occupy san diego-issuing death threats

[Gravekeeper]

Didn't say Fox isn't credible or reliable. Just biased.

I....don't think you understand what "credible" means? Or you don't understand what slander or twist/spin means? They are not compadible.

[Greenday]

I....don't think you understand what "credible" means? Or you don't understand what slander or twist/spin means? They are not compadible.

Sure they are. The base information upon which the story is based off of is credible.

[Gravekeeper]

Sure they are. The base information upon which the story is based off of is credible.

No...no they're really not. Grab a dictionary.

Also, the base information is the problem to begin with as it hasn't been corraborated by anyone nor followed up on by anyone, thats sort of the problem here. This is what we know:

2 food vendors claimed protestors vandalized their carts after they gave out free food. A GOP councilmen chimed in and claimed they splattered the carts with blood, urine and feces. Here is the vendor before city council in maximum prepared statement guilt mode.

There are no pictures of the carts. She has two black & white pictures of her truck slightly stained. She claims the threats were made on TV. But there are no videos. There is no apparent police investigation. No witnesses. No suspects. No follow ups at all from any media source. No details on how, when or where this happened. There's her allegation, her prepared guilt statement, and a fundraiser to help her "get back on her feet".

The original and only source for the story is a CBS affiliated local news radio host.

So, yeah. While I don't doubt she ran across a couple of jackasses, it certainly appears exagerration is afoot.

[Andara Bledin]

If there was blood on the carts, there would be pictures, somewhere of the blood-spatter. The fact that none have surfaced makes the incident look like a lie. Which it probably isn't entirely, but the fact that nobody can back up the most egregious claim with any sort of proof beyond essentially hearsay kills the credibility of the vendors. Or rather, kills the credibility of the one vendor that claims more than vandalism and yelled threats.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

That's pretty much all I believe, that there was vandalism and yelling threats.

[Duelist925]

Sure they are. The base information upon which the story is based off of is credible.

.....Dude, that logic is beyond flawed. Just because the base is one thing, does mean that what is built upon it is the same. A house's base might be granite, but the house itself might be wood.


Not to mention, finding the base can be like finding a needle in a haystack, made of other needles. Especially when it's as buried under bias and faux news as much of what passes for news on fox is.

And beyond any of that....Fox is NOT A NEWS NETWORK. They have fought tooth and nail to remain labeled "entertainment", and so I give them exactly the same credit as I give, say, comedy central. Actually, I give Comedy Central more--their stuff is at least entertaining.

I give youtube more credibility Because anyone can upload there. And I find it, as I;ve said before, that there could be some weird conspiracy of dozens of people would all upload fake versions of the same footage, at different angles, somehow, through the magic of video editing, showing the same false footage.

I find it infinitely more likely that an Entertainment network that enjoys acting like a news network, with a Blatant bias, would twist facts, exaggerate statistics, and over emphasive and focus on the few utter batshit idiots in a group, simply to discredit it.

Yes, I trust youtube more than I trust Fox. Fuck, I trust youtube more than I freaking trust ANY news network, simply because there is no ONE bias within youtube that rules it.

[Greenday]

Fox is NOT A NEWS NETWORK. They have fought tooth and nail to remain labeled "entertainment", and so I give them exactly the same credit as I give, say, comedy central. Actually, I give Comedy Central more--their stuff is at least entertaining.

I give youtube more credibility Because anyone can upload there. And I find it, as I;ve said before, that there could be some weird conspiracy of dozens of people would all upload fake versions of the same footage, at different angles, somehow, through the magic of video editing, showing the same false footage.

Fox is not a news network. Yet Fox still has news shows. What kind of network it is doesn't change the fact that a news show on it reports news. Jon Stewart reports news, despite his show being a comedy on a comedy network. Saying that anything on his show doesn't count because it's not a news network is just laughable.

Anyone can start a tv show. So what? Just because Fox has their own channel, they aren't legit? God forbid they do a professional version of presenting news.

[the_std]

... Really?

News networks are required to put effort into validating their facts, and have verified sources. There are consequences if they do not do their due diligence in proving what they report.

Whereas Fox is NOT held to these same standards or regulations. They can report any old thing they want, and they have no duty to verify if it's true or not. The only repercussions that Fox may face are the true legal ones - libel or slander charges, things of that nature.

So why the hell should we put any stock into anything Fox says?

[Andara Bledin]

Fox is not a news network. Yet Fox still has news shows.

No, they don't. They have entertainment shows that they name news shows, but that they fought to have declared entertainment so they wouldn't have to have any relationship to facts or truth.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

No, they don't. They have entertainment shows that they name news shows, but that they fought to have declared entertainment so they wouldn't have to have any relationship to facts or truth.

^-.-^

A show with news is a news show. Saying their news shows aren't news shows is like trying to tell me that rocket science has nothing to do with rockets.

[the_std]

Except that what they present as news might not actually have any kind of TRUTH in it because, like I said, they are not held accountable to any higher standard as they are listed as ENTERTAINMENT. So they could crap in a bag and call it news, and just because they say it's news, that means we have to accept that? No. What they call news may have no relationship with the truth and therefore we are right to be skeptical of any claims they make. How often do we need to say this?

[IDrinkaRum]

So the news shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC (all American broadcasting networks in the USA for those playing along) aren't real news shows either? They're being shown on channels that are for entertainment purposes. So basically, we have ... no news?

Oh wait, I think we have CNN and MSNBC. Are those the only 2 channels we can watch for news shows?

I'm confused. Please ... draw pictures or something. Because I thought 60 minutes (shown on CBS, an entertainment network) was considered an honest-to-goodness news show.

But ... I could be wrong?

[the_std]

I'm not going to argue the major American networks besides Fox, as I don't get them where I live. Unfortunately, we have satellite at work and one of my managers loves to watch that schlock, so I have experience with that. And I know that what you get from that network, and the facts that I can find on just about reliable online source, are never the same on the issues that matter.

[Andara Bledin]

Fox went to court to defend it's right to fire reporters that refused to air deliberate lies (about tainted milk) under the concept that the FCC's guideline about "news distortion" is just that - a guideline. They fought for the idea that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Why would any station that was also a news outlet not only defend their firing of employees for their refusal to lie on the air during an alleged news program, but then go on to fight over their right to continue to deliberately lie on the air, and then expect anybody to take them seriously?

Why would anybody here, arguably smarter than the average citizen, not view everything subsequently released as suspect? At this point, Fox News ranks somewhere between Reuters and The Weekly World News, and is far more dangerous for their posture as a legitimate source for information and fact.

^-.-^

[linguist]

Fox went to court to defend it's right to fire reporters that refused to air deliberate lies (about tainted milk) under the concept that the FCC's guideline about "news distortion" is just that - a guideline. They fought for the idea that "the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Why would any station that was also a news outlet not only defend their firing of employees for their refusal to lie on the air during an alleged news program, but then go on to fight over their right to continue to deliberately lie on the air, and then expect anybody to take them seriously?

this, so much. the fact that any supposed news source with even a shred of journalistic integrity would make such a ridiculous argument damages their credibility. fox has taken it a step further by reporting false information as fact on multiple occasions. they've taken their damaged credibility, run it through a shredder, then set it on fire. i don't buy anything that comes from them, even if i agree with it.

one of the cardinal rules of debate is make certain your sources are credible. using non-credible sources makes the debater's argument suspect. to my mind, a vehement defense of a non-credible source makes anything the debater has to say on any subject suspect.