Lies, Liars, and Accountability: Fox News is Having A Bad Week

I think that Faux Noise is having a "bad existence."

Courts

the image Fox used as the backdrop for their Washington Post ad came from footage from CNN’s observation tower.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

They used a false back drop for their count as to how many people were at the march.

What? The author said it was from CNN's observation tower, not a backdrop. So Jerry are you saying they faked the photo? Let's break this down... 1. CNN owns a tower. 2. Fox snapped a picture from that tower. 3. Fox posted and ad with the picture from CNN's tower.

Fox Noise is to to news like the National Enquirer is.

Mike-584822

Fox Noise is to to news like the National Enquirer is to Democrat Drama Queens.

Sorry I just hate incomplete sentences.

taao..Reality is great! Your always on the correct side,people like you and you don't have to keep making up more stuff to cover up the lies that you started out with! Lies are like snowballs rolling down a hill, they keep on picking up more lies to cover up the lies beneath and eventually they will bury you! If you need a hand at the bottom of the hill we will grab our shovels and dig you out,because that's what good honest people do. Perhaps after that you will be on the correct side instead of the right side.So come join us over here in the REAL world!

Is that why Obama's approval numbers and Obamacare numbers slip lower and lower daily? Because us unreal people refuse to succumb to the fantasyland you people call reality? I'm good with that!

I suppose every time an issue like this comes up, that's the conservative response. "They all do it." Except they don't, really.

All of the media outlets do this stuff. I agree they should be more fact oriented, but your equating apples to oranges. FOX carefully orchestrating events and organizing protesters so they can cover it, is not the same as MSNBC opining on the news that it covers.

You aren't going to face that, talk with it, maybe even agree with it, for the simple reason that you are here to defend FOX no matter how egregiously it acts.

In the end, if your honest with yourself, you'll have to face a certain truth. The nature of FOX news damages conservatism. The fact that FOX news behaves this way damages the movement. A real ideology should be able to exist without this kind of bull@!$%#, should be capable of being honest with itself. If the only way conservatism can exist is by lying about what it's doing, that suggest it's too flawed to exist in the cold hard light of day.

If you think conservatism deserves to exist, then demand that FOX news clean up its act. Don't just make excuses for them. Do that, because it's the only way that conservatism is going to avoid a massive implosion in the coming years, as reasonable people turn their backs on you with increasing numbers.

Right now you guys are experiencing a resurgence because of the depression, but what happens in the next decade when things equal out? You live on desperation and hysteria. But in time, things will calm down, and conservatives will not be remembered well when that happens.

I suppose every time an issue like this comes up, that's the conservative response. "They all do it." Except they don't, really.

Then you clearly don't 'suppose'... but more to the point, yes - really they do. Show me empirical evidence of MSNBC NOT doing it, or Reuters NOT doing it. Show me where AP doesn't write suppositions and speculations as to what they THINK is going to happen despite facts.

In the end, if your honest with yourself, you'll have to face a certain truth. The nature of FOX news damages conservatism.

Of course they do. They're the only one used as an example because they're the only ones blatantly conservative AND of their size. This isn't much different than the concept of telling the same lie enough that everyone believes it. If the liberal media berates Fox long enough and says they're liars for long enough then people feel ashamed and don't watch or listen. The problem I have is that the critical eyes shift one way here. Does Fox say stupid bull@!$%#? yes... but so do all of them and to sit and acknowledge Fox as the only perpetrators when any educated person can see that the 'right to lie' is both a liberal phrasing designed to discredit an entity while also factually granting them the powers to do the same (and frequent exercise of it exists on the liberal side) is... pretty retarded. The irony is that all of the liberal media viewers who look down upon Fox viewers are being just as misled and 'herded' as the Fox viewers except they're too caught up degrading the opposing 'team' to notice themselves being led astray. Some would say that makes the liberal viewers less aware and by default less intelligent.

If you think conservatism deserves to exist, then clean up your act. Don't make excuses for it.

So now, I'm a conservative AND I'm doing something wrong? I'm making excuses for Conservative news?

Odd, I recall claiming all sides did it, and 'all' is an inclusive word which implied that BOTH, or liberal and conservative... more on this in a bit...

If the only way conservatism can exist is by lying about what it's doing, that suggest it's too flawed to exist in the cold hard light of day.

"Suggest" is a funny word... it affirms the mindset of a predisposed audience. It's used a lot in politics to get people to think one way about something without risking being called to prove it. Heh - and you wanted to talk about flaws...

FOX carefully orchestrating events and organizing protesters so they can cover it, is not the same as MSNBC opining on the news that it covers.

but it is the same as the news it distorts. Recall the "colored president and white people showing up with guns"... yet MSNBC was the ONLY new source to show PART of the man they had (the only man they had) carrying a gun... who was subsequently Black. CBS and ABC and FOX showed the full image of the man and clips of what he was actually talking about (which was second amendment rights)... but what did MSNBC do? imply through imagery and lack of audio that white people were showing up with guns to protest Obama and health care... and that to you is not equally dishonest?

You were saying something about light of day, honest with itself and flaws were you? Well then perhaps you'd like to excuse or explain away how MSNBC then released a statement that they were 'generalizing', which is a pretty big 'no no' in factual reporting.

Show me empirical evidence of MSNBC NOT doing it, or Reuters NOT doing it.

Logic Fail. No one can show evidence of something "not" happening. It doesn't exist.

Does Fox say stupid bull@!$%#? yes... but so do all of them and to sit and acknowledge Fox as the only perpetrators when any educated person can see that the 'right to lie' is both a liberal phrasing designed to discredit an entity while also factually granting them the powers to do the same (and frequent exercise of it exists on the liberal side) is... pretty retarded.

You're glossing over his point. He's not talking about commentators having a side or slanting the news over what they do or don't cover. You could possibly make a reasonable argument that FOX is to conservatives what MSNBC is to liberals in that light. What's setting this example apart is that FOX blatantly steered the news itself. Not their coverage, not their comments, the actual news. Point out an example of MSNBC doing that if you're so insistent that "everyone does it."

You were saying something about light of day, honest with itself and flaws were you? Well then perhaps you'd like to excuse or explain away how MSNBC then released a statement that they were 'generalizing', which is a pretty big 'no no' in factual reporting.

As a matter of fact, I'm not a fan of MSNBC. I don't like the fact that they've swung into liberal favorable coverage.

Then you clearly don't 'suppose'... but more to the point, yes - really they do. Show me empirical evidence of MSNBC NOT doing it, or Reuters NOT doing it. Show me where AP doesn't write suppositions and speculations as to what they THINK is going to happen despite facts.

I'm going to say this again since you've managed to ignore the original question. The problem isn't about writing suppositions and speculations, they all do. But that isn't the same as FOX news running out and not merely covering these protests, but actually promoting and in some cases starting them. They've got Glenn Beck starting the whole 9/12 deal himself, then organizing events at the ground level. That's what I remarked on, but not what you responded to.

But frankly, when it comes to constantly opining through every moment of their coverage, nobody can match FOX news. I am not a fan of the mass media today, of any of the outlets. I don't like American journalism, I think it's thoroughly corrupted. I prefer to watch the BBC. Given a choice of American outlets, I'd go with CNN, but they are hardly perfect.

But comparing their lack of professionalism with the demagoguery of FOX news? Please. The one is nothing like the other, and it's becoming a survival issue for conservatives for them to admit it. I once considered myself a conservative who was liberal on certain issues of choice, until the company became impossible to bear.

I'm very capable of looking at the news and seeing flaws, and selective coverage. But if you think there is any comparison between the flaws of journalism, and the flaws in whatever the hell FOX news is doing today, then your so blinded by partisanship that you really need to get out more.

OK Mr Gordon they all do it, now we all agree that fox does it, we have followed the links seen the videos. when you provide a link that proves that any of the channels you named behaving in a similar fashion i will humbly beg your forgiveness and join the glen beck fanatic club.

Nonsense. I watch the BBC and there is plenty of commentary to be heard. The difference is they clearly state that commentary is commentary, they don't present it to be spontaneous news stories.

... and while you're at it, Mr Gordon, please provide the evidence that Glen Beck didn't rape and murder that 14-year old... Also, that astronauts didn't land on the moon the the late 60s and that Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis aren't alive and well and co-owners of a burger joint on Mars.

nice one, Gnostix

vindication for olberman, he has been calling them fix news for ages, boy are they gonna get it, countdown Monday night. stocking up on koolaid an nachos.

Fox didn't get accorn two kids did.

I watch and read all the news outlets because I believe that my information is somewhere in the middle. The problem is that without Fox we have no middle ground. With no right sided media we would no longer have a true media. At that point all we would have is propaganda. Kind of like the "Civil War." The only story our students hear is the propagandist story the "winners" want us to believe. Its not the whole story or the real story. We need competing media if we enjoy our freedom. Yes, Fox is over the top but, they have to compete with many liberal media outlets.

Shawn Gordon

We just need to face objective facts here... EVERY major news organization participates in blatant yellow media. every one of them. MSNBC, CNN, REUTERS, FOX... all of them. It's a hot issue and one that will be going back and forth because they're all trying to cover for why not a one of them popped ACORN like those two kids did... that's news... MSM... that's a joke on all fronts... well except BBC. They actually have 5 minutes of fact, and then another 5 minutes of fact about a different story. No speculation, no conjecture, no whining about a pop culture icon who acted stupid, just item - fact - item - fact.

Fox cut the cake, they don't care if people know they are lying, the people they want to reach is those who they have brainwashed, you can tell those people all day lone and they are still going to call you a lie, fox cater to the uneducated and the uninformed.

Logic Fail. No one can show evidence of something "not" happening. It doesn't exist.

Sure they can. I can go to my mailbox and show that the mail still comes, that it's not stopped coming. I can turn on my TV and show that I Don't not have power... but that aside - my point was that no one can show that the other outlets don't do it, because they do it.

nd while you're at it, Mr Gordon, please provide the evidence that Glen Beck didn't rape and murder that 14-year old... Also, that astronauts didn't land on the moon the the late 60s and that Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis aren't alive and well and co-owners of a burger joint on Mars.

I didn't claim any of this either way, nor did any media outlets.

vindication for olberman, he has been calling them fix news for ages, boy are they gonna get it, countdown Monday night. stocking up on koolaid an nachos.

Vindication? for what, being caught doctoring quotes, mischaracterizing quotes and using a known liar and a guy who's gone on record saying it's okay to lie as 'source' for 'news'? (Sy Hersch). I mean I get that they guy is a pundit, but either he needs to be a fake news pundit like John Stewart in which case, get over himself or be a factual news pundit and go ahead and give up the bad comedy.

when you provide a link that proves that any of the channels you named behaving in a similar fashion i will humbly beg your forgiveness and join the glen beck fanatic club.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying that if I show you other news groups acting like FOX then you'll become a fan of a FOX pundit? If I show you images of people @!$%#ting their pants, would you then become a fan of it? If you're that easy to puppet around, then have I got a fetish website for you...

What's setting this example apart is that FOX blatantly steered the news itself. Not their coverage, not their comments, the actual news. Point out an example of MSNBC doing that if you're so insistent that "everyone does it."

Showing that other news sites 'steer' the news in the way that the audience perceives what is going on is easy and I've done that already. It's the end result no matter the means to get there and I'm not wrong in stating all media outlets do that. In this case FOX got busted inciting people and directing them no differently than a reality TV show producer incites and directs people. FOX then reported that an events or series of events were taking place - technically they weren't wrong and as long as hey didn't say they didn't cause them or direct them then they weren't directly lying. Disingenuous? very, but not lying.

I'm not making an excuse for FOX, it was wrong and pretty stupid given that they launched an attack on CNN and NBC. It lends itself to a total lack of thought concerning 'turn about'. But, the fact remains that the end result of what the public perceives as facts, which I think we can agree, is the main focus of the news - isn't different than any other news organization.

So, show you how MSNBC does it? They've not been caught in the same fashion as FOX.However if you recall in 1996, the allegedly racist fires in the South East in which 20 some churches allegedly burned and the liberal media was blaming right wing racists, telling people at every turn it was a conservative racist conspiracy - turns out... they were wrong. It also can be said that, that kind of irresponsible reporting may have encouraged the real arsonists to continue since they knew that media was portraying someone else as the culprit. And if you Google Boligee, Fire, Racist - youre primary sources will be 'liberal' outlets...

What still sort of confuses me, is that those two kids who blew the lid on ACORN basically handed journalistic platinum to pretty much all media outlets (FOX aired a piece on it, but...) and not a single one showed a bit of interest as far as even seeing if it was the truth? really? instead, all other media outlets want to show how media outlets lie.... makes sense I guess... in an 'i have an agenda' sort of way.

FOX carefully orchestrating events and organizing protesters so they can cover it, is not the same as MSNBC opining on the news that it covers.

Did they make movie about this? Actually, the CEO orchestrated events to get sensational news first. CEO try to cause an international incident. CEO kiss up to the conservatives in China and US. It was the British who saved the day.

Tomorrow Never Dies

CEO is movie portrays Rupert Murdoch

This is the fundamental basis of the scientific method and a well established axiomatic truth.

Wait, I thought fundamentalists didn't like science? ;)

As usual Killfile got what I was going for, but put it more succinctly.

Yep, pretty sharp guy, he is.

I was thinking exactly what he wrote, but had to go let the dog out.... :)

shawn--

lay off the drugs and the faux news, and please stay in school.

EVERY major news organization participates in blatant yellow media.

That's not true.

So, show you how MSNBC does it? They've not been caught in the same fashion as FOX.

That's basically what I was getting at, yes.

However if you recall in 1996, the allegedly racist fires in the South East in which 20 some churches allegedly burned and the liberal media was blaming right wing racists, telling people at every turn it was a conservative racist conspiracy - turns out... they were wrong.

You can make a case for that being irresponsible of them, and I'd agree. But remember what we're getting at. I'm asking you to point out a specific example of MSNBC steering the news itself. Their coverage of that event didn't involve starting the fires, or telling the arsonists where or when to strike. So it's not analogous at all to the situation at FOX, and you're still failing to prove your thesis that "everyone does it."

Besides, I'm going on your word here. You haven't provided a link to prove any of it. For all I know the statements of it being a conservative conspiracy were all in clearly-defined speculative and commentary sections, not their actual news coverage. So either way, you're still wrong.

@Buckeye voter

That's not true.

I suggest you do your research... find me a major news outlet that didn't repeat something speculated and stated as fact, or that didn't fabricate and embellish to promote a socio-political agenda.

@Tschrek

lay off the drugs and the faux news, and please stay in school.

As long as you promise to read for comprehension. In this thread I already stated I don't watch a lot of FOX, and that I don't trust American MSM. I've stated several times in threads that we've both been party to that I'm no longer in school - 4 degrees, a certification and a HS diploma is enough. Also, I stopped doing drugs (except caffeine and nicotine), when my wife (fiance at the time) came up pregnant 6 years ago.

Is there anything of substance you'd like to comment on or was a near personal attack your point?

@Killfile

Allow me to correct. No one can show evidence of a negative.

I believe you and I as well as several others engaged in this a couple of years ago - I can prove I'm not a girl. I won't because it would be indecent, but I CAN prove the negative. In a less off-color fashion I can prove I'm not next to you right this second. I can prove that I don't have two noses... I can prove a negative as can anyone with a bit of thought - it can be done in math and philosophy. Hence: ∼∃(x)(Fx), and 'the domain' (where the pro-negative is dependent upon the world in which the argument exists). Another example of proving a negative is.... One could prove that I'm not foreign much easier than one could prove that God doesn't exist, therefore the proof of a negative sort of depends on the manageability of the domain in which is exists. But... anyway... that's neither here nor there...

So wrt to Reuters we might set about trying to find evidence that they do lie and then find ourselves unable to come up with anything.

False. Flatly.Evidence.

I believe you and I as well as several others engaged in this a couple of years ago - I can prove I'm not a girl. I won't because it would be indecent, but I CAN prove the negative.

Uh, not quite the same thing, Shawn. Taking down your pants would prove a positive: that is, that you're a man. Then it would, by necessity, prove the inverse false. You are always one or the other -- or transgender, but that's obfuscation so I won't go down that path.

But what you suggested was that someone prove that other news agencies do NOT do something. Simply proving that they do tell the truth (sometimes) isn't the same as proving they never lie. News agencies can tell the truth and also lie, so proving one true isn't the same as proving the antecedent. The example Killfile pointed out is perfectly valid: prove an invisible moon-sized unicorn isn't circling the globe.

The example Killfile pointed out is perfectly valid: prove an invisible moon-sized unicorn isn't circling the globe.

I would assume its easier than imagined given that you claim it is both invisible and a moon-sized unicorn. How would you know it is a moon-sized unicorn if it were also invisible? You would have to have seen it at some point, right?

And yes Killfiles point is valid, but so is being able to prove a negative. Perhaps proving I'm not a girl by proving I am a man is a bit silly as an example, but proving I'm not next to you right this second doesn't prove I'm here - it proves I'm not there which IS my claim.

How would you know it is a moon-sized unicorn if it were also invisible? You would have to have seen it at some point, right?

Good question.

By the way, how would you know other news agencies steer the news if you can't show an example of it? You would have to have seen it at some point, right? I mean otherwise, you're just making @!$%# up that's politically convenient. That would be downright silly.

What you are doing, Shawn, is asking us to prove that something isn't happening. To do that, we have to prove that something *is* happening. That's the only way we can prove that something isn't. (As Steve has said.)

In other words, you're asking us to prove your point.

It's your point. You prove it.

@ Brian and Steve

I showed examples of it a few times in this thread.. .but I'll point them out again:

Reuters, AP and NYT using doctored photos and misleading captions to convey exaggerated facts or things that did not happen at all - here

MSNBC misleading viewer singularly (as in the only network to do this) about the 'racism' at an ObamaCare event. It wasn't that they lied about a man caryring a gun, it was that they cropped the man with the gun to show he was Black and then turned around and speculated racial charge... here (and while it's a NB video, its the report as MSNBC played it). Even then it would be fine, but why was MSNBC not airing the interview of the gentleman with the guns in the video like ABC did?

Another commentator equating to some degree 'socialist' with the "n" word... wonder why that is? - here

Again, MSNBC misleads viewers about gun rights - here.

General Liberal bias using conjecture and supposition to convey the idea that racist rights were conspiring a string of race related arson, then later unable to back the claims to a point that the 'theories' were debunked - here

what, have I been speaking @!$%#ing French this whole time (which would be interesting because I don't know the French language aside from things like douche and bidet)?

So... can I at least get a ball park figure for many many more times I'm going to be asked to show something to you that I've been showing you for... the better part of a day now? I mean... just a rough estimate - 5? 25? 3.2 Million?

So... can I at least get a ball park figure for many many more times I'm going to be asked to show something to you that I've been showing you for... the better part of a day now?

As many times as it takes for you to actually provide it. Here's a refresher in case you forgot:

What's setting this example apart is that FOX blatantly steered the news itself. Not their coverage, not their comments, the actual news. Point out an example of MSNBC doing that if you're so insistent that "everyone does it."

I do not recall an instance where a network was involved in the 'events' themselves...until now.

Fox, in this case planned the events with their 'commentator's' as the spokespersons/agitators, used their own network to advertise the 'events', and then 'covered' the scripted event and its aftermath.

But, I did see that one person IS not answering that specific question and is making up scenarios that are not what you are asking for at all....to me that IS an avoidance on purpose...

my dear deluded Mr Gordon.

my statement was made in the sure and certain knowledge that i would never have to apologise to you, or to join up with Herr becks illiterate brigade. to paraphrase that great wartime leader.

never before, in the field of human vinery, has so much falsehood, been written, in defense, of so few.

my statement was made in the sure and certain knowledge that i would never have to apologise to you, or to join up with Herr becks illiterate brigade. to paraphrase that great wartime leader.

um... sure... I didn't ask you for an apology so your statement makes little to no sense at all. Increase your Lithium dose and things will go back to normal and until then - shhh, the adults are talking.

What's setting this example apart is that FOX blatantly steered the news itself. Not their coverage, not their comments, the actual news. Point out an example of MSNBC doing that if you're so insistent that "everyone does it."

And I did that. That is unless you're telling me that misinforming is different from directing information. Directing action, directing information - the end result is the same and that's the context I framed my statement. I've explained that - so either you're choosing not to listen or you're being willfully obtuse.

As you quoted me, I said 'everyone' which I meant in a general sense (if MSNBC can get away with using specific terms and saying they meant 'general' then I'll take my free pass on that too), but then you ask for MSNBC specifically (which unless MSNBC is 'everybody', it is you moving goal posts)...

Did you even go over and read the information in the links? Are you going to tell me that using photos from one event to depict another is not as disingenuous as telling protesters to 'act' for camera? The only difference is one is video and one is still image, but if you want to split hairs that's fine - it says that you never intended to try and understand that the media on both sides of the political fence are piss yellow and that these actions are nothing totally new.

But, I did see that one person IS not answering that specific question and is making up scenarios that are not what you are asking for at all....to me that IS an avoidance on purpose...

really? you're also looking for an exact replica of events with someone else, even though that's not specifically what I said? I thought you guys claimed to be the 'enlightened' party - the ones with integrity... look... I'll tell you the same thing I told Steve Watts (and I'm going to assume you too, didn't go to any of the links and read them) - if using a photo from one event that has nothing to do with a second event and tell people that the first photo is the second event - then it is not any different in the end than telling a crowd of people to behave a certain way for the video camera. In both cases the people orchestrating it started out with the intent to mislead and lie. In both cases the end is misinformation and manipulation. FOX is NOT the only group to have done this as I have repeatedly shown people unwilling to do their part and look.

GORDON

did you find your evidence on worldnet daily, or fox on-line. Ive used my resources at the BBC, and the only evidence i can find relating to accredited news organisations manipulating crowds to make propaganda was in Nazi Germany 1936-1941 good company for fox.

Isn't an intangible kinda hard to prove?

That is unless you're telling me that misinforming is different from directing information.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm telling you. Speculating that nutty conservatives are starting fires is completely different from being the people who start the fires. That's the kind of difference we're talking about here. Either you're being blind or willfully ignorant to it.

did you find your evidence on worldnet daily, or fox on-line. Ive used my resources at the BBC, and the only evidence i can find relating to accredited news organisations manipulating crowds to make propaganda was in Nazi Germany 1936-1941 good company for fox.

The BBC isn't going to get caught up in the lies of American MSM. They've got things to do like cover actual news. However, my sources are well researched and while they did you some FOX footage it was to contrast other things. What you're implying is that unless it's name brand, it's not good and that's sort of a materialist way to view things.What my links did do - was cite discrepancies among an array of MSM organizations. They didn't play up or down the situations, they didn't carry a political tone in terms of liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican - but I guess that's simply not good enough for you...

Isn't an intangible kinda hard to prove?

Only when it's actually intangible. You'd have to first be open to the idea that organizations other than FOX have manipulated and fabricated stories, and if you, like others would have gone to this link in particular, you'd have seen prime examples of identical occurrences in nature from groups like NYT and Reuters. Since certain individuals seem to think that it's all just me using weak ass linking and agenda driven sources here's the wiki about the same thing the aforementioned link is talking about.

How intangible is that now?

Mr Gordon.

i have looked at your links, doctored photos of after the event conflict situations in no way equates to manipulating and directing a crowd, that was lured to a location by the lies of a pox commentator, and then played like an orchestra in real time by the so called fair and balanced wing of the same organisation, but i must say i admire your dogged devotion to an utterly lost cause. are you on the pox payroll.

That's the kind of difference we're talking about here. Either you're being blind or willfully ignorant to it.

doctored photos of after the event conflict situations in no way equates to manipulating and directing a crowd

Really? So directing a crowd to do something or to 'look' mad is different from taking a photo and making it 'look' like something that wasn't happening? The end result is that the audience gets the wrong idea and is misinformed. You guys are telling me that you feel that it isn't the ends that matter, but the means - which hey, if that's the case then I'll let you think and feel as you like.

You know, Charles Manson never killed anyone - but he directed people to do it. He's locked up for conspiracy to commit murder. It's an offense, true. Ted Bundy was locked up for killing people himself. The end result is that both men in some way or another were responsible for the death of someone... and you're looking more at HOW these people were killed rather than THAT these people were killed. I'll agree to the idea that there are degrees of crime, in particular murder. What I won't agree to is that the means of killing is more important than the act of killing.

What Fox did was wrong - have all agreed to that much. What Fox did was beyond what other outlets have done - we agree to that. What we're not agreeing on is that Fox is the only one to do it and that other outlets ahve been guilty of misinformation, misdirection, and propagating stories.You guys claim Fox lies - they do and have been repeatedly called on it. You claim Fox fabricates stories, specifically the one this arcitle brings to question - and they did, but a lie by definition is:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

When I claim other media outlets are just as guilty, you claim they're not take me to task on it - I provide backing to my assertion and it's not 'good enough' or not 'the same'... so then tell me, is the definition of 'lie' different? would 'propagate a story', 'mislead', 'fabricate' all fall under 'lie' or do they have separate meanings

Take a step back, Shawn. We're attempting to have a mature discussion about degrees of journalistic integrity, and your argument is that the definition of lying means all lies are equal. Think about that for a moment. By the logic you're using, a child telling his mother that he didn't eat the last cookie is "just as bad" as a man claiming he didn't rape and murder a woman. If they're both lies, they're equally wrong. Right?

Ludicrous. There are degrees to moral issues, Shawn, and some of us are addressing them realistically. Influencing an actual event is a different animal than swaying your coverage of said events. Speculating that conservatives started fires is different from actually starting the fires. It simply is, and there's no getting around that.

I would call doctored photos different as well; at the least very close to as irresponsible as having a hand in the story. But Reuters didn't actually set off extra missiles to make the story happen. It's irresponsible and morally repugnant in a completely different way. They're accenting the story after it has happened; they are not creating the story.

So let me once again remind you what you claimed, and have still failed to provide. Show me an example of MSNBC creating a story. Not spinning or swaying or slanting or even accenting. Creating. After this long, I assume you can't. The grown-up thing to do at this point would be to admit that and move on.

Think about that for a moment. By the logic you're using, a child telling his mother that he didn't eat the last cookie is "just as bad" as a man claiming he didn't rape and murder a woman. If they're both lies, they're equally wrong. Right?

Yes, that's right. Principally a lie is a lie is a lie. What gives the latter lie weight is the framing inside the murder vs the framing of the cookie jar. Essentially you're arguing that perception is context - and it is... but on a principal level and fundamental level one lie is not worse than another lie because they're equally lies, which is your question as you've asked it. If you stick to the 'perception is context' aspect of it then we'll move to that -

Perception is context, and that gives the whole FOX thing weight. I see it as lying is lying no matter how it is done because the end result is the same across the board. In context to your first question about the child and cookies vs man and rape / murder - what happened prior to the lie caused the lie, not the other way around. If it was the lie that caused the man to rape and murder then your argument would be valid. Likewise, FOX orchestrating events is a lie of immoral equivalence to Reuters or NYT doctoring photos. Taking that to post events is also the same - Fox reported on an orchestrated event (the first lie) and misled viewers to believe something other than the events as they happened (the second lie). Reuters and NYT took the doctored photos, videos, mis-captions or what have you and printed them in a fashion that led the audience to believe events occurred differently than they actually did. Once again - immoral equivalence and an equal level of fabrication / creation / propagation because of how the audience perceives it or at least meant to perceive it.

So let me once again remind you what you claimed, and have still failed to provide. Show me an example of MSNBC creating a story.

First, nowhere in that statement did you remind me of what I claimed - only what you asked for. What I claimed was "everyone does it" and you're response was "show me where MSNBC created a story". So, because you're looking at actions leading to the lie rather than the framing of my argument around the act of lying your perception of it will never get you the answer you desire so... no I can't give you the answer you're looking for. But then you're outside of the argument as I initially framed it. So yeah - I guess the 'grown up' thing to do is walk away because you apparently aren't willing to look at it in the way I've presented it. I'm not talking at all about events and I made that abundantly clear several times over yet it's where you're continuing to cling.

Your framing, Shawn, was that "everyone does it." From the very beginning I challenged you to prove that:

That's setting this example apart is that FOX blatantly steered the news itself. Not their coverage, not their comments, the actual news. Point out an example of MSNBC doing that if you're so insistent that "everyone does it."

Since then you've been pointing to news organizations doing morally questionable, but undeniably different things. If you want to change the goalposts now that your point has been thoroughly shattered, feel free. But if you truly were talking about something different from the outset, you really shouldn't have waited this long to use that as your defense. If it helps you feel you're walking away with more dignity in tact, then more power to you. We both know you failed to prove the premise that I've been asking for over the last 30 or so posts.

Again - MSNBC isn't 'everyone'. And you keep bringing up MSNBC specifically in "but show me MSNBC making up the news"

Since then you've been pointing to news organizations doing morally questionable, but undeniably different things.

questionable? There's no question to the immorality of it.However, yes... the problem here is, again, I was never talking about the actions of FOX in terms of steering news. I was talking about the act of lying which is the underlying problem here. How they lie, or what they lie about is of no consequence. To you it appears it is of great consequence and even in your example of cookies and rape you're using lying as the link between them.

you really shouldn't have waited this long to use that as your defense.

I didn't 'wait to use it as a defense', I'm not defending any one thing or group and I didn't 'wait' - it was my argument from the start. Read my original statement in post #3:

EVERY major news organization participates in blatant yellow media. every one of them. MSNBC, CNN, REUTERS, FOX... all of them.

We both know you failed to prove the premise that I've been asking for over the last 30 or so posts.

No... apparently you seem to think that. In context to my initial claim of all of them and blatant yellow media (lies) I did show you examples. I can't help that you popped in and tried to reframe it all.

Again, the lie is common denominator, the thing that make the comparison apples to apples and you're sitting there telling me to link apples and oranges. Of course you can't compare apples and oranges, that's why I wasn't and framed my argument in the terms of lying and stated that all of them do it ("it" being "lie"). I even defined "lie" for you to show that misinform, misdirect, or anything to deviate from the truth is a "lie" - but hey... it's whatever. Continue to see it how it best fits your idea.

It just dawned on me where I think you're really getting hung up here.

The boy steals the cookies and lies about taking them. The man in court lies to the judge about raping and murdering the woman. Both are lies and are equally lies. We can agree to that.

The lie is not caustic of the preceding action, only the proceeding action and only then if the lie is perceived as truth. If the lie is seen as a lie, or proven to be a lie then the caustic reasons for the preceding actions are inconsequential because the lie removes or at least brings to question the credibility of anything stated further.

You claim that the lies are different in severity and I say they are not. They aren't because the lie wasn't the action that brought the question of credibility, it was the actions so that actions are in varying degrees of severity not the post action lie.

I'm here talking about the post action lie and you're talking about the pre-lie action. Apples and Oranges, but I remain having framed it as the post-action lie from the start. So in reality, I'm sorry and not to sound pity or immature, but... from where I'm standing - you're wrong.

No, you still haven't proven that any other news organization, doesn't matter whichever group now (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc...) 'created a story', 'advertised it', and then 'covered it' and then lied about 'other organizations coverage of it' like that of Fox with this whole thing...

You want to just talk about the ethics of 'lying' and debating degrees of lies...and that is still skirting the point...

What I am getting from you is that it is ok with you that FOX planned the whole event, covered it and then lied about it afterwards...AND that you are supporting them for doing it by not speaking out about their lying...

No, you still haven't proven that any other news organization, doesn't matter whichever group now (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc...) 'created a story', 'advertised it', and then 'covered it' and then lied about 'other organizations coverage of it' like that of Fox with this whole thing...

(Sigh).... I didn't claim they did that much. Please read my original claim:

"EVERY major news organization participates in blatant yellow media. every one of them. MSNBC, CNN, REUTERS, FOX... all of them."

If you or anyone else takes this to mean that the infractions are also done in the exact same manner, then you're assuming something I didn't say and that's YOUR problem, not mine.

What I am getting from you is that it is ok with you that FOX planned the whole event, covered it and then lied about it afterwards

Then you really aren't reading. I've stated no less than twice that I didn't like that fox did it. I've stated 3 or more times that it was wrong.

...AND that you are supporting them for doing it by not speaking out about their lying...

Oh... I get it now. You're one of those people that believe not stating a positive is the same as stating a negative. I don't say I'm against racism every time it allegedly occurs, therefore I must be for it? Is that right? I'm not being sympathetic to Palestinians therefore I must be sympathetic to Israelis. I'm not patting Obama on the back and burning effigies of Fox News logo, so I must be supporting Fox news and burning effigies of Obama... sound about right?

No, what I was getting from your posts was the attempted purposeful evasion of a specific question of a specific scenario...which you did not 'specifically' address...until this particular post...And I do read what people are commenting on and after repeated attempts to avoid a particular point one has to come to the conclusion that is evasion on purpose...neither positive or negative, just evasion...

If you or anyone else takes this to mean that the infractions are also done in the exact same manner, then you're assuming something I didn't say and that's YOUR problem, not mine.

Yes, that is the point...we are asking you for proof that other 'news' organizations have done the same thing...this point was asked numerous times in numerous ways and very specifically too, and you avoided specifically answering it numerous times...

We are asking you to prove that other organization HAVE done the same thing and to prove it. It is you that hasn't addressed that specific scenario. We WERE asking you to prove it instead and you keep avoiding it...

Then you really aren't reading. I've stated no less than twice that I didn't like that fox did it. I've stated 3 or more times that it was wrong.

No, the way those responses of yours were written they did not 'specifically' address the point of the question...You just keep referring to 'yellow journalism' while we all agree that it has been done (the yj) it is not the subject of the question...

Are you going to address the point? Or, are you going to continue to debate everything else and avoid it?

No, what I was getting from your posts was the attempted purposeful evasion of a specific question of a specific scenario...which you did not 'specifically' address...until this particular post...And I do read what people are commenting on and after repeated attempts to avoid a particular point one has to come to the conclusion that is evasion on purpose...neither positive or negative, just evasion...

I covered this. I framed my argument in a certain way, and then someone else came and either tried to re-frame it or brought up a different argument.

Yes, that is the point...we are asking you for proof that other 'news' organizations have done the same thing...this point was asked numerous times in numerous ways and very specifically too, and you avoided specifically answering it numerous times...

Because what they were doing was asking for apples to oranges when the arguement I presented was apples to apples - lie to lie, not action to lie.

We are asking you to prove that other organization HAVE done the same thing and to prove it. It is you that hasn't addressed that specific scenario. We WERE asking you to prove it instead and you keep avoiding it...

My statement was that 'other media outlets engage in blatant yellow media'. I asserted a second time that other media outlets do the exact same thing, in context to being involved with yellow media. Assuming you're aware of what yellow media is, I did answer the question, which as you say was 'where?'. Either that or you're saying that the question was 'show MSNBC fabricate the news' and I'm sorry that question had zero to do with my initial assertion. I didn't claim MSNBC specifically fabricated. If anything one could successfully argue that I included MSNBC in being involved with yellow media.

Are you going to address the point? Or, are you going to continue to debate everything else and avoid it?

That depends on if you are going to frame the question in terms of the initial argument, or are you going to keep asking a question that has nothing to do with my point. remember I made the first claim, and then was asked a question not pertaining to the core of what I said. That's like... Me telling you fuel prices are pretty high, and then you ask to show proof that diesel is cheaper than gas.

Your comment in #3 was relating to 'yellow media practices in general' which was about avoiding the whole point of the article itself, which was the blatant actions of FOX creating the news, advertising the news and then covering the news and its aftermath...

Everyone so far has agreed that yellow media has occurred by all sources...BUT the point of the article and the point with which you have AVOIDED answering IS the point that the other comments were referring to which was Did other organizations do what FOX did, and to prove it.

That is and was the point of all the responding comments to #3 which was a direct challange to your comment on the article...(which again was avoiding the point of the article itself)...

So, prove others organizations have done what FOX did...

You can't, and you might as well admit it...

Everyone so far has agreed that yellow media has occurred by all sources...BUT the point of the article and the point with which you have AVOIDED answering IS the point that the other comments were referring to which was Did other organizations do what FOX did, and to prove it.

Did I claim that others did it exactly AS Fox did? No. There's nothing for me TO prove and until I said something about other organizations taking part in yellow media, no one had. I do believe I started off by stating - "Let's look at objective facts..."

BUT the point of the article and the point with which you have AVOIDED answering IS the point that the other comments were referring to which was Did other organizations do what FOX did, and to prove it.

No. The point of the article is :

The video thus calls into question the integrity and accuracy and objectivity of every minute of programing that Fox News airs, not merely that of its acknowledged opinionated pundits.

That, directly from the article itself. WHAT brought up the point was the video, but the point is above. And to that point, I made my statement and stand by it.

So, prove others organizations have done what FOX did..

I've proven that they lie. And you admit people agreed to it, but the majority of comments here don't acknowledge that others are equally guilty of lying - just slam a single organization for the same fundamental things that their sources do. It's a bit hypocritical and I aimed to point that out - and yet, you're hung up on it so much that you're worried about seeing the means than the ends... I feel bad for you.

You can't, and you might as well admit it...

I don't have to prove something I didn't claim. Once again, just refusing to read what is written.

You are still not addressing the point of the question...And those questions were in direct response to your initial comment...we have all watched while you have continually avoided answering the direct points...

Have other organizations acted like Fox in that they 'created/generated and supported an event', advertised the event, and then reported/covered on the event...You have still not answered with proof, that there are other organizations that did that, nor have you said 'specifically that FOX was wrong to do it in the first place...

Your comments lead people to believe, as was stated elequently in 3.1 that you are defending FOX and its actions...

.And those questions were in direct response to your initial comment...

Ok... then I'd like for you to explain how my statement "all do it, yellow media" prompts the question "can you prove that MSNBC fabricates exactly like fox?" How does making a general statement prompt a specific question on something I technically never claimed? Had I said "All media outlets orchestrate and fabricate followed by reporting as unaltered fact", then you'd be within reason to ask, but that's not what I said, even remotely or implicitly.

we have all watched while you have continually avoided answering the direct points

PoinT. Singular. The article has but one point and I put that up for you, here it is again in slow motion:

The video thus calls into question the integrity and accuracy and objectivity of every minute of programing that Fox News airs, not merely that of its acknowledged opinionated pundits.

and again, slowed down even more...

The video thus calls into question

the integrity and accuracy and objectivity of every minute of programing that Fox News airs,

not merely that of its acknowledged opinionated pundits.

You say:

nor have you said 'specifically that FOX was wrong to do it in the first place

And again, you're really NOT reading. Here are some instances in this thread alone that I've said or agreed that it was wrong (what Fox did). the following illustrates that you in fact did NOT go over the statements as you claimed you have:

Does this mean I get to call you a liar?

1. Does Fox say stupid bull@!$%#? yes. (comment 3.2)
   
2. The irony is that all of the liberal media viewers who look down upon Fox viewers are being just as misled and 'herded' as the Fox viewers (comment 3.2 - I panned BOTH sides)
   
3. I'm not making an excuse for FOX, it was wrong and pretty stupid given that they launched an attack on CNN and NBC (comment 3.13)
   
4. I'm not defending any one thing or group (comment 3.41)
5. Likewise, FOX orchestrating events is a lie of immoral equivalence to Reuters or NYT doctoring photos. (comment 3.39 and calling something immoral isn't defense or praise)
   
6. What Fox did was wrong - have all agreed to that much. What Fox did was beyond what other outlets have done - we agree to that. (comment 3.37)
   

Your comments lead people to believe, as was stated elequently in 3.1 that you are defending FOX and its actions...

The term 'toolbag' comes to mind here after pointing out the SEVERAL instances I've said they (Fox) were wrong on top of the two times in this comment alone. Aside from that, apparently you think that not stating one thing is the same as stating the opposite. I like Vanilla Ice Cream... well then I must by default hate Chocolate, is that how you're working it? really?

Have other organizations acted like Fox in that they 'created/generated and supported an event', advertised the event, and then reported/covered on the event...You have still not answered with proof

Ahem - I've been over that...

From Smiling Jack:

That's what I remarked on, but not what you responded to.

Actually... I remarked and he responded (i.e. comment 3 was my remark and 3.1 and 3.2 were responses on something different than what I said)

Steve Watts realigned his goal posts in the frame of my initial remark here:

By the way, how would you know other news agencies steer the news if you can't show an example of it? You would have to have seen it at some point, right?

And, I showed other news agencies steering - misquotes, photo editing - that's part of misdirection. Steering something is directing it a certain way or to cause something to veer from it's course.

And still you're asking to show instances of mainstream media organizations fabricating, from thin air, stories?

ok...

Jayson Blair - reporter for NYT, busted fabricating parts of his stories

Alessandra Stanley, also of NYT accused G. Rivera back in 2005 of nudging a rescue worker out of the way to get a shot of him doing the rescue workers job and printed that in a story. Upon review of video footage of this allegation, absolutely NOTHING was found to indicate any such 'nudge'. Rivera invited Stanley to watch the tape with him, and she declined - and lets face it, for the paper nicknames "The Paper of Record", her still being there sort of gives reason to consider 'all do it'.

Stanley advertised the portion of her story as Rivera being an @!$%#, reported on a fabricated event (because no one corroborated her story, not even rescue workers) and the NYT said that a retraction wasn't going to happen because Rivera acted childishly about the situation once it came to light.

Jayson Blair has a list of @!$%# on Wiki to evidence your three "points"...

Two examples of media outlets fabricating. Happy? Probably not... so where will your posts me this time I wonder?

Not really.

You still haven't proven that any other news organization 'created', then 'promoted', then 'covered' an event...

And your 'comments' you listed in 3:50 did not specifiy what was asked ...you talked about doctored photos etc (again, we all have agreed to that point anyway)...but did not address the 'whole point' of creating through to coverage of an event by FOX...

No other news organization has done what FOX did, specifically from 'creating to advertising, then covering an event'...otherwise prove that statement wrong...

i have been following the, lets say more high brow element of this thread. much to convoluted for my primitive Celtic brain. nonetheless.

well played ladies and gentlemen.

@dcstone01

OK buddy... then you pick and choose from this list what fits your question.

And your 'comments' you listed in 3:50 did not specifiy what was asked

You're right. It doesn't specifiy what was asked, becuase it didn't address a question but a statement. That statement I quoted prior to the list of comments which was:

nor have you said 'specifically that FOX was wrong to do it in the first place

And the 6th bullet point, directly states what you accused me of never saying. So... pony up a retraction and apology, because frankly you claimed I didn't do it at all and I did it no less than 6 times. How am I supposed to give you credit for following anything we've been talking about if you miss a statement SIX goddamned times?

No other news organization has done what FOX did, specifically from 'creating to advertising, then covering an event'...otherwise prove that statement wrong...

You made that claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I made a different claim and I backed it up. I'm not going to do your work for you anymore.

I have no need for a retraction or apology.

Your list does not meet the same points we were asking, name a news organization that 'created an event, advertised/promoted said event, covered the event and its follow-up'...no one has denied those other 'scandals' occurred (or yellow media as you put it)...we just are not seeing the same type of orchestration of an event by a news organization that FOX did with the whole 9/12 teabaggers events...

Otherwise name one other news organization that did exactly that.

I have no need for a retraction or apology.

Tell me I never said specifically that FOX was wrong to do it in the first place, then I show you that I did several times and you don't feel the 'need' to retract your irresponsible allegation? OK, so then you're either an outright liar - plain and simple. Color me 5 shades of 'shocked'.

Your list does not meet the same points we were asking

Show me where I claimed that another news organization specifically did what Fox did - show me where I said that other organizations "created an event, advertised/promoted said event, covered the event and its follow-up" . I have on record saying that others play an equal role in yellow media, nothing more. So until you show me where I said that other news organizations created an event, advertised/promoted said event, covered the event and its follow-up - I'm under no obligation whatsoever to supply that which you repeatedly demand. I've gone over the point of the article, I've gone over the framing and context of my statements. I've gone over the definition of terms. I've gone over the immoral equivalences and not only how but why the presented lies make the way it went down inconsequential. And, apparently I've gone way over your head.

Be thankful I usually try and follow the CoH and respect Killfile enough to refrain from verbally kissing you with a tire iron.

btw shawn, that zombietime link you're so fond of cites one photographer for almost all of the doctored photographs (and he did such a @!$%#ty job!) and the time frames for the pictures included in the reports. it doesn't appear that the news organizations buying his photos were trying to orchestra some grand conspiracy as much as the photographer, hajj, was trying to either rake in more money or had an agenda of his own.

Oh for gods sake the horse is dead already! It slathered, fell, and is mostly decomposed by this time.

Shawn, I feel for ya. The frustration you are feeling has come through the wires and now I feel like I need to verbally kiss dc with that tire iron!

dcstone: I've read these posts, as tiring as it was, and I'll attest to the fact that Shawn never said that the other media did orchestrate any news coverage. He said that they are all biased, as you have agreed also right? But yet you want him to prove something he never said! Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Did he or did he not say that the other media organizations orchestrate news coverages? If so, show the exact sentence and the exact post #.

Also, dcstone, I want you to prove to me that a purple bus isn't orbiting the earth right now.

how many surrealists does it take to screw in a light-bulb.

fish

Damn, I thought it was valet!

the word-meister general deleted, i don't believe it.

what he say.

Well, edward, one does have to watch ones words carefully so as not to violate the COH, otherwise that is what happens...:)

Also, dcstone, I want you to prove to me that a purple bus isn't orbiting the earth right now.

HB we all know that isn't 'provable' that was a silly comment...thus a 'fail' at the attempt at being cute...

My point of my consistent request was to show that there wasn't another news organization that did what FOX did, by its creating/advertising/covering an event...

OK... so the comment was deleted. It was an infraction of the CoH... my temper got the better of me and I'm sorry for the infraction... not the sentiment.

My point of my consistent request was to show that there wasn't another news organization that did what FOX did, by its creating/advertising/covering an event...

And my point is that I never claimed it - so for the third time... show where I specifically stated what you want me to prove... times a wastin

Yes dc, I recognize that it was a silly comment. However you failed to recognize the point I was trying to make. Your point of consistently wanting Shawn to prove something he never said just to show that other news organizations haven't yet orchestrated a news event like Fox did was really irritating. And you skirted answering my questions.

Why don't you prove that they didn't? Why don't you ask anyone else to prove that they haven't yet?

Actually dc, my question about the purple bus theory is provable. And I nominate you to prove it.

ed, I thought the answer would have been Dahli. But I suppose you would first have to recognize the representation of said light bulb...;} (fish sounds reasonable)

HB you posed the question I gave you my answer, simple as that...don't like it, oh well. Provide your own answer....:)

SG, as I stated before, after your comment #3, (which was rebutting the point of the article and attempting to distract by drawing in other parallels with other news organizations) further 'responses' (starting with 3.1 and on) to yours included the question about what other news organizations did do what FOX did...They asked you if others had done it and if so who were those organizations...they asked in numerous ways,(which you went about deflecting with other scenarios and wordplay) and then I asked 'specifically'.

That is all...again, I have been consistent.

So far I see no proof that other organizations did what FOX did...create/advertise/cover/and follow-up their own 'event'...

SG, as I stated before, after your comment #3, (which was rebutting the point of the article and attempting to distract by drawing in other parallels with other news organizations) further 'responses' (starting with 3.1 and on) to yours included the question about what other news organizations did do what FOX did...They asked you if others had done it and if so who were those organizations...they asked in numerous ways,(which you went about deflecting with other scenarios and wordplay) and then I asked 'specifically'.

You'll get your answer as soon as you show me where I specifically stated that others created an event, advertised/promoted said event, covered the event and its follow-up.

What? You can't? Why not? It's because I never claimed that.

If you recall, Brian Ford even stated:

What you are doing, Shawn, is asking us to prove that something isn't happening. To do that, we have to prove that something *is* happening. That's the only way we can prove that something isn't. (As Steve has said.)

In other words, you're asking us to prove your point.

It's your point. You prove it.

Hmmm.... Brian seems to have gotten that I made a separate point, so why can't you seem to get that my point wasn't inline with what you were asking. He called me out on asking you to prove my point by proving a negative. Then tasked me to prove it myself. My point didn't shift and change prior to or after he made that comment. I proved MY point. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Once again, it is your responsibility to prove your own point and that seems to be the consensus here... pony it up (where I claimed the aforementioned) or shut it up (stop asking).

To Killfile

You are live in fantasy. The media should not side with any administration. If Fox appears to be too far Right - maybe it’s because the rest of the media are so far left that the administration doesn't recognize the "Center" anymore.

Fox has a lot of explaining to doabout that Youtube video

surely you mean a lot more diversionary attacks, not unlike some of the bull on here.

this thing could really burst their bubble, they have been trying to tell us that the folks are mad as hell, but if the anger and shouting is being coreographed by fox news producers. ROFLMFAO, Kieth and Rachel are gonna have a field day.

They've been caught, yes, but usually they've been caught in the form of editorial discretion (ie choosing what to talk about) and their paid liars editorial commentators.

As have others... it's called media bias.

As have others... it's called media bias.

evidence Mr Gordon you have cited no evidence, an yet you continue to repeat this claim. it is true that most privately owned media outlets will have an ideological slant or preference. but none i repeat none have demonstrated as much wilful and deliberate distortions of the actuality as fox, they are an embarrassment to the world of TV news. the daily show and s.n.l. have shown more integrity in their comedic portrayal of news stories. you are defending the indefensible.

are you a bold fresh lover of gleeeeeeeeeeen beeeeeeeeeck

are you a bold fresh lover of gleeeeeeeeeeen beeeeeeeeeck

Speaking of evidence... where is yours that I'm a "bold fresh lover of Glen Beck"?

and BTW, yes I did cite my above claims

it is true that most privately owned media outlets will have an ideological slant or preference. but none i repeat none have demonstrated as much wilful and deliberate distortions of the actuality as fox, they are an embarrassment to the world of TV news

You seem to have this idea that I'm defending Fox News. I'm not. I'm saying that they're not the only ones to do it and your statement agrees with it. I haven't said that FOX does it less or that others do it more.. .I've simply said that Fox isn't alone. Apparently your rabid hatred of conservatives has blinded you to that much in what I've said. again... shh, the adults are talking.

You seem to have this idea that I'm defending Fox News. I'm not. I'm saying that they're not the only ones to do it and your statement agrees with it. I haven't said that FOX does it less or that others do it more.. .I've simply said that Fox isn't alone. Apparently your rabid hatred of conservatives has blinded you to that much in what I've said. again... shh, the adults are talking.

then why are you engaging so passionately in this thread, be honest, you are engaging in the old right-wing tactic that republicans always spout in opposition, namely that all politics is corrupt we must clean up politics, you are applying the same tactic to rubbish all the media for the behaviour of pox views, it doesn't wash, you are spot on about one thing i do detest conservative ideology

you are engaging in the old right-wing tactic that republicans always spout in opposition,

Let's not forget the old left-wing tactic of spouting racism if you don't like BO's failing policies.

patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

And as for all you brain washed Obamabots: "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice." Now coming from Albert Einstein it must be true. Or, are any of you Obamabots smarter than Einstein (the answer is definitely NO). Delete away. : )

if Einstein where alive today he would probably be chief scientific adviser to the white house. he would definitely not be on the fox all star panel

if Einstein where alive today he would probably be chief scientific adviser to the white house

Einstein was a tax cheat? If not, than no he would not be chief science officer in the corrupt BO administration.

And as for all you brain washed Obamabots: "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt

What an incredibly ironic statement... coming from a Fox news supporter. I nominate this statement to go in the dictionary next to the definition of the word as a perfect example.

You got a comment from Azzix. Now doesn't that just give you all sorts of warm fuzzies earning his contempt? He's basically harmless...continue.

what tangents

Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it--Thomas Paine

Fox dictates; you submit

Fox dictates; you submit

Replace Fox with Dear Leader and that is a correct statement.

Dear Leader, as in Rupurt Murdoch?

They do not want to touch CNN. False news will be crushed under the weight of that heavyweight.

The article is really more about how FOX News went after CNN, and how monumentally stupid it was to do that.

steve and tax-

the moniker vol fan in chatt, tn should tell you all you need to know'

The article is really more about how FOX News went after CNN, and how monumentally stupid it was to do that.

As is generally the case when smaller, poorer, organizations go after a stronger, bigger, richer organization. Monumentally stupid indeed... I agree

As is generally the case when smaller, poorer, organizations go after a stronger, bigger, richer organization. Monumentally stupid indeed... I agree

The self-proclaimed most-watched cable news network funded by one of the richest men in the country is small and poor? You know words have definitions, right? I mean, they're not nearly as malleable as you seem to take them for.

The self-proclaimed most-watched cable news network

Actually the Nielsen ratings back that claim... still they're only FNC and nothing more. Murdoch owns a couple of other outlets but in terms of political weight they're heavily outnumbered. I'm not saying they're small - I said they were smaller and poorer - so yeah, I'm aware that words have definitions.

he is going to give himself a hernia.

POX VIEWS WE LIE, and mr gordon believe's without question and will defend your right, to spread your shi'te throughout this blessed land, amen.

Actually the Nielsen ratings back that claim... still they're only FNC and nothing more.

By that token, CNN is just CNN and nothing more. FOX has more viewers and more capital. I have no idea by what metric you would call them smaller or poorer, and I'd like to see some hard data to back it up.

FOX got where they are by playing the underdog to galvanize conservatives to their cause. At this point, though, their underdog status has faded and the claims based on it are growing increasingly ridiculous. They ramble about the "mainstream media" just after running promos about being the most popular news network. How much more mainstream can you get? You can't be both the underdog and the big man on campus, and FOX wants it both ways. It's just too bad that its loyal subjects have yet to understand the contradiction in terms.

then here

but its not like you couldn't find that on your own as well...

Ah, cume charts from four years ago. How... completely not at all what I was asking for.

completely not at all what I was asking for.

I have a shirt on with the letters E L E M E N T. Unless that spells "your @!$%#" you might try looking for your own answers when you 'want to know'.

Besides you asked to show that FNC was smaller and poorer (actually you asked to see that they're small and poor, which wasn't what I said - I had to correct that for you). Rupert Murdoch is richer than Ted Turner but Ted Turner isn't CNN anymore than Murdoch is FNC. They just own them. In what way do you want to see that they're smaller? In viewers or physical size? CNN get more overall viewers but Fox has higher ratings... CNN places higher than FNC on Alexia. CNN gets visitors online from all over the world, where as a vast majority of visitors to the FOX site come exclusively from the US. So in terms of reach, CNN appears to be bigger. Perhaps that easily self attainable information was what you're looking for, if not - happy hunting.

it has been most gratifying to witness the disintegration of arguments,presented by that that conservative chap, you know the one that gets really hot on punctuation when he cant handle certain debate techniques, like my old Scots grandma would say when Conservative candidates were campaigning.

"there's no arguement for a case ye havent got"

This is disgusting. Please God let the Society for Professional Journalists come up with some kind of metric, a consumer reports if you will, about how bad our news is. SOON!

Let us bring back the fairness doctrine and not allow our media to be controlled by so few individuals. We should also license our media and revoke that license when ethics have been violated. We need to make lying criminal and put anyone who lies on the media in jail. We need to clearly state when editorial opinion is used and not give the impression that it is fact. Then we could put Rather , Limbaugh, and Hannity away preferably with a cell mate named Bubba.

what is needed here is a charter like the one the BBC has to live by, despite some of their recent internal problems, they have set a standard of journalism that others should at least try to emulate

oh yes it can, Murdoch does not get involved with the day to day running of his stations, he sets the agenda to suit the political climate,the fox has been shot and the dogs will rip it to pieces.

i cant wait to see how olberman treats this.

edward j-1337034
i cant wait to see how olberman treats this.

Olbermann will rip him to shreds. I admit, I like MSNBC especially olbermann because he has a good wit, thaat doesn't mean I don't look at other sites, read other outlets, or research on my own. I'm well aware he's a commentator but the GOP outlets ofend and depress me. It's sort of like Jindal's response to the Pres's Speech a few months ago, he was so condescening I got had to walk away. I always watch the responses. I read articles that oppose the left because I want to make up my mind but I will also admit, I'm gonna buy popcorn to watch Olbermann tomorrow.

hi Rahlly,

i watch them all as well just to establish the basic facts, but i really enjoy olberman and maddow, and to be honest i have never heard any blatant lies or distortions on countdown despite what pox and the right say.

Ozark Mountain Sage

FOX News motto: Never let the facts stand it the way of a good story.

Maybe the FOX News motto really is: Never let the facts stand in the way of CREATING a story.

Now, now...I think we're all just mis-understanding FOX. They're really very smart and obviously take their cues from none other than Albert Einstein -

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

I'd say they've learned their lessons well!

</sarcasm>

This ridiculous, oft-spewed talking point about the other networks is blind speculation. You really will never know that those stories would never have been reported. The fact that Fox rushed in without taking time to make sure there was no way they could have gotten incorrect or manipulated data (as LEGITIMATE news networks do), just to beat the rest of the networks to get the story out first and get high ratings, does not an honest network make. Are you really that naive? As I recall, Dan Rather lost his job for jumping on a story before the research on it was complete. There's always a price to pay for acting too quickly. In time, all will out....

i felt Dan Rather was treated very badly. if they applied the same standard to pox there would be no one there, ah i forgot Rather fell foul of a totalitarian regime.

Julia 936936,

Perhaps the stations that chose not to run the story as if it were major national news, had enough insight and intellect to realize that this story may not go well for Fox. I hope they take the videographers and the Fox network to the bank! If I know anything about human nature and I do, these people are going to make sure that they get paid and handsomely. Even individuals of lesser integrity as those videotaped have civil rights and liberties!!

Oh yes, Fox network is above ethics, laws, and integrity. I trust the outcome of the lawsuits will be adequately covered by all stations. That would be noteworthy and intensely entertaining.

No this is where conservatives come to show their lack of spelling skills! Ever heard of spellcheck?

I love when ppl try to bust out others but usually make themselves look like the bigger idiot in the end!

Actually, 'Hay' is spelled correctly. But, I don't understand what straw has to do with FOX, unless it's a reference to the soundness of their reporting. As in "their facts are built on a house of straw."

:p

Oh good! A conservative ready to come on here and admit that his favorite station is so soaked in yellow journalism it looks like a canaries butt. Or are you here to defend their complete manipulation of the 9/12 Tea Party. Could they not make it such a big deal on their message alone?

Just wondering? Fox must really be bothering you guys.

not really, just enjoying the last bastion of right wing propaganda, disappear up its own hyperbole

And what makes it worse is that apparently, whoever at Fox did the ad didn't even see one of their own shows where Bill O'Reilly stated that CNN covered the event.

SuperSaiyan - shows it was a true mistake! CNN should not have been included with the others. I still say thank you Fox, for reporting stories that may not get covered.

I still say thank you Fox, for making up stories that may not get covered.

Fixed that for ya!

I am one of the few Americans in the manufacturing sector of our economy. But I would have to include those at Fox News for they manufacture what they call news. That anyone with half a brain would call Lies and exaggerations.

indeed kilo beast, but we know their number and it is few.

mike-1096504

I am one of the few Americans in the manufacturing sector of our economy. But I would have to include those at Fox News for they manufacture what they call news. That anyone with half a brain would call Lies and exaggerations.

Well at least the half a brain comment certainly explains the Democratic Party and how Obama was elected. But there is hope, look at all the Democrats that are now switching support from Obama and have seen his lies for what they are...they qualify to be Republicans now for the simple fact that they were able to grow their second halfs! WOOOO HOOOO!

Taao,

If you can, please explain how you can assert that a lie is told BEFORE the statement is proved to be a lie. For example, when Fox news asserted that specific networks failed to report the flea bag party...this was proved to be a lie by facts and not fiction. What lie has Obama told that has yet to be proved a lie? Is your verification based on your ASS-umptions? Really think about that moron!

I have posted on two different occasions about Obamas confirmed lies. In the first case one person attempted to answer them. She of course was shot down and ran away like a puppy that knows it has been caught peeing on the floor.

The second time it took three of them to come up with "Whut r u takin about?" A mantra they continued to chant.

So if you think your up to the task go ahead and go to Sept 17 under my comments and look it up. But I'm done humoring lazy people who only prove they are nothing but excuse makers and self rationalizers.

The funny thing about it is you do not even need to go through my comments. Democrats have proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. They know Obama is a liar, they know exactly what lies he has told and continues to tell. You again just do not want to admit you "again" elected another liar to the White House.

I took you up on that challenge and didn't see any confirmed lies. You sure you got the right date?

Let me check it could have been the 18th...so many postings so little time.

Yup soarl the 18th is the date. Title is "Glenn Beck Lies Again -- Will Fox News hold Beck to its Dan Rather standard?" Laura asked for examples, she was given GITMO, Transparency, and Lobbyists. She starts in #43. I respond in #43.1

Have fun.

nascar?

Possibly, but I think they're over attacking Michael Moore.

they on the phone to glen an billo

Here they come!

ebookout - #13

Julia-936936 - #15.2

the mentalist - #20, #21

They're like the Borg. They swoop down and depart en masse. That's the problem with dittoheads - they're not independent or brave enough to stand alone. Next time you see them, they will be flaming the boards. And then they will disappear at the same time.

Roberta.

lol. but they forget resistance is not futile, the bloggers of the truly socialist federation always win in the end.

live long and prosper msnbc

to late brad all bases covered, bring popcorn for the execution.

olberman olberman.

Are you saying because others have done it, it's OK?

And, do you have evidence of those others doing it?

Don't be fooled for a second that this does not go on at all the networks.

What makes you think this goes on at the other networks?

Because if it didn't, that would mean um....that he follows...um...a loser network that can't compete with real news, but has to make it up.

Because if it didn't, that would mean um....that he follows...um...a loser network that can't compete with real news, but has to make it up.

we we were caught out sniff communist infiltrators sniff , i love my country sniff bill do something bold and fresh sniff make up something, nobody will take us seriously again,sniff Rockefeller plaza commies art they just don't get it, how dare they catch us, what about the ratings, raise the terror alert to black.

Chuck101,

I believe you've just provided a great example of the effectiveness of the propaganda of the real controllers of media, conservative corporations.

I'm sure you'll disagree vehemently with the information provided in the following links. I think your comments fit quite nicely into the category of work described at the end of the first video.

YouTube - The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model ...

Political Irony › The Myth of Liberal Media

Scott McClellan on the "liberal media"

'Liberal Media' Myth Goes 'Scientific'

If you haven't caught the drift of my post here, because you're blinded by your idealism,

The Liberal Media is a Myth!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

::rolling around::

Wow

Just wow

Gonna go watch the Simpsons now. I need a little light humor to keep me from busing a gut!

Though I gotta say, it's hilarious when they run out of excuses why their false idols have lied they resort to 'at least they are God-fearing/moral/martyrs'.

My Goddess doesn't want fear but love. She told me to do the best I can to not hurt others but doesn't expect me to be a saint. She rather have us live love and be good to each other than die in her name. Wow... glad I ain't one of them!

you are probably sowing seeds on very stony ground with these folks CuriousG. when they don't like the message, they always attack the messenger, one has to apply their own standards of evidence, like for instance guilt by association a favoured tactic employed by fox all the time ie, the POTUS, middle name is Hussein so that makes him a Muslim terrorist, okay how about this.

fox enterainment makes a program called startrek, star trek, portrays a future which to all intents and purposes is a socialist utopia therefore by fox's own standards the fox network is promoting socialism

edward j-1337034,

I know there's little hope for them, but I do hold out hope for the many who may be lurking and here to actually learn something intelligent.

CuriousG.

i am quietly confident that the tide may have turned in your favour.

fox nation=small mainly illiterate well armed noisy minority, and according to one of your ex presidents," a gentleman from the south" they may be racists as well.

chuck 101.

i believe you have misconstrued what Putin meant, and what the hell has it got to do with those inglorious bestards at pox views.

There are still some honest, God fearing, hard working, law abiding Americans left and as long as there are, FOX will continue to dominate.

Obama and the left are terrified of this fact.

no people matching that description working for pox. but we on the left are terrified of spiders in the bathtub

Yeah,CG, go to each of these columns and there's no bio, 2 of 3 have no icon. What the hey? Could it be that they are straw Viners or paranoid schizophrenics or are they computer generated? Wait a minute....CG, hmm. Just kidding. Loved Curious George. Please accept my apology for getting a little punchy, it's near my bedtime.

“The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity.”

Dorothy Parker quotes

Guilty as charged.

I love Dorothy Parker!

Libs are Fox News' biggest fans Bert; they just don't know it yet. They're the ones always bringing them up.

You have absolutely no problem with Fox lying and manipulating the news and promoting yellow journalism over truth other than the fact they got busted huh. Hey liberals! I guess we're not allowed to shed light on anything the conservatives say anymore. Really unfair of liberals since when talking about Fox's lies we've always got the ball!

Brent.

you have nailed it buddy, libs are pox's biggest fans, that's how the ratings get distorted, its the best political comedy on TV.

Gee digital, I don't care if you talk about Fox's lies. But is it too much to ask to occasionally talk about MSNBC's lies? Or CNN? Or ABC? Or CBS? And therein is the problem digital. When you point out what you believe to be falsehoods in your opponents statements, but purposely ignore falsehoods in the statements of those you support, it negates your credibilty. If you said, "Many news organizations engage in manipulation and yellow journalism. Fox does for conservatives just like MSNBC does for liberals." That would lend some credence to your thought. But per the liberal playbook, DENY DENY DENY, even when the literal definition out of a dictionary contradicts what you say. Don't believe me? Ask George Stephanoplis.

most of the news networks I have watched (NOT a large number) do indeed slant, quote out of context, and even manipulate to fit the larger ideology of the largest target audience the believe they can get

Already did that bert, further up this thread.

but none hold a candle to the hypocrisy that is Fox

Now how about that credibility

ACORN will survive, have my doubts about the teabag revolution.