• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News Fabricates Part of U.S. Constitution

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

Maybe a little overblown, but in essence, yes.

Iv seen with my own eyes more than one little known Repub wrongdoer with a (d) by his name on Fox. Never seen a ljttle known Dem wrongdoer with an (r) by their name.

And Fox and the Repubs want Kagan to recuse herself, but don't care that Thomas' wife is a paid Tea Party leader, active in the effort to defeat the bill.

Or that Thomas and Scalia were keynote speakers at an event sponsored by the law firm representing the anti ACA side of the case.

And lets not forget all those people who still believe nonsense like "death panels" and "secret muslim Presidents born outside the US". Most if not all of which were born in the conservative mediasphere. (Which is essentially a single monolithic media conglomerate. All owned by the same couple people)
 
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.

I wasn't talking about Kagan's possible recusal either. I was discussing the opinion that Fox lied when they clearly identified the union related clips as being from around the country or the opinion that a likely type-o constitues a lie. Did they correct the record? Couldn't tell you. I don't think we have as many groups watching Fox to determine when the record is corrected. They prefer to only point out errros that Fox has made.
 
Iv seen with my own eyes more than one little known Repub wrongdoer with a (d) by his name on Fox. Never seen a ljttle known Dem wrongdoer with an (r) by their name.

Who would point it out? Media Matters? Not on your life. Has it happened? Probably. Have other networks made errors? Absolutely.

Edit: I just read a MM article that indicates that the AP misidentied a dem as a republican. Do you think that the AP is right wing?

Further edit: I just read that CNN and CBSnews has also done it in the past. Are those now right wing sources?

Mistakes happen. When you have left wing sites watching a specific channel for any mistake, the mistakes on that channel are the ones that are pointed out most often and the error has the potential to become overblown.
 
Last edited:
Fox, given its claim to measure up to respectable standards of journalism, ought to more properly check their content for accuracy before presenting it to the public. I don't see this as any kind of partisan issue, merely sloppy journalists being sloppy. In this case, I highly doubt that Fox's plan was to misattribute something in order to bolster their position by claiming higher authority than they really have. It was clearly just an error. But these kinds of errors happen on Fox all the time. That's what is more telling. Keep in mind that Fox has publicly stated that they have "zero tolerance for on-screen errors." If they're going to make that claim, then they need to do a better job living up to it.
 
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.

I am not defending Fox, nor would I defend any of the media conglomerate, I view all media as a prime reason for the ignorance in American electorate. In short, if someone paid to be on television says it, i consider it a lie until I fact check it myself as should everyone..

As for your view that "nobody should know" regarding the US Code.... Why not? Any person who would strive to vote has an absolute duty to be completely informed about their government, particularly in light of how oppressive it has become. It is not so hard to become informed.

I see it as a terrible reflection on what one would call American society that fully 50 percent (or more) of the electorate are completely ignorant of the information they should have to make a logical informed political decision
 
Who would point it out? Media Matters? Not on your life. Has it happened? Probably. Have other networks made errors? Absolutely.

Edit: I just read a MM article that indicates that the AP misidentied a dem as a republican. Do you think that the AP is right wing?

Did they correct their mistake?

To my knowledge Fox never does.

As someone who rails against deceptive persuasive messaging, its part and parcel of being the propaganda arm of the Repub party. Selling conservatives what they want to buy. Confirmation bias and all that.

I've grown quite sick of MSNBC because they've been becoming Fox for the Dems. But I've seen Maddow more than once issue clear and open corrections of reports that it turned out were incorrect. NOT something I've seen on Fox.
 
Did they correct their mistake?
I have no idea if they corrected this mistake or not. Sounds like you aren't certain either.

To my knowledge Fox never does.
Then let me give you some new knowledge. You can thank me later.
Fox News Apologizes for Ron Paul Mistake | Ron Paul CPAC | Mediaite
Ron Paul won both years. However, there were audible boos in 2010 while you heard a lot more cheering this year. It’s an honest mistake. We apologize for the error and we look forward to having Representative Paul back on our show very soon.”
 
Ya'll would like "Moskovskaya Pravda" better anyway...it's closer to your leaning.

Would that be the "I realize Fox News is a piece of dirt, so I'll attack you instead" response?
 
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.

Of course, everybody is intimately familiar with all sections of federal law and can cite title and section at will. You extreme conservatives never cease to amuse!
 
I wasn't talking about Kagan's possible recusal either. I was discussing the opinion that Fox lied when they clearly identified the union related clips as being from around the country or the opinion that a likely type-o constitues a lie.

I have no idea what "union related clip" you're referring to. However, Steve Sukati (spell check), the national news commentary FoxNews utilized, did reference the U.S. Constitution as the basis for their recusal argument and in so doing did also sight a false source at worse, an inaccurate source at best. The only thing I question is was it an honest mistake or a more carefully crafted "Oops!....our bad?". Watch the video, listen to the argument presented, then judge accordingly.
 
Last edited:
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.
Fair enough. However, there was only brief mention of this being from around the country, and people will naturally, when they see footage of rioters while the pundits are talking about the protests in WI, they are going to naturally make the connection. If O'Reilly were being honest, he would have explained that the footage was not in Wisconsin before he started criticizing the protestors for being angry.
 
Fair enough. However, there was only brief mention of this being from around the country, and people will naturally, when they see footage of rioters while the pundits are talking about the protests in WI, they are going to naturally make the connection. If O'Reilly were being honest, he would have explained that the footage was not in Wisconsin before he started criticizing the protestors for being angry.

Thats just it. He did explain that the clips were from around the country prior to the correspondent discussing his encounter with the WI protestors. Do you think O'reilly should have made that clear everytime the clips started over? I guess you do. I think identifying it once was plenty.
 
I have no idea what "union related clip" you're referring to. However, Steve Sukati (spell check), the national news commentary FoxNews utilized, did reference the U.S. Constitution as the basis for their recusal argument and in so doing did also sight a false source at worse, an inaccurate source at best. The only thing I question is was it an honest mistake or a more carefully crafted "Oops!....our bad?". Watch the video, listen to the argument presented, then judge accordingly.

Yes.. He was reading the card that they had - the one that was flashed on the screen and contained the apparent typo, hence the exact quote of the tex contained on that card. Look, it's remotely possible that they did it on purpose. However, it's the least likely of the two possible explanations.
 
Not quite the same. Obama was tired from traveling, and he made a slip-up on the spot. Congress not only fabricated a line in the Constitution, they created whole new articles and sections so that they can make their point. Obama made a mistake. FOX News lied. Again.

Just to note I don't watch FOX News, in fact I don't watch any news on TV. But this..well...

Oh how ironic. Here you are denying that Fox News made a mistake, saying that they lied (presumably on purpose) and here you go making a mistake saying that "Congress not only fabricated a line in the Cositution" when you obviously meant Fox News. lol Yeah...mistakes don't happen huh?
 
Just to note I don't watch FOX News, in fact I don't watch any news on TV. But this..well...

Oh how ironic. Here you are denying that Fox News made a mistake, saying that they lied (presumably on purpose) and here you go making a mistake saying that "Congress not only fabricated a line in the Cositution" when you obviously meant Fox News. lol Yeah...mistakes don't happen huh?
I'm not a news organization that is responsible for the information that comes to millions of people across America.
 
Thats just it. He did explain that the clips were from around the country prior to the correspondent discussing his encounter with the WI protestors. Do you think O'reilly should have made that clear everytime the clips started over? I guess you do. I think identifying it once was plenty.
It is implied that the Wisconsin protestors themselves were violent. I don't think that he should have identified it more than once. It wouldn't be logically fallacious to assume that the protestors are from Wisconsin based on the meager information given to the viewer.
 
I'm not a news organization that is responsible for the information that comes to millions of people across America.

What? Those that run Fox News are not people? Are they some how not subject to mistakes just because they are a news organization?
 
What? Those that run Fox News are not people? Are they some how not subject to mistakes just because they are a news organization?
They are people too, but they are professionals at spreading information. I'm just some guy on the forum.
 
I'll gladly comment on it.

People misspeak. Big deal. Do you really think Obama, former Harvard Law Review president and Senator, actually thought there were 57 states? That makes you stupid, not him.

That said, FOX also just made a simple mistake here too. Not deliberate. It's basically like a typo. Big deal. [...]
Since Fox does not like Kagan, they are predisposed to make a 'mistake' that puts her in a bad light. If you will notice, all of Fox News' 'mistakes' serve to make the left look bad. What are the odds of all those 'mistakes' being 'innocent'?

99% of us can reasonably assume that Obama is not predisposed against the number of states in the union, nor against the states themselves.
 
[...] 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". [...]
Indeed. Fox: News by idiots, for idiots.
 
They are people too, but they are professionals at spreading information. I'm just some guy on the forum.

Oh so "professionals" are not allowed to make mistakes....hmm...I wonder how many professionals haven't made any mistakes over the years...hell I'd settle for just the last month.

Just because they are professionals does not mean that they can't make mistakes. You're holding them to an impossible standard.
 
Oh so "professionals" are not allowed to make mistakes....hmm...I wonder how many professionals haven't made any mistakes over the years...hell I'd settle for just the last month.
This isn't just a mistake. They got the wrong section of the wrong legal document. They made two pretty bad mistakes in the same graphic.

Just because they are professionals does not mean that they can't make mistakes. You're holding them to an impossible standard.
I never said that they couldn't make mistakes. They are held to higher standards than random web surfers. I made one mistake; a news organization which has lied before made two.
 
Last edited:
This isn't just a mistake. They got the wrong section of the wrong legal document. They made two pretty bad mistakes in the same graphic.

Now they made two? They made one. They inserted "Constitution" instead of the actual law. That's one mistake...not two.

I never said that they couldn't make mistakes. They are held to higher standards than random web surfers. I made one mistake; a news organization which has lied before made two.

You implied that they are not suppose to make mistakes because they are a "professionals at spreading information. I'm just some guy on the forum.". You're not just holding them to a high standard, you're holding them to an impossible standard.
 
Now they made two? They made one. They inserted "Constitution" instead of the actual law. That's one mistake...not two.
Section 455, not 144.


You implied that they are not suppose to make mistakes because they are a "professionals at spreading information. I'm just some guy on the forum.". You're not just holding them to a high standard, you're holding them to an impossible standard.
Expecting them to get at least most of the information in a document that they champion is an impossible standard?
 
Last edited:
[...] 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. [...]
In a perfect world, Kagan might recuse herself.

In the same world, Justice Thomas would recuse himself as well.

If you can arrange the latter, I will advocate for the former.

On October 21, 2010, [Mrs. Clarence] Thomas was specifically criticized for taking a position, via Liberty Central [a lobbying group that Mrs. Thomas owns], on an issue that was likely to come before the Supreme Court - whether the 2010 health care legislation was unconstitutional.[7] A memo signed by [Mrs.] Thomas that called for the repeal of the law and that was posted on the Liberty Central website was removed following the criticism.

Liberty Central - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USC Title 28, Sec. 455 -- Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) [also] (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

United States Code: Title 28,455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Back
Top Bottom