Fox news reported a false story repeatedly for hours after they knew it was false - Page 7

Rouger2 · 01-10-2008, 06:38 PM

The fox guy said he would take in under advisement. What kind of answer was that. In other words he was just telling him to go to hell.

7960 · 01-10-2008, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The fox guy said he would take in under advisement. What kind of answer was that. In other words he was just telling him to go to hell.

He was telling him "I think you're lying until the press release comes out" because he had other information saying otherwise.

RMNIXON · 01-10-2008, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The fox guy said he would take in under advisement. What kind of answer was that. In other words he was just telling him to go to hell.

Give me a break?

It was a story about a "possible" shakeup in the Clinton Campaign. THat is all folks. A political story at the height of the New Hapshire primary storm. Fox simply suggested they would wait and see what happens.....

What happened last night in Politics?

Richardson's people denied he would announce the end of his campaign today.

What did Bill Richardson do today?

Announce he would end his campaign!

The chance that a denial about a campaign is true or false is a % that anybody can guess at any given time. These campaigns like to work the press. Not the other way around.

Why does the IQ of this board drop at the mention of Fox News?

tbone · 01-10-2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Sorry, but every news channel does it. Every reporter does those. *Should* they? Nope. Would they ever get an "EXCLUSIVE!!!" next to their name.

Garrett did it.
Olbermann did it.
Rather did it.
Hell, Woodward and Bernstein did it.

Does it make it ok? I don't know. Does everyone else on the highway going 75mph make it ok for me?

Please give examples where they did it and were not reprimanded or publicly scolded. They hold themselves to those ethics, nobody made them up and said you must abide by them. Are some bent and broken occasionally, yes, but there are usually consequences with them like Rathergate.

Publius · 01-10-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

1 slight problem... begala is not, and never was a journalist

if you're going to split hairs like that, then since Fox News is on television then none of them are journalists, either.

Scrum · 01-10-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

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

This is a private citizen. Those are elected officials. Not even close to comparable.

tbone · 01-10-2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

if you're going to split hairs like that, then since Fox News is on television then none of them are journalists, either.

Well technically this isn't true, otherwise the host of entertainment tonight could be considered a journailist, lol.

A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.

You must gather and disseminate information to be considered a journalist. Being a consultant because you were in politics and giving your opinion is not journalism.

Thorgrim · 01-10-2008, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

if you're going to split hairs like that, then since Fox News is on television then none of them are journalists, either.

Actually almost all of them write stories on the website or for broad distribution...

Thorgrim · 01-10-2008, 08:55 PM

I like how campaign officials who are told to not say anything about Richardson dropping out are the same as a regular citizen, not hired by any campaign, saying flat out he is not going to join a campaign

7960 · 01-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

You must gather and disseminate information to be considered a journalist. Being a consultant because you were in politics and giving your opinion is not journalism.

HE WAS A CO-HOST of Crossfire and Equal Time.
He wasn't just a consultant and he wasn't just in politics.

7960 · 01-10-2008, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Please give examples where they did it and were not reprimanded or publicly scolded. They hold themselves to those ethics, nobody made them up and said you must abide by them. Are some bent and broken occasionally, yes, but there are usually consequences with them like Rathergate.

Examples of when Garrett did it are in this thread.
Examples of when Olbermann did it are in this thread.
Examples of when Rather did it are in this thread.
When Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate, I'm going to guess they asked questions of nixon's staff and were officially told "no we're not" but they kept investigating. Since they were officially told no they should have stopped and believed the staffer, right? They shouldn't have believed another source since they (again, I'm guessing) had an official denial.

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

This is a private citizen. Those are elected officials. Not even close to comparable.

Michael Jackson is a private citizen. He claims he never raped little boys. By your argument the media should have just believed him and dropped the story. That's not the way the media works.

Scrum · 01-10-2008, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Michael Jackson is a private citizen. He claims he never raped little boys. By your argument the media should have just believed him and dropped the story. That's not the way the media works.

Now you are trying to compare a criminal act by a celebrity.

Ardentfrost · 01-10-2008, 09:49 PM

giving examples of someone else doing the wrong does not excuse and instance of a wrong. That's the fallacy 'appeal to common practice.'

RMNIXON · 01-10-2008, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Michael Jackson is a private citizen. He claims he never raped little boys. By your argument the media should have just believed him and dropped the story. That's not the way the media works.

And Michael Jackson is not involved in politics. That ups the trust factor!

In the case of his denial about a serious criminal charge that would be a news story and should be reported.

Begala's denials should have been noted in the story as soon as word got to the right people, but the idea that Fox should pull this story on his objection is nonsense.

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Now you are trying to compare a criminal act by a celebrity.

What difference does it make, it's a news story? You're really splitting hairs here.

Thorgrim · 01-10-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What difference does it make, it's a news story? You're really splitting hairs here.

Actually the people involved were sued for defamation, they only barely got off the hook, so it's a poor example to hold up

thomez · 01-10-2008, 10:51 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.

There is a big difference between Hillary's campaign saying the story is false and Begala himself contacting them to let them know the story was false. Since I have seen no evidence that Carville denied his role, your point really has no merit. The denial by the campaign and the personal contact from Begala are not equally unbelievable.

David Octavius · 01-11-2008, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Like I said, we don't have a seething hatred for the other outlets like people have for FNC.

So FNC has a conservative bias...it's what made them bank. So other outlets have a liberal bias...it's what they're used to.

Who really cares?

I think there is a difference between news that is tilted to the right or left perspective and news that takes the form of propaganda - FNC has a less than honorable track record of slandering people that are of the same ideology to make them look like something they are not, the Barack Obama Muslim incidence is just one.

Look, news has never been unbiased, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton all had their own newspapers (or had editors that were sympa