Fox News or Faux News

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Interested in hearing specific news items that you think they have reported incorrectly - along with the credible source (and how it is credible than Fox) to back you.

Be more specific and objective than bitching about their on air personalities or because you have different opinion on how the world should revolve. Not interested in board members’ opinions of each other, world macro views, or legendary background in economics, philosophy, psychology, religion, sociology, et al. Make the case that they are indeed frauds by showing me some fact checked inconsistencies.

DISCLAIMER - 95% of the time I split my tv viewing between FOX and Headline News, but have heard my share of CNN and MSNBC at news-junkie parents house that live 6 houses away.

2

I haven’t done enough research to really have an opinion, but an interesting place to start may be the 2006 study that showed 68 percent of Fox News stories contain opinions. Haven’t looked at the study, but just skimmed the Wikipedia.

Of course a huge potential problem in this thread is anyone who WANTS Fox to be right all the time will find all the problems with any piece that says they are not.

I gotta get to work, but I’ll be curious to see what this thread comes up with. Personally I can’t stand to watch Fox or MSNBC, and am getting to the point where I don’t have any desire to watch anything other than local news. I’ll consume the rest on the internet.

3

I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/

4

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.

5

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.

6

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]

Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.

7

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]

Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

How is this shit acceptable from any news organization. Crap.

8

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

Do you have evidence that CNN manipulated a photo of him? I can’t find any.

9

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]

Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

How is this shit acceptable from any news organization. Crap. [/quote]

Um, because it makes them money… since people will still watch/read it.

99% of the stuff on the news doesn’t affect 99% of the people. The people it really matters to, well, they’re usually either on site, or have great intel and don’t rely on the news anyway.

“The news” is entertainment and a profit center. Nothing more.

If you want to know what’s actually happening, do your own research.

10

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

Do you have evidence that CNN manipulated a photo of him? I can’t find any.[/quote]

Not cnn but nbc and msnbc doctored the original 911 tape where the 911 operator(not cop) asked the race of the suspect.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&site=&source=hp&q=nbc+doctored+zimmerman+tape&oq=zimmerman+doctored+&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0i8l4.3075.11979.0.18645.20.16.0.4.4.0.439.2850.0j11j2j0j1.14.0.les%3B..0.0...1ac.1.uEL_yUJrsuQ

11

Yes I agree with factual misses as being better proof. Every teenager can photoshop.

Hoping to see a examination on this thread as to the guilt or lack of evidence. If no evidence is offered - I will just take statements that call them ‘Faux’ as having a different macro view of life.

I think ZEB alluded to an honest and hard hitting journalism being the counter balancing instrument that allows our republican system to work.

12

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]

Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

How is this shit acceptable from any news organization. Crap. [/quote]

Um, because it makes them money… since people will still watch/read it.

99% of the stuff on the news doesn’t affect 99% of the people. The people it really matters to, well, they’re usually either on site, or have great intel and don’t rely on the news anyway.

“The news” is entertainment and a profit center. Nothing more.

If you want to know what’s actually happening, do your own research.[/quote]

If you doctor a photo and pass it off as news, that’s not entertainment, that’s fraud. And the news might not be trustworthy anymore, and there might not be anything we can do about it, but that doesn’t make it less outrageous.

13

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I wish I had collected all of the little tidbits I’ve seen over the years, because they’d number in the hundreds.

Opinions obviously shine through on Fox, but Fox isn’t exactly unique in this respect, and those opinions often match the the beliefs of a lot of the people on this board.

What’s far worse is the outright dishonesty or misinformation–statements or content published on Fox’s airwaves, either by newsmen, pundits, or contributors, that are objectively and demonstrably false or misleading. Photograph manipulation–if you look it up I’m sure you can find what I’m talking about. Always chalked up to “editing errors,” as if some photo editor accidentally loaded a JPG in photoshop and turned the teeth neon yellow. There was some controversy over footage wrongly attributed to a tea party rally or Glenn Beck thing in order to make it seem much bigger than it actually was. The $200 million/day Obama India trip nonsense was fantastic–it was like opera-lying.

Here’s my favorite Fox takedown of all time. I suspect a lot of people around here don’t like Colbert, but if you don’t laugh at this one, you don’t have a sense of humor:

http://bostinno.com/2012/04/24/stephen-colbert-makes-fun-of-steve-doocys-sub-text-reporting-on-barack-obama-video/[/quote]

Just FYI, all the big names in news have been caught editing picks in a manipulative and dishonest way. The likes of CNN, ABC, NBC est included.[/quote]

I’ve seen it done before on MSNBC and CNN, but not like this picture here.

It’s my impression that Fox has done it more frequently and far more egregiously. If this photograph has an analog on another network, I’d be interested to see it.

Anyways, it’s the factual misses–the India trip, for example–that are most dishonest/disgusting.[/quote]

Reuters has been busted for tons of times. Digitally adding smoke. Using images from alternate locations/events. Adding missiles to Israeli planes. Cropping out weapons from “peaceful” protestors hands. You name it. (that’s just off the top of my head)

What you posted looks kinda like what CNN and the others did to Zimmerman.[/quote]

How is this shit acceptable from any news organization. Crap. [/quote]

Um, because it makes them money… since people will still watch/read it.

99% of the stuff on the news doesn’t affect 99% of the people. The people it really matters to, well, they’re usually either on site, or have great intel and don’t rely on the news anyway.

“The news” is entertainment and a profit center. Nothing more.

If you want to know what’s actually happening, do your own research.[/quote]

If you doctor a photo and pass it off as news, that’s not entertainment, that’s fraud. And the news might not be trustworthy anymore, and there might not be anything we can do about it, but that doesn’t make it less outrageous. [/quote]

If you watch or read the news and interpret it as fact… that’s on you, not them.

Their job is not to report facts. They want you to think that’s their job. Their job is to sell advertising views. If that means selectively editing material, or prioritizing articles, or other “fraudulent” activities, in order to make money and keep their entire infrastructure profitable, then that’s what it takes.

I’m not saying I like it. I’d love to get news on the level of intelligence analyst briefings, where people go to prison if they lie. But that’s not what we have.

Instead, we have an industry that thrives on profit through advertising dollars, while doing what’s necessary to maintain their viewership. If that means they need to parade themselves as being fair and balanced, or any other sort of virtuistic imagery, then that’s what they do.

Only outright libel and slander is illegal. Everything else is fair game.

14

[quote]treco wrote:
Yes I agree with factual misses as being better proof. Every teenager can photoshop.

Hoping to see a examination on this thread as to the guilt or lack of evidence. If no evidence is offered - I will just take statements that call them ‘Faux’ as having a different macro view of life.[/quote]

You can find a ton of stuff if you just google. The problem is most people are going to call THOSE sites biased or wrong that is pointing it out. I’m not going to go through and pick and parcel for you, but the opinion part should matter more to people than just trying to catch every media place in a lie.

If Fox News says: “the stock market dropped today, some people say this is the result of President Obama’s stupid stimulus package, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy, insert other phrases here” then that is STILL having a discernible bias to “reporting.” Of course the left does this as well, both sides do what works. It’s still a very legitimate problem because the average media watcher is stupid as shit and can’t tell when a talking head is injecting opinion and when something is actually fact.

15

Also, for the record, it’s very easy to bias things even while being 100% truthful, just by the way you present actual facts. All you’re doing is playing into preconceived biases.

On paper, you never said it. But they still heard it.

Fortunately, the people who need to actually make decisions on this information, aren’t relying on the news.

16

There is a quite large (and growing) population in the US who looks at all major news media sources as being almost completely full of shit. I get the impression from many of the reporters at the big name media outlets that they hold themselves and their profession in pretty high regard. They are part of a noble pursuit of truth, putting their own lives at risk to bring that truth to the masses which is nothing less than their civic duty. I think some of them have this vision in their head that as such a selfless public servant, they’re viewed with respect similar to that of a policeman or firefighter. It’s ironic then that they display such a degree of bias and lies that a huge percentage of the population has no respect for them whatsoever and sees major media as a joke.

17

[quote]treco wrote:
Yes I agree with factual misses as being better proof. Every teenager can photoshop.

Hoping to see a examination on this thread as to the guilt or lack of evidence. If no evidence is offered - I will just take statements that call them ‘Faux’ as having a different macro view of life.

[/quote]

The following is a clip of Sean Hannity bandying about an absolute, objectively-demonstrable lie on the air. It was picked up from an Indian news service. Now, all news organizations make factual errors–an outlet is not legitimate without a corrections page/on-air segment. But this is particularly egregious:

-To literally anyone with the slightest idea about these things, a story of Indian origin would by definition be a suspicious piece of reporting. Newsmen in India make their American counterparts look like an army of Edward R. Murrows. Standards are just terrible.

-Regardless of its source, this kind of claim–34 warships? $200 million per day?–absolutely demands fact-checking. A single phone call would have dispelled it for the garbage that it was, but the people at Fox were somehow unable or unwilling to do this. A journalism student writing for a college newspaper would be absolutely obliterated by his/her professors for regurgitating nonsense like this without having checked into it. I’m not exaggerating when I say that most of the posters on T-Nation do a better job of fact-checking their sources than Hannity’s people in this link:

Things like this and Doocy’s lie that prompted the Colbert segment I provided earlier.

If you’re looking for an extensive catalog of examples, I doubt anyone is going to provide it on here. These things come and go; most normal people don’t save them as evidence in future arguments. That said, I’m sure you could find a ton of evidence online. Or on Stewart and Colbert’s shows, because they are basically paid millions to point and laugh at Fox News (and they are usually pointing and laughing for good reason).

18

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Or on Stewart and Colbert’s shows, because they are basically paid millions to point and laugh at Fox News [/quote]

Speaking of media matters, Stewart, Colbert and controlling the narrative…

19

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Or on Stewart and Colbert’s shows, because they are basically paid millions to point and laugh at Fox News [/quote]

Speaking of media matters, Stewart, Colbert and controlling the narrative…

[/quote]

If you wanted to tally the factually inaccurate stories produced by Fox News, Stewart would be a good place to look. That’s my point–not that Stewart is fair or that his ideology is “correct.”

And I mean factually-inaccurate as in: indisputably bullshit. There’s quite a lot.

20

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Or on Stewart and Colbert’s shows, because they are basically paid millions to point and laugh at Fox News [/quote]

Speaking of media matters, Stewart, Colbert and controlling the narrative…

[/quote]

If you wanted to tally the factually inaccurate stories produced by Fox News, Stewart would be a good place to look. That’s my point–not that Stewart is fair or that his ideology is “correct.”

And I mean factually-inaccurate as in: indisputably bullshit. There’s quite a lot.

[/quote]

Fox plays it fast and loose, no doubt. Still makes me wonder why people pay so much money to people like Brock (the irony with him is amazing) to destroy a new outlet that is supposed to be this bad.

I mean, if the plow truck only showed up in June and July would someone pay millions to point this out to consumers?