PDA

View Full Version : Busted:Fox News CPAC Ron Paul Video Deception




sharpsteve2003
02-15-2011, 06:35 PM
From SaveOurSovereignty3 on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk

Here is 2 more
WeAreChangeOklahoma - Fox News Ron Paul CPAC Lies Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOYx70JOzFU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOYx70JOzFU

CPAC 2011: FAUX News 'fix' for Ron Paul has already begun for 2012!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaIh0GzMawE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaIh0GzMawE

axiomata
02-15-2011, 06:41 PM
Add it to the file.

malkusm
02-15-2011, 06:49 PM
Adding this to my media bias thread.

Michael Landon
02-15-2011, 06:50 PM
E-mailed them but received this message:

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
americasnewsroom@foxnews.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.

I'll try again tomorrow.

- ML

NaturalMystic
02-15-2011, 06:57 PM
Hope The Judge will makes this right! We must asure he is aware.

JK/SEA
02-15-2011, 07:01 PM
I'm sure this was an honest mistake, because FOX says their fair and balanced......burp.

note my post count.

TonySutton
02-15-2011, 07:09 PM
I'm sure this was an honest mistake, because FOX says their fair and balanced......burp.

note my post count.

+1776

sharpsteve2003
02-15-2011, 07:10 PM
added 2 other vids to OP.

Bruno
02-15-2011, 07:16 PM
Guess they didn't think people would notice he wasn't wearing the lanyard that he was in 2010.

William R
02-15-2011, 07:17 PM
Looks live he's wearing the same clothes. The background is the same . Sorry folks, but I don't see it.

I stand corrected. I think FAUX did try and pull a fast one.

Bruno
02-15-2011, 07:20 PM
Looks live he's wearing the same clothes. The background is the same . Sorry folks, but I don't see it.

Read my post above and watch again. In 2010 he had a blue lanyard around his neck. In 2011 he did not. I saw it live. The words weren't even the same. This year there was a long pause during the CHEERS before he read Ron's name.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 07:24 PM
A blatant lie

It's Faux Snooze.


What do you expect people?

:(

William R
02-15-2011, 07:27 PM
Devastating set a videos. But FAUX has a long history of trashing Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UO731mEoc

Sentinelrv
02-15-2011, 08:00 PM
Digg it!

http://digg.com/news/politics/fox_news_exposed_uses_cpac_2010_footage_of_booing_ after_ron_paul_wins_the_2011_straw_poll

Carson
02-15-2011, 08:08 PM
E-mailed them but received this message:

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
americasnewsroom@foxnews.com
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.

I'll try again tomorrow.

- ML

If your going to report the news maybe one of the other stations would find this an interesting story. I would think fox already knows about it. Well at least some of them. It has to be devastating on morale at Fox.

Or should be.

JoshLowry
02-15-2011, 08:11 PM
Also of important note.

The entire front section was roped off for designated seats that was filled with neocons. This is the area that most media panned and concentrated on. See cspans footage in the third video.

The other 1/2 of the crowd was on their feet.

rp08orbust
02-15-2011, 08:12 PM
I made some suggestions for a condensed version of these videos in post 73: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?279691-FoxNews-using-2010-footage-of-CPAC-booing-as-an-intro-for-2011-year-Ron-Paul-win&p=3114220#post3114220

AGRP
02-15-2011, 08:13 PM
Also of important note.

The entire front section was roped off for designated seats that was filled with neocons. This is the area that most media panned and concentrated on. See cspans footage in the third video.

The other 1/2 of the crowd was on their feet.

Proof? Got it on camera?

Just noticed last part of post. NVM :)

DirtMcGirt
02-15-2011, 11:02 PM
Send it to Madow so she can bitch about Fox and mention our guy at the same time...

Kludge
02-15-2011, 11:11 PM
Who would be in charge of making these asinine decisions? Is it coming from the top? FNC does not include Ron in any of their polling, either, and excluded him from their '08 GOP debate. It's really gone beyond all reason. CNN polls Ron - and he gets nearly double-digits. There's no excuse for Fox excluding him, anymore.

Since '08, I thought we were making progress in Fox Corp, but apparently they're more determined than ever to marginalize Paul. It makes the gobbling up of libertarian TV personalities to be shoved into Fox Business very concerning. Was it all a concerted effort to get them off basic cable channels? Have Stossel, The Judge, & others been duped? Is Glenn Beck really a puppet of Murdoch?

ApathyCuredRP
02-15-2011, 11:21 PM
We need to turn this into a positive and get publicity out. Anyone know the law impact of this? I do not think it would fall under slander, but this has got to be against the law in some way, shape or form. It is obvious what they did. All their other bias is subjective to interpretation... this is not. I would be interested to see what type of law could be pulled up to sue FOX for. If anything, it would bring up a huge amount of attention.

edit: Found this story http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

angelatc
02-15-2011, 11:24 PM
If you have the Twitter internets thingy...@foxnews

ApathyCuredRP
02-15-2011, 11:27 PM
See the "Public Figure Doctrine" below

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board. The defamation need not be printed or distributed. However, if the defendant does not intend it to be conveyed to anyone other than the plaintiff, and conveys it in a manner that ordinarily would prevent others from seeing or hearing it, the requirement of publication has not been satisfied even if a third party inadvertently overhears or witnesses the communication.

Liability for republication of a defamatory statement is the same as for original publication, provided that the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the statement. Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory. Common carriers such as telephone companies are not liable for defamatory material that they convey, even if they know that it is defamatory, unless they know, or have reason to know, that the sender does not have a privilege to communicate the material. Suppliers of communications equipment are never liable for defamatory material that is transmitted through the equipment they provide.

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established. If the plaintiff consented to publication of the defamatory material, recovery is barred. Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. Privilege confers Immunity on a small number of defendants who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public's business—for example, attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses whose statements are protected on public policy grounds.

Before 1964, defamation law was determined on a state-by-state basis, with courts applying the local Common Law. Questions of Freedom of Speech were generally found to be irrelevant to libel or slander cases, and defendants were held to be strictly liable even if they had no idea that the communication was false or defamatory, or if they had exercised reasonable caution in ascertaining its truthfulness. This deference to state protection of personal reputation was confirmed in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems." The Court in Chaplinsky held that defamatory speech is not essential to the exposition of ideas and that it can be regulated without raising constitutional concerns. This reasoning was confirmed in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), where the Court again held that libelous speech is not protected by the Constitution.

In 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968]).

Also since Sullivan, the question of who is a public official has been raised often. In Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 S. Ct. 669, 15 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1966), the Court found that a nonelected official "among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to have, substantial responsibility for, or control over, the conduct of public affairs" was a public official within the meaning of Sullivan. Similarly, in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 91 S. Ct. 621, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1971), the Court found that a candidate for public office fell within the category of public officials who must prove actual malice in order to recover.

Eventually, Sullivan's actual-malice requirement was extended to include defendants who are accused of defaming public figures who are not government officials. In the companion cases of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967), the Court held that a football coach at the University of Georgia and a retired Army general were similar to public officials in that they enjoyed a high degree of prominence and access to the mass media that allowed them to influence policy and to counter criticisms leveled against them.

These rules make it difficult for a plaintiff to prevail in a libel action. For example, in Levan v. Capitol Cities/ABC, 190 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 1999), a federal appeals court dismissed a libel action against a television network because the plaintiff could not prove actual malice. BFC Financial Corporation ("BFC") and its president, chief executive officer, and controlling shareholder, Alan Levan, brought an action for defamation against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. ("ABC") and one of its producers, Bill Willson. Levan and BFC based their case on a segment that had been aired on ABC's television program "20/20." The segment portrayed BFC and Levan as unfairly taking advantage of investors in real estate-related limited partnerships, by inducing them to participate in transactions known as "rollups." BFC and Levan claimed that ABC had made numerous false or misleading statements with actual malice and that it had misused videotaped statements and congressional testimony.

The Public Figure Doctrine: An Unworkable Concept?

The "public figure" doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967), held that prominent public persons had to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether a statement is true or false) on the part of the news media in order to prevail in a libel lawsuit. Prior to Butts only public officials had to prove actual malice. In the years since this decision, the public figure doctrine has proved a troublesome area of the law, primarily because it is difficult to apply with any consistency. Some, generally from the news media, have called for making it easier to classify a person as a public figure. Others believe that a strict line must be maintained between public and private figures, so as to prevent the damaging of personal reputations by the media. Both sides agree that greater clarity is needed in defining what constitutes a public figure.

Those who favor a less restrictive definition of public figure argue that Freedom of the Press requires such a definition. It is in the public interest to encourage the reporting of news without fear that the subject of a story will sue the news organization for libel. Without adequate safeguards news editors may resort to self-censorship to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit. In a democratic society, self-censorship would prove to be a damaging restriction on the public's right to information.

For these advocates the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974), signified a step away from the protections of the First Amendment. The Court held that a person who "voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy" becomes a public figure "for a limited range of issues." The Court also held that there are persons who "occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes." This category would include, for example, a national labor or Civil Rights leader.

Critics of Gertz argue that these two categories make little sense and are of no help to a court in determining whether a person is a public figure. For example, should a Hollywood entertainer or a professional athlete be cast as a public person in a libel suit? Do these persons have "persuasive power and influence"? As for persons who become involved in public events, courts have been unable to articulate a consistent standard for measuring whether a person "thrust" himself or herself into the status of a public figure. Studies have revealed contradictory ways of applying the Gertz standard.

Some commentators have advocated abandoning Gertz and replacing it with a "subject matter" test. Under this test if an article or story involves public policy or the functioning of government, it should be protected by the public figure doctrine. Therefore, if a story discusses a relatively unknown person's Divorce proceeding or supposed Communist political leanings, this would be a matter of public policy (divorce law or political parties) that invokes the actual-malice standard in a libel suit.

The use of subject matter analysis would give public figures more protection than they currently have under Gertz. A story about the private life of an entertainer or professional athlete would generally not involve a public issue under even the broadest definition. Under the subject matter test, the celebrity would not be forced to prove actual malice.

Defenders of the Gertz decision admit that the public figure concept has been difficult to apply, but argue that the subject matter test is not a good alternative. They note that although freedom of the press is an important value, the need to protect the reputation of private citizens is also an important societal value. Citizens are encouraged to participate in public affairs, yet a liberal reading of the public figure doctrine could discourage participation if there is no redress for injury to reputation. In addition, private citizens who are deemed public figures could never match the news media's power and pervasiveness in telling one side of the story.

Even with the difficulties inherent in Gertz, defenders note that it narrowed the public figure category in ways that protect the public. Simply appearing in the newspapers in connection with some newsworthy story or stories does not make one a public figure. Forced involvement in a public trial does not by itself make one a public figure. Most important, those charged with libel cannot create their own defense by converting a private citizen into a public figure solely by virtue of their news coverage.

Defenders of Gertz are leery of the subject matter test. They contend this test is too one-sided in favor of the news media. Almost any topic in human affairs can be generalized into a public policy issue or one that involves the government. It would be unfair to allow a publication to falsely brand a relatively unknown person a Communist and then assert the person is a public figure because radical political parties are a matter of public concern. The victim of this charge would have a difficult time proving actual malice to win a libel suit.

Those who favor a restrictive definition of the public figure doctrine also note that a libel action serves as a private means of controlling irresponsible journalism. Gertz, even with its difficulties in application, has allowed private persons a better chance of success in libel suits, which in turn sends a strong message to the media to be more careful in their reporting. As to the concerns about self-censorship, defenders of Gertz point out that journalists make choices every day about what is published. Falsely tarnishing the reputation of a person should be the object of self-censorship in professional news-gathering organizations.

PreDeadMan
02-15-2011, 11:27 PM
Except for Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano FUCK FOX NEWS A BUNCH OF CLOWNS!!!

Kludge
02-15-2011, 11:30 PM
Sounds like Paul would have a solid libel suit. FNC would probably just excuse it as saying the A/V was like that before they decided to use it. Wonder who'd have burden of proof there under law.

Would suing Fox News, the highest-rating news corporation, be a good idea?

ApathyCuredRP
02-15-2011, 11:32 PM
Sounds like Paul would have a solid libel suit. FNC would probably just excuse it as saying the A/V was like that before they decided to use it. Wonder who'd have burden of proof there under law.

Would suing Fox News, the highest-rating news corporation, be a good idea?

Not like FOX gives us much good coverage anyway except from the Judge. Figure it would bring a huge story if it can pan into something.

pcosmar
02-15-2011, 11:36 PM
Pointing it out to their sponsors,and presenting a very real possibility of a suit might be better than actually suing.
Not that I like making threats.

Original_Intent
02-15-2011, 11:36 PM
What about a class action lawsuit? I mean, technically isn't any supporter of Ron Paul who has invested time or money in his candidacy (or the CPAC straw poll results for that matter) harmed by this? Surely we could find an ambulance chaser that would file a lawsuit...at the very least get a retraction and public admission from Fox...

ApathyCuredRP
02-15-2011, 11:37 PM
What about a class action lawsuit? I mean, technically isn't any supporter of Ron Paul who has invested time or money in his candidacy (or the CPAC straw poll results for that matter) harmed by this? Surely we could find an ambulance chaser that would file a lawsuit...at the very least get a retraction and public admission from Fox...

Obviously we need to make Ron Paul aware of this. Has someone emailed his staff? Wish Paul had watched the real recording before he went on that show at some point and called them out live.

bolidew
02-16-2011, 12:24 AM
This is a "crisis" that can not be wasted! Send it to Drudge, Send it to MSNBC!!!

sharpsteve2003
02-16-2011, 03:38 AM
http://RealityReport.TV
FOX Deceives, Swaps CPAC Straw Poll Footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19jXxSeH2oQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19jXxSeH2oQ

This just in. FOX news channel has just been caught in a blatant attempt to distort the perception of the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll results. On the February 15th broadcast of America's Newsroom Fox Reported the results of the win. when they opened the report they played the recording of the 2010 results rather than the actual 2011 recording. A clear difference is seen in the crowd reaction and in the attire worn by Tony Fabrizio who read the results to the audience.

The crowd reaction was remarkably different even though Ron Paul won in both cases. In the 2010 recording you could hear more booing and groaning from the audience [FOX CLIP] Now in the 2011 recording you can hear a truly excited crowd. [CPAC CLIP]

This is a clear attempt to persuade America that Ron Paul is not accepted by the majority even though he truly is.

Fox is no stranger to minimalizing Ron Paul's wins. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Fox ignored their own polling data from text Message polling and online Polls where Ron Paul was the clear winner. This, however, is the first time they have been caught SWAPING footage in an attempt to sway public opinion of a Presidential contender.

The first shot of the 2012 election season has been fired by the spin masters at FOX news against Ron Paul and it is time for you to act now and demand a full retraction, explanation, and apology for the false reporting.

Call FOX news by
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com

Judge Napolitano one of the only true advocates for Freedom and Liberty at the fox news channel needs to be contacted too. Contact Judge Napolitano and demand that he expose the FOX network. How the Judge reacts to this will be a true test of his allegiance to to Ron Paul.

Contact the judge via email at:
Freedomwatch@foxbusiness.com
Or on his facebook page @
http://facebook.com/JudgeNapolitano
Or on his twitter page
http://twitter.com/judgenap

Do not delay take action now, share this video!

For the Reality Report, I'm Gary Franchi.

sharpsteve2003
02-16-2011, 03:44 AM
FOX Deceives, Swaps CPAC Straw Poll Footage
http://blip.tv/file/4773097

Matt Collins
02-16-2011, 11:10 AM
212-301-5800 is the phone number to the FOX News room in case anyone wants to call and give them a piece of your mind regarding their coverage of Ron Paul's win at CPAC.

HOLLYWOOD
02-16-2011, 11:20 AM
SO have the hacks @ my enemy's, enemy, posted or covered any of the FOX NEWS FIASCO?

Where's Rachel Maddow? Dead Head Ed Shultz, Larry O'Dipshit? CNN? ABC? CBS?

The hacks on the left that love to expose the faults of FOX and Fascist Friends, should be showing this corruption. If they don't, well the 4th branch of government is just that... government, all of them.

Romulus
02-16-2011, 11:50 AM
Numbers and email addy here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=196&d=1297878550

196

speciallyblend
02-16-2011, 12:10 PM
anyone have numbers for cnn/msnbc newsroom, fox doesn't give a rats azz about what we think or they would of never done what they have done! We need to bypass fox and inform the masses especially republicans to the fox corruption! We have social media and we can get better traction getting cnn/msnbc to expose fox! Fox is gonna pay for this by social media and rpf!!

Lord Xar
02-16-2011, 12:20 PM
It happened on a particular "news" segment yes?
So, who was the producer and who was the editor during that show - this will probably lead us in the direction of who deliberately manipulated the information.

Perhaps not everyone at Fox is "in on it" -- and thus, drawing attention to those who had a direct hand in it, will let some heads roll.

Philhelm
02-16-2011, 12:29 PM
Dirty cocksuckers. I posted one of the videos on my facebook account, and will be sharing the news with everyone I know...for what it's worth. :(

William R
02-16-2011, 12:35 PM
We need to turn this into a positive and get publicity out. Anyone know the law impact of this? I do not think it would fall under slander, but this has got to be against the law in some way, shape or form. It is obvious what they did. All their other bias is subjective to interpretation... this is not. I would be interested to see what type of law could be pulled up to sue FOX for. If anything, it would bring up a huge amount of attention.

edit: Found this story http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

They can just say an honest mix up. No harm, no foul

randomname
02-16-2011, 12:44 PM
which is worse , chinese tv or fox news?

Chinese TV Passes Off Footage from “Top Gun” as Chinese Military Drill
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 http://www.allgov.com/Images/eouploader.bbbe2ea1-f79a-4f80-8fc4-bc230e014c6c.1.data.jpg

Memo to China (http://www.allgov.com/nation/China): If you’re going to pirate footage from a Hollywood film for propaganda purposes, make sure you borrow from something few have seen.

China Central Television, a government-sponsored broadcaster, recently aired footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XB_de_bQrA) purportedly of a Chinese J-10 fighter demonstrating its air-to-air combat prowess. In the clip aired over Chinese television, the fighter fires a missile at another plane, blowing it to bits.

A Chinese blogger immediately recognized the footage, identifying it as a scene from the hit American film, Top Gun (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/), in which a U.S. F-14 Tomcat shoots down an F-5, also made in the U.S.A.

No one from broadcaster CCT has said anything about the apparent fraud.

http://www.allgov.com/Unusual_News/ViewNews/Chinese_TV_Passes_Off_Footage_from_Top_Gun_as_Chin ese_Military_Drill_110201

Acala
02-16-2011, 01:03 PM
And people think that if we all just dress nice and sit quietly while the parade of murderers goes by the news media won't have anything to use against us!

They will just fabricate it!

PaulineDisciple
02-16-2011, 01:46 PM
Just founde this link posted on dailypaul.com. It is a link to file a complaint with the FCC on the Media (General) Complaint, let's flood their in-box!

It appears they have a category specifically for things like this.

https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type...

Main complaint link to get to it on your own:
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Krugerrand
02-16-2011, 01:53 PM
I also don't recall mention of those classless Romneyites that were so out of line booing.

PaulineDisciple
02-16-2011, 02:21 PM
I also don't recall mention of those classless Romneyites that were so out of line booing.

Great point!

I'm sure we're all used to this double standard by now. The good thing about these kind of stunts is that they have given us an endless supply of ammo to prove that virtually all MSM outlets are afraid to let Ron Paul get traction in the up comming election. Most people in our movement and an increasing number of people outside of our movement are starting to recognize that the continuting existence of our republic may very well be at stake in this next election.

speciallyblend
02-16-2011, 02:26 PM
They can just say an honest mix up. No harm, no foul

this not a mistake in editing. this was 100% done on purpose anything less is a flatout lie!! The collins knows this is not a mistake! I have some editing experience. this is in no way a mistake!!

Carson
02-16-2011, 06:17 PM
Send it to Madow so she can bitch about Fox and mention our guy at the same time...

Smoooth.

KramerDSP
02-16-2011, 06:20 PM
this not a mistake in editing. this was 100% done on purpose anything less is a flatout lie!! The collins knows this is not a mistake! I have some editing experience. this is in no way a mistake!!

Amen. Especially because of the line of questioning that directly relates to the video.

sailingaway
02-16-2011, 06:22 PM
I really like the approach this particular article takes:

" Follow-up questions for the kids: why do you think they played the old video with the boos? Who do you think Fox News likes better: Mitt Romney or Ron Paul? How do you think undecided conservatives feel when the hear people booing the popular winner? And finally, scale of 1 to 10, how trustworthy do you think this media outlet is?"

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-your-media-savvy-kids-should-see-this-video/

Sola_Fide
02-16-2011, 06:22 PM
Amen. Especially because of the line of questioning that directly relates to the video.

Exactly. Hemmer intentionally used the booing in the video to set up his questions. They cant wiggle out of it.

sailingaway
02-16-2011, 06:28 PM
Exactly. Hemmer intentionally used the booing in the video to set up his questions. They cant wiggle out of it.

They either won't show the set up, just the booing, or something. It was a good idea to expose to others, and we have the video to show people going forward, but Fox isn't going to let the end story ON THEIR STATION be positive to Ron, one way or the other, I fear.

TonySutton
02-16-2011, 06:31 PM
I sent this link to Drudge

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/54029/fox-news-caught-smearing-ron-paul/

Carson
02-16-2011, 08:21 PM
Amen. Especially because of the line of questioning that directly relates to the video.

The beautiful part is the way Ron Paul knocks them out of the park regardless of the setup.


It's the kind of quality we are going to need in a President.

Matt Collins
02-16-2011, 08:29 PM
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/52959/52959,1286178933,19/stock-photo-young-businessman-caught-with-pants-down-isolated-on-white-background-62261170.jpg

HOLLYWOOD
02-16-2011, 08:41 PM
THE HILL marginalizes RON PAUL CPAC Victory

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/143703-ron-paul-wins-cpac-straw-poll-to-mixed-reaction-from-crowd
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll to mixed reaction from crowd


By Shane D'Aprile - 02/12/11 05:52 PM ET

mstrmac1
02-16-2011, 09:23 PM
Problem solved.... Just email our friend Glen Beck! He will help us... right?

RonPaulGetsIt
02-16-2011, 09:46 PM
You can imagine the anchor was given instructions to chuckle. That sounded so unnatural and awkward. Man I don't miss watching these fools. No tv for me. If its important someone will youtube it.

HOLLYWOOD
02-16-2011, 10:00 PM
Has this hit all the social nets on Campuses and Universities?

Facebook?


http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/113339/20110216/ron-paul-cpac.htm


February 16, 2011 3:42 PM EST
At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, Texas Congressman Ron Paul won for the second consecutive year a poll indicating which presidential candidate conservative voters are supporting. Paul won the poll with 30 percent of the vote.

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/02/10/64410-ron-paul.jpg
View Full Image (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:seeFull%28%29;)
REUTERS
This is the second year in a row that Paul won the CPAC straw poll.

Subscribe to The Economic Monitor
Subscribe to The Economic Monitor to get the day's most relevant news, data and anlaysis .
Sample (http://reports.ibtimes.com/economic-monitor/reports/20100820-6cf95f8c4452a9142e0e6b10e02d664c/FREE-EM-US-August-20-2010.PDF)


Fox News has drawn fire today following their coverage of the event, which many claim misrepresents the audience reaction to Paul's victory. In the Fox News coverage, news of Paul's victory is greeting by a round of jeers and boos. As the video below shows, however, the footage that Fox News used was actually from the 2010 conference, which was dominated by supporters of former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The video below shows the actual 2011 CPAC reaction, which features a crowd supporting the news of Paul's victory.


Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente issued the following statement:

"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."



Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/113339/20110216/ron-paul-cpac.htm#ixzz1EBYLq2uI

Jeffersonian2012
02-16-2011, 10:13 PM
Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente issued the following statement:

"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."

While hes at it, he should also correct their slogan.