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

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<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>
ummmmm she did NOT say the document was real.
And look at what CBS said themselves "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
As for the secretary that you all speak of...
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done."Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes, and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used</end quote></div>
You guys are out doing yourself when it comes to looking like fools on this.

You are the fools. "She believed the content of the memos was accurate." That is first hand corroboration of the story. All the noise about Rather is a distraction. The content of the memos was accurate.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For all your CBS defenders: CBS has washed their hands of the story completely, meanwhile Dan Rather still stands behind it. What does that say about his bias?

CBS protected their bottom line. Dan Rather showed integrity.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
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).</end quote></div>
How can you make a statement like the one I bolded?
Can you provide ANY proof that such a statement is truthful?

Here is proof that you are wrong.
1. Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 elections.
2. Reagan boosted about being a conservative, Bush called himself a ?compassionate conservative? Clinton NEVER used the term liberal.
3. Republicans are upset that their candidates for President aren?t ?conservative? enough, Democrats run away from the label ?liberal.?
4. Clinton and congress governed to the ?left? during his first two years in office. The result: congress had its LOWEST approval rating in history (to that time) and suffered one of largest congressional losses in history. Following that Clinton took a huge turn to the center/right and became the popular President we know him as.
5. Since Democrats took office last year congressional approval has now hit the lowest level EVER! (Has nothing to do with the middle being to the left, but I wanted to point that out)
6. Notice that the left now likes to call themselves ?progressives? instead of ?liberals? if being a ?liberal? was successful why would they make the change?</end quote></div>

Your whole concept of "proof" is flawed. You base your logic on the premise that Reagan or Bush were elected based on the one and only fact that they called themselves "conservatives" (history and their track records clearly debunk those self claims BTW) instead of the ability of the right to con the self proclaimed righteous into voting more. You ignore the simple fact that it is easier to get the fringes to the polls than the middle. It just so happens that the right has been better at convincing their fringe (the "religious" right) to run to the polls with every boogie man they could dredge up. Why do you think that turnout ratios are usually less than 55%?

If you notice, the majority of the population last election realized that we were heading way to right and steered us way left again in the biggest political upset in history (winning both houses, especially the senate when they needed 6 seats and only 7 were available).

You also seem to think that because no Dem candidate claims outwardly to be a liberal, that the rest of the country leans right. How do you come up with this crap?

There isn't a single candidate on the left that would claim to be liberal based on one simple fact....the Republican marketing machine has put such a negative connotation on the word that they are afraid to. I bet you can find a few calling themselves "progressive" however. Being liberal or progressive isn't just about the label attached to it like being conservative. It is the mindset that has helped just about every major social step forward we have taken to occur.

You fall for every talking point and marketing strategy ever put out by the right and then attempt to act like you are winning some non-existent point. Now I know why I don't have to listen to 9 hours of Rush, Hannity and Boortz on a daily basis......you just regurgitate them into nicely condensed Cliff's notes. Good job there.</end quote></div>

So, if I read this correctly, conservative voters are blind sheep and liberal ones are enlightened? Not the first time I've heard that. Pretty funny, actually.</end quote></div>

Nope...you don't read correctly. The "blind sheep" exist at the fringes of both ends of the spectrum. The right has done an exponentially better job at motivating their half though.

The "enlightened ones" are usually apethetic to the whole process because they can see that politics is high-priced and high-stakes pro wrestling. Both sides have a script that they follow and the outcome is almost always known before the match begins.

As I originally stated however, it has been progressive thinking that has enabled most social reforms in this country. Conservatism has its place in our system also. I just believe that it should be relagated towards fiscal policy and not social because it seems to be oppressive and big brother-ish.

Nice try at attempting to read between the lines to paint yourself as the victim though. :roll:

Believe it or not I agree with what you say, although I would apply the comments directed at conservatives to both sides. The "but they do it worse" argument is empty. It's not that one side is better at it, it's more a case of both sides go about it in different ways. Yes, conservatism DOES have a place. As does liberalism. I believe both are necessary to keep each other in check.

Back to my original post: The challenge was taken and the proof given. Fair enough As I've said in previous posts, the amount of spewing aimed at Fox is unreasonable. Most of the examples given in this thread are subjective at best, with a few very on point; however, as also noted in this thread, pretty much all networks are guilty. My point being, although Fox tends to lean right, it doesnt make them more or less wrong than other networks. Thats all.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ldir
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<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>
ummmmm she did NOT say the document was real.
And look at what CBS said themselves "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
As for the secretary that you all speak of...
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done."Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes, and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used</end quote></div>
You guys are out doing yourself when it comes to looking like fools on this.</end quote></div>

You are the fools. "She believed the content of the memos was accurate." That is first hand corroboration of the story. All the noise about Rather is a distraction. The content of the memos was accurate.

The right-wingers are lying, "obviously fake memos".

The panel, with a former republican US Attorney General and former head of AP (IIRC), who condemned some of the processes in the story, and who had millions of budget, reportedly, to determine the authenticity of the memos, said they were unable to prove one way or the other for sure. That's not "obviously fake", and as Ldir correctly points out, all the evidence suggests that that the only question is whether the actual copies were originals or re-creations, because the content, the evidence suggests, was accurate.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Dan Rather showed integrity.

don't you mean courage?

 

[daveymark]

Posting op-ed shows in a news show thread is par for the course for the lib lefties here, using that same logic, they must think shows like "Countdown" are "news" shows as well.

That said, I'm surprised there aren't more "factually incorrect" fox news pieces being posted. where are they all? With all the anti-fox kool-aid the libs drink, you'd think there'd be an inaccuracy every minute. 10+ years of fox news on the air, and hardly a scant example is posted. Of course you're going to have a few factually incorrect pieces here and there for ANY news channel. You'd think one of the libsites out there such as thinkprogress or moveon would have an online vault of fox news inaccuracies somewhere. If they don't, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to fund one of our resident libs to get crackin' on that project.

chop chop.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: daveymark

That said, I'm surprised there aren't more "factually incorrect" fox news pieces being posted. where are they all? With all the anti-fox kool-aid the libs drink, you'd think there'd be an inaccuracy every minute. 10+ years of fox news on the air, and hardly a scant example is posted.

Where's the list of people the Roman Empire killed? You would think in hundreds of years of supposed invading and domination, there'd be a few more names.

Guess they didn't really kill anyone, if thousands of names aren't posted in this thread.

We can point you righties to the facts all day, and you can't be bothered to read them. In the many recommendations for books I've made, I don't recall hearing of one being read.

You'd think one of the libsites out there such as thinkprogress or moveon would have an online vault of fox news inaccuracies somewhere.

They do.

 

[manowar821]

You've created a monster here, with this thread.

Awesome.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: daveymark

That said, I'm surprised there aren't more "factually incorrect" fox news pieces being posted. where are they all? With all the anti-fox kool-aid the libs drink, you'd think there'd be an inaccuracy every minute. 10+ years of fox news on the air, and hardly a scant example is posted.</end quote></div>

Where's the list of people the Roman Empire killed? You would think in hundreds of years of supposed invading and domination, there'd be a few more names.

Guess they didn't really kill anyone, if thousands of names aren't posted in this thread.

We can point you righties to the facts all day, and you can't be bothered to read them. In the many recommendations for books I've made, I don't recall hearing of one being read.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>You'd think one of the libsites out there such as thinkprogress or moveon would have an online vault of fox news inaccuracies somewhere. </end quote></div>

They do.

Lets not forget to balance this...the URL of this site speaks volumes: http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_archive.html

 

[Arkaign]

Ironically, that site you posted regarding CNN is an expose of the propaganda supporting the case for war against Iraq.

Delicious, the corporate influence on our network television.

War is good for the corporations and contractors, bad for nearly everyone else.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Lets not forget to balance this...the URL of this site speaks volumes: http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_archive.html

This is your thread bucko and you've done nothing but try to divert the topic since your first post.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ayabe
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
Lets not forget to balance this...the URL of this site speaks volumes: http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_archive.html</end quote></div>

This is your thread bucko and you've done nothing but try to divert the topic since your first post.

Perhaps you missed this a few posts ago?

Back to my original post: The challenge was taken and the proof given. Fair enough As I've said in previous posts, the amount of spewing aimed at Fox is unreasonable. Most of the examples given in this thread are subjective at best, with a few very on point; however, as also noted in this thread, pretty much all networks are guilty. My point being, although Fox tends to lean right, it doesnt make them more or less wrong than other networks. Thats all.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ayabe
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
Lets not forget to balance this...the URL of this site speaks volumes: http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_archive.html</end quote></div>

This is your thread bucko and you've done nothing but try to divert the topic since your first post.

I think that I have to stand up for blackangst on this one. He has acknowledged that there have been valid examples. That isn't to say that he (like most of us at different times) hasn't played the diversion game....but he has been man enough to admit that there have been examples nonetheless on a couple of different occasions.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ayabe
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
Lets not forget to balance this...the URL of this site speaks volumes: http://cnnlies.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_archive.html</end quote></div>

This is your thread bucko and you've done nothing but try to divert the topic since your first post.</end quote></div>

Perhaps you missed this a few posts ago?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> Back to my original post: The challenge was taken and the proof given. Fair enough As I've said in previous posts, the amount of spewing aimed at Fox is unreasonable. Most of the examples given in this thread are subjective at best, with a few very on point; however, as also noted in this thread, pretty much all networks are guilty. My point being, although Fox tends to lean right, it doesnt make them more or less wrong than other networks. Thats all. </end quote></div>

I did miss that and I apologize. :beer:

 

[blackangst1]

This is how debating SHOULD be.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Ldir
You are the fools. "She believed the content of the memos was accurate." That is first hand corroboration of the story. All the noise about Rather is a distraction. The content of the memos was accurate.

So I can create a fake memo about Hillary Clinton and as long as I get one person to say ?the content of the memo is accurate? I can run the story on the national news a few days before the elections?
Wow this will be so easy.

Let?s see? leaked Secret Service memos from the Clinton years raises questions about Hillary?s temper.
?From: head of First Lady's Detail
To: All Presidential protection agents.

Topic: Be aware of flying dishes when ever Bill and Hillary are in the same room.?
Yea the memo is fake, but we KNOW for a fact that Hillary did throw dishes at Bill on at least one occasion...

 

[ProfJohn]

Every new organization makes mistakes.
The real question is whether Fox slants the news anymore to the right than CNN, MSNBC etc slant the news to the left.
And I think the answer is no.

What happens after 8PM is all opinion and does not really count.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Ldir
You are the fools. "She believed the content of the memos was accurate." That is first hand corroboration of the story. All the noise about Rather is a distraction. The content of the memos was accurate.

So I can create a fake memo about Hillary Clinton and as long as I get one person to say ?the content of the memo is accurate? I can run the story on the national news a few days before the elections?
Wow this will be so easy...

Yep, you could call yourself Swiftboat Liars for Bush, or something like that.

This is such a BS topic. Even the Bush faithful know Bush's Guard service was a dodge, a way to keep his lazy butt safely out of Vietnam. The faux debate about the authenticity of the memos was just a diversion to draw attention away from the Chickenhawk in Chief's dismal record. It's a tactic Rove has used successfully in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had his fingers in this one was well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ProfJohn
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Ldir
You are the fools. "She believed the content of the memos was accurate." That is first hand corroboration of the story. All the noise about Rather is a distraction. The content of the memos was accurate.</end quote></div>
So I can create a fake memo about Hillary Clinton and as long as I get one person to say ?the content of the memo is accurate? I can run the story on the national news a few days before the elections?
Wow this will be so easy...</end quote></div>
Yep, you could call yourself Swiftboat Liars for Bush, or something like that.

This is such a BS topic. Even the Bush faithful know Bush's Guard service was a dodge, a way to keep his lazy butt safely out of Vietnam. The faux debate about the authenticity of the memos was just a diversion to draw attention away from the Chickenhawk in Chief's dismal record. It's a tactic Rove has used successfully in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had his fingers in this one was well.

Faux debate about the memo? It was a fake that is all you need to know.
CBS ran a story about Bush's military service based on a fake document.
What else do you need to know?

And how come the left wasn't upset about Clinton dodging the war? Or Al Gore using his dad's influence to ensure he never went any where near the danger?

 

[JD50]

Wow, I'm really enjoying watching people defend network BROADCAST news using fake documents and pushing an obvious agenda in this thread, then the exact same people talk about the need to crack down on conservative talk radio in the name of serving the publics interest in the other thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, I'm really enjoying watching people defend network BROADCAST news using fake documents and pushing an obvious agenda in this thread, then the exact same people talk about the need to crack down on conservative talk radio in the name of serving the publics interest in the other thread.

Really? Which "people" are we talking about? Care to support your accusation with names and quotes? I'm betting you're chasing me from that other thread. If so, I've made exactly one post in this thread, and I didn't defend CBS. I said the whole debate is nonsense, a diversion from the real issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep, you could call yourself Swiftboat Liars for Bush, or something like that.

This is such a BS topic. Even the Bush faithful know Bush's Guard service was a dodge, a way to keep his lazy butt safely out of Vietnam. The faux debate about the authenticity of the memos was just a diversion to draw attention away from the Chickenhawk in Chief's dismal record. It's a tactic Rove has used successfully in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had his fingers in this one was well.

Faux debate about the memo? It was a fake that is all you need to know.

You've made your opinion clear. The truth is not so black and white.

CBS ran a story about Bush's military service based on a fake document.
What else do you need to know?

Whether the content was accurate.

And how come the left wasn't upset about Clinton dodging the war? Or Al Gore using his dad's influence to ensure he never went any where near the danger?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Clinton using a smear group like the Swift Boat Liars to attack his opponents' military service. Nor did Gore, as far as I can remember. Bush, or at least his minions, were blatant hypocrites for attacking Kerry while ignoring Bush's own dismal military record. That's why Bush's draft-dodging and going AWOL were issues.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow, I'm really enjoying watching people defend network BROADCAST news using fake documents and pushing an obvious agenda...

You're lying; millions of dollars for a former republican attorney general couldn't tell if the memo was fake, and all the evidence suggests that the content was accurate.

And the 'agenda' was the truth, something you see as an agenda because you are its enemy.

 

[m316foley]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/...-rep-foley-a-democrat/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130010?f=i_related
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/...foley-as-democrat.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...8&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA8jLVb6-O0

Where the O'Reilly show labels Mark Foley a Democrat.

Now, I don't support or necessarily watch any of these sources, however, I did watch the show and see the image myself on television. They even caught the mistake after the first showing of it and later just removed the red graphic instead of correcting it.

But hey, who knows, right?

EDIT:

O'Reilly "shutting up"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqwFXQ11_i0

EDIT 2:
O'Reilly lying again..... twice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUGCkROwJE

Not a fan of Olbermann, but hey, it's right there for ya.

Just my $0.02

 

[DeeKnow]

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.

the fact that they call themselves a news channel ... now THAT is factually incorrect if anything is

I wouldn't have a problem with them if they called themselves a talk show...