Fox news reported a false story repeatedly for hours after they knew it was false - Page 5

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 01:53 PM

Didn't the video posted by SoFlaJDM prove that Fox had mentioned the story was being denied? Isn't that enough? I would think so especially considering Carville admitted he was part of the campaign despite the denials of the Hillary camp. I would say their source was credible and Begala's denial was definitely questionable. It's a shame people think Fox should kill a story despite its sources simply because a liberal denied it. Imagine what the press would be like towards Bush if they stayed consistent...

Ardentfrost · 01-10-2008, 01:55 PM

denied, but that his sources are strong. So, they were STILL reporting it as fact.

AVengeance · 01-10-2008, 02:57 PM

Fox News: the Sears tower just exploded due to a terrorist attack

some other guy: "uh, I'm standing right here in the lobby of the Sears Tower, and there has been no terror attack."

Fox News: "Okay, we'll take it under advisement. In other news, the Sears Tower has apparently collapsed..."

7960 · 01-10-2008, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Fox News: the Sears tower just exploded due to a terrorist attack

some other guy: "uh, I'm standing right here in the lobby of the Sears Tower, and there has been no terror attack."

Fox News: "Okay, we'll take it under advisement. In other news, the Sears Tower has apparently collapsed..."

not even close, strawman...not even close.

Linzyhop · 01-10-2008, 03:03 PM

dude #1 reports that dude #2 is dead

dude #2 calls dude #1 to say he's not dead

dude #1 says he takes it under advisement and continues to plan dude #2's funeral?

7960 · 01-10-2008, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

dude #1 reports that dude #2 is dead

dude #2 calls dude #1 to say he's not dead

dude #1 says he takes it under advisement and continues to plan dude #2's funeral?

not even close, strawman...not even close.

Scrum · 01-10-2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Didn't the video posted by SoFlaJDM prove that Fox had mentioned the story was being denied? Isn't that enough? I would think so especially considering Carville admitted he was part of the campaign despite the denials of the Hillary camp. I would say their source was credible and Begala's denial was definitely questionable. It's a shame people think Fox should kill a story despite its sources simply because a liberal denied it. Imagine what the press would be like towards Bush if they stayed consistent...

So it was questionable because he's a liberal?

Scrum · 01-10-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

dude #1 reports that dude #2 is gay

dude #2 calls dude #1 to say he's not gay

dude #1 says he takes it under advisement and continues to plan dude #2's coming out party?

This better 7?

Let me guess....not even close, strawman.....not even close.

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

So it was questionable because he's a liberal?

No it's questionable because they had a source they felt was more reliable. And considering Carville essentially proved Hillary's campaign was lying at least about his role in the campaign it would leave some question as to whether or not they're lying about Begala as well.

Of all the footage I have seen in this thread they have stated they had a source where they were learning it from. They also stated there was some doubts about the story saying the same day they were exchanging e-mails with Begala regarding his role. How many times have the GOP denied claims and the mainstream media ran the stories anyway? Are you seriously suggesting that once a pundit claims a story is false the media should just back off? There shouldn't be a double standard for Fox.

7960 · 01-10-2008, 03:15 PM

so I don't get dinged for posting that over and over

......you can SEE a dead body trust it's dead.
You can SEE a fallen building and trust it's fallen.
But if you see a politician talking the only thing you can trust is that it's lying.

Scrum · 01-10-2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

No it's questionable because they had a source they felt was more reliable. And considering Carville essentially proved Hillary's campaign was lying at least about his role in the campaign it would leave some question as to whether or not they're lying about Begala as well.

Of all the footage I have seen in this thread they have stated they had a source where they were learning it from. They also stated there was some doubts about the story saying the same day they were exchanging e-mails with Begala regarding his role. How many times have the GOP denied claims and the mainstream media ran the stories anyway? Are you seriously suggesting that once a pundit claims a story is false the media should just back off? There shouldn't be a double standard for Fox.

Yes, they should have backed off. He told them the story was false.

And what double standard? I know I haven't even brought up any other news stations.

DosEquis · 01-10-2008, 03:23 PM

Not sure what these multiple pages are about.

The bottom line, is resonsible reporting would have said something like "though he has personally denied it, reliable sources say that..." if they really had that big of boner to report that story.

To report it otherwise is false. It just shows that Fox News should rename to Fox Opinions.

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Not sure what these multiple pages are about.

The bottom line, is resonsible reporting would have said something like "though he has denied it, reliable sources say that..."

To report it otherwise is false. It just shows that Fox News should rename to Fox Opinions.

The multiple pages prove that they did.

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yes, they should have backed off. He told them the story was false.

And what double standard? I know I haven't even brought up any other news stations.

I'll have to remember that the next time Bush or the GOP denies something.

motivez · 01-10-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yes, they should have backed off. He told them the story was false.

And what double standard? I know I haven't even brought up any other news stations.

Apparently whenever Fox does something questionable and one points it out, they're automatically defending everything any other news station has ever done that's also questionable.

I mean, people are taking the position because they hate Fox and it's a conservative mouthpiece, their position is 100% political, and has nothing to do with journalistic integrity or responsibility.

Right?

Stylerod · 01-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Apparently whenever Fox does something questionable and one points it out, they're automatically defending everything any other news station has ever done that's also questionable.

I mean, people are taking the position because they hate Fox and it's a conservative mouthpiece, their position is 100% political, and has nothing to do with journalistic integrity or responsibility.

Right?

I guess you can turn this around. How many liberals/dems/lefties here have made threads to bitch about CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC or MSNBC? None? Now, how many about Fox News? 30? 40? 60?

I know you guys hate Fox News, but does there have to be a thread about every single thing they do? It's funny how desperate you all get.

motivez · 01-10-2008, 03:37 PM

Pretty sure there were many people who bitched about CNN's debate bullshit with Hillary, and it's not like CBS wasn't criticized for Rathergate at the time (this forum wasn't around then), plenty of non-Republican people admit bias where it exists on the other networks (ie: Olbermann's show, etc on MSNBC)

Fox is by far the most partisan network around, so it's shouldn't be surprising to you that there are more threads about their bias.. who made the thread is really immaterial to the opinion about the content of the thread.

I'd love to see more threads on bias you see on the other networks, the more it's exposed and the more people are aware of it, the better for everyone.

ballz2wallz · 01-10-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'd love to see more threads on bias you see on the other networks, the more it's exposed and the more people are aware of it, the better for everyone.

No, you don't want that. You'll change this forum to mediasucks.com. i can already think of about 10 things to write about. Who wants 10 threads talking about the same thing? Yeah, about as much as we want a bunch of threads bitching about FNC.

How about we all just agree that the other stations lean left, have falsified things or made mistakes, and FNC leans right, and they have also made mistakes and get on with life and talk about things that actually matter?

SoFlaJDM · 01-10-2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Apparently whenever Fox does something questionable and one points it out, they're automatically defending everything any other news station has ever done that's also questionable.

I mean, people are taking the position because they hate Fox and it's a conservative mouthpiece, their position is 100% political, and has nothing to do with journalistic integrity or responsibility.

Right?

absolutely right