It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News edits Paul from AP News articles: PROOF

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Just thought i would share this, since there are still many who believe Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters are "crazy" because they believe Paul is being unfairly slanted out of the MSM.

Take a peek at this Official AP article:
ap.google.com...

Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have passed through since September. Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have not.


And the same story on Fox:
FoX News

Only Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have passed through since September.



...now tell me there isn't a conspiracy?


[edit on 9-1-2008 by LwSiX]




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Same with The Guardian:


Only Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have passed through since September.


www.guardian.co.uk...



Disney's ABCnews doesn't edit:
www.abcnews.go.com...

[edit on 9/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
proof positive-----

yet who do we tell,,,no one will air this story either, because they're all in on it----fox is just way more blatant and bold
average joe will never catch wind of this or the 20 other examples of it

man what are they so scared of????
if mainstream media is this scared---people really need to think---i better check this guy out---yet that's right---they'll never hear about this or him so---man!!! an enigma, wrapped in a canundrom ,wrapped in a....


and yet this is what is causing people to chase down hannity and throwing rocks and snowballs at him

and yet only us supporters, or true internet lurkers will know either

i read something that made sense

there are 2 type of internet users

those who just check email, maybe a chat room and use it at work for work purposes

then us,,,who use the internets full potential,,, for news, interaction, research,learning

and i think this is so true---internet and such i found ron paul

for instance---my mom, uses a computer all day at work---yet she never heard of ron paul---how biased tv and big media are, ---just email, work stuff and netflix--thats it



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Go back and look at the article. Fox edited it again, to add Ron Paul to the list.

Seriously, what is going on?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Right. What is going on? Were they pressured by Ron Paul supporters?

The Guardian article still has Ron Paul's name edited out.

EDIT: Form reading the comments on the Fox site, (where most people are extremelly P* off) It seems AP itself made the mistake in the first place, and issued a retraction...

ap.google.com...


Only Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter have passed through since September.


That would explain why the Guardian, not at all like Fox news, also made the mistake. Despite, Fox being obviously biased against Ron Paul, IMO, this was an honest mistake.


[edit on 9/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
Go back and look at the article. Fox edited it again, to add Ron Paul to the list.

Seriously, what is going on?


Fox is steadily unveiling itself as a propaganda center, which has already been obvious to so many people for so long...

anybody who thinks Fox news is anything but a propaganda center at this point should be considered listless and un-thinking, a lost cause.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Fox is steadily unveiling itself as a propaganda center,

This is undisputed. But since AP made the mistake in the first place, and the supposely neutral Guardian also made the same mistake, maybe this time, it was just a mistake. Ron Paul supporters probably forced the rapid change in the US. (Ron Paul's probaly not too known in he UK)



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
Go back and look at the article. Fox edited it again, to add Ron Paul to the list.

Seriously, what is going on?


I guess they saw this thread and edited it back



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
So let me see if I understand this error...the AP made the mistake first in their original report and all the other news sources do what they always do and copied the AP report. Then the AP fixed their copy but that left everyone else's story wrong until they re-edited the story as well.

First AP Story:
ap.google.com...

Edited AP story later
ap.google.com...

So it seems that Fox News and other new organizations were not hiding or deleting anything. Are you haters going to apologize to Fox News?


[edit on 10-1-2008 by zerotime]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


Certainly not, there are many other reasons why the MSM is not to be trusted, thats why everything they post should be scrutinized. If its a simple mistake, then fine, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain their unbridled dedication to erasing RP existence from their election coverage. Especially since his numbers were right up there with RG in NH, and thats assuming it was a fair count, which it more than likely wasn't given the evidence that has been given.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
BBC excludes Ron Paul from:

news.bbc.co.uk...

"New Hampshire's Winners and Losers"

There is a small blip on every candidate EXCEPT RON PAUL who had 8% of the vote in NH.



Rudy Giuliani came fourth in New Hampshire, but only fractionally behind Mike Huckabee. He will probably be more unnerved by the sight of his lead in national polls shrinking dramatically, and in some cases disappearing. His unusual and risky strategy was always to sit out the early primaries, and to pin his hopes on Florida on 29 January, and Super Tuesday on 5 February.

Fred Thompson's performance in New Hampshire - sixth place, with 1.2% of the vote - was disastrous. He is now staking everything on South Carolina. Unless he wins there, his campaign will effectively be over.



Fred Thompson is somehow worth mentioning because he only had 1.2%

Ron Paul, with grassroots funding pulled together 8% and yet again...

Goes unmentioned.

Maybe he wasn't enough of a winner or enough of a loser... just too "in between" for the article?


Sri Oracle



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I have not heard Ron Pauls name mentioned once in the UK on either radio or television, which of course seems very dodgy.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LwSiX

Certainly not, there are many other reasons why the MSM is not to be trusted, thats why everything they post should be scrutinized. If its a simple mistake, then fine, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain their unbridled dedication to erasing RP existence from their election coverage. Especially since his numbers were right up there with RG in NH, and thats assuming it was a fair count, which it more than likely wasn't given the evidence that has been given.


So, let me make sure I have this right. You start a thread accusing FoxNews of spreading propaganda by editing Ron Paul out of an AP news article. It is proven almost immediately that they did nothing of the sort. You're answer to whether or not you should apologize for your false accusation is "certainly not." Your justification for this is that "there are many reasons why the MSM is not to be trusted." Sounds like somebody who doesn't want to admit an error to me. It's akin to accusing somebody of murder and upon finding out they are innocent saying "I'm not apologizing because I don't trust that guy. I'm sure he murdered somebody"


Originally posted by LwSiX
...now tell me there isn't a conspiracy?


Um ok, there isn't a conspiracy...you certainly didn't prove anything in this thread other than that you have a preconceived notion and don't care if your accusation is false or not.

Accusations and the refusal to acknowledge a mistake is what gives Ron Paul supporters such a bad name...and ultimately reflects on the candidate. I've actually been actively reading all of the voter fraud threads with interest, but every time I see a thread like this it makes me realize that I can't trust any of you because you have no problem with baseless claims as long as they supports your agenda.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Not a single person in my immediate family had ever heard of Ron Paul. Not any of my 3 sisters, or their husbands, or either of my parents. They are all educated, and watch more TV and are on the Internet twice as much as I am. My brother in-laws are both IT guys for goodness sakes. It is crazy how this man is running for president yet does not even exist.

Now on topic. I don't trust any of the news agencies. To say that 1 is a propaganda machine but another isn't is foolish I think. I believe they are all corrupt and none of them care about the country.




top topics



 
6

log in

join