripes long before the internet came out. AIM goes back to 1969, they are waaay out to the right, media matters is left, Newsbusters is mostly right but they buzz about FoX now and again.

I am only suggesting, and you are backing me up on this one, that you tend to find fault with Fox more often than MSNBC because you are more biased to the left of the political spectrum.






. Once again, how would showing the guy's race have altered the story? What would it have proven?

I can't imagine how the video could have been shown without hiding the mans race for a lead in to that commentary that followed. Would the reporter not have looked a bit silly following footage of a black man with a rifle over his shoulder ( her intonation is priceless btw) and launching into her indictment of the folks who showed up armed as white people with guns being dangerous to the President?


Contrast that to showing out-of-context footage and making the claim in the commentary about the size of an event. Putting a disclaimer on file footage is Journalism 101 stuff... unless it's clear, in the context, that it IS file footage.

By all means let's. In one event we have reporters using doctored footage giving a newscast trying to suggest that certain folks are a danger to the President of the United States and racists.
In the latter, we have an admitted partisan pundit using footage of tea party protesters from one rally trying to make the crowd from a different event appear larger.

Hannity was an idiot not to see it as soon as the footage came up, and Jon Stewart was totally justified to take a ride on his backside.

The partisan pundit admits to the error and apologizes for same. The reporters and their adherents insist that they did nothing wrong.

You are correct, I can see some contrasts in this case. Fortunately, that does make me dismiss all reporting and commentary from MSNBC or FOX.




In the last two days alone, I've seen two examples of Rachel Maddow and Dylan Ratigan apologizing, on air, for similar video things like that.


Which is what responsible journalists and commentators do. Probably has a lot to do with why I still watch MSNBC




Could it be that you don't realize it's satire? :)

I didn't see you in the thread where that came up Norm, so I am going to have to give you a pass on that one. That remark was for my good friend and esteemed colleague oznabrag whom I see has joined us but hasn't posted anything worthy of response yet.

elf
11-19-2009, 05:51 PM
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/11/fox_rolls_wrong_tape_heads_may.html

oznabrag
11-19-2009, 05:52 PM
...That remark was for my good friend and esteemed colleague oznabrag whom I see has joined us but hasn't posted anything worthy of response yet.

You first.

perldog007
11-19-2009, 05:54 PM
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/11/fox_rolls_wrong_tape_heads_may.html

Way overdue. Time to make Stewart's job a little more interesting. He has to be on the verge of burnout.

John Smith
11-19-2009, 05:58 PM
a) no, it does not change my views of Fox, they are biased sensationalists selling advertising time like any other network.
b) the tagline is "Fair and Balanced" bias is not fair from any angle in journalism, sadly the anchors at Fox and other outlets have a hard time concealing theirs. . One right wing cable network hardly balances out three left wing broadcast networks and their cable counterparts.
c) selective editing, fact twisting, outright lies, and other gymnastics of journalists to further their own world view is deplorable.


I don't accept that either "side" is justified by the other. There are no sides. The same companies, with some exceptions are the ones paying FOX,MSNBC, and others to keep us titillated, tuned in, and watching their ads. It doesn't hurt the cause of politicians and lobbyists that we are at each other throats instead of theirs.

My point is that acting like fox is something special when it comes to fact bending, spinning, journalistic prostitution, and outright lies is either dishonest or ignorant. I'm just reporting, you decide.


I don't see any of the forum members normally considered to be "right of center" taking the position in this thread that FOX does not spin for effect. I do see one "wing nut"
( Sorry RodB, making sure 'they' know I am talking about you)
expressing his view that the incident mentioned in the O.P. does not constitute outright dishonesty.

I do see "left of center" folk in this thread taking the position that the MSNBC event mentioned was not biased or dishonest. There is also a person attacking FOX challenging the "other side" to provide an example of any other network fudging footage. The MSNBC event was mentioned specifically to in response to his challenge.
I think it must be understood that there is a vast difference between being biased and making up facts to support that bias.

I like Maddow and Olberman. No doubt they have a bias, but they impress me as being very careful to get the facts right.

perldog007
11-19-2009, 06:11 PM
I think it must be understood that there is a vast difference between being biased and making up facts to support that bias.

I like Maddow and Olberman. No doubt they have a bias, but they impress me as being very careful to get the facts right.

And when they don't they generally apologize.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

When it comes to supposed journalism, I don't think there are too many examples of real journalism that I have seen lately, shaping the news to fit a bias is making up facts. Too many folks still believe what they see and hear from the media. I had my eyes opened young, by sheer coincidence.

Being present at some events that made headlines and reading those headlines snapped me out of the stupor, and right quick.

I used to sell cars. Some salesmen will tell a customer just about anything they want to hear to make a buck. These salesmen ( I mean females too, no discrimination) are sometimes called 'hammers' because they crush people for money. They don't often have repeat customers, but they make money.

The point of that rambling is that people love to agree with what they want to hear.

So if you are, for instance, a conservative right to lifer who supports Palin it's easy to take the position that the coverage which was misleading was just an honest flub. MSNBC, who has aired more critical than positive coverage of Palin by any measure is then easy to hate and despise as 'liars'.

On the other hand.......

pefjr
11-19-2009, 06:16 PM
That remark was for my good friend and esteemed colleague oznabrag whom I see has joined us but hasn't posted anything worthy of response yet.:D..might be a long...............gggggggggggggg, wait

perldog007
11-19-2009, 06:46 PM
Norm,

You seem to be saying that it wasn't wrong to use the tape in the way it was because you believe that Ms. Brewer was correct. That's immaterial. The tape was edited in a way to disguise the race of the man so it could be used as a lead in and visual re-enforcement for the editorial position being fomented by the reporters.

If you can't see the cover up it's because you are a part of it. It was done, it's wrong, there is no excuse, and spinning every word into the ground won't make it right.
If you can't see the bias it's because you share it. If you believe MSNBC to bemore honest than FOX it's because MSNBC tells you what you want to hear.

If you are saying that your politics don't lean to the left side of the spectrum then you are being dishonest. It would be like me trying to say I don't hold some conservative views.

I don't have a problem for calling fox or any other network for bias.

I don't have a problem with open carry, it's concealed weapons being carried by criminals and SUV's being driven by folks like Hannity ( and anybody else whose head is so far up their butt they think they can't possibly be wrong about anything) that scare me.

I don't go to protests but I can tell you nobody is going to be walking around the Nation's Capitol with a weapon. The guy on the roof of Union Station with the .300 mag will get them if nobody else does.

In Arizona it's legal to carry openly. President Obama and many of his advisors have professed anti second amendment views. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that's why the folks were carrying. That's something like what your "plant" said on camera.

I read the blog and don't understand how that proves he was a "plant' and not a guy protesting for what he believes in.

Hot Air
11-19-2009, 06:55 PM
Busted indeed...all the way to the bank. Don't fret. Olbermann will get a trophy for participation so his self-esteem wont suffer

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009

FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000

Chris Coose
11-19-2009, 07:01 PM
Alls that says is that knuckle heads watch more TV than liberals who may be engaged in more productive activities like chiseling off a corner regularly.

pefjr
11-19-2009, 07:02 PM
Busted indeed...all the way to the bank. Don't fret. Olbermann will get a trophy for participation so his self-esteem wont suffer

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009

FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000 Interesting, Cooper is the best on the list.

Phillip Allen
11-19-2009, 07:26 PM
You first.

Hey; Tex...he already HAS been first...NEXT!

Vince Brennan
11-19-2009, 08:39 PM
You people would fight over a coffee ground.

Seriously!

perldog007
11-19-2009, 08:41 PM
You people would fight over a coffee ground.

Seriously! No way, it would have to be at least a bean....

perldog007
11-19-2009, 11:06 PM
I don't pretend to know why folks were armed. Maybe they had been watching too much Glenn Beck and thought SEIU was going to beat them up, I have no idea. I think it's a stupid thing to do. It's also fair to say that the vast majority of the crowd was not armed.

I guess that's just how you see the event. If you can't see bias or dishonest editing there's nothing much anybody can say to change that. I am going to agree to disagree and thank you for making my point for me.

Phillip Allen
11-20-2009, 10:05 AM
I wonder if Norman and ell jay have been hanging out together...I’m beginning to see similarities...

ljb5
11-20-2009, 10:31 AM
I wonder if Norman and ell jay have been hanging out together...Iím beginning to see similarities...

I find it creepy that you always want to talk about me, even on threads where I haven't been participating in the discussion.

If Norman wants to argue with Perldog, let him do that. I'm not involved in it.

Stop being obsessed with me.

Phillip Allen
11-20-2009, 10:33 AM
why don't you try some research to find out when/why you began to (alegedly) recieve attention from me...there's a good lad