Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds

Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds

www.huffingtonpost.com

Last week, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show caught Fox News' Sean Hannity running old footage of September Tea Party crowds in an attempt to make Michele Bachmann's smaller November Tea Party shindig appear to be more well-attended than it was. Is Fox up to the same tricks today? Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress thinks so, and he pulls a segment that seems to tout the crowds that greeted Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 campaign as throngs that are gathering to purchase Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.

In the clip below, watch as Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett describes "pictures just comi

(visit the link for the full news article)

Not only are they pulling the same trick they just were caught for.....they actually had the guile to claim " the pictures are just coming in".

LOL! It just couldn't get any more hilarious or frightening. No agenda there....or could they just really be that big of idiots? I suspect we'll see more and more of this on Fox News Channel in the future. Soon people will just get used to it and accept it as normal. For those with an interest, I suggest doing some research on Russian experiments in editing and imaging propaganda.


Hmm.... the bogus image of a supposed Obama not saluting on Veteran's Day is a nice juxtaposition.

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

It appears to be just a mistake. You can hear it in the news anchor's voice when he is talking about the footage just coming in and then seeing footage from her campaign on the screen.

It was a simple mis-communication is all. It happens, especially on live TV. There's nothing to gain by exaggerating the number of people at a book signing for a fading political star.

As for the MSNBC video on the link provided, I don't know if it's possible they could have interviewed two bigger idiots than they did. But I guess that was probably the intention considering MSNBC has become the cheerleader for the Obama administration.

Um-mm Huffington Post.

Hilariously poignant.

reply to post by Connector


How sad. Obama is trying to turn this place into a Marxist paradise and all the Huffingtonpost can come up with is that fox may have ran the wrong background footage.. Ooooohhhh that is terrible.

Reach just a little further you'll get those straws!
That ,even if it was purposeful is nothing compared to the (debacle+obama+spectacle+comical=obamical )that is going on in washington.

reply to post by HotSauce


Wow talk about de javu I;m going to wait a couple of minutes to post or they'll think were in cahoots.But I must say I like the way you think.

Fight the obamical

[edit on 18-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

You got this garbage from the Huffington Post? Really? Bottom of the barrell, if you ask me.

Originally posted by Carseller4
You got this garbage from the Huffington Post?

Why does it matter what source was provided? It's a YouTube video of a FOX News broadcast. It being displayed on the Huffington Post's website doesn't change the video content any more than it being displayed on a government or porn website would.

If you want to dispute their commentary of the video, fine. Do that. But discrediting the video - no matter whether you believe it to be intentional or not - simply because the Huffington Post put it on their website makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know what your stance is on the video since you didn't bother making a quality post, but I think, as I said before, the truth is in the news anchor's voice; if you listen to him closely, he sort of hesitates while that footage is being shown. I believe that is because he realizes that is not the correct footage. If this were actually planned to look like her book signing, they would let the news anchor in on the secret so he wouldn't stumble like he did here once he realized that the words he was reading and the video he was seeing did not match one another.

I just don't see the motive that would make this worth faking. The article quoted in the original post is, I agree, garbage. But the video has nothing to do with that.

Meh, I'm not surprised at all.

Fox already fought and defended their right to intentionally falsify/distort news stories years ago in the Jane Akre/Steve Wilson case.

An appellate court ruled in favor of Fox that that the FCC's "policy" against the intentional falsification of the news is not a "law"; so they set a nice legal precedent for any network to falsify/distort whatever stories they choose.

Way to go Fox!

[edit on 11/19/09 by redmage]

reply to post by redmage

Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were the heros in that destruction of freedom of the press, and I know that at least Jane received monetary damages over her firing. Good job bringing it up here. This runs much deeper than over-inflating the crowds at a book signing. Frankly, as book signings go, I thought she had a pretty good turn out in the real footage. If you're in to that sort of thing, I mean, WHO CARES how many people showed up

I do care that it is false reporting though, and why bother to inflate her crowds? sell books? Campaign?? Sigh... Oh well...

Perhaps the real blame should be placed on Monsanto as they are the ones who initially pressured FOX to alter the true story. I can only wonder what type of resources and pressures the fully supported and wholly evil Monsanto can bring to bear.

The Akre/Wilson case certainly is an interesting story and can easily be found by google should anyone want to learn more about just one more piece in the dismanteling of the constitution and another reminder to always do your own research before simply believing what a talking screen tells you.

~Edit to add:

Here is a bit of an interview of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson. The interview was conducted by Amy Goodman in 2000 and can be found Here

AMY GOODMAN: I guess the question is, “Is there bovine growth hormone in that cheese?” Now, one last question. That is, I remember when we had you on in debate with Fox a while ago when this first happened, and one of the edits you went through, they told you to take out that Monsanto, which is the maker of bovine growth hormone, had also been involved with the making of, was it, Agent Orange—dioxin.

JANE AKRE: Actually, that part was left in, but what we had uncovered was that there was an EPA investigation into the way Monsanto brought PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls into the marketplace. And the EPA had concluded that Monsanto was fraudulent in the way it did that. And that came out.

STEVE WILSON: Well, more than fraudulent, that they were guilty of a pattern of deliberately distorting the science that led to the approval of PCBs in the first place. And there are those who say that’s exactly what they tried to do with bovine growth hormone. Well, they didn’t want—the lawyers—didn’t want any parallels, even any mention of the fact that these folks had been found guilty of a similar pattern in the past.

This particular fraud over Palins book signing being rather frivilous, it sure makes you wonder just how distorted everything we are told is, I mean there are so many huge and powerful corporations, big pharma, etc. Can we really trust anything anymore? It is truly frightening to realize we are not becoming an Orwellian society, we are already an Orwellian society.




[edit on 11/18/2009 by AlienChaser]

Originally posted by AlienChaser
Frankly, as book signings go, I thought she had a pretty good turn out in the real footage. If you're in to that sort of thing, I mean, WHO CARES how many people showed up

I'd have to agree.

Originally posted by AlienChaser
Perhaps the real blame should be placed on Monsanto as they are the ones who initially pressured FOX to alter the true story. I can only wonder what type of resources and pressures the fully supported and wholly evil Monsanto can bring to bear.

Interesting angle; however, Rupert Murdoch is no slouch, and has some pretty substantial financial backing as well.

I'm more concerned with the fact that he fought, and has now set a legal precedent for any "news" network to falsify/distort stories they deem fit. It simply reinforces the fact that they're in the entertainment industry, and merely charged with selling advertising space to make money for their shareholders; not to actually keep the public factually informed.

[edit on 11/19/09 by redmage]

The first video is another "miscue" fox does that a lot. I think they should fire their inept newsroom editor and hire one that's a tad more subtle. At least this time they were closer to the right season.

The second video is painful. I just hurt watching it.

Fox just apologized about running the wrong footage. This was at 12:45 EST today.

2nd line here...

[edit on 19-11-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

reply to post by redmage

Interesting angle; however, Rupert Murdoch is no slouch, and has some pretty substantial financial backing as well.

True, but let's be careful not to lose site of the fact that Rupert Murdoch is one of THEM. He almost certainly got inadvertantly caught between a rock and a hard place on this one and he skillfully made it go away as quickly and as quietly as he could. Establishing legal precident to discourage or eliminate any future problems while doing it, only further proves the point.

I'm more concerned with the fact that he fought, and has now set a legal precedent for any "news" network to falsify/distort stories they deem fit. It simply reinforces the fact that they're in the entertainment industry, and merely charged with selling advertising space to make money for their shareholders; not to actually keep the public factually informed.

Nothing I can add here. Well said!

Hi all,

Thanks for the replies. As mentioned above, the source has nothing to do with it. This is not a post of Dem vs Rep, us vs them, Fox vs MSNBC. The video is the item of interest and speaks for itself. The point of bringing this to everyones attention is this "mistake trend" seems to be on the rise especially by Fox, but you even can include MSNBC's Palin pictures or the Obama not saluting pics. Perhaps this was a simple mistake( one that would require many people to make at once), but it shouldn't be happening at the rate we're seeing lately.

My personal point seems to be proven in some of the above posts.....just attack the source, regardless of the evidence itself or the "so what it isn't a big deal". I can tell you professionally...it is a VERY BIG deal. I used to work as an editor for a well respected international news organization and had I made these mistakes, the dung would have hit the fan. Make the same mistake a week later, my head would have rolled. Journalism is a all about accuracy and truth. It is a sacred convent between the journalist and the viewer. It's one thing to have bias and spin, but to use false footage to further your agenda is criminal and it's on the rise. People are just being de-sensitized to it. Soon, instead of the news showing what happened, it will be showing what sort of happened....then it's a small slide to what may have happened and then what I think happened and what I want you to believe happened.

Again, anyone interested in the workings's of propaganda in media, study the Russians. They did extensive experiments in images and the order in which they're shown to change the effect on the viewer.

As a example as to how these things can have an affect on culture; ever hear the phrase "follow like a lemming" etc.? The phrase goes back to a documentary "White Wilderness" showing masses of lemmings jumping off a cliff in Alaska to their deaths. Unfortunately, the lemmings(shipped in from Hudson Bay) were forced off the cliff( in Alberta) by production to fit "their belief". Lemmings don't commit mass suicide, yet it is so ingrained in culture, people don't even realize this.

Question everything you see on the boob tube!

reply to post by Connector

Journalism is a all about accuracy and truth. It is a sacred convent between the journalist and the viewer...

True: As we were discussing with the Akre/Wilson case there is a difference between a journalists accurate and truthful investigative report and what is aired on the network. The Akre/Wilson case actually set the legal president that the network has the right to alter or omit the truthful facts at will in order to present whatever story angle they choose.

It's one thing to have bias and spin, but to use false footage to further your agenda is criminal and it's on the rise.

False: See above. The journalist has the responsibility to search out the truth, but the network is free to air whatever they like. Usually distorted to please the highest bidder, or the entity that can produce the strongest pressure, but sometimes to foster public belief in a specific agenda.

Soon, instead of the news showing what happened, it will be showing what sort of happened....then it's a small slide to what may have happened and then what I think happened and what I want you to believe happened.

True: With one correction. Remove the word "soon" and this statement becomes fully accurate.

Again, anyone interested in the workings's of propaganda in media, study the Russians. They did extensive experiments in images and the order in which they're shown to change the effect on the viewer.

True: This is true but the Russians are not alone, the Nazi party in Germany had a highly efficient propaganda machine. North Koreans are strictly told only what the state approves and little is known about what those people are told concerning real world affairs. China operates a strictly censored and government approved media outlet. These are just a few examples, and America also runs a propaganda machine.

You stated that people have become desensitized and you are right, people seem to have become so disillusioned that they no longer have the will to seek out the real truth through all the agendas, propaganda, and outright lies.

If you can convince a percentage of the population to believe a lie, it becomes accepted as fact.

reply to post by AlienChaser

False: See above. The journalist has the responsibility to search out the truth, but the network is free to air whatever they like. Usually distorted to please the highest bidder, or the entity that can produce the strongest pressure, but sometimes to foster public belief in a specific agenda.

Perhaps "morally criminal" would have been a better description. But I bring to your attention that in most other countries, it can still lead to criminal charges as the precedent only applies in the US.

True: With one correction. Remove the word "soon" and this statement becomes fully accurate.

Agreed! I used "soon" as a convenient paragraph starter and it was an incorrect prep lol. Plus I didn't want to hit anyone over the head who doesn't yet realize this.

True: This is true but the Russians are not alone, the Nazi party in Germany had a highly efficient propaganda machine. North Koreans are strictly told only what the state approves and little is known about what those people are told concerning real world affairs. China operates a strictly censored and government approved media outlet. These are just a few examples, and America also runs a propaganda machine.

Goebels was the modern master. The new tech of moving pictures gave him an incredible tool never utilized for this purpose before. One could even go back to the Romans and propagandic tablets or frescoes, etc. The Russians were the first ( after observing WWII German) to do methodical experiments and document the results. Hence my direction to study them.....easiest resource to find.

Goebels believed the imagery, the "pageantry" or show were the most important items. He started this effect live( at rally events), but then realized film could have an even greater impact to a larger audience.

The Russians followed this route and soon found that the order of the images had an even greater affect. They then had approx 50 years to perfect, while Goebels only had 5-10 at most. They took it to a new level and since the other countries you mentions have gone even further. So, agreed!

Thanks for providing a healthy debate and info to this thread rather then the:

"Pffft....Huffington post great source" response.

This thread wasn't meant to be a dig just on Fox, but more an alert as to what is happening in the media. Most don't seem to realize the importance of this trend or what the implications are.

reply to post by Connector

Agreed! I used "soon" as a convenient paragraph starter and it was an incorrect prep lol. Plus I didn't want to hit anyone over the head who doesn't yet realize this.

Why not? When someone just won't wake up to the alarm, sometimes a good whack upside the head will do the trick. LOL.

Thanks for providing a healthy debate and info to this thread rather then the:

"Pffft....Huffington post great source" response.

Those responses drive me absolutely bonkers! Aside from the fact that these mindless diatribes border on violating the T&C regarding "relevant content" they simply add nothing to the discussion. It makes me wonder what the people who post those types of responses are thinking. In the end however, it really says a lot more about the poster then adding anything to a discussion.

In our case that response indicates that the poster prefers to believe that the FOX footage was in fact coverage of Palins' book signing, and the Huffington post was not a credible source to assert otherwise. Refusing even to believe that the video evidence of the real book signing was offered as proof in the same article, and ignoring the fact that in the "accidental" footage there are several fans wearing McCain T-shirts and others holding cardboard "Country First" campaign signs, while Palin speaks to cheering crowds from behind a shielded microphone.

On topic: do you have any good links that I can read up on the Russian studies to perfect their propaganda, especially the use of imagery and order of imagery?

reply to post by Connector


What this is really about is Fox trying to get people to believe that Hannity's footage mishap was really just an "error". They knew the media would run with it and with this time being a blatant, purposeful "error", would discredit the previous "error".

The footage wasn't even blended well. It went from one scene with her wearing a blue sweater to a completely different scene with I believe, a red sweater or jacket. Not a mistake a major network would make. Most errors are usually subtleties that are mistakenly overlooked. NOT BLATANT ERRORS WITH PEOPLE WITH McCAIN TEE's ON RIGHT BEHIND HER!!!

The truth was uncovered last week. Fox News is manipulating news footage, legislation, and anything else they can, even bowing too low??!! in an attempt to lie to you in order for them to make their agenda YOUR AGENDA.

Not all of us are still sleeping FOX. WE SEE YOU!!! lol