backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 72 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 4:05 PM

Cooper Lawrence says "Lost" is more sexually explicit than "Mass Effect"

Last week, every gamer who saw the gross misrepresentation of BioWare’s Mass Effect game for Xbox 360 on Fox News felt a sickening disgust for the cable program. Read this for all the background and link to the video.

The massive amount of backlash from the Internet community may have caused Cooper Lawrence to reconsider her claims. Lawrence was presumably called upon by Fox News to provide expert opinion on the supposed pornographic nature of Mass Effect, while the video game media’s Geoff Keighley’s was brought on to provide the counterpoint.

Sadly, the Fox News panel largely ignored Keighley’s comments, choosing only to run with the predetermined angle. But surprisingly, it appears that the cries of inaccurate reporting have not gone unnoticed by Lawrence.

Speaking to the New York Times, Lawrence said that she had finally watched someone play Mass Effect for a couple of hours and realized her errors.

“I recognize that I misspoke,” she said. “I really regret saying that, and now that I’ve seen the game and seen the sex scenes it’s kind of a joke.”

While it’s positive to see one soul saved from this whole fiasco, it still begs the question how such an uninformed ‘expert’ could be called to speak out against Mass Effect – unless Lawrence was just part of some other agenda.

“Before the show I had asked somebody about what they had heard, and they had said it’s like pornography,” she added. “But it’s not like pornography. I’ve seen episodes of ‘Lost’ that are more sexually explicit.”

Who told her such things? Was she being intentionally mislead? We may never know, though Lawrence shouldn’t be excused as she should have done her own research before appearing on national television. At least Lawrence has done more than Fox News in trying to represent the facts. Meanwhile, Fox News claims that it has invited EA to appear on the Live Desk program to discuss Mass Effect and related issues, but nothing has come of that yet.

Hopefully this whole thing has just sold more copies of Mass Effect.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Surprised?
By puckalicious on 1/28/2008 5:56:56 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously, the author wrote the article sounding surprised that Fox "News" makes stuff up. They do this ALL THE TIME. They are Faux News. There is very little on that channel that resembles the truth. It is completely driven by the agenda of one Roger Ailes who gets his marching orders from Murdoch himself.




RE: Surprised?
By ricleo2 on 1/28/2008 7:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting post. Could you list some examples of Fox News'
made up stories?


RE: Surprised?
By Evocati on 1/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By MikeO on 1/28/2008 8:09:36 AM , Rating: 5
Sure, there's a huge archive here:

http://www.foxnews.com/


RE: Surprised?
By bandstand124 on 1/28/2008 9:47:35 AM , Rating: 1
Excellent.


RE: Surprised?
By CvP on 1/28/2008 11:30:33 AM , Rating: 1
rofl......someone give this man a 6 rating!


RE: Surprised?
By lukasbradley on 1/28/2008 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
BRILLIANT!


RE: Surprised?
By porkpie on 1/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By aharris on 1/30/2008 3:40:07 PM , Rating: 1
*Proud to give you a negative rating*


RE: Surprised?
By porkpie on 1/30/2008 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 3
You make my point for me. Why be bothered with hard facts when you can just shout someone down?

BTW, your "negative rating" vanished when you posted a comment.


RE: Surprised?
By Wagnbat on 1/28/2008 8:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nice one MikeO. That surely takes the win.

I'm curious about the longer term impact on Lawrence's sales... People are still posting terrible reviews of her books on a daily basis. They deleted mine. :P


RE: Surprised?
By dflynchimp on 1/29/2008 1:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
Owned XD


RE: Surprised?
By spluurfg on 2/1/2008 7:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Surprised?
By Hieyeck on 1/28/2008 2:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
In all seriousness, did everyone forget the the fiasco with "Anonymous"? That was a good laugh.


RE: Surprised?
By Hoser McMoose on 1/29/2008 2:52:35 AM , Rating: 3
I just watched that video again this weekend and it STILL cracks me up every time!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow up a yellow van :)


RE: Surprised?
By bandstand124 on 1/28/2008 9:56:59 AM , Rating: 5
It's not only FOX who do it, although they must be one of the worst. This kind of crap is standard issue on the News.

They just grab "experts" from wherever they can get them to legitmise broadcasting an opinion as a fact.

It is an evolution of the "close fiend" technique whereby they don't have to reveal their sources = we don't need a source = "A close friend said <journalists opinion>"

FOX isn't news, it's crap-u-tainment.

What is news though is how somebody slandering a video game turns the youth militant whereas all the erroneous "analyst opinion" about the economy and the war doesn't make a dent.

I would worry more about that than if some house wife doesn't buy her brat a copy of your favorite game because of what she saw on FOX.


RE: Surprised?
By inperfectdarkness on 1/28/2008 10:39:23 AM , Rating: 3
it's not news. it's skews. faux skews, Communist News Network skews, msnBS skews.

you have to watch fox and cnn BOTH just to have a chance at an unbiased perspective.

federal, state or local legislation that prevents me, an adult, from enjoying as much debauchery, hedonism, and depravity as my heart desires--well that's censorship. passing laws as a band-aid solution for parents who can't parent...well that's just inane.


RE: Surprised?
By diablofish on 1/28/2008 10:52:03 AM , Rating: 4
Or just don't watch the "news". If they don't get ratings, maybe we can change the way they do "news".


RE: Surprised?
By microAmp on 2/10/2008 9:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
Only matters if you are Neilson viewer.


RE: Surprised?
By biohazard420420 on 1/29/2008 12:05:36 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree, if you look at the actual NEWS part of the Fox News Channel they are pretty even handed at least more so than some other channels. The thing that is lost on most people who talk bad about Fox News is that most shows on that channel after about 6pm are OPINION shows, O'Riley, Hannity and Colmes etc no different than something like Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN I believe. But as far as the actual news reporting they are very even handed, do they show some bias in the new sections towards the Conservative side yes but basically every other news channel cable or broadcast lean to the more Liberal side. You would be hard pressed to find the supposed hard right wing news reporting during the actual news reports. At least trying watching the channel during news segments and not just the opinion shows (which yes there are many) before you make a mis informed judgment.


RE: Surprised?
By VooDooAddict on 1/29/2008 5:53:28 AM , Rating: 3
It's all a matter of perspective.

What's the reference point here? And political slant is NOT simply 1 dimensional. We don't just have a right and left. Life is much more then Yes/No.


RE: Surprised?
By kamra on 2/2/2008 12:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
anybody catch the hilarious spoof on youtube?


RE: Surprised?
By mmntech on 1/28/2008 7:04:04 PM , Rating: 3
I think the word you're looking for is "infotainment". Entertainment that masks itself as being informational programming.

I think the problem with the news is not due to some big corporate conspiracy as some people like Chomsky like to think. Rather, they've just gotten lazy. They rely more on official press releases and interviews with talking heads rather than actually investigating a story. The guy with the hat with the "Press" tag in it is long dead. FOX is definitely the worst, though the other networks, CBS, ABC, and NBC are equally guilty for using the same ratings grabbing tactics in their news cast. If you listen to them, video games have caused every bad thing that has ever happened. What utter tripe.


RE: Surprised?
By rogen99 on 1/28/2008 8:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of that clip done by those clever souls at JibJab.

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_n...

Seems that as long as ratings are a required component things aren't going to get any better. This stuff sells. heh


RE: Surprised?
By bandstand124 on 1/28/2008 9:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
I am agreeing with you puckalicious by the way. That tacked on rant above isn't directed at you.


RE: Surprised?
By Eugenics on 1/28/2008 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 3
I remember one day showing up to work and one of my coworkers who is a lesbian was ranting about Fox saying that gangs of lesbians with pink pistols are roaming the country on the prowl to "recruit" young girls. Fox news is always good for a laugh ;)


RE: Surprised?
By MrBlastman on 1/28/2008 10:59:35 AM , Rating: 5
Ok - there is a line between sensationalizing, spinning and fabricating false news. I've been watching news for a long time and seen many different networks/anchors etc.

I have seen Fox sensationalize, slant and put a spin on certain stories - go so far as to push an agenda of sorts. I'm not naive and blind to this - they are guilty of doing this from time to time. Sometimes they are more obvious about it than other times.

BUT

How is this any different from CNN or any of the other major news networks. Lets be a little fair here when you are quick to attack "Faux News" I love it when I see people throw this moniker out about them. Do you forget what times were like when we did NOT have Fox News? Fox News was a breath of fresh air when the airwaves were dominated by another type of spin and sensationalizing. They gave us a different perspective on things.

It is hard to think back about that time due to their ever increasing push towards and agenda that they have moved towards now... but 8 - 9 years ago, they gave us something we did not have for a short while. Do not deny other networks are just as guilty... they are! Do you remember the time when Gore lost to Bush - and on CNN the anchors were CRYING... In tears! Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

What we have here is a downfall journalistic integrity across the board. It is everywhere. Nowadays, we no longer report "just the facts." Everyone has to provide their opinion on it, or the network has to spin it towards their slant and bias they want us, the consumer to be sucked in towards. Frankly, you should not be shouting "Faux News Faux News!", but you should be outraged at the travesty that has befallen the entire Journalistic community as a whole. There is quite a bit of junk on every channel you watch as a whole.

Just today on CNBC, I watched a gentleman interview Pat Buchanan. Some of us hate the guy, some of us like the guy - but the man interviewing him obviously hated him tremendously. He started waving his arms in the air tilting his head about and raising his voice in a childish, demeaning fashion whenever Pat said something he disagreed with. It was as if we had been reverted to the 8th grade when kids would belittle other children in a snide, "ooh look at me, I'm you! and I'm a little dweeb making fun of you!" sort of way. It was very depressing and outrageous at the same time. It was shocking enough that I am still appalled by it. It was not a highlight of astute tele-journalism. It was a lowest of the low.

Fox News is meerly a symptom of the entire problem, not the problem as a whole. Our system is failing us when years ago it was based on integrity of facts and information. You had the editor's pages for opinions, much like on Daily Tech we have the blog posts.

We do not have this anymore, per-say. It is a shame really. Perhaps one day our newer generations will wake up to this. Without it?... I shudder to think.

The TV does have a on/off button though :) I am thankful for that every time I use it.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/28/2008 12:07:09 PM , Rating: 5
Very true...all news agencies are guilty of it. They just skew in different directions. A few examples that leap to mind are CNN's report that the US used nerve gas in Laos, the ABCNews story that then-speaker of the House Hastert was being investigated by the FBI, or the famous CBS story that ran fake documents about Bush's national guard experience. All not only demonstrably false, but failed even the most basic level of fact-checking.


RE: Surprised?
By Ringold on 1/28/2008 7:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
First, want to say I'm glad someone was able to point out to the Faux News hordes that their own sources of preference are equally biased.

Here comes the but:

But..

quote:
Just today on CNBC, I watched a gentleman interview Pat Buchanan.


I just looked up the video of which you referenced:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=629448277&pl...

First of all, have to understand that CNBC has people on the air that it has work much harder than those other stations you noted at remaining as neutral as possible and it has people on the air that freely provide entertainment and analysis according to their professional experiences. Maria Bartiromo -- neutral reporter. Jim Cramer, former hedge fund king with his sleeves rolled up, ready and willing to tell you how badly he believes the Fed is screwing up. Big difference. A good example I think is Carl Quintanilla; a Barack Obama contributor, but except for when Joe ribs him about it, you'd never be the wiser on air.

Second of all, Dennis Kneale is an on-air editor. If you look up what editors often do, it's known that they're free to opine at will. CNBC doesn't hide it when they bring on hired guns for commentary.

Third, Pat Buchanan immediately launched in to trade protectionist bologna. I'm sorry, you can agree with him or you can disagree with him, but business and economics is largely a field of applied math. Unlike opinions on if a room is too hot or too cold, people can be entirely wrong. Dennis called his BS, and Pat's response? He didn't want to talk about "numbers" and "consumers" and things. The look on Dennis' face was perfect. For someone that's not bound at all to be neutral, the bashing that ensued was justified. Pat Buchanan was wrong on almost everything he said, his fundamental world view towards marcoeconomics is deeply flawed. "Not these numbers you guys are talking about!" Seriously, I'm laughing my tail off here at Pat right now, he's screeching. You expect him to go on a financial news channel and not to get called on it?

Beyond being fundamentally wrong, I'd suggest it was in fact ethical to challenge him if for no other reason than every economist knows that sentiment drives economics as much as any other factor, and Buchanan was preaching that the apocalpyse was near. That's dangerous. Buchanan is not, but if he were respectable somehow, and they had him on the market shed billions in market cap because they let him lie before the global finance industry, is that responsible journalism?

Besides. I think Kneale was respectful throughout, and don't know what you're talking about with some of that. Also, I wouldn't put CNBC in the same category as, say, CNN. If they simply droned on about long bond rates all day no one would watch. When it comes to reporting the financial news that they're tasked with reporting, they do accomplish that objectively.


RE: Surprised?
By Fnoob on 2/2/2008 11:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Think about the intended market - the masses. The masses in this country are largely ignorant sheep. Sex and sensationalism in sells, in spades. It's only a matter of time before Randy, Paula and Simon are hosting a presidential debate. Sad times.


RE: Surprised?
By twnorows on 1/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By zBen on 1/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By porkpie on 1/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By Ringold on 1/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By eye smite on 1/30/2008 10:03:44 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding? Every news station and show out there is 90% BS, 5% fact and 5% uneducated speculation. Doesn't matter if they're left or right wing. It's right up there with no politician can save us from themselves.


RE: Surprised?
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 4:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's the absolute truth


Coincidence?
By V2K on 1/28/2008 11:03:41 AM , Rating: 3
that since the ME debacle happened all of her book ratings have been totally devastated by backlash reviews at Amazon and now she suddenly decides she was wrong?

I think not. Maybe she realized that selling out as a mouthpiece just to appeal to the mainstream Fox news audience wasn't the best idea in this case. Getting some cheap and lazy PR is not as simple when you underestimate the target group and they can fight back.




RE: Coincidence?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/28/2008 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "when you underestimate the target group and they can fight back"

When you define "fighting back" as thousands of people posting spurious reviews and ratings for books they've never read-- I have to disagree with the tactics being employed. That's not honest debate, its intimidation tactics.


RE: Coincidence?
By V2K on 1/28/2008 1:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
you're really using the words "honest debate" in relation to this story?


RE: Coincidence?
By nayy on 1/28/2008 3:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Criticizing a book you have not read is not unlike criticizing a game you haven't played. While I consider it an inappropriate response, i have to admit the reviewers have her a pretty good idea of how unfair it is to go ranting about something you have no solid opinion about. I doubt she will ever make another public statement without making some research first.


RE: Coincidence?
By Darkskypoet on 1/28/2008 9:04:29 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty much. She reviewed and provided 'expert' pseudo-testimony to the 'pornographic'/ 'exceptionally violent' game Mass Effect; without EVER playing it. It's really just a manifestation of do onto others...

As she tore into a game in front of a national TV audience, as an expert, without ever playing said game, she very much deserves and should expect the same treatment by others. Except of course that none of these others, who are posting negative reviews of her books, are on national television or being passed off as 'experts'.

The derision in her voice when asked if she had ever played Mass Effect, was enough to deserve all the negative reviews those 'smarmy adolescents' / 'college age hyper sexists' can muster!

(yes the last two labels in quotes are sarcasm, as the bitch fully played the gender card as if to bash all of those who would stoop so low as to play video games, and paint them as raving sex crazed, hyper sexists. Further, the shock on those $%^& ups faces when they repeatedly commented on how parents had it so hard, and oh my god they actually had to supervise their kids, and g%d d$%n well parent. Don't breed if you can't handle the responsibility!!!!)

Disclaimer:
I know parenting isn't easy, but some act as if they should be able to just plug kids into an expensive toy, and in a few years they come out done. No work, no supervision, no brains; just Ritalin, and zero tolerance policies. It makes me sick.


RE: Coincidence?
By dflynchimp on 1/29/2008 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
no. I think we can conclude that she was too naive to believe the angle she was given without actually researching the topic. Ignorance isn't a sin, but purposely overlooking the truth to spout utter nonsense using the ignorant IS a sin, one that Fox news is (repeatedly) guilty of. The women was purposely labeled "an expert" by Fox news to lend credit to whatever bullsh!+ they decide to air.

Of course, we all know that the term "expert" has lost much of its weight ever since Jack Thompson's various shennanigans...


RE: Coincidence?
By oTAL (blog) on 1/29/2008 8:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
I believe it's more like asymmetrical warfare where a weak part fights its larger opponent by any means it can. It could even be considered a form of terrorism, since the objective of these actions is to instill fear in the enemy and to make him consider the repercussions of his actions in a larger spectrum. Of course there is always the view that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

As for my opinion, I do not agree with using false book reviews to attack the author. On the other hand, I would have no problem in using that space to attack the author by spreading true facts (e.g. this person showed utter disrespect for truth in...).


RE: Coincidence?
By V2K on 1/29/2008 7:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
"I believe it's more like asymmetrical warfare where a weak part fights its larger opponent by any means it can."

so who does that refer to? Fox News and their ignorant coverage of the subject or gamers who retaliated?

Way I see it, Fox News was the weaker party based on their blunt force bludgeoning report and lack of knowledge about the subject and gamer culture.

If you can't win an argument with a strong case, just shout the loudest and rollover the opponent.

"since the objective of these actions is to instill fear in the enemy"

as opposed to going on national television with the sole purpose of instilling fear and worry in the general public that little Johnny could be playing hard core alien lesbian porn simulators?


right winged pundits
By dflynchimp on 1/28/2008 1:54:45 PM , Rating: 1
is exactly what Fox News is. Their angle always assumes the worst about the entertainment business, videogame business and pop culture in general. not to mention that they're politically slanted to begin with. Everyone remembers the interview they had with Bill Clinton last year, which they pretty much piled the errors of the entire Bush edministration on him. "Why didn't you do more to stop Osama" etc.

Loads of craptastic accusations. Then they keep running clips of Clinton being (legitimately) incensed and objecting to the interviewer's clearly biased questions.




RE: right winged pundits
By porkpie on 1/28/2008 2:58:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everyone remembers the interview they had with Bill Clinton last year
You mean, what every reporter for all the other news outlets does in every interview and story about Bush?

You want to see a REAL slant put on news, listen to PBS sometime. Then remember that crap is being paid for with your own tax dollars.

In regards to this story here, everyone seems to forget that Cooper Lawrence isn't a JOURNALIST who'se supposed to be unbiased. She's simply someone who wound up being interviewed on a show.


RE: right winged pundits
By ffakr on 1/28/2008 5:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
Right winger always have a problem with Reality. I think it's because Reality doesn't jibe with their enormous self-Persecution complex. The 'war on Religion' is a perfect example. We're the most religious nation in the World outside of Muslim nations governed under Sharia. Most other 1st World nations think we're all religious wack-jobs. The right wing believes that anyone who doesn't allow them to impose their beliefs on everyone else is anti-religion.

PBS listeners are the most informed news audience in America. Fox News audiences are the least informed. Most Fox viewers, to this day, still believe that Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The majority of Fox viewers still believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. They all live in their little Fox alternate reality. It doesn't even matter any more how many times George Bush himself admits that both of the above allegations are false.

The PEW Research, a non-partisan group, has found over and over that Fox News viewers rank among the most uninformed. Fox news viewers are also the most distrustful of other news Source (Boo! The MSM! Driveby News!)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor...
Not surprisingly Daily Show viewers are MORE informed than Fox fans.
These studies aren't opinion pieces like the one making rounds on Conservative sites which asks which station is most "trusted" by Americans. Not surprisingly, fanatical conservatives all vote for Fox because they refuse to listen to anything but FOX.
The PEW studies ask questions about reality. True or false questions and FOX viewers fail in startling numbers.

Who else but Conservatives would be Proud to call themselves DittoHeads?


RE: right winged pundits
By masher2 (blog) on 1/28/2008 8:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "The PEW Research, a non-partisan group, has found over and over that Fox News viewers rank among the most uninformed"

Err, the Pew (not PEW) study wasn't any sort of general survey on how "informed" people are. It asked those surveyed only three questions:

1. Did Iraq possess WMD?
2. Was Iraq involved in 9/11?
3. Was there international support for the invasion of Iraq?

And it counted wrong anyone who answered yes to any of the above. Leaving aside the contentious issues of questions 1 and 2, their "right" answer was clearly wrong on #3. There was international support for the invasion, certainly more so than the 1999 US/NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, for instance.

Pew's methodology was thus clearly flawed, and designed to give them the answers they wanted from the start.


RE: right winged pundits
By ffakr on 1/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: right winged pundits
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2008 10:53:34 AM , Rating: 3
> "I suspect you watch FOX."

I suspect my assumptions about you are far more accurate than yours about me. I don't believe I've seen any Fox newscast in over five years, save for a single episode of "Special Report with Brit Hume", and that's only because I was personally mentioned on it.

> "I doubt your claim is accurate..."

My claim is accurate. There was more international support for the Bush attack on Iraq than the Clinton attack on Yugoslavia (the UN denied permission for both). I strongly suspect that viewers of PBS would score far worse than average on that question.

> "...for the simple reason that you apparently know nothing about the Pew poll that I linked earlier"

Pew has done more than one study. Worse, the study you linked doesn't even support your claim. Let's take two examples: Jim Lehrer's show (PBS) versus O'Reilly Factor (Fox). 53% of Lehrer's watchers scored high, and 28% scored low. 51% of O'Reilly watchers scored high, and only 17% scored low. The clear overall winner there is Fox.

Oops.


RE: right winged pundits
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2008 11:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "I do find it hilarious, however, that no one will address the fact that Fox News defended themselves in court based upon the assertion that they had no legal requirement to produce truthful news "

This above all else shows a deep misunderstanding of the legal process. I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I have to point out a few things. First, Fox's attorneys (not Fox itself) have an ethical responsibility to defend their client in the most appropriate manner.

This is standard for all civil and even criminal suits. If you're on trial for spitting in the wind, you don't try to disprove you spit...you merely point out that spitting isn't illegal.


Any facts from anybody?
By ricleo2 on 1/28/2008 1:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Can anybody back up the notion that Fox News makes up their stories? Some examples please.




RE: Any facts from anybody?
By ffakr on 1/28/2008 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 1
How about these..

Fox NEWS is populated heavily with opinion people who, Fox themselves recently began to state, are NOT journalists. Fox news has so blurred the lines between opinion and News that I never hear right wingers (people I talk to in person) bring up 'news' stories. The only bring up crap from O'Rielly or Hanity and their ilk. Fox even interjects Opinion pieces from their 'News Anchors' in the middle of news segments to further blur the lines.

Without spending too much time looking up hundreds of false stories, I'll just mention this particular incident.
Fox News was sued by former employees [two] who were fired after they claimed that they refused to air a bogus segment.
Fox News did NOT argue the case on the merits. They did NOT claim that the story in question was accurate.
Fox News argued in court that there was no legal requirement that News be true.
Let that sink in for a moment.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/1...
Fox won. Fox set a legal precedent that News does not have to be True.

In trying to find a link on that case, I'm running across these examples.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412090002
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught...
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/lawsuit.ht...
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/6350 <- plenty of reporting on this, just happen to run across that article.

Oh, these just popped into my head.. they're hilarious. Fox news started putting the word Democrat under images of scandal ridden Republicans.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
There are several images out there of Fox labeling several Republicans as Democrats. In one case they aired several different photos on different programs in this way making a random error unlikely.

P.S. To an earlier poster. Gore WON the popular vote and the Florida recount was halted when an angry mob of Republican staffers were flown down from Washington to bang on the doors of recount. Fox lead with stores of random citizens asking for a halt to the recount. Several non-partisan groups have analyzed the Florida results since the 2000 election and concluded Gore won.
P.P.S. The Republican who scream about States Rights and who started the Federalist society asked the Federal courts [SCOTUS] to decide the issue for Florida even though States have the legal right and responsibility to run elections (even Federal ones) inside the State.


RE: Any facts from anybody?
By ffakr on 1/28/2008 4:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, that PPS should have been RepublicanS.. plural. Singular changes the entire meaning of that sentence.


RE: Any facts from anybody?
By porkpie on 1/28/2008 4:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
CNN has done the trick of calling scandal-ridden Democrats Republicans dozens of times. Their usual tactic is, if its a Democrat, don't name any party affiliation at all-- but mislabelling them is pretty common as well.

If you want to talk about blurring the line between news and opinion, how about the following:

Planet in Peril (CNN)
Talkback Live (CNN)
Wolf Blitzer Reports (CNN)
Lou Dobbs Online (CNN)
The View (ABC)
Nightline (ABC)
Dateline (NBC)
Meet the Press (NBC)
60 Minutes (CBS)


RE: Any facts from anybody?
By kaddar on 1/28/2008 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't there a story about kerry stating he was a metrosexual?

Also, I dunno, I only did a rudimentary google search, and I found this website:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox...
(clearly not all of these are correct, "Hating america, the new world sport" is clearly not a made up story)

A lot of the example are, like the sexbox one, foxnews puts a title in the bottom with a sensational question mark.


news?
By Screwballl on 1/28/2008 11:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
How is this news? It doesn't matter what outlet is spouting these type of stories, they are all using the same methods to get ratings. It doesn't matter if it is FauxNews, CommunistNewsNetwork, AlwaysBelieveinCheating, or any others... otherwise they are known as abcnnbcbsfoxbbc, all crap, all the time




RE: news?
By ffakr on 1/28/2008 5:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
I love how right wingers like to make up playground style names for stuff. I'm not a fan of the FauxNews crap. There is, however, a propensity to make up new childish names for anything that the right wind hates. Stop by RedState, or LGF or any other unhinged reactionary sight and there's nary a sentence without a Communist News Network or a Clenis, or some such comment worthy of a 5 year old.


RE: news?
By ffakr on 1/28/2008 5:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
DOH! Again, sorry for the typo. I didn't mean to say "right wind". I just noticed it. It sounds like the type of name calling I just railed against. I'll just stop posting now. :-(


RE: news?
By bodar on 1/29/2008 9:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Both ironic and completely hilarious. Awesome.


Differences in approach
By Evocati on 1/29/2008 12:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
While I make no claims that news delivery in my country (Canada) is Perfect, there are BIG differences. Here's my news from tonight, if you're Brave enough to watch a foreign news source. ;)
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
Been watching this show for decades. Violence is not a selling feature....




RE: Differences in approach
By Digimonkey on 2/3/2008 3:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
My god, it's so boring I love it.


By Aloonatic on 1/30/2008 4:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the UK and we get Fox news on SKY (digital satellite owned by Mr Murdok in the UK) and it's basically treated as an entertainment channel over here.

It pretty much showcases all the worse stereotypes that Europeans use to mock Americans, which is holey unfair but they do make it easy sometimes.

I must admit, I did almost enjoy watching Fox News during the operation to liberate Iraq back in the day (when did that start again???) You could almost hear the production crew shouting BOOM every time a bomb went off and high fiving each other in the studio, quite sad, but funny in a wrong way.




By Richlet on 1/30/2008 10:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
This entire debate reminds me why my main news comes from BBC World Service (radio).


Something you forgot
By twnorows on 1/30/2008 11:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Here's an article that highlights the ultimate in hypocracy -by the ultimate neocheater, thought you'd enjoy it.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?articl...




RE: Something you forgot
By bodar on 1/30/2008 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
"You".............................................. ......"The Topic"

See where you went wrong there? It's an interesting article, but post it in one of the 9000 threads on environmentalism that feature Gore and his movie. The only mention of Gore I found in this thread was related to the Bush-Gore election.


Slightly off topic
By pauldovi on 1/28/2008 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
I loved it a few week back when Fox News posted a modified AP Report on the presidential race, deleting any mention of Ron Paul out of the article.




Full of herself
By madoka on 1/29/2008 7:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
When I first read about this, I wondered if it was stupidity or arrogance that caused Cooper Lawrence to pretend to be an expert about something she knew nothing about on national TV. Now that I've seen her website, I realize it's narcissism.




By bodar on 1/29/2008 9:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
She based her entire piece on something that her friend told her, when she could've just googled "mass effect love scene video" and the first freaking hit is YouTube! I can't check if it's active, since I'm at work right now, but seriously, WTF?! Way to make yourself look like so completely incompetent that it hurts.




The point of the story..
By Digimonkey on 2/3/2008 3:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
God forbid your unsupervised child watches a scene involving a nude butt of a CG woman. There couldn't be worse things to worry about like real sex with a girl who is the same age, or googling "two girls one cup".




The best part.
By SavagePotato on 1/29/2008 2:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
I like the part about "before the show I asked someone what they heard, they said it was like pornography"

First thing that comes to mind here is EXPERT!

Man this woman does her homework, and the best part is that means I am an expert now too, on everything. No one is allowed to disagree with me any longer as I am an expert.

Time to get back to tracking down those roving lesbian gangs with pink guns I just read about.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

















botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki