Fox news reported a false story repeatedly for hours after they knew it was false - Page 9

tbone · 01-11-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

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.

So, where are the consequences?

Public scrutiny and disgust, much like that being vented on this thread.

I find it funny, no one is defending CNN, MSNBC, etc. (BTW I don't watch any of them anymore, can't stand them..there not far off FOX IMO)
Yet, you are ready to fall on your sword to defend FOX news.

It's wrong no matter who does it, it's just FOX got caught this time. Stop denying it, it's wrong. No "but, but others did it." Yes, they did. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

/thread

Stylerod · 01-11-2008, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I must admit a certain level of pure entertainment value with these Fox News threads.

It's Golden isn't it!!!???

They continue to ignore all the examples of other camps/people/etc denying stories that end up being true and only focus on a different part of the post that has nothing to do with it (example, the post right above yours). If there isn't anything they can comment on that can steer the conversation away from the point of the post they just ignore it all together!

But it's to be expected. It's a losing battle so they have to do what they can.

ballz2wallz · 01-11-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

It's wrong no matter who does it, it's just FOX got caught this time. Stop denying it, it's wrong. No "but, but others did it." Yes, they did. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

/thread

There's no denying that. But don't you get tired of seeing these same 'FNC sucks' or 'FNC is biased' threads over and over again?

Why target only FNC for it? Are they (FNC haters) in fact guilty of the same bias they claim FNC has?

thomez · 01-11-2008, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It's Golden isn't it!!!???

They continue to ignore all the examples of other camps/people/etc denying stories that end up being true and only focus on a different part of the post that has nothing to do with it (example, the post right above yours). If there isn't anything they can comment on that can steer the conversation away from the point of the post they just ignore it all together!

But it's to be expected. It's a losing battle so they have to do what they can.

Have there been any examples of Paul Begala denying something was true about himself before later admitting it? Because that is the only such example that would matter in relation to this thread. So and so's camp, or so and so's campaign, or blah blah blah denying something that was later true is not the same as the person in question in effect lying about it. I have yet to see an example of Paul Begala doing this in the past.

bheld · 01-11-2008, 08:18 PM

there's a corporate bias in the media

tbone · 01-11-2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There's no denying that. But don't you get tired of seeing these same 'FNC sucks' or 'FNC is biased' threads over and over again?

Why target only FNC for it? Are they (FNC haters) in fact guilty of the same bias they claim FNC has?

I agree with you there, there are a lot of FOX haters. But I also remember threads on a certain other forum before LL's existence about when Dan Rather (and other "liberal" media sources) was caught in a false story and even after he admitted it was false, there was hatred spewing. I agree, he deserved it, much as FOX now deserves this. So defend all you want, but I sincerely wonder if some in this thread weren't the same ones in that very old thread in some other place.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by tbone

I agree with you there, there are a lot of FOX haters. But I also remember threads on a certain other forum before LL's existence about when Dan Rather (and other "liberal" media sources) was caught in a false story and even after he admitted it was false, there was hatred spewing. I agree, he deserved it, much as FOX now deserves this. So defend all you want, but I sincerely wonder if some in this thread weren't the same ones in that very old thread in some other place.

Picking on one person on such a HUGE incident is a lot different than constantly bashing the network as a whole on a regular basis over petty things. I mean hell, we even have a FNC-hater smilie. Sure, we could make some for the other networks, but why should we? It's petty.

Stylerod · 01-12-2008, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

Have there been any examples of Paul Begala denying something was true about himself before later admitting it? Because that is the only such example that would matter in relation to this thread. So and so's camp, or so and so's campaign, or blah blah blah denying something that was later true is not the same as the person in question in effect lying about it. I have yet to see an example of Paul Begala doing this in the past.

In case you haven't figured this out yet. It's politics. People lie/bend the truth/give false information/etc all the time.

edit:

Oh well, hell. He's not Jesus. He does lie sometimes

In Last Man Standing, Mr. Paul Begala stated the 2002 Republican statewide ticket was "all white." This is incorrect, misleading, merits a correction..."

A person of Mr. Begala's stature in politics knows all-to-well that the 2002 Republican statewide candidate ticket had the names of three black candidates: one for Railroad Commissioner and two for the Texas Supreme Court. His statement was incorrect and misleading.

thomez · 01-12-2008, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

In case you haven't figured this out yet. It's politics. People lie/bend the truth/give false information/etc all the time.

I do understand that, I'm just saying that examples of other people lying, misleading, etc. have zero relation to the thread whatsoever. They tell us nothing about this situation.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I do understand that, I'm just saying that examples of other people lying, misleading, etc. have zero relation to the thread whatsoever. They tell us nothing about this situation.

Except that it's not unique to FNC as the thread-starter would like you to believe, and therefore makes FNC no worse than any other media outlet, as the thread-starter would like you to believe.

thomez · 01-12-2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Except that it's not unique to FNC as the thread-starter would like you to believe, and therefore makes FNC no worse than any other media outlet, as the thread-starter would like you to believe.

I never said it was unique to FNC.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I never said it was unique to FNC.

I never said you did

SoFlaJDM · 01-12-2008, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Except that it's not unique to FNC as the thread-starter would like you to believe,

when did i say OR suggest that?

cite specific examples

7960 · 01-12-2008, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Public scrutiny and disgust.....

That's not a consequence.

It's wrong no matter who does it, it's just FOX got caught this time. Stop denying it, it's wrong. No "but, but others did it." Yes, they did. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Originally Posted by 7960

...every news channel does it. Every reporter does those. *Should* they? Nope.

I'm not denying it. I'm just saying

Originally Posted by 7960

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

tbone · 01-12-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

That's not a consequence.

That's the only consequence here as well, so whats ur issue?

Stylerod · 01-12-2008, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I do understand that, I'm just saying that examples of other people lying, misleading, etc. have zero relation to the thread whatsoever. They tell us nothing about this situation.

It should. It's politics. People don't always want to tell reporters the truth about something. Maybe because they aren't ready to release the info. Maybe it's not a done deal yet that they can say it's a sure thing. Whatever the reason. This is everyday stuff. Why YOU can't understand that is amazing.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

when did i say OR suggest that?

cite specific examples

It's inferred. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Am I?

You really don't think FNC is that bad? You really think that FNC is as good or better than other media outlets?

thomez · 01-12-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It should. It's politics. People don't always want to tell reporters the truth about something. Maybe because they aren't ready to release the info. Maybe it's not a done deal yet that they can say it's a sure thing. Whatever the reason. This is everyday stuff. Why YOU can't understand that is amazing.

I asked for an example of Paul Begala lying in the past, that is all. Thanks for providing it. Because 80% of men lie to their wife doesn't mean that you do it.