HuffPost: Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage...

[grhqofb5]

That is actually the ultimate objective behind these sort of Fox distortions: To affect the public, stop (and destroy) the Obama administration, affect the 2010 elections, and ultimately the 2012 elections. You repeat the propaganda until the audience repeats it, and that in turn effects the electorate.

It is political programming.

Yep, and it happens on both sides of the coin, right?

[Baculus]

Yep, and it happens on both sides of the coin, right?

Sure it does, but we have to keep one thing in mind: Fox was created with this specifically in mind. And this is why a former Republican political operative in Roger Ailes (who some have suggested should run for President in 2012 on the Republican ticket) heads the network as well.

The rest of the mass media, made up of newspapers and TV networks, were a more organic creation, developed over time and representing different (corporate) ownership, politics, and often competing interests.

If anything, Fox News, at this time, reminds me of the so-called yellow journalism from the turn of the last century.

[Special K]

Ease up Keesterman lol, we know that it's tough suffering from post-matrimonium depression

Evidently the lithium isn't working!

(I love katie, but reluctantly accept the marriage.)

I guess I'm not making myself clear, ha: personally, I think all these news channels are slanted and sometimes dishonest (some moreso than others and Fox News appears to do so more than anything). Yep, I'm biased against all news channels. I firmly believe most everyone is full of **** and have their own agenda. I just don't get the incessant whining about one dishonest editorial over another. I'm not condoning this, I think all these news channels suck tuna water.

Bottom line folks: we all know ES is the best source of balanced reporting and opinionating. That's why I get all my news here.

[Jumbo]

Bottom line folks: we all know ES is the best source of balanced reporting and opinionating. That's why I get all my news here.

Now that's definitely the Nuclear Option on perspective. :hysterical:

[aREDSKIN]

Here's a qualitative analysis of what's happening out there in Media World. I know it dated but the stripes don't change. Forget all the opinionated message board posters.

New study detects media's liberal tilt

Professors find most media 'significantly to the left of the average U.S. voter'

Dec. 31, 2005

by David Kopel

People argue a lot about whether the national mainstream media is politically biased, but such arguments are often impressionistic. Earlier this month, professors Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeffrey Milyo of the University of Missouri published the results of an investigation using rigorous quantitative analysis.

In A Measure of Media Bias, the authors start by examining the ratings of members of Congress, according to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Founded in 1947 by liberals such as Hubert Humphrey and Arthur Schlesinger, the ADA is an excellent gauge of mainstream liberal opinion. The average ADA rating for a member of Congress is 50.1, so a person with a 50 percent ADA rating is almost exactly in the middle of the current American political spectrum.

Groseclose and Milyo looked at how often members of Congress cited the 200 leading think tanks and interest groups in their speeches in Congress. Congresspersons with a lower ADA rating were more likely to cite groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Christian Coalition, and the National Taxpayers Union. Congresspersons with a higher ADA rating were more likely to cite groups such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Children's Defense Fund.

For example, the average ADA score of a congressperson who cites the American Conservative Union is 16 percent. The average ADA score of a congressperson who cites the National Organization for Women is 79 percent.

Notably, the Groseclose and Milyo study did not require anyone to put a label on a think tank - such as whether the Brookings Institution is liberal, moderate, or conservative. (Its congressional citers have a 53 percent average ADA score.) Rather, the study simply observes which groups are cited by which members of Congress.

Next, the researchers and their assistants counted citations to these same groups in the media, and calculated an ADA rating for each media outlet based on the citations. So if a newspaper cited a mix of groups very similar to groups cited by Sen. John Kerry, the newspaper would have the same ADA rating as Kerry: 88 percent.

Two major media outlets were to the right of the American political midpoint: The Washington Times, at 35 percent, and Fox (the nightly news with Brit Hume) at 40 percent.

Three outlets were slightly left, but still close to the center: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America - all at 56 percent.

The majority of the media clustered in the 60 to 69 range - significantly to the left of the average U.S. voter. These outlets were (in order of increasing leftishness) ABC's World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, USA Today, the Today show, Time, U.S. News & World Report, NPR Morning Edition, Newsweek, CBS Early Show, and The Washington Post. Every one of these outlets was further from the American political midpoint than was Fox News.

At the far left of the major media spectrum were the Los Angeles Times (70), CBS Evening News (74), The New York Times (74), and The Wall Street Journal (85). The ratings were based only on news stories, so the left-leaning opinion pages at the Los Angeles Times and right-leaning opinion pages at The Wall Street Journal had no effect.

The authors conclude: "Our results show a strong liberal bias." Even so, most of the media are much more moderate than Congress itself, where the average Democrat has an 84, and the average Republican a 16.

The study, which builds on previous work by Groseclose and Mil- yo, appears in the November issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics. It is available online at www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf.

You can read various critiques of the study, and its previous iterations, on the Internet. The authors address and refute many of these arguments in their paper.

In any case, no critique undermines the relative rankings of the media outlets - that, for example, The New York Times is much further left than The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, or that the three major newsweekly magazines are nearly identical ideologically.

The study did not cover all the sources from which the Denver dailies draw their national and international stories. But of the sources which were studied, every source which supplies a significant amount of news content to a Denver paper (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times) has a major leftward bias. The finding suggests that the Denver papers could improve their overall balance by including some stories from The Washington Times or from other sources without such a pronounced leftward tilt.

By the way, my left-leaning counterpart on this column, Jason Salzman, and I calculated our ADA scores based on 2003-2004 Senate votes. I scored a 16 percent, while Jason got a 91. We agree, however, that there are objective standards by which media bias can be judged. That's one reason we often agree with the critiques that the other raises in our columns.

http://www.davekopel.com/Media/RMN/2005/New-study-detects-medias-liberal-tilt.htm

[aREDSKIN]

Compare this to Fox, which knowingly lies and distorts -- frequently. Often enough that we post about this stuff on a regular basis. And not only do they do it frequently, but they are predictable, such as labeling Marc Sanford as a "D" for Democrat when Fox reported on his situation. (This wasn't the first time they had labeled Republicans as Democrats when the individual was in some sort of trouble. None of the other media sources have ever done this.

Yep, MSNBC & CNN never makes do they?? :doh:

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Yep, MSNBC never makes mistakes does it?? :doh:

Fox didn't make a mistake. They flat out lied. By defending this (or tryiing to) I will assume you don't care for free press and and journalistic integrity.

[grhqofb5]

Yep, MSNBC & CNN never makes do they?? :doh:

Don't play that game in this thread.

[Burgold]

Here's a qualitative analysis of what's happening out there in Media World. I know it dated but the stripes don't change. Forget all the opinionated message board posters.

http://www.davekopel.com/Media/RMN/2005/New-study-detects-medias-liberal-tilt.htm

Kind of a fun story. I'm not quite sure if I think it is a good metric. For example, is NOW a much more active group marching and protesting than the Heritage group. If it is, then they are much more likely to be talked about. Still, it is an interesting way to try to get a sidewise look at bias. Who knows it may even be a good way.

[aREDSKIN]

Fox didn't make a mistake. They flat out lied. By defending this (or tryiing to) I will assume you don't care for free press and and journalistic integrity.

I'm defending no one just pointing out the errors of others. Oh Integrity is what I'm always looking for in a news organization, however, what I keep finding are PARTISIAN sycophants.

[Burgold]

I'm defending no one just pointing out the errors of others. Oh Integrity is what I'm always looking for in a news organization, however, what I keep finding are PARTISIAN sycophants.

Errors though are much different from lies. It's a very important distinction.

[Baculus]

Here's a qualitative analysis of what's happening out there in Media World. I know it dated but the stripes don't change. Forget all the opinionated message board posters.

http://www.davekopel.com/Media/RMN/2005/New-study-detects-medias-liberal-tilt.htm

That is an interesting study and all, but of course, this article was written by David Kopel, a contributor to conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute and the National Review, so I can't say if he is exactly being neutral. It also doesn't help that both Tim Groseclose, a previously Republican funded researcher, and Jeffrey Milyo, another Cato contributor, also seem to have a rightward tilt in their views.

Are they really being objective in this study and the reporting of it?

Here is an article which criticizes Tim Groseclose and the study. One suggestion is that A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS was specifically created to influence a FCC vote in the relaxation of "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership restrictions." In that both of these researchers were paid to affect opinion and not to produce a fact-finding document.

Read further for additional criticisms of this study.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5845

At one point, Kopel says, "The majority of the media clustered in the 60 to 69 range - significantly to the left of the average U.S. voter." If "50" is a central medium, then "60" does not seem "significantly far from it." Also, he never mentions the "average" for the U.S. voter in the first place, so we can't judge if the "60 to 69 range" is close or far from the average American in their "rating." Especially when you consider that the authors of the study rated the Iraqi war as a "Democratic issue" when they were rating news broadcasts. (Which, to me, doesn't seem like an accurate model since the war is a bipartisan issue).

BTW, here is another rebuttal with some interesting points.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

The problem is that you, aRedskin, are starting with an opinion, "The media is liberal," so you find articles which support this view; you're working backwards from your presumptions and arriving at a conclusion before gathering your evidence. To use the words of one of the study's authors, you may be "fighting for a result, not the truth." Meanwhile, many of us are criticizing Fox News for specifics: In this case, Sean Hannity distorting a recent news report.

You seem to be fighting to defend this distortion. Why? I guess political agreement is good enough reasoning.

[McD5]

Lost me after Huffington Post.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Good Lord, I am stunned by the inability of intelligent people to just bump a previous Fox bashing thread, or maybe even come up with the idea of starting an all-encompassing News channel bashing thread.

You may be stunned by that, but I was recently told by a mod that they prefer to have a new thread for each new topic rather than a continual thread where you have to search for the latest update. As such don't blame us for the number of "Fox is lying again" threads, blame Fox for their lying.

I'm defending no one just pointing out the errors of others. Oh Integrity is what I'm always looking for in a news organization, however, what I keep finding are PARTISIAN sycophants.

There is a difference between an error and an intentional manipulation of information...i.e. a lie. If you are looking for integrity they you should be joining us in the call against Fox instead of defending them. They will never get better until their viewers call them to task.

[Baculus]

Yep, MSNBC & CNN never makes do they?? :doh:

These are more honest mistakes, NOT out and out lies, which is what we see from Fox. I find it sad that you continue to try defending this issue.

The first shot is from a person named "Niger Innis" and represents the Congress of Racial Equality. After that happened, an apology was issued. Compare that to all of the "mistakes" that Fox has produced , with no apology every forthcoming. Heck, even Rupert Murdoch said that he agrees with Glenn Beck that Obama "hates white people."

The second shot, "traveling at the speed of light," was obviously supposed to say, "traveling at the speed of sound."

The third shot says what it was supposed to say: it was a quote.

The fourth shot, like most of above, was a technical glitch which happened for a second.

Shall I produce all of the Fox News shots that are blatantly produced as opposed to producer errors?

[Baculus]

Lost me after Huffington Post.

:doh:

Seriously?

How about this: Google "Sean Hannity lies" and read it from another source.

Naw, I don't see you doing that.

[Vicious]

Ah, I love how ASF quickly takes a quote of mine out of context, then MJ can't counter what I'm saying either.

Fact - Liberals will never have a sense of humor about their belief system.

Fact - Liberals will take humor about Conservatives and Republicans and turn it into a portion of their belief system.

Fact - It is fun for Conservatives to watch the first two facts.

Fact - Republicans don't believe in evolution.

It's too bad this is actually true.

[aREDSKIN]

Shall I produce all of the Fox News shots that are blatantly produced as opposed to producer errors?

Please do to help reinforce your point and additionally please let us know how you know they were intentional "lies" as you refer to them. Thanks. By the way I know of one but given your accusations there must be many many more.

[aREDSKIN]

The problem is that you, aRedskin, are starting with an opinion, "The media is liberal," so you find articles which support this view; you're working backwards from your presumptions and arriving at a conclusion before gathering your evidence. To use the words of one of the study's authors, you may be "fighting for a result, not the truth." Meanwhile, many of us are criticizing Fox News for specifics: In this case, Sean Hannity distorting a recent news report.

You seem to be fighting to defend this distortion. Why? I guess political agreement is good enough reasoning.

I go way back to the WaPo Washing Star days. Liberal Bias or predisposition(s) if you prefer has been and still is a prevalent manifestation with a MAJORITY of our "news" disseminating organizations IMO. You disagree with that I do not. I have witnessed it first hand for decades. Of course you don't see it that way. Sobeit. There are many studies that try to capture, analyze and explain why this is and I offered one such study that comports with my POV. There are others too. Disagree all you want but I'm not the only one that sees it. Empirical studies, not just interpretative gobbledygook. I understand the left's POV I would not expect them to see bias in what they adhere too and agree with.

[Larry]

Please do to help reinforce your point and additionally please let us know how you know they were intentional "lies" as you refer to them.

Fox news has on multiple occasions, when multiple Republican Congressmen got caught with, well, let's just leave it at that, labeling them as Democrats.

They've done this to multiple Congressmen, on multiple occasions.

No one has ever so much as claimed that they have ever labeled a disgraced Democrat as a Republican.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, if they occasionally mis-label people of both parties, and they do it with people who they're saying nice things about, not just when they've stepped on it, then I say that's mistakes. Typos. Bound to happen.

However, when it happens multiple times, and always to the benefit of only one Party . . . ?

Then it's intentional.

Show me somebody who is constantly forgetting to throw his cards back to the dealer after his poker hand? Maybe I'll believe he's forgetful. If every single time he does it, the card he accidentally forgets to toss in is an Ace . . . ?

[Baculus]

Please do to help reinforce your point and additionally please let us know how you know they were intentional "lies" as you refer to them. Thanks. By the way I know of one but given your accusations there must be many many more.

I want to ask you this: Did you even watch the video that is at the heart of this thread? The examples you produced were "production errors." Compare to Sean Hannity's segment, where they specifically used footage from the 9/12 march and tried to pass off as footage from the recent anti-health care reform rally. That is, without a doubt, an untruthful effort.

Anyway . . .

http://potomac9499.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fox-lies-stevens.jpg

--Ted Stevens is a Republican.

http://wizbangblue.com/images/2009/06/sanford-d.jpg

--Mark Sanford is a Republican

http://www.boingboing.net/200610041059.jpg

--Mark Foley is a Republican

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/images6/fox-lies-1.jpg

--This hate Crime bill did nothing to "protect pedophiles" via the disabled, as claimed. In fact, the wording specifically said, "the term 'disability' shall not include pedophilia." But O'Reilly and his minions still pushed the lie, caring little for the truth of the matter.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RXOe66bINiM/RiVdbjCJG9I/AAAAAAAAAFA/eizz8yUmHgk/s400/Fox_News_Scooter_Lies.jpg

--Scotter Libby was found GUILTY by the prosecutors.

http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blogs/reporter/wesleym/Whitehouse%20as%20a%20Rep.jpg

--Whitehouse, who was in the lead, was the Democrat, not Chafee.

http://i.imgur.com/Prk56.jpg

--Really? Half the country is unemployed?

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/2008/07/fox-20080702-steinberg.jpg

--This was an image of a Jacques Steinberg (notice the last name, and the size of the nose on the altered image), a New York Times reporter.

http://barbadosfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/foxnews-altered-photo.jpg

--Another New York Times reporter. (Note: The inset of the "actual photos" for both of these reporters was not included in the broadcast.) Nothing like smearing your ideological foes, eh?

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/obama-binladen.jpg

--Another cheap tactic.

http://www.infoimagination.org/comments/images/specter.jpg

http://www.infoimagination.org/comments/images/spector_web.jpg

--This is when Spector was critical of the Bush White House during the Iraqi war and before he left the party.

There is more, but this is becoming overkill and too long. And we are not even talking about the constant stream of untruthful discussion that comes from these folks. This is stuff that was simply caught on screen shots.

[Seabee1973]

No, I watched it.

You would think Fox news is that bad. I hate to play the whole "your side does it too" card, but I don't see you jumping at chances to call out other news programming stations. I guess when they're spitting agendas you like, you don't really mind.

Its kind of funny that the left will believe stuff comeing from Jon Stewart

[Larry]

Its kind of funny that the left will believe stuff comeing from Jon Stewart

1) Show me the video of him falsifying his reports.

2) Fox news' own web site contains the same lie. The link is in the thread.

[Seabee1973]

Fox news has on multiple occasions, when multiple Republican Congressmen got caught with, well, let's just leave it at that, labeling them as Democrats.

They've done this to multiple Congressmen, on multiple occasions.

No one has ever so much as claimed that they have ever labeled a disgraced Democrat as a Republican.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, if they occasionally mis-label people of both parties, and they do it with people who they're saying nice things about, not just when they've stepped on it, then I say that's mistakes. Typos. Bound to happen.

However, when it happens multiple times, and always to the benefit of only one Party . . . ?

Then it's intentional.

Show me somebody who is constantly forgetting to throw his cards back to the dealer after his poker hand? Maybe I'll believe he's forgetful. If every single time he does it, the card he accidentally forgets to toss in is an Ace . . . ?

A disgraced Democrat wouldnt still be a republican.

[aREDSKIN]

I want to ask you this: Did you even watch the video that is at the heart of this thread? The examples you produced were "production errors." Compare to Sean Hannity's segment, where they specifically used footage from the 9/12 march and tried to pass off as footage from the recent anti-health care reform rally. That is, without a doubt, an untruthful effort.

I did and the footage did seem different as some have pointed out, however, it did included the word "earlier" in the upper left hand side. Not that that affects anyone interpretation at all.

But here's a little diddy I found from one of the "mainstream" guys

Bias at MSNBC, Fox is harmful, says Charles Gibson

An ABC TV network news anchor said he’s troubled by what he called the biased news coverage of Fox and MSNBC.

“I worry about the lack of objectivity and the future of the news business,” Charles Gibson told a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce audience yesterday.

The host of ABC’s “World News” program said the two cable networks are playing to niche audiences - Fox to conservatives and MSNBC to liberals - to the detriment of what should be objective news gathering and reporting.

“I don’t like the fact that they’re delivering news based on the conviction of its viewers,” he said. “This desire to play to niche audiences is making it harder and harder for mainstream media like ABC, NBC or CBS - and there are viewers who watch news that plays to their own prejudices.”

Gibson also chastised the Republicans who he said have constructed a roadblock to health-care reform.

“It’s not being very productive to have an opposition party that simply says, ‘We are going to fight the president no matter what on health-care reform. We are not going to give you a single vote and we are going to march in lock step against you,’ ” he said. “Maybe it’s good politics, but in the long run it’s not good for the country.”

Still, the 66-year-old newscaster, who will retire in January, said it was not much different when the Democrats were the loyal oppositon.

“Democrats similarly stood in lock step in opposition to President George W. Bush, and that was a great mistake, too,” he said.

http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1211050