Fox News Does It Again

[Smellin Coffee]

 

[praise_yeshua]

Simple mistake. Are you saying no one else does this?

I'm rather certain the reference is to no military operations involving "boots on the ground".

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Simple mistake. Are you saying no one else does this?

I'm rather certain the reference is to no military operations involving "boots on the ground".

Yeah. CNN and MSNBC are always 100% correct. (rolls eyes)

I'm just tire of my Pub friends who believe FN is the source of all truth so I got a kick out of this.

 

[Least of These]

friends who believe FN is the source of all truth

Do you really know people for whom this is true?  I hear the accusation thrown around a lot but have never known or met anyone with that kind of loyalty to Fox News. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

friends who believe FN is the source of all truth

Do you really know people for whom this is true?  I hear the accusation thrown around a lot but have never known or met anyone with that kind of loyalty to Fox News.

Literally, yes. (I'm related. ) And the Drudge Report as well. If it comes across those two sources, there is no questioning veracity.

 

[Least of These]

Forgive me if I remain skeptical.  ;D

 

[subllibrm]

friends who believe FN is the source of all truth

Do you really know people for whom this is true?  I hear the accusation thrown around a lot but have never known or met anyone with that kind of loyalty to Fox News.

I work with a guy who believes Rush is always right. No idea what he thinks about FN.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Forgive me if I remain skeptical.  ;D

Forgiven.

 

[Izdaari]

FNC (Fox News Channel) and FBN (Fox Business News) are networks I watch regularly, but I don't believe everything I hear from them or from any other single news source. If a story catches my interest enough, I'll check it with as many different sources as I can, including several international ones.

 

[FSSL]

Do you have a link to the video?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Do you have a link to the video?

Can't find one. However, the date was Monday, September 15, 2014 if you want to pursue it. I guess it was "old news" and I thought it had been current. Mea culpa.

Other sources:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/now_fox_news_isn_t_just_lying_to_viewers_it_s_lying_to_fox_news

https://buelahman.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/what-is-military-action/

A couple different images that looked like they were snapped a second or so apart. I don't know enough to know if they were photoshopped but it doesn't appear to me if they were:

 

[Least of These]

FNC (Fox News Channel) and FBN (Fox Business News) are networks I watch regularly, but I don't believe everything I hear from them or from any other single news source. If a story catches my interest enough, I'll check it with as many different sources as I can, including several international ones.

I think this is closer to how most politically-interested people are, even though they are assumed to be blind followers who never question anything.

Isn't the Drudge Report simply a collection of links? It was always too cluttered and busy for me but I don't remember it having any commentary or opinion pieces. 

As for the OP, without audio, you really can't tell if this is a contradiction or not.  One graphic specifies "in Iraq" so possibly the other refers to somewhere else.  I think it's way more important to get people to RESEARCH and sift through a variety of sources rather than try to totally discredit one in particular.  Facts should be viewed from many different angles, IMO.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Simple mistake. Are you saying no one else does this?

I'm rather certain the reference is to no military operations involving "boots on the ground".

I agree - it may be a mistake, but it's much more likely that it's simply an inadequate way of defining military operations as boots on the ground.

Regardless, I find it much worse when MS-NBC or CNN deliberately misrepresents things, like when MS-NBC cropped a video so that you couldn't see an armed man at a tea party gathering was black.  And then they used that video to ask the question, are tea party people racist for carrying guns to a gathering?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Simple mistake. Are you saying no one else does this?

I'm rather certain the reference is to no military operations involving "boots on the ground".

I agree - it may be a mistake, but it's much more likely that it's simply an inadequate way of defining military operations as boots on the ground.

Regardless, I find it much worse when MS-NBC or CNN deliberately misrepresents things, like when MS-NBC cropped a video so that you couldn't see an armed man at a tea party gathering was black.  And then they used that video to ask the question, are tea party people racist for carrying guns to a gathering?

No doubt about it: they ALL spin.

 

[Izdaari]

Isn't the Drudge Report simply a collection of links? It was always too cluttered and busy for me but I don't remember it having any commentary or opinion pieces.

Yes, that's what it is, simply a collection of links to news stories. The sources linked to are widely varied. It's value is solely as a portal for news junkies. When I use it, that's what I use it for.

 

[Reformed Guy]

...And again...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-it-turned-out-nobody-was-shot-fox-news-quickly-reverses-report-of-baltimore-shooting/2015/05/04/9fc9c824-f299-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

No doubt about it: they ALL spin.

Forgot to reply to this...

Maybe I'm not using the right definition of "spin".  To me, "spin" is opinion-based fact presentation (which is why it isn't journalism).  A humorous example of spin would be to present a story about how Obama killed all dogs in the country with the headline, "Obama makes world safer for cats."  That's spin - the attempt to disseminate information in such a way as to promote your own opinions.

I would not classify the MSNBC example I cited as spin.  It's a blatant lie, presented with the intent to deceive the public about who was carrying the gun in order to accuse Tea Party people of racism. 

Even the liberal definition of "lie" is wrong.  The chant, "Bush lied, people died", was wrong, even before we found out that Saddam really did have WMDs (and moved many of them to Syria).  Assuming there were never any WMDs in Iraq, it still wasn't a lie.  Bush was acting on the intelligence he had.  If that intelligence was wrong, then it was a mistake, not a lie.  A lie is someone knowingly giving false information with the intent to deceive (like the MSNBC example). 

 

[Ransom]

...And again...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-it-turned-out-nobody-was-shot-fox-news-quickly-reverses-report-of-baltimore-shooting/2015/05/04/9fc9c824-f299-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

Wait . . . They retracted the report? They apologized for it?

You mean to say they didn't continue to perpetuate the myth as though it actually happened? They didn't claim that a false report was necessary to raise awareness of a real problem that goes unreported? They didn't rig the incident because it wouldn't happen on its own?

Gah. Just who do they think they are, anyway?

 

[subllibrm]

...And again...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-it-turned-out-nobody-was-shot-fox-news-quickly-reverses-report-of-baltimore-shooting/2015/05/04/9fc9c824-f299-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

Wait . . . They retracted the report? They apologized for it?

You mean to say they didn't continue to perpetuate the myth as though it actually happened? They didn't claim that a false report was necessary to raise awareness of a real problem that goes unreported? They didn't rig the incident because it wouldn't happen on its own?

Gah. Just who do they think they are, anyway?

See what happens when you take responsibility for your actions? They might as well have just stuck with the error and sold more beer and tires.

 

[Reformed Guy]

...And again...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-it-turned-out-nobody-was-shot-fox-news-quickly-reverses-report-of-baltimore-shooting/2015/05/04/9fc9c824-f299-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

Wait . . . They retracted the report? They apologized for it?

You mean to say they didn't continue to perpetuate the myth as though it actually happened? They didn't claim that a false report was necessary to raise awareness of a real problem that goes unreported? They didn't rig the incident because it wouldn't happen on its own?

Gah. Just who do they think they are, anyway?

If a child of mine tosses a struck match into a gasoline can, I don't praise him because the thing didn't blow up-  even if he says "Gee, I'm sorry!"