Does Fox even have credibility anymore? The election ended that!

Was the Breitbart "selective" version of the Shirley Sherrod video altered?

 

Right and the people who said it were fired. Saying Romney being way ahead didn't help Republicans, it hurt them. Many Republicans who would have heard that could have decided to go home, rather wait in long lines to vote.

 

Don't think I saw it. Want to bring it up?

 

Morris, but only because his was the most egregious. Karl Rove and Stuart Varney and Hannity are still there....and others...all of whom declared the polls showing Romney behind were "scientific gobbldegook" and not to be trusted.


As for Breitbart (who I note is CITED by Fox News) and Shirley Sherrod....here's the timeline-

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/22/timeline-of-breitbarts-sherrod-smear/168090

Including Bret Baier LYING about Fox not covering the story and ending with-

7:45 p.m. (approximately): NAACP releases full video of Sherrod's remarks. The NAACP released the full video of Sherrod's remarks at the NAACP banquet, noting that Breitbart's deceptively edited video "didn't tell the full story" and was "selectively edited to cast her in a negative light."

 

Marine, what you are saying is there should be the same critical thinking given both Fox and MSNBC (or all news outlets for that matter) in order to present a fair, unbiased critique. I'm afraid you'll get no traction for such an idea here. This thread is nothing more than a bald tire spinning in the mud. If it does end up going anywhere it will be in circles.

 

I found it and remember the video. That video was made and put out on the Internet by Breibart, not Fox. Fox may have rebroadcasted it later, but who is Sherrod blaming? Not Fox.

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/38483458/#38483458

 

Not one of you have the guts to admit MSNBC is a chronic liar and those doctored tapes prove it. You want to keep trying to make Fox look bad and just not honest to admit your own side has been proven worse.

 

You might say Fox should have checked it out first before rebroadcasting it. But shouldn't Obama at least talked to her before firing her? Fox put out a video already put out that they thought was the truth, much different than what MSNBC does.

 

That, sir, is the bottom line.

Any news outlet is open to scrutiny at any time. Each has their own position as to how news is presented. These days you will hardly ever see straight, unbiased news from an unbiased mind. They all have a slant and they all bend news to fit a particular conclusion. Some will even report on a terrible event and always follow it with news on a political figure they want to destroy. Some will doctor photos and report a lie on purpose.

And sometimes they simply get things wrong.

 

Except for their lies! DOH! LOL

 

This is not necessarily so...............at least in the way the GOP wants you to think. News organizations sell sensationalism. And they sell this sensationalism for profit.

Which headline are you most likely to read:
1. Bus driver gets fired because he broke policy
or
2. Bus driver gets fired because he helped cops.

Of course #2 peaks your interest because it sounds outrageous. You would want to watch more to find out the details. Well, when you watch, you find out that the driver wasn't fired for helping cops, he was fired for breaking policy.............and he broke policy by helping cops.

In other words, its quite clear to see that this news organization sold you a lie in order to get you to watch their show. It increases ratings and allows them to charge more for advertising. Sadly, none of this was done to change your political vote, but that's EXACTLY what FAUX news does. They lie(not to get advertising dollars), but to change your political vote.

 

Not much difference there is there? Sure he broke policy by helping the police and got fired.

But how about when you edit tapes to say things that are completely different than what they were? That is what MSNBC has been caught doing time after time.

 

and Fox supported the edited version. And to today...Fox still cites Breitbart's website for stories.

Now...let's go back to your attack on MSNBC and "altered videos", humm?

 

Sure there is. All news organizations sell sensationalism. Only FAUX news is willing to lie to you to change your vote while others are only doing the capitalist thing.

 

Show me where Fox knew she said said something completely different and broadcasted it anyway? It isn't Fox she sued was it? She could have if Fox had done it and knew about it.

 

So MSNBC supposedly shows "altered video".....but "all" Fox does is show "altered videos" from another rightwing source that they STILL cite to today and so Fox is "innocent".

Gotcha. Glad to know the Standard for Journalistic Integrity that Fox fans have.

 

You don't think MSNBC doesn't do things to get your vote? How about this little trick they did?

MSNBC tried there best to make it look like no minority group backed the Republicans. They just cut all their speeches out.

 

WHAHAH! When we post evidence of FAUX news lying through their tooth............they can't come up with anyone lying on the DEM side! Classic.

 

[QUOTE=Gorn Captain;1062284019]So MSNBC supposedly shows "altered video".....but "all" Fox does is show "altered videos" from another rightwing source that they STILL cite to today and so Fox is "innocent".

Gotcha. Glad to know the Standard for Journalistic Integrity that Fox fans have.[/QUOTE]

Prove it. Prove Fox knew that what the video said was different than what she meant. If they did, they could have been sued just like he was, they weren't.

 

Why? You have already proven that you can't believe the evidence we present. You don't think hannity is a liar despite the evidence being against you.

this is why talking to you guys is so much entertainment. You want proof, but you prove that you CANT believe the proof! Now that is entertaining and its at your positions expense.

 

I don't remember anyone showing me a bunch of lies like I have put up on MSNBC

 

Of course your memory is fading you. Just more evidence that you CANT believe the proof we present. Thanks for the comedy at your expense. We couldn't do it without you! LOL

 

Wow, now I haven't read all through this thread and I might be missing some of what you present here. If helping cops is against policy he was fired for that reason because it was against policy. To me either headline was usable. Not defending Fox here or anyone else for going with one over the other. True, #2 is the better lead. It sells. As a former publisher I would have gone with that one. It makes a profit too. But they are in business to make a buck, nothing wrong with that.

I don't like when ANY news outlet stretches so hard to gain votes. But they all do it. Here is where you fall apart, as Marine points out.

Here is one difference in presentation that Fox often provides where others do not. News presentation is one item, commentary about the news is another item and that is where I'm making my point. They provide different views from a variety of people. Viewers get both sides of an argument and it is up to the viewer to decide. That is helpful.

 

So why don't you tell us why you CANT believe the evidence we present. Not smart enough or just don't want to? LMAO! Now that is funny!

 

That is naive. I prefer to watch Fox but I still can agree with some of the criticism the left delivers. However, your mouth is stained from drinking too much koolaid.