Fox News caught faking it

When reporting that Ron Paul had defeated mainstream Republican Mitt Romney in the CPAC straw poll, Fox News superimposed archive footage of people booing from last year's event. Bonus Fox misbehavior! When a liberal blogger asked Fox News reporter Jesse Watters for comment on recent claims from an insider that the network makes stuff up, Watters ignored the question and mocked the interviewer's cheap camera. After MSNBC ran the clip, which makes Watters appear evasive and smarmy, Fox produced heavily edited versions of the clip for its own shows, claimed their man was ambushed (he was in fact approached at the same heavily-attended conservative event) and praised its reporter for 'trash talking' the interviewer.


  1. Can we call Fox News out for being a propaganda machine now? This seems to confirm what everyone knows, yet no conservative will admit.

    1. Somebody has to have the courage to stand up to reality’s vicious liberal bias, if only for the sake of the decent people in this country…

    2. It’s worth pointing out that Ron Paul’s supporters are well aware of the status of Faux News and put no stock in its “reporting.”

    3. This is just the Mainstream Media trying to keep relevant in the age of the blog. As despicable as it is, it is a well known fact that Fox is just a mainstream conservative television “blog machine.” And everyone knows that blogs are not bound by any regular standard of ethics or standards of reporting. Honestly, why should we be surprised? Or care for that matter? TV no longer holds the importance it once did, FOX is just the most obvious example of that.

      1. Fox News is still the most popular “news” network by a wide margin. Its still ridiculously important in terms of the amount of sway and power it has to the Conservative side of the nation.

        We shouldn’t be surprised, but we should definitely care. When a large percentage of the American population are casting ballots based on what they hear and see on Fox, I think we should be very, very concerned.

        I would suggest that the left in turns start voting based on Daily Show coverage, but that would be less biased and more informative than Fox, so its not a fair comparison.

        1. Wigg1es you hit the nail on the head. It is the fact that Faux News commands such a large audience that this type of misrepresentation is so detrimental to society as a whole.

          Faux news is intentionally trying to skew their audience’s opinion of a potential presidential candidate.

          Any and every time Faux pulls stunts like this, it should be exposed on other news networks. IMO this would help keep more “news” networks honest about how they report current events.

        2. I think we should be very, very concerned.

          I don’t know what pisses me off more, FOX’s flagrant propagandizing, or public apathy to the face. FOX NEWS is single-handedly responsible for pushing this country way farther to the right than it should reasonably be, and for taking public discourse from relevant and timely issues for the sake of distraction and spectacle.

          Upset that Wall Street ran off with your pension fund? Nope. Upset that Obama is a sekrit muslin mustard-gate terrist.

      2. I must disagree. TV news, and especially Fox, is very important today. Who do you think led the successful charge on the United States Congress last year? It certainly wasn’t internet bloggers.

        1. Agreed. Denying the power of television and its overwhelming influence on Americans is pure folly. The only other media that even comes close is radio. In particular right-wing radio since it’s so ubiquitous because of all the corporatist funding it garners. Blogs and such are a very distant third.

      3. it is a well known fact that Fox is just a mainstream conservative television “blog machine.”

        I would dispute both parts of that claim: It’s neither well-known, nor a fact. I think you’re underestimating the difference between what bloggers do and what Fox News does. Bloggers are often guilty of blurring the line between fact and opinion. Fox News, on the other hand, is outright, organized propaganda. I’d recommend reading this account of recent revelations by an ex-employee of Fox News:

      4. Cable is still the first place most people hear the news, priming them for the kind of news they will look for on the Internet. Every other private home, every gymnasium aerobics room, every tavern, hotel breakfast room and public lounge has a television screen going 24/7. Please don’t fool yourself. It is highly effective and will remain so for a good long time.

      5. That is an interesting take on opinion news. I believe there are more standards than simple blogging at all the 24 cable news channels, and some of legacy media’s broadcast channels, but sometimes it’s hard to tell.

    4. Haven’t we been doing that for years already?

      The problem is that (a) the First Amendment makes no distinction between propaganda and legitimate journalism; so there’s nothing that can legally be done about it; and (b) the only people who don’t already realize that Fox News is a propaganda machine are those who buy into the propaganda and refuse to listen to anyone who says that Fox News is a propaganda machine.

      1. The problem is that (a) the First Amendment makes no distinction between propaganda and legitimate journalism; so there’s nothing that can legally be done about it

        Seems like more of a feature than a bug to me.

        (Unless, or course, one thinks speech should be vetted before it’s allowed; can’t imagine anything going wrong with that!)

        1. Yes. I didn’t mean to imply that I would wish to censor Fox News if that were possible. I was simply responding to inkfumes’s question about whether we can now start calling Fox News a “propaganda machine”. My point was that it doesn’t matter, because calling them that won’t change anything.

          1. Fair enough.

            I’ve never actually watched Fox news (I don’t have a television), but it doesn’t sound like I’m missing much.

        2. Seems like more of a feature than a bug to me.

          (Unless, or course, one thinks speech should be vetted before it’s allowed; can’t imagine anything going wrong with that!)

          A sound argument on the face of it, but muddled once you consider what mass media consolidation does to free speech. Fox should be free to say what they want, but deregulation of media ownership sees News Corp free to say what they want a lot more than most of the rest of us, and a lot louder.

    5. Can we call Fox News out for being a propaganda machine now? This seems to confirm what everyone knows, yet no conservative will admit.

      Every conservative I know admits it. I admit it. Ron Paul has said it. Why do you think we conservatives don’t know this?

      Who is supposed to stop them from doing this?

      Hint: Not conservatives.

      Another hint: Not republicans.

      One more hint: you know that guy you see every morning when you are shaving? That liberal guy? It’s him.

      Or to put it another way: What are you going to do about it, Whitey? Nothing, that’s what – unless you count whining. So don’t expect anything to change.

      Conservatives are hardly going to attack your enemies for you if you are too weak and timid to do it yourselves – we’d rather go after the Huffington Post.

      1. May I just say how refreshing it is to hear a Republican admit that outright lying is part of your strategy?

    6. It’s not propaganda, it’s a farce. Most conservatives are frustrated at these claims that Fox somehow represents their viewpoint.

      Then again, MSNBC and CNN are barely any better now.

  2. I am sure Fox isn’t the only news coporation falsifying things but this is crazy. I wish there was something the public could do about it.

    1. There is; don’t watch Fox News or any Fox Channel. If they start taking a massive ratings dive maybe they’ll smartten up.

    2. I wish there was something the public could do about it.
      @4: Maybe we could include Fox in a randomised, double-blind talcum-powder quality test? This would involve mailing them anonymous samples of talcum-powder in unmarked envelopes… I’m sure it wouldn’t be mistaken for anything.

      I’m just happy I don’t have to deal with the shit-fight that Fux creates in the US. My favourite method would involve the old technique of: infuriate-until-a-punch-is-thrown-then-absolutely-destroy-opponent. Violence is the answer when idiots are making up their own reality and expecting us to join in.

      Can the next idiot who decides to lose their shit please target Fox? Burning dowm some of their premises is the least you could do for the greater good of the world.

  3. Fox News’ goal is to support the GOP. Period. This is not a secret. I just wish everybody who watched Fox News would acknowledge that.

  4. Fox News caught red-handed blatantly lying to push a political agenda. In other news, water is still wet, the sky remains blue.

  5. The live footage on the right looks a lot like an audio clip. Unless there was a PowerPoint presentation going on?

  6. The problem with FOX (and MSNBC) is that what they do hasn’t been a big enough problem yet. They coast on goodwill.

      1. I hear MSNBC and FOX compared a lot, but does MSNBC actually do stuff like this all the time?

        No, but people like EH like to make comparisons like that to make themselves feel better about FOX “News” doing that shit all the time, apparently.

        Sorry, people… you’re just gonna have to own up to this one. No one comes close to FOX “News”.

  7. More and more, I feel kind of dirty about having worked at CNN at the same time Hemmer was an up-and-comer there.

    Makes me wish I could travel back through time and tell my younger self to junk-punch him.

  8. Weak sauce even for Fox. They are getting lazy.
    Stupid and lazy is no way to go through life, son.

  9. –i’m just wondering why ron paul didn’t call fox on it when he was interviewed. maybe i missed something here.

    1. –i’m just wondering why ron paul didn’t call fox on it when he was interviewed.

      As Paul states in the interview he wasn’t present at the event. Even if he had been, it might have been easier to believe that the boos just hadn’t been audible from where he was standing than the network interviewing him had completely doctored the footage.

      Besides, yelling “that footage was DOCTORED!” would have made Paul look like a loopy conspiracy theorist (well, more so) if he didn’t have proof handy. It will be interesting to see how he reacts now that he does have such proof.

      1. –i considered the idea that he wasn’t there, but surely he would have been aware of that from advisers before the interview. i wouldn’t expect paul to yell, but i would expect him to calmly correct the inaccuracy. it’s what he does best.

        1. I doubt Paul’s advisers thought to tell him “there were no people booing you at the event, so if Fox News shows you footage implying otherwise it’s probably fake and you should immediately call them out on it.”

          1. –that’s not what i meant. i meant if he were booed his media adviser would give him a heads-up to let him know that this might be a topic of conversation. that’s what they’re hired to do.

            apparently this is something that doesn’t seem odd to others. i just found it rather odd is all.

          2. i meant if he were booed his media adviser would give him a heads-up to let him know that this might be a topic of conversation. that’s what they’re hired to do.

            If Ron Paul’s media advisers were any good at protecting him from potentially embarrassing interview situations then he probably wouldn’t have appeared in “Brüno.”

    2. > i’m just wondering why ron paul didn’t call fox on it when
      > he was interviewed. maybe i missed something here.

      You did. He said he wasn’t there when the winner was announced. He didn’t know if they cheered or booed. He probably had never heard the actual announcement.

  10. Ugh. Fox and MSNBC and CNN and the rest of the infotainment media are so busy trying to cut each other down to size or win ratings they stopped doing actual journalism ages ago. Look at the ham-handed Egypt coverage, or the lack reporting on the massive protests in Wisconsin or how the mayor of NYC was able to show up the massive loopholes in the Arizona gun laws, to say nothing of the dozens of states and hundreds of cities putting forth nigh-bankruptcy budgets this year.

    No, it’s more noise about a presidential election 20 months away, fringe candidates and inside-baseball style fighting between reporters.

    Rome is burning and our criers are having a street fight over who brought the matches.

  11. Holy crap. When I just read the summary and the comments, I thought that they had just overlayed a few boos to the regular footage. But THIS… good God, did they seriously just re-run last year’s footage (or at least the entire audio, pasted over random other footage)? Did I see this correctly?

    There isn’t a big enough hand in the world to perform the facepalm I feel like doing right now.

  12. They really have to blow something big and leave solid evidence of it for people to believe something is up.

    When two former investigative reporters were fired for refusing to falsify an exposé that made Fox advertising partner Monsanto unhappy, they sought whistleblower protections in Florida and were granted them. The Fox affiliate later successfully appealed the ruling. Their defense was that falsifying the news is not a crime, and Florida’s whistleblower protection laws only protect whistleblower for exposing crimes. This is as close as you can get to a confession of deliberately running false news stories, and is available to the public in court records and from various news sources.

    How many people who trust the network today see that and think it proves anything?

    Nobody wants to feel like a fool for trusting the wrong people, and nobody wants to find out someone in their “in group” was a bad person while people from their “out group” were being more honest. Even pretty well-adjusted people will muster a fair amount of denial before they overcome that, and people on the fringes of the political spectrum are far more likely to be authoritarian follower personality types who take that kind of denial to unhealthy extremes, and will defend their chosen role models completely irrationally.

    1. It’s not like they haven’t been caught multiple times at this stuff. It’s SOP to intercut footage of Tea Party rallies with bigger crowds from other demonstrations. I’m surprised that they haven’t ‘accidentally’ used VE Day footage yet.

  13. I see this is as a rather encouraging sign that the Republicans are on the verge of completely coming apart. Fox is trying hard to support the party, only to reveal itself as biased not just against Democrats but against elements of the Republican party as well. They’ll support the Tea Baggers in some cases, but not when it’s against the party line. I’m not even sure Fox knows what it stands for at this point. It’s unraveling, just like the Republicans with their contradictory ideas of lowering taxes while increasing expenditures, taking advantage of societal infrastructure while ignoring externalities, and loving this country while taking every possible opportunity to make it unable to compete in the world economy. Their philosophy has never actually made sense, and now when they’re actually forced to argue with a fool like Ron Paul one truly can’t tell the difference, and Fox can’t figure out who to keep the camera focused on. Maybe I’m just being optimistic, but I think there’s a good chance that the alliance between Republicans and Fox is ultimately going to have them gnawing on each other’s legs.

  14. This is not their first time and probably not their last. They have been caught at least two times previously “mixing” the wrong clips or edited clips. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, do I detect a pattern?
    Ron Paul? I wanted to vote for Rupaul!!!

  15. Dude with a cameraphone:’I’m gonna troll this troll! LOL!’

    Fox news:’Some troll tried to troll our troll. But guess what? We trolled him! LOL!’

    Boingboing:’We’re trolling because this obvious troll got trolled, and THEN they trolled the troll. LOL!’

  16. I just have to say that even I think this is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time and that fox news is just exposing its true nature even more.

  17. The MSM do this on a regular basis.
    Nice to see it is making the rounds and getting some attention.

    Here is a CNN staged report on the first Gulf War in Iraq.

    They all do it and should pay heavy fines for it.

    1. If you’re going to make a tu quoque argument against other media organizations, you might want to try to dig up some evidence that’s less than 20 years old, and more obviously similar to the sort of blatant, politically-motivated propaganda that Fox routinely uses today.

    2. Is there even any evidence that that CNN footage was “fake news” as opposed to, say, screen tests for an aspiring reporter who was being considered as a Gulf War correspondent? Other than the title someone put on YouTube I don’t see any indication that footage was ever meant to be aired or taken as genuine.

  18. I agree that posting this on BoingBoing is like preaching to the choir, but here’s a way to salvage it:
    Post this link to Facebook so that your “friends of friends” will see it, some of whom won’t be members of you liberal bubble.

  19. So Fox’s faking is as easily debunked as China state TV’s faking of a missile test with Top Gun footage? Bad Fox! Spank!

    “With sufficient eyeballs, all propaganda is laughable”?

    1. “With sufficient eyeballs, all propaganda is laughable”?

      That’s only true if you can get the people who saw the propaganda to watch the subsequent debunking. Fox News viewers tend to self-isolate from information sources which may contradict the pre-determined narrative.

      1. “Fox News viewers tend to self-isolate from information sources which may contradict the pre-determined narrative.”

        Without going into the comment backlogs, I’d say that’s the most ill-considered sentence you’ve ever written. And saying “tend to” doesn’t salvage it. I watch Fox, CNN, CNBC; I read a variety of blogs, the NYer, NYT, WSJ and The Economist. They all have editorial slant. I’m not a brainiac but I’m not stupid. And to lump Fox viewership into one ignorant demographic, devoid of catholic tastes, may elevate you in your mind but it slightly lowers the lofty pedestal on which I’ve placed you.

        1. How about if I offer to change “Fox News viewers” to “people who think of ‘Fox News’ as an actual news network?” Editorial slant doesn’t begin to describe what Murdoch’s talking heads are culpable of. And no, I don’t have particularly high regard for the other major news networks either.

  20. Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll on YouTube’s FoxNewsChannel

    (Texas congressman responds to mixed reaction following second victory in a row)

    According to

    Fox News Said:
    “We made a mistake with some of the video we aired, and plan on issuing a correction on America’s Newsroom tomorrow morning explaining exactly what happened.”

    See here for many wise thoughts on propaganda and how it works:

  21. I like the idea of just calling them a videoblog.

    I expect -any- large news corporation is more focused on the corporation part than the news part, and carefully crafts a narrative that might skew reality a bit if it protects the bottom line. Everything sells better as a soap opera, and news is no exception.

  22. From the Preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics:

    “…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

  23. It’s so strange that Fox is actually one of my favorite networks as far as the shows it has: Glee, Family Guy, Fringe, The Simpsons, House, etc.

    In fact these are all shows that seem quite popular with what essentially is the opposite of the Fox News demographic.

    This basically leads me to the conclusion that Fox News is just entertainment, and the owners know it.

    What’s scary is when it’s actually accepted as truth. That’s when I have a real problem with it.

    1. That doesn’t necessarily follow. My understanding is that popular shows and movies are where they make money, and Fox News is what they spend it on. They wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t a good way to promote their views.

  24. Fox did this with Obama’s recent State of the Union address as well, replacing laughter after one of his jokes with not only silence but cricket noises.

  25. Selective editing of historical events to suit current agendas? umpossible.

    Fox News: We report, you decide when.

  26. We’re in luck, Boomer-somethings are only 30 or so years from passing on their remotes to children and grand-children, whose faces are already stuck that way after eye-roll infinitum.

  27. Sad to say this happens much more frequently than we know of. I’ve seen it happen with other news sources, including those of the opposite political bent such as PBS and HuffingtonPost, as well. I don’t often see reports of which I already know the facts. If I did I’m sure I’d catch this falsification much more often. My opinion is that sometimes its deliberately misleading but more often its just incompetence or intended to entertain instead of inform.

  28. As a side note, there seems to be a coordinated attack on Ron Paul from within the convervative movement this past week. Young Americans for Freedom kicked him off of their advisory board, . I don’t know if this is just coincidence or not but it will be interesting to see if there are any other attacks on Ron Paul.

  29. Its a shame. I actually *LIKE* Ron Paul. IF he were to win the Presidential election, I wouldn’t feel too terribly bad.

    1. Since he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic pig, I’ll make a guess that you’re a heterosexual, white male. For the rest of us, who don’t enjoy your privilege, he’s the enemy.

      1. Gee Antinous, tell me how you REALLY feel.

        Look, I’ve looked at a lot of his policy stances and, while he certainly isn’t anywhere near my first choice? He’s a HELL of a lot better than McCain, Palin, or Romney.

        Maybe chill out a bit before you start looking daggers my way ehh? I thought Mods were meant to quell outbursts, not start them.

      2. Really, what do you base that on?

        I assume you’re basing it on that article a few years back in the TNR, a publication that, after September 11th, 2001, went from being middle of the road liberal to solidly neocon in a short period of time.

        Sure, those old articles were pretty nasty. But Ron Paul didn’t write them. Association with, or hiring, racists does not by itself make one a racist.

        It MIGHT of course – if there was anything else to back up that label. But there simply isn’t, not that I’m aware of. More likely, it shows a failure of management.

        Anyhow, seeing how he is the ONLY major politician who supports totally ending the criminally racist and even apartheid war on drugs, and has publicly supporting letting all these wronged black men out of well as his relentless advocacy of stopping the murder of brown skinned people in the middle east…the charge of racism seems fatuous.

        He fearlessly supports ending the war on brown people, the ‘war on drugs’, and the expansion of the corporate police state..which are arguably the three most important issues of the day..yet you label him an enemy, based on words that someone he hired wrote 20 years ago. Why?

      3. he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic pig

        For some reason, people keep forgetting (or just forget to mention?) that “little tidbit” about Ron Paul.

  30. Crossing the News Corp Revenue Stream =

    A)’Popular’ Entertainment – somewhat titillating and controversial (Simpsons/ArrestedDev), short form video tabloid based celebrity news(Inside Edition(Hello Bill O Reilly), news of the weird/world

    B)News / Opinion – Decry everything you do in A…the more nation-state ending or apocalyptic the better

    Really I don’t know why Ron Paul hasnt ditched this crowd yet. I respect the guy. I think his supporters are a little too anti-liberal for my tastes, but why suffer these idiots? He’s giving cred to an empty repugnant corporatist parasite.

  31. Far be in from me to defend Fox News, but it looks like I’ll be the first to suggest that this may be an honest mistake. It’s not hard for me to imagine that a producer or editor did a video search for Ron Paul CPAC, found this, and, as the basics are consistent from last year, mistakenly assumed it was current. That’s the simple answer, IMO.

  32. A question to conservatives:

    I understand that most of you love Fox News, and probably agree with them 99% of the time (if not more), but aren’t you concerned that Fox News is trying to control you like little children? Here is a case of poll, perhaps we could even consider it a mock election, and they are trying to obscure something that the majority voted for. Don’t try to tell me it was an obvious mistake, what professional news team makes a mistake like that? They would have had to dig up last years footage when this years footage was handy, just brought in by their correspondents. They have been caught doing this kind of thing on several occasions, it isn’t an isolated incident.

    I suppose there will be some who say “the liberal media lies all the time!” Fine, but you guys don’t listen to the “liberal media” anyway, so why should that matter? Here is a case of the team you are supposed to trust deliberately lying to you, apparently because they don’t like the will of the CPAC majority.

    Maybe you can forgive them this time, but there will come a day when Roger Ailes directs all his on air cheerleaders to throw their full support behind something you are opposed to. In a democracy the will of the majority counts, not the will of a rich man with the biggest bullhorn.

  33. Y’know, I’m a little disappointed in this effort.

    My Dad likes to watch Fox News to get his blood boiling. I don’t think that’s very healthy, but I do like watching the odd You Tube clip for the hilarity.

    So I sat down to watch some delicious Fox “news” bashing.

    The first example was a classic Fox manufacturing news moment.

    The bonus Fox misbehaviour on the other hand? I watched the majority of both clips to see how they had heavily edited the footage, and to be honest there didn’t seem to be that much of a difference! I’d hardly call it heavily edited. Indeed for such boring footage they showed a hell of a lot of it. I didn’t watch the mutual wankfest that followed between ORLY and the other muppet, so maybe there was something there.

    There is simply no need to grasp at straws like that when criticising Fox, they give so much ammunition.

  34. I think everyone is missing the big picture here. It’s not really about Right/Left at all. Ron Paul IS a Republican. And if Fox News was really interested in pushing the conservative agenda wouldn’t they want to get behind the 2012 GOP front runner? One has to then question what is the real agenda here?

    1. One has to then question what is the real agenda here?

      It’s a corporatist agenda. Mainly, the military-indutrial complex in its purest form of corporatist evil. Ron Paul threatens to rein in out-of-control military spending on nefarious ventures. Can’t have that.

  35. Kudos for pointing out Fox’s shenanigans. That reminds me, I think I’ll go watch that “Fox News Porn” Youtube video. Funny stuff.

  36. Fox News and the neocons hate Ron Paul. He is the antithesis of all they stand for. Every since 2001, when the Dems were lining up to fellate GWB, Ron Paul strongly and consistently spoke against him.

    The problem with GWB was NOT that he decreased the scale or scope of government power, not in any way.

    The dems are happy to cut deals with the Republicans – you can have your wars if I can have my welfare program.

    That is why, in 2008, it was Ron Paul, not Obama, who represented the anti-Bush vote.

    1. Under the guise of defending states’ rights, he has relentlessly opposed all legislation that would secure equality for groups which do not currently enjoy equal rights under the law. He’s a fascist demagogue. The best thing that I can say about him is that he’s too much of an outsider to make it to the White House at his age.

      1. I must say, “fascist demagogue” is a strong word.

        He has spent his whole political life arguing forcefully and convincingly against imperialism, against militarism, and against state power – and for the rights of the individual.

        By what possible definition of the term “fascist” could he be called a fascist?

        Fascism is based on militarism, nationalism, and defining the rights of the individual to the extent that they are a member of a larger body.

        He simply doesn’t believe that the federal government should do, basically, ANYTHING. He doesn’t believe they should be involved in education. Does that mean he opposes education. He doesn’t believe in the federal government giving foreign aid. Does he hate poor people? He doesn’t support the government cracking down on drugs – is he pro drug use?

        No, he simply consistently opposes all aspects of consolidation of power in federal hands.

        If he ONLY supported states rights with regards to gay marriage, that would be one thing. But he OPPOSED the 2006 “Marriage Protection Act,” saying, yes, that the federal government simpyl shouldn’t be involed in the matter.

        He’s not racist or homophobic. He’s merely consistent, and opposes the left-liberal strategy of using state power to protect specific groups rights. He equally opposes using state power to infringe their rights. He simply opposes centralized federal power in any form.

        “There’s no federal authority, no federal government authority, no constitutional authority to deal with those problems. There are no prohibitions for the states to do it, so that is perfectly alright.”

      2. This is a tangent, but answering your question made me think about this issue:

        The whole controversy over gay marriage stems 100% from the fact that government is even involved in the issue in the first place.

        Look at the issue from both side’s view:

        The religious people have a valid grievance. Over the last 100 years, government has interjected itself into the institution of marriage, assumed the right to declare which marriages are valid, and generally made itself arbiter of what marriage is.

        Now, after taking over this inherently religious institution, some parts of government want to modify it to something the religious groups find inherently objectionable. This is understandable.

        Gay couples, also, have a very valid grievance. Marriage has become a very important part of the legal fabric of society, extending far beyond it’s original religious purpose, to now have implications in terms of taxes, custody over children, partner benefits, visitation rights, etc. etc. etc. It’s clearly grossly discriminatory to deny these rights to same sex couple these same legal rights and protections; a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

        So, in the current frame of things, it’s sort of like the Israeli-Palestinian clusterfuck – a stalemate where neither side can get what is arguably fair to them because it would screw over the other side.

        The solution? Simple remove government from marriage entirely. “marriage” was originally a religious concept, leave it that way. “Civil Unions” becomes, basically, a contractually relationship between ANY two people who plan on making a life together. “Marriage” becomes ONLY a relgious ceremony and understanding, without any meaning outside the realm of the church. Catholics could limits their marriage to only man-woman couples; more liberal orders could permit same sex marriage; everybody could have the same legal protections of marriage, without calling it marriage. Everyone is happy.

        I don’t if Ron Paul has said this so precisely, but this is the libertarian solution (remove government from the situation entirely). He has said that the problem stems from government ever becoming involved in marriage in the first place, which is 100% correct.

        1. Speaking as a Universalist minister, if the prison term for same-sex marriage is removed from Delaware law, I will be marrying any gay couple who wants to be married, bar none.

          Right now, I would be sentencing them to a jail term (they get imprisoned, not me) so I will not do it. I know ministers who will, but I won’t.

  37. Call me naive, but I think this is more than likely an editing mistake, as in a video editor cut the wrong footage for the story and no one bothered to check and see if it was current. As someone who edits video for a news organization, I can’t count the number of times we accidentally showed the wrong mug shot, or the wrong crime scene, or completely unrelated video entirely.

    Example: During the Winter Olympics, I accidentally used 3 day old video of a competition instead of new footage (pretty embarrassing). I once cut video for a story about a teacher being prosecuted for a sexual assault, but had used b-roll of the wrong school (got a lot of angry calls about that)!

    It could be a deliberate attempt by Fox to fool the public, but I think its more than likely that they didn’t have the clips organized properly in their media server. Something tells me that there’s probably a video editor who got his ass handed to him over this.

    Of course they’d never admit any of this because it might indicate that no one at Fox News watches Fox News, or cares about Republican candidates, or gives a damn about politics in general.

  38. Oh come on!

    It wasn’t a mistake.

    It might have been a mistake if they simply showed the footage, but the booing was the whole story. The very reason they were showing the footage was to point out the booing.

    Fox’s promotion of the GOP in general and the Tea Party in particular is to support specific people with specific agendas. It’s not some sort of broad ideological agreement with their policies.

    It’s realpolitik at its most obvious.

  39. This video is good too:

    Montage of about 30 shots of Fox News in other ways misrepresenting and spinning the vote. Quite humorous, actually:

    1. @zyodei

      I agree in general with your point that there should be a separation of the religious institution of marriage and a legal state of union which brings with it tax/inheritance/separation implications.

      However, I’m not convinced by your suggestion that the problems stem from the last 100 years of creeping government regulation.

      My friend Mr Wikipedia talks about all sorts of historic laws governing marriage e.g. US laws banning racially mixed marriages in the 1690s, a British law in 1753 banning marriage by “consent and cohabitation” – i.e. requiring a ceremony. If anything, the current situation is a result of bits of canonical law being left in civil law after separation of church and state came into play and centuries of social engineering.

      I suppose the concern that advocates would raise about separation of the legal and religious states of marriage is that the religious marriage would be stripped of much of what people (in your view wrongly) associate with marriage.

      If we ended up with a non-marriage legal contract allowing people to form a 2 person consortium, questions about who should and shouldn’t qualify become interesting. The whole point of the legal benefits is to encourage specific social arrangements. Why should 2 unmarried sisters who wish to live a communal life not qualify for the same legal entitlements as a man and a woman, etc etc?

      On the other hand, there are all sorts of considerations as to who should qualify for “marriage” – first cousins? Siblings? 13 year olds? Why not polygamy?

      Saying we could easily separate the two would mainly serve to highlight that the benefits given to the married, but not to people in other relationships, are not particularly equitable.

  40. Can someone make a better version of this video?

    It could make the exact same point much tighter and more effectively if it were culled down to 30 seconds.

    Lose the stupid robot voice, don’t play “the deception” again and again and again superimposed on each other. Get to the real footage sooner.

    Show the Fox clip once. Show the audio (was there really no video?) from 2010. Yes, we’ll instantly get that they’re the same, you don’t need to repeat it multiple times. And then get to the real footage within 30 seconds.

    Then it would be a clip people would actually watch until the end and want to share.

  41. What I want to know is why are people actually surprised to hear this? Even in the brief times I’ve actually went through their news, I’ve always have been rather amazed at the slant (read: misinformation) I catch when I watch it.

  42. What Fox did was ridiculous, but that video SUCKED — it totally buries the lede! Just show that they broadcast the wrong announcement, THEN get into the details. Why am I waiting a few minutes to find out what they did?

    1. Let us consider a single example:

      Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

      He has taken the position that Texas has the right to drag gay people from their bedrooms and throw them in prison, after trying them for their illegal gayness, of course. I invite you, zyodei, to explain to me how this is different from throwing Jews into concentration camps.

      The ostensible reason for this reprehensible declaration is that Texas’s sovereignty within the Union is more important than the human rights of gay citizens. You complain incessantly about the evils of Statism. Well, this is Statism at its worst. These are the Orwellian jack-booted thugs that you’re always worried about. Guess what? They’ve been barging into gay bedrooms for more than a century. You just never had to deal with them. Lucky you. Maybe it’s time to stop polishing Ron Paul’s boots and look at the contradictions in your argument which are so obvious to everyone else.

      This is why he’s a fascist demagogue. He uses the “OMG, other people are trying to take away your right to self-government” to justify state-sanctioned violence. The demagoguery of his appeal to states’ rights is foaming with anti-Semitic subtext since his constituency already believes that it’s those big city Jews who are trying to steal their stuff. He is every bit as vile and every bit as dangerous as Hitler’s lieutenants who used the same fear-mongering arguments to bring about the Third Reich.

      You don’t even live in the United States. You haven’t lived here for years. And yet you pontificate about US politics from your position of heterosexual privilege and your location on the other side of the Pacific because you frankly have no horse in the race. Your political fulminations are adolescent fantasies. They’re adolescent fantasies that you can indulge because their consequences don’t affect you.

      1. Don’t mince words, Antinous; tell us what you really think. ;-)

        You’re right about Ron Paul, of course. How that man has the nerve to call himself a “libertarian” is beyond me. And why any self-respecting libertarian would support Ron Paul is also beyond me. He’s not a libertarian; he’s an anti-federalist. A true libertarian would stand up for the rights of the individual against any government. But, as you point out, Ron Paul doesn’t seem to have any problem with state governments trampling on individual rights, so long as the power of the federal government is kept limited. A genuine libertarian is supposed to be all about individual rights, not states’ rights. Like most other conservatives who call themselves “libertarians”, Ron Paul is nothing but a poseur.

        Now, of course, I may not have a right to pass judgment on pseudo-libertarians since I’m not a libertarian myself. I’m a Liberal, in the tradition of Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Madison, Mill, Berlin, Rawls, et al.; and I believe that libertarianism is nothing but a radicalized corruption of true Liberalism. However, since libertarianism supposedly embraces the core principles of Liberalism – respect for the individual, commitment to equal rights and liberties for all, celebration of reason, belief in the rule of law, distrust of power (especially when it is concentrated in the hands of the few), skepticism towards authority, etc. – any Liberal should be able to tell the difference between a genuine libertarian and a pseudo-libertarian. And, if you take the position that Ron Paul and those of his ilk take on issues like gay rights and abortion, you’re not a genuine libertarian, no matter how sincerely you oppose the Patriot Act or support Wikileaks. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and those who share their views are not libertarians. They are simply anti-federalists. And any “libertarian” who supports them is not worthy of the name.

      2. “Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be”, in the quote you’ve published, shows a pretty clear harbinger of how Dr. Paul’s views would (and have) evolved in the eight years since that article was written.

        Ron Paul’s mainstream American religious views predispose him to homophobic bigotry – there’s no doubt about that. However, he has struggled with the conflict between his religious views and his ideas about personal liberty, and more recently (like, for example, during his speech to CPAC, partially sponsored by a gay organization) he has called for tolerance, even acceptance of individual behavior that he personally disapproves.

        Pretty small beer, I know. As a gay man you don’t have any reason to support a politician who thinks you are cursed and depraved, even though he has come to believe the mechanisms of government have no business in your bedroom. I only bring this up because it’s a major difference between Paul pere and Paul fils – Rand Paul has not yet evolved to the point of being willing to “stand united” with his countrymen who are gay or subscribe to non-Christian religions. You would do well to separate the two, and use your bully pulpit to bring the separation forward, because Ron Paul’s message of individual liberty and responsibility, (combined with his demonstrated personal integrity) are increasingly popular in this country. It would be a shame if the son were to ride to power on the coat-tails of the more distinguished father, but that seems likely to happen.

        Ron Paul is like the Taliban’s leading lights; fundamentally wrong in some of his ideas, but noticeably consistent and honorable in his application of his principles. He is not a liar or a thief, which makes him one of about three Americans in Congress who can make that claim. That integrity gives him a certain power which I would hope his less principled, less thoughtful son will not inherit.

  43. Main Stream Media has been doing this of a long time that means when u deceive your viewers your are not real news I’m so happy that we have a new wave of alternative media more hard nose and just wants the truth and doesn’t have a agenda.. Fox News should be shamed.

Comments are closed.