• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents...

But Fox News DOES publish stories based on hearsay alone.

All news orgnanizations publish stories based on unamed sources. Fox News is no different.
 
All news orgnanizations publish stories based on unamed sources. Fox News is no different.

That's quite true, and I never give them much credence if the article is 100% based on unnamed sources. Fox less so, given their long history of questionable reporting -- particularly with respect to ACORN.
 
If they had stated ‘Ex-ACORN officials involved’ would it be ‘more correct’ not specifically but semantically? [...]
It would have been the truth, instead of a lie.
 
[...] Since the ‘right leaning’ news sources are much more limited in the ‘news/opinion’ market I believe it would be difficult to find another source to validate it’s reporting. [...]
Since all the sources in the Fox article were anonymous, it essentially had no source. Therefore it is not a matter of finding another source in this particular case, but of finding an original one -- other than Fox itself, who severely damaged its own credibility by stating not one, but two lies in its headline.
 
All news orgnanizations publish stories based on unamed sources. Fox News is no different.
Show us one with two lies in the headline. That has a crystal clear record of hating on the organization the article intends to demean (ACORN).
 
That's quite true, and I never give them much credence if the article is 100% based on unnamed sources. Fox less so, given their long history of questionable reporting -- particularly with respect to ACORN.

Other then your feelings, can you point to a reputable study indicating that Fox News investigations relying on unnamed sources are more likely to be untrue then investigations carried out by other organizations that use unnamed sources?
 
Since all the sources in the Fox article were anonymous, it essentially had no source. Therefore it is not a matter of finding another source in this particular case, but of finding an original one -- other than Fox itself, who severely damaged its own credibility by stating not one, but two lies in its headline.

An "unnamed source" is not even close to "no source". The source is just not willing to come forward due to fear of reprisal or somethin similar. A lot of accusations against Bush, while he was in office, came from unnamed sources. I don't recall a lot of democrats calling those sources out. However, I do recall many republicans calling out unnamed sources. In other words which political identity the unnamed sources are against determines who chooses to believe or not believe them.
 
An "unnamed source" is not even close to "no source". The source is just not willing to come forward due to fear of reprisal or somethin similar. A lot of accusations against Bush, while he was in office, came from unnamed sources. I don't recall a lot of democrats calling those sources out. However, I do recall many republicans calling out unnamed sources. In other words which political identity the unnamed sources are against determines who chooses to believe or not believe them.

The problem with Fox News is this:

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org

(If you don't trust that source just google, Fox News goes to court to lie)
 
You heard it here first, folks! An anonymous source equals NO source, LOL. Wikipedia, NY Times, Wiki leaks, CNN, CNBC, 60 Minutes, etc, have ALL been making up news stories all this time, telling lies that have no source. You guys are too much, sometimes....I used to like comedy central, but I find I don't NEED them anymore, I get all my laughs here.
 
The problem with Fox News is this:

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling | Media Reform | CeaseSPIN.org

(If you don't trust that source just google, Fox News goes to court to lie)

I don't really know the details of the case or why Fox chose that defense... but regardless.. As the very first paragraph in your link stated, many news organizations lie/distort.

Now, do you have any evidence that Fox's use of unnamed sources in investigations are more likely to be untrue then other new organizations use of unnamed sources in their investigations? I assume you don't, but this is Foxnews. Apparently facts just aren't necessary. Feelings are good enough for some.
 
Since all the sources in the Fox article were anonymous, it essentially had no source. Therefore it is not a matter of finding another source in this particular case, but of finding an original one -- other than Fox itself, who severely damaged its own credibility by stating not one, but two lies in its headline.

The person is a "whistle blower" and as such wants to keep anonymous. This is not the first time whistle blowers have talked to the media and asked for anonymity nor, I hope, will it be the last.
 
That's quite true, and I never give them much credence if the article is 100% based on unnamed sources. Fox less so, given their long history of questionable reporting -- particularly with respect to ACORN.

So if you hear a news programs which begins "White House sources have revealed..." you'll immediately dismiss it as not credible?
 
Since all the sources in the Fox article were anonymous, it essentially had no source. Therefore it is not a matter of finding another source in this particular case, but of finding an original one -- other than Fox itself, who severely damaged its own credibility by stating not one, but two lies in its headline.

If you are one of those people who only read what the headlines say then your opinion is hardly worthwhile. It's wise to read the first couple of paragraphs, at least. Had you done that your concerns would have been cleared away.
 
The person is a "whistle blower" and as such wants to keep anonymous. This is not the first time whistle blowers have talked to the media and asked for anonymity nor, I hope, will it be the last.

Or maybe the person was a figment of the writer's imagination, or a disgruntled employee, or the reanimated corpose of Ethel Merman. No way to judge the credibility, let alone the identity, of an anonymous source.
 
Other then your feelings, can you point to a reputable study indicating that Fox News investigations relying on unnamed sources are more likely to be untrue then investigations carried out by other organizations that use unnamed sources?
The Fox News headline contains two lies. No one is disputing that. If you want to believe a story, based on a what seems to be several different anonymous sources, that starts out with not one, but two lies in the headline, be my guest. I imagine you'll have a lot of company.

In the meantime, critical thinkers can make up their own mind, which is the purpose of public debate.

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News
 
An "unnamed source" is not even close to "no source". The source is just not willing to come forward due to fear of reprisal or somethin similar. [...]
An unnamed source can just as easily be fictitious. If you want to play hypothetical, as a reporter it would be pretty much impossible to make up a lie about some one or some thing without an anonymous source.

Speaking rationally, versus hypothetically, as I posted above given the credibility of the Fox headline (zero) the remainder of the story rates an equal rating.

While I have no doubt that NYCC may have sent some people down to 'join' the OWS protest, Fox most likely turned it into a huge, steaming pile of propaganda (as they are wont to do).
 
The Fox News headline contains two lies. No one is disputing that. If you want to believe a story, based on a what seems to be several different anonymous sources, that starts out with not one, but two lies in the headline, be my guest. I imagine you'll have a lot of company.

I think they could have clarified by just adding the word "Former" in front of the headline. But, they did it as they did to get eyes. If they indicated NRCC (or whatever) no one would have cared or clicked on the link. However, the very first line in the article clarifies. I don't even see it as a lie, since it really is Acorn working under a different name. Having said that, though, I guess if you want to be a real stickler, I can see your side. I wouldn't have thought twice about it if the situation were reversed, and MSNBC did something similar in their headline, though.
 
The person is a "whistle blower" and as such wants to keep anonymous. [...]
I could give your argument some credibility if:

1. Fox had even named the number of sources in the story. As written, it appears that the number of anonymous sources could number a half dozen or more. Please feel free to read the story and tell us how many sources you think it contains: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News

2. Fox had not lied, blatantly, in the headline. The lies are so obvious, after reading the story, that they insult my intelligence. Apparently others are more tolerant... or something.
 
If you are one of those people who only read what the headlines say then your opinion is hardly worthwhile. It's wise to read the first couple of paragraphs, at least. Had you done that your concerns would have been cleared away.
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped.

However, that the first words someone tells you are lies does not cause you to question the veracity of their subsequent words is noted.
 
So if you hear a news programs which begins "White House sources have revealed..." you'll immediately dismiss it as not credible?
If their lead-in begins: "Regarding Kenyan-born President Barack Obama...", then yes, absolutely.
 
I think they could have clarified by just adding the word "Former" in front of the headline. But, they did it as they did to get eyes. [...]
They did it get the haters. We all know that the talk media right loves to hate ACORN.

But setting that aside, the lies continued in the headline with the (false) insinuation that ACORN is the driving force behind OWS. Hate and lies, sorry, just too much to stomach.
 
[...] I don't even see it as a lie, since it really is Acorn working under a different name. [...]
Relativists think there is no such thing as absolute truth. It allows them the moral loophole of not telling the truth... like saying that someone who once worked for ACORN still works for ACORN, even if they do not.

Relativism is very convenient, especially when used in a generally moral society where the truth is the truth and a lie is not.
 
So if you hear a news programs which begins "White House sources have revealed..." you'll immediately dismiss it as not credible?

I will immediately consider to be much less credible than it would have been if the source was on the record. The credibility of the person or organization reporting also comes into play.
 
No, but does that make the counterpoint true also...you simply don't believe anything you read??? especially if it is from Fox news?

I actually don't take ANYTHING I hear from the media at face value.

Damn near everything gets the "spin" treatment.
 
Back
Top Bottom