Fox News

[elwoodblues]

The chief political correspondent for Fox News wrote an article on its website including fake quotes from John Kerry. Candidly, Fox responds saying "Foxnews.com erred ... on Friday, posting an item purporting to contain quotes attributable to Kerry."

Should the chief political correspondent for a fair and balanced news chanel be fired for displaying this type of bias?

Article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/us_vote_kerry_media)

[El Barto]

You have to give credit to Fox. They apolgized for their mistake.

Meanwhile at CBS, still no apology.

While neither network looks good here, the Fox News standard (apoligize for mistakes) has to score them above CBS.

[tanda]

If he/she participated in the publication, then he/she should be terminated.

I do not know enough, but I thought that somebody else mistook his/her notes as genuine and had them published. So somebody is culpable, but I am not sure who it is.

What Fox News did not do:

1) Run the story when told beforehand that the quotes were most probably not true;

2) Issue a statement that admitted that the quotes could not be authenticated but not actually acknowledge that they were fabricated;

3) Appoint a panel to tell them how to handle the problem;

4) Argue that, although the quotes may not be genuine, that the underlying story is accurate;

5) Blame the public interest in and criticism of the matter on partisan right-wing attacks;

6) Contact the Bush campaign in advance to notify them of the story and faciliate contact between the Bush campaign and an anti-Kerry partisan.

[Nicholasp27]

so ur saying that if what CBS did was wrong (not apologize), then you shouldn't vote for Bush? Cause he definitely should admit the mistake, but won't

[elwoodblues]

Why the need to compare it to CBS?

Why don't we just apply a standard --- their chief political correspondent portrays a clear bias. Even if these were just personal notes (that somehow ended up on their website) --- the personal notes betray a bias.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the need to compare it to CBS?

Why don't we just apply a standard --- their chief political correspondent portrays a clear bias. Even if these were just personal notes (that somehow ended up on their website) --- the personal notes betray a bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why compare? Because it is important to be even handed when discussing bias, we can't pick and choose who we apply a higher standard to based on our personal preferences.

There is no indication of deliberately putting false news up on Fox, there is for CBS.

If you fire everyone who betrays a bias, there are hundreds of people in all the networks you have to fire.

A lot more former democrat operatives work at the major networks than republicans (and a lot more contribute money to Democrats) (And a lot more vote for Democrats) Should we fire them all?

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
so ur saying that if what CBS did was wrong (not apologize), then you shouldn't vote for Bush? Cause he definitely should admit the mistake, but won't

[/ QUOTE ]

What mistake does he have to apologize for?

Is it just your opinion that he made a mistake?

Is it a mistake if he acted on information that he did not know to be wrong?

Your assertion stands unproven. Prove something that needs to be apologized for.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
we can't pick and choose who we apply a higher standard to based on our personal preferences.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you can set a standard. Let's assume that the standard is: If, as a journalist (not a commentator), your reporting evinces your personal bias you should be fired.


What should the standard be and for those claiming that Rather should have been fired, why should the Fox News guy?


[ QUOTE ]
There is no indication of deliberately putting false news up on Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that this just magically appeared on their website? At least one person wrote it and, presumably, several people reviewed it.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but you can set a standard. Let's assume that the standard is: If, as a journalist (not a commentator), your reporting evinces your personal bias you should be fired.

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard has already been set. Dozens of reporters have shown a bias already without losing their jobs.

You are trying to set a new standard here. Maybe your standard is better, but Fox should not be singled out to be the first network to implement your standard while the rest get a pass.

In any case, the media is not about to take up your standard, they would lose too many people at every single network.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to set a new standard here

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm trying to find out what the standard is for those who believe CBS should have fired Rather or that there is a general media bias.

It's one thing to say that the standard is that a biased reporter should be fired (and that the liberal media is not living up to that standard.) It's another thing to say that that the standard is a different/lesser standard. If it is a different/lesser standard, why are people bitching about Rather --- he is just meeting the standards; no reason for anger. If the standard is the former, then people have a right to complain because, in that situation CBS is (presumably) failing to live up to the accepted standards.

[El Barto]

The cover-up is worse than the crime.

I think a lot of the anger at CBS is based on the fact that hey are still covering up and using delay tactics like questionable "internal investigations" to avoid admitting a mistake.

Fox apologized in less than 2 days.

You don't find a prompt apology refreshing?

Given the SOP of the media, it is refreshing.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't find a prompt apology refreshing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Kudos to Fox for that. However, let's give CBS the benefit of the doubt for just a second...it's entirely possible (if not likely) that the believed the documents were true/real. In that case, I wouldn't expect a prompt appology until they were convinced otherwise. In the Fox case, it would be 100% obvious to anyone working at Fox that the stories proferred were false. Not so in the CBS case. It's easy to admit error when nobody could possibly believe that the story was true.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah the person should be fired, if the knowingly posted false quotes. But atleast Fox came out quickly and said what happened.

[adios]

He was disciplined according to FoxNews, why should he be fired instead?

[Dynasty]

The "article" was so tongue-in-cheek that the only person who should possibly be fired is the person who actually posted it on foxnews.com. The article is obviously a joke with Kerry "quotes" referring to his nails and manicure.

There is a very good documentary about Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign called Journeys with George (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312848/). It is done by Alexandra Pelosi (House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's(D) daugter). It shows the behind the scenes action of the 2000 campaign from the point of view of the press following Bush around the country.

During the film, you see how reporters interract with Candidate Bush and often poke fun at him. I think Cameron's faux-article is similar to the behind-the-scenes stuff we saw in Journeys with George. The difference is that some website operator screwed up by actually making it available to the public.

I highly reccomend Journeys with George for anybody who has even a small interest in politics.

[PITTM]

CBS Offical Statement read by Dan Rather:
"But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. "

yeah, they suuuuure didnt apologize. youre saying that fox news is more classy because their jokes, which by the way were much more offensive and ridiculous, were apologized for faster than cbs' inadvertant mistake was? good point...

rj

[ThaSaltCracka]

If he did it on purpose he should be fired, IMO.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If he did it on purpose he should be fired, IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not clear on your meaning here, however, you didn't answer my question. What is with you guys about answering simple questions anyway. Why isn't a reprimand sufficient? I realize that a reprimand can mean many things but the question is still valid. You're calling for the guys head and I'm not clear as to why you believe that's necessary.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Adios,
Fox News has to walk a fine line with some/many people in America. There is a large group of people who adamantly believe Fox is a right wing mouth piece with an obvious bias. IMO, not severely punishing someone who posted false material about the Democratic nominee may prove to some people this "bias".

FWIW, I happen to think Fox doesn't have a bias, but I can see why people think that way. Can you imagine if this happened at CBS? Remember Jason Blair at the NY Times? I think firing the guy, Carl Cameron, may have been the smarter thing to do, but I suppose reprimanding him is fine.
There is just something very wrong about a reporter knowingly posting/quoting false material.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There is just something very wrong about a reporter knowingly posting/quoting false material.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that, but you have to look at the content of the material as well. Does anyone on this board honestly believe that such statements would have been published about Bush on Fox? If not, then the content of the false statements betrays a bias. From a source that claims to be Fair and Balanced, having a chief political correspondent betray such an obvious bias is a bad thing.

If fair and balanced just means that Fox tends to balance what they perceive to be a liberal bias, then no harm - no foul --- based on their advertising, that isn't what "fair and balanced" means.

[meow_meow]

Fox news is such an out-and-out conservative mouthpiece it makes me crazy.
On what other network would the anchor (Hannity) say (in refering to the days remaining until Nov.2): "36 days remaining until you decide to re-elect George Bush". (with that ugly smirk on his face)

Anybody who takes the "fair and balanced" (Orwellian) monicker seriously needs to watch "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on Journalism". It's not perfect, but it will turn your stomach.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
On what other network would the anchor (Hannity) say (in refering to the days remaining until Nov.2): "36 days remaining until you decide to re-elect George Bush". (with that ugly smirk on his face)

[/ QUOTE ] Hannity is not a news anchor, he is the co-host of a political debate show. Hannity is the conservative, Alan Colmes is the liberal. It is basically a worse version of Crossfire.
Nice try.

[vulturesrow]

Hey meow meow,

Even worse, Alan Colmes has been heard to say "only x number of days until John Kerry becomes President". Guess Fox is a liberal mouthpiece huh?

[meow_meow]

That show is such a set-up. Their so called liberal a pushover and an apologist, has the charisma of a donkey, and basically kow-tows to hannity at every opportunty.

[ThaSaltCracka]

so what, its a politcal commentary/debate show. Personally I think the show sucks for some of the reasons you stated, but that does not mean Fox is biased. It's a political show, where they discuss news, not report it.

[wacki]

Speaking of Alan Colmes, what is happening to his face? Is he falling apart?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I like Colmes, but don't you think he looks like a mouse?

[wacki]

Ya, he does kind of look like a mouse! Funny, I've actually said that to people before.

Still, with the way his skin has changed over the past year, I have to wonder how much longer he is going to be around.

[ThaSaltCracka]

he looks alright to me. I think he burns easily.

[Felix_Nietsche]

LOL!!! This post is TRULY ENTERTAINING...
This is a lame and desperate attempt to equate Fox's mistake to Dan "Fax Paper Forgeries) Rather and CBS...... Nice try.... Your living in a dream world if you think this will work..... But perhaps you liberals have attended one too many Anthony Robbins seminars.....

Fox quickly corrected their mistake. This is why Fox has more CREDIBILTY.... than CBS, CNN, etc... Fox will continue to grow. In the 1980's the Dan Rather forged documents story would have never made it on TV. Thanks to the internet and talk radio, Big Media's Goebbel-like monopoly over the news is dead.

Dan Rather took 3rd rate forgeries on fax paper, ignored advice not to air the documents, and after being exposed kept saying the information is real (although the documents were not...lol). The forger(Bill.B.?) was smart enough to know that forging 30 year paper was too tough to do. So what was the solution send a fax to CBS. A FAX !!!! UN-Believable.... What was more unbelievable was that CBS went for it. They have been trying to give life to this National Guard story for the last 4 years. It is dead, no matter how many forgeries the Liberal Nutcakes create....

The most entertaining thing about you liberals is watching you. Anyone see Hannity and Colmes when the Kerry spokesman walk out.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone see Hannity and Colmes when the Kerry spokesman walk out.

[/ QUOTE ] I always feel dumber after watching H&C, so I try to avoid it if I can.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I like Colmes, but don't you think he looks like a mouse?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone see Hannity and Colmes when the Kerry spokesman walk out.

[/ QUOTE ] I always feel dumber after watching H&C, so I try to avoid it if I can.

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

do you see what I mean Wacki?

[wacki]

You like Colmes, but you don't watch him because H&C make you feel dumb???? No, I see what you mean.