Time to LIST the Fox lies - Be Specific

[shuamort]

That is a good question. In fact that's an excellent question. And I don't know the answer. Anyone else?

Every newspaper I've seen has a section for corrections. I've seen many a news report on TV that has issued apologies and have corrected items as need be as well.

As for the Cameron thing, well, it happened very fast:

After FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron wrote a fake news story mocking Senator John Kerry that was published October 1 on FOXNews.com, blogger and journalist Joshua Micah Marshall posed a question to the network: "Why did comments very similar to Cameron's fabrications come up again and again from FOX commentators on debate night?"

As Marshall noted on October 1, the story as it originally appeared -- part of a FOXNews.com "Trail Tales" report containing several other items -- falsely attributed quotes to Kerry in an attempt to ridicule him over a manicure, which Cameron reported he received on September 30. Later that day, FOX News Channel issued a retraction and an apology, and the fake story was removed from the "Trail Tales" report. According to a New York Times article, FOX News Channel spokesman Paul Schur said: "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl [Cameron] regrets it."

As for who caught it... hmm, I don't know.

 

[Pacridge]

Anybody know anything about Brit Hume mis quoting Roosevelt to make it sound like FDR was in favor of replacing the Social Security system to private accounts "in the future?" My local paper, which is very rural and very pro-Bush, doesn't have a web site. But it's got some 12 line story on page 9 (of 11) that states "Hume strung together several separate lines, out of order, that may have given the impression that Franklin Roosevelt favored private accounts over Social Security." Other than that it doesn't give any details. Was this done as part of some commentary/ Op-ed he was doing?

 

[shuamort]

Anybody know anything about Brit Hume mis quoting Roosevelt to make it sound like FDR was in favor of replacing the Social Security system to private accounts "in the future?" My local paper, which is very rural and very pro-Bush, doesn't have a web site. But it's got some 12 line story on page 9 (of 11) that states "Hume strung together several separate lines, out of order, that may have given the impression that Franklin Roosevelt favored private accounts over Social Security." Other than that it doesn't give any details. Was this done as part of some commentary/ Op-ed he was doing?

Here's a link to Air America regarding this. (Consider the source, obviously).

HUME: FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, “Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,” adding that government funding, quote, “ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Hume would be absolved if the full context had included something like,

Now, when I say “government funding,” it might sound like I’m referring to regular old government-run Social Security. But I’m not. I’m referring to a little-known element of FDR’s initial proposal: temporary, government-funded pensions for people who were too old, in 1935, to pay into the Social Security system themselves. That’s what he wanted to phase out. Also, when I say FDR thought “self-supporting annuity plans” should ultimately replace the government funding, you might think I’m referring to the “voluntary contributory annuities” that I just characterized as private investment accounts. Again, you’d be wrong. Although I didn’t mention it, FDR’s original proposal used the phrases “compulsory contributory annuities” that would become a “self-supporting system” to describe what would become the Social Security system as we know it today. So, he was saying that Social Security would replace the temporary pension--not that private accounts would replace Social Security. Just wanted to get that clear.
Of course, that’s not what Hume said. (After the passage quoted above, Hume went on to talk about Harry Reid.) Mr. Hume wanted context; we provided context--and he comes out of it looking worse.

Actually, the context did clarify one thing: Hume was definitely claiming Roosevelt wanted “private investment accounts.” But according to the Social Security Administration, the voluntary accounts in Roosevelt’s proposal would just put extra money into the Social Security Trust Fund--not into private investments. Moreover, they were meant to be on top of the regular Social Security system, rather than carved out of it.)

So, top to bottom, Hume is dishonestly distorting FDR’s proposal in order to provide political cover to the Republican Party. That’s not news, that’s hackery; and the closer you look, the worse it gets. Al stands by his position: Hume should resign.

 

[Pacridge]

Here's a link to Air America regarding this. (Consider the source, obviously).

Did anybody hear him say that? Cause to say FDR supported private accounts over Social Security is complete BS. I went through and read the letter they're referencing and he's clearly not saying that. And if Hume said it in the order he's saying he said it. Then Hume had to take the quote and re-arrange it to get it to say that. I find it hard to believe, given all the heat Fox takes for being full of crap. That they would do something so blatantly and easily checkable. I mean FDR's letters and speech's are avail. on-line through his library. Is this statement posted anywhere on Fox's web site?

 

[Pacridge]

If I'm not mistaken the 'bloggers' caught it. Then FOX dealt with it.



The Cameron thing was a 'lie' because the quotes were bogus, but that was not a premeditated deliberate falsehood to deceive the public like NBC did with the gas tanks. Why would they go through such efforts to put it on the website (I don't think it was carried on the cable channel - the intial quotes that is) in such a grand conspiracy to only pull it within hours? If this was a deliberate all out lie they would have had a game plan to 'back up' their 'story' and stuck with it.

Because in a close election, as this one was, every vote counts. Getting through to a few can have a major impact. As an old commercial used to lament. I told ten people and they told ten people and they told ten... Painting a negative image of Kerry to a group of viewers/web surfers already leaning in that direction would be very helpful to the Bush camp.

And again all of Fox's "mistakes" lean in one direction. I saw a news story the other day about those scanners in the supermarket. You know, the ones that ring up the cost of the items you buy. This reporter went in to a few stores and bought an array of items, recorded what the self price was then checked that against the receipt. Turns out all the stores, every one, she went into made several mistakes and all the mistakes, every one, went in the stores favor. Not one mistake went in the customers favor. Now isn't that odd? Do you honestly think they just "accidentally" always overcharge and never undercharge?

 

[Batman]

Because in a close election, as this one was, every vote counts. Getting through to a few can have a major impact. As an old commercial used to lament. I told ten people and they told ten people and they told ten... Painting a negative image of Kerry to a group of viewers/web surfers already leaning in that direction would be very helpful to the Bush camp.

And again all of Fox's "mistakes" lean in one direction. I saw a news story the other day about those scanners in the supermarket. You know, the ones that ring up the cost of the items you buy. This reporter went in to a few stores and bought an array of items, recorded what the self price was then checked that against the receipt. Turns out all the stores, every one, she went into made several mistakes and all the mistakes, every one, went in the stores favor. Not one mistake went in the customers favor. Now isn't that odd? Do you honestly think they just "accidentally" always overcharge and never undercharge?

If the Cameron quotes was FOX's big scheme to influence an election they need to be taking pointers from CBS and the New York Times (false docs & missing WMD's that didn't exist but were stolen over a year earlier). :spin:
I hope they come up with something better next time and stick to it after they report it.

 

[Pacridge]

If the Cameron quotes was FOX's big scheme to influence an election they need to be taking pointers from CBS and the New York Times (false docs & missing WMD's that didn't exist but were stolen over a year earlier). :spin:
I hope they come up with something better next time and stick to it after they report it.

"missing WMD's that didn't exist but were stolen over a year earlier" What are you talking about?

 

[Batman]

"missing WMD's that didn't exist but were stolen over a year earlier" What are you talking about?

This story 'broke' the last week of the campaign. Weapons were stolen in 4/03.
But if there were no weapons, how were they stolen?

"CBS News apparently had an October surprise of its own for President Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41184

 

[shuamort]

This story 'broke' the last week of the campaign. Weapons were stolen in 4/03.
But if there were no weapons, how were they stolen?

"CBS News apparently had an October surprise of its own for President Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41184

Ahh, there's the difference. Weapons of Mass Destruction weren't stolen, explosives were. The explosives that were stolen were known about by the inspectors and the were sealed in bunkers in Iraq. This was all known prior to the invasion and these explosives are not/were not catagorized as WMDs. (If they were, the inspectors would have removed them instead of leaving them under easily tamperable seals and Bush could've pointed to these known explosives as proof positive of WMDs). The explosives were then taken sometime after the invasion.

 

[Batman]

Ahh, there's the difference. Weapons of Mass Destruction weren't stolen, explosives were. The explosives that were stolen were known about by the inspectors and the were sealed in bunkers in Iraq. This was all known prior to the invasion and these explosives are not/were not catagorized as WMDs. (If they were, the inspectors would have removed them instead of leaving them under easily tamperable seals and Bush could've pointed to these known explosives as proof positive of WMDs). The explosives were then taken sometime after the invasion.

The UN had a limit on the amount of conventional weapons Iraq could have. Iraq violated that limit. Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

 

[Squawker]

Here is the truth about Brit Hume:

The truth? Here is what Hume actually said, according to the actual transcript [as of this writing, the link has video available as well].

Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial today to invoke the image of FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." (emphasis added)

As anyone with even an elementary knowledge of English knows, there is a monumental difference between "replace" and "include." Hume never said "replace," as Franken claims.

 

[shuamort]

The UN had a limit on the amount of conventional weapons Iraq could have. Iraq violated that limit. Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

Yeah, it's definitely getting into the gray area of semantics. But I guess the line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere. Shrug.

 

[Pacridge]

This story 'broke' the last week of the campaign. Weapons were stolen in 4/03.
But if there were no weapons, how were they stolen?

"CBS News apparently had an October surprise of its own for President Bush."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41184

I don't even know where to begin.

Ok. WMD's according to the US State Department, the DOD and the CIA are Nuclear weapons, Biological weapons and Chemical weapons. The story you're quoting speaks to some missing plastic explosives that we were well of aware of prior to our invasion. The plastic explosives in question could be used to trigger a nuclear device. But in order for that to happen you have to have a nuclear device. Thankfully one of those is not what's being reported as missing.

Again according to our government, including now the Bush White House, there were no WMD's. Here's a copy of the Duelfer Report:"http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/"

As for stories from the "World Net Daily," even I wouldn't compare them to FOX. As I wouldn't want to insult Fox's creditability. In fact I wouldn't compare them to the "National Inquire" or "The Star" either for the very same reason. Though I would compare them to "News Max" as their both basically the same thing. Make believe new agency's.

 

[Batman]

But I guess the line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere.

I guess one could say the line was 12 years long. :roll:

 

[Batman]

I don't even know where to begin.

Ok. WMD's according to the US State Department, the DOD and the CIA are Nuclear weapons, Biological weapons and Chemical weapons. The story you're quoting speaks to some missing plastic explosives that we were well of aware of prior to our invasion. The plastic explosives in question could be used to trigger a nuclear device. But in order for that to happen you have to have a nuclear device. Thankfully one of those is not what's being reported as missing.

Again according to our government, including now the Bush White House, there were no WMD's. Here's a copy of the Duelfer Report:"http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/"

As for stories from the "World Net Daily," even I wouldn't compare them to FOX. As I wouldn't want to insult Fox's creditability. In fact I wouldn't compare them to the "National Inquire" or "The Star" either for the very same reason. Though I would compare them to "News Max" as their both basically the same thing. Make believe new agency's.

The point I was making went back to what you said:

Because in a close election, as this one was, every vote counts. Getting through to a few can have a major impact.

This story, about weapons that everyone knew about, that happened 18 months prior was 'broke' days before the election to do just that: influence the outcome.

As far as it technically not called WMD's:

Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

I linked to worldnetdaily as reference for the story - not hard core news.

 

[Pacridge]

The point I was making went back to what you said:

This story, about weapons that everyone knew about, that happened 18 months prior was 'broke' days before the election to do just that: influence the outcome.

As far as it technically not called WMD's:

I linked to worldnetdaily as reference for the story - not hard core news.

I'm not discounting that CBS may have broke their story when they did as an attempt to sway voters. But you're claiming that everyone knew they were missing 18 mos. ago. Not so. People knew they were there, when they became missing has been greatly contended. But most Military officials give date in early summer. As to when the press found out they were missing. I don't know and I don't know how you'd find that out.

As for I can't tell where the Kerry quote begins and ends in what your saying here:
Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

 

[Batman]

As for I can't tell where the Kerry quote begins and ends in what your saying here:
Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

I'm sorry. I'll clarify.

After the story broke Kerry said these weapons were causing mass casualties among our troops. He blamed Bush for not protecting the weapon stash. He claimed those stolen weapons were now being used by the insurgents.

I then added my opinion:
Seems to me a weapon that can do that, or blow up buildings is a 'weapon of mass destruction.' Although it is not classified as such.

Sometimes it gets muddled from the mind to the keyboard.

 

[Pacridge]

Here is the truth about Brit Hume:

So Franken claims Hume's said replace when he actual said include. So to try and prove that Hume lied- Franken lied.

 

[Squawker]

So Franken claims Hume's said replace when he actual said include. So to try and prove that Hume lied- Franken lied.

Yes, you got it. I don't like Franken and I don't believe what he says. He made money calling other people "Liars" by twisting words. In the book "Rush is a big fat liar" he starts off with "Dittohead means they all agree with Rush" nonesense. Then he goes into a liberal tirade degrading Rush, his listeners and Republicans. It was very obvious he was writing to the extreme left wing base, reinforcing their hate of the right. He is in the Michael Moore group of sleezeballs. I just never understand why intelligent people buy into that type of propaganda. :spin:

 

[Pacridge]

Yes, you got it. I don't like Franken and I don't believe what he says. He made money calling other people "Liars" by twisting words. In the book "Rush is a big fat liar" he starts off with "Dittohead means they all agree with Rush" nonesense. Then he goes into a liberal tirade degrading Rush, his listeners and Republicans. It was very obvious he was writing to the extreme left wing base, reinforcing their hate of the right. He is in the Michael Moore group of sleezeballs. I just never understand why intelligent people buy into that type of propaganda. :spin:

But FNC, Hannity, Rush and Coulter make sense to you? Interesting.

 

[shuamort]

So, anyway, can we all firmly agree with the fact that Fox News does indeed lie? (IF you disagree with that fact, please address the certain events on page one of the thread especially the BGH case.)

 

[Squawker]

But FNC, Hannity, Rush and Coulter make sense to you? Interesting.

I don't support the right wing spin machine anymore that the leftwing spin machine. They are equal propagandists. I know what I am listening to. Fox Network as a whole doesn't intentionally spread propaganda which is repeating a lie, they know is a lie. Franken does. Do Fox reporters get their facts wrong? Of course they do -- so does CNN and the left wing media. Do they all lie? The word "lie" is becoming just as irritating at "bi-partisan".

So, anyway, can we all firmly agree with the fact that Fox News does indeed lie?

shuamort -- NO!

 

[shuamort]

shuamort -- NO!

Ok, defend the BGH case findings.

 

[Jaymo]

:drink Fox News only lies when they are in front of a microphone or a television camera. Any other time they are telling the truth! :hm

 

[Pacridge]

I don't support the right wing spin machine anymore that the leftwing spin machine. They are equal propagandists. I know what I am listening to. Fox Network as a whole doesn't intentionally spread propaganda which is repeating a lie, they know is a lie. Franken does. Do Fox reporters get their facts wrong? Of course they do -- so does CNN and the left wing media. Do they all lie? The word "lie" is becoming just as irritating at "bi-partisan".
shuamort -- NO!

First you're wrong about Fox. They've been hammering away at this WMD BS for months now and they know it's false. Reporting something you know to be false is lying. Continually reporting that lie is propaganda.

Second, IMO, the term lie isn't what's become so irritating. What's become irritating is the constant lying.

Third, people have given several clear and numerous examples of Fox's constant lying. You continue to say Franken is lying, yet you provide no examples of this lying. Well, other then a web site that was nothing short of stunningly ridiculous and complete inaccurate. Again, do you have any actual examples of Franken lying?