I remember when FNC mistakenly ran the word Democrat under disgraced Republican Mark Foley’s name. Now we have a new twist in mistaken identity.

There’s an old saying, “they all look alike.” This must be true in the case of FNC. This week they showed footage of Black Democratic Congressman John Conyers while doing a story on indicted Black Democratic Congressman William Jefferson.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/06/fox-ap...nconyers-error/

Click picture of woman anchor to see a video of FNC’s 2nd apology concerning Conyers in the above link.

By clicking the links below, it’s easy to see that Conyer’s and Jefferson don’t look alike.

John Conyers

William Jefferson

Questions for Debate

1. Do you think FNC made an honest mistake or was there more to it than a case of mistaken identity?

2. Is this a major PR blunder on FNC’s part?

3. Do you accept FNC’s apology?

Nothing nefarious here other than the crappy production skills (or lack of same) that have crept into television news on every station through the recent years. You see mistakes like this made on every station from time to time and that includes FNC. AS far as mis-identifying Conyers for Jefferson is concerned, quite frankly anyone who really gave a darn about it would know the difference anyway. Now, if you mis-identified Lindsay Lohan for Paris Hilton.... You'd have a REAL scandal on your hands! Such is the state of current television news and trust me to true broadcast JOURNALISTS, it's disheartening. My fiance has been a broadcast journalist for 30 years and she can barely manage to watch our local television news for their 11 o'clock half hour news program without screaming at the TV at some point. And, we're watching her station! Last night they led with the Paris Hilton "jail watch" and it waasn't until 10 mins later in the second block that we found out there was a rapist loose in the Inland Empire. Now, of course the rapist story was canned from an earlier broadcast, but boy they sure had a live reporter down in Lynnwood in front of the jail Paris Hilton is in. When you have this kind of "journalism", these kinds of priorities, it shows in your news. Who cares if you put up a picture of Conyers by mistake, by by golly you better get the latest Paris photo up or your butt is in deep doo-doo. Quite frankly, this thread really belongs more in the media area than it does in the race area. That's because this is a media thing, not a race thing.


Aquilla

1. Do you think FNC made an honest mistake or was there more to it than a case of mistaken identity?

I think it is purposeful- ESPECIALLY considering the sophistication level of the Faux news groupie

All jokes aside- this is at least the third time- either they are so incompetant that they should be kicked off the air- or they are purposely doing it- and we need stronger libel laws?

2. Is this a major PR blunder on FNC’s part?

Nope- just typical "fair and balanced" that the Faux tries to run

3. Do you accept FNC’s apology?

Of course not- it is meant for those sheeple that actually believe that faux is anything but a republican hatchet corp. I am suprised that the apology didn't have a "wink wink" in quotes at the very end.

For all the complaining and whining about "liberal main stream media" and how "liberal" reporting is- well, at least the liberals TRY to have some integrity- Faux doesn't even try.

1. Do you think FNC made an honest mistake or was there more to it than a case of mistaken identity?

Two strikes against the Democrats, none against Republicans. That doesn't look very good.

2. Is this a major PR blunder on FNC’s part?

Huge. It got featured on the fake news.

3. Do you accept FNC’s apology?

No.

There's an apologistic thing going on here that corruption in government is okay because everybody's corrupt. This has been the case as far back as I can remember, and when the Republicans get nabbed, they try very hard to nab Democrats to balance the books. They went so far as to impeach a President to make the point. The dastardly deed? He fibbed about having sex with an adult intern of the opposite sex. Meanwhile, Republicans had a guy going after boys. They hired a President who nobody likes and might be in the process of restarting the Cold War.

Ah well. What a strange game this has become, and I'm not even on drugs. Maybe the news editors are. Or maybe it's just a case of extreme incompetence.

So don't apologize. Quit. Obviously the job is way over their heads.

I think it was simply an error and to try to make more of it is a little over the top. Mistakes like this usually happen in “the back room” where the story is spliced together and is an innocent mistake.

And if you think FNC is the only media that makes mistakes you would be way off base.

1. Do you think FNC made an honest mistake or was there more to it than a case of mistaken identity?

Who is John Conyers again? Oh yeah, the Democrat from Michigan whose claim to fame is wanting to impeach Bush. He should be happy if anybody in the country (outside of his district) recognizes his face. I'm pretty sure he didn't go to his favorite watering hole after this incident and have someone called him William instead of John.

Was it an honest mistake? If it wasn't it was childish in the extreme.

2. Is this a major PR blunder on FNC’s part?

I don't think so. Only politicos have any idea at all that this happened. Most of the FNC's viewers probably wouldn't care if this were intentional.

3. Do you accept FNC’s apology?

I'd thank them for getting my picture on the news without any context of impeachment and then apologizing to me for something so silly. The fact that Conyers won't "bury the hatchet" is childish on his part.

EXCEPT of course- that the very, very obvious smear job on Obama- that was so obviously intentional that is it is impossible for an intelligent person to believe otherwise.

And, oh yeah, Dan Rather lost his job over his ONE mistake- where are he heads rolling at Faux?

No, it is pretty obvious that the propaganda arm of the Republican party has been doing this on purpose- to say otherwise, you are either have to be blind or foolish.

If not- they are less competent that a high school year book reporter- there is NO similarity, in region or looks, between Conyers and Jefferson. It is an obvious attempt to "Obama/Osama" Conyers.

To what purpose? Conyers is a bit player on a large stage.

And was Ted Kennedy part of the "propaganda arm of the Republican party" when he "Obama/Osama'd" Barak Obama?

There is a huge difference between a slip of the tongue and an entire "bit" on the deal- don't ya think?

Do you think FNC made an honest mistake or was there more to it than a case of mistaken identity?
Huh. Yeah. Mistake. Just like pimping it's slogan is a mistake. I don't know if celebrity journalism keeps aiming for new heights, but Fox News is either "professionally" very biased, thinks it's very funny, or thinks it can get away with being biased by saying critics don't have a sense of humor. How can you excuse/explain these poll questions (pdf)? It's not even 2008 and they're push polling.

Do you happen to know which presidential candidate has been in the news recently for paying four hundred dollars for a haircut?

If Hillary Clinton were elected president, do you think Bill Clinton is likely to personally behave in ways that will get him into trouble, or do you think he will avoid those situations?

When journalists can't seriously and personally discuss presidential platforms without resorting to campaign "experts" to dodge the bias label they go straight for the hair—and the penis. It's certainly more appealing than getting throttled for unequal coverage, tone, etc., not to mention unforgivably inane. Stupidity is a refuge for conservative media bias. Don't tell me Americans need to know Edwards keeps a stylist with his campaign or ponder a throbbing first gentleman unless Americans also need to think twice about voting for Edwards and Clinton.

1. I think it was just an honest mistake. It was caught the second it popped up. So if it had been donr for any other reason they would have made comments about it before correcting it.

2. No it was not a major blunder. A minor mistake same as all the other channels do.

3. Yes. Mistakes happen we are all human. I see no big deal.

Besides who the heck is John Conyers? Is he that Judge sueing for 65mil for a pair of pants. lol

Gosh you would think they were the New York Times – god knows they never had to retract anything – like the outright falsification of stories for months among many other things!


And we KNOW the NYT is as unbiased as a paper can be - right.

Retractions are good, actually. It shows the paper knows it screwed up. Eventually everyone screws up. That's not bias, that's getting it wrong. How does Fox News retract a poll, Ted? Somebody other than a journalist sat down and screened the questions. Enlighten us.

BTW, if you falsify information you get slapped with a libel suit.

Actually- no Lesley- for FYI- you also have to prove malice. Absence of malice, you have no libel suit. That is why it is so hard to sue the tabloids or Rush.

So- push polls and "oopsies" rule the day.

It's more complicated than that. I was trying to keep it short. Libel suits adhere to a hierarchy of plaintiffs: general or all-purpose public figures (all politicians fall under this category), limited-purpose public officials, involuntary public figures and private persons. General and perhaps limited-purpose public official plaintiffs will have to prove actual malice to win punitive damages, but every libel plaintiff doesn't seek punitive damages. A private person on the other hand only have to prove negligence to win damages against newspapers in most states. In every libel case however, the defendant's state of mind is key regardless of which standard is required to prove libel per se and libel per quod. The actual malice rule was set up by SCOTUS so the media could continue haranguing government with the understanding that famous and elected people already had access to the media and could defend themselves in public.


Again, not that simple. I think this is a push poll but Democratic candidates wouldn't bother filing a suit because of the actual malice standard and they have bigger things to worry about. The video "mistake" could have been unintentional or intentional. Again, the defendant's state of mind is key. I do think Fox News is biased because more viewers believe we found WMD in Iraq and similar nonsense. But Fox News viewers will just counter that the rest of media (i.e. liberal media) has always had it in for Republicans, even when establishment media contently wagged their tales in the run up to the invasion and a year thereafter.

BTW, the media incurs 75% of all libel suits. "Oopsies" hardly rule the day.

Lesley- what I was implying is this is how they get around it- "oops, it was just a mistake- see the 10 second blurb in next weeks addition for the retraction" kinda thing.

Kinda hard to prove malice or even negligence when it comes to an elected official when the paper says "oh, we apologize"

see what I am saying?

They wouldn't exactly get around it with this, CR. This is a partial defense, which isn't really a defense. It's more like a mitigating factor. "Getting around" it would depend on what the plaintiff wants out of his libel case. If the newspaper uses a partial defense and succeeds, the jury may not give the plaintiff any punitive damages but a guilty verdict would set the record straight.


An apology is another partial defense.


Not really. I just spent two months studying libel suits to hopefully avoid the trouble myself, and avoiding punitive damages isn't as easy as it seems. Papers have used a fair comment common law defense, which is a complete defense in libel suits, and have still ended up paying through the nose.

Amlord I dispute this. Conyers is no less important than my representative Kay Granger or, for that matter, the Republican and Democratic house members who are running for president. You are using a tactic you have used consistently – minimizing things you don’t like.



This line had impact when Ayn Rand asked “who is John Galt?” in Atlas Shrugged. You know, that was first published in 1957. We still don’t know who John Galt is, but we certainly do know who John Conyers is. He's one of 435 members of the U. S. House of Representatives. He’s 78-years old and has served his district since 1969. Apparently, the voters in his district have liked him enough to keep him around for for 38 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

Further, your use of the phrase has even less meaning since Amlord had already traveled down that road.

The moral of the story Val Tepes is, if you don’t want to know, don’t ask.

Given other episodes, I think this was deliberate. If FNC had showed footage of Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter while running the story on Jefferson, then this would be ROTFLMAO type stuff.