• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Fox News is shameless in misinforming its viewers into believing that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case involving the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act. In this case, they’ve been caught blatantly making up part of the U.S. Constitution to help make their case…
foxnews_false_constitution.jpg

Fox News Fabricates Parts of U.S. Constitution
Three glaring problems with this argument: The Constitution has no Article 28, has no Section 144, and does not contain the language quoted.
The Constitution actually contains seven articles, none of which have more than 10 sections. It also has 27 amendments, none of which contain anywhere near 144 sections.
The language Fox quoted from actually comes from a statute passed by Congress, Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 455. But that’s the very statute legal ethicists have analyzed in finding that Kagan does not need to recuse herself because of the email.
Obviously, part of the issue is that there’s a pretty major typo, but it goes well beyond that into the non-existent fact-checking.
Source



L
ink for the source link and other info: Fox News Boycott | Fox News Fabricates Part of U.S. ConstitutionOhhh Fox now you lie about what the US consitution says and you change it.. Ohh i love you guys :2razz:

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
Ya'll would like "Moskovskaya Pravda" better anyway...it's closer to your leaning.
 
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT][/COLOR]

It was just a mistake. They don't really think the Constitution says that. Fox sucks ass, but not that hard.
 
do you dispute the opening post?

Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.

same thing, is it? not quite.
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.

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.

Oh, and two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.
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.
 
It was just a mistake. They don't really think the Constitution says that. Fox sucks ass, but not that hard.
Did they correct the error? I'm having some trouble with the link, and don't know that much about this. But I agree mistake are forgivable, as long as they correct it.
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.

Sure... Obama made an idiotic comment, and it was hilarious. But Fox "News" changing the constitution to fit their agenda is classic!
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.

I think the other 7 states must have been created in Article 29.

Kool-aid is the beverage of choice on both sides. Some people simply prefer red kool-aid to blue kool-aid.
 
I would be more inclined to blame this on the poor education one receives in the schools of the US.

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".

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.

Yes, they lied as much as you have . . .

"Congress not only fabricated a line in the Constitution, they created whole new articles and sections so that they can make their point."??????

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

I don't know. Simple typo would have been getting the section number wrong or something. It's a pretty big difference to go from "Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 455" to "US Constitution, Article 28, section 144." The only thing that's really the same is the number "28" and the word "section."

Now probably what happened was someone in the graphics department got really lazy and did a very bad copy and paste job on an old graphic. I'd hope that this person, and whoever is responsible for proofreading these things before they go on air got fired, because that's REALLY lazy.
 

L
ink for the source link and other info: Fox News Boycott | Fox News Fabricates Part of U.S. ConstitutionOhhh Fox now you lie about what the US consitution says and you change it.. Ohh i love you guys :2razz:

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT][/COLOR]


I had friends in a group that I met with in CA; the nicest, sweetest, most spiritual people, but the wife would watch Fox and report back to the husband about what they were supposed to think. He used to watch Fox, but had started to tune out Fox and some of his radio favorites, because they got him all worked up and, although he leaned right, he had begun to see the shortcomings of GOP and their mouth pieces--he felt they were getting him upset over nothing.

I don't know if there's ever been a study done on people who watch Fox to find out what percentage use the network only to hear the conservative perspective. A good thing to do, certainly. But to watch it exclusively as your only news source and not realize the propaganda and spin that goes on... A very disturbing thing.

This story isn't even a 'perspective' on the issue--which is the case before the court. This is a hit piece, in which a copy desk found the rule/guideline in question, mistakenly attributed it to the Constitution, (you'd think they'd want the best and brightest political writers at Fox, people who know the Constitution front to back) and they put it on the air to muddy the water around the case. If the SCOTUS upholds the mandate, then Fox can just focus and Kagan, and what she said....

Classic Manufactured Controversy...
 
FOXNEWS is a "misnomer" - its nothing more than an "infomercial" promoting Rupert Murdoch's political and economic ideologies!
 
Well the kool-aid drinkers wouldn't comment on Obama saying we have 57 states so I will opt-out like they did. Shoe is on the other foot now.

Logical, reasonable people know that Barack Obama was tired and misspoke. He knows there's 50 states. We all know what he meant to say...

However...

Sarah Palin couldn't name one magazine or newspaper she reads, couldn't name one supreme court decision, and thought Africa was a country.

Michelle Bachman thinks the founders abolished slavery. She said what she believed was true and then doubled down on her nonsense.
 
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.

Now that logic is as stupid as Obama stating there are 57 states. Obama states there are 57 states, yet it is coolwalker who is stupid. Good one
 
Logical, reasonable people know that Barack Obama was tired and misspoke. He knows there's 50 states. We all know what he meant to say...

Speak for yourself, he said there are 57 states and why should I think he knows otherwise. Obama is as dumb as it gets.

Sarah Palin couldn't name one magazine or newspaper she reads, couldn't name one supreme court decision, and thought Africa was a country.

Michelle Bachman thinks the founders abolished slavery. She said what she believed was true and then doubled down on her nonsense.

So you give Obama a pass and criticize the opposition. I will say, Obama is the worst president in US History, hell he don't even know how many states there are.
 
It's amazing what qualifies as a "lie" nowadays. :roll:
 
Speak for yourself, he said there are 57 states and why should I think he knows otherwise. Obama is as dumb as it gets.



So you give Obama a pass and criticize the opposition. I will say, Obama is the worst president in US History, hell he don't even know how many states there are.

Try reading my post more slowing, understanding the words as you...

I was speaking for myself, and all reasonable, intelligent people.

You see, we can differentiate between a someone misspeaking and someone totally confused about the facts.

For one thing, the person who misspoke doesn't double down and try to defend the mistake...
 
Even Media Matters seems to acknowledge it was a type-o. Big deal. The person that typed up that graphic made a mistake.
Here is what they wrote:


"The language Fox quoted from actually comes from a statute passed by Congress, Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 455. But that's the very statute legal ethicists have analyzed in finding that Kagan does not need to recuse herself because of the email."​
 
Here is what they wrote:


"The language Fox quoted from actually comes from a statute passed by Congress, Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 455. But that's the very statute legal ethicists have analyzed in finding that Kagan does not need to recuse herself because of the email."​

Why didn't Fox News mention the legal ethicists analysis...??

Isn't that fact relevant to the story? Experts have analyzed the statute and determined that it doesn't apply. So, no matter how bad the far-right want to slant the court in their direction, Kagan will hear the case. But Fox will get a lot of milage out it by leaving out the facts...
 
Back
Top Bottom