It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Fox News reports fake murder story from ACORN video as fact

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:01 PM
from watching the coverage and vids in this thread, I still can't find where they claimed that the woman ACTUALLY killed her husband? They just say she claimed to have killed this hubby/BF whatever. Anyone have a clip where they said she killed him?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by hotrodturbo7

The thread is about attacking Fox. That way we can divert attention from our real motive. Protecting Acorn. Get with the program!

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by liveandletlive

My bad, carry on then


posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by CanadianDream420

Facts are that Acorn was admitted to tampering with 400,000 ballets, has 50 indictments, 30 convictions and now has video evidence that they could care less for child prostitution....

Do any of you have freaking kids????

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:49 PM
It was a big mistake for Fox to drop there guard and leak this report through without fact checking...I suspect they got caught up on the sensationalism bandwagon, but it is not the same as the more liberal-leaning msm outlets purposefully avoiding ANY reporting... that just makes them part of the cover-up. I believe that all news outlets have their positives, not specifically a "die hard" Fox supporter, but here lately I have been extremely dissappointed with the coverage of this and other topics from cnn, msnbc, abc, cbs more-so than I have from Fox.

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:57 PM

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?

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".

And my response is purely about the OP, not ACORN or any of it's "alleged" misdeeds. And it does matter what any news organization reports as news, Speculation should be reserverd for water cooler chit-chat. And if I'm not mistaken, didn't our intrepid reporters have to try several times before they finally found someone that would take the bait? I'm not sure, but that's "what I think I heard".

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM

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.

Actually there is a difference between the two that is specifically spelled out in their respective titles.

FOX "News, Fair and Balanced"

MSNBC "The Place for Politics"

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM
i gave up looking for "news" from Keith Olberman and that other guy rachel maddow.

They spend more time bashing fox news than actually reporting anything... also, someone aught to tell them the Election is over, the Dem's won... On both issues mentioned, they are getting terrible ratings!

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by parbuster

If bashing can mean the same as pointing out blatant misrepresentation and the distortion of facts to serve a purpose, bash away I say. FOX is welcome to do the same.

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:30 PM

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".

Fact Check.

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]

Exactly....the "left" is just grasping now, its called desperation!

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
The Acorn employee issued the comment that she had shot and killed her husband because she was afraid. Not that he was attacking her at the moment, but, rather that she was afraid of what he would do to her in the future...

Which would be "Premeditated First Degree Murder!"

Brietbart made it clear, that if she had actually did what she said, then she was a Felon and wondered how she could be employed by Acorn? Did they do a back ground check on her? Why wasn't she in prison?

If this admonition was fact, then an investigation into Acorns hiring practices needed to be initiated by the government, which was feeding Acorn federal
( tax payer) funds.

Fox didn't start this investigation. Brietbart brought the undercover tapes to them. What was FOX supposed to do with an apparent self incriminating confession of murder caught on tape? It wasn't their investigation. They were given the tapes on the grounds that it showed Acorn Employees were willing to commit illegal acts to fund, disguise, shelter a prostitute's profession, her pimps activities, as well as "illegal pandering of under aged foreign minor children for prostitution who would be in the USA illegally".

All of which, was a strong indictment of a national organization that's out of control and up to no good...

The videos speak for themselves. Fox didn't make them, or fund them.

They merely reported on what the images indicated and exposed.

Fox news bashers just can not stand it, that there is independent news organization that is willing to shine a glaring spot light on the machinations of the government, its officials, or the organizations that misappropriate federal funding.

The screaming liberal crybabies that want nationalized Kumbaya via socialism, collectively soil themselves when they are forced to see that their perceived "Hope and Change you can believe in" is just another false hope perpetuated by dolts, morons, and nefarious radicals.

The adage; " Watch what you wish for" is more than apropos I think!

Stop killing the messenger...

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
Just a further observation:

If anyone told you during a casual conversation that they had, "killed someone" many years ago, because they were being threatened, would you believe them?

If they went on to divulge that there had been a trail, and that they did or didn't spend time in prison...would you call them a liar?

The Acorn employee wanted the contacts to believe that is what her background was. If she could get Acorn help, employment with that awful history, then a pimp and prostitute should have no problems!

Years ago during an interview with a prospective new hire, he told me that he had spent several years in prison for an Armed Robbery. He was on parole and had to see his probation officer regularly. When I asked him why he hadn't put that information on his resume', he said he couldn't get a first interview if he had done so.

He felt that he could sell himself, and his willingness to do the work, if he was given a chance. He gave me his Probation Officers business card, and said to call her.

I was shocked by this admittance, because at first appearance, he seemed completely harmless. Boy was I wrong! After I contacted his parole officer, who then informed me, he was on medications to help control his anger, was in group therapy, as well as having criminal record that went back into his juvenile years...sealed his fate.

Needless to say, he wasn't hired. I felt sort of sorry for him. He had really messed up his life.

I couldn't afford the risk of having him employed as an Unarmed Security Guard at a Nuclear Power facility...

You just can't judge a book by its cover! The Acorn female who was neurotically divulging her past, certainly didn't appear like a Murderer...just the opposite.

You never really know who is standing inline ahead of, or behind you...

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:11 PM

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".

I never said that MSM wasn't a propaganda outlet, we all know that it is. There are NO MSM news organizations doing investigative journalism anymore.

Just like when the Twin towers went down, it was "allegedly" 19 Arab terrorists, just like when Madoff was caught, he "allegedly" stole from his clients.

See there's this thing called "due process" which says that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So when someone is arrested, indicted, shown on tape to make a self-incriminating admission, etc. a journalist is REQUIRED to use terminology that makes clear the alleged nature of the offense.

Otherwise the journalist can be sued for libel and/or slander.

You might not agree with it, heck I might not agree with it, but that is the rule of law in this country and we all have to deal with it.

FOX News handled it correctly, whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in