Is Faux News about to self-destruct?

[leftysergeant]

Well, the drooling morons at Faux News have done it again. In order to convince us that there is a signifcant block of people who thing that Sarah Palin's book is worth having, they offer up stock footage of her on the campaign trail and pretty much state that it was from the book signing tour.

How dumb do they think we are? Hannity stupid? Beck stupid? Just wait until John Stuart gets hold of this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNheD4DGr8

[GStan]

Looking for additional info. Who is the speaker? And do you know when this program aired?

[ponderingturtle]

Well, the drooling morons at Faux News have done it again. In order to convince us that there is a signifcant block of people who thing that Sarah Palin's book is worth having, they offer up stock footage of her on the campaign trail and pretty much state that it was from the book signing tour.

How dumb do they think we are? Hannity stupid? Beck stupid? Just wait until John Stuart gets hold of this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNheD4DGr8

Hey they know their audiance. They know it is very very dumb.

[leftysergeant]

Who is the speaker?

Gregg Jarret, apparently an afternoon anchor on Faux News.

And do you know when this program aired?

It aired 18 NOV 09.

Jarret says that the video was just coming in.

(Cue a parade of laughing dog smilies that falls off the bottom of the page....)

[Cleon]

edited for off topic.

[Denver]

While this seems like another credibility malfunction, it seemed to me from the YouTube that it was more of a teaser for a teaser (teasing Hannity's preview), rather than any kind of breaking news. So given that context, I doubt Stewart will pick this one up.

[leftysergeant]

While this seems like another credibility malfunction, it seemed to me from the YouTube that it was more of a teaser for a teaser (teasing Hannity's preview), rather than any kind of breaking news.

No, the idiot flatly announced that it was in-coming video, live feed.

Update just in, though. Management at Faux has announced that a technician accidently inserted stock footage and has been "disciplined."

And my flatulence smell like vanilla extract.

[Upchurch]

I don't know about any of this stuff, per se, but I think the bigger threat to Fox New's (and News Corps) business plan in general is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to throw down against Google (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/rupert-murdoch-google-business-media-murdoch.html).

Dumb with a capital "duh".

[Brainster]

Hey they know their audiance. They know it is very very dumb.

Those accusing others of being dumb should check their spelling before posting.

:D

[Towlie]

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/18/fox-crowd-shot-palin/) has the embedded video and says: But the pictures that the network chose to display on-air appeared to be old file footage of Palin rallies from the 2008 presidential campaign. Individuals in the crowd are seen holding McCain/Palin signs, and others are holding pom-poms and cheering wildly.I looked closely but couldn't see an McCain/Palin signs. The only ones I saw said "Country First". I wonder what's up with that. :confused:

[Snide]

Those accusing others of being dumb should check their spelling before posting.

:DPlus there should have been a comma after the first "very." :)

[Slayhamlet]

Plus there should have been a comma after the first "very." :)

Also after "hey".

[Towlie]

Edited response to modded post.

[leftysergeant]

I looked closely but couldn't see an McCain/Palin signs. The only ones I saw said "Country First". I wonder what's up with that. :confused:

Did you see that bullet deflector/teleprompter thingy in front of Palin's face in the last clip? Is she so dumb that she needs a teleprompter to make a book-signing apearance?

(Yeah, dumb question. I know....)

[GreyICE]

Those accusing others of being dumb should check their spelling before posting.

:D

This continues the theory that BS and BAC are sockpuppeting eachother.

[DDWW]

[QUOTE=leftysergeant;5326336]
How dumb do they think we are?
QUOTE]


Very.

Ok, Back to the original question; Is Faux (sic) News about to self destruct?

NO. Thier market share will continue to build while CNN, NBC, etc will continue to drop.


DDWW

[theprestige]

It's actually an elaborate sting operation. "Faux" News is just playing along with conservatives and lulling them into a false sense of security before it calls the police on them.

[sugarb]

The network won't self-destruct. For whatever reason, people thrive on the kind of stuff Fox produces. (and other networks) I think that being controversial is actually what made it successful. If nobody hated it...it wouldn't get as much attention.

I think that's what makes Limbaugh and Hannity so successful, too. Now Beck? I think he may self-destruct.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yeah, Fox News is pretty much not in danger of self destructing.

[Davidlpf]

Fox self destructing would be good news, bad news moment. Good news no more biased news, bad news no more comedy.

[Dancing David]

Yeah, Fox News is pretty much not in danger of self destructing.

Exactly.

[leftysergeant]

If they keep doing things like this, showing such a disregard for reality, they will soon achieve the same status as the National Enquirer, mybe lower, and cease to be a major shaper of public opinion.

Not that this would be a bad thing for the country.

There are always going to be that moronic 20% of the population that is willing to pay truffle prices for turds.

[Thunder]

indeed. if more and more faked or screwed up videos come out, Fox News will lose a great deal of credibility.

[Cynic]

I still try to convince myself that reality TV is just a passing fad, but it's getting more and more pathetic all the time. (Both my telling myself that as well as reality TV.)

FoxNews is bread and circuses, but as Billy Joel might mix metaphors, they didn't start the fire. It's hard to say if Fox can re-gain legitamacy because it's not in their interests. There's only so much news they can reasonably present, and all these pundits get the airtime because otherwise what they're left with is a live-action news crawler. CNN and the other 24-hour news outlets aren't any different in this regard, except that they at least seem to understand what the definition of objectivity is, even if they aren't always perfect at it.

More and more though, I do hear my more reasonable conservative friends -- and oddly, most of them are (conservative, if not reasonable) -- talk about FoxNews as being something they'd tweak a bit if they were the boss. That's a marked change from their previous opinions. It shows that they've finally begun to realize on some level what a farce it has become, that it's present form comes off as parody of what it was two years ago, and that even that was hard to defend.

[Skeptic]

Plus there should have been a comma after the first "very." :)

Oh, come on. Correct spelling and grammar is just a racist attempt to make Black people feel bad for speaking incorrect English. Just ask the promoters of Ebonics!

Ebonics 101:

I be
you be
he be

[Skeptic]

FoxNews is bread and circuses, but as Billy Joel might mix metaphors, they didn't start the fire. It's hard to say if Fox can re-gain legitamacy because it's not in their interests. There's only so much news they can reasonably present, and all these pundits get the airtime because otherwise what they're left with is a live-action news crawler. CNN and the other 24-hour news outlets aren't any different in this regard, except that they at least seem to understand what the definition of objectivity is, even if they aren't always perfect at it.

This is the result of the 24-hour news cycle. When you must report nation wide news 24 hours a day, then by definition 95% at least of what you air will be recycled for the umpteenth time, or pundits screaming at each other, or "oh my God! GOPHER DOES NOT SEE ITS OWN SHADOW!"

Try to contract the actual news in a typical 24-hour news cycle to the actual news. I'll bet you won't get 20 minutes of it -- including sports.

[Redtail]

Oh, come on. Correct spelling and grammar is just a racist attempt to make Black people feel bad for speaking incorrect English. Just ask the promoters of Ebonics!

Ebonics 101:

I be
you be
he be

Ooooo, sorry, you can't make jokes until Jews get their syntax right maybe?

[Cynic]

Well, yeah, that's what I meant by "live-action news crawler". I think Fox is sort of experiencing what MTV did, though. First they patched up the redundancy with a little variety, and then before you knew it the name of the channel became ironic.

[SezMe]

If they keep doing things like this, showing such a disregard for reality, they will soon achieve the same status as the National Enquirer, mybe lower, and cease to be a major shaper of public opinion.
Wishful thinking, lefty. With blinders on. There is no objective reason to think the Fox won't be a continuing commercial success.

The only grain of hope you might reasonably have is that Beck will self-destruct. He has to keep out fear-mongering himself and that's just hard to do on a long-term basis. Hannity, and OReally don't have that problem.

[Howie Felterbush]

Well, the drooling morons at Faux News have done it again. In order to convince us that there is a signifcant block of people who thing that Sarah Palin's book is worth having, they offer up stock footage of her on the campaign trail and pretty much state that it was from the book signing tour.

How dumb do they think we are? Hannity stupid? Beck stupid? Just wait until John Stuart gets hold of this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNheD4DGr8


If your television is anything like mine, it should have been supplied with a small plastic device covered with buttons that you hold in your hand and use to change the channel to something you actually want to watch. It works great. I haven't seen anything from FOX except pro football and The Simpsons in well over a decade.

[Whiplash]

I see a few people engaging in what I can only call as "wishful thinking", as I desire to be polite about it.

Aren't people who keep doom and glooming Fox News and the Right kind of like CT'ers in one regard? That being that it's always "just upon us!" and "any day now!". I think both groups are a bit deluded as to the reality of the world at this time.

I'm not saying (as I've said before) that Fox's numbers are proof of their being correct or valid. I'm saying that they are Goliath right now, and the idea that they are limping along on their last breaths, self-destructing any second now... that's purely wishful thinking or self-delusion.

And you are blowing minor things up to the point of some kind of huge scandal.

[SezMe]

Just wait until John Stuart gets hold of this one.
I couldn't figure out who John Stuart was but didn't want to expand the evidence of my ignorance by outright asking. But I think I'm not the problem here. Did you mean Jon Stewart?

[Travis]

My mom is infatuated with Palin and bought her book. She also thinks Beck is really neat and bought his book. I've resolved to not bring up anything that is even remotely resembling a political discussion this Thanksgiving.

[Oliver]

Just wait until John Stuart ...


Done :D

[DropGems]

If you've ever seen "Red Eye" on Fox News, this probably happens unintentionally about once a week. Half the time they notice it and laugh at how the stock footage used clearly doesn't match up with the teleprompter or the story they're covering. Probably just lazy editing or a casual gaffe.

[The Painter]

Well, the drooling morons at Faux News have done it again. In order to convince us that there is a signifcant block of people who thing that Sarah Palin's book is worth having, they offer up stock footage of her on the campaign trail and pretty much state that it was from the book signing tour.

How dumb do they think we are? Hannity stupid? Beck stupid? Just wait until John Stuart gets hold of this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNheD4DGr8

No doubt, that is campaign footage. However, I believe it was just a simple mistake. Every now and then News shows make mistakes. I know you want it to be some great right wing conspiracy, but it's not. It's just a mistake. All the news shows have done them. Once again this is much ado about nothing.

[a_unique_person]

I don't know about any of this stuff, per se, but I think the bigger threat to Fox New's (and News Corps) business plan in general is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to throw down against Google (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/rupert-murdoch-google-business-media-murdoch.html).

Dumb with a capital "duh".

Rupert might be getting on a bit, but he has taken on some big battles before.

[Oliver]

No doubt, that is campaign footage. However, I believe it was just a simple mistake.


LOL

[commandlinegamer]

And my flatulence smell like vanilla extract.

I don't dislike vanilla, but a little goes a long way. I'd swear our local supermarket pumps it into the air conditioning in order to get people to buy more cake, but it puts me off. And I like cake.

[leftysergeant]

Did you mean Jon Stewart?

Yeah, that guy. I don't watch much TV, so I do not always have his name in front of me to remind me of the spelling.

[Oliver]

Yeah, that guy. I don't watch much TV, so I do not always have his name in front of me to remind me of the spelling.


Actually, it's Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart).

[leftysergeant]

No doubt, that is campaign footage. However, I believe it was just a simple mistake.

Repeatedly doing it and claiming massiver turnouts to events that attract only a handful of whackadoodles sugeests that somebody is deliberately feeding us compost.

Baghdad Bob was more credible on US troop movements than Faux News is on the number of Tea Baggers who can dance a Samoan fire dance on the capital mall without harming each other.*

* All of them.

[Oliver]

Fox self destructing would be good news, bad news moment. Good news no more biased news, bad news no more comedy.


Well, there is still much bias in the media without Fox, that's for sure.

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) It's FOX. Please call it by it's proper name. (Or, of course, you could not get offened at CNN being called the Communist News Network.. or more properly the Cavenrous News...)

2) Look, as Whiplash pointed out, it's in no danger. (Side note: My landlord quotes Beck religiously. Siiigh.)

[Oliver]

Side note: My landlord quotes Beck religiously. Siiigh.


Oh man, that's pretty ********** up indeed, my condolences. :(

[The Painter]

Repeatedly doing it and claiming massiver turnouts to events that attract only a handful of whackadoodles sugeests that somebody is deliberately feeding us compost.

Baghdad Bob was more credible on US troop movements than Faux News is on the number of Tea Baggers who can dance a Samoan fire dance on the capital mall without harming each other.*

* All of them.

How many is a "handful"? 1,000?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh man, that's pretty ********** up indeed, my condolences. :(

I've given up discussing politics since my reaction to 'I heard it on Glenn Beck' is *snort*.

In any case, I've gotten used to it.

[leftysergeant]

How many is a "handful"? 1,000?

Compared to what the lunatics on Faux News claimed, yeah, that's a patheticly small crowd.

[Cynic]

That's a highschool fire drill right there.

[DDWW]

From Drudge Report today:

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009

FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000


So it goes.

DDWW

[Oliver]

From Drudge Report today:

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009

FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000


So it goes.

DDWW


Let's not forget that 75% of FOX Noose viewers are Liberal Watchdogs... :p

[Cynic]

From Drudge Report today:

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009

FOXNEWS HANNITY/PALIN 4,200,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,868,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,512,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,383,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,235,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,980,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,041,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,036,000
MSNBC MADDOW 957,000
CNN KING 835,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 625,000
CNN COOPER 611,000


So it goes.

DDWW

Car wrecks get a lot of rubberneckers too, doesn't mean I want to be in one. ;-)

[Darth Rotor]

Ooooo, sorry, you can't make jokes until Jews get their syntax right maybe?

He spelled hebe wrong.

[leftysergeant]

No doubt, that is campaign footage. However, I believe it was just a simple mistake.

So there is this technician sitting at a control panel with instructions to go to live feed of the book signing, but instead, he goes running down the hall to the archives for video tape of the conventions, or types instructions into the copmputer to retrieve random videos of Caribou Barbie from the train wreck of 2008.

Sure. Simple mistake to make.

Would you be interested in some commercial development sites on the south shore of Lake Okachobee?

[leftysergeant]

From Drudge Report today:

CABLE NEWS RACE
NOV. 18, 2009


This does not, of course, take into account the number of people who never touch the remore control, but just leave the same old rightwing morons yammering away in the background.

Liberals will often switch from one channel to another because the people they like are not all on the same channel,drinking the same mind-control drugs.

[ponderingturtle]

indeed. if more and more faked or screwed up videos come out, Fox News will lose a great deal of credibility.

Why? They are popular, and they don't have any intellectual integrity to lose.

[ponderingturtle]

Compared to what the lunatics on Faux News claimed, yeah, that's a patheticly small crowd.

But remember 0 conservative loons is way more important than say 30,000 homosexuals.

[Towlie]

If they keep doing things like this, showing such a disregard for reality, they will soon achieve the same status as the National Enquirer...That's not a very good comparison. It's true that both have no regard for truth in reporting, but the National Enquirer has no overall political agenda. They don't seek to further a cruel and shameless ideology through sinister propaganda that masquerades as news. The only goal of the National Enquirer is to profit by catering to readers who crave sensationalism.

[GreyICE]

That's not a very good comparison. It's true that both have no regard for truth in reporting, but the National Enquirer has no overall political agenda. They don't seek to further a cruel and shameless ideology through sinister propaganda that masquerades as news. The only goal of the National Enquirer is to profit by catering to readers who crave sensationalism.

Also, after several high-damage lawsuits, the National Enquirer has cleaned up their fact checking division very thoroughly, to the point where they are sensationalist and very accurate.

So it's fair to say they're a better source of news than Fox.

[Oliver]

So it's fair to say they're a better source of news than Fox.


Is there a worse news source than FOX? :confused:
[The Onion and Weekly World News excluded]

[leftysergeant]

So it's fair to say they're a better source of news than Fox.

And their jokes are funnier, too.

[DDWW]

This does not, of course, take into account the number of people who never touch the remore control, but just leave the same old rightwing morons yammering away in the background.

Liberals will often switch from one channel to another because the people they like are not all on the same channel,drinking the same mind-control drugs.


Yupper; Just has to be some other reason!:)

DDWW

[leftysergeant]

Yupper; Just has to be some other reason!:)

DDWW

There is also the fact that morons have an especially great need for external valisation and ranting lunatics like Hannity and suicide boy Beck give it to them.

[Cynic]

There is also the fact that morons have an especially great need for external valisation and ranting lunatics like Hannity and suicide boy Beck give it to them.

I don't know if that's intensional or not, but it makes a pretty good Snigglet:

Valisation: the sensation of being validated.

[DDWW]

There is also the fact that morons have an especially great need for external valisation and ranting lunatics like Hannity and suicide boy Beck give it to them.

Yup, They all must be morons, evry one of them. Has to be that reason. No other would explain it. :D:D:D

DD(I'm not laughing with you)WW

[Cynic]

Yup, They all must be morons, every one of them.

I would hope that you agree at least that, in conservative's desire to watch a show in which the host expresses conservative viewpoints, that they deserve better than people like Beck. These people are influential, and worse, their reputations become representative of the entire conservative ideology, and each show of his hammers another nail in the coffin of influence conservatives might hope to have over independents. From what I can tell, Fox is very quickly becoming something that mainstream Republicans are going to want off their side.

[joobz]

Fox news makes repeated "error" after error. I'm sure they are all mistakes, but it's clear that these mistakes have a bias and it exposes the inherent bias that fox has a entertainment source.

1.) Michelle as Obama's "Baby Momma"?
2.) Labeling Mark Foley (after the scandal) as a democrat
3.) Terrorist "Fist bump"
4.) Showing False footage of Palin book signing
5.) Showing false footage of a anti-health reform rally
6.) Footage of Fox news Acting as a cheerleader at a teabag rally.
7.) Showing reporter give an ad hoc McCAin/Obama poll at a cafe. After a near 90% support for Obama, reporter claiming people are "split"
8.) Questionable use of the "?" on the screen.

I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that come to mind. Point being is that Fox continues to do this.

[DropGems]

So there is this technician sitting at a control panel with instructions to go to live feed of the book signing, but instead, he goes running down the hall to the archives for video tape of the conventions, or types instructions into the copmputer to retrieve random videos of Caribou Barbie from the train wreck of 2008.

Sure. Simple mistake to make.

Would you be interested in some commercial development sites on the south shore of Lake Okachobee?

Again this happens a lot in the news world. They'll report, "So and so has been rushed to the hospital" (while they're showing a video of so and so walking their dog as they report). A lot of times the videos don't match up 100% accurately. They could've not had footage of the signing, there could've been a signal problem, could've been a million things. It was pretty obvious that it wasn't a book signing though (I've never seen people elevated up in bleachers at a book signing). Common sense says gaffe or lazy editing.

[leftysergeant]

They could've not had footage of the signing, there could've been a signal problem, could've been a million things. It was pretty obvious that it wasn't a book signing though (I've never seen people elevated up in bleachers at a book signing). Common sense says gaffe or lazy editing.

They said they had footage coming in. They didn't. Usually, you get either a blank screen or an anchor sitting there looking stupid (or, in the case of that crew, more stupid than usual.) What you do not, normally, get is irrelevant footage.

[leftysergeant]

Valisation: the sensation of being validated.

Running on empty here. 5 hours sleep in the last thirty, and I am still not finished.

Yeah, it is kind of funny.

The ranting right may feel validated after watching Beck, but they are still getting the stamp of approval from a lunatic.

[Upchurch]

3.) Terrorist "Fist bump"
"Terrorist Fist Jab". It's more violent and threatening that way.

[DropGems]

They said they had footage coming in. They didn't. Usually, you get either a blank screen or an anchor sitting there looking stupid (or, in the case of that crew, more stupid than usual.) What you do not, normally, get is irrelevant footage.

I actually thought the anchor seemed a little baffled, like he clearly knew it was stock footage and he just went with it but who knows for sure. Plus a lot of times, you DO get completely irrelevant footage paired with the actual report, I see it all the time. They got "Palin" and "crowd" right, they just got the "date & location" part wrong. We know Palin is probably the most famous woman right now. We know she draws big crowds of fervent supporters. We know they're gonna buy her book. I think the stock footage pretty much represented that even though it clearly was a completely different event. Footage paired with the reporting is just there to give you a quick mental picture and not reflect the actual event 100%.

I actually saw some book signing footage though and it was a bunch of people camping out in the rain the night before to get her book like it was a PS3 launch or something.

[Upchurch]

Rupert might be getting on a bit, but he has taken on some big battles before.
How'd he do?

I only ask because if he thinks he's going to convince other companies to reject Google, this is one really freakin' huge battle he doesn't stand a chance of winning.

[leftysergeant]

I actually thought the anchor seemed a little baffled, like he clearly knew it was stock footage and he just went with it but who knows for sure. Plus a lot of times, you DO get completely irrelevant footage paired with the actual report, I see it all the time.

But how often does a producer mistake live feed for something he brought up from archives? You can easily get the wrong live feed when you have more than one coming in, or the wrong clip from archives, but to confuse the two?

MASSIVE screw-up, at best. But calling it that is a lot more charitable than a sceptic should be toward that crew. They have done this too many times already since the twit from Wasilla first crossed their paths.

We know Palin is probably the most famous woman right now.

Actually, that would be Oprah.

We know she draws big crowds of fervent supporters.

Or so Faux News would have you believe.

We know they're gonna buy her book.

In bulk, to give away as a bonus to righties who subscribe to a whackadodle news magazine.

Footage paired with the reporting is just there to give you a quick mental picture and not reflect the actual event 100%.

Only if your main purpsoie is to present propoganda under color of real journalism.

I actually saw some book signing footage though and it was a bunch of people camping out in the rain the night before to get her book like it was a PS3 launch or something.

TRhere were no more people there than would show up on the sidewalk in front of the studio where they produce the Today Show. Were they not producing the shopw there, I doubt that you would have that many people there. Probably more of them were there hoping to get their mugs on national TV just for kicks.

[leftysergeant]

I don't know about any of this stuff, per se, but I think the bigger threat to Fox New's (and News Corps) business plan in general is Rupert Murdoch's attempt to throw down against Google (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/rupert-murdoch-google-business-media-murdoch.html).

Oy, Gewalt!

He wants other publishers to stomp on a search engine that sends people who want what those publishers make available for free to the publisher's websites?

If they did not want people to be able to access their publications for free, they would just set the site as pay-per-view.

Old Rupert is going senile.

[DropGems]

But how often does a producer mistake live feed for something he brought up from archives? You can easily get the wrong live feed when you have more than one coming in, or the wrong clip from archives, but to confuse the two?

I don't know the entire back story or what exactly happened so I can't really comment on that. I don't think they could've confused archive footage with live feed though, I think they just ran some stock footage like they usually do.

Actually, that would be Oprah.

Palin makes way more headlines so I'd say Palin is more famous at the current time. Regardless, she's number 1 or 2 out of the 3 billion woman on the planet.


Or so Faux News would have you believe.

Pretty sure she could easily draw massive crowds.


In bulk, to give away as a bonus to righties who subscribe to a whackadodle news magazine.

Pretty sure it'll top the best seller list easily for months.


Only if your main purpsoie is to present propoganda under color of real journalism.

I don't see any malfeasance. This happens all the time in news. They report and then run arbitrary footage which almost never matches perfectly with the story. IE: Anchor says, "Michael Jackson is dead at age 50", while editor is showing footage of him doing a Billie Jean moonwalk. They're just there for visualization purposes, not to actually reflect verbatim what the anchor is saying. The only difference is that the anchor said, "look at that crowd" or whatever in the Palin video. If he didn't say that, it would've been standard operating procedure.

Plus I think the actual book signing actually showed more people overall in it than the stock footage. You can only see like 20 people behind Palin in the stock footage. Obviously the tone is different though...


TRhere were no more people there than would show up on the sidewalk in front of the studio where they produce the Today Show. Were they not producing the shopw there, I doubt that you would have that many people there. Probably more of them were there hoping to get their mugs on national TV just for kicks.

The Today show is filmed in New York City though which has 100 times the population of some little rural town in Ohio. Plus it's the Today show, which historically has always gathered crowds. This is just some book signing at Barnes and Nobles. I would never expect campers for something like that.

[leftysergeant]

I don't know the entire back story or what exactly happened so I can't really comment on that. I don't think they could've confused archive footage with live feed though, I think they just ran some stock footage like they usually do.

Which is to say that they create the news out of nothing, as usual. They are, ergo, not journalists, but propogandists.

Palin makes way more headlines so I'd say Palin is more famous at the current time.

Which puts her well behind Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. And do you really want to say that more people around the world respect the Arctic Ding-a-ling than respect Oprah? Really?

OMG!

Pretty sure it'll top the best seller list easily for months.

Because certain political extremists will be byuing it in bulk to give away as "gifts" to friends they think need "educating."




I don't see any malfeasance. This happens all the time in news. They report and then run arbitrary footage which almost never matches perfectly with the story. IE: Anchor says, "Michael Jackson is dead at age 50", while editor is showing footage of him doing a Billie Jean moonwalk. They're just there for visualization purposes, not to actually reflect verbatim what the anchor is saying.

Well, DUH! There was a goiod reason why they showed stock footage of MJ. He was dead when the story aired. Palin, so far, isn't. (At least not from the amygdala downward.

The only difference is that the anchor said, "look at that crowd" or whatever in the Palin video. If he didn't say that, it would've been standard operating procedure.

But only an utter idiot would have said that.

[Darth Rotor]

How'd he do?

I only ask because if he thinks he's going to convince other companies to reject Google, this is one really freakin' huge battle he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
My gut feel is that you are mostly right, but Murdoch didn't get to where he is today by being shy.

I suspect he's been accumulating blackmail on Google execs for as long as he's been able to. This is based on my assumption that he does not mind playing dirty pool.

If that assumption is wrong, your guess is even stronger as a prediction.

For lefty: I got this from Yahoo news. NWS corp is IIRC Fox News parent company.

Stock prices.

Day's Range: 14.03 - 14.48
52wk Range: 5.61 - 15.24
Volume: 2,505,448
Avg Vol (3m): 3,466,590

They seem to be making a buck. Or at least holding their own, in the bucks making part of the business. They are within a dollar of their 52 week high.

FWIW

DR

[Number Six]

My mom is infatuated with Palin and bought her book. She also thinks Beck is really neat and bought his book. I've resolved to not bring up anything that is even remotely resembling a political discussion this Thanksgiving.

Okay, so now all that is left is for you to figure out how you're going to respond when she brings up something resembling a political discussion this Thanksgiving.

[The Painter]

Compared to what the lunatics on Faux News claimed, yeah, that's a patheticly small crowd.

What did the lunatics at fox claim? A lot more than 1,000? Do you really consider 1,000 people a handful?

[leftysergeant]

What did the lunatics at fox claim? A lot more than 1,000? Do you really consider 1,000 people a handful?

Compared to what a second-rate baseball team can draw, yeah.


Biden drew well over a thousand, in the rain and cold in an open stadium, in Tacoma while he was campaigning. And not everyone who wanted to get in got in.

[Upchurch]

My gut feel is that you are mostly right, but Murdoch didn't get to where he is today by being shy.
But he didn't get where he is today by being very new media savvy. He's applying old world tactics to the new world.

I suspect he's been accumulating blackmail on Google execs for as long as he's been able to. This is based on my assumption that he does not mind playing dirty pool.
Even if he did, he would have nothing to gain by getting other content publishers to block Google's crawlers.

The only way this makes any sense is if Murdoch was either (a) starting his own search engine or (2) making an exclusive deal with a search competitor to Google.

(a) has zero chance of any traction unless it caters to the right-leaning crowd by indexing conservative-based links higher than liberal-based links (good luck working out that algorithm).

(2) only works if there is enough demand for searching News Corp items to make it worth a search engine's dime to pay to index the content. That ...may... make some amount of sense, depending on the numbers involved, but the loss of inbound links to News Corp has to make a major impact on their online revenue. The odds of that working out in Murdoch's favor seem slim, but he would have access to solid numbers whereas I'm just guessing.

I can tell you that he will not cow Google in any sense (without, ya know, blackmail)

[Darth Rotor]

I can tell you that he will not cow Google in any sense (without, ya know, blackmail)
Maybe he'll just try to :goat (clenched digits) them. :cool:

[leftysergeant]

If Murdoch's sites become accessible only through his web browser, he has lost any chance of drawing me in other than through a site on which he is linked. No way would I install his browser.

He's a self-important twit and the world may soon wake up to that fact.

I wonder if he is the one who paid McCain to introduce his "Internet Freedom" BS.

[DropGems]

Which is to say that they create the news out of nothing, as usual. They are, ergo, not journalists, but propogandists.

Other outlets reported on Palin's book signing though. And everyone "creates" news. They get to determine what story is news worthy or not. Some significant, some insignificant.


Which puts her well behind Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. And do you really want to say that more people around the world respect the Arctic Ding-a-ling than respect Oprah? Really?

OMG!

I think Palin is much more popular than Hillary now, who faded into obscurity behind Obama. Michelle is basically irrelevant, I only hear her name when she goes to a baseball game with Barack. Oprah is an epic woo pusher who probably gets little respect around here but is very respected and popular overall, but I still think Palin is more popular currently in these political times.


Because certain political extremists will be byuing it in bulk to give away as "gifts" to friends they think need "educating."

Speculation. Regardless, it's gonna sell a ton because she's extremely popular and relevant.






Well, DUH! There was a goiod reason why they showed stock footage of MJ. He was dead when the story aired. Palin, so far, isn't. (At least not from the amygdala downward.

They didn't have to show MJ moonwalking or hanging out with Liz Taylor while reporting that he had been hospitalized or just died. They could've shown the hospital or an ambulance instead but this is just one example of how the footage never matches up correctly with the story, and why is this? Because it's not even supposed to match up. It's just there for entertainment and visualization purposes. If anyone has ever watched the news before, they'll see this happen once a week at least.



But only an utter idiot would have said that.

I still don't see the big deal though. The book is gonna sell millions of copies and she's gonna draw big crowds. That was the point. If you really don't think she's popular or relevant because, say, lib bloggers or Olbermann brush her off (even though 4 times as many people would watch her on Hannity than his program) go ahead, but at least face reality and realize that she's relevant and popular.

[Dancing David]

1000 would be a huge book signing.