I made my “ga-DUNG!” face
Fox News extending its comedy show coverage. Unfortunately I can’t find a clip or a transcript of where this was used, unfortunately, so ironically this picture lacks full context, but still…
April 1, speaking about the current conflict between the Senate and the President over war funding, Barack Obama says this (from USA Today):
“I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” said Obama. “I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.”
Yesterday, this graphic comes up on Fox:
I’m not happy I lack context on a picture that lacks context, but…man. Just look at it.
April 14th, 2007 09:44
Wow, they even made an error in their selective quoting by ending with a period instead of an ellipsis.
Maybe they realize that two ellipses would make their weasel words too obvious, so they just went back to straight-up lying?
April 16th, 2007 19:51
I guess they could write this off as April Fools.
May 4th, 2007 07:15
Hehe, they’re spinning that so fast that the centrifugal force should be flying those words far outside the TV set.
May 4th, 2007 09:25
I say sue them!
May 4th, 2007 09:44
Wait, were they actually accusing him of having this position? That doesn’t even make sense! If he is quoted as saying “wants to” that could only refer to another person. I guess they don’t let a little thing like grammar get in the way. Unless Obama is in the habit of speaking in third person.
Also: whatever your own stance on this whole charlie-foxtrot, “playing chicken with the troops” could really only refer to what Bush and his cronies want to do. Man, either I’m grossly misinterpreting what they were doing here, or they have let logic fly out the window.
May 4th, 2007 10:25
There is now other way to describe it; it’s been Foxed with. I will celebrate the day when all Americans will see through this Fox thing. Yeah! As if!? As it stands now, the under 30 crowd understands the concept and methods. They are also the first real hooked up generation. My fellow generationist, for the most part seem to be clueless and could care less, except to FW:, FW: the worst kind of bullshit.
LB
May 4th, 2007 10:55
How dare a TV show put up a quote from someone.
What do you think is the problem with this? I see no problem whatsoever, and it is not for lack of intelligence, insight, or understanding. I honestly can’t even imagine why this is “bad.” It does not misrepresent him, it does not misquote him, it does not make him look bad.
May 4th, 2007 10:56
[…] “I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” said Obama. “I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.” via […]
May 4th, 2007 11:00
[…] The magic of … […]
May 4th, 2007 11:30
Do you know what time, or what show this was on?
Also, check out this video on other Fox attacks on Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL–ms
May 4th, 2007 11:34
this is crazy. his statement is severly cropped. If you cant see what is wrong with the fact that they take a portion of a comment and high light just that part without regard for the rest of the state then you are a moron. Any comment taken from its context and inferred to be something else is spin. Spinning is a propaganda tactic.
May 4th, 2007 11:46
Wow…. that’s pretty amazing. They took a half-lie by Obama (that nobody wants to play chicken..) and turned it into the truth (that he does want to play chicken by not providing them adequate funding and leave iraq, lose the war, and leave the country a complete mess so that we can deal with the ramifications of that in another 10 years).
Congrats fox.
May 4th, 2007 11:52
Pudge, are you trying to satirize the neocon movement or are you legitimately stupid? When Obama says, “I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” and you omit “I think that nobody” in the quote, it makes it sound like he doesn’t care about the safety of our troops. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of his original statement.
Please, please tell me you’re being satirical. I would hate to think our education system is still spitting out people incapable of critical thought.
May 4th, 2007 12:05
Why is anyone surprized at this crap? Fox feeds the people that watch Fox what they want to hear, what they are predisposed to believe. Don’t expect their audience to do anything but lap up the slop they dish out. Truth in reporting is not in their charter.
May 4th, 2007 12:07
I wish that more people would realize that Fox News is a private organization that overtly provides news and entertainment to a specific segment of the population that tends to line up with a rather conservative politic. In layman’s terms, yes, they slant stories. In real life terms, so does every other news station in the United States because each of them are also private organizations that provide news and entertainment to a specific population. If you don’t like Fox’s slant watch CNN or BBC World or something else, but please don’t fool yourself that they don’t make highly slanted remarks from the other side of the street. Even moreso, don’t fool yourself that you have the inside scoop on “objective reality”.
May 4th, 2007 12:43
I don’t think they were accusing him of holding this position, I mean, at least in a plausibly deniable way. Everything on that screen is literally true. It’s just one of those mindgame kinda things that they’re slipping into the backbrain all sneaky-like.
porcelain: sure, other news outlets aren’t without bias, but none raise it to the level of Fox News. Murdoch admitted he/they tried to influence government policy. Admitting your organization is using its influence to influence government policy is not a noble act (”he just tells the truth!”), it’s just showing what your company is really about. Internal memos at Fox telling reporters what kind of color they’re going to give their news today is just not what a responsible reporting agency does.
May 4th, 2007 12:44
That’s fucking ridiculous. Seriously.
May 4th, 2007 12:55
Photoshopped, zoom in on the bottom part of the image, quite odvious. They took an actual screen shot, and overlayed the top portion but kept the bottom from the actual screen shot.
But feel free to decide for yoursevles.
May 4th, 2007 13:10
Uh, what? You’re saying this is fake?
May 4th, 2007 13:22
Why can’t he sue for slander and libel?
May 4th, 2007 13:59
Yo, yo, yo! Where da White women at?
May 4th, 2007 14:34
After reading this article twice, I still don’t know what a “ga-DUNG!” face is.
May 4th, 2007 15:34
pudge, see the power of the editor…
How dare a TV show put up a quote from someone.
What..is the problem…? I…lack…intelligence, insight, or understanding. I honestly can’t even imagine. It does… misrepresent him, it does… misquote him, it does…make him look bad.
May 4th, 2007 16:30
Change course in Iraq? I think we need to change course right here in America. Starting with Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales!
May 4th, 2007 16:54
SpinnWebe: Trapezoidal Inclination » I made my “ga-DUNG!” face…
This is like when you try and burp the alphabet, some of the letter just don’t make it past the lips….
May 4th, 2007 18:37
[…] Ban Fox News. I effin hate this ish. (tags: news television election politics) […]
May 4th, 2007 19:30
get over it , anybody can snip and cut.do you mean to tell me that the predominantly liberal media PBS ABC CBS NBC and CNN have never done this ? Give a me break please !
May 4th, 2007 20:49
I am so sick of crybaby liberals. This country is going to hell and they find the most minor things to whine over.
May 4th, 2007 20:50
I would like to see the whole video not just a screen shot. Selective qouting by the website or by Fox News?
May 4th, 2007 21:18
RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
May 4th, 2007 21:21
Joker: well yeah, that’s what I’m saying, I don’t like that it was this bit just out of context. I wish I had the whole thing myself. Someone told me this was just a graphic over a conversation about Barack’s quote, and they weren’t trying to twist what he was saying when they were talking about it, but my point here is that the graphic and quote in itself is slanty.
get over it , anybody can snip and cut.do you mean to tell me that the predominantly liberal media PBS ABC CBS NBC and CNN have never done this ? Give a me break please !
I’d disagree with you, for the most part…I haven’t seen this kind of nasty editing anywhere else but Fox. I’d like to see examples of this before I could agree with you.
But if that’s true, if it’s going on everywhere, then it’s especially a reason not to get over it. Then we’re really being screwed over, and you should be a lot more concerned about it, rather than getting over it.
May 4th, 2007 22:01
DAN RATHER
May 4th, 2007 22:18
I’m not going to be convinced of that far fetched opinion for one second ,{that only Fox has performed nasty editing}
With all due respect , thats like sayihg the sun didnt come up today.
I work at home and make it a point to give a couple hours to each network during the day , I intentionaly listen to
” all ” sides of the story , One big example would be the endless pounding that Bush gets everywhere . Demonizing people sells in the media and they “all ” do it !
May 4th, 2007 22:45
I didn’t say they’re the only ones. I just said they’re the worst.
Dude, you’re just too angry for me to fully join this conversation. I’m not gonna make myself the amount of upset required to get on your level and argue about it with you.
May 4th, 2007 23:20
You said ; ” I havn’t seen this kind of nasty editing anywhere else but fox ” . That sounds an awful lot like you’ve narrowed it down.
And I’m not angry “dude ” , and I don’t want you to get upset , but the truth hurts.
May 5th, 2007 00:25
It’s easy to say “the truth hurts”, but you’re all with the caps and exclamation points and way too yelly.
“That kind,” yeah. As I said at the beginning, other outlets aren’t without bias, but Fox takes it to the biggest extreme, from what I’ve seen. I did see a similarly badly cut quote on Keith Olbermann, though, that got me kinda irritated. Never got around to posting about that one, unfortunately. But otherwise, no, I just haven’t seen it. Provide examples and we can talk about it.
May 5th, 2007 01:26
go to o’reilly’s website and check out his peice on Bill Moyers editing practices. And then there’s Dan Rather taking unreliable info on Bush’s National gaurd service and using it anyway. Him and Ms. Mapes didn’t perform nasty editing , they mislead us from the begining. And just about all the stations did it to the Duke La Cross players. { in the begining }. And it turned out Cheryl Crow was only joking about the one peice of toilet paper thing .But agenda driven editors and producers like way more of a story than it was.
My freind , the list goes on and on.
May 5th, 2007 01:39
Some networks made a story of Alec Baldwin not showing up at a custody hearing , not mentioning that his attorney told him his precence wasn’t necessary.
And only two stations have mentioned Kim Basingers 12 counts of contempt in family court {custody hearings}.
What Alec did is juicier than not showing up in court.
Theres a ton out there , you just have to be open minded to see it.
May 5th, 2007 11:17
oddballkink, Michael, MisterP:
Why do any of you think that the rest of the quote was omitted? There is no evidence of that. TV producers often split quotes up, show one part of it on one screen, then the rest on another. This happens all the time. Why do you assume that is not the case here?
The dude who posted it said, “I’m not happy I lack context on a picture that lacks context, but…man. Just look at it.” Maybe if he had seen it in context it would not have been objectionable to him. And there is no evidence presented to suggest otherwise.
It is not that I am thinking uncritically; it is precisely that I am thinking critically that is the “problem.” Because I am thoughtful, I refuse to assume from a single frame of video that anything untoward happened here.
May 5th, 2007 11:40
Are you familiar with the concept of subliminal messages? A single shot in context can remain in the subconscious long after the context has gone. If they had split the quote one word in either direction it wouldn’t have been nearly as questionable as the screen shown. You don’t need to have a political affiliation to look at that screen and wonder if they knew what they were doing. If it wasn’t deliberate then it was the work of a poor editor. Not necessarily sinister, but at the very least quite unprofessional.
May 5th, 2007 12:08
Gawain, fine, wonder. But people coming to conclusions rather than merely wondering. I agree that “if it wasn’t deliberate then it was the work of a poor editor.” But I rarely attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, especially in the case of Fox News, which I consider particularly incompetent.
May 5th, 2007 15:16
Wow, pudge, that’s interesting…I frequently say, “if I had a choice between expecting incompetence or expecting evil, I’ll almost always expect incompetence.”
Though in this case, I mean…the part of the quote removed in the ellipsis is “I think that nobody”, which isn’t a reason to cut in two screens. And even if it was, they don’t have the full end of the quote here, so there should also be an ellipsis at the end.
Fine, call it a screwup, but there’ve been a number like this on Fox in recent days (”Barack Osama”, “Rep Foley (D-FL)“, etc.) that it starts to become less a matter of a bumbling night editor and more a systemic issue.
And really, removing the political issue, people who watch Fox News regularly have accurate information actively sucked out of them. That’s probably a much better way to show how the channel is a Bad Thing than the post I started this with.
May 5th, 2007 18:19
[…] Purposefully Misquotes Obama On US Troops In Iraq 5 05 2007 Thanks to the peeps over at SpinnWebe, we have yet another example of Fox “Faux” News’ Right Wing bias and general […]
May 5th, 2007 20:09
WOW ! Lets beat up fox.
Nobody want’s to say that they hate any of the other stations. You’ve got 5 or 6 other networks that preach to the liberal choir .And everyone just washes it down with a good shot of denial flavored koolaid.I make it my buisness just to pull out all the slants and incosistant reporting by comparing the way each channel air’s the same story.
Spinn misunderstood me , when I said “get over it” I meant get over thinking fox is the only one who does it.
Lets start shooting for truth in media. Not “concept of truth.
All you bush haters remember one thing ; Dan Rather got fired for a whole story, not just one shot with a caption.
And he had to take his producer with him too. They knew what they had was garbage and used it anyway.
May 6th, 2007 02:53
To pudge, mickeye, et. al.
I constantly leave my tv on but rarely pay attention. Instead I look up every now and again to see what’s going on. If I had seen that quote without context, like spinn is saying, it could unfairly biased me against Mr. Obama. That’s why what Fox did is a bad thing.
spinn also already explained why we can assume there might have been some malicious intent on their part as well. I refer you to #42.
Everyone fully acknowledges that other news organizations screw up too, that’s not the point here.
Clear enough for you?
May 6th, 2007 10:47
Whats clear enough to me is that you don’t get the big picture.If everyone acknowledges that fox screwed up with an intentional bias or plain stupidity, we have to be fair.Pointing to other bad behavior doesn’t justify fox’s behavior.
But as in a case like Imus , everyone knew without any arguement he screwed up , so what was the next move ?
The next move is to ask ” how do we prevent this in the future? ” , or are we all going to come up with every derogatory statement against fox that we can think of and perform all this mental masturbation.
Just like the move to come down on other shock jocks and violent rap was the case with Imus. We need to demand truthfull media from all outlets. And we need to start with the most serious offenders first.
Unfortunatly alot of us like our comfort zones that are fed by a mostly liberal or left leaning media. And seeing that this site is leftist , I’m probably not going to get anywhere.
There’s alot of cutting and pasting and selective editing going on. But this shit needs to be dealt with on all networks. Do any of you want to move on to a bigger and better cause ? Or sit around and repeat what the last guy said , but in different words.
Clear enough Mikki ?
May 6th, 2007 10:58
Now I have to put these qustions out there.
How come I never heard Obama complain about this yet ? If he did it would be a pretty big story.
Obama has a standing invite to appear on fox anytime he wants. If I were him I would accept and go clear this up.
This has not happened yet , why ?
You would think that if fox is the black sheep in the industry , why havn’t the others come after them ?
May 6th, 2007 11:44
You shout “DAN RATHER” as if that proves your point, but does Dan Rather still have a job? In your example is proof that bad behavior more often has consequences in news outlets other than Fox. And others in the industry do frequently come after Fox, but since there’s no regulation of what you can say on a cable channel short of obscenity, they can do what they want. The best we can hope is that the market decides Fox isn’t newsworthy.
Obama probably doesn’t go on Fox because he understands the futility of arguing with someone who won’t hear you, a lesson I should learn that from him.
May 6th, 2007 12:01
lemmings
May 6th, 2007 12:24
Heres an example ; Most boring blog in the world {above }says ” fox news purposefully misquotes Obama on U.S. troops in Iraq ” There’s not a shred of evidence to proove this, and yet it gets printed anyway.Was this intentional or just stupidity ?
Glass house’s ? You guys should quit while you think you’re ahead.
I’m really afraid of a mentallity that runs with the pack, bangs there own drum ,cant think for themselves and has to commit to one side or the other no matter how stupid the veiws are.When you commit to an Ideology you have defeated yourself and lost any hope of fairness.
My point with Dan Rather is that is was a true crime that had “evidence to proove it ”
And why to you keep interpeting my words as shouting ?
Compared to the cocktail party you’re at might sound like it.
You all need to grow up , stop being so sensituve ,and stop getting off on yourself in the mirror.
Goodbye.
May 6th, 2007 12:38
Caps and exclamation points are generally accepted indicators of shouting. I agree with you about the “most boring blog in the world” quote, though what one blog has to do with the integrity of a major news organization is unclear; you quickly link that ill-written post to me, then use that to call my argument invalid, and then somehow extended to the entire class of people you’re calling “the pack”, all of whom beat off in the mirror, apparently.
Really, I woudn’t mind having a rational discussion about this in another forum, but your constant insults and condescension lose my interest in doing so.
May 6th, 2007 13:34
Lets simplify this.
I am astounded at the focus of a liberal group on one really small incident on a assumingly conservative network.
I beleive that bad media should be exposed accros the board.
I saw what fox did , acknowledging that my favorite station might be doing wrong , broke the camels back , and I started calling for fairness in media on moved forward.
why are you tired of insults that are only directed at you , is the point you helped me make against you.
Most of the comments above me are mean spirited rhetoric with no solutions, or resolve.So much hatred is not capable of making a good decision.
For a bunch of democrates I thought there would be more
“democracy” in this place. Alot of contempt is what I mostly see.
People should be getting together and discussing a movement to stop bad media instead of glorifying each others rhetoric by returning the same.
Can we { as in us } get together and do something about unfair or stupid media ? Come on guys ! I’m calling you out!
{this time I’m shouting }
May 6th, 2007 15:02
What “focus of a liberal group” are you talking about? Is there some big groundswell of a liberal movement forming the Let’s Stop Fox From Using This Graphic campaign that I don’t know about?
You’re right, it’s one real small incident (though I agrue it’s a pretty egregious example), and I’m some guy sitting in front of my computer complaining about it. About four other blogs I’ve seen have also posted about it. It seems like you’re more upset about this than I am, really. You going to just sit here and continue complaining about my point of view, or are you going to do something about the news media?
May 6th, 2007 15:23
more than you have already,you just put in on me , up above I asked if “we” could do something about it .It was supposed to be a kumbaya moment and you blew it. I was asking for help in a department I thought we agreed on needed fixing. I called you guy’s out for for a good movement and all I get asked is what am I going to do ?
Last chance…
Here it is…
What can we do?
May 6th, 2007 16:48
I’m willing to follow a lead. The reason I say this is because I got my computer 4 months ago.And I’m already growing tired of the mindless cruelty going on,and I’m guilty of it also.
The other reason I’m willing to follow a lead is after 4 months on this computer I don’t know of half the resources you would.I’m not stupid by any means,butI am technologically challenged , or in less “PC” terms I don’t what the fuck I’m doing , yet! It’s almost like learning a new language , you know , Klingon or something.
I’ve got things going on at other websites that are actually making a difference , but we are not calling attention to it because we dont want to appear as we are promoting our self image.
It can be done , but it sure as hell takes more than one guy to continue such an effort.
May 7th, 2007 00:06
So you want the people who read this blog to bring about an entire overhaul of the newsmedia, without complaining about Fox?
Realistically the only thing you can do is not watch the various media outlets you disagree with. And complain. But by and large you’ll be preaching to the chior.
But fear not, young mickeye! I am doing my part.
May 7th, 2007 01:37
theres alot of options , but a mind set that dictates the only thing you can do is not watch them, is a failing approach.And even though not watching will have an effect, other means can be put into play.
Dan Rather , Imus are not unemployed just because sponsors pulled there support. They knew America was sick of this shit.A requirment that you call yourself a news broadcast must be met with the resposability of truth, or you’ll be advertised next to john stewart. If all we think we can do is not watch then were doomed.
Maybe more people have ideas that you or I couldnt come up with, we’ll never know unless we ask.
And no one shoulbe exempt from this standard , not even fox , but the bitching gets old and unproductive real quick , I dont care who you’re coming after.
Good media is a strong part of our national security, and if it’s allowed to voice opinion as fact were screwd.
May 7th, 2007 01:52
goodnight older mikki,
and “Aloha” from Hawaii
May 7th, 2007 10:12
I appreciate your second message at #55…if you’d left it at #54 my reaction would’ve been angrier and less helpful.
But, I suspect you’ve vastly overestimated my ability to lead anything. If you’re just starting to grasp blogs and such, you might have the impression that I’m in some way significant. I’m not even sure where to send you, actually. I kinda like Media Matters, but their mission statement even says they document “conservative misinformation throughout the media”, so that might be too limited in scope for you.
Oh, and on Imus and Rather: I disagree about Imus, he got kicked because the public outcry was great enough for the advertisers to notice. (for proof, see: the last 85 or so years Imus was on the air without his getting fired.) Rather got kicked because his mistake was an embarrassment to CBS news. Which, you know, thank God for that. A news organization that knows that bad news isn’t desired.
May 7th, 2007 11:19
at this stage of the game I’m going to try and take this in a different direction.You perceived me to be “yelly” and with reason it could appear that way,I have my opinions but I get carried away sometimes , and if I offended anyone , I’m sorry.Just like my perception of this blog was a lynch mob. Maybe we were all wrong,but its time to move forward.
I,m just a 50 yr. old political hippie that still likes his herb,still have hair down to my ass,and I play my music louder than most insane people{quality system of course}.
By now I’ve seen enough shit in my life to finally drum up the balls to do something about it,no matter how futile it may seem.If some ordinary guy can convince millions of people to buy a rock and keep it as a pet,then whats to say that we and others couldn’t straighten out the media with concequences for bad behavior ? All you need to do is use this thing you’re sitting in front of.I don’t want my kid growing up in a world where media is propoganda.Documentation ,proof and less contemptuous tones should be the standard in news , if I want opinions we all know where to find that.
I mean its far fetched that the offenders would be taken off the air for a week instead of a fine that doesnt hurt them at all.But the FCCA just might start leaning in that direction if enough people pay it forward.
You can claim free speach all you want , but it comes with responsability ,you cant scream fire in a theater any more than you can accuse someone of something you cant proove.
And that is the base of my intentions.
Peace and love and all
that good stuff, going
to work,bye
May 7th, 2007 16:33
‘Though in this case, I mean…the part of the quote removed in the ellipsis is “I think that nobody”, which isn’t a reason to cut in two screens. And even if it was, they don’t have the full end of the quote here, so there should also be an ellipsis at the end.’
spinn, you are making many assumptions. You assume that nothing preceded the quote from USA Today; maybe there was quite a bit more before what USA Today quoted, and Fox included it. The ellipsis at the end: maybe it should have been included by Fox, or maybe USA Today quoted him wrong. Or maybe he had two different but similar quotes.
As to the rest … I don’t care. I already said, I dislike Fox News. Say they suck, fine. But if you are going to claim this is malice, I want evidence, and you didn’t provide it.
I only watch one show Fox News show regularly: Fox News Sunday (along with Meet the Press on NBC and This Week on ABC). For regular news, I watch PBS NewsHour most, followed by CNN. I hate BOR, I hate Fox and Friends, I hate Hannity & Colmes.. I think Fox has the lowest quality straight news reporting of any national news network, as a whole, though they do have some good reporters and anchors.
This is not about me defending Fox News. This is about me calling people on unwarranted assumptions, just like I did when conservatives said that infamous “X” over Cheney’s face was intentional. And there is no doubt in my mind that most people on this site would have assumed Fox putting an “X” over Obama’s face was intentional, if that had happened, and I would have held the same opinion: no, it probably wasn’t.
May 7th, 2007 17:26
Then I guess the question is, given that we aren’t likely to gain access to the thoughts and intentions of the people responsible, how many times does something like this have to happen before you would consider it a preponderance of evidence? If there are similar examples of Fox goof-ups that paint members of the Republican party in a poor light, then I would be interested to hear them, and if the numbers add up then I would be much more willing to come down on the side of incompetence. Otherwise, you can only extend the benefit of the doubt to someone so many times before you have to conclude that you’re being played for a patsy.
May 8th, 2007 02:26
pudge said it better than me. But like I’ve been saying {”if” being the key word } if there is proof that this was a hit peice ,fox or anyone using these methods should be held accountable.
But is anyone really sure, and if you are,do something about or at least make an effort.
Imagine being convicted for drunk driving 5 or 6 times , and then getting stopped 7th time and thrown in jail witout blowing a test.we’ll just lock him up because he has a record of d.u.i so he must be d.u.i.
In America we give the benefit of the doubt on a case by case basis.But if you were drunk you’re going down harder than last time you got popped.
May 8th, 2007 09:58
Yeah, I’ll start the revolution tomorrow. I mean, I applaud the sentiment, but I’m still waiting to hear the game plan. I already don’t watch any of the channels in question, so I’m open to ideas (and keep in mind I don’t live in the U.S.).
In the meantime, the hypothetical you give is a pretty poor analogy. We’re not talking about the legal system, and in the example you give it is easy to administer tests and obtain hard evidence. If we could do that here we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Nevertheless, a person’s criminal record absolutely has relevence when they get pulled in for subsequent crimes. Obviously you can’t convict on that alone, but it certainly is taken into account when considering the credibility of a suspect’s testimony.
I think a more apt analogy would be to imagine a guy who walks by where you sit every day at work and clips you on the back of the head with his elbow. Each time, very sincerely, he says “Sorry, I didn’t see you there.” How often does it happen before you decide that he’s doing it on purpose? Yes, each individual incident could actually be an accident, but does that mean you can never complain about it? And to top it off, you hear through the grapevine that he’s been saying nasty things about you. Still feel charitable enough to give the benefit of the doubt each time?
May 8th, 2007 19:46
It is taken into account.You can chop me up all you want, the fact of the matter is previous offenses should be taken into account,and each time you get caught the penalty gets worse.But ! first you have to have evidence.If you have proof, take it to the streets, take it to congress,the FCCA,at least write the network and voice your displeasure.
You can complain about anything all you want,each and every time it happens if you want.Sooner or later you’ll realize that it is pointless unless your willing to do something about it.
People in America have been shorted and discriminated against and lied to over the last couple hundred years on number of issues.And there were those who thougt it was hopeless and those who do whatever it takes. It doesn’t matter if it’s fairness in media or human rights.There were people willing to die for a free press and freedom of speech.And in todays world accuracy in media is far more important than ever before. So you would would think more people would want to do something about it rather than sit around and cherish they’re right to bitch about it. If something bothers someone enough ,any “normal” person would do something about it.If the people don’t say anything , neither will the sponsors.DJs have been taken of the air for periods of time called penalty’s. Why shouldn’t this apply to TV personality’s and newscasts? You can call it a revolution or whatever.But I’m not even going to complain about the complainers. I’m going to “try” and do something about it.And if I fail,I will have more right than most to bitch about it all day long.
The worst part about all this is that its been going back and forth for a couple days now and nobody has produced a shred of proof that FOX
May 8th, 2007 19:51
was either stupid or maliceous. And to compound that point ,I havn’t heard a thing anywhere else about this,from Obama or anyone except a couple blogs.
Being accused of not having proof when there is no proof that lack of proof was the crime ,pot calling the kettle black ?
May 8th, 2007 20:21
bad behavior does not justify more bad behavior
May 8th, 2007 22:38
…and yet you keep posting.
Nah, just kidding, never could pass up a good opportunity for a cheap shot. For the most part it has been a pleasant, uncommonly civil discussion for the Internet, and I’m sorry if you feel I’ve been chopping you up.
Most of our disconnect seems to stem from the fact that you think I’m sitting around complaining and bitching and moaning yet am unwilling to do anything about it. Not at all. I’m looking at an example of something that looks very suspect, and saying “yeah, that looks very suspect.” This isn’t a personal axe to grind, I don’t go around on blogs and web sites slamming Fox, or CNN, or Bush, or Gore, or any of them. I’m not that politically interested (though I do hold some opinions on the matter, to be sure). This was brought to my attention and I am commenting on it. You may be fed up and looking to change the world, but my interest and opinion on this is really very small and simple, so I’ll try to restate it more clearly while addressing your points.
You keep demanding proof and evidence, but exactly what kind of proof are you imagining will emerge, absent a sudden emergence of a human telepath gene? This isn’t a case like Rather’s, where facts can be researched and proven or disproven, nor is there any eye-witness testimony to uncover (assuming that those responsible are going to claim innocence regardless). We’re talking about establishing intent, and unless they were stupid enough to document and direct these alleged slip-ups in internal memos which might be leaked, all we have to go on are prior patterns of behaviour. And that’s obviously going to be a matter of personal consideration to some extent, but I still think it’s a perfectly valid method of determining motives and methods over a period of time.
Again, I give you my example of the guy whacking you in the head. Each time he apologizes, and there is no way you can prove he did it deliberately. But according to you (and I don’t believe I’m misrepresenting your side here), in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, you are obligated to assume he is telling the truth every time it happens. Never mind that he has a well-known disrespect for you, never mind that he doesn’t seem to do it to anyone else, which might indicate that he’s simply that careless and clumsy after all. You have no proof of malice, therefore you must assume incompetence no matter how often it happens.
I said at the very beginning that this particular instance of seeming impropriety could be attributed to either malice or incompetence. I still stand by that. However, my personal opinion, which is informed (and I use the word loosely) by the numerous similar faux pas in the past and their admitted pro-Bush/Republican stance, is that it is more likely the former. But I also said before that I’d be interested to hear about examples of Fox News making similar gaffes that are unflattering to Republicans, and if the balance seems to be reasonably even, I will alter my opinion. I did try searching on the web for such a list, but either it isn’t out there or it’s buried in the inevitable dross that those particular keywords pull up. If anyone out there can point me towards something along those lines I’d be obliged.
So yeah, here’s all I’m getting at, in a nutshell (so to speak):
1. They do have a documented history of this sort of stuff,
2. As far as I can determine it only or mostly happens in such a way as to paint Democrats poorly, and
3. How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away before Charlie Brown can reasonably and fairly decide she’s a bitch?
(God, is anyone still reading this? I’m boring myself at this point.)
May 9th, 2007 01:02
HERES THE DEAL…
I watch all these shmucks , on all the channels. And when I do I know what to expect. I take all the info and put it through a seive , all opinions ,slants ,interpetations , everything gets sorted relevant to the stations history.I know that O’reilly wiil interpet from the right ,Lou Dobbs the left. What I’m doing is actually weighing the scales themselves ,not just whats on them. I acheive balance by taking all characteristics in to account.And I never judge or come to conclusions untill I have every bit of info possible.This allows me to understand and not get half as upset as some.
I am well aware of where I stand in the eyes of the media.
And no matter how many times they pull this shit I have no right to bitch if I dont try to do something.
Charlie Brown should stop playing football and report her to the principal ,or kick her instead of the ball.
I just think its really hipocritical to nail fox when there are so many networks that will tell any democrate or republican anything they want to hear,and seeing as how the mainstream media is mostly left you would think republicans would be going gadung till there heads fall off.The demand for fairness should be fair.
So if all you have is a pattern to assume by either dont play or kick lucy.But if you keep going back , you deserve it.
Fuck it ! Send them both to rehab.
Bye , the pressure’s been all mine.
Aloha, and dont watch
too much T.V.
I do.
{ P.S men shouldn’t kick women }
May 9th, 2007 08:20
Bully for you. I don’t know what nine-tenths of that had to do with anything I said, but you go, girl.
May 9th, 2007 11:21
Imus screwed up , and most people said “wait a minute this is bigger than Imus, what about all the other offenders?”
And so we move on to the root of the problem and stop crying about Imus.
And you proove my point that we are victims of our own concepts and assumptions and bias.
I.m a 50 year old man , and you thought but you didn’t know.Which seems to be the big problem here. Alot of thought and no knowledge { I’m refering to the masses }
May 29th, 2007 14:25
Democratz seyz: I want my baby back ribs (bbq iraq sauce)…
If you get erections from political sellouts, this week was your week to shine (with hard-ons). No sooner did the Democrats get control of the House and Senate on the anti-War, anti-Bush platform did they cave in to have their pockets lined with delic…
April 26th, 2008 12:24
Fair and balanced?! fox is about as fair and balanced as a fight between a grizzly bear and an infant. They CONSTANTLY and openly call liberals words like “unamerican”, “pinheads”, domestic terrorists”, ect, then immediately turn around and call themselves fair. It is a travesty, a lie, and should be considered a crime. They are a propaganda machine no better than… wait, THEY ARE NAZI GERMANYS PROPAGANDA MACHINE! Im liberal, does that make me a terrorist or unamerican?, according to fox it does. This channel should be stripped of its license immediately. And furthermore, we need to start by jailing, Mr. Oreilly, who in my eyes is a terrorists to the freedoms of america, looking to force his neo-christian hardcore conservative beliefs onto the masses by portraying himself as a newscaster while speaking 100% negatively towards any and all liberals as if they were evil or stupid. This man is a sinner, a propaganda spreader, a fascist, and i hope he suffers a quick demise at the hands of the authorities. This year will be the year of the democrats, we will come together, and we will get this crumbling and frankly disgusting version of what the U.S.A has become back together. Free healthcare, greener world, jobs back to america, taxation of the rich and better and cheaper education for the poor. Its gonna be great and yes fox is against all these things. That is because fox is for the rich man, the republican view is “why should i pay for that persons ____? it is an ungodly, greedy and selfish view, all while hiding behind a vail of religion they dont acually follow.