Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Ashotep

Fox News host on Benghazi

14 posts in this topic

Fox News host Megyn Kelly admitted on Wednesday that the conservative network’s coverage of that day’s Benghazi hearings had been a “little lopsided” after Democratic lawmakers were repeatedly cut off for commercial breaks.

Fox News host on Benghazi: ‘We’re getting a little lopsided’ by favoring Republicans

Now why would they do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the question is why did they do that. The real question is why are they now admitting it? Its cause they arent really against democrates at all. They are bought and sold by this government, and are used as a tool to divide. After yesterdays testemoney though where it looks like people may actualy get thrown under the bus, now its time for damage control. Now its, nevermind the powerful testemoney from 3 whisle blowers, look over here, we are admitting we didnt cover this fairly. This is nothing more then a pathetic attemp to protect the quilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly why bother to state the bleeding obvious at this late hour Faux News, hmmm.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now why would they do that?

Well, one party is asking the hard questions that should have been asked months ago and the other is carrying water for the Administration.

Who would you cover if you were a news organization?

It's kind of funny that Fox was lambasted back in September for even daring to cover this, but now all of the other networks are finally coming on board - welcome to the party.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope Bengahzi brings this regime down.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I really hope Bengahzi brings this regime down.

and what would that do? it isn't like we have strong opposition, that has right ideas, and will to do right things, if curent regime for some reason falls, there isn't anyone progressive, that can take the "wheel", and actually govern in the interest of ppl.

just like revolutions in egypt, and libia, made countries a lot worst off, than they were under "tyranical" regime, that we helped to overthrow.

very valid question pops to mind, "THEN WHAT?" and "WAS IT WORTH IT"

Edited by aztek
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it would get people to think about who they're putting in office for once. But, we're just too saturated with voluntary low information voters in this country for them to want to think any harder than is necessary.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk, seeing how ppl do voting job (by who they vote in) makes me think 1 we are all retarded all the time, 2 we get retarded once we got to voting machines, or 3 the whole voting concept is a scam.

if i told you if regime change happens you, me and hundreds of millions, will have no jobs, (there will be no jobs at all), crime increases 100 fold, partial, or total infrastructure fail. (no running water, sewer cloged) no stores to buy food, no ambulance to call, your house burned down, half of your family is dead. would you still want the revolution???

i didn't make all that up, that is what happens evertime country goes thru reviolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think replacing the messiah and his lap dogs would cause the end of civilization.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think replacing the messiah and his lap dogs would cause the end of civilization.

of corse it would not, if we replace them from within, gradually, we really don't know how deep it rots, if we try to take it all away from them, they wont be very cooperating, and at the end we may well loose what we were trying to gain in a first place.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it would get people to think about who they're putting in office for once. But, we're just too saturated with voluntary low information voters in this country for them to want to think any harder than is necessary.

Look at the choices you have, Tweedledee or Tweedledum. What's to think about, want to lose this right or that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of corse it would not, if we replace them from within, gradually, we really don't know how deep it rots, if we try to take it all away from them, they wont be very cooperating, and at the end we may well loose what we were trying to gain in a first place.

What exactly are we trying to gain? Other then more loss of liberty, and unsustainable debt

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOX News ommited Obama's comments in their news coverage.

The day after the Benghazi attack, on September 12, President Obama spoke from the White House Rose Garden about Benghazi, saying, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." Obama referred to Benghazi twice more as an "act of terror" on September 13, two days after the attack.

But Fox spent months pretending Obama never labeled Benghazi as an act of terror, omitting his statements in video montages, and claiming that Obama was referencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks instead. Fox so successfully omitted Obama's words that even presidential candidate Mitt Romney believed Obama delayed calling Benghazi an "act of terror."

Fox Hurls New Benghazi Attacks Full Of Old, Tired Falsehoods

FOX News was sued by Jane Akre because she did not want to intentionally lie and they fired her.

Fox News won in appelate court and have a First Ammendment right to intentionally lie and distort the truth.

UPDATED:Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).

A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

Those so upset are having their emotions toyed with by FOX.

You only have yourself one question: Am I angry over this?

If the answer is "Yes" then science has proven that when you are emotional that your critical thinking shuts down.

Thus those who are emotional are not being objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the media's way. Distort, disort and distort some more.

Not just Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.