And they do a hell of a good job of it, too.
This is a huge leap. Do you know of any other single instance of Media Matters doing anything remotely dishonest or deceptive? I mean, this wouldn’t be the first time you’ve made a prediction here that turned out to be exceptionally wrong.
If I were a better person… hey, there’s no margin in useless speculation.
On an unrelated note, where have you been, my huckleberry friend?
Clearly it isn’t an official position; as a starting point for debate it is, however, nuts.
How insane a does a debating point have to be before you recognise it as such?
CBS interviewed the idiots who actually have a “debating” point that’s out there in the real world, causing trouble. It wasn’t created by CBS. This is not comparable with the subject for debate that Fox simply fabricated.
All we have is a still frame picture. We have no idea what the debate was or if there even was a debate. For all we know, they might have been discussing what might happen if there was a civil war. Note that “upside” was in quotes, which tells me they were not using the term in it’s normal sense. The fact that people are jumping all over Fox for this without any real info says more about them than it does about Fox.
How do you know? You didn’t even see the debate.
It speaks ill of this board that we’ve gone over 60 posts, and I’ll be the first liberal to say that the OP is useless bullshit without any context.
Anyone? Just a little context?
Fox is, after all, the “news channel” that illustrated this so-called plot to destroy LA’s Library Tower with a shot from the movie “Independence Day”. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090004] Why bother with PhotoShop when you can just screen-capture from a DVD? 
For some reason, that link doesn’t work. Try: http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090004
This is true for me, and probably true for many of the others who do criticize the United States. Thankyou for saying it. Sometimes I find myself blindly furious with the “why do you hate America” crowd without having the right words to explain why they are such fucking morons.
No. “Openly Partisan” + “Doesn’t exist in original context on site” + “The two segments that day were about other things” + “The guest cited wasn’t on” + “Mediamatters wasn’t responsible enough to show the context” + “photoshop is really easy and they could have done it or anybody else could have done it an emailed it to them and they were too gullible to check” = “You will need to corroborate that this graphic actually occured and provide the context before I can take it seriously.”
I’ve done a lot more work trying to find the truth of this than your gullible partisan ass has.
Waiting for the knee jerk rabid partisans to act responsibly and present me with a responsibly corroborated argument.
MMFA seems pretty two-bit to me.
Sure there is, if you don’t bother to understand the context in which the argument was made, or if it was made.
How about you actually know what you’re talking about before you shoot off your mouth?
In looking at Neil Cavuto’s show’s website, they often take questions from email and talk about opinions from email. If that graphic actually occured it does not mean that they were bringing the topic up. They may be responding to an email, guest or personage who brought it up, and the whole purpose may have been to explain why it would not be a good thing.
Or, they may be showing a context or angle in which it is the lesser of two evils.
Or, maybe they really think civil war would be good.
It’s moronic and stupid to arbitrarily choose a context. A responsible thinker gets the facts. You don’t have them, and yet you are quick with the dismissal and quick to disparage.
If anybody deserves to be disparaged for their opinions, it’s you for not bothering to know what you’re talking about. Worse than that, you know and admit you don’t know and can’t be bothered to find the truth before making up your mind and shooting your mouth off.
Yes, let’s be real. Go find out the context. Go bother to look and defend your position. That would be real.
Thank you. I actually looked, and I can’t find any reference to it on Foxnews, though they have references chronologically to all the Cavuto segments and a search feature.
Find that it happened and show me the context, and if they’re irresponsibly endorsing civil war, I’ll happily condemn their stupidity and inhumanity.
It’s nice to know that somebody else thinks.
Ok. So what? What does that have to do with the subject at hand, which is this particular screen capture from Fox News? Felt like dining on red herring did you?
It’s getting harder every day to maintain your loyalty, isn’t it? The subject of the thread is Fox’s responsibility as a news source, and seriousness as a commentary source, with a subtext being a suggestion from one of the few remaining people who shares your blinkers that anything that says otherwise must be faked.
Got it now, weird kid?
What does it mean if Google shows you a preview of content that doesn’t show up when you click on the link? If you Google “Fox News Iraq civil war good”, the first link says:
But then the phrase “Will there be a civil war in Iraq?” doesn’t show up anywhere on the linked page.
Actually, it’s not. The subject of this thread is weather Fox News took the position “All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?”, and beyond a couple of screen caps, nobody has presented any evidence that they did. Got any? Then present it and we can discuss it. Beyond that, however, you felt compelled to paint Fox as somehow unreliable because when talking about a plot to attack a building, they used an image of that building taken from a movie while clearly stating “There are some pictures; and that’s one from the movie – the 1996 movie Independence Day”. I am having trouble understanding exactly what is dishonest about that, or exactly what you think it proves.
Okay, what really was on Fox at 2:05 Mountain Time on February 23, 2006? If you feel these screen caps are fraudulent, it should be pretty easy to clear up by demonstrating that something else was presented at that time on that date.
The link brings you to the front page of the news. It means some or all of the words showed up there at some time. The front page changes because the news changes.
If you look at the cached version on google it shows you the front page as it was on February 12, when the words “fox, news, war” appeared simultaneously on the front page. The other words didn’t.
I don’t know what was said on Fox but on CNN, Terry Jeffrey had this to say:
Talk about falling through the looking glass…
More significantly, Fox News could clear it up. And if it were false, they’d consider it an opportunity.
Scylla: Fox News knows about this. You know how I know? Because along with the screenshot, MMfA provided phone numbers and email addresses for Fox News and Neil Cavuto, so that MMfA readers could call/email and holler at Fox for being crazy fucks.
Chances that no one did? Approximately zero.
Chance of no huge Fox News slam of MMfA if this screen shot was inaccurate? About the same. They’d love to crucify MMfA.
So where’s the big slam?
If that’s the sound of crickets chirping, those screen shots are real.
VarlosZ: what context could possibly justify that??
Let me refresh your recollection of the OP:
To me, it means Fox once again did “their usual thing” … Release crap and then chicken out and try to purge the records of it. Just like they did in the past. During the War On Christmas, Fox had “holiday this” and holiday that" on their site, and then quietly changed it.
MMFA is two bit and hackneyed and would benefit from any publicity. Why would Fox rise to the bait to give them credibility? Nobody but rabidly partisan left-wing nutjobs gives a shit about MMFA. They’ve posted an alleged screen capture and neglected to provide it’s context. No such segment can be found at Fox though they are all archived chronologically. None are missing because there two “your world” segments that day and they are both accounted for.
Nobody gives a shit about MMFA. They don’t rise to the level worthy of contempt or getting shouted down.
Bullshit. FOX slamming MMFA would only do MMFA good as some people besides left-wing nutjobs might realize they exist.
This is the point in time when you need to act intelligently and responsibly and establish the existance of your alleged screenshots with context.