DescentBB

So... apparently Fox News ran with a story posted in a tabloid that was, obviously, a hoax. It stated that the Los Angeles PD had invested 1 billion into jet packs for it's police force. It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

Lettermen isn't that funny in this I think but I feel the validity and job of our press deserves some scrutiny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 54972.html

Mjolnir wrote:So... apparently Fox News ran with a story posted in a tabloid that was, obviously, a hoax. It stated that the Los Angeles PD had invested 1 billion into jet packs for it's police force. It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

Lettermen isn't that funny in this I think but I feel the validity and job of our press deserves some scrutiny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 54972.html

ya sort of like when CBS knowingly lied about President Bush during the election.

OR

In July, 1998 CNN retracted reports that U.S. special forces operating illegally in Laos in 1970 had used nerve gas as part of "Operation Tailwind," which targeted American defectors

OR

ABC Lies About Byrd Reconciliation View

OR

Because Joe Wilson repeated what she told him, Andrea Mitchell got placed in the middle of two Washington scandals: one at the White House and one at NBC. The White House scandal had to do with dishonest intelligence. The NBC scandal had to do with Mitchell's dishonest reporting. Now Mitchell's lies are catching up with her and her bosses at NBC News.


epic fail by the OP

It's not as bad as how Fox \"News\" lies about Net Neutrality. It's one thing to make a mistake on the air, it's another thing to purposely mislead the public.

I refer back to my post. intentional lies by said news agencies.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between spreading plausible lies and treating something as ridiculous as billion-dollar jetpacks as legitimate news. Does Fox not have a single copy-editor on staff?

Pretty unprofessional if you ask me. Funny how cuda takes it personal tho.

CUDA wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:So... apparently Fox News ran with a story posted in a tabloid that was, obviously, a hoax. It stated that the Los Angeles PD had invested 1 billion into jet packs for it's police force. It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

Lettermen isn't that funny in this I think but I feel the validity and job of our press deserves some scrutiny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 54972.html

*uses topic to rant and point fingers

doesn't lessen the validity of what the OP posted.

Crap like this is why I stopped paying attention to the national media years ago. I just cant stand all the ★■◆● they keep trying to shovel. Sure, I watched CNN instead of faux news back when I still somewhat cared what they had to say, but that network is almost as bad in the opposite direction (politically) as faux news is in its republican boasting.

Screw em both. I'd like an order of impartiality please, with a side of news to inform, and hold the sensationalism.

Grendel wrote:Pretty unprofessional if you ask me. Funny how cuda takes it personal tho.

Personal??
Hardly

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the post, if your going to blast some one at least be consistent. the Op was just doing what the White house tried to do several months ago by banning Fox from their press briefings. he was questioning the right for Fox to have press credentials. personally I don't care if you hate Fox or not. I watch and read Both Fox and CNN. the BS that comes from MSNBC is sickening so I stay away.
ABC, CBS and NBC are all loosing viewership as fast as the print media in this country. I find it funny. the left leaning press has had their way in this country for decades. then in 1996 Fox comes along and all of the sudden they start showing the people that "maybe" the news they have been force fed for generations by the lame stream media isn't as accurate as it should be. did Fox get duped on this story? obviously. and it was retracted later on in the same show. they took a story and ran with it without checking the validity, that was a mistake. it happens. but to ignore the FACT that all news agencies make the same mistakes and in some cases even fabricating stories is far worse. and it just makes you the fool, just as me pointing out facts and you taking pot shots at me does the same

the latest Nielsen ratings from last night. Fox viewership is more than the other networks combined. they must be doing something right. or the other Networks are doing something very wrong

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 7, 2010

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,288,000 viewers
CNN – 364,000 viewers
MSNBC – 428,000 viewers
CNBC – 168,000 viewers
HLN – 255,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,538,000 viewers
CNN – 531,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,053,000 viewers
CNBC – 165,000 viewers
HLN – 462,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC –339,000 viewers
CNN –110,000 viewers
MSNBC – 111,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/43,000 viewers
HLN – 127,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 555,000 viewers
CNN – 154,000 viewers
MSNBC –249,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/ 43,000 viewers
HLN – 164,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day
FNC – 601,000 viewers
CNN – 152,000 viewers
MSNBC – 202,000 viewers
CNBC – 89,000 viewers
HLN – 161,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time
FNC – 1,071,000 viewers
CNN – 242,000 viewers
MSNBC –478,000 viewers
CNBC – 62,000 viewers
HLN –252,000 viewers

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:So... apparently Fox News ran with a story posted in a tabloid that was, obviously, a hoax. It stated that the Los Angeles PD had invested 1 billion into jet packs for it's police force. It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

Lettermen isn't that funny in this I think but I feel the validity and job of our press deserves some scrutiny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 54972.html

*uses topic to rant and point fingers

*uses topic to say what I usually say. nothing.

Funny how the OP's post was to rant and point fingers. but I guess you didnt catch that huh

It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

MMMMMMMM censorship GOOOD

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

CUDA wrote:Funny how the OP's post was to rant and point fingers. but I guess you didnt catch that huh

Oh, shut up. I didn't see him giving a pass to CNN or any other media outlet, so your accusation is completely baseless.

kill your bias and maybe we can actually have a conversation.

Avder wrote:Crap like this is why I stopped paying attention to the national media years ago. I just cant stand all the ***** they keep trying to shovel. Sure, I watched CNN instead of faux news back when I still somewhat cared what they had to say, but that network is almost as bad in the opposite direction (politically) as faux news is in its republican boasting.

Screw em both. I'd like an order of impartiality please, with a side of news to inform, and hold the sensationalism.

I'd say that BBC does an okay job in that department. It's global news, so you won't get all the nitty gritty on the US doings, but what I've seen of it is pretty impartial.

CUDA wrote:the latest Nielsen ratings from last night. Fox viewership is more than the other networks combined. they must be doing something right. or the other Networks are doing something very wrong

Using viewership as a performance index. You are cracking me up ! Yellow journalism always reaches more people than serious stuff.

You mean like CBS News and the forged Killian Documents.

The Brian Walski photo, with The Los Angeles Times

Then there is Christopher Newton, Associated Press making up forty people quoted in his stories.

Jayson Blair, The New York Times fabricating quotes in his stories.

I'm sure most news agencies these days participate on different levels of yellow journalism.

Grendel wrote:

CUDA wrote:the latest Nielsen ratings from last night. Fox viewership is more than the other networks combined. they must be doing something right. or the other Networks are doing something very wrong

Using viewership as a performance index. You are cracking me up ! Yellow journalism always reaches more people than serious stuff.

yeah, no kidding. Having a ditzy blonde flapping her mouth about the latest diet fad, what celebrity did what and the 'pet of the week' doesn't count as news. But with Fox News, that's what they'll run for an entire week.

Ferno wrote:

Grendel wrote:

CUDA wrote:the latest Nielsen ratings from last night. Fox viewership is more than the other networks combined. they must be doing something right. or the other Networks are doing something very wrong

Using viewership as a performance index. You are cracking me up ! Yellow journalism always reaches more people than serious stuff.

yeah, no kidding. Having a ditzy blonde flapping her mouth about the latest diet fad, what celebrity did what and the 'pet of the week' doesn't count as news. But with Fox News, that's what they'll run for an entire week.

Now who's ranting

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:Funny how the OP's post was to rant and point fingers. but I guess you didnt catch that huh

Oh, shut up. I didn't see him giving a pass to CNN or any other media outlet, so your accusation is completely baseless.

here let me help you in-case this whole thread went over your head.

So... apparently Fox News...

Nope no mention of CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR or any other news outlet but FOX. but I guess you missed that part. AGAIN.

It seems to me that we should take a long hard look at who really deserves press credentials.

and in the next sentence. WHOOPS still no mention of any other news outlet. SO. since in the first sentence he mentions ONLY Fox news. and in his second sentence he calls for censorship of the news. putting 1+1 together you end up with the impression that the OP is calling for the censorship of Fox news and Fox news only. hope I didn't go too fast for you

kill your bias and maybe we can actually have a conversation.

AH yes, Kill MY bias. yet your first replay was such a conversation masterpiece, you chose to edit my post and mock me in the process. and your second post was well shall we say
Ferno you seldom post anything but one or two line retorts that are never conversationalist. maybe you should look in a mirror.

I wonder what Fox has said on the subject of evolution...

it depends on who you talk to. some say Fox news was created. some say Fox news evolved from the Lame Stream media lefty bias

Don't ya know there is no such thing as \"liberal bias\" they have a higher standard of ethics

sociological surveys of media typically show more \"leftist\" than \"rightist\" bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias ... media_bias

CUDA wrote:here let me help you in-case this whole thread went over your head.

well actually.. this was a topic talking about fox news and the fact it went with a tabloid piece, passing it off as genuine.

Nah, I think I understood it pretty well.

So... apparently Fox News...

Nope no mention of CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR or any other news outlet but FOX. but I guess you missed that part. AGAIN.[/quote]
because it was talking about fox, and you took it on yourself to talk about anything but.

and in the next sentence. WHOOPS still no mention of any other news outlet. SO. since in the first sentence he mentions ONLY Fox news. and in his second sentence he calls for censorship of the news. putting 1+1 together you end up with the impression that the OP is calling for the censorship of Fox news and Fox news only. hope I didn't go too fast for you

no, he questioned the fact that if a news organization runs with tabloids, their credentials should be looked at. Pretty simple to me.

AH yes, Kill MY bias. yet your first replay was such a conversation masterpiece, you chose to edit my post and mock me in the process. and your second post was well shall we say
Ferno you seldom post anything but one or two line retorts that are never conversationalist. maybe you should look in a mirror.

I mocked you because you went off on a tangent. Everyone saw that, and I was just pointing it out. I also don't converse with people who don't offer any substance.

woodchip wrote:Now who's ranting

rants consist of a two paragraph deluge that either wears the reader down or makes them laugh.

what I did was state a generally known fact.

Ferno wrote:[no, he questioned the fact that if a news organization runs with tabloids, their credentials should be looked at. Pretty simple to me.

AH so if a news Org runs with a story from a Tabloid they should have their credentials questioned. but its OK if a news Org makes up provable lies to pass them as news.

I seem to remember that the John Edwards affair was originally broke by a Tabloid. I guess useing your logic every news Org that ran with that story should have their credentials questioned huh.

Ferno wrote:

AH yes, Kill MY bias. yet your first replay was such a conversation masterpiece, you chose to edit my post and mock me in the process. and your second post was well shall we say
Ferno you seldom post anything but one or two line retorts that are never conversationalist. maybe you should look in a mirror.

I mocked you because you went off on a tangent.
Everyone saw that, and I was just pointing it out.

No. you mocked me because you couldn't add to the discussion, you felt it would be easier to try to discredit my post by attacking me personally. at least be truthful about it.

Ferno wrote:I also don't converse with people

FACT

It seems to me I was still talking about the news so how can you say I went off on a Tangent? I just chose to point out the failing of ALL news orgs and to not limit it to just one news Org. while I also pointed out later that Fox did screw up by running with the story, you chose to intentionally ignore that fact.
Everyone saw that.(except you) Just pointing that out by the way.

love that quotemine

CUDA wrote:AH so if a news Org runs with a story from a Tabloid they should have their credentials questioned. but its OK if a news Org makes up provable lies to pass them as news.

Did I say that? No. re-read it again without misinterpreting and twisting things around. If you can't do that, then there's no point in continuing this conversation anymore.

I seem to remember that the John Edwards affair was originally broke by a Tabloid. I guess useing your logic every news Org that ran with that story should have their credentials questioned huh.

No, i'm saying they should do their homework to make sure it's genuine first. Pretty simple.

No. you mocked me because you couldn't add to the discussion, you felt it would be easier to try to discredit my post by attacking me personally. at least be truthful about it.

Can't and won't are two different things. learn the difference, Freud.

FACT

hey, nice edit on the quote to try and twist things your way. Do you take lessons on how to do this from your political parties?

It seems to me I was still talking about the news so how can you say I went off on a Tangent? I just chose to point out the failing of ALL news orgs and to not limit it to just one news Org. while I also pointed out later that Fox did screw up by running with the story, you chose to intentionally ignore that fact.

There's no sense in pointing out the obvious.