Fox News site posts falsified Kerry quotes

[The1calledTKE]

WASHINGTON -- Fox News apologized today for posting phony quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its Web site. ADVERTISEMENT


Carl Cameron, a Fox reporter who covers the Kerry campaign, wrote an item that looked like a news story with made-up Kerry quotes, said Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman. The item was not intended to be posted on the site.

"Carl made a stupid mistake which he regrets," Schur said Friday night. "And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor."

The phony item posted early Friday read in part:

"Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

"'Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!' Kerry said Friday.

"With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

"Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"'It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures,' Kerry said."

The item also quoted Kerry as saying of himself and President Bush: "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy."

After withdrawing the item, Fox posted a statement on its Web site, http://www.FOXNews.com apologizing for the error. It said: "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2825921

or

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed

Less biased than the liberal media? More stuff like this will just prove that theory wrong.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Less biased than the liberal media? More stuff like this will just prove that theory wrong.

I tend to agree. But I'm still anti-Democrat/Republican.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE


Less biased than the liberal media? More stuff like this will just prove that theory wrong.

Again, I posted the study measuring bias and it was the least biased news source. Of course if Fox became biased while other news sources stopped being biased, then yeah that wouldn't hold anymore. So what is your point? But right now it looks in Fox's favor since they immediately corrected the problem and dealt with the situation. Contrast this with CBS and their fake memo that they created. They refused to rescind the story for a week until the pressure got too great and it was shown how they'd lied.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Contrast this with CBS and their fake memo that they created. They refused to rescind the story for a week until the pressure got too great and it was shown how they'd lied.

What? Where did you hear that CBS "created" a fake memo?

As I understand the situation, someone else created the memo and gave it to CBS. In their defense, it can take a while to investigate any charges.

There's also a big difference between defending what you think is reportage (then issuing an apology when you discover it's flawed) and apologizing for something clearly written as a joke, known to be untrue and posted accidentally.

These are two really different situations.

In addition, the this later case, a couple of people at FOX made mistakes -- true. But they are little dumb ones. People at CBS aparantely made the much larger mistakes of not checking out their sources thoroughly enough.

Seems to me that one is a journalistic error and one a couple of personal mistakes.

From me, FOX gets a pass on this one.

[Kevin]

It was a definite f-up. However, if someone wants to say they're biased over this, at least they didn't try and defend what was said there for two weeks before admitting they were wrong.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ktsnake
...at least they didn't try and defend what was said there for two weeks before admitting they were wrong.

Come on.

The US Army defended Lt. Richard Caley in the My Lai incident until the charges were proved. The Republican Party supported Richard Nixon on Watergate until the evidence proved otherwise.

The list goes on.

There are two things happening. One, inside and outside the judicial system, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Second, it is important to believe and support your employees until you are sure they have made an error.

Certain high profile CBS employees made serious mistakes in not checking sources. That, in itself, does not indict the entire organization. In fact, they admitted the error, took responsibility (as they should have) and apologized after their own investigation of the facts. Then, they hired a former US Attorney General to dig deeper into the situation. Did anyone really expect them to take as Gospel the charges on a blog? If so, you may as well not expect to see any kind of investigative reporting anywhere -- because there are always two sides to a story.

Given the circumstances, I don't think the ten days or so that it took CBS to do its investigation and issue the retraction and apology is out of line. Remember the original investigation had been going on for much longer.

CBS clearly (at least in my opinion) put a fair amount of resources into finding themselves "guilty" and did it in a reasonable amount of time given the circumstances.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by DeltAlum

CBS clearly (at least in my opinion) put a fair amount of resources into finding themselves "guilty" and did it in a reasonable amount of time given the circumstances.

u really believe this? unbelievable!

[Rudey]

The difference is that CBS is supposed to simply report and not show any bias. I would think that they would investigate any outrageous claim like this immediately or they would say they were investigating it as soon as people started saying it was false. I wouldn't expect any political party to just abandon one of their members.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Come on.

The US Army defended Lt. Richard Caley in the My Lai incident until the charges were proved. The Republican Party supported Richard Nixon on Watergate until the evidence proved otherwise.

The list goes on.

There are two things happening. One, inside and outside the judicial system, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Second, it is important to believe and support your employees until you are sure they have made an error.

Certain high profile CBS employees made serious mistakes in not checking sources. That, in itself, does not indict the entire organization. In fact, they admitted the error, took responsibility (as they should have) and apologized after their own investigation of the facts. Then, they hired a former US Attorney General to dig deeper into the situation. Did anyone really expect them to take as Gospel the charges on a blog? If so, you may as well not expect to see any kind of investigative reporting anywhere -- because there are always two sides to a story.

Given the circumstances, I don't think the ten days or so that it took CBS to do its investigation and issue the retraction and apology is out of line. Remember the original investigation had been going on for much longer.

CBS clearly (at least in my opinion) put a fair amount of resources into finding themselves "guilty" and did it in a reasonable amount of time given the circumstances.

[DeltAlum]

Love Spell. Yes, I do believe it. Investigations take time. Ask any cop. Perhaps you would give it some consideration if you take off the blinders.

Rudey. If you were to make a mistake and violate some Securities law or something, wouldn't you want your company to support you until they had a chance to decide on the truth and the incident was proven one way or the other?

I would.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Love Spell. Yes, I do believe it. Investigations take time. Ask any cop. Perhaps you would give it some consideration if you take off the blinders.

Rudey. If you were to make a mistake and violate some Securities law or something, wouldn't you want your company to support you until they had a chance to decide on the truth and the incident was proven one way or the other?

I would.

I would want a lot of things good sir. I don't know if I would get them though. For example, I think it's best to have someone say they were investigating the circumstances and not just immediately back me. CBS just stuck to the story. Truthfully though, if I ever got into any trouble like this, my ass would be on the street in a second because Martha Stewart ruined it for all of us.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Martha Stewart ruined it for all of us.

Didn't she work for CBS, too?

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Love Spell. Yes, I do believe it. Investigations take time. Ask any cop. Perhaps you would give it some consideration if you take off the blinders.

Oh yea..i forgot..you're so unbiased and neutral. gee i wish i were like you

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Oh yea..i forgot..you're so unbiased and neutral. gee i wish i were like you

Well, I'll take that as a personal comment and respond.

If you'll look above I believe I stuck up for FOX and said their mistake was not in the same league with CBS.

If you look at the other threads regarding "Rathergate," I think I said that CBS would investigate their reporting. They Did.

I said that if they found it to be wrong, they would retract. They did.

I also said that Rather himself would report the retraction and issue an apology. He did.

Didn't you say that those things wouldn't happen?

I also pointed out why -- that being the Federal oversite of on air TV.

There are a lot of things I don't know much about. TV News isn't one of them. I know a lot about it. I lived it for over thirty years.

Experience does count.

Additionally, I consider myself a moderate, and I will generally take that position in any argument. I will also take to task any argument that I believe is made unfairly, dishonestly or where facts are manipulated or misunderstood. I have stood up for Kerry, Bush and Cheeny in different threads.

If folks want to come down totally on one side or the other, I may not agree with them. Or, sometimes I may. I've even agreed with Rudey a few times.

I think both sides of an issue are worth discussing with civility -- not demeaning the other side.

I invite you or anyone else to look back and see which sides you and I have taken, who is more likely to look at both sides of an issue and who is more "Fair and Balanced" -- to coin a phrase.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Well, I'll take that as a personal comment and respond.

If you'll look above I believe I stuck up for FOX and said their mistake was not in the same league with CBS.

If you look at the other threads regarding "Rathergate," I think I said that CBS would investigate their reporting. They Did.

I said that if they found it to be wrong, they would retract. They did.

I also said that Rather himself would report the retraction and issue an apology. He did.

Didn't you say that those things wouldn't happen?

I also pointed out why -- that being the Federal oversite of on air TV.

There are a lot of things I don't know much about. TV News isn't one of them. I know a lot about it. I lived it for over thirty years.

Experience does count.

Additionally, I consider myself a moderate, and I will generally take that position in any argument. I will also take to task any argument that I believe is made unfairly, dishonestly or where facts are manipulated or misunderstood. I have stood up for Kerry, Bush and Cheeny in different threads.

If folks want to come down totally on one side or the other, I may not agree with them. Or, sometimes I may. I've even agreed with Rudey a few times.

I think both sides of an issue are worth discussing with civility -- not demeaning the other side.

I invite you or anyone else to look back and see which sides you and I have taken, who is more likely to look at both sides of an issue and who is more "Fair and Balanced" -- to coin a phrase.

Say what you want, but I've been more than moderate in my beliefs. But if you want to continually type-case me, go for it stud.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Say what you want, but I've been more than moderate in my beliefs. But if you want to continually type-case me, go for it stud.

If you say so, I know it must be true.