Faux News WTF moment!?

[Silcc69]

http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/foxnewsglitch.jpg

[Faldur]

Lol.. priceless

[onmyknees]

LOL....maybe a sign of things to come??

[onmyknees]

OK Silcc...I'll cede you one Fox fuck up, and raise you an MSNBC ace. Where do they come up with this shit? lol


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-claims-mitt-romneys-family-entered-the-country-illegally/

[Silcc69]

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled the United States and crossed into Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution. He helped build the Mormon enclave of Colonia Juarez in Chihuahua.
Miles Park Romney never became a Mexican citizen, and neither did his son, Gaskell, or grandson, George. They were all denied Mexican citizenship because statutes on the books in Mexico denied that right to American settlers and their offspring.


The irony of that comment.

[Faldur]

You know thinking of it, obummer would have a better chance of being re-elected if he ran against himself. He could use all that hopey changey stuff again.

[trish]

Really?! You guys think substituting Romney's photo with Obama's was a FUCK UP??? It's clearly a case of embedded commentary. That's no mistake. It's a graphic example of what Fox does all the time on it's "News" segments. Ever see any of their crowd shots. Chances are they were showing the wrong crowd. I'm not saying all of their news is really commentary, sometimes they actually do just fuck up. It a fun party game to look at all their broadcasts and pick out which ones are gaffs, which ones are deliberate misrepresentations and which ones have embedded commentary.

http://www.therightscoop.com/fox-news-shows-tina-fey-in-on-screen-graphic-for-sarah-palin/

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/11/fox_rolls_wrong_tape_heads_may.html

http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/right-sarah-wrong-crowd-fox-news-plays-wrong-crowd-video-palin-coverage-network-say

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/fox-apologizes----again----for-using-the-wrong-footage.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-stewart-catches-sean_n_353447.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-faces-fallout-over-misleading-footage-ron-paul-20110217-092653-299.html

Sean Hannity Confesses Using Fake Footage: "Jon Stewart Was Right!" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E)

http://rt.com/news/fox-moscow-fake-riots-281/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-unemployment-chart-better-graphics/2011/12/12/gIQAUVgNqO_blog.html

http://failuremag.com/index.php/failure_analysis/article/fox_news_map_fail/

FOX FAILS AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN .... They're the gaff that keeps on gaffing and keeps us laughing. Thank you FOX NEWS for being YOUSE :)

[onmyknees]

Really?! You guys think substituting Romney's photo with Obama's was a FUCK UP??? It's clearly a case of embedded commentary. That's no mistake. It's a graphic example of what Fox does all the time on it's "News" segments. Ever see any of their crowd shots. Chances are they were showing the wrong crowd. I'm not saying all of their news is really commentary, sometimes they actually do just fuck up. It a fun party game to look at all their broadcasts and pick out which ones are gaffs, which ones are deliberate misrepresentations and which ones have embedded commentary.

http://www.therightscoop.com/fox-news-shows-tina-fey-in-on-screen-graphic-for-sarah-palin/

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/11/fox_rolls_wrong_tape_heads_may.html

http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/right-sarah-wrong-crowd-fox-news-plays-wrong-crowd-video-palin-coverage-network-say

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/fox-apologizes----again----for-using-the-wrong-footage.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-stewart-catches-sean_n_353447.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-faces-fallout-over-misleading-footage-ron-paul-20110217-092653-299.html

Sean Hannity Confesses Using Fake Footage: "Jon Stewart Was Right!" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1NWYV1i_E)

http://rt.com/news/fox-moscow-fake-riots-281/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-unemployment-chart-better-graphics/2011/12/12/gIQAUVgNqO_blog.html

http://failuremag.com/index.php/failure_analysis/article/fox_news_map_fail/

FOX FAILS AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN .... They're the gaff that keeps on gaffing and keeps us laughing. Thank you FOX NEWS for being YOUSE :)



Wow....It that what they call that? Embedded Commentary ? Is that similar to what you do where facts and opinions are easily interchangable?
You may be right about Fox...it's subliminal, in fact it's downright Orwellian. I'm with Media Matters on this one. lmao....But do you really want to get into a back and forth about the chronic fuck ups of MSNBC and CNN....??? I'd be happy to do that, but there might not be enough bandwidth here on HA ! Or would it be easier just to lay another Neilson ratings chart on you?

Never failing to disappoint, I did an 8 second search to see if we had any fuck ups today on MSNBC. Here's today's gem....


Does Andrea Mitchell Watch Her Own Network? Ignores Santorum's Repudiation of Bigotry

(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/01/24/does-andrea-mitchell-watch-her-own-network-ignores-santorums-repudiat)
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/frontpage-200/thumbnail_photos/2012/January/2012-01-24-MSNBC-Mitchell-Santorum.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/01/24/does-andrea-mitchell-watch-her-own-network-ignores-santorums-repudiat)
It appears that even Andrea Mitchell doesn't watch MSNBC. During Tuesday's edition of her eponymous program, while speaking to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, the anchor failed to acknowledge former Sen. Rick Santorum’s (R-Pa.) strong repudiation for comments made by an attendee at one of his campaign events over the weekend.

While the presidential hopeful did not initially correct the woman’s allegations that President Obama was a devout Muslim who was illegally occupying the White House, appearing on Morning Joe today, Santorum strongly condemned such rhetoric as being bizarre and out of touch with reality.


Now was Ms. MitchelL in the proverbial Green room getting her base face on, and did not hear Santorum just hours earlier....or was it something more ominous than she needed and desired to convey to her pitifully tiny audience...??? I mean really....this is Andrea Mitchell....can there be any doubt ...or are you still shilling about her impartiality ? :dancing:

[trish]

I haven't seen you deny the photo substitution was anything other than commentary embedded within what was supposed to be an informative overlay. But WOW! Instead of listing numerous examples of Fox News Distortions I could've saved time and posted a distorted Fox News Logo. Yet another example of the political right just not getting it. :dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing:

[onmyknees]

I haven't seen you deny the photo substitution was anything other than commentary embedded within what was supposed to be an informative overlay. But WOW! Instead of listing numerous examples of Fox News Distortions I could've saved time and posted a distorted Fox News Logo. Yet another example of the political right just not getting it. :dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing::dancing:

How could I deny it? It happened....the difference between you and me is...you think it's intentional....I simply don't know if it is or it isn't, and I can't know....so you're "presuming" and opining once again . The only way to decipher all this is get Brian Ross on the case...oh shit ...he's preoccupied. lmao.

Lean Forward Trish.

I think the cable Nelison ratings come out tomorrow. I'll be sure to share !

[trish]

How could I deny it? It happened....the difference between you and me is...you think:dancing: it's intentional....I simply don't ...That's what embedded commentary is...intentional...how could it be commentary otherwise? Now if you claim not to know that the photo substitution was commentary, then you're either gullible or hoping the rest of us are.

[onmyknees]

That's what embedded commentary is...intentional...how could it be commentary otherwise? Now if you claim not to know that the photo substitution was commentary, then you're either gullible or hoping the rest of us are.


That's a great question....Let's see what the NY Times has to say about intentional embedded commentary. Surely they can't be guilty...after all the are the NY Times...


NYT Public Editor Responds to Koch Industries, Laments Paper's One-Sided Liberal Opinion Slant
January 16, 2012 07:37 ET



There was a fascinating exchange last week between Melissa Cohlmia, spokesman for Koch Industries, and New York Times public editor (or ombudsman) Arthur Brisbane. Koch Industries, which engages in arts philanthropy and conservative-libertarian causes, is a source of obsession and hostility both by left-wingers and reporters for the New York Times, as we have shown.
While Brisbane mostly defended the Times’ news coverage and its right to deliver anti-Koch opinions in op-eds and art critics, he admitted the paper’s overwhelming left-ward slant in its opinionizing made for “predictable and sometimes very dull reading,” “and there can be little doubt that the Times ownership and editorial page ascribe to a liberal perspective.”
http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/uploads/Arthur_Brisbane.jpg

Cohlmia was following (http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/confrontingbiasnyt/) up on letters she had sent in April and May 2011: “Since that time, there have been more than 50 articles in the paper critical of Koch (zero that are positive) written by some 41 different Times authors. You were gracious to offer a continued dialogue on the matter and two such pieces that appeared over the weekend prompt us to reach out again.”

Cohlmia criticized articles by art critic Anthony Tommasini and Ariel Kaminer’s “Ethicist” column, and counter-attacked at the Times’ own support for the arts, and its liberal hypocrisy:

Readers themselves might wonder if they’ll soon read moral circumspection about the many performing arts or left-leaning institutions supported by the Sulzberger family, which owns the paper. Doubtful, it would seem. (And never mind at all the Sulzberger family’s role in building the New York Stock Exchange, stifling the Times’ unions, giving golden parachutes to underperforming executives, and other such activity the paper lately characterizes as “the one percent”).
She concluded:
As one of your predecessors once pointed out, the Times is a liberal newspaper. We understand that and have been documenting the often irrational and cynical ways in which left-wing groups have targeted us. But if the Times is going to take part in that bandwagon and go to lengths so far afield from legitimate news coverage, then it ought to have the integrity to acknowledge it.

Brisbane responded by email with what Scott Johnson at Powerline blog called “almost endearing candor.”

Brisbane defended the two articles cited by Colhmia and the paper’s coverage of Koch in general, noting that most came from reviews and op-eds and wishing the paper had more ideologically diversity on its opinion pages.

I will agree in the broad sense that, taken together, it is clear that this community of opinion-based writers -- as distinct from news reporters producing material for the main news sections -- clearly share a worldview that is liberal and antithetical to the Koch brothers’ political perspective. That they find ways to lace their writing with these views is perhaps unfortunate. I would be happier if The Times had a more diverse mix of such writers, leading to perspectives that are not universally of one political persuasion

*************************************

Well...we're getting somewhere, however Mr. Brisbane trying to maintain seperation betwen the op-ed writers makes one ask....has he read much of his own paper lately?

[trish]

That's a great question....Sorry, I didn't ask a question :dancing::dancing::dancing:, (I made a rhetorical interrogative; i.e. the answer is clearly "it can't be unintentional, commentary is by it's nature intentional," no question about it) and unlike you I'm not once again trying to divert and hijack yet another thread. Here's a real question I posed several posts back, "Do you deny the substitution of Romney's photo with Obama's was commentary embedded in a overlay that was disguised to be informative and straightforward news?"

[Silcc69]

Let's be real that wasn't a mistake on Fox's part, Flip err Mitt Romney is the least conservative of the republican nominee's left. Anytime a picture of Obama come's up on Fox i'm pretty sure the viewers start throwing there remotes at the tv. Had it been Newt, the yes I guess I could've seen it as an honest mistake.

[Faldur]

Anytime a picture of Obama come's up on Fox i'm pretty sure the viewers start throwing there remotes at the tv.

Driving tv sales up, creating jobs... wait, Fox News creates jobs!

(sorry couldn't resist)

[onmyknees]

Let's be real that wasn't a mistake on Fox's part, Flip err Mitt Romney is the least conservative of the republican nominee's left. Anytime a picture of Obama come's up on Fox i'm pretty sure the viewers start throwing there remotes at the tv. Had it been Newt, the yes I guess I could've seen it as an honest mistake.

Again...that's a supposition on your part....you and Trish act shocked and awed that news outlets have agendas. Save it. The NYT does it everyday all day, as do the 3 major networks. The fact that particular bias happens to jive with your bias...doesn't mean it ain't bias...it just means you fail to see it....or that you see it, but excuse it. Either way...there's a word for that....starts with H ends with Y. lol

[trish]

Headline News ->

OMK IS NOT SHOCKED AND DOES NOT DENY THE FOX PHOTO WAS DELIBERATE COMMENTARY CAMOUFLAGED AS A STRAIGHTFORWARD INFORMATIVE OVERLAY.

Given ample opportunity to deny it, like a Washington politician, OMK continues to avoid direct question and divert the conversation...

[BluegrassCat]

Never failing to disappoint, I did an 8 second search to see if we had any fuck ups today on MSNBC. Here's today's gem....


Does Andrea Mitchell Watch Her Own Network? Ignores Santorum's Repudiation of Bigotry

(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/01/24/does-andrea-mitchell-watch-her-own-network-ignores-santorums-repudiat)
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/frontpage-200/thumbnail_photos/2012/January/2012-01-24-MSNBC-Mitchell-Santorum.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/01/24/does-andrea-mitchell-watch-her-own-network-ignores-santorums-repudiat)
It appears that even Andrea Mitchell doesn't watch MSNBC. During Tuesday's edition of her eponymous program, while speaking to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, the anchor failed to acknowledge former Sen. Rick Santorum’s (R-Pa.) strong repudiation for comments made by an attendee at one of his campaign events over the weekend.

While the presidential hopeful did not initially correct the woman’s allegations that President Obama was a devout Muslim who was illegally occupying the White House, appearing on Morning Joe today, Santorum strongly condemned such rhetoric as being bizarre and out of touch with reality.


Now was Ms. MitchelL in the proverbial Green room getting her base face on, and did not hear Santorum just hours earlier....or was it something more ominous than she needed and desired to convey to her pitifully tiny audience...??? I mean really....this is Andrea Mitchell....can there be any doubt ...or are you still shilling about her impartiality ? :dancing:

Swing and a miss. Should just have held out for a few more than 8 seconds and read the story. Andrea Mitchell was 100% right! Santorum faced a woman as she described the President as an avowed Muslim illegally occupying the White House. His response was not to correct her or counter such slander but to assure her and all the listeners that he was working to get that Muslim out of office. That Santorum will later flip-flop on his answer only proves that he is liar and a coward and not just crazy like the old woman. :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[onmyknees]

Swing and a miss. Should just have held out for a few more than 8 seconds and read the story. Andrea Mitchell was 100% right! Santorum faced a woman as she described the President as an avowed Muslim illegally occupying the White House. His response was not to correct her or counter such slander but to assure her and all the listeners that he was working to get that Muslim out of office. That Santorum will later flip-flop on his answer only proves that he is liar and a coward and not just crazy like the old woman. :dancing::dancing::dancing:


Ahhhhh...there you go assuming again a-hole. I watched it as it happened, and I also watched the Santorum exchange, and the follow up question on Morning Joe. If she had a gripe about that particular, exchange, a straight down the middle newsperson would have qualified her comments by saying "he did later acknowledge the woman's comments were unacceptable, but perhaps he should have done so as it happened"
That's the way a reporter would have handled it.

But...the fact of the matter is she is NOT a straight down the middle newsperson. She has bright red kness from spending so much time around Obama. If you can't see that, the joke is on you.
I don't really take you all that serious anyway, but I enjoy toying with you. You're a lemming....watch out for that cliff !!

[onmyknees]

Headline News ->

OMK IS NOT SHOCKED AND DOES NOT DENY THE FOX PHOTO WAS DELIBERATE COMMENTARY CAMOUFLAGED AS A STRAIGHTFORWARD INFORMATIVE OVERLAY.

Given ample opportunity to deny it, like a Washington politician, OMK continues to avoid direct question and divert the conversation...

The conversation is on media bias....I don't know what was intentional and what wasn't. Was it done by a 24 year old producer...or was the producer directed to do it by the host....? Here's what I'd suggest. Let's deal in facts....You got any? History tells us you normally come up short in that department, so I'll assume until you put up to back up...you're just spouting more blather and blither. :dancing:

[trish]

Is believe the thread title is Faux News WTF Moment. That's hardly as general as media bias. Stick to the topic or start a new thread.

So you still do not deny that the photo substitution was commentary. Like I said, either you're gullible or you're hoping we are. :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[Faldur]

Its beyond me how people on either side can bitch and moan about a single television station or show. I've drifted onto MSNBC a time or two and found it wasn't my cup of tea. So I changed the channel. Do I hate the channel and wish for its demise? I could care less. More power to them. Its a free world, and they are in a capitolistic market place so best of luck to them. There is this strange thing called a remote. It allows me to put on the channels I like. I could really care if Fox puts a picture of Mickey Mouse above someone's name. If it pisses me off, (see previous comment about remote).

Grow up, quit worrying about what everyone else is doing, you might start enjoying life.

[trish]

"Never mind that man behind the curtain," is always a good argument. :dancing:

[Faldur]

There are "men behind curtains" in every media outlet, (and several other places I see but my shrink says don't talk about them). If it bothers you turn it off.

[BluegrassCat]

Ahhhhh...there you go assuming again a-hole. I watched it as it happened, and I also watched the Santorum exchange, and the follow up question on Morning Joe. If she had a gripe about that particular, exchange, a straight down the middle newsperson would have qualified her comments by saying "he did later acknowledge the woman's comments were unacceptable, but perhaps he should have done so as it happened"
That's the way a reporter would have handled it.

But...the fact of the matter is she is NOT a straight down the middle newsperson. She has bright red kness from spending so much time around Obama. If you can't see that, the joke is on you.
I don't really take you all that serious anyway, but I enjoy toying with you. You're a lemming....watch out for that cliff !!

You're a buffoon and can't help but embarrass yourself every time you try to talk politics. Your idea of a "newsperson" is a shill, someone who licks Santorum's ass. Mitchell reported the facts completely accurately. He DID fail to correct the old nut, thereby giving his assent to her claims. The fact that he knew better only makes his omission more damning. This is a guy running for president and he can't even stand up for his own thoughts and beliefs? Gimme a break. McCain at least had the courage to speak the truth, even when demagoguery may have been easier.

Santorum is a coward and you're an imbecile, but you're still good for a laugh every time you lose your shirt. :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[trish]

So FOX designed a little graphic to show who the GOP primary candidates were and to show their order of popularity (according to some poll or other) prior to Iowa caucus. There are six names, six photo[s] and an order of popularity. There are 6! (6! = 720) ways to permute the names and another 720 ways to permute the photos within the ordering; i.e. there are 518400 (518400 = 720 x 720) ways FOX could have fucked up by putting one or more names in the wrong place, or one or more photos in the wrong place or some combo of the two. They didn’t do that. Instead of permuting the photos they inexplicably dropped one, Romney’s, and replaced with...who would have guessed in a million years...Obama’s. What, do they keep the file of Obama photos right next to the file of GOP primary candidate photos? What other files are just a click away? Why wasn’t Santorum accidentally replaced by Jerry Sandusky? Of the zillion photos that they could’ve chosen in their hard-drive full of stock photos, they pick the President’s photo. The chances of that are like what, 1 in 518, 400 zillion? Still if Obama’s photo got substituted for Perry, or Paul, or Newt, or Santorum or Bachmann, who would’ve thought anything of it? We would have said, “How’d Obama get in the line up?” and shrugged our shoulders. But substitute Romney with Obama and suddenly there['s] a ready answer to the question, namely the Tea Baggers have been wailing for weeks prior about Romneycare, Romney’s centrism and the analogy between Romney and Obama. It’s that perceived parallel that makes that graphic funny. It hits home with the Tea Bagging crowd. The only question is, “Was this a prank pulled by the designers of the graphic that slipped passed the producers?__or were the producers well aware that the joke will go viral and that each time one Tea Bagger sends it to another the tie between Romney and Obama will be reinforced?” Actually its not really that difficult a question to answer: of course the producers knew...they aren’t stupid, their audience is.

[Silcc69]

Asked to clarify if Massachusetts residents had been required to buy health care, Romney responded, “Everyone has an requirement to either buy insurance or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care.”
“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about,” Romney said. “Secondly, 98% of the people have insurance. And so the idea that more people are free riding the system is simply impossible.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-rebuffs-santorum-on-health-care-its-not-worth-getting-angry-about/


But the GOP has been very angry about Obamacare.




Limbaugh has gotten his voluminous knickers in a twist because Romney is essentially acknowledging that what Obama did was a good thing. Limbaugh and his legion of cranky followers believe Obama’s action was a frightening display of big government socialism aimed at preserving union pensions and union jobs. To them, Romney’s words are capitulation, if not treason.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-rush-freaks-20120112,0,16119.story


There is a reason for what Fox did to Flip Romney. It's clear as daylight that they want Newt to win it. And will do anything to make Flip look bad.

[Foeplayeffedy]

Âàì ñêó÷íî è õî÷åòñÿ îòêðûòü äëÿ ñåáÿ èíòåðåñíîå ðàçâëå÷åíèå (http://ruscams.in/)? Òîãäà äîáðî ïîæàëîâàòü â ëó÷øèé ýðîòè÷åñêèé âèäåî÷àò ðóíåòà (http://ruscams.in/) Ruscams (http://ruscams.in/)! Ñåêñóàëüíûå, ñòðàñòíûå è ãîðÿ÷èå äåâóøêè (http://ruscams.in/) ðàçäåíóòñÿ ïðÿìî ïåðåä âàìè! Íå óïóñêàéòå âîçìîæíîñòü óñòðîèòü äëÿ ñåáÿ íåçàáûâàåìîå è âîçáóæäàþùåå îíëàéí çðåëèùå (http://ruscams.in/)!