bloc's tags:
"After I told Fox it wasn't true -- and this is the surreal part -- they kept reporting it anyway. In fact, Fox's Garrett told me he'd "take it under advisement." Take it under advisement? I realize I'm generally seen as just another liberal with an opinion, but this was not a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. Fox now knew their story was flatly, factually wrong, and they took it "under advisement."

Apparently that meant repeating the falsehood with added detail: the "fact" that I had been on a conference call the previous day with the Hillary high command. Again, false. My worry is that if this is what one of Fox's best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?" source


This is what they call journalism at Fox News.

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Jan 09, 2008....
    "the sourcing is very strong"? say what?

    ed
  • lioneljay said on Jan 09, 2008....
    Did anyone else see the video of the Ron Paul supporters chasing Sean Hannity down a NH street yelling, "Fox News Sucks!"? The people have spoken. :D
  • silverwhisper said on Jan 09, 2008....
    [blink]

    LJ, i need a link--fast![/matrix]

    ed
  • bloc said on Jan 09, 2008....

    haha, that was funny. 
  • Scaramouche said on Jan 09, 2008....
    Isn't this the network that won a court case the upshot of which was that news organizations are not obliged to report the truth?  Not a real surprise.
  • ALIENated said on Jan 09, 2008....
    "I have contributed to her campaign, and am convinced she would be a great
    President."
    
    He is obviously a nut job. Why would I believe him over Fox News?
    
    Hannity was being chased by other nut jobs from the Ron Paul camp. I think
    because Hannity called Ron Paul's followers nut jobs. I guess they proved
    his point.
    
    
  • lioneljay said on Jan 10, 2008....
    Actually, Alien, Hannity was the target of the Ron Paul supporters because Faux News did not permit Dr. Paul to participate in their televised Republican debate even though he was showing higher levels of voter support (and funding) than some candidates who were allowed on the air. Fox wasn't fair (or balanced) in their handling of the debate so when Dr. Paul's supporters spotted Hannity they focused on him as a surrogate for the network.
  • kelly said on Jan 12, 2008....
    Wild.  Once again, I'll ask the question and see if any conservatives will answer.  Why isn't Ron Paul the darling of the Republican presidential race?  He seems to stand for everything that conservatives always claim to be about.  Is there something I'm missing?

    Hell, he's the only one who wants to bring back our constitutional rights so I may even vote for him.
  • bloc said on Jan 13, 2008....
    "Hell, he's the only one who wants to bring back our constitutional rights so I may even vote for him."

    I know exactly how you feel!
  • ALIENated said on Jan 13, 2008....
    I have nothing against Dr. Paul. I saw him on Cobert and he seems to want to
    do away with about every government program. I totally agree with that. If he 
    gets the nod, I will vote for him in a heartbeat even though I doubt you guys 
    would vote for any Republican. I just doubt that he will be the nominee and
    he has attracted some nutjob followers, but that is probably true of all the
    candidates of both parties.
    
    
  • bloc said on Jan 13, 2008....
    i love how you always try to project your failings onto others. I've only voted for 1 democratic Presidential candidate in my entire life so the chances of me voting for someone like Paul are pretty good.
  • ALIENated said on Jan 13, 2008....
    Good for you. I love how you say one thing and do another. My failings? I have
    only voted for one Democrat. Even that was a protest vote against Nixon (was
    that a failing). I did not vote for Carter or Ford (six of one, half dozen of the
    other). I did vote for Regan in 1980 (he did not need me in 1984, and neither did
    Bush in 1988, and I wrongly supposed in 1992). I did not vote in 1996 because I
    figured the public was duped by Clinton (I was right). I voted for Bush in 2000,
    but figured he did not need me in 2004 (again, I was right, barely). I will no longer
    trust that one candidate or the other is a sure thing. I will vote from now on ... for
    any Republican that is running, unless the Democrats somehow magically wake up,
    and turn their party around.
    
  • bloc said on Jan 13, 2008....
    your failing is htat you are a pure partisan and nothing else. You then try to claim that everyone that disagrees with you is simply partisan like yourself, but in the other direction. It's called projection

Comment on "Faux News"

fox news politics journalism the media ron paul (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

I've had a lot of debates with neocons over the definition of torture and now I'd like to pose a question to the SC community. Is this torture?...
In a controversial move, the Minnesota State Elections Board has decided that Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman in a race that had Coleman ahead originally and now is being contested by the Coleman camp.
This leads me to my point :...
Observations about the mess in the middle east....
I'm steamed about forking over dollars for cars I don't want and will never get to drive myself....

Subscribe to the SoulCast Newsletter To Receive the Best Uncensored Blogs About Love, Sex, Relationships, God, Politics, and More.


Ever wonder what people really think and how they really live?

Read about the real lives of regular people like you whose powerful moving blogs will make you smile, cry, emotional, and warm inside.

Your FREE SoulCast newsletter is just moments away. Receive your first feel-good blog by entering your email address below.

First Name:
Your Email:


You can unsubscribe at any time with one click. We NEVER sell or share your email address with anyone. Period. close