RKMBs
 Quote:
Fox News host falsifies footage to make GOP protest look bigger

By John Byrne
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 -- 9:02 am

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
How many protesters were in attendance at Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's tea party healthcare protest?

"I climbed the Capitol steps just before the event started so that I could get a good view of the whole crowd," the Washington Post's onetime White House reporter and columnist Dana Milbank wrote Friday. "I divided it into sections and counted. That's where I came up with 5,000. It's possible more came after I did my count, but nothing near 10,000."

A few dozen Republican House members attended, aimed at stirring up a crowd against Democrats' healthcare reform bill. Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed Bachmann following the event.

"20,000+ people showed up," Hannity said. "Were you as surprised as I was?"

Bachmann smiled and replied.

Story continues below...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After showing the clip, Stewart said: "Anywhere between 20 and 40,000 people. Or, as the Washington Post put it, 10,000."

Stewart then showed two clips Fox News employed to underscore the size of the event. He pointed out that the clips appeared to have been from two entirely different protests.

"I'm sorry, can we get back again," Stewart remarked. "That was weird. Because when that clip started, it was a clear fall day in Washington, D.C. Not a cloud in the sky, the leaves have changed.

"All of a sudden, the trees turn green again, and it's cloudy, and it looks like thousands and thousands of more people arrived," he continued. "If I didn't know any better, I would think they just put two different days together and acted like they didn't."

The bogus footage, Stewart found, actually came from a Sept. 12 protest two months ago, and was used on Fox News' Glenn Beck program two months ago.

Raw
Posted By: rex Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-12 5:53 AM
Hey retard, you're quoting a commie websites take on the daily show. Why don't you think about that for a minute or two.
Posted By: Pariah Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-12 6:20 AM
You're listening to John Byrne quote the Daily Show deconstructing Fox News.

Brilliant.
Posted By: rex Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-12 7:26 AM
You're listening to me fuck your mom.

hot.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-12 9:35 PM
At the very end of his tv program last night, Sean Hannity apologized and corrected the error.

Every news agency has done the same at one time or another. Including the New York Times. We regret the error, move on.
Posted By: rex Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-12 11:49 PM
Has hannity apologized for everything else he's ever done?
Posted By: iggy Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-13 1:27 AM
Unfortunately, he still hasn't apologized for existing yet.
Posted By: rex Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-13 1:58 AM
He could at least be a drunk like beck and be entertaining.
Posted By: PJP Re: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP - 2009-11-13 5:49 AM
Beck is freakin funny! The guy who spoofs him on SNL is funny as shit too. He is the only good performer on SNL.
SNL aint what it used to be. I tried watching it last week and didn't even finish watching the skit.
Posted By: the G-man Re: Glenn Beck is a funny guy - 2009-11-13 7:24 AM
I haven't watched it yet but I hear that Cartman spoofed Beck on last night's South Park.
Posted By: Pariah Re: Glenn Beck is a funny guy - 2009-11-13 8:22 AM
Yep.

It's hard to tell if they were really mocking him or just parodying him though. Probably left it ambiguous on purpose.
Posted By: rex Re: Glenn Beck is a funny guy - 2009-11-13 8:48 AM
He's a cartoon.



So is cartman.
 Quote:
Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
November 18, 2009 5:54 pm ET by Matt Gertz

UPDATE: For photographic proof that one of the rallies Fox News presented as being from Palin's book tour actually last year on the campaign trail, go here.

As the folks over at Think Progress note, Fox News's Gregg Jarrett today used old stock footage of a McCain-Palin rally from last year to illustrate how Sarah Palin is "continuing to draw huge crowds" during her book tour. He was apparently not tipped off by the McCain campaign "Country First" sign in one of the shots, nor did he wonder why Palin would be using a teleprompter to plug her book.



This is the second time in ten days Fox News has been caught deceptively using video to advance a misleading storyline - and that's just the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg. Maybe now Howard Kurtz will admit that there's a larger cultural problem with Fox News?
mediamatters
Posted By: the G-man Re: Media Matters! - 2009-11-19 5:00 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


As BSAMS pointed out in another thread, even the left-leaning Associated Press is reporting that Palin's drawing thousands at her book signings.
I'm not going to get caught up into G-man's foolishness of attacking the liberal because G-man doesn't like the facts, I'll just requote.

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
November 18, 2009 5:54 pm ET by Matt Gertz

UPDATE: For photographic proof that one of the rallies Fox News presented as being from Palin's book tour actually last year on the campaign trail, go here.

As the folks over at Think Progress note, Fox News's Gregg Jarrett today used old stock footage of a McCain-Palin rally from last year to illustrate how Sarah Palin is "continuing to draw huge crowds" during her book tour. He was apparently not tipped off by the McCain campaign "Country First" sign in one of the shots, nor did he wonder why Palin would be using a teleprompter to plug her book.



This is the second time in ten days Fox News has been caught deceptively using video to advance a misleading storyline - and that's just the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg. Maybe now Howard Kurtz will admit that there's a larger cultural problem with Fox News?
mediamatters
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I'm not going to get caught up into G-man's foolishness of attacking the liberal because G-man doesn't like the facts, I'll just BAWWWWWWWWWWWW


is it still a one-trick pony if that trick isn't good for shit? \:lol\:
Well I've certainly never seen any news reports or newspaper stories with stock footage used before. MEM's Media Matters has sure got a scoop here. Fox News must be the Devil.
 Quote:
Fox News VP in May: We don't have an accuracy problem - how's that still going?
November 23, 2009 3:24 pm ET by Eric Hananoki

In May, new Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente told TVNewser that "probably the most important imprint [of Fox News] has been the fact that no big story has ever had to be taken off the air, that for almost 13 years, there hasn't been the kind of issue that others have had in terms of having to take things down, or apologize, or pay out on. So I'd love to have the next 13 years be as strong as the previous 13 have been."



Today, FishbowlDC posted a Fox News memo acknowledging "a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months" and pledging to "quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having [sic] to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again." The memo added that "[m]istakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action" and "jobs are on the line here."

Fox News' first year under President Obama has been rife with errors, falsehoods and smears. We've documented that Fox News has apologized for some - but certainly not the vast majority - of its misinformation.

Over the years, Fox News has protected its brand by pushing the myth that it hasn't had to issue retractions for its stories. Like Clemente, in 2005, Fox News chairman and chief executive officer Roger Ailes was quoted by the Washington Post claiming that "in his nine years at Fox, 'I've never deleted a word, a phrase, a story. ... Unlike Newsweek and the Koran incident, [Ailes] adds, Fox hasn't just done a major retraction."

While Fox News management may quibble about the definition of "big" and "major," the Fox News "no retraction" line is silly. Even before Clemente and Ailes' remarks, Fox News issued multiple retractions and apologies. During the 2008 campaign, Fox News was one of the leaders in spreading the smear - later retracted - that Obama "spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa." If you followed the cottage industry of smears against Obama, this was certainly a "big" story.

It's clear that Fox News has a cultural problem. What's not clear is whether Fox News management will make good on its threats.

To wit, Fox & Friends has been repeatedly admonished for airing multiple fake stories - including the madrassa smear. Then-Fox News executive John Moody issued memos and statements warning staff to get things right. Sound familiar? Yet Fox & Friends and the offending hosts are still on the air, pushing smears and falsehoods - when not photoshopping pictures of New York Times reporters, or remarking on America's lack of pure genes.

More recently, Fox News apologized for starting the fake story that Obama watched an HBO documentary of himself instead of election returns. Fox News was apparently so serious about its apology that Fox News Watch host Jon Scott repeated the fake story again days later while mocking Obama.

mediamatters
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
mediamatters faggotry


[rex]kill yourself already.[/rex]
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man



If a tree falls in the forest and Media Matters doesn't write about it, will Zick have an opinion?
\:lol\:

You know it's a good site when G-man gets this shrill.
I think its great that media matters keeps repeating itself on fox's mistakes when they let the president slide on every fuck up he does. Its good someone has their priorities straight.
theyre no AP but they try!
no wonder the faggots love them so much!
'Daily Show' Producers, Writers Say They're Serious about Media Criticism

 Quote:
"Daily Show" producer Ramin Hedayati spends his morning flipping back and forth between the "Today Show" and "The Early Show," glancing at major news sites and political blogs and reading The New York Times. When he gets into the office, he scans through news shows recorded on the office's 13 TiVos and looks for glaring inconsistencies, misleading reports and humorous soundbites.

While watching Sean Hannity's coverage of an anti-health-care-reform rally at the Capitol last week, he knew something wasn't quite right. "I remember saying to myself ...'There couldn't be a more beautiful day for this rally.' Then all of a sudden it went to cloudy footage," said Hedayati. "Hannity used footage from Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally to make his rally look bigger ... We were surprised that no one else caught it."

Hannity responded last week to the show's uncovering of the inconsistency, saying the video switch-up was an "inadvertent mistake."

While its touts itself as a comedy show first and foremost, "The Daily Show" is also an unabashed media critic and ombudsman of sorts that exposes journalists' wrongdoings and shortcomings.

"I feel like there are lot of critics of the government but there are very few critics of the media who have an audience and are credible and keep a watch on things," said "Daily Show" writer Elliott Kalan. "That's a role that we provide that we take very seriously."

Kalan said the biggest mistakes he sees the mainstream media make involve overreaction and early reaction to the news. On television especially, he said, everything is "a scoop" or "breaking news" even when it's not. He noted that presenting the coverage in such a way leads networks to give news a level of speed and intensity that can sometimes get in the way of facts.


The liberal-leaning "Daily Show" more often than not picks on Fox News and conservative commentators such as Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

But it also takes satirical jabs at other mainstream media outlets. Recently, it criticized CNN for saying "let's leave it there" during critical parts of an interview and, in another show, made light of nightly news broadcasters getting too excited about having covered the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.

At the same time that "The Daily Show" is critiquing the media, it's also establishing itself as a "trusted" news source, even though it doesn't refer to itself as one.

Calling out the media when it takes things out of context, overplays the news

"The Daily Show" often points out when the media doesn't do their job -- such as when host Jon Stewart called out CNBC's Jim Cramer for repeating corporate spin instead of investigating the truth.

"Daily Show" Segment Producer Patrick King said the episode exposing Cramer's contradictions "was less about finding inconsistencies as it was about going at the heart of what that network reports itself to be. It holds itself to be the 'end all, be all' of economic journalism, but when you actually watch it leading up to the recession, you see they were really giving terrible advice based on conventional wisdom on Wall Street."


One of the show's rules is to not trust any source too much until it's been confirmed by another source. The show's 11 writers and eight producers -- who range in age from their early 20s to mid 40s and four of whom are women -- say they often check The New York Times and other newspapers to verify the facts and figures they hear on TV or read about on blogs. They also have a researcher and fact-checker, Adam Chodikoff, who makes sure any information that's used has been verified by multiple sources.

"We work very hard to make sure that we don't take anything out of context," King explained, "just because we like to think at the end of the day that what we're doing is right and correct, but also because while the networks don't respond to us all that much, people attack us and criticize us and we don't want to give them ammunition than they need."

They're not afraid to provide that ammunition, however, if they believe it will make a point. During a 2004 interview on the now-defunct "Crossfire," for instance, Stewart said the show was "hurting America," and that "we need help from the media, and they're hurting us." It's this type of stance on issues that King said he wishes more mainstream journalists would take when interviewing politicians.

Seeing the value in analysis & informed opinion

Too often, King said, journalists' political coverage -- and that of media critics -- ends up being sanitized and nothing but a perfunctory he said/she said exchange. "If you were going to talk about whether the earth is flat, and 99 percent of scientists are saying it's round, and 1 percent are saying it's flat, you wouldn't bring on the 1 percent guy," he said. "That viewpoint is factually inaccurate and they shouldn't bring him on just to give the illusion of balance."


When both sides are represented, writer Elliott Kalan said, there needs to be more fact-checking and deeper questioning: "A senator or governor will be on the news and will say something completely biased, and newscasters won't call them on it. They should be checking these people. Instead they don't want to alienate them and they let them say whatever they want."

He argued that the news media -- and political commentators -- need to look more critically at both sides of an issue, and spend more time breaking down complicated talking points for news consumers. Too often, Kalan said, journalists adhere to neutrality to the point where it paralyzes their ability to ask tough questions and undermines the power of objective, informed opinion.

Kalan described objectivity as having opinions that are pro-facts, and neutrality as meaning you have no stake and no say. "The Daily Show," he said, aims to be objective. And funny.

"The fact is, we are a comedy show, and if it's not funny we're not doing it, no matter how big of an issue it is," King said. "We care really passionately about the things we do, but first and foremost we have to make people laugh."

"I think we have to find a way for well-researched, intelligent programming to become entertaining again," said Hedayati. "Sensationalism may prove just too damn fun to watch, though."
Shut up snarf.
Posted By: the G-man Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-24 9:29 PM
 Originally Posted By: rex
Shut up snarf.
Posted By: King Snarf Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-24 10:49 PM
Excuse me for trying to contribute meaningfully to the topic at hand....
Posted By: the G-man Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-24 11:08 PM
 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
 Originally Posted By: rex
Shut up snarf.
Posted By: rex Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 1:38 AM
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Excuse me for trying to contribute meaningfully to the topic at hand....


Copying and pasting isn't "contributing", its using someone elses words to make points you are unable to think of yourself.
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
'Daily Show' Producers, Writers Say They're Serious about Media Criticism

 Quote:
"Daily Show" producer Ramin Hedayati spends his morning flipping back and forth between the "Today Show" and "The Early Show," glancing at major news sites and political blogs and reading The New York Times. When he gets into the office, he scans through news shows recorded on the office's 13 TiVos and looks for glaring inconsistencies, misleading reports and humorous soundbites.

While watching Sean Hannity's coverage of an anti-health-care-reform rally at the Capitol last week, he knew something wasn't quite right. "I remember saying to myself ...'There couldn't be a more beautiful day for this rally.' Then all of a sudden it went to cloudy footage," said Hedayati. "Hannity used footage from Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally to make his rally look bigger ... We were surprised that no one else caught it."

Hannity responded last week to the show's uncovering of the inconsistency, saying the video switch-up was an "inadvertent mistake."

While its touts itself as a comedy show first and foremost, "The Daily Show" is also an unabashed media critic and ombudsman of sorts that exposes journalists' wrongdoings and shortcomings.

"I feel like there are lot of critics of the government but there are very few critics of the media who have an audience and are credible and keep a watch on things," said "Daily Show" writer Elliott Kalan. "That's a role that we provide that we take very seriously."

Kalan said the biggest mistakes he sees the mainstream media make involve overreaction and early reaction to the news. On television especially, he said, everything is "a scoop" or "breaking news" even when it's not. He noted that presenting the coverage in such a way leads networks to give news a level of speed and intensity that can sometimes get in the way of facts.


The liberal-leaning "Daily Show" more often than not picks on Fox News and conservative commentators such as Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

But it also takes satirical jabs at other mainstream media outlets. Recently, it criticized CNN for saying "let's leave it there" during critical parts of an interview and, in another show, made light of nightly news broadcasters getting too excited about having covered the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.

At the same time that "The Daily Show" is critiquing the media, it's also establishing itself as a "trusted" news source, even though it doesn't refer to itself as one.

Calling out the media when it takes things out of context, overplays the news

"The Daily Show" often points out when the media doesn't do their job -- such as when host Jon Stewart called out CNBC's Jim Cramer for repeating corporate spin instead of investigating the truth.

"Daily Show" Segment Producer Patrick King said the episode exposing Cramer's contradictions "was less about finding inconsistencies as it was about going at the heart of what that network reports itself to be. It holds itself to be the 'end all, be all' of economic journalism, but when you actually watch it leading up to the recession, you see they were really giving terrible advice based on conventional wisdom on Wall Street."


One of the show's rules is to not trust any source too much until it's been confirmed by another source. The show's 11 writers and eight producers -- who range in age from their early 20s to mid 40s and four of whom are women -- say they often check The New York Times and other newspapers to verify the facts and figures they hear on TV or read about on blogs. They also have a researcher and fact-checker, Adam Chodikoff, who makes sure any information that's used has been verified by multiple sources.

"We work very hard to make sure that we don't take anything out of context," King explained, "just because we like to think at the end of the day that what we're doing is right and correct, but also because while the networks don't respond to us all that much, people attack us and criticize us and we don't want to give them ammunition than they need."

They're not afraid to provide that ammunition, however, if they believe it will make a point. During a 2004 interview on the now-defunct "Crossfire," for instance, Stewart said the show was "hurting America," and that "we need help from the media, and they're hurting us." It's this type of stance on issues that King said he wishes more mainstream journalists would take when interviewing politicians.

Seeing the value in analysis & informed opinion

Too often, King said, journalists' political coverage -- and that of media critics -- ends up being sanitized and nothing but a perfunctory he said/she said exchange. "If you were going to talk about whether the earth is flat, and 99 percent of scientists are saying it's round, and 1 percent are saying it's flat, you wouldn't bring on the 1 percent guy," he said. "That viewpoint is factually inaccurate and they shouldn't bring him on just to give the illusion of balance."


When both sides are represented, writer Elliott Kalan said, there needs to be more fact-checking and deeper questioning: "A senator or governor will be on the news and will say something completely biased, and newscasters won't call them on it. They should be checking these people. Instead they don't want to alienate them and they let them say whatever they want."

He argued that the news media -- and political commentators -- need to look more critically at both sides of an issue, and spend more time breaking down complicated talking points for news consumers. Too often, Kalan said, journalists adhere to neutrality to the point where it paralyzes their ability to ask tough questions and undermines the power of objective, informed opinion.

Kalan described objectivity as having opinions that are pro-facts, and neutrality as meaning you have no stake and no say. "The Daily Show," he said, aims to be objective. And funny.

"The fact is, we are a comedy show, and if it's not funny we're not doing it, no matter how big of an issue it is," King said. "We care really passionately about the things we do, but first and foremost we have to make people laugh."

"I think we have to find a way for well-researched, intelligent programming to become entertaining again," said Hedayati. "Sensationalism may prove just too damn fun to watch, though."


Good article that I may not have seen if you hadn't posted it Snarf, thanks.
You're quite welcome, MEM. I'm taking a journalism class, and poynter.org was one of the suggested sites for research relating to current stories.
Posted By: King Snarf Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 8:23 AM
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Excuse me for trying to contribute meaningfully to the topic at hand....


Copying and pasting isn't "contributing", its using someone elses words to make points you are unable to think of yourself.


Well, then, how about this? Since they call themselves FOX News, they should hold themselves to a certain standard of journalistic principles. A journalist's first obligation is to the TRUTH. By running incorrect footage, they've proven themselves negligent, incompetent, and irresponsible at BEST.
MEM and Snarf fare the only two people here that are dumb enough to get their news from Comedy Central.
Posted By: the G-man Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 8:27 AM
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
I'm taking a journalism class...


If I were you, I'd get my money back
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
You're quite welcome, MEM. I'm taking a journalism class, and poynter.org was one of the suggested sites for research relating to current stories.


Posted By: the G-man Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 8:30 AM
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
MEM and Snarf fare the only two people here that are dumb enough to get their news from Comedy Central.


I...guess...that's a step from their previous sources: Raw Story, Media Matters and graphic novels
 Originally Posted By: The YouTube video poster
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
You're quite welcome, MEM. I'm taking a journalism class, and poynter.org was one of the suggested sites for research relating to current stories.




Key words from that clip? "Great Snarf Rebellion". You better watch yourselves, G-Man and Rex, there's a storm a-coming.
Posted By: rex Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 8:34 AM
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Excuse me for trying to contribute meaningfully to the topic at hand....


Copying and pasting isn't "contributing", its using someone elses words to make points you are unable to think of yourself.


Well, then, how about this? Since they call themselves FOX News, they should hold themselves to a certain standard of journalistic principles. A journalist's first obligation is to the TRUTH. By running incorrect footage, they've proven themselves negligent, incompetent, and irresponsible at BEST.


This coming from the guy who gets his history lessons from comic books.

Why don't you try stating your opinion of something instead of just following someone elses talking points? Why don't you try thinking for yourself instead of believing something someone said just because you want to be cool?
Posted By: King Snarf Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 8:48 AM
 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
MEM and Snarf fare the only two people here that are dumb enough to get their news from Comedy Central.


I...guess...that's a step from their previous sources: Raw Story, Media Matters and graphic novels


Well, there's also the fact that the Washington Post's estimates are very different from the number Hannity came up with....
Posted By: thedoctor Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 10:11 AM
 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
I'm taking a journalism class...


If I were you, I'd get my money back


Who's publishing the textbook? DC? Marvel? Or is it an indy imprint?
Posted By: rex Re: caught red-handed - 2009-11-25 10:14 AM
I want to see what blows up first. Him taking a journalism class or jermey taking comedy lessons.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091125/pl_politico/29896

 Quote:
The Obama White House is addicted to the “unprecedented.”

Perhaps it was a sign when President Barack Obama sat down in January to record his first weekly address and announced: “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action."

What has followed is declaration after declaration of “unprecedented” milestones. Some of them are legitimate firsts, like the president’s online town hall at the White House in May.

But others the president wins merely on a technicality, and several clearly already have precedents.

The White House’s announcement of its unprecedented — “a first by an American president visiting China” — town hall meeting with students in Beijing, for instance, drew a collective eye roll in certain circles back home, namely among former aides to President George W. Bush, who had already been grumbling about Obama’s carefree application of “unprecedented.”

“I think I attended a town hall with President Bush in China,” former Bush adviser Karen Hughes quipped with a laugh, recalling a 2002 Bush speech in Beijing at which he took questions from the audience. “I thought: Were they asleep? Or were they dreaming? I remember standing and watching President Bush engage in a town hall that I believe was televised.”

President Bill Clinton also took questions from Chinese students at an event during a trip to the country in 1998, then did a radio call-in show in Shanghai the next day.

The White House’s characterization of Obama’s Beijing town hall mirrored the description staff gave Obama’s address to students on the first day of school, which the Education Department called “historic.” Yet President George H.W. Bush delivered an address to students, as did President Ronald Reagan. Maybe it was the streaming online video of Obama’s speech to students that was unprecedented?

Either way, for a president whose approach to exaggerated critiques of his administration is to “call ‘em out” and who has made an issue of forcing corporate America to expose the fine print, one wonders whether his use of “unprecedented” would pass his own litmus test.

Indeed some of his efforts are unprecedented. Obama noted, for example, that world leaders took “unprecedented steps” on nuclear nonproliferation at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council that he was the first U.S. president ever to chair.

But at times Obama’s use of “unprecedented” is questionable.

Obama has said he “took office amid unprecedented economic turmoil” and that the situation demanded “unprecedented international cooperation” and resulted in his signing of the “unprecedented" Recovery Act. Yet it seems the Great Depression and the New Deal might be considered precedents for the current economic crisis and the $787 billion stimulus plan.

And Obama’s promise of “an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency” sounded a lot like promises of past presidents.

“I believe the Congress and the American people approve my goals of economy and efficiency,” President Lyndon B. Johnson told Congress in 1965. “I believe they are as opposed to waste as I am. We can and will eliminate it.”

On bipartisanship, Obama raised a few eyebrows when during his first press conference he cited “putting three Republicans in my Cabinet” as “something that is unprecedented.”

“He is right — assuming he's talking specifically about selecting three Republicans (and not Democrats in a Republican administration) simultaneously and during the first term (not over the course of a presidency),” the National Journal pointed out. The magazine noted that Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Republicans serving in their Democratic administrations. Republicans Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower had three Democrats serving in theirs.

The White House stands by its claims.

“During his first year in office, President Obama has taken historic and, in some cases, unprecedented actions to fulfill his campaign promise to change business as usual in Washington and confront the wide-ranging challenges facing America,” said deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

“Cynics may say they’ve heard it all before, but the progress we’ve made on health care reform, energy reform and transparent government demonstrates these changes — in the view of the American people — can’t happen soon enough,” he said.

And when it comes to the Chinese town hall, White House officials say the ex-Bush aides have it all wrong — saying it was the first full-blown “town hall” by a U.S. president in China (because Clinton and Bush took questions after a speech). It was also the first U.S. presidential event streamed to an Internet audience in China and the first with questions from the Internet. And it garnered the biggest viewership, with 55 million online hits alone — making its audience unprecedented, oneofficial said.

The desire to be seen as treading on an unbeaten path is a part of the Obama brand. His candidacy was built on the notion that his rise to the presidency followed no footprints. He wasn’t a Clinton or a John McCain. He had a uniqueness that made him an unprecedented, if not unlikely, candidate.

That theme, which is driven by his personal narrative, has carried over into the White House. And in the context of the something-to-prove drive of a young president with scant executive experience, the Obama White House has used “unprecedented” as a rhetorical means through which he has asserted himself.

It’s also a reflection of the president personally.

“It says how very unique he feels he is,” said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. Hess described Obama as “a man who sees himself as unprecedented in every way … given his background — his mother, his father, where he grew up, how he became president of the United States.”

“Of course, biblically, there’s nothing new under the sun, and for most everything he’s done as president there is some precedent for somewhere,” he added. “What he does is variations on a theme.”

Still, Hess said, the word doesn’t have “great political currency.”

“I don’t think he gets special credit for being unprecedented, but he thinks that way,” he said. “I think that tells us more about him than really anything else about how he runs the White House.”

Andrew Jackson was the first president to use the word “unprecedented,” in 1831, according to a search of the archives of The American Presidency Project. For more than 100 years afterward, presidents used the word “unprecedented” in 72 speeches and mostly reserved it for major addresses.

But since FDR talked of meeting “the unprecedented task before us” during his first inaugural address in 1933, presidents have used the word on almost 2,000 occasions to describe everything from the death of Elvis Presley (Carter) to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (Reagan).

Obama has relied on “unprecedented” in more than 90 instances, using the word at least 129 times in everything from major addresses to small speeches, statements, memorandums and proclamations. (Bush, by contrast, used the word 262 times over eight years.)

Obama has used “unprecedented” to describe his efforts on science research, his plan for the auto industry and his administration’s ethics, transparency and accountability guidelines.

He has promised an “unprecedented commitment” to education, to developing clean energy and “to preserving America's treasured landscapes,” which, Obama has noted, have seen “unprecedented droughts” and “unprecedented wildfires” in the face of climate change.

There has been “unprecedented consensus” on health care reform under Obama’s watch, as well as “the unprecedented intervention of the federal government to stabilize the financial markets” and an “unprecedented” bank review.

His administration has also taken “unprecedented action to stem the spread of foreclosures,” Obama said, including the creation of “an unprecedented fund, in partnership with the Federal Reserve,” to get credit flowing.

“I wonder if they believe that everything is really unprecedented, or is it just their talking point,” said former Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who is among those smarting over Obama’s use of unprecedented. “This rhetoric is more understandable during a campaign, but I’m not sure it’s going to get them far while governing when the facts don’t always agree.”

It arguably started during the campaign, when Obama’s team was clocking one unprecedented milestone after another: his trip to Europe, his Internet connectedness, his fundraising strategy, his rallies, his crowds. Obama’s election was historic. His inauguration broke attendance records that reportedly required “unprecedented” security.

And sure, once in office, the administration faced a massive economic crisis. And, yes, the Obama team brought the White House onto Facebook and Twitter.

But by applying the “unprecedented” label to a so many scenarios in government — from transparency to efforts to reduce the environmental impact of mountaintop coal mining — the Obama administration risks outsize expectations and overhype.

“It comes close to a certain arrogance,” Hughes said, “as if this president has done things that no other president has ever done before — except that they have done them before.”

Obama even treads on unprecedented territory in ways he’s not trying to highlight. At this point in his presidency he’s spent more time on the golf course, for instance, than his immediate predecessor. He’s also attended more fundraisers. And sometimes he surprises people with his characterization of himself as "America's first Pacific president," as he did in Tokyo last week.

Obama's unprecedented use of "unprecedented" will likely continue in his second year in office, when the administration is expected to tackle the unprecedented deficit.
MEM, I was curious since you are upset at Fox allegedly faking news footage if you are also upset at Obama clearly lying about actions that clearly have a precedent being unprecedented?


Feel free to dodge, redirect or ignore.
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
MEM, I was curious since you are upset at Fox allegedly faking news footage ....


I'm not upset just because I posted about Fox doctoring video. I actually watch the Sunday show they have even if it's conservative.

Why assume that I'm upset just because I posted about it?
ah, the dodge.
Yes you did.
"I know you are but what am I?" classic MEM.
What I love most about the Politico story is the press is starting to become unapologetic for calling Obama on his lies. granted its a small sliver, but this along with the growing unrest of his socialistic policies, deficit spending, and job choking domestic policies does not bode well for him on the the mid terms.
What does that have to do with FOX doctoring video?
see youre still upset, we'll talk when youve calmed down.
Journalists have an obligation to tell the truth. Politicians do not necessarily have the same obligation.
Its good to see you're admitting to obama's faults.
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Journalists have an obligation to tell the truth. Politicians do not necessarily have the same obligation.


It seems that what would be unprecedented would be a politician who didn't stretch the truth.
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Journalists have an obligation to tell the truth. Politicians do not necessarily have the same obligation.


....You are so stupid.
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
Journalists have an obligation to tell the truth. Politicians do not necessarily have the same obligation.



See Snarf this is why everyone considers you a dumbass.
Snarf you forgot to denote that Republicans are exempted from telling the truth.
unemployment will not drop below eight percent.
\:lol\:
Gitmo will be closed within one year.
King Snarf innocent User Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts 40 minutes 50 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
King Snarf innocent User Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts 40 minutes 50 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: FOX falsifies some footage for the GOP




AFLAC!
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
[quote=Matter-eater Man]
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw
[/quote]
\:lol\:
Help spread the propaganda comrade.
If it is repeated enough it will become the truth!
I actually went to the Raw Story link Zick posted.


You'll never guess the source for Raw's information.


It's media matters.

MEM is now quoting Raw Story quoting media matters!

\:lol\:
\:lol\:

i spit out my coffee!
Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.........by Gob you're right BSAMS.
He's using circular logic against us!
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
MEM is now quoting Raw Story quoting media matters! \:lol\:


\:whoa\: it's like when john malkovich went down the john malkovich tunnel!
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Quote:
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats

By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent

You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.

But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.

The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.

The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."

Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.

"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."

An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?

Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.

Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)

Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
...

Raw


FOX made the errors fellas. Why beat up on that being talked about?
Quoting yourself quoting Raw quoting Media matters only makes it funnier. It's like you're collapsing into a black hole of partisanship.
\:lol\:
I'm sure it doesn't make a difference to some but FOX's errors are not just being noticed by just RAW or Media Matters.
 Quote:

This morning, Media Matters called attention to a questionable graphic from last Friday’s Fox & Friends, and several media sites latched on to what appeared to be an error.

TVNewser simply added up numbers in their headline: “59% + 35% + 26% = 120%” while Huffington Post noted “Fox News’ Fuzzy Math.” And later, Media Matters sent an open letter to Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who had recently put Fox staffers on notice after a few mistakes that there was now a policy of “zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”

“The erroneous percentages Fox & Friends showed in its graphic added up to 120 percent (even without the 15 percent who responded that they weren’t sure).,” wrote Ari Rabin-Havt, Media Matters’ vice president of communications and research. “More importantly, Fox News' presentation of the data made it seem as though 94 percent of Americans think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.”

Here's the breakdown: Fox's "somewhat likely" number of 59 percent in the graphic includes the Rasmussen categories of "somewhat likely" (24) and "very likely' (35). But then the "very likely" category gets a spot of its own underneath. So its understandable why a viewer would look at the numbers stacked up like this on-screen and assume that "94 percent of American's think it's at least 'somewhat likely' that climate scientists falsify their research data."

But Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic. And for that reason, there will be no reprimand of staff under the “zero tolerance" policy.

“We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen,” Petterson said. “We didn’t put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent.”

Indeed, here’s the paragraph from Rasmussen’s article that Fox was referring to with the graphic:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend’s didn’t err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. “The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here,” she said.

UPDATE: Media Matters' Rabin-Havt responds to POLITICO:

"Lauren Petterson clearly did not watch the segment in question. Host Steve Doocy agreed with Media Matters’ interpretation seeing as he attempted to add up these numbers as they appeared on air and said “so you get 90 – you got a lot of people.” On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, "zero tolerance" means unless we get caught."

Looking back at the clip via TVEyes, Doocy did mention the number 90, which was followed by some joking about whether the number could move closer to 100 percent.

politico.com
But, unlike Raw and Media Matters, Politico pointed out that Fox accurately quoted Rasmussen:
  • Indeed, here’s the paragraph from Rasmussen’s article that Fox was referring to with the graphic:
    • Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.


So all you've done by showing us the Politico article is drive home how biased the Raw/Media Matters version was.
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
By "cock eater man" I mean matter eater man. You don't have to answer that one g-man.
heh
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
....
While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend’s didn’t err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. “The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here,” she said.

UPDATE: Media Matters' Rabin-Havt responds to POLITICO:

"Lauren Petterson clearly did not watch the segment in question. Host Steve Doocy agreed with Media Matters’ interpretation seeing as he attempted to add up these numbers as they appeared on air and said “so you get 90 – you got a lot of people.” On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, "zero tolerance" means unless we get caught."

Looking back at the clip via TVEyes, Doocy did mention the number 90, which was followed by some joking about whether the number could move closer to 100 percent.

politico.com


Politico also notes that Doocy added up the percentages in a graphic that FOX even admits could be confusing. Considering that their own on air people came up with a wrong tally of percentages using it that really isn't a big admission. Errors do happen with any these guys but FOX keeps racking them up so it does start to look fishy.
You didn't say they were "confusing." You parroted the tune that they were wrong.

Backpedal.

And nice use of hyperbole there (see also: "wracking up").
 Originally Posted By: rex
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
 Originally Posted By: rex
 Originally Posted By: rex
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
To be fair to Nambla Zick, he has as much right to complain about Fox as any of us do about the center-left media (the big three networks, the NY Times, CNN, PBS, NPR, Washington Post, AP, Rueters, etc.).

However, when his only basis for doing so is the extremely biased, if not inaccurate, editorializing over at Rawmediamatterstory (which tends to be less about facts and more about calling differences of opinion "lies") it doesn't lend very credibility to his arguments.
 Originally Posted By: rex
By "cock eater man" I mean matter eater man. You don't have to answer that one g-man.
It must kind of burn a little for the partisans here (G-man the pedophile in particular) that Raw and Media Matters busted FOX on this.
You're right mem, not that heroic and brave websites like raw and media matters have brought down the evil empire known as fox news the world is a much better and safer place to live.
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
It must kind of burn a little for the partisans here (G-man the pedophile in particular) that Raw and Media Matters busted FOX on this.


The thread (and the Politico article you, yourself, cited when called out on your source) demonstrates that Fox wasn't busted at all .

The thread also demonstrates that, after rex and BSAMS blasted you for your incessant bitching about Fox I defended you...which resulted in you attacking ME.

You're a class act, Nambla Zick. A real class act.
Interesting take on the Politico story. Sort of the Bagdad Bob version but not surprising coming from G-man the pedophile.
© RKMBs