I've been saying it for years, but...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=494&e=15&u=/ap/tv_outfoxed_documentary
The truth hurts......
Dates
· UTC
"Fair and Balanced"? :nonono:
Archived40 replies · 670 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
! - i'm glad dems are getting more aggressive. there is a link to moveon.org where you can find a screening in your zip code for july 18th screenings. there are 3,175 house screenings planned across the US so far -
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/politics/campaign/03fox.html
October 3, 2004 Fabricated Kerry Posting Leads to Apology from Fox News By ERIC LICHTBLAU
ASHINGTON, Oct. 2 - Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night's presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his "metrosexual" appearance.
Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."
The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate.
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" the article quoted Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, as telling his supporters in Florida after the event.
"Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quoted him as saying. It also had Mr. Kerry contrasting himself with President Bush: "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy."
Before the debate, several Fox News commentators remarked on the air about how Mr. Kerry had reportedly gotten a manicure that day.
Mr. Cameron has been reprimanded over the incident, said Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network. "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it," Mr. Schur said.
He declined to say how Mr. Cameron had been reprimanded or whether action had been taken against others at Fox News who reviewed the article before it was posted. Mr. Cameron, who is well respected in news media circles, declined to discuss the incident when reached on Saturday. He is continuing to report from the campaign trail.
The gaffe comes at a time when journalistic errors and lapses both big and small have called into question the credibility of a number of major news organizations.
Less than two weeks ago, CBS News and Dan Rather - who is a frequent target of conservatives who accuse him of liberal bias - apologized for a "mistake in judgment" in relying on unsubstantiated documents for a report about President Bush's National Guard service.
On Saturday, it was Democrats who were chuckling over the incident at Fox News, a network that portrays itself as "fair and balanced" but is often accused by liberals of having a pro-Republican bias.
The Kerry campaign sought to turn the Fox retraction against Mr. Bush.
"Fox is doing the right thing by admitting its mistake and correcting the record," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign. "George Bush would be well served to heed the lesson and admit to his own mistakes."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
I wish I could have read the article!
Anyways, don't complain about Fox News and post shite from the NY Times.
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Why? Has the NY Times engaged in similar acts of "journalism"?
Well they have had high profile fraud in recent history (Jayson Blair).
Also they had a slew of front page attack articles on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I just don't appreciate the great slant present in the NY Times as a whole.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Why? Has the NY Times engaged in similar acts of "journalism"?
Well they have had high profile fraud in recent history (Jayson Blair).
True, true... and Jayson Blair was fired. I also seem to remember the editor resigning...
Also they had a slew of front page attack articles on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Well, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched some dubious high-profile claims, and were therefore a proper subject for investigatory journalism. If the wimps couldn't take the heat, they should have stayed in the kitchen.
I just don't appreciate the great slant present in the NY Times as a whole.
Perhaps so, but what Fox did goes beyond slant, don't you think? Makes a mockery of their slogan "Fair and Balanced."
This Fox article is more humorous than actually damaging. It's not as if Fox accepted forged documents in an attempt to derail an incumbent's rolling campaign.
October 21, 2004
MARGARET CARLSON The Missing O'Reilly Factor
COMMENTARY
It takes three things for a scandal to reach soap opera status: a celebrity, sex and cable. The Bill O'Reilly mess promised all three.
O'Reilly, 55, who was sued for alleged sexual harassment last week by a 33-year-old producer, is host of the highest-rated show on the highest-rated cable news channel. (He also broadcasts on radio two hours daily.)
The sex in the O'Reilly case, like everyone's, is somewhat risible — replace thong in the Oval Office with loofah in the Caribbean to get an idea. The long verbatim quotes in the complaint suggests that Andrea Mackris, the woman bringing the suit, has audiotapes. Add a nice dollop of hypocrisy on the part of a family-values proponent in an ostensibly happy marriage and you've got yourself a good month's worth of shows featuring lawyers, counselors and clergy chewing the whole thing over.
But the O'Reilly scandal lacks one critical factor to drive it forward: constant coverage on "The O'Reilly Factor." There's no bigger scold or sterner values enforcer on TV than O'Reilly — he feasted on Bill Clinton like no other — and ordinarily he'd be on top such a story. Unless, of course, he was the one sitting in the eye of the storm.
To be fair, right after he filed a preemptive extortion claim against Mackris and her lawyer, he briefly mentioned his predicament on his show, without denying the charges or pressing himself on whether they were true.
Otherwise, a hush has fallen over the Fox News commentariat, and its brothers and sisters in arms. Apparently, there's no morals police to police the morals police. I like to scold as much as the next person, but when the shocker about virtues czar Bill Bennett gambling away hundreds of thousands of dollars came out, I didn't demand he stop gambling, just that he stop scolding the rest of us for the vices we try but sometimes fail to overcome. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh, who needed treatment for his addiction, not prison.
Right-wingers, of course, were late to the cause of sexual harassment. (Remember how they were convinced that Anita Hill was just trying to lynch Clarence Thomas?) They didn't embrace it until Paula Jones did, and then they worked it to nearly lynch a Democratic president.
For women, sexual harassment is a dicey proposition. There are no shield laws, so the complainant needs to be a near saint, or at least never to have worn a short skirt. Mackris is not an ideal plaintiff. Why didn't she hang up the phone on O'Reilly? Why go to dinner with him? At the same time, on the face of it, she has a strong case. She didn't want to give up a job at the top of the talk-show chain. She returned to Fox News on the promise the sex talk would not resume, then asked her boss to stop when it continued.
The law aside, you'd think that even a star would have to answer to someone. In her suit, Mackris alleges that O'Reilly said his boss, Roger Ailes, would give no quarter to some psycho complaining about the commentator. So far, O'Reilly continues to broadcast, and Mackris is at home on enforced "sick leave."
O'Reilly is now hiding behind his lawyer while picking his media spots, places where the grilling goes lightly. The morning after he discussed the case on his own show, he was perched on a stool next to Regis and Kelly, known for coddling, not questioning, celebrities. He promoted, without irony, his new children's book.
This week O'Reilly canceled two other promotional appearances. He knew that on CBS' "The Early Show" — where Martha Stewart kept maniacally chopping cabbage with a large knife while insisting she wanted to focus on her salad, not the "ridiculousness" — no one would let him focus on childrearing.
It's too bad we won't have O'Reilly taking apart O'Reilly. The highest use of celebrities is to act out morality plays. Brittany Spears' 55-hour marriage about the time President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage proved that heterosexuals are by far the greater threat to heterosexual marriage.
In the end, however, celebrities inhabit a value-neutral zone. If O'Reilly is anything like Marv Albert or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Clinton, he will come out better in the end than his accuser. Even when you win a sexual harassment case (or settle, like Paula Jones), you lose (Paula Jones).
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
YAY another pointless opinion article from the LA Times!
The case seems somewhat dubious to me by the near extortionary behavior of the woman, but I hope we find out what happened. It's about time O'Reilly got to tap some ass. No only if could work on getting ho's in different area codes.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Why? Has the NY Times engaged in similar acts of "journalism"?
Well they have had high profile fraud in recent history (Jayson Blair).
Also they had a slew of front page attack articles on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I just don't appreciate the great slant present in the NY Times as a whole.
Was there a political angle to the Jayson Blair case though? I thought it was just a case of apolitical laziness (pretty symbolic of the mainstream US media as a whole come to think of it). Did his made-up stories actually have any political significance?
The NYT has always seemed a bit right-wing to me anyway.
(and they only have themselves to blame for trusting someone with that surname to tell the truth)
Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > Why? Has the NY Times engaged in similar acts of "journalism"?>
Well they have had high profile fraud in recent history (Jayson Blair).
Also they had a slew of front page attack articles on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I just don't appreciate the great slant present in the NY Times as a whole.
Was there a political angle to the Jayson Blair case though? I thought it was just a case of apolitical laziness (pretty symbolic of the mainstream US media as a whole come to think of it). Did his made-up stories actually have any political significance? The NYT has always seemed a bit right-wing to me anyway. (and they only have themselves to blame for trusting someone with that surname to tell the truth)
I don't know about Blair's leaning since I have not read his articles, but the whole scandal was an opportunity to knock the NY Times. The NYT right wing? Fcuk you must be Karl Marx himself.
BTW has anyone else seen the recent video where Ann Coulter was making an anti-Kerry speech at the University of Arizona and a couple students ambushed the stage to throw pies at Ann Coulter, but Ann moved away quick enough to miss the pies. Classic!
Originally posted by 404 error (and they only have themselves to blame for trusting someone with that surname to tell the truth)
Oi! 
Awww....c'mon Shelly, take the gloves off and tell us what you really thought about that statement...go on...
Originally posted by Tristan BTW has anyone else seen the recent video where Ann Coulter was making an anti-Kerry speech at the University of Arizona and a couple students ambushed the stage to throw pies at Ann Coulter, but Ann moved away quick enough to miss the pies. Classic!
Oh my God--- it was Al Pieda!
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> BTW has anyone else seen the recent video where Ann Coulter was making an anti-Kerry speech at the University of Arizona and a couple students ambushed the stage to throw pies at Ann Coulter, but Ann moved away quick enough to miss the pies. Classic!
Oh my God--- it was Al Pieda!
Yeah...we've been watching them quite closely here at the Dept. of Homefried Shicken.
Originally posted by Tristan I hope they go to prison.
They will go to Camp Cupcake and they will be Martha's new beeyatches!!! :sex:
Originally posted by Tristan I hope they go to prison.
I hope they go on to superstardom :D Republicans and Conservatives alike get creamed, hopefully in more way than one come the 2nd!
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > Why? Has the NY Times engaged in similar acts of "journalism"?> > >
Well they have had high profile fraud in recent history (Jayson Blair).
Also they had a slew of front page attack articles on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I just don't appreciate the great slant present in the NY Times as a whole.
Was there a political angle to the Jayson Blair case though? I thought it was just a case of apolitical laziness (pretty symbolic of the mainstream US media as a whole come to think of it). Did his made-up stories actually have any political significance? The NYT has always seemed a bit right-wing to me anyway. (and they only have themselves to blame for trusting someone with that surname to tell the truth)
I don't know about Blair's leaning since I have not read his articles, but the whole scandal was an opportunity to knock the NY Times. The NYT right wing? Fcuk you must be Karl Marx himself.
On the whole it seems to lean to the right, yes. I mean, most mainstream US journalists are to the right of majority US opinion on economic issues, according to surveys. Only on a few social issues are they 'liberal'.
Also I remember the NYT had a 'debate' over Israel and Palestine that featured one pro-Israeli commentator who thought Arafat was a gangster who should be hunted down, and another pro-Israel commentator who thought he should be given one last chance first. A Palestinian voice was notable by its complete absence. (not that I'm any fan of Arafat, I have to emphasise, he seems like a wanna-be tinpot Bantustan leader to me).
Maybe today's Times would lean to the right when compared to public opinion in the sixties, but today it's definitely center-left.
I think there's much more organization on the side of the conservative elements than the liberal side. I think if anything, there's an elite conservative media in control than a liberal one.
And the media was more right-wing after the Second World War, but Vietnam kinda changed things. Don't take my word for it, read David Halberstam's "The Powers That Be". 
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I think there's much more organization on the side of the conservative elements than the liberal side. I think if anything, there's an elite conservative media in control than a liberal one. And the media was more right-wing after the Second World War, but Vietnam kinda changed things. Don't take my word for it, read David Halberstam's "The Powers That Be".
Well the conservative media became organized partly because it was them minority for such a long time. The reason why people considered there was a liberal elite was because the 'elite' newscasters swayed to the left, rather than the conservative elite who were not proped onto high profile evening news pedastals. They remained organized and became an elite. This is why you when you go to Ann Coulter's website, you see plugs for Limbaugh's book or stuff from Laura Ingraham. American conservatives have for a while been more organized than liberals (this is why they don't run shoddy campaigns a la Donna Brazile laying many eggs for Gore 2000), and the conservatives have benefitted for running much more organized campaigns making sure their base goes out to vote. The more high profile newspapers (especially the NY, LA Times, and sometimes the Post) tend to sway to the left; not that there aren't rightist alternatives (WSJ). As for news stations, CBS (well I might as well consider the whole Viacom company) with Dan Rather is center left, ABC is center left, MSNBC is at the center (almost center right, but Joe Scarborough has toned down his show :( ), CNN is to the left (the fat woman with parted shoulder length hair, Lou Dobbs, and company), and Fox News is to the right (Linda Vester, what a gal!).
I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable. 
Yes, there's liberal media personalities, but I'd bet the executives in charge are overwhelmingly conservative
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.
This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.
Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.
This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.
Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is 
) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage.
I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.
Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of.
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.
This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.
Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is ) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage. I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views
I usually read Ann's articles knowing she's going to drop a few exaggerated quips here and there in order to bolster her points. She's incredibly partisan, but most of the time, the points she makes are the correct ones, or at the very least she points out fallacies in liberal policies. Her underlying message is what counts and not her over the top antics (which happen to be entertaining). Hey and she doesn't fabricate lies, such as Michael "Mammoth" Moore.
My disdain for the LA Times simply comes from reading it every once in a while for a few years, and the NY Times is a favorite target for conservatives.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.
Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of. I don't know any poor people who own media empires...do you?
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > Of course it could; those poor rich people who own everything and control everything never got a fair shake in this country, so we had to have a media affirmative action program for them, but now if they can't make it without some assistance, well that's the breaks.>
Neocon media figures do not own everything. That's Teresa Heinz you are thinking of.
I don't know any poor people who own media empires...do you?
Murdoch ain't no neocon, he's an 'old ass rich Aussie'con. Ingraham, Coulter, and the list goes on are the media neo-cons...
Murdoch may be rightist with his economic policy, but he's not a neocon who combine rightist economic policy and conservative values. He supports neocons though since they are the bloodline of the current Republican party who are the ones who will advocate the economic policies he desires. When Rabid Pachyderms Attack Trans-Gender Midgets does not come from a neocon.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > I just don't think there's an actual attempt by the "liberal media" out there to hold back more conservative voices. The whole notion of right-wing backlash relies on the notion of being "persecuted" by liberals who won't let the Bill O'Reillys of the world take over the anchor desks. In some ways, it's really pathetic to blame the "liberal media" for your own inability to get to a certain position. Rather childish, I think. It negates your own responsibility to hold someone else accountable.
This could be easily twisted with a few word switches to a good argument against affirmative action.
Well, in all seriousness, take a few moments after reading one of Ann Coulter's rants to ask yourself "now, is she saying all this because liberals really do hate America, or is it more because she couldn't get a job at the Times or any other major publications?" I realize that example of the Times might lead you to more ridicule of an obviously faltering newspaper, but just insert the name of whatever major publication you hold in high esteem. Now, if she's right (and God help us if she ever is ) then you can say she has a legitimate arguement. But if you can see no obvious reason for what she's talking about other than what she says, you might want to take a step back and see if there's something more to her efforts than genuine outrage. I doubt you'll change your whole philosophy if you come to the conclusion that maybe Ann's a bit of a fibber, but it wouldn't hurt to consider alternative views
I usually read Ann's articles knowing she's going to drop a few exaggerated quips here and there in order to bolster her points. She's incredibly partisan, but most of the time, the points she makes are the correct ones, or at the very least she points out fallacies in liberal policies. Her underlying message is what counts and not her over the top antics (which happen to be entertaining). Hey and she doesn't fabricate lies, such as Michael "Mammoth" Moore.
My disdain for the LA Times simply comes from reading it every once in a while for a few years, and the NY Times is a favorite target for conservatives.
I'm not saying everything liberals have done has been OK, but just because Ann says they're fallacies doesn't make it so. What sources does she quote? Try looking up the originals when you have the time, I'd be willing to bet you'll find some discrepencies between her writing and the original. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right
Anyway, enough of this gay banter, I'm here to talk about this parrot which I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique :D
I can understand why excerpts such as the one i'll post below may be troublesome to Democrats, but it points out that with all the anti Iraq war rhetoric of the past two years, which has been adopted by the Dem.s, that Saddam would be in power. Now she makes that point by picking on a crackhead politician, a drunk murdering fool, and some other fools.
The Democrats want Saddam back. I suppose it was only a matter of time for the party that also welcomed back Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc.
Originally posted by Taboo # 7Anyway, enough of this gay banter, I'm here to talk about this parrot which I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique :D
Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
