ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/22/2018 12:56 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.295 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/16/2011 09:10 PM ID: 87947 Permalink   

Fox News Caught Staging Boos of Ron Paul at CPAC

 

Reports are coming out that Fox News falsely portrayed footage from previous CPAC events as the current event in an attempt to paint Ron Paul negatively.

The footage shown on Fox was actually footage of a small group of Mitt Romney supporters booing Paul the previous year. However, in 2011, this did not actually occur.

Ron Paul has won the CPAC straw poll for two consecutive years, and the real footage showed the crowd cheering and applauding the congressman.

 
  Source: www.longislandpress.com  
    WebReporter: Tetsuru Uzuki Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  36 Comments
  
  This is  
 
what Fox News does. Lies and manipulated videos to paint anyone that´s not on their approved nutjob list in a bad light. The Libertarians, Liberals & Tea Baggers are all Fox News enemies. They are the GOP headquarters and office of disinformation for PNAC and the GOP.
 
  by: jonsmith999   02/16/2011 09:50 PM     
  There are "points of Views", and "Points of views"  
 

This is PROPAGANDA.


To echo their own bible-thumping supporters:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
 
  by: redstain   02/16/2011 10:42 PM     
  So um...  
 
From you conservative folk- do you believe this is wrong?



I´d say I believe it is 100% wrong. Calling yourself a news source, "Fair and Balanced!" and "the only straight news" and constantly bringing up ratings to justify it... then fabricating and altering news stories to swing it to better convey YOUR views somehow doesn´t sit well with me.

I would need some of you Republican fucktards´ opinions on the matter though, cause hey, I could be wrong :)
 
  by: Dekar   02/16/2011 11:50 PM     
  Exactly  
 
Republicans, please refudiate! : )
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/17/2011 12:46 AM     
  @TU  
 
So, this would be an example of editing and not omission, right?
 
  by: zirschky     02/17/2011 12:55 AM     
  Did these reports come from FOX?  
 
Haha, no, that would be fair and balanced!
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   02/17/2011 03:50 AM     
  disgustingly  
 
typical
 
  by: averyz   02/17/2011 04:25 AM     
  Calm down, angry Libs...  
 
How many times have you seen a "file photo" or "stock photo" or "archived video" used to visually supplement a story?

Did Fox ever say, "Here´s a live feed of him getting boo-ed..."?

Liberals and their manufactured anger.
 
  by: CArnold     02/17/2011 03:08 PM     
  justification  
 
You have to love how the neotards justify fox news flubs: well the liberal..., but CNN..., yea and when Clinton was in office..., when Al Gore invented the internet..., Global Warming whaaaaaaaa
 
  by: monstrddg   02/17/2011 04:17 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
Why did I know you would be the one to defend Fox News?

As to your point, there is a difference between something "used to visually supplement" and something used to mislead. Even if those people were booing Paul at one time, it wasn´t at the event in question.

Consider a situation where Peter Jackson made a wonderful movie and there was footage of people cheering in theaters and a clip of a man saying, "I love Peter Jackson movies." Now, a couple of years later, Jackson makes another movie but the general consensus is that the new movie is terrible. Now imagine someone made a commercial for the new movie where they played a trailer and then spliced in the images of the audience cheering in theaters and the man saying "I love Peter Jackson Movies."

Is this visually supplementing the ad? After all, these were quotes directed at a Peter Jackson movie and are being used about a Peter Jackson movie. Now you´ll either say yes because you need to believe the crap you say or tell me that my example is nothing like what Fox did (my guess is the latter). I don´t really care which form of denial you use since it´s clear to everyone who hasn´t been brainwashed by Fox News that what the case really is.

[ edited by opinionated ]
 
  by: opinionated   02/17/2011 04:56 PM     
  you´re kidding right?  
 
If I was a Ron Paul republican I´d be equally as pissed at Fox as I am being a liberal
 
  by: syoware   02/17/2011 05:33 PM     
  Hmmmm... Political News Channels  
 
Wasn´t (ex) President Hosni Mubarak doing something similar up until recently?

Just asking ;)

 
  by: spacechimp     02/17/2011 06:19 PM     
  @opinionated  
 
"Why did I know you would be the one to defend Fox News?"

Because everyone knows I´m one of the very few objective and common-sense members of this site.

This is just another example of the many double-standards harbored by the left. Every news outlet has used a file or archived photo/video/audio and its perfectly okay... but when Fox does it, they scream "OMG!!" and slip into Drama Queen mode.
 
  by: CArnold     02/17/2011 08:34 PM     
  waaaittt..  
 
I was at CPAC this year and Mitt Romney was boo´ed by the crazy Ron Paulers, but Ron Paul was also boo´ed, Especially during the straw poll announcements. The Ron Paul libertarians boo´ed every single speaker, which is why the ACU may not invite Ron Paul back. :)
 
  by: titanup   02/17/2011 09:00 PM     
  @Carnold  
 
"Because everyone knows I´m one of the very few objective and common-sense members of this site.

This is just another example of the many double-standards harbored by the left. Every news outlet has used a file or archived photo/video/audio and its perfectly okay... but when Fox does it, they scream "OMG!!" and slip into Drama Queen mode."

You are an utter buffoon, are almost never objective, and hardly ever common-sense. You´re moronic justification you attempted to slide by just proves it. Using a GENERIC photo or video to SUPPLEMENT a story about specific objects, facts, or whatever is FAR different from using old video footage to portray that the event was ill-received by the audience. If it was old footage of a crowd cheering then that wouldnt be worth bickering over, but that clearly misleads the audience, thats a FACT.

It would be like using a "stock" photo of some passed out ugly chick on a story about a beauty pageant winner, and showing a video of an old pageant where everyone booed her off the stage, when in fact it didnt happen this time. You imbecile.
 
  by: joshjje   02/17/2011 09:54 PM     
  Poor joshee  
 
When CBS news did a segment on Bush´s autobiography, "Decision Points", they showed the cover of the book during the segment. Only, it wasn´t the actual cover of the book --- it was an altered parodied book cover.

CBS said it was a mistake and apologized.
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/...


I didn´t whip up a big deal over it. As far as I was concerned, it wasn´t a big deal. CBS officials said it was a mistake and I just left it at that.

Where were all the stories about their anti-Bush book cover? Once more, you idiots are making a hard reach for the last straw to make something out of nothing. What a miserable bunch.

In other news, life goes on...
 
  by: CArnold     02/17/2011 10:36 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
With respect to CBS and FOX, you do understand the difference between:

A) Making an unintentional mistake which is recognized, admitted and corrected with apology

AND

B) Intentionally disseminating false information, not recognizing it as a mistake and not correcting the error?

Is the veracity of FOX news so widely questioned that they simply assume they need not retract anything?
 
  by: zirschky     02/17/2011 11:27 PM     
  RE:CArnold  
 
He´s incapable of understanding anything. Just give up.
 
  by: Lurker     02/17/2011 11:57 PM     
  @zirsch  
 
"Fox News said it made a "mistake" in showing the wrong video – and will issue a correction. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...


I´m sorry... what were you saying? I didn´t hear you because I was too busy stomping your rebuttal.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2011 12:05 AM     
  @Lurker  
 
Egypt needs a stand-in president. You should campaign for it. Once they find out you helped build the pyramids, you´ll be a favorite in the election.
 
  by: CArnold     02/18/2011 12:08 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
Again, do you not understand the difference between admitting your own mistake and being called out to admit your own "mistake"? Where is this mythical unicorn of an apology that FOX is supposedly offering?
 
  by: zirschky     02/18/2011 12:12 AM     
  @carnold  
 
It still amazes me how you are so stubborn or so stupid. The way you argue things is totally illogical. You paint EVERYONE else as the imbeciles, pointing out things in the past that agree with your point, stating this, stating that. People say to you, "OMG, look what the republicans did", and you say, "whatever, the democrats did this and this and this, I win!". You never concede a point, you just justify it with other examples of the other side, often times totally unrelated at that.

The point was that Fox blatantly mislead people on a controversial topic, its an undeniable fact. IT DOESNT MATTER if any other news outlet or your mom has done something similar, its still in the wrong. Admit the fault, and move on. Stop plugging your damn ears and reciting the history of wrongdoings of others to cover your inability to admit to any on your side.
 
  by: joshjje   02/18/2011 12:53 AM     
  carney  
 
Is the fun loving no apologies kind of conservative - the right wing media (Limbaugh + fox) tells him if the sky is falling or not.

With the "benevolent" republicans out of power, you betcha the sky is falling.

There isn´t a bucket of reality cold enough to wake Carney from his conservative coma.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/18/2011 01:26 AM     
  @  
 
@zircsh
“Again, do you not understand the difference between…”

Perhaps I don’t. Would you be kind enough to explain that difference to us? Here are two quotes:

“CBS issued a statement acknowledging it made a "mistake””
http://www.foxnews.com/...

"Fox News said it made a "mistake" in showing the wrong video – and will issue a correction."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

The only contrasts I note are the news networks involved in each story and the indifference you and others displayed when CBS aired the hoax book cover.

Start the spin-machine and let ‘er rip.


@josh
“You never concede a point, you just justify it with other examples of the other side, often times totally unrelated at that.”
What point was I to concede? Nobody is arguing that Fox made a mistake. They acknowledged it and will issue a correction. You and zirsch are both on conspiratorial rants about how Fox intentionally bungled their video clip to destroy Ron Paul’s life and and break his political future. Give it a break. Just how paranoid can a person be?

“The point was that Fox blatantly mislead people on a controversial topic.”
See? Conspiracy theory and paranoia.
And just what was this “controversial topic”? I thought you Libocrats regarded Fox News as a Republican-friendly network, so what would be so “controversial” about Fox’s coverage of CPAC? Do you even know what CPAC is?

[ edited by carnold ]
 
  by: carnold     02/18/2011 02:29 AM     
  @ukcn  
 
@ukcn
Wow. You made a post about me without saying anything racist in it. I’m not sure if them thar Clan boys would look too kindly on that.
 
  by: carnold     02/18/2011 02:32 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
Thanks for admitting you employ the spin machine. Puts a better perspective on your statements.

Herein lies the difference CArnold. Nobody had to call CBS on the carpet and point out that they made a mistake to warrant an apology and retraction from CBS. CBS acknowledged it´s mistake of their own accord and apologized because they strive to present accurate information to the viewing public.

FOX news on the other hand had to be held accountable by other media sources. Their "mistake" was not pointed out internally and the warrant for an apology and retraction had to come from outside sources. Either way you cut it, it appears that it is a bad outcome for FOX. Either the "mistake" was intentional or we can conclude that they don´t internally review their material very well and thus are an unreliable news source. Take your pick.

Can´t wait to see how this comes out on the other side of your spin machine.
 
  by: zirschky     02/18/2011 02:40 AM     
  Where´s the rights outrage?  
 
:)
 
  by: Mannyishere     02/18/2011 04:44 AM     
  @Fox News acknowledging "mistake"  
 
As much as it pains me to compare Fox News to a character from the Simpsons, in this case Fox news is Mayor Quimby when pressured about the burlesque house...

"Er, uh, well... eh, in light of these new facts, of which I now realize I was largely aware, I must take action."
 
  by: opinionated   02/18/2011 05:28 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
>>I´m one of the very few objective and common-sense members of this site.

If that is the case - why is it that you actually never respond when someone is proving your arguments wrong by providing scientific proof?

I have done this many times and asked you to provide counter-proof but you never did. Sometimes you just spit out right wing hate propaganda but most of the time you just don´t respond at all.

Let´s try again:

here at shortnews you defend Foxnews quite often and call it "fair and balanced". At the same time, you call yourself objective (meaning: unbiased). How is it then that countless research proves that Foxnews is everything but objective but actually the most biased "news" outlet in the western world which uses lies, distortion and extremely one-sided views to fabricate biased opinion.

Among the sources are several studies by the Pew Research Center, Publications by Project for Excellence in Journalism, papers such as DellaVigna, Stefano & Ethan Kaplan (2006-03-30) The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting. March 30, 2006. University of California, Berkeley, Political Science Quarterly, The Academy of Political Science, Winter 2003–2004, Groseclose and Milyo, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Tim Groeling, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Stefano DellaVigna, Ethan Kaplan: The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting, University of Conneticut, Department of Economics as well as many others (especially international researchers). Again: we are not talking about "opinion" here - we are talking about so much bias within Foxnews that it can even be measured objectively and broadly by scientific means - and the effects of false representation such as the one stated in the source of this SN post can be measured as well. And these "mistakes" happen so often that not even "believers" buy the "mistake story" anymore but see that these indicents happen on purpose because it DOEs have an effect.

So - how is it that the "news" source that you so diligently defend is, by scientific standards and standards of the journalist profession, not a news outlet but actually a pure and simple propaganda machine? How does that match with your claim of being objective when you consume sources that are the opposite?

Before you start your usual unbacked against-the-liberals-hate-speech: first of all, i am neither democrat nor republican, second I know liberals have biased sources as well - but intelligent liberals stay far away from them as do intelligent republicans from fox.
 
  by: scrut999   02/18/2011 10:05 AM     
  @CA  
 
Compare the two situations:

1. A single picture of a book cover is shown that is incorrect. There´s a pretty good chance some lazy intern Google image searched the book cover and picked the wrong one.

2. In the midst of editing video from CPAC, Fox News happens to "mistakenly" splice in a clip from a different set of footage from a year ago.

One of these seems like a much easier mistake to make than the other.
 
  by: zyste     02/18/2011 07:08 PM     
  Fox News  
 
Fox Noise does not like Ron Paul, he is anti-war, anti-fed, anti-establishment.

That´s not the flavor of fat cat republican Fox News (Roger Ailes) likes.

Replacing Cheer´s with Boo´s this year, before that Ron got put into another Fox News hit job.

Let´s see... like brining him on air with the narrative "Las Vegas Prostitutes for Ron Paul!" - I kid you not.

http://www.youtube.com/...

Also see:
Ron Paul wins poll, but wait a min fox news say no way...
http://www.youtube.com/...

Fox News says Ron Paul thinks US had hand in 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/...

Fox News tells Ron to shape up to neo-con ways (fox panel snickers at Ron):
http://www.youtube.com/...

Not to mention Fox News blocking Ron Paul from participating in final round of republican primary.

If Ron Paul runs again this year, this is going to be just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to oopsies, we did a little hit job.

 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/19/2011 12:00 PM     
  Trusting  
 
any major news network tends to be a bad idea. The left naturally sees the bias in stations like Fox news. The right naturally sees the bias in stations like CNN and MSNBC.

Their agenda isn´t to spread the truth, their agenda is to make money.

Everything which helps them make money they report. Everything which doesn´t help them make money, they alter or censor.

This then often leads them to cover only half of the truth...

...And as most everyone knows, half truths are a whole lies.


If you´re looking for truth; CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are just about the last places you want to look.




[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     02/19/2011 10:24 PM     
  Some day Fox News will go too far  
 
And even CArnold will admit they are unfair and unbalanced.
 
  by: Jim8   02/19/2011 11:05 PM     
  n/t  
 
Nice job QA... spot on.

One only needs to watch the main stream coverage of the Wisconsin protests to see that there is only one bias... the pro corporate agenda.
 
  by: Trevelyan   02/19/2011 11:28 PM     
  @Jim8  
 
You give him way too much credit.

Fox News could have all their employees wear brown shirts and red armbands and issue a standing order to round up liberals to be forced into "work camps" and CArnold would still be claiming "all Networks do that sort of thing" and insist that there is a smear campaign being used by liberals to try and discredit the only fair and trustworthy network.

There is a reason he uses Cartman as his avatar. Just like Cartman, he is both willing and able to, in his own mind, warp reality so that he is always right.
 
  by: opinionated   02/20/2011 01:24 AM     
  From a personal standpoint...  
 
and noticing at how all questions are answered, there is no point getting a straight answer from CArnold. It´s rather pointless also seeing that he always comes off at trying to claim everyone else as uneducated. He´ll dodge the question and give an answer to a question that wasn´t there.

As far as Fox News is concerned, no surprise. They always try and make themselves appear better with false statement and if all else fails, yelling at their "guests" to soothe their ego to make them think they are superior.

[ edited by SunDown ]
 
  by: SunDown   02/25/2011 03:43 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com