[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?
CBS’s own fact checkers had determined they were not legitimate and they ran them anyways.
They had even determined that the documents were generated in Microsoft Word by the font and the spacing used. The date on the documents preceded personal computers, Microsoft etc.
This does not mean they were “not fully verified”. This means they were an outright fabrication.
Dan Rather ended up being forced into early retirement over this fiasco.
Do you really not know this?[/quote]
Could you show me where they knew this was false before this story ever hit the news?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?
CBS’s own fact checkers had determined they were not legitimate and they ran them anyways.
They had even determined that the documents were generated in Microsoft Word by the font and the spacing used. The date on the documents preceded personal computers, Microsoft etc.
This does not mean they were “not fully verified”. This means they were an outright fabrication.
Dan Rather ended up being forced into early retirement over this fiasco.
Do you really not know this?
Could you show me where they knew this was false before this story ever hit the news? [/quote]
Can you show where they didn’t? It’s always a he said he said. It was proven before and after the fact that it was fabricated on microsoft word.
You again prove the point. It’s a he said she said…
You know why? Because it is said on entertainment shows, is parroted by political figures and bloggers, and then is accepted into the mainstream by those that would like to believe it.
This is not a “he said she said” situation. It is accepted fact by the right that “they knew” and presumed until evidence arises that it was a “stupid error” by the left.
Funny how that happens. I watched very closely, spending hours reading blogs that detailed why it was or was not a forgery, with some blogs going so far as to critique the conclusions of others.
There is no information whatsoever that CBS knew they were duped… at least none that I have ever seen. I’ve seen many claim that it must have been the case though.
I know it is horribly unfair, but as was asked of me, find a clip on a NEWS source that states this was known at the time of “publication”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?
CBS’s own fact checkers had determined they were not legitimate and they ran them anyways.
They had even determined that the documents were generated in Microsoft Word by the font and the spacing used. The date on the documents preceded personal computers, Microsoft etc.
This does not mean they were “not fully verified”. This means they were an outright fabrication.
Dan Rather ended up being forced into early retirement over this fiasco.
Do you really not know this?
Could you show me where they knew this was false before this story ever hit the news? [/quote]
After a quick search it appears that the CBS fact checkers did not definitely say they were fake, but they did say there were many “red flags” and they advised that they not be aired without better authentication.
They were, of course, promptly aired in Dan Rathers segment on 60 Minutes.
CBS then fired four staffers, obvious scapegoats and pushed Rather into early retirement.
Spin it how you will. CBS looked very bad on this deal. The were irresponsible at best and biased at worst.
Proof is impossible because CBS clearly does not write memos as to how they will stick it to Bush.
Lets let CBS’s actions speak for themselves.
[b]January 10, 2005 | 10:08:17 EST
CBS News announced minutes ago that four employees will be leaving the network because of their actions in Memogate: Quoting CBS:
Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service.
The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.
Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.
The correspondent on the story, CBS News anchor Dan Rather, is stepping down as anchor of CBS Evening News.
The panel said a “myopic zeal” to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards. [/b]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
CBS attacked Bush with documents it knew was false.
Hmm, did it know this, or was it not fully verified… there is a difference. Where did you get YOUR news?
CBS’s own fact checkers had determined they were not legitimate and they ran them anyways.
They had even determined that the documents were generated in Microsoft Word by the font and the spacing used. The date on the documents preceded personal computers, Microsoft etc.
This does not mean they were “not fully verified”. This means they were an outright fabrication.
Dan Rather ended up being forced into early retirement over this fiasco.
Do you really not know this?
Could you show me where they knew this was false before this story ever hit the news?
After a quick search it appears that the CBS fact checkers did not definitely say they were fake, but they did say there were many “red flags” and they advised that they not be aired without better authentication.
They were, of course, promptly aired in Dan Rathers segment on 60 Minutes.
CBS then fired four staffers, obvious scapegoats and pushed Rather into early retirement.
Spin it how you will. CBS looked very bad on this deal. The were irresponsible at best and biased at worst.[/quote]
Spin it? Isn’t that what you were doing earlier?
So, they were at fault of printing a story that they weren’t 100% sure was true but did not print a story that they knew for sure was a fabricated lie. I do believe there is a large difference between the two, a lesson that will hopefully lead to better information checks in the future by all media.
CBS actions speak pretty damned loudly. They axed a group of people and pushed Dan Rather out the door.
Not bad!
However, in here, we’ve been told a far different story (by some forumites) with respect to what happened within CBS. They have no proof either, but are perfectly happy to state that “everyone knows” and “it was widely accepted” when the only place it was so widely accepted was on sources that don’t distribute news.
This is the propagation. Also, before you cry foul, I’m sure it happens with left leaning issues as well – and it is just as big a problem. However, I’m not sure there is a news organization who’s sole existence seems predicated on doing exactly that, converting misinformation into believed news, as is FOX. Sly FOX!
Journalistic integrity requires not spreading propaganda… do we have any news sources that actually have any? If so, who are they, so that people can actually choose to get information instead of opinion and entertainment? I’m sure some folks would like to do so…
Lazy ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, especially since I don’t even rely on FOX for my news.
ROTFLMFAO!!!
tb,
You don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means do you?
Please, please, please tell me how my sarcastic ‘mmmmm Kool-Aid’ swipe was used as an ad hominem attack?
hahahahahahahhahahahaha[/quote]
Heh. This is painful to continue.
You have not substantively addressed my argument - you haven’t countered anything I’ve said. Your deflection response was that I “drink the Kool Aid”, as in I am a mindless dupe for believing anything FOXNews reports.
Having ignored my argument and basically made a comment about me instead - ad hominem.
I have asked for an example of this at least 4 times in this thread. One day, you may actually provide these many thousands of references. Beyond that, if they clearly take something out of context and twist its original meaning, then yes, they are just as bad as Fox news. What don’t you get?[/quote]
Well, I gave you what the departing omnbudsman said about the editorialists.
Here is a recap of one of Paul Krugman’s claims, examined in the opinion magazine National Review:
And, there isn’t something I “don’t get”. You gave me evidence of FOX’s lying by way of an editorialist misquoting someone. But, in a heightened political climate, I think it is safe to say that every major media news organization has this happen to one or more of its editoralists - are they all propaganda-producing machines?
Nope. No one has offered evidence of systemic, institutional lying by FOX on this thread, despite the smug, self-congratulating photoshopped cartoons and the sarcasm.
It’s not that I don’t think editorialists shouldn’t afdhere to the truth - but the fact that an editorialist misconstrues facts in an entertainment show is a far leap to the news organization as a whole deliberately misrepresents information to further its agenda.
I lover how vroom is a fucking Fox News expert. Do you even watch it? I thought they just made Fox News available to Canucks recently.
Just by reading your last postr it is evident that you are speaking as one who only heard reports of the game, but have convinced yourself you had seats on the 3rd base dugout. Ignorance.
Hannity retracted his statement. Why defend CBS and impune Fox?
Rainjack, I wouldn’t go throw stones if I was in your shoes.
Besides, I’m not defending CBS, I’m saying they took strong action afterwards. It’s a better housecleaning than any type of correction action taking within the Bush administration to date.
Anyhow, I’m not referring to FOX so much as the ass clowns in this forum. In that, I have a seat to the game. Fuck that, with respect to the bullshit in the forums, I’m in the game.
You go find that proof you are always asking others for, and then I’ll be convinced that CBS should have done more. You see, you seem to apply a double standard, negative claims against the republicans require proof, but negative claims against something democratic, no proof required.
Maybe one of these days you’ll stop showing us such a blatant double standard? No, I’m not holding my breath bud.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, I wouldn’t go throw stones if I was in your shoes.
Besides, I’m not defending CBS, I’m saying they took strong action afterwards. It’s a better housecleaning than any type of correction action taking within the Bush administration to date.
Anyhow, I’m not referring to FOX so much as the ass clowns in this forum. In that, I have a seat to the game. Fuck that, with respect to the bullshit in the forums, I’m in the game.
You go find that proof you are always asking others for, and then I’ll be convinced that CBS should have done more. You see, you seem to apply a double standard, negative claims against the republicans require proof, but negative claims against something democratic, no proof required.
Maybe one of these days you’ll stop showing us such a blatant double standard? No, I’m not holding my breath bud.[/quote]
Let me get this straight - you are not comparing Fox to CBS. Rather, you are comparing the ass clowns (I am assuming you mean right wingers, as I’ve never seen you refer to any of the left as such) to CBS?
Apples and oranges. I don’t know what proof you are asking me to find. Proof that you are as partisan as the ‘ass clowns’? Proof of the grassy knoll? What proof are you needing?
It is all opinion down here. Oh there are some facts mixed in for good measure, but I challenge you to find a single thread down here that is all about the facts.
In reference to the ass clown remark, I’ll dust off the schoolyard retort as it rings remarkably true in your case: It takes one to know one.
Rainjack, how do you become so confused. You have to be looking for shit I’m not saying. This particular off thread topic was about non-news becoming accepted as fact.
It’s pretty clear it happens. I’ve even accepted it happens on both sides, yet I still need to be disagreed with for some reason.
Go pick a fight somewhere else… I’m not interested today, I’ve got something more important to do than amuse you out in tumble weed land.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, how do you become so confused.[/quote]
By trying to decipher your posts.
[quote]
You have to be looking for shit I’m not saying. [/quote]
No - I’m just trying to figure out which side of the fence you are standing on now.
By comparing apples to oranges. On a supposedly objective news magazine show - a highly respected journalist used tainted evidence to try and prove a point. It was known before hand that the information about to be presented - as news no less - was less than reliable. But they ran it anyhow.
And you are comparing that to a known op/ed entertainer misquoting Howard Dean on a debate show.
I am not condoning what Hannity did, but you seem to be drawing conclusions that you think proves your point.
And all you have really done is show your disdaine for Fox, and make yourself look like a blathering idiot.
Don’t fight with me - I don’t care. I’m not fighting with you so much as I am just tired of your unintelligible bullshit posts. You are as partisan as anyone on here - and the sooner you admit that to yourself, the better.
Lazy ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, especially since I don’t even rely on FOX for my news.
ROTFLMFAO!!!
tb,
You don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means do you?
Please, please, please tell me how my sarcastic ‘mmmmm Kool-Aid’ swipe was used as an ad hominem attack?
hahahahahahahhahahahaha
Heh. This is painful to continue.
You have not substantively addressed my argument - you haven’t countered anything I’ve said. Your deflection response was that I “drink the Kool Aid”, as in I am a mindless dupe for believing anything FOXNews reports.
Having ignored my argument and basically made a comment about me instead - ad hominem.[/quote]
You should contact wikipedia and have them change the definition of ad nominem to ‘your’ definition.
You never answered my question and our discussion can not proceed unless you answer the simple question I asked of you.
I asked you to give me the names of 3 Fox News Channel ‘journalists’ that do not appear as ‘analysts’ or ‘guests’.
Give me 3 names of Fox New Channel ‘journalists’ so we can see if your assertions are correct.
FYI - You refusal to furnish this simple list thus far is proof that you are wrong.
Lazy ad hominem won’t get you anywhere, especially since I don’t even rely on FOX for my news.
ROTFLMFAO!!!
tb,
You don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means do you?
Please, please, please tell me how my sarcastic ‘mmmmm Kool-Aid’ swipe was used as an ad hominem attack?
hahahahahahahhahahahaha
Heh. This is painful to continue.
You have not substantively addressed my argument - you haven’t countered anything I’ve said. Your deflection response was that I “drink the Kool Aid”, as in I am a mindless dupe for believing anything FOXNews reports.
Having ignored my argument and basically made a comment about me instead - ad hominem.
You should contact wikipedia and have them change the definition of ad nominem to ‘your’ definition.[/quote]
Don’t need to:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone’s argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments.
[quote]You never answered my question and our discussion can not proceed unless you answer the simple question I asked of you.
I asked you to give me the names of 3 Fox News Channel ‘journalists’ that do not appear as ‘analysts’ or ‘guests’.[/i]
Well, since I don’t watch FOX, I can’t even name three employees of their network, unless you count the Best Damn Sports Show Period, which I watch once in a while.
[quote]Give me 3 names of Fox New Channel ‘journalists’ so we can see if your assertions are correct.
FYI - You refusal to furnish this simple list thus far is proof that you are wrong.[/quote]
Wrong about what? What claim did I present that is refuted by not naming three of FOX’s journalists? You are embarrassing yourself now.
As is, I could go hunt up a few names on Google - but what is the point? I’d probably have the same amount of results if I went and Googled for CNN or MSNBC.
My point: I wanted hard evidence that FOX deliberately misrepresents information in its news reporting to advance an agenda - how is my lack of knowing who works for FOX proof that FOX lies?
Sadly, you are not even close.
Well, kind of hard for me to drink the KoolAid when I don’t even watch the network, but then again, given your desire to try and goad me with comments like this, I have now moved from debating you to pitying you.