Blah to this thread.

Blah? This is outrageous !! Fox has only issued 3 retractions and apologies since 2004?

Puh-leeze. FNC airs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Three retractions in four years is nothing egregious, especially since all of the stories are relatively minor.

If you want to talk REAL retractions of major stories, talk to CNN about their Tailwind coverage, talk to MSNBC about saying apresidential candidate withdrew when he didn't (or their bogus Al Sharpton/dogfightong quote), talk to the LA Times about their Tupac story, talk to the New Republic about Stephen Glass ...

My two cents. Thank you.

Shocked that apologized to just three.  There could have been so many more.

This is outrageous?  Bull!

This is no different than that icon of Liberal hubris and ignorance, The New York Times, getting RickRolled.  "The Times issued a correction to its story on Thursday: ""  How many retractions has the Times had to publish since 2004?  I bet its been more than 3.  Even the venerated scientific journal, Science, has had to publish 3 retractions over the last 5 years, most of them over the Hu Suk Hwang stem cell scandal.

Let's talk about some serious journalistic malfeasance, something that truly is outrageous, and something the intellectually dishonest editors of MMFA do not want to discuss at all:     Dan Rather and the phony Bush Guard documents.  Where is the CBS retraction of this lie?  Run this search:  "CBS retraction bush guard documents".  You will find NO retraction.  This is as close as CBS ever came to a retraction: 

"CBS News said Monday it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 Minutes story about President Bush's National Guard service and that airing the story was a "mistake" that CBS regretted. CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, the reporter of the original story, apologized" 

Hypocrites like you will defend these journalistic vermin at CBS all day long while at the same time decrying minor mistakes like this one by F&F, which was promptly corrected when the truth became clear.

Corrections to news stories are not equivalent to getting suckered by third-parties because you're too gullible.

You are presuming CBS was only 'suckered' by some Democratic operatives from Texas like Bill Burkett.  Rather is so blinded by his prejudice he contends the story is true even thought the documents were fake.  Ditto Mary Mapes.  These lice need to be sued in the worst way for slander and libel.  George W. Bush simply will not lower himself to do this.

You absolutely right, there is a vast difference between airing a stupid story that requires retraction and executing a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of a National Election by broadcasting a fake story.

Fox makes a prompt retraction on "page one" for a stupid story and the irrelevency that calls itself Media Matters for America decries this as Libel and intimates the F&F narrowly avoided a lawsuit.  What a Hoot!

"George W. Bush simply will not lower himself to do this."

still supporting Bush huh? you need a lobotomy.

"...You've had a lobotomy."

FIFY

Let's hope N(ewly)L(obotomized)207's surgeon tossed in a free vasectomy since it's in such close proximity to NeoLiar's cognitive ideatianal dissonance generator, ass a matter of convenience and consideration for future generations...  

 ;-} 

still supporting Bush huh? you need a lobotomy.

NL207 seems to be part of that 27 percent (and falling) who still think Bush is doing a good job.  Maybe he's already HAD that lobotomy....

These lice need to be sued in the worst way for slander and libel

The documents may have been forged, but the story is TRUE.  And truth is always a pretty good defense.  But the truth doesn't matter to un-patriotic people.

I totally demolished this argument below, before you ever typed this.

You don't have a leg to stand on. You're just another rightwing troll spouting rightwing talking points long-since debunked.

The New York Times ran over and over again false stories by Judith Miller , ginning up the war. It sat on the story of the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping until a year after the 2004 election.

Liberal icon? They're right of center, and with low journalistic standards.

Your mistake msy be excusable, because to you gus conservatism looks like the angry left.

To you, Sciientific American is Marxist, the President's ex-secretary is a left-wing hate blogger, and Tom Clancy hates America.

What CBS (the company that caved on The Reagans, did that was unforgivable was that, when the documents that were of dubious provenance even though the information was independently substantiated, was that they apologized and dropped the story.. Anybody actually interested in the truth would have followed up and investigated the problem taking that into account. They didn't do that however: they just shut the story down. No major media outlet has looked at the story one way or the other since. WEird--but only if you don't realize who owns these outlets.

Mene Mene Tekel Uparshin.

NL:  I believe that you are missing a major difference.  Sometimes the media does get hoodwinked.  The example that you cite to is one where CBS News believed that certain documents were genuine that may have been created at a later date.  You can debate all day whether or not CBS should have done more to determine the documents accuracy before running with the story.  But here F&F is quoting a PARODY without the sense to know it was a joke.  Don't you think that that is a little different than getting a story wrong? Fox is so desperate to get "stories" on the air that confirm their made-up storylines about the state of American society that they will run "news stories" that anyone with half a brain knew was a joke.  What's next? I expect Fox to breathlessly run a story on the reported physical attributes of a Man from Nantucket, and after it turns out that limericks are not real news stories, you will then tell us how it was just a "mistake".  Unfortunately when it comes to Fox News, more than its reporters are gullible, so is its audience.

Well, first, Douchey doesn't come clean with this.  He professes no malicious intent, but I challenge anyone viewing the offending piece to convince me that he wasn't being reckless or malicious both in his tone and in his lack of homework.  Irresponsible. 

 

Second, if you go back over the Dan Rather Bush TANG records story, you will discover that the documents were not properly vetted, but were never established as phony. Instead, they could not be corroborated sufficient to meet CBS guidelines.  Understandable because so few records remain concerning Dubya's service in the TANG.  They used to be there, but sometime after Dan Bartlett and Karen Hughes did some "research " in the archives back in the '90's everything was discovered to have mysteriously disappeared.  

 

And that IS a fact. 

NL, do you have the Wingnut Filter on? I entered the exact phrase you claimed to get no results from, and my search bagged over 60,000 .

You seem to have missed the entire point here, as well. But thanks for doing all of that typing.

Oh please!  The right has used that one retraction to invalidate the whole story.  Everything else in the story held up.

Confirm stories?  We don't need no stinkin' confirmations.

Maybe you have to get to the graduate level before you can take the "how to run a google search" course at journalism school.

The hosts have an army of toadies to help them get this stuff right, and every single one of them failed.  With the resources available today, having a job as a fact-checker is like having a job chewing gum.  And not a single one of them can manage it despite years of trying.

Does Fox know that their stuff is broadcast?  You can't use the "I'm feeling lucky" button when your stuff gets broadcast.

The an intellectual giant like yourself should have no trouble whatsoever ruunning this query:

"CBS retraction bush guard documents"

Should he?

But CBS did do research to try to verify those documents. Compare that to this Fox show that was suckered by easily-debunked stories made up from whole cloth.

And the White House didn't call them into question, preferring to wait until the show was airing to sic their paid trolls onto the blogosphere. There they put doubt into the reader's minds about those documents, trying to taint the whole story.

Careful viewers learned that although those documents may have been fake (it was never proven that they were false - do you even know that?), the secretary who would have typed those documents says that they hold the same information that she recalls typing in similar memos, and they are substantiated by the bits and pieces of information available.

Their story was solid. One of the pieces of evidence they use may not be an original document but almost certainly is representative of the original documents that have been lost or stolen. There's tons of circumstantial evidence that Karl Rove et al removed all incriminating information from the Texas National Guard repository.

Again, NL, check your security settings. You may have it on "Allow only bullsh*t"

With FOX, it just goes to show that when you make things up all the time as a habit, you forget the difference between truth and falsehood. It never matters.

I tried looking up Steve doocy's biography and found nothing. What i did find is that his female counterpart, Gretchen Carlson, claims she graduated from Stanford but hasn't produced a diploma yet. Kilmeade.....a statue. I can stomach red Eye for they do not pretend to be journalists but these three......sheesh dumb as a box of rocks.

I tried looking up Steve doocy's biography and found nothing

Yet he got a one-on-one interview with the president recently.  I guess they were both operating on the same intellectual level.

Try this biography.  "In 1953, he received a bachelor's degree in journalism from Sam Houston State University where he was editor of the school newspaper"

Or this one:  "Reasoner studied journalism at Stanford University and the University of Minnesota"  i don't see where this guy even has a degree, just that he studied.

So how is it these folks at Fox are to be regarded any differently than these other two lions of journalism?  Just a product of your leftist bias and prejudice?

Because Faux Gnus is a long long ways away from journalism.

Fox will get sued, again and again and again.

There will also be new laws that require any group using the tern' news' to follow and comply with the same FCC rules as broadcast media and public newspapers must.

once Fox loses the term news, they will be forced to into oblivion.

The neocons have stolen free press, and they will be held accountable.

After all, it's our press that is a right, not some wingnut stockholders.

How about:

Fox Lowdown … Fox Scoops … Fox Bulletins … Fox Intelligence … Fox Talk of the Town … Fox Chatter of the Country … Fox Reports

 

No, I think you’re right, they do need that little word.

wow, I didn't realize the real wingnuts come out on the weekend...kinda makes me miss Copious. ;)

They tend to slip into the middle of threads in a stealthy manner.

Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade are f*****g morons, and the only people who don't realize this are the listeners who have to be stupider than these two to give them any credibility.  Really, these guys are ignorant douche bags, and their audience represents the most gullible, stupid examples of humanity that we have.

that is telling them !!!!!!!!!!

I think this is kind of funny.  Shows you what low journalistic standards they have at Fox.  Mind you the other networks aren't much better.

The earth is flat! Now it's fact. Go ahead and run with the story Fox.