Fox News: We Report -- Even if We KNOW It's False - PROOF

Fox News: We Report -- Even if We KNOW It's False

www.huffingtonpost.com

After I told Fox it wasn't true -- and this is the surreal part -- they kept reporting it anyway. In fact, Fox's Garrett told me he'd "take it under advisement." Take it under advisement?

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 13-1-2008 by lifestudent]

This is amazing. I don't understand how anyone considers that network anything more than the National Enquirer with a polical agenda, yellow journalism at its most sensational.

I took some journalism courses, and I just don't see the things I was taught as ethical imperatives in the industry any longer.

Does anyone here feel there is a national TV news source besides C-Span that has any integrity or maybe even a modicum of real investigative journalism?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If there is I have not been able to find it....at least hear in the U.S. I have to read 4 different news sources and the UN news page with some blogs out there to even decide which version of a particular story (may) be true. The scary part of all that is.....the bloggers are usually right more times than the news organizations. I so miss Walter Cronkite.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by CaptGizmo]



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 13-1-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by CaptGizmo


If there is I have not been able to find it....at least hear in the U.S. I have to read 4 different news sources and the UN news page with some blogs out there to even decide which version of a particular story (may) be true. The scary part of all that is.....the bloggers are usually right more times than the news organizations. I so miss Walter Cronkite.

Unfortunately, I've been resorting to similar means to get news that I feel is reliable, but even that takes too much work sometimes.

The days of Cronkite and his ilk, real journalists with integrity, seems to have given way to "bubble-headed bleach blonds" a la Don Henley in a popularity contest or unabashedly biased extremist pundits and political operatives spewing hate and spreading fear among the masses. Would love to get some real objective and investigative reporting back.

This is no suprise to me whatsoever. Faux news is nothing more than a governmental, corporate sponsored mouthpiece. Pure propeganda spewed for the special interest scum that pupeteer them. They are a disgrace and epitomize everything that is corrupt with our 'supposed' FREE press. They aren't FREE to report anything that doesn't get the thumbs up from their puppeteers first.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by lifestudent

The author of the article is Paul Begala, a democratic operative and former advisor to Bill Clinton. He has an axe to grind with Fox News so anything he says about Fox can be taken with a grain of salt.

Why would anyone care if he took up with the Hillary camp anyway, he probably already does all he can to help her out! (Including bad mouthing Fox News)

reply to post by plumranch


Got any dirt on Seth Ackerman for this report?
The Most Biased Name in News

How about Professor Conway who analysed O'Reilly of Fox News?
Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor'

Don't attack the messenger. Attack the message (if you can...)

At any rate, this is nothing new. Fox News does this all the time..
Older thread exposing Fox News for the lying scum they are:
FOX NEWS: We Report, You Decide

If you ask me, anything Fox News says has to be taken with a slab of rock salt...

Originally posted by lifestudent
Does anyone here feel there is a national TV news source besides C-Span that has any integrity or maybe even a modicum of real investigative journalism?

Your American news broadcasts are just entertainment masquerading as news. Here is something for you (and others) to read, fellow student of journalism:

"You Don't Understand Our Audience"

In 2003, one of our producers obtained from a trial lawyer in Connecticut video footage of guards subduing a mentally ill prisoner. Guards themselves took the footage as part of a safety program to ensure that deadly force was avoided and abuses were documented for official review.[..]"The prisoner is resisting." For 90 seconds several guards pressed the inmate into a bunk. All that could be seen of him was his feet. By the end of the video the inmate was motionless. Asphyxiation would be the official cause of death.

[..]The story had the added relevance that one of the state prison officials had been hired as a consultant to the prison authority in Iraq as the Abu Ghraib debacle was unfolding. There didn't seem to be much doubt about either the newsworthiness or the topicality of the story. Yet at the conclusion of the screening, the senior producer shook his head as though the story had missed the mark widely. "These inmates aren't necessarily sympathetic to our audience," he said. The fact that they had been diagnosed with schizophrenia was unimportant. Worse, he said that as he watched the video of the dying inmate, it didn't seem as if anything was wrong.

"Except that the inmate died," I offered.

"But that's not what it looks like. All you can see is his feet."

"With all those guards on top of him."

"Sure, but he just looks like he's being restrained."

"But," I pleaded, "the man died. That's just a fact. The prison guards shot this footage, and I don't think their idea was to get it on Dateline."

"Look," the producer said sharply, "in an era when most of our audience has seen the Rodney King video, where you can clearly see someone being beaten, this just doesn't hold up."

"Rodney King wasn't a prisoner," I appealed. "He didn't die, and this mentally ill inmate is not auditioning to be the next Rodney King. These are the actual pictures of his death."

"You don't understand our audience."

"I'm not trying to understand our audience," I said. I was getting pretty heated at this point--always a bad idea. "I'm doing a story on the abuse of mentally ill inmates in Connecticut."

"You don't get it," he said, shaking his head.

(Mods, sorry for the long excerpt, but the whole article is much much longer -- 6000+ words. I trimmed it as best as I could for the juiciest, meatiest snippet. Ironic eh, considering the point of the message?)

Edit: Printer friendly link wasn't working properly... replaced with printer unfriendly link...

[edit on 13-1-2008 by Beachcoma]

Fox news is the only news agency that I know of that has actually went to court in order to make sure it was legal for them to report news that is false. Yes this isn't a joke. They went to court and a judge told them it was OK for them to report false news stories.

This is one of the many reasons I do not watch the "news".

reply to post by Beachcoma


Thanks for that contribution Beachcoma. If news like that actually was reported by the main stream news, maybe even as a meaningful percentage of how often it was discovered, I wonder how much different our policies would be. Of course, it seems that's the point after all.

reply to post by CPYKOmega


Hi CPYKO, I hadn't heard of that. Do you have a link by any chance? Thanks.

Sorry but coming from the Huffington post, I cannot believe this article at all. The Huffington post is like the belly of the beast and anything coming from that source should be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
This is no suprise to me whatsoever. Faux news is nothing more than a governmental, corporate sponsored mouthpiece.

Care to provide some evidence or is this just your faulty speculation.

Fox News is one of the few organizations which actually give both sides of view on a given topic. On almost every story they have someone from the left and the right.

Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, O'Reilly and Scum Hanity give both sides of a view.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Fox News is one of the few organizations which actually give both sides of view on a given topic. On almost every story they have someone from the left and the right.

All part of the show for entertainment purposes (and fooling people like you).

Pundit Mara Liasson--who is touted as an on-air "liberal" by Fox executives--sits on the board of the conservative human-rights group Freedom House; New York magazine (11/17/97) cited a Fox insider as saying that Liasson assured president Roger Ailes before being hired that she was a Republican.

[..]

The most obvious sign of Fox's slant is its heavily right-leaning punditry. Each episode of Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, features a three-person panel of pundits who chat about the day's political news at the end of the show.[..]

The next most frequent guest is Mort Kondrake, who sits in the middle of the panel. Politically, Kondrake falls at the very rightward edge of the Democratic party-- if not beyond it. As he famously explained in a 1988 New Republic essay (8/29/88), he is a Democrat who is "disgusted with the Democratic Party" and whose main reason for not defecting to the Republicans is that they "have failed to be true to themselves as conservatives." (He was referring to Reagan's deficit spending.)

[..]

Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game in which everyone knows which side is supposed to win.

[..]

On the left is Alan Colmes, a rather less telegenic former stand-up comic and radio host whose views are slightly left-of-center but who, as a personality, is completely off the radar screen of liberal politics. "I'm quite moderate," he told a reporter when asked to describe his politics (USA Today, 2/1/95). Hannity, a self-described "arch-conservative" (Electronic Media, 8/26/96), joined Fox when the network was started, and personally nominated Colmes to be his on-screen debating opponent (New York Times, 3/1/98). Before the selection was made, the show's working title was Hannity & Liberal to Be Determined--giving some idea of the relative weight each host carries, both on-screen and within the network.

All documented here: www.fair.org...

I'm sure we can research every single 'left-right' point of view presented (and their presenter as well) on Fox and find the same deceptions. After all, Fox won't hire anyone without figuring out first their political affiliation.

The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.

For the record, I don't give a damn whether you are left or right, Democrat or Republican. It's just an illusion of choice. Your news broadcasts, Fox, CNN.. whatever, all a joke. All entertainment. All to divide and conquer the new enemy of the ruling elite -- You People.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, O'Reilly and Scum Hanity give both sides of a view.

Apparently you have never watched because YES, they do.
Reilly always has people on to give the 'other' side of a issue. And you do realize its not only Hannity, it's called Hannity & Colmes. You do realize Colmes is the 'other' side right? Before making inaccurate statements, watch if first. Geesh!

Originally posted by Beachcoma
All part of the show for entertainment purposes (and fooling people like you).

You are entitled to your opinion but since I watch a lot of news on many different stations, you are wrong. Instead of letting others make decisions for you and tell you how to think, try and watch for yourself and make up your own mind.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan



Uhh...Who cares? Unfortunately, I have made the mistake of watching their putrid shows before, and no, they DON'T give both views equal opportunity. They shout over the top of anyone who doesn't agree with their psychotic propeganda, and O'reilly has peoples MICROPHONES turned off whom he can't bludgeon with his idiotic point of view.

Nice try though. Keep worshipping your shepherds.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Uhh...Who cares?

Apparently you since you are posting in this thread.

Unfortunately, I have made the mistake of watching their putrid shows before, and no, they DON'T give both views equal opportunity. They shout over the top of anyone who doesn't agree with their psychotic propeganda, and O'reilly has peoples MICROPHONES turned off whom he can't bludgeon with his idiotic point of view.

Since that is NOT how it works, I guess you are either lying or intentionally misrepresenting in order to make a lame point to further your extreme views. Nice try, but keep believing the propaganda.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Sorry but coming from the Huffington post, I cannot believe this article at all. The Huffington post is like the belly of the beast and anything coming from that source should be taken with a grain of salt.

Err.. They reported the Paul Begala was joining Hillary's campaign. The article is written Paul Begala who assures us that he's not joining Shrillary, therefore Huffington Post = Righteous and True, Fox News = Bald Faced Liars.