My challenge: find a factually incorrect news piece from Fox!

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Fern

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ayabe

What attention would the story have gotten if not for Fox? They didn't vet the story at all and pushed it as a slam dunk fact. Repeating stories from fake news sources is just as bad as inventing them straight up.
</end quote></div>

Disagree. I saw it reported on the Brit Hume show (forget the name of his show ATM). He didn't report it as fact. He reported it as being from the source, that's all.

IIRC, some other news agency/channel purported to follow up on the acuracy of the original report. They did so by flying someone down there and asking the Director if they were a maddrasses. He said 'no". OK, case closed. That was laughable as a so-called "investigation"

Fern</end quote></div>

Err, so now the story is true? I believe it was first on their morning show and they didn't add any CYA to the story, it was repeated over and over and over again as a fact.

"Err, so now the story is true?"

If, as I saw, you broadcast that so-n-so is reporting XYZ, yeah that's factual regardless of what truth there is, or is not, to THEIR (original source) underlying story. And as to the issue of whether the source was creditable - that's irrelevant in this context. There are an awful lot of internet "rumors" about polititions (blogosphere etc) reported on by the various news channels. because these things "get legs" and can affect campaigns they are newsworthy in and of themselves. I have no problem with bringing such stuff into the open, otherwise it just festers. Usually, polititions are forced to comment on it themselves, they cannot afford to let such (mis-information) hang around and "fester".

Was the school ever a maddrasses? IDK, nor think it important in and of itself.

The more interesting question, and one I think that was implied - how did this source get that story? Was it a "hit job" by a rival politition? All the news sources have been looking for evidence for that to begin, particularly with HRC and her campaign machine. Wasn't Obama just forced to apologize for something he blamed on his staff?

Fern

 

[ayabe]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Fern
"Err, so now the story is true?"

If, as I saw, you broadcast that so-n-so is reporting XYZ, yeah that's factual regardless of what truth there is, or is not, to THEIR (original source) underlying story. And as to the issue of whether the source was creditable - that's irrelevant in this context. There are an awful lot of internet "rumors" about polititions (blogosphere etc) reported on by the various news channels. because these things "get legs" and can affect campaigns they are newsworthy in and of themselves. I have no problem with bringing such stuff into the open, otherwise it just festers. Usually, polititions are forced to comment on it themselves, they cannot afford to let such (mis-information) hang around and "fester".

Was the school ever a maddrasses? IDK, nor think it important in and of itself.

The more interesting question, and one I think that was implied - how did this source get that story? Was it a "hit job" by a rival politition? All the news sources have been looking for evidence for that to begin, particularly with HRC and her campaign machine. Wasn't Obama just forced to apologize for something he blamed on his staff?

Fern</end quote></div>

I can't handle the way quotes are being f'ed up today so we'll start from here.

Whether a source is credible is very important here, this is what Dan Rather lost his job for, he trusted his producer, who trusted her source. They both lost their jobs.

This is the same thing.

The only minor difference is that the source of one is some shady document guy and the other is a joke of a news site.

Noone was fired at Fox.

Edit - CBS at least made a half-assed attempt to vet their story, Fox did no such thing. I'm sure it was some intern surfing the internet who happened upon the story and they ran with it.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
How about this

or this

or this

or this

or this?

I'm sure I could go on with 10 more seconds of google-fu

Seriously, Fox News tries to be factual, but not as much as it tries to spin things with the neocon/corporate manifesto...</end quote></div>

Did you fail reading comprehension in grade school? All those examples you gave are from OPINION pieces. We all can find opinion commentaries from EVERY network where people's opinions are factually wrong. Hell, look at some of the opinions on this board!

Now show me news articles that are not opinion pieces. Thanks. Oh and include in your Google search incorrect statements made on every other network. You know...for balance.

Eh? Fox "NEWS" is 99% opinion pieces, but they pass it all off as NEWS. That is enough for me. As far as searching for incorrect statements made by other networks, that WASN'T in your OP, or did you fail reading comprehension yourself?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.

The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.</end quote></div>

Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.</end quote></div>

Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.</end quote></div>

What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.</end quote></div>

The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.

If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?

I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.

</end quote></div>

I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.</end quote></div>

I guess you are done if you can't address any of the points that I have made, Deudalus sums it up quite well. I'm not sure why you are defending Rather like this....BTW, where did I lie?

You haven't addressed any of the points he made. You are tied. 2-3 times he said the secretary verified it and that was the fact check and you then ignore his response and push something else instead... this is why internet "debates" are a joke.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.

The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.</end quote></div>

Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.</end quote></div>

Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.</end quote></div>

What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.</end quote></div>

The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.

If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?

I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.

</end quote></div>

I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.</end quote></div>

I guess you are done if you can't address any of the points that I have made, Deudalus sums it up quite well. I'm not sure why you are defending Rather like this....BTW, where did I lie?

</end quote></div>

You haven't addressed any of the points he made. You are tied. 2-3 times he said the secretary verified it and that was the fact check and you then ignore his response and push something else instead... this is why internet "debates" are a joke.

JHC you people don't give up. My original point, the one that he responded to with a diversion, was that Dan Rather, a supposed "unbiased" journalist, used sloppy journalism to further his agenda, which backfired on him when the documents were proven to be fake. Whether or not what was written in the documents are the truth is irrelevant, which falls in line with a cop planting evidence on an obviously guilty criminal that throws his drugs into a river.

You can't divert away from the original point (mine, since he was responding to what I said), demand that I respond to a diversion, then accuse me of diverting.

 

[JD50]

Oh, his and your "point" about the secretary have already been addressed by several other people in this thread.

 

[Arkaign]

This thread is rapidly devolving. At the core, Fox News, like most major 'news' networks, strives for accuracy in terms of the news that they report. Where things fall apart is in the accuracy of the political commentary/op-ed pieces. Some networks contain more of this stuff than others. FNC realizes that talking-head programs get more ratings, because they can sensationalize and opine like drug-addled crack monkeys without having to be so anal about fact-checking and/or keeping a balanced viewpoint. This is also true of almost ANY network news TALK shows, and ANY network.

Defending Fox news is laughable, as is defending the op-ed garbage that swills from almost anywhere else (Olbermann, etc, etc).

Political OPINION from a network news source is guaranteed to be 110% partisan garbage, and the more of it you watch, the dumber you are for the experience.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Eh? Fox "NEWS" is 99% opinion pieces, but they pass it all off as NEWS. That is enough for me. As far as searching for incorrect statements made by other networks, that WASN'T in your OP, or did you fail reading comprehension yourself?

hows it feel to be part of a mindless horde?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Mods: if this is somehow not allowed, go ahead and lock it. But...

Many of you accuse Fox news of being biased. Of course they are! Every news source is to some extent. But that doesnt make the news they present factually wrong. As I have stated in the thread from Deudalus, there are many sides to a news piece, all are correct. Depending on the source, only a slice of the story is presented. So, my challenge is this:

Find a story from Fox news that is factually incorrect. OReilly, Hannady/Coombs, Greta, etc dont count: they are O P I N I O N commentaries. I'm talking news.

Fox reports news? :shocked: Too small of a sample to check, now if you wanted excerpts from big loads of whooeee!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign

Eh? Fox "NEWS" is 99% opinion pieces, but they pass it all off as NEWS. That is enough for me. As far as searching for incorrect statements made by other networks, that WASN'T in your OP, or did you fail reading comprehension yourself?</end quote></div>

hows it feel to be part of a mindless horde?

What the hell are you jabbering about now? I don't get my 'news' from FNC or any other 'op-ed' opinionated slanted news source (this means ALL major talking-head networks).

So, you ask me how it feels to be part of a mindless horde? How the hell is that even partially true? I'll ask you some other equally douchebag questions :

How's it feel to be a worthless partisan troll?

How's it feel to be a brainless idiot?

How's it feel to be the son of a diseased gutter slut?

Eh? Not relevant, true, but EQUALLY worthless to the nonsense you just crapped onto your post to me. I'm not even going to bother trying to have a discussion with you, since you obviously won't engage your brain beyond your FNC fan club eyes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe

I can't handle the way quotes are being f'ed up today so we'll start from here.

Ain't it the truth!. I think if you a quote within a quote it get's "F"d up.

Whether a source is credible is very important here, this is what Dan Rather lost his job for, he trusted his producer, who trusted her source. They both lost their jobs.

This is the same thing.

Nah, if Rather had just said "so-n-so says GWB did such-n-such" he'd still be the anchor, IMO. He went quite a bit passed that.

I don't even think that's what got him. In th end it was insistance the memo was actual and that the story was factually correct no matter what the evidence did or didn't say.

If he'd a just said "Crap, looks like the memo may have fooled us. We can't stand by it's authenticity any more and are dropping the story. It may be true, but we can't verify it etc" I think it would not have been a problem. Not enough ammo for the detractors etc. (When you get up that high, somebody's always trying to knock you off).

It's kinda hard to pound GWB & Co. for the forged yellow cake stuff when the network is doing the same thing and sticking by it.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JD50
Back on topic, I guess you are also ok with FNC putting whatever slant they want to on a story, as long as the basic facts are true?

Im perfectly fine with it. Just like I am fine with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al putting their spin on it. Why would you have a problem with Fox's spin? Or are you one of those who believe Fox is the only source that spins? Or is it a matter of degrees?

Geez. Every news story is spun. Thats why it's important to watch/listen to both sides and realize the truth is IN both sides.

 

[RightIsWrong]

This crap again? I remember someone else trying to lay down this gauntlet and I was able to find a 1/2 dozen stories from their NEWS desk anchors in under ten minutes. Let's see how long it takes this time......

Fox News stating Rudy fired his SC coke-head when he actually resigned before they knew about his arrest

Brit Hume not bothering to check his facts

Fox News doesn't know what Congressmen look like anymore?

How about we just have our field reporters make sh1t up?

And, as if you needed further proof......

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of FOX owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from Fox News after refusing to include knowingly false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Corporation's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk than what is natural. Side effects of the drug include a 25% greater chance of mastitis (infection of the udders). They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a US$425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, FOX appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that FOX violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle blower law did not apply.

In 2001, Jane Akre and her husband won the Goldman Environmental Prize as a recognition for their report on RBGH. [1]

FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court.

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...]Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[1]

In 2004, FOX filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs. '</end quote></div>

Edit.... It took 15 cause I was reading some of them to make sure that they were from the "News" desk. I think that the last example pretty much pwns the OP/fanbois though.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Back on topic, I guess you are also ok with FNC putting whatever slant they want to on a story, as long as the basic facts are true?</end quote></div>

Im perfectly fine with it. Just like I am fine with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al putting their spin on it. Why would you have a problem with Fox's spin? Or are you one of those who believe Fox is the only source that spins? Or is it a matter of degrees?

Geez. Every news story is spun. Thats why it's important to watch/listen to both sides and realize the truth is IN both sides.

Well, a true post by Blackangst General amazement ensues.

I am mostly with you on this ironically. As far as Fox/CNN/etc being 'spun'.

Where I sort of differ is how the channels call themselves 'news', but proceed to pour borderline propaganda down your throat for hour after hour with partisan talking heads blurring/bending the facts to suit their needs (just like Michael Moore and Rush).

Where I completely differ is in the value of the product in the end. A heavily spun pile of partisan tripe from the Right OR the Left has no value to me.

Ironically, the slogan 'we report, you decide' is a hint of the best way to actually try to put a picture together on the state of the world. Look for the simple reporting of news as it happens, and ignore the worthless commentary. Decide for yourself. This is where the big partisan news channels fail miserably.

 

[Arkaign]

I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.

The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.</end quote></div>

Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.</end quote></div>

Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.</end quote></div>

What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.</end quote></div>

The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.

If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?

I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.

</end quote></div>

I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.</end quote></div>

I guess you are done if you can't address any of the points that I have made, Deudalus sums it up quite well. I'm not sure why you are defending Rather like this....BTW, where did I lie?

</end quote></div>

You haven't addressed any of the points he made. You are tied. 2-3 times he said the secretary verified it and that was the fact check and you then ignore his response and push something else instead... this is why internet "debates" are a joke.</end quote></div>


JHC you people don't give up. My original point, the one that he responded to with a diversion, was that Dan Rather, a supposed "unbiased" journalist, used sloppy journalism to further his agenda, which backfired on him when the documents were proven to be fake. Whether or not what was written in the documents are the truth is irrelevant, which falls in line with a cop planting evidence on an obviously guilty criminal that throws his drugs into a river.

You can't divert away from the original point (mine, since he was responding to what I said), demand that I respond to a diversion, then accuse me of diverting.

All I said was that you ignored his point. You are like a broken record, you just keep repeating yourself and ignoring the other person.

Which is again why you can't argue on the internet.. they just ignore what they want and repeat themselves.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.

The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.</end quote></div>

Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.</end quote></div>

Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.</end quote></div>

What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.</end quote></div>

The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.

If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?

I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.

</end quote></div>

I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.</end quote></div>

I guess you are done if you can't address any of the points that I have made, Deudalus sums it up quite well. I'm not sure why you are defending Rather like this....BTW, where did I lie?

</end quote></div>

You haven't addressed any of the points he made. You are tied. 2-3 times he said the secretary verified it and that was the fact check and you then ignore his response and push something else instead... this is why internet "debates" are a joke.</end quote></div>


JHC you people don't give up. My original point, the one that he responded to with a diversion, was that Dan Rather, a supposed "unbiased" journalist, used sloppy journalism to further his agenda, which backfired on him when the documents were proven to be fake. Whether or not what was written in the documents are the truth is irrelevant, which falls in line with a cop planting evidence on an obviously guilty criminal that throws his drugs into a river.

You can't divert away from the original point (mine, since he was responding to what I said), demand that I respond to a diversion, then accuse me of diverting.

Which is why he still works at CBS... oh wait... Actual journalists are held accountable for their actions

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."

Why? It'll just be the same trite rationalization as before.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Wait, so you guys are perfectly ok with reporters completely fabricating news and using obviously fake documents as long as it fits your agenda? Amazing.

The point of it was that Dan Rather used obviously fake documents and didn't bother checking the authenticity of the documents because it fit his agenda. This from a supposed "unbiased" network news reporter. I'm really suprised that you guys are supporting this. I guess using your standard, as long as a cop "knows" that someone is a murderer its ok for them to plant evidence.</end quote></div>

Great talking points. If only they were true. The memo was not obviously fake. It seems forged because the font used was rare then but they never proved it one way or the other. The important thing is they verified the story with the officer's secretary. She said the document was real. Rather's copy of the memo may have been forged. The story was accurate. The truth hurts.</end quote></div>

Do you also think its ok to plant evidence when it obvious that someone is guilty, but you might not have enough evidence to make it stick in court? Same concept.</end quote></div>

What does that have to do with the truth of the story? This is not a court. Rather did not plant anything. It was sent to him. They investigated. The secretary verified it. The story was true. Can you post even one comment without diverting? It does not look like it.</end quote></div>

The issue with that story is that he did not fact check like any responsible reporter would do. The issue with the Rather was that he did not use proper methods to make sure that what he got was legit, you are the one trying to divert from what Rather did. He rushed to get this out to the news because it fit his agenda, thats pretty damn obvious to anyone without partisan blinders on.

If a cop is chasing someone that was selling drugs, and the guy they are chasing throws his bag of crack into a river so that he cannot be charged with possession, is it ok for the cop to plant a bag of crack on the guy? The truth of the story is that the guy was selling crack and had it on him, so that makes everything ok right?

I'm not diverting anything, you can't answer my simple question.

</end quote></div>

I will not keep repeating myself. This is not a court. CBS did fact check the story. The memo was real. The secretary verified it. The story was accurate even if Rather's copy of the memo was forged. You can keep lying if you want but you will be lying to yourself. I am done with you and your diversions.</end quote></div>

I guess you are done if you can't address any of the points that I have made, Deudalus sums it up quite well. I'm not sure why you are defending Rather like this....BTW, where did I lie?

</end quote></div>

You haven't addressed any of the points he made. You are tied. 2-3 times he said the secretary verified it and that was the fact check and you then ignore his response and push something else instead... this is why internet "debates" are a joke.</end quote></div>


JHC you people don't give up. My original point, the one that he responded to with a diversion, was that Dan Rather, a supposed "unbiased" journalist, used sloppy journalism to further his agenda, which backfired on him when the documents were proven to be fake. Whether or not what was written in the documents are the truth is irrelevant, which falls in line with a cop planting evidence on an obviously guilty criminal that throws his drugs into a river.

You can't divert away from the original point (mine, since he was responding to what I said), demand that I respond to a diversion, then accuse me of diverting.
</end quote></div>

Which is why he still works at CBS... oh wait... Actual journalists are held accountable for their actions

Ummmm.....yea, thats pretty much my point....

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."

*shrug* I've NEVER EVER said that 1. Fox is MY personal favorite for news, or 2. they never fvck up, or 3. that they arent culpable for their fck ups.

Of course they screwed up. My original post, and maybe I didnt word it correctly, was in respose to the overwhelming Fox is lies and evil mantra so common throughout this board. Thats all. I *do* consider them a legitimate news source, and admittedly slanted. But my point being, no more or less slanted than other networks.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Back on topic, I guess you are also ok with FNC putting whatever slant they want to on a story, as long as the basic facts are true?</end quote></div>

Im perfectly fine with it. Just like I am fine with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al putting their spin on it. Why would you have a problem with Fox's spin? Or are you one of those who believe Fox is the only source that spins? Or is it a matter of degrees?

Geez. Every news story is spun. Thats why it's important to watch/listen to both sides and realize the truth is IN both sides.

I'm perfectly fine with it as well. What I'm sick of, is people saying how unbiased and middle of the road CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.. are and how FNC is just right wing propaganda. Its very telling to see the liberals that bash FNC any chance they get defend Dan Rather when he did something much worse than just throwing a little slant into the news.

 

[jpeyton]

How intelligent could a person be that gets their news from FNC? You might as well bind copies of The New York Post and The National Enquirer together and read them on the John each morning. You can stop buying toilet paper and wipe your ass with your 'fair and balanced' morning reading instead.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."
</end quote></div>

*shrug* I've NEVER EVER said that 1. Fox is MY personal favorite for news, or 2. they never fvck up, or 3. that they arent culpable for their fck ups.

Of course they screwed up. My original post, and maybe I didnt word it correctly, was in respose to the overwhelming Fox is lies and evil mantra so common throughout this board. Thats all. I *do* consider them a legitimate news source, and admittedly slanted. But my point being, no more or less slanted than other networks.

http://www.videosift.com/video...ow-they-slant-the-news

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
Back on topic, I guess you are also ok with FNC putting whatever slant they want to on a story, as long as the basic facts are true?</end quote></div>

Im perfectly fine with it. Just like I am fine with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al putting their spin on it. Why would you have a problem with Fox's spin? Or are you one of those who believe Fox is the only source that spins? Or is it a matter of degrees?

Geez. Every news story is spun. Thats why it's important to watch/listen to both sides and realize the truth is IN both sides.</end quote></div>


I'm perfectly fine with it as well. What I'm sick of, is people saying how unbiased and middle of the road CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.. are and how FNC is just right wing propaganda. Its very telling to see the liberals that bash FNC any chance they get defend Dan Rather when he did something much worse than just throwing a little slant into the news.

The middles IS a bit left. So many people trying to convince us that the "middle" is farther right than it really is. Being against the Iraq war isn't left or right, it's f-ing logical.

You move the middle right and you can accuse anyone you want of being a Liberal (which somehow became a negative thing in the last 6 years).

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
I would like to see the OP's response to the statement above :

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."
</end quote></div>

*shrug* I've NEVER EVER said that 1. Fox is MY personal favorite for news, or 2. they never fvck up, or 3. that they arent culpable for their fck ups.

Of course they screwed up. My original post, and maybe I didnt word it correctly, was in respose to the overwhelming Fox is lies and evil mantra so common throughout this board. Thats all. I *do* consider them a legitimate news source, and admittedly slanted. But my point being, no more or less slanted than other networks.

Fair enough, and clearly stated. I just can't stand network 'news' today, because it's usually 99% opinion and 1% factual reporting.