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

[SoFlaJDM]

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.

i'm ok with that

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

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?

Your completely logical example and statement here is being ignored by the ignorant so I thought I would quote it.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by 7960

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

He gives his opinion, he does not gather and disseminate the information as a "journalist" does, so he is not held to journalist ethics is my only point here. Doesn't mean he has no ethics to uphold, but he would not be eligible to be a member of the society of professional journalists, from which the ethics posted were taken.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by 7960

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.

And they got consequences for their actions, u apparently didn't read the last part of my request. I won't approach to Woodward thing as it was before the ethics were adopted.

[JaJae]

One thing I find slightly ironic about this thread and other FNC threads are the people who so strongly oppose it. Most of the people on this forum who vehemently attack Fox News also admit to watching Olbermann. I would take a rather uneducated guess that most people on this forum do not watch more than 2 hours of political news/commentary per day.

That means a lot of these people attacking Fox News get most if not all of their cable news information from Olbermann, yet constantly attack Fox. It's as if they have the higher ground simply because Fox is the evil conservative station.

The premise of this thread has been disproved. Fox News didn't keep running the story as fact after being proven it was wrong. They reported they had information from a source and even explained the exchange of e-mails. The "technical" re-interpretations of the Fox footage were flat out wrong. It's as if people just want to sit around and bash Fox while enjoying their Olbermann as if they're somehow better than others.

[Scrum]

Yes, the only people that dislike fox are people who only get their news from Olbermann.


Brilliant deduction!


And the premise of this thread has not been disproved. They kept running the story after the person in question said it was flat wrong and asked them to stop running it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yes, the only people that dislike fox are people who only get their news from Olbermann.


Brilliant deduction!


And the premise of this thread has not been disproved. They kept running the story after the person in question said it was flat wrong and asked them to stop running it.

I didn't say only. I said a lot of people in this thread and on this forum who so vehemently dislike Fox are typically the same ones who watch Olbermann. A lot of people dislike Fox. But I find the ones who absolutely hate it and despise it on this forum are typically the Olby watchers. Go figure.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I didn't say only. I said a lot of people in this thread and on this forum who so vehemently dislike Fox are typically the same ones who watch Olbermann. A lot of people dislike Fox. But I find the ones who absolutely hate it and despise it on this forum are typically the Olby watchers. Go figure.

So you think that someone who watches Olbermann and hates fox is a hypocrite?

I'm not sure I see the connection.

[7960]

Originally Posted by tbone

And they got consequences for their actions, u apparently didn't read the last part of my request. I won't approach to Woodward thing as it was before the ethics were adopted.

What were garrett's consequences?
What were olbermann's consequences?

Rather's consequence..........he says during the summer that he agreed to resign after the elections. Here's Goldberg who worked directly for Rather for 15 years saying his leaving is as much about ratings as it was about his lies about the memos.

I think this is mainly, overwhelmingly about ratings and not Memogate. If Dan Rather had the No. 1 evening newscast, there would be no memo scandal big enough to bring him down.

Where Memogate fits in this, Alan, is in the timing of his departure.
Did 'Memogate' Force Rather's Resignation?*

So, where are the consequences?


* I can't wait for people to beat that up because the link says "foxnews" in it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The premise of this thread has been disproved. Fox News didn't keep running the story as fact after being proven it was wrong. They reported they had information from a source and even explained the exchange of e-mails. The "technical" re-interpretations of the Fox footage were flat out wrong.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And the premise of this thread has not been disproved. They kept running the story after the person in question said it was flat wrong and asked them to stop running it.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former first lady Hillary Clinton says she has no plans to launch a bid to become the country's first woman president in the next two elections.

It has often been speculated the former first lady would make a bid for the White House, but in two interviews Sunday, she said she had "no intention" to run for president in 2008.....

So the news should have stopped running that story because the person in question said it wasn't true?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

So the news should have stopped running that story because the person in question said it wasn't true?

Well he already said it doesn't apply to politicians so your example will be ignored. You could come up with a million examples of the media pressing on a story even after the person in question denied it. No Fox, No Care.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well he already said it doesn't apply to politicians so your example will be ignored. You could come up with a million examples of the media pressing on a story even after the person in question denied it. No Fox, No Care.

Begala is *heavily* involved in politics. He gave up his "private citizen" status when he became an advisor to.... hmm, who was it?... oh, that's right, hillary's husband.

[David Octavius]

If this was an isolated incidence JaJae I might agree with you but this is just another incidence, in a long chain of them where Fox either jumps the gun, reports sensationalism or flat out deliver propaganda (all news channels deliver propaganda one level or another but Fox takes the cake) that misinforms people and its irresponsible.

And just for the record I don't watch Olberman, I know his show is biased too but not to the degree other shows like the orly factor is. I actually don't watch any of the major news channels, I get my news from the BBC.co.uk or I go to Google news to see the headlines from all around the world and you know what? I don't see the sensationalism that is so prelavant here, I get to see what real journalism and reporting is all about - you know, stuff that has >facts< to back up claims.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

So the news should have stopped running that story because the person in question said it wasn't true?

Dude, dude. I used that exact same example already. The brainless already ignored it once, I'm sure they will continue to ignore it. They don't care if what they think is reasonable or not. They just want to hate Fox News blindly and without thought of it.

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

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Dude, dude. I used that exact same example already.

I know. I copied it from your post

[7960]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I don't watch Olberman,

but

Originally Posted by you

I know his show is biased too but not to the degree other shows like the orly factor is.

How do you know that if you

Originally Posted by David Octavius

...don't watch Olberman,

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

So the news should have stopped running that story because the person in question said it wasn't true?

The two stories are not comparable and it's pathetic that you think this is some 'gotcha'.


But hey, at least they asked her. Major didn't even bother to contact Begala. One Begala talked to him he said the story was false, not that he had no intention. No intention usually means "i'm not talking about it at the moment".


edit - and this coming form the guy who used the national inquirer as a source. Forgive me if I don't hold your standards for journalistic integrity in high regard.