Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - fox news: stuff is just made up.

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - fox news: stuff is just made up. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/164795-fox-news-stuff-just-made-up.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2871976)

We aren't talking about stock prices. We aren't even talking about business news.

I thought we were talking about news or facts and how the facts are presented. The closing price of a stock is news, it is a piece of factual information, and the closing price can be presented in a number of ways. It was an example of one of the simplest forms of news I could think of and I used it to illustrate that even something as simple as a stock price can be presented in a manner that reflects a personal taste.

Why did I need to explain that?

When and if Fox is actually guilty of libel or slander, they should be taken to task. More than a number of times I've seen Fox get away with things that would cost anyone else millions in attorney's fees alone. If I wrote an article in the paper in which I accused Roger Ailes of having direct ties to known terrorists or that Glenn Beck is a serial rapist, I'd expect legal action. When Fox does things like this, they should be sued and fined accordingly just like anyone else.

Otherwise, it's up to Fox's viewers to educate themselves and turn off the channel on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2872547)

Because we aren't talking about business news. You should maybe try to talk about the actual example instead of something only tangentially related. Would it be too much of me to ask you to keep the focus on the example?

I am trying to sort out what the argument is here. Excessive lying to sway the public mind has of course been around for a very long time- nothing new there. It is the fact that just like we now have miracle heart surgeries and amazing computers we also have advanced liars. The ability to mess with the human mind has been taken further than ever before. When I see unscrupulous propagandists at work with all the knowledge of modern science and the practical this is what works best applied upon the people of my country it pisses me right the fuck off. It is wrong. It is not a matter of degrees of wrong. It is all the way wrong. Fuck Fox, fuck Rupert Murdoch, and fuck all those lowlifes like Karl Rove, that are evil bloated parasites living off the backs of the American people.

A World Public Opinion/University of Maryland poll on media misinformation on public policy issues.

Quote:

Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual...

Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.

Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

...

In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.

There is a but....
There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

* most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely),
* most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points),
* the economy is getting worse (26 points),
* most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points),
* the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points),
* their own income taxes have gone up (14 points),
* the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points),
* when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
* and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points).

The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information - World Public Opinion

Fox makes stuff up = more voters misinformed

USA Today/Gallup released a poll yesterday that finds the public strongly opposes laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions as a way to ease state financial troubles: 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to one being considered in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

But not according to Fox.

Fox and Friends Co-Host Brian Kilmeade, with accompanying graphic, actually reversed the results of the poll in order to claim that two-thirds of Americans supported Wisconsin-style laws rather than opposed them.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...lbackwards.jpg

KILMEADE: I think Gallup, a relatively mainstream poll, has a differing view. And here is the question that was posed, should you take away--will you favor or are you in disfavor of taking away collective bargaining when it comes to salaries for government workers? 61% In favor of taking it away. 33% oppose. 6% up in the air.

otto...I agree. The manner and frequency in which Fox misrepresents the facts would be ridiculous were it not so offensive to the concept of accurate reporting.

they do it because they can:

Quote:

11. The Media Can Legally Lie
Top 25 of 2005
2diggsdigg
876Share

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: “Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection”
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling.

Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.

What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”

“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!

The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action?

The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left-while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.

In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.”

Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.

The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels-who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg-a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.

Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”

Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.

11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored

Monsanto and Fox: Partners in Censorship - SourceWatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2875807)

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...lbackwards.jpg

KILMEADE: I think Gallup, a relatively mainstream poll, has a differing view. And here is the question that was posed, should you take away--will you favor or are you in disfavor of taking away collective bargaining when it comes to salaries for government workers? 61% In favor of taking it away. 33% oppose. 6% up in the air.

otto...I agree. The manner and frequency in which Fox misrepresents the facts would be ridiculous were it not so offensive to the concept of accurate reporting.

Yes - ridiculous in the sense that you pretend like FOX is the only one out there that ever misrepresents "the news". Ridiculous in the sense that the anti-FOX bobble-heads are the predictably-biased peanut-gallery we can always count on.

bah ... moo ... FOX lies ... moo ...

oops! looks like someone forgot to include the actual video. I'm sure it's out there... I did a 2 minute search and haven't found anything yet... but did find plenty of easily-edited still-images at the usual suspect web-sites (mediamatters, KOS, etc.). But strangely no authentic video copied from FOX.

I'm trying to make supper for the kids and I'm a little distracted ... and I'm certain that I missed it somehow. Do you mind linking to the unedited video from FOX? It should be easy to find since they were clearly caught red-handed.

Never-mind... Big Surprise! I did find it! Wow FOX misrepresented a poll. WHAT A SHOCK! oh my.

So when do we cover the other fountains of truth ...ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, Al Jazeera... and on, and on, and on

moo!

Holy shit, otto. You're amazing.

another bit of infotainment regarding the integrity-optional world of faux news:

Quote:

Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show
By RUSS BUETTNER

It was an incendiary allegation — and a mystery of great intrigue in the media world: After the publishing powerhouse Judith Regan was fired by HarperCollins in 2006, she claimed that a senior executive at its parent company, News Corporation, had encouraged her to lie two years earlier to federal investigators who were vetting Bernard B. Kerik for the job of homeland security secretary.

Ms. Regan had once been involved in an affair with Mr. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner whose mentor and supporter, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, was in the nascent stages of a presidential campaign. The News Corporation executive, whom she did not name, wanted to protect Mr. Giuliani and conceal the affair, she said.

Now, court documents filed in a lawsuit make clear whom Ms. Regan was accusing of urging her to lie: Roger E. Ailes, the powerful chairman of Fox News and a longtime friend of Mr. Giuliani. What is more, the documents say that Ms. Regan taped the telephone call from Mr. Ailes in which Mr. Ailes discussed her relationship with Mr. Kerik.

It is unclear whether the existence of the tape played a role in News Corporation’s decision to move quickly to settle a wrongful termination suit filed by Ms. Regan, paying her $10.75 million in a confidential settlement reached two months after she filed it in 2007.

Depending on the specifics, the taped conversation could possibly rise to the level of conspiring to lie to federal officials, a federal crime, but prosecutors rarely pursue such cases, said Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia University law professor and a former federal prosecutor.

Of course, if it were to be released, the tape could be highly embarrassing to Mr. Ailes, a onetime adviser to Richard M. Nixon whom critics deride as a partisan who engineers Fox News coverage to advance Republicans and damage Democrats, something Fox has long denied. Mr. Ailes also had close ties with Mr. Giuliani, whom he advised in his first mayoral race. Mr. Giuliani officiated at Mr. Ailes’s wedding and intervened on his behalf when Fox News Channel was blocked from securing a cable station in the city.

In a statement released on Wednesday, a News Corporation spokeswoman did not deny that Mr. Ailes was the executive on the recording. But the spokeswoman, Teri Everett, said News Corporation had a letter from Ms. Regan “stating that Mr. Ailes did not intend to influence her with respect to a government investigation.” Ms. Everett added, “The matter is closed.”

Ms. Everett declined to release the letter, and Ms. Regan’s lawyer, Robert E. Brown, said the News Corporation’s description of the letter did not represent Ms. Regan’s complete statement.

The new documents emerged as part of a lawsuit filed in 2008 in which Ms. Regan’s former lawyers in the News Corporation case accused her of firing them on the eve of the settlement to avoid paying them a 25 percent contingency fee. The parties in that case signed an agreement to keep the records confidential, but it does not appear that an order sealing them was ever sent to the clerk at State Supreme Court in Manhattan, and the records were placed in the public case file.

Discussion of the recorded conversation with Mr. Ailes emerges in affidavits from Ms. Regan’s former lawyers who are seeking to document the work they did on her case and for which they argue they deserve the contingency fee. They describe consulting with a forensic audio expert about the tape.

No transcript of the conversation is in the court records.

But Brian C. Kerr, one of Ms. Regan’s former lawyers, describes in an affidavit the physical evidence he reviewed as “including a tape recording of a conversation between her and Roger Ailes, which is alluded to throughout the complaint” that Mr. Kerr and another lawyer, Seth Redniss, drafted for Ms. Regan. That complaint said News Corporation executives “were well aware that Regan had a personal relationship with Kerik.”

“In fact,” the complaint said, “a senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik.”

Mr. Redniss, in his affidavit, referred to “a recorded telephone call between Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News (a News Corp. company) and Regan, in which Mr. Ailes discussed with Regan her responses to questions regarding her personal relationship with Bernard Kerik.”

“The ‘Ailes’ matter became a focal point of our work,” Mr. Redniss continued.

The dispute involves a cast of well-known and outsize personalities; it also includes some New Yorkers who have had spectacular career meltdowns.

Mr. Kerik was sent to prison last year after pleading guilty to federal charges including tax fraud and lying to White House officials.

The law firm Ms. Regan hired to draft her complaint against News Corporation was headed by Marc S. Dreier, whose firm was cast into bankruptcy in 2008 when he was charged with a $100 million fraud scheme. The firm’s suit seeking the contingency fee from Ms. Regan is being led by the bankruptcy trustee handling the dissolution of the firm. Mr. Redniss was a co-counsel to the Dreier firm.

Ms. Regan’s own crash was remarkable in itself. While often controversial for her book choices, which ranged from literary novels to sex advice from a pornography star, her imprint at HarperCollins had become one of the more financially successful in the business.

The end came quickly in late 2006. Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman, was quoted saying it had been “ill advised” for her to pursue “If I Did It,” a hypothetical murder confession by O. J. Simpson. A novel that included imagined drunken escapades by Mickey Mantle drew another round of outrage.

Then News Corporation said Ms. Regan had been fired because she made an anti-Semitic remark to a Jewish HarperCollins lawyer, Mark H. Jackson, in describing the internal campaign to fire her as a “Jewish cabal.”

In her 2007 suit, Ms. Regan said the book controversies had been trumped up and the anti-Semitic remark invented to discredit her, should she ever speak out about Mr. Kerik in ways that would harm Mr. Giuliani’s image. The new court documents expand upon that charge and link it to Mr. Ailes. Mr. Redniss wrote in an affidavit that Ms. Regan told him that Mr. Ailes sought to brand her as promiscuous and crazy.

“Regan believed that Ailes and News Corp. subsidiary Fox News had an interest in protecting Giuliani’s bid for the U.S. presidency,” he wrote.

In addition to serving as chairman of Fox News, Mr. Ailes has taken a broader role at News Corporation, including oversight of Fox’s local television stations and Fox Business Network.

As part of the settlement in January 2008, News Corporation publicly retracted the allegation that Ms. Regan had made an anti-Semitic remark to Mr. Jackson.

The court records examined by The New York Times this week, which have subsequently been taken out of the public case file, also reveal another interesting footnote. After Ms. Regan fired her lawyers, a seemingly unlikely figure came forward to help settle the case: Susan Estrich, a law professor and a regular Fox commentator whose book Ms. Regan had published, according to Ms. Regan’s affidavit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/ny...-ailes.html?hp

this sort of damaging reality only comes to light as the result from some giant conspiracy.
all the usual suspects saying the same thing.

baa moo

clearly.

Then you have people like Glenn Beck, who thinks he's the only one brave enough to tell the truth.

Quote:

Beck To The Media: How Can You Possibly Deny What I’m Saying At This Point?
by Jon Bershad | 6:57 pm, February 22nd, 2011

Glenn Beck announced today that out of the many people on TV who “don’t believe a damn word they’re saying,” he’s one who does. Using the anti-Fox News protesters that were, at that moment, demonstrating outside his building as further proof that the Perfect Storm he’s been warning against was nearly at hand, Beck took the media to task, yelling at them for not giving the people “the truth.”

Beck frequently accuses his critics of not actually watching his show. However, with the volume level he reached during today’s episode, it’s safe to say that some of the protesters outside at least heard it this time.

Here’s what he had to say when he really got on a roll about the media:

“It is difficult to deny at this point, isn’t it? Isn’t it? Is it a little hard to deny that radicals, Islamicists, Communists, Socialists will work together against Israel, against Capitalism, and they’ll try to work together to overturn stability? Who in the media is telling you this? Who? Name them! Where are they? How can they possibly deny it at this point? And why wouldn’t they tell you these things? Why?”

It wasn’t just the media that was lying to people. It was all the leaders that are working towards a New World Order. Beck wanted to know what this new order actually was. He guessed that people wouldn’t spell it out because they know you, the American people, wouldn’t like it. He then listed all the possibilities that it could be (none of them were very good). And, in the end, he asked President Obama why he wouldn’t stand against these people.

Today’s episode fits the same theme as the past few Glenn Beck shows: “they all said I was crazy but, look around. I’m right.” However, this one didn’t have much of the smugness that’s dominated his performance the past few evenings. No, today Beck was very, very angry.

Check out the clip from Fox News below. You should probably lower the volume once you get around the two minute mark.

Glenn Beck Against the Media | Glenn Beck Protests | Fox News | Mediaite

So, yeah, follow the link to check out the embedded 5-minute clip from the brave soothsayer. It's pretty funny and totally worth it. More blackboard politics. But it still amazes me how people take him seriously. The clip almost made me choke on my Life cereal. Twice.

that man is either seriously delusional or seriously corrupt.

Shall we put it to a vote?

Fox host B O'Reilly and reporter Mike Tobin discuss the protests in Wisconsin insinuating that the union protesters were violent.

Accompanied by a video showing a violent protest.

YouTube - Fox News Lies About "Violent Wisconsin Protests"

Was the video of the actual protest in Wisconsin?

Not unless the snow that has been on the ground in WI suddenly melted and palm trees grew overnight.

---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 AM ----------

On the more humorous side.

It’s Time to Play ‘Sheen, Beck, or Qaddafi?’

It’s Time to Play ‘Sheen, Beck, or Qaddafi?’ -- Daily Intel

apparently it's not as ok to lie and call it news in canada as it is in the u.s. of a.

Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2878056)

Fox host B O'Reilly and reporter Mike Tobin discuss the protests in Wisconsin insinuating that the union protesters were violent.

Accompanied by a video showing a violent protest.

YouTube - Fox News Lies About "Violent Wisconsin Protests"

Was the video of the actual protest in Wisconsin?

Not unless the snow that has been on the ground in WI suddenly melted and palm trees grew overnight.

So the lie is that the guy wasn't really violent, the guy wasn't really in a union (he was just wearing a union jacket), or the guy wasn't really in Wisconsin at the time he wore his union jacket and was violent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2878087)

Was the protest in the video a union protest? Who knows?

Was it a video of the Wisconsin protests? Not unless, as I noted, the snow that had been on the ground in WI suddenly melted and palm trees grew overnight.

You dont see it as blatant misrepresentation by using a video of another, unrelated protest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2878058)

apparently it's not as ok to lie and call it news in canada as it is in the u.s. of a.

Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

Yeah, so far. Of course, there are those who want to change it to allow for a Fox News–style "news" outlet. The argument is that having a right-wing television news outlet would help encourage a more balanced debate in Canada. Of course, this will likely require lying, propaganda, or misdirection in order for that to happen. Of course, many of us don't want that to happen.

Right-wingers can lie all then want; just don't call it news. Call it opinion or entertainment or something.

Middle ground between honesty and dishonesty is still dishonesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2875807)

otto...I agree. The manner and frequency in which Fox misrepresents the facts would be ridiculous were it not so offensive to the concept of accurate reporting.

Catching up on some of these posts today and based on what I have been reading one would think Fox did the reversal on purpose and did not announce a correction. Even publications and media outlets you hold in the highest regard will make an error and when they become aware of the error make a correction as was the case with Fox News.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2878451)

ace....frequency matters.

And, like otto, I guess you choose to ignore or ridicule the recent survey that I posted earlier that showed Fox viewers more likely to be misinformed on basic public policy issues.

Or a 2003 survey on misperceptions about the war in Iraq:

Quote:

The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War - World Public Opinion

and remember, they do it because they can:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2875818

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2871827)

I'm kinda flabbergasted at some of the replies here. This isn't a new thing. Fox didn't invent it. It's been successfully used by both sides of the aisle for at least a century. The Chicago Tribune has been a predominantly Republican paper ever since there was a Republican party. Hearst papers created the Spanish American War and got us to take over the Philippeans. The New York Times killed countless stories leading up to WWII that kept the active war in the Atlantic a secret in 1940-41.

Saying all sides are bad is true but 100% not the point.

It is very gray territory because it is free speech without doubt. What boggles my mind is how it isn't slander.

If I go and post a shit ton of material lying about a company I guarantee you I'd be in very serious trouble. However, if my name is O'Keefe or Breitbart and I do 'investigating reporting' and I heavily edit video to destroys someone's life work or ruins someone's life I can get away with it.

Rachel Maddows is a type of hero for me but her little fight with Politifact made me very angry and her editing things she said should have consequences.

The problem isn't this side or that side or they did it first.

However, with all that said I think making any organization with the power to call out truth or lie as a government function would be disastrous.

The only solution is to stay open. Understand that we are gullible and should do much more digging ourselves and call out bullshit when we see it.

I quit watching FOX the Liars, MSNBC the Smug Hypocrites and CNN the Teenage Texters. Its all a big box of bullshit.

I watch Democracy Now! pretty much every day. They are a bit leftish but they skewer pretty much anybody caught lying.

CNN's Nic Robertson Tears into Fox News

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2884186)

YouTube - Nic Robertson responds to Fox News report on human shields in Libya

The video is embedded in the following article if the YouTube video above disappears:

I took a look at the videos and read the articles. Nic Robertson and CNN were a bit misleading in their presentation. Robertson seems to suggest that Fox lied but carefully says about Fox that they were - "outrageous and absolutely hypocritical" primarily referring to the fact that Fox had someone on-site with the other reporters in question. The hyperbole of the concept of human shields aside it appears the material facts are not in question. When you go to the Fox link provided above and watch the video the Fox reporter explains the mix up regarding Fox having a person on-site - a non-material fact in my opinion.