It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by redhatty
Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by redhatty
This isn't about the child prostitution ring tape for goodness sakes.
This is about Fox news "reporting" on a story from a second hand source without even caring about the integrity of the source. They want to bash ACORN, and rightfully so, and that's ALL they care about.
And from the OP, here are the exact quotes in the article
Beck: "I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a jury. But gosh, even to me, it seems like this is a potential admission of murder."
Rove stated that Kaelke "admitted to -- or claimed to have killed her husband because she thought he was going to abuse her at some point. So, she's claimed that she shot him in the head. I mean, this is an organization that really must have a terrific human relations -- human resources department to hire people like that."
Hannity: "[S]he's on tape admitting that she plotted to kill and had her husband killed, but we don't know if it's true yet."
Each of those quotes clearly exhibits wording equivalent to "allegedly" in them, so what part is irresponsible?
It's not like the woman's words were cut off in mid stream and started back up again at a different point in the conversation, from the tape we see a continuous conversation.
If the ACORN rep said those things, as are clearly shown on the tape, why is FOX so wrong in broadcasting the tape with specific commentary acknowledging the "alleged" status of the information contained within the tape?
And for goodness sakes, WHY DOES IT MATTER?? How is FOX's airing of the tapes MORE important than the video evidence of ACORN aiding and abetting a child prostitution ring?
Originally posted by SaturnFX
What sucks is that both stations (MSNBC and FOX) should put a warning on it or something as to when people are listening to the actual news, and when they are listening to commentators.
Originally posted by Common Good
thats funny, cause I watched the episode on Glenn Beck and I do remember him saying
"We dont even know if she actually did kill her husband".
Edit- Did it seem to any other people that the woman in that last video was either cracked out or tweeked out of her gore?
[edit on 16-9-2009 by Common Good]
Originally posted by zlots331
So, according to this reasoning, any news organization can report anything they want as long as they use "qualifiers".
I'm sorry, that's not reporting, that's propaganda. But of course, "I'm not a lawyer", or have "claimed" to know their true intentions, because "we don't know if it's true yet", "allegedly".