Fox News does it again!

[Naturist Mark]

LOL - it seems inevitable that whenever a Republican gets into serious trouble the "Fair and Balanced" network turns them into a Democrat:

[NudeAl]

LOL! Yes it seems that way.

Man this guy is brilliant hiking eh? Only to be topped by driving along the Argentine coast, or better yet crying. Wait until those emails are all published, and they will be, you are going to see a whole lot more of this. I wonder if he will re-sign? Republicans are not known for that though are they. Oh boy sometimes life is funnier that fiction.

[cenfldh]

Come on, guys. Marital infidelity and sexual indiscretion are not the territory of just Republicans. Neither is not resigning. Hint: BILL CLINTON. The list is long of offenders from both parties, sadly.

[NudonyII]

Come on, guys. Marital infidelity and sexual indiscretion are not the territory of just Republicans. Neither is not resigning. Hint: BILL CLINTON. The list is long of offenders from both parties, sadly.

What you're saying is true. BUT the Republican party has long painted itself as the party of "traditional family values", often accusing the other side of just not having any. When one makes such absurd claims, one opens him/herself to ridicule.

[blackrebel]

Oh boy, here we go again, with the anti-Republican rants, from the same people, from the same old playbook, with the same old tired arguments.

Infidelity falls on both sides of the aisle, and for some reason the Liberals tend to forget that.

Once again, you want to blame Fox news for not reporting the story the way that you wanted it reported. I find it quite sad when people want to rail on Fox in forget that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC,... refuse to do the stories fairly and equally and openly. Their arguments are even more vapid when they want to jump on Fox and accuse them for being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party yet all of the other news agencies, including the print media have been proven to be nothing less than mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. Funny how you all forget that or maybe just too stuck in your biased minds to see it.

I will give you credit though Mark, you posted about three or four hours later than I thought that you or your comrades (yes, I chose the word comrade intentionally) would.

[LamontCranston]

... the Republican party has long painted itself as the party of "traditional family values" ... We just went through a multi-year long and tedious Presidential election cycle and I don't recall this being a talking point during any of it. Sure, it was during the early 90's with Newt Gingrich and that bunch but that's 15 or more years gone now.

And a story about a senior politician or leader getting into trouble with a sexual dalliance is as old as dirt. It sells, so we keep hearing it. It's unrelated to political parties.

Got anything new to say? Fox News, NBC, Bueller, anyone? :D

[marko486]

Infidelity falls on both sides of the aisle, and for some reason the Liberals tend to forget that.

Once again, you want to blame Fox news for not reporting the story the way that you wanted it reported.


Spitzer and Edwards are proof that this is not a party line issue. Hard to be more hypodritical then Spitzer especially. However, you totally miss the point of the original post. Calling Sanford a Dem. is an out and out lie, and they have done this before so clearly it is not an editing issue. They did it on purpose and yes, Fox is the mouth piece of the Republican party. Any time a news agency openly advocates one parties talking points over and over again, it is no longer news, it is propaganda. It is not to say other news agency didn't have their bias (of which you actually provide no proof, making you argument vapid), Fox took the whole thing to another level. Strategy wise, they have succeeded quite well in throwing doubt on all news. Personally I get news from a variety of sources and still find PBS/NPR probably do the best job of reporting facts and context overall.

[Fitz1980]

Once again, you want to blame Fox news for not reporting the story the way that you wanted it reported. I find it quite sad when people want to rail on Fox in forget that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC,... refuse to do the stories fairly and equally and openly.

Not reported the way we would like? You mean factually? They listed him as "Mark Sanford (D)" when he's a member of the Republican party that would be "Mark Sanford (R)." It's not the first time either. They listed Mark Foley as "Mark Foley (D)" (even though he's a Republican) when the story about him being into little boys broke.

Simple mistake? Perhaps; but it's happened twice when prominent Republicans got into trouble. It never seems to happen when they are reporting positive stuff about Republicans and I've never seen them bill a Democrat as (R) when he's scandalized.

[Naturist Mark]

Yes, it is old news, look at Gavin Newsom - the latest Democrat, or John Ensign, the previous Republican. As for newsworthiness - it it the hypocrisy. Both Ensign and Sanford were vocal critics of other politicians who got caught in affairs - both calling on others to resign.

But you just don't see Fox news identifying the Democrats who get into trouble as Republicans - only the other way around. I wonder why ...

[MoonShadow]

Spitzer and Edwards are proof that this is not a party line issue. Hard to be more hypodritical then Spitzer especially. However, you totally miss the point of the original post. Calling Sanford a Dem. is an out and out lie, and they have done this before so clearly it is not an editing issue. They did it on purpose and yes, Fox is the mouth piece of the Republican party. Any time a news agency openly advocates one parties talking points over and over again, it is no longer news, it is propaganda. It is not to say other news agency didn't have their bias (of which you actually provide no proof, making you argument vapid), Fox took the whole thing to another level. Strategy wise, they have succeeded quite well in throwing doubt on all news. Personally I get news from a variety of sources and still find PBS/NPR probably do the best job of reporting facts and context overall.


Yes, such "editing" are purposeful and they work. Since the majority of people who vote are what I would call not the brightest in our world, these types of editorial party changes plant the seed that it is behavior a democrat or a republican would do. Like subliminal messages but not quite so. However, as I stated, only the not-so-bright would have Fox news as a source of anything. It is definitely the bubba news channel in this country.

Yes, I agree, Marko, PBS/NPR probably do the best in reporting.

[blackrebel]

... They did it on purpose and yes, Fox is the mouth piece of the Republican party. Any time a news agency openly advocates one parties talking points over and over again, it is no longer news, it is propaganda. It is not to say other news agency didn't have their bias (of which you actually provide no proof, making you argument vapid), Fox took the whole thing to another level. Strategy wise, they have succeeded quite well in throwing doubt on all news. Personally I get news from a variety of sources and still find PBS/NPR probably do the best job of reporting facts and context overall.

Hold on the maple myself all to floor because I'm laughing too hard.

PBS/NPR is known for his biased reporting to the left for years and what's even more sad is that they're funded by the government to report his bile.

Time and time again Fox news has been reported by the overall population as being more fairness reporting, and the only persons who do not agree with this are individuals who only want to see left wing versions of the news. This kind of explains why Fox news cable has far more listeners than the news agencies who come in second place.

In its haste to release this news item this could have been an error, but then again time and time again the other six or so news agencies make the similar mistakes time and time again, which includes many omissions of fact.

When you look at the news reporting by the other six or so news agencies, time and time again it has been shown that they all released the same Democratic Party talking points in the same hour from the Democratic party in the White House. Time and time again this has been shown and released it played for the public to hear. So when you want to talk about someone being biased in their reporting, look at the other six are so news agencies who all say the same thing at the same time on the same news release, when that I am hits the streets.

On the news that came out yesterday, I see you not giving information regarding how conservative news sources threw the governor under the bus even before his admission of an affair came out. But then again when you listen only to the other six or seven outlets you will not be make it as fact. When the governor's whereabouts were unknown immediately conservative talk lined up and took shots at him, not even waiting for the news release which nobody knew of the affair until yesterday.

[MoonShadow]

H

PBS/NPR is known for his biased reporting to the left for years and what's even more sad is that they're funded by the government to report his bile.




Who is He? PBS/NPR is reported by several people.

[blackrebel]

I forgot to mention, with news bias let's talk about this one.

When Senator John Edwards was running for president, and now we know that he has a love child, the news sources knew about this situation but refused to follow up on the leads. And after the news broke in that cheap tabloid the leading news agencies admitted that they knew of the story but did not want to follow up with that.

Now the question is why didn't they? Why did they bury the story and refuse to follow up on the leads that they had? Why did they wait till after the election of President Obama to follow this?

Just like the election of the Clintons. All of the news agencies and information and admitted that they did not release information about the church that Bill and Hillary attended. At this church was a pro-gay, pro-choice, and soft on drugs church.

Year after year the news reporters statistically admit that over 90% of them are democrat/liberal in over 80% of them donate money to democrat/liberal causes. Keep in mind once again that this is their own admission! So how can they be nonbiased with his record? Since liberals overwhelmingly want affirmative action to make things fair, maybe we need affirmative action in reporting and allow more independents and conservative reporters.

These stories against the big five or six or seven go on and on and on. And you want to beat up on Fox and call them biased because they do not report the news the way that you wanted to report it? Please, give me a break.

[LamontCranston]

I forgot to mention, with news bias let's talk about this one. ...

Year after year the news reporters statistically admit that over 90% of them are democrat/liberal in over 80% of them donate money to democrat/liberal causes. Keep in mind once again that this is their own admission! So how can they be nonbiased with his record? ... Meanwhile,TV ratings slide and newspapers close. "It must be the Internet.. or global warming."

Can't keep passing along the press releases, miss GIANT stories, and keep your credibility.

I saw a talking head reporting on a cable channel yesterday about events in Iran. He was actually reading posts on Twitter and making statements as fact without confirmation, supporting reference or explanation. "Thousands of police.." while the accompanying video clip showed FIVE.

It's media these days all right, but is certainly isn't journalism.

[MoonShadow]

I

These stories against the big five or six or seven go on and on and on. And you want to beat up on Fox and call them biased because they do not report the news the way that you wanted to report it? Please, give me a break.

You bet because Fox is anything but fair and balance. Just another news station with serious tunnel vision.

[Fitz1980]

PBS/NPR is known for his biased reporting to the left for years and what's even more sad is that they're funded by the government to report his bile.

Time and time again Fox news has been reported by the overall population as being more fairness reporting, and the only persons who do not agree with this are individuals who only want to see left wing versions of the news. This kind of explains why Fox news cable has far more listeners than the news agencies who come in second place.


The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

Fox has higher ratings because they give slanted, biased reporting that reinforces the beliefs of a certain segment of the population. The rest of the population is split between all of the other outlets out there.

As for the Edwards thing, not reporting on that story at that point would have been helpful to McCain/Palin. At the time there was talk of Edwards possibly being Obama's running mate. If he had made it onto the ticket before the story broke it would have been a huge blow to an Obama/Edwards ticket.

If you want to talk about the media not reporting or taking administration talking points. Let's talk about the run-up to the war in Iraq. The New York times printed administration lies claiming that Saddam had WMDs without even checking them out. People who wanted some actual investigating into some of those transparent lies had to go to the British press or progressive websites.

You want to hear about the mainstream media being in the tank for liberals? The Rev Wright flap happened because ABC news had a team of people watch over 2,000 hours of footage of Wright preaching for anything that could be controversial. In those 2,000 hours they found 30 seconds of out-of-context clips that they put on constant rotation for weeks after; our liberal media at work.

As for reporters tending to be personally liberal (or at least supporters of the Democratic Party, which is center-left at best), could have something to do with the fact that they are educated and knowledgeable about current events.

Fox News thinks that balance is that if Candidate A robs a bank and Candidate B gets a speeding ticket it would be fair to report them in such a way that both indiscretions seem equal.

[EZ Nude]

We call Fox News, the other comedy channel. Why would anyone watch it for the NEWS. We love Glen Beck. A bunch of us have bets on what date he will trip over his lies, start crying and fall of the waggon. Truth in reporting :laugh: STOP IT, YOUR KILLING ME!

[nimrod]

I do not know how labeling all other news outlets as liberal and then having a conservitive slant to news reporting as being fair and ballanced. Fair and ballanced would be to report the facts as they are then having comments form both sides without interurption and without further interpretations.

I do not have cable so I do not watch any of the cable news shows, so from just seeing the local network news I did not see or was aware of any biases from what I watch, if I watch. If there is a political news story is being reported I usually hear what it is about, what the supporters of it say, and then the opponents view then they move on. But there are times when I do not think that the full story is being told. Many times there are updates and what was first reported was obviously lacking in many of the details.

[jon71]

The conservative viewpoint is so skewed and out of touch with realtiy that they actually think Fox "news" is reasonable and everybody else is skewed to the left. It's only because they're the ones so completely out of touch with reality but I really don't know what the cure for that is. There was criticism of N.P.R. which is meticuluous about doing things in an evenhanded manner. The only sourse that's ever cited as better is B.B.C. and I don't know how many people get that. We've identified the problem but what to do about it now. Fox has freedom of speech even if they've abdicated their potential role as members of the press. If people want to be ignorant and believe them what do we do?

[marko486]

Blackrebel was just spouting off what he heard on Fox/Rush. Having listened and read different news sources I can name off some off some stories where news organisations like CBS was skewing things to the left side. NPR, the radio program interveiws more laymen people instead of pundits and tends to get a much clearer picture. But like you say, Jon,, what are we gonna do? You can't sue Fox so they get away with it. I recall seeing a link/study recently of where they quizzed people on current events and exclusive Fox news watchers scored lowest, whereas Daily Show/Colbert watchers scored higher. I would dig all that stuff up,, but it's pointless. I keep telling myself I am gonna avoid political talk. What's is the saying? "never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."

[Fitz1980]

The conservative viewpoint is so skewed and out of touch with realtiy that they actually think Fox "news" is reasonable and everybody else is skewed to the left. It's only because they're the ones so completely out of touch with reality but I really don't know what the cure for that is.

I recently posted a Bill Maher video where he said that in the past 30 years the Democrat Party has moved to the right and become a centrist party while the Republican Party has moved into a mental hospital.

People in the rest of the western world are laughing at a nation with such a conservative government and a centrist president have 30% of the population calling him a Communist/Socialist ultra-liberal.

[marko486]

I am one not opposed to there being a 3rd and actual centrist party. I think one would do well considering how far the loony Perot ended up getting. Right now , as long as it ain't Bush is sufficing.

[Fitz1980]

Actually these days a 3rd party would have to be either liberal or libertarian. We've already got wishy-washy centrist (D) & hard-right (R).

[BinCo]

Warning::: Slight Hijack


Why is it that for me to see current, live news, on the internet I have to go to BBC world news? Fox, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all have no live stream.

Does anyone know why this is? Besides the obvious collusion between the networks and cable systems that restrict the news?

[jon71]

Blackrebel was just spouting off what he heard on Fox/Rush. Having listened and read different news sources I can name off some off some stories where news organisations like CBS was skewing things to the left side. NPR, the radio program interveiws more laymen people instead of pundits and tends to get a much clearer picture. But like you say, Jon,, what are we gonna do? You can't sue Fox so they get away with it. I recall seeing a link/study recently of where they quizzed people on current events and exclusive Fox news watchers scored lowest, whereas Daily Show/Colbert watchers scored higher. I would dig all that stuff up,, but it's pointless. I keep telling myself I am gonna avoid political talk. What's is the saying? "never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."

I remember seeing that. Not only were they unaware of a lot of what was happening in America and the world they were also the most likely to believe things that were completely untrue to start with. By a huge margin they were the most likely to think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 for example.

[Naturist Mark]

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf), The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, Oct 2, 2003 (PDF)

[MoonShadow]

Yes, Mark, despite what the findings today are about Iraq and 9/11, our bubbas who are a majority in this country still believe Iraq was "indirectly" involved. It amazes me that today in 2009 with all the real facts available, these bubba-thinkers are still manipulated by a bias and prejudicial press/media and still think Iraq and 9/11 were related.

I just shake my head.

[richo]

For those who still have some lingering notion that Fox is "fair and balanced", this is an old link (the original case was 2003).

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

[marko486]

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf), The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll, Oct 2, 2003 (PDF)

Yes, I remember that one, but it went far beyond Fox News those they were most effective. It was administration's effective use of Overton's Window to garner the support they needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

I was one of very few around here who was against the war from the beginning. All they would simply do is is have statements/Interveiws with 9-11/Saddam/Al Quaeda/Iraq/Terrorist in text over and over again till there was such saturation everyone believed in a non-existent threat. Knowing no one will ever go to jail for this travesty is what makes me angry to this day.

[johnniep1]

For the most part, only morons watch Fox News and buy the Rightwing BS
that they peddle and believe it to be fact. There's a definite defect in
the right-wing mindset. Anyone who watches an 800 lb. ahole like Rush
Limbaugh (for example) and thinks that the malarkey that he spews has
any merit to it is, obviously, in serious need of neuroligical help.
Yet, these pompous imbeciles think that the problem in the U.S. is the
left-wing.
Simply put, on Election Day, 2008, Intelligence voted for Barack Obama
and Joe Biden, and stupidity voted for John McCain and Joe the Plumber.
Personally speaking, when given the choice between intelligence and stupidity, I always vote for intelligence.
But, getting back to the subject. Fox's audience has become as irrele-
vent as a pisshole in the snow.

[nakedstudent]

I don't know about the news programs during the morning and afternoon, but early evening, I saw Beck's program and he excoriated both Ensign and Sanford and called out the Republican party to become more trustworthy.

[nakedstudent]

LOL - it seems inevitable that whenever a Republican gets into serious trouble the "Fair and Balanced" network turns them into a Democrat:

Mark, could you please supply the URL link for the picture you found? I'd really like to see it in context.

Thanks,

Tom

[Fitz1980]

Mark, could you please supply the URL link for the picture you found? I'd really like to see it in context.

Thanks,

Tom

I don't know about were Mark got his but here's an article about it, with some other pics.

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2009/06/25/fox-news-labels-disgraced-republican-mark-sanford-a-democrat/

[Naturist Mark]

Mark, could you please supply the URL link for the picture you found? I'd really like to see it in context.

Thanks,

Tom

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2009/06/25/fox-news-labels-disgraced-republican-mark-sanford-a-democrat/

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/fox-news-identifies-sanfo_n_220377.html

And also a few thousand other links by now.

[Baron Lake]

nakidstudent, would you please describe for us a situation in which "context'
provides justification for lies and deliberate deception?

thanks,

b.l.

[Naturist Mark]

It's only a matter of time before Fox News identifies Sarah Palin as the former "Democrat" governor of Alaska.

Yesterday's surprise announcement of her resignation as governor of Alaska (effective in 3 weeks) sparked widespread speculation into the reasons - which were never directly addressed in her 18 minute rambling speech.

CNN thought she might be pregnant again.

Some people close to her said she was fed up with the media and fighting fellow Republicans in the Alaska legislature and just wanted out of politics.

One wag opined: "Don't rule out the possibility that she simply wants to devote more time to exploiting her family."

Most assumed she was clearing her decks to pursue the 2012 presidential nomination full time.

But in Alaska, there has been a buzz over the last 2 months or so about numerous FBI interviews with Palin associates - who were then warned to not talk about it. This was being called the "Iceberg Scandal" because it was mostly hidden from view - although it is known that the investigation started last October (Palin even mentioned during the campaign that people were "going on fishing expeditions" over the help Todd received from friends while building their home).

Probably not coincidentally the FBI is known to have been removing documents from Spenard Building Supplies, a longtime sponsor of Todd Palin's racing team, and supplier of materials for the Palin home and Wasilla Sports Complex - both built during the last months of Sarah's term as mayor of Wasilla and just before her run for Governor. SBS also figured into the Ted Stevens scandal.

There is now word that federal indictments are imminent, possibly including charges of public corruption and embezzlement. It is not clear if Palin herself will be charged, but it is clearly hitting close. (Note: the FBI states that Sarah Palin is not the target of their investigation.)<blockquote>The embezzlement scandal (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212241812.shtml) revolves around the large, $12.5 million sports complex that Sarah Palin pushed through during her last term as Mayor in Wasilla.

Federal investigators believe the cost of the sports complex was inflated to provide free building materials and labor for the Palin home being constructed close by. Both structures, it is said, feature the “same windows, same wood, same products.”

The sports complex's architect and contractors reportedly have strong links and ties to Palin.</blockquote>It was known, but little commented upon during the campaign (except by The Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/673217)), that the big Palin Home on Lake Lucille was built with largely free labor by Todd's "buddies" in the construction business at the same time those buddies were being paid by Wasilla to built the large Wasilla Sports Complex pushed through by Sarah.

The new investigation now suggests that there were free materials involved too, as well as possible paybacks.

Yep ... keep watching those Fox News chyrons to put a (D-AK) after Palin's name. It's just a matter of time.

[Edmontonnudist]

Only MORONS watch Fox News!

The reason that the Newspapers and TV etc is losing money or not making as much money as they used to is 2 fold.

#1 People are not buying into the BS anymore.
#2 People can get all the info they want from the Internet.

You can rest assured that these Newspaper and TV Moguls would like the Internet controlled by the Government.

These Tycoons remind me of the Buggy Whip Manufacturers in DETROIT around 1910!

[thestrokes44]

freaken fox sucks