Hell Freezes Over - Fox News Apologizes for Blatant Lies

Wrong both ways: the non-Fox media did not report that as fact, as their account of the event, and no investigation has determined anything -

except that Brown was not killed at "very close range", or while trying to take the officer's gun.

So your impression of a larger media delivering lies and spin at Fox News levels is based on falsehood and bad information. The larger US media world has been doing a poor job of reporting news with integrity lately, but Fox is not even trying - their crap is in a mendacity class of its own, among the major "news" delivery operations.

It is in apparent fact, as Joe observed, merely attending to the forms of honest news reporting, to provide image and cover for a quite different agenda. The apology there is an image move, and not a sea change in their ongoing "news" reportage. The raft of apologies for the past twenty years of their behavior, and the wholesale dismissal of their cast and crew, is not going to happen.

Not that Joe is always correct about media integrity problems:

They did not, actually, report on that matter accurately. They reported it as if the eyewitness testimony was contradicted by the forensics in its fundamentals, and Wilson's testimony was not. The opposite is true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The media reported what it wanted to report so it picked one person and made that seem to be the only one who saw what happened. Why didn't the media ask others as well what happened because there were others there who testified to the grand jury about what they saw which was totally different than "he had his hands up".

You seem to be very forgetful even though you claim you are not. You want to use only what the media reported on the first day and not what actually happened from other eye witnesses. Strange that the media never once mentioned about other witnesses that they interrogated , why not? To exaggerate the incident and fan the flames of hate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From where are you getting this bullshit version of what "the media" were reporting ? You cannot be remembering any such newscasting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you should be worried about my memory friend, I think you should be worried about yours. Where is your evidence the media "picked" one person and made that seem to be the only one who saw what happened...Fox News or are you just making stuff up? The media isn't a police force. It isn't their job to conduct police investigations or grand jury proceedings. As has been repeatedly made known to you, grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. How can the media know what is being kept from it? And contrary to your assertion, the media did report on all the witnesses. How do you think we know of them....ESP? How did we come to know Officer Wilson's account, the coroner's findings, and the witnesses whose testimony corroborates Officer Wilson's testimony? We learned of those things through the mainstream press. The only ones exaggerating Ferguson are the partisans on the left and on the right...people like you Cosmic.

 

I never once said anything about what happened on the first day that this incident happened. I did say to wait and see what the investigation turned up though. The media asked others at the scene what they saw and choose not to include any other accounts on the first day other than the one which incited rage in people in the community. The media knew that there were other witnesses on the first day but refused to post all accounts but instead only wrote about something that would infuriate the citizens in that town. Once the account was released it was hard to put the cat back into the bag for everyone only remembered what was stated firstly and not what others saw.

I've been trying to get people to understand that saying anything about an incident should not be done until all of the facts are investigated and the trial is over, if there ever is a trial. By releasing any information about a crime will jade the community and not be able to give the accused a fair trial since everyone only reads or listens to the media about the incident.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that the apology by Banderas (as per the website linked in the OP) doesn't really do too much to quash the falsehoods it reported?

"To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country..."
Now I know I'm a cynic, but anyone reading this could easily be taken in by the ambiguity of the wording to think that while there is no formal designation, the zones nonetheless exist.

Why would they not be more explicit in their denial, rather than try to make it sound as though it's a case of "well, there's nothing formal, but when it's confirmed just remember that you heard it here first!"?

 

Still spouting this complete bullshit. Where are you getting this bizarre account of "media" behavior ? You are not remembering it. It never happened. In particular, no "account" has ever been released - the various inconsistencies between the witnesses, Wilson, and the forensic evidence, have never been resolved.

Strange news reporting, that would be - nothing but the official version of stuff that happened months ago.

Nope. The agenda is obvious, has been for many years now. Several analysts have written about the increasing prevalence of the non-apology "apology" in various forms, and its many uses in agenda-pushing.

A genuine news delivery operation publishes retractions and corrections, at the end of which there is often an apology - "regrets the error". Fox News is obviously handicapped in that, as essentially their entire body of delivered content going back decades would have to be retracted and corrected. But then, Fox News is not a news delivery operation.

 

Did I say you had? You are either intentionally making stuff up, being dishonest, suffering from some form of dementia or some combination thereof. Further, I fail to see what you said or didn’t say about the first day is even remotely relevant. You have created another straw man, another fallacious argument.

This is what you did say, per my previous quotation of your post.

And I will repeat the question you have consistently dodged. Do you have any evidence the media falsely reported or disregarded witness testimony at any time related to Ferguson? No you don’t. You have no evidence to support your claims about the media. That is why you are avoiding the question and tossing chaff to deflect scrutiny. You don’t need any evidence. You are like Fox News in that regard.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, those other witnesses, the credible witnesses were talking to the police and not the press. So how can you fault the press for not knowing who the witnesses were? Again, the press isn’t a police agency. When police released the information it was promptly reported.

Again, where is your evidence? You have none. Repeating falsehoods over and over and repeated dodging of questions and your lack of evidence doesn’t enhance your credibility.

Nice historical revisionism there. What you have consistently done is to attempt to move your partisan agenda forward. This thread isn’t about the Ferguson incident. It is about the media. You are complaining about a free press. That is how a free press works Cosmic. It reports information as it becomes known. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

It doesn't quash the falsehoods Fox reported. The so called apology was an attempt to repair Fox's already strained credibility on the international stage. Falsehoods are nothing new to Fox News (AKA Falsehoods Are US, Inc.). Fox News can easily get away with falsehoods at home in the US, but internationally, in countries that value and respect the truth, it isn't so easy.

Republican Governor Jindal of Louisiana is doubling down in support of Fox’s claim. If Fox or any of the other Republican entertainment outlets were constrained to truthful and honest reporting, Republican entertainment would consist mostly of dead airspace.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/15/jindal-no-go-zones-muslim-europe/21825173/