FOX News is being sued for lying

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 111
#31
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
See, you are a moron.
Once again, ignoring the facts in favor of your opinion. A person with a professionally tested IQ of 144 is not a moron. But maybe the person who disagreed with them is?

Here is an article that debunks multiple claims the AP has made in the past:
Topic's author
#32
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Once again, ignoring the facts in favor of your opinion. A person with a professionally tested IQ of 144 is not a moron.
Plus your mother says you are so smart. 

Listen, I can recognize you are a moron by reading what you write on this site and seeing how you “reason”.

Topic's author
#33
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Here is an article that debunks multiple claims the AP has made in the past:
See, you’re doing it again. Your “source” doesn’t support the point you are trying to make.

I asked you if the AP is truthful and accurate. You send it depends on the article. Then to support your statement you send an article about the AP Fact Checking record. Which is different than the news articles they print. This is because you are a moron incapable of logical reason.

To make matters worse, the article is little more than an opinion piece from some nobody. He starts off:

“94 percent of the time AP targets a conservative or Republican claim (almost always Trump). This holds true across all standalone fact-check articles from November 1, 2017 through January, 18, 2018. This pattern flagrantly violates the Poynter Institute’s code of principles. Poynter has certified AP Fact Check as abiding by its principles”

Maybe the AP is always fact-checking Trump because he lies every day. He was documented by the Washington Post as lying more than 30,000 times in his 4 years as President. And who should be fact checked more than the President of the United States? So right off the bat this article appears to be garbage.

#34
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The Associated Press is a cooperation of over 1,000 newspapers. They aren't a typical news agency. That is why it depends on the article.

The AP has broken some rather important stories, but they have also told some very serious lies. To me, this would mean they aren't trustworthy. But at the same time there are some stories they publish that are important and factual. So you can't discredit them because they are actually a network of newspapers and not a proper news agency. So, depending on the accuracy of the news agency, that could change the accuracy of the news article that AP puts out.

Everything isn't an either-or decision in life. Sometimes there's other options. With the AP, they have been known to be factual and also lie. So their accuracy depends on the article.
#35
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He was documented by the Washington Post as lying more than 30,000 times in his 4 years as President.
The Washington Post is not that reputable anymore, sadly. 

Look, to be perfectly honest with you, I have stopped reading the news and instead read the blog of the WEF and the blog from Just Facts and the Congressional Research Service because the WEF sets the news agenda for the next few months and Just Facts and the Congressional Research Service both heavily cite their articles and releases, so it is deeply-researched material.

I used to be a huge news junkie, but now the news, on both the left and the right, is so full of malarkey that it is a waste of time to read it.

WaPo has failed fact checks too. [1] And if their idea of a good source is an "anonymous source," which turned out later to just be another WaPo staffer, then that just isn't good journalism. It isn't my fault you like sources that don't do actual journalistic work.

One of my friends worked for multiple news agencies and graduated with a degree in journalism and she told me that the news agencies used to not rely on just anonymous sources and journalists would be required to find three sources that speak to both sides of an issue and run all of the claims from these sources in their articles. They also were taught to go back to the original source first and to report on that instead of someone's opinion.

News agencies just don't do this very often anymore. They rely on "experts" instead of original sources and, when it suits them, they run stories with "anonymous" and therefore unverifiable, sources.

Your “source” doesn’t support the point you are trying to make.
My point was that the AP has published blatantly false stories. That article proves my point. He cites his sources and also shows how the AP does not even link to the citations they make, which violates both Google's and the Poynter Institute's qualifications for good fact checking.

He also shows, with proper sourcing, that the AP failed multiple fact checks themselves when they were fact checking President Trump.

That was my point, and the article supported that with evidence.


SOURCES:
[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-post-beclowns-itself-with-desperate-trump-fact-check
Topic's author
#36
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
they are actually a network of newspapers 
The AP does produce original content which other newspapers around the world  print.

They are arguably the most reliable source of news in the world.

If you don’t trust them, then you are living in the dark.

Topic's author
#37
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
The Washington Post is not that reputable anymore, sadly. 
That is a ridiculous statement.

Look, to be perfectly honest with you, I have stopped reading the news and instead read the blog of the WEF and the blog from Just Facts and the Congressional Research Service because the WEF sets the news agenda for the next few months and Just Facts and the Congressional Research Service both heavily cite their articles and releases, so it is deeply-researched material.
Just facts is a Christian News organization. James Agresti, the born-again Christian is it’s founder. We discussed this before. They are a joke. I recall you are a proud graduate of the Just Facts Academy correspondence courses.

Agresti is also the author of Rational Conclusions, a meticulously researched and scholarly acclaimed book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.
Topic's author
#38
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
My point was that the AP has published blatantly false stories. 
Give me 2 examples 

Topic's author
#39
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
an "anonymous source," which turned out later to just be another WaPo staffer, then that just isn't good journalism. It isn't my fault you like sources that don't do actual journalistic work.
I highly doubt The Washington Post used its own staffer as an AS. It is your fault for being a Christian wackjob.


#40
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Just facts is a Christian News organization.
Actually it's a think tank run by a Christian. That is entirely different than, say, Salem Radio Network or Christian Headlines or Christian Today or The Christian Post, or CBN News, which are all blatantly Christian News networks, and all have their own (different) biases.

There's major differences between aggregating thousands upon thousands of studies and writing summaries of what they have found, with meticulous footnotes that quote the surrounding text in them so that readers can see the summary in context and also go back and find the original source, and what the Washington Post or any major news outlet does. If you can't see that difference then you have to be the biggest moron of all time.

I actually have spoken with Jim Agresti and we occasionally email back and forth. He's not some keyboard-happy ideologue on a mission to convert people. He actually reads everything he can on an issue, from studies to encyclopedias and dictionaries and books by reputable authors on the subject and he then fact checks those books and studies and goes to the primary sources and reads those, too. He is a very thorough researcher. You can tell from his articles, which often cite 20-30 primary sources, studies, and other serious and reputable material.

That doesn't mean he is perfect. Nobody is perfect. But the rigorousness that goes into his articles is much more thorough than most anything WaPo or NYT or Fox News or WSJ or Wash Times or NYP ever does.

The same is true for the CRS. They are basically a center-left version of Just Facts. They are also very rigorous with their research and tell you precisely where to find what they have cited. They also usually heavily cite their reports. This is significantly better than most news outlets.

So, yes. When the CRS and Just Facts are citing dozens to hundreds of studies in their work and going back to the original sources and therefore doing hard research, while WaPo cites anonymous sources and doesn't back anything they say up with any sort of hard research, they are not reputable as a publication.

Goodness gracious you really do ignore the truth when it suits you.
Topic's author
#41
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
One of my friends worked for multiple news agencies and graduated with a degree in journalism and she told me that the news agencies used to not rely on just anonymous sources and journalists would be required to find three sources that speak to both sides of an issue and run all of the claims from these sources in their articles. They also were taught to go back to the original source first and to report on that instead of someone's opinion.
You realize anonymous sources are not anonymous to the journalists or even the editor in some cases? These primary sources are verified to be authentic and tested to be truthful by the journalists.


Anonymous source
The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality as the journalist. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney–client privilege.)

Topic's author
#42
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Actually it's a think tank run 
A think tank producing news content. Think tanks usually exist to offer their insight to policy makers and other parties developing public policy.

#43
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Give me 2 examples
I gave you more than two in the original article I linked on it. But go ahead and keep saying made up stuff.

#44
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
An April 2023 jury trial has been scheduled in Dominion Voting Systems Inc's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit accusing Fox News of trying to boost its ratings by falsely claiming the voting machine company rigged the 2020 U.S. presidential election against former President Donald Trump.
In a short written order issued on Friday, Delaware state court judge Eric Davis said he was scheduling Denver-based Dominion's lawsuit for trial on April 17, 2023. Fox, part of Fox Corp (FOXA.O), had asked Owens for a trial date in early 2024.
#45
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
A think tank producing news content.
Yeah so does Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rand Corporation, Center for American Progress, Cato Institute, Merkatus Center, and many other revered think tanks on the left and right. That is part of what think tanks do these days. They all write news content nowadays.
Topic's author
#46
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
I gave you more than two in the original article I linked on it. 
You have not shown any blatantly false articles printed by the AP.



#47
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The article shows at least 5.
Topic's author
#48
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Yeah so does Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rand Corporation, Center for American Progress, Cato Institute, Merkatus Center, and many other revered think tanks on the left and right. That is part of what think tanks do these days. They all write news content nowadays.
So you are saying all think tanks produce news, and not saying Just Facts is a Christian News organization.
#49
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
But... Since you asked:








Topic's author
#50
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
The article shows at least 5.
The Jose Duarte article does no such thing.

#51
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
The American people want to be lied to because the truth is too painful. Why do you think America has so many super heroes?  Because the average American does not feel Americans can fix any problems. They need super heroes.
Topic's author
#52
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
I clicked on one of your articles. It failed miserably to show the AP lies. You must be a moron to think this is proof of a blatant lie by the AP.

ATLANTA (AP) — In a story January 9, 2021, about a phone call between then-President Donald Trump and a lead Georgia elections investigator, The Associated Press, based on information provided by a source, erroneously reported that Trump pressed the investigator to “find the fraud” and said it would make the investigator a national hero. A recording of the call made public two months later revealed that Trump did not say either and instead said that if the investigator looked into Fulton County the investigator would “find things that are gonna be unbelievable.” Trump also told the investigator: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.”

In reality there is a small nuanced difference between what Trump said and what the AP reported based on their source. This is absolutely not lying. And as minor as the discrepancy was, the AP had the integrity to clarify the report even though they knew nut jobs like yourself would point to it as evidence the media is fake news.

Trump didn’t press the investigators “ to find fraud” He pressed them to find just enough votes to make him the winner.

Trump didn’t say the investigator will “be a national hero”  he said “you’ll be praised”.

Oh wow, that’s such a huge difference. Oh the scandal!

I’m going to assume the rest of your examples are equally frivolous because you are a Christian Right wing wack job who isn’t living in reality.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
A good opinion from China.
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
In a story January 9, 2021, about a phone call between then-President Donald Trump and a lead Georgia elections investigator, The Associated Press, based on information provided by a source, erroneously reported that Trump pressed the investigator to “find the fraud” and said it would make the investigator a national hero. A recording of the call made public two months later revealed that Trump did not say either and instead said that if the investigator looked into Fulton County the investigator would “find things that are gonna be unbelievable.” Trump also told the investigator: “When the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised.”
So let me get this straight. AP reports phone call was "X"
2 months later, phone call records report phone call was "Y"

Even if you can't prove the AP was trying to deliberately lie, you can most certainly prove they did not tell the truth.

Why should any reasonable person trust a source that is objectively not truthful? At best, everything AP claims should be questioned for veracity. If AP wants to present hearsay evidence as truth, then they deserve the same standards that our courts follow, namely, that hearsay is 100 percent unreliable and likely bullshit.


#55
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I’m going to assume the rest of your examples are equally frivolous
You asked if the AP ever said anything that is untrue. I have provided, at this point now, at least 10 times they have. And not on obscure articles, but ones that were nationally read and became syndicated talking points for weeks on end. They printed blatantly false things multiple times on nationally important issues,  and yet you still continue to believe that I am somehow not proving the AP is unreliable.

They could have waited to run the story until a recording of the phone call came out. They also could have contacted Trump's Administration for comment, contacted Georgia's Governor for comment, and then ran the article with their comments. This is how journalism was commonly practiced before 2015. But no. Instead they ran with a false story. What the fuck else do you call that? If it isn't outright lying, it is at least extremely lazy journalism. And yet another reason not to trust AP except on a per article basis, which was my ORIGINAL POINT.

All I am saying is that the majority of news articles and outlets these days are not producing news but malarkey. This includes the AP, but they still have solid articles as well. 
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Public-Choice
It's not just AP, but NPR is also a terrible violator of truth by using hearsay evidence as fact.

They also tend to drop random facts without explaining any correlations as if the listener should understand there is a correlation and no proof is necessary to explain why that is. It's the kind of propaganda 3rd world dictators use.
Topic's author
#57
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
You asked if the AP ever said anything that is untrue.
Be serious. You said they blatantly lie. I said they are a reliable and factual news source. You have made a poor case.

They could have waited to run the story until a recording of the phone call came out.
That would not have served the people well. It was much more important to report that the POTUS was trying to overthrow a legitimate election and cling to power with false, blatantly false allegations of a stolen, fraudulent election process.

not to trust AP except on a per article basis, which was my ORIGINAL POINT.
On a per article basis? You mean if they report something you already believe. You are a fucking moron. A stupid Christian moron.
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I said they are a reliable and factual news source. 
Hearsay is neither, lol.
Topic's author
#59
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
All I am saying is that the majority of news articles and outlets these days are not producing news but malarkey. This includes the AP, but they still have solid articles as well.
Please tell me where you worked in journalism. I have to believe it was not at a place of any credibility. Prove me wrong.

#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Please tell me how much you paid for a "college professor" to explain to you how hearsay evidence is accurate and truthful?