[Jusentantaka]

Morgoth, on 13 November 2009 - 12:06 AM, said:

sooo..how many hours do fox have of actual news and how many hours do theyhave of shows like hanity's and talking-groups? If you were to guessthe percentage

my satellite guide says its close enough to equal during the awake part of the day. -FUNC is part of the basic suburbia package- Of course, that equality supposes that the legitimate-journalist-part of the station are actually that, and are not just talking heads for the fascist end of the republican party.

It is thursday though, and I wasn't about to wait two minutes to download the guide for the next couple days.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 13 November 2009 - 01:09 AM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

blackzoid, on 12 November 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

http://www.mediaite....age-daily-show/




"Call it Bachmann Tea-Party Overdrive: Last night Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff revealed something remarkable: That in his coverage of Michele Bachmann's so-called "Superbowl of Freedom" last weekend in D.C., Sean Hannity used footage of Glenn Beck's 9/12 event to make the Bachmann rally look bigger. By a factor of thousands.

"If I didn't know any better I'd think they just put two days together and acted like they didn't," said host Jon Stewart, before going on to present video evidence that that was precisely what they did — including Hannity exclaiming over how many people cared enough about freedom to come down to be heard on a Thursday. Er, Saturday. When is the Superbowl again?

It's really blatant and remarkable and thank God they were watching, because this sort of misrepresentation is simply not an accident. And, to the point made by the White House about Fox not being a news organization — well, a news organization does not sub footage of a bigger, better attended rally in for footage of a smaller, less attended rally in order to make the latter rally look bigger. That falls under the category of "producer whipping up the crowd for the camera" and for which that producer was "disciplined" for the "mistake" and about which an internal Fox standards email was subsequently sent. As our colleague Zeke Turner put it back then: "When somebody comes to you, as a journalist, for information and allows you to control their field of vision, it's expected that you'll turn your lens on the truth. Not an augmented or altered version of the truth."

This is an augmented and altered version of the truth. One wonders if the rebuke from Fox to the other networks for not adequately covering this huge and momentous occasion would have been next. Watch this footage."


A pretty damning piece of evidence.

Hannity's response to Stewart, as reported by the Huff:
Fox News' Sean Hannity responded to Jon Stewart Wednesday evening after the Daily Show host called out the network for using old footage from a larger September 12, 2009 "Tea Party' protest to illustrate a much smaller health care rally on Capitol Hill last week.

Speaking directly to the camera, Hannity said that it pained him to admit it, but Stewart was correct.

"And although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right. Now on his program last night, he mentioned that we had played some inccorect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct, we screwed up. we aired some video of a rally in september along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadverdent mistake, but a mistake none the less. So, Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, we wanna thank you and all your writers for watching."

He says it was a mistake. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

[Morgoth]

yeah, it sounds like something that could be a mistake doesn't it. It's not like they would have to go into a completely different part of their archives to find the relevant photos. This is not something that just happens. It sort of sounds like it, two different turn ups, just a year or so apart, but if you actually try to imagine how it would've happened it makes a lot less sense.

[HoosierDaddy]

At some point, you just have to connect the dots. Could this have been an honest mistake? Yes. Could the Fox producer who seemed to be riling up a crowd at one of Beck's or a Tea-Party rally actually just doing the Arsenio cheer while shouting for loudness also just a sufferer of Tourette's? Possibly.

It is just much easier to connect the dots once it becomes clear there is an agenda. Now, is it possible those dots are over-connected? Entirely, so, yes. I'll admit that MSNBC commentators have a clear agenda, and it is clearly left of true center, obviously.

To simply wash the entire news channel's obvious bias away with "well they are commentators," just doesn't sit with me. I don't see why it is so hard to admit.

[blackzoid]

Ha!

http://en.wikipedia....o_true_Scotsman

"This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it."

Yes, Grand Goombah Graeld, of course it was an honest mistake by Fox.
For what else could it be? Nothing at all to do with the claims on the thread that Fox is misrepresenting the truth!
Oh no, not at all.

[Shinrei]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 November 2009 - 03:05 PM, said:

At some point, you just have to connect the dots. Could this have been an honest mistake? Yes. Could the Fox producer who seemed to be riling up a crowd at one of Beck's or a Tea-Party rally actually just doing the Arsenio cheer while shouting for loudness also just a sufferer of Tourette's? Possibly.

It is just much easier to connect the dots once it becomes clear there is an agenda. Now, is it possible those dots are over-connected? Entirely, so, yes. I'll admit that MSNBC commentators have a clear agenda, and it is clearly left of true center, obviously.

To simply wash the entire news channel's obvious bias away with "well they are commentators," just doesn't sit with me. I don't see why it is so hard to admit.

Hold on a minute there HD, don't go switching the goalposts. I'm not saying that Fox isn't biased because they are just commentators. Yes, Fox as a network has an obvious bias to the right. That's why they hire commentators like O'Reilly and co. But to have commentators use some false info verses actual news castors falsifying information is still very different IMO.

[HoosierDaddy]

I get confused from time to time as to what we are arguing in these threads, as they tend to blend together to me. Yes, I realize I was going somewhere different. My bad.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I can't recall the date, but there was a Daily Show episode a short while back (maybe a month) where Stewart was commenting on a FOX news clip. It featured bill hemmer reporting on site at one of the healthcare rallies fist pumping in the air, running around riling up the crowd and immediately afterward reporting to the TV anchor on how riled up everybody was.

Absolutely absurd.

How do people look at something like that and take the station seriously at all.

Something I've noticed on our national news network, the CBC, is that they have an obvious bias too. Not left-right political bias, but severe bias toward the underdog. For instance, if there is a story about a few disgruntled folks pissed about some new legislation, or somebody unhappy about the construction of a new power plant / factory...the CBC will give literally hours of airtime to the disenfranchised person and offer no explanation from the other side of the debate, saying only "government officials were unavailable to comment".

Let alone that they could have found an non-political expert to comment or maybe another person next door who disagrees with the complaints.

Seems if they shed the "overdog" in a little better light, they might have more government officials willing to comment. Instead official commentary tends to avoid the CBC talk shows like poison and I get airtime filled with a bunch of tiny minorities bitching about a ton of things I don't care about.

I still think the CBC is among the best of the huge newssources around, but the underdog bias gets on my nerves sometimes. I don't listen to enough of the other networks to notice. Is this a feature of FOX or MSNBC or any of the others?

[blackzoid]

http://thinkprogress...oduction-error/



"Yesterday, ThinkProgress first reported that Fox News aired old file footage of Sarah Palin rallies to claim that she’s “continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand new book.” Host Gregg Jarrett presented the video with commentary that suggested the footage was “just coming in.” (Watch it.) Media Matters noted that one of the scenes was from a Nov. 1, 2008 Palin rally in Florida. Crooks and Liars’ John Amato filed an FCC complaint for passing on “false information” to the public. By day’s end yesterday, Fox released this statement responding to the controversy:

“This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn’t alert the control room to update the video,” Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news at FOX, sad this evening. “There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday.”

Citing unnamed sources, The Swamp reports Fox is planning to take “serious disciplinary action” against those “responsible behind the scenes in the control room."

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

WOW.

FNC is obviously conspiring to delude us all. I'm convinced.

[cerveza_fiesta]

GGG the sarcastic tone doesn't really help prove your point. We get that you're an apologist of Fox News, and that's cool. Say something useful.

This is a legitimate claim, with the most recent one just a few weeks prior (subbing footage of other rallies to inflate attendance of the 9/12 teaparty thing).

Its not that they made a mistake, its that they don't apologize until they're caught. It makes the "mistake" suspect, especially since all the "mistakes" seem to further the republican agenda. There are people at FOX whose job it is to watch for mistakes by the anchors and issue corrections for serious ones as soon as possible. This one wasn't corrected or apologized for until an official FCC complaint was lodged. If it were an honest mistake the apology would not come a month after the fact. That's my opinion on the matter anway.

As an aside, did we link to this yet:

http://en.wikipedia....l_controversies

Its a pretty well written, informative and very well referenced wiki article. I haven't gone through all the refs yet of course as there's about 100 of them. A lot of the article deals with proving the FNC's political bias....which is fine. Regarding things we've actually discussed as "false information" in this thread, you might have a look at the "memos", "doctored photos", "Talking points from bush whitehouse", "9/12 ad, "wikipedia edits" and "Video footage/crowd size" sections near the mid-bottom of the article. Those sections at least discuss misinformation by FNC factually.

Anyways. Hope that helps you underdstand my (and others') point of view on FOX, GGG.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

So tell me, guys (and gals?). If there were a bunch of conservative groups that watched MSNBC and CNN 24 hrs/day SEARCHING for something to "get them" on, how many "mistakes" like those on FOX would be found? Do you even care? I remember when President Obama was speaking in Arizona this last summer, there was a big outrage because a bunch of genius conservatives brought guns, as was their right. At least one guy had some sort of rifle slung over his shoulder. I don't know how CNN reported it, but MSNBC, in showing thte footage, did the following. They purposely only showed the portion of the footage which didn't include teh guy's head. All you could see of him was his slacks, white dress shirt and rifle. They proceeded to report that it was "a bunch of white guys with guns". What I saw later, on Faux News, was the rest of the footage, which showed the gun slinger in question to actually be black. Wouldn't have supported their position, and no way it was an accident. One thing you may not have considered: the media and education are both majority liberal/progressive. The rest of us in industry/retail/etc are a pretty even mix. Honestly, I don't even identify with a lot of conservative viewpoints. I disagree with drugs & prostitution being illegal, I'm an atheist, etc. I just find that on the things that matter to me most - economy, size & scope of government, climate change, I identify with conservatives. If Fox screws up, I'm just as likely to label it an honest mistake as I am if CNN or MSNBC does. Difference is, NO ONE except FNC ever has a problem with anything the others do (no one willing to go scream about it like people do about Fox, anyway). This whole thread has been more about bashing Fox than just identifying left & right bias. We've already all agreed that Fox has a right bias, MSNBC has a left tilt & CNN has a VERY slight left tilt. Apologist? Bah, not even for myself.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

So tell me, guys (and gals?). If there were a bunch of conservative groups that watched MSNBC and CNN 24 hrs/day SEARCHING for something to "get them" on, how many "mistakes" like those on FOX would be found? Do you even care? I remember when President Obama was speaking in Arizona this last summer, there was a big outrage because a bunch of genius conservatives brought guns, as was their right. At least one guy had some sort of rifle slung over his shoulder. I don't know how CNN reported it, but MSNBC, in showing thte footage, did the following. They purposely only showed the portion of the footage which didn't include teh guy's head. All you could see of him was his slacks, white dress shirt and rifle. They proceeded to report that it was "a bunch of white guys with guns". What I saw later, on Faux News, was the rest of the footage, which showed the gun slinger in question to actually be black. Wouldn't have supported their position, and no way it was an accident. One thing you may not have considered: the media and education are both majority liberal/progressive. The rest of us in industry/retail/etc are a pretty even mix. Honestly, I don't even identify with a lot of conservative viewpoints. I disagree with drugs & prostitution being illegal, I'm an atheist, etc. I just find that on the things that matter to me most - economy, size & scope of government, climate change, I identify with conservatives. If Fox screws up, I'm just as likely to label it an honest mistake as I am if CNN or MSNBC does. Difference is, NO ONE except FNC ever has a problem with anything the others do (no one willing to go scream about it like people do about Fox, anyway). This whole thread has been more about bashing Fox than just identifying left & right bias. We've already all agreed that Fox has a right bias, MSNBC has a left tilt & CNN has a VERY slight left tilt. Apologist? Bah, not even for myself.

[Obdigore]

So, GGG, you are claiming that MSNBC did the same kind of 'mistake' as fox news, but have no links to back it up, and claim that therefore the other news stations must do as much blatant 'truth twisting' as fox, but noone attempts to look at it? As you can probably guess, I disagree with that view.

I also disagree with you that most media outlets/teachers (where did that come from?) are leftist, I say instead they are much more to the middle, while the Far Right attempts to portray them as far left.

Frankly, 'leftist' groups in the US would be considered 'middle' pretty much anywhere else in the world.

This isn't really the place to discuss it, but most 'right-wing' politicians only speak against big government, then they go ahead and create things like Homeland Security.

That certainly isn't to say I don't have problems with some of the 'left-wing' viewpoints in the US, but that is why you should elect me Emperor. I would crush these politicial idiots, and do things that might actually help the country, instead of playing political games and working 4 days out of every month for a job I get a golden parachute from when I am done.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@GGG

When I posted that wiki article about FNC in my earlier post I said:

"A lot of the article deals with proving the FNC's political bias....which is fine"

I then said

"Regarding things we've actually discussed as "false information" inthis thread, you might have a look at the "memos", "doctored photos","Talking points from bush whitehouse", "9/12 ad, "wikipedia edits" and"Video footage/crowd size" sections near the mid-bottom of the article.Those sections at least discuss misinformation by FNC factually. "

I mean that the article largely attempts to prove a political bias. The bias is undeniable and I think we all accept its existence. My point was that I wanted you to look at the specific sections I refer to afterward. These sections are specific examples of misinformation critics of FNC use to suggest that the misinformation is intentional.

Here are some links at the bottom of the FNC controversy wiki of the exact type you were looking for.People searching for mistakes and omissions by the other networks.

http://en.wikipedia....s#Controversies

http://en.wikipedia....N_controversies

• Under CNN, in the "technical issues" section, there appear to be similar editorial mistakes. Main difference is that CNN apologizes immediately for its mistakes and the mistakes themselves seem to have no common political agenda. In my view, an immediate apology indicates an honest mistake when the mistakes are infrequent. The lack of a common political agenda gives credibility to the "accident" claim and suggests that it was not an attempt to further one cause or another. There are however clear examples of bias and opinion by reporters on the network, though they aren't necessarily all left or all right. Lou Dobbs' program (before he left CNN) for instance was heavily right slanted while several reports by Christiane Amenpour are regarded as excessively left.
• CBS has too little info on the wiki to draw much of a conclusion one way or the other under "controversies" section

Interesting, and to give some creedence to your claims that nobody is trying to "catch" the farther left networks, there is no specific MSNBC criticism article on wiki. Maybe you should write one? Where do you get your info about MSNBC's "mistakes"?

I'm not trying to call bullshit on you here GGG so please come off the defensive. I would genuinely like to read a well written and referenced criticism of a left-leaning network, since it was my intent at the start of this thread to discover and understand the mechanisms of political propaganda delivery from both sides.

Put simply, I want to be able to identify the leftist bullshit as easily as I can identify the rightist bullshit.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 01 December 2009 - 04:39 PM

[Anomander]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 November 2009 - 03:05 PM, said:

At some point, you just have to connect the dots. Could this have been an honest mistake? Yes. Could the Fox producer who seemed to be riling up a crowd at one of Beck's or a Tea-Party rally actually just doing the Arsenio cheer while shouting for loudness also just a sufferer of Tourette's? Possibly.

It is just much easier to connect the dots once it becomes clear there is an agenda. Now, is it possible those dots are over-connected? Entirely, so, yes. I'll admit that MSNBC commentators have a clear agenda, and it is clearly left of true center, obviously.

To simply wash the entire news channel's obvious bias away with "well they are commentators," just doesn't sit with me. I don't see why it is so hard to admit.

This one seemed easiest to quote. What irked me about the whole rally screw up was that you could tell just watching the footage that it was two separate events. As Stewart pointed out they started with one portion of video showing a rally on a beautiful Fall day, all the leaves had changed colour or were falling off and people were in warmer clothes. Next scene shows what is clearly a Summer day with everything green and people wearing t-shirts. To say that was an inadvertant mistake is ridiculous. Either they're lying to cover their ass or those people are blind fools.

I also dislike how any faults are washed away with the excuse "oh, they're not news anchors, they're just commentators!" They're on a news channel, it stands to reason that people tuning into watch said channels expect the information to be pretty factual. I'll admit CNN and MSNBC has some issues with their commentary shows but Fox is in a category unto itself. I will agree that left-leaning organizations spin stories to their benefits, however the people of Fox seem to love actual hatemongering and outright dismissal if a logical counter argument is used.

cerveza_fiesta, on 16 November 2009 - 03:06 PM, said:

Something I've noticed on our national news network, the CBC, is that they have an obvious bias too. Not left-right political bias, but severe bias toward the underdog. For instance, if there is a story about a few disgruntled folks pissed about some new legislation, or somebody unhappy about the construction of a new power plant / factory...the CBC will give literally hours of airtime to the disenfranchised person and offer no explanation from the other side of the debate, saying only "government officials were unavailable to comment".

Let alone that they could have found an non-political expert to comment or maybe another person next door who disagrees with the complaints.

Seems if they shed the "overdog" in a little better light, they might have more government officials willing to comment. Instead official commentary tends to avoid the CBC talk shows like poison and I get airtime filled with a bunch of tiny minorities bitching about a ton of things I don't care about.

I still think the CBC is among the best of the huge newssources around, but the underdog bias gets on my nerves sometimes.

I honestly wonder if much of this has to do with the constant budget cuts CBC faces. You wouldn't be very sympathetic or forthcoming with someone who was short changing you either.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

FWIW, I am doing some research for this, but it'll be a while. Right in the middle of moving, had a couple days w/no internet (EGADS!), super busy at work & home right now. But I will post something relatively lucid and reasonable eventually. Someday.

[HoosierDaddy]

I just subjected myself to Glenn Beck. He's a commentator, of sorts. If Fox wants to identify with Glenn Beck, more power to them. Glenn Beck is the stupidest fucking political commentator to ever exist. I'm serious. Beck makes Fox News look stupid. Why they haven't fired his sensational ass is beyond me. I'll admit that Olbermann, Maddow, and other MSNBC commentators are biased. There is no comparison here though.

I feel lessened. As someone who follows politics, Glenn Beck makes me feel lessened.

Edit: I wish this memory could be erased.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 09 January 2010 - 07:34 AM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Did he say something inaccurate or untrue? I missed the show...

[HoosierDaddy]

Hell, I can't remember. I was wasted, thus me taking the time to sit and watch it.

Edit: Oh, wish granted, btw! Yay booze!

This post has been edited by H.D.: 09 January 2010 - 09:13 PM