Cherry picking Libby verdict lower third?
Johnny Dollar takes on Newshounds and MSNBC over cherry picking one FNC lower third saying Scooter Libby was found not guilty of a charge while ignoring the other lower thirds that appeared before and after it which said he was found guilty of other charges.
Nice job Dollar… although I’m not real surprised.
Comment by ImNotBlue — March 8, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
It is worth nothing this article is cherry picking MSNBC’s portrayal of Fox’s coverage as there was more to it than just the lower-thirds and that lower thirds. There was also a lower thirds that said “Libby Convicted on 4 Counts But Was There Even a Crime?”. I accept that this is certainly another angle on this story, but it is accurate that liberals will see this yet another example of Fox catering to Republicans in a way that they do not for Democrats.
Comment by Danny G — March 8, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Danny, it’s flat out lying about what FOX covered. Don’t try to spin it and say the article is cherrypicking. MSNBC & the lib blogs deliberately took one (out of several) chyron to make FOX’s coverage look slanted.
And the facts are, there was no initial crime. Plame wasn’t a covert agent. The law about outing covert agents was not broken. Libby’s crime was lying about who he learned Plame’s name from. It had nothing to do with outing a CIA agent.
Comment by bigred — March 8, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Danny - “I accept that this is certainly another angle on this story, but it is accurate that liberals will see this yet another example of Fox catering to Republicans in a way that they do not for Democrats.”
It is not “accurate” for liberals to see this as FNC catering, unless they can show that FNC hasn’t done this for Democrats. Otherwise, it’s just assumption, with no basis for the argument.
Questions like that are what makes FNC popular… they’re asking the questions the other networks chose not to. It’s a fair question, and one that an investigative reporter who’s trying to cover ALL SIDES of an issue should ask!
Comment by ImNotBlue — March 8, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
There were probably 20 or 30 different banners, including the one you mention. If you want to list them all then you can make your case as best you can. But that doesn’t change MSNBC’s dishonesty.
Comment by johnny dollar — March 8, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Nice spin, Danny. Are you that blind that you don’t realize the truth when it smacks you in the face? Or, maybe, you just happen to work for MSNBC?
Comment by ChrisM — March 8, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Bigred, first as I mentioned, there was more than one chyron.. there was 2 plus commentary included from the Fox News Channel. You just “spun” facts by saying there was “one”. Is it not fair and balanced to mention that there was more than one?
Yes there was a “crime” otherwise there would be no guilty verdicts. It’s a “crime” in a way similar to which Clinton was guilty of a “crime”.
Blue, I seem to remember Bill Clinton making a big fuss about Democrats not getting equal treatment on Fox News Sunday.. so yes Democrats do see things that way.. you can disagree.. but it is true that they do. Just look at the posts on John Edwards today.
Furthermore, Fox doesn’t ask “all sides” becauses they actually do miss lots of liberal talking points. I am all for an ALL SIDES argument.. I just don’t get it on Fox News Channel most of the time (not all). I don’t seem to recall Fox giving Al Gore’s side of the argument regarding his high energy bill for example…..
Comment by Danny G — March 8, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Danny, I agree with you about the crime part… although I can’t say for certain whether or not he lied on purpose (like Clinton) or if he forgot… I wasn’t on the jury, and I don’t know Libby… so I can only assume the jury made the right decision.
Moving on… just because liberals “believe” something, it doesn’t make it true. Clinton can “make a big fuss” but unless he backs it up, he’s just mad that he got a question when he didn’t think he should have. Same thing with Edwards… he bailed without any mistreatment… just bad feelings and pressure from the far-left.
Just because you say something over and over again, it doesn’t “become” true… and sadly, this is what many liberals have done to FNC. They’ve accused them of bias enough, that they don’t have to back it up, they can just say it, and people accept. The world is flat… the Sun revolves around the Earth… etc.
As for Gore, I don’t remember what I saw on FNC and what I read… you tell me… how did they cover it?
FNC does take “all sides” or at least makes an effort to take more sides than the rest. Can you think of any other channel that lets more points of view express their opinions?
What do you watch to get “all sides”?
Comment by ImNotBlue — March 8, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Again, Danny, you are wrong. Laura Schwartz and another Dem strategist were on Hannity and Colmes arguing for Gore’s side.
I know, because I watched it.
You’re right about they chyrons. They didn’t spin just one chyron out of several. The spun two, which makes it even worse.
Comment by bigred — March 8, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Fox said that Gore paid nearly $30,000 on his electric bill and claimed him to be a hypocrite. They did not give Gore’s side when I watched.
Yes, Fox takes more conservative sides that the MSM doesn’t cover. However, they do that at the expense of not providing as many liberal sides. FNC is an extremely good source for getting a conservative viewpoint you have missed elsewhere. However, if you only watch it, you will miss other viewpoints.
It is best to watch multiple channels and NBC does provide a different perspective.
Comment by Danny G — March 8, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
“They did not give Gore’s side when I watched.” When did you watch?
Comment by ImNotBlue — March 8, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Bigred, they may have argued for Gore’s side but when I watched it they didn’t actually explain why the number was so high. There’s a difference between having someone there on one’s side and someone actually defending them.
Furthermore, Fox News must be wrong about the covert things because I was informed that the law is that you can’t KNOWINGLY out a covert agent. The reason there was no trial for that is not because she was not covert.. it was because there was not enough evidence to determine if Libby knew whether or not she was. I am puzzled why there was ever controversy if she didn’t want to keep her role secret.
Comment by Danny G — March 8, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Blue, Fox News is on all day at work. I’m not sure when I saw the exchange.
Comment by Danny G — March 8, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
“Furthermore, Fox News must be wrong about the covert things because I was informed that the law is that you can’t KNOWINGLY out a covert agent”
She hadn’t been a covert operative for 5 years, therefore it wasn’t a crime to reveal her identity under any circumstance. She was driving in and out of the front gates at Langley in her own car. Coverts don’t do that.
Comment by Joltin Joe — March 9, 2007 @ 2:11 pm