About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

On Fox, Mark Sanford "(D)" holds press conference

June 24, 2009 2:51 pm ET by Media Matters staff

Sanford (D)

(Fox News later correctly identified Sanford as a Republican.)

Previously:

Media outlets - including Fox - misidentify as Democrats several Republicans facing scandal, poor poll numbers

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
      23 2
      Oh...my.....God.....

      They actually did it again.

      Once again, Faux proves to have ZERO credibility.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jimgordon (June 24, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          19
        Really?
        Really?!?

        This is a NON - STORY.
        How many times has Chris Matthews ALONE refered to the President as Osama?

        Give us a break!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
          13  
          This is a NON - STORY.
          Then why did you make a post about a "non-story"? geez.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by deeznuts (June 24, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
          15  
          It MIGHT be a "non-story" if Fox didn't have a LONG and PATHETIC history of this kind of shenanigans.

          Whenever a Republican does something that might embarrass the GOP, Fox News goes "oopsie!" and puts a "D" next to their name in the initial reports.

          What would be the purpose behind that, I wonder? (OK, no I don't.)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (June 24, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
              21
            Kinda like when a democrat congressman does something wrong and the press will delete the "D" and simply state Rep. so and so, relying on the Rep. to be confused with "republican" instead of "representative". Fox blew it in this case but I don't think it happens "all the time" as you infer.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
              15 1
              Only idiots think that a "Rep." in front of the name of a member of Congress stands for "Republican." And, there is no such thing as a "democrat congressman." The correct term is "Democratic Congressman." I'm not surprised you didn't know that, either.

              Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't your posts be, too? Apparently, what's in the pot at the end of your rainbow is something the "puppie" left behind that no one wants to step in.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ANTIsocalist (June 25, 2009 1:26 am ET)
                  8
                well most democrats, like yourself, are idiots. for example your attempt to slander a person's "handle" not taking into account that that very sentence is grammatically incorrect. "Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't (should not?) your posts be, (incorrect use of a comma) too?" read it with out the contraction, it doesn't (proper use of a conjunction) make sense,(propper use of a comma) does it?

                p.s thanks for ruining our country
                Report Abuse
                • Author by cduck (June 25, 2009 9:57 am ET)
                  6  
                  "well most democrats, like yourself, are idiots."

                  Because we capitalize the beginnings of our sentences?

                  " for example your attempt to slander a person's "handle" not taking into account that that very sentence is grammatically incorrect. "

                  Next time try "does not take into account that that very sentence is incorrect."

                  " …'Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't (should not?) your posts be, (incorrect use of a comma) too?' read it with out the contraction, "

                  Or maybe the poster should read it "without the contraction".

                  it doesn't (proper use of a conjunction) make sense,(propper use of a comma) does it?

                  (improper use of an extra "p")

                  Thanks you for your destruction of my faith in humanity.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by 21echoes (June 25, 2009 10:01 am ET)
                  5 1
                  this is just funny. if you're going to mock someone's grammar, at least make sure your own corrections are correct.

                  re: shouldn't. When used in question formation, contractions are NEVER simply word-for-word replacements of their original meanings. This is a simple fact resultant from the nature of English question formation, which requires a fronting of the first matrix auxiliary verb. Consider the following examples: "Don't you think that house looks nice?" "Shouldn't you be going to school?" "Haven't you been here before?". The negation participle ("-n't") must be moved to the front of the sentence along with its attached stem because it's not a free morpheme. In the sentence's deep structure (the formation prior to question formation), the sentence reads perfectly. I.e., deep-structure: "Your handle is illiterate, your posts should be (imp NP), too." transformation, step 1: "Your handle is illiterate, (wh-placement) your posts should(wh-negation participle) be, too." transformation, step 2: "Your handle is illiterate, why (fronted auxiliary) your posts be, too?"

                  re: the comma before too. Commas are always, 100% of the time required before sentences which end with the word "too". Even ignoring this fact, comma usage is not part of a natural grammar (linguistic sense of the term, not your silly attempts at prescriptive grammar), so usage is inherently indeterminant.

                  re: "proper use of a conjuction". No conjunction was used when you said this.


                  I can think of nothing more classically republican than trying to tear apart someone on some point only to get it more incorrect than they did.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by graphiczar (June 25, 2009 11:54 am ET)
                    4  
                    That was refreshingly funny and informative. I love you!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Guava (June 25, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Is nobody going to point out the misuse of the word "infer" in homeboy's original message? It's "imply," genius! Not "infer"...
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by unknown1465 (June 26, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
                          1
                        From dictionary.com:

                        infer

                        4. to hint; imply; suggest.

                        Not to mention that any other definition of the term "infer" would have worked in the context of what he said.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by open_mind (June 27, 2009 12:01 am ET)
                          1 1
                          That is in the dictionary, but it is not considered proper usage these days. Read the usage notes.

                          Miriam-Webster:

                          4: suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
                          intransitive verb

                          usage Sir Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by thecheese742 (June 25, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
                  2 2
                  I teacher grammar and you are both idiots. Not because of grammar usage but because you insist on being right about your opinions. The goal of language is communication, not proper grammar.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jaytingle (June 25, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
                    2  
                    David Broder, is that you? When Republicans can't get their way, it means we must compromise. When Republicans are wrong, it's "a curse on both their houses."
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
                    1  
                    The goal of language is communication, not proper grammar.
                    Sentences that are grammatically correct tend to reflect the effort to put forth thoughts in a rational manner. Sloppy grammar usually is an indication of sloppy thought.

                    I teacher grammar
                    Some jokes just write themselves.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by vysotsky (June 26, 2009 6:33 am ET)
                         
                      Not that any of this matters, but I have to disagree. Conformity to grammatical standards reflects a familiarity with those standards and the social values attached to them, but it's not any indication of quality of thought. There's certainly a link between thought and language, but well formed thoughts can exist without any regard to particular (and arbitrary) rules of prescriptive grammar. (Take the history of the 'split infinitives' rule in English as an example. Were people become sloppier and tidier thinkers while grammarians debated whether or not or in what cases split infinitives could be properly used?)

                      "Sloppy grammar" can be a sign of anything. Most often it's a sign that people do not actually speak in conformity to the rules found in English grammar books. Sometimes it's a sign that the speaker or writer didn't receive an education that stressed standardized English rules of grammar.

                      This just gets under my skin a bit because, as someone who has spent a long long time trying to speak a foreign language with any degree of competence, I'm perpetually frustrated by people who think that because my speech is a grammatical nightmare, my thoughts must be as well. I assure you that my thoughts are just as clear when I'm visiting a foreign country as they are when I'm at home, regardless of my ability to express them.

                      I'm not saying there's no reason to follow rules of grammar, by the way. There are very good reasons, and chief among them is that many people will assume out of prejudice that you're stupid, uneducated, or low class if you don't.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by vysotsky (June 26, 2009 6:37 am ET)
                           
                        Of course, yes, inevitably I didn't thoroughly proofread my own writing before hitting "save". "Were people become" should be "were people becoming". (And there are more mistakes.) But I'd like to believe that the idea I was trying to express came across.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by raquez1871 (June 26, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
                       
                    Is it me, or is there a typo in every post here referring to grammar? Are you people for real?
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
                  3  
                  "Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't (should not?) your posts be, (incorrect use of a comma) too?" read it with out the contraction, it doesn't (proper use of a conjunction) make sense,(propper use of a comma) does it?


                  Whatever you paid for grammar lessons, you're either due a refund, or your teacher is entitled to more money as hazardous duty pay, because they didn't take. My sentence is, in fact, grammatically correct.

                  Your attempt at "correction" is so riddled with idiocies that you really should have kept quiet instead of proclaiming your ignorance to the world.

                  There is no reason to read my sentence without (not "with out") contractions. I tried to read your post without the ignorance, and it disappeared.

                  Learn about conditionals, learn about proper (not "propper") use of commas, and, last but not least, bone up on why sentences start with capital letters.

                  P.S. (not "p.s.") Thanks for ruining our language. (Sentences end with periods, too.)
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by swain120 (June 24, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
              10  
              Actually it does happen "all the time," like this time here and also here, and oh wait! One more time, here.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by progressiveright (June 24, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
              8  
              FYI Rep. in front of the name of a congressman means Represenative that is a member of the House of Represenatives not the Republican party. If it was Sen in front of the name it waould be a Seator.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
              10  
              Only idiots refer to Democrat Congressmen. Brainwashed fools who are too stupid to know the name of the largest political party in the US.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by susangee (June 25, 2009 5:56 am ET)
              3  
              Actually, "puppy", Deeznuts is implying, you are inferring. Just a small point, but . . .
              Report Abuse
              • Author by deeznuts (June 25, 2009 11:44 am ET)
                3  
                I implied nothing. I was making a statement of fact. *wink*
                Report Abuse
            • Author by franner (June 26, 2009 6:44 am ET)
              1  
              It does happen "all the time" :)

              People who follow FOX religiously don't really notice, they just take in what they're fed so to speak. Which is the point of it all afterall. FOXES are clever, aren't they......
              Report Abuse
        • Author by skiploader1111 (June 24, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
          9  
          Explain why this only happens to disgraced Republicans and only on the day the news breaks that they have been disgraced.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by SCRIBE (June 25, 2009 7:48 am ET)
          3  
          I beg to differ. This is a huge issue. Not that FOX NEWS uses propaganda;but rather that there is so much LOW HANGING FRUIT out there that does not see that they are being used and played like a fiddle by FOX. Once again, not that FOX NEWS is so bias, but just what is wrong with the people that get so caught up in their PROPAGANDA!!!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (June 24, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
        9  
        Maybe he is a stealth Democrat. Sort of like how Obama is a stealth Muslim :)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by haydesigner (June 24, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
          13  
          WHERE IS SANFORD's BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?!??
          They must prove to us he is not an alien.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
        7  
        FOX has a pattern of doing this. Not sure what the point is though.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (June 24, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
        10  
        Fox knows how to play to the level of intelligence of its audience.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by amsterdamhashouseindigo5379 (June 24, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
      7  
      I didn't even bother to watch the clip...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
      14 1
      Amazing. I don't think that this was a simple mistake either. They did this on purpose.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
        9 1
        It happens pretty much anytime a Rep does something embarassing. It's hard to believe it's a simple mistake.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
          8  
          The interesting thing is the inherent disrespect for its audience that it represents. They are effectively saying, "We don't think you are smart enough to know that the SC govenor is a Republican, so we are going to try to trick you."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shayne (June 24, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
      8  
      The Democratic Party should sue Fox for putting a D next to the name of every R that messes up.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fdc629 (June 24, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
      16  
      Not only did they do it again. The headline reads "Holds News Conference on His Weekend Disappearance". WTF????

      NO!!!!!!! IT'S A NEWS CONFERENCE ABOUT HIS AFFAIR!!!!!!!

      The "NUTS" are truly a delusional group.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (June 24, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
        3 4
        Come on guys ... Let's be fair. CNN did the same thing until Sanford changed the purpose of the press conference right in the middle of it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          6  
          I happen to agree your point, the news of his affair came while the caption was already up, but who are the "guys"?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
            4  
            Fox more than likely got wind of this ahead of time. At least one GOP lawmaker was already scrubbing away campaign endorsement images from his website a full hour before the press conference.

            CNN:Political Ticker
            Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (June 24, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
      14  
      Fox News does this a lot. Whenever there is negative coverage of a Repub, they suddenly switch them to a (D).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
        15  
        And the morons who comprise the bulk of their audience never catch on.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by glogrrl (June 24, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
          8 1
          Ain't that the truth! They are all so propagandized and brain dead, the can't tell the difference.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (June 24, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
        7  
        Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us three times...nah, man. That's just being freaking MEAN.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (June 24, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
      8 1
      Is the D for dunce, dope, dork or diplomat to Argentina?

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (June 24, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
      1 35
      Seems fair when the leftist media never IDs Dems who are in trouble. They omit party affiliation completely.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (June 24, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
        13  
        Any proof?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by parenthetical (June 24, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
          2 1
          Just go Google "name that party". Right wingers seem to always use that phrase when discussing such events. Seems to happen fairly commonly. Nowhere near as bad as actually switching the party tag to the other side, however.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 10:48 pm ET)
          2  
          Their proof is often photos where the party affiliation is not mentioned.

          But that, of course, is different than getting the party affiliation wrong. And different than this situation, but they don't care about the relevance or the truthfulness of their claims. It's to distract us from the story being covered.

          You guys need to wake up to that effort of the trolls to derail the thread.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
            3 1
            Republicans are also selectively citing examples while ignoring cases where Republican party affiliation is left off or buried deep in the story (another argument that is often made).

            Of course it does not really compare with this very strange habit Fox has of mislabeling politicians in the news for some infamy or another.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by twseattle (June 25, 2009 3:48 am ET)
            2  
            Or - since cheney2012 turned to dust when asked for proof, it's an easy way to let them make our point for us. Now further down when they use newsbusters as their only source, exactly what you say is proven. It looks like they wait for the part of a tv report when the name is no longer shown, take a screenshot, and use that as evidence. There is no credibility because there is no objectivity. according to newsbusters it only happens to republicans. Maybe you already knew that, but I learned something. If there was actual proof of what they claim, it would be worth debating even if it is a distraction.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
        9 1
        Proof?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by breno3414301 (June 24, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
          11 3
          I've never seen any evidence of that, but whatever - it may actually be true, who knows. Even if it is, though, I really don't see a 1 to 1 correlation between omitting party affiliation and outright lying about that affiliation. But then, I'm not a Republican either, so I don't really buy into the idea that a lie is not a lie as long as it supports my own personal views.

          But even if Cheney2012 is correct (and it's hard to believe anyone who would willingly choose that alias could be), one circumstance would be one side trying to cover up for their boy as opposed to one side trying to cover up for their boy AND blame the other side. So that's two levels of deceit compared to one. So Fox News are STILL the bigger slimeballs.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
            23
          Michael Richardson, committed liberal, Democratic voter, and confirmed RACIST. Never identified as such.

          Even you could get a job as a Fox News chyron operator, Dr. 'I'm a big fan John Cusack' Matt harley. It's not like it's a sought after job for someone just coming out of the Columbia School of Journalism.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
            10  
            How do you know Michael Richardson, who is an actor, is some hard core committed liberal? Why was he never identified as such? Because, he's probably better known as Kramer, and I've never heard him out and about working politics like say, Matt Damon, or Ben Affleck, or Clooney, or Robbins and Sarandon.

            I've never heard of Michael Richards being involved in politics at all.

            So you fail this time.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
              7 2
              So you fail this time.

              Princess fails every time.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
                10  
                I'm just wondering, even if Michael Richards were a committed liberal (I can't find anything that says he is, and also, as I mentioned before, don't remember him being all high and mighty on the political discourse of the country and all), it's still not the same issue, because I'm pretty sure he was denounced as a racist, and he pretty much retired from the public spotlight after his tirade, and rightfully so.

                I'm sure hoosier is just assuming that Richards is some sort of liberal because he's an actor? I did read that he's a Mason, not that you have to be any political persuassion to be one, but the ones that I've met tend to tilt further right, than left.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                  10 1

                  More importantly, since when do private citizens, that never held a political office, have political designations following their name?

                  So, should we start doing the following:
                  Elisabeth Hasselbeck (R) another reich-wing plagiarist
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                  9 1

                  More importantly, since when do private citizens, that never held a political office, have political designations following their name?

                  So, should we start doing the following:
                  Elisabeth Hasselbeck (R) another reich-wing plagiarist
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by deeznuts (June 24, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
                    8  
                    More importantly, since when do private citizens, that never held a political office, have political designations following their name?

                    Boom. Exactly.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
            7 2

            Congrats for your continued obsession and continued pathetic failed attempts at making an analogy.

            So, princess, are you going make a statement about Faux's chyron, princess, or are you going to defend it, princess? Princess, are you going to continue to be irrelevant and off-topic, princess, or are you going comment on Faux's proven deception, princess?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
            11  
            Yeah! And let's not forget Cocoa (D) from Cocoa Puffs. Total liberal racist. Stays crunchy in milk, but still very dodgy, though you wouldn't knew it by watching NBC [D], ABC [D], and CBS [D].
            Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
              8 1

              So, teabagging terrorist anti-American voters who never held office now place an "R" after their names? Is this a new trend we missed? Since when do private citizens who never held a political office have political designations following their name?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
            6  
            I'm pretty sure we're just talking about politicians, not Dem or Rep voters.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
            9  
            Michael Richardson, committed liberal, Democratic voter, and confirmed RACIST. Never identified as such.
            I guess you are referring to Michael RICHARDS? If you don't know what you are talking about, it's best to stay anonymously ignorant, rather than exposing that fact to the world.

            I don't remember what office Richards was elected to, though, so there really wouldn't be any reason to put a (D) after his name.

            Thanks for playing, you're far too dumb even for the consolation prize.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Lmaris (June 24, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
            3  
            Proof was requested, not conjecture.

            Michael Richards, no matter his political affiliation, is an actor, not a politician. He is not the governor of a state.

            This is just one more in an endless series of GOP hypocrites who preach family values yet are as foul as those they condemn.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by marco21 (June 24, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
            6  
            Right, I remember voting for him in the Seinfeld election 0f 1992.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
            6  
            As a fellow Hoosier, all I can say is that your stupidity embarasses me. For the love of all that is holy please change your name to stop the great harm you do to intelligent, wise and/or honest Hoosiers.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by susangee (June 25, 2009 6:05 am ET)
            2  
            Huh???!!!!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by jimgordon (June 24, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
            10
          Proof?
          Here's your Proof-
          http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=name+that+party&form_token=3142e4e9aa86d8b674055c5867c9141d&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#995
          Report Abuse
          • Author by breno3414301 (June 24, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
            7  
            As always, you can make anything look convincing for a second or two by only presenting the facts that bolster your argument. Completely missing from this link is any demonstration that Republicans are identified by party substantially more often by these news outlets than Democrats are. But this link doesn't provide much proof one way or the other on that - it simply trots out a bunch of instances where Democrats are not identified by party while showing a grand total of one or two where Republicans receive the opposite treatment.

            In fairness, I will concede that that was just from a quick glance at the blurbs to the links and I did not read all of them. The only one I did actually read was the one where it did show a Republican being named. So I may not be playing entirely fair. But just from what I saw, it looks to me like an awful lot of "here I am proving my argument by showing half the equation."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 10:56 pm ET)
            5  
            The fact that some Democrats haven't had their party affiliation mentioned is not evidence of any bias without a similar search for Republicans that also have not had their party affiliation mentioned.

            You gave me the EASY button on that one.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 1:28 am ET)
            3  
            Proof of what?

            The first article your newsbusters search lists admits that Blagojavich's party was mentioned in the AP article, but in the 3rd paragraph. My heavens! You call this proof!?

            You have to wait three whole paragraphs. Wow. That is really comparable.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by beanee2482 (June 24, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
          2  
          Well, here is one link with screenshots. I don't know if you will decide this is "invalid" and that everyone is remembering wrong and photoshopping pictures and Fox News is a decent and accurate news sources or whatever, but at least is isn't Wiki and TMZ.

          http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/04/fox-news-identifies-.html
          Report Abuse
      • Author by tomlaw523 (June 24, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
        14  
        Can you document that, like Media Matters does? It'd be helpful in making your point...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
        10  
        I'd ask for examples but I know you haven't any.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Leftym0m79 (June 24, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
        10  
        Please link one story where this has occurred. Wiki and TMZ are not valid reference.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by j7850N (June 24, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
          7  
          Sure, here's your proof right here:

          http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/

          Snap!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rjonesx (June 24, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
          6  
          Or ere.

          http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/10/fox_does_it_again_identifies_a_republican_as_a_democrat.php

          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
        8  
        As others have said, do you have any proof of other news organizations changing party affiliations when democrats are found to be in trouble when they are reporting on them? I dare you to actually find an example of this. I'll wait. I know I'll be waiting a long long time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John T. (June 24, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          1 9
          More often it's a case of omission:

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/03/12/essay-eliot-spitzer-man-without-party

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/06/17/hes-no-eliot-spitzer-abc-cbs-nbc-all-brand-john-ensign-republican

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/06/17/ny-times-sen-ensign-swiftly-identified-gop-disgraced-dems-not-idd-all

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/richard-newcomb/2008/03/05/media-silent-new-jersey-mayors-party-affiliation

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/04/23/chitrib-still-dropping-dem-label-gov-blagojevich

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/04/03/dem-label-still-awol-blagojevich-chitrib-sun-times-coverage

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/04/03/ny-post-silent-nyc-council-speakers-party-affiliation

          100s of other examples:

          http://www.google.com/search?q=Party+Affiliation+site:newsbusters.org
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
            5  
            Missing affiliation happens both ways though.

            So you need to show evidence of misbehaving Dems labeled as Republicans. Over and over again.

            Or else you have no point.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 9:52 am ET)
            3  
            Okay. This is just pitiful. Your first link is a claim (without any links to verify it) that all of the networks ignored Spitzer's party affiliation for several days. No links to newscasts, no nexus search term parameters...nothing whatsoever other than their say-so. I know you may say "you cannot prove a negative". That is all well and good, but if you say that no-one mentioned Spitzer's party affiliation, you at least need to show where and how you looked for it, or you leave yourself open to charges of selectivity. The first newsbusters article does highlight a link that supposedly leads to AP not covering Spitzer's party affiliation, but that just goes to some general "we hate the AP" page on newsbusters.

            I figured, "okay, so that is just one bad link"... I went to the second link and there is indeed ample documentation of the Republican Ensign being called a Republican on all of the networks and a reference to the newsbusters Spitzer - again just pointing to the first link you provided without any valid documentation.

            I am not going to waste any more time on newsbusters as it does not appear to be transparent or professional in their arguments. If they want to be taken seriously (which does not seem to be the case) by more than just the choir, they need to document to the level MMFA does that provides transparency to verify claims.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by John T. (June 24, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
            9
          More often it's a case of omission:

          http://www.google.com/search?q=Party+Affiliation+switch+site:newsbusters.org
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
            8  
            "More often" implies at least one case of a disgraced Democrat being labeled "R" by a news network. Which did so?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
              8  
              Plus, if you leave out the party designation it doesn't mean that it's being purposefully withheld. However, if you deliberately change R to D, then that shows intent and malice.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
                  11
                Intent and malice???


                Mmmm-kay.

                And so why doesn't KO or HuffPo or any of the Soros-funded blogs pay off some chyron operator at Fox and get him to admit that he's been told to put a D in front of Sanford's name for a few seconds. Big conspiracy, right? Seems like some college would be compelled to get a nice payoff for blowing the whistle on the evil Fox. I mean, Scottie McLellan drank the wine, why not some small-potatoes teleprompter/chyron dude? Plus, he gets himself laid after becoming a liberal hero.

                Or the conspiracy theory is he's in on it too to take over the world someday.

                You guys are quite entertaining. Really.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 8:21 pm ET)
                  6  
                  So you are trying to get us to believe that Fox News is really just incompetent boobs, rather than malicious propaganda merchants? I don't know how that bolsters any argument.

                  This kind of thing would be hard to do accidentally. Plus, they'd have to make the mistake AND nobody in the control booth or on the air would notice it. Right...
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 8:25 am ET)
                  4  
                  And so why doesn't KO or HuffPo or any of the Soros-funded blogs
                  Oooooooooooh, "Soros-funded!" That incredible epithet must mean... (cue spooky music) it must mean... (crescendo of mighty organ chords here) actually, it doesn't mean a damned thing. (cue trumpet with mute: "wah wah wah.")

                  Why don't you look at some of the projects Richard Mellon-Scaife funded for the GOP? He traffics in lies.

                  You have no proof that George Soros funded anything you claim, and even if he did, so what?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by steelers84 (June 25, 2009 9:55 am ET)
                  3  
                  If it's just an accident, then please put up a case where Fox News misidentified a Democrat in a scandal with an "R". If it's an accident, then the mistake would go both ways. But it NEVER goes the other way.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 9:57 am ET)
                  3  
                  You did not address how this could happen repeatedly. If it happened just once or twice, I would probably agree with you. Do you believe in coincidences that strongly?

                  It is reasonable to consider the pattern and history regarding this behavior when looking at this incident despite your attempts to marginalize people making that observation.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by puppienrainbows (June 24, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                9
              He stated it's a case of omission, not mis-labeled.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                7  
                He stated that "more often" it's a case of omission, but from what's been provided, is "only" cases of omission.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by heyknee (June 24, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
            9  
            Look, you can prove anything by "omission". I went to YouTube and pulled up the first three videos I could find of Larry Craig defending himself after he was arrested in the Bathroom (from CNN) and none of them mentioned his party affiliation. Most of the time it's not mentioned any any case.


            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwx8sV1LV1A
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8C3tR9Yl4g

            On the other hand, I went and checked out videos of Blago, and found several where he was identified as "D".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
              7  
              Bingo! These cons aren't well versed in logic, so they may not quite understand your perfectly elucidated point. Don't worry. Those of us in the reality-base community do.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                3 5
                [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hnqpvFwIwnw/SkKUOHVTr0I/AAAAAAAADAw/DEq7N5d9rCY/s320/1.jpg]

                Oops, they did it again.

                Darn conspiracy theory foiled again. First I find out extreme heat can weaken metal and now this.

                Sucks.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
                  8  
                  [http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-1.jpg]
                  [http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-2.jpg]
                  [http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-3.jpg]
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
                  8  
                  Look the first couple of times they did this on big stories like this. I agreed with the its probably must a mistake excuse. At this point its getting pretty hard to swallow. They show a pattern of this.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  That's must have been after McCain said, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" They no longer wanted to be affiliated with his senility-induced inanity.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 8:23 pm ET)
                  6 1
                  Can you show us where Fox, who are obviously incompetent by your measure, made the reverse mistake, showing a Democrat and labeling him/her a Repbulican?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 9:04 pm ET)
                    1 8
                    Fox News Chyron Mislabels Dem Strategist as Bush Staffer

                    OK? Now will you guys admit this all just silliness on your part? Immature, wacko, conspiracy theory nuttiness.

                    Or at least come up with a theory you can all agree on. I mean, sheesh, it's not like you haven't had time or enough instances to come with something half-way believable.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 9:09 pm ET)
                      6  
                      I don't think that link means what you think it means.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Whispers (June 25, 2009 1:21 am ET)
                        6  
                        I have to agree.

                        The complaint is that Fox is consciously trying to smear the Democratic brand by falsely labeling their least popular members as Democrats.

                        Smearing an Obama appointee as the former head of FEMA hardly exonerates them from this charge, does it?

                        To rebut this theory, you would need to show a picture of a Democrat in a scandal, such as Gov. Spitzer, being shown on Fox with an R- next to his name.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 1:56 am ET)
                          4  
                          To rebut this theory, you would need to show a picture of a Democrat in a scandal, such as Gov. Spitzer, being shown on Fox with an R- next to his name.
                          Exactly!
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by scarshapedstar (June 25, 2009 12:29 am ET)
                      4 1
                      Wow. Did you even read the content of the link? Or were you hoping we wouldn't? Or what?

                      Because it's the exact opposite of what you were implying. They put on a Democrat named Michael Brown and said that he let New Orleans drown. You just proved our point spectacularly.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
                    2 7
                    I didn't say Fox was incompetent. Maybe the chyron operator doesn't have spell check or occasionally gets distracted by all the extremely intelligent and beautiful women all around him.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
                      6 1
                      Spell check? What are you on?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by greatbear (June 24, 2009 9:32 pm ET)
                      4 1
                      How does one misspell the letter "R"?

                      I'll grant you, that it is easy to be distracted by all the ex-employees of the Bunny Ranch working at Fox.

                      But how come the chyron operator always just happens to "accidentally" substitute an "R" for a "D" and not any of the 24 other letters in the alphabet?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 10:44 pm ET)
                      5 1
                      Ok you have gone from being brainwashed to full blown dementia. Seek professional help.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 1:58 am ET)
                      5 1
                      Spell check? Since when does it check single letters, and how would it know your intent if it did.

                      Your attempts at being an effective propaganda apologist are lame.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 25, 2009 1:58 am ET)
                      3 1
                      Spell check? Since when does it check single letters, and how would it know your intent if it did.

                      Your attempts at being an effective propaganda apologist are lame.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:07 am ET)
                        3 1
                        Unbelievably lame. If you need a spellcheck to tell an R from a D then you arent incompetent you are retarded. You not only cant work as an editor you cant work at a taco stand
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by hoosier (June 25, 2009 6:51 am ET)
                          1 4
                          Spellcheck just meant as a catch all for something or someone else proofreading what goes up there. I see errors all the time on that annoying chyron. I don't need to be told what party Sanford belongs to and neither do you, but somehow you think this is proof of some grand conspiracy, a grand conspiracy you can never seem to come up with any kind of consistent charge or find anything other than anecdotal evidence of, and scream to high heavens when it happens for just a few minutes before it's corrected, and then completely ignore instances of similar things happening that would explain that mistakes like that do happen.

                          You dolts want anyone telling you how silly you are to prove that you aren't silly,a nd you want specific instances of the corollaries. Why can't you prove, after all these years of Fox News grievances, some evidence of malicious intent? Why doesn't someone like Alan Colmes announce to the world that the chyron operator is a paid agent of the Republican party?

                          Please, keep it up. It's quite entertaining.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 8:32 am ET)
                            3 1
                            You dolts want anyone telling you how silly you are to prove that you aren't silly,a nd you want specific instances of the corollaries.
                            Could someone please translate this into cogent?

                            I really pity you if this is indicative of what is swirling around in your head. You need some sort of strainer to filter out the sludge before you post.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by hisroyalmattness (June 25, 2009 11:14 am ET)
                            3  
                            See spell-check and proofreading are two different things. When someone wants their writing to be checked for grammatical errors and content they ask for it to be proofread. Now if they want a last second check to make sure everything is spelled correctly then they perform a spell-check. If you meant proofread, say proofread. Mean what you say and say what you mean.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 11:21 am ET)
                            3  
                            Why do you downplay anecdotal evidence? It can be used to establish a pattern - which I believe there is ample enough to do in this case.
                            Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 10:42 am ET)
                  3  
                  If McCain was not so hated by conservatives, it would probably be more convincing. It is a good debate. Is Fox "News" malicious or are they merely incompetent. So far we have one bit of evidence to suspect incompetence and at least 10 (not really keeping track that closely to tell you the truth) pieces that suggest malice.

                  Hanlon's Razor seems predisposed towards incompetence, but the extensive pattern is very compelling.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (June 24, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
        12  
        MSNBC's breaking news chiron didn't list which party Sanford was affiliated with because unlike Fox News they have no political axe to grind, and because who needs an axe when the GOP is doing a fine job of decapitating itself.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
        7  
        (crickets)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (June 24, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
        6 1
        Possibly because they don't generally identify these idiots as (R)s either. For a real news organisation, in a personal story like this, it doesn't matter.

        However, when you've built a career on 'family values', actions like these should end your career.

        And, yes Hillary should have thrown all of Bill's crap on the white house lawn, changed the locks, and gotten a divorce lawyer.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
          8  
          Except, when folks are in committed relationships, and they might actually love one another, they work things out, like Bill and Hillary did, in other words, keeping their family together. I hope that Sanford and his wife can do the same, on a personal level.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by cmiller442 (June 24, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
        7  
        Leftist? Is that being like overly left-handed or something similar?

        And who is this "they" you speak of?


        What's next, black helicopters?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by heyknee (June 24, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
        5  
        Um, in just the last few months we've had (justifiably) mocking, incessant coverage of the whole Blago affair of which the tenuous links to the Obama administration were played to the hilt. The John Edwards affair was a big deal, even after his candidacy was on the rocks. And then, of course, there was the hlariour Charlie Rangel Caribbean flap, with embarassing "asleep in the Sun" picture by the New York Post was almost the most popular picture on the blogs.

        All these were tagged as examples of "Democrat" corruption.


        You see what you want to see.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
        5  
        That is a lie. You really just come in here and flat out lie. It doesnt make the left look bad it makes you look foolish. We all know your post is a flat out lie.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
      8  
      ALERT
      Fox News (Liars) Air False Caption
      Report Abuse
    • Author by david emen (June 24, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
      5  
      Gov. Sanford announced his statewide "Mea Culpa" tour. He says he wants his kids kept from the spotlight. Apparently the most effective way to do this is to remain governor and not reenter private life. How did the advisers he got all misty about, advise him about resigning for the good of his family?

      Man... "Let me throw in one more apology..." He's throwing apologies into something like an Apology Soup.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
        7  
        Yeah, if he wants to get his kids outta the spotlight, step down. Leave the public spotlight. It's you that's putting them there. Remove yourself, problem solved.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
          9 1
          To be fair, I don't think he should resign. He had an affair. I know he's a hypocrite, it goes with being a Republican, but isn't it time to get away from the idea that a politician's personal sex life is really not the public's business? It wasn't the public's business when Clinton did it and it isn't when a Republican does it as well. Let's set the good example and not call for the guys head with such glee here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (June 24, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
              1
            I agree.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
              8  
              I agree.
              Don't agree with me. You are a hypocrite. I am not. I didn't think either Clinton or this fellow should be forced to resign. Can you say the same?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by hondamikesd (June 24, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
            4  
            Let's make a deal, we'll stop making politicians personal sex lives part of our business when they stop making citizens personal sex lives part of their business.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
          5  
          "Yeah, if he wants to get his kids outta the spotlight, step down. Leave the public spotlight. It's you that's putting them there. Remove yourself, problem solved." - magnolialover

          He's been studying under Sarah Palin -- remember, she wanted her kids out of the spotlight, too . . .
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 8:35 am ET)
            3  
            Except when she wanted them in the spotlight.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (June 24, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
        7  
        But he chose the least effective way: he discussed some pertinent details of the affiar on air. Children do watch teevee. Their friends and parents of their friends do too, and unless kids have changed in the 21st century, they will hear about it from other kids.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
      13 2

      Will O'Racist provide coverage of Sanford's affair for the next 2 years like he has for John Edwards?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hoosier (June 24, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
          10
        Two years? Examples please. Or proof.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
          7 2

          Your obsession with me is pretty spooky, princess.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
          7  
          Are you asking for proof of his question? Really? Seriously?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by harley (June 24, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
            6 2

            Yes, she is serious. Princess is the ultimate defender of O'Racist and Faux.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (June 24, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
      9  
      So a Democrat was head of the Republican Governors Association!?!?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ftvt (June 24, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
        5  
        Well, that might explain why they've been doing so badly lately.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
          3  
          Good for them if they've infiltrated the Republican machine and are working against it from the inside out. If so, they are real American heroes.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (June 24, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
      6  
      I see Fox News is switching to comedy, lol.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
        5  
        "I see Fox News is switching to comedy, lol."

        Since when did they switch?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (June 24, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
      8  
      Fox has done this so many times now that I've lost track of the count.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (June 24, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
        9  
        To me, Fox News' repeated false use of the "(D)" beside the name of Republicans caught in a scandal, is proof positive that they think their viewers, their audience, their consumers are not very bright. Honestly, if they think they can trick their own with such simplistic falsehoods, than those employed by Fox News must be some of the most cynical people in America.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SqueakyRat (June 24, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
          7  
          That's what they think, and they think right.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by HiFiGuy (June 24, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
          10  
          This guy is the head of the Republican Governor's association and this story has been brewing for the past few days... You think this is a Fox News "oopsie?" (D) for 'Default'?

          Fox News figures that in many cases, TVs will be on in the background (e.g. hovering over a bar) and no one can hear the yip yapping. So, you see (D), you think "those Dems are at it again" and the spoken "Republican" correction goes unnoticed. Nice job, Rupert.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Just2Stressed (June 24, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
      3  
      Not a shocker!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HL (June 24, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
      5  
      Geez, the FauxNews people are really desperate! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (June 24, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
      7  
      I love South Carolina. We are still trying to decide if we want to enter the 2oth century (yes, I know it is the 21st), we would reelect Strom Thurmond to the senate if they would let us (even though he is dead), and our govenor not only doesn't want any stimulus cash (lay off teachers instead) but; he takes a week off to visit his mistress in Argentina.

      Ah, only in America. Land of Opportunity.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by inkslave (June 24, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
        7  
        If SC keeps this up, they may one day qualify as a subsidiary of Texas.

        I have a favorite beach shack in NC that's so close to the SC border, we go there for the all-you-can-eat seafood buffets. You haven't lived until you've gone through one of those lines with one white child and one black child calling you Dad. It bothered us at first. Now it's part of the fun: How many old ladies can we make drop their trays?

        Best of luck getting your buds to crawl into the 1900s some year soon.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
        6  
        " . . . we would reelect Strom Thurmond to the senate if they would let us (even though he is dead . . ."

        No worries, bilbo -- being dead hasn't stopped the wingnuts from lionizing Ronnie Raygun; it shouldn't stop 'ol Strom, either . . .
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Pinhead (June 25, 2009 12:53 am ET)
        3  
        At least SC gave us Stephen Colbert.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by btrue10280 (June 24, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
      6  
      I didn't know the Appalachian Trail went all the way to Argentina
      Report Abuse
      • Author by breno3414301 (June 24, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
        6  
        The Appalachian Trail leads to Argentinian Tail.

        Wish I could say I came up with that line, but I swiped it from a post on a friend's Facebook page.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by RobertSeattle (June 24, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
        4  
        He's a fast hiker.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
          3 1
          Wonder if he was as "fast" when he finally got to his destination . . .
          Report Abuse
      • Author by johnnydrama (June 24, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
        5  
        If non politicians will be getting (D) or (R)'s next to their name, how will Fox do it?

        Tom Brady (D) throws interception to lose Super Bowl.

        Tiger Woods (R) wins Masters by 10 strokes.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Pinhead (June 25, 2009 12:55 am ET)
        2  
        I thought he was hiking naked. But I'm sure he was naked for some portion of that trip.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PFL1982 (June 24, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
      6  
      I wondered why someone who is no doubt a "family values" type wouldn't spend father's day with his family. Now we know the answer. More Republican hypocrisy... Mark, meet Mr. Vitter, Mr. Ensign and on and on it goes
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tangaroa (June 24, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
      6  
      Once in happenstance
      Twice is coincidence
      Three times is enemy action
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Whispers (June 24, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
        4  
        Exactly.

        It's time to send Oddjob to wreak havoc on FoxNews.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (June 24, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
      3  
      "D" me once shame on Fox News.

      "D" me twice shame on News Corp.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by christopher howard (June 24, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
      8  
      As soon as I heard at work today that Sanford was caught in an affair, I said: "I'll bet Fox puts a (D) next to his name." Damn these people are predictable liars.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ralph.dratman3108 (June 24, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
      4  
      If this were an advertisement for a product, it would be false advertisement.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
      4  
      These days, its at the point when you hear of a political figure who's been caught having an extramarital affair, you ALMOST already KNOW the political affiliation without being told beforehand . . .
      Report Abuse
    • Author by unknown1465 (June 24, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
        13
      You all are stupid. People make mistakes. Fox news makes mistakes. So what if they're biased. All news is biased. If you want the full truth, or the closest thing to it, seek independent news networks; not networks controlled by multi-billion dollar corporations.

      If anyone watching this cared about what the guy did, they would research him and find out that he's a Republican.

      You idiots try to make arguments out of nothing. Some of you even do stupid stuff like mark someone as dumb by saying that there isn't any such thing as a "democrat congressman." Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about? No. It proves that he made a typo or is grammatically unlearned. (But you've now grammatically shown him up, which is something you CAN do, so, of course, his statement is now obsolete because he has poor grammar, right?) I hate you all.

      Your reaction to this is proof that our country is retarded and that the future in sight is poor. Get a grip!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
        4  
        There, there . . . just take your meds, lie down, and let the nice attendants strap you in -- it'll be all right . . .

        Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (June 24, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
        5  
        Sean, I'm sorry to hear you hate us all. I'd like to make it up to you, but don't you have a television program to do pretty soon?

        Come on, now. Wipe your nose and skedaddle on back to your dressing room and let them finish your hair. We'll handle things here...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by breno3414301 (June 24, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
        6  
        And if anyone reading this thread cared enough to post their thoughts on it, they would research it and...oh, wait. I guess that isn't true.

        The whole "Democrat Congressman" business is not a typo, but has in fact been a source of Republican disrespect of the Democratic Party for years - one that GW Bush even conceded when he managed to lose control of congress for his party and had to start to try to play nice.

        Granted, it's a pretty juvenile form of disrespect, but, well, what else would one expect?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 11:13 pm ET)
          4  
          It sure is.

          Republicans don't get to decide for the Democratic Party what their name should be. The party is the Democratic Party, and they are Democratic Congressmen. Anyone who says Democrat when they should say Democratic doesn't do it accidentally. It's not a typo.

          Only a fool would think it's a typo, and not a putdown.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by unknown1465 (June 26, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
            1
          If I had time I would respond two every single one of these comments, but I don't. So I'll proceed to put a few of my thoughts in reply to this, since it was the first comment that presented anything remotely close to being an argument.

          "And if anyone reading this thread cared enough to post their thoughts on it, they would research it and...oh, wait. I guess that isn't true."

          Never did I talk about people posting on here. In fact, from what people are saying, they care less about what the republican did than the fact that Fox News labelled him as a democrat.

          Never did I say that the "D" was a typo. There's the off chance that it was a typo. But it's FOX NEWS. Even if it was a typo, someone saw it and said "Oh, that works well anyway."

          "Democrat congressman" is a sign of disrespect? Oh no! Can't handle a little disrespect? Maybe you shouldn't be spouting out your opinions then (if you're so "gosh darn" afraid of the disrespect). And to the guy below this, of course the republicans don't get to decide the name of the Democratic party. But someone obviously knew what he meant by the term "democrat," instead of "democratic," when they responded to him. There will always be disrespect. Get over it.

          To "solon" : I'm brainwashed? That makes me laugh. You watch major news networks and stuff your face with their bs; and then hate any opposing network. Well done. You've managed to be like every other american citizen, worrying less about what the candidates (congressmen, etc.) say rather than how they are portrayed by the media, their age, where they went to college, their drug habits, etc.

          If you want some independent news, the only one I can think of off the time of my head is The Real News (therealnews.com). They did an interview of Howard Zinn and I'm fairly certain they run on peoples' donations.

          Why shouldn't you trust popular media? Read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.

          Both parties were not the same in the last election and, though I didn't vote for either, I would still agree that Obama was the better choice. But, unfortunately, due to the overwhelming stupidity of both parties, a lot of good candidates never get a chance because the popular media and the candidates' opponents portray them as "extremists."

          Yes. FOX NEWS is biased. What do you want? Extremely biased? Biased to the point that they will "accidentally" switch a letter to make their opposing party look bad? Yes. All of that works. The semantics are just a way for you to make an argument out of nothing. Well done.

          That's that. Have fun getting angry and posting nonsensical replies.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by unknown1465 (June 26, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
              1
            Oh no! I typed "two" instead of "to." Luckily I've preempted a pointless debate spouting from it by replying to my post. Well done me!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 26, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
            1  
            If I had time I would respond two every single one of these comments, but I don't. So I'll proceed to put a few of my thoughts in reply to this, since it was the first comment that presented anything remotely close to being an argument.


            Seriously? Your opening line in your first post here is "You all are stupid." and you act surprised that you got a largely non-substantive response? What you are doing is called trolling. Trolling often gets that kind of response. None of this should surprise you and I really doubt that it does.

            If you start posting with a little more respect and a little less condescension and namecalling, I think you may be surprised if some civility breaks out. I am not encouraged by the chip that seems pretty well established on your shoulder.

            "Democrat congressman" is a sign of disrespect? Oh no! Can't handle a little disrespect? Maybe you shouldn't be spouting out your opinions then (if you're so "gosh darn" afraid of the disrespect). And to the guy below this, of course the republicans don't get to decide the name of the Democratic party. But someone obviously knew what he meant by the term "democrat," instead of "democratic," when they responded to him. There will always be disrespect. Get over it.


            No one said they could not handle a little disrespect or that they feared it. That is a strawman argument. Pointing out to someone that they are being disrespectful (however bluntly) is really doing them a service. Armed with that knowledge, the offender then has a choice to continue being needlessly provocative (if the action is indeed innocent) or continue insulting people if that was the intent. If it bothers one to be corrected, then he/she should simply stop making the mistake. Don't blame everyone else if they keep pointing it out. Like I said, he/she has a choice.

            To "solon" : I'm brainwashed? That makes me laugh. You watch major news networks and stuff your face with their bs; and then hate any opposing network. Well done. You've managed to be like every other american citizen, worrying less about what the candidates (congressmen, etc.) say rather than how they are portrayed by the media, their age, where they went to college, their drug habits, etc.


            Pure attempted mindreading fail. You obviously know nothing about Solon. Have you ever considered that we are talking about the incorrect party affiliation of Sandford because...ummmm..it's like the topic of the thread. Maybe? Duh?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
        4  
        The day I get half as stupid and brainwashed as YOU are. I will commit supuku immediatly from sheer shame and embarassment. The stupid is strong in you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (June 24, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
        3  
        I hate you all
        But would you extend that to our ass-face?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by breno3414301 (June 24, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
        6  
        Oh yeah, one more thing I wanted to ask you, Unknown1465, you wise old owl - please drop the names of some of those independent news networks which keep you so well-informed on us. I honestly am interested as to which ones you refer to.

        I suspect that you don't have any you can list, otherwise you probably would have named them in your post. Most likely you're one of those enlightened souls who doesn't vote because "both parties are exactly the same anyway."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Whispers (June 25, 2009 1:26 am ET)
        3  
        You lost me by your fourth word.

        I don't quite think you understand the purpose of this website. "So what if they're biased"? Well, "biased" is a generous interpretation for what appears to be deliberate misinformation. Why does it matter?

        Well, some of us still think that if the media had done a better job in 2000, we wouldn't have been saddled with that idiot Bush running things for eight years, and the concomittant regime of torture and wars of aggression. That kind of upsets us. Personally, I'll never recover my innocence about the motivations of my fellow Americans.

        And since we're in a propaganda war, you can count on us to fight.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 25, 2009 8:41 am ET)
        3  
        Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about? No. It proves that he made a typo or is grammatically unlearned. (But you've now grammatically shown him up, which is something you CAN do, so, of course, his statement is now obsolete because he has poor grammar, right?) I hate you all.


        I think you're just bitter because dirt placed higher than you in an IQ test.

        Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about? No. It proves that he is using a GOP talking point and is incapable of independent thought.

        Thanks for playing. You failed miserably, but thanks for playing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by unknown1465 (June 26, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
             
          You assume it means he is incapable of independent thought. Maybe he is. But how about you attack the points of what he said rather than his GOP slurs or his grammar (depending on which type of stupid he is).


          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 27, 2009 12:30 am ET)
               
            I think you have lost track of your original post. It is clear that E2RWN was responding to the singular point in your post regarding response to the use of the slur. There is nothing in E2RWN's post that would seem to preclude him addressing the supposed points of the poster you describe as well.

            You presume baselessly that E2RWN cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (June 25, 2009 9:43 am ET)
        2  
        Yes, Fox news makes mistakes. I will be the first to admit that other networks are imperfect, especially with chyron misspellings. The fact that Fox News has done this before and to a disgraced Republican (Mark Foley) would indicate that it's a conspiracy, but I don't totally see it that way. After all, it's been done to Arlen Specter (2007), John McCain and Lamar Alexander, as well.

        I chalk it up to a combination of laziness and bitterness. I don't think chyron operators are dumb, but perhaps this is an argument to finally put the "R" key away from the "D" key and on the right side of the keyboard!

        Interestingly enough, my "R" key on my keyboard broke in 2006, right before Election Day. Coincidence?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 10:57 am ET)
        3  
        Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about?


        Oddly enough, yes. Yes. That does seem to be the case. I think you've hit on something there.

        I think it is pretty funny when you oddly accuse people of here essentially being grammar Nazis, when calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party is a common attempt at a slur that has been around and quite well known for a few decades now. So not only is it a great indication that this guy using it does not know what he is talking about, but it is apparent that you are ignorant and/or disingenuous at best with regards to the subtext in his remarks, so I would hardly expect you to understand any of this or even pretend to.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by unknown1465 (June 26, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
             
          If you look at the neutrality of what he's saying and how he's saying it, it's obvious that it's more a typo, or a lack of knowledge. You're making mountains out of mole hills.

          Understand a slur? Yea, that's just impossible to understand that "democrat congressman" is a slur. For one, it's stupid. It's almost as if someone made it out to be a slur just to anger his buddies. There's no reason to be offended:

          Republican --> Republican Congressman
          Democrat --> Democrat Congressman

          See the connection. No, my friend. It is not a slur; it's just a misnomer, which is due to the lack of unity between the logic used in naming a congressman who is also a democrat and naming a congressman who is also a republican.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (June 24, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
      8  
      I want to make three points about Mark Sanford.

      First, another family values Republican gets caught, and Fox news identifies him as a Democrat. Fox News can be counted on to do this every time a Republican is caught. Now, when people say Fox is really just an answer to "liberal" CNN and MSNBC, I'm going to ask how many times those networks falsely identified a scandal-plagued Democrat as a Republican.

      Second, remember that during Bill Clinton's impeachment, Republicans, including Sanford, who was in the House at the time, claimed they weren't impeaching Clinton over "the sex" but over "the lying."

      So, third, as far as we know, his staff lied and said he was on the Appalachian Trail and that they'd been in touch with him. His wife lied and said he was away writing, later changing her story to say he was on the Appalachian Trail. I suspect that these people didn't lie on their own -- it should be clear that they said what HE told them to say. So, can I expect impeachment of Sanford over "the lying"? Can I expect the media to start a resignation clock or condemn him and demand that he be impeached? Somehow I doubt it.

      And here's another complaint: Headlines all say "Sanford admits affair." No, he didn't. It's an admission if, after he's done talking, people say "oh my God, I had no idea." If you're merely confirming what people already know because you've been found out, it's not an admission, it's just the first time you haven't lied about what you were doing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
        5  
        Excellent points, 1st Republic.

        To answer your question about whether the media will publicly condemn Sanford or demand his impeachment . . . if the past is any indication, Sean Hannity will seek to excuse Sanford's affair on the basis of his stress following combat [John McCain], while Limpballs will attempt to make it the fault of Obama in some manner. The rest will simply make it a one-day story and move on to the latest missing white girl . . .
        Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (June 24, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
        5  
        And while I think of it, I haven't forgotten that Sanford joined the Air Force Reserve in order to bolster his resume when he was running for governor, but then attempted mightily to escape performing his duty once the election was over.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (June 24, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
        6  
        Hannity will "forgive" Sanford (because it's his place to do so, you know,) tell us it's none of our business, and call the DEMOCRATS hypocrites for MAKING it a big deal. Because hypocricy works only one way in Hannity's America.

        Oh, and then he'll call anyone who DOESN'T forgive Sanford "hateful." Like he did to people who trashed Limbaugh when he was EXPOSED as an Oxycontin addict.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (June 24, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
          5  
          Remember, Jamele (L), that Hannity (I) pulled himself up from his own bootlicking straps and feels that he has a (R)ight to call other people hateful, as he's just an (A)ss.

          *L=liberal I=idiot
          Report Abuse
    • Author by lumberjack (June 24, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
        2
      You sure this hasn't been photoshopped? The identification is as an R on the only video on Youtube:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFaElFI_s0
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 11:27 am ET)
        3  
        MMFA notes above that Fox showed it correctly later in the broadcast. It would be nice if MMFA provided full video.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Brother No 1 (June 24, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
      2 1
      Yeah I already guessed he was a Republican because he actually admitted it:)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LLCisyouandme (June 24, 2009 11:15 pm ET)
      3  
      I've read many of the comments here, and I believe that everyone is missing the real "inspiration" behind Fox's mislabeling of disgraced Republicans as Democrats. It is not about Fox being truly incompetent. It is not about Fox being malicious spin-meisters in the name of "balance." It is not that Fox has so little regard for their audience that they believe they will be deceived by these lies. Fox has drunk so much of their own koolaid, that when any immoral disgraceful hypocritical sinful hateful or otherwise slimey behavior is unearthed, they truly believe that it must be the "Democrat Devil" at work. It's ultimately a matter of faith over reason.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by robbygtx (June 24, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
      3  
      Fox labeling Sanford a Democrat comes as a surprise to.............no one. They did the same thing with Mark Foley and will likely do it again the next time it happens.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by clearthinker (June 24, 2009 11:29 pm ET)
      2  
      It's not surprising,considering they greeted our new president with the ticker crawler wich read:

      "HAPPY NEW YEAR AND LET’S HOPE THE MAGIC NEGRO DOES A GOOD JOB. LOVE JEN AND JOHN C." Another FOX mistake eh?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TheThief672 (June 25, 2009 1:29 am ET)
      2  
      All I know is I won a twenty dollar bet tonight because i told someone that Faux News will always smear a Democrat and protect a Republican.....Thanks Faux News for being so predictable.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whyohwhy (June 25, 2009 2:26 am ET)
        3
      Wow, some of you people really blow me away with the things you are saying about Fox..Maybe there are some "incompetent boobs" at Fox. To be sure, they avoid doing this again. But nobody can ever convince me that they are literally trying to make their viewers believe that someone is a Democrat when they are in fact a Republican. I find that notion to be utterly ridiculous.

      Let's look at the conversation that would have to take place if all you haters out there are right:

      PRODUCER: "Man, another political sex scandal. And he's a Republican! Oh crap, we'd better do what we can to convince anyone who receives this information from our network that he's a Democrat... Get on it, will you?"

      DIRECTOR: "But sir, don't you think that someone will notice? I mean, so many people hate us! I'm sure if we switch his party it will be on the blogs in no time. Not only that, but other news shows would love to show off that we made a mistake and hint that we're involved in some kind of conspiracy!"

      PRODUCER: "You're wrong. All we have to do is get the idea out there, and the entire country will believe it. Nobody will notice. And if they DO notice, they'll surely give us the benefit of the doubt. We can fix the mistake and nobody will be the wiser! The beauty is that we will have fooled absolutely everyone, and there will be 330 million people who now think Sanford is a democrat. It's foolproof I tell you! We'll bring down those bastard Dems once and for all!! MMMMMWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

      DIRECTOR: "Yes sir.... <sigh>"




      Most of you on here are absolute, 100%, A-One nut-jobs.





      Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (June 25, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        3  
        Once is an occurance, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. Yes, Fox News purposely misidentifies scandal-ridden Republicans as Democrats.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 11:30 am ET)
        3  
        Why do you think it has happened more than 10 times in similar circumstances? How do you explain that?

        Do you think it equally absurd that a news organization could be that inept in such a seemingly specific way?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Silveramogart (June 25, 2009 5:20 am ET)
      3  
      Fair and Balanced indeed!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sinnersunited (June 25, 2009 7:29 am ET)
      1 2
      Tell ya what, show me an unbiased media outlet and i will show you a radical muslim terrorist that loves America. This would be a neat trick concidering niether one exist. The media over all is more dangerous with its biases than all the radical recuits put together. The way most of the media are merely spin doctors for the corrupt world we are living in, its no wonder that this nation is once again teatering on the verge of revolution. Our government is a far cry from what it is supposed to be and has been for years,and is only getting worse and the media outlets of today are helping to insure that it continues to get worse. Pesonaly if you are only forming your oppinions from the spin of media coverage you are being mislead,until you get involved in the going ons of our goverment to see the truth behind the claims your'e only helping to make things worse and are not helping to fix things.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 11:32 am ET)
        3  
        Bias is one thing. Fox is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This pattern is beyond simple bias and is actually misinformative to the mouth-breathing Fox audience.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtdavis11200 (June 25, 2009 8:39 am ET)
      3  
      Fox is treating this like a non story because Sanford was one of the Presidents harshest critics .

      The Gov. of a state skips town for eight days and cannot be located by wife or staff. No wonder he pushes states rights.

      The Gov. was forced to take the stimilus by State represenatives. Unemployment in South Carolina was at a record high.

      I wonder if Hannity will call for his resignation.

      After all Hannity wanted Senator Obama to resign from the senate becuse he attended Rev. Wrights church.

      Fox is a joke.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by OCdem (June 25, 2009 9:16 am ET)
      3  
      FOX did the same thing when Mark Fowley was exposed. They labeled that slimebag Republican as a Democrat. They are the "Unfair and Biased" network.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DaKine (June 25, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
        2
      Give me a break you whiners.

      You're telling me that the 5 other Obama news networks don't ever make mistakes??

      Look on the right and get a life. Fox apologized for the mistype.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by franner (June 26, 2009 6:53 am ET)
        1  
        Don't you get it.... it wasn't a mistype. FOX does it "all the time". FOX viewers (maybe not you, but most) only believe it's a mistype after they've already associated him with being a Democrat. That's the point. And FOX's mission is accomplished. As I stated earlier, FOXES are very clever - pun intended :) (There's a whole psychological component here that's very effective) Don't be so naive :)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Spmmgnt (June 26, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
      1  
      Thank God, at least we seem to have gotten past the nit-picking criticisms of grammar and are almost back on the topic. If someone could provide examples of Fox news misidentifying Democrats as being Republicans in negitive stories, that might be enlightening. Of course, examples of Fox misidentifying Republicans as being Democrats in positive stories would also tend to refute the criticisms of Fox. Can any of Fox's defenders provide us with some counter-examples to support the network claim of "fair and balanced"???
      Report Abuse
      • Author by JuanJablomee (June 27, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
        1  
        If someone could provide examples of Fox news misidentifying Democrats as being Republicans in negitive stories
        Link here to several story screenshots showing same thing happening:

        Report Abuse