UPDATED: Fox News' African-American elected official mix-up not its first
SUMMARY: On The Live Desk, Fox News showed footage of Rep. John Conyers while Brian Wilson reported on the expected indictment of Rep. William Jefferson. This is not the first time Fox News has shown footage of one African-American elected official while discussing another -- in the previous case, airing footage of Harold Ford Jr. while talking about Sen. Barack Obama.
On the June 4 edition of The Live Desk, Fox News showed footage of House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) while Fox News Washington bureau chief Brian Wilson reported on the expected indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). Later that day, Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, including charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This is not the first time Fox News has shown footage of one African-American elected official while discussing another -- in the previous case, airing footage of then-Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) while talking about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
As Joshua Micah Marshall documented on the weblog Talking Points Memo, footage of Conyers taken during Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's May 10 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee ran for 32 seconds while Wilson said:
WILSON: For example, the Duke Cunningham case, which we all may remember, that was seven or eight counts. So it appears that while we've been wondering why the FBI was not moving more quickly on this, why the Justice Department was not moving more quickly on this, they have been doing a great deal of investigation, it would appear. So, a variety of bribery charges and likely to include charges of honest services fraud, which is a catch-all phrase often used by federal officials in such cases. That's the latest information from Washington. Back to you.
The footage of Conyers was accompanied by a "Breaking News" banner that read: "Cong William Jefferson (D-LA) Facing Possible Bribery Indictment."
On the June 5 edition of The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum apologized for running "the wrong video to accompany" the Jefferson indictment story, but did not note the precise error -- that footage of Conyers had been shown in place of Jefferson. MacCallum said: "Yesterday at this time, news of the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson came down. We mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany this story, and we apologize for that error." Later that day, Conyers released this statement:
Fox News has a history of inappropriate on-air mistakes that are neither fair, nor balanced. This type of disrespect for people of color should no longer be tolerated. I am personally offended by the network's complete disregard for accuracy in reporting and lackluster on-air apology.
As the weblog Think Progress noted,
MacCallum again issued a correction on the June 6 edition of The Live Desk, this time acknowledging
that Fox News had mistakenly aired video of Conyers during its segment on Jefferson. MacCallum also apologized to Conyers for the
mistake.*
Indeed, as Conyers suggested, Fox News made a similar mistake during the November 6, 2006, edition of The Live Desk, as Media Matters documented at the time. Footage of Ford played on-screen while MacCallum said, "I was reading something about evolution and it talked about virility and, you know, health and fitness and survival of the fittest. It's sort of a natural instinct, in many ways, to look at someone like Barack Obama as you point out, and say, you know, he looks young, he looks healthy, he looks strong."
From the June 4 edition Fox News' The Live Desk:
WILSON: Later this afternoon, we are expecting that he will be indicted. He is currently being presented before a federal grand jury. We are told that there are likely to be 16 counts leveled against him, one of the more expansive public corruption cases that we have seen in recent years. For example, the Duke Cunningham case, which we all may remember, that was seven or eight counts. So it appears that while we've been wondering why the FBI was not moving more quickly on this, why the Justice Department was not moving more quickly on this, they have been doing a great deal of investigation, it would appear. So, a variety of bribery charges and likely to include charges of honest services fraud, which is a catch-all phrase often used by federal officials in such cases. That's the latest information from Washington. Back to you.
MacCALLUM: All right, Brian Wilson, thank you very much.
From the June 5 edition of The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: Yesterday at this time, news of the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson came down. We mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany this story, and we apologize for that error.
From the November 6, 2006, edition of The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: But you know what they say? That evolution -- I was reading something about this. It talked about evolution and it talked about virility and, you know, health and fitness and survival of the fittest. It's sort of a natural instinct, in many ways, to look at someone like Barack Obama, as you point out, and say, you know, he looks young, he looks healthy, he looks strong. Like he can -- he can be in there for the long haul.
Fox News sloppiness at it's worst. They ought to be out front and center with a mea culpa on this mistaken identification.
Fox? Apologize? God, that was the funniest joke yet, tommy!
FOX loves to send underlining messages. This is another example of the American Gestapo.
This only makes FOX look bad so what is the underlying message?
"This only makes FOX look bad so what is the underlying message?"
Embarassing faux = Smile on my face.
Underlying message is racism.
i dont think sloppiness is the right word it implies that it was mistake i dont believ it was i think it was typical cynisism (spell check) by fox
And other than Fox's sloppiness what is MMFA insinuating here?
I've seen Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS all put up wrong footage on occasion that didn't match the report.
FOX is the leader in misinformation, I believe that is what MMFA is telling us in this piece. Can this be disputed?
Yes, CNN has been on the air longer and has far more errors. Remember the big black x on Cheney's face?
How about this beauty:
NEW YORK (AP) - CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline "Where's Obama?"A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted.
The blunder came Monday evening on Wolf Blitzer's news show "The Situation Room." Both Soledad O'Brien and Blitzer offered separate apologies during CNN's morning show Tuesday.
CNN called it a "bad typographical error" by its graphics department.
"We want to apologize for that bad typo," Blitzer said. "We also want to apologize personally to Sen. Barack Obama. I'm going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology."
Leather--ever notice when you or anyone on the Right demolishes a Left-wing argument, they just ignore the post because they can't refute it?
Come on Leftie posters, what say you about Leather's examples?
Anyone? Anyone?
Great post Leather and one they all seem afraid to respond to.
I've always thought we were ignoring Leather, but I've never heard anything about ignoring you at our crazy liberal meetings:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701060004#2
I'm also not certain what his argument was, or what argument he was demolishing. The media is full of misinformation and falsehoods?! Egads, someone should make a website to correct misinformation! Perhaps a blog for conservative misinformation! Taz, thank you, your ideas have enriched mankind for generations.
"Great post Leather and one they all seem afraid to respond to." --taz
Looks to me that if you use that logic, there are many more posts here by liberals that are not responded to. Guess you have some posts to respond to if you are not afraid. Otherwise each unresponded post by a liberal indicates that liberal's argument is completely true and unassailable.
Of course, this is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium, which states that an argument isn't necessarily proven true simply because it hasn't been proven false and vice versa.
Tip for the day:
When you encounter someone who uses trite phrases like "logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium"...
You're dealing with someone brutally insecure who tries to make himself sound smarter than he could ever conceivably be. I'd wager over 100 lefties over the years have busted out the 'logical fallacy' idiocy since I began hitting threads and chat rooms, and not once has even one of these people presented a cogent argument.
You remind me of first year law students using Latin phrases to impress people at the coffee shop.
And yes, Open Mind, I see you over there in the corner, stomping your feet and waving your flares in my direction, but you just have nothing to say in my opinion. Sorry your roughly one dozen posts to me were a waste of your time, but I'm having enough fun embarrassing Huntington and Solon and the Rickster.
Although, I can't quite figure out why they won't tell me where it was reported that pages of the koran, and not the entire book, were flushed down a toilet...it's as though they can't find a source to back up the lie. Well that was Dan Rather's problem too wasn't it? And they bought that crap hook, line and sinker, while admitting the memos were fake, rofl.
Again, sorry this is the extent of my reply to you Open Mind, but with a name like that, and having read your posts, it's rather obvious that you're quite desperate to prove you have an open mind, while all the evidence at hand proves your mind is as closed as all the others on this silly site.
I forgot the best part about ClosedMind's post!
"argumentum ad ignorantium, which states that an argument isn't necessarily proven true simply because it hasn't been proven false and vice versa."
I wonder the oh-so-intellectually gifted mensas like you and the others ignore this supposedly crucial bit of logic when discussing the Dan Rather memos? The memos aren't real simply because no one proved them fake.
I guess argumentum ad ignorantium, a phrse you couldn't translate into English without Google to save your life, only applies when it suits your interests, eh? Conservatives simply make arguments based on facts...you use phrases to impress people even though they do nothing to further your case. Nice talking to you, ClosedMind, once anyway. It won't happen again.
Can you even make a post without using a fallacy? You just used the strawman and mindreading. I find it pretty cute that you believe you argue facts when most of your posts are consist of rabid speculation taken as an absolute fact. I guess some folks can't tell the difference between the two.
Have a nice day. It is a real pity you won't come out to play anymore. I have enjoyed our little conversation so far.
: )
Glad I wandered over here, I was just getting to really like you Roger#7
"The memos aren't real simply because no one proved them fake"
The memos haven't been proven true , nor have they been proven to be forgeries. I don't know of anyone reputable who is vouching for their legitimacy, but I hear conservative talkers refer to "the forged documents" regularly.
Who is ignoring logic? And please, feel free to embarrass me. Har!
awwww are you upset rodge becuase people are using words too big for the conservative posters?
Oh the irony:
You think your post is a "cogent argument"? Lol. No wonder you don't like it when logical fallacies are pointed out. Your statements are full of them. Above is a fine example of argumentum ad hominem uninterestingly combined with mindreading and on the psychological side possibly some projection thrown in for good measure.
If it weren't for logical fallacies, it appears you wouldn't have anything to "argue" at all.
I am not going to stop pointing out your logical and formal fallacies just because you apparently either don't like it or don't understand how they undermine your arguments.
Logical fallacy IDIOCY? So then you are saying that while arguing there is something wrong with pointing out the logical fallacy of an argument? Are you kidding?
It appears Roger7 regards other posters' use of logic and reasoning like Frankenstein regarded the villagers' use of torches.
Ease up on the guy. I want him to stick around a while.He's starting to use too many "lols" and insults, and that usually happens just before the slammed door in a huff and "I'm outta here, you idiots!"
Roger7, you're making some very good points... go on..
Huntington,
While you're admirably adept at sniping from a distance, chiming in on other's debates while you lack the guts to participate (Solon and I will never agree on much but I respect his passion and willingness to debate), you might want to consider arguing something, anything, instead of hiding in the corner. Here's your chance. (Yes yes, I know. I'm not brilliant enough to be worth your time; Solon keeps saying that too, but he keeps replying to me. You don't have the nerve he has I guess.)
You have yet to explain the following to me, which was the subject of my first post a few days ago: In Canada Chris Matthews said regarding terrorists "If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective."
Though it means nada to you that Matthews worked for the peanut farming prez and Tip O'Neill, it actually means quite a bit. He chose to work only for Democrats, and these days he spends about 85% of his time trying his best to help the left on Hardball. The fact that he will, to his credit, once in a while call Dennis Kucinich "desperate" (I thought that was pretty funny) or point out that a Democrat did or said something idiotic doesn't mean he's a Republican. It means he is capable of criticizing Democrats now and then. Try it sometime, mkay? I bitch about Bush all the time, does that make me a Democrat? To you people, yes, it does.
Anyhoo...
Do you know of any conservatives or Republicans or conservative Republicans who have ever claimed as Matthews did that bin Laden isn't evil, he just has a different perspective?
No, you can't name one. You really must think Matthews is the rare Republican who thinks terrorists aren't evil, and has worked only for Dems on the hill and at the WHouse during a Democratic prez's term. If you are that amusingly dimwitted, please let us know.
What on earth is it like for you guys, knowing that almost all the morons who claim 9/11 was an inside job are liberals? (I say "almost", but you'll have to find a GOP'er who makes this claim, as I know of none.)
It's not just Rosie and the Hollywood fools, it's Hillary and Howie Dean who have hinted that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. Why are these idiots so often lefties?
How very proud you must be.
pages of the koran flushed down a toliet.........your source?
tick tock...
He never claimed it was true. You were arguing that Newsweek should have known it was impossible to flush a Koran down the toilet. The burden is actually on you. It was your original contention. You haven't demonstrated your point reasonably and you have blatantly avoided addressing other people's points/questions adequately.
Again, you are implying that Solon was making an argument he didn't make. That is called a strawman tactic. Do the fallacies ever stop with you?
I guess you just inadvertantly proved Solon's point and mine.
Fox doesn't invent phony news stories. They've gotten things wrong as all the nets have, but they don't invent news to hurt one party.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN Newsweek and of course the no longer credible NYTimes have all created fake news stories (ABC's Food Lion debacle...the prez of NBC news was fired thanks to NBC's lie about GM's faulty gas tanks which blew up only because NBC attached fuses to the tanks, lol...CNN's 1998 Laos/nerve gas story from P. Arnett who was fired days later...Dan Rather's fake memos...Newsweek's koran-flushed-down-a-toilet story which was retracted after people died because of it...the list for the Times is endless).
Can it be disputed that Fox is the media champ for disinformation? LOL. It's the only network that hasn't made up phony news to hurt one political party and increase their ratings.
If anyone feels like providing examples of Fox getting something wrong, spare us that nonsense please, as all the nets blow it from time to time. This is about third rate leftist media hacks inventing news, not getting a story wrong.
"Food Lion debacle" Food lion sue ABC for trespassing, yet never disputed unsanitary work practices. The story was true, the way they got it was NOT fabricated.
"GM's faulty gas tanks" Another true story, many of these tanks had blown upon accidents. NBC did put flairs (not fuses) beside the test track, rather than running into another vehicle (which often cuases sparks) because it would be too unsafe for the test driver.
"CNN's 1998 Laos/nerve gas story" Arnett was repremanded, not fired although others were. I wonder how you would consider this to be any different than any other mistake that networks have made. I find it hard to believe this was fabricated news, and I'm no lover of CNN.
"Dan Rather's fake memos" We all know that the secretary who typed this report stood by it. This was a trick used by Rove in Texas when W was running for Gov.--Retype the document on moder equipment, then leak it to the press. The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake.
"Newsweek's koran-flushed-down-a-toilet" Many stories have circulated that guards had flushed Korans, and it may or may not be true, but it was reported to Newsweek. They never fabricated the story. They retracted it only because of the violence in the mideast.
Give me a couple of hours and I'll report Fox "News" fabrications. Right now I have to go answer phones for PBS.
You wrote: “Food lion sue ABC for trespassing, yet never disputed unsanitary work practices.” The “unsanitary” practices were filmed by “journalists” who lied to get their jobs at Food Lion. ABC paid their employees to lie in order to get the story. Funny how lefties never seem to have a problem with liars when they serve their purposes.“Although there were fuel tank design problems with GM cars before, Dateline's film showed a sample of a low speed accident with the fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck with remotely detonated explosives. The program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBCEvery article on the story says the exact same thing. You are 0 for 2, TheRick“"CNN's 1998 Laos/nerve gas story" Arnett was repremanded, not fired although others were.”Rick, try not to use words you can’t spell correctly. Anyway, I love the fact that you see no problem with Arnett inventing the news, you only quibble with his punishment. Yes he was fired, that’s how adults refer to such things when a guy’s contract is ripped up and he is asked to leave the network TWO YEARS before his contract expires.“CNN intends to take advantage of a "window" in Peter Arnett's contract, allowing it to fire its most famous war correspondent in July, published reports said today (Monday)”http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0036250/newsYou’re 0 for 3 Rick and I can’t believe I’m wasting time on someone as dishonest as you are.Reagarding Dan Rather’s fake memos:How many times have I read this from someone with no evidence to back up the claim: “The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake.” Well, at least you admit CBS INVENTED THE NEWS, which was my entire point. By the way, remember the guy who was killed in Brooklyn that one time in the 1974? Where were you that night Rick? According to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, since you have yet to prove you didn’t kill that guy, Rather would say you did it. Shame on you.You have no way of knowing if Newsweek knew their bogus koran/toilet "confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official"" [link to www.washingtonpost.com] wrong, but all you really need to know is that they don’t hand out mini-korans to our prisoners. A regular sized koran could not fit down any toilet on earth. The only people not bright enough to figure this out are you, the people at Newsweek, and lord knows how many other liberals. Newsweek, keep in mind, had the Monica Lewinsky story nailed down, and they ignored it in the name of helping their pal Bubba. That’s why Drudge broke the news to the world, not NewsweekYou suck at this Rick. Solon is even funnier, so I’m off to dissect his nonsense. Won’t take but a sec.
Helpful hint, Roger7. The crazy, no paragraph post is a dead tip-off that you're panicky.
I know it makes people less likely to respond due to unreadability, but it doesn't fool anybody.
Ah, Huntington, the man so closed-minded that if you disagree with him, he declares you "not ready for this site".
Is this better? How typical for you to whine about how the post is presented rather than try to refute what it says...the hallmark of a timid intellectual lightweight.
Refuting it was easy enough READING the mess was the hard part
Refuting it was easy enough READING the mess was the hard part
- solon
It was so easy to refute that you couldn't find the courage to even try?
lmao.
Roger7-- "ABC paid their employees to lie in order to get the [Food Lion] story. Funny how lefties never seem to have a problem with liars when they serve their purposes.“
Even if I conceded this point, it doesn't prove your assertion that ABC fabricated the story.
Roger7--"...Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck with remotely detonated explosives. The program did not disclose the fact that the accident was staged."
They did report that this truck "accident" was staged, and again, it wasn't rigged with exposive other than the 1/2 full tank of gasoline. There were, however, flares set up where the "accident" was to take place. Read my post again. I also have first hand knowledge of this as I owned one of these trucks, and gladly turned in GM's "We're sorry, and here's a $2500 rebate" letter. Although NBC's demonstration was flawed, their story was true.
Roger7--"CNN's 1998 Laos/nerve gas story" Arnett was repremanded, not fired although others were.”Rick, try not to use words you can’t spell correctly. Anyway, I love the fact that you see no problem with Arnett inventing the news, you only quibble with his punishment. Yes he was fired, that’s how adults refer to such things when a guy’s contract is ripped up and he is asked to leave the network TWO YEARS before his contract expires.“
After all this, you still haven't proved the story was intentionally fabricated, and you're wrong about Arnett, he was not renewed after his contract expired, but he was not fired. Try not to rely on stories you cant relay correctly. It makes it look like you are the one making things up.
Roger7--"...at least you admit CBS INVENTED THE NEWS, which was my entire point."
Show me where I said this. It would seem that you choose to ignore facts that don't fit your opinions, and now YOU are making things up!
Roger7--"Shame on you.You have no way of knowing if Newsweek knew their bogus koran/toilet "confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official"" [link to www.washingtonpost.com] wrong,..."
The facts as you and I know them is that it was reported (as you show above) and we don't know (as I wrote above) if this souce lied or told the truth. Explain how this is news fabrication. If you're implying that Newsweek made up the source, then I would ask you to prove it.
Roger7--"You suck at this Rick."
And although I have enjoyed you're delightful economic grasp with diction and intellect, I've wasted too much time arguing with you. When one argues with a fool--there are two. Shame on me.
You go by "Roger7." Please tell me there aren't 6 more of you.
Rick, you wrote: "The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake."
Then you displayed a special brand of galactic stupidity by demanding: "Show me where I said this" (this =that CBS invented their story).
So, you admit CBS used "fake" (your word, Ricky) evidence to mislead their audience, then demanded to know where you admitted that CBS used "fake" evidence to mislead their audience. heh.
JesusAllahBuddah, you are dim. I applaud your decision not to argue with me anymore; if I had humiliated myself as badly as you just did, I'd be tempted to run away like a scared little girl too. Some thing tells me you aren't able to let go though...
Roger7 --"Rick, you wrote: 'The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake.' "
Where in hell did I say that they used a fake memo TO MISLEAD THEIR AUDIENCE??? Please don't say I said things I didn't.
What your pea sized brain fails to accept is that Karl Rove had this document planted so that it would get to Dan Rather. That way the embarrassing true story is no longer the focus. The false document becomes the story.
Understand, if this were fabricated journalism, W would have sought charges against CBS--unless the story were true (which we know was, by the absence of Bush's denial) then he losses the Presidency. Am I going to fast for you? The only one who should suffer charges for any fabrication is Rove. Hell R7, even you are smart enough to understand this, arent you?
Rick,
From your 12:22 post:
"Roger7 --"Rick, you wrote: 'The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake.' "
Where in hell did I say that they used a fake memo TO MISLEAD THEIR AUDIENCE??? Please don't say I said things I didn't."
I'm stunned that I have to explain this to you, but this seems to be par for the par-3 course here at MMFA. We both agree that the memos are fake. All of the paid experts hired by CBS told them they couldn't authenticate the memos and told CBS not to use them in their story. Knowing that the memos were fake, CBS decided to use them anyway. All of this is incontestable, thanks to your own admission.
For what purpose would a network news organization use knowingly false evidence to put a story together? To inform the public and let them know the truth? They willingly used FAKE memos, as YOU admit, to clue us into the truth about GWBush? Are you really this dense? Yes you are.
There is only one reason to intentionally use evidence they knew was fake: to mislead the viewers. I assumed you were bright enough to understand this...until I read your post, which included the highlight of my MMFA experience thus far (I hit lefty threads like these once every few months for laughs, to have some laughs while confirming, again, how paranoid, closed-minded, intolerant, and generally dim the far left is.)Bless you for posting this. I've already emailed the link to people who, almost without exception sent back thank-you-for-the-laughs emails within a few hours. You wrote:
"What your pea sized brain fails to accept is that Karl Rove had this document planted so that it would get to Dan Rather. That way the embarrassing true story is no longer the focus."
Ah, at long last, the heart of the matter, the reason talking to libiots is a blast...it all comes down to Karl Rove! He planted the fake memos to embarrass CBS! I could suggest that you have no evidence to support your theory, but even in the face of hard evidence (like the fake freaking memos that you admit are FAKE, Ricky) you STILL can't reach the obvious conclusion, so why bother.
You are so ass-numbingly paranoid that no matter what the evidence is, it's all the GOP's fault. Will your pals here at MMFA come to your rescue and make fools of themselves by saying you're not a complete idiot? Inquiring minds want to know!
Fifteen minutes later, your outrage having not quite subsided, you wrote:
"Yeah, Roger7. How can I let go when you pull a Fox "News" trick and add something to my statement that I didn't say? Your a dishonest little pussy who can't debate facts so you run to something you think you can win--then fail again. It must be very tireing. On the other hand, I don't actually give a "#@%$&."
Where to begin? First, lose the E in TIRING, thank you. Then, reconsider your comment that you "actually don't give a "#@%$&". If I've read the situation correctly, you care so little about what I wrote that you not only responded, you responded twice. You responded once, waited what I'm sure for you were fifteen brutal minutes, then you replied AGAIN, saying the exact same thing to let me know how much you don't care about my posts with which I somehow tricked you into posting twice about something that doesn't bother you at all (Rove told me how to do this, he is the master after all).
Don't ever change, Rick. By the way, you and one of the other clowns have suggested that my screen name isn't all that original, and wondered how I came up with it. Well, Roger was taken, so I added the 7. I see no point in putting thought into something so amusingly extraneous. The fact that you people actually put effort into your names is...interesting.
The 750-word limit is annoying. here's part II:
"The story was TRUE, even though the document was fake." Rick, Saolon, Hunt...might I ask how YOU would respond to a Republican if he tried to make dumb remark like that? Well, fortunately for me, we already know don't we?
While the Brits still stand by their story that Saddam sought Uranium from Niger, Italian journalists gave us documents to prove the same, documents that turned out to be phony. How did the left react? You all screamed from the rooftops "THE ITALIAN'S DOCUMENTS ARE FAKE SO THE STORY CAN'T BE TRUE!!!" The fact that the WHouse made the mistake of backing off the claim because of these documents doesn't change the fact that the Brits still stand behind their facts. Saddam did seek to buy Uranium, but the sale was never completed. Keep in mind these documents came from the Italian MEDIA. Why the media, from all over the world apparently, are so obsessed with trying to use phony documents I'll never know.
From the Butler Commission Report of July, 2004:
"We conclude that...the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded. (Page 123, Paragraph 499)"
Now, however, in the case of the CBS house of lies, you admit the documents are fake, but you don't care. In one case, fake documents are proof the story is bogus. In another case, since you desperately need the story to be true, the phony documents don't harm the story's credibility at all!
This is why people don't trust the left on serious matters, and why the Democrats can't win anything in D.C. until the GOP royally screws something up. They're simply disingenuous and act like little kids.
One set of documents is fake, so the story CANNOT be true. The other set of documents is admittedly fake, but the story HAS to be true. And Rove was behind it! Classic!
"One set of documents is fake, so the story CANNOT be true. The other set of documents is admittedly fake, but the story HAS to be true." --roger7
Your comparison between the Niger Uranium forgery and the alleged Killian Forgery is apparently apples and oranges. You have not shown that there was equal qualitative information to support the arguments independent of whether the documents were/are forgeries or not.
In other words, there is evidence independent of the Killian documents to support the contentions in the 60 minutes story, while there isn't such independent corroborative support for the Niger uranium forgeries.
That is why the Killian story can be regarded as true even though some (, but not all) of its supporting evidence is questionable. The problem with the Niger documents is that it did not have the same degree of independent corroboration.
Yeah, Roger7. How can I let go when you pull a Fox "News" trick and add something to my statement that I didn't say? Your a dishonest little pussy who can't debate facts so you run to something you think you can win--then fail again. It must be very tireing. On the other hand, I don't actually give a "#@%$&.
But I do wonder--Are you Roger Ailes? Does the 7 represent how many chins you sport?
learn to read. I took you apart
you're so certain that PAGES of the koran were flushed, not the whole book.
still waiting for you source, Solon.
lol.
You are simply being dishonest. You claimed Newsweek should have known the Koran wasn't flushed. Solon pointed out that your assumptions were too narrow. He doesn't need proof. You need to make a better argument how Newsweek knew it didn't happen, but printed the story anyway just to hurt Republicans as you have claimed. The burden is on you and not Solon.
Apparantly Roger is the only one this isnt obvious to.
Next Time on The Professor Roger Show: Proof that nobody has ever eaten a 16" pizza, as Professor R. notices that human mouths aren't 16" wide.
And anybody that only explains it to him once is scared of his mad debating skills and superior intellect. Har!
Questioning how the reporters were hired does not address the merits of the actual reporting with regards to your Food Lion example.
I would assume the UNDERCOVER REPORTERS would have to lie in order to obtain a position at Food Lion. I imagine the reporters omitted their work as reporters in order to avoid drawing suspicion. Duh?
Your argument is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with what was actually reported.
Actually I think only rightwingers are so stupid they think that the only way to flush a book down the toilet is whole. When its easy enough to tear out pages and flush them. So they lied to get jobs undercover to do investigative journalism which you do not DISPUTE was accurate even though your point was supposed to be they made the news up. No I dont have a problem with that anymore than I have a problem with Cops lying when THEY go undercover to bust criminals. The CBS memos have never been proven to be forgeries though they cannot be authenticated but they got them from a source, sent copies to the White House which did NOT dispute them and then ran with them AFTER authenticating their content with the woman who did write his memos. No possible way to claim that is CBS MAKING up news, thats ludicrous. They deserve some criticism for running copies they couldnt authenticate but its NOT making up news. We KNOW Bush WAS AWOl he admitted he made up the time in the Spring of 73 now that is long after Guard rules allow you to make up your time legally so he had to be making up time HE WAS AWOL.
Find the news report that even hints that page after page after page was flushed down a toilet.
one...credible...source, you hapless liar.
good luck : )
"Roger7" 7 ???
"Roger7" 7 ??? Are you the best they could come up with on their 7th try?
It took you two attempts to post that question.
Need I say more?
That is a joke right? I mean you arent that dumb are you? So because the MANNER in which a Koran COULD have been flushed down the toilet wasnt specified in a story taken FROM a source not witnessed by the reporter that is somehow evidence that it DIDNT happen that way so by extension at all? Please, go back to second grade and take a logic course. YOUR argument was that the story had to be made up because it was physically impossible to flush a Koran down the toilet. NO it isnt. Your argument was based on a false premise. A logical fallacy. E pluribus unum
You lied Solon, which is why you won't give me your source.
Keep digging the hole...
rofl
.
I kind of feel bad for you. You went and posted this silliness three times now. Your argument is a strawman. Look it up. Solon is not claiming it is true. You were merely speculating as to the possibility with a faulty premise.
Solon has tried to point this out to you many times, but it appears you don't get it.
Wow. You are so stupid its sad. That may fly for you on the shortbus but in the real world you are embarassing yourself
Solon,
You're the most amusing sort of intellectual coward of them all: the kind of guy who's blatantly dishonest, but is just too stupid to know it sometimes. Consider your remark:
"The CBS memos have never been proven to be forgeries though they cannot be authenticated"
Your parents must've had the cognitive function of prepubescent squirrels in order to create someone as dense as you, Solon. Was daddy a union guy by any chance? lol.
Anyway, so you say the memos were never proved fake. Think about that Solon, for just one minute. I'll wait here for you. Did a little bell go off? Did you come close to getting it? I doubt it. Here's an example of the so-called logic...no, of the complete lack of logic you're employing here:
I've never proven that I wasn't brought here three million years ago from Pluto by my alien parents to, admittedly very slowly, take over planet earth.
Since I have not proved this story to be false, it must ergo be credible. At least that's what the truly stupid people here on earth, like you and Dan Rather, must think.
It's not anyone's job to prove the memos were fake. It was Rather/Mapes' job to prove they were REAL. They couldn't come close.
Again I ask, how stupid were your parents to have created you, Solon?
No where near as stupid as you that is clear. On a bad day I have an IQ that puts your little pea brain in the toilet. Of course that isnt saying much ANY actual triple digit IQ would. You WOULD have a point IF I were arguing the authenticity of the memos. WHICH I AM NOT. YOU made the claim they were fakes. I am saying your burden of proof for this accusation has not been met. HELLO? Anybody home? Please make a small attempt at higher brain function if you are going to tell me how stupid I am. If brains were water you couldn't dampen a Q-tip. Now I said they deserved criticism for running with copies they couldnt authenticate. I still believe that. However if YOU are going to make the claim they are FAKE, then its YOUR burden of proof to BACK THAT UP. Feel free to try again should you ever aquire the requisite ability to think beyond the petty simplistic stupidity you have thus far produced.
"However if YOU are going to make the claim they are FAKE, then its YOUR burden of proof to BACK THAT UP."
No it isn't. It's up to Dan Rather to prove they are real. The fact that you went off with your hysterical, "panicky", as Huntington would say, diatribe on my intellect says so much about you. Kind of insecure are ya? lol.
Prove you didn't kill the teenager whose body was found yesterday, Solon.
Pretend I made the claim that you killed her (just an example, relax).
According to how things work on your planet, the burden is now on YOU to prove my accusation false.
Good luck kiddo.
Yes it WAS when it was the basis for HIS claim. He failed and got deservedly roasted for it. NOW we are on to a new claim one made by YOU. See he was wrong to air a story he couldnt back up. YOU are now claiming that the story was MADE UP and the memos are FALSE, no one else has been able to substantiate that. So now the burden of proof is YOURS to prove YOUR assertion that they are fake and CBS made the story up. Good luck with that. This really is fairly simple even someone of your limited intellectual abilities should be able to understand it. YOU are claiming CBS is making it up and using fake documents that is a NEW claim, YOURS, so back it up
"So now the burden of proof is YOURS to prove YOUR assertion that they are fake"
You are the dumbest man with whom I'll ever come in to contact...by far. You still haven't proven you did NOT kill that teenage girl. Why not? It's the exact same thing. Seriously, were your parents in a union? Were they, umm, challenged in some special way? This really is fascinating at this point.
What a coward you are. You know very well that the memos are fake, and that it was up to CBS to prove they're real. You just can't stand admitting that I'm right, you're wrong, and that CBS intentionally used a bogus set of memos to try and bring down a GOP prez.
You're pissed off that your precious media monopoly, solidly in place for a generation, has been slightly dented by the internet and Fox. In your closed-minded reality, conservatives have no business discussing, presenting, or analyzing news, ever.
Along comes Fox (there are more liberals at FNC than conservatives at all the other nets combined...Mara Liasson, Ellis Hennican, Mondale's VP Gerry Ferraro, Nina Easton, Cici Connolly, Estrich, Colmes, Rivera, Greta, Kondracke, Juan Williams, Neal Gabler, Gen. Wesley Clark to name but a few), and now Fox can't lose the ratings battle no matter how lame their programming gets.
People just aren't interested in watching angry half-wits argue in favor of higher taxes, worshipping the Useless Nations, scaring people over Co2, even though Co2 blocks eight-tenths of one percent of all the solar radiation trapped in our atmosphere (water vapor traps 80% of the Co2, and you insanely stupid fools worry about 8/10 of 1%, rofl) refusing to fix SocSec, refusing to force teachers to prove they can teach, partial birth abortion, appeasing/worshipping/occasionally apologizing to every dictator and thug on earth, especially Castro(Maxine "Don't like a jury's verdict? Burn your neighborhood down and kill whomever you please!" Waters apologized to Castro because the U.S. refused to send a convicted cop-killer back to Cuba).
And so Airhead America will have to try again, and I hope it succeeds this time so people can hear more than right wingers on syndicated, nationwide talk radio. It gets tiring knowing liberals can't make it in syndication for the most part, so who knows...maybe this time people will listen.
But I sincerely doubt it. Fox beats the crap out of PMSNBC and the Clinton New Network for a very simple reason. People like liberals AND conservatives on the air at the same time. Well, normal people do--not you freaks of nature.
It does not appear that you have even read Solon's post at this point. You just keep repeating the same old strawmen and otherwise discredited line of "reasoning".
"We KNOW Bush WAS AWOl"
I'd ask you to prove it, but since you have yet to back up anything you say with a source, I won't ask. Enjoy reading the following, especially the part at which Guard pilot Bob Mintz, who appeared in the tv ad saying "I don't remember seeing you (Bush) there (in 'Bama)" is forced to admit that "he is not certain whether he himself was present on the dates when pay records show Bush being paid for drill attendence". LOL, you really need to stop listening to MMoore:
Mintz: I can't say that he didn't do his duties, but I can say for sure that I was there and I never met George Bush.
So this jackass appears in an advertisement called AWOL, designed to make people think Bush was AWOL, then he admits that he "can't say he didn't do his duties", and also admits he WASN'T THERE on the days he claims Bush wasn't there? ROFL.
Jesus you people are gullible. By the way, you have to be on active duty, and missing for 30 days to be AWOL. As the articles make very clear, he wasn't on active duty. The very definition of AWOL disproves the lies from MMoore that you morons bought without even thinking about it, much less doing some research.
http://www.factcheck.org/democratic_groups_ad_revives_awol_allegation_against.html
[link to www.factcheck.org] know, the sources are invalid because you don't like what they say. Provide your own, sheeple. I thought I'd find a challenge on this site, but it's just like AmericaBlog and Democratic underground...nothing but fools, liars and angry, insecure people.
Well you are keeping your tradition of moronic posts alive and well. You are truly an idiot here is the definition of AWOL from the dictionary
AWOL - one who is away or absent without leave
I already gave the rationale. Bush admits he MADE up the time in May and June of 73 there would be nothing to make up if he had not been AWOL at the time. Not in its legal definition even if you are right about that I am not suggesting he be arrested but by its dictionary definition.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/
Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill
This from the conservative National Review making tons of excuses for Bush but they DO mention this
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days.
Again he was making up time, which is frankly admitted now if he WASNT AWOL exactly what time was he making up?
Look you have already established you are a moron. You no longer have to work so hard to prove that but you dont have to be stubborn and outright stupid. This is all well known.
"here is the definition of AWOL from the dictionary"
Psst, Solon,
It's interesting that you're too much of a coward to admit this, but the dictionary's definition of AWOL is irrelevant. What matters is how the military, not some guy named Webster or Oxford, defines it.
Bush wasn't on active duty, so he couldn't be AWOL. He was given written permission for a leave of absence to work on a political campaign. When he returned he made up the time he missed, which was not only allowed, but authorized with various signatures.
But again...the dictionary definition? ROFL Are your kids this stupid?
wtf is wrong with you?
As reported in February 2004 in the New York Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0710FA345E0C778DDDAB0894DC404482
(This was the same Colonel Killian whose supposedly wrote the derogatory comments about Bush, featured in the forged documents that were broadcast by CBS News in September 2004.)
Good luck explaining that, and why it was in the NYTimes.
Moron.
Then why won't he release the records concerning this you lying pussy?
Ricky, the records were released, that's how we know what Col. Killian wrote about him, duh.
When you clowns are ready to explain why Col. Killian trashed Bush left and right in the (phony) memos, while also saying, in documents verified by the NYTimes:
"'Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries,' Colonel Killian wrote in recommending that Mr. Bush be promoted to first lieutenant. 'He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.'"
...just let me know. How can he be trashed by Killian while also being called a man with "an impeccable military bearing" by the very same man? Have you imbecilic lightweights reached the conclusion that the rest of the three-digit IQ crowd reached long ago?
lmao.
And Ricky, try not to take this personally and get your panties all bunched up. It's not my fault you people present your "evidence" in as solid a fashion as Michael Moore.
Yet you provide no links or evidence.
Roger7-- "I voted for George W. Bush in both elections. I never realized how wrong I was until facts of the war started coming out. In the future, I'll never make the mistake of voting Republican again."
Then why do you keep arguing with me?
"but all you realy need to know is that they don't hand out mini-korans to our prisoner."
This is the most hysterically ludicrous statement I've ever heard.
heh heh. Yeah,Jimmy, I think I like Roger. He seems to be in that early "why isn't my concrete thinking and twisted logic winning everybody over" stage.
Plus he called me "old-timer" because I'm not unemployed and went to sleep last night.He may be my new favorite!
HB, I was thinking similar thoughts. It's kind of entertaining to bat him around like a cat playing with a mouse. Except mice are smarter.
Ricky, Huntington,
For guys who are so sure they're right...
I'm still waiting for just one credible source from any of you saying pages of the koran were torn out and then flushed.
tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...
Newsweek retracted the story. Their source backtracked. There is nothing indicating the story is true at this point.
Now you need to realize that the same is true in the case of the Clinton pact cited earlier. If you have any fairness in you, you would admit it is a non-story, but in contrast to Newsweeks retracted story, it is still being repeated by the media as a fact.
Roger7, if you're still around, I don't know that anyone claimed to have proof that a Koran was torn up. That was only used to explain to you how one could have been flushed.
Your argument that it was impossible because of the size of the book was silly. Somebody tried to help you understand, and this is how you show your gratitude.
As long as you've got that imaginary clock ticking, why don't you find a ship-in-a-bottle and see how long it takes you to figure that one out.
Or you could just say it's impossible to get a ship in a bottle,if that's easier on you.
As always, it's like talking to a four-year-old with you Huntington.
Yes, it could have been torn apart and the pages flushed several at a time, but my very simple point, which still, amusingly, escapes you guys, is this: the internet is a pretty big place, and I can't find even one person involved with the story (or one person NOT involved)who claims it happened that way, or even that it might have happened that way. None of you can find a source for that either. Simply claiming it could have happened that way might seem like argumentative cover for you, but that's only because you're as dishonest, childish and disingenuous as a person can get.
I'd be embarrassed to say "well even though no one on earth but me and my MMFA thread-mates think it could have happened, that's all I need to know." Like your fellow insaniac Rick, it's possible that Karl Rove sent that story to Isikoff. Why not use that theory instead of making a fool out of yourself with the "pages could've been ripped out" nonsense? They're equally laughable, except to Rick, who is at this very moment googling everything he can in order to "prove" Rove was behind yet another liberal media embarrassment.
Do you get the point yet Hunt? As long as ANYTHING is theoretically possible, you will, apparently, always use it to deflect attention from what really happened. As long as you say it's POSSIBLE, we must therefore take it seriously. omg.
In other words, since I always have to slow down for you and talk as though I'm telling you to See Spot Run, the ONLY people dumb enough to claim that pages might have been torn out and flushed are you and the other fruitloops on this site.
If someone from Newsweek had mentioned this theory, it might carry some weight. If someone barely, tangentially involved with a third cousin to Isikoff's neighbor's plumber's girlfriend, it might mean something. As it is, it's must yet another example of your intellectual cowardice Huntington, which I assume you inherited from your parents.
Those without social lives may reply at will, I'm out until at least 1am, at which point I'll have yet another round of laughs, on you. I thank you in advance.
(p.s. it's possible that I bribed the USSC to rule as it did on Bush v. Gore, so you now may tell all your paranoid friends that Roger7 cost Gore the presidency. As long as it's possible in theory, we must take it seriously, right?)
That is because you have created a strawman to argue with. Newsweek retracted the story. No one is claiming it actually happened at this point.
Your contention was that Newsweek shouldn't have run the story because it was impossible to flush a Koran down the toilet. That is the only thing posters here are trying to explain to you. Your premise for reasoning that Newsweek should have known is false. It is nice to see even you have now conceded that fact:
That is all we were after and thank you for finally conceding defeat on that point.
then refute it with a source, Jimmy.
none of your pals seem able to do so after quite some time.
You know nothing at ALL about either rhetoric and debate OR logic. We dont have to prove the conclusion to show the premise is daft.
Fox news went to court to PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO LIE on their news show and won
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
They say the whistleblower law doesnt protect Fox News employees because the FCC policy against the intentional falsification of news didnt qualify as a law rule or regulation under section 448.102
Thanks Solon. I'll look for others. I'm certain there's many!
Look no further than MMFA !
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705290005
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705210003
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705110007
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705100008
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705100003
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200705080011
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200704240003
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200704110002
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703290006
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703200011
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703160015
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703160011
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703140001
http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200703130009
And that's just going back to March. Need more evidence that they make thing up?
Rick,
I clicked on your first link, only to discover that your evidence that the story isn't true is based on some guy's OPINION.
I won't bother with the other links since your first was pretty damn funny.
So where on this site do the intelligent people post?
I clicked on your first link, only to discover that your evidence that the story isn't true is based on some guy's OPINION. (Roger7 )
Uhhh, yeah Roger. The opinion of the cited source of the story.You dig? Fox reports a "story, and the credited source says it's "preposterous".
I won't bother with the other links since your first was pretty damn funny.(Roger7)
I won't either, because I'm going to bed, and I think you're just kidding yourself.
So where on this site do the intelligent people post? - Roger7
Under "comments". Look for posts that include line breaks and a tendency to understand that Fox is a propaganda network.
Huntington,
I didn't think you'd respond to anything I said about the major news nets. What's it like being scared to debate someone?
Goodnight old timer, I'm sure this is rough on you.
I find it interesting that you accuse HBL of being "scared to debate someone" when you didn't even try to adequately address therick's examples at all.
Of course, I think debating with someone who appears to believe that Clinton assasinated associates of his is completely futile. That is probably the most idiotic thing I have read in a while. I look forward to reading more examples of your "wit".
Bored today, I gave this clown's links another chance, only to find myself laughing harder than I did the after I clicked on his first link.
I found this priceless example of FOX MAKING UP THE NEWS: "co-host Sean Hannity stated that "many" call Trinity "separatist,""
So a subjective opinion about a church is an example of a network making up a news story? ROFL.
Do you and Hunt now understand why I cannot take your or your links seriously?
First, you made the pathetic assertion (Huntington bought it too, lol) that, from your first link, Branch's quote about the Clinton's and the fact that he NOW claims he didn't say it, is an example of Fox making up the news. Again, Brett whatshisname at Fox only reported what Crittenden and the other author wrote. Strike one.
Now, with a link roughly 4 or 5 from the bottom of your poorly-thought-out "research", you claim that describing a church as "separatist" is a NEWS STORY. Strike two.
I must try another link some day, you're not very bright but you do amuse me...Huntington tries so very hard to make people think he's intelligent, then he buys your argument that the word "separatist" constitutes a news story, lol.
I've asked for examples of fake news presented as legit on Fox for years, and EVERY...SINGLE...TIME...you yahoos can only come up with a lawsuit involving a Fox AFFILIATE, rofl. After all this time referring to Fox as FAUX NEWS, you can't come up with ONE story aside from the affiliate lawsuit nonsense? All those episodes of Brit Hume's show and you people are STILL relying on the WTVT idiocy, even though the appellant is New World, not News Corp? Wow, it's just stunning how bad you guys are at this.
Ciao morons.
Your incoherence and silly personal attacks aside, you have yet to address Cameron's making up the story about Kerry and the manicure that I posted. How do you explain that one?
I find it interesting that you appear to believe you can call someone a moron or some name and that somehow automatically invalidates their argument. That didn't fly on the kindergarten playground. Why would you think it would work here?
BTW, those weren't my links, but I find it telling that you appear to cherry pick one or two examples and use those to supposedly "invalidate" the rest. As far as I am concerned, you haven't done anything to make your point until you have addresed my links and all of therick's. You were the one that called for examples of Fox"news" inventing news to hurt a party, you really need to address all of them if you want anyone to consider your point to the contrary.
I am embarrassed for you that I even had to tell you that.
"Huntington tries so very hard to make people think he's intelligent, then he buys your argument that the word "separatist" constitutes a news story, lol." (Roger7)
Not that I expect anything relevant from you, but if you're back here and have the time, could you cite anything to back you up here?
That wold be, specifically, me saying that the word "separatist" constitutes a news story.
Not holding my breath, HBL
Huntington,
From the MMFA report, which you didn't read very carefully:
"The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Contacted last night, Branch said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.""
From your post: "The opinion of the cited source of the story.You dig? Fox reports a "story, and the credited source says it's "preposterous"."
In other words Huntington, Ann Crittenden and John Henry claim Branch made the remark, and now Branch denies this. What a shock! A close friend of the Clintons retracting something he wishes he hadn't said! Well, at least Branch didn't end up dead like a few Clinton pals over the years.
You believe Branch, so do the people here at MMFA. I do not. But how, since it's only a matter of whom to believe, is this an example of Fox MAKING UP NEWS? If Crittenden and Henry made up Branch's quote (something you and I will NEVER be able to verify), that only means that the Fox reporter was given bad information. That's not the same as, to use one of my earlier examples, NBC attaching explosives to GM trucks to fool people into thinking their gas tanks will explode one day (your pal Rick lied about that too, lol).
That's not an example of a network making up the news. It may be that the authors are lying. That in no way makes Fox responsible for the quote, and it's sad to me that you're not smart enough to fathom this.
"You believe Branch, so do the people here at MMFA. I do not. But how, since it's only a matter of whom to believe, is this an example of Fox MAKING UP NEWS?" --roger7
You are aware that Newsweek retracted their Koran story after their source backed out on them. So according to your logic, the reporters the source talked to should never have retracted the story because they heard the source's claim and believed it once.
When a source of a story denies they made a claim, the story nolonger has a basis in that claim. Good news organizations retract stories that have no basis. It is simply disingenuous to describe the situation as a difference of opinion. This information is being presented by some reporters and news organizations as a fact, not an opinion or editorial.
I thought this was a pretty simple point to grasp, but apparently it's difficult for some.
Only a very dim or dishonest person, regardless of the source in question would believe that a regular size koran could be flushed down a toilet unless of course we use at Gitmo toilets down which one can flush 5"x7"x2" objects. No one even makes a toilet that can handle that.
Newsweek knew this, and intentionally ran with a phony story to hurt the GOP and the U.S. military. Who's to say Isikoff even had a source? Do you get the fact that there's a reason so many sources in journalism are unnamed? Many simply do not exist.
You sir, seem to think the issue isn't that the act of flushing a koran down a toilet violates several laws of physics, but that if the source says it happened, it's ok to print it. How biased does one have to be to NOT stop and think "hmm, how on earth DOES one flush a damn full-sized book down a Gitmo toilet?"
Amusingly, this never crossed your mind...or Isikoff's.
You arent very bright are you Roger. I didnt think I would have to explain this to anyone older than say TWO but Korans are books. Those are things with paper PAGES. Those can each be taken out wadded up even used to wipe ones derrier then they flush quite easily. Are you a complete moron or once you HEAR one of these ludicrous talking points does your substandard brain switch immediatly to regurgitate without spending one second asking yourself if it actually makes sense?
Solon,
if you missed the other post, let me know when you find ONE credible source that even hints that page ater page after page was torm out of the koran, and then flushed down the toilet.
I suspect you'll move on to another topic soon, since there are no such stories. Bloggers with theories, and "unnamed sources from Mother Jones magazine", or anywhere else, do not count.
rofl.
Only one page or even part of a page being flushed down the toilet would be necessary to make the claim true. The book is sacred to Muslims as a whole and is to be handled with utmost respect and care. Flushing even a tiny bit of it down the toilet would be extremely offensive to Muslims.
Your argument is a strawman as I have never seen where the specific size or whether it was a whole Koran was even specifically alleged to have been flushed.
I dont KNOW if a Koran was flushed or not. I am making no claims it was I never did. Practice reading comprehension, perhaps a class at the third grade level would be appropriate. YOUR argument was that it was physically impossible therefore they had to KNOW it was false. AH no it isnt and no they didnt. Was that simple enough for your clearly substandard brain?
"Only a very dim or dishonest person, regardless of the source in question would believe that a regular size koran could be flushed down a toilet unless of course we use at Gitmo toilets down which one can flush 5"x7"x2" objects. No one even makes a toilet that can handle that." --roger7
Who said it was a "regular size" Koran? Your argument is a strawman...and you call me dishonest? LOL. Who said it was a whole Koran either? It is considered desacration if even one page is flushed I suppose.
"Newsweek knew this, and intentionally ran with a phony story to hurt the GOP and the U.S. military. Who's to say Isikoff even had a source?" --roger7
You are engaging in a couple fallacious tactics: mindreading and speculation taken as fact and using a faulty premise.
When Newsweek said the Koran was flushed down the toilet, it may have been a whole Koran or it could have been a single sacred page. You are trying to pigeonhole the claim by making it more specific than it was. You then use your amazing mindreading abilities to then tell us what Newsweek's intent was.
Very dishonest of you.
I understand why you ask. You certainly dont seem bright enough to actually recognize intelligent posts when you read them
Solon,
Since you can't quite grasp this, a local news affiliate is not the same thing as the national network.
No one blamed the Spokane WA, CBS affiliate for Dan Rather's bogus memos, nor would anyone (but you, lol) blame NBC's national network for poor reporting from an affiliate in Jersey. Likewise, Fox News isn't responsible for what local affiliates do.
The sad part is, you're not the first person to try that, but I haven't seen this routine in a few years
Please grow up and stop wasting people's time with sophomoric drivel. My God that is childish.
Roger since you are even stupider than I thought, a feat in itself let me spell it out for you. I didnt say the Fox network was responsible for the story even though to some extent it is. However if you think FOX news CORP was in no way involved in a LAWSUIT involving LYING on the air or were unaware of a lawsuit that went to the COURT OF APPEALS about their RIGHT to lie on the air. Then you are indeed a complete and utter moron.
Solon, you admitted "I didnt say the Fox network was responsible for the story".
Since my only point was that Fox can't be held accountable for what the affiliates do, why are you still arguing? You've already agreed with me, you're just too dense to know it, or perhaps admit it.
Stop typing, your credibility is gone.
Why because you are too dim to recognize the point I niavely didnt make PLAIN? The SUIT ITSELF was about their RIGHT to lie on the air. Whether or not they were responsible for the story they allowed their affiliate to go to court to defend their right to LIE ON THE AIR, the story WAS a lie that was conceded. Now a responsible network would NEVER allow that as a principle to be defended if they cared SQUAT about the truth of their stories.
Solon has lied yet again. Fox News isn't even mentioned in his source. Stating up front that News Corp. owns the station in no way even implies that Fox News had anything to do with the suit. That's like saying George Steinbrenner MUST be involved in a lawsuit involving the NY Yankees third baseman just because George owns the team. Logic 101...did you even take the class?
You may incorrectly ASSUME all you want, Solon, you're still only making an assumption to fit your laughable attempt to address my point.
Solon assumed they had everything to do with he suit because, try as he may for years and years, he and his brainwashed pals just can't come up with even ONE example of Fox making up news.
I ask these clowns for examples of made up news, they provide me with the same stale Fox affiliate story I've dealt with half a dozen times.
It is to laugh...lol @ ya, libiots.
"I ask these clowns for examples of made up news, they provide me with the same stale Fox affiliate story I've dealt with half a dozen times." --roger7
Actually several examples have been cited. You used a phony argument to duck the first argument and then you used that as an excuse to duck the rest of them. What are you afraid of?
I will take that as praise from an obvious moronocon. As an affiliate they DO represent Fox Network. There isnt any way Fox was unaware of either the nature of the suit OR of the fact their affiliates actions reflect upon their network. To say Fox had nothing to do with a suit their affiliate took to the Court of Appeals is laughably niave or more likely dishonest but convienient. And NO it would be nothing like Stienbrenner and a third baseman of the Yankees it would be like an AW Rootbeer stand representing AW Rootbeer.
"Fox doesn't invent phony news stories. They've gotten things wrong as all the nets have, but they don't invent news to hurt one party." --roger7
Really? What about this little item? Is calling a Republican involved in a scandal a Democrat "inventing" news? That is off the top of my head. I am sure a little research could find some more if you would like.
(Chirp....Chirp....)
"but [Fox "News"] don't invent news to hurt one party."--Roger7
I don't see where your alleged claims about the Food Lion story or the Dateline story hurts either party. Of course maybe it's my mistake to assume you would actually provide examples that are germaine to your own point. Maybe you can explain that.
As for the the Dan Rather National Guard story and Newsweek's Koran flushing story, they appear to be honest attempts at stories that were undermined by problems with the sources.
Everybody gets the story wrong every once in a while as you say...or is that only a courtesy you are willing to extend to Fox "News"?
"As for the the Dan Rather National Guard story and Newsweek's Koran flushing story, they appear to be honest attempts at stories that were undermined by problems with the sources. "
The very first expert hired by CBS to authenticate the memos told CBS not to use them in the story. The first FOUR experts refused to authenticate the memos. No one ever did, and you laughably, pitifully call this "honest" reporting.
Most importantly, the originals have never been seen by anyone...hmm.
"Honest attempts at stories"? Even though they look EXACTLY like a memo typed on Microsoft Word, right down to the little "th" next to a date, something that wasn't available on 1973 typewriters (the exception being a rare, very expensive IBM typewriter, the cost for which would never have been authorized on a NGuard base, not to mention most businesses in the U.S.).
Please don't post anything for me again, you're just not credible.
Really? Too expensive for the National Guard? And I read they had been used by the Air Force since 1968. Of course the experts wouldnt authenticate them they were copies. Now I agree that should have been a red flag and CBS should not have gone with them, they got what they deserved but the contents were verified and the White House didnt dispute them so it is hardly making up the news. Besides we KNOW Bush was AWOL otherwise what time was he making up in 73. We also KNOW he was stripped of his flying status for not taking a MANDATORY physical which is a deriliction of duty. Nice attempt at destroying a TRUE story by straining at the gnats.
"Really? Too expensive for the National Guard? And I read they had been used by the Air Force since 1968."
Your source, please?
Where did you read that the AF had used, since 1968, typewriters capable of typing the tiny "th" after a date.
You just can't stop lying, Solon.
Your evidence I am lying? That is that I DIDNT read it? Oh wait you are a complete moron you dont need any evidence you have a delusion. How about the very Washington Post who pushed the memos story pretty hard giving CBS a chance to defend itself>?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12330-2004Sep10.html
They also said typewriters, even the IBM Selectric, couldn't make a superscript "th" in 1972, when IBM says it was available beginning in the early 1960s. Some "experts" also said proportional spacing wasn't available in the early '70s, even though it has been available on IBM Executive models since 1944. Others acknowledged those features were available, but said the military didn't have them. Now it turns out the Air Force was using them in 1968.
Stop being such a complete idiot. You are wasting my time
"Isom, Ky" <------- THAT'S your source??
An anonymous guy asking a question on a WaPo thread? omg...
Why do you insist on humiliating yourself?
It is Washington Post online. They stand behind it notice it says right in story THEY POSTED
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts
It also is in line with what I read at the time. That is one of the first experts who said they must be forgeries said so based on the fact that though all the functions were available at the time they werent available on one typewriter I read his retraction a few days later saying he didnt consider something like the IBM selectric composer which HE said the military had been using since 1968. Anyway I only said I read it so it wasnt a lie.
http://foi.missouri.edu/mediacredibility/cbsdefends.html
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. in Midtown Manhattan for 14 years and repaired typewriters throughout that time, said that the Executive had proportional spacing and that its typebar could be fitted with superscript characters. Documents from the period show the Air Force tested the Selectric Composer as early as April 1969.
Now this only says 1969 but it still shows the Air Force using this typewriter in the late 60's
I nominate Roger7 for best new Republi-Clown for the month of June.This is one thick piece of mutton.
Roger7 is much worse than Tommy
He whines like a babe to her mommy
He tries to deceive
Spreading lies he believes
Then goes back to eating salami !!!
"The very first expert hired by CBS to authenticate the memos told CBS not to use them in the story. The first FOUR experts refused to authenticate the memos. No one ever did, and you laughably, pitifully call this "honest" reporting." --roger7
I do not know the whole story of the internal deliberations that went on, but I will defer to your apparently amazing mind-reading abilities on that. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake to me. You are free to have a differing opinion. Just don't try to pretend it is fact.
J,
I fully understand what you're saying, and even suspect what MMFA is trying to convey - but this was sloppy at best. Fox should be very sincere and direct as to their apology for this gaffe.....to put out some broad apology about the video not matching the reporting is just barely enough, in my opinion.
Tommy,
I agree...sloppyass work and a very weak apology.
Out of curiosity...what do you think they were trying to convey?
I love to speculate about such things. It may indeed have been an honest mistake, but I can't help thinking that Fox appears to have a difficult time differentiating one elected black person from another. Does Fox "News" think they all look alike and no one will notice or care?
Once might have been an honest mistake, but twice is a problem. And it's not as though they accidentally put up a picture of a white congressman. Then we could have been certain that it was a genuine mistake. No, twice they've mistaken one black man for another. How can anyone say that's not a racial insult?
I've never seen the words "honest" and "mistake" in the same sentance when discussing fox news...
When it comes to outright speculation, I usually make a point to try to be fair, even to the point of incredulity.
Is there an accusation on the table that I missed saying there was some grand scheme here? I think they didnt care enough to get the right picture with the right name.
That would be my take as well...I bet it would startle us to see the faces of the behind the scenes staffers at the various news organizations.
They needed footage of Jefferson. They found footage of a Black Dem and just assumed it must be him. I don't see them conveying anything except a bit of incompetence as a NEWS channel. (They never seem to mix up Lohan, Hilton or Richie.)
What if Gonzales get indicted and msnbc uses footage Tanredo or Hunter.
Yours, might be the most telling description yet.
I'm betting that there are a lot of wet-behind-the-ears staffers at most news organizations...that don't know the difference between Conyers and Jefferson.
But they are all over anything concerning some nincompoop celebrity.
Wes,
Speculating on that would be presumptuous on my part......let's just say that when it comes to issues related in any way to race, sometimes unfair inferences, whether intentional or not, have a way of appearing.
Fair enough...
You might have had a point any other week but this one. They are just piling it on. White male Christian Power structure/Ooga booga/spear chucker/Mixing up a Jefferson and Conyers. Was it an accident of course, but put in the context of their history it does look really bad. Come on Jeter you have to at least see it a little.
Monk,
It only looks bad if you're searching for some sinister motive.
It's perfectly feasible that this was merely a footage mix-up. I've seen it happen on the local news as well as the network news. It crossed my mind that MMFA is implying here that Fox's error was based on that old stereotype or slur if you will...that all African-Americans look alike... and behind Fox's mix-up. I haven't heard that one in years, and I'm hoping I'm wrong about MMFA implying that. Or that that was the reason Fox screwed up.
O'Reilly, Gibson, and Hume are probably not blatant racists [well Gibson might be], but there is an underlining racism in their attitude. But to tie a mix up of footage with their remarks could be a stretch.
You might be correct, but it may have been perfectly innocent. Sloppy & incompetent, but innocent.
It's offensive, whether it was intentional or not. It's also indefensible, whether intentional or not. It isn't necessary to attach "sinister motives" in order to see that.
How's this for a sinister motive?
As with a great many (most) of Feaux News "mistakes," this one created a subliminal impression of corruption in an entirely innocent Dem who has been front-and-center in possibly the most important corruption scandal since Watergate. Next time a typically ignorant Fox viewer sees Chairman Conyers in hearings about attorneygate, some of em will associate him with corruption.
All propagandists are aware of the power of the subliminal message; my argument would be significantly weakened if Rep Conyers had been mentioned by name in the retraction and specifically apologized to. Didn't happen tho - what a shock.
It's offensive, whether it was intentional or not...by Clams
Why offensive? Do you think this is the first time a report & footage didn't match? It's not like they reported on Jefferson and showed footage of a tree. Which BTW would also be a mistake, not offensive. Mix-ups happen.
It's also indefensible, whether intentional or not....by Clams
What's indefensible? Mixing up a report & footage? Man, you must be a peach to know. Murder is indefensible, not this.
If they were reporting about Edwards & showed footage of Hillary you'd all be jumping up & down screaming "see they are insinuating Edwards is girlie"
If they were reporting on Hugo Chavez & showed footage of Hillary you'd all be yelping "see they are attempting to tie Hillary to Hugo's anti-Americanism"
If they were reporting on Biden & showed footage of Dodd you'd all be...quiet. How you gonna turn that into something nefarious? Would that be offensive & indefensible?
Reports & footage are sometimes screwed up. It happens enough that to try to assign sinister motives is a stretch.
Is everything a conspiracy to Dem/Libs? God, that must get mind numbing after awhile.
Oh and Clams, I'm not gonna get into a long drawn out debate with you. I won't be your Tommy-Substitute. I've stated my opinion, if you don't agree with my opinion, you'll just have to live with it cause I've got nothing more to add.
"It's not like they reported on Jefferson and showed footage of a tree. Which BTW would also be a mistake, not offensive."
Exactly. I think you just explained for me why mistaking one black man for another is offensive, while your example is not.
"Mix-ups happen."
Yes, and this one happens to be inherently offensive. Most black people will be offended if you confuse them with another black person. Just as Conyers made clear in his statement.
"What's indefensible? Mixing up a report & footage?"
Yes. There's nothing that they can say to excuse it. Saying it was a mistake is not a defense. So it was a mistake. Fine. It's still offensive. There's no way to get around that, and there's no way to defend it.
I'm going to ignore your list of strawmen and your assumptions about how I would react to them, and simply move on to this:
"If they were reporting on Biden & showed footage of Dodd you'd all be...quiet. How you gonna turn that into something nefarious? Would that be offensive & indefensible?"
Obviously it wouldn't be offensive, and obviously it would be indefensible. I don't know why you're having trouble with this.
"Reports & footage are sometimes screwed up. It happens enough that to try to assign sinister motives is a stretch. Is everything a conspiracy to Dem/Libs? God, that must get mind numbing after awhile."
You are completely misrepresenting my remarks. I never assigned sinister motives or forwarded conspiracy theories. In fact, my post explicitly stated that it wasn't necessary to assign sinister motives in order to see the harm done.
"Oh and Clams, I'm not gonna get into a long drawn out debate with you. I won't be your Tommy-Substitute. I've stated my opinion, if you don't agree with my opinion, you'll just have to live with it cause I've got nothing more to add."
If you don't want to debate with me, then don't respond. I believe all of your strawmen, mischaracterizations, and confusion has been sufficiently addressed anyway.
Tommy and Jeter attempt to say that the long drawn out debates are the fault of the person fighting to have the truth exposed.
Those long drawn out debates are a direct result of changing the subject, making inconsequential points about minutiae, pushing strawman arguments, and stubborn refusal to admit reality.
George stick a sockpuppet [Sue/Ellie717] in it.
Check out this long drawn out post by George/Sue/Ellie...that never did back up the *facts* she claimed to have.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706040009
You, Georgie/Sue/Ellie717 are a fraud all the way around.
No, you would be the fraud.
I did back up what I said. I said that Karl Rove made a bet, and I provided info directly from the two authors of "Bush's Brain", the authoritative book on Karl Rove.
Their statements back up my comments 100%. You're wrong, and you're unfairly smearing me in a personal way.
Rove was sitting down with a friend and EXPLAINING HOW he COULD MAKE W GOVERNOR and use that office as a platform for the presidency. And five years later, Bush was elected governor on his way to the White House 11 years after Rove had first given voice to his ambition to make Bush president.
Karl Rove clearly already in 1988 had the son in mind as a potential candidate for office. He approached several Texas reporters, and said, "Notice the son; look at George Bush over there," encouraging us to interview the son and talk with him at that point. Rove already was setting in motion the future political career of George W. Bush. He tried to get George Bush to run for office in 1990.
{Before Bush even knew that Rove wanted him to run, Rove knew that he wanted him to run!}
Karl was key in pushing George Bush along, encouraging him as a candidate. George Bush was receptive to the idea, but I don't think he knew that he could win. In fact, I'm positive. By 1994, when George Bush was running for governor, he told me, "I think I can't beat Ann Richards." Rove thought just the opposite, had numbers and a theory and a plan and a vision to say otherwise. But early on it was Rove driving this train. ... It was Rove who was convinced that George Bush could be a candidate for the future.
Rove was interested, this operative told me, not so much in the candidates that were under way in 1990, but [in] the future candidacy of George W. Bush. He said that Rove talked about Bush as an enormously powerful political figure in Texas, even though he had never held office before. [Rove] said: "I know how you can make George Bush governor. You can do this and this and this. And I know how you can make George Bush president. Here's how you do it, having made him governor." That was 1990. And George Bush was already on Karl Rove's mind as a future candidate for president of the United States. Karl Rove had the blueprint for the Bush presidency before George Bush even knew he would become a candidate.
{Karl Rove was betting with that guy that he could make George Bush President. He was planning it before Bush was even asked about it!}
You're falsely smearing me because you're a hater.
One more thing.
I posted on here late Wednesday night/early Thursday morning, then only had a moment to come back during the day on Thursday, and didn't even visit that thread. It wasn't that I could not reply without embarrassing myself!
I did make my point, and clearly, and your unfair and untrue allegation that I did not make my point shows your prejudice rather than showing my inability to make a point.
The thread is now archived.
You're the one who failed to reply on the Malkin thread, while it was still open for comments, after you publicly scolded me on another thread for not replying to your comments. That makes you the hypocrite, Jeter, not me. Solon and I took you to the woodshed on the Malkin thread, and after that, you never came back to that thread. I didn't go back to the thread you mention below until after it was archived, because I wasn't here posting during the day today. On the other hand, you were posting while the Malkin thread was still open, and you had publicly scolded me for not replying to you on that very thread.
You're the one who didn't reply to the Malkin thread comments after Solon told you that his post that you quoted didn't mean what you had tried to say it meant. You had nothing to back up your earlier allegations, and when Solon pulled the rug out from under you, you bolted and never came back! That's not what I did.
Okay, now is your turn to tell us how you cannot understand my post and fraudulently try to blame the fact that you cannot understand it on me rather than either accepting blame that you don't read well or acknowledging that I am right!
Are you a friggin idiot or do you just play one on MMFA?
Where does it say Rove made a BET that he could get an IDIOT elected?
That was your claim.
You proved nothing of the sort.
Back to the drawing board Sue/George....
Sorry, one more thing. As I said above...
"Tommy and Jeter attempt to say that the long drawn out debates are the fault of the person fighting to have the truth exposed."
Now Jeter tries to blame me when my point was clearly explained and proven. He doesn't disprove what I said, but only makes an unfair smear.
"Those long drawn out debates are a direct result of changing the subject, making inconsequential points about minutiae, pushing strawman arguments, and stubborn refusal to admit reality."
Jeter changes the subject, and ignores the validity of the points I make in this post. Jeter makes inconsequential points, by trying to say that my argument here is diminished somehow because I didn't respond to a reply on another thread. That's an inconsequential fact in regards to this post of mine here, and arguing that the absence of my reply implies anything is the hallmark of a numbskull! Lastly, Jeter tries to say that I didn't make my point on that other thread, but I did as much as I could - read the author's book, "Bush's Brain", for the exact gory details about how Rove bet he could turn Bush into Governor then President. His stubborn refusal to admit reality is only surpassed by his gross mischaracterization of the facts.
Clams,
You wrote the following [on another post here]:
"Once might have been an honest mistake, but twice is a problem. And it's not as though they accidentally put up a picture of a white congressman. Then we could have been certain that it was a genuine mistake. No, twice they've mistaken one black man for another. How can anyone say that's not a racial insult?"
Now you write:
You are completely misrepresenting my remarks. I never assigned sinister motives or forwarded conspiracy theories.
But you obviously you have some doubts about *motive*
Clams, you keep saying this "mix-up" is "indefensible"
Isn't that a tad harsh? A doctor mixing up his two patients, one needing a spleen removed, the other a kidney transplant, is indefensible.
A news footage/report mix-up doesn't meet that bar.
Clams, if you were to pick 10 random people on the street and ask them to identify the following lawmakers:
William Jefferson, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, John Tierney, Evan Bayh
How many do you think could correctly identify each one? Or even 2 or 3?
Ok they'd have a 50/50 chance with the 2 woman...but what about the 4 men?
Of course someone hired to get the right footage to match the right report should know better--but mistakes happen... I believe John Conyers, MMFA, and many posters here are making a mountain out of a molehill.
"But you obviously you have some doubts about *motive*"
Of course I have doubts, as should anyone who's been paying attention, but all I said was that two times was a "problem." I didn't make any accusations about sinister motives. You say you don't want to play Tommy, but you seem to be desperately trying to make this personal by catching me in some sort of contradiction, where there clearly is none. Meanwhile you're distracting from the undeniable fact that what Fox did (twice) is offensive and inexcusable. And no I don't think inexcusable or indefensible are too harsh. Those words don't assign a degree of severity to the offense; they simply describe the position that Fox is in. All they can say is, "We made a mistake," and that is not a defense. Any further defense would only be to admit that they're insensitive idiots who can't tell one black man from another. They can apologize, but they can't excuse it and they obviously can't defend it.
"You might be correct, but it may have been perfectly innocent. Sloppy & incompetent, but innocent."
YOu also may be correct, but I;ve given up on giving Fox the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure if it's over race but Fox's mistakes always attack Democrats (IE listing Foley as a Dem)
Fox, those sly devils.
Too sly. But of course is was all just a big mistake. wink, wink.
I can vividly imagine a box of video tapes marked "box of assorted elected democrat negroes" from which Fox gets their random background footage.
Maybe Fox is betting their audience can't tell the difference between one elected black official and another anyway.
"box of assorted elected democrat negroes"
Instructions: Use at random
This is particularly lame given the fact that when Jefferson was found with a freezer full of cash, Fox was all over it. It's their big "See, Democrats are corrupt!" story that Hannity, et al, trot out when DeLay, Cunningham, etc. are brought up. It's not like they haven't covered Jefferson or this issue before. Either they suck because they are lazy/incompetent/stupid as hell or because they deliberately chose to Conyers' image to somehow suggest he is also corrupt when their viewers see him next or something.
Indeed, sloppy. However did anyone look at the video snippet. Jefferson's face is shown for at least 15 seconds. Then Fox goes to the reel where from a distance, it is hard to determine exactly who they are following. I know I was looking at a small picture on my monitor, but it was hard for me to discern whether it was Conyers until the second part that MMFA has snipped out and pasted at the top.
Again sloppy journalism. Lets get back to finding out how Paris is doing, shall we? ;-)
That video clip to me looks like it was from the House hearings with ol' Torquemada Gonzalez. Heh, I've seen Rep. Conyers enough to know that was him walking into the room. Figured the pinkish RESIGN sign was a big giveaway for it being the DOJ hearings...
On the June 5 edition of The Live Desk, host Martha MacCallum apologized for running "the wrong video to accompany" the Jefferson indictment story, but did not note the precise error -- that footage of Conyers had been shown in place of Jefferson. MacCallum said: "Yesterday at this time, news of the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson came down. We mistakenly ran the wrong video to accompany this story, and we apologize for that error."
It doesn't make any sense for Fox to run the wrong footage. Anyone with half a brain, (yes that includes MMFA,) realizes that the News footage has to be accurate... Well maybe Dan Rather is the exception... Looks like they caught their own error and apologized.
In the black community there is a saying and this proves it. "We all look alike"
Maybe Fox can just play it safe and use some Black clip art rather than using specific humans.Sort of like the stock footage of smokers or overweight people for related news segments.
Well, exactly.
Maybe this makes for a good opportunity for everyone to do an honest self-assessment, i.e., just between you and your conscience (or subconscious). If the error had been e.g., John McCain vs Ron Paul, relative to Fox's mistake would you consider the error more sloppy? less sloppy? the same?
Christian - I'll "broaden" the observation with regard to FOX - It seems like they have a habit of doing this sort of thing whenever it involves making anyone associated with the Democratic party look bad. I think that's their major motivation - to do whatever it takes to paint the opposition party in a negative fashion.
If I wasn't clear, my post is not intended to be a statement about Fox, though one may seem to be implied. Instead, it's about self-reflection.
Racist FOX
By showing Conyers a good man and a person who is anti War, FOX Is trying to put into the minds of its sheep that Conyers has been indicited and can not be taken seriously.
This is the best MMFA can do??
Still waiting for them to post the item about Keith Olbermann labeling Malik Shabbaz "Worser Person in the World" and putting up the picture of Opio Sokoni who appeared in the segment before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNKc4KzSzo8
But thanks to MMFA for pointing out that this wasn't the first time that a TV news station mixed up two politicians and aired wrong video. Really made my day.
How is this equivalent?
On Countdown, the picture of one guest was in the camera, and accidentally got shown during the subsequent segment.
On Fox, they had to get a piece of file footage, and chose the wrong footage. It's not equivalent. It's not like they had just finished covering a story about John Conyers.
"the picture of one guest was in the camera, and accidentally got shown during the subsequent segment."
No idea what you are talking about with that statement...but they are equivalent in that a news story which is referencing a person (both of color) and there were graphics shown on screen related to this news story and these graphics were not of the correct people (also of color). Countdown was talking about Malik Shabazz BUT showed a picture of someone other than Shabazz. Fox News was talking about Jefferson BUT showed a video clip of someone other than Jefferson.
What is it with you liberals and analogies?
Not only that. John Conyers is very recognizable and sits on some very powerful committees. Now who are those two guys on Olbermann? I must admit I've never heard of either one of them. Between the two situations, I would have been more likely to make an honest mistake in the Olbermann case as the two people involved were much more obscure figures and not well known at all. That is simply not the case with Conyers. I would think anyone working at a news organization would recognize Conyers.
They should've just showed a Ludacris video. Braindead Fox viewers wouldn't know the difference. Notably they at least managed to correctly identify Jefferson / Conyers as a Democrat. They couldn't get Mark Foley's right.
Also the use of the term "Cong" instead of the usual "Rep." seems odd (also notice no period to indicate an abbreviation). It falls into the same pattern that I would speculate is designed to push the viewer to think in racist terms. Or maybe it just reflects an inherent racist attitude on the part of Fox producers.
Why would Cong be offensive? Maybe I'm naive or unworldly but what is the racist connotation of that word as it would relate to an African-American??
It's hard for me to believe that Fox made a simple mistake.
The other day, we (Val & Tommy) had a discussion regarding racist comments and the person delivering them. When Fox "makes a simple mistake" I truly have a hard time believing them. When Gibson says that he wants a Pres. to bomb somebody but says that he doesn't want "Obama kumbaya" stuff. I have to ask my self, am I too sensitive? When I see Conyers picture instead of Jefferson I ask if maybe I'm making too much of what could be a simple mistake.
My feeling is no, this is not "just" a simple mistake. Consider the source. Fox has never been "fair or balanced" therefore I can't give them "the benefit of the doubt". Too many times they allow their hosts to spew bullsh** and cover their a** with it's just a simple mistake or "your just too sensitive, that's not what I meant".
Umm... racist... I mean, it's Faux News... they have no credibility... they are such a bad politically incorrect joke.
Sorry, I do not buy that this is a mistake. I think that they felt they could get two African Americans at one time. Lots of reasons for FOX to be angry with John Conyers. After all, he is the highest ranking member of the House who has talked about impeachment on more than one occasion. If FOX can identify Conyers face as Jefferson's, people will have a negative attitude about Conyers. All of this posting about mistakes is weird. After all, they have, on numerous times, done this, in many ways. My husband, an African American became VERY angry about this, and said "Is it any wonder why black people get so angry". FOX News is a travesty, and they are very calculating in their so called "mistakes". Shameful