Another Fox News whhooooopsie!

What? Fox is just alerting us to Doctor Eggman's super secret nuclear facility, under his popular night club of course.

When will Sonic save us? With cool drinks.
 
God, the real news here is Fox Makes and mistake that is NOT ideologically driven.
And to be honest, CNN and MSNBC are just as bad in misinformation concerning the Japanese disaster.
 
God, the real news here is Fox Makes and mistake that is NOT ideologically driven.
And to be honest, CNN and MSNBC are just as bad in misinformation concerning the Japanese disaster.

There's a tad bit of a difference between misinformation and something you can check. It would be like having a graphic on the bottom of the screen: John Lennon 1941-1980.

Also...who said CNN and MSNBC were perfect?
Methinks you doth protest too much.


Then, perhaps, Dudalb, you can help me with this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201715
 
God, the real news here is Fox Makes and mistake that is NOT ideologically driven.
And to be honest, CNN and MSNBC are just as bad in misinformation concerning the Japanese disaster.

Actually they are worse, because since they are not Fox News, there is at least a modicum of expectation that they are actually conveying factually verified News.
 
They made a silly mistake, it doesn't exactly prove anything guys.
 
They made a silly mistake, it doesn't exactly prove anything guys.

Prove? I don't know, but the real question is, what does it indicate in the first place?

Seriously, HOW in the world is this type of mistake actually made? Mediamatters claims that they can't even find anything on the internet that has that kind of name, so where in the heck does it come from?

I find it to be very bizarre. Sure, it is probably just a stupid mistake, but honestly, it's not a random error. It seriously begs the question of the quality of the research department at this place.

I am serious about this: where did they even come UP with this thing? What did they use for a source?
 
They made a silly mistake, it doesn't exactly prove anything guys.

My hare-brianed theory is that this intern or whoever did this is looking to take Glenn Beck's spot as a wacko pundit and is building their resume. ;)
 
My initial suspicion is a prankster in the graphics department and that the graphics are not fact checked for accuracy for "quickly" updating news items.
 
Prove? I don't know, but the real question is, what does it indicate in the first place?

Seriously, HOW in the world is this type of mistake actually made? Mediamatters claims that they can't even find anything on the internet that has that kind of name, so where in the heck does it come from?

I find it to be very bizarre. Sure, it is probably just a stupid mistake, but honestly, it's not a random error. It seriously begs the question of the quality of the research department at this place.

I am serious about this: where did they even come UP with this thing? What did they use for a source?

Like I said in a reply:
It would be like having a graphic on the screen: John Lennon 1941-1980.

This is stuff one can check.

I can understand while the earthquake was happening, and the first few hours after it happened; reporting on the fly and not getting everything straight, that's one thing...but...not a fact that can be checked.
 
Like I said in a reply:
It would be like having a graphic on the screen: John Lennon 1941-1980.

This is stuff one can check.

I can understand while the earthquake was happening, and the first few hours after it happened; reporting on the fly and not getting everything straight, that's one thing...but...not a fact that can be checked.

You don't expect that newsrooms are always fast paced.
 
Like I said in a reply:
It would be like having a graphic on the screen: John Lennon 1941-1980.

This is stuff one can check.

I can understand while the earthquake was happening, and the first few hours after it happened; reporting on the fly and not getting everything straight, that's one thing...but...not a fact that can be checked.

I think it goes beyond that. It's not just a "mistake." John Lennon 1941-1980 is a mistake, but at least the years 1941 and 1980 exist. Even mixing up "R" and "D" all the time is at least plausible as a "mistake" since Ds and Rs are both used.

But this? The name of this supposed reactor didn't just happen as a case of a typo or anything. This thing had to be invented out of whole cloth!

Somewhere, sometime, someone had to make up this name and claim it as a power plant. Ultimately, that had to be carried far enough so that someone at Fox transcribed it into a graphic.

So the question is, where did the notion that it was a power plant originate? Is it as noted above a practical joke played by someone in the research office, which was failed to be detected by the factcheckers? Or did they get the list from somewhere else, and simply transcribe it (at which point, it was failed to be detected by the factcheckers)?

Either scenario doesn't look good. If they got folks in the back making stuff up as a practical joke, they have just lost credibility as a serious news agency. OTOH, if they got it from a dubious news source, well then...I guess that calls into the question of their credibility.

This is not just a "mistake" as in "whoops." That this night club was listed among the Japanese nuclear power plants is a deliberate move on someone's part. That it somehow got into the Fox News office begs the question of what they use for sources. That it got through the factcheckers also tells us about their capabilities.
 
I think it goes beyond that. It's not just a "mistake." John Lennon 1941-1980 is a mistake, but at least the years 1941 and 1980 exist. Even mixing up "R" and "D" all the time is at least plausible as a "mistake" since Ds and Rs are both used.

But this? The name of this supposed reactor didn't just happen as a case of a typo or anything. This thing had to be invented out of whole cloth!

Somewhere, sometime, someone had to make up this name and claim it as a power plant. Ultimately, that had to be carried far enough so that someone at Fox transcribed it into a graphic.

So the question is, where did the notion that it was a power plant originate? Is it as noted above a practical joke played by someone in the research office, which was failed to be detected by the factcheckers? Or did they get the list from somewhere else, and simply transcribe it (at which point, it was failed to be detected by the factcheckers)?

Either scenario doesn't look good. If they got folks in the back making stuff up as a practical joke, they have just lost credibility as a serious news agency. OTOH, if they got it from a dubious news source, well then...I guess that calls into the question of their credibility.

This is not just a "mistake" as in "whoops." That this night club was listed among the Japanese nuclear power plants is a deliberate move on someone's part. That it somehow got into the Fox News office begs the question of what they use for sources. That it got through the factcheckers also tells us about their capabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour

Just lost it?
Fox lost it in my eyes with that show.

A right-wing Daily Show. Where does that belong on a news network?
 
The Egg Man thing was funny.

I have to what what the objective of the "Oh Noes, Fox News did _____ again" posters here is? Fox News is a privately-owned channel. They can pretty much broadcast any kind of slop they want. Skeptic Ginger recently tried to claim that they would fall under video news release legislation, but that ain't gonna happen because almost none of their content is VNR.

They have a formula that appeals to a certain type of news consumer and television viewer. So what? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I certainly don't spend my days complaining about the crap masquerading as documentaries on the History Channel or fake reality shows on TruTV.
 
The Egg Man thing was funny.

I have to what what the objective of the "Oh Noes, Fox News did _____ again" posters here is? Fox News is a privately-owned channel. They can pretty much broadcast any kind of slop they want. Skeptic Ginger recently tried to claim that they would fall under video news release legislation, but that ain't gonna happen because almost none of their content is VNR.

They have a formula that appeals to a certain type of news consumer and television viewer. So what? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I certainly don't spend my days complaining about the crap masquerading as documentaries on the History Channel or fake reality shows on TruTV.

I still think it's worthwhile to point out these issues, just to raise general awareness. If it weren't for threads like this, I personally, would probably not be aware of just how unreliable a news outlet Fox News is.

I think any inaccuracies in the news (or "history documentaries") should be pointed out and widely disseminated, regardless of what channel they appear on.

And if deepatrax were still around, this thread would probably be up to 10 pages by now. ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom