Fox News Alters AP Reports To Mimic WH - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-24-2005, 05:25 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:16 AM
Fox News Alters AP Reports To Mimic WH

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006

"Since April 2002, FOX News has consistently doctored Associated Press articles featured on the FOX News website concerning terrorist attacks in the Middle East to conform to Bush administration terminology. "

"Dennis Murray, executive producer of [FOX News'] daytime programming, said executives there had heard the phrase ["homicide bombing"] being used by administration officials in recent days and thought it was a good idea."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:41 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:16 AM
So? Should AP be the final arbiter of what "proper" terminology is used?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:44 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:16 AM
Probably not, but I don't think the WH should be either. It makes me suspicious of what else the WH says that Fox thinks is a "good idea"
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:03 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:16 AM
It also says on that site that they actually changed the term in a quote from Hillary Clinton - is that ethical? Then they changed it..

"And then revised it to restore the quote without noting either the original alteration or its correction."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:18 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:16 AM
I second it. If we are going to have a Free Press, then the White House should have very little to say about the terminology.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:37 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Agreed. And Fox should be free to choose their terminology.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:43 AM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So? Should AP be the final arbiter of what "proper" terminology is used?
When they write the press releases and when they are published as an AP release, yes. You then cannot arbitrarily change the words. Isn't this copyright infringement?
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:45 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:16 AM
However, a good news organization will have full disclosure. If FOX is going to change terminology, they should openly reflect that they made changes to AP articles and where.

Instead, what they are really doing is using the credibility of the AP to post news articles that most people trust and then not telling people when they change articles to suit their ideology--thus assuming that it reflects what the AP wrote. It's very misleading and unethical.

But the biggest farce of all is FOX News ever getting away with "fair and balanced," considering that the FOX News Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes, used to be a big shot with the Republican Party. Now tell me: do you think the Republican Party is interested in being "fair and balanced" or just winning elections? I think the latter is certainly the case.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:47 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:16 AM
Do they actually get away w/ fair and balanced anymore? Is there anyone left on this planet who believes that?

I think there might be more people who believe in the Easter Bunny..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:53 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:16 AM
See the film "Outfoxed."
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:01 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Agreed. And Fox should be free to choose their terminology.
Isn’t it just a stupid term?


McVeigh was a "homicide bomber"

Palestinians used to be, but could no longer be effective, so they switched to 'suicide bombers"

Use of that term only confirms that one is lock-step in line with the Israelis.

Therefore, they have little credibility in discussing Mid East policy objectively.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:32 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:16 PM
This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~ suicide bomber really doesn't remind people that they are mass murderers, suicide homocide bomber could be more applicable but it is a very good thing to see.The label millitant on a bomber or activist for guys who gun down innocents is one of the more despicable pieces of reportage in this day and age.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:43 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~ suicide bomber really doesn't remind people that they are mass murderers, suicide homocide bomber could be more applicable but it is a very good thing to see.The label millitant on a bomber or activist for guys who gun down innocents is one of the more despicable pieces of reportage in this day and age.
This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~

so the US should take it's talking points from Israel?







They are not called:

Hero bombers

Martyr bombers

Warrior bombers

Soldier bombers

Since when is “suicide” a complimentary term?

I think if someone in Texas went out in the middle of a field and blew himself or herself up they would not be called a suicide bomber.

Hunter Thompson was a suicide,. not a suicide gunman.



It is just stupid.


Again, Tim McVeigh was a homicide bomber.

I have never heard the term suicide bomber used without the number of victims included.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:58 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Since when is “suicide” a complimentary term?
Complimentary, no. Sympathetic, yes.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 02:32 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:16 PM
I wouldn't say that suicide bomber is sympathetic, it is a generally used and accepted term but it does open the door for sympathy.

How many times do we hear the - Suicide bombers are driven to it by their suffering or poverty (all of which are of course the victims fault; Palestinian Terrorists killing Israeli's ~ because of the settlements, or the barrier, or their shame in the world, or any reason that isn't the fault of the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda kills Civilians around the world ~ some say this is the fault of the US because US supports the Saudi Monarchy, US troops in SA, US support for Israel, US racism, US genocides, US imperial aspirations, US Christianity, US Republicans, US affluence etc.). The burden is put on the victim ~ they are killed because of the crimes of their country.

We say suicide bomber because it is the moderate term that opens the door to blame the victim ~ if we were to say that these terrorists were cold calculating murderers then the burden of responsibility would shift and a case of moral equivalence and mutual blame can no longer be made.

Blaming the victims reinforces a worldview where all violence in the world is motivated by root causes and that by adressing these root causes we will acheive peace in our time. The sad fact of humanity is that when people get what they want by killing for it the seem to make a habbit of it their desires or bloodlust become to big. And we love murderers when they can gather sympathy ~ just look at Yasser Arafat, he is viewed by many around the world including the west as a champion for his people, an unyielding hero to some; he was able to play the international community like a fiddle because they decided that they could overlook his crimes in order to help his people ~ what did this appeasement achieve? a dictator who stole billions, a people raised on violence in the name of statehood, thousands of dead Palestinians and Israelis - all of this subsidised by the west in the name of peace. When we refuse to call murder when we see it and excuse it when it isn't happening to us the concequences are always dire.

Maybe thats half the problem ~ mankinds innate ability to commit evil is something that people don't like to face up too - we have to justify evil because if we open up to the possibility that people do evil things when given the choice it reflects on all of us. How we view the nature of evil may well be the greater ideological divide ~ I see it as a choice, others see it as circumstance (I am not saying that circumstance isn't part of it ~ I am saying that no matter what the circumstance there is a choice ~ blow up innocent people or not, seek vengence or not, slaughter children or not).

If a mans family is kidnapped and he is told to murder and he commits the crime he is not an evil man ~ he is a victim.

If a man goes to murder by his own volition then is he not responsible?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com