Leftist Censorship?

[Turtle]

That reptilian video misses the mark slightly on a couple of them, but for the most part that's exactly it. Tried and true techniques that are taught in advertising and marketing classes in college. There are plenty of books on the subject out there, as well. Very few ads or promos are left to chance. They are created and edited using the same tried and true techniques. I studied this type of thing extensively in college. The more subtle they are, the more effective they are. Once you know what they are, you can recognize them when you see them (usually). You'll know when you are being manipulated, and in what manner.

One of the more obvious tactics is to just repeat the same thing over and over as often as you can. If you repeat something often enough it becomes true. Eventually people will start to believe it. For example, people believe Obama and his administration is transparent. Another one is, people believe Fox New is fair and balanced. Lenin once noted, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." And William James in the 1860s said about the media, "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." This is not a new concept. The concept is the bread and butter of most religions and nearly all conspiracy theories. It's also why you can find copy after copy of the same ridiculous crap on a bazillion Web sites with the same political agendas. Most of it's not true, but they don't care. Just keep releating it and eventually it'll become true.

 

[muttly]

Regarding the Arlington Cemetery example. There does seem to be a tradition of recent past presidents to go there. Clinton went there eight years straight. Bush went every year except 02 when he was overseas. So to say it is a lie that there isn't a tradition or at least a recent tradition from the past two presidents is inaccurate. Two articles from Fox News. First article one gives both sides of the story with explanation why he didn't attend. The second one explains Biden attended Arlington and reports Obama's visit to The Lincoln National Cemetery except his event got rained out.


Stressed Out or Tone Deaf? Obama Chicago Vacation Raises Eyebrows | Fox News
Biden Pays Tribute at Arlington as Obama Memorial Day Event is Rained Out | Fox News

 

[Turtle]

Turtle, your opinion of the Ron Paul cpac video is a mis characterization. The video that played was the wrong video and a mistake. It is fine to point out the mistake, however they said it was a mix up when they did the editing and apologized. To say they lied and weren't truthful is not an accurate characterization of what happened. They would have to knowingly play the incorrect video in order for them to be guilty of what you are alleging. It was sloppy editing in this instance. Not condoning it ,but all news agencies make mistakes sometimes. Every one.

Fox News? Bill Hemmer Apologizes for CPAC Straw Poll Ron Paul Video Mixup - TVNewser

And you believe their story and their apology? They played that video several times over several days (the 14th, 15th and 16th) and didn't pull it and apologize until other news outlet said something about it and the Internet exploded. Their track record on the truth doesn't engender blind belief out of me. They've been caught several times showing edited or "the wrong" video, and they just apologize, say they'll tell that particular staffer not to do it again, and then move on to the next lie. But news footage is clearly labeled and cataloged, so that even a trained monkey can retrieve the correct video. The video also had audio and video from both videos edited together, so it's not a simple case of someone just using the wrong video. No one who knows anything about news editing bought Fox's apology.

Glenn Beck did several days on the story of the "Cash for Clunkers" Web site that he knew after the first day was a lie, but he kept on pounding away at it, anyway. The problem is, the second day and for a few days after that the lie had spread over to the news shows and news segments of other shows. That's Fox News, not Glenn Beck.

Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, who is also one of the vice-presidents of Fox News, admitted on camera that he had gone on the air near the end of Obama's first presidential campaign and speculated, in factual fashion, that Obama was a socialist. Whether you believe Obama is or not is irrelevant, as Sammon did so without any evidence to back it up, and even admitted privately, and later publicly, that the notion was "far fetched." But he didn't limit his musings to his own on-air appearances. Sammon also pushed Fox News colleagues to play the socialism card. On October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an e-mail to staffers highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father, and wanted the on-air personalities and reporters to concentrate on the socialist angle. Shortly after sending the email, Sammon appeared on two Fox News programsto discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists." He did all this knowing full well that is wan't news, that it was opinion, and that it was a distortion of the facts. That's not some goofy pimple-faced editor that screwed up, this is the managing editor of the Washington Bureau and an executing at the network.

It should not be forgotten than in 2003 Fox News won a court case in Florida where a judge, in a narrow interpretation of the FCC rules, agreed with Fox News' assertion that it's not against the "laws, rules, or regulations" to distort or falsify the news in the United States. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but when you admit under oath that you lie or deliberately distort news reports, and have done so on many occasions, it's something that shouldn't come of as a shock or something that needs to be defended when it continues to happen. The court literally ruled that news organizations can lie, that it's not against the rules. And you believe they don't lie and distort the news?

Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy self-edited an Obama quote and fed the edited version to Romney for Romney's reaction. Obama's exact quote: "Somebody gave me an education. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. But somebody gave us a chance -- just like these folks up here are looking for a chance."

Doocy's edited version: "Somebody gave me an education. Unlike some people, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. But somebody gave us a chance -- just like these folks up here are looking for a chance."

Doocy later claimed it was just a "paraphrasing" of Obama, not the actual quote. But a paraphrasing is a restatement which retains the basic meaning while changing the words. An experienced reporter knows this. Yet Doocy's "paraphrasing" added new words and new meaning. A meaning, incidentally, which suited Doocy's and Fox News' political agenda. Doozy was force to apologize, and in his apology he even blamed it on some unnamed staffer who made a mistake when writing the teleprompter copy. But again after the apology he repeated the same paraphrased quote on Fox News Radio. So much for the effort to be truthful and the sincerity of the apology.

Fox News lied, repeatedly, about Rick Santorum's x-rated Google problem, got busted on it, and blamed that one on a staffer, too. I'm shocked. Who do they have hiring these staffers? And why, after mistake after mistake after mistake, are these journalists not double-checking anything the staffers do?

Fox News broadcast, repeatedly over several days, a news item purported to be fact, but it was just made up. Namely, the story of how much Obama's trip to India cost and what the trip triggered the Navy to do with its carriers in the Indian Ocean. All of it either pure speculation, or as the Navy noted, "a complete falsehood not based in fact."

Michelle Bachman held a rally where about 2000 people showed up, yet Fox News reported that more than 20,000 showed up. Blamed that one on a staffer, too. A simple numbering typo, they said.

You should watch this. Everyone should, regardless of political bent. You know who Fox News blamed on this gaff? A gaff that consisted of more than 100 reports over a few days on television and the Internet? They blamed some lackey staffer for using the wrong video. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

As a commenter in the video notes, "The sloppiness of it all.... the lack of awareness of the journalists themselves...many of them are completely uninformed about the world. They have opinions that have no factual basis to them, but it doesn't stop them because it's what looks good that matters more than what really is true."

There is really only one of two conclusions about Fox News that can be reached considering their track record: That they are utterly incompetent at gathering and reporting the facts as news, or they deliberately distort the news. Either way, they are not to be trusted.

They certainly shouldn't be defended for their actions. But as I noted earlier, the Fox Faithful merely dismiss the lies and distortions as being no big deal, a simple mistake that anyone can make. They look to forgive and forget the the unforgivable and the unforgettable. It's interesting that people would do such a thing with an organization that intentionally manipulates them and lies to them, in systemic fashion, but if a friend, neighbor or co-worker, or carrier lied to you, repeatedly, they'd no longer be trusted about anything, ever.

There is clearly a deep-deeded need by those in the choir to be preached to. That, or the molding manipulation of the mind is a complete success. Either way, I'd strongly suggest making the effort to recognize it for what it is, and consider a grain or two of salt with that Fox Kool-Aid. And I wouldn't drink any other news Kool-Aid flavors without plenty of salt, either. They're all just as bad.

 

[Turtle]

Regarding the Arlington Cemetery example. There does seem to be a tradition of recent past presidents to go there. Clinton went there eight years straight. Bush went every year except 02 when he was overseas. So to say it is a lie that there isn't a tradition or at least a recent tradition from the past two presidents is inaccurate. Two articles from Fox News. First article one gives both sides of the story with explanation why he didn't attend. The second one explains Biden attended Arlington and reports Obama's visit to The Lincoln National Cemetery except his event got rained out.


Stressed Out or Tone Deaf? Obama Chicago Vacation Raises Eyebrows | Fox News
Biden Pays Tribute at Arlington as Obama Memorial Day Event is Rained Out | Fox News

You're working awfully hard to defend what is, at the very least, incompetence. A tradition of recent past presidents? That's how narrow you have to get to justify their reporting and redefine what a tradition traditionally means?

The Fox News Web report is far different from how they treated is on television. They pounded away, report after report, how Obama was breaking with tradition. They pounded even harder on the opinion shows. Please don't tell me you don't recall the concerted effort by conservatives, including Fox News, to mount a political attack against Obama for not going to Arlington. That was big news even here on EO.

Fox News softened that position up a great deal for the print version, noting that it was a recent tradition (that frankly doesn't meet the definition of tradition). I distinctly remember Fox and Friends, and then later that day pretty boy Shepperd Smith echoing the utterly absurd statement by Michael Savage that Obama was the first president in US history not to visit Arlington on Memorial Day. Fortunately, such an absurd "fact" only got reported a few times that day before someone realized that Arlington National Cemetery didn't even exist until the Civil War. I'm sure that fact was discovered by a staffer. After that they just reduced it to "breaking with tradition."

It's a sad fact that many Americans, and news outlets, have gotten so cynical and pathetic that even a Memorial Day trip to Arlington National Cemetery by the President of the United States is the object of derision and distrust and political rhetoric. If the President goes, there are those who cry foul because it's just a photo op or he'll use the time for a political speech. If the President doesn't go, it's because he's breaking with tradition and/or he disrespects the military. Puhleeze.

The fact is, most 20th century presidents didn't ever go to Arlington on Memorial Day. There's your tradition. A tradition is defined as the handing down, from generation to generation, or a long-established on inherited way of thinking or acting, a continuing pattern of cultural beliefs and practices. "Recent presidents" do not a tradition make.

According to the Arlington National Cemetery records and the National Archives, the total number of Memorial Day visits by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon totaled exactly.... ZERO.

Herbert Hoover made the first presidential Memorial Day visit in 1929. That was the only time he went. After that it wasn't until 1975, after 46 years year of faithful tradition, that Gerald Ford swung by to make an appearance. Ford went again in 1976. And after that? Carter never went on Memorial Day, Reagan went four times in eight years, and Bush Sr never went during his four years. All these presidents were veterans, unlike Obama, who has been at Arlington National Cemetery every year of his presidency, other than the one year he went to the Lincoln National Cemetery. Most presidents have issued proclamations or made radio addresses to honor the occasion, but NOT showing up on Memorial Day was the long-held tradition.

So if anyone broke with tradition, it's Clinton, as he's the only president who went all four or eight years he was president. Yet Fox news billed it quite differently about Obama, because the facts don't matter to them, nor, apparently, to their faithful. To even state that Obama broke with "a recent tradition" is simply not true. It's misleading at best. It is, at most, opinion in the guide of fact, because it's not factual.

 

[Monty]

there's no cognitive dissonance among Fox fans, because everything they read/hear is exactly what they already thought is true.

Isn't that always the way it is? If I already have an opinion, why would I spend hours having someone tell me I am wrong?

Some information from a different source is always a good thing, but it's like watching "The Big Bang Theory" ... a worthless comedy program my wife watches all the time. She enjoys it, I don't. But I'm still subjected to it at times, and she is subjected to Andrew Wilkow and Mark Levin at times. Neither of us truly appreciate the other's programming choices, we do get some exposure.

As for this thread, it seemed to keep a lot of folks out of the bar!

 

[LDB]

Obama's exact quote: "... I wasn’t born with..."

"Unlike other people" is implied regardless of whether one wasn't born with "much hair", "strong lungs", "a silver spoon" or anything else and regardless of who makes the statement. Several stronger examples but this particular one is weaker than the rest.

 

[muttly]

You're working awfully hard to defend what is, at the very least, incompetence. A tradition of recent past presidents? That's how narrow you have to get to justify their reporting and redefine what a tradition traditionally means?

The Fox News Web report is far different from how they treated is on television. They pounded away, report after report, how Obama was breaking with tradition. They pounded even harder on the opinion shows. Please don't tell me you don't recall the concerted effort by conservatives, including Fox News, to mount a political attack against Obama for not going to Arlington. That was big news even here on EO.

Fox News softened that position up a great deal for the print version, noting that it was a recent tradition (that frankly doesn't meet the definition of tradition). I distinctly remember Fox and Friends, and then later that day pretty boy Shepperd Smith echoing the utterly absurd statement by Michael Savage that Obama was the first president in US history not to visit Arlington on Memorial Day. Fortunately, such an absurd "fact" only got reported a few times that day before someone realized that Arlington National Cemetery didn't even exist until the Civil War. I'm sure that fact was discovered by a staffer. After that they just reduced it to "breaking with tradition."

It's a sad fact that many Americans, and news outlets, have gotten so cynical and pathetic that even a Memorial Day trip to Arlington National Cemetery by the President of the United States is the object of derision and distrust and political rhetoric. If the President goes, there are those who cry foul because it's just a photo op or he'll use the time for a political speech. If the President doesn't go, it's because he's breaking with tradition and/or he disrespects the military. Puhleeze.

The fact is, most 20th century presidents didn't ever go to Arlington on Memorial Day. There's your tradition. A tradition is defined as the handing down, from generation to generation, or a long-established on inherited way of thinking or acting, a continuing pattern of cultural beliefs and practices. "Recent presidents" do not a tradition make.

According to the Arlington National Cemetery records and the National Archives, the total number of Memorial Day visits by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon totaled exactly.... ZERO.

Herbert Hoover made the first presidential Memorial Day visit in 1929. That was the only time he went. After that it wasn't until 1975, after 46 years year of faithful tradition, that Gerald Ford swung by to make an appearance. Ford went again in 1976. And after that? Carter never went on Memorial Day, Reagan went four times in eight years, and Bush Sr never went during his four years. All these presidents were veterans, unlike Obama, who has been at Arlington National Cemetery every year of his presidency, other than the one year he went to the Lincoln National Cemetery. Most presidents have issued proclamations or made radio addresses to honor the occasion, but NOT showing up on Memorial Day was the long-held tradition.

So if anyone broke with tradition, it's Clinton, as he's the only president who went all four or eight years he was president. Yet Fox news billed it quite differently about Obama, because the facts don't matter to them, nor, apparently, to their faithful. To even state that Obama broke with "a recent tradition" is simply not true. It's misleading at best. It is, at most, opinion in the guide of fact, because it's not factual.

Yes tradition. Your taking the narrow version of tradition as if none other version exists. No need to work hard to defend it. You are the one working hard and gave a long history of which president went and when. A tradition can also be something that has been done for the past ten to fifteen years as well, which the two prior presidents did. I'll use it in a sentence for you. "The past two presidents have made it a tradition to attend Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day." The very Fox news article I gave you explains attendances by prior presidents.
Yes Clinton went all eight years. As stated previously Bush went every year except when he was overseas in 02. Given that the two prior presidents went continuesly for the past 15 years doesn't "create" a tradition ? Then the next president decides not to go one year and it isn't news? You mentioned Shepard Smith. I guarantee you during that time he was giving the presidents version of not attending Arlington as well and I'm sure he had guests on his show defending him. Smith probably used the erroneous comment by Savage to segue into a discussion about the attendance of prior presidents other than Bush and Clinton.

 

[muttly]

Turtle , regarding your analysis of the Ron Paul video. To say it was intentional that they would purposely submit a incorrect video , knowingly, just to discredit Ron Paul is far fetched. Just because a video is labeled doesn't mean mistakes can still be made. How many times do you see on a local news broadcast a anchorperson begin to read a story and the accompanying footage happens to be about an entirely different story? How could this happen if it was distinctly labeled as such? Human error. Not condoning sloppiness in editing,but it happens to all of them. I could bring up mistakes on the other networks as well. So it brings it back to the O.P. Why would, if given the knowledge that all newscast at some point have made mistakes in their reports, Ms Wolfe would single out a parody website and the only non left leaning News Network? A leftist agenda in her classroom perhaps?

 

[Turtle]

"The past two presidents have made it a tradition to attend Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day."

That sentence give the defining parameters for the meaning of tradition. But Fox News didn't do that, they simply said Obama broke with tradition. They qualified it somewhat in the print article, well down below the all-important first four paragraphs, of course, but the meaning they wanted to convey had already been given in the first four. They well know that most people read the first four, many reading only the headline and the first one. Look at the most important first paragraph and the messages conveyed: "skip the traditional Memorial Day ceremony," "on his second vacation", and "wondering...about his priorities."

Given that the two prior presidents went continuesly for the past 15 years doesn't "create" a tradition ?

It does if you put it in that context, but Fox didn't do that.

Then the next president decides not to go one year and it isn't news?

Again, it would be only in the the narrow newly defined context of the previous two presidents, which no one at Fox bothered to mention on the air.

You mentioned Shepard Smith. I guarantee you during that time he was giving the presidents version of not attending Arlington as well and I'm sure he had guests on his show defending him.

But he didn't have anyone on his show defending Obama not going. He simply stated the fact as a matter of fact, as if it was true and news.

Smith probably used the erroneous comment by Savage to segue into a discussion about the attendance of prior presidents other than Bush and Clinton.

And yet that's not at all what happened. What happened was, when it was discovered that Savage's comment was absurd, Smith and others simply quit using the phrase and moved on to another way to communicate what they wanted to say.

 

[wvcourier]

If Ron Paul did anything, he woke alot of people up to the right/left paradigm illusion...It dosent matter if its fox, cnn, abc..ect...they are owned by the Elites/Corperations....and they love to manipulate the Sheople.

 

[Turtle]

"Unlike other people" is implied regardless of whether one wasn't born with "much hair", "strong lungs", "a silver spoon" or anything else and regardless of who makes the statement.

It may very well be implied, but the meaning of the quote changes, and the context changes when it's said out loud. It added meaning, which is not what a paraphrase is. It's editorial comment, not a quote.

Several stronger examples but this particular one is weaker than the rest.

It's just one example, out of many, of subtly and not-so subtly skewing the truth.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle , regarding your analysis of the Ron Paul video. To say it was intentional that they would purposely submit a incorrect video , knowingly, just to discredit Ron Paul is far fetched.

Well, if you want to defend their actions or let it slide, then I suppose it is far-fetched. If you want to look at it as an isolated and rare incident, then it's also far-fetched. But if you look at it in the scope of their body of work, it's no longer isolated, it's a pattern of distorting the truth.

Just because a video is labeled doesn't mean mistakes can still be made. How many times do you see on a local news broadcast a anchorperson begin to read a story and the accompanying footage happens to be about an entirely different story?

When it happens by mistake, the wrong footage is, like you said, about an entirely different story. They don't do a story about a 20 car pileup on the the Interstate using footage of a different pileup, they use footage of a dog at the kennel or a meeting of the city council. It's immediately clear the wrong footage was used, and they apologize for it immediately, not days later.

How could this happen if it was distinctly labeled as such? Human error. Not condoning sloppiness in editing,but it happens to all of them. I could bring up mistakes on the other networks as well.

Absolutely mistakes happen. But as I said, this is either intentional or ongoing systemic incompetence. Either way they are not to be trusted. Or defended. That's especially the case when every..single..mistake is made in favor of the same political bias. If they were truly mistakes, the resulting bias would be random. But it's not.

So it brings it back to the O.P. Why would, if given the knowledge that all newscast at some point have made mistakes in their reports, Ms Wolfe would single out a parody website and the only non left leaning News Network? A leftist agenda in her classroom perhaps?

As posted by Cheri, the comments on the original article by a student in the class which explained considerably more of the details and gives a much clearer context shows that nothing was singled out and the class or the teacher has no agenda, other than having students research several sources.

 

[muttly]

That sentence give the defining parameters for the meaning of tradition. But Fox News didn't do that, they simply said Obama broke with tradition. They qualified it somewhat in the print article, well down below the all-important first four paragraphs, of course, but the meaning they wanted to convey had already been given in the first four. They well know that most people read the first four, many reading only the headline and the first one. Look at the most important first paragraph and the messages conveyed: "skip the traditional Memorial Day ceremony," "on his second vacation", and "wondering...about his priorities."

It does if you put it in that context, but Fox didn't do that.

Again, it would be only in the the narrow newly defined context of the previous two presidents, which no one at Fox bothered to mention on the air.

But he didn't have anyone on his show defending Obama not going. He simply stated the fact as a matter of fact, as if it was true and news.

And yet that's not at all what happened. What happened was, when it was discovered that Savage's comment was absurd, Smith and others simply quit using the phrase and moved on to another way to communicate what they wanted to say.

Do you have a link regarding Shepard Smith and his comments and those toward Savage? I couldn't find anything. My opinion of Smith is he does bend over backward to give the liberal point of view. My guess without seeing the video, link, or anything other than your comments about it, is that he brought up Savage's comment to show what is being said in some "conservative radio" broadcast. I think Savage is a phony conservative fwiw. I do believe there were comments on the air about prior presidents not going to Arlington and most likely Smith was one of them.
Regarding the article I posted, it gave a fair and balanced story interviewing a democrat and his views about his attendance at Arlington. Now your going to get into the nuances of what part of the article the other view was presented. A little ticky tacky my friend.

 

[muttly]

Well, if you want to defend their actions or let it slide, then I suppose it is far-fetched. If you want to look at it as an isolated and rare incident, then it's also far-fetched. But if you look at it in the scope of their body of work, it's no longer isolated, it's a pattern of distorting the truth.

When it happens by mistake, the wrong footage is, like you said, about an entirely different story. They don't do a story about a 20 car pileup on the the Interstate using footage of a different pileup, they use footage of a dog at the kennel or a meeting of the city council. It's immediately clear the wrong footage was used, and they apologize for it immediately, not days later.

Absolutely mistakes happen. But as I said, this is either intentional or ongoing systemic incompetence. Either way they are not to be trusted. Or defended. That's especially the case when every..single..mistake is made in favor of the same political bias. If they were truly mistakes, the resulting bias would be random. But it's not.

As posted by Cheri, the comments on the original article by a student in the class which explained considerably more of the details and gives a much clearer context shows that nothing was singled out and the class or the teacher has no agenda, other than having students research several sources.

You made the assertion that the Ron Paul footage was a lie. I'm just saying they would have to intentionally put an erroneous video on air and be flagrant enough where no one would notice. With all the viewers watching is what I mean by far fetched. The mistake wasn't acknowledged on the air immediately because the footage from the two speeches were very similar. Unlike a dog kennel story compared to an accident scene. Two entirely different scenarios.

 

[Turtle]

Do you have a link regarding Shepard Smith and his comments and those toward Savage? I couldn't find anything.

No, I don't have a link to a story or a video. If I did I would have posted it instead of saying that I distinctly remember it.

My opinion of Smith is he does bend over backward to give the liberal point of view. My guess without seeing the video, link, or anything other than your comments about it, is that he brought up Savage's comment to show what is being said in some "conservative radio" broadcast.

That's your guess because you want to defend this as an innocent mistake or as somehow otherwise being fair and balanced. Smith did not credit or mention Savage in any way in his broadcast. He simply stated the same thing that Savage had stated on Savage's show the previous day, without referencing Savage at all. He stated it as a fact.

Regarding the article I posted, it gave a fair and balanced story interviewing a democrat and his views about his attendance at Arlington. Now your going to get into the nuances of what part of the article the other view was presented. A little ticky tacky my friend.

I've already acknowledged that the print article is different than the on-air broadcasts. Ticky tacky is singling out one or two of the several examples I posted that offer up plausible explanations for innocent mistakes, while ignoring the examples that don't, and then try to paint broad brush of innocent mistakes onto an entire body of work that indicates anything but innocent mistakes.

Like I said, if all of these are innocent mistakes, then it's an awful of of them, and reeks of incompetence. Do you trust incompetence? I don't. And if it's not incompetence, it's intentional. Your call.

Even if you completely dismiss the examples you are fixated on as being completely out of bounds and totally incorrect on my part, it doesn't excuse the rest of the examples I posted, or the rest of their body of work.

 

[RLENT]

You made the assertion that the Ron Paul footage was a lie. I'm just saying they would have to intentionally put an erroneous video on air and be flagrant enough where no one would notice. With all the viewers watching is what I mean by far fetched.

Yes it was (a lie) - although the bolded portion above doesn't make any real sense.

The mistake wasn't acknowledged on the air immediately because the footage from the two speeches were very similar. Unlike a dog kennel story compared to an accident scene. Two entirely different scenarios.

IIRC, what they did was use the audio from one year's CPAC and the video from another year's CPAC.

Anyone - even just someone who has edited their home videos on their computer - knows what it takes to marry up two entirely separate audio and video streams ...

To assume that something like this is an "inadvertent error" or "honest mistake" doesn't pass the smell test ... and is ludicrous on it's face.

Particularly in a (supposedly) professional environment.

To quote (paraphrase ?) one of our resident cynics on all things - except Fox News apparently:

Open your eyes ...

 

[cheri1122]

So it brings it back to the O.P. Why would, if given the knowledge that all newscast at some point have made mistakes in their reports, Ms Wolfe would single out a parody website and the only non left leaning News Network? A leftist agenda in her classroom perhaps?

In the original article, the only 'proof' cited is a photo that I've already described, and the assertion that "Some upset students and parents have complained to local news outlets". Because, hey, that's where any student would complain about a professor, right?
I have sat through enough adult education courses to find the comment submitted [and copied in my response] by a fellow student to be far more credible than the version presented by Fox News. According to the comment cited, Prof Wolfe offered several sources both left and right leaning, along with the Onion, as unreliable, and further, she agreed to accept any of those sources if a student could make a reasonable argument for their veracity.
That sounds like the Professors I'm familiar with.
As for the 'upset students and parents', I can just picture that scenario: college kid scarfing dinner at the family table, Mom or Dad asks [from longstanding habit] "How was school today?" Kid [noticing Fox News playing on the tv] says "This idiot Professor said we shouldn't use Fox News for a source, can you believe that?!" Next thing you know, the 'upset parents' are firing off an email to their beloved Fox News.....
It's the same thing that gets Huckleberry Finn and Harry Potter banned from the school library, and hopeless kids on the baseball team, right? All it takes is one 'upset parent' to pitch reason right out the window.

 

[Turtle]

You made the assertion that the Ron Paul footage was a lie. I'm just saying they would have to intentionally put an erroneous video on air and be flagrant enough where no one would notice. With all the viewers watching is what I mean by far fetched. The mistake wasn't acknowledged on the air immediately because the footage from the two speeches were very similar. Unlike a dog kennel story compared to an accident scene. Two entirely different scenarios.

Fox News is missing a golden opportunity to hire you for their PR department.

Yes, I assert that the Ron Paul footage was a lie. Not based on that one isolated incident, but based on their body of work and on their established pattern of lying about stories to push an agenda. It could very well be that the Ron Paul incident was, in fact, an isolated incident and an innocent mistake. But that's the problem when you're caught lying too many times - people think you're lying even when you're not. You cry wolf one time too many and no one listens.

Newsprint does front page corrections with a teeny tiny correction a day or more later buried inside their pages. Unsubstantiated and/or false allegations that get corrected never get the same headlines as the allegations. The same holds true for broadcast media, where many minutes may be spent on an untruth, and the correction gets a few seconds at most. There have been several cases where Fox News has spent hours intentionally broadcasting a distortion of the truth, and less than one minute on the apology.

The violent riots in Russia are a prime example, where they not only used video from riots in Greece to show what was going on in Russia (which was no violence), but the voice reporting described exactly what the video was showing. That's not a mistake of using the wrong video - the audio and video were intentionally edited to tell that story, and it was a lie. They broadcast that several times a day for at least two days. They spent all of 10 seconds on one broadcast to apologize. That's pretty flagrant. You think something needs to be flagrant enough that no one would notice. I'm not sure how flagrance would go unnoticed, but assuming I understand what you mean, Fox News doesn't care that it gets noticed. Otherwise they would make every effort to ensure the same mistakes don't keep happening over and over again.

A certain percentage of the viewers, a large one judging by the ratings, either don't notice or don't care. They like the lies and distortions, because they keep tuning in and continue to label Fox News as their most trusted news source. Fox makes a mistake apologies with a wink and a nod and then goes right back to the same ol' same ol'.

It's the body of work, the pattern of all of these "innocent mistakes" and how all of these "mistakes" seem to be in error slanted against the left that is the problem. An even more disturbing problem is the large percentage of the population who doesn't even see it as a problem.

 

[highway star]

Megyn Kelley. They've got Megyn Kelley and that's really all that matters.

 

[Turtle]

Anyone - even just someone who has edited their home videos on their computer - knows what it takes to marry up two entirely separate audio and video streams ...

To assume that something like this is an "inadvertent error" or "honest mistake" doesn't pass the smell test ... and is ludicrous on it's face.

I was wondering if you, someone who used to edit video professionally, was going to chime in on the absurdity of two separate audio streams and two separate video streams somehow getting accidentally mixed up with each other and miraculously being in perfect synch with each other.