On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:10:54 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

They may be trying to fit into the crowd, you know, like all of the
other media outlets.

Right, everyone uses file footing interspersed with current footage to
purposefully gin up the false impression they're trying to sell.

Edward R Murrow did it all the time. It's what that award is for.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:58:03 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/20/09 9:49 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

Geeze, and within a half hour they noted specifically that they had run
the wrong video, and about every few hours ever since, they have started
Allisyns show and such with a note about the mistake.. Harryism at it's
best....

Yeah, within a half an hour AFTER they got busted! But, as suspected
because they are Fox, in your eyes they get a free pass, and the
messenger gets killed. THAT is Harryism.

Jesus ****ing Christ.. They can't make a mistake, you are hopeless....
But it's ok when the other media just plain makes it up or does tricks
lkke "canning" Sarah Palin last week, that's ok I guess... **** this,
you, Harry, and JPS can have this forum all to yourselves...


Sarah Palin was "canned"? Aren't there regulations against canning
spoiled fruits?

Are you leaving *again,* you little p.o.s.? When you return, you can be
DK, since he apparently has changed his handle, too.

Oh, and he's using such "vial" language. I hurts my precious ears so
terribly! (Scarlet O'Hara)

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:40:21 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:53:33 -0500, NowNow wrote:

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


I don't think this is as much a mistake as it is just what all
TV/movie people do to fill the screen.
In a way it may be good that we are calling them on it but if you
think about it, you know they are rerunning the same old footage on
years worth of news stories.
How many times have we seen those same al queda training pictures?

It's one thing to use file footage, it's another to purposefully pull
footage from other events to pump up the story you're telling.

The last time they did this, the notice on screen was "earlier"
instead of the date or "file footage" which is the normal practice.

This is purposeful misrepresentation to sell a story. It's PR, not
news.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

They may be trying to fit into the crowd, you know, like all of the
other media outlets.

Or, maybe they're just a bunch a lying jerks who like to inflame issues
rather than report the news.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 8:53 am, NowNow wrote:
Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

Like MSNBC and Newsweek? From your own link:

"Fox News rival MSNBC caught heat last week for using altered images
of Sarah Palin on the air, for which they later apologized. On
Wednesday, Yahoo! News reported Newsweek’s defense of their latest
controversial cover, which Palin herself blasted as “sexist.”"

Glass houses...


Did you believe they were accurate? Next time check snopes if you're not
sure...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 11/20/09 1:35 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
In ,
says...

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

They may be trying to fit into the crowd, you know, like all of the
other media outlets.

Or, maybe they're just a bunch a lying jerks who like to inflame issues
rather than report the news.


Well, that *is* the m.o. of the right...



--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:53:33 -0500, NowNow wrote:

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


I don't think this is as much a mistake as it is just what all
TV/movie people do to fill the screen.
In a way it may be good that we are calling them on it but if you
think about it, you know they are rerunning the same old footage on
years worth of news stories.
How many times have we seen those same al queda training pictures?



The training pictures are fake? There's a big difference. Hannity was caught
doing it, then a bit later, the organization did it again. Don't they learn
from their mistakes?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:38:59 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:53:33 -0500, NowNow wrote:

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


I don't think this is as much a mistake as it is just what all
TV/movie people do to fill the screen.
In a way it may be good that we are calling them on it but if you
think about it, you know they are rerunning the same old footage on
years worth of news stories.
How many times have we seen those same al queda training pictures?



The training pictures are fake? There's a big difference. Hannity was caught
doing it, then a bit later, the organization did it again. Don't they learn
from their mistakes?

It's not a mistake, it's a policy.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:40:21 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:53:33 -0500, NowNow wrote:

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


I don't think this is as much a mistake as it is just what all
TV/movie people do to fill the screen.
In a way it may be good that we are calling them on it but if you
think about it, you know they are rerunning the same old footage on
years worth of news stories.
How many times have we seen those same al queda training pictures?

It's one thing to use file footage, it's another to purposefully pull
footage from other events to pump up the story you're telling.

The last time they did this, the notice on screen was "earlier"
instead of the date or "file footage" which is the normal practice.

This is purposeful misrepresentation to sell a story. It's PR, not
news.


Yeah, it usually has the words "file footage" somewhere on the screen...

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:18:56 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:40:21 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:53:33 -0500, NowNow wrote:

Gee, the revered Fox News is SO upfront, non-partisan huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988


I don't think this is as much a mistake as it is just what all
TV/movie people do to fill the screen.
In a way it may be good that we are calling them on it but if you
think about it, you know they are rerunning the same old footage on
years worth of news stories.
How many times have we seen those same al queda training pictures?

It's one thing to use file footage, it's another to purposefully pull
footage from other events to pump up the story you're telling.

The last time they did this, the notice on screen was "earlier"
instead of the date or "file footage" which is the normal practice.

This is purposeful misrepresentation to sell a story. It's PR, not
news.


Yeah, it usually has the words "file footage" somewhere on the screen...\

Or, a date.