Anytime. If you have any more off topic, irrelevant, juvenile, jr. high comments to make I'll be happy to oblige.
I thought it was perfectly clear that such is all the magical ass brings to the table. He got pwned so often in here that now all he supplies are idiotic one liners and short quips that provide nothing more than irritation. He's like the D&D gnat.
Funny, I could say the same thing about Fox News' reporting on the issue. And I think that's the point. Even if you don't agree with Maddow's "conclusions", the important idea being presented here is that the entire story that Fox News ran with, and that people lost their jobs over, and that congress investigated etc etc was not accurate or complete.
TWhy, You keep asking how Fox was supposed to know that the employee called the police after the incident. There is this little known process familiar to real journalists, even though it has been forgotten except in legend (and legitimate news agencies), called fact checking. It would appear that Fox never got a statement from the ACORN employee in question because if they had, he would have told them he called the cops, which is a matter of public record that Fox could have ascertained with a phone call or two. That is the difference between Fox and real news organizations. Real news organizations care about the facts, Fox only cares about the spin.
Link. And here is another that I have posted before pertaining to BGH. I urge you to read it in entirety. The world has gone mad - and the media is fueling the fire, so to speak. It's interesting to note, that while the above should drive anyone to angry muttering, five major media outlets wrote amici curiae breifs in support of Fox's crazy position. Apparently to Fox, "fairness and balance" implies lying.
Nothing uptight at all about pointing out that the only contribution you provided to the thread was a lame-ass Jr. High level joke about the way a news commentator looked. I'm not uptight about it at all. I just don't mind pointing out the fact that your comment is devoid of anything relevant, and not even funny to anyone with a sense of humor above 6th grade. I laugh at Jr. High stuff all the time, but it actually has to be funny. Joking about someone's physical appearance which isn't all that remarkable just isn't funny, even in a juvenile sense.
yeah, you don't seem uptight at all. It was just a little experiment i was performing, i'm sorry you turned out to be the guinea pig.
Sounds like a great experiment. I'm sure it's fun going around making unfunny jokes and not adding anything to discussions for the sake of science, or sociology. Enjoy. I don't mind at all. Your little experiment sounds very interesting. Like I said I'll react the same any time you provide no contribution to a thread other than an unfunny juvenile joke about someone's physical appearance, so I'm a very consistent test subject when it comes to that. I will say that if your conclusion to the experiment was that I was uptight, then your findings aren't really accurate. You can believe that it's uptight, or not. It doesn't really matter.
IIRC Maddow said the AG report stated he called his brother who is a police officer. That doesn't seem like the type of call you could access through a FOIA request, and I don't remember if it says the brother made a police report. I think it's telling that no organization seems to have picked up the fact that there was a phone call and a police report, because it seems like it was done informally. That might be why the ACORN guy didn't scream bloody murder when he was let go, because there was nothing formal that he could use to defend himself. I'm not trying to defend O'Keefe or ACORN, just make sure her presentation of the facts is accurate as well, and I don't see it as that from this piece, but I don't watch her or Hannitty or really anybody. I pretty much watch LOST and the Office and then study all the damn time. See, this is my real point, I think most news organizations are getting slightly looser with the facts. I don't know if this is Fox's fault, the blogging generation and our need for constant updates and first break news stories, or what, but that kind of journalism I don't really see in too many places anymore. There was a good movie about this that I can't remember the name of, Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck and some chick.
it was not. again, sorry you got caught up in my own little "test". NO biggy nor hard feelings. peace and love...peace and love
Really? I can think of one intrepid news network that was able to pick up on this - a few days after it had already done the damage of course. I can give you a hint as to its name, it starts with an F... http://mediamatters.org/research/200909220026
I'm confused on what the argument is then? If Fox stated that they were contacted by the California Police, then what did they do wrong in correcting the story? But I'm not trying to defend Fox or O'keefe. If you are trying to nail me for that then you are cutting down a tree that doesn't exist. My point is more along the line of B-Bob's thread about Murrow.
That they either knew or should have known this all along and should not have purposefully portrayed misleading facts when the story initially aired - which they did. They didn't note the fact that the police were called, or that O'Keefe wasn't wearing a pimp costume - rather they created the opposite conclusion. Deliberately. And they aired the edited tape which had voiceover questions without doing any checking on context - it's the equivalent of airing a photoshopped picture and portraying it as real. It's not surprising or new or even the most egregiouis example, it's what they do there, on a scale that other news networks tend not to.
Can it be any clearer twhy? Whether you are intending it or not, you seem like a staunch defender of this hoax.
From the very limited fact set in this case, it doesn't look like Fox knew he wasn't wearing the suit when he delivered them the tapes, and the only evidence in the unedited tapes is shot of his sleeve. So if he lied to them he lied to them, and he's a scum bag for that. Calling ACORN might have helped, but do you think ACORN wouldn't deny that? It would have been good to put that part of the story in though, I agree, something to the effect of "We contacted ACORN officials in CA and they stated no pimp or prostitute came into the office on the day in question." As far as the police call goes, it's still unclear as to whether or not they knew at the time they ran the video that the calls were made, and you certainly can't tell from the unedited video. Your point stands though, they should have done more research before blowing it up. I just don't know whether or not I think it was maliciously done based off of the facts we have here. Just careless and indicative of the new media generation.
