jfuh

You didn't, I was under the impression you were suggesting such.

Well that makes my argument much easier then.
Why is faux the only mainstream news network to ever make such titles or suggest such? How many times in the last year has faux - accidently replaced Osama's name with Obama instead with OBL's image and rant; how many times have Sean Hannity emphasized Hussein obama?
Faux news has just that, GOP talking points.
It really doesn't matter what the video was, that Faux consistently runs such titles and such "news" is an abomination to professional journalism.
Such childish adolescent "bites" are what Faux has degraded journalism to - pubescent adolescence.
Actual information? Seriously, be honest here, what possible newsworthy information is there in such hyperpartisan rubbish of rhyming Obama/Biden with OBL?

There's absolutely nothing fair nor balanced about Faux and such a single frame shot of the broadcast is enough to show just that.

Edit: What was the dishonesty that you are referring to of forum member reaction to the image?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Zyphlin

Where did I say Fox news was fair and balanced?

Much like the people who overblow the Ayers thing, or jump on things about Obama prior to them being proven correct, its the same thing here.

Fox DOES do a lot of things that are questionable. So when things that are rather sketchy at best as "proving" they did something wrong, lacking huge amounts of information and context, are put out there and lept upon it generally makes me care far, far less about people bitching about Fox. Why? Because it shows they don't actually care that they're not "fair and balanced", they just care that they think its republican leaning and therefore MUST be attacked. It shows they don't actually care about the facts, becuase they themselves will do the same thing as fox news....take a tiny SPEC of fact, over blow it, and rail on and on about it until they're proven false or shown that they're over exaggerating, and then it won't be mentioned ever again.

It shows that people don't object to Fox on principle. They object to it out of partisanship.

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

jfuh

Help me out here I'm trying to understand - so toss me a freaking bone.
On one hand you don't deny that faux is unfair and highly biased. On the other hand then you're saying that faux isn't attacked on principle.

Well here's how I see this still frame. Faux up to it's old bias reporting as usual and cowardly "mistakes".

Nothing new, but the "hyperpartisans" will nod their head in agreement and say, OMG Obama/Biden = Osama Bin Laden Obama is an in the closet muslim with a zionist co-runner vying for the highest ranking office in the nation - they're going to DESTROY this country and make us all bow to socialist marxism..............

Sir Loin

Yes sir it sure does. If they objected to Fox on principal we would have thread after thread, week after week by the same posters decrying the state of journalism on the cable news networks period. Instead we have the "Fox News is" crowd and their obvious bias as they whine pedantically about..............bias.

__________________
I hate to break this to you but there is no big lie. There is no system, the universe is indifferent.

jfuh

By all means, show me any other network that even comes close to the kind of "accidental" slander of Faux.

independent_thinker2002

FNC's reputation precedes itself. Much like certain posters here, after so many dishonest stories, people don't take them serious. I don't read through a few partisan hitmen's diatribes because I know it will just be crap. It's Chicken Little Syndrome. I need a credible source to believe the sky is falling. True, they might be right once in a while like the Enquirer, but I still am not going to believe the Enquirer. I don't use broken clocks even if they are right twice a day.

__________________
==]:{o

Zyphlin

Let me see if I can explain this better than.

My issue with this is much the same as with people dragging up "he's a secret muslim" or "Obama is close friends with ayers" thing...or when people drag up "McCain is going senile!" or "He is secretly planning on implimenting the draft and starting WW3!". You see, there are legitimate issues with both candidates that people can talk about, but instead they either make up issues or, more to the point, take something completely out of context, blow it up to an exaggerated level, and run with it.

They run with it not necessarily because they believe it must be true, but becuase it

1) makes them feel good about their position by bashing the "enemy"
2) it will hopefully seep into peoples heads, so that even if its not true, it will seem its true.

The same is here. Yes, Fox DOES do some things that are not fair, nor balanced. However, they also have a load of things purposefully either taken out of context or over exaggerated specifically to try to make them look bad. This is done even if the person knows that its out of context, or even if they know it MAY be out of context but they have no desire to actually check it, becuase

1) makes them feel good about their position by bashing the "enemy"
2) it will hopefully seep into peoples heads, so taht even if its not true, it will seem its true.

Take the "fist bump" thing. This was a legitimate, stupid thing, not spun or taken out of context. However, some of the Obama / Osama misslips are less major. Ted Kennedy has even made the slip before. Yet all it takes is a 3 second sound bite and it can be made off as if it was some intentional thing.

The harping on these things that are clearly taken out of context, or at the very least clearly not showing the entire story of whats happening, and then trying to shape and parse the story to make sense in the "Faux is ALWAYS unfair" world view is dishonest and just makes those bashing fox to look like idiots. Why make things up, or take things out of context, or over exaggerate things if there are legitimate complaints to be made?

Much like when epople over exaggerate or spin or take things out of context about presidential candidates, it reduces my view of that persons opinion and shows them to be people more worried about pushing their position then being honest and open. If they were honest and open, they'd be focusing on legitimate things instead of stuff like this.

There was NO additional information given. NOTHING besides some of Dana's cute little commentary and people interjecting fox news hatred. There was a 1 second still frame and yet an entire scenario was essentially just accepted as fact in regards to what this meant, how it happened, why it showed up, etc.

It showed multiple people in this thread that had no real care about things being "true", or looking at "facts", or wanting to be "fair and balanced" like they claim fox isn't, or having a desire to be "intellectually honest". It just showed people wanting to bash Fox because its fox and taking anything and everything negative about it at face value.

shuamort

In fairness, a Fox affiliate pointed this out:

Take a look at the crowd above Obama, who during this original campaign stop were holding individual letters to spell out "CHANGE".

But the way the ad runs, there's a dark shadow through most of the "C", and the "E" at the end of the word.

Take out those two letters, and you have a new word right above Barack Obama's head.

Proteus

I heard elsewhere that this is a fake. Anyone know if it's been authenticated yet?

__________________
.
.
.
I always try to be a good and decent human being, except when I don't.

jfuh

What context could've possibly made "Obama/Biden Osama Bin Laden Coincidence??" to have been acceptable or "unbiased" and "fair"? It's crap like this that Faux constantly does which discredits the news channel itself.