What did Fox News lie about today?

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Hannity's comment about the broken nose being "confirmed" may have been a mistake on his part but, then again, weren't there some early reports that that Sanford Police stated his nose was broken? Maybe not. In any event being mistaken isn't the same as being a liar. Now, I'm not saying he isn't a liar. I'm just asking for the proof to back it up.

At the very least, we should hold television journalists and commentators to a pretty high standard, and not allow them much leeway to be "mistaken" when what they broadcast as truth goes out to millions of viewers.
 

OhWiseOne

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,518
Media
251
Likes
2,967
Points
358
Location
Florida
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
God this thread is a self serving piece of shit. Sorry for my language. Every news channel / program / commentator is slanted in one way or another. Real journalism doesn't exist anymore it just depends in the purse strings that are paying the tab.

WAKE THE FUCK UP!!

Thank you for your time.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
The weird thing about fox is how liberal their cartoons and tv shows are, but how totally opposite and completely right wing their newz channel is....


Its almost like they are just in it for the money and not the messege...
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
If one is going to call another a liar I don't think it's "clueless" to want to know what exactly the lie was. We can agree to disagree on that.

Hannity's comment about the broken nose being "confirmed" may have been a mistake on his part but, then again, weren't there some early reports that that Sanford Police stated his nose was broken? Maybe not. In any event being mistaken isn't the same as being a liar. Now, I'm not saying he isn't a liar. I'm just asking for the proof to back it up.

Okay. I sat back because I don't have a dog in this fight as I neither have a political affiliation nor do I watch Fox News; but, if Fox News is actually a news channel and not an entertainment show, then what StormfrontFL posted was a very, very good example. True news channels and newspapers are supposed to fact-check before reporting; if Sean Hannity didn't have anyone on staff that came vis-a-vis with a released medical report saying that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, then by definition it was hearsay and he shouldn't have said it. At the very least, he should have at least said the magical journalism "don't sue us" words: "it's alleged" or "it's speculated".

This is one of the main reasons I only watch national news when there is a major breaking story--because the quality of the genre has gone to heck in a handbasket. Back in the 80's, the news was some big-haired man or woman staring fish-eyed into the camera, stating what happened that day, and then letting you draw your own conclusions. Now? It's a farm, because they're feeding all kinds of sheep--and followers of both parties are guilty of a'gnawing on the grass. It's a freaking shame when you have to do your own research after watching the news because you can't trust what has been reported.
 
Last edited:

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Okay. I sat back because I don't have a dog in this fight as I neither have a political affiliation nor do I watch Fox News; but, if Fox News is actually a news channel and not an entertainment show, then what StormfrontFL posted was a very, very good example. True news channels and newspapers are supposed to fact-check before reporting; if Sean Hannity didn't have anyone on staff that came vis-a-vis with a released medical report saying that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, then by definition it was hearsay and he shouldn't have said it. At the very least, he should have at least said the magical journalism "don't sue us" words: "it's alleged" or "it's speculated".

This is one of the main reasons I only watch national news when there is a major breaking story--because the quality of the genre has gone to heck in a handbasket. Back in the 80's, the news was some big-haired man or woman staring fish-eyed into the camera, stating what happened that day, and then letting you draw your own conclusions? Now? It's a farm, because they're feeding all kinds of sheep--and followers of both parties are guilty of a'gnawing on the grass. It's a freaking shame when you have to do your own research after watching the news because you can't trust what has been reported.
They should have cloned Walter Cronkite:smile:

I use various sources to get the news of the day. I also take into consideration who the sources/writers are to determine the slant of the article. I feel the problem today is that most people don't want to take the time to do a little research and are content to be spoon fed what to think and believe.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
They should have cloned Walter Cronkite:smile:

I use various sources to get the news of the day. I also take into consideration who the sources/writers are to determine the slant of the article. I feel the problem today is that most people don't want to take the time to do a little research and are content to be spoon fed what to think and believe.

They're either too lazy to do it, or too trusting. I'm blessed enough to be at an age when I can remember when the news was facts and not hype, when it played to one's sense of reason and not to one's sense of fear. Now? If Fox, CBS, MSNBC, HLN, hell, any major news organization reported it's raining frozen soup in Wisconsin, a bunch of people in Kenosha would run to their windows and look outside. Never mind that it was because a truck carrying frozen soup exploded; it's still raining soup, isn't it :rolleyes:?
 

TinyPrincess

Mythical Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
15,779
Media
2
Likes
30,839
Points
368
Location
Copenhagen (Capital Region, Denmark)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I tried watching once(know your enemy) however after 5 minutes I felt like blowing my brains out because the realization that so many people buy the BS put out by this network caused me to doubt whether or not life was worth living.
In the gifted program I was in in elementary school we learned more about journalism, politics, and ethics than the crew at Faux has ever known.

You mean they're actually serious :confused: I always considered Faux a hoax :rolleyes:
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,305
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

Hannity didn't say that it is said that GZ's nose was broken. He deliberately said it was confirmed. Faux viewers then believe the statement by Hannity to be fact even though he is speaking out of his ass. Any intelligent newsman knows not to say something is confirmed when it's not. It's not a mistake on Hannity's part. It was intentional.

You can't know that it was not a mistake on Hannity's part. You can't know it was intentional. You can't have access to the inner workings of his mind.

He may, for example, have been given false information which he trusted.
That would be a mistake that nonetheless, given his belief, would allow him to make the statement sincerely.

Therefore, you can't know it was a lie.
You can suspect it, of course, but that's another thing.

I'm not in Hannity's corner in any sense.
I'm just speaking in principle.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,851
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You can't know that it was not a mistake on Hannity's part. You can't know it was intentional. You can't have access to the inner workings of his mind.

He may, for example, have been given false information which he trusted.
That would be a mistake that nonetheless, given his belief, would allow him to make the statement sincerely.

Therefore, you can't know it was a lie.
You can suspect it, of course, but that's another thing.

I'm not in Hannity's corner in any sense.
I'm just speaking in principle.
If he felt he made a mistake wouldn't he have said so on a subsequent show? If he had been given evidence which proved false wouldn't he as a "responsible" broadcaster then go on air to clarify his statement? He hasn't and it's because on Faux his viewers won't call him on it because he only said what they want to believe.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Here are a few things about journalism that a lot of people who were feed on national news apres' 1990 or so don't know:

- There is a difference between writing, reporting and journalism. Writing can be fiction or non-fiction; journalism should not. Reporting is a part of journalism, but not everyone sitting in front of a camera talking is a journalist. This creates a vast difference in the quality of what is being reported (and any standards subsequently followed).

- There should be no "mistakes" in journalism. The whole system is based on a healthy set of checks and balances which includes people who get paid very well to fact-check before it leaves someone's mouth and enters others ears. When every stone has been turned, but it's found that erroneous information has been disseminated? Then by ethical journalistic standards, the entity is responsible for apologizing publicly. For entertainment shows (that don't fall under these stringent rules) apologies are not required.

- The public used to hold the media responsible for reporting erroneous information, even if said information was minute. It wasn't uncommon for Grandma and Grandpa to write a letter to ABC or CBS for misstating the name of a street in a town in which they lived. This actually made the media work harder because they knew they were being policed. Now it seems they can say whatever they want because very few people (if any) will check the validity of what's being reported. And if they do, the show will have no problem bringing the viewer on the air so the host can use such tactics as cutting them off when they talk, yelling like a boor--and even cutting off their microphones if those tactics aren't enough. These practices are ethically wrong in terms of journalistic standards (and big, red flags)--but they're accepted on a daily basis.

I said all that to say this: there is a difference between news and an entertainment show presented in a news format. There is a difference between a news magazine and an entertainment rag presented in a news format. The line between tabloid journalism and the traditional ilk has become so blurred that now it's practically nonexistent.

I miss being able to watch national news. I miss it like mad. It pains me that I can't get through an entire newscast (or even pick up most magazines, for that matter), and it grieves me deeply that for that past 20 years, I've witnessed the dumbing down of America (through the news) while people stand idly by and observe it with the same zest they would a pot of water waiting to boil.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
Follow my example:

When one trains to be an Attorney you do what are called "mock trials" the idea you have in Court is to not allow the introduction of evidence that would support the claims of the opposing side. This is done to shape the opinions of the jury by denial of information that could sway the opinion of that jury.

Fox under the leadership of Murdoch and NewsCorp in a sense does exactly the same thing.

What Fox is also expert at doing is to take complete heresay by some smaller and less qualified news source and then blow it up. While it was not Fox who originally released the stories of the less than wonderful problems of a 17 year old kid named Trayvon Martin, Fox later picked up those presentations running with them and using the less than great sources and information unrelated to the shooting to sensationalize the story in an attempt to boost ratings. By doing this, they boost their ratings, and, at the same time, they hang and eliminate a small competitor if what has been said was untrue or fabricated. It also gives them plausible deniability in case they really step in it. It is not good journalism at all, but it is absolutely GREAT business in a sleazy sort of way.

In a "mock trial" the Attorney tries to destroy the witnesses of the opposing side and discredit their testimony. Fox commentators VanSusteren, O'Reilly et al, are experts at trying to discredit opinions contrary to those the network wants presented. The discrediting is done by the treatment or badgering of the person they want to discredit in some manner. In this area, Fox as a private Corporation does not have to adhere to the procedures that apply in a Court of Law. When a debate takes place they hand pick the persons which they the commentator will debate in order to "stack the deck". They pick individuals who are intimidated by their "personality". They also pick individuals who are as a whole poor at rebuttal to the commentator. Again, this is not conservatism at all it is a pure business decision which generates ratings. The concept of shifting public opinion is incidental to the decision to generate ratings and money.

All News Broadcasts have the ability to slant or change the opinion of people based not only on what they include, but more often on what they leave out.

To some degree these days all news which is dependent on ratings for advertising tries to build ratings and hence sponsorship or advertising costs. It is not a political issue at all, it is in fact a MONEY issue with sponsors looking more at ratings than at the implication or misinformation caused by omissions in content. The price we pay for "good business" and high profits for a media network is at times questionable accuracy based on completeness of the information we get.

The only ones free to tell the truth are those not dependent on the dollars of Corporate sponsorship.

After the problems in the U.K. the News agencies and media outlets operated by Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp are under scrutiny. This is world wide and not just in the U.K..

Murdoch and Newscorp and the outlets it operates are absolutely money driven. Proof of that is the later evening television line up. The Simpsons, Family Guy, and other programming that Fox presents is diametrically the opposite of the Fox News Conservatism. Those shows cater to the lowest common levels of humor and present a set of family values absolutely contrary to the views of the ultra conservative right wing in general.

They get viewers and ratings so Murdoch runs them. NewsCorp is the largest publisher of porn in the world and all of this has given incredible wealth to both person and corporate entities. Porn is not beloved by conservatives either and yet they never seem to bother Rupert Murdoch or NewsCorp on that issue.

Fox is not conservative because it is politically correct or a "political opinion". Fox is conservative because "liberal bashing" creates a circus like atmosphere much like watching (God Forbid!) an episode of Jerry Springer. It is easy to put down people in a situation from which you yourself are at best a distant observer.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I think the biggest lie is having political "opinutainment" programs (Beck, BillO, Hannity) displayed in such a way as to make viewers think they are news programs. And that lie happens every day. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the First Amendment protects their right to express it. However, using these political personalities to promote your news programs, particularly when claiming to be "fair and balanced" (and doubly so when Fox has openly said they are not news programs), is intellectually dishonest.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
I think the biggest lie is having political "opinutainment" programs (Beck, BillO, Hannity) displayed in such a way as to make viewers think they are news programs. And that lie happens every day. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the First Amendment protects their right to express it. However, using these political personalities to promote your news programs, particularly when claiming to be "fair and balanced" (and doubly so when Fox has openly said they are not news programs), is intellectually dishonest.

Well, Beck is no longer on Fox's television lineup.

What lies did O'Reilly or Hannity tell in their shows tonight?