Proof of Fox News' agenda - INSIDE!

wannabedamned · 13 Dec 2011 at 13:18

What do you think the margin of error is? About 1% ? Give or take 1% ?

Wolfe777 · 13 Dec 2011 at 13:19

Hanlon's Razor is clearly the most likely outcome here.

Oh wait a minute! It involves Obama!!!!!!1111111

OMGBBQ etc, etc, how dare they!!!111111

Beloved Obama, so trendy to support him, any who opposes him are evils!!!111111

.

wannabedamned · 13 Dec 2011 at 13:21

^ Your shift key may be broken

Irish_Tom · 13 Dec 2011 at 13:22

[TW]Fox;20786428 said:
How can it be anything other than incompetence and poor quality control? Anyone with half a brain making a concious decision to misrepresent the graph in that manner would know it would fool almost nobody and achieve nothing, which means it can only have been a stupid mistake.

It certainly demonstrates how little credibility they have, but not for the cool and funky conspiracy reason.

I think you're giving the US public (at least those that watch FOX News) far too much credit.

Vonhelmet · 13 Dec 2011 at 13:33

Fox News won a court case about their distortion of the news on the basis that the news they broadcast is protected free speech and they can present it, bend it, whatever as they see fit.

Don't take them seriously.

Oh, and here's another bit of flawless Fox logic...

Lunawolfy · 13 Dec 2011 at 14:00

No guns = No democracy?

MY GOD! It all makes sense now!

flibbage0 · 13 Dec 2011 at 14:10

I don't know how true this is but a court case allowed FOX news to write whatever they wanted, it didn't have to be the truth.

Vonhelmet · 13 Dec 2011 at 15:00

flibbage0 said:
I don't know how true this is but a court case allowed FOX news to write whatever they wanted, it didn't have to be the truth.

It's true. As I recall, the case related to the dismissal of a member of staff who refused to go ahead with making reports she felt were inaccurate. Fox argued that their news was protected free speech, so the truth was irrelevant, so they could dismiss her for failing to present the reports because it wasn't her place to decide what they chose to broadcast.

cm1179 · 13 Dec 2011 at 15:06

so hang on, is that graph actually straight from bls or have fox made their own graph going on the bls stats?

drunkenmaster · 13 Dec 2011 at 15:08

People take the lawsuit a bit too seriously, someone was peeved that Fox make a lot of assumptions and present them as fact and sued them, what they were doing is exactly no different to any other news channel, and there isn't much point anyone spending money suing another news channel as they will get the same result.

Legally fox news can make crap up, but we're mostly talking about opinion and every news channel basis half of what they present as opinion.

Either way, as others have said, add Fox and Obama and people assume the worst rather than the most obvious, simple stupidity. BBC might have the best intentions(I in no way believe that, they are frequently biased and push political agenda's, scaremongering as well as any other crap new channel), but they still interview cab drivers instead of who they intend to, they make mistakes, present opinion as fact, frequently interview moron's who talk utter trash.

News became entertainment rather then clinical, morally accountable, well researched, ethical journalist based news a decade ago. BBC cares more about morning viewing ratings and hip sofa's than quality news.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18351616

ABC getting caught making things appear worse than they are to an extent. This is bog standard in news, and has been for god knows how long. THere is a fine, and useless, pointless, worthless line between lying, and editing out information you don't want seen and bits you do. Quoting only very specific parts of a speech to make things taken out of context seem to have a completely different meaning.

Factually it's the truth, but morally, its absolutely not true. There isn't a news channel out there that hasn't done this.

Strife212 · 13 Dec 2011 at 16:21

The graph doesn't go from 0% to 100%, so what, it would be unreadable. It's far from the most blatant graph manipulation I've ever seen. Unless you mean the final point which is blatantly an error.

Disco Boy · 13 Dec 2011 at 16:24

Strife212 said:
The graph doesn't go from 0% to 100%, so what, it would be unreadable.

So you failed to read the OP and any posts in the thread? Thanks for your contribution.

Strife212 · 13 Dec 2011 at 16:25

I've read every post thanks

Disco Boy · 13 Dec 2011 at 16:26

Strife212 said:
I've read every post thanks

And yet you still managed to miss the whole point. Well done

I'll give you a clue:
look at the last data point on the graph

Strife212 · 13 Dec 2011 at 16:28

But that's blatantly an error, when OP said there was an agenda I was looking for bias in the way the graph was constructed, and there isn't really any, hence my confusion.

Naffa · 13 Dec 2011 at 17:01

Blatantly an error? Fox News seem to make quite a few of them.

Strife212 · 13 Dec 2011 at 17:04

Well ok, what I meant was I was looking for graph manipulations, wheras that is an outright lie

Stuff like this:

Naffa · 13 Dec 2011 at 17:07

Fair point, but I just don't think that the graph in my first post could have been generated/drawn with that mistake, showed to producers, etc and gone out on the air without anybody noticing.

Strife212 · 13 Dec 2011 at 17:08

Fair enough, it is misleading, I guess me not even noticing proves that really, as most people would glance at it and think unemployment didn't go down.

Tefal · 13 Dec 2011 at 17:11

Naffa said:
Fair point, but I just don't think that the graph in my first post could have been generated/drawn with that mistake, showed to producers, etc and gone out on the air without anybody noticing.

why not?

it's a daily news show most things like that are probbaly knocked up in a few minutes by some near minimum wage back room graphics guy everyday who really doesn't give a ****.

This is more proof of your agenda than fox's really.