And now let's hear from Sarah... Tina... uh...

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
Fox confuses Tina Fey for Sarah Palin

Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impression is uncanny. But one would think that the former Alaska governor's employer, Fox News, could tell the difference between its political sweetheart and her famed satirical representation. Not so! As Mediaite reports, a Sunday Fox News report, which noted that Palin is "50-50" on getting into the 2012 presidential field, used an image of Fey instead of Palin.

I know! The guy who rode through town ringing bells and firing shots to warn the British was a Paule Revere impersonator who was on an early version of Saturday Night Live.
 
Werbung:
It is half true.

The error apparently did occur.

The article blames Fox news in general and says that it was her employer who made the mistake. It was not her employer who made the mistake but a low level staffer.

Fox has made several errors like this in the past (wrong byline, wrong photo), as have CNN, and other networks. ( I would add that errors of this sort from "Breaking News" organizations that must at times sacrifice accuracy for speed or more understandable than similar errors from news organizations that include them in major pieces that have been edited for months before being aired)

This would be evidence that they are errors and not intentional bias as has been indicated in the past.
 
The low level staffers at Fox are buffoons, and they make a clownish error.

As Fox has repeatedly called Republicans in legal trouble, or Republicans that they do not like "Democrats", it's a bit tough to declare it pure incompetence. Some of it seems to be bias.

Here Mark Foley, Mark Sanford, and John McCain are all labeled Democrats.

http://wonkette.com/409435/fox-news-scoop-uhhmark-sanford-is-a-democrat

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sullivan40/2249175297/

These are some examples of disinformation, IMO:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-uses-old-palin-footage-apologizes_b26412

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ity-of-misrepresenting-protest-footage_b26526

These are more of teh stopid:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fox-news-chyron-identifies-elie-wiesel-as-holocaust-winner/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908170003

IOW, IMO, it's a combination of incompetence and malevolence.
 
It is half true.

The error apparently did occur.

The article blames Fox news in general and says that it was her employer who made the mistake. It was not her employer who made the mistake but a low level staffer.

Fox has made several errors like this in the past (wrong byline, wrong photo), as have CNN, and other networks. ( I would add that errors of this sort from "Breaking News" organizations that must at times sacrifice accuracy for speed or more understandable than similar errors from news organizations that include them in major pieces that have been edited for months before being aired)

This would be evidence that they are errors and not intentional bias as has been indicated in the past.

It was an error made by staffers, not the chiefs, and it wasn't evidence of bias, just carelessness.

And yes, it is funny.
 
No one could suggest that this is evidence of bias. How does it hurt Palin to have that photo put up? It's evidence of stupid. The other incidents are evidence of bias. As if they were needed.
 
No one could suggest that this is evidence of bias. How does it hurt Palin to have that photo put up? It's evidence of stupid. The other incidents are evidence of bias. As if they were needed.

And Pepper showed evidence of his/her "bias" by providing links for "errors" that Fox News has made, whilie providing no links showing the same kind of "errors" made by blatantly left wing networks like MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and their various news programming? LMAO!!!!

Pepper singling out Fox News for "bias" is the definition of "the pot calling the kettle black", and the leftist definition of "fair and balanced".

But, as with all leftists, HYPOCRISY and pathological partisanship has no boundaries.
 
And Pepper showed evidence of his/her "bias" by providing links for "errors" that Fox News has made, whilie providing no links showing the same kind of "errors" made by blatantly left wing networks like MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and their various news programming? LMAO!!!!

Pepper singling out Fox News for "bias" is the definition of "the pot calling the kettle black", and the leftist definition of "fair and balanced".

But, as with all leftists, HYPOCRISY and pathological partisanship has no boundaries.

I am very biased against Fox News. I find it to be a unique entity. It is nothing but a propaganda outlet for the GOP, with a unprecedented degree of influence.

If you can provide three instances of any other outlet misidentifying Democrats or Republicans, then have at it. Otherwise, let's be real. Fox not only makes these errors, it hosts people who say some of the most outrageous things about the President imaginable. For example, the other day, a guest declared that Obama liked to "defecate" on our allies. You cannot provide anything similar from ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. They simply don't allow that kind of rhetoric.

Fox is singularly biased. You're blaming the messenger. I don't know how you missed this.
 
If you can provide three instances of any other outlet misidentifying Democrats or Republicans, then have at it. Otherwise, let's be real. Fox not only makes these errors, it hosts people who say some of the most outrageous things about the President imaginable. For example, the other day, a guest declared that Obama liked to "defecate" on our allies. You cannot provide anything similar from ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. They simply don't allow that kind of rhetoric.

Fox is singularly biased. You're blaming the messenger. I don't know how you missed this.

"Since the beginning of October, Fox News and the Associated Press have incorrectly identified former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) as a Democrat while reporting on the scandal surrounding allegations that he engaged in sexually explicit electronic communications with underage former congressional pages. Other media outlets have identified as Democrats former Rep. Daniel Crane (R-IL), who was censured by Congress in 1983 for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page, and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), during coverage of a poll showing Chafee trailing his Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse by 11 points. Whitehouse was also misidentified as a Republican. Most of these errors have since been corrected, though several news shows, including Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, have not made an explicit on-air or in-print correction."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010

The bolded sections above each represent a misidentification by an outlet other than Fox as well as a couple by Fox. I find it interesting that Fox was the only individual outlet named. But what would one expect from Media matters. Let it be known that you asked for three and I gave you four all cited in Media Matters. Imagine how much larger the number would have been if the source had been, say, the Rush Limbaugh website.

Next, the guest on a news or opinions show is permitted to say whatever they will say.

Next, since you have opened the door to similar kinds of events we might as well look at situations that are in fact far far worse like:

Reuters cropping a photo to remove a dagger next to a terrorists dead body or CNN's airing a story that had been edited for months and which was grossly biased against Israel. The importance of this one is that the story had been edited for months and so it was no simple mistake.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...o_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

The CNN story is posted elsewhere here on HOP.

Then we could look at the situation statistically:

“The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.” [2]
 
"Since the beginning of October, Fox News and the Associated Press have incorrectly identified former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) as a Democrat while reporting on the scandal surrounding allegations that he engaged in sexually explicit electronic communications with underage former congressional pages. Other media outlets have identified as Democrats former Rep. Daniel Crane (R-IL), who was censured by Congress in 1983 for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page, and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), during coverage of a poll showing Chafee trailing his Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse by 11 points. Whitehouse was also misidentified as a Republican. Most of these errors have since been corrected, though several news shows, including Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, have not made an explicit on-air or in-print correction."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010

The bolded sections above each represent a misidentification by an outlet other than Fox as well as a couple by Fox. I find it interesting that Fox was the only individual outlet named. But what would one expect from Media matters. Let it be known that you asked for three and I gave you four all cited in Media Matters. Imagine how much larger the number would have been if the source had been, say, the Rush Limbaugh website.

Your source is Media Matters, and they name an individual outlet-the AP. Please note that OReilly has not made a correction. The other outlets have.

Next, the guest on a news or opinions show is permitted to say whatever they will say.

Don't be ridiculous. That is an outrageous statement, and it was not contradicted in any way by the host.

Next, since you have opened the door to similar kinds of events we might as well look at situations that are in fact far far worse like:

Reuters cropping a photo to remove a dagger next to a terrorists dead body or CNN's airing a story that had been edited for months and which was grossly biased against Israel. The importance of this one is that the story had been edited for months and so it was no simple mistake.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...o_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

The CNN story is posted elsewhere here on HOP.

Then we could look at the situation statistically:

“The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.” [2]

Yes, sometimes outlets favor candidates, and that is an example of bias. You might recall the negative stories on Gore when he first faced Bush.

Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the GOP. It is headed by a GOP operative, we've seen emails explicitly directing how stories were to be handled, it's just not a news outlet. There is bias, and there is propaganda. Fox is propaganda.
 
I am very biased against Fox News. I find it to be a unique entity. It is nothing but a propaganda outlet for the GOP, with a unprecedented degree of influence.

If you can provide three instances of any other outlet misidentifying Democrats or Republicans, then have at it. Otherwise, let's be real. Fox not only makes these errors, it hosts people who say some of the most outrageous things about the President imaginable. For example, the other day, a guest declared that Obama liked to "defecate" on our allies. You cannot provide anything similar from ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. They simply don't allow that kind of rhetoric.

Fox is singularly biased. You're blaming the messenger. I don't know how you missed this.

What universe do you live in?

Are you trying to tell the people in this forum that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN (the "news" organizations that you mentioned) do not "allow" rhetoric and don't show any bias towards left wingers? That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in here, which is saying a LOT.

Are you also trying to tell the people in this forum that when Bush was President, the talking heads on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN didn't say "outrageous things" about President Bush? That is the second most ridiculous thing I have ever read in here.

I didn't think it was possible, but YOU get my vote for being the forum champion at cramming 100 lbs. of HOGWASH into a 50 lb. bag.

You don't like Fox because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

You are, without a shadow of a doubt..............never mind. I'll stop there.

Folks, this is a perfect example of the damage that intravenous Obama Kool-Aid injections can do.
 
If you can show where anyone, anywhere, on a national forum-ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC-said that Bush liked to defecate on our allies, or on anything, and that statement was allowed to air, unconverted, then post it. From a national network. Go for it.

Otherwise, move on.

You're either missing the point because you aren't really thinking this through, or you're setting up a straw man.

Fox routinely airs people who are claiming that Obama is committing treason-attempting to bring down the nation through his policies, planning to end our freedoms, and claiming that Obama is a Marxist, without a voice of reason chiming in. Yes, they are finally taking Beck off the air, but other voices are stepping up to take his place.
 
Werbung:
If you can show where anyone, anywhere, on a national forum-ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC-said that Bush liked to defecate on our allies, or on anything, and that statement was allowed to air, unconverted, then post it. From a national network. Go for it.

Otherwise, move on.

Why should I or anyone move on. That guest had a right to say whatever he wanted. What he said was news if a news show and opinion if an opinion show. Do you have a problem with free speech?

[]
Fox routinely airs people who are claiming that Obama is committing treason-attempting to bring down the nation through his policies, planning to end our freedoms, and claiming that Obama is a Marxist, without a voice of reason chiming in. Yes, they are finally taking Beck off the air, but other voices are stepping up to take his place.

Are you talking about news shows? Beck is not a news show.

If you are talking about political entertainment shows like Beck and O'reilly then a fair comparison would be people like Rachael Maddow and Olberman and Rhodes, who clearly do exactly the same kind of thing.
 
Back
Top