NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that most liberals and all leftists seem to think that Fox News is a hellspawn demon under the control of conservatives, I have an assignment for y'all.

Go to the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com) and find an article that contains an outright lie in it.

Normally I would assume that one would understand the following as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I guess I better spell out a restriction: Please don't use articles from Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly as they are a conservative vs. liberal viewpoint and news analysis show respectively, not actual news shows. Normally I would assume that one would understand the above as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I felt it best to explain why those shows should be off limits. It would be like using pieces from the New York Times editorial page to prove it is a lying leftist paper.

Personally, I'm betting nobody can find an outright lie. If I'm wrong, I'll quit watching Foxnews!

Given that most liberals and all leftists

I'm only socially liberal.. I'm a fiscal moderate conservative.. Thus, I'm not a "leftist" ..lol :p

Given that most liberals and all leftists seem to think that Fox News is a hellspawn demon under the control of conservatives, I have an assignment for y'all.

Go to the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com) and find an article that contains an outright lie in it.

Normally I would assume that one would understand the following as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I guess I better spell out a restriction: Please don't use articles from Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly as they are a conservative vs. liberal viewpoint and news analysis show respectively, not actual news shows. Normally I would assume that one would understand the above as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I felt it best to explain why those shows should be off limits. It would be like using pieces from the New York Times editorial page to prove it is a lying leftist paper.

Personally, I'm betting nobody can find an outright lie. If I'm wrong, I'll quit watching Foxnews!

Your proposal will fall on deaf ears. I doubt any of the Bush haters here will do what you propose.

I'm only socially liberal.. I'm a fiscal moderate conservative.. Thus, I'm not a "leftist" ..lol :p
You;re a moderate.

Like I'm gonna tke an assignment from someone who uses the term Ya'll.

Who ever said Fox lies. They are just the first one. The demonic one.

I'm only socially liberal.. I'm a fiscal moderate conservative.. Thus, I'm not a "leftist" ..lol :p

This is kind of off-topic, but you bring up a very good point. Left <> right are way too limiting. I rather like this political compass test that is located here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). It plots your political leanings on an axis for both social and economic issues. My results are here (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=4.38&Y=3.54).

Like I'm gonna tke an assignment from someone who uses the term Ya'll.

I said y'all, not ya'll. If you're going to be an elitist pig and insult my speech mannerisms, please have the courtesy to spell them correctly. Thank you.

Nice try, but here's the reason your "challenge" is bogus. Fox doesn't do news that isn't tinged with opinion. Everything is opinion oriented, from Brit Hume's show to O'Reilly's to the regular "anchors." There's no hard news on Fox--that's why they're so brilliant at what they've done, and so successful.

Not to mention that there's no reason to exclude analysis programs--should editorial pieces not be held to standards of factual accuracy? The NY Times purports to hold their editorial page to that standard, although it conveniently forgets when Safire writes. Shouldn't opinion at least have to rise to the level of factual accuracy, and if not, why not? Shouldn't O'Reilly be called out when he distorts poll numbers or quotes someone out of context? Shouldn't Hannity be called out when he just makes shit up (like he often does)? I think so.

So I won't take your challenge, because it's a sucker's bet and you know it. You've rigged it. Make it a fair challenge and I'll throw it all in your face and you know it.

This is true, it's not that what they're saying didn't happen.. it's the way they spin it that makes it unfair and unbalanced.

Okay, how about this? Include everything but Hannity and Colmes? Nobody in their right mind would even consider that one an analysis show. It's just two blowhards for opposite ends of the spectrum trying to see who can yell over the other the most. I'll let you include O'Reilly since he's not one to go around lying.

I think you're being too picky by the way. There are tons of articles on their site that have absolutely nothing to do with either show.

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

that's a false test.
I am not liberal. I am rightwing.

You're giving me O'Reilly? Oh come on--you're making this too easy. Are you going to insist on only what's on the website right now or can I go back a little? If you let me go back it'll only take about 5 seconds, since media matters has already done all the research for the last couple of months. If it's only today's stuff, it'll take me a little longer.

We all know that half-truths and omission of facts are far more effective than outright lies ;)

Well, this was really primarily targeted at those folks that go around screaming that Foxnews is a pack of liars. EVERY news organization spins news one way or the other while still being factually true. Hell, the big three did it for decades but it was accepted at face value. Suddenly someone comes along who spins it a bit to the right and their the worst thing in the world for news?

The assignment isnt fair.

Youre asking to prove to you, an obvious big supporter of Fox News, to prove to you that they lie and distort the truth everyday.
Furthermore, you want me to do it by eliminating the people who do the MOST lying..

Bill O Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

Furthermore..you want me to do it, by ONLY using whats on the Home Page of the FoxNews.com?

Even if I could perform that miracle, I doubt you would listen.

You dont want to be proven wrong, and wouldnt change if you were.

BUT...

Why dont you watch the new movie "OutFoxed" and THEN make up your mind?

Hannity Lies.

O Reilly lies.

Fox News in general distorts the truth, and spins the news to make it more agreeable to Rupert Mordochs point of veiw.
Wich happens to be very Conservative Right-Wing Republican.

Oops, I didn't mean be restricted to the homepage and that's it. Feel free to delve into their site as deeply as you like.

The reason I didn't want to include O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes is because they are clearly not NEWS shows but news analysis and opinion oriented. Anybody with half a brain knows they aren't actual news hours.

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74
good, someone whose more liberal than me.

Haven't seen this much backpedalling going on since the Democratic candidate for county commissioner rode his bike backwards in our town parade.

Oops, I didn't mean be restricted to the homepage and that's it. Feel free to delve into their site as deeply as you like.

The reason I didn't want to include O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes is because they are clearly not NEWS shows but news analysis and opinion oriented. Anybody with half a brain knows they aren't actual news hours.

Thats the problem.

They discuss news events on those programs.
Problem is they often lie about what they hear, and thus influencing those that are watching them.

This is the true evil of what they do.
distorting the actual news broadcasts, is also common.

Yes, amazing. I hear so often how Foxnews is always lying, but they don't want to go to the site and find the lies...unless they can include the shows which are clearly not actual news shows. Heck, I think I'll go critique CNN's Crossfire and base my entire opinion of CNN on it.

Yes, amazing. I hear so often how Foxnews is always lying, but they don't want to go to the site and find the lies...unless they can include the shows which are clearly not actual news shows. Heck, I think I'll go critique CNN's Crossfire and base my entire opinion of CNN on it.

I could probably find some thing.. but, it is 4:36 AM here.. How about I will take you up on your request tomorrow.. I'm not about to go off fact finding at 4:30 in the morning..lol

Yes, amazing. I hear so often how Foxnews is always lying, but they don't want to go to the site and find the lies...unless they can include the shows which are clearly not actual news shows. Heck, I think I'll go critique CNN's Crossfire and base my entire opinion of CNN on it.

You missed the whole point.

The point is, that no matter how much evidence I show you, even about O Reilly and Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch...

That it wont make a damn bit of difference to someone who doesnt want to be convinced.

I could probably find some thing.. but, it is 4:36 AM here.. How about I will take you up on your request tomorrow.. I'm not about to go off fact finding at 4:30 in the morning..lol

Can't say that I blame ya :)

P.S. - Thanks for the cold front!

You missed the whole point.

The point is, that no matter how much evidence I show you, even about O Reilly and Hannity, and Rupert Murdoch...

That it wont make a damn bit of difference to someone who doesnt want to be convinced.

You make a valid point there Squatch...

One thing I have learned in politics, is that if people don't want to see the facts, it is clear sign they have a horrible disease called cognitive dessonance.

Basically it causes them to ignore all facts that prove something they disagree with.

Hence you will never be able to persuade them.

I'll do this if we can agree, beforehand on what IS and IS NOT a lie.

If skewing numbers, or omission of facts, etc....

One thing I have learned in politics, is that if people don't want to see the facts, it is clear sign they have a horrible disease called cognitive dessonance.

Basically it causes them to ignore all facts that prove something they disagree with.

I find it's more that they find a way to rationalize it.. make excuses for it almost or the very clever are able to spin it in the wrong direction quite well.

Okay, I'm going to do this in two parts. The first is the simple part: O'Reilly's past brushes with untruth. Clicky (http://mediamatters.org/search.html?string=o%27reilly) There's 79 matches for you dating back to April 21. Many of them are based on the same set of lies--his "boycott" and the supposed damage it has done to the French economy, his ratings, and his repeated misquotations of George Soros--but there's plenty to chew on there.

Here's the second part. In today's TPM, he doesn't clearly state an untruth as much as he spins and hides behind questionable assumptions. Here are the two places I found from just the first two segments--the only ones available on the site, by the way.

The first part is about Sandy Berger. O'Reilly says But somehow Berger took some of the classified stuff out of the archives and home. He admits doing it. And Berger says he's very, very sorry, but what he doesn't say is why he took the stuff. And that's the key question here.

Mr. Berger, why did you take classified information out of the room?

Very simple question. So far, no public answer.Except that there has been a public answer--the answer is that the documents got mixed in with some other papers he had brought in with him and he accidentally took them out. He brought them back when the archives discovered they were missing and asked about them. Even Ashcroft's justice department has said there likely won't be any charges brought against him. What, O'Reilly--you never got notes mixed up at a study group or at the copy machine? You never accidentally shuffled some papers that weren't yours into your pile when you were getting ready to leave a work area?

Now it's entirely possible that O'Reilly doesn't buy Berger's story--he's got every right to dispute the accuracy of Berger's story--but to say that Berger hasn't made a statement is incorrect.

In the second part, the ineptly named "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day", O'Reilly makes the following charge: There are some reports that the "Radio Factor" was beaten in the New York City ratings by one of our enemies. He's talking, of course, about Al Franken.

But who made those reports? O'Reilly doesn't say, and even though I'm an avid follower of Air America, I can't say either, since the only noise I heard was that Franken came within half a ratings point of Limbaugh in NYC, which is pretty good since Air America was starting from scratch. But I haven't seen word one about his ratings in comparison to O'Reilly. That doesn't mean they're not out there, but if O'Reilly's going to make the claim, he ought to say who's making the claim. If O'Reilly is so sure of himself, then he ought to not only say who's making the claim, but also put the numbers from Arbitron up in a side by side and show the public instead of just expecting us to buy it because he said it.

I doubt this will convince you, but I hope you'll at least consider the possibility that O'Reilly has been taking you for a ride.

I find it's more that they find a way to rationalize it.. make excuses for it almost or the very clever are able to spin it in the wrong direction quite well.
people do that too. It shouldn't matter if the people at Fox comment on the news they are reporting. A person with good critical thinking would be able to seperate fact from opinion.
That's the reason people watch Fox, to watch them give their opinions. But you have to know what is being stated as opinion and what is being stated as fact.

*Sigh* I'll try to explain this better. I frequently hear people calling Fox News liars. I challenged anyone to find a news story on foxnews.com that told an outright lie. Notice the word "outright" there, since people were accusing them if being liars and all. Considering BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and every news outlet I can think of besides perhaps Reuters puts a 'spin' on news, I wanted to limit to actual lies instead of what someone may perceive as being spun for the right.

I agreed to quit watching Foxnews if someone could do that, but instead all I keep hearing is that I don't want to be convinced, or that it is unfair because I am trying to limit it to actual news articles instead of articles from two shows that don't even claim to be news shows.

people do that too. It shouldn't matter if the people at Fox comment on the news they are reporting. A person with good critical thinking would be able to seperate fact from opinion.
That's the reason people watch Fox, to watch them give their opinions. But you have to know what is being stated as opinion and what is being stated as fact.

The problem is that good journalism means reporting the facts and then letting the viewer decide upon what it means.

People who watch Fox...like to be told what to think.

See, that's where you're mistaken Leynier--O'Reilly and Hannity are analysis shows, but they have to have something to analyze, don't they? And what are they analyzing? The news. So how can we consider them trustworthy if they're getting the news part of their analysis wrong?

And for an example from a hard news show, click here. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080007)
Ah, never mind, I'll just cut and paste the piece:
Hume touted discredited WMD discovery; chided French news agency for not following suit

FOX News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume claimed on July 6 that coalition forces in Iraq "have found further weapons of mass destruction" (WMD); Hume also accused the news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) of brazenly denying the existence of WMD in Iraq. He failed to note that U.S. officials admitted on July 2 that the warheads in question were actually conventional artillery shells and did not contain chemical weapons as originally thought.

From the July 6 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: Coalition forces meanwhile, have found further weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But at least one news organization seems unable to accept it, even in a story that reports that such weapons have been found. Agence French Press [Agence France-Presse], after saying, quote, "Terrorist groups were seeking to acquire the warheads containing mustard or sarin gas, which Polish troops recently discovered in Iraq," reports several paragraphs later, quote, that "No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq, seriously undermining," says the quote, "what was the central argument for going to war."

Late on July 1 and early on July 2, AFP issued at least two reports (here, for example) -- including the report Hume quoted -- that Polish troops in Iraq had found "more than a dozen warheads containing sarin or mustard gas." But AFP's Iraq roundup from later that same day (July 2) reported that the warheads in question did not contain poison after all.

Here's the AFP report from early July 2, which Hume quoted:

"Terrorist" groups were seeking to acquire the warheads containing mustard or sarin gas which Polish troops recently discovered in Iraq, the head of Poland's military intelligence service said on Friday [July 2].

[...]

Washington announced on Thursday that Polish troops had discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq, a report later confirmed by Polish Defence Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski.

But here's what a later AFP report, dated "July 2, 7:40 PM," said about the same warheads:

Meanwhile, a dozen warheads that Polish forces said on Thursday contained mustard gas or sarin contained neither, according to US forces, who tested the 122mm munitions.

As for the apparent contradiction within the one article Hume quoted, AFP's unwillingness to treat the newly discovered warheads as evidence of Iraq's having possessed WMD before the U.S.-led invasion, as the Bush administration claimed, is probably based on the expert consensus regarding a previous discovery of similar shells in mid-May: On May 18, the Associated Press reported that American experts were not interpreting the discovery of an artillery shell with traces of sarin -- which exploded in Baghdad the previous weekend -- as evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been hording stockpiles of banned weapons prior to the war in Iraq:

The discovery of an artillery shell apparently filled with a deadly nerve agent has raised fears among U.S. officials that insurgents may have more -- and will learn how to use them to greater effect.

But officials stopped short of claiming the munition was definite evidence of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam's regime -- the Bush administration's chief stated reason for invasion.

[...]

David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq, said it's possible the sarin shell was an old one, overlooked when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.

Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a surviving hidden stockpile, but didn't rule out that possibility.

"It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked -- and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that -- or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile," Kay said. "I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."

The 155-millimeter artillery shell, which was converted into a roadside bomb, bore no special markings indicating it contained a chemical agent, so officials speculate that the bombers may have believed they were using a conventional artillery round.

A similar interpretation of the sarin shells discovered in May is probably what led British Prime Minister Tony Blair to concede on July 6 that coalition forces have yet to uncover WMD in Iraq: "I have to accept that we have not found them [Iraqi WMD], that we may not find them," Blair said before the House of Commons Liaison Committee.

There's one you were looking for.

people do that too. It shouldn't matter if the people at Fox comment on the news they are reporting. A person with good critical thinking would be able to seperate fact from opinion.
That's the reason people watch Fox, to watch them give their opinions. But you have to know what is being stated as opinion and what is being stated as fact.

I think in large part the problem is not the way Fox news goes about it, but the problem is in what they claim.

It's no secret that FNC is a conservative channel. I think few would argue that. What people have a problem with is that they won't admit it. They make it sound like they're able to compare themselves with lets say "Meet the press" or "60 Minutes" They give the news with a certain flavour geared to their base.. The conservative base, which is fine. However, it should be realized this is what they do. In fact studies have been done that people who got their news from "other" sources only had a small % of inaccurate information. Where as people who got their news from Fox did tend to (by large margins) believe things that simply were not true. You'd have to watch Outfoxed to see it. They use FNC against themselves, so it's not like they're just making up some type of liberal propaganda movie.. FNC says it themselves.. and the studies were conducted by a watch dog group on journalism.. so you can't just chalk that up to being a leftist..

I think in large part the problem is not the way Fox news goes about it, but the problem is in what they claim.

It's no secret that FNC is a conservative channel. I think few would argue that. What people have a problem with is that they won't admit it. They make it sound like they're able to compare themselves with lets say "Meet the press" or "60 Minutes" They give the news with a certain flavour geared to their base.. The conservative base, which is fine. However, it should be realized this is what they do. In fact studies have been done that people who got their news from "other" sources only had a small % of inaccurate information. Where as people who got their news from Fox did tend to (by large margins) believe things that simply were not true. You'd have to watch Outfoxed to see it. They use FNC against themselves, so it's not like they're just making up some type of liberal propaganda movie.. FNC says it themselves.. and the studies were conducted by a watch dog group on journalism.. so you can't just chalk that up to being a leftist..

I never use just one source for my news. Using just one source, is a good way to get falsehoods no matter where you got it from.

You know, I wouldn't even care what Fox News reported or didn't report if they were only honest about it. If you want to be conservative, if you want to publicly fellate the Republican party, fine, go to it, be happy. Just don't act like you're being fair and balanced in your coverage. The press in Britain has open political leanings and it doesn't seem to screw them up too badly.

I am not a leftist.

I never use just one source for my news. Using just one source, is a good way to get falsehoods no matter where you got it from.


I totally agree. I watched conservative news and other news sources as well. I must admit though, I prefer my news just told to me dry as cold hard facts, if they want to give an editorial, fine, just say that's what they are doing is all I ask, so people know that is just their opinion and not news. This is where I find FNC falling short, they meld the two together. You don't know where the news ends and the editorial begins..

Incertonia, I know how you're going to take this, but please stop using mediamatters.org - now before you bite my head off, let me explain why.

They don't link to any foxnews.com articles on the Fox News website, so I cannot validate their claims. This is the very reason I wanted people to find articles on the foxnews.com site, so there would be verifiable proof.

EDIT: By the way, I also don't limit myself to one source. I love Reuters as a source. It's about as neutral as I have ever found, and probably read their articles more than I do Foxnews.com. I just think Fox News is getting a bum rap that is undeserved.

There you go...

No More Fox for you.

You ARE a person of honor arent you?

Heres some of the "spinning" that we mean.

Lets look at the home page...

In the "Recent Headlines" section we have about Bush:

"Bush Defends Terror Record."
"Senate Oks 417 Billion defense plan"
(Illustrates strong wartime support for the military, crossing party lines)

about Kerry:

"Scare at Kerry HQ"
and in another, they mention "Kerry admitting that congress was partially to blame for the intelligence failures, but that he wants to convince us he can be our commander in chief"..


You see?
They write articles that portray positively to the conservative point of view, while casting Kerry in a negative light.

that's a false test.
I am not liberal. I am rightwing.

The States have peculiar way to understand right and left....
You call your self right wing and left wing... to me all US politics are right winged... it differs on more rightwinged and less rightwinged..

Hum.... it MAY be that some centrist actually exist... but I would not count on it.

Actually, if you look at the Hume piece, it doesn't link directly to foxnews.com, but the top links are to archived footage of Hume saying exactly what they claim he does. The links that follow are the ones that debunk his claims. I understand your desire, but give it a shot.

*SCREAMS INTO THE VOID*

Good God Almighty. For the THIRD TIME: All news organizations spin their news. I said in the VERY FIRST post in this thread...outright lies...because that is what I frequently hear people accuse foxnews of, lying. I didn't say spinning, I said lies.

If you've never said they are liars then this thread wasn't directed at you. If you have said it, find a LIE or admit you were wrong.

EDIT: I have to hit the hay. Just on the slim chance that someone actually does find a lie, I'll refrain from watching Foxnews tomorrow until I check back with this thread. I think I'm safe in saying that I'll be watching it in time to catch Special Edition though since I doubt anyone WILL find a lie.

One more thing Leynier--it's difficult to show some of these examples because Fox doesn't post full transcripts of these shows on their website. Kind of hard to point up errors when you can't get access to the source material.

I totally agree. I watched conservative news and other news sources as well. I must admit though, I prefer my news just told to me dry as cold hard facts, if they want to give an editorial, fine, just say that's what they are doing is all I ask, so people know that is just their opinion and not news. This is where I find FNC falling short, they meld the two together. You don't know where the news ends and the editorial begins..
Maybe they actually believe what they are saying.

Incertonias post on page three is accurate and everything that Brit Hume was quoted as saying can be confirmed on LexisNexis.

Maybe they actually believe what they are saying.

That's fair, but it's still opinion and not news. Which as I have stated I'm fine with it, just don't claim it's news.

I meant to say maybe they can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Why do you insist on undeniable proof of an outright lie by FNC? You exempt their editorial staff from this and they're the one's usually being refered to as 'liars'. They also devote a large amount of airtime to these editorial programs. However ommissive and selective reporting which are the hallmark of Foxes broadcasts are equally reprehensible qualities from any organization portraying themselves respectable news reporters. Certainly inappropriate for anyone who uses the tag line "fair and balanced". There are many degrees of 'truth'. I would prefer to know the 'whole truth', not what Fox selects to feed me. Fox news is usually only good for determining what the right wing stand on a issue is. I certainly don't look to them for anything close to a 'fair and balanced' report on any issue, there is always more than one side of any story and the one thing I can count on from Fox is only being shown one side.

I'm only socially liberal.. I'm a fiscal moderate conservative.. Thus, I'm not a "leftist" ..lol :p
You mean that you are socially liberal and fiscally right-wing. The term "conservative" is purely social. It's not the same as right-wing.

Besides, your political compass results would disagree.

I said in the VERY FIRST post in this thread...outright lies...because that is what I frequently hear people accuse foxnews of, lying. I didn't say spinning, I said lies.

If you've never said they are liars then this thread wasn't directed at you. If you have said it, find a LIE or admit you were wrong.

I understand what you are asking, but is there anyone specific you can name who has flat out said Fox News lies? Preferrably not any of the more extreme left-wing celebrities. Personally I haven't heard anyone actually say they think Fox News LIES, but as you somewhat admitted and others have mentioned they put a hard right-wing spin on things to the point it leads to misperceptions of reality in general.

Example of what I believe you are looking for...Fox News states the USA has invaded Cuba with a force of 50,000 soldiers as of 6 AM today. This would be an outright lie. I think what others are asking is what about ommision of facts, portraying news facts in either a positive or negative fashion, etc. I seem to remember Fox News carried nothing about the fake uranium report even though other news networks were all over it. Why would that be?

Any take on why a sizeable percentage of regular Fox News viewers appear to not have their facts right? Like this link analyzes...

"As the Washington Post reported[8], "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

As Alternet reported[9], "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Fox_News

Okay, how about this? Include everything but Hannity and Colmes? Nobody in their right mind would even consider that one an analysis show. It's just two blowhards for opposite ends of the spectrum trying to see who can yell over the other the most. I'll let you include O'Reilly since he's not one to go around lying.

I think you're being too picky by the way. There are tons of articles on their site that have absolutely nothing to do with either show.
I prefer Franken's metaphor for Hannity and Colmes; politically balanced like one guy sitting in the middle of a seesaw and one guy sitting on the right. Colmes is a moderate, not a liberal, and the number of words he says compared to what Hannity says are roughly 1:2

Well, this was really primarily targeted at those folks that go around screaming that Foxnews is a pack of liars. EVERY news organization spins news one way or the other while still being factually true. Hell, the big three did it for decades but it was accepted at face value. Suddenly someone comes along who spins it a bit to the right and their the worst thing in the world for news?

They are if they don't acknowledge that spin.

And, as for a lie, how about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1238901,00.html

Fox presentor John Gibson accused the BBC of "frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest." Furthermore, he claimed that BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "Insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military."

Bald. Faced. Lie.

As reported by FOX.

And never forget the lie ran by FOX news about departing Clinton staffers "trashing" the White House. FOX Commentators, presenters and all claimed as fact everything from cut power cords to the utter ransaking of Air Force One. The problem is, none of it ever happened. Ever. According to the May 17th, 2001 report from the General Service Administration regarding the incident: The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy.

Bald. Faced. Lie.

As reported by FOX.

Hell Berkylvania--did you hear that Britain's OfCom busted Fox for that very broadcast? It was a beautiful report to read.

Did you see the reply on My Word?

No I didn't. Did Gibson try to justify himself?

Hell Berkylvania--did you hear that Britain's OfCom busted Fox for that very broadcast? It was a beautiful report to read.

Yep. Busted. Proof that it's more than just "spin", it's shoddy yellow journalism. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is channeling William Randolph Hurst?

No I didn't. Did Gibson try to justify himself?
If I recall right, he stated how he was proud to be "censored" by "an agency of the British governement."

Actually, this could be considered lying. As he wasn't censored, and an agency of the British Government had nothing to do with it.

FOX doesn't so much present inaccurate facts (though that does happen with every news outlet to some degree or other) as they spin everything, espcially in the "No Spin Zone." They often present only one side of arguments and they intentionally bring on "opposition" guests who will make their side look ridiculous. When presented with a situation in which a Republican or Democratic Congressman, for instance, would say the same basic thing ("The 9/11 report should not be a partisan issue") they present only the Republican, thus subtly implying that the Democrats did not share that position. You don't have to lie to mislead, and FOX does a great job of misleading.

Of course let's not forget that on the other side Michael Moore does many of the same things in his effort to discredit Bush and the Administration.

Why am I not surprised. Doesn't John Gibson remind you of the Gary Oldman character from Dracula?
http://assall.de/movie-prop/horror_new/pic_05.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1324/6_22_200x300_bio_johngibson.jpg

I report, you decide. :D

Oops, I didn't mean be restricted to the homepage and that's it. Feel free to delve into their site as deeply as you like.

The reason I didn't want to include O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes is because they are clearly not NEWS shows but news analysis and opinion oriented. Anybody with half a brain knows they aren't actual news hours.

Maybe this has already been addressed because I'm working my way through this thread, but the trouble with FOX is that it's all O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes "newstalk" that attempts to present itself as journalism. There's nothing wrong with "newstalk", but it's not journalism or, really, news and that important difference is constantly being blurred by FOX. As FOX increasingly becomes this newstalk station, by rights, it should identify itself as such and drop the whole "fair and balanced" charade because it is more about opinion (which it has a right to have, but doesn't have a right to present as fact) than fact (which it doesn't have much of anymore).

Why am I not surprised. Doesn't John Gibson remind you of the Gary Oldman character from Dracula?
http://assall.de/movie-prop/horror_new/pic_05.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1324/6_22_200x300_bio_johngibson.jpg

I report, you decide. :D

:D :D :D :D

I'm sending that to Private Eye (if you don't mind).

Why am I not surprised. Doesn't John Gibson remind you of the Gary Oldman character from Dracula?
http://assall.de/movie-prop/horror_new/pic_05.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1324/6_22_200x300_bio_johngibson.jpg

I report, you decide. :D

Bwahahaha.

One quibble, though. Gary Oldman isn't nearly as hammy an actor as John Gibson.

:D :D :D :D

I'm sending that to Private Eye (if you don't mind).
Feel free.

Well, it seems I have to at least partially eat crow here. Here is the direct Foxnews.com link of Gibson's story. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109821,00.html) While I do personally consider his comments a fair paraphrasing of BBC reporting, I can see how people may not see it the same way I do.

I believe a fair compromise would be to ban myself from the Foxnews channel and foxnews.com for two months. Objections, people consider this me squirming out of my deal?

Btw, in his defense, he absolutely was censured by the British Government, unless the Guardian is lying. link here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1238901,00.html)

You mean that you are socially liberal and fiscally right-wing. The term "conservative" is purely social. It's not the same as right-wing.

Besides, your political compass results would disagree.

Yeah, I guess I worded that poorly.. it was 4:30 AM..lol

What I meant to say was that I am socially liberal, however I do believe in fiscal responsibility. I hope that makes more sense. I'm very liberal on how people should be allowed to live their lives, I don't believe it's the governments business. However when it comes to my tax dollars I want them spent responsibly and not wasted on programs that don't work or on bureaucracies. I hope that makes more sense..

Sounds fair to me. Good luck with it.

you want a lie? read this article!

http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html

There's your lie

Given that most liberals and all leftists seem to think that Fox News is a hellspawn demon under the control of conservatives, I have an assignment for y'all.

Go to the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com) and find an article that contains an outright lie in it.

Normally I would assume that one would understand the following as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I guess I better spell out a restriction: Please don't use articles from Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly as they are a conservative vs. liberal viewpoint and news analysis show respectively, not actual news shows. Normally I would assume that one would understand the above as a given, but since I'm dealing with leftists I felt it best to explain why those shows should be off limits. It would be like using pieces from the New York Times editorial page to prove it is a lying leftist paper.

Personally, I'm betting nobody can find an outright lie. If I'm wrong, I'll quit watching Foxnews!

its not so much fox itself as it is sean hannity, bill o' reilly and all the other jackasses

First I will state that I'm liberal and proud of it. Still, I am just as dedicated to truth as anyone. Two issues in which there was definite lies on both sides, although more on the right than the left, were the anti-Iraq war protests in Chicago and the march for abortion rights in Washington, D. C. In both cases, even if more liberal outlets slightly exagerated the number of protesters, Fox blatently downplayed them and deliberately spun the stories to make the protesters seem like cranks out of touch with reality. Additionally, on the issue of vouchers, Fox provided a emotionally-aimed story of some young, African-American children being raised by their grandmother, who with vouchers for a parochial education could have a better life. Then, Fox reminded viewers that Kerry is against vouchers, and had him represented by a teacher asking for greater state funding of education. Fox did this to give the impression that Kerry doesn't care and is just pro-Union. Were Fox "fair and ballanced", their counter example of vouchers would be that of another inner-city family asking for better schools instead of vouchers.

Gee ....

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10

As if I didn't already know that. My answer to the challenge? Show me where I ever once said Fox News lies.

i have 2 friends that have sons in iraq and sons of 2 coworkers. 2 are white 1 is cuban/american and one is african/american. what they tell me of iraq is much closer to what i see on fox than on any of the other news sources. after the frist war in iraq i started watching many difernt news sources to try and get a ballanced veiw. before that i only watched cnn but was completly dismayed at how they reported it. any of you that are old enough to rember the war in 91 that saw cnn rembers that to have there reporter in bagdad they became a sadom propaganda news source. cnn would show damaged civil buildings but completly ignor the fact that they where damaged by secondary explosions from the militay building that where next to it. or that sadom would use buildings for military during the day and put civilans in that at night when the us did most of there bombing. from what i have seen and what i have been told by people that have been there none of the networks show a balanced veiw but fox does come the closest even with there problems.


Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.36
as you can see i am very close to center.

Go to the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com) and find an article that contains an outright lie in it.

On the right of the home page:
"Should U.S. legal system take harder line against dangerous protesters?"

There are no "dangerous" protesters. There are, however, dangerous police -
http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGAMR511422003.

That was easy. Enjoy life without Fox News propaganda.

Vas.