52 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
52 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Fox News Regular Indicted Over Allegedly Concocting Bogus CIA Past

by TLTheLiberator
41 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Fox News Regular Indicted Over Allegedly Concocting Bogus CIA Past


Here's a listing of his most interesting utterings...

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/fox_...lly_a_con_man/
  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

    There are people like that at every point of the political spectrum. This isn't specific to FOX, or any political party.
    Signature
    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338210].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

      There are people like that at every point of the political spectrum. This isn't specific to FOX, or any political party.
      Indubitably not, but it is the one at FOX who got caught.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338907].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

        Indubitably not, but it is the one at FOX who got caught.

        To be fair, it wasn't FOX that lied, it was someone who didn't work for them.

        I'm not a fan of FOX news, but I am a fan of the truth.

        Strange how someone can construct a whole identity out of nothing, and not get caught for years. Surely, anyone working for the CIA would know what he was saying was simply not true.

        I think it would be very hard to fake expertise like that.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338953].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          To be fair, it wasn't FOX that lied, it was someone who didn't work for them.

          I'm not a fan of FOX news, but I am a fan of the truth.

          Strange how someone can construct a whole identity out of nothing, and not get caught for years. Surely, anyone working for the CIA would know what he was saying was simply not true.

          I think it would be very hard to fake expertise like that.
          Ironically, that would make him very qualified to work for the CIA. Or is the CIA burying its tracks?
          Signature

          Project HERE.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338988].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BigFrank
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          Strange how someone can construct a whole identity out of nothing, and not get caught for years.
          Yes - just how do you continue to pull that off???

          Cheers. - Frank
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10339649].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I've been looking for more details - and found the legal stuff on this. This isn't a "Fox news" story - its much bigger than that. These charges go back to 2009 and seems he was able to defraud the govt several times...

            Reading Page 5 of list of charges - amazing no one was checking on him.

            http://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/file/784211/download

            The fashion is to make the story about FOX - but the truth of what this many has done is so much bigger than "lying pundit" or "fake expert". Wow!
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
            that's why there are so many of us.
            ...jane goodall
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10339917].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              I've been looking for more details - and found the legal stuff on this. This isn't a "Fox news" story - its much bigger than that. These charges go back to 2009 and seems he was able to defraud the govt several times...

              Reading Page 5 of list of charges - amazing no one was checking on him.

              http://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/file/784211/download

              The fashion is to make the story about FOX - but the truth of what this many has done is so much bigger than "lying pundit" or "fake expert". Wow!
              I'm amazed that this guy could sound credible.

              For example, if he said he owned a vacuum cleaner store, and he was interviewed...I'd be able to tell in less than a minute that he had no idea what he was talking about.

              All I can think of, is that this guy really studied the CIA, and learned a few procedures and terms...and got by on that.

              What a weird story.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10339951].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          . Surely, anyone working for the CIA would know what he was saying was simply not true.

          Thats actually the one place where they wouldn't.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10339955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    In 2003 a ruling was passed that allows news media to legally lie to us. Claude is right - it's not just FOX. Every one of them does it - but they pick on FOX because that corporation has a different agenda from our liberal owned news.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338295].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      "He's not affiliated with the network," Fox News spokesperson Carly Shanahan told TPM following the announcement, either as a paid pundit or contributor.
      I don't recall ever seeing that guy on Fox - but I was shocked several years ago when I found a news video online. The person being interviewed by a local news person about his upcoming "appearance on CNN" was someone I sent to jail a few years previously. He was a con man and I don't take kindly to liars.

      I contacted CNN with background on the guy - received a thanks from CNN and was told the "upcoming interview" had been canceled.

      People lie all the time - sometimes they get caught.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
      that's why there are so many of us.
      ...jane goodall
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338593].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      In 2003 a ruling was passed that allows news media to legally lie to us. Claude is right - it's not just FOX. Every one of them does it - but they pick on FOX because that corporation has a different agenda from our liberal owned news.
      Like they didn't "pick on" Brian Williams for his little lie, a lie that is actually a lot smaller than building a whole fake identity. But don't mention someone appearing on Fox regularly because that would be picking on Fox. And don't mention that they posted a picture of a fire in Argentina and called it the Baltimore riots a few months ago to make it look soooo much bigger than it was ... we can't mention that because we'd be singling out Fox, along with other similar Photoshop jobs to lie via photo. Mention any other network and that's just peachy keen.

      By the way, the man was indicted so I guess he doesn't fall under the "law" that "says" media can lie to you. Please do link to that law. I'd like to actually read what it says. It's not actually against the law to lie. Kids lie, politicians lie, celebrities lie, clergy lies, everybody lies. He actually was hired to consult and train for the government based on his lies (they didn't bother with a security clearance apparently).

      Certain lies are illegal, like lying to the feds, deceptive business practices (fraud), etc., but generally, lying is something people do from the time they are old enough to realize there may be a benefit to lying til they die.

      This is what got him arrested ... not all the lies he told on Fox News appearances. Lying to the feds, lying about his employment, lying on a security clearance, a fraudulent real estate transaction, lying about his CIA employment

      In addition to allegedly falsely claiming he worked for the CIA from 1973 to 2000, the indictment accuses Simmons of lying on security background checks about arrests he claimed were connected to his CIA employment and that he "defrauded an individual victim out of approximately $125,000 in connection with a bogus real estate investment."

      The bulk of the indictment focuses on claims Simmons made about his CIA employment as an "Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Officer" to various unnamed companies that had received government contracts or subcontracts. The indictment says Simmons repeated the claim on the government questionnaire to receive a national security clearance and in a 2009 letter to the Department of State in support of the questionnaire. An interim secret security clearance was granted to Simmons by the U.S. government, the indictment said.


      At one point, while working for one of the government contractors on the basis of his CIA claim, Simmons was also trained on a U.S. military base in preparation for him to work with military personnel abroad, the indictment said. However Simmons never finished training and was ultimately not deployed, according to the indictment.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338609].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        It's interesting that every single blogger going nuts about this mentions "Fox" before the mention the man who lied. Guess it's gravy time.

        According to several places, he's been on TV commentating since 2002 - how did it take so long for someone to catch this? That's really strange.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
        that's why there are so many of us.
        ...jane goodall
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338787].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          It's interesting that every single blogger going nuts about this mentions "Fox" before the mention the man who lied. Guess it's gravy time.

          According to several places, he's been on TV commentating since 2002 - how did it take so long for someone to catch this? That's really strange.
          Yeah ... looks like a lot of people were asleep at the wheel with this guy. No one bothered to do any background checking in depth, including the government. I mean, how hard is it for the government to check on his CIA employment? lol. Where's the results of a security clearance for the contracting he did for the government? It's really pretty unbelievable that he got away with it for as long as he did.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338796].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Wayne joined the U.S. Navy in 1973 where he was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency to became part of an Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Group.
            He has his own website and the above is part of the claims. I expect it's as much exaggeration and embellishment as it is outright lies - that's usually what these things end up being. Usually is a mix of truth and lies and that's why it works for them.

            Amazing how blatant some people can be - and how long they can get by with it.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
            that's why there are so many of us.
            ...jane goodall
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10338856].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Like they didn't "pick on" Brian Williams for his little lie, a lie that is actually a lot smaller than building a whole fake identity. But don't mention someone appearing on Fox regularly because that would be picking on Fox. And don't mention that they posted a picture of a fire in Argentina and called it the Baltimore riots a few months ago to make it look soooo much bigger than it was ... we can't mention that because we'd be singling out Fox, along with other similar Photoshop jobs to lie via photo. Mention any other network and that's just peachy keen.

        By the way, the man was indicted so I guess he doesn't fall under the "law" that "says" media can lie to you. Please do link to that law. I'd like to actually read what it says. It's not actually against the law to lie. Kids lie, politicians lie, celebrities lie, clergy lies, everybody lies. He actually was hired to consult and train for the government based on his lies (they didn't bother with a security clearance apparently).

        Certain lies are illegal, like lying to the feds, deceptive business practices (fraud), etc., but generally, lying is something people do from the time they are old enough to realize there may be a benefit to lying til they die.

        This is what got him arrested ... not all the lies he told on Fox News appearances. Lying to the feds, lying about his employment, lying on a security clearance, a fraudulent real estate transaction, lying about his CIA employment

        I didn't know what got him arrested. Yeah - you're right though. You can't lie to gov at all - but anyone is allowed to lie to the people.

        I never hear people getting into the fest over anyone but FOX. If they do, good for them - they're the one's that realize stuff like the BS that when CNN was covering the Oregon incident they were using cuts from Sandy.

        There've been incidents that have occurred locally enough for me to know straight on what was going down, too -- and there wasn't ONE news media that told it straight. Not one.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10339098].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Like they didn't "pick on" Brian Williams for his little lie, a lie that is actually a lot smaller than building a whole fake identity. But don't mention someone appearing on Fox regularly because that would be picking on Fox. And don't mention that they posted a picture of a fire in Argentina and called it the Baltimore riots a few months ago to make it look soooo much bigger than it was ... we can't mention that because we'd be singling out Fox, along with other similar Photoshop jobs to lie via photo. Mention any other network and that's just peachy keen.
        Bingo. I think it's safe to say he makes both Fox and the Government look foolish. The bad thing is several of his BS stories he told on Fox were repeated over and over to the point where many consider them as the truth. Not unusual for Fox though in that regard
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340024].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Bingo. I think it's safe to say he makes both Fox and the Government look foolish. The bad thing is several of his BS stories he told on Fox were repeated over and over to the point where many consider them as the truth. Not unusual for Fox though in that regard
          That's right. It's as much a news story about Fox as it is about the government. Neither of them did due diligence to ensure that he was what he said he was. Fox liked his message, so ran with it. It makes no difference that he wasn't paid. He was a guest dozens of times and presented as an expert on terrorism, all the while spewing his far right opinions. A legitimate news organization would have, and should have checked his background before airing the "expert."

          Who knows what the government's excuse is for not following up with a real security clearance and background check. Both Fox and the government should be pretty embarrassed right now.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340082].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Bingo. I think it's safe to say he makes both Fox and the Government look foolish. The bad thing is several of his BS stories he told on Fox were repeated over and over to the point where many consider them as the truth. Not unusual for Fox though in that regard
          We see this on FOX and on MSNBC. I don't think we can blame the station. After all, someone had the job of interviewing the guy. Someone maybe had the job to verify the story. Do we know who dropped the ball?

          I saw the wrong video on FOX, distorting a story. But who did it? Could it have been a temp or an intern, told to get video for a story? Could an underling have been told to fact check? Do we blame that kid, the newsperson? The station?

          If a postman shoots a homeowner, do we blame the post office?

          These mistakes can happen. The problem is that often, they are not acknowledged.

          Think of all the political certainties we all have here, that have been proven wrong...but we keep believing them. Quotes that get repeated, that were completely fabricated. Quotes that are taken way out of context, twisted, and made to serve a point of view. Completely misleading graphs. I've seen it on the two political channels, and here...often.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340096].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            Someone maybe had the job to verify the story. Do we know who dropped the ball?

            If a postman shoots a homeowner, do we blame the post office
            Is there really any job more important at a news organization than fact checking? I don't think so. Without it, the organization simply can't be trusted or believed.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340107].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              Is there really any job more important at a news organization than fact checking? I don't think so. Without it, the organization simply can't be trusted or believed.
              At the risk of arguing with a thought I already had...I agree completely.

              But we already know that FOX isn't a real news organization. Now that I've said that, I believe that most of the people there aren't trying to lie. They have a point of view, and sometimes they are blinded to a source that agrees with them. I've seen this on MSNBC too, but not as often.

              Rachel Maddow may be the brightest person on TV, but I've seen her skew a story. It actually bothers me a lot more when I see her do it, than on FOX, because I respect her.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340111].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
                That so many on the interwebs are primarily fixated on Fox's news problems only displays a warped political agenda.

                A quick Google for "fabricated news stories" and "journalistic scandals" and similar paints a very disturbing picture.

                As I've said for years, it's silly to point fingers at any one news organization just because it doesn't agree with one's politics. None of them serve our best interests.

                The wisest approach is to not trust any of them.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340150].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                At the risk of arguing with a thought I already had...I agree completely.

                But we already know that FOX isn't a real news organization. Now that I've said that, I believe that most of the people there aren't trying to lie. They have a point of view, and sometimes they are blinded to a source that agrees with them. I've seen this on MSNBC too, but not as often.

                Rachel Maddow may be the brightest person on TV, but I've seen her skew a story. It actually bothers me a lot more when I see her do it, than on FOX, because I respect her.
                I avoid MSNBC too as a news source. Don't care for any of the cable news programs. I get my news daily from Google News (read it, not watch it on TV) and my go to source is Reuters. It's basically the facts as they know them without all the embellishment.

                I watched MSNBC prior to the last election to keep up with election news, and by the time the election was over, I was done with cable news and felt relieved not being compelled to watch it. I respect Maddow also, but I don't want the strident tones infiltrating my head daily.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340286].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            We see this on FOX and on MSNBC...I've seen it on the two political channels, and here...often.
            False equivalence, Claude. I realize that the two stations are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum but that doesn't mean they are equally irresponsible. It's an easy step to make to say both are doing the same thing but that doesn't make it true. Even Jon Stewart did so when he and Colbert did their "Rally to Restore Sanity" in DC a few years back. However he was called out on it and rightfully so:

            "The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media stopped giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side forgetting that Obama tried that and found out...there are no moderates on the other side. When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama's a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11's an inside job, but I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11's an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a Socialist? All of them." ~ Bill Maher
            Signature
            Over 50 Dating
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340110].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              False equivalence, Claude. I realize that the two stations are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum but that doesn't mean they are equally irresponsible. It's an easy step to make to say both are doing the same thing but that doesn't make it true. Even Jon Stewart did so when he and Colbert did their "Rally to Restore Sanity" in DC a few years back. However he was called out on it and rightfully so:

              "The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media stopped giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side forgetting that Obama tried that and found out...there are no moderates on the other side. When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama's a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11's an inside job, but I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11's an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a Socialist? All of them." ~ Bill Maher
              No. I didn't say they were equal. I didn't say they gave the same amount of biased reporting. But I can't ignore what I see, whether I like it or not. And I've seen biased reporting on the left. And that's what bothers me, because I lean to the left. I want my side to be above that sort of thing. But they aren't always.

              And I agree with Bill Mahar.

              I watch Bill Mahar every week that he's on. Very intelligent man, and very intolerant of BS from either side. But man, as a stand up comedian...he leaves me cold.

              By the way, good choice of Avatar. I enjoy seeing what you guys look like.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340236].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                No. I didn't say they were equal. I didn't say they the gave the same amount of biased reporting. But I can't ignore what I see, whether I like it or not. And I've seen biased reporting on the left. And that's what bothers me, because I lean to the left. I want my side to be above that sort of thing. But they aren't always.
                I agree, both networks are biased and have their own slant on stories and issues, but I don't see the outright untruths, lets call them, on MSNBC, and there is nothing comparable I can think of to this guy who has been on the network for years. It's a pretty unique story.
                Signature
                Over 50 Dating
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340296].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  I agree, both networks are biased and have their own slant on stories and issues, but I don't see the outright untruths, lets call them, on MSNBC, and there is nothing comparable I can think of to this guy who has been on the network for years. It's a pretty unique story.
                  I don't really see the lies on MSNBC either. But to me, slanting is a form of lying...and this is coming from a guy that slants for a living.

                  The panel shows and shows like Chris Mathews tend to do this more.

                  In my personal thinking, I am very militant about watching out for my own biases. I hate it when I catch myself thinking from a biased point of view. But I like it when other people catch me, because it correct the path.

                  Yeah, the story may be unique.


                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  I avoid MSNBC too as a news source. Don't care for any of the cable news programs. I get my news daily from Google News (read it, not watch it on TV) and my go to source is Reuters. It's basically the facts as they know them without all the embellishment.
                  Good idea. Thanks.
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340305].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I agree about the fact checking - but what happens when you check the find the man HAS a security clearance - that he DID some work for a govt agency.

                    Fox looks silly - just as NBC did and others have in the past.

                    However, the serious part is that govt agencies gave this man access and a temporary security clearance pending a background check...and that it took that same govt 6 years to notice the discrepancies.

                    Odd, too, that I've seen no mention of this on any cable or network news so far. I would think it would be bigger news than the Brian Williams story.
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                    ***
                    It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
                    that's why there are so many of us.
                    ...jane goodall
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340333].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  I agree, both networks are biased and have their own slant on stories and issues, but I don't see the outright untruths, lets call them, on MSNBC, and there is nothing comparable.
                  Meh.....I go liberal on some issues and conservative on others and they both are about the same. I have seen MSNBC do a mean enough twist that its pretty much outright untruths. To be honest the whole industry is a mess. Why in the world do ANY of the networks have on democratic and republican strategist and known spin artists? besides political strategy no one should give them a voice on a news station and yet that's not only the standard practice but some of them are pretty much on the station's payroll.

                  For all the whining against Fox at least they are not pretending - you tune in then you now the side you are going to hear without the game of we hold no slant to a particular view.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340441].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  I agree, both networks are biased and have their own slant on stories and issues, but I don't see the outright untruths, lets call them, on MSNBC, and there is nothing comparable I can think of to this guy who has been on the network for years. It's a pretty unique story.
                  "Left," "Right" LOL! What a load of hogwash. Verizon/AOL own Huffington Post. Daily Kos is run by a self-appointed CIA gatekeeper, the spawn of a family with grotesque connections to mass-murdering far right extremists in El Salvador. It's like the British selling arms to both sides during it's colonizing years, profiting from conflict, agitating it.

                  (Life nowadays is like witnessing a real-life drama about entire nations afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome. Saying anything about it has about as much impact as talking to a television or a movie screen.)
                  Signature

                  Project HERE.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10340849].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I don't think any of the cable "news" networks are really "news" - each has a slant of its own and some of the correspondents and pundits are so slanted it's a wonder they don't just fall over left or right.

                    There are few anchors on any cable news that I think of as "reporters" - they are "anchors" and "pundits" and all seem to "report" through the filters of their news organization. I also check Reuters frequently. I had to chuckle a few months ago when it was announced that "the left leaning slant of MSNBC has been very effective but now we are moving more toward news"....

                    Seems to be me MSNBC goes far left - FOX goes far right - and CNN just flops back and forth between the two...except when CNN gets stuck on a story like a missing airliner and just goes on and on....

                    One reporter in particular has been in the spotlight recently. I watched his report and honestly wonder why he still has a job...

                    Ayman Mohyeldin has been taken off news stories in the past due to perceived bias - yet is still reporting from Israel. Last week his live report blamed Israelis for killing an "unarmed Palestinian man who was running away" - and he failed to mention the knife in the man's hand that he had just tried to use before running away....he works for NBC and MSNBC and is giving Fox and CNN a lot to talk about...
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                    ***
                    It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
                    that's why there are so many of us.
                    ...jane goodall
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341004].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            We see this on FOX and on MSNBC. I don't think we can blame the station. After all, someone had the job of interviewing the guy. Someone maybe had the job to verify the story. Do we know who dropped the ball?

            I saw the wrong video on FOX, distorting a story. But who did it? Could it have been a temp or an intern, told to get video for a story? Could an underling have been told to fact check? Do we blame that kid, the newsperson? The station?
            You blame the corporation. We do not have a free press and haven't for years. This is exactly the type of thing that is a characteristic of corporate news. We have around 2,500 news outlets (it's higher, but can't remember the exact figure). They are owned by 6 corporations.

            The news you get now is not investigated news. There are extremely few investigative journalists left - and most are the older icons. The way that the news works now is the anchors (who used to actually be investigative journalists) are handed scripts. The scripts they read are from the "company" and in a growing amount of the time, directly from the Gov. They have no clue or responsibility to the news. Being handed interviews complete with the questions they are supposed to ask give the public the illusion that they are still journalists.

            There are "reporters" who go get official statements and do interviews, and such - but their material is turned over to the corporation for edit and if there's anything that can destroy a competitor it will be followed - if the White house does not approve it, it is trashed.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Fox Host Apologizes For Inviting On Commentator Who Allegedly Lied About Being In CIA
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341038].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I'm glad they owned their part in this but I think it goes much further...

      A source who worked in Rumsfeld's Pentagon said that Simmons was indeed part of the program, and that he met with Rumsfeld himself. Simmons's online bio notes his involvement with the Pentagon analyst program: "In 2004, under the direction of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, he became a part of the Pentagon Outreach Program for Military and Intelligence Analysts."
      The former Pentagon staffer said the revelations about Simmons's alleged lies about his credentials were "shocking" because the analysts in the program "went through some vetting process that assured that they had some credentials."
      http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/tv...pen#.sjxYXoOEy

      Will be an interesting case to watch.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
      that's why there are so many of us.
      ...jane goodall
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExcelExpert
    So what news sources are trusted in the US?

    Here in the UK we have the BBC and Sky News (a cousin of Fox news) as the main sources of news and this situation would not happen here. Not only do we have stronger guide lines but once a news caster was disgraced they would never find their way back in to the world of reporting. There is nothing legally to stop them re-entering the world of reporting, but (a) the other media would be on their case 24/7 and (b) the British media wouldnt wear it.

    This is why you ended up with Piers Morgan. He was once the editor of a major paper here, he faked a story about British soldiers mistreating prisoners and got a very public sacking. His UK journalistic career ended in the UK and he ended up state side.

    I did read somewhere that in certain demographics in the US, that the likes of Jon Stewart and John Oliver are more trusted providers of news than the big hosts on CNN and Fox.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342346].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ExcelExpert View Post

      So what news sources are trusted in the US?

      Here in the UK we have the BBC and Sky News (a cousin of Fox news) as the main sources of news and this situation would not happen here. Not only do we have stronger guide lines but once a news caster was disgraced they would never find their way back in to the world of reporting. There is nothing legally to stop them re-entering the world of reporting, but (a) the other media would be on their case 24/7 and (b) the British media wouldnt wear it.

      This is why you ended up with Piers Morgan. He was once the editor of a major paper here, he faked a story about British soldiers mistreating prisoners and got a very public sacking. His UK journalistic career ended in the UK and he ended up state side.

      I did read somewhere that in certain demographics in the US, that the likes of Jon Stewart and John Oliver are more trusted providers of news than the big hosts on CNN and Fox.
      Your news is just as corrupt as ours. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same machine that drives some of the most biased news in the US. In addition ... didn't ya'll just get through a phone hacking scandal where your journalists hacked into private phones of people to spy and get information about them and their private business?

      James Forlong, Sky News (2003)

      In April 2003 the Sky News Network carried a report from James Forlong aboard the British nuclear submarine HMS Splendid purportedly showing a live firing of a cruise missile, at sea in the Persian Gulf, during the Iraq war. The report included scenes of the crew members giving instructions related to the launch of the missile and included a sequence in which a crew member pressed a large red button marked with the word "FIRE" and accompanied by a sequence of a missile breaking the surface of the water and launching into the air. The report was a fabrication, with the crew acting along for the benefit of the cameras. The Sky News team did not accompany the submarine when it left port and the scenes were actually recorded whilst the vessel was docked. The shot of the missile breaking the surface had been obtained from stock footage.
      The faked report was revealed because a BBC film crew did accompany the vessel to sea. The BBC crew filmed a real cruise missile launch for the BBC TV series Fighting the War. The BBC footage showed how, with modern computerised launching systems, a missile is not launched by pressing a red button but is actually launched with a left mouse click. Following the BBC's accusations, Forlong and his producer were suspended; the next day, The Guardian reported that Forlong had resigned following an internal investigation.[1]
      In a follow-up article, Guardian's Matt Wells speculated on the long-term effects on Sky News credibility.[2] In October 2003, Forlong was found dead by his wife after committing suicide by hanging.[3] In December, Sky News was fined £50,000 by the Independent Television Commission for breaching accuracy regulations.[4]


      News International phone hacking scandal

      /wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair

      The News International phone-hacking scandal is a controversy involving the now defunct News of the World and other British newspapers published by News International, a subsidiary of the then News Corporation. Employees of the newspaper were accused of engaging in phone hacking, police bribery, and exercising improper influence in the pursuit of stories. Whilst investigations conducted from 2005 to 2007 appeared to show that the paper's phone hacking activities were limited to celebrities, politicians and members of the British Royal Family, in July 2011 it was revealed that the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, relatives of deceased British soldiers, and victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings had also been hacked. The resulting public outcry against News Corporation and its owner Rupert Murdoch led to several high-profile resignations, including that of Dow Jones chief executive Les Hinton, News International legal manager Tom Crone and chief executive Rebekah Brooks. The commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police Service, Sir Paul Stephenson, also resigned. Advertiser boycotts led to the closure of the News of the World on 10 July 2011, after 168 years of publication.[1] Continued public pressure shortly forced News Corporation to cancel its proposed takeover of the British satellite broadcaster BSkyB.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342374].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ExcelExpert
    I dont disagree with you at all sbucciarel re the corruption and spin in the press. However those that were proven to be involved with phone hacking were jailed and now cant get a job in journalism. There are a few that got through the court cases due to the lack of evidence that should have been jailed. It also brought down one of the UKs oldest newspapers. It brought about investigations by the police and the government. I'm not based in the states but I have not heard of a US based news organisation getting that sort of attention as a result of their actions.

    On the TV front there is little or no evidence of corruption this is probably due to the existence of the BBC. Due to the way it is funded and governed it has no interest in chasing sensational stories or in sexing things up. It is probably the only news organisation that runs stories on its self when things go wrong. So we dont end up with news anchors that claim to have been in wars they were never in or in security forces they werent in.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ExcelExpert View Post

      I dont disagree with you at all sbucciarel re the corruption and spin in the press. However those that were proven to be involved with phone hacking were jailed and now cant get a job in journalism. There are a few that got through the court cases due to the lack of evidence that should have been jailed. It also brought down one of the UKs oldest newspapers. It brought about investigations by the police and the government. I'm not based in the states but I have not heard of a US based news organisation getting that sort of attention as a result of their actions.
      Rebekah Brooks says it

      Rebekah Brooks has returned to media. Jules Stenson got a suspended sentence. Rupert Murdoch was never charged with anything. Andy Coulson served a whole 5 months of an 18 month sentence. Coulson was to face a retrial, together with the News of the World's former royal editor Clive Goodman, after the jury failed to agree a verdict on two other charges of conspiring to cause misconduct in public office. Other defendants were cleared. On 17 April 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that Coulson’s retrial was to be scrapped, along with that of Goodman and the trials of seven other journalists. Clive Goodman found not guilty of all charges and his retrial scrapped. James Murdock, guilty of wilful ignorance of the extent of phone-hacking' and found him 'guilty of an astonishing lack of curiosity' over the issue - no charges and of course, as Rupert Murdoch's heir apparent, he is still in the media business. James, 42, was expected to replace the elder Mr. Murdoch as chief executive of 21st Century Fox.

      I'll stop there, but other than one newspaper shutting down (it's not like Murdoch doesn't have others there), not a lot happened to most of the perps.

      I'm not based in the states but I have not heard of a US based news organisation getting that sort of attention as a result of their actions.
      Your news organization was just an arm of Fox, all owned by the same corporation and people. We haven't had a news organization with that level of criminal activity from the top down, so no, they wouldn't receive that kind of attention, or at least, they haven't yet been caught.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342737].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        This is exactly the type of thing that is a characteristic of corporate news.
        I think you're wrong - how can you expect a cable network to OUT this person when the govt agencies hired him and when he had been granted access to the Pentagon, etc???

        IF the full story ever comes out (and I doubt it will) I think we'll find this man had some sort of work/access with the CIA back in the 70s. I think the full story won't be known because covert agencies such as the CIA do not like to answer questions or admit fault.

        This guy is a pretty good con man - even to claiming arrests and convictions in the past were as a result of his "CIA work".

        Most factual article - without bias or hype - may be the Dept of Justice press release on the subject:

        Former Cable News Commentator Arrested and Charged with Fraud | USAO-EDVA | Department of Justice
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
        that's why there are so many of us.
        ...jane goodall
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342776].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Rush Limbaugh Says Too Many Female Journalists Lead To The 'Chickification' Of The News
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10348586].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Limbaugh makes comments like that to get attention. Huffpost and other sites give him the attention he craves because they HAVE to argue whatever stupid point he made.

      Then they'll run around asking people in the media and in politics if they "think it's true" - and of course they don't so that will lead to other articles where it goes to charges of sexism and on and on....and Limbaugh gets the attention he wanted in the first place...and gets to bring it up again to "rebut" the things being said...about what he said....
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
      that's why there are so many of us.
      ...jane goodall
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10348810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Ok, since my earlier post was deleted I'll just say...

    He says stuff like that because he believes it and it's what his audience wants to hear.

    IMHO, someone who does what Mr. Limbaugh does should be monitored and reported on since he's such a negative force in our society (even the NFL won't touch him) and can probably induce a idiot or two or more to do something really stupid - if he wanted to.

    BTW, this particular story wasn't even close to being a major headline at the Huffpost. It was simply one of of the side articles.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10349595].message }}

Trending Topics