Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 55

• 0%

  2sidestoeverything1 year, 5 months ago

  So much for journalistic reach how embarrassing.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 0%

    wildman65571 year, 5 months ago

    I object! That show was as accurate as most stuff they air.

    Reply
  • 100%

    Dave591 year, 5 months ago

    "Yes, Bush did serve." Where?

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 100%

      minitruckintoy1 year, 5 months ago

      haha he did serve. he served the american people lie after lie. and still does to this day.

      Reply
    • 0%

      dadesider1 year, 5 months ago

      He should be serving mashed potatoes at a homeless shelter.

      Reply
    • 0%

      OnlyTheTruth1 year, 5 months ago

      He served in Texas and Alabama; helping a political campaign.

      Reply
  • 0%

    coreyspring1 year, 5 months ago

    Embarrassing is a pretty good word to describe Fox and Friends

    Reply
• 0%

  TimALoftis1 year, 5 months ago

  more info here...

  http://www.sunjournal.com/story/209231-3/Lewist...

  Reply
• 100%

  ind061 year, 5 months ago

  People taking satire at face value. I'm shocked.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    kctrixter1 year, 5 months ago

    hehe

    Ind06, I thought of you as soon as I read the headline. I even looked to see if you had posted it. I thought it might ne a satire about people taking satire at face value. :)

    THX for the post Neophile, I almost never watch Fox so I totally missed it.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 100%

      ind061 year, 5 months ago

      :)

      Reply
    • 100%

      AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago

      Don't feel bad about not watching Fox, you must be getting the real news elsewhere, go for it. For is biased and slanted as we all know.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 67%

        hamy1 year, 5 months ago

        Fox news has admittedly attached itself to the Bush presidency. It is only now that his points have fallen into the depths that they are trying to seem more balanced, but in reality, it is very slanted towards a neo-conservative viewpoint. They will even admit that. Why is it so hard for you to do so?

        Reply
• 0%

  KentuckyBootleg1 year, 5 months ago

  So what? Netscapers are biased to high hell. Mostly stories supporting Democrats. I can't go anywhere and get straight news without running into knuckle dragging party huggers left or right.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 100%

    sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

    Then stay home and hide.

    Reply
  • 0%

    AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago

    Didn't your mommie tell you that all the Revenuers are democrats disguised as police officers. :)

    Reply
  • 93%

    hamy1 year, 5 months ago

    Try getting your news from multiple sources so that you can make up your own mind about issues.

    Reply
• 0%

  Ruggaboo1 year, 5 months ago

  This almost makes me want to run to the libbo lovers at the Communist News Network(CNN) or even watch the Misguided Socialist News Bias Corporation(MSNBC)

  Big deal... The seventh century sham that is Islam deserves some ham. Muslims need to police their own.

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    Beau78901 year, 5 months ago

    What the story should do is make you wonder how many other stories are reported by Fox on the basis of one source, and without any investigation or corroboration.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      kctrixter1 year, 5 months ago

      Beau, he did check it, he saw on the Internet and it was reported in local papers up there. You must have that part ;)

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        kctrixter1 year, 5 months ago

        sorry for the mt I seem to have missed missed

        Reply
    • 0%

      Dave591 year, 5 months ago

      People like you crack me up. You find one or two talking points and think if you say them loud and often they will suddenly become "Truth".

      This comes under the category of "Exercises for the Small Mind".

      Reply
  • 0%

    SultanME1 year, 5 months ago

    Thats Typical, when you lose you resport to insults. This betrays frustration born of weakness. Incidentally, before calling Islam a 'sham' you might want to debate your religion Vs Islam with me and will show you and anyone else listening which religion is TRUELY a sham.

    Reply
• 0%

  Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

  Unbelievable. I suppose no other news outlet has made a mistake?

  Reply

  11 Replies

  • 100%

    sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

    No, but no other news outlet have gone to court and won the right to lie.

    Reply

    10 Replies

    • 100%

      Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

      That's cute. Did Harry Reid tell you to say that?

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 100%

        sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

        No, apparently you never read about the case in Florida. Do you get your talking points from Fox? Sounds like it.

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 100%

          Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

          Apparently I don't get my news from Fox since I don't know about the Supreme Court authorising Fox to report only false, unsubstantiated stories to directly dispute all other news sources.

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 25%

            sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

            Oh come now, I don't believe you don't watch Fox News. You seem to parrot their talking points.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 100%

              sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

              "After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

              Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions."

              Reply
            • 0%

              Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

              Nice try, but I don't watch much more than the Weather Channel, History Channel, and PBS. As to the talking points comment. I have seen, quite frequently, the anchors on several news outlets giving their op-eds and using the same language verbatim as the other outlets. Why you ask? Because they ALL fail to investigate. They simply read the AP/UPI feeds. There is no investigative journalism in America any longer. Now it is just another type of "American Idol". It is all about ratings and advertisers, not news. This is why I watch very little TV now.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 100%

                sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

                To one who reports not to watch the news, I hope at least you read the news from different sources to form an intelligent opinion.

                And, I hope you don't keep debunking people who have valid facts to back up their statements instead of trying to ridicule them.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

                  To counter your contention that I am trying to ridicule people. It was you who began this sub-thread by claiming that I was espousing the opinions of Fox News. I have ridiculed no one, nor have I engaged in labeling. If you read my comments you will note that I have bashed ALL outlets equally as lazy, plagurising hacks, including your beloved Fox.

                  Reply
                • 100%

                  Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

                  As to the "debunking" comment. I have not challenged the validity of any of these comments. I mere inquired as to whether any other news source had ever made a mistake, and judging by your persistence in trying to run me down, apparently not. I stand corrected. You win sir, well played.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

                    "Unbelievable. I suppose no other news outlet has made a mistake?"

                    "No, but no other news outlet have gone to court and won the right to lie."

                    "That's cute. Did Harry Reid tell you to say that?"

                    "No, apparently you never read about the case in Florida. Do you get your talking points from Fox? Sounds like it."

                    This was the start of our exchange. I answered your question and you attacked by mocking me. I don't back down when confronted. I really don't feel good about this arguement so I'm also willing to concede in a strategic withdrawal.

                    Reply
• 0%

  Unashamed1 year, 5 months ago

  What was it that a year or two ago Dan Rather and CBS News reported as fact a damaging news item that was totally debunked by amatures four hours after it broadcast? I believe it had something to do with forged military documents that were detrimental to President Bush. CBS even suspected the documents were fake before the airing yet chose to go with it because they believed what the fake documents supported was true but they had no real proof, so they went with the fake proof. If my aging memory is correct, didn't it ultimately lead to Rather's retirement?

  My point is, FOX was the receipiant of a pratical joke and fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. A retraction and apology is in order. CBS was intentional in its deception, yet resisted retraction even after the documents were shown to be fake.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

    They were not recipients, they were actively hunting for news like this.

    But was the content of the infomation Dan Rather reported false? NO. Fake documents? Yes. Planted? Yes.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Unashamed1 year, 5 months ago

      Was the content false? Certainly! There was no proof that the allegations were true, therefore the need to create "false evidence." To believe as true accusations against anyone without evidence is the definition of prejudice. It's just like the police investigator who is sure a suspect is guilty, but since the evidence was sparce, decided to plant evidence to prove his guilt.

      Reply
    • 60%

      sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

      Keep on thinking your president is an honorable veteran. Others know the truth. People in high places always seems to have their butt licks like you two.

      Reply
• 100%

  1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months ago

  An organization devoted to uncovering the facts behind the obvious government and media cover-up is already working--check out 4/27hamtruthers.org. With their leadership, we can still be arguing over the "facts" of this incident five years from now.

  Reply
• 0%

  baobab1 year, 5 months ago

  I just did a search of the Onion and could not find any story about anti ham response plan. I searched for many different key words that were mentioned in the Fox News report, and none of them produced any Onion spoof of the Maine Muslim ham sandwich event. Anyone have an explanation for that?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    sonofjohn1 year, 5 months ago

    This actual story was then spoofed by a parody site called Associated Content.

    Reply
• 33%

  Gatsby1 year, 5 months ago

  Fox News iIS a parody

  Reply
• 100%

  tr1ib3f3t1 year, 5 months ago

  we will learn of the second coming of hitler thru FOX, and they will bring him to us.

  Reply
• 100%

  sixshot1 year, 5 months ago

  fox news wouldn't know the truth if it came and bit em on the a*s

  Reply
• 100%

  Coop6661 year, 5 months ago

  At least Fox News doesn't make the news up like the New York Times, or sanitize their news to help Saddam Hussein, like CNN did.

  Reply
• 100%

  groingo1 year, 5 months ago

  Typical FOX, masters of the art of mis-direction and lies, one network you can never trust but they can be entertaining at time.

  Reply
• 100%

  Rinty1 year, 5 months ago

  Neophile:

  Thank you for the best laugh I've had all week. I needed that.

  Reply
• 0%

  Natureboy1 year, 5 months ago

  Parody on Fox news; who could tell the difference?

  Reply
• 67%

  nothingpetty1 year, 5 months ago

  TV News in gerneral is a parody. Empty airheads pretending to be journalists.

  Reply
• 67%

  Amazing11 year, 5 months ago

  They may be empty airheads pretending to be journalists. And this story gave them the opportunity to really ham it up. At the same time, Miss Piggy in the middle couldn't keep her hands off the ham sandwich. She'd better watch it. Eating like that could turn her into a real porker.

  Thanks, Neophile. Maybe should have been in the humor category.

  Reply
• 100%

  Dionys1 year, 5 months ago

  I don't get it. Why is this news. Aren't all of Fox's news programs essentially parodies of the real stories?

  Reply
• 0%

  1-2-Oscar1 year, 5 months ago

  Reporting poorly-done parody as "news" is not so uncommon. After all, it is done every day here on Netscape.

  Reply
• 0%

  Nowalive1 year, 5 months ago

  As to the "debunking' comment. I have not challenged the validity of any of these comments. I mere inquired as to whether any other news source had ever made a mistake, and judging by your persistence in trying to run me down, apparently not. I stand corrected. You win sir, well played.

  Reply
• 0%

  OnlyTheTruth1 year, 5 months ago

  FAUX will naturally jump onto anything that is anti-Islam. So, make it up and they will happily air it.

  Reply