Burgold Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Good post Bang. That was some honest talk and I agree that most people are center right and both sides want the same thing they just can't agree on the path. I just want to add that although I defend Fox on some issues doesnt mean I defend all of their journalists on an individual basis. The problem is that you usually come to defend FOX on ES when they've done something wrong. So, in effect you do defend all their journalists. What I would like to see is you to condemn what you consider wrong... but then post an excellent article. aREDSKIN actually posted a fantastic article written by a FOX reporter in Egypt which really gave us a good feel for what it was like to be an embedded reporter during a protest and revolution. If you do that we can see where FOX is excellent and you can be honest about when they are full of dung. I'd be all for reading great FOX articles or see investigative stories that really puts someone's feet to the fire or illuminates something which is too often left in the dark. Start those threads. That's the way to combat FOX bias. Defending wrongdoing doesn't do it. Making the opposite case may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Fox does have merit. I like Shep Smith a lot. When he talks, I really honestly believe him. I think he's got integrity, and he shoots it straight. I think the voice of conservatism should be heard. It pains me that the people at Fox feel it has to be wrapped in alarmism and lies first. It doesn't. IMO our system exists best with a healthy balance of both ideals. But it's got to be truth. We can be a great people, but if we aren't properly informed, we're pawns. And America should never be anyone's pawn. The thing about lies.. you don't lie to people you respect. (and we're not talking about "little white lies" like telling your kid there's a Santa Claus) I'm talking about straight up in-your-face lies. You don't do that to people you respect. In fact, when a liar lies, he's in effect saying "I don't think you're smart / independent enough to figure me out." That's what bugs me. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Well yeah, it's the boy who cried wolf sydrome. The problem now is that even when FOX does break a legit and important story it's often either dismissed or viewed with extreme skepticism... even by many conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Libs should take a break from sipping the haterade and enjoy a good laugh. http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/5106728 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 is it anywhere other than myspace? Man, I hate even opening that site. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 is it anywhere other than myspace? Man, I hate even opening that site.~Bang Its the only place I found them heck I want the entire series. Its just the video page but I can't embed the videos here I was somewhat guilty of this back in the day and I believe a lot of you are living a lie for the same reason. But now You too can be on the Right Side. http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/5107150 if you don't know two of them are Hillary and John kerry heinz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves...... Wow, well now Faux is my hero, I mean they want to stand and act like the moral gauge in the media and yet they set their lawyers out to argue on behalf of lying and deliberate distortion of reports. By God if you ever needed a reason to turn off Faux News that should be it. I wonder how many Christian viewers of Faux News support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 This came from the Press Trust of India originally. This was reported as news by a lot of news outlets not just Fox. I wouldn't classify this as a made up lie like this thread suggests they do. And was vetted as incorrect within 24-48 hours. How long did Fox run the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 And was vetted as incorrect within 24-48 hours. How long did Fox run the story? This is the problem with the instant cable news network, they are in such a hurry to get stories on the air that they don't properly vet the stories they air, we would do well to slow down the news cycle and we'd be better served if the news industry was not for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Wow, well now Faux is my hero, I mean they want to stand and act like the moral gauge in the media and yet they set their lawyers out to argue on behalf of lying and deliberate distortion of reports. By God if you ever needed a reason to turn off Faux News that should be it.I wonder how many Christian viewers of Faux News support this. BTW, I'm still waiting for a Christian defense of a news corporation that goes to court to fight for the right to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 BTW, I'm still waiting for a Christian defense of a news corporation that goes to court to fight for the right to lie. Heck, I'm waiting for a secular defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box76 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 BTW, I'm still waiting for a Christian defense of a news corporation that goes to court to fight for the right to lie. Post #146 should answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Post #146 should answer your question. Ahh I see, I figured it had been properly vetted since the story was introduced into this thread by aREDSKIN, and I never thought that someone on the Right would willingly produce a damning story about Faux News unless they knew it to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 This looks legit to me and totally debunks a lot of liberal rags who helped spread this lie. Lie count for this thread: Liberal News-1 Fox News-0 http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth Yet in all the claims and charges leveled directly by Akre and Wilson against the FOX affiliate across multiple venues and platforms, there is not a single mention of any "right to lie" argument allegedly offered by WTVT. They seemingly accuse the station of nearly every other sin imaginable in the world of journalism, but are completely silent on this charge. If there is one place one would expect to find mention and substantiation of the claim that the FOX affiliate had claimed a "right to lie," it is in the filings and writings of Akre and Wilson. Yet there is nothing. You're not out of the woods on this one just yet. First, to my knowledge this story as it appears above didn't run in any established media outlets. Rather it seems to be a product of blogs and email chains. So unless you can find the story (as cited above) in the so-called liberal media without a subsequent retraction, you'll have to update your "score". It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. This story involves a court case that requires a certain degree of legal background to fully understand and it is quite likely that one or more bloggers made an error in interpretation of the case and the story ran from there. Delving a bit deeper though, this case seems to substantiate the allegations made the in the O.P. So reading further down in the CCP debunking of this story that you linked to, they quoted the local paper.... The St. Petersburg Times reported on the jury verdict and similarly reported on the failure of Akre and Wilson to win most of their claims:The jury of three men and three women deliberated nearly six hours before finding that Fox affiliate Channel 13 had retaliated against Jane Akre for a story about a controversial hormone manufactured by the Monsanto Corp. (My emphasis added) However, jurors refused to give any money to Akre's husband, Steve Wilson, an Emmy-winning reporter who also worked on the story. And the jury did not believe the couple's claim that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter the news report. While CCP points out legal technicalities that have created a controversy about the issue, Ms. Akre contends that the jury's decision showed that the Fox affiliate did indeed fire her because she threatened to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission that the station was slanting/falsifying news reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box76 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Yusof, I think you misinterpreted the facts here. Fox contends it was Akre and Wilson who was doing the slanting. Fox wanted it presented in a fair and balanced way. I'm sure we could argue on who was right but without seeing all the facts we may never know. As for 'right to lie' claim...I think its safe to say this is untrue. There is no court record or filings by Akre and Wilson that mention this claim, anywhere. Huffington Post ran the story...but I don't consider them credible but if we used my standard you would be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It's fun making light of FOX's BS but the reality is sobering. Republicans don't care that they are being lied to. I don't think they are stupid enough not to realize it, so I assume they simply don't care. Libs (as defined by right wingers to be anyone not hard right) are the enemy. So who cares if their side lies... they are lying for good reason, to defeat the enemy. So yeah Fox lying and getting caught on a daily basis is bad, but the reason they can be so obvious about it is significantly worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Huffington Post ran the story...but I don't consider them credible but if we used my standard you would be correct. Ok, fair question: Do you consider Fox News credible? If so what differentiates HuffPost from Fox in terms of credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ok, fair question: Do you consider Fox News credible? If so what differentiates HuffPost from Fox in terms of credibility? I have difficulties with the Huff Post myself. They try to present themselves as a serious news entity, but they are definitely heavily tilted and it affects their journalism. You can't spin that hard without getting dizzy. Very similar to how I feel about FOX... though it's kind of crazy to compare a major news broadcaster to a glorified blog. I wonder how being run by AOL will change the Huff Post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Yusof, I think you misinterpreted the facts here. Fox contends it was Akre and Wilson who was doing the slanting. Fox wanted it presented in a fair and balanced way. I'm sure we could argue on who was right but without seeing all the facts we may never know. As for 'right to lie' claim...I think its safe to say this is untrue. There is no court record or filings by Akre and Wilson that mention this claim, anywhere.Huffington Post ran the story...but I don't consider them credible but if we used my standard you would be correct. My personal opinion is that the station probably did get pressured by Monsanto to some degree and decided to try to either make the story go away or spin it to minimize issues Monsanto didn't like. Note that the station never did approve any of the numerous rewrites/changes Akre made in an effort to comply with the station's alleged desire to "balance" their reporting. However this allowed the station to pursue the defense that they were trying to be fair which ultimately made this a case of "he said, she said". So you're correct that we'll never know for sure. However that brings us back to a point that Bang made earlier. That is, if those of us in the center and on the left can generally admit when a news outlet is slanting stories to the left, why is it that Faux News apologists almost always seem to default to the "but they did it too" response when faced with evidence of their doing it...or worse. I find this defense of Faux News at all costs policy to be particularly galling from the far right since they're usually the ones talking about how much they're in love with the constitution. Unfortunately professing admiration is easy while putting forth actual effort is not. Understanding the importance and role of a free press as provided for by the 1st ammendment is one of those things that IMHO proves whether you really care about the meaning of the constitution rather just being in love with the concept. I hate to break it to you but those who repeatedly defend Faux News or even MSNBC with the "but they did it too" excuse fall squarely into the latter category. Ultimately this is the reason why many of us hate Faux News' lies and propaganda, not because we disagree with their positions but because we understand how important it is to democracy to have not only a free press, but a credible and effective free press. Faux News is neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I have difficulties with the Huff Post myself. They try to present themselves as a serious news entity, but they are definitely heavily tilted and it affects their journalism. You can't spin that hard without getting dizzy. Very similar to how I feel about FOX... Agreed though it's kind of crazy to compare a major news broadcaster to a glorified blog. Agreed again, which only makes Faux seem that much worse since they are a major "news" broadcaster and they are acting like a glorified blog. I wonder how being run by AOL will change the Huff Post? Hopefully for the better, but from my understanding you don't by a popular pizza chain in order to try and sell hamburgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 earlier this week I mentioned my hatred for Fox in this thread a couple of times... Here is a great reason why. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/uncovered-fox-news-deceptively-used-old-cpac-footage-to-smear-ron-paul/ Uncovered: Fox News deceptively used old CPAC footage to smear Ron Paul Fox News' Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente told Mediate that the network simply made a "mistake" when it aired old footage of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) being booed. "We made a mistake with some of the video we aired, and plan on issuing a correction on America’s Newsroom tomorrow morning explaining exactly what happened," he said. Interviewing Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on his victory in the CPAC 2011 presidential straw poll, the conservative Fox News Channel did something slimy: they cued up footage of the prior year. While normally this could be passed off as a simple mistake -- the same man presented poll results both years in front of the same backdrop and at the same podium -- something of an editorial edict seems to have emerged. The key difference between 2010 and 2011: In 2010, the room was full of former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney's supporters, who booed the results. This year, the audience cheered and even began chanting Paul's name (video archived below). Paul said that in 2010, some of his supporters had trouble getting into the auditorium for the poll results, and one attendee wrote that it was because Paul's Campaign for Liberty group had held a panel discussion that ran long, forcing his voters to watch from an overflow area. Appearing on Fox News yesterday (video archived below), host Bill Hemmer asked Paul why people had booed him when the 2011 results were announced, playing the wrong clip as a basis for his question. Paul, the 76-year-old libertarian Republican, passed it off same as he did the year prior, when the hosts of Fox and Friends asked him virtually the same questions (video archived below). Instead of taking it personally or correcting the network on their video's proper context, Paul stayed on message. more at link here is another link that has vid evidence. Fox responded and admitted fault (sort of) It seems it was a "mistake". suuuuurrrrrrreeeeeee it was. Sort of like the same "mistake" that didnt have him in their CPAC poll as a option for viewers to vote for or the "mistakes" all through the 2008 campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Once the lie is told, the retraction usually doesn't matter. Note the usual reaction to the myriad "Fox lied again" threads. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Ultimately this is the reason why many of us hate Faux News' lies and propaganda, not because we disagree with their positions but because we understand how important it is to democracy to have not only a free press, but a credible and effective free press. Faux News is neither. In your estimation who is the most credible & effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 In your estimation who is the most credible & effective? I wish to God that there was an easy way to answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 In your estimation who is the most credible & effective? Me? I get almost all my news from Tailgate. There's a stunning amount of BS. But frankly, BS has a lifespan of about three hours before somebody points out that it's BS, and supports it. Now if only we could do something about the fact that there's a lot of BS which, after it's been shown to be BS, keeps rising, zombie-like, from the dead, and shuffling through Tailgate in a search for more brains to suck. I've heard a whole bunch of people praising NPR. (And my Ethics class seems to use them as a source, too. Their "Religion and Ethics" section.) But I don't have enough of a history with them to recommend them, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.