Giant Political Mouse: Fox News Does It Again - Come on, you only have to keep track of 2 parties

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Fox News Does It Again - Come on, you only have to keep track of 2 parties

For those of you who thought the whole "Fox News Labels Foley as a Democrat" was merly an honest mistake.

I call Bullshit. (Hat-Tip Daily Kos)

In case you were wondering, they switched the two so that it now looks like the Republican is winning (Which he is not)

Isn't it funny that whenver they make this "mistake" it makes the republicans look good and the democrats look bad?

Perhaps that is why Fox News sued for the right to tell a lie

the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.

Fox had a very simple point to make:

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

I guess it is thier right. It's everyone else's responsibility to fight back.

And while we are at it, CNN does deserve some Kudos on this Front. Here is a portion of a transcript from Wolf Blitzer's Show:

BLITZER: So what you're suggesting -- and correct me if I'm wrong, because you've been doing this for the last few days -- that Democrats are behind the timing of the release of this information? Is that your accusation?
MCHENRY: Well, look, all the fact points lead to one question: Did Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi have any involvement on the strategic or tactical level? This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the question was asked of Rahm Emanuel. His reaction was he did not see the instant messages or e-mails. He repeatedly said, he did not see. I've asked him to testify under oath to assure the American people that he was not involved in this issue in any way, shape or form.
BLITZER: Do you have any evidence at all that Democrats or others might have been behind the timing of this scandal?
MCHENRY: Look, let's be honest...
BLITZER: Do you have any evidence to back that charge up?
MCHENRY: No, no, actually, if the Democrats had any issue with saying this, putting all the facts out on the table, they would say, certainly, I'll testify under oath that I had no involvement in it. They've said no.
BLITZER: Well, you don't have any evidence, though, right?
MCHENRY: Well, look at the fact points.
BLITZER: Yes or no, do you have any evidence, Congressman?

Blitzer keeps the pressure on. It is a pretty simple question. Do they actualy have any evidence? Can they meet the basic standard of "burden of proof"?