Fox News Fabricates Part of U.S. Constitution

[MadLib]

FOX lies all the time. It's lies are much more sophisticated than this incident though. This was a sloppy mistake. These are TV people we're talking about, they weren't smart enough to get into print media.

I beg to differ on the "sophisticated" claim. Remember when they used video from another rally to say that the Tea Party rally had a lot more people than it really did (and the color of the trees changed from the footage of the correct rally to that of the other rally)? Remember when they used footage from a hotel near a beach in California to say that the Wisconsin protesters were rioting (footage that included palm trees)? That's not very sophisticated.

 

[buck]

I beg to differ on the "sophisticated" claim. Remember when they used video from another rally to say that the Tea Party rally had a lot more people than it really did (and the color of the trees changed from the footage of the correct rally to that of the other rally)? Remember when they used footage from a hotel near a beach in California to say that the Wisconsin protesters were rioting (footage that included palm trees)? That's not very sophisticated.

I have no idea about the first claim you made, but the second one was not a lie. Again, even some liberal leaning websites admitted as much. They opened the segment with the montage of video clips, which they clearly explained as being from around the country. They then started talking about the WI protests while playing those same clips on a loop. The fact that some people that want to criticze Fox are not smart enough to keep up does not mean that Fox lied.

 

[pbrauer]

I have an idea Pete. Maybe if you would stay away from hack sites like Media Matters and get your news from much less partisan sources, maybe you wouldn't continue to embarrass yourself like this over and over again?

I don't know, just an idea. Carry on.

This is a common complaint of yours, if you actually check the OP you will see that it wasn't me that started this thread with a link to Media Matters, it was someone else.

You have stated in the past that you are tired of reading threads stated by links to Media Matters, however you're not forced to read them. Plus you never comment on the substance only comment that Media Matter is the source.

Media Matters is far from being a hack site as it apparently follows some journalistic standards. For example, if you browsed the site (which you won’t do) you would not see the word "lie" any of its derivations very much with good reason. The word ‘lie’ implies you knew the truth, but purposefully told a falsehood.

Media Mattters is partisan site they make no bones about that, but they provide objective no nonsense reporting.

As for the screen being a typographical error, it should be noted that Fox's national correspondent Steve Centanni said Kagan's recusal may be required by "Article 28 of the Constitution."

 

[misterman]

I beg to differ on the "sophisticated" claim. Remember when they used video from another rally to say that the Tea Party rally had a lot more people than it really did (and the color of the trees changed from the footage of the correct rally to that of the other rally)? Remember when they used footage from a hotel near a beach in California to say that the Wisconsin protesters were rioting (footage that included palm trees)? That's not very sophisticated.

Okay, some aren't.

But those could also just be mistakes too. Running the wrong tape happens alot on TV.

 

[rocket88]

Okay, some aren't.

But those could also just be mistakes too. Running the wrong tape happens alot on TV.

They've made some errors, possibly some intentional, but 9 times out of 10, Fox is very good at what they do. This was an exceptionally bad error. They planned it, they knew when they were going to run it, and nobody bothered to proofread for accuracy.

This mistake was very bad for them. Very bad form from people who usually know what they're doing.

 

[American]

Media Matters never gives you the link to what they claim to quote.

 

[pbrauer]

Media Matters never gives you the link to what they claim to quote.

Huh? There is a video at the following link::roll:

Fox Cites Non-Existent Part Of The Constitution To Hype Argument For Kagan Recusal | Media Matters for America

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Media Mattters is partisan site they make no bones about that, but they provide objective no nonsense reporting.

Gotta love those partisan objective websites! :lamo

 

[MadLib]

I have no idea about the first claim you made, but the second one was not a lie. Again, even some liberal leaning websites admitted as much. They opened the segment with the montage of video clips, which they clearly explained as being from around the country. They then started talking about the WI protests while playing those same clips on a loop. The fact that some people that want to criticze Fox are not smart enough to keep up does not mean that Fox lied.

Wisconsin Prank Call Bill - The Colbert Report - 2011-02-03 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[buck]

Wisconsin Prank Call Bill - The Colbert Report - 2011-02-03 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Yes, Colbert (and most of the rest of the left wing) cut out the beginning of the Oreilly segment in which Oreilly clearly indicated that the clips were from around the country. They then played the exact same clips (that had already been clearly labeled as being from around the country) while discussing the WI protests with Mike Tobin.

I get that Colbert has an agenda and you have an unshakeable belief that Fox lies so will do your darndest to shoe horn anything even close to fit that belief, but any reasonably intelligent and objective individual will understand what really occured.

And before you fall back on the standard liberal response - Mediaite is clearly not even close to being a right wing source.

Did Fox News Lie? | Fox News Palm Trees Wisconsin | Union Thug | Mediaite

While, in the 43-second clip that’s being linked to on YouTube, it does look like Fox News lied, but watching the entire segment for context makes it clear that they did not.

 

[MadLib]

Yes, Colbert (and most of the rest of the left wing) cut out the beginning of the Oreilly segment in which Oreilly clearly indicated that the clips were from around the country. They then played the exact same clips (that had already been clearly labeled as being from around the country) while discussing the WI protests with Mike Tobin.

I get that Colbert has an agenda and you have an unshakeable belief that Fox lies so will do your darndest to shoe horn anything even close to fit that belief, but any reasonably intelligent and objective individual will understand what really occured.

And before you fall back on the standard liberal response - Mediaite is clearly not even close to being a right wing source.

Did Fox News Lie? | Fox News Palm Trees Wisconsin | Union Thug | Mediaite

Actually, the left did talk about the beginning. Bill O'Reilly did use that footage in the beginning and say it was from around the country, however, viewers who turn in after that brief mention will think that the footage is used to describe the WI protests. It is at best misleading to talk about peaceful WI protests while showing violent ones from California.

 

[haymarket]

The very idea that there are thinking individuals in the nation who actually look to FOX for news is either laughter inducing or will drive one to tears.

 

[Objective Voice]

Even Media Matters seems to acknowledge it was a type-o. Big deal. The person that typed up that graphic made a mistake.

For my take it was more than a just a "simple mistake". Consider this...

FoxNews clearly is a Republican media source. Republicans have been exhalting the Constitution vigorously especially hard-Right Conservatives. They've also sought for Justice Kagen to recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality on the health care law. Does it not make sense to use alittle "creative editing" in an attempt to convince their viewers that our Constitution, the law of the land, contains a provision that should be upheld to get her out of judicial chambers before this case comes before the Supreme Court? Think about that for a moment?

How many people take what they hear on conservative talk radio or FoxNews for that matter as absolute truth?

 

[Keridan]

For my take it was more than a just a "simple mistake". Consider this...

FoxNews clearly is a Republican media source. Republicans have been exhalting the Constitution vigorously especially hard-Right Conservatives. They've also sought for Justice Kagen to recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality on the health care law. Does it not make sense to use alittle "creative editing" in an attempt to convince their viewers that our Constitution, the law of the land, contains a provision that should be upheld to get her out of judicial chambers before this case comes before the Supreme Court? Think about that for a moment?

How many people take what they hear on conservative talk radio or FoxNews for that matter as absolute truth?

Seriously? ... I mean ... seriously?

 

[Objective Voice]

The minion who creates the graphics obviously saw U.S.C. and assumed that to be an acronym for "US Constitution" rather than "US Code".

I'd buy that argument if the initials "U.S.C." appeared in the graphic. They do not. Just go back to the OP and review the FoxNews image again. You won't see those initials anywhere.

So, the question remains...

Did they correct the error?

 

[misterman]

I'd buy that argument if the initials "U.S.C." appeared in the graphic. They do not.

Of course they don't - because he was spelling out what he thought they stood for.

I see people who don't know what they're talking about do this all the time. They spell out "H.R." in a bill number as "House Rule" or "House Resolution" (it simply stands for "House of Representatives"). They think they're being smarter, but it just exposes them as ignorant.

 

[misterman]

For my take it was more than a just a "simple mistake". Consider this...

FoxNews clearly is a Republican media source. Republicans have been exhalting the Constitution vigorously especially hard-Right Conservatives. They've also sought for Justice Kagen to recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality on the health care law. Does it not make sense to use alittle "creative editing" in an attempt to convince their viewers that our Constitution, the law of the land, contains a provision that should be upheld to get her out of judicial chambers before this case comes before the Supreme Court? Think about that for a moment?

How many people take what they hear on conservative talk radio or FoxNews for that matter as absolute truth?

If they wanted to make up lies like this, they'd make up much better ones. In fact, they do.

 

[Objective Voice]

Seriously? ... I mean ... seriously?

Yes, seriously. There are people out there who won't take the time to look up the particular articles referenced, but instead will take what FoxNews says as factual. I can't tell you the number of times I've discussed political issues with Republican coworkers who watch FoxNews who actually hang on their every word. It's only when you pull up the reference or present a factual counter-argument that they begin to change their mind. Take the health care law for example. I've pointed out alot of things that some people still have wrong because they heard it on conservative talk radio or on FoxNews. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if this "slip-up" wasn't a typo at all, but rather a calculated move on their part.

They'll take the hit as an honest mistake because it's easy to just excuse it away as just another "editorial mistake". But unless FoxNews comes out and admit their "typo" people will very likely reference their piece as truth.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Seriously? ... I mean ... seriously?

The problem is.....he IS serious.

 

[Objective Voice]

Seriously? ... I mean ... seriously?

The problem is.....he IS serious.

Yes or No...

Has FoxNews made such "editorial mistakes" before in the recent past?

And really think about it, folks. For a news station that touts the Constitution as much as FoxNews does, does it make sense to you that they'd allow such an easily sourced reference to get aired like that? IMO, either FoxNews' journalist are stupid or this was purposeful. I'm just not buying that this was some innocent mistake because the reference - the U.S. Constitution - is just too easy to source...correctly, I might add.

 

[RWRconservative]

Come now, you are certainly reaching with this one, though that is certainly not a surprise considering the such an anti freedom political bent.

Fox news simply failed to correctly cite, which is not unusual for them or any other media outlet.

As anyone should know, that language is from US Code 28,455,(b)(3) and would obviously disqualify Keagan were she involved with an honest and transparent administration. This regime, however, is neither honest nor transparent and will always resort to its comfort zone of Chicago style lie and cheat politics.

 

[Objective Voice]

Thus, the question has been asked but not answered: "Has FoxNews corrected the mistake?" Have they recanted their inaccurate reference?

And no, nobody should "know" that or any other U.S. Code off the top of their head. Have you tried looking up U.S. Codes? It's not a straight-forward process. But looking up a referenced article of the Constitution is. Of course, that would mean that regardless of FoxNews' mistake their viewers should be smart enough to know that the reference sighted was wrong on its face. But as I said, there are alot of people out there who won't take the time to check for themselves but instead WILL accept at face value that what FoxNews (or any other news outlet for that matter) said was 100% accurate.

 

[buck]

Actually, the left did talk about the beginning. Bill O'Reilly did use that footage in the beginning and say it was from around the country, however, viewers who turn in after that brief mention will think that the footage is used to describe the WI protests. It is at best misleading to talk about peaceful WI protests while showing violent ones from California.

So now Fox is lying because it's possible that someone didn't see the full segment. So, basically, if two people are having a conversation and someone comes in the middle of it and misunderstands what they are talking about, those two people were lying. If you tune in halfway through a story on any news channel, you could get the wrong idea, because you don't have the prior context. Does that mean that news channel was lying or misrepresenting? Of course not.

 

[buck]

The problem is.....he IS serious.

Apparently so. When people hear things that don't mesh with their opinions, they do their best to correect the mismatch. Some people change their opinion, still others do their best to maintain the opinion and make the new fact fit in (no matter how silly it is) with their opinion.

 

[Objective Voice]

Apparently so. When people hear things that don't mesh with their opinions, they do their best to correect the mismatch. Some people change their opinion, still others do their best to maintain the opinion and make the new fact fit in (no matter how silly it is) with their opinion.

I find that a rather wrong-headed statement considering I haven't offered my opinion one way or another as to whether or not Justice Kagan should step away from the SC health care law case. My argument has focused squarely on the integrity of what FoxNews did. And so I will ask again, have they recanted their error since that clip aired? If not, I'd say I'm right. If they have, good on them.

It's just that simple.

Now, if you want to know my opinion on whether or not she should step away from the case, start another thread and we'll discuss it. But if you don't mind, I try to stay on topic as much as I can when responding to a thread.