FOX News, no credibility - is it lies or mistakes?

[ViolaLee]

FOX news changes the facts to suit their right wing propaganda agenda.

Here are some more of their "mistakes". Somehow they always err on the side of the right.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Whitehouse_v_Chafee_on_Fox.jpg

Republican incumbent losing to Democratic challenger? Switch the parties!

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Fox_Foley_Label.jpg

Republican pedophile gets busted? Call him a Democrat!

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Libby_not_guilty.jpg

Republican operative gets busted? Say he didn't!

And now, with Republican Senator Arlen Specter calling Alberto Gonzales a liar in so many words, FOX pretends he is a Democrat.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Specter_Democrat_hume.jpg

Does anyone really believe anything they see and hear on FOX news anymore?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/184250/101

[Stoner]

Wow, typos...this is boring.

I'm going back to trolling for porn.

[preservanation]

What a lama attempt to impugn the messenger.
Bhaaa Bhaaaa....

[Drocket]

Those are amusing, but are nothing compared to O'Reilly's "Lesbian gangs are coming to take over your town - and they're bringing guns!" story from a month or so back. When it comes to bigotry, stupidity and fearmongering, that one was positively a work of art. What was especially fun was when he was forced to admit their sole source on this story (an ex-cop who was thrown off the force for mental issues) wasn't exactly trustworthy, but still insists that the story is 'essentially correct'.

[Stoner]

Those are amusing, but are nothing compared to O'Reilly's "Lesbian gangs are coming to take over your town

And what's even more amusing was Dan Rather knowingly showing fake documents so he could be known as, 'The man who brought Bush down.' Fucking tard.

If I remember correctly that didn't work out so well for him.

[preservanation]

ka-ching![hr]"We are coming to you're city.. and if you want a little bing bang in you're ching chang ...come along"

[Drocket]

And what's even more amusing was Dan Rather knowingly showing fake documents so he could be known as, 'The man who brought Bush down.' Fucking tard.

A couple of problems here. First off, the big one - there's absolutely no evidence that Rather knew they were fake documents. You've just made an accusation with absolutely no evidence.

Secondly, though, is the fact that the documents STILL haven't been proven to be fake. The biggest claim that they're fake - the fact that they use proportional spaced fonts - is actually the best evidence that they're real. Proportional spaced typewriters were EXTREMELY rare and expensive back during the time the documents claim to be from. The military only had a few of them - and one of them just happened to be in the office of Killian, the man who the documents were supposed to be from. It, in fact, had EXACTLY the same font as the one used in the documents installed, an extremely rare an unusual font at the time.

The claim that they're bad forgeries is entirely false. Bad forgeries would have used a standard typewriter. If they're forgeries at all, they're extremely good forgeries, as they were produced on an extremely rare typewriter that exactly matched the typewriter on the base. Whoever produced them clearly knew what they were doing - assuming, again, that they actually are forgeries at all...

Of course, the information in them has been entirely substantiated from other sources, too. Whether you like it or not, Bush skipped out on his cushy state-side flying gig because he was too busy snorting coke to show up.

[lily]

Wow, typos...this is boring.

I'm going back to trolling for porn.



Stoner........when it's consistant changing of party affiliation, it's no longer a typo.

[December]

The Fox-News is a Republican Comedy Club... :D

[Stoner]

Danny Boy tried to pass off fake documents so he could be looked at as a hero. It back-fired and he along with CBS news were exposed for the bias liars they are.

Nothing new here.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/twi/lowres/twin110l.jpg

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.13.UpInSmoke-X.gif

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Cartoons/DanRatherHelm.jpg

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Cartoons/DanRather.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2004/11/11282004.jpg

[BoogyMan]

Those are amusing, but are nothing compared to O'Reilly's "Lesbian gangs are coming to take over your town - and they're bringing guns!" story from a month or so back. When it comes to bigotry, stupidity and fearmongering, that one was positively a work of art. What was especially fun was when he was forced to admit their sole source on this story (an ex-cop who was thrown off the force for mental issues) wasn't exactly trustworthy, but still insists that the story is 'essentially correct'.


Drocket, Oreilly is not news, his show is an opinion show.

Keith Olbermann's show is the Oreilly of that nutroots left and he has a right to be as moronic on his show as he wishes, because it is OPINION.

DailyKOS is now a valid site for debate content? Egads, I am now going to start posting content from Newsmax and Freerepublic.

[ViolaLee]

Cartoons! Of course, you've proven it. With cartoons.

/sarcasm

[Drocket]

Drocket, Oreilly is not news, his show is an opinion show.

Keith Olbermann's show is the Oreilly of that nutroots left and he has a right to be as moronic on his show as he wishes, because it is OPINION.

SO Olberman, who's information is virtually always 100% entirely correct (with perhaps an occasional honest mistake) is in your opinion equated with O'Reilly, a man who wouldn't know what reality was if it smacked him in the face? Nice to know.

DailyKOS is now a valid site for debate content? Egads, I am now going to start posting content from Newsmax and Freerepublic.

I'm don't even know where you're coming from here...

And to Stoner: what ViolaLee said. If the best rebuttal you can come up with is some old cartoons, give it up.

[lily]

Those are amusing, but are nothing compared to O'Reilly's "Lesbian gangs are coming to take over your town - and they're bringing guns!" story from a month or so back. When it comes to bigotry, stupidity and fearmongering, that one was positively a work of art. What was especially fun was when he was forced to admit their sole source on this story (an ex-cop who was thrown off the force for mental issues) wasn't exactly trustworthy, but still insists that the story is 'essentially correct'.


I have to admit, I like the little rift between Fox and MSNBC, it reminds me of grade school. The clip Olberman keeps showing of Bill interviewing the beauty queen has me rolling on the floor every time they show it........but seriously, how can anyone take O'Reilly seriously after he said that Shawn Hornbeck didn't want to go home, because he liked his kidnapper?

[bobbylien]

Show me proof that dailykos is unreliable. I have been reading through the headlines on their site about once a week for the past year or so and I have not noticed one instance where I thought the story was stretched or just outright wrong(like you very often see on Fox and CNN, every cable news outlet does it).
I find it a very unsettling coincidence that all of their mistakes have made conservatives feel better about themselves. At the very least it means that their "fact check team" (hahaha) is really irresponsible. I somehow get the feeling that they just wouldn't care enough to fix them anyways, they can always issue an apology at 2am.

[ViolaLee]

Boogey, DailyKos was the source of the FOX screen shots all conveniently in one place. If you'd like me to spend a few hours seeking them out on sites you approve of, I suppose I could do that. Would that make you more or less likely to believe that FOX made the mistakes or told the lies, shown in the pictures?

And Drocket has a good point. Go try to find untruths told by Olbermann, and then try to find some by O'Reilly. See who's easier to find lies from.

[BoogyMan]

Show me proof that dailykos is unreliable. I have been reading through the headlines on their site about once a week for the past year or so and I have not noticed one instance where I thought the story was stretched or just outright wrong(like you very often see on Fox and CNN, every cable news outlet does it).
I find it a very unsettling coincidence that all of their mistakes have made conservatives feel better about themselves. At the very least it means that their "fact check team" (hahaha) is really irresponsible. I somehow get the feeling that they just wouldn't care enough to fix them anyways, they can always issue an apology at 2am.


Bwahahahaha

Bobby, KOS is as biased a source as you can get outside of just posting DNC talking points. KOS is not an objective source by any stretch of the imagination. Like I said earlier if DailyKOS is now to be considered an objective source I will soon start picking my content from Newsmax and FreeRepublic.[hr]
Drocket, Oreilly is not news, his show is an opinion show.

Keith Olbermann's show is the Oreilly of that nutroots left and he has a right to be as moronic on his show as he wishes, because it is OPINION.

SO Olberman, who's information is virtually always 100% entirely correct (with perhaps an occasional honest mistake) is in your opinion equated with O'Reilly, a man who wouldn't know what reality was if it smacked him in the face? Nice to know.

Wow, Drocket, that is just funny. Olbermann is just as big a windbag, if not a bigger windbag than Oreilly. What you mean is that you agree with his commentary and thus it cannot be equated with someone whom you despise.


DailyKOS is now a valid site for debate content? Egads, I am now going to start posting content from Newsmax and Freerepublic.

I'm don't even know where you're coming from here...

And to Stoner: what ViolaLee said. If the best rebuttal you can come up with is some old cartoons, give it up.


I am merely pointing out the FACT that DailyKOS is a hard left leaning partisan site with no pretense towards objectivity.

[Drocket]

I am merely pointing out the FACT that DailyKOS is a hard left leaning partisan site with no pretense towards objectivity.

Entirely true - they only report one side of the news. The side they report, however, is generally quite accurate (though, of course, the fact that it's open to the public means they suffer from drive-by insanity, at times.) The same, however, cannot be said of Newsmax, FreeRepublic or even Fox News - all of them quite frequently feature news that's entirely fictitious.

Biased-but-generally-correct sources beat biased-and-usually-incorrect sources.

[Mayberry]

All news is biased nowadays. I don't bother watching cable or network news. I don't read most of the mullet wrappers either. I get my news on the net, from several different sources, and draw my own conclusions.

[bobbylien]

All news is biased nowadays. I don't bother watching cable or network news. I don't read most of the mullet wrappers either. I get my news on the net, from several different sources, and draw my own conclusions.

I wonder what this country would be like if everyone did that? :exclamation:

[BoogyMan]

I am merely pointing out the FACT that DailyKOS is a hard left leaning partisan site with no pretense towards objectivity.

Entirely true - they only report one side of the news. The side they report, however, is generally quite accurate (though, of course, the fact that it's open to the public means they suffer from drive-by insanity, at times.) The same, however, cannot be said of Newsmax, FreeRepublic or even Fox News - all of them quite frequently feature news that's entirely fictitious.

Biased-but-generally-correct sources beat biased-and-usually-incorrect sources.


Hey Drocket,

Let me illustrate my point. The link below is a google cached version of a recently removed hit piece posted on DailyKOS. Tell me how accurate KOS is after reading it.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TK8ZdOPMfkkJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/1128/32072+http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/1128/32072

[Stoner]

I have been reading through the headlines on their site about once a week for the past year or so and I have not noticed one instance where I thought the story was stretched or just outright wrong

http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/thumb/300px-Kool-Aid2.jpg

[Drocket]

Let me illustrate my point. The link below is a google cached version of a recently removed hit piece posted on DailyKOS. Tell me how accurate KOS is after reading it.

Thank you for proving me correct. As I said, DailyKos, as a website open to the public for posting, DOES suffer from occasional drive-by trolls. Such diaries, though, are virtually always removed quickly. You've rarely find untrue information hanging around long on DailyKos. Information that doesn't present the whole story, yes. Incorrect information, not really.

Compare that to, say, Fox News, which manages to combine bias with misinformation, then defends stories even after they're proven untrue.

[ViolaLee]

boogy, if you click the link that says click here for current page, you'll see they took that blogger's message down.

Sorry. I can't seem to find that story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/1128/32072

[lawless168]

Fox news rawks! As for the pics, I’ve seen posted by Obermann lovers 1000 times on sites like this. I think it’s funny. It’s obviously a mistake, but with a spin to the left its media bias/LIES! .... cracks me up! (its not like anybody would use Photoshop or anything...lol)

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z199/lawless168/Fox_RI_Mistake_2.jpg

[BoogyMan]

boogy, if you click the link that says click here for current page, you'll see they took that blogger's message down.

Sorry. I can't seem to find that story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/1128/32072


That is why I pulled it from the Google cache and it simply illustrates my point as to the bias of DailyKOS as a source for discussion topics.

[bobbylien]

That is why I pulled it from the Google cache and it simply illustrates my point as to the bias of DailyKOS as a source for discussion topics.
What? Some idiot posts a journal, its removed right away and you use THAT to criticize the integrity of the site? Thats like saying people at DF aren't credible and citing a CWN post as evidence.

[BoogyMan]

That is why I pulled it from the Google cache and it simply illustrates my point as to the bias of DailyKOS as a source for discussion topics.
What? Some idiot posts a journal, its removed right away and you use THAT to criticize the integrity of the site? Thats like saying people at DF aren't credible and citing a CWN post as evidence.


DailyKOS is a biased source Bobby, which is the gist of my whole commentary here. It is a hangout for the likes of the guy who wrote that journal.

[NortheastCynic]

Can I just say this: It is impossible for a news source to be unbiased...Im-possible. When human beings write the news, human beings make decisions regarding what to and what not to include. They frame stories in a way that reflects what they deem to be important. You cannot, I repeat, cannot legitimately expect a news source to be unbiased...It is impossible.

Now, I respect Fox News just about as much as any other news network [not very much]. I watch both O'Reilly and Olbermann for entertainment purposes. I have to say, I find myself being more sympathetic to Olbermann, for some of the reasons already mentioned...he simply doesn't make factual mistakes, O'Reilly...does. I'm not a particuarly big fan of either, but if I could only watch one, I'd watch Olbermann. I only hope that he is as scathingly anti-government [which the entire media should be at all times] when the Democrats have the White House. We'll see.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

I see what you are saying NC, but would add the KOS is NOT a news site. I think we are comparing apples to oranges here.

[NortheastCynic]

Oh granted. I wasn't referring to the KOS which obviously is not a news source, but a source of commentary.

-NC

[bobbylien]

Show me proof that one of the their recommended diaries was inaccurate. As far as a source goes, I would take it over fox any day.

[Mayberry]

[/u][/quote]It is impossible for a news source to be unbiased...Im-possible. That is completely untrue. If reporters would stick to who, what, where, when, why (without the reporter's personal opinions), and how, then there would be no bias, only facts. It's when "journalists" choose to interject their opinions that news becomes skewed. An opinion show, like Beck or O'Reilly, one expects to be slanted. But shows presented as the news, as fact, should not be. Unfortunately, our society has degraded to the point that facts are boring, so the "news" outlets spin away to create artificial "controversy", or cater to a particular audience, in order to boost ratings. In doing so, they have sold themselves to the devil and abandoned their profession to become "entertainers". And a moronic American public eats it up (though watching the news channels ratings plummet suggests many people are wising up).[hr]Interesting. Now my "spare quote" tags are coming at the beginning. Gremlins. :P

[NortheastCynic]

That is completely untrue. If reporters would stick to who, what, where, when, why (without the reporter's personal opinions), and how, then there would be no bias, only facts. It's when "journalists" choose to interject their opinions that news becomes skewed.And it is impossible for a journalist not to do so, even in the most benign way. For example, how would you frame and headline a story regarding Atty. General Gonzalez's alleged perjury? How would you start that story off? Those are all decisions you have to make as a journalist that cannot possibly be divorced from what you believe about the story. Give me link and an example of a story you consider unbiased, Mayberry, and I'll show you why it's not.

Bobby, that isn't relevant...Whether or not the Kos has printed inaccuracies does not affect the fact that it is an opinion website. I'm not knocking Kos, I don't really care about them one way or another...But it is not a news medium.

-NC

[bobbylien]

Bobby, that isn't relevant...Whether or not the Kos has printed inaccuracies does not affect the fact that it is an opinion website. I'm not knocking Kos, I don't really care about them one way or another...But it is not a news medium.
I was addressing those who say its not a credible source.

[NortheastCynic]

Ah, I see, my bad.

-NC

[Mayberry]

how would you frame and headline a story regarding Atty. General Gonzalez's alleged perjury? Atty General Gonzalez Accused of Alleged Perjury :P See, that wasn't so hard, was it? As far as the "frame".... Who, what, where, when, why (excluding the personal opinion), and how. Nothing to it. Here you go, a perfectly unbiased story. A well balanced one to boot! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_us/immigration_sheriff_2
[/u][/quote]

[NortheastCynic]

Atty General Gonzalez Accused of Alleged PerjuryWhy not, "Documents Prove Gonzalez Testimony False"...Why "alleged" perjury? Why use the word "accused" when his perjury has been proven by documentation? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your choice of words...but they, like any choice of words, reflect an individuals personal beliefs; i.e. bias.

As far as the "frame".... Who, what, where, when, why (excluding the personal opinion), and how. Nothing to it.Mayberry that is incredibly overly-simplistic. In determining the "who, what, where when, how and why" a reporter inevitably makes choices regarding how to communicate those characteristics, in what order, etc. etc. every choice he/she makes is affected by his/her personal views, values etc. It is impossible for a human to write something that is completely neutral.

Here you go, a perfectly unbiased story. A well balanced one to boot! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_o..._sheriff_2It didn't take me long to find an example of bias in the story.
Latino leaders and faith-based organizations want Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to disconnect the hotline he created for people to report information about undocumented immigrants, saying it raises the chance of racial profiling.Why didn't the author use the term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" as opposed to "undocumented"?

Some Latino advocacy groups will launch a hotline of their own to take tips from people who believe they've been unfairly reported to Arpaio's hotline, said activist Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County supervisor.

Meanwhile, some faith-based organizations are circulating a letter among church leaders and members that decries Arpaio's hotline.
Why were both of those paragraphs included? The author, based on what he/she thought was important, decided that they were important. That is very benign and very common, but it is also a sign of bias.
bi·as /ˈbaɪəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or (especially British) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
–noun 1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a[b] particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
The decision that a reporter makes regarding the framing, order and tone of a story are all reflections of tendencies or inclinations stemming from a preconceived opinion or feeling. If I think the most important part of the latest Lindsey Lohan story is her maintaining of her innocence, I would lead with that...If I believed the most important aspect was the fact that she had just recently been released from rehab...I would lead with that. Either way, I would be making a decision based on my feelings and opinion regarding the story. There is no objective "right" way to lead the story, the choice is mine as a journalist and that choice, again, reflects a bias.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

Bobby, that isn't relevant...Whether or not the Kos has printed inaccuracies does not affect the fact that it is an opinion website. I'm not knocking Kos, I don't really care about them one way or another...But it is not a news medium.
I was addressing those who say its not a credible source.


It is an unabashedly biased source Bobby. You agreeing with the content doesn't make it accurate.

[Mayberry]

Why not, "Documents Prove Gonzalez Testimony False"...Why "alleged" perjury? Why used the word "accused" when his perjury has been proven by documentation? Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Mayberry that is incredibly overly-simplistic. A wise man once said "Keep it simple, stupid". That advice hasn't steered me wrong yet. Why didn't the author use the term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" as opposed to "undocumented"?
They didn't want to alert the PC police? :P Why were both of those paragraphs included? Because their editor has a minimum word count requirement? They were relevant facts learned while researching the story. I don't construe that as bias. Had they given the number for the Latino's hotline, now that would be bias! :P[/i][/quote]

[NortheastCynic]

Mayberry, c'mon bro, you just ignored most of the substanative and key parts of my my post.

My point is that there are so many minute decisions that writers and editors have to make that reflect their own personal belief system.

Paragraphs were included because the writer determined they were important enough to be included...That is a sign of bias.

Mayberry, Gonzalez is innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. That does not mean that the fact that he has committed a crime should not be acknowledged. If a reporter sees a man shoot another in the head, he didn't just witness "alleged murder". He witnessed murder. But this disagreement actually proves my point. We each have different opinions regarding what should and should not be said in this hypothetical article. If we wrote two articles they would be very different because we look at the issue from two different viewpoints. We each would be expressing our own personal bias.

-NC

[bobbylien]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290769,00.html
Search for the word "Specter."
Its amazing that this mistake can get national coverage but they don't feel the need to fix it(even though it would take about 10seconds). I am convinced that they did this purposely now.. they just couldn't reasonably make two mistakes on the same story like that. Maybe the people at fox are so insanely partisan that they read his comment and assumed he switched parties.

[Mayberry]

That does not mean that the fact that he has committed a crime should not be acknowledged. That is a slippery slope. The "fact" that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty was "acknowledged" by some. There was eyewitness "proof" in that case, was there not? Fortunately the real facts exonerated them. Until someone is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, a crime is "alleged". Just ask OJ. :P I see your point NC, but it is your opinion, not mine. I still contend that a journalist can present a neutral story if they just report the facts. All the facts. Sure, the choice of a word here and there might construe "bias" to some. By the way, would you believe that story was on Drudge? It was! That evil right winger! If anything, the "bias" you pointed out was lefty.[/quote]

[bobbylien]

There was eyewitness "proof" in that case, was there not?
Yes, but those charges could be reasonably challenged. This is a well documented lie that can't be challenged.

[NortheastCynic]

That is a slippery slope. The "fact" that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty was "acknowledged" by some. There was eyewitness "proof" in that case, was there not? Fortunately the real facts exonerated them. Fortunately the real facts exonerated them. Until someone is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, a crime is "alleged".First of all, there was never incontrovertable proof that the Duke laxers were guilty of anything [there was an utter lack of evidence from day one]. With that said, that is beside my point, a point which you touch on. The "crime" is "alleged" until guilt is proven before a court of law...but the ACT itself is not. It is a fact, a fact that the Attorney General lied before Congress, it is proven by documents. The very fact that we are arguing over what could or could not be included in an article, again proves my point that there is no objective "neutral" article. It doesn't exist because there is not one, fair way of writing an article. It cannot be done. There is absolutely no way of prescribing a technique to write an article in a way that is "fair", because "fair" or "unbiased" are subjective terms.

I see your point NC, but it is your opinion, not mine. I still contend that a journalist can present a neutral story if they just report the facts. All the facts.And who determines what the "facts" are? See what I mean? The reporter has to filter out what he or she believes to be important and worthy or print. That is bias, pure and simple.

By the way, would you believe that story was on Drudge? It was! That evil right winger! If anything, the "bias" you pointed out was lefty.It was on Drudge's website...it wasn't written by Drudge. Key distinction.

-NC

[Mayberry]

It was on Drudge's website That was my point. Drudge is considered to be biased to the right, is he not? Yet this article, with the ever so slight left bias (in your opinion) was there. That's called good reporting. No, Drudge didn't write the article, but he did choose to put it on his website. He put his (alleged :P) bias aside to present the story. It can be done NC. It takes good character, a quality seldom present in journalists today, or people in general for that matter (in my opinion, of course), but it can, and should be done. If you want to nit-pick the details, then I guess you will always find bias if you really want to. But unless they "whack you in the head with a frying pan" with it, Libby Averyt style, I don't really consider it to be biased. I'm a conservative, and I found that article to be fair! I didn't feel overwhelmed by a left wing agenda.[/quote]

[NortheastCynic]

Mayberry, you're confusing my argument. You're taking the example of Drudge putting a left-leaning article on his website and claiming that it is an example of unbiased new reporting. My point is that every news story in the history of humanity has some form of bias.

It can be done NC. It takes good character, a quality seldom present in journalists today, or people in general for that matter (in my opinion, of course), but it can, and should be done. If you want to nit-pick the details, then I guess you will always find bias if you really want to. But unless they "whack you in the head with a frying pan" with it, Libby Averyt style, I don't really consider it to be biased. I'm a conservative, and I found that article to be fair! I didn't feel overwhelmed by a left wing agenda. It isn't nit-picking, Mayberry. It's demonstrating that bias can be very, very subtle. I don't claim that the article was overwhelmingly liberal, only that, it, like every other news story is biased, and there's nothing wrong with that. People just need to recognize that you cannot expect humans to be neutral.

-NC

[Labrocca]

Woo hoo...another beat down the source thread!

Utterly ridiculous if you ask me. Viola it's not like you are changing anyones opinion here about Fox. Either you think they are credible or not. Even the NYTimes has errors. And I have seen Fox recant errors they make. It's 24 hour news channel...mistakes are bound to happen. I haven't kept a tally of lefty righty mistakes but who cares. Your assertion they aren't credible because the mistakes are righty slanted is laughable.

http://tv.netscape.com/story/2007/01/02/cnn-mistakes-obama-for-osama/
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5570/1/32/

I guess you can't trust CNN either.

[lawless168]

It was on Drudge's website That was my point. Drudge is considered to be biased to the right, is he not? Yet this article, with the ever so slight left bias (in your opinion) was there.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

[lily]

Woo hoo...another beat down the source thread!

Utterly ridiculous if you ask me. Viola it's not like you are changing anyones opinion here about Fox. Either you think they are credible or not. Even the NYTimes has errors. And I have seen Fox recant errors they make. It's 24 hour news channel...mistakes are bound to happen. I haven't kept a tally of lefty righty mistakes but who cares. Your assertion they aren't credible because the mistakes are righty slanted is laughable.

http://tv.netscape.com/story/2007/01/02/cnn-mistakes-obama-for-osama/
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5570/1/32/

I guess you can't trust CNN either.


I'm confused on your links, Labrocca.......the first one is an apology from CNN because they got the facts wrong........I haven't seen an apology by Fox for anything they have gotten wrong. Your second link is a letter to the editor by Michael Moore.

[Labrocca]

Well doing my own investigating into Fox errors it appears they have a simple policy of not making retractions. I don't agree with that policy but that imho doesn't make then automatically uncredible.

[Drocket]

In my own opinion, it pretty much does. If they refuse to ever admit that they've made a mistake, how can you be trust how accurate they are? Honest people admit when they've made a mistake, learn from it and move on. People who try to pretend that they're infallible... Well, how can you really trust someone who starts from a position of pretending that they never make a mistake?

[Labrocca]

In my own opinion, it pretty much does. If they refuse to ever admit that they've made a mistake, how can you be trust how accurate they are? Honest people admit when they've made a mistake, learn from it and move on. People who try to pretend that they're infallible... Well, how can you really trust someone who starts from a position of pretending that they never make a mistake?


It's not like they don't correct mistakes...they just don't bother with retractions. I just realized that Lily once again uses the word "lies".

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/41/9e/8a5ea2c008a0b634d015b010.L.jpg

Maybe it's time you buy this book Lily so people will stop lying to you.

[ViolaLee]

It's dishonest to never retract and admit mistakes. It's just another layer of FOX's dishonesty. It seems like a running theme these days...

Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice WMD lies, Iraq/AQ lies
Libby convicted liar
Gonzales documented liar
Rupert Murdock's FOX lies

I think when people are doing a lot of wrong they don't want anyone to find out about, they become liars.

It seems to me that's what's going on here.

[lily]

I just realized that Lily once again uses the word "lies".

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/41/9e/8a5ea2c008a0b634d015b010.L.jpg

Maybe it's time you buy this book Lily so people will stop lying to you.



I have? Can you show me where?

[Anti-Racism]

Does anyone really believe anything they see and hear on FOX news anymore?


You watch TV? Isn't that behavior for retards and drug addicts only? TV is corporate propaganda. I wouldn't watch it. Why do you?

[Mayberry]

TV is corporate propaganda. It makes me sick. Ever watch the Disney Channel? Holy crap, do they have an agenda. I try to keep my kids away from that stuff, but my wife lets them watch it all the time. I want to throw the TV out on the curb, but I don't want a divorce! :P[/quote]

[Labrocca]

I have? Can you show me where?



Ugh..

OFFICIAL RETRACTION:

In a previous post I made a statement about Lily and lies when in fact it was Viola Lee. This forum does not condone errors and we admit our mistakes. We apologize to our readers for any inconvenience this may have caused. You have our sincerest apology.




hehe...kinda funny in a thread about mistakes don't you think.


It's dishonest to never retract and admit mistakes.

Congratulations on learning a new word. I do agree with you though that it's a bad policy. I can semi-understand it but as a news agency you would think getting the information accurate would be their main concern.

[lily]

OFFICIAL RETRACTION:

In a previous post I made a statement about Lily and lies when in fact it was Viola Lee. This forum does not condone errors and we admit our mistakes. We apologize to our readers for any inconvenience this may have caused. You have our sincerest apology.

Thanks Labrocca.




hehe...kinda funny in a thread about mistakes don't you think.

You were reading my mind.;)

[preservanation]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QL52780&show_article=1
- Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

Stalinists

[Mayberry]

How come you never see conservative groups wanting everybody to boycott something all the time? Jeez, if you don't like it, don't watch/ listen/ read. It's not that hard of a concept. People have too much time on their hands.

[lily]

I don't know why you don't see conservatives do that, Mayberry. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60101-2003Nov3?language=printer)

[ViolaLee]

Mayberry you've got to be kidding.

Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly Calls For a Boycott of Canada (http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/OReillyVSCanada.htm)

O'Reilly boycotts truth to spin French boycott; falsely claimed it "hurt France" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508020002)

Conservative Groups Boycott Ford Motor Co. Over Gay Rights Support (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187722,00.html)

Conservative Boycott of George Lucas (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/173287.htm)

Right Wing Extremists Threaten to Boycott American Girl (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/10/16/414/98389)

Right-Wing Mayor Calls for McDonald’s Boycott Over Spanish-Language Ads (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/10/spanish-boycott/)

A conservative Christian group has ended its boycott of the Walt Disney Co., launched nine years ago in response to what leaders perceived as the erosion of the company's squeaky-clean image. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/entertainment/main697567.shtml)

A conservative group that had called on supporters to boycott Wal-Mart's post-Thanksgiving day sales to protest the retailer's support of gay-rights groups (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231259,00.html)

And the best one of all:

Conservative groups boycott veterinarians for use of term "bitch" (http://www.afro-netizen.com/2007/04/conservative_gr.html)

Mayberry, I suggest you get out more ;) Thanks for the idea of a search for all the wacky things Conservatives boycott. There sure are a lot of them. I could have gone on for hours. But I get bored easily ;)