What would you say about the media...
 

You know, you guys are right. You keep telling me that the media can't be trusted. Why, I never would have believed it unless I had seen it with my own two eyes.

While covering a major news event, one of the news networks actually used footage of A DIFFERENT EVENT to make it look as if more people had attended than actually did!

Anyone else find this absolutely unacceptable? Why, when Dan Rather did something much less obviously manufactured he lost his job. Does anyone think the people who did this should be fired?

Oh, by the way, it was FOX News. You guys still drinkin' the Kool Aid? Seriously, how far do they have to go before you say "yeah, that's a bit too much"?

Oh, and who reported it? Your favorite reporter!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...rotest-footage

Busted! :eek: :mad:

Fox Fiction.

Regards,

D-Ray

I don't have a favorite reporter nor network.

We need to legislate truth in news.


(just like we had to legislate safety in the work place or corporate responsibility)

When did we legislate corporate responsibility.

While I understand your frustration with the news, I do not want to give those in power the opportunity to use the coercive power of the government the opporttunity to define the truth.

Regards,

D-Ray

And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

Your advocating state run news agencies ?

nope

I am advocating legislating truth in news.

Labels things honestly. If it is news it is honest. If it is labeled commentary anything goes. No different than what we do with the food we eat. We label it so we know what is what.

I have spoken to this and insisting on truth has nothing to do with giving the government any power over it. That's silly.
Are you advocating repealing the perjury charges if you lie under oath?
same thing.
This argument holds no water.

Not at all.

Like with any laws we can take into account circumstance, intent and responsibility.

The analogy does not fit. I have explained this before. Prosecution for perjury has a limited application to statements made under oath. Most situations when people are placed under oath there is a ceremonial solemnity to the occasion. Courtrooms are often impressive august rooms that emphasize the importance of the events occurring within. In almost all trials someone is determined to be right and others determined to be wrong. That means the jury has rejected some things that were stated under oath. Nevertheless perjury is rarely charged. The nuances of intent, perception, and perspective make proof of intent difficult.

News reporting is done quickly, without the opportunity to research and examine everything that occurs before a trial. Reporting is not given under oath. Moreover, the testimony given in a courtroom will generally involve a specific set of circumstances that relate to a personal or business dispute. News reporting, however, involves identifying matters of interest to the public, controversial matters about which there is a great deal of dispute. The determination about which news to devote airtime to is a judgment call. News reporting can also involve revealing facts about public officials or power brokers that are not favorable to their positions. Such people would have the incentive, the influence and the access to information to take action against one who has reported on a controversial issue. That power would have a chilling effect on the dissemination of information about critical matters of public concern.

There is no parallel between the use of perjury to prosecute lies intentionally told while under oath, under solemn circumstances, with prosecution of individuals who are trying to report information about matters of public concern. The legislation you advocate is not only bad public policy, it would cause the chilling effect on free speech that violates the First Amendment.

Regards,

D-Ray

With all respect D-Ray, this is America. If we want to do something we can do it. To say that there is no way to get truth in news is to say I have no desire to have truth in news. You have every right to feel this way but I choose not to. I prefer my fellow Americans and I base our decisions on facts and not blatant biased lies.

This is the United States, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment to that Constitution guarantees free speech. Any law that tried to provide punishment for the content of news programming would not pass constitutional muster. If it did, it would be an invitation to tyrrany.

Just ask yourself what would happen if Dick Cheney had the opportunity to use that law. Don't you think he would have one of the politically beholden US Attorneys to find a way to prosecute some of those unpatriotic treasonous reporters who reported information damaging to the war effort. Because of the cost of defense, even being charged with an infraction is punishment in itself.

Regards,

D-Ray

lol, OH! That changes eveything!

Man, if the "left wing media" made a slip like that the Teabaggers would decend on them like a swarm of locust. Imagine if while covering the teabagging convention NBC 'accidently' used file video (why would you use file video for a current story in the first place?) of a much smaller gathering. How much outrage would we hear from the right? They would demand people be fired! Boycot the network sponsors! But with Fox, oh, they admitted the mistake! Eveything is okay now.

What's amazing is that people can hold such an obvious double standard but not be aware of it. Astonishing really.

Sorry, can't see any correlation.

The way you explain it, it should be impossible to prosecute someone for yelling fire in a theater.

OMG!!!!!!

Are you suggesting Sean Hannity is capable of misleading people????
(Insert patriotic backround music here. And roll the rotating images of the flag, Iwo Jima statue, and crucifixion here.)
That's not possible, why he is a Christian and a GREAT AMERICAN,
therefore totally incapable of pulling something like this!!!!! Why would this uber-patriotic, Yankee Doodle Dandy need to do such a thing when he is clearly angelic, God-like and pristine in every way? Why, I've heard, that when he farts it sounds like a Souza Band and smells of Lilacs!!!!

Shame! Shame on you Eddie for casting aspersions upon the GREATEST AMERICAN to have ever lived! Shame on you, you Jesus hating, Stalinist, Neo-Nazi, anti-Christ, monster-in-the-closet, tax and spend Boogeyman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's my sign? The one with ObamaHitler on it! I'm hittin' the streets!!

Geez.

Dave

Woah, Dave. Gettin' pretty personal! lol

I've been called worse. I wouldn't have cast those aspersions if I had known he said "sorry" later.

Take care,

Ed

The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).

I agree with your final sentence. And it cuts both ways.

But I'm not exactly astonished. People have mistaken sarcastic and inflammatory rhetoric for an argument every since the start of time.

My initial statement was that Hannity corrected himself. Let's just forget about my statement that an out of context video clip shown in the background of a story is not the same as a manufactured document that WAS the story. I realize that this is a mighty fine hair to split...so I'll let it go.

And your response starts out with the term "teabaggers", which, in case you don't realize it, is a personal insult. To some people.

You have a knack for getting along with people.

And as far as imagining how the right would respond if the left were to pull the same stunt...well, they have. And I've seen the call for boycotts also coming from the left.

I'll wrap this up, I actually have better things to do tonite. A narrow minded asshole is a narrow minded asshole, whatever side of the fence he's on.

BTW Noon, I concur with D-Ray's line of reasoning. His arguments are valid.

Adios schmucks...I'm off to Beer Camp. I'm the chef tonite.

Chas

Wow, Chas, we're just chatting buddy. Don't need to get so worked up. Teabaggers thing is a joke. You should lighten up a bit there tiger.

Wait, so he only apologized because Stewart called him out?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...logizes-to-jon

and you don't think deliberately lying to the masses is endangerment???:confused:

all blurry lines can be un blurred ;)

It's Friday night. Chas is likely feelin "liberal" by now. :D

This is, of course, only my opinion but I believe it was Fox's intention to deceive when they ran that footage of the September rally. The footage was tagged in the upper left "EARLIER" so as to give themselves an out but Hannity blew that when he remarked that the crowd in the September video was "very big for a Thursday".

The video was very much "in context" if you think about it. It just distorted the truth.

But, Chas, the Tea Party goers referred to themselves as "Teabaggers", even doing stuff like decorating themselves with teabags, even after they discovered the other definition for the term. Clearly, though, the term causes you offense so is there another term you'd prefer us to use?

Yes, boycotts can be a useful tool for either side. No argument there but I don't think that was the point. It wasn't a comparison of what the Right would do versus what the Left would do. Rather it was a question of the Right's tendency to cry out for blood when one of their political oponents is caught in some transgression or other but turn a blind eye, deaf ear and mute tongue when it's one of their own.

Of course, both sides can be guilty of that but I believe the Right is much worse than the Left in that regard. Compare the Democrat's response to William Jefferson's troubles (stripped of all committee assignments) to the Republicans response to David Vitter (standing ovation from his fellow Democratic senators.

John

It's difficult to imagine any other way archive footage would have wound up in the story. I mean, what scenario leads to footage from several months ago "accidentally" being edited into a story from today? And, okay, if there is a mistake, it just so happened to work out that it was footage that looked as if it belonged in that story? Come on.

My opinion of Hanitty, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, is this;

They all claim to be doing what they do out of "Love of Country".

Really?

Okay, let's cut off the multi-million dollar paychecks. Then we'll see just how fast the faux patriotism runs out.

Dave

I thought that they were advancing their viewpoints and making a buck doing so.

The only problem you libs have with them is that they're not advancing YOUR viewpoints.

If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

Fox has a history of touching on stories that the other newscasters ignore. And Fox, IMHO, tends to grate on my nerves. Just like the rest of them.

Now this is just my opinion.

You libs like to think of yourselves as as enlightened and open minded, but you become almost rabid when you encounter an opposing viewpoint. It's not that you can't see an opposing viewpoint, it's more like you REFUSE to see an opposing viewpoint. You're no different than the far right wing when it comes to being narrow minded.

This is the only reason that I defend Faux News. They have as much of a right to advance their position as anyone.

Instead of trying to pick apart another's argument, why not try to see what they are saying.

And allow me to apologize for referring to you fine folks as libs. It truly is a meaningless term...no one is that simplistic.

Random thoughts.

Chas

Chas, it sounds like you are agreeing with one of the primary criticisms of Fox. To pretend to be neutral and instead advance an agenda - in a means-spirited way, I might add - is flat dishonest. The confrontational style that Fox misidentifies as fair and balanced almost appears to be designed to provoke the type of reaction that you see here.

Here is an example of their confrontational style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9gXD0wSRo

Just because I believe that it would be a dangerous policy to criminalize the type of conduct in which Fox engages does not mean I believe that they are ethical or honest.

I don't mind being called a lib or a lefty, just don't call me Johnson. I do have serious issues with the values espoused by the Right. I believe that they value money over human beings, that they look down on those who have not been as fortunate as they. They act as if it is the fault of the poor for being poor, but advocate policies that make it harder for workers to get their fair share. They also show tremendous arrogance in claiming to have a stranglehold on the truth. It does become difficult to seriously consider such views, because it appears that the only way to come to an understanding is to see it their way.

Regards,

D-Ray

It's 6am and I stumbled upon Fox News. It's unbelievable. I can see no distinction between their broadcast and what I have read about the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. These people place corporate values ahead of US vales and distort essentially everything they show. If I did not know what lies they were I would be up in arms and scared about the future also.
You folks that embarrass Fox really need to step back and reevaluate why you watch it. Sorry, that is my heartfelt observation.

You do realize rupert murdoch is not American and that he allows or disallows everything you see on his networks? Do you really think this is acceptable to gather your facts from? Honestly, I have to question how patriotic his viewers are for this reason alone. Read about the mass psychology of fascism. The similarities are stunning.

Sorry noon, Rupert applied for and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen about a year or two ago. Not that this makes him any less a scheming bandit.

But we don't need some nanny to watch over our TV viewing, anyone whose IQ at least matches their age know FOX for what it is, serving the schemes of Murdoch to take over all the media in the world.

"News" doesn't have spin. I've heard the tired explanations of the "Liberal Media" and even the most venomous detractors say it is an unintentional addition of personal beliefs. Fox "spin" is not unintentional.

And Chas, some of us are offended by the derisive term "libs". We're just Americans expressing our opinion.

I agree. I wish the bar you set applied to voting rights.

Unfortuantely they won't allow that, I always wondered if I ever committed a crime where they would find a jury.:rolleyes:

lOL, it would be difficult.

I do agree. Being fair and balanced is a high bar, and one that Fox is unable to leap. Are they more fair and balanced than CBS, NBC, ABC, ETC...probably not. Are they less F&B than the above, once again, probably not.

At times they seem to address issues that the other networks won't, which is their only redeeming quality in my eyes.

Your clip of Megan Kelly is the rule and not the exception. The majority of Fox's coverage is commentary, pretty much right leaning, their anchors remind me of some smart assed college kid who they won't jet join the debating team because he doesn't know when to shut up, their actual newcasts are nothing more than a series of car chases, intertwined with other mindless bullshit, and I find it difficult so sit through the 90% of the trash in order to catch the 10% of some thing of conquesence.

When you get down to it, I don't really like any of the networks. What did Mencken say about a journalist being someone who is unable (or unwilling) to differate between a bicycle wreck and the end of civilization?

BTW, I don't see you as a liberal, only because you appear to be to complex to be defined by a single term.

No doubt that some on the right demonstrate the qualities that you have listed above. While not an excuse for their behavior, I've noticed pretty much the same arrogant qualities coming from the left. Different policies to be sure, but the same arrogance.

Anyway, the time has come for me to report back to beer camp. I need to round up the chuck eyes, my gambling money, fishing pole, sidearm.....and more beer.

Have a good day, and I would never call you Johnson. Not even behind your back!!!!!

Chas

It's not a matter of whether what you're hearing is or isn't bullshit.
It's a matter of whose bullshit is more appealing to you?

Dave

Can you say "Calvinism"?

John

I'd seen you mention "Calvinism" before, but didn't know what that meant.
So, I took the time to read up. Wow, does that smack the nail directly, flat square on the head. Man, you guys are smart. I am learning so much.

Thanks, John.

Dave

Someone mentionned Mencken, this quotation is probably what he would have said about Fox;

"No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the Americn public."